Talk:Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park

Merger proposal
Proposal that Knob Creek Farm be merged into Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park. I think that the content in the Creek article can easily be explained in the context of Park, and the Park article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Creek will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. The two properties are part of the same National Park. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Google tells me they are 10 miles apart, so I'd lean against a merge. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Against merge. Although administered by the NPS, the Knob Creek site is separate and distinct from the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park.  Merging these two articles would, I believe, lead to confusion about the sites, which as noted above are not adjacent and not even visible to each other.  The Birthplace article already has a small section about the Knob Creek Farm, which could be expanded slightly and citations added.  I am not in favor of the proposed merge.  Spacini (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is true that Sinking Springs Farm and the Knob Creek farm are non-contiguous properties, as the Knob Creek Farm article explains. But they are both part of the same Park:  called, Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park.  It appears, from your comment that the confusion is that they are not part of the same park, which is untrue and which is apparently increased by the separate article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Alanscottwalker, your recent edit in this article helps. Thanks for bringing this up and giving notice at the NRHP wikiproject, which brings me and probably the others who have commented.  Thanks for your attention in all ways here.  I am pretty much indifferent about the two different units being covered in one article, though could lean towards 2 being better as the Knob Creek site seems pretty different;  it really doesn't matter tho, IMHO.
 * A map in the main article showing both locations, either way, would help. The fear in comments above is that distinction would be lost if articles are merged, and unity is lost if not merged.  A map would clarify.   It seems odd to me that the web-available National Park Service map for the park shows just the birthplace unit, which has hiking trails and more.  You get by clicking on a map icon in the left column at http://www.nps.gov/abli/planyourvisit/directions.htm. -- do  ncr  am  17:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a lot more that can be developed about the Knob Creek unit, from 100+ page http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/abli/abli_tavern_hsr.pdf (which I just also linked from the Knob Creek article). Among other things it describes how the unit was nominated but failed to get NRHP listing, apparently as the significance was claimed to be association with Lincoln but no structures survive since then, and then later an NRHP nomination was redone to focus upon tourism.  Also there exist the two NRHP nomination documents, not linked, probably not available online, but obtainable.  At current size the article might be merged, but since it could easily be expanded, i think it might be best to leave unmerged. -- do  ncr  am  18:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree a map would help but then (if they are kept separate) why would we not put the same map on both articles? And a larger article (if it is one) would better accomodate a map. It's perhaps a unique case for National Parks -- some of you might know of other parks with non-contiguous property?  I come to this from an editing Lincoln related articles perspective, and I will admit that the idea didn't initially spring to my mind -- until I thought about it for a while (and visited the places).  It just seems we would better coordinate the info (and lessen duplication), on the Kentucky properties related to Lincoln and the Park, if it were one but I agree its nothing to lose sleep over. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually that's pretty important, if you have actually visited the places and are actively editing in this area (i see you also edited recently at Abraham Lincoln and slavery), then I really would rather defer to your judgment. I wan to defer to the person on the spot!  Really no one should have hugely strong opinions either way, and maybe the others who have already commented could agree or at least agree not to oppose, too. Thank you again for asking. -- do  ncr  am  19:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had seen something like the nps link you provide above (it may have been that) and what interests me about it is the connections it establishes between the two properties, both with respect to Lincoln's family life (father moving to the leased Creek to fight to regain the once owned Spring and when that failed leaving Kentucky) and later the connections between owners on the two properties, Lincoln tourism, and the parallel on-site constructions that occurred.  I don't know if I am 'on the spot' (but hopefully, I'm 'spot on') -- I did, also, notify Project Kentucky, of this proposal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, browsing the NPS document also brought me along further to see the connectedness of the sites, though you have identified even more ways of connectedness than i saw. I hereby invite the previous couple of commenters to reconsider.  No offense to anyone, but i think their opinions were (reasonable) first reactions.  If there's not more discussion soon, I think you'd be justified to go ahead with the development and merge as you see best.  And then a resplit could possibly be considered later, but probably wouldn't come up, assuming you develop the connections well.  I'm for you doing that. :) -- do  ncr  am  21:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I plan to wait a while out of courtesy. Do you know of a User or notice board, who I could go to for help with creating a map?  I have created one map for an article with Openmaps, but I did not have to put any markings on it, and I would like to learn how to do it better, in any event.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm still totally agnostic about it. Which means that I'd personally leave it alone out of pure laziness, but will not object at all to what others do. You might try User:Ruhrfisch for help with maps (but I always find myself referring people to him - so he might be getting overworked!) Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Further thoughts against. I should have mentioned that I am here as a member of the Wiki Project Kentucky, at which Alanscottwalker did post a notice about the proposed merge. As a native of the Commonwealth, and someone who has repeatedly visited both sites (one of my best friends on the planet lives just a few miles north of Knob Creek Farm in New Haven), I think it's important to keep the two articles separate for encyclopedic purposes. First, it is correct that the "birthplace" is a shrine more to the area where Lincoln was born than to the actual cabin: which is a complete farce, but no longer touted by anyone as Lincoln's birthplace. Second, the Knob Creek property has no extant Lincoln family structures or other features from their time there (except for the creek, of course). The Gollaher cabin there is (mostly) original and probably reflects the building style of most cabins in the area at the time the Lincolns lived at Knob Creek. The NPS makes no effort to fool the public into believing the Gollaher cabin is the Lincolns' home, but they do emphasize that it's at the approximate location. (As an aside, no NPS ranger or document has ever stated to me how this was determined, though I think it's inferred from period land records and the location of the road.) What's most fascinating about the Knob Creek site is the emphasis on Lincoln tourism, primarily the Lincoln Tavern which was built in 1933 during the Great Depression. Even in those bleak years, folks wanted to capitalize on the Lincoln name and mythos in any way that they could. Harrodsburg, for example, did the same and a running joke in the area is that wherever Daniel Boone's horse took a s**t, the D.A.R. put up a memorial plaque. I'm not going to fall on a sword to keep the articles separate, but in the "big picture", it's important in my mind that they remain separate due to the distinctive history of each site. Do I get a barnstar for my long-winded, rambling follow-up? Spacini (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing it; both have importance for Lincoln tourism (historically and today) and almost duplicate uses historically, except that the main site has the neoclassical shrine and the Creek site was in private hands. Both were at the center of the Lincoln family "drama" while in Kentucky. Both have remade cabins, and historical tourist place next to them, both are part of the same park.  The current articles are not very well maintained.  The Knob Creek one has  a stub organization and misinformation in it (which yes can be corrected) but that just goes to show that we could do better and probably would do better for both locations of the Park, if we had one article to work on.  Viewing statistics also show a significant greater viewing for the main article, so we should work to make it as great and complete as possible.  Both sites are important, both sites are connected, and understanding of both would be increased, imo. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Debate to delete a Category
There is a debate over whether to keep Homes of the US Founding Fathers as a category. More opinions are needed. The discussion is located Here -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)