This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Abraham Lincoln is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indiana Historical Society, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indiana Historical Society-related articles and topics 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.Indiana Historical SocietyWikipedia:GLAM/Indiana Historical SocietyTemplate:WikiProject Indiana Historical SocietyIndiana Historical Society
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The last couple of paragraphs of Historical reputation (Thanksgiving and Yosemite) should be in the presidential sections rather than here - anyone have thoughts on where specifically to put them? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, they both go under "First term". I don't see a subsection in which to put either of them. One or two new subsections may have to be created. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The general view is that Lincoln announced the holiday to take place just after the Gettysburg speech in November and I've moved the edit there. For Yosemite, the timing is just after the Overland Campaign which seemed the best place to move it. Maybe it looks better in the new location in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The power of the federal government to end slavery
The way it was is correct. The version I reverted is confused. The 3/5 Compromise was one of five provisions in the original Constitution that mentioned slavery (without using the word). See Slavery and the United States Constitution. A constitutional amendment to end slavery could have been enacted from day one. To speak of the federal government's lack of the power to end slavery refers to doing so without a constitutional amendment -- for Congress or the president or the courts to do so. The original Constitution did not explicitly state that the federal government could not end slavery, but it was universally understood to imply that. Advocates of slavery and advocates of abolition (and Abraham Lincoln) agreed about that. That's why William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution "a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell." The understanding that slavery was left up to the states wasn't "inscribed" into the Constitution by any particular clause, including the 3/5 Compromise. Maurice Magnus (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to the sentence "His position on the constitutional justification of the Civil War was founded on the argument that the Constitution is essentially a contract among the states, which exists in perpetuity unless all parties agree to abrogate it." Another editor changed "all parties" to "the participating parties." Both are correct, so there was no need for the edit. Actually, most correct would be "all participating parties," and I will make that edit. The issue here is Lincoln's position. In his first inaugural address, he said, "Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it---break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?"
The sentence still needs work, which I will do now. Check back shortly if you're interested.
Unfortunately one editor has been removing excessive content from this article for the past month with the only explanations being "trim." This is not appropriate under WP:Content removal. There is no reason to remove information about Lincoln's family members in particular from the infobox and the biography. --Plumber (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing much more than just reverting the Inbox as you state in your edit. The material being trimmed by Nikkimaria and myself appears to be appropriate to the improvement of the narrative in the article which seems to have drifted a good deal during over-edits since the GAN several years ago. The enhancements should be retained in the current version of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not taking any issue with any of your edits, but removing information on Lincoln's family is a clear violation of WP:Content Removal. --Plumber (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Content removal is an essay; it's not something that can be violated. If you have questions or substantive concerns about any of my edits I'm happy to discuss them with you, but I have to agree that the blanket reverting is inappropriate and should stop.
To respond to the specific the issue you raise, see MOS:IBP: "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Some infoboxes need to use more than a handful of fields, but information should be presented in a short format, wherever possible, and exclude unnecessary content." This article's infobox is quite lengthy and there is already a link to Lincoln family to provide information about family members. (They haven't been removed from the biography). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not at all a sufficient explanation. I have restored the infobox to include the names of Lincoln's children and his parents. These links are standard for US presidents and are far from unnecessary content. --Plumber (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the same argument has gone on at Talk:Theodore Roosevelt (although it has been archived, see Archive 6).
I think that the intended purpose of the Relatives parameter is for a list of links to individual people. (That is what I gathered from reading the documentation for that parameter in the documentation for Infobox Person.) So for Lincoln, we should not be linking to the article Lincoln family from the Relatives parameter of the infobox. Instead we could link to that article from See Also. I thought of linking to it using a hatnote from some section of the article, but it is, I think, tangential to the article, so that would not be a really good solution.
I think that people that we link to from the infobox, from the Spouse parameter or the Parents parameter or the Children parameter or the Relatives parameter, should be people who are mentioned in the article. That way the infobox is summarizing things that are already in the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
