Talk:John Wilkes Booth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article John Wilkes Booth has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Low-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject History (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject United States (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Crime (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Maryland (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Politics (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Autopsy Dispute[edit]

A recent documentary series on the History Channel called Decoded asserts that no one who actually knew Booth, (or atleast no where near the number of people the autopsy portion of this wikipedia page suggests) were present to identify the body. I'm not convinced, however, that this Decoded documentary is sufficiently reliable enough of a source to cite on its own for or against what is currently written on the wikipedia page. I would suggest this portion of the page be doublechecked with additional sources other than the singular source currently cited, both supportive and to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.6.170 (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

FBI records?[edit]

Whats up with this line "FBI records that were made public give no information to support the escape theory.[23][24]" What FBI records? Why would the FBI have any records of an incident that happened almost 40 years before it was started? Even if we presume that documentation was handed down to relevant successor agencies through the years, that sort of information would most likely have ended up in the Secret Services hands, whom not only protect the President and other high-ranking officials now, but actually came into existence a mere month or two after the assassination attempt. SiberioS (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The FBI's FOIA documents section has a 184-page dossier on Booth, as indicated on the section's index here. I've restored the link in the article and also reworded the reference. JGHowes talk - 07:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Lead[edit]

I've had to revert the removal of a word in the Lead about Booth's death. As the Lead is an overview (summary, intro) of the article, and there is a section within the article that specifically discusses the possibility that he didn't die as is described in the official history. My notation of its presence within the article is not Undue Weight, as the reverter argued, as but one or two words were used to illustrate the existence of the section within the article.
Of course, i am wiling to discuss the matter here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My objection is not to the mention of the theory that he didn't die on Garrett's front porch, but to the word choice: "...supposedly killed". This, in my view, wrongly implies that what is (at best) a fringe theory is taken seriously by creditable historians, when it is not. That is what I mean by "undue weight". The use of a word to avoid such as "supposedly" is objectionable in the Lead to a GA. I say reword or Delete. JGHowes talk - 19:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, JG, what alternative would you suggest, since you do not prefer the word, 'supposedly' - perhaps you have an alternative method by which to denote the theories? I am open to suggestions. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Have added, "Some individuals and writers have advanced theories that Booth escaped his pursuers and died years later under a pseudonym" as the first sentence introducing the "Booth escape" section, which otherwise didn't seem to flow well from the previous section, and replaced "supposedly" with similar verbiage in the Lead. JGHowes talk - 14:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Those both are well-written, JG; however, I was referring to the notation in the Lead where it says unequivocally that he died on such-and-such date. Left as is, it tends to ignore the theory, which doesn't seem very neutral or objective. Again, note that I am not suggesting an introspective paragraph on the theory; I think - as it is detailed in a whole section of the article, that it deserves mention in the overview that is the Lead. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that the Lead, as revised, "ignores" the theory. It's now mentioned in the same paragraph of the Lead, after all. JGHowes talk - 20:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oops, i missed that, JG. I've tweaked it a bit, for readability. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The tweak looks fine to me, Arcayne. I'm glad we were able to resolve this for the betterment of the article. JGHowes talk - 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC).
As am I, JG. It's always fun to work with reasonable people. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Catholic?[edit]

There's a poor source, "John Wilkes Booth: a Catholic? A spie of the Vatican?" by Spirit of Lincoln Assoc. hosted by Geocities, that says Booth wasn't Catholic. On the other hand I don't see any good sources that say he was Catholic. This good source, Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia, discusses the Catholic conpiracy theory but doesn't mention Booth being Catholic. One of the conspirators, John Surratt, was definitely Catholic. Unless anyone disagrees I'm removing the "Catholic" category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it pending resolution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we really need to have a reliable source for the article to state definitively Booth's religious affiliation (if any). I do not find Booth's church affiliation or baptism mentioned in the reference cited by Smith2006, Geringer's John Wilkes Booth: A Brutus of His Age. Unless and until a reliable source can be found, this should not be included in the article. JGHowes talk - 12:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I just removed an assertion that the subject was Episcopalian as it was sourced to a self-published site. The site is a law firm that submitted a brief in a lawsuit concerning Booth's remains. "EXPOSING THE MYTH THAT JOHN WILKES BOOTH ESCAPED" The source says, "Booth was an Episcopalian, and the ceremony was conducted by the Reverend Fleming James of Christ Episcopal Church, where Weaver was a sexton. (T. 5/25/95 at 117; Ex. 22H)." I can't determine what "T. 5/25/95 at 117" refers to, but it appears to be the citation. As before, we should be able to find a good source for this information. Until we do, it's better not to say anything. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"On the 18th of February 1869, Booth's remains were deposited in Weaver's private vault at Green Mount Cemetery awaiting warmer weather for digging a grave. Burial occurred in Green Mount Cemetery on June 22, 1869. Booth was an Episcopalian, and the ceremony was conducted by the Reverend Minister Fleming, James of Christ Episcopal Church, where Weaver was a sexton." (T. 5/25/95 at p. 117; Ex. 22H). Gorman & Williams Attorneys at Law: Sources on the Wilkes Booth case. THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND (September 1995), No. 1531 Another version (link) of the same case is: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/marylandstatecases/cosa/1996/1531s95.pdf This is a sufficient source under Wikipedia norms, and you are therefore obliged to leave it in. It seems certain persons are trying to push the lie that Booth was a "Catholic agent of the Pope" "conspiring against America". The Court of Maryland asserted these facts.Smith2006 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
St. Timothy's Hall

Location: St. Timothy's Church; 200 Ingleside Avenue; Catonsville, Maryland 21228 Phone: 410-747-6690

Hours: For information about viewing the interior of the church call 410-747-6690.

Description: In 1852-53 fourteen year old John Wilkes Booth attended a boarding school called St. Timothy's Hall in Catonsville, Maryland. His sister Asia Booth Clarke later wrote that John Wilkes Booth and "younger brother [Joseph] were placed at the finishing school at Catonsville, St. Timothy's Hall . . . They here received Baptism [January 23, 1853], and were prepared for the Confirmation according to the Episcopal Church. They entered the Hall as artillery cadets, and wore the steel-gray uniform of the class. Some of the best names of Maryland were on the roll of students at this Hall, names that have resounded through our country both in honor and contumely, names, too, that seem to have gone down in silence with the cause they espoused."

According to the school's prospectus, "The object of . . . St. Timothy's Hall is to make it an institution of strict discipline, of good morals, and by the grace of God, a religious home for the young. [St. Timothy's is] a literary institution, for the education of young gentlemen whose appreciation of knowledge, and love of order, have made them diligent and patient of restraint."

Comments: The bell tower of St. Timonthy's Church in Catonsville bears the date 1857 which indicates the bell tower and perhaps the present church were built after John Wilkes and Joseph Booth attended St. Timothy's Hall. For more information, see Asia Booth Clarke, John Wilkes Booth: A Sister's Memoir, edited by Terry Alford, (Jackson: University of Mississippi, 1996), pgs. 44-45. This is an edited and annotated version of a biography of John Wilkes Booth published under the title of The Unlocked Book by Asia Booth Clarke. We thank the Rector, Stevin R. Randall, for his cooperation

http://www.harfordhistory.net/boothtour2.htm Smith2006 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Succession law error[edit]

The article says: "By targeting Lincoln 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." Johnson was Lincoln's successor, but the next in line would have been the President pro tem of the Senate (the position was vacant at the time), followed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives (Schuyler Colfax). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act_of_1792#Presidential_Succession_Act_of_1792 for details. 69.229.20.210 (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Edit on Boyhood Home[edit]

The line, "Booth's boyhood home, 'Tudor Hall', was built there in 1847," appears awkward to me for two reasons. First, it comes after a citation about John Wilkes in England, so at first I thought the Booths built Tudor Hall in England, not Bel Air, Maryland. Second, according to the dates, Booth was about 9 years old when Tudor Hall was built, which begs the question why this was called his boyhood home. In general, this is a well written article, but that sentence seemed like a hiccup to me. 58.8.11.181 (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've reworded the paragraph for clarity.  JGHowes  talk 11:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Plan to make a minor addition[edit]

I plan to add a minor reference to a Washington stable owner who provided the "get away" horse to John Wilkes Booth and, according to the Washington Star Newspaper, stood vigil prior to Mary Surratt's execution. I will provide full references and I will first post the text to be added here for comment. I am hoping I can get around to doing this within a week. No promises though. Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also the separate article Abraham Lincoln assassination, where details of the assassination events are discussed.  JGHowes  talk 12:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I plan to reference text from the following document: Twenty Days, By Dorothy Meserve Kunhardt and Philip B. Kunhardt Jr., Castle Books, 1966, ISBN 1-55521-975-6. Any comments on this document? Mkpumphrey (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I will probably add the material I have to the Abraham Lincoln assassination article rather than to this article. Mkpumphrey (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The Hunt for John Wilkes Booth[edit]

  • FWIW, the History International channel in the U.S. Is airing a two-hour program, The Hunt for John Wilkes Booth, tonight at 8–10 p.m. Eastern time and again at 9–11 p.m. Pacific.  JGHowes  talk 23:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fourth target?[edit]

Forgive me, for I am no historian, but I had never before read that Edwin Stanton was a target of Booth's conspiracy, until I came to this article. I knew of the plans to kill Johnson and Seward, but not Stanton. As this targeting of Stanton is mentioned neither in the article on Lincoln's assination nor Stanton's article, might this be an error? Unschool (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, is there a citation as to who the specific targets were? We should use those, and those alone. The article doesn't need to turn into The Lazarus Man. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I too have heard that it was at least discussed among the conspirators, but no plan was put into action that night.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Good point, Unschool. No source I've checked mentions that Stanton was a target on the night of April 14, 1865, by any of the conspirators. This was added to the Lead by someone without any ref cited, nor is it explained elsewhere in this article, so I've deleted it.  JGHowes  talk 02:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The fourth target would have been Gen. Grant, who originally was to have accompanied Lincoln. Booth expected to assassinate both himself. (Source: James L. Swanson, Manhunt.)71.50.104.37 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Wintergarden Theatre link change[edit]

The link to the Wikipedia article for the Wintergarden Theatre should probably take the reader to the page Winter Garden Theatre (1850) or at the very least Winter Garden Theatre (disambiguation)

Jasondec (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it--Jojhutton (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oil investment by Booth[edit]

a post on metafilter today has more detailed links on Booth's oil ventures. it also says that Booth lost a lot of money while the wikipedia article says - very briefly - the oil investments made him richer. hereis the link http://www.metafilter.com/78148/Black-Gold —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.104.175 (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Some historians, including Michael W. Kauffman, belive that the oil investment was just a ruse for a lrger plan. He argues that Booth used many differant plans and ideas, hoping to throw off investigators to his real plan to kidnap Lincoln. Th eoil, although a real investment, may not have been the money making scheme that some originally had thought.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
A section entitled Business ventures has been added which discussed his oil drilling business. Some commentators at this article's current Featured Article discussion urged its inclusion.  JGHowes  talk 04:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New article[edit]

The recent additions to the section that describes the flight of JWB seems to be getting a bit large. I was actually surpised a while back ago that there was no seperate article on the subject. I suggest that some of the information in that section be transfered over to a new article and then expanded. A link can be added to this article of course.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has been expanded to help get it promoted to Featured Article status. Actually, a number of commentators stated it was too short and needed to be much longer (see FAC discussion) to attain Featured Article status. Pursuit and death and Aftermath are now in two sections. Still more content is the call as its Featured Article candidacy has been restarted.  JGHowes  talk 10:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that we could do the subject more justice with its own article. Its not unprecidented to do so. We could switch over some of the informatiuon already here, then expand it even further. The section is actually too long for a biography of his entire life. Sub-articles are ways to get around that problem. A redirect in the section would serve as the same thing.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, there isn't any real issue with creating another article using the same information; at least, I don't think there is one. However, i think the info already present in the article is fine, though I guess it is rather long, when viewed in comparison to the other articles. Perhaps, Pursuit, death and reaction would be good subsections. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with sub-sections. I just don't see the harm in creating a new article for the information. Nothing needs to be deleted, just moved. Its a very common thing to do with sections that get a bit to bulky for the main article.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the need to fork or duplicate this content. The article is within length guidelines and, as several reviewers said at the recent FAC, even more information was wanted.  JGHowes  talk 03:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What ever happened to Richard H. Garrett farm?[edit]

I was wondering what ever happen to the farm house. When was it torn down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmnut1138 (talkcontribs) 01:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

According to this site, the original location of the Garrett Farm House is in the median of U.S. Route 301, about 2.5 miles south of the marker pictured. There's no mention of a date of demolition, though the highway was apparently built in the 1920s. —ADavidB 03:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It was eventually abandoned by the late 19th century and became so dilapidated that it was finally demolished completely in the 1920s. By the way, Filmnut1138, please sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~). This will cause your screen name, date and time to display automatically.  JGHowes  talk 03:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
(added:) Please note that the historic roadside marker pictured in this John Wilkes Booth article is "EP-20" on the right shoulder of the Northbound Lane of Route 301. It is within a few yards of the Garrett Farm site – it is not the N-16 marker pictured on the www.waymarking.com link cited above by ADavidB. The latter's legend says, “On this road two miles south is the Garrett Place. There John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln's assassin, was found by Union cavalry and killed while resisting arrest, April 26, 1865.” By contrast, the EP-20 marker (File:Jwb farm.jpg) says, "This is the Garrett Place where John Wilkes Booth ... The house stood a short distance from this spot".  JGHowes  talk 03:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I found still more information in a September 1992 American Heritage article. A paragraph toward the end of the article states: "By the 1920s the house was abandoned. In 1937 Philip Van Doren Stern took pictures of a sagging and desolate wreck about to be torn down by local people who would use what they could for scrap lumber or firewood. What foundations there were vanished. Then the bulldozers of the 1960s expanding the highway put up hillocks in the median strip dividing the north and south lanes of Route 301, and on the top of one of those hillocks there is a little informal marker showing where once was the corner of the porch of the house...". One of the last pictures of the sagging house is shown on a Lincoln Research website, in close comparison to the house's appearance when Booth was there.—ADavidB 10:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

missing Mudd[edit]

"The fugitives then continued southward, stopping before dawn on April 15 at the home of Dr. Samuel Mudd, 25 miles (40 km) from Washington, for treatment of Booth's painful, injured leg."

Although the recent ip Mudd edit seemed fairly rv by Tedickey as "trivia", I am surrprised that Mudd's later shocking fate doesn't get any mention here, even as a note. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram reply.svg You're mistaken. Farther down in the article (Aftermath section) it states: "Samuel Mudd, Samuel Arnold, and Michael O'Laughlen were sentenced to life imprisonment at Fort Jefferson in Florida's Dry Tortugas; Edmund Spangler was given a six-year term in prison.[70] O' Laughlen died in a yellow fever epidemic there in 1867. The others were eventually pardoned in February 1869 by President Andrew Johnson".  JGHowes  talk 00:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. My apologies. Any addition of Mudd detail to the article would seem to be duplication of his separate article rather than trivia? But I have made Mudd's link name consistent with that of Col. Lafayette Baker. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

TOC right[edit]

Why was the Table of Contents right justified? That's an option for lists and such. I'm setting it back to normal.--Patrick «» 05:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Why semi protection?[edit]

I can see no reason to semi-protect this page, so why was it done? 98.19.144.17 (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Because for a while at least the page kept getting vandalized or blanked. Is there a change you want to make to improve the article?--Kumioko (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
No, not specifically. I saw the semi-protection icon while doing a bit of research, and was confused as to why this would be semi protected. I suppose this makes sense, though there really should be mention of it elsewhere, I think. 98.19.144.17 (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
As Kumioko says, the article was heavily vandalized before it was semi-protected on April 30, as shown on the article's "History" page. It regrettably seems to be a chronic vandal target. I've left a message on your Talk page explaining the easy registration process, should you wish to do so, as registered editors can edit a semi-protected article. Sorry for any inconvenience.  JGHowes  talk 04:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Junius's letter to Jackson[edit]

The History Detectives show on PBS just concluded than JWBs father, Junius, wrote a death threat to President Andrew Jackson in 1835. As an anonymouse, I am unable to make the edit, so could someone else please do so?

97.113.105.224 (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram reply.svg Given that you've already mentioned it in the Junius Brutus Booth article linked here, and the purported event occurred 3 years before John Wilkes Booth was born, is it really needed or relevant to include it here as well?  JGHowes  talk 13:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Altering the course of history ?[edit]

"Lincoln died the next morning from a single gunshot wound to the back of the head – altering the course of American history in the aftermath of the Civil War." - Is there any evidence to back this up ? Anyone can speculate how things might have turned out but what exactly would have been significantly different had Lincoln lived ? Reconstruction still happened. Blacks were given voting rights. The work that Lincoln had started was continued by others. So how was the course of history altered ?76.113.104.88 (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Any such statements are a form of speculation, but in this case it is a commonly accepted conclusion. Johnson was politically inept, or at least got into major fights with the Congress, resulting in his (failed) impeachment. There mere anger over the assassination alone changed the political landscape. Just read Andrew_Johnson#Reconstruction and Reconstruction era of the United States#Johnson's presidential Reconstruction. Then come back if you still think everything would have turned out the same way had Booth not succeeded.   Will Beback  talk  07:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I still think the overall course looks the same. Then again, I'm not a historian and I'm sure I'm glossing over a lot of details that historians and anyone else with a special interest consider significant. And I also think I read too much into the idea of "altering the course" of history, thinking it suggested a much bigger change than it possibly does. All in all, you have answered my question nicely. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.104.88 (talkcontribs) 20:18, April 27, 2010

Edit request from 203.99.197.2, 18 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

We have a spelling mistake in the following sentence "Garrett's 11-year-old son, Richard, was an eyewitness. In later years, be became a Baptist minister and widely lectured on the events of Booth's demise at his family's farm". I think it should be "he bacame" instead of " be became". 203.99.197.2 (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Algebraist 10:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

kL ?[edit]

I believe 25 barrels (of oil) equals 4m3, not 4 kL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.31.148 (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.3.55.228, 23 June 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

I am Roger Norton, author of the John Wilkes Booth's Autopsy page which is the second link in External Links. I have purchased my own domain, and the link you have is now dead. The new link is http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln83.html

Sincerely, 71.3.55.228 (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Roger Norton

71.3.55.228 (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Already done Someone appears to have corrected that link. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC) he fleed and evaded the police but they found them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjfuiruit (talkcontribs) 05:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Jewish[edit]

Booth's great-grandfather was a Jew named John Booth, a silversmith who had been driven out of Portugal.[Jewish 1] Booth himself was Jewish,[Jewish 2][Jewish 3] and assassinated Lincoln on orders from North America's first Jewish cabinet member, Judah Benjamin, the Rothschild agent, as revenge for the North expelling their banking interests.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). [Jewish 4][Jewish 5] The Rothschilds would not regain control of American banking completely until 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act.[Jewish 6] Jacob Schiff, a Rothschild agent who was instrumental in the Federal Reserve Act, would go on to finance the Bolshevik Revolution against Russia as payback for the country helping defeat the Rothschilds in the American Civil War.[Jewish 7]

  1. ^ "Lincoln's Assassins: A Complete Account of Their Capture, Trial, and Punishment", Roy Z. Chamlee, Roy Z. Chamlee, Jr. McFarland, 1990. ISBN 0899504205, 9780899504209. p. 14
  2. ^ "War! War! War!", Cincinnatus. 1940. p.34
  3. ^ "The Universal Jewish encyclopedia ...: an authoritative and popular presentation of Jews and Judaism since the earliest times, Volume 7", Isaac Landman. The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, inc., 1942. p. 68
  4. ^ "Scott Beekman", Syracuse University Press, 2005. ISBN 0815608195, 9780815608196. p. 91
  5. ^ "United States Jewry, 1776-1985, Volume 3", Jacob Rader Marcus. Wayne State University Press, 1989. ISBN 0814321887, 9780814321881. p. 50
  6. ^ "The World Today - Tomorrow", Steve Mathe. Trafford Publishing, 2002. ISBN 1553954106, 9781553954101. p. 104
  7. ^ "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution", Antony C. Sutton. Arlington House, 1974. ISBN 0870002767, 9780870002762. p. 105

Petey Parrot (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


john wilks booth may or may not have been killed in the fire there is record that he might have stole a few different peoples identity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.146.58 (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request, 13 April 2011[edit]

Hello Editor, John Wilkes Booth was born 26 April and he died on the same day. 72.196.251.170 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Timeline problems[edit]

In the "1860s" section about his acting career, there are conflicting statements about when he appeared in various cities:

"By mid-1860, he was playing in such cities as New York; Boston; Chicago...."
"As the Civil War raged across the divided land in 1862 ... In January, he ... made his Chicago debut. In March, he made his first acting appearance in New York City. In May 1862, he made his Boston debut...."

Both sections have sources cited, but I don't have access to those sources. Can anyone confirm which is correct, that he had appeared in these cities "by mid-1860", or that he first appeared there in 1862? --LarryJeff (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "mid-1860" should actually read "the mid-1860s" (middle of the decade rather than middle of the year 1860). Again, this could be easily answered by someone with access to the reference material --LarryJeff (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 February 2012[edit]

Seward, the Secretary of State, was not third in line to the presidency. The Speaker of the House was and is. 67.176.242.24 (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--Ankit Maity Talk|Contribs 12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The Presidential Succession Act of 1792 was then current [1]; the sourcing for that sentence may have been incorrect, or that part of the sentence may not be from the reference. Although incorrect, it should not be changed without checking what the reference actually says. Dru of Id (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2012[edit]

LET ME EDIT NOOB, SOME INFO IS INCORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

67.161.137.82 (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: That isn't how this works. You need to detail the change and someone will insert it into the article for you, unless there is a problem. Please rememeber to include reliable sources for any factual change. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hole in Door[edit]

Its been established for quite a while that Booth did not bore the hole in the door at Fords Theater. Even so far as having been denounced by the National Park Service, along with the Ford Theater as well. Restoration of Ford’s Theatre (Historic Structures Report, George J. Olszewski, Ph.D, Historian, National Capital Region, National Park Service; 1963; pp.55 -56)[hole 1] Unless there is some major objection, I will be modifying the reference in this article as it pertains to the boring of the door hole. In fairness, I will wait for a few days before doing so, so as to give everyone an opportunity to respond. Dpalme (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Restoration of Ford’s Theatre (Historic Structures Report, George J. Olszewski, Ph.D, Historian, National Capital Region, National Park Service; 1963; pp.55 -56)

his career[edit]

hi every one!! does any one know what booth's job was ?????????????????????? VERY IMPORTANT PROJECT.... HELP PLEASE!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.152.210 (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Try reading the article? --LarryJeff (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect references on the "Map of Booth's escape route"[edit]

I realize that the map has been in the article for a while, and although the purpose of the map is to show the route that Booth and Herald used after the assassination, there are some very poignant mistakes on the map. First being that Booth first escaped Washington D.C. The city was not know as that at the time. The District of Columbia comprised a large track of land consisting of two (originally three) cities, Georgetown and Washington City. It wasn't until a few years after the Civil War that the two cities merged into one city, renamed Washington D.C. The second glaring mistake is the use of the current Maryland flag. That flag was not adopted until well after the war.--JOJ Hutton 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Question Mark of Booth's date of death[edit]

It's very very fringe to add that question mark behind his date of death. Reliable sources confirm that he died that morning, and only a few very fringe theories discuss a "possible" escape by Booth, which has been dismissed by most serious and respected Booth historians. It's undue weight to add the question mark to the lead.--JOJ Hutton 13:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 August 2012[edit]

205.156.36.56 (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. No specific request made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Freemason[edit]

he was without a doubt a freemason,but why this not mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentagonshark666 (talkcontribs) 18:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Information added to Wikipedia should be from identified reliable sources, not only an editor's claim of its being without doubt. —ADavidB 09:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Bad links[edit]

  • YOU HAVE AN INVALID LINK* please refer to '"John Wilkes Booth FBI file".' It links to a website that is NOT the FBI and the link is dead. The link next to it, to the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine is also a bad link. I tried to remove these my self but this article is padlocked. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Histbff (talkcontribs) 21:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The indicated citation included an archived URL, though it was specified incorrectly. I corrected the citation info. —ADavidB 02:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

30 million?[edit]

It says that 30 million people lines the tracks as Lincoln's funeral train passed by. That figure seems implausibly high. The total population of the U.S. in 1860 was only about 31 million; in 1870, about 38 million. Given that back then transportation was much slower than it is now, there wouldn't of been many people who would've had time to come to the U.S. from abroad in time to see the funeral train.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

According to a PBS series that covered Lincoln's assassination, there were about 7 million mourners for the funeral train procession. I've updated the article accordingly. —ADavidB 00:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Questions about misspelling[edit]

I know this is nit-picky, but homophone interchangeability bothers me, and I believe one use of the word "capital" in this article should be spelled "Capitol".

Section 6 (Reaction and Pursuit), paragraph 4, sentence 4, reads, "Thousands of mourners arriving on special trains jammed Washington for the next day's funeral, sleeping on hotel floors and even resorting to blankets spread outdoors on the capital's lawn." I'm not completely positive, which is why I pose the question, but when referring to a government building, the word is "Capitol". I was fairly certain this extends to the grounds as well, so I checked the government website "Visit the Capitol" wherein the grounds are referred to as Capitol Grounds (see below for URL).

Would appreciate input, and if this suggestion is correct, could somebody with ability to edit semi-protected pages edit?

Thanks!

[misspelling 1]

(edited because I forgot to sign pose) (edited again because I posted first edit into somebody else's section) --Adrienne1982 (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ None Cited, None Cited. "Getting to the Capitol". US Capitol Visitor Center. Retrieved July 5, 2013. 

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2014[edit]

Please change the page on John Wilkes Booth in the penultimate paragraph of the "Background and early life" section FROM: "stated that John Wilkes Booth was a really a Roman Catholic convert" TO: "stated that John Wilkes Booth was really a Roman Catholic convert" Because of the extraneous letter "a" in the existing sentence on the page at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Wilkes_Booth&action=edit Rsdotson (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

DoneJOJ Hutton 19:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Factual Error - "The Conspirator"[edit]

Currently, the article lists this as a "2011" film. It was in fact released in "2010." Please change this for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xsirrealx1 (talkcontribs) 18:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sentence reworded and year corrected; the U.S. release was in 2011, however. —ADavidB 20:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)