Talk:Alexander Gardner (photographer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removed text[edit]

I cut this as OR, moving here instead:

What these latter-day analyses fail to take into account is that Gardner would most likely have seen no moral ambiguities in manipulating his subjects. He worked on the battlefield just as he had done in the studio, utilising props and staging to best illustrate his subject as he saw them. Whilst many of the images that remain may not be entirely spontaneous and unadultered, they perhaps show certain truths from the war as Gardner and his collegues had witnessed it, but been unable to capture at the time with their cumbersome and unreliable equipment. Ceoil sláinte 20:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change[edit]

I'm not comfortable with the first sentence in the third paragraph, to wit: "Abraham Lincoln became an American President in the November 1860 election and along with his appointment...."

First of all, Lincoln became "the United States President" following his 1860 election (trite point I know, at least if you understand the U.S. political system). The phrase "an American President," especially when accompanied by a date, erroneously suggests that there might be more than one President at any given moment in history.

Second, the U.S. President is not "appointed" - s/he is elected. Notwithstanding the supposed vagaries of the U.S. Electoral College system, it is an affront to the office to suggest that the holder was somehow appointed (except perhaps in the case of Gerald Ford). Blbachman (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, please feel free to make these changes directly. I'm sure they would be accepted without proposal first, though yours is a very responsible approach. :) When I created the article I had "Abraham Lincoln became American President in the November 1860 election, and along with his appointment..." so I am guilty on one count. (Why not also change "in the election" to "following/with/after the election"? Or is "in" colloquially preferred?) Outriggr (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Removal[edit]

In the Controversy section, I propose removing:

In 1998 artist James C. Groves produced another analysis which has brought the debate of the "Case of the Moved Body" full circle. Mr. Groves' analysis of the photographic evidence contained in the two photographs and another stereo image contradicts Frassanito's analysis.

Groves' analysis falls far short of contradicting Frassanito's analysis. The core of Groves' hypothesis is based upon a single eyewitness account of an incident during the Battle of Gettysburg involving a sharpshooter, and Groves' own observations of the battlefield well over a hundred years later where he found marks consistent with an exploding shell, that he said proved the eyewitness account. In general, the analysis is mostly conjecture, and doesn't hold up to the standards of Wikipedia. --Akamantauskas (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)