Talk:Assassination of Abraham Lincoln/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

}}

Theres is some debate as to the authenticity of the claim that Booth caught his spur while jumping from the box and subsequently broke his leg. According to testimony from witnesses at the theater, the entire span between Booth jumping from the box until he was out the wings was about 8 seconds. The actor on stage who knew Booth testified that Booth came running right past him at a high speed. Finally, once outside, Booth must have been his broken leg in the stirrup and used it to pull him up on his horse. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duoraven (talk • contribs)

If there is a debate over this, please cite your source. He broke his fibula (the small bone in the lower leg). A broken fibula is painful, but it's not all that hard to walk or run on - especially when a wee bit excited or distracted. I've done it. Unlike the tibia (the large bone in the lower leg), it doesn't carry any significant weight. Rklawton 13:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous inaccuracies in this article, at least according to the entry for John Wilkes Booth. That entry gives a full account of what happened to Booth after the assassination, including his last words and place of death. The 'list of coincidences' between JKF and Lincoln has been debunked many times - the target article even says as much. TarenCapel 07:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think ya meant "JFK".  :-) 24.6.66.193 (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is wiser to try to break the door Nielswik_(talk) 17:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

He had a gun. --YankeeDoodle14 23:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There have been some positive improvements made in this overhaul, but there are three things I would like to bring up. First, I think that an image should go at the top of the article simply because it looks best. Second, one of the heading's should not read "William and Frederick Seward", because several other people were also attacked. Third, many good references have been removed, and no explanation given. There should either be a valid reason stated, or they should be restored. --YankeeDoodle14 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way - either pay more attention or use spellcheck before making you edits. YankeeDoodle14

Methinks you meant "pay more attention or use spellcheck before making YOUR edits."  :-) 24.6.66.193 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has already been assessed as B-class. To obtain any higher rating, it needs to go through one of the formal review processes (such as the independent A-class review in the Military History WikiProject). However, I recommend that it first be subjected to a Peer Review, either through the WikiProject, or in the larger community, as this will probably result in better feedback. Carom 20:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. I still have work I'm planning to do on the article, but I have to find the time to do it. In the meantime hearing other opinions on the article would be helpful. --YankeeDoodle14 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Should that box just be removed and its information incorporated into the article, or should it stay? To see if there's a consensus. I'll leave this up for 24 hours or so before acting. -- YankeeDoodle14 00:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. YankeeDoodle14 00:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Ok, since there are no objections I'll go ahead and get rid of it. YankeeDoodle14 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

24 hours it not enough. Polls usually stay for a week.--Panarjedde 19:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What, are you watching my edits now? At any rate is there an official Wikipedia policy on this that I haven't heard about? As far as I know the guidelines say to be bold, so I was. YankeeDoodle14 22:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Five days or a week is appropriate. It gives folks a chance who don't hit this site every day. What's the rush? The "be bold" comment isn't policy. It's addressed to novice editors unsure of themselves and who need to start somewhere. It's not experienced editors who should know better. Rklawton 23:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, in the future I'll keep that in mind. YankeeDoodle14 23:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear in the "Myths" section which actually are myths and which are not. Are they all inaccurate? I'm fairly certain that's not the case. This could be clarified.XINOPH | TALK 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I originally renamed the section because I hadn't yet been able to check all of the "facts" listed, and because of the very PoV way in which they were written. Since then it appears as if other trivia has been added to the section. I'll try to take the time and figure out which ones are correct and not. YankeeDoodle14 23:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am bothered that so much supportive and descriptive information has been removed...that many generalities have replaced specifics, and that numerous details and followups were removed. That said, whoever is changing this article should consult [email protected] who has been researching this subject for over 24 years.Jimlipka 03:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Jimlipka

Please don't refer to Lewis Powell aka Lewis Paine as Paine and Powell alternately throughout the article. Once mention is made of his alias just stick to Powell it's confusing. Unless some later addition is made that he checked into a hotel under Paine or there is some other such necessary reason to mention his alias just limit it to the conspirators introduction.

In the Original plot section, the play Still Waters Run Deep is mentioned as the play Lincoln was going to attend. The wiki-link is to the

Tox, I fixed this link so that it does not point at the song anymore. However, I tend to agree that this play does not justify its own wiki article (doesn't pass the notability test), so eventually perhaps it should merely be unlinked. At least for now, readers won't be sent to the wrong article.Scott Mingus 12:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

While both of the remaining trivia bits remaining are sourced - the fact that Lincoln's son was saved by Booth's brother - or that the secret service was created a few months after Lincoln's death, for a purpose other than Presidential protection - seem irrelavent to this article. Should they simply be removed? If there are no objections I will take them down a week from now. YankeeDoodle14 03:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never posted on a Talk page before, but I would suggest the bit about Booth's brother saving Lincoln's son remain up. Maybe this is commonly known among Americans, but I'm Canadian and had never heard it before. I thought it was quite interesting, and isn't that what trivia is -- stuff that's unimportant but often fascinating nevertheless? The secret service stuff seems a stretch and could probably go, but I would add here that Rathbone later went on to murder Harris. I know that's mentioned in their respective articles, but maybe it bears repeating here. Again, just one of those weird little side dramas to the main show. Cheers! Inkwell7 19:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is promising, but it has some points that need to be taken care of before attaining GA status:

• The lead asserts that the assassination was one of the last major events of the Civil War. This seems like editorializing, given that the article later states the Civil War had already ended.
• There is a section completely without citations.
• Just curious: in what ways has Booth's note to Johnson been interpreted? Don't tantalize the reader like that!
• The first paragraph of "Abraham Lincoln" needs rewriting; it has three sentences beginning with "The Lincolns".
• The "Impact" section seems very stubby, and doesn't really contain any information about the impact of the assassination on the country. It needs expansion.*I find the trivia note on the Secret Service to be a bit cryptic. Why *was* it established if not in response to the assassination, and what's the point of mentioning it if it wasn't related?

Good luck with the improvements. MLilburne 08:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, I'll try to work on working them into the article. YankeeDoodle14 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do the book references not have ISBNs?--Rmky87 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Because

Wikipedia:Footnotes

doesn't state that they're mandatory. YankeeDoodle14 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice, though. Especially when you consider that "Abraham Lincoln: The War Years IV." was impossible to find on Google. And I've never heard of putting book titles in quotes. Which style is that (nonsarcastically speaking)?--Rmky87 02:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The War Years IV is not the actual title, IV is the volume number of the 4 books in that series. The style I've used so far has been The Chicago Manual of Style, which is why ISBNs have not been used. They might be helpful, but it would require alot of work to add them now that there are so many to go through. YankeeDoodle14 04:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah.--Rmky87 02:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been a bit busy, I will try to reassess the article as soon as possible. Or if some other GA reviewer wants to jump in and pass or fail in the mean time, I will not be offended. MLilburne 12:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has definitely improved considerably. I'm still concerned, however, about a couple of things. First, I'm not sure that you can call the assassination one of the last events of the Civil War given that it happened after (unless my chronology is wrong) the surrender at Appomattox. I see what you're getting at, but different language needs to be used. Second, the section on "Impact" still doesn't live up to the standard of the rest of the article either in detail or in prose style. Did the assassination have an impact beyond causing people to mourn Lincoln personally? I imagine that it did, and the article implies that it did, but no further details are given.

Take another couple of days and see what you can do. Let me know if you have any questions. MLilburne 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'll try to work on the Impact section, I disagree with you about the Civil War being over at that point. Johnston did not surrender his army to Sherman until the 26 of April, Jefferson Davis would not be captured until May 10, and the Confederacy was not formally disolved until June 23. All that said I think it's fair to place the Lincoln Assassination during the Civil War. YankeeDoodle14 22:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Has this situation been resolved, the article has been on hold well over the week limit. Homestarmy 16:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

War Over

In modern times, a war is over as soon as one side goes through the surrendor process. In historical times it could take some time for news of the end of the war to reach all potential participants. I believe the

There was an article in US News and World Report last month detailing how doctors at John Hopkins said that, with Lincoln's wound, he would have survived with twentieth century medical care, although he would most likely have lost the ability to communicate. Does this citation belong somewhere in the article? Chemguy2 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can find the references and fit it in with the rest of the article it would be a good improvement. YankeeDoodle14 04:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.