Talk:Lincoln (film)

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 July 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Steven Spielberg.

African diaspora

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Pictures

Top to bottom: Daniel Day-Lewis will portray Abraham Lincoln and Sally Field will portray Mary Todd Lincoln

What purpose do they serve? They are too big and should only be in the Cast section, only right at this time they are quite useless. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 0:53 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The purpose they serve is to show the two lead actors who are portraying two very famous people in a much-anticipated movie by a very famous director. Of course, photos of the actors portraying their roles would be better, but such photos are not available. A reader can look at the photo of Daniel Day-Lewis, imagine him with a beard, top hat and appropriate makeup, and consider whether he will be believable as Abraham Lincoln. Similarly, people may want to consider whether Sally Field will be convincing as Mary Todd Lincoln How will she look in period clothing? Will she need to gain a few pounds? Why do you think that they are "quite useless" but only "right at this time"? At what time might they be useful, in your opinion? As an editor who has helped expand this article, I think that the photos should stay. I will restore them, but I will reduce their size a bit since you believe that they are too large. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to see how pictures work in the Cast column, see Fast Five or Tower Heist as examples. The section is too short for photos and bleeds into an irrelevant section of the article. Please only add back when you recieve a consenus or when the article becomes long enough to sustain numerous photos as this probably is a film that would attract alot of attention. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 1:54 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have waited two days to avoid even the appearance of edit warring. I have expanded the cast section with descriptions of the leading characters, and added a couple of other cast members to the list. I found another image of Daniel Day-Lewis that you may like better. I have formatted the images the same as in the two articles you mentioned above. I have left messages on the talk pages of other editors who have contributed to the article. And, I have added the images back into the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that i don't want the pictures, the section is just too short to include photos at this time. I attempted to bring info to the character section about each casting to extend the section so that photos can be added. I'm going to remove them again and, if you want, help out with the expansion. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 3:57 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added the images to this talk page after editing them as suggested by Rusted Auto Parts. Comments from other editors are welcomed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No policy based reason has been given to exclude cast photos

Rusted Auto Parts has again removed the photos from the article, with an edit summary of "again, these photos aren't exactly necessary. It's common to add photos after the film is released, but for now set pics are allowed" My request is for a better, policy-based explanation of why these photos should be excluded form the article. The edit summary seems to imply that there is a policy or guideline or some official statement of consensus that photos of cast members shouldn't be included in an article about a film until after the film is released. I have tried to review the relevant guidelines at WP:FILM and have been unable to find any such written consensus. WP:FILMNFI says that "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, so free images are preferred in its articles". All of the images I have tried to add are freely licensed. It says nothing about excluding cast photos until release. WP:FILMSHOT has a similar statement, "Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, so whenever possible, articles under WikiProject Films should contain free content." The images I want to add comply with this, and nothing is said there discouraging cast photos before release.

Saying "these photos aren't exactly necessary" isn't a valid argument to keep them out, as no content we add is "necessary" on Wikipedia, and everything we do here is voluntary.

As for the statement that it is "common to add photos after the film is released"; in a few minutes of searching, I found these articles about unreleased films that include cast photos:

If the statement "for now set pics are allowed" is intended to imply that cast photos are not allowed, then I ask Rusted Auto Parts to quote any such policy or guideline or statement of consensus. Otherwise, please leave the photos in the article, because there is no consensus to exclude them. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rusted AutoParts again removed the photos with the edit summary "those pictures depict those people promoting the film. Please gouge a consensus before re-submitting them". I have waited a while and discussed the matter in various places before adding the images again. Please note that the first three films listed above do contain promotional cast photos. However the photo of Leonardo DiCaprio used in The Great Gatsby article was taken in 2008 at the premiere of Body of Lies, and the photo of Henry Cavill in the Man of Steel article was taken in 2009 at the Tribeca Film Festival. The edit summary is inaccurate with regards to these two photos. Discussion is now taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film about this matter. Please do not remove the photos until consensus has been reached. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've again restored the photos, since no consensus has been reached to remove them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal Hamlin

Will he be in this, considering he was Lincoln's runoning mate. RAP (talk) 4:29 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hamlin was Lincoln's running mate in the 1860 election, but not in 1864, and was not a player in Lincoln's inner circle in the early months of 1865 when the movie takes place. The Republican/Union Party chose Andrew Johnson as Lincoln's running mate in 1864, because he was the only Senator from a southern state who didn't defect to the Confederacy in 1861. They felt they needed to appeal to Southern leaning voters in the border states. However, Johnson was also not part of Lincoln's inner circle, and was either drunk or semi deranged at the Second Inaugural in March, 1865. In those days, vice presidents were not at the center of power, as in the modern era of Poppy Bush, Al Gore, Dick Cheney and Joe Biden. But who knows just what Spielberg and his team think? The cast lists, filming locations and episodes described in Goodwin's book give the most reliable hints. Anything more would be original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've verified in Goodwin's book that Andrew Johnson was the only Southern Senator who stayed loyal to the Union. That was his political significance when it came time to select a vice-presidential candidate in 1864. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlin won't appear in this film because he died in 1891. Woodshed (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awful Article

This is one of the worst articles I have ever seen. What's with the cast section and all the pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.163.151 (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain specifically why you don't like the cast section and the photos? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fox is co-finacing the movie with DreamWorks

it was announced on the DreamWorks Studios website that 20th century fox will co-finace the movie with DreamWorks and will distriube the movie internationally while DreamWorks will distruibe the movie Through Touchstone Pictures in the US — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.199.179.94 (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Since this film has many historical figures, I would recommend using a table for the "Cast" section to list the actors, the roles, and brief descriptions. I don't think the article benefits from the bullet format. Any prose (like for Day-Lewis and Field) can be grouped after the table.

I would also recommend removing the track listing per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack: "Track listings for film scores are generally discouraged since the score is usually composed by one person and the score's tracks are generic descriptions of scenes from the film." Track listings are better for identifying and linking to multiple artists (and songs if possible). I don't think this particular listing benefits the readership; if certain songs stand out, they can be discussed in prose. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office

The paltry 944,000 stated makes it look like a financial failure. Is there some way to state that this is the opening box office?1archie99 (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical context perhaps?

While the article lists raving reviews the reality is that not everyone is enamored with the film. To me "Lincoln" is more fiction told through a single lens and I'm not the only one who thinks this. I'd suggest letting the reader know that this is a film based on the myth of Lincoln and isn't an entirely accurate portrayal of the events and include mixed/negative reviews by people like historian Thomas DiLorenzo. Here are a few articles that may be of benefit A general history, DiLorenzo's take on the film. Coinmanj (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DiLorenzo is a neo-Confederate who has made a career out of criticizing Abraham Lincoln. He is by no means a reliable source for any work about Lincoln. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! One can't help visualizing hidden agendas—real-world extensions of the good-vs.-evil intrigues the film portrays!

it's a crazy motion: Americans abducted Blacks and transported them here under conditions so horrendous that nearly half of them died on the journey—then spent over a century treating them like farm animals; and now, 150 years after we've done our best to correct this massive injustice, there are Americans who claim to be patriotic, and claim to love and defend democracy, who prejudge, blame and denigrate Black people and maintain they "shouldn't be here". I don't know what's more confounding: their ignorance, their inhumanity, or their hypocrisy. – AndyFielding (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

I understand that my reversion of the plot doesn't say much, but to call this non-neutral would be an understatement. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Ryan American Renaissance Review

There seems to be some controversy regarding the inclusion of [http://www.amren.com/features/2012/11/spielbergs-lincoln/ this] review, written by Alec Ryan in the American Renaissance website. One editor removed the review, categorizing website as racist, and then another editor added it back, categorizing the editor who removed it as racist. Putting aside my own opinions on the whole racism thing, I've removed the review based on general policy, per WP:EL, that individual reviews don't properly belong in the External Links section of the movie's article. Per discussion, the consensus feeling is that such a link might be acceptable if the article does not yet have a substantive Reception section. But assuming a Reception section is available, then individual reviews, if notable, should be summarized and cited there, rather than linked to in External Links. This article, of course, has a Reception section.

With regard to what makes a review notable enough to either link to if there is no Reception section, or summarize and cite if there is one, a simple standard is whether the review's author is a professional movie reviewer. Based on an admittedly hasty Google search, I found no evidence that Mr. Ryan is a professional movie reviewer. Assuming that is correct, my judgment would be that his review is not appropriate for inclusion in either form. If it turns out, though, that he is in fact a professional movie reviewer, then mention of his review should be made by summarizing and citing it in the Reception section. Mwelch (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Renaissance is a white supremacist website. This is how the Southern Poverty Law Center describes it.

"Founded by Jared Taylor in 1990, the New Century Foundation is a self-styled think tank that promotes pseudo-scientific studies and research that purport to show the inferiority of blacks to whites—although in hifalutin language that avoids open racial slurs and attempts to portray itself as serious scholarship. It is best known for its American Renaissance magazine and website, which regularly feature proponents of eugenics and blatant anti-black racists."--98.209.42.117 (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly reactions

Seeing as the section covering the opinions of historians on the film is rather small at this point, I just thought I'd point out that James M. McPherson, who wrote the Pulizter prize-winning "Battle Cry of Freedom", sounded off on the movie in an interview with the L.A. Times. He noted some minor quibbles - the worst offender being scene where Lincoln slapped his eldest son Robert after an argument - but overall he praised the film as being "closer to reality. This shows Lincoln's exhaustion, his gauntness — and his storytelling."

Hari Jones, the curator of the African American Civil War Museum, had a very positive reaction to film and posted a detailed review of the film's historicity on the museum's blog. He praised the film as being "an outstanding exploration into how the 13th Amendment got passed in the House of Representatives. The movie followed the historical script so well that it was almost boring... The movie had a documentary quality to it that was complimented by excellent acting. The more familiar one is with the Congressional Globe and Lincoln’s papers, both accessible at Library of Congress websites, the more impressed one is with the historical accuracy of the film." He also took Prof. Kate Masur's review of the film in the NY Times to task, declaring that "Masur’s interpretive choice would have added affirmative action fiction to Spielberg’s Lincoln. Professor Masur’s recommendation that Frederick Douglass be portrayed in the movie is an interpretive choice that would have made the movie less factual. The focus of the movie was on the passage of the 13th Amendment. Douglass did not have a role in getting the amendment passed in January 1865. His monthly had even ceased publication by then. The professor’s review was essentially an admonishment to Hollywood to do what Glory did and make history fiction in order to get the token Negro in the inner circle of the film’s main character. And, of course, when it comes to contemporary Civil War scholarship at our finest institutions, Frederick Douglass is the affirmative action inner circle Negro. Fortunately, Spielberg did not lend his talents to such fiction." 173.172.24.219 (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timing of southern readmission and ratification of the 13th amendment

In two places in the plot summary, it is stated that Lincoln feared rapid readmission of the southern states to the Union, as this would enable them to block ratification of the 13th amendment. While this is a desideratum raised by Alexander Stephens at Lincoln's meeting with the Confederate commissioners, Lincoln quickly dismisses this by noting that the northern states are unanimous to ratify, and that several southern states (e.g., Louisiana), once reconstructed, would also ratify. Lincoln does not fear the possibility, because he doesn't think it possible. He wishes to eliminate slavery for the reasons noted in the film and the other parts of the plot summary; rapid southern readmission and consequent blocking of ratification is not one of them. I have thus altered both passages. This is all fide the film, of course; how historically accurate the film is is a separate matter.MayerG (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC) (Stephens' name correctedMayerG (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Historical in/accuracies

Since the academic section mentions a number of sources that identify historical inaccuracies. A useful (sub)section would be a list/table of claimed inaccuracies, and the source. This film will definitely be used in classrooms, so a list of possible historical glitches would be helpful for teachers and students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted.strauss (talk • contribs) 00:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Response

Sagamore Online is a high school newspaper. Does this citation really belong in this section? I think not. Jrgilb (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

Is it time to split the "Accolades" section into its own article, similar to List of accolades received by Slumdog Millionaire? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is. The section is long enough for a split. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done See List of accolades received by Lincoln (2012 film). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody is harming this page by adding their attempt to find Punjabi subtitles for their torrent. I am not good at wiki editing to find out who it is, report them and to revert the section but I am sure someone on here is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.131.44 (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition of November 16th wide release date

Hi, I noticed that the info box does not list the November 16, 2012 wide release date. Disney is a client of my employer, so while I don't edit Disney-related Wikipedia articles, I would like to propose a change to add the missing wide release date to the info box. Here are a few sources supporting this proposed addition: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/steven-spielberg-and-daniel-day-lewis-speak-with-abcs-diane-sawyer-in-their-only-joint-television-interview-about-the-movie-lincoln/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443272/?ref_=sr_1 http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/12-new-lincoln-photos-as-film-heads-towards-wide-release-wide-acclaim-20121115

Thanks very much, please let me know if there is any other way I can help to facilitate this change.

Jbettigo (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jeff. Taking a look at the infobox and the various release dates, I do not think the infobox warrants another release date. I would even say that the UK release date should be removed from the infobox. The goal of the infobox is to provide at-a-glance information, and I think that the release dates for the film's festival premiere and public release are sufficient. I think that additional release dates can be discussed in the article body. I see that the lead section of the article mentions both the limited and wide releases, though the "Box office" section is lacking such detail. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Erik, the infobox guidelines clearly show that the earliest release date is the one to be posted in the infobox so you are 100% right. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Jbettigo (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

section need listing the historical accuracies

It would be good, considering the film is supposed to be historical, to have a section (like they do with films such as Alexander and King Arthur), a detailed historical section so the reader can know which parts are on the money and which are Spielberg's dreams at work. --Inayity (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This in particular: [1] ? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/07/171413251/conn-congressman-petitions-spielberg-to-change-states-voting-record-in-lincoln — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.15.52 (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Kushner, on the film

Here's an interview of screenwriter Tony Kushner with Bill Moyers, about the film, it might provide some new insights.. "Tony Kushner on Abraham Lincoln and Modern Politics (with Bill Moyers)". Moyers & Company. December 21, 2012. --Ekabhishek^talk 09:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a chance this could be a featured article at some point?

I'm sure I can't do anything to make sure it happens as of now as I don't have the blu-ray yet so I don't have access to behind the scenes featurettes.

But I'm just wondering if this article has a chance of being featured some day? I'd love to see it at the main page some day. The movie is about one of the most iconic Americans after all. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blaze The Movie Fan. I did a lot of early work on this article when the film was in production. I, too, would be happy to see it become a Featured article. I do not think.that access to the "behind the scenes" content is necessary to improve the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lincoln (2012 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081122144647/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ib429a97580f60ae2f1518b10479f0bce to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ib429a97580f60ae2f1518b10479f0bce

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move with consensus (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln (2012 film) → Lincoln (film) – This appears to be the only film called Lincoln that is mentioned in Wikipedia. Even if there's another one somewhere it's still the primary topic Siuenti (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Lincoln#Art, entertainment, and media, this appears to be the only notable film called Lincoln. According to imdb, there was a 1992 television documentary titled Lincoln, but that appears to be its only possible competition. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are no other films (currently) with this title on WP. I guess it's at the 2012 disambig, as there are two films titled Abraham Lincoln, but a hatnote back to the disambig would suffice. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I doubt that someone typing Lincon (film) would be looking for the 1924 or 1930 films titled Abraham LIncon.--67.68.209.221 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Good catch. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The qualifier can be returned to its present form, "(2012 film)" if / when Wikipedia articles are written covering the above-mentioned television documentary, Lincoln (1992 film) and another dramatized documentary, Lincoln (2005 film) [2], as well as three shorts, Terry Ramsaye's Lincoln (1929 film) [3], Lincoln (2011 film) [4] and Lincoln (2014 film) [5] {the subject matter of the 2014 short has no connection to Abraham Lincoln}. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lincoln (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lincoln (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lincoln (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207100214/http://thelincolnmovie.com/media/LincolnProductionNotes.pdf to http://www.thelincolnmovie.com/media/LincolnProductionNotes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, poorly written article

IMO, this article might be appropriate for a fanzine, but is poorly written for an encyclopedia, mostly because there are too many extraneous tidbits included. I will try to improve the article some. AAABBB222 (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help wondering what this person meant. Movies are inherently complex, requiring massive planning and scores of disciplines. Many significant logistic and technical details might seem "extraneous" to someone focused on only particular aspects of a project of this scale. How much less do we know about historical events and people because someone considered certain details "extraneous", and omitted them without discussion? – AndyFielding (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Official site kaput

I've removed the link to the film's official site, as it no longer exists. – AndyFielding (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lincoln (film)

Pictures

No policy based reason has been given to exclude cast photos

Hannibal Hamlin

Awful Article

Fox is co-finacing the movie with DreamWorks

Suggestions

Box Office

See Also

Historical context perhaps?

Plot

Alec Ryan American Renaissance Review

Scholarly reactions

Timing of southern readmission and ratification of the 13th amendment

Historical in/accuracies

Critical Response

Accolades

Proposed addition of November 16th wide release date

section need listing the historical accuracies

Connecticut

Tony Kushner, on the film

See Also "White Savior Narrative in Film"

Is there a chance this could be a featured article at some point?

External links modified

Requested move 5 October 2016

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified (January 2018)

IMO, poorly written article

Official site kaput