Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lincoln cent/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 15:29, 1 December 2010 [1].

---

Lincoln cent

Lincoln cent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Lincoln cent/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. This is the fourth in my numismatics series. The Lincoln cent may not be worth the zinc it's struck on today, but upon release, thousands of people lined up across the country to get it. Its redesign was part of the Great Redesign of 1907 through 1921, in which every denomination got a new design, and as with many of them, there's an interesting story behind it. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - I'll go through with straightforward prose tweaks (revert if I guff the meaning) and jot queries below... prose looks good now. Can't comment on offline sources but presume concisification :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support but what is concisification?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Bringing lotsa words and concepts (i.e. books) down to concise WP articles...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

an eagle could not appear on the cent - huh? why?

An eagle had to appear on the reverse of any denomination larger than the dime. The Mint read this provision to mean that for the dime and smaller denominations, an eagle could not appear on either side. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Saint-Gaudens was seriously ill with the cancer which would kill him - aargh. I find this ungainly, but concede an alternate way of phrasing is not jumping out at me.

"..terminally ill with cancer", or "seriously and terminally ill with cancer"? 75.37.65.219 (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thing is, everyone who is terminally ill is by definition seriously ill. I used very similar language in Saint-Gaudens double eagle, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have deleted the mention of Saint-Gaudens's death, given it is mentioned two sentences later, the reader will not have long to wait.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• duh! terminally ill...how could I have forgotten that? Nevermind. Works ok now anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

..and was already causing the issuance of large numbers of privately-manufactured souvenirs - "...and large numbers of privately-manufactured souvenirs were already being issued" (or were they being prepared to be issued in '09?)

Nope, they were out there. I'll make the change.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In the Design section, two photos of Lincoln are mentioned as possible inspirations, but only one is pictured. I think it'd be good to get the other one in if it is also considered a source. Question is, is the section then too crammed with images.... (I thought having them one atop the other might be ok)

It is this image btw. I was worried about number of images, yes, and felt the Brady one was more famous (although the one by Anthony Berger looks an awful lot like the coin, doesn't it?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, not a deal-breaker as adding an image would cram the page too much I think.

but instead simply ruled out the submitted designs as suitable for the reverse of the cent - unsuitable?

Yes, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref 68 needs an accessdate. On a style thing, I reckon there is a significant advantage in using "10 November 2010" rather than "2010-11-10" I still pause wit hthe latter at times wondering whether it is November 10 or October 11. I feel changing the dates to the former format makes for a more polished-looking page, but I wouldn't make my support conditional on that.

I don't see designed and sculpted by Charles Vickers, nor Joel Iskowitz, Don Everhart, Susan Gamble or Joseph Menna mentioned in ref 69. can we supply the refs they came from for the prose (there are some handy commas they can go after).

Sorry, the Mint moved that info and I meant to put it back in. I will now.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Link Joseph Menna at first instance.

I have changed the date format, supplied the missing link (also from the Mint, my bad, it's all one source), linked Menna as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Query the infobox image is the 2010 coin, why was this chosen and is it the author's intention to update it annually? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, as it is a clearly PD image, from the Mint's website, and used in the similar infobox in Penny (United States coin), there was no reason not to use it. I doubt I will change the image. Given tax rates, it's nice to get something free from the Government , even if it is only a penny, and virtual at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You have not stated the reason the 2010 coin was used Fasach Nua (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it was already used in the infobox, which I borrowed, and when I checked, it was from the Mint's website. I have had to go to considerable lengths to get images of coins, to have a PD image made me happy. Certainly the appearance of the cent has varied slightly over the 102 years it's been struck (the relief has been altered, for example), but the current piece seemed perfectly appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is a preference, the Mint also has images of the 2009 and 2007 cents on its web site. (Scratches head. Looks puzzled.)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This shouldn't matter that much, but why does Lincoln Cent redirect to the main U.S. penny article? Is there a specific reason? By the way, I added a main article link for Lincoln penny under its heading in the main penny article. BV ^talk 03:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not complicated. I wrote the Lincoln cent article, before that, Lincoln cent was a redirect to the penny article. Coverage of numismatics here is not what it should be. Thanks for adding that link.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Just a couple of small points:-

• Ref 10: What is the purpose of the note "Lincoln actually held a photograph album"? Shouldn't the LOC link be formatted?
• The newspaper titles in refs 69 and 70 should be italicised.

Otherwise, no issues on reliability or citation. Spotchecks on the online sources OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln was not reading to Tad, they were looking at one of Brady's photograph albums. Photography being what it was in 1864, a huge urban legend has grown up about this photograph that it shows Lincoln reading to Tad. Even such an authority as the US Postal Service has fallen into the trap, see here. As Brenner believed it, and his belief may have been a key to the design process, I felt an explanation was needed somewhere. I'm uncertain what the format is for information to support a link in a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of those of us who don't know the legend, could the note be extended to read, say, "Contrary to the legend thta Lincoln was reading to his son, he was actually showing him a photograph album." The LOC link is broken, presumably temporarily. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks good. Should be promoted.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. Corrected one external redirect, though the link still worked. --PresN 19:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – Looked at the article and made a few small tweaks to it. The one sentence I had some trouble understanding was this one: "There was intense public interest in the cents, especially since the Mint had not permitted images of the new coin to be printed in the newspaper." Is this meant to mean newspapers in particular, or one specific paper? If it's a general statement, "newspaper" should be plural. Without access to the source, I didn't want to touch it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be phrased either way. "In the newspaper" implies all newspapers. Still, I will change it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Just a note, but the wheat design proposed in 2009 was similar to the 1 and 2 reichspfennig pieces minted by the Weimar Republic, minted from 1923 to 1936. An image can be viewed here. Also, do you think there's a source for public domain images of the proposed designs for the 2010 cent? If an image of the proposed design and an image of the Weimar issue(s) can be found for the article, I think it would be a great comparison. Of course, I'm new, so I don't want to say something that will ruin the article. Those were just my thoughts.-RHM22 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a fair point. If they did not win, they reverted to the artists, so an image of that design would probably not be PD, it certainly was not PD-money. I don't think I could make a convincing fair use rationale argument. I don't think we could use the German coin without the other. I couldn't find any proposed designs on the Mint's website, which probably says something. If I find anything to the contrary, I'll post. Thanks for the suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Either way, not having it there doesn't take anything away from the article to me.-RHM22 (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is good. Do you have a position on whether it should be promoted to Featured Article?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a fine article. I wasn't sure if I should show my opinion since I'm not an administrator or anything like that. If it doesn't matter, I would definitely support the article's promotion to featured status.

As a small side not, do you think that the Bicentennial redesign and Union Shield redesign should be separated into two different sections? It's not big deal to me, but I thought it was worth mentioning.-RHM22 (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If you support, could you please put a bolded word "support" at the start of your comment just above there? I've made the change you suggest. The subsections are a bit short but no doubt will grow as interesting things happen to the cent in the future.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Supported! You've done some very nice work on this article. Good luck getting it to FA.-RHM22 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any further comments, but I just wanted to add that I checked with the U.S. Mint and they confirmed that they only allow the use of approved designs. I thought that that was probably the case, but I wanted to double check to be absolutely certain.-RHM22 (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well done, thanks. I'll know that if I go for Jefferson nickel to complete the nickel series.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Support: A few points for fixing:-

• For the benefit of non-Americans, can you identify "the four gold coins" mentioned in the lead and elsewhere?
• "profited off the new coins" → "profited from the new coins"
• "With the US entry into World War II in 1942..." Er, 1941 surely? I know it was December, but...

Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done those. Thanks for the support. Possibly a premature senior moment there ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Four supports (one a bit dodgy, I know), and I believe all checks have been done. I don't know what Fasach Nua's concern about the 2010 cent is, but it is for him to address, he has not tied it to WP:WIAFA. Anyone else who wants to put in their two ... um, their two ... well, weigh in, is welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - the question about why the 2010 version of the penny is being used is one of the strangest questions I have ever read in a FAC. Great work and it's plain to me why you've chosen the 2010... it's the current version. Dincher (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment I believe Wheat cent is redundant to this fine article and should be merged. Reywas92^Talk 01:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and for the helpful edits you made. If you would like to start a merge discussion on Wheat cent, I will happily support it there. It's not something we can do within the scope of a FAC. I saw no sourced, useful content there worth the borrowing.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments. I think there are some prose issues, and a few factual points need clarification. A non-exhaustive list is here, but I think a light copyedit would really help. I notice, in particular, that you use a great deal of passive voice, which can get confusing and wordy. Second, I think there are a lot of unnecessary clauses. Together, these make the article flow poorly. Sir Nils (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

1. "At Roosevelt's instructions, the Mint hired Saint-Gaudens to redesign the cent and the four gold pieces." Were these 5 coins the only ones in existence at the time? If so, I think that should be made clear. If not, why weren't other coins changed?

   You omit the rest of the sentence "which did not require congressional approval." This is the lede, the reader is on notice to expect a fuller explanation in the body. Where it is given.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

2. "With the sculptor in declining health (he died on August 3, 1907), Saint-Gaudens never submitted an additional design for the cent." The way this is phrased seems to suggest that "the sculptor" and "Saint-Gaudens" are not the same person.

   I will rephrase this.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

3. "When Leach examined the models, he saw that Brenner had put his full surname on the obverse, and Leach objected to this." In cases like this, I don't see the need for so many words. How about just saying "When Leach examined the models, he objected to the fact that Brenner had put his full surname on the obverse"?

   Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   On reflection, I've used your sentence, but started it with "After". Leach looked at the models, then wrote a letter to Brenner.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

4. "On March 4, 1909, the day on which Roosevelt left office, replaced by William Howard Taft, Brenner met with Mint Engraver Charles E. Barber in Philadelphia." The "on which" is entirely unnecessary. Why not just say "the day Roosevelt left office"

   I think that is a little too bare, style wise.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

5. "The Philadelphia Mint had struck 20,000,000 of the new coin even before its design was made official by Secretary MacVeagh." It would be perfectly acceptable to say "The Philadelphia mint struck 20,000,000 of the new coin" the had is unneeded wordiness.

   Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

6. "had not permitted images of the new coin to be printed in the newspapers." Better usage would be to just say "in newspapers".

   I'm getting a conflict between reviewers here. Your way is what I originally had.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

7. "The cents without Brenner's initials were in production not later than August 12, 1909" What does that even mean? Is the precise date unknown? Wouldn't it be better to say "were in production by August 12, 1909"?

   The precise date is unknown. We have a letter dated August 12, which mentions that the new coins were in production. We do not know the date they actually started.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

8. "ending the shortages which had occurred." Is it really necessary to say "which had occurred". Why not just say "ending the shortages."?

   It's a bit problematical that way (what shortages?) So, I've struck the clause entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

9. "The recession year of 1922 saw few cents coined. At the time, dies were only made at Philadelphia; the Denver Mint had outstanding orders for cents that year. When Denver applied to the Philadelphia Mint for more dies (cents were not struck at either Philadelphia or San Francisco that year), it was told that the Philadelphia Mint could supply no more cent dies, as it was fully engaged in preparing dies for the Peace dollar." I think the organization here is confusing. Also, does the fact that 1922 was a recession have anything to do with the low production? If so, the connection should be made explicit. If not, I think the phrase "recession year" ought to be excluded as it implies some connection.

   I see your point and would not have mentioned it if it were not relevant. I will make it more clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

10. "With the US entry into World War II in 1941, copper supplies were needed for war production. The cent contained up to five percent tin, which was also in short supply. Experiments were carried out at several corporations under contract from the Mint; they tested various metallic and non-metallic (including fiber, tempered glass, and several types of plastic) substances." Up to this point (with the exception of the infobox) the copper content of the coin has not been mentioned. It would also be helpful to have a bridging sentence or phrase linking wartime demand to the experiments For example: "which was also in short supply, so the Mint looked for ways to make cents without copper or tin".

    I've made a slight rephrase; it should not be necessary to repeat what is in the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

11. "Zinc and iron form an electromagnetic "couple"; the two metals soon corrode when in contact with each other in a damp atmosphere." How about "Because zinc and iron...." with removal of the semicolon?

    I really don't like starting sentences with "Because".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

12. "Morgenthau responded the new pieces would soon become darker, and that the Mint would be willing to darken them if it could figure out a suitable process." Should be "Morgenthau responded that"

    Nice catch, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

13. "be replaced with coins 95% copper and 5% zinc" I think "with coins containing" would be much better

    Agreed.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

14. "It was announced that some of the metal for the new coins would be obtained by melting down small arms ammunition shells." Announced by whom? Passive voice strikes again.

    I'll change that. It was the Treasury.

15. "After the war, the Treasury quietly retired as many steel cents as it could from circulation, while denying it was doing so" How did the Treasury remove the coins? Isn't the removal of currency something handled by the Federal Reserve?

    Yes, but worn coin ultimately reverts to the Treasury so it can be melted, something especially important in the days when specie circulated. The exact mechanism is not specified, but certainly the Treasury could ask the Fed to pull out as many as it could and place them with the worn/damaged coin returned to the Mint for melting and recoinage. I imagine that the old steel cents were just defaced and scrapped, or possibly used for foreign coin struck by the Mint.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

16. "A few 1943 bronze cents and 1944 steel cents are known, and are expensive." I'm not sure what is meant by "are known". Does this mean "are known to collectors" or "are in private hands"?

    Are known to exist. They are in private hands, as they were issued. I will make a slight change.

17. "There are also many cents dated 1943 that were coated with copper to imitate the genuine rarity. These pieces may be distinguished from genuine off-metal strikes by the use of a magnet." This seems like wonky collector information that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia to me, but that's just an opinion.

    I understand where you are coming from, but it was notable enough to be mentioned in the secondary sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

18. "but it was felt that the incoming Eisenhower administration would be hostile to replacing a Republican on the cent." Who felt this way?

    Mint officials.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

19. "although some pieces entered circulation early" How did this happen? Simple mistake or something else?

    Doesn't say. Mistake is implied, but I don't want to go beyond my source.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

These are just a handful of the problems that would benefit from a copy edit. More generally, I also get the feeling that the information regarded to collecting (e.g., this or that cent is rare or valuable) ought to be split into a separate section to improve flow and cohesion. Finally, the article tends to completely ignore the use of the cent and its impact (other than by implication as coinage and an object of collectors). The Lincoln penny has, in my humble opinion, had pervasive social impact. In the words of Frank Meyer, "Coins of the United States serve not only as a medium of exchange, but also as an expression of the ideals and aspirations of a people." Sir Nils (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

These are actually points I gave attention to, and thank you for making your thoughts known. Collecting Lincoln cents is a huge topic, and a minefield. I think giving a minimum of information about collecting or rarity is appropriate without having to write a section on collecting which would require a lot more information, in my view beyond the scope of the article. We are talking about a coin which is widely collected and has been struck for 102 years. As for the social impact of the cent, that is better left for penny (United States coin), rather than for one of the several designs the denomination has had. I will ask two of the people who reviewed copyedited the article to review your comments and express his views about the need for another copyedit.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that social impact insofar as it involves lucky pennies, etc. is probably better at the Penny article as it's not specific to the Lincoln cent per se, but there are some significant facts about it. To minimize clutter here, I've put a few things on the article talk page that might be good to integrate. I don't really know enough about the collecting topic to make a worthwhile suggestion, but I personally think that the issues in collecting (e.g., that this or that penny is rare and thus valuable) are quite aside from other aspects of the penny. Sir Nils (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment I would have to disagree with the above statement. What makes the cultural impact of the Lincoln cent worth mentioning if collectibility is not? If the article were strictly focused on the coin itself, I might agree, but since the idea of the article is not only to explain the coin itself, but also the impact the coin has had. I would certainly agree that too much collector-oriented information is distracting and useless, but I certainly think it's constructive to hit the high points, so to speak.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting excluding the collecting stuff, just moving it to a dedicated section as it's different from the other aspects. Sir Nils (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As for the article, I have made a few small edits that I will detail below. But first, there a few things I was concerned about, but I didn't want to be presumptuous and edit them myself.

• "The Lincoln cent or Lincoln penny is a cent coin (or penny)"

Do you think that the second use of "penny" should be removed? It seems a little redundant.

• "Bass's shield design was coined."

I'm not positive on this, but isn't the apostrophe usually ammended on the end of a name when it ends in S?

• "On Sunday morning, December 21, 1958, President Eisenhower's press secretary, James Hagerty, issued a press release announcing that a new reverse design for the cent would begin production on January 2, 1959."

Morning seems irrelevant.

I've made the following changes to the article:

"The initials were restored at Lincoln's shoulder in 1918."

Changed to "The initials were restored, this time on Lincoln's shoulder, in 1918"

", and the Mint hired him to redesign the coins"

Changed to ", and he was hired by the Mint to redesign the coins"

"However, Burdette adds that in an April 1, 1909 letter, Brenner mentions that in producing the design, he envisioned Lincoln reading to a child,"

Changed to "However, Burdette adds that in an April 1, 1909 letter, Brenner mentioned that in producing the design, he envisioned Lincoln reading to a child,"

", and he had no objection to having the reductions done by an outside silversmith."

Changed to ", and he raised no objection to having the reductions done by an outside silversmith."

"they tested various metallic and non-metallic (including fiber, tempered glass, and several types of plastic) substances."

Changed to "they tested various metallic and non-metallic substances, including fiber, tempered glass, and several types of plastic."

"A few 1943 bronze cents and 1944 steel cents are known to exist, and are expensive."

Changed to "A few 1943 bronze cents and 1944 steel cents are known to exist, and are valuable."

"but MInt officials feared that the incoming Eisenhower administration would be hostile to replacing a Republican on the cent."

Changed to "but Mint officials feared that the incoming Eisenhower administration would be hostile to replacing a Republican on the cent."

"The coin officially was released on February 12, 1959, the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, although some pieces entered circulation early."

Changed to "The coin was officially released on February 12, 1959, the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, although some pieces entered circulation early."

"and began striking the proof coins"

Changed to "and began striking proof coins"

"One, known as the Toven Specimen, was possessed by the family of a former Capitol police officer,"

Changed to "One, known as the Toven Specimen, was in the possession of the family of a former Capitol police officer,"

As a couple of final notes,

• Under the image of Lincoln reading to Tad, it says "picture". Is it a photograph or a drawing? I imagine it's a photograph, since the author is Matthew Brady. It seems like "photograph" would be more accurate than "picture."
• The article says that the wheat on the reverse was the same kind used to make spaghetti, but is that really important?
• You mentioned the public outcry over Brenner's initials, but it doesn't say that designer's initials were placed prominently on many coins before this. I can provide examples if you'd like. This isn't really necessary, but I think it might add to the article.
• I was a little concerned with the use of "penny" sprinkled throughout. I know that's a common name, but perhaps the official name should be used in the body of the article. Obviously that's a matter of opinion, but I just thought I should mention it.

As you can see, these are all very minor concerns. Still, I found them to be worth mentioning.-RHM22 (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a photograph. Since an IP also cut out the explanation of the durum wheat, I'll take it out. I agree wholeheartedly on the cent v penny thing, but if you look at the penny talk page, you'll see that penny won the war here on wikipedia, and I can't marginalize that word. As for the initials, yes, I'm aware, ASG on the double eagle is particularly bold. (and look at Roty's name on the French pieces)! Let me go look at my sources on how Burdette phrases it and why it wasn't mentioned at the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.