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 Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
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.
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]
If the issue with the Infobox is more or less settled, then I'm going to support Nikkimaria to continue with her enhancement edits of the article at this time. Much of the prose in the first half of the article is somewhat unrefined and could use further enhancement. I'm supporting the further improvement of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln had siblings, but they are not independently notable, so I will not mention them, or any more distant relative, in the "relatives" parameter. Later in this article, his sister's name, "Sarah", appears in blue, but it's piped to "Sarah Lincoln Grigsby", which in turn is a redirect to "Lincoln family". I think that redirect is bogus, but I will not propose to delete it -- I don't have time for that distraction right now. The pipe is also bogus, and I will remove it. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On April 26 at 23:47 I replaced a sentence that cites sfn|Dirck|2009|p=382. The problem is that no book by Dirck is listed in the articles "Sources." Dirck published a book -- Lincoln the Lawyer -- in 2009, but it has far less than 382 pages, and searching for the quote at Google Books didn't help. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Reviews are sometimes tricky if it's a scholarly debate happening in real time. ..... Best would be to find a source that discusses the scholarly debate......as in Dirck says so and so and DiLorenzo says so and so. I assume you're referring to the quote? Full quote = "Few Civil War scholars take Bennett or DiLorenzo seriously, pointing to their narrow political agendas and faulty research. But their arguments do seem to have made inroads into the general public. While Lincoln's good standing among most Americans as a defender of racial equality and freedom remains intact, it would be fair to suggest that, in some quarters at least, his reputation on that score is ambivalent - more so perhaps than at any time since his death" Moxy🍁01:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
