Talk:John Wilkes Booth/Archive 1

message: There seems to be two places called Bel Air, MD. In which one he was born?
: The one in Harford County. Article updated to reflect this. Carter 16:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bel Air 

message: I've replaced "look-alike double agent" with just "double", as "double agent" has a very different meaning from "double" in this context and "look-alike double" is redundant.--Rlhatton 17:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boyd theory 

message: Why does he have one hand in his jacket in the photograph? I know this is actually a general question and not necessarily a specific one to John Wilkes Booth, but could someone point me in the right direction?
:It was a popular pose during those times, and earlier too. No special meaning. Dr. Dan 14:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was indeed a popular pose. It was popularly supposed to be an indication of dignity or breeding, or (especially after Napoleon's frequent use) a "power pose". Even by then it was a bit of a cliché. --Dhartung | Talk 08:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hand in Jacket 

message: The trivia section is starting to take a step in the wrong direction (see last three entries), should we add:
:*John Wilkes Booth had two ears.
:*John Wilkes Booth was alive on 26 Fourth of Julys
Agreed - those are from the "popular" list of similarities (nearly all proved utterly trivial or completely wrong by Snopes) between the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy.
===JFK/Lincoln assassination "similarities"===
Similarities between Booth and Oswald have nothing to do with honest historical trivia.
Gorosaurus 18:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm taking out the silly trivia "coincidences" - A warehouse is not a barn; millions of Americans throughout history have 3 word names; both Oswald and Booth being assassinated before trial is not really a coincidence unless you're into massive conspiracy theories; also 4 US presidents, not 2 have been assassinated, which kind of spoils any connect-the-dots coincidences Bwithh 18:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors should be aware that this list was originally written by Martin Gardner for his column in Scientific American and was intended as an illustration of ridiculous coincidences that anyone could think up if they had enough time. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Similarities between Booth and Oswald have nothing to do with honest historical trivia.
Gorosaurus 18:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm taking out the silly trivia "coincidences" - A warehouse is not a barn; millions of Americans throughout history have 3 word names; both Oswald and Booth being assassinated before trial is not really a coincidence unless you're into massive conspiracy theories; also 4 US presidents, not 2 have been assassinated, which kind of spoils any connect-the-dots coincidences Bwithh 18:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors should be aware that this list was originally written by Martin Gardner for his column in Scientific American and was intended as an illustration of ridiculous coincidences that anyone could think up if they had enough time. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JFK/Lincoln assassination "similarities"

message: This section is becoming a repository of truly banal and pointless information. I think the vaguely relevant should be sifted out from the completely asinine. Anyone agree? Orbicle 09:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Booth in popular culture

message: Although all input and editing is appreciated (including that of grammar school pupils), the article is beginning to lose its Encyclopedic quality. Why? TMI, (too much information). What do I mean by that? Lots of the current content of the article needs to be "weeded out". The information about other people and events, needs to be removed and put in their own respective articles. I will soon give more examples to the doubters, and begin to copy edit the article myself. Dr. Dan 05:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TMI

message: Does the assassination of President Lincoln perhaps deserve it's own page? I particularly feel the fates of the co-conspirators shouldn't really be here under John Wilkes Booth as he was already dead. This would also allow a link to the Snopes article.
Al Clark 16:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow-up: this led to the creation of Abraham Lincoln assassination, an excellent improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assassination page?

message: :Booth was pursued by Union soldiers lead by Lieutenant Edward P. Doherty {The Unit was from the 16th New York Cavalry Regiment} through Southern Maryland and across the Potomac and Rappahannock rivers to Richard Garrett's farm, near Bowling Green, Caroline County, Virginia. 
Should't the curly crackets { } be parenthesis? ( )
SLATE 01:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar quest 

message: There is a conflict between this page reporting that Booth only played Marc Anthony to Edwin's Brutus, and the Marcus Junius Brutus page reporting that he had played Brutus. The proof offered is from a source reporting on the New York production.  I think it is safe to say that Booth may have played Brutus in some other production elsewhere, maybe an early form of repertory touring the miners' camps out West playing all the parts.  In any case, for the purposes of probability against never, and the credibility of his factual diary entry, and not least to remove the conflict, we should give Booth's remark the benefit of the doubt.  The factual basis is not verifiable.  I have made the edit.  JohnClarknew 21:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Booth playing Brutus (conflict)

message: It doesn't say specifically which reviewer said this.  It just says it was said.
The "handsomest man" remark probably post-dates the assassination. It did not appear in any of the 800+ reviews of his work that I have read.Boothbuff 21:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handsomest Man in America 

message: This statement isn't quite accurate:  "By targeting the President and his two immediate successors to the office, Booth seems to have intended to decapitate the Union government and throw it into a state of panic and confusion."  Seward wasn't in line to the Presidency under the law at the time.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act#Presidential_Succession_Act_of_1792 69.229.20.210 21:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor error re: Seward 

message: I think the recent addition of the following to the lead paragraph poses some concerns: "...defeat in the Civil War with the surrender of Robert E. Lee 4 days earlier. From his point of view, he was a brave Confederate soldier, and the war was not yet over. General Joseph Johnston had yet to surrender to General Sherman. This took place April 26th. General Stand Watie surrendered June 23rd, and the last Confederate naval ship did not surrender until November 4th. Given these circumstances, the Union government let its guard down in the protection of the President."
Putting aside the need for MoS and sentence structure edits, the citation given as the source for this edit (the Warren Commission Report) does not actually make that connection. It seems to me that a detailed analysis of Booth's motives for the assassination should be farther down in the article, anyway. 
But, before changing it, a discussion here would be useful, I think. JGHowes talk -  11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I should have elaborated that the lead paragraph was substantially rewritten to incorporate your point about the Confederacy not having surrendered completely by early April, 1865, which indeed is important to understanding Booth's mindset. I still fail to see anything in the Warren Commission report directly substantiating that Lincoln's security was diminished because of Lee's surrender, however. JGHowes talk -  01:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept what you say in the interests of avoiding a civil editing war. My comment is that Lincoln's safety was still under threat and security should have been stepped up due to the fact that all of his Confederate enemies had not yet accepted surrender. I guess that even back then, entertainment trumped reality. Anyway, I have added a couple of "see also's" to this complex subject. Perhaps the Warren Commission Report regarding Lincoln and presidential protection deserves its own page, or belongs on one of these other pages. I need to research this more fully.  JohnClarknew 20:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph 

message: Is this part of the Article really Neccesary???
************************
As recounted by Booth's sister, Asia Booth Clarke, in her book entitled "The Unlocked Book," the future actor met an old Gypsy woman in the woods near the school who gave him a grim assessment of his life and said he would die young. The woman then performed a ritual that included "blood rites," or sacrifices to Pagan gods, and a beastial relationship with an animal. The Gypsy woman told Booth of a way to change the course of his future if he had non-consensual sex with his sister, Asia. He did not agree. Clarke wrote of the account as "ungodly and absolutely disgusting." 
Winn3317 20:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Neccesary 

message: There seems to be a battle brewing about:
"Booth was a successful professional stage actor of his day and a member of the prominent Booth family of actors. He was also a Confederate sympathizer who expressed vehement dissatisfaction with the South's defeat in the Civil War and Lincoln's proposal to extend voting rights to freed slaves."
especially the last phrase of that sentence.  Can we quit the edit war and start a citation war?  Is there a citation to justify these statements?  Let's hear it!!!   Citations R US!  Ratagonia 04:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting rights for Freed Slaves?

message: Are the two in some way related? Mikevegas40 14:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Theatrical Career and Civil War? 

message: I'm sorry, but this article has a worrying lack of references, with five entire sections lacking even one ref. Formatting also may be an issue here, with several sections short enough to possible be merged (especially "Wanted for murdering Abraham Lincoln", "The Pursuit" and "Death") and the references contains a piece of pointless, rather irrelevant trivia that is completely out of place. --Lenin and McCarthy  |  (Complain here) 02:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failing GA

message: I've removed this text taken word for word from http://members.aol.com/RVSNorton1/Lincoln52.html . Gwen Gale 07:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: copyvio

message: Pass: a very intriguing read. ALTON .ıl 00:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: It is widely known that John Wilkes Booth was not killed by a neck injury, but received a fatal wound in the buttocks. This is not vandalism, as it is stated in the biography of John Wilkes Booth. Although he suffered injury to the neck it was not the cause of death. He was shot, and the bullet pierced his prostate and lower vertebrae. Sorry for the confusion JGHowes and lucasbfr. Thanks Ladybird69 01:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What biography states that? The major sources as cited here, including the National Park Service website, state that he was shot "in the neck resulting in paralysis". Trauma to the cervical vertebrae would cause paralysis of the hands and arms, and if a C3 spinal cord injury, impaired respiratory function resulting in death if untreated. Lumbar region trauma would not. JGHowes talk -  03:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of death? 

message: Substituted at 20:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment