Talk:Statue of Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial)

I just removed

this category "Category:Neoclassical sculptures" because well, it's not neoclassical. But if you think it is. let's talk. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abraham Lincoln (1920 statue). 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/20090104223348/http://library.gallaudet.edu:80/Library/Deaf_Research_Help/Frequently_Asked_Questions_(FAQs)/OtherMiscellaneous/Lincoln_Memorial_Statue.html to http://library.gallaudet.edu/Library/Deaf_Research_Help/Frequently_Asked_Questions_(FAQs)/OtherMiscellaneous/Lincoln_Memorial_Statue.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial). There is a clear consensus that the current title is subpar, and more support for Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial) as a clearly understandable option than for any other option. bd2412 T 14:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln (1920 statue) → Abraham Lincoln (French, 1920) – My understanding is we disambiguate by artist last name or location when possible. In this case, we should use "French" and the year to disambiguate from Abraham Lincoln (1912 statue), which was designed by the same artist. "Abraham Lincoln (1920 statue)" does not disambiguate by artist or location, or avoid potential confusion with other statues of Lincoln completed in 1920. I suppose Abraham Lincoln (French, Lincoln Memorial) is also an option, but at that point I wonder if Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial) is better. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – The artist's last name makes the title a bit more confusing, if I were to see this entry in Google's search results I would have thought it was about some French guy named Lincoln rather than a statue. Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial) might be a helpful and natural title. --83.240.234.220 (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose French, Support Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial) which seems a better descriptor for reader understandability and findability (and "French" could be confused to mean a statue in France). Thanks Another Believer and 83, perfect solution, and surprising it hasn't been set as a redirect. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I submitted the move request and I'm ok with Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial) as well. Now I'm just wondering what we do with Abraham Lincoln (1912 statue)... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Is there a reason why this RM doesn't include the 1912 statue? Or why we're not using location if "we disambiguate by artist last name or location when possible"? PC78 (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  PC78, I wanted to see how this discussion went before nominating the 1912 statue article as well. Notice editors are starting to suggest Lincoln Memorial as the disambiguator (so by location). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm in favour of disambiguating by location and like Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial) best of the titles that have been suggested so far. However, I'd like to see the contents of Category:Statues of Abraham Lincoln looked at as a whole in one big move request. (NB: Not necessarily for every single page in that category! Titles like Abraham Lincoln: The Hoosier Youth and Lincoln the Mystic are clearly exceptions.) If we go ahead with Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial) and Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln, Nebraska), these will clash with Abraham Lincoln (Brown), Abraham Lincoln Statue (Kentucky), Lincoln Statue (Jefferson, Iowa), etc. These discussions fragmented across multiple talk pages are difficult to keep track of and could have inconsistent results if some users weigh in on one page but not another. Ham II (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Abraham Lincoln (French, 1920) because it incorrectly implies it's in France; Support Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial) because it most clearly and concisely conveys the article topic of all possibilities raised so far, and it correctly implies it's a statue. --В²C ☎ 22:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Oppose losing the year, although location may be superior. Oppose “French” as ambiguous it would have to be “French, D. C.” Or something, those are unfortunate initials. Oppose losing “statue”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguating art by material is also common. This one is marble. Others are bronze. The material is more intrinsic to the work than the location, and is usually a leading defining descriptor, like location possibly superior to year, and better than creator especially when the creator involved a company team. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose change Augustus Saint-Gaudens two classic Lincolns are named “Abraham Lincoln: The Man,” and “Abraham Lincoln: The Head of State”, no dates or locations. Usually (opinion) these two are referred to as the “Standing Lincoln” and the ‘Seated Lincoln” but not here because they’d get confused with DC French’s standing and seated Lincolns. I can remember (or think I can) having this discussion when naming the French works and dates are what we decided on. Let’s keep it that way. However I am not strident on the point and know we will do the right thing. Carptrash (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Move to Statue of Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial), our standard form for public commemorative statuary. The proposed title makes no sense whatsoever. See Talk:Statue of Mahatma Gandhi (Houston) and Talk:Statue of Mahatma Gandhi (San Francisco) for recently closed similar discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• How about the proposed Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial) which provides both the name of that statue and it's notable location? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, because that implies Abraham Lincoln is somehow in the Lincoln Memorial. It's a weird construction. It's a statue. Say it's a statue. What on earth is wrong with that? See also Talk:Mohandas Gandhi (Patel). Once again, it's all about common usage. You wouldn't say "I saw Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Everyone knows what the Lincoln Memorial is, and it in parentheses in Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial) clearly indicates the topic is the statute of Abraham Lincoln. Adding "Statue of" to that title is practically redundant. --В²C ☎ 18:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • And, Necrothesp, people 'do say "Abraham Lincoln" at the "Lincoln Memorial". Also, search for the 2nd occurrence of Lincoln in this article: Outdoor sculpture in Washington, D.C.. It's a perfectly natural construction. --В²C ☎ 18:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Because Wikipedia doesn't do that with artworks. It doesn't list "Painting of..." on every painting. As for someone thinking that Lincoln is living in the Lincoln Memorial, well, I guess weirder things have happened. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Because it doesn't need to. Paintings usually have unique titles. This statue does not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support move to Statue of Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial) as the best available option. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• I support something along the lines of “Lincoln memorial” as the common-sense disambiguator. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don’t support that. A memorial is a place, a collection of multiple things, not just one statue. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Category

@Ham II: Curious, why did you remove Category:Monuments and memorials to Abraham Lincoln in the United States? Were you planning to add a monument/memorial category to the parent Category:Statues of Abraham Lincoln? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

My thinking was that the parent article Lincoln Memorial is the one that belongs in that category, not the statue in the memorial. I didn't think of including the "Statues of..." category in the "Monuments and memorials to Abraham Lincoln" category, so thanks for the suggestion. I think all the "Statues of [Person]" categories should be in the relevant "Cultural depictions of [Person]" and "Monuments and memroials to [Person]" categories, where those exist. Ham II (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ham II, I would think the statue itself is also a monument/memorial. Are you opposed to adding the category back since it's US-specific? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel too strongly about it; the "parent"/"child" situation isn't quite the same with articles as with categories. I've now put it back in Category:Monuments and memorials to Abraham Lincoln in the United States. Ham II (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ham II, Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Title

See also: Statue of Abraham Lincoln

WP:VAMOS has been updated and now says:

"For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo" "Equestrian statue of Fred Foo" or "Bust of Fred Foo" is recommended, unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If further disambiguation is needed, because there is more than one sculpture of the same person with an article, then disambiguation by location rather than the sculptor is usually better."

Should this page be moved to Statue of Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial)? Perhaps stating the obvious here, but we cannot go with Statue of Abraham Lincoln (Washington, D.C.) because there are multiple notable statues of Lincoln in D.C. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, PC78, Ham II, Born2cycle, SmokeyJoe, Carptrash, Necrothesp, IJBall, and SelfieCity: Pinging you all as contributors to the above move discussion. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It should, as I said above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The title of this iconic statue's article is fine as it is right now. Simple, accurate, understandable. There is no reason to add two more words. If this goes forward, and I've yet to understand why these titles of artwork pages are gaining consensus, then let's at least not change it on the artist template (although on the DC landmarks template it would still be 'statue' as a subsection of 'Lincoln Memorial'). And if a change must be made, why not simply 'Abraham Lincoln statue (Lincoln Memorial)' which keeps the essence of the long-standing title. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I've done a quick review of the move discussion (up the page) and I agree that we should stick with the current title. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

A recent RM, such as above, seems like it would have priority over a talk page section. The closer uses the language "a clearly understandable option than for any other option", which included this proposed option. Changing the guideline language (and are we sure there was consensus to change that?) should be taken with a grain of salt and applied with common sense. There are many public statues with iconic names which could fall under this way of applying titles, and how did "public statues" become a thing separate from "statues" exhibited a few feet away from public places, such as inside a museum, sculpture garden, or cultural center? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

They're still public statues as they're in public places. The difference is whether something was intended to be a commemorative portrait (like this one) or simply a work of decorative art (such as Michelangelo's David, since we have no clue what David, if he existed, actually looked like, and the statue is known universally simply as Michelangelo's David). This has already been fully discussed elsewhere. And to address your "iconic names" point, if there is already a common name (e.g. Nelson's Column) then that is what we use. There is nothing dogmatic here. Purely common sense. "Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial)" suggests that Lincoln himself is within the Lincoln Memorial! It's a frankly bizarre title, in my honest opinion. This is a statue of him, and in the real world the common terminology for such a commemorative statue without another "iconic" name is "Statue of Foo". -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying that all statues in museums fall under the 'Statue of...' wording? All the more reason to think it over again and overturn this recent renaming push. I enjoy the viewpoint that readers would think that "Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial)" means that this article is about Abe Lincoln himself wandering around inside the Memorial. In the RM I mentioned that stranger things have happened. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying there's a distinction between commemorative portrait statues and statues merely intended to be works of art. As I would have thought was blatantly obvious. That's why VAMOS says "portrait sculptures of individuals in public places". It's quite specific. And that's what this is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Your comment above started out "They're still public statues as they're in public places" which I thought was referring to my concern that this new language applies to statues in museums. If I misread that, my apology. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It does apply to statues in museums (or anywhere else) if these were originally made as commemorative portrait statues. If they were made purely as artworks then we would take them on a case-by-case basis. For instance, I wouldn't suggest moving David (Michelangelo) or The Thinker, as these are the common names. What the new update to VAMOS is doing is only applying WP:COMMONNAME, which is usually "Statue of Foo" for these works unless there is a more commonly-used name. It's not revolutionary. It's just trying to eliminate the rather strange exception to COMMONNAME that some editors made for these statues. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial) → Statue of Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial) – WP:VAMOS has been updated and now says: "For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo" "Equestrian statue of Fred Foo" or "Bust of Fred Foo" is recommended, unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If further disambiguation is needed, because there is more than one sculpture of the same person with an article, then disambiguation by location rather than the sculptor is usually better." Since there are other statues of Lincoln in Washington, D.C., we must use a more specific location. This move would make the page more consistent with entries in Category:Statues of Abraham Lincoln. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, the common name of this statue is Abraham Lincoln. It is the most famous statue of Lincoln, known far and wide (and from afar and awide). This one should fall in the same category as David, Moses, etc. as iconic statues which need no further extension of their name. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The current title implies that a person named Abraham Lincoln is in the Lincoln Memorial or in fact is the Lincoln Memorial, which is of course nonsense! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• So you think that readers coming to the present title believe that Abraham Lincoln is making an extended personal appearance inside the Lincoln Memorial? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• No, I just think it's a stupid title! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Randy Kryn is correct in that "Abraham Lincoln" is the common name of this statue, so quoting – ...unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME – applies to this statue. Also seems to be its official name, as well. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The title is precise as it is. It seems fleetingly unlikely that anyone will be confused that this title refers to the depiction housed in the identified landmark. BD2412 T 19:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support There is a move afoot to name all statue article the same, that is to say Statue of.......... I think it is a good idea. We all might know who Abrahaam Lincoln is but a 12 year old in India or China or Botswana probably does not. Call a spade a spade, call a statue a statue. Carptrash (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", except probably in this case. A world-famous named universally recognizable statue sitting in the most prominently placed national memorial to a fallen American president may be lumped in with the statue of the same person down the road in a neighborhood park. The move afoot seems misguided if it is designed to gobble up things like this, and although I fear for other named works of art, such as the Statue of a guy thinking, someone once said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself (said by my friend, let's call him Ishmael, while in a drunken stupor). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• What Randy Kryn said, and whatever "move afoot" there is, it must still yield to Wikipedia policy! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom unless compelling evidence is found for Abraham Lincoln as the WP:COMMONAME. For this sculpture, the sources seem to be mixed. The Smithsonian's database explicitly states "Title: Lincoln Memorial, (sculpture)". The National Park Service's official website for the memorial uses Lincoln Statue for its main page on the statue, and "statue of Lincoln" or "statue of Abraham Lincoln" elsewhere, but so far I haven't found a single italicized Abraham Lincoln there. [2] Another source cited in the article (the Gallaudet University one) goes for Lincoln Memorial Statue. Carptrash said some time ago on WT:VAMOS that he had been looking through books on Daniel Chester French to find the title he most often used for his various statues of Lincoln, and that that title was Lincoln.

It's for situations like this that the dedicated VAMOS guideline for public portrait sculptures was created; there wouldn't be the same mixed usage in the sources for The Thinker or Michelangelo's David. Applying the article naming convention to French's statue and not to those of Michelangelo or Rodin is in no way a negative commentary on the importance or artistic merit of French's work. Ham II (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support per NC guidelines on statues. "Abraham Lincoln", even if it's the real official and common name of the statue of Abraham Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial, is a needlessly ambiguous title for an article and interferes with search autocomplete. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - looking at the current title, I would have absolutely no idea what it is referring to, and I have seen the statue with my own two eyes. Red Slash 23:26, 4 April 2020 (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.

Lincoln's hands

User:EEng has reinserted the following text, which discusses the possibility that the sculptor intended for Lincoln's hands to form the letters "A" and "L" in sign language:

Legend
A legend is that Lincoln is shown using sign language to represent his initials, with his left hand shaped to form an "A" and his right hand to form an "L". The National Park Service denies the story, calling it an urban legend. However, historian Gerald Prokopowicz writes that, while it is not clear that sculptor Daniel Chester French intended for Lincoln's hands to be formed into sign language versions of his initials, it is possible that French did intend it, because he was familiar with American Sign Language, and he would have had a reason to do so, i.e., to pay tribute to Lincoln for having signed the federal legislation giving Gallaudet University, a university for the deaf, the authority to grant college degrees. The National Geographic Society's publication, On This Spot: Pinpointing the Past in Washington, D.C., states that French had a son who was deaf, and the sculptor was familiar with sign language. Historian James A. Percoco has observed that, although there are no extant documents showing that French carved Lincoln's hands to represent the letters "A" and "L" in American Sign Language, "I think you can conclude that it's reasonable to have that kind of summation about the hands."

References

None of the sources cited can confirm there is any truth to this; that the sculptor intentionally designed the hands for this purpose. Moreover, the Park Service writes:

• Question: "Is Lincoln making the American Sign Language (ASL) signs for his initials?"
• Answer: "Not really, but that doesn't stop people from wondering."

To support the speculation about Lincoln's hands, two non-notable authors are cited, who make an effort to explain why it may be possible that this was the sculptor's intent. While certainly not a fringe theory, it is unencyclopedic speculation, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. At the least, the section should be trimmed to one sentence. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• The section seems to be adequately referenced so should be kept. That Park Service Q and A which answers "Not really" is noncommittal, coming in just a little above "maybe", and the Park Service source does not use the words "urban legend" so that should be trimmed. Source's show that French's son was deaf and French knew sign language, so the speculation, as pointed out in the sources, is not without basis. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• First of all, my apologies because I was on mobile, and thought the entire section was being removed. The fact that the Park Service addresses the question, even if to (half-heartedly) dismiss it, makes it almost certain that discussion of it belongs in the article. Then the question is: what discussion belongs, exactly, what sources to use, etc. Give me a bit to review the sources myself. EEng