Talk:Assassination of Abraham Lincoln

Popular Myth

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)

Errors Etc

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)

why the soldiers that found booth set fire in the barn?

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)

Recent Changes

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)

Assessment

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)

Delete "Conspirator" Box?

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)

Myths

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 www.rjnorton@worldnet.att.net who has been researching this subject for over 24 years.Jimlipka 03:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Jimlipka

Paine and Powell

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. Quadzilla99 10:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Still Waters Run Deep

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 Bee Gees' song, obviously incorrect. My best guess is this play was the Tom Taylor play, the same Tom Taylor who wrote Our American Cousin the play Lincoln was watching when he was assassinated. That play has no article, and I can't find much info on it on the Web, so I don't know whether it's notable enough for one. What if anything should be done about disambiguating the song from the play? I can't see creating a disambig page in this case, but I'm unaware of a good top disambig message for cases in which there are no other articles on the topic. Any suggestions? If none, then the only thing to do is remove the link. I'll post this message at Talk:Still Waters Run Deep also. —Tox 08:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Remove trivia section?

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)

GA on hold

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 Battle of New Orleans, whose victory helped Andrew Jackson become a later US President, was actually fought after The War of 1812 was officially over. I think there is a need for some terminology like "in the aftermath" of a war, to address the time period when the war is officially over, but not all combatants know it, or acknowledge it. User:AlMac|^(talk) 21:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Virginia versus Brutus?

I have no special knowledge about neither Booth nor the assination attempt but I must confess I laughed when I read the last part of "He raised himself up and, holding a knife over his head, yelled, "Sic semper tyrannis,"[12], the Virginia state motto". It just seemed strange to me to suppose the 'intermediary' attribution here, i.e. that he was shouting the Virginia state motto rather than repeating Brutus' alleged words to Caesar. Given his background it would seem more reasonable to say that he was paraphrasing Brutus, since a) he was from Maryland not Virginia, b) he was classically trained (Shakespeare) and c) the historic parallel. Obviously he can be quoting both at the same time - I just think this is more immediately relevant.

• As far as I know that quote doesn't date from either the play Julius Caesar or from the actual assassination of Caesar. YankeeDoodle14 04:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln and Modern Medicine

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)

Possible involvement of the international bankers

This section is drawn largely from one website that has a strong political agenda. It hardly deserves any mention because of its POV agenda, and CLEARLY does not need to comprise over one-third of the article. One of the predominant quotes is by Gerry McGeer, whose ideas are described in his Wikipedia article as follows: "The conspiracy theories he articulated about international bankers had anti-semitic overtones. ... He testified before the government that Lincoln was assassinated by international bankers opposed to the introduction of 'Greenbacks.' McGeer's ... flamboyant, aggressive, and eccentric style and theories alienated the powerbrokers in his own party." If this conspiracy had any merit it would already have been a predominant theme in other sources that discuss the Lincoln assassination. Lincoln has been dead 142 years, and I think it's safe to say that no credible authority on Lincoln subscribes to such a theory. If so, the other sources need to be added.

If this turns into an edit war with frequent reversions by the same editor, I will not hesitate to take this to Wikipedia mediation and formal arbitration if necessary. I am confident that the vast majority of Wikipedians would see this section as purely POV, if not political extremism. Ward3001 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. Tom (North Shoreman) 23:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who understands economics will tell you that what is written there is factual. There were many billions in profits at stake for the bankers. The American School was declaring war on the British school. This was indeed a very big issue at the time, but history is written by the winners. That's why you haven't heard much in the mainstream circles about this economic battle that went on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.230.118 (talk • contribs)

If anyone who understands economics will tell us it's factual, then by all means please post citations to the many reputable sources that you imply exist. Ward3001 02:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"then by all means please post citations to the many reputable sources that you imply exist" Here you go, hope this helps you understand the monetary issue better:

“What, it may be asked, will be the value of gold to them- the people of the United States- if they neither require it for internal circulation, which they think can be managed as well by paper, nor for payment of foreign liabilities, from which, under our hypothesis, they will be comparatively free? If this mischievous financial policy [Greenbacks], which has its origin in the North American Republic, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

--Editorial in the London Times by Lord Goschen, director of the Bank of England, 1865.

“Right after the Civil War there was considerable talk about reviving Lincoln’s brief experiment with the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the European money-trust intervened, it would have no doubt become an established institution.”

-W. Cleon Skousen, noted auther, political commentator, and FBI Special Agent from 1936-51.

“We have [ended slavery in the US] and brought all laborers to a common level, but not so much by the elevation of former slaves as by reducing the whole working population, white and black, to a condition of serfdom. While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to conceal the ugly fact that by our iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery.”

-Horace Greeley, Presidential candidate in 1872 and founder of the New York Tribune newspaper.

"What shall be the permanent system of finance in the nation, which, when adopted, shall exist as long as the Republic shall last? Shall it be a system, where the power to issue the money and control its volume shall be delegated to an irresponsible banking monopoly, or shall it be a system, where the people govern themselves upon finance, as they do in war, peace and the domestic relations? This is a very great question, because the finances of a country relate to the moral and physical welfare of every soul, that lives under the flag, and every hour that they live. It takes hold, not only of the physical condition of man, but also upon the spiritual and intellectual conditions, etc…I wish to illustrate briefly the bank monopoly by a couple of bills, which I hold in my hand. This one dollar bill is a greenback, and this one a national bank bill. Now, these two bills represent the second edition of William H. Seward’s ‘ Irrepressible conflict,’ that is still going on in this country; the irrepressible conflict between the people and the people’s money on the one side, and corporations and corporation money on the other. I say the conflict is irrepressible, for one or the other must go...

Now, this greenback bill is the money of the Constitution. I say that, because the Supreme Court of the US has decided that a greenback is constitutional money; not because it was issued in the time of war, but they have decided it to be constitutional, upon the broad pedestal of the Constitution itself. It is, then, the money of the Constitution. It is [also] the money of the Constitution in a far dearer sense…because…it saved the Constitution, when the storm and tempest were howling about her.”

-Representiative/General James B. Weaver, November 5, 1882. He finished 3rd in the Presidential Election of 1880.

“For over a quarter of a century I have been actively engaged engaged in business, as a manufacturer, and have naturally been led to enquire into the laws which govern the production and distribution of wealth…The unequal distribution of the products of labor which is constantly going on in the land, greatly to the disadvantage of society, is due to the manner in which money is instituted; and the questions arise, in what respect is money improperly instituted, and what is the remedy? If it had not been for the experience furnished by the Civil War, the…American people would doubtless have continued to struggle on, in entire ignorance of the fact that it is possible to establish a monetary system…that would distribute the products of labor in entire harmony with the laws of trade, and far more equitably than could possibly be done through the instrumentality of bank currency...

“In spite of hostile legislation [by the Senate] and the existence of the National Banks, [Greenbacks only as a partial legal tender] have proved immensely superior to the specie basis or bank currency system, which cursed the country for over half a century prior to the Civil War, and which the bullionists and bankers are now seeking to re-establish. The people have been brought to the verge of bankruptcy by the machinations of the Money Power, and the interests of the nation demand that a full legal tender money system be now given a fair trial. This end can only be accomplished at the polls. The bullionists and bankers, and their tools, are already in the field, manipulating party conventions and caucuses all over the country, to carry out their designs. The masses must organize against them, throw party prejudice aside, and vote for no man…who is not known to be honestly in sympathy with the people’s cause, and in favor of full legal tender money…”

--William A. Berkey, American business and manufacturing leader, May 20, 1876. During this time period, the nation was closely divided into Democratic and Republican factions, preventing the people from uniting in their views.

“An inextinguishable desire to do what I can, in this the 85th year of my age, impels me to call and fix the attention of the American people on the appalling causes, that have so effectually paralyzed the varied industries of our country…The great oppression you feel today is produced by Debt and its unfailing attendant, interest or usury…

The whole question of the currency and money arises from the necessity of trade, or exchanges among men in the products of their industry, and the causes and methods, that make these exchanges fair, just, and beneficial to all concerned, or a means of tyranny and injustice, and an occasion for the exercise of greed and selfishness…

When we look into the history of the past for the real cause of those periodical panics, that have brought financial ruin on so many of our people, we find, that on all those occasions, as in the present paralyzed condition…the main difficulty has originated in the unfortunate financial policy, adopted by the General Government. A policy, that is producing for our people what the policy of the British Government has brought about for the people of that country, where the real estate of the whole of England has, in a comparatively short period, been transferred from 165,000 of the past, to 30,000 landowners of the present. And this, where the most rapid increase of wealth, perhaps, in the world, is also attended with the worst and most unequal distribution; and where, instead of a diffused happiness and universal prosperity, the rich grow richer, and the poor poorer, by constant vacillations in the measures of value…

The remedy seems to me to be very plain: First.—We must put this whole power of coining money or issuing currency, as Thomas Jefferson says, ‘where, by the Constitution, it properly belongs’ —entirely in the hands of our Government. That Government is a republic; hence it is under the control of the people. Corporations and States have hitherto, in some form or other, divided this power with the Government. Hence come the embarrassments and the fluctuations, as may be easily shown.

--Peter Cooper, July 12, 1875. Founder of Cooper Union College, and US Presidential Candidate in 1876. He was also Vice-President of the New York Board of Currency and learned finance from Albert Gallatin, the US Secretary of the Treasury from 1801-14.

“That banking should be subordinate to trade and to its necessities does not seem to have occurred to writers on this subject, and yet this is its true and proper position. A rational banking system would be adjustable and subservient to the needs of commerce, but our present system is quite the reverse… It is strange that the one system which, above all others, requires the co-operation of all the members of society for its very existence, should have been so overlooked by the organisers of co-operative societies…The control of the medium of exchange has been left in the hands of private institutions which exist and are conducted entirely for personal gain, although their stock-in-trade is furnished wholly by the community...Far greater benefits are to be derived by co-operative societies adding the function of banking to their businesses—that is, the function of issuing paper money against wealth as here suggested in the form of a mutual bank [as the Pennsylvania Colony did]…

The dangers of a paper currency will be pointed out… Those who make use of these illustrations forget that the disasters resulting from such paper-money experiments have been due to promises or attempts to redeem such paper in specie, in seeking to maintain a parity between the paper and gold or silver, or in issuing it without any basis of wealth. The money of a mutual bank requires no redemption, as it is issued against wealth itself. The wealth is to be redeemed by the return of the notes. Moreover, there would be no demand to maintain paper at any fixed ratio with any single commodity. The existence of baseless credit money [fractional reserve banking] is due almost entirely to the ‘gold standard’ theory and the laws restricting the issuance of sound currency. The baneful effects of this credit money [fractional reserve banking] are far greater and more pernicious than all the paper that was ever issued…

Governments might, with equal justice [to the gold standard], enact laws making oil the only illuminant, wood the only fuel, and steel the only material for shipbuilding.”

-Arthur Kitson, in his 1903 book “The Money Problem.” He was an industrialist and invented the Kitson lamp.

"And now, my friends, let me come to the paramount issue. If they ask us why it is that we say more on the money question than we say upon the tariff question, I reply that, if protection has slain its thousands, the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands. If they ask us why we do not embody in our platform all the things that we believe in, we reply that when we have restored the money of the Constitution all other necessary reform will be possible, but that until this is done there is no other reform that can be accomplished…"

--William Jennings Bryan, Democratic Presidential Candidate, July 8, 1896, giving his famous “Cross of Gold” speech.

“In all great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All the great public works cost more than twice as much on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add from 120% to 150% to the stated cost.”

“But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it is capable of issuing a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution, pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the people.”

“If the currency issued by the people were no good, then the bonds would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold.”

-Thomas Edison, December 6th, 1921 as quoted in the New York Times. He was the inventor of the light bulb.

We should all know that the Civil War was really caused by economics. I quote Lincoln's chief economic advisior, Henry Carey, who in March 1865 said "It is to British free trade, as I have shown, that we stand indebted to for the present struggle." He said the seperation was caused by "the wealthy capitalists of England." I'm not making this up. I am verbatim quoting Lincoln's chief economic advisor! Please take the time to check for yourself http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=932372736069d66b3b26927f407796bf&c=moa&idno=AEU5158.0001.001&view=toc, it is from the University of Michigan, a very reputable source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.230.118 (talk • contribs)

The fact that it is a book in the University of Michigan library does not make it reputable. Ward3001 02:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you questioning the credibility of the source? Because I can assure you it's exactly how Carey wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.230.118 (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources provided are ALL valid and reputable. The documentary script, which is linked from the article, is from a documentary entitled "The Money Masters." Nobel-prize winning economist Milton Friedman said of that documentary and its argument: "You deserve a great deal of credit for carrying through so thoroughly on your own conception."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.230.118 (talk • contribs)

Sources?? Basically there is only one very POV source. Ward3001 02:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Gerry McGeer was not anti-Semetic. He was a monetary reformer. He nearly got British Columbia to secede because of the monetary issue. For some reason people confuse criticism of the banking laws to be anti-semetic. Don't know how that happened but it ends up being a great defense mechanism for the bankers. Read the full Vancouver Sun article from May 2, 1934 here http://www.heritech.com/pridger/lincoln/mcgeer/lincoln.htm

This is NOT a wacko conspiracy theory. It is obvious from the given facts that control of the currency, and billion in profits, were at stake here. Lincoln was going to take it away from the banks. You don't have to be an idiot to see the biggest of all motives here. Once again: history is written by the winners. That doesn't mean that we should reject evidence that appears obscure on the surface.

The theory clearly has weight, as Otto von Bismarck, Carey, and McGeer all talked of a war with the capitalists of England. I submit that it should go back up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.230.118 (talk • contribs)

The topic of the article is the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Once you wade through your lengthy comments above, you are still left with a single fringe source (a Canadian politician) attempting to link Booth and an international banking conspiracy. Until some actual Civil War historians or Lincoln biographers take this source seriously enough to address, this "theory" has no place in a Wikipedia article. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. There is NO evidence in ANY of the sources that bankers were behind the assasination. All you presented were the political opinions of Lord Goschen, W. Cleon Skousen, Horace Greely, General James B. Weaver, William A. Berkey, Peter Cooper, Arthur Kitson, William Jennings Bryan, and Thomas Edison about monetary policy, none of whom had anything to do with the assassination. You're still left with one POV website as the basis for the conspiracy theory. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for extreme speculation. Ward3001 14:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've presented three different sources. One is an interview with Otto von Bismarck on page 216 of the March 1921 issue of La Vielle France. One is McGeer's secret service records obtained from Booth's trial. Another is Henry Carey openly saying that he wants to stip the banks of their powers.

You can also read the book "Lincoln: Money Martyred" by Dr. R.E. Search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.230.118 (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Do either Bismarck or Carey state that an international banking conspiracy was behind Lincoln's assassination? No. And even if they did, that is not the opinion of any credible historian. You are still left with one extremist Canadian politician who was rejected by his own party. This is the point that you don't seem to understand (or you aren't willing to acknowledge): No credible source said that international bankers were behind Lincoln's assassination. As has been said before, this article is about Lincoln's assassination, not political figures' opinions about monetary policy. Ward3001 20:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually Bismarck DID state it. As did Dr. R.E. Search, who wrote an entire book about it, as did Gerry McGeer, who also wrote a book about it http://www.heritech.com/yamaguchy/mcgeer/conq_05.html. That's three people right there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.230.118 (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Bismarck did or did not say anything about Lincoln's assassination, he was not an historian, nor did he have the insight that has developed during the 110 years since his death. I think you and I have discussed this issue enough, as you have provided no substantive citations from credible historians that international bankers were behind the assassination. Unless you do so, I don't intend to keep going back and forth with you. Right now the weight of the discussion is against including information about this conspiracy in the article. Wikipedia policy requires that other Wikipedians be given ample opportunity to express their opinions. I will continue to watch this Talk page, but I will not make any additional response to your comments unless you add anything with more substance. Ward3001 21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd weigh in regarding Gerry McGeer. As noted above, he was not a historian, nor was he an economist. He wrote to John Maynard Keynes: "I have no pretension of being an economist. If I am anything at all in my own country, I suppose I would be classed as that thoroughly detestable type of being, a politician." He also described "money power" as a cabal that "rule the world from a secret and invisible kingdom. They sit behind closed doors on international banks manipulating the affairs of nations, developing wars and revolutions whenever it suits their purposes." Given this, he argued that money power was financing Communists in Canada to make the country ungovernable, therefore creating a climate in which a dictatorship would be established as an emergency measure, and thus prevent McGeer from being elected in the upcoming federal election (1935). I'd say that makes him a conspiracy theorist of the worst type. No, he wasn't an anti-semite (nor does his article say he was, btw, I reverted your change), but he was a fellow traveller by way of his belief of an international cabal of bankers secretly ruling the world and through associations with groups like the British Israelites and the Oxford Group. His ideas were also guided by the Bible, particularly the New Testament, which he pitted against the "age-old craft of usury." It's not much of a leap from there to imagine "Money Power" as being Jewish, as anti-semites are wont to do.

By no stretch of the imagination did he nearly get "British Columbia to secede because of the monetary issue." That's patent nonsense. Maybe you're thinking of William Aberhart in Alberta, another monetary reformer, but one McGeer vociferously disagreed with. McGeer's party put up with him because he was a vote-getter. Both provincially and federally, the Liberals humored him about his monetary ideas, and then once elected, relegated him to the back benches and didn't implement his monetary ideas. Why did international banker conspiracy theories resonate around the time of McGeer wrote his book? Because it was the depression. People enjoyed hearing vitriol lobbed at bankers after they lost their life-savings, jobs, or worse. Obviously the economic system had fallen short of its promises and reform was needed, which meant there was no status quo to fall back on or to ground debate, and so hair-brained theories abounded in what reform would look like. Fascism and Communism were some other options on the table. All this to say that Gerry McGeer is only a primary source for historians, and not a secondary source for anything, at least not a reliable one. Synthesizing his and other historical figures' ideas for a Wikipedia article is original research. Your conclusions may be correct, but "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Get your research published, then it can be used as a source here. bobanny 03:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there was only one source added, a website that has been challenged by multiple editors, more verifable sources should be added if the content is to be reincluded. Publications in print would be useful, as would an author with a background as a historian. - However as another editor pointed out, the differing views of many cannot be synthesized into a single theory in the article, as that would certianly be original research.

As consensus seems to have been reached in support of reverting the edits, I am removing the RFChist tag. Feel free to put it back if additional consensus is needed. Brando130 17:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

this would likely fall under a fringe theory WP:FRINGE that doesnt mean it can't be added but should be under a title of 'conspiracy theories'. --Neon white 00:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

At one point, the article says it's most likely that Booth sustained his leg injury when his horse tripped, after escaping the theater, but later it says that he most likely sustained his injuries on the leap to the stage from the presidential box. I've tagged the article as contradicting itself, so that someone with more familiarity to the subject than I can fix it. -- Djdickmutt 16:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Secret Service

I remember hearing that Lincoln statrted the Secret Service a short time before his assassination on the History Channel. The Secret Service's original duty was to find and eliminate counterfeiters that were causing runaway inflation. After Lincoln's assassination, however, it adopted the role of the president's protecter. This is inconsistent with what is said on the page here about the Secret Service, and I was wondering why I thought I heard something different. I'm sure our article here is backed by evidence. Do you all know why I might have heard this story, and, if so, is it worth putting in the Abraham Lincoln assassination article? Thanks- Kanogul ^(talk) 18:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln was assassinated on the History Channel?!?! Just kidding. To address your issue, the Secret Service's website says that it was created on July 5, 1865, which would have been three months after Lincoln was assassinated. I'm not sure what reference to the Secret Service on this page you're referring to, but if it's the one about McGeer's Secret Service records, remember that is a reference to a fringe conspiracy theory with lots of distorted "facts". Ward3001 (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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)