File talk:Photograph of a standing young man.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How could it be Abraham Lincoln?

[edit]

How could it be possible that the man depicted in the photo is an Abraham Lincoln at age 27? That would mean that the photo was taken in 1836, three years earlier than the creation of the daguerreotype process. --Lecen (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The email to OTRS states "around 27 years old" and the description on the image has been left as "thought to be" rather than anything less ambiguous. Consequently the photo could easily be taken after 1839 and is likely to remain debatable. However the copyright statement is clear and the content is within the normal scope of Commons though there may be a case to rename the image to something less arbitrarily precise. --Fæ (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fashion also looks much later in the 19th century. That type of necktie didn't even exist yet. I think it very dubious to think the person shown is young Lincoln. Infrogmation (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The person shown doesn't even look much like Lincoln as a young adult; compare the face with File:Captain Abraham Lincoln1.jpg Infrogmation (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the image you are cross-referencing dated from 1903, considering President Lincoln died in 1865? --Fæ (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am "cross-referencing" that image because it one of the earliest confirmed photographic images of Lincoln. Of course it was not taken in 1903, long after Lincoln died; 1903 is the publication date. I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion. Commons has another version from the same 1840s Daguerreotype at File:Shepherd, Nicholas H - The Library of Congress - Abraham Lincoln, Congressman-elect from Illinois. Three-quarter length portrait, seated, facing front (pd).jpg. Infrogmation (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not Lincoln, no way, nohow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree, I think it might be helpful if you'd detail what you base your evaluation on. Thanks, Infrogmation (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ears and lips are somewhat similar, but the cheekbones and the eyes are wrong. Basically it doesn't look like Abe. And in such a case, the burden of proof is on the uploader. Where did he find the photo? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

[edit]
I moved the below discussion from File talk:Abraham Lincoln aged 27 (negative).png to here, as it seems we are going over the same issues in 2 different places and I thought the discussion would be better conducted in one place. Infrogmation (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern photography (the daguerreotype and the calotype) were not introduced until 1839. Abraham Lincoln was born in 1809, so he would be 27 years old in 1836, three years before the daguerreotype was introduced. This photo could not possibly be of Abraham Lincoln. Along with those facts, the clothing of the subject appears to be from a later time period. Students, don't use this photo in your research papers about Abraham Lincoln!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.43.158 (talk • contribs)

Also, person shown is dressed in the fashion of the late 19th century, quite distinct from the fashion of half a century earlier. Infrogmation (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain clearly what elements of the clothing could not exist at the date claimed? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The whole ensemble -- type of suit, necktie, pocket watch on chain etc -- bespeaks the late 19th century, not the 1830s. Take some time looking at men's fashion in the 1830s. Then take some time looking at men's fashion in the 1880s and 1890s. (Commons has categories for fashion by year and decade.) Not everything "old timey" is the same! Fashions changed noticeably in more than half a century. Infrogmation (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, something specifically anachronistic that can be verified in independent sources would be more convincing. --Fæ (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The necktie alone I think should be enough, I think. Some feedback from experts in 19th century male fashion would be helpful. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More on the dubious "photograph" claim, expanding on 71.204.43.158 comments above: File:RobertCornelius.jpg is believed to be the earliest human photographic portrait. It is from 1839. If young Abe Lincoln were photographed at about age 27, it would not just be an interesting historic find, it would demand a rewriting of the early history of photography! Illinois being a hotbed on the cutting edge of the development of photography in the 1830s has hitherto been unnoticed by historians. Pardon, I could expound on this absurd line of the multiple amazing photographic firsts implied in the claim -- but the description "photo etched on metal, 2"x3"" sounds like a tintype, yet another confirmation that this is a much later work. In short, the more I look at this, the less I can believe that any historian knowledgeable about the history of photography or the history of fashion could take the claim that this shows young Abe Lincoln about age 27 seriously at all. Infrogmation (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As said previously, if the age were "about age 30", would there be any issue here? --Fæ (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The above was already giving the benefit of a doubt on that point; Lincoln would have turned 30 in Feb 1839. Infrogmation (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble for me here is that the OTRS ticket mentions several experts but we have taken the email statement on good faith. The person donating the image may well be misinterpreting the opinions of the experts they talked to (especially in terms of dates) or there is a weak possibility that this is an elaborate hoax. I think it is obvious this is an old photograph and interesting for its age and the nature of the photographic method ("a photo on a piece of heavy metal") and consequently in scope for Wikimedia Commons. Considering the concerns raised here, I would be happy to move the image to a more neutral file name, but I think it is fair to include the original donor's claim in the information text and also make it clear that the claim is challenged and has not been independently verified. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes it sounds like there is some sort of expert evaluation in favor of the authenticity of the claim, but at present we know absolutely nothing about who did the evaluation, what criteria they evaluated, nor what details were judged to support the claim. 1)Did the OTRS ticket mention the NAMES of the experts, and why they thought the photo was authentic? 2)Was there some restriction that public disclosure of this information was not to be allowed? If the answer to "1" is "yes" and "2" is "no", I think it would be helpful to share that info. Infrogmation (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1=yes, 2=no. However emails to OTRS should be assumed to be confidential. I will write back to Ivan Cruz via OTRS and ask if they are okay with me releasing the names of the experts. The experts included a "Lincoln expert" and a "forensics expert" (who advised on matching facial characteristics). Note, if someone does challenge this image as an elaborate hoax, we may also need to go back to the named experts directly as the donor email was not from a verifiable work address and the named experts may be real but being misquoted or otherwise misunderstood.
I have written back through OTRS asking if we can release the details of experts, I suggest giving at least a week for any response before considering next steps. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a reply on OTRS clarifying that the age is wrong, he would have been 30 or 31 based on him wearing his political button (WHIG) in the image so this must have been after 1840. Unfortunately I don't have an unambiguous release for the names of experts. Based on this information, would someone like to suggest changes needed? --Fæ (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed renames of this image and File:Jane Austen4.jpg] for the same reason in each case. Churchh (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry, I may have been a bit too fast to decline the renaming of the file, is it the consensus, I'm not totally sure. If people engaged in this discussion agrees on Claimed_photograph_of_Abraham_Lincoln_as_a_young_man.jpg, I will rename it as soon as I can. PierreSelim (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is all rather fishy. It's obviously NOT Lincoln. Supposed, but nameless, "experts" claim otherwise? Sorry, that's not good enough. The burden of proof is on the claimants. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we get any actual reason to suspect it to be Abe Lincoln, as opposed to an unnamed person photographed decades later who has a slight but unremarkable resemblance to Lincoln, I think it's best described along the lines of "Metal photograph of unidentified standing young man"; "Claimed photograph of Abraham Lincoln" should only be used if we can state who is doing the claiming, on what they are basing the claim, and if the claim has at least some small shred of plausibility. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re "him wearing his political button (WHIG)" where does this added claim come from? The photo at the highest resolution available on Commons shows only a circle on the man's lapel with no identifying details. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These claims come from the named image donor and the referenced OTRS correspondence. --Fæ (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that information is not publicly visible, then it doesn't qualify as a verifiable source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. I could write again to the image donor but it may be flogging a dead horse. --Fæ (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I rather think the "image donor" has more of an interest in promoting a dubious claim than they do in any factual evaluation of the image. The retreat from the claim that it showed Lincoln at about age 27 in the face of discussion showing that to be impossible from basic known facts about history of photography alone seems an additional indication. Of course by making the date later to be less implausible in photographic history, at the same time it makes the photo more implausible from the physical appearance of the man shown by making it closer to the date of the known mid 1840s Daguerreotype of Lincoln (two copies linked above), who the young man in this photo clearly looks little like. Infrogmation (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further evaluation

[edit]

Something as important as a potential earliest known photo of Abraham Lincoln, I thought, would likely generate discussion elsewhere than Wikimedia. Sure enough, a search found Are These Photographs of Abraham Lincoln? by Joelle Steele, dealing with this and some other alleged early Lincoln photos. Many of the problems with the claim we've discussed on this page are mentioned and and expanded upon at this site. The writer summarizes the photo "can be immediately and easily dismissed as being Lincoln without any need for anything other than an examination of the clothing and hair, because both are from around the early-to-mid 1880s, at least twenty years after Lincoln had died". Like me, the author expresses incredulity that anyone with historic expertise would take the claim seriously, and furthermore notes that two experts which Ivan Cruz (the owner of the photo) said supported the identification actually were of the exact contrary opinion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent research, thanks. I think this makes the image on Commons quite interesting and this history of doubtful claims should be part of the image page summary. In the meantime I will add the link to photorestorics as a note to the email thread in OTRS. The source referred to by Steele is http://blogs.sj-r.com/alo/index.php/2010/08/09/nope-this-isnt-abe-either/. --Fæ (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo owner were to succeed in getting his picture posted here, certainly that would lend the photo a good deal of artificial notability. Whether it's a deliberate hoax or just wishful thinking, either way it's not Abe. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this photo from Abraham Lincoln's category

[edit]

There is no reason at all to have this photo on Abraham Lincoln's category if not to cause confusion on everyone. The person depicted on the photo is certainly not Abraham Lincoln and since there is no reliable book or website that says so it is one more reason to remove this photo. Because a guy called "Ivan Cruz" said that someone told him that was Abraham Lincoln is enough to keep it here makes no sense. --Lecen (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible stereoscopic pair

[edit]

I believe the images File:Photograph of a standing young man (negative).png and File:Photograph of a standing young man.jpg are left and right stereoscopic cards of the same scene - if you first reverse one of them. The parallax evident from the background flowers behind the man's trousers is telling. Furthermore, the lack of parallax in the background scene itself tells me it is a painted backdrop - but not the wooden style.

FWIW, a poster named mudsock in 31 July 2010 at http://www.neatorama.com/2010/07/31/is-this-young-abe-lincoln/ also came to the same conclusion. -84user (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Photograph_of_a_standing_young_man.jpg&oldid=86133450"