Talk:Assassination of Abraham Lincoln/Archive 4

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Indira Gandhi assassination which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 06:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Booth's Leg Injury

There are several sources that say Booth did not injure his leg by jumping to the stage, but by falling off of his horse during his escape. Should this be mentioned in the article? 98.193.227.139 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

REALLY? Care to reveal these sources? You are suggesting an article be changed; yet do not reveal the sources for which the change should be made. I believe the information you are referring to says that Booth did not BREAK his leg, when attempting to jump on to the stage, and escaping from the President's Box. I have read that his leg was not actually broken but never as a result of falling from his horse. LOL, when did he fall off his horse? Booth did in fact break or injure his leg, when the spur from his boot was snagged on one of the flags, (The Treasury flag.) hung along the open frame of the President's Box, when he leapt out of the opening and on to the stage, when escaping from the theater. Irshgrl500 (talk · contribs) 12:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually went to Ford's Theatre and the guide told us that Booth twisted his ankle when he jumped onto the stage, but he never fell off his horse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.26.136 (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• There were many instances when Booth may have fallen from his horse. From the moment he crossed the bridge out of the district, to the moment he arrived at Surratts tavern, he had ample opportunity to fall from his horse. How many people in the theater said they saw him limp, or amble, or favor his leg after the jump? Zero. In fact most people stated to police that he ran or flew across the stage in seconds. He then leaped onto his horse, using his so-called broken leg to hoist himself up and kicked Burrows, the poor lad holding his horse outside the theater. He then had to walk his horse across the bridge out of town, per the rules. The soldier on guard never reported seeing a limp. Outside the district, his horse could have easily slipped or fallen on the dark, muddy (It was raining at the time), rutted road. Booth and Davy Herold made several claims to both John Lloyd in Surratsville and to Dr. Mudd, that he had fallen from his horse. He also claimed several times to Mudd, that he hurt his back when he fell. Obviously he didn't fall on his back when he leapt to the stage. The only so-called "evidence" that Booth broke his leg during his leap to the stage is from Booth's "diary" that he wrote in while on the run. He states "..While jumping, broke my leg." Given that just about everything else Booth wrote in that diary was an outright lie or fabrication, including saying that he yelled, "Sic Semper" before he fired, why would the part about breaking his leg be the "only" truth in the diary? He most likely changed the story because, being the consummate actor, writing his own script, he thought it was more dramatic to be inured in the act of service for his country, than the less dramatic falling from his horse. Here's how it most likely happened. After he crossed the bridge out of Washington, he most likely started galloping his horse. The horse probably hit a rut or a hole in the road, that was full of water from the rain, and hard to see in the dark. The horse fell, tossing Booth who landed on his back, hurting his back, and the horse most likely rolled over his leg. He was probably there when Davy Herold came upon him and helped him, not onto his own horse, but onto Herold's horse, as witnesses later claimed that the Horses each was riding was the different horse that they were seen leaving the city on. The "treasury flag" theory continues to this day because it makes it look like divine justice towards Booth, but there's no real fact based logic in it.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)--JOJ ^Hutton 22:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Booth did not cut hole in the door

Restoration of Ford’s Theatre (Historic Structures Report, George J. Olszewski, Ph.D, Historian, National Capital Region, National Park Service; 1963; pp.55 -56) <span style="font-size: smaller;" This was added by me, sorry my bad that I didn't sign it. Unless someone objects I will remove the reference to Booth cutting the hole since it is well established that he did not cut the hole. I'll hold off for a few days to see if there are any objections. Dpalme (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Historians all seem to believe that Booth bite the hole. The source you cited is an interview statement and not a reliable secondary source. Please respect WP:BRD and do not remove again without consensus and a reliable secondary source. JOJ ^Hutton 14:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"Historians all seem to believe..." That was your statement and in fact what you seem to be implying and if I'm wrong here, correct me, but it seems that you are implying that all historians believe Booth cut the hole and that is in fact incorrect. George J. Olszewski, Ph.D, who is a noted historian on Lincoln disagrees with you. In fact Mr. Olszewski has written on it more than once. Again, he is a noted historian with the National Park Service, http://www.archive.org/stream/restorationoffor00olsz/restorationoffor00olsz_djvu.txt. You have stated more than once that historians all seem to believe.... but you have yet to cite a source. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you are challenging my source but giving none of your own, which to me is is complete disregard for the WP:BRD. I'm willing to listen, but I'm still waiting on you to cite your sources instead of just making statements.

Furthermore, I posted a note about the changes and waited for close to two weeks, and you never once challenged me during that time, in fact NOBODY made a single challenge to my suggested change, on either page. If you prefer we can discuss this on my talk page, but I'm still holding to the original position. Btw, my citation is not an interview, it is a book.

Finally, I know that the book 20 Days which was written by Dorothy Meserve-Kunhardt claims that Booth bored the hole on pp 24-25 but she does not cite her source for that information, annotation is not there. For what its worth, I have sent an email to Dr. James Cornelius who is considered one of the foremost experts on the Lincoln Presidency and assassination and is the current curator at the Lincoln Library in Springfield, IL for some assistance.

Again, I can appreciate your position but as I have stated before you just keep saying that historians agree but have yet to cite a source...I just gave you one that does support your position but she doesn't give an annotation for hers either....See where I'm going here?

Dpalme (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The source you are using is what Wikipedia considers a primary source. Find a reliable secondary source. Sources such as James L Swansan and Michael W Kauffman say that Booth did it. Those are considered reliable secondary sources and not primary sources.JOJ ^Hutton 19:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find a reference to the hole in White's, Thomas', Donald's or Goodwin's biographies but did find it in Burlingame's (volume 2 page 817). After checking Amazon, Google, and JSTOR I'm not sure exactly what qualifies George J. Olszewski as a Lincoln historian. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

His last 24 hours by Waldo Emerson Reck addresses the issue on pages 73-76. He takes the same position that its highly unlikely that Booth carved the hole in the door. As I mentioned before Dorothy Kundhardt claims he cut the hole as does Kauffman, but neither cite a source for that information. Now, Emerson does - "At the conspiracy trial in June, effort was made to indicate that Booth had used a penknife to round out the hole that had been found in the door leading to box 7..." pp 73 (His Last 24 Hours). That would indicate that Booth found the hole already there and only rounded it out... His source is the trial transcripts. He then goes on to discuss how this is probably not accurate. He also cites Frank Ford as a source that the hole was already there. Is there any room for some to at least agree that this is at best an unknown issue?Dpalme (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any less obscure source than Waldo Emerson Reck, who only gets about 9 hits on a Google search? As opposed to Michael W. Kauffman, who gets over 12000 hits?--JOJ ^Hutton 12:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second here, we are now going to determine how reliable a source is by how many google hits they get? Your kidding me right? There is no way you can be serious with that statement. I'm really trying to be fair here, but I am starting to realize that it won't matter what I say, what sources I cite, nothing is going to appease you. When you start using google as a condition of how reliable a source is, I really have to question your motives. 96.35.212.78 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The point was that anyone can write a book and say whatever they want to in it. There's no law against that, but when it comes to reliability of the facts, the less obscure and peer reviewed the author, the more reliable that author becomes. See WP:FRINGE as to why Wikipedia tends to favor more peer reviewed sources over unknown authors.JOJ ^Hutton 16:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No I think your point was clear, I am still aghast that you even remotely considered bringing up google in this discussion. Its clearly obvious that it will not matter what source I cite, I'm still waiting for your citations, you have a position and are not willing to even remotely consider that it may be inaccurate. You further made it clear that you did not want to see any further modification until such time as there is a consensus, but that is not what the WP:BRD calls for, it allows for the once there has been a discussion and this one is going on way too long, to allow for the cycle to begin again. I do however, believe that no matter what modification or improvement is made you are going to revert the changes.

Unknown to who? You? For what its worth, the Lincoln Library was the source that gave me that book, I seriously doubt that they are going to give out a source that the Library consider unreliable or "obsecure". I have asked and asked and asked even with the Library for someone, anyone to cite the source or provide an annotation on where someone has documented Booth cut the hole. So far, I have none. Kauffman, he does not as best as I have been able to find so far, give a single annotation on the source of his statement that Booth cut the hole. Neither does Williams, and I have already pointed out that Kunhardt makes the statement but gives no annotation as to the source of her information. I would also like to mention the fact that where the hole was cut would require someone standing to actually bend over to look through the hole. The location of the hole is such that someone sitting would be more apt to use it to look through it. Dpalme (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Tom, you brought up a point that I wanted to address... George J. Olszewski was a noted historian with the Department of Interior, National Park Service and his area of expertise was national park facilities which the Ford's Theatre is through a join partnership of the Ford's Theatre Society and the National Park Service. This has more to do with the facility I would say than Lincoln himself. I did appreciate your comment and you brought up a valid point, I hope that I have answered that question.Dpalme (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I realize that your apparent lack of experience with Wikipedia could lead you to the conclusion that Google hits shouldn't be a basis for determining the reliability of sources. In fact guidelines such as WP:GOOGLEHITS, would tend to agree with that. Yet the number of hits a topic or author gets is used frequently in discussions to determine the reliability of sources, especially when two or more sources disagree with each other. In this case, the author you mentioned has very little reliability as a source, based on the obscurity of the text. As opposed to Michael W. Kauffman, whose text is reliably cited in both articles and IS the source of the information. It doesn't matter whether you feel that the author didn't cite his sources. The text is not a high school essay that needs citations after each sentence. It is a well known peer reviewed book that is considered a very reliable secondary source. I have also cited James L Swansen. His book also says that Booth bore the hole. Both authors are well respected Booth biographers whose books have been well received and well read, unlike the obscure hardly read source that you have previously mentioned.JOJ ^Hutton 17:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Totally disagree. Using google hits or traffic sources in any discussion is flat out wrong. It is well settled in the I.T. industry that hits alone are worthless, and are typically used by and for the uninformed. Porn sites have historically garnered far greater traffic and "hits" than most sites; notice, I did not say all just most. Using google traffic or hits as a basis for the reliability of an article would put porn at the top of the list. Yes, I am using a far fetched argument, but in doing so I'm showing you the absurdity of that argument by being absurd.

My point here is that at best, the article should be rewritten that although some historians state booth cut the hole there is no definitive answer to the question. Is that a fair statement that you could agree to? Dpalme (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your original assertion was that this has been well settled that Booth did not in fact bore the hole. Are you now backing away from that claim? It appears that it is not "well settled", and in fact is only a fringe theory, given the apparent lack of reliable, peer reviewed, secondary sources on the subject. As far as Google hits are concerned, when two sources seem to disagree with one another,usually the more notable and more accomplished and well known author gets the benefit of the doubt,especially when there is a 12,000 to 9 dependency in the number of Google hits.Say what you will about the method, but its hard to argue against the fact that Kauffman is the more accomplished, well known, and peer reviewed author of the two. --JOJ ^Hutton 18:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware of what my assertion was, your assertion was that all historians believed he cut the hole, and you have since sort of, kind of, half heartedly moved away from that assertion as well. I am trying my best here to follow the guidelines by floating a suggestion and all you did was try to crack me over the head. I'm not sure where you got your statistics from but using my normal tools for keyword searching which ties into google adwords, I get a lot higher number than 9; but that is not the point. I asked a question and you have now on at least three occasions refused to answer why is that? Since the Lincoln Library is offering my source as a reliable source on the subject, I would hardly call it fringe. I noticed that you are refusing to even acknowledge that. The library is what I would consider the definitive source on all matters Lincoln, you might disagree and the matter of the door is not just a Lincoln matter, but also a historical issue that is well within the purview of the National Park system. I will ask my question again, can you agree to what I said earlier and if not, why not. Dpalme (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I said in a previous edit summery and probably should have repeated verbatim here. That is what I meant to say. So we can put that to rest right now. Is it your assertion that the Lincoln Library agrees with the assertion that Booth did not bore the hole, based on what is written in one book, in what I can only imagine is hundreds,if not thousands of books in its collection? As far as the "question" that you have asked three times and I have some how not answered, I can only assume that you want a citation. I gave you two of several. Both Kauffman and Swansen. Maybe you want page numbers and which line its on. Like I said previously, Kauffman is already cited in the article, or at least the John Wilkes Booth article on this very topic.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see that we are never going to even agree on the simplest of matters, its quite apparent to me at this point that you have made a decision and you absolutely refuse to even consider an alternative to that point of view, and no I'm not talking about Kauffman, or anyone else, I am talking about you. Further, its apparent that any attempt to improve this article will be met with more deletions or reverts from you. I understand you have been around for several years, I believe over 4, but that doesn't mean others cannot contribute as well. I gave you three separate citations, and btw a citation is not just dropping a name, but maybe I'm being too legalistic with that so I'll leave that one alone for now....but I provided three separate citations and I'm sure I will continue to find more, the point being is that at best, claiming that Booth bored the hole is a claim that has not and cannot be proven - I will go so far as to concede that, I have already conceded that it is not as well settled as I thought it was, however, you have refused to even consider the alternative not even in a discussion and that to me goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. FINALLY, what I said about the Lincoln Library was they gave the title of the book as well as the author as a source for Lincoln information; they do not give out sources that they consider to be unreliable. You will not ever ever ever find them referencing O'Reilly because of the numerous mistakes in his book. I even asked if they would consider that a "fringe" source and the answer was an emphatic NO. You are refusing to allow that there is no way it was or has been proven, right now that is my point.....I have read Kauffman's comments regarding the hole, and he does not at any time as far as I have seen or read, provide an annotation as to the source of that information. It appears that he is merely restating what was previously stated about the door. I thought the whole purpose here is to provide a way for improvement, but it appears that you want to be the final arbitrator on all matters Lincoln or Booth. Dpalme (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Question and a simple one, Do you consider a state university press to be fringe or not? Dpalme (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a response from Dr. Cornelius the Curator for the Lincoln Library on this matter, it is interesting; I will need his permission prior to posting the content of it, but I will say that he agreed that Kauffman does not say Booth cut the hole, there is an implication on Kauffman's part but he does not directly or emphatically state that Booth cut the hole. It was chest high and you could see the President's head from the hole. Michael W. Kauffman, _American Brutus: JWB and the L. Conspiracies_ (2004) p 222 Dpalme (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

On p 222 Kauffman mentions the hole in the door but he does not anywhere in that text state that Booth cut the hole in the door, you might be able to read an implication there, I don't but the fact of the matter is he does not state that as fact so my earlier premise that there is no consensus on this still stands and that the article needs to be rewritten as such. Will you object to that? Dpalme (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Here is an excerpt from another highly regarded, peer reviewed, reliable secondary source called The Day Lincoln Was Shot pg, 173, by the late Jim Bishop.;

He set his gimlet against the lower right hand panel and leaned against it. He turned the handle and shavings began to fall off...From his pocket he took out a penknife, and began to gouge and ream the little hole and to peel the shavings from it.

• Bishop is a very respected and peer reviewed author.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You have me totally confused, and your proving my point. First you tout Kauffman, but when I point out the discrepancy, you flat out ignore it and move on. Its not going to matter what evidence is shown to you, you will not budge from your position will you? I read Kauffman's reference, the same one you touted earlier and in fact he does not state that Booth cut the hole, he may in fact imply it, depending on how you read it, but he does NOT state that Booth cut the hole. What is Bishop's source? By reading that, he is implying that someone stood there and watched him cut the hole, or he said that's what he did....where is the evidence to support such a claim? I have tried desperately to work with you here Hutton, but you have absolutely refused to even acknowledge what is becoming quite apparent....there is no definitive source to prove this one way or another. However, being someone a little new around here, I guess I'm just too damn stupid to be able to contribute anything right? 96.35.212.78 (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The only so called "discrepancy" is in your own mind. There is no discrepancy and I am not "touting" the source, only providing a source per the guidelines of Wikipedia. There are many reliable sources that confirm that Booth drilled the hole per the wikipedia policy on verifiable sources. The fact that you personally find fault with those sources or that you don't know where the author received his evidence, does not matter. Those sources are peer reviewed and regarded as dependable. No author or reliable source, to my knowledge, has ever questioned anything that Bishop, Kauffman, Swanson or Kunhardt (the last of whom, I have not read) wrote in their books. If you have a problem with anything in Jim Bishop's book The Day Lincoln Was Shot, then you are free to write your own book on the subject. Bishop's book is considered the gold standard on the assassination. Wikipedia is not a place to come and expunge information that you think is "settled", based on some obscure source you once read, but is not mainstream, nor on information you received in an e-mail from someone you know. You must have verifiable sources that have been peer reviewed to refute the mainstream thought on this topic.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm through with you, your arrogance is unbelievable. I cited more than one source even point out where your own source did not make the statement, the same source that is used as the definitive source for the Lincoln Presidential Library, but I suppose you know more than they do. I'm finished dealing with someone whose opinion always supercedes everyone else. Its apparent that you are the "EXPERT" here and nobody else can contribute. Dpalme (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Longwindedness

This article is in severe need of a haircut. Lots of details that would make an book about the assassination interesting are included in what should be a straight forward factual article. The section on the assassination's planning has four paragraphs on Lincoln's dreams and moods before mentioning any actual planning. The description of the planning is then only two paragraphs. All other sections suffer the same malady. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.54.214 (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy leader?

The lead quote: "The assassination was planned and carried out by John Wilkes Booth as part of a larger conspiracy in an effort to rally the remaining Confederate troops to continue fighting." The assassination was hatched in the home of Mary Surratt for which she was hanged after the military tribunal. John Surratt would have received the same had he not been able to escape. The only reason he didn't later was the statutes of limitations. Nobody questions the fact that Booth pulled the trigger and later received the same, however it seems John and Mary were the planners and leaders of the conspiracy. After the trial a book was written by one of the jurors and he agrees John Surratt was the leader:

"From the description given by Sergeant Dye of the man who acted as monitor, calling the time three times in succession at short intervals, the last time calling "Ten minutes past ten," in front of the theatre, it will be remembered that the writer came to the conclusion that this was John H. Surratt. This conclusion was verified by this same witness on the trial of Surratt. Sergeant Dye had taken a seat on the platform in front of the theatre, and just before the conclusion of the second act of the play had his attention arrested by an elegantly-dressed man, who came out of the vestibule, and commenced to converse with a ruffianly-looking fellow. Then another joined them, and the three conversed together. The one who appeared to be the leader said, "I think he will come out now," referring, as the witness supposed, to the President. The President's carriage stood near the platform on which the witness was sitting, and one of the three passed out as far as the curbstone and looked into the carriage. It would seem that they had anticipated the possibility of his departure at the close of the second act, and had intended to assassinate him at the moment of his passing out of the door. Quite a crowd of people came out at the conclusion of the act, and Booth and his companions stood near the door, awaiting the opportunity which they sought. When most of the crowd had returned into the theatre, and the would be assassins saw that the President would remain to the close of the play, they began to prepare for his assassination in the theatre . . . Booth had left the side of his companion before this long enough to go into the saloon, where he drank a glass of whiskey, and then, as soon as the time had been called the third time, went at once into the theatre, and in less that ten minutes thereafter fired the fatal shot . . . The suspicions of Sergeant Dye having been aroused by the conduct of these three men, he naturally scanned them very closely, and testified that he had a good view, not only of the person, but of the face and features of the man who called the time, and had his image indelibly impressed on his memory. Upon being confronted by Surratt on his trial, he unhesitatingly and positively declared that he was the man." (p.212, History of the Great Conspiracy, General Harris, T. M., Member of the military tribunal that tried the assassins)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.187.120 (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

President Andrew Johnson declared, "It appears from evidence in the Bureau of Military Justice that the murder of Abraham Lincoln was incited, concerted, and procured between Richmond, Va., and rebels and traitors against the government of the United States harbored in Canada." (Proclamation, May 2, 1865, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Washington: Bureau of National Literature, 1897, Vol. VIII, p. 3,505)72.161.220.32 (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The four men who died pursuing John Wilkes Boothe

http://www.cem.va.gov/pdf/AlexVA.pdf

"Four Quartermaster Corps employees (Peter Carroll, Samuel N. Gosnell, George W. Huntington, and Christopher Farley), who drowned in the Rappahannock River on April 24, 1865, while in pursuit of Abraham Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth, are buried in Section A, Graves 3174-3177."

and

"On July 7, 1922, a special monument was erected by the United States in memory of the men who died while in pursuit of John Wilkes Booth. The monument is a bronze tablet on a granite boulder base and located in the center of the cemetery on a terraced wall."

Does anyone think there is a place for information about these four men in this article or maybe in the John Wilkes Boothe article?
Shearonink (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

With that source, I think at least a brief mention is appropriate for both articles. I'm not sure whether the monument is notable, but let's see what others think. Thanks for finding this information. Cresix (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What's also interesting to me is that these men were actually civilian employees and not soldiers. Shearonink (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln's watch

I heard once that Lincoln's watch stopped a few minutes before he was shot. Is that true or is it some legend? Laurent (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.140.60 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

hmu for mad slaves bro i sell em cheap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.167.42 (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Lincoln conspirators execution2.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lincoln conspirators execution2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 7, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-07-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 07:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

On July 7, 1865, at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C., Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herold, and George Atzerodt (shown left-to-right) were hanged for their roles in the assassination of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. Eight people were convicted for the crime; three others were sentenced to life imprisonment, with the last receiving a six-year sentence. Mary Surratt's son John was able to escape and was never convicted for his role. His mother was the first woman to be executed by the United States federal government.Photo: Alexander Gardner; Restoration: Lise Broer

Seward's son and Assistant Secretary of State

The second paragraph of 'Powell attacks Secretary Seward' contains 'he was approached by Seward's son and Assistant Secretary of State Frederick W. Seward'. I initally read this as meaning two people, but further reading implies that they are the same person. Should this not be 'he was approached by Seward's son, Assistant Secretary of State Frederick W. Seward'? Kletzmer (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"Killing Lincoln" book unreliable

this book isn't used in the article at the moment and shouldn't be as it has been reported as being unreliable: [1] [2][3] thanks Tom B (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Our American Cousin

The reference on this page to "Act II Scene III" as being the part of the play when Lincoln was shot is incorrect. It should be Act III Scene II. Can someone with appropriate permissions please correct. Thanks. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_American_Cousin#The_Lincoln_assassination and http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3158/3158-h/3158-h.htm) Ted 7 April 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC).

David Clendenin

Within the conspirators' trial section, the list of men on the commission ordered to investigate includes David Clendenin, who has been linked to an incorrect page. The information that I have identifies him as David R. Clendenin, a member of the 8th Illinois Cavalry, but is, unfortunately, an undated newspaper article. Could someone take down the link? Thanks. kpeck1916 21:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpeck1916 (talk • contribs)

I believe the statement below, taken from this article regarding the "line of succession in the Federal government" at the time of Lincoln's assination, to be incorrect.

The line of succession act passed by Congress in 1792 provided for the president pro tempore of the Senate to succeed the Vice-President, followed by the Speaker of the House. This act was in effect when Lincoln was assinated.

In 1886, the line of succession was changed, placing the Secretary of State next in line after the Vice-president.

In 1947, the line of successsion was changed again, with the Speaker of the House next in line after the VP, followed by the president pro tempore of the Senate, then the Secreraty of State, followed by the cabinet officers.

By simultaneously eliminating the top three in the line of succession in the Federal government, Booth and his co-conspirators hoped to sever the continuity of the United States government. 24.17.195.214 (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)KerrRichardH@comcast.net

Lincoln final smile

The final smile statement came from this poem of Lincoln final moments. The author says that according to some accounts, at his last drawn breath, on the morning after the assassination, Lincoln smiled broadly and then expired.

http://www.postpoems.org/authors/jer/poem/549236

If there is no source then I guess this guy have to explain where he got this from.

Also notice in this painting of Lincoln deathbed, notice that the President even in death seems to be smiling.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=lincoln+deathbed+painting&um=1&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1920&bih=979&tbm=isch&tbnid=xDZD11x4pYR_HM:&imgrefurl=http://fineartamerica.com/featured/1-president-lincolns-deathbed-war-is-hell-store.html&docid=fVv81WrlP5

I think the smiling statement if it is on this article needs to have a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.148.219 (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

1.700 in attendence at Ford's Theater

The theater was full that night - 1,700 capacity. [ref]www.nps.gov/foth/faqs.htm[/ref] - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln party arrived at theater 10:15 pm, Lincoln's last words 10:25, shot at 10:25

I AM currently watching Lincoln Assassination on History Channel (1995). I came on the article here and corected the timeline. I also added, "Lincoln leaned forward and looked down to his left apparently recognizing someone in the audience." - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln's final words

Widespread scholarship seems to indicate that Lincoln's conversation with his wife extended past the line which this article gives as his "last words." The source for the given last words is not definitive that nothing more was said.

A nice discussion of what is currently believed to have been the conversation (according to Mrs. Lincoln herself) can be found from Stephen Mansfield here:

http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/tnbnonfiction/2012/12/lincolns-surprising-last-words-excerpt-from-lincolns-battle-with-god-by-stephen-mansfield/

Anyone who can edit semi-protected pots care to look into and address this?

68.192.224.170 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Material removed from Edwin M. Stanton

I've removed this from Edwin M. Stanton -- someone might or might not want to use it here:

Stanton ordered an unusual form of isolation for the eight suspects. He ordered eight heavy canvas hoods made, padded one-inch thick with cotton, with one small hole for eating, no opening for eyes or ears. Stanton ordered that the bags be worn by the seven men day and night to prevent conversation. Hood number eight was never used on Mrs. Surratt, the owner of the boarding house where the conspirators had laid their plans. A ball of extra cotton padding covered the eyes so that there was painful pressure on the closed lids. No baths or washing of any kind were allowed, and during the hot breathless weeks of the trial the prisoners' faces became more swollen and bloated by the day. The prison doctor began to fear for the conspirators' sanity, but Stanton would not allow them, nor the rigid wrist irons and anklets, each connected to a ball weighing seventy-five pounds, to be removed.

EEng (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 January 2013

The last sentence of the third paragraph in the 'Original plan: Kidnapping the president' section, "Booth was living at the National Hotel at the time and could have had an opportunity to kill Lincoln had he not been at the hospital." is unclear as to whether 'he' refers to Booth or Lincoln, especially when considering it was never previously stated that Booth went to the hospital but only that he rendezvoused at a restaurant with his conspirators.

I request that the sentence be amended to "Booth was living at the National Hotel at the time and could have had an opportunity to kill Lincoln had he (Booth) not been at the hospital." or restructured entirely in order to clarify whom the pronoun refers to. Jchap1590 (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph needed on long-term effects of Lincoln assassination

This is a request for subject matter experts on the topic of Lincoln's assassination to add a paragraph on the long-term effects and implications of the event to the Wikipedia entry. Please cover issues like:

• the failure of the conspirators to achieve their goals of dissolving the Union government
• who in Lincoln's administration maintained momentum on the policies he advocated like the franchise for freed slaves, and emancipation in general
• the effect that the assassination on the mop-up of the war effort in general, public opinion in both the north and south, etc.

Thank you. 196.38.152.4 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I turned your list of points into a bullet list -- hope that's OK. I think what you propose would be a monumental task, and essentially asking for a kind of reverse crystal ball -- What would things have been like had Lincoln lived? -- and sources will no doubt have wildly different ideas on this. For myself, I think the death of Lincoln is perhaps the greatest single tragedy in US history, because so much would, I think, have been different in the next 100+ years had he lived longer; and Booth ranks among history's biggest fools, because he murdered the South's best friend and most powerful protector. Anyway, there is one indisputable long-term effect of Lincoln's assassination: Lincoln was dead. EEng (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Caption to Old Soldiers Home photo near "Nightmare" section

Recommend "Old Soldiers Home" be wikilinked as Old Soldiers Home. And change rest of caption to read: Booth's original plan was to kidnap Lincoln here. (without italics, of course). The current caption makes it sound like Booth did his plotting at the Old Soldiers Home, which is not what we're trying to convey. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Under "Death of President Lincoln" section

Who the hell is Todd?

"Dr. Charles Brainerd Todd, a Navy Surgeon who had been aboard when the Lincolns visited his ship the monitor Montauk on April 14..." from the "Booth shoots President Lincoln" section. It does seem as though many readers will have forgotten this introduction by the time they reach the second mention of his name. Steveozone (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Who is William Lucas (on the escape route they mention a lucas farm.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.1.25 (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Robert Todd Present at Lincoln's Death? I'd say yes.

I just added "needs citation" to the claim that Lincoln's children were not present at his death. It is recorded in this article and in other reliable places that Mary was removed from the room where Lincoln was laid out, but I have only found sources that state Robert Todd was either present at death, stayed with the president through the night, etc. For reference:

"He was at the bedside of his father, Abraham Lincoln, when he died" http://www.shapell.org/manuscript.aspx?robert-todd-lincoln-presidential-assassinations

Quotes from Gideon Welles' Diary:

"A little before seven I went into the room where the dying President was rapidly drawing near the closing moments. His wife soon after made her last visit to him. The death struggle had begun. Robert, his son, stood with several others at the head of the bed. He, bore himself well but on two occasions gave way to overpowering grief and sobbed aloud, turning his head and leaning on the shoulder of Senator Sumner. The respiration of the President became suspended at intervals and at last entirely ceased at twenty-two minutes past seven"" - "The Death of President Lincoln, 1865," EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/lincoln.htm http://faithandfreedom.us/documents/19thcentury/welles.htm

"Their son Robert sat with Lincoln throughout the night." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Todd_Lincoln#Widow_and_later_life (I know - not really a source and not a definitive claim for time of death)

In this etching, Robert is included with the group of cabinet members, Mary already removed. http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1865/April/death-bed-abraham-lincoln.htm

"Robert Todd Lincoln stood next to Sumner through the long night, weeping at times on Sumner's shoulder." http://abrahamlincolnblog.blogspot.co.il/2010/04/death-of-abraham-lincoln.html

No record of Robert leaving the room, and it seems these all point to him being present. Does anyone know of a source that says he wasn't there? Otherwise, the claim needs to be corrected.

LFevas (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Mudd verdict numbers ?

"...rules that required only a simple majority of the officer jury for a guilty verdict and a two-thirds majority for a death sentence." "Mudd escaped execution by a single vote, the tribunal having voted 5–4 against hanging him." Huh ? two-thirds of 9 = 6. Mudd escaped hanging by two votes. Or should that read "having voted 5–4 for hanging him" ? Rcbutcher (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln date of death

It's widely written that Lincoln died 14 April. But if he died the morning after the shooting, it obviously should be 15 April. Still, I never see his date of death listed as anything but 14 April.....

Yhacrevo44 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Where, specifically, is it "widely written" that he died on 14 April? The assassination occurred on 14 April, but he died on 15 April. That's what our article Abraham Lincoln says, as do all reliable sources. That's 100% of them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Altering of Booth's quoted words

I just realized. Someone deleted the "N" word from Booth's citizenship line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.135.101 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That section is a direct quote of what Booth said. Including that word makes it complete, leaving it out makes it incomplete, so I've restored it. Shearonink (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

PS - The word is removed on a fairly-regular basis. This most-recent deletion dates from February 2014. Shearonink (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you know Lincoln was smiling after he was shot?

I have posted words from Katherine M. Evans account about Lincoln smiling after he was shot on several articles because I cannot put one on here due to the article being protected. While it may be an unnecessary detail, I just thought it would be good, bittersweet and heartwarming to let readers, especially fans of Lincoln know that Mr. Lincoln actually did hear Hawk's funny line and passed into unconsciousness with laughter and a smile on his face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.135.101 (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I would differ on describing Lincoln's facial expression as "smiling after he was shot" and I want to be very specific about the particulars. If one reads the Katherine M. Evans accounts, one realizes a few things:

• She was not present in the room that Lincoln died in (Petersen's Boarding House), she is asserting that there was a certain expression upon his face immediately before he was shot and that this expression remained (after he was basically brain-dead). The reason I want to be very specific about what Evans is referring to is that there is an assertion persistently added to this article every so often, not based on any eyewitness accounts or any testimony, categorically stating that Lincoln was smiling when he died at Petersen's, and that he somehow retained some measure of consciousness after being shot. So far as I can tell this assertion probably comes from a poem written about Lincoln's death and from mischaracterizing it as an eyewitness account not a fictionalized rendering of a tragic event.
• So she was referring to Lincoln having a smile on his face in that moment. The play had just had its biggest laugh of the night when one character said "Don't know the manners of good society, eh? Well, I guess I know enough to turn you inside out, old gal — you sockdologizing old man-trap." (the moment specifically picked by Booth so a gunshot would be less noticeable amidst the audience's laughter).
• However, some more points to keep in mind is where she was when Lincoln was shot and when these accounts were taken down:

1. Evans was not actually on the stage when Lincoln was shot and so could not have seen his expression in the moment of his being shot. She was in the theatre's green room (to stage right) waiting to enter later in the play.
2. She was also not present on the stage when Booth jumped from the Presidential Box to the stage. Her quoted words differ on the particulars as she either describes Laura Keene being onstage alone (July 1910 Grand Haven Tribune interview) or Harry Hawk being on stage alone (April 1915 New York Tribune interview). She describes the events that occurred onstage at Ford's, in its auditorium and the people involved after Booth had jumped down onto the stage. All the accounts I have read do state that Harry Hawk as Asa Trenchard was alone onstage, as he was delivering the sockdologizing line about Laura Keene's character (who had just left).
3. From what I can tell, her accounts were not contemporaneous to the event but were taken down anywhere from 46 to 50 years later. I have been so far unable to find an Evans account dated closer to the events, when they would have been fresher in her mind.

Evans' accounts are the only ones I have found that refer to Lincoln's expression as it appeared after he was shot. I do not find it beyond the realm of possibility that Lincoln was smiling and/or laughing in the moment preceding his being shot and immediately thereafter lapsing into a coma but physically retaining his last conscious expression. Notwithstanding what I posted above, in my opinion Evan's exact quoted & sourced words could be added within the events' timeline of the article along with attribution, in the last paragraph of the "Booth shoots President Lincoln" section worded something along the lines of:

Katherine M. Evans, a young actress in the play, was offstage when Lincoln was shot but rushed onstage after Booth's exit and said afterwards "I looked and saw President Lincoln unconscious, his head dropping on his breast, his eyes closed, but with a smile upon his face."<ref>{{cite book|title=We Saw Lincoln Shot: One Hundred Eyewitness Accounts (quoting Katherine M. Evans interview from April 1915 ''[[New York Tribune]]'')|date=1995|publisher=University Press of Mississippi|pages=148-149|editor=Timothy S. Good|accessdate=April 18, 2014}}</ref>

Shearonink (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm more intrigued by Henry Rathbones statement, albeit, 26 years later, that Booth hissed "I bring blessings to your Union" before Booth shot Lincoln. Of course that can't be proven either. Who knows. However, it is hopeful to think that Lincoln may have been smiling when the shot was fired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.141.7 (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln's Last Words

In doing some research on Lincoln's last words, I've come across three options:

1. "She won't think anything about it", referring to his wife asking what others will think about them holding hands at the theater.

2. "There is no place I so much desire to see as Jerusalem", based on a letter written by his wife afterwards, concerning some chit-chat between them during the play about them someday traveling to Palestine.

3. No one knows.

Number 1 is the most commonly cited quote, but number 2 also pops up on Google. My problem with number 2 is the references are found during contemporary sermons, trying to make the point about Abraham Lincoln becoming a Christian (one sermon even quotes he was going to make a public confession of his faith that coming Easter Sunday, but that seems like a fabrication). It seems too poetic, with the gunshot coming just after he says "Jerusalem". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.134.17 (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Lee's Surrender Did Not End the War

The article as it stands now states that Lee's surrender ended the war. Confederate forces were in the field until June when the last Army surrendered. The page is set so it can't be edited, so someone who is allowed to do so should make the correction. 71.171.89.90 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Fixed. 71.171.89.90 (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Remove/rework Lincolns Premonitions

The section on premonitions seems to suggest that they were supernatural. The opening sentence- "It is widely believed that when he was president, Lincoln might have known of his assassination before he died,"- is particularly clumsy.

I'm going to change it to "It is widely believed that Lincoln anticipated his assassination," for now, to remove the absurd, the redundant, and the flimsy.

An expert on the assassination- preferrably one that has enough self-respect not to cite cable docudramas- should review the premonitions section. The new section might be relevant if it focuses on Lincoln's suicide ideation and entirely rational fear of threat from southerners.

PiotrCym (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln smilling/laughing when he was shot

I have added in the claim that Lincoln was laughing at Harry Hawk's infamous line when he was shot. The source is from The Darkest Dawn: Lincoln, Booth, and the Great American Tragedy.

"While waves of laughter echoed through the theater, James Ferguson kept his eyes focused on Abraham Lincoln. Although the president joined the crowd with a ‘hearty laugh,’ his interest seemingly lay more with someone below. With his right elbow resting on the arm of his chair and his chin lying carelessly on his hand, Lincoln parted one of the flags nearby that he might see better."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.45.45 (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2014

changed hanged to hung in conspirators' trial Nurmy0321 (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please see http://grammarist.com/usage/hanged-hung/ and http://grammar.about.com/od/alightersideofwriting/a/hangedgloss.htm which both confirm that hanged is the appropriate grammar in this situation. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Article style

Hello public, I came across this article and was struck by its style, as I thought it seemed unfit for Wikipedia's Manual of Style (WP:MOS). For example, in the article, a section begins with: "On April 14, 1865, Booth's morning started at the stroke of midnight. Lying wide awake in his bed at the National Hotel, he wrote his mother that all was well, but that he was "in haste". In his diary, he wrote that 'Our cause being almost lost, something decisive and great must be done'." The wording of that section sounds too close to narrative rather than factual description--is this a failure to adhere to reliability or something similar to that? There is no doubt that this article stands out in style compared to any other I have seen, and for the sake of Wikipedia, I want this to at least be addressed, even if it is fine how it is or if I'm overreacting.Mechanic1c (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2015

68.151.205.85 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2015

In the image caption, please add "only." "Booth's approach and reacted only after the shot was fired." 65.210.65.16 (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The addition of the word only doesnt seem to change the meaning of the sentance so seems unnessecary. Amortias (T)(C) 20:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Contemporaneous coverage by The Economist

Two changes:

1. Change "Reading" to "reading" for section Assassination of Abraham Lincoln#Further Reading, resulting in Assassination of Abraham Lincoln#Further reading
2. Add the following to the bottom of Assassination of Abraham Lincoln#Further reading:

• Bagehot, Walter, ed. (April 29, 1865). "The assassination of Mr Lincoln". The Economist. XXIII (1, 131). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.5.22 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Picture added October 3

The picture is historically inaccurate. Booth approached the President from behind after entering through the unguarded rear door. While the President faced forward near the front of the box, Booth shot him in the back of the head from behind. Moreover, the picture is of poor quality. Donner60 (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The picture adds nothing new to the article, other than a wished-for reimagining of the circumstances. If the engraving was placed in an article about "the media's reaction to the assassination" or "artists' interpretation of the assassination", then maybe it might work...but not here. Shearonink (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is inaccurate, and it is very poor quality. It adds nothing, and there is a much more accurate picture at the top of the page. Sundayclose (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The proposed image is poor quality and confusing - it looks like the people in it are on the theater stage. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Caption of "Trial of conspirators in Lincoln's assassination" Carte de visite

According to the Daniel R. Weinberg Lincoln Conspirators Collection held at Indiana Historical Society http://www.indianahistory.org/our-collections/collection-guides/daniel-r-weinberg-lincoln-conspirators-collection.pdf no photographs of the courtroom were allowed. This archive also has another copy of the same item and describes it in its collection guide as:

A.E. Alden[Courtroom drawing of the

Conspirators on Trial, Carte-de-Visite], 5 June

1865. Albumen photograph of a drawing. No

photographs of the courtroom were allowed, but some

sketches were produced. In the foreground are the

commission members, while the prisoners sit in the

dock behind. On the table are the various papers and

evidence, including the hat worn by Lincoln on the

night of the assassination and a basket of pistols and

bowie knives used by the conspirators.

The full citation along with an image of this item can be found at http://images.indianahistory.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p0409/id/48/rec/1 . While the original publisher might have intimated that this drawing was somehow from a photograph "taken with permission", that cannot be correct as the Indiana Historical Society (a reliable source) makes it clear that this representation is an artist's sketch or drawing and that photographs were not permitted. (I think this sketch is somewhat akin to the litho that purports to show the moment of Booth's shooting Lincoln that has Major Rathbone standing up as the shot is fired...which is not at all what happened.) The Library of Congress does have a photo of the members of the military tribunal that tried Mary Surratt et al at http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.35257/, however this image was taken by Alexander Gardner, the photographer who also took the notorious images of the convicted conspirators as the sentence of death by hanging was carried out. There does not seem to be any record of either an "A.E. Alden" or of an "F. Eaton" taking any sorts of photographs of the courtroom as the trial was underway. As a contemporaneous imagining of the incident, the image is useful but I cannot see how it could be possible that this image actually documents a moment in history as it happened. Shearonink (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Assassination of Abraham 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121315415300/http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/other_6Lincoln1.html to http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/other_6Lincoln1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427013654/http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/other_7Lincoln2.html to http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/other_7Lincoln2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links section

Seems to be getting a little lengthy and turning into a link-farm. Per WP:EL I think it is time to trim the External links down to a more manageable size. Also, WP:ELNO states : Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:

• Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.

Moving forward, something to keep in mind would be conflict of interest parameters & WP:ADV (an External link guideline): "Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link." Shearonink (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I also note that at the bottom of the website, this account is adding at EL, it is stated:

AssassinationofAbrahamLincoln.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.

Clearly a spam site. Dr. K. 21:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

They need to be paired down radically - we should generally prefer only non-com sites that are about the assassination event as a whole, and not a single person or facet of the event. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree. Dr. K. 22:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Picture change

Someone please revert this edit [4], which changed the picture at the top of the page from the first of the pictures below (which is a feature picture here on Wikipedia) to the second (which looks to be a rather unfortunate, poorly mangled Photoshop job).

• 
• File:Lincoln box.png

This file is likely to be the first item seen by any vistors to the page, and we ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard here. I'd revert it myself if the article weren't protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:ab23:5789:9deb:4598:388f:6632 (talk • contribs) 21:55 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Union Station reference

Union Station did not exist in Washington DC in 1865. If Grant boarded a train to Philadelphia, he probably did so at the station affiliated with the Pennsylvania Railroad system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.211.132.1 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Assassination of Abraham Lincoln/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 10W40 (talk · contribs) 15:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

I'll fill out the rest of the review later, but let me make some initial comments. This is certainly an impressive work with numerous references to support it. The first problem I see is the opening, which sounds like the lede of a news story. The beginning needs some historical perspective. The name of the play, the name of the assassin, and the names of the various generals are details. How about:

"The assassination of Abraham Lincoln occurred in Washington, DC on April 14, 1865. This was the first time that U.S. president was assassinated. The event took place a few days after the U.S. Civil War ended."

So, are you saying that the first sentence is too dispassionate and that the lead section doesn't have enough details? I'll have to think about any possible changes to the lead - it's the result of a lot of hard work on the part of many editors, I am loath to change it. Shearonink (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying the first paragraph needs less detail and more focus. 10W40 (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The lead section's function is to summarize the main points of a Wikipedia article. I think the present version does a good job of that but will think about your points that "the first paragraph needs less detail and more focus". Shearonink (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Passes this standard. Some quibbles: Like other job titles, "president" should be lower cased unless it immediately precedes the name ("As the President was watching"), ("shot the President"). Same with "ambassador" ("soon to become United States Ambassador to Spain"). There should be no links inside of the quotes ("catafalque").

   Disagree on President/president usage. If the word is referring to the person (who is known as the President of the United States), then it is standing-in for his proper name and should be capitalized. The usage as seen in the article now does not seem incorrect to me, but is there some guidance within WP on this issue?

   Re: catafalque...seems to me that the unfamiliarity of the word would override not Wikilinking it within the quote but perhaps there is a WP guideline on this.

   Re: Ambassador/ambassador: It's true that Hale was an ambassador, but he was the Ambassador to Spain. The usage in the article does not seem incorrect to me. Shearonink (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

   "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically," per WP:JOBTITLES. I know this rule gets violate a lot, but lower casing is correct according to all the style books. See here and here. 10W40 (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

   In Hale's case, it is not being used generically - he was not named the ambassador to spain, he was named the Ambassador to Spain. I think the current usage in the article for President/president seems correct.

   I went through and have listed the first 14 different uses of President/president in this article; Perhaps you can point to where you consider the present usage incorrect:

   • United States President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated
   • The 16th American president, Lincoln was the first
   • who was tasked to kill Vice President Andrew Johnson.
   • As the President was watching the play, -lower case
   • conceived a plan to kidnap President Lincoln
   • and Confederate spy, evaded the president's invitation
   • to capture the President on his way back -lower case
   • Confederate President Jefferson Davis and the rest of his government
   • remembered taking a drive with the Lincolns only days before the president's assassination
   • For months, the President had looked pale and haggard -lower case
   • from the brother of John Ford, the owner, that the President and General Grant would be attending -lower case
   • audience gave the president a rousing standing ovation
   • The president smiled and replied, "She won't think anything about it
   • the President was paralyzed, and barely breathing. Leale lowered the President to the floor -lower case

   If the MOS being referred to in this case of President/president then I think the following points from MOS:JOBTITLES applies:

   When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon

   When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II

   When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g., King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king)

   In every single case the usage in this article is referring to a certain person - Abraham Lincoln. If the present usage can be shown to me to be incorrect then I will change it accordingly. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

   Non-generic use is when you use the title as a substitute for a person's name, as in "Mr. President." I don't see anything like that in this article. Here's a quote from the corresponding article in Britannica to show you how its done: "On the morning of April 14, 1865, Booth—distraught over the collapse of the Confederacy—learned that the president would be attending a performance of the comedy Our American Cousin that evening at Ford's Theatre. Gathering his fellow conspirators, Booth outlined a plan to assassinate not just President Lincoln but also Vice Pres. Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William Seward." Notice that "president" is lower cased even though it is a reference to Lincoln. Trust me, I know how to edit. 10W40 (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

   I again refer you to MOS:JOBTITLES:

   When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II

   If I can substitute "Lincoln" for every time the word president is used, then doesn't that seem like a substitute for the name of Abraham Lincoln? Shearonink (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

   "Trust me, I know how to edit."... This issue has nothing to do with if you know how to edit or not. I disagree with your opinions on this matter and am formally requesting a second opinion about this usage at WP:GAHELP. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong...frankly, I don't care which it is but I am asking for a second opinion on this because I want to know what is actually considered correct for Wikipedia in terms of this article's usage. In the meantime, until there's an answer regarding the President/president issue, I would appreciate your going through the other WP:GA criteria and assessing whether or not the article passes those criteria and changing the icons appropriately. Shearonink (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

   So. In your opinion, other than President/president...

   "Ambassador to Spain" is correct?

   The Wikilinkage for "catafalque" is correct?

   Shearonink (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

   Wikipedia's guidelines are not clearest or best written in the world. But there was never any intention of creating a capitalization style specific to Wikipedia. If you go by any of the published style guides, including the guides recommended in the MOS, these words should be lower cased, i.e. "ambassador to Spain."
   "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article," per MOS:LINKSTYLE. 10W40 (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

   The MOS recommends consulting CMOS, which has this to say: "titles are normally lowercased when following a name or used in place of a name" (CMOS, 8.18). Before you drive a truck through the "substitute for their name" exception, take a look at the examples of this that CMOS gives: "Ladies and Gentlemen, the Prime Minister," "I would have done it, Captain, but the ship was sinking," and "Thank you, Mr. President" (CMOS, 8.19). Here is the AP Style Guide: "Capitalize president only as a formal title before one or more names: President Reagan, Presidents Ford and Carter. Lowercase in all other uses: The president said today. He is running for president. Lincoln was president during the Civil War." 10W40 (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): }

   This, this, and this came up on the copyvio detector. It looks to me like they are copying from us. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so nice going.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The mourning of Lincoln currently gets a sentence in the lead and a paragraph under "Aftermath." This was a highly notable aspect of the event. See Mourning Lincoln by Martha Hodes. If Samuel J. Seymour can get a mentioned, surely there is room for Whitman's "O Captain! My Captain!."

   Point taken about Whitman. Edited accordingly. Am not certain that the sentences need to be referenced (that Whitman write the poem, the year etc) since there is appropriate Wikilinkage. Let me know what you think. Shearonink (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Do we want to say that preventing blacks from voting was THE motive for Booth? He had earlier wanted to kidnap Lincoln and take him to Richmond. Once Richmond had fallen, Booth obviously had to revise his plans. If it was for slavery, that only begs the question of: Why did he care so much about slavery? Here's another theory: My Thoughts Be Bloody. We can't cover every theory, but the current writeup makes a complex issue sound very cut and dried.

   I understand your thoughts on this but Booth's statement is well-known and sourced. I have added a wikilink to the section in Booth's article where the matter can be treated in much greater detail than possible in this article (as to the various theories, opinions by historians and others). I tried to use your URL above for My Thoughts Be Bloody but it seems to be broken. Shearonink (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

   @10W40: After mulling over your thoughts on the subject I am expanding the Motive section. It's important to list some of them but I don't want the section to become bloated (like with maybe every theory promulgated on the internet...) Anyway, am working on it over the next few days - give me some time to get the text & refs together and let me know what you think. Shearonink (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

   This article is a standalone item. It shouldn't depend on what's in some other article. Wikipedia is not paper, and all that. I've fixed the link to My Thoughts. The book has a forward by Goodwin, so it probably deserves a mention.10W40 (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

   Here is a review of My Thoughts. John's brother Edwin was pro-Union and a better actor than he was. John was consumed with sibling rivalry. Or so goes Nora Titone's theory. If that was his motive, he certainly succeeded. In history, Edwin is entirely overshadowed by his less talented brother. To assume that assassins act out of political motive pumps them up. 10W40 (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

   This article is not dependent on some other [Wikipedia] article, *a Template:Further information was added to link to a section in the John Wilkes Booth article and that has nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS.

   Per your remarks above I stated *I was expanding the Motive section. I suggest you read that redrafted section which I said I was going to be writing over the next few days.

   Assume that assassins act out of political motive pumps them up? It is a verifiable fact that John Wilkes Booth stated this to Powell. Is it the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the WP:VERIFY/truth? History will actually never really know because Boston Corbett shot Booth before he could be interrogated, so all we have left is: 1)what the man said and did & 2)interpretations by historians and authors of the man and what he said and did. Shearonink (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

   You should take a look at Titone's book before you judge. It was quite well-reviewed. Lots of people held the same political views as Booth and didn't assassinate anyone. After the assassination, Booth lept on the stage and spoke lines he had obviously prepared in advance. It was the role of a lifetime and he was a star, finally outshining Edwin. Isn't that the exit someone who knew all the Shakespearian tragedies would choose? I am not saying that anybody's theory is wrong! My point is simply that more than one exists in the RS. 10W40 (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

   I think the part about John Brown just adds confusion. Booth was inspired by Brown in the sense that Brown showed it was possible for a single man to change history through a dramatic action. I don't think most readers will catch that point. Booth became a partisan of the South after a falling out with his brother in 1860, which is a few years after the Brown incident. 10W40 (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

   Booth was executed in December 1859. The section now contains what different reliable sources state about Booth's possible motives and makes no value judgement about any of them plus Booth's thoughts on Brown are well-documented - the job of a Wikipedia article is to represent well-sourced various points of view (in this case about Booth's possible motives) about a particular subject. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   Passes this standard.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problem here.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I like the "Wanted" poster. You could put it on top of the article. The current lead picture requires a detailed note to explain how it's all wrong, which is distracting. Nice to have the picture of Booth and Lincoln together on Inauguration Day -- and right next to the text that describes this.

   This is an article about the assassination. To put the wanted poster in the infobox, or "on top of the article", gives too much prominence to the assassin and this is not an article about him. The Currier & Ives print is important because it depicts how the country digested the news through the media of the day. And yes, that was all wrong, but people in the North had prints of this scene and "Lincoln on his Deathbed" up in their houses for years and years afterwards. Within the next few days I'll work on removing that sentence from the infobox and instead put it into a footnoted-"Notes" section that will then explain the print. Maybe that will work better. Shearonink (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comment

Just a reminder: As the Review progresses, when the Reviewer ascertains that the article fulfills a particular GA criteria, they will need to fill in the last {{}} section (after the check|) with a y. Please see the Example section of Template:GAList. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I need to know which WP:GA parameters this article has passed. All the parameters are presently showing as greyed-out... no "yes" or "no" or "on hold". Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Outside opinions regarding usage of President/president

This is what's called "respect capitalization." Writers capitalize nouns that are important to them to show respect. The minions capitalize the boss's title. No where is the problem more serious than with the title U.S. president. 10W40 (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor

I have concerns about this Good Article Review, specifically relating to the competency with which it is being carried out. I'd advise the reviewer to have a look through GA reviews carried out by experienced editors so they can see where they are going wrong. I share the article nominator's obvious frustrations regarding this GA review's tone and progress. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Seconded

Yes, I have to agree with the editor above. I've also been following this GAR- with some trepidation at times, it must be said- and I think that we will all agree that the reviewer meant well, and we commend then for their efforts and enthusiasm. However: there are sure signs of uncertainty and misunderstanding in the review, and, going by this, it has been noticed and commented upon before. I reiterate the remarks their talk page, that they should become 'used to Wikipedia and improving articles on your own before attempting to review good articles.' O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Assassination of Abraham 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605232902/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACWexchange.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACWexchange.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://lincolnat200.org/exhibits/show/nowhebelongs/tyrannis/deathbed
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.geh.org/ne/str115/htmlsrc/lincoln_sum00001.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222142805/http://www.samuelmudd.com/ to http://www.samuelmudd.com/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ward Hill Lamon's and William Crook's story

Transferred from User talk:EEng:

I know that such discussion like this should occur on the Lincoln assassination article talk page but I think that you find these sources more reliable. You can copy this section onto the LA talk page if you want to.

(Redacted) - probable copyright violation Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.235.35 (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm primarily interested in simply copyediting the article and trimming the excessive detail, not getting into the weeks of conflicting sources, but in light of what you say give me a minute to reconsider my just-made edit about Mary's headache. EEng 22:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

THe IP is an LTA case - the UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP, who has exhibited a fascination with the dream thing for years. They are de facto banned. Acroterion (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Acroterion, I'm not sure what "de facto" banned means, but can you resolve the IP's changed one way or the other? I don't know enough of the background circumstances. EEng 11:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This IP has a long history of disruptive edits to a variety of articles relating to Lincoln, Kennedy, Alcatraz, von Richtofen, the Titanic, das Boot, the Halloween movie series and other topics. Their edits range from more or less OK to conspiracy-mongering, with a lot of pointless or poorly-written changes that tend to change articles into word salad, all from a lot of mobile or school IPs in Essex. This has been going on for years, and I block them when I see them, because they almost never benefit the encyclopedia and the person behind them, though often polite when confronted, has never ever shown any sign of change. As with most long-term IP hoppers, they're block-on-sight, but I've never sought a formal ban.I have no views on inclusion of the dream business or not, but the IP is not the one to do it. Acroterion (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with blanket removal. There is scope perhaps to improve the way the story is told but I don't think it should just be removed. --John (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, it’s a good thing that it has been pointed out these stories are not true. They sound paranormal and I am in surprise that they have been taken seriously for so long.

thisweekinthecivilwar external links

There are seven separate links to thisweekinthecivilwar with most of the content being redundant to what is already within Wikipedia's pages. I am most troubled by the fact that the website is an aggregator (a good one but *still*...) and that the actual authors of the content being linked to are not clearly delineated, for instance the piece on Mary Surratt. That article was written for the Encyclopedia of the American Civil War by Elizabeth Leonard but the linkage at thisweek takes the reader to the Amazon book page and so on. I am clearing out the kindof-linkfarm & just leaving a single link to the site as an additional resource for WP's readers. Shearonink (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Re this edit & its summary...

The reason the text said he lost consciousness is that from the moment that slow-moving .44caliber bullet hit his brain, Lincoln was dead for all practical purposes. He was unable to communicate, he never spoke again, he didn't move voluntarily, he had no control over any of his body faculties. Drs Leale & Taft got to the Presidential Box within moments and found him unconscious, Leale even describing Lincoln as in his official report as being in a "profoundly comatose condition". The official NPS Handbook also states that "The President slumped forward in his chair, and then backward, never to regain consciousness." ...So. If Lincoln never regained consciousness and was assessed as being in a profoundly comatose state moments after the shooting, that means he didn't have consciousness at the moment he slumped forward, at the moment he was shot. I am adding back some of the text but removing the word immediately - perhaps that will take care of your concern as to the timeframe. Shearonink (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink, let me say how much I appreciate your bringing forward this new source on Lincoln's treatment and the earlier source on the rocking chair. I've also reviewed Scalea (2009) which Mackowiak (2013) relies on. The text as it currently stands is, The bullet entered Lincoln's skull behind his left ear, fracturing his skull, traversing the left side of his brain, and finally stopping above his right eye.

• traversing the left side of the brain – Scalea implies (never says) the bullet did not cross the midline, but Mackowiak (also a physician) says "Leale’s description of a bulging right eye suggests that the bullet actually crossed the midline into the right cerebral hemisphere." (Leale's report had not been discovered at the time Scalea was writing.) Given that Mackowiak uses more up-to-date evidence, I'd take him as more authoritative, but since it's a technical point of little interest to most readers I'd suggest we simply say, passing through the brain and stopping above the right eye.
• On the loss of consciousness, while you're right that "from the moment that slow-moving .44 caliber bullet hit his brain, Lincoln was dead for all practical purposes" (given the treatments available at the time) that still doesn't tell us just when he lost consciousness – which isn't a binary state anyway. As it happens, I'm more than a little familiar with another famous case (Phineas Gage) who suffered an arguably far more serious insult to the brain and, as far as we can tell, may not have lost consciousness at all. And neither Mackowiak nor Scalea say anything about Lincoln's state of consciousness until Leale reaches him; thus I'd rather say nothing about it immediately after the shot is fired, and let Leale's statement that he found Lincoln "in a profoundly comatose condition" speak for itself. This is only a few minutes later, and this way we stick strictly to the sources.
• fracturing his skull – Well, obviously the bullet penetrated the skull, but as for "fracturing" it, both Mackowiak and Scalea merely say that the orbital plates were fractured. This is at the end of the bullet's travel, not the beginning as the text implies now. While it's clear that bone fragments were forced into the brain I'm uncomfortable characterizing the nature of the skull damage without a competent medical source giving us the appropriate phrasing.

EEng 11:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Rocking chair

I have realized it doesn't seem completely correct to say that the rocker was from "the theater owner's own bedroom". Though Ford's was run by a family - the Ford brothers - it is my impression that John Ford (the one brother) was the owner. The rocker came from Harry Ford's bedroom and was part of a set of two pieces of furniture brought in for the occasion - a settee/couch & the rocker. Since Lincoln was taller than most men of his day, the rocker was provided as a measure of extra comfort. All three of the Ford brothers - John T., Harry Clay, and James - were arrested and after 39 days were freed by the US Government. Shearonink (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

My mistake due to my ignorance of the general topic -- I didn't realize there were two Fords. I'll recast it. It's good working with you. EEng 22:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

McFeely biography of Grant as source for the surveillance of Julia Grant & for the foiled attack on Grant

I don't completely understand the "further explanation needed" maintenance tags that were placed on the sentences about the foiled attack on Grant and the possible surveillance by Wilkes Booth or another of the conspirators (as seen in the "Notes" section). The ref very clearly states the pages (pages 224-225 of Grant: A Biography) and the information is there.
There were two reported incidents that rattled the Grants on the day that Lincoln was assassinated. In one, Julia Grant says that a mustachioed man (who is said to have resembled John Wilkes-Booth) watched her rudely and closely in the Willard and then galloped past the Grants' carriage at least twice staring closely at their faces as she & the General were on their way to the DC train station. In the other, an anonymous assailant later wrote a letter to the Grants saying he intended to shoot Grant on that train but only failed to do so because the porter had locked the door to their train-car. Shearonink (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It's the words apparently and alleged that I think the reader will find confusing. So (a) is it clear these things really happened, and (b) are they considered part of the Booth conspiracy? EEng 05:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

a)They really happened? It's in a reliable reference as happening, WP cannot ask for more. b)These two incidents happened on the same day as the assassination, we don't know for certain if they were connected or not since the locus of the plans - John Wilkes Booth - was killed by Boston Corbett (mentally disturbed individual that he was) and we will *never* know for certain what other individuals were possibly involved so, in my opinion, yes they should be included along with the sourcing and readers can make up their own minds. *The maintenance templates should be removed - they are unneeded. Shearonink (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That's all fine, but then what is the function of the words apparently and alleged? EEng 14:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea. Many editors have contributed to this article - perhaps the editor who added them was thinking along the lines of that it isn't completely clear to history how these incidents are connected to the actual assassination. In my opinion, however, they appear in a reliable source, we have no proof that these incidents are not related, and just because we have no clear proof doesn't mean that they should be deleted from the narrative. At the very least they are useful as illustrating the tenor and panic of those times. I've recrafted the "Note" to more clearly reflect the source. Shearonink (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I had no idea either, which is why I tagged them. Thanks for writing them out. EEng 03:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit about Lincoln's injuries

Re: this edit & its edit summary:

• One reason the severity of Lincoln's injuries to his brain should be included is that Gabby Gifford suffered a similar wound but 1)because the bullet was a different caliber, and 2)of a higher velocity therefore didn't cause as much internal damage and because 3)she received immediate 21st Century medical treatment & rehabilitation, Gifford survived with some physical damage but with her personality intact. Some experts have held up the Gifford case as a possible parallel situation but 1)Booth's derringer fired a slow-moving .44 caliber lead ball that tumbled its way through the brain causing severe immediate trauma, a bullet that, even though it was fired from less than four feet away, didn't even have enough velocity to go through the skull.
• A second reason is that no, the damage isn't really all that obvious to most readers. The initial shot was bad enough but the swelling of the brain, the edema helped to hasten Lincoln's bodily death. (I mean, really, from the moment he was shot he was basically brain-dead.) That's why, when the drs dislodged the various blood clots from the bullethole Lincoln's breathing was eased - because his brain was starting to physically shut down from all the swelling - that's why (to get back to Gifford) the surgeons removed part of her skull - to relieve the edema, the swelling and to give the brain time to physically recover. It's all there in the Atlantic article as well as in other medical literature I have seen. Most general readers do not really understand that Lincoln was really *really* dead the moment he was shot and this article is about that assassination, about Lincoln getting killed - the facts of his case should be laid out in enough detail so that readers "get it".
• Re this edit & edit summary it was indicated that the previous wording about the skull fractures was too vague so I recrafted those sentences to include more specific wording and references.
• Re "vaguely over specific"... Well, the bullet entered Lincoln's skull behind his left ear and did not pass completely through his head - in the process of killing him it stopped somewhere, that seems important to the assassination. Notwithstanding Leale's Notes about the right eye being distended and therefore some experts concluding that the bullet crossed the midline at some point, the actual autopsy notes - published at NIH website indicate that the bullet actually stayed within the left side of the brain.
• The bullet started the job of killing Lincoln and the secondary edema - the swelling of the brain that was caused by the initial injury - finished the job. Again, what actually killed Lincoln would seem to be important enough it include in the article about that killing. I mean, John "Peanut" Burroughs, that poor man who had the misfortune of simply holding Booth's horse, is included in the narrative shouldn't what actually killed Lincoln be included too? If the wording of "secondary edema" (which seems more specific to me than swelling but anyway) is unable to be interpreted by most readers, then "swelling of the brain" would suffice. Shearonink (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

What killed Lincoln was a bullet to the brain. If we want to include anatomical and medical details, and maybe evaluations of the care Lincoln received, I suggest these go in a separate section further down in the article, not as an interruption to the narrative of what happened in the theater. Either way, we shouldn't be using primary sources (such as the autopsy report) except to illustrate the conclusions of modern specialized secondary sources that take all the evidence into account, such as on the question of crossing the midline. EEng 13:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Who cares? (@ Booth's carte-de-visite & who picked it up)

Re this edit & edit summary: The reason that who picked up the card Booth left at Johnson's hotel (known as Kirkwood Hotel/Kirkwood House/Kirkwood House Hotel) is important is that this proves Johnson had nothing to do with the assassination, that an employee picked up the card and that Johnson had no actual contact with Booth. Shearonink (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. The significance of the card is that Booth left it, either (maybe) in the hope of getting a response that would tell him where Johnson was or would be, or (maybe) as a way of planting the false idea that he and Johnson were connected somehow. The fact that, in the event, Johnson's secretary instead of Johnson himself happened to be the first to check for messages at the front desk (or whatever) has nothing to do with it. EEng 23:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

So. You're saying that the significance of the carte is that Booth left it, if Johnson acknowledged it or if he responded to it is immaterial. Ok. Shearonink (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No, if Johnson had acknowledged or responded, that would have been of great significance; but he didn't. Somebody found it – otherwise how would be know about it? – but the bare fact that it was specifically the secretary, or Johnson himself, or his son, or his wife who did that tells the reader nothing. EEng 02:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You and I disagree on our assessments of the importance of the "carte" information. Shearonink (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but you're not telling me where we disagree or why. We agree that Booth leaving it is significant, and that had Johnson responded that would have been significant. Is the disagreement re the significance of who happened to find the card? If so, why is that significant? EEng 05:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Johnson's secretary picked it up, that Johnson did not, that Johnson did not respond is important - it goes to prove that he did not have a hand in assassinating Lincoln (whom Johnson disagreed with on just about everything - they weren't even in the same political party). I doubt that Booth thought he would get shot in the back in a rural Virginia barn...as vainglorious as his personality was, he probably had grand plans of attempting to take down the entire US Government by implicating Johnson in his scheme. So, yes, the fact that Johnson did not pick up the carte & did not respond to it is important. Also, the fact that Booth thought to leave a carte for Johnson is an aspect of the assassination plot that shows Booth's thought-processes throughout the days leading up to the assassination.Shearonink (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

We're going round and round on this. Yes, Johnson's nonresponse is significant – there's never been any disagreement about that. But who "picked up" the card isn't. It's like fussing about which of Mr. Smith or Mrs. Smith brought in the mail from the mailbox. Who brought the mail in isn't important; what was, or was not, done with it is. Does "picked up" have some special meaning I'm not aware of? EEng 12:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

As it stands now the note/carte-de-visite is mentioned as

Earlier in the day, Booth had stopped by the Kirkwood House and left a note for Johnson: "I don't wish to disturb you. Are you at home? J. Wilkes Booth." One theory holds that Booth was trying to find out whether Johnson was expected at the Kirkwood that night; another holds that Booth, concerned that Atzerodt would fail to kill Johnson, intended the note to implicate Johnson in the conspiracy.

As it stands now, the article's narrative mentions the note but not what happened to it. Did Johnson respond in some way? Did he perhaps meet with Booth? The reader does not know... Shearonink (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

When I became involved with the article [5] it said nothing about Johnson responding or not, or meeting with Booth or not, so I'm in the dark along with the reader. I assume some source comments on those questions, so if someone can scare that up we can include a brief mention. EEng 14:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Number of "Non-fatal injuries"

In the infobox, it says that there were 4 "Non-fatal injuries". However, ereading the article, I count the following:

1. Rathbone jumped from his seat and struggled with Booth, who dropped the pistol and drew a knife, then stabbed Rathbone in the left forearm - 1
2. Powell aimed at Frederick's forehead and pulled the trigger, but the gun misfired so he bludgeoned Frederick unconscious with it - a second injury
3. Powell stabbed at Seward's face and neck, slicing open his cheek - a third
4. Seward's son Augustus and Sergeant George F. Robinson, a soldier assigned to Seward, were attracted by Fanny's screams and received stab wounds in struggling with Powell - 2 more
5. Powell ran downstairs toward the door, where he encountered a telegraph messenger, who he stabbed in the back - yet one more

I count six. Why does the infobox say 4? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

What about the orchestra leader, the guy who held the horse, and Mrs. Lincoln's emotional scars? It's stuff like this that makes some people disdain infoboxes. I suggest we remove the Non-fatal injuries altogether. EEng 13:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Digging through the history, I found this diff, a sequence of 3 edits by ProudIrishAspie, to be designed to include the attack on Seward in the infobox; previously, the infobox itself referred only to the attack in Lincoln himself. Note that the previos revision lists a single non-fatal injury, same as what I quoted above for this part of the article subject. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits about Lincoln's breathing

I think that maybe we should think about including how Lincoln's breathing changed as he lay dying on that bed at Petersen's, not in the apotheosis way of thinking but to keep to the verified/well-sourced facts. Ida Tarbell mentions his breathing several times in her biography (Volume 4, btw, not Volume 1), the pertinent passages can be found on Pages 39-40/Volume 4:

...listening awe-struck to the steady moaning and labored breathing of the unconscious man, which at times could be heard all over the house

...remains the one which Secretary Stanton dictated within sound of the moaning of the dying President

...It was not until daylight that there came a perceptible change. The, the breathing grew quieter and the face became more calm.

Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like trivia to me. I don't see what a note about his change in breathing contributes to the article, but I was just doing recent change patrolling. If consensus of the editors watching here want to insert it, be my guest. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

How Lincoln actually died (as opposed to the 19th C apotheosis/mythologizing images that still somewhat prevail in the literature) seems important to me but I can see your point re: trivia/too much detail. Shearonink (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be included. It would be reliving to some people, especially Lincoln admirers to know that Lincoln went quietly, even in his comatose state.

Copyrighted text removed

The pasted text below by @149.254.234.87: is probably violating copyrights ([6]) Dan Koehl (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Quite. I've removed it, as well as hidden a big chunk of edits containing the copyright violation from this page's history, one of the archives, and EEng's talk page. If that IP user posts this again please remove it immediately and notify an administrator. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The bullet

EEng has removed the bullet from the intro. It was already mentioned in List of Abraham Lincoln artifacts and relics, so I've transferred the reference there. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect. EEng 03:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)