Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bixby letter

Bixby letter edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2014 at 09:59:49 (UTC)

Original – This is a widely published lithographic facsimile of the Bixby letter, sent to a Mrs. Brixby who reported losing five children in the American Civil War. The original letter is lost.

Reason: High quality scan of a facsimile of a notable (now-lost) letter signed by Abraham Lincoln. Besides, we can't let Adam have the whole Civil War category to himself now, can we?
Articles in which this image appears: Bixby letter
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/American Civil War
Creator: Signed Abraham Lincoln, but some think John Hay penned the letter

Support as nominator – — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from offer your support to a letter so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the community who may yet have a chance to learn of the this power literary piece. I pray that our Heavenly Father may leave you only the cherished memory of the nomination, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have successfully beaten Adam to the punch. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not overwhelmed by the EV of this I have to say. Would be happy to support a genuine autograph of Lincoln, and autographs in general. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said this had EV only as a sample of Lincoln's handwriting? That's a dime a dozen, almost. This has EV as a facsimile of the original Bixby letter. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Featured? My understanding is that it's a facsimile of a forgery, likely by John Hay, who provided one of the Gettysburg address it seems. I did look at the category. I just can't see taking its place there. Not opposing, just explaining why I'm not supporting. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - CN on "forgery", please. Read Hay's article. Current scholarship is that either Lincoln wrote the letter himself, as generally held, or that Hay wrote the letter (i.e. wrote the original letter) in Lincoln's name as part of his duties as Lincoln's secretary. No matter who penned it, the Bixby letter is notable (i.e. has an article on it) and this is an almost exact reproduction of it. The only image that would have more EV in the Bixby letter article is a scan of the original, which no longer exists. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - CN? Whether by Lincoln or Hay, the origin of the facsimile is unknown and plausibly it's a forgery. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, for the category: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History is home to the scan of the embossed copy of the Declaration of Independence and the check used for the Alaska Purchase, suggesting documents go in the history category. Since we have one exclusively for the American Civil War, I used that category for this document (which is from the Civil War, after all). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not convinced. It's a condolence letter. A high resolution scan of a original in Lincoln's handwriting (you say his autographs are two a penny) would have EV. A forged (by common consent) facsimile of a particular example doesn't IMHO. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TomStar81. Hafspajen (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no reason why I can't have the category to myself. Support. Whether real or forgery, this specific lithographic reproduction is discussed in the article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So is Van Meegeren in the Vermeer article. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the point of FPs is to add value to articles. This can be a specific section of an article, such as the long section on whether this print was a forgery or not. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To highlight images that add value to articles. The van Meegeren forgeries are notable and an image of one of them no doubt worthy of a place in the Vermeer article. But if such an image was made a Featured Picture candidate I would certainly question its EV. Same here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I... really don't see how your logic works there - it's notable, but when it gets here, it's not? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all this is going to be my last remark here. It's just a comment saying that, personally for me, I can't see its EV. That's what we are after here, EV not notability. That's the criteria, notability after all being a given, or should be, if an item is to appear in the encyclopaedia at all. For me a reproduction of genuine letter of condolence written by Abraham Lincoln would have EV, but this facsimile of a forgery doesn't pique my interest at all. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Just 'cos I'm off on my hols and I don't want to feel weighed down by guilt as I sun myself on the beach. I would like to see more autographs Featured. Of course the major auction house have regular sales of these, accompanied by high resolution images in their catalogues. I'll make a point in future of uploading any that catch my eye, much as I did with the British Guiana 1c. Magenta. Looking round for a parting nomination yesterday, I was surprised to see that there are no Hubble Deep Field images, unless they're buried somewhere implausible in the categories. This recent one didn't make it through Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_2014 only last month. Odd that. I mean I grant that the whole world and their mums (pet dogs and cats, snakes, ducks whatever) don't necessarily rush to this forum, but there are enough nominating here to help images like these through. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Authorship questions aside, an historic letter, in the only state (facsimile) known.-Godot13 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- I'm confused, this is a (admittedly good) scan of a mere copy of the letter; that doesn't deserve to be featured. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And why not? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry for my vague language- "that" referred to the fact that it is a scan of a copy. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bixby letter facsimile.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]