Talk:Old Abe

message: Added photo of Old Abe from a tour of the Wisconsin Capitol. Rattis irrittis 18:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of the caption, is that a statue or was the original Old Abe stuffed? Hal Jespersen 17:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I updated the caption. Hal Jespersen 16:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: The photos of Old Abe taken before 1923 (they were taken in 1863 and before 1881) are in the Public Domain and who ever is deleting then is in the wrong. If you wish to delete them again give a full discription of your reason on the talk page. The photos are public domain because they are so old their copyright has expired. These pictures are a crucial part of the Old Abe story, they are actual photos of Old Abe and not artist renditions. (Lookinhere (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia photo gods have been cracking down on photos that have no source information listed. It generally takes them a few weeks and then they start deleting images, leaving the articles with ugly stubs. Furthermore, without the source info, how is anyone to know the accuracy/verifiability of the captions? This photo could be of any random eagle, taken at any random time. If the File: description pages are updated appropriately, these photos should be fine, but until then ... Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even check the sourses on Wiki Commons? It is a public domain image fron the State of Wisconsin Archives.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhere (talk • contribs) 00:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, I looked, twice. Now I see the source info was just added. It said "unknown" previously. That's all I was asking for. Hal Jespersen (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Public Domain Photos

message: An IP address used changed the text to say the bird was a male, with no edit summary and keeping the cited reference that had it was female. I was going to revert, but could not verify that reference. So will just move the question here. To be consistent with Wikipedia policy, I think if there are sources that say both (there seems to be), we should at least mention the controversy.  http://books.google.com/books?id=No3mAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA205 for example claims that there were stories about laying eggs, but dismisses them since the plumage supposedly was different.  W Nowicki (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no knowledge of the sex of the eagle (although I suspect that the 19th century Wisconsin men would not have given a male name to a female bird), but you are correct that if there are multiple conflicting sources, the Wikipedia policy is that you should mention the controversy. Your example link seems to be like a gossip column, however, which I do not consider to be a very good reliable secondary source. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I’m no expert on the subject—-but the following article’s author is quite adamant that Abe was definitely female:  https://www.visiteauclaire.com/blog/post/old-abe-the-legendary-civil-war-eagle-lives-on-in-the-chippewa-valley/ 2601:440:C600:2B30:2CD2:450D:A74:8BC0 (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your research. I'm not sure how much info you can get from the  in the 1893 Chicago Tribune. That section is filled with satirical remarks. It would be like watching SNL news or The Daily Show, a 100 years from now and trying to know which parts were real or jokes or both (maybe the laughs would help). Also, use 4 tildes ("~") to sign talk sections. WP:Signatures StrayBolt (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

text: So true! Definitely the tone of the papers of the time. I think the best source is Armitage's journal. He was a serious person and he knew the bird well. It was definitely a widely-known and open secret that Old Abe was a female bird. Although I didn't list them, there are several (even many) stories from members of the 8th Wisconsin about Captain Perkins eating Old Abe eggs; Perkins made a habit of it. FrankSmoot (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male of female? 

message: This section was a collection of red links, incorrect entries, etc.  It gave no indication of how the battles related to each other or to the war as a whole.  Now that the text of the article is more comprehensive, I have moved the section here, where it is preserved and can be improved by anyone who is inclined to do so.   Deer*lake (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battles