Talk:Assassination of Abraham Lincoln/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Watery bandage

I found this term in the article but could not find more information about what a "watery bandage" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bliz (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln's Chair at Ford Theater

I took this picture today at The Henry Ford Museum of the chair Abraham Lincoln was shot in at Ford's Theater. I thought it might be a good addition to this article and wanted to get feedback on it. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lincoln_chair.jpg Jmanigold (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading the picture. I think it would make a nice addition. Ward3001 (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As an experienced editor, I helped this user (a personal friend) upload, tag properly, etc. I think this would make a great addition to this article, but my opinion might be seen as biased and I accept that. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN.

The following issues all need inline citations. The statements may be questioned by a reader for their verifiability, or may be a quote that always need inline citations directly after the statement.

1. "Furious at the prospect, Booth changed to a plan for assassination."
2. "President Lincoln had also been nervous due to dreams which concerned his own death."
3. "Those were the last words ever spoken by Abraham Lincoln." This is probably common sense, but could use a reference just in case.
4. "While on the run, Booth would claim that he had broken his leg when his horse— a high-spirited mare—tripped and rolled over on him"
5. "Before running outside, Powell exclaimed, "I'm mad! I'm mad!" and untied his horse from the tree where Herold left it and rode away."
6. "The fact that they were tried by a military tribunal provoked criticism from both Edward Bates and Gideon Welles, who believed that a civil court should have presided."
7. "The trial lasted for about seven weeks, with 366 witnesses testifying."

Other issues:

1. Expand the lead more to better summarize the article. It should touch on each of the sections within the article, so for example, make sure to include information about the sentencing/executions of the conspirators. See WP:LEAD for more guidelines.
2. Image:John w booth.jpg — This image needs the license tag it is using to be replaced at Wikimedia Commons as stated on the image's page.
3. "John Wilkes Booth's initial plot was to kidnap Lincoln and take him south, to hold him hostage and force his government to resume its earlier policy of exchanging prisoners." Mention when this was supposed to have taken place/was thought of. A few days before the assassination; a few months?
4. Expand the information about the plot to assassinate Lincoln, including more information about the preparations for doing it, how he found fellow conspirators, etc.
5. "Atzerodt wanted nothing to do with it, saying he had signed up for a kidnapping, not a killing. Booth told him he was too far in to back out." Reword these two sentences, it doesn't sound encyclopedic.
6. "This message has been interpreted in many different ways throughout the years." This is said, and then only one theory is given. Mention another if possible.
7. "He entered a narrow hallway between Lincoln's box and the theatre's balcony, and barricaded the door." What did he barricade the door with?
8. "The Lincoln Memorial was opened in 1922." Expand on the Lincoln memorial with a few more sentences about it.
9. Include information about the international reaction about the assassination. Were some for the assassination/against it? Again, include any relevant information you think that is notable.
10. In the article there is no mention of Lincoln's final few hours before death. Add a section including information about the doctors who worked on his body, the moving of his body to the William Petersen house, and his eventual death (along with any other relevant information you think necessary for inclusion). Some information is briefly mentioned in the intro, but not in the article itself.
11. This isn't necessary for GA, but consider adding a "further reading" list of several notable books about the assassination. This will help readers to continue their research on the topic if interested.

Overall, the article was an interesting read and it's great there are a lot of free images. Many of these should be easy and quick to fix, while some of the expansions may take a little while. If the above issues are addressed, I believe the article will meet the broad and verifiable requirements of the GA criteria. Consider using reliable websites for adding citations for the above statements if books are not readily available. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects/task forces so that the workload can be shared. This article documents an important event in American history, and the above changes will definitely improve the article for the many readers that probably look at this page each day. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps review: failed

Since none of the issues I raised were addressed, I have delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the issues are fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Godboldt?

I did a Google search for this man, "proven despite extraordinary evidence to the contrary" to be the true assassin of Abe Lincoln an found precisely three hits. Two of which point to the same blog. At this point, I've deleted the unsourced sentence. I guess you have to be a BETTER man than Abe Lincoln to not have your Wiki biography vandalized in such a manner... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.66.165 (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Motive?

I was wandering wikipedia read this article; I have two questions which the article did not answer:

1. Motive. Booth evidently thought Lincoln was a tyrant. Could his rationale and the background be elaborated upon more?

2. The narrative of the assassination goes from Booth barricading a door in the hallway and picks things up again with him jumping onto the stage. There is very little information about the critical intervening time period except that the Major fought with Booth at some point during this period. Rearden9 (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this picture adds a bit to the article, but it was removed

Apotheosis. I think the picture here adds a bit to the article -- showing graphicly how Lincoln was treated after his death as someone almost to be adored like a saint. I don't see a particularly good spot in the article for this picture (a fuller treatment of the public reaction after Lincoln's death would be worthwhile on this page), so including a picture in the vast white space in the references section seems like a minor improvement to the article. Ward3001 disagrees. I'd like to see reasons why removing the picture improves the article. -- Noroton (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it adds anything. Discussion of the public reaction might be appropriate, but metaphorical illustration with art is not encyclopedic. The article is not about artistic interpretation. It is about the facts of the Lincoln assassination.

Beyond the issue of whether it should be included, it was placed quite inappropriately. Images are only to be used to illustrate discussion in the text of the article. They are not to stand alone with no supporting discussion. There is no text discussing any issue in the References section, nor should there be. Please see WP:MOS and WP:MOSBIO. Ward3001 (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

1. metaphorical illustration with art is not encyclopedic I don't know what you mean by this. Please explain. What is "metaphorical" here? Why do you say the image is not encyclopedic? 2. Images are only to be used to illustrate discussion in the text of the article. I followed your link to WP:MOS and found nothing there that says that. At WP:LAYOUT#Images, there is this passage: Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in. This vaguely implies that it might not be "ideal" to put a picture in a reference section, but it seems doubtful that putting pics in ref sections was what editors had in mind when that passage was added to the layout guideline, and this might well be the common-sense exception. I've certainly put many pics in reference sections, and I can't find anything wrong with it. 3. They are not to stand alone with no supporting discussion. Again, please provide a specific passage in a policy or guideline. -- Noroton (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The image depicts Lincoln and Washington in the afterlife. On a factual level, it is speculation by one artist. No part of the article is about the afterlife or whether Lincoln and Washington met in the afterlife. On that level, therefore, it is irrelevant to the facts pertaining to Lincoln's assassination. It is appropriate for an article or section of another article about artistic illustration (as you have done at Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln), but not here. Just because an image portrays Lincoln does not mean it applies equally to every article related to Lincoln. If your argument is that it illustrates the public outpouring of affection toward Lincoln after his death, then you have made a metaphorical leap (not to mention original research) of symbolizing with art the facts of how the public reacted. At that level it is metaphorical, and this is not an article on metaphor or art; it is an article on the assassination Lincoln. I could use your rationale and add almost any image related to Lincoln but unrelated to the facts of the article. For example, I could add an image of Lincoln in his boyhood and argue that it is relevant to his assassination as a symbol because subsequent to his death stories of his boyhood contributed to his status as an iconic American hero. That's quite a strain of logic, as is adding Apotheosis to "symbolize" the public's affection toward Lincoln
As for your request for "a specific passage", you yourself provided one passage that makes a point about both relevance and placement: "relevant to the sections they are located in". What is the relevance of Apotheosis to the References section of the article? Does it illustrate something about the references? Here's another statement from Wikipedia policies on images: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." The important words there are "significantly relative". Not just marginally relative or symbolically relative, but significantly relative. Apotheosis is, at best, only marginally relevant to the facts discussed in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your position (please just correct me if I'm wrong):

1. You're saying the public reaction to the assassination of Lincoln is irrelevant to the article? Actually, I found a passage about that in the article. That passage could be significantly increased without undue WP:WEIGHT.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say that? Please quote my words where I said that. I said that a metaphorical depiction of the public's reaction is inappropriate because this article is not about metaphorical interpretation of the facts related to the public's reaction. Ward3001 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

2. You're saying that since any image must be relevant to the section it appears in, no image could ever be put in a reference section unless, somehow, the image was relevant to the references for the article? The WP:LAYOUT section I quoted uses the word "ideally" for a reason. There is no prohibition.

OK, if a consensus emerges to include the image (which has not yet happened), go ahead and put it there and see how long it stays. If there is a consensus to include it, I'll leave it in that location but I can almost promise you that it will be moved. I've seen it happen with even less objection to relevance than this. I have never, ever seen an image in a Reference section because there is no image that is relevant to a Reference section. Ward3001 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

3. You're saying an artist depicting Lincoln in heaven is meant to be a factual statement rather than an artistic expression of an artist? And it's meant to be a factual statement about Lincoln and Washington meeting in the afterlife? Even if it were, Wikipedia allows us to report on the opinions of others. See WP:NPOV.

Again, don't put words in my mouth. I have no problem with reporting a well-sourced opinion, but it is your opinion that Apotheosis symbolizes what the public felt, and that's unsourced, original research. Ward3001 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

4. You're saying that if we include the picture because it provides an example of the public reaction to Lincoln's death, whether or not we say that in the article space, we are engaging in WP:NOR? I think we're engaging in editorial judgment.

Yes I'm saying it is original research (see my comment above), your original research. I have no idea what you mean by "we're engaging in editorial judgment". We're engaging in expressing your opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

5. You're saying we can only include artwork in an article if the article itself is about art? Let me ask you, do you think that's a common practice in Wikipedia? I dont believe it is. I think contrary examples abound.

Putting words in my mouth again. Give me a quote of my words that says "we can only include artwork in an article if the article itself is about art". I said an editor (without support from a reliable source) cannot make an interpretation of what an artistic creation represents, especially in an article that is not about art. Ward3001 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We often have coverage of the contemporary and historical reaction to a subject in the article about that subject. It is often thought of as an important element of the subject. It seems to me that the public reaction to Lincoln's death, immediately afterward and over time, is an important aspect of this subject. As a matter of fact, as I look over the article again, I find this passage in the "Abraham Lincoln assassination#Aftermath section:

"public reaction to Lincoln's death, immediately afterward and over time, is an important aspect of this subject": I agree with that. I don't agree with your imposing your point of view that the image represents the public's reaction. That is the primary point that you (so far) fail to understand. Ward3001 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

he was mourned around the country. As a result of his assassination, there were attacks in many cities against those who expressed support for Booth.[65] On the Easter Sunday after Lincoln's death, clergymen around the country praised him (Lincoln) in their sermons.[66]

There are already pictures enough in that section, but there is no policy/guideline-based reason for not including this picture in the references section. It's common sense that if the picture itself is not bad for any other reasons, the article is improved and the readers are served better if we have the picture in a spot where there would otherwise just be a lot of white space. It isn't as if the article is too long. Please reconsider. -- Noroton (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)minor change in 1st sentence of last paragraph -- Noroton (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"there is no policy/guideline-based reason for not including this picture in the references section": As I said, if a consensus emerges to include the image, try it there and see how long it stays there. Ward3001 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Plan to add verifiable text

In the not too distant future, I plan to add some verifiable text related to the subject of this article. I also plan to provide ample references for the added text. It has been pointed out to me that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. Please let me know if there are any problems with adding veriafiable text. Enjoy! Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to challenge anything, but I think for the sake of other editors, it might help if you include the text here. Then people can express an informed opinion, if they have one. "Verifiable text" is a little vague. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I do intend to provide the text for comment prior to adding it to the article. However, could you first provide me with the link to the Wikipedia guidelines specifying what type of information is typically important enough to include in an encyclopedia of this type. I would greatly appreciate the assistance. I would not want to waste time with the salesman who sold the assassin those slippery shoes. Thank you so much. Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I can only speculate that what you intend to add is "Booth had purchased the horse from the stables of James Pumphrey earlier that day and had been warned by Pumphrey that the horse was skittish and needed to be held" since you have not provided the text, so I'm not quite sure how to select a guideline. General guidelines about notability include WP:N (and a variety of links to more details on that page) and Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments. Those guidelines, as with many of Wikipedia's guidelines, are somewhat subject to interpretation. In cases where editors disagree about how to interpret a guideline, WP:CON generally applies; it is more than a guideline; it is a policy. Also, the statement "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" is considered a minimum threshold. Verifiability, although necessary, is not necessarily sufficient. But I think the most important thing is for you to present the information here that you wish to add, then give it a few days to see if there are responses. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Previous statement retracted and I no longer intend to add anything. (I do not feel anything written was out of line. I just want to add materials within the stated guidelines and be left alone to do so. But the following user makes a good point.) Mkpumphrey (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Mkpumphrey (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would ask that everyone reads WP:Civil or at least refresh our memories as such. Although your discussion has not gotten out of hand by most standards, I just wanted to give a friendly reminder to all who are involved. There is nothing worse than getting steamed about other editors editing policies and we sometimes forget that this may be the virtual world, but there are real people on the other side of our screens as well as real people in our own lives who need our attention too. Taking a few days or even just a few hours away may help cool emotions.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am once again planning to add material. I have looked at other articles to place this information and this article is really the best place. In short, under the "Conspirators' trial" section I plan to add the names of various persons rounded up as possibly being being part of the plot. The list includes the owner of Ford's theater and several others ... even the poor guy who rented a horse to John Wilkes Booth only to have the assassin later shoot the horse in a swamp.

The reference document I plan to use is: Twenty Days, by Dorothy Meserve Kunhardt and Philip B. Kunhardt, ISBN 1-55521-975-6. Comments? Mkpumphrey (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I plan to incorporate information from the following text ... which is from Twenty Days, page 186. "Though from the start Booth was known for certain to be the murderer, in the wild turmoil of the crime's aftermath scores of suspected accomplices were arrested and thrown into prison. When these were finally winnowed to the eight prisoners -- seven men and a woman -- considered guilty enough to try in court, Stanton invented an unusual and spectacular torture for them. 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 as a preventive to conversation. Hood number eight was never used on Mrs. Surratt, the owner of the boarding house where the conspirators had laid their plans, Stanton knew the furor of indignation that would cause. 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, and even the prison doctor began to fear for the conspirators' sanity inside those heavy hoods laced so tight around their necks. But Stanton would not allow them to be removed, nor the rigid wrist irons, nor the anklets, each of which was connected to an iron ball weighing seventy-five pounds." (There is more ... ) Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(More ... from page 187 ... ) "The winnowing process had been a slow one, for the Old Capitol Prison and wooden annex, Carroll Prison, were bulging with suspects ordered locked up by Stanton. Louis J. Weichmann, a boarder in Mrs. Surratt's house, was one of those apprehended. Weeks before, he had informed the War Department of the kidnaping plot but Stanton paid no heed. John T. Ford, the owner of the theatre, who had been in Richmond, was imprisoned for forty days. The other two Ford brothers who had been in Washington were also arrested and jailed. All the people who were discovered to have had the slightest contact with Booth or Herold on their flight into Maryland and Virginia were put behind bars -- James Pumphrey, the Washington livery stable owner from whom Booth had hired his horse; John M. Lloyd, the drunken innkeeper who had rented Mrs. Surratt's Maryland tavern in December when she had moved thirteen miles north to open a Washington boarding house and who had given Booth and Herold carbines and rope and whiskey at midnight; known Confederate sympathizers Samuel Cox (see Rich Hill, Maryland (historic site)) and Thomas A. Jones, whose slaves set the government on Booth and Herold's tracks, though it was not known that they had harbored the guilty pair for the better part of a week; one Dr. Richard Stewart, who had given them a meal but refused to have them sleep in his house; a Mrs. [Elizabeth] Quesenberry, aho had also fed them on their flight; three young Confederate soldiers, [Absolom R.] Bainbridge, [William] Jett, and [Mortimer B.] Ruggles, who had helped the murderer and Herold across the Rappahannock River and let them ride with them on their horses the few miles south to the Garrett farm." Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(From page 188) "As the government dragnet reached out further and further, a Washington policeman arrested and brought back from Philadelphia a Portuguese sea captain named Celestina on information that he was deeply implicated in the assassination. Wilkes Booth's brother, the great Junius Brutus Booth, who was fulfilling an engagement in Cincinatti, was arrested and hurried by train to the Old Capitol Prison. Francis Tumblety, the herb doctor, who was believed to be the leader in the yellow fever plot, and had been attending the Springfield funeral of "my dear friend President Lincoln" with as sad a face as the other mourners, was captured in St. Louis and brought back to Carroll Prison. Suspicion was at such a high pitch in washington that even a woman who received a pass to visit a friend in Old Capitol Prison was indignant and frantic to find herself led to a cell when she was ready to end her call." Mkpumphrey (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Added [First Names] (above) based on Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer by James L. Swanson. Mkpumphrey (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Under the "Conspirators' trial" heading I plan to add the following: "In the turmoil that followed the assassination, scores of suspected accomplices were arrested and thrown into prison. All the people who were discovered to have had anything to do with the assassination or anyone with the slightest contact with Booth or Herold on their flight were put behind bars. Among the imprisoned was Louis J. Weichmann, a boarder in Mrs. Surratt's house. Weeks before, he had informed the War Department of the kidnaping plot. John T. Ford was imprisoned for forty days. Ford was the owner of the theatre and he had been in Richmond at the time of the assassination. The two other Ford brothers were in Washington and were also arrested and jailed. James Pumphrey was jailed. He was the Washington livery stable owner from whom Booth had hired his horse. John M. Lloyd was jailed. He was the drunken innkeeper who had rented Mrs. Surratt's Maryland tavern in December when she had moved thirteen miles north to open a Washington boarding house. Before they fled, Lloyd had given Booth and Herold carbines, rope, and whiskey. Samuel Cox and Thomas A. Jones were jailed. Both were known Confederate sympathizers and harbored the guilty pair for the better part of a week. Dr. Richard Stewart was jailed. Stewart had given Booth and Herold a meal but refused to have them sleep in his house. Mrs. Elizabeth Quesenberry was jailed. She too had fed Booth and Herold on their flight. Absolom R. Bainbridge, William Jett, and Mortimer B. Ruggles were jailed. All three were young Confederate soldiers who helped Booth and Herold across the Rappahannock River. They then let the two ride with them on their horses the few miles south to the Garrett farm. All the above and more were rounded up, imprisoned, and released. Ultimately, the suspects were narrowed down to eight prisoners -- seven men and a woman." Reference: Twenty Days, by Dorothy Meserve Kunhardt and Philip B. Kunhardt, ISBN 1-55521-975-6. Comments? Mkpumphrey (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, I am done. Text has been added and referenced. Mkpumphrey (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there is always this obituary from The Evening Star, Washington, D.C., March 16, 1906, page 9

"James W. Pumphrey, long a prominent and active businessman of Washington, died this morning at 8:50 o'clock at his residence 477 C Street after a short illness. Mr. Pumphrey was a native of Washington, born here September 12, 1832, and lived here all his life. He was connected with the livery business for many years and an important incident in his career for which he was in no way responsible, was the circumstance that from his stables on C Street, N.W., John Wilkes Booth rented a horse prior to the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln and on which he afterward escaped into Maryland where he met his death. The spurs which John Wilkes Booth wore on this expedition were borrowed from Mr. Pumphrey, although the latter had no knowledge of the purpose for which the assassin intended to employ them. For some time after this tragic event, Mr. Pumphrey was under surveillance and was not relieved until after the trial and conviction of the parties who were accused of association with John Wilkes Booth in the assassination. At the end of these trying times, Mr. Pumphrey who had already been acquitted by the courts was also acquitted in popular estimation and continued for many years in his original business. He was active, energetic and very charitable in each and every walk of life. He had during life many friends which he continued to hold until his end."

"While Mr. Pumphrey was identified in a striking manner with the great closing tragedy of the Civil War, he always held, and his views were believed, that the idea of assassination arose in the mind of Booth alone, and that all of the others who were accused of participation in that sad event were influenced by that peculiar and erratic character. He exhibited the deepest sympathy for Mrs. Surratt whom he regarded as wholly innocent of participation and it is said he sat mounted on his horse for hours waiting in the hope of having the privilege of carrying President Andrew Johnson's reprieve to Mrs. Surratt then imprisoned and afterward executed at the arsenal in this city."

"Mr. Pumphrey often told his friends that his only connection with the Lincoln conspiracy was that he lost his horse. Booth had taken from the Pumphrey Stables the horse which was afterward killed by Harold, Booth's companion after escaping into Maryland to avoid detection and capture. Mr. Pumphrey was for some time under arrest, in common with almost everybody that knew anything about or had any possible connection with this incident of American history but as stated he was at the time and has since been absolved of all connection with that lamentable affair." Mkpumphrey (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Pointless detail" or useful information

Vidor has converted a bulleted list with some brief explanation to running text with much of the detail deleted, here. I disagree with the change for two reasons. The detail is interesting, useful, and well-sourced. And the bulleted list is a superior format for clarity of presentation. Ward3001 (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• And you are wrong on both counts. The bulleted list is ugly. The detail, for that matter, is pointless and boring. The article is not improved by noting that someone who gave Booth and Herold a meal was thrown in jail for a while. And if you MUST have this detail in the article, that is the wrong place to put it. If you want to talk about some lady that gave them food or the three soldiers that were on the ferry with them, you should put that information in the section on Booth and Herold's flight. That section, should you wish it, could be expanded and divided into subsections--"Booth and Herold arrive at the Mudd House", "Hideout by the river", "Caught at Garrett Farm". Vidor (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "wrong". I simply have a different opinion from your opinion. Please tone down the rhetoric and wait to see if a consensus emerges here. Ward3001 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

List is ugly, pointless, boring. Includes minute details about the events of Booth's flight that add little to the article and add absolutely nothing to that section. If we must have it--and not everything in Swanson's book should be here too--it should be in the proper section, the section on the flight. Vidor (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, let's wait to see if there are other opinions on both of the issues. There's no need to repeat the same arguments again. Ward3001 (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Have to say I agree with Ward3001 here. Information seems better in the 'Conspirators' trial' section and I prefer the bulleted approach. Normally I'd say running text was better but I think a list aids readability in this case. I've not contributed much to the article (I've just got it watched so I can help with the repeated vandalism) so this is an impartial opinion - no offence meant Vidor, it's clear that you're very knowledgable on the subject and have done far more than me to make this a decent atricle. Cavie78 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be in the 'conspirator's trial' section? They were not conspirators, and they were not tried. Vidor (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The section may or may not need to be retitled. But it can still (and should) exist as a separate section. By the way, I'll add that I also am fairly impartial here as almost all of my edits on the article have been reversion of vandalism. Ward3001 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(Unindenting) Or, far better, the information could be deleted or moved. I ask again why material on Booth escape and flight is not in the section on Booth's escape and flight. Vidor (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You've made point about deleting or moving quite clearly (several times). Let's see if others agree or disagree. Ward3001 (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Okey doke. So there's no need to ask again why material that is not about the conspirators and not about the trial is parked in the "Conspirators' trial" section? Vidor (talk)

I think everyone who reads this understands what you are saying. Making the same argument over and over does nothing to change consensus. Let the consensus process play out. Beating us over the head with your argument accomplishes nothing. Ward3001 (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." Vidor (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of others who read the immediately preceding article linked above, it is a stylistic guideline, not a Wikipedia policy. Ward3001 (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Manual of Style....This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article." Vidor (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; determining a common sense exception is precisely the reason we are having this discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason I'm having this discussion is to show that the article as I edited it is more in keeping with Wikipedia's style guide. Vidor (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

We know. Ward3001 (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this is why the information belongs where it is: "scores of suspected accomplices were arrested and thrown into prison" The focus of the information is that they were arrested and tried for having the slightest contact with Booth and/or Herold not the 'help' they gave. Hope that makes sense! Cavie78 (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rathbone

Does anyone know whether the statement that was in the article "Major Henry Rathbone saw Booth enter the box, and asked him his business" is not consistent with the Swanson source? If it is in Swanson, the statement should not be entirely deleted, although it may need to be modified to discuss a conflicting source if one exists. Ward3001 (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As I told you on my talk page, I cannot access Swanson's book until I go home this evening but the assertion that Rathbone and Booth exchanged words is factually incorrect. Steers is a source that is available on the Internet via Google Books, as I told you. If you would like further evidence, you may go here, access the book "We Saw Lincoln Shot" via Google Books, and go to Henry Rathbone's deposition. Specifically, page 42, when he specifically describes the moment of the shooting and does not mention chatting with Booth. As I told you on my talk page I believe you are confusing Rathbone with Lincoln's valet, who did in fact take Booth's card and grant him entry into the box. Vidor (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha. I can access the book via Amazon Online Reader. Booth enters the door on page 42 and Swanson describes the events that follow thereafter, interspersed with speculation on what might have happened if Booth had missed and whatnot. No mention of Booth and Rathbone chatting. Vidor (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the completely incorrect assertion that Rathbone saw Booth enter the box and talked to him was reinserted into the article. This is unfortunate. Vidor (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For yet another source, see American Brutus: John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln Conspiracies, page 10: "Rathbone had not seen Booth enter the box." Vidor (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The standard account of the sequence of events in the shooting makes it seem unlikely Booth would have been yacking with Rathbone and then shot Lincoln in the back of the head. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I left the anon editor who added it a level one warning about adding unsourced information. Ward3001 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unit conversion

Under the topic "Aftermath" one can read:

"...as his body was transported 1,700 miles (2,700 km) through New York..." (My emphasis)

1,700 miles is not 2,700 km, infact it's a bit more: 2 735,8848 km. As the length in miles is noted with three decimal digits (I don't know what it's called in English) I suggest that the length in km is rounded down to 2,73 km. Please share your thoughts regarding this. /Tense (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I found what I was talking about: Significant_figures. If 1,700 miles is rounded it is correct to say that 1,700 miles is 2,700 km. /Tense (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln Assination Conspiracy Theories

I was watching the American Experience PBS show on Lincoln's assassination last night (I guess it is timely, being the day before Good Friday). I was somewhat surprised by the details about Booth's recording notes in a diary while he was hiding during the aftermath. I went to look for those notes and found that they had been released as a book. Interestingly, I found several web pages and books which recount conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination much like the theories surrounding JFK's. I came to wikipedia to look at a bit more info on Lincoln assassination conspiracy theories and was surprised to see that there was no mention of them at all in this article. This is quite surprising since there is work on this subject. Not only that, coverage of assassination conspiracy theories does have Wikipedia precedent: there is a section of the JFK assassination article regarding conspiracy theories as well as an entire article devoted solely to that subject.

Having skimmed through this talk page, I noted the arguments about the banker conspiracy above and am in no way taking the point of view that this should be significantly recounted in this article without more solid sources. However, it seems to me that to omit the fact that there are conspiracy theories surrounding Lincoln's assassination persisting to this day that are akin to those of JFK's is historically short sighted and does a disservice to this article. To omit that they exist is de facto POV because it only gives air to the "official" textbook explanation of the assassination (for the danger in that, I encourage you to read Lies My Teacher Told Me). Missing from this article are even the theories that were contemporaneous to the assassination such as the Grand Confederate Theory

I am not suggesting that there needs to be significant detail concerning these theories in this page but they should be mentioned as a jumping off point. A jumping off point, for example, for an article on Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy Theories like the one for JFK's or perhaps for some present or future historian to see that these theories exist and uncover something that allows us to more fully understand or even rewrite history? In addition to that, these theories exist for a reason. As Robert Dallek pointed out at the end of his book on JFK, An Unfinished Life, the result of people being so nonplussed that a persona so much larger than life could be felled by a single man is the generation of conspiracy theories as a collective coping mechanism. The parallel to Lincoln's assassination needs not be drawn.

I am suggesting that a separate section be created regarding conspiracy theories. Interested in comments as I'm not going to start editing the page and finding references if it is just going to be reverted. Vargob (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to bring to the attention of those more qualified than I of some deleterious changes to the article...

Since I not American, or an expert in American history, I feel myself unqualified to re-edit this article, but it appears that the name "Phil Matthews" has been bulk replaced over the correct name "John Wilkes Booth" in the article, and thus damaged the meaning and links associated.

Thanks!

Mike

Mikec2048 (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, the change made by the IP vandal was reverted. --J.Mundo (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Title

Shouldn't the article be titled "Abraham Lincoln's Assassination" or "The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln"? I don't like how "Abraham Lincoln assassination" functions grammatically... JRNorbergé (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Autopsy, bullet recovery

A History Channel special "Stealing Lincoln's Body" mentions that during his autopsy his brain was removed and weighed, because people thought it would be of abnormal size/weight. It turned out to weigh about the same as an average brain. The bullet fell out of the brain as they placed it in the scale. There's no mention of the bullet or of the autopsy in the article. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what point you are making. The autopsy of President Lincoln, was flawed, and terribly unreliable. As for the bullet, it was absolutely recovered, and can be found on display at The National Musuem of Health and Medicine. Irshgrl500 (talk · contribs) 12:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Flow of events

I presume that this has been discussed already, but I cannot find it in the talk page. At the moment we have some headings in the following order:

• 3 Booth shoots President Lincoln
• 4 Powell attacks Secretary Seward
• 5 Atzerodt fails to attack Andrew Johnson
• 6 Death of President Lincoln

I know that the attempts on Seward and Johnson happened at almost the same time as Lincoln but it somewhat disrupts the flow when the most important event of the day is cut in half by the other two. Any views?--Marktreut (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Some maintain that the three events were part of a conspiracy on the part of the Confederacy to cripple the Union government and provide time for the South to re-group. 71.214.67.203 (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Other witnesses

Anyone else notice that whenever a picture or painting of drawing of the assassination shows two other humans sitting nearby in the SAME booth? surely one of them should have heard the assassin walking up behind him, or even glanced at him? Am i the only one to notice that extremely Strange fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.48.212 (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Other Witnesses"?

There is nothing strange about the fact that there were others sitting near Lincoln, who failed to take notice of Booth's presence, prior to his shooting Lincoln. Mary Todd Lincoln, Clara Harris and Major Henry Rathbone, were the other three (not two, as you have suggested.) people present and sitting in the "booth", which was officially titled a State Box, (an enclosed room, sectioned off from the general audience.)when Lincoln was shot. The State Box is fairly small, and the entry and exit is one door, which opens into an interior hall of the theater. The door to the State Box was supposedly unlocked, and Lincoln's valet or Bodyguard, John Parker, was apparently nowhere to be found. Parker was supposed to have guarded the President, by standing post outside the LOCKED door to the State Box, the entire time the President was inside the State Box. Well, shortly after the play began, Parker was seen in a saloon, downstairs in the theater or next to the theater. So, assuming the State Box was a relatively small room, and the door to it was unlocked, we have 3 people inside very likely engaged or consumed with the play. Booth walks through the door, shoots the President, and flees. If the First Lady, Clara Harris or Major Henry Rathbone did notice Booth's presence prior to Booth firing the gun, it was but for a second or split second, and too late to make a difference besides. I am not sure why you think there is anything strange about the witnesses being present at the assassination, and the mute point of whether they noticed Booth would have made a difference to anything. Irshgrl500 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshgrl500 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5