Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Sons in lead

@Jpgordon: I see you have removed the mention of his four sons (and the untimely deaths of two) from the lead. While I agree the sentence could be better worded or placed, I do think some mention of it needs to be made. Were you removing it merely for its placement and grammar, or because you felt the content not lead worthy? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The grammar and placement. His sons are perhaps worthy of mention in the lede (though I could argue either way; the lede is pretty long), but after his assassination? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems it was there because that is where his wife was mentioned. Perhaps an added note would work, instead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

72.81.128.181 (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Abraham Lincoln also made mistakes. He was fired from his job when he was 23. His wife died when he was 26, he ran for many jobs, even the senate. But didn't win, until he was 56 and ran for president. 72.81.128.181 (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Also none of that is accurate. Richard75 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Assassin

John Wilkes Booth killed Abraham Lincoln on April 14th and to this day remains the most menacing, and cruel thing ever done. Mcrib2 (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes Mcrib2 (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article already mentions the assassination, as well as a link to the main article about it. While I agree it was a heinous act that had severe effects on the course of history, we refrain from adding such charged language to articles. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding books

I added three books to the bibliography. Another editor removed them, asking "If not being cited, why are they being added?" My answer is that they are important books that readers might want to know about. And whom does it hurt to include them even if they are not cited? Lincoln has a huge bibliography, and no "Further reading" section, so I suspect that not every book listed in the bibliography is cited in the references. But, even if every book is cited, and one wants to be rigid about restricting the bibliography to cited books, why not, instead of removing the three books I added, create a "Further reading" section for them? I don't know how to do that. Would someone help, please?Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus, The place you are looking for already exists: Bibliography of Abraham Lincoln. Books can be added there, check to make sure they aren't already on the list. Within this article however, only books that are being cited should be included :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Though I give the caveat that only the most highly regarded books on Lincoln are accepted on that Bibliography CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I'll do that tomorrow.Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sammarinese citizen

As far as I know Abraham Lincoln was not just an American citizen as stated in the article, but also a Sammarinese one. Please, edit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C3:3717:4D7E:A548:5367:D13A:BC59 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

According to the U.S. State Department, Lincoln did accept honorary citizenship from San Marino. However, this is a tiny part of his life story and in my opinion, does not merit inclusion in his Wikipedia biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

RfCs of interest

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. RfCs are underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents concerning the removal or retention of US president series boxes at associated articles and the removal or retention of US vice-president series boxes at associated articles.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Survey (Question 1 - president series boxes) with Discussion of president series boxes,
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Survey (Question 2 - vice-president series boxes) with Discussion of vice-president series boxes. Shearonink (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I am distant cousin of Abraham Lincoln and I know his mom's heritage.

Nancy Hanks father was Abraham Hanks. Abraham Hanks was a Choctaw Indian. He had a twin brother called Fielden. He also named a son Fielden. Fielden Hanks, the son, was one of my maternal's grandfather.

Behind the Campton Church of God in Campton, Ky. on the hill is a plague honoring those two gentlemen.

Also my Grandfather William Goebel Cox left me some documentation on this language. His grandfather was Fielden Cox and Fielden grandfather was Fielden Hanks.

Yours truly,

JamesD315 James Gobel Denniston — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesD315 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

JamesD315 That is an extraordinary claim, which would require extraordinary evidence. If true, you should be going to a scholarly academic who specializes in Lincoln or Civil War History, so they can publish the sort of reliable, secondary source that we can use on Wikipedia. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a whole page about the dispute around Nancy Hanks' heritage at Nancy Hanks Lincoln heritage, and it does not mention the Choctaw. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

JamesD315 CaptainEek Muboshgu - There is a large marker that looks somewhat modern in the Old Campton Burying Ground, Campton, KY (see FindAGrave photo) referring to Fielden/Fielding Hanks 1783-1861 that has some of these statements on it but no information on who placed the marker there or what the sources were for the asserted claims of geneaology/parentage/relatedness. There is no published proof that Abraham Hanks was of Choctaw heritage. That claim would seem to be somewhat unlikely as at least one of the Abraham Hanks I came across was born in Farnham in Richmond County (not the City of Richmond, but a tidewater county to the northeast of that state's capital city) in Virginia - the Choctaw peoples were usually from Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida or close thereby. Also, looking at family trees, one has to be very careful not to conflate people with the same name but of different family units, there can be cousins, parents, grandparents, siblings all with the same name and all living in the same general locale. Like CaptainEek, I am not discounting the various statements in the original post of this thread but what people know from family lore can be different from provable, verifiable facts. Your family story would have to be scrupulously researched from available records, possibly accompanied by DNA results, written up and published in a reliable source for it to appear in a Wikipedia article.

The particular Fielding/Fielden Hanks who was born in 1783/84 & who appears on this memorial stone does not seem to be a twin, his brother Abraham Hanks (purported father of Nancy Hanks/Sparrow Lincoln) was born in 1770 and died in 1815. BUT, then again, there's another Abraham Hanks born in 1743, died in 1790 who is also the purported father of Nancy Hanks/Sparrow Lincoln....hard to keep them all straight honestly. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2021

Change "Abraham Lincoln O-77 matte collodion print.jpg" to "file:///C:/Users/bthpl/OneDrive/Pictures/Colorized%20photo%20of%20Abraham%20Lincoln.png" Ex-Facto (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We can't change an image to an image stored to your OneDrive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2021

Change party to Republican 12.187.158.28 (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Already done The infobox already declares his party affiliation as Republican between 1854 and 1864. If you want the only affiliation declared as being Republican, that's going to require a consensus discussion before I perform that. If you were referring to another part of the article, feel free to re-open this request and say so - in which case, I apologize ahead of time. —Sirdog (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2021 (2)

Change "Abraham Lincoln O-77 matte collodion print.jpg" to File:Abraham_Lincoln_In_Color.png Ex-Facto (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2021

Lincoln was a Republican. 162.40.203.234 (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Erin.s.hall, ESutt, Toni Ervin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2021

Change "Abraham Lincoln O-77 matte collodion print.jpg" to "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abraham_Lincoln_In_Color.png" Ex-Facto (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please discuss this, and explain why you'd like to change the image. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC).

David Donald's biography of Lincoln

In the bibliography, I just corrected the year from 1996 to 1995. I have a copy of the book, which says 1995, and even the link provided in the bibliography says 1995. The problem is that multiple footnotes state "Donald 1996." Is there a way to change them all at once? I am unwilling to do them one by one.Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you will find the first paperback edition is imprinted 1996, so whoever cited that might have been taking text from the paperback, and not from the hardback (which could be a problem if their are pagination differences). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

major books like this appear in multiple editions each with a different year and exactly the same pages. any of the years of publication are ok. Rjensen (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ideally, we should use the year of the first publication, and later editions usually mention the year of the first edition in addition to their own. But, as I wrote to Captain Eek's User talk page, I don't think that this is important, and I'm fine with leaving 1996 in the bibliography and footnotes. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

My work here was all from Donald, so I suspect this was my doing. I no longer have the book to check the date. Hoppyh (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC) I am glad to fix this if the need is confirmed. Hoppyh (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Emancipation Proclamation

It is always better to quote than to paraphrase if the original is clear and concise, as it is here. If it were necessary to paraphrase, one should do so accurately. The EP did not declare the slaves in the Confederate states to be free, because it did not apply to Tennessee, which was a Confederate state but, on January 1, 1863, was under Union control. The EP also did not direct the Army and Navy to liberate, protect, and recruit enslaved persons; it directed them to do what I quoted: "recognize and maintain" their freedom (after they liberated themselves) and "receive" them into the armed forces (not actively recruit them).Maurice Magnus (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It was an executive order that shifted government policy. It had nothing to do with abolitionism or ending slavery. The 13th amendment did however finally abolish slavery upon its ratification. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 13:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

At the moment, you are both edit warring, which can result in a block. Instead, can you please both post you preferred version of the sentences here, so that other editors can consider your proposals? BilledMammal (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

FictiousLibrarian Teahouse host here. You shouldn't use misleading and/or inaccurate edit summaries when you add your preferred edits to an article, like you did here [[1]] for which you left the summary "small style changes." If you are not confident that your edits will stand up on their own merits, you should always discuss them on the talk page first, or simply avoid adding the info. Otherwise someone might assume you are trying to make changes without proper community consensus. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln portrait

I am suggesting to change the portrait of Abraham Lincoln to that of the picture that is in the White House of his portrait

image: Presidential Portrait of Abraham Lincoln.jpg caption: Official Portrait of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln in 1865 by George H. Story | alt = A bearded Abraham Lincoln showing his head and shoulders. HenryLaszewski (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Lincoln did not abolish slavery

The 13th Amendment very clearly allows slavery in prisons. As of 2022, close to a million persons are currently enslaved in the US in prisons. The article is just dead wrong when it talks about Lincoln and slavery being abolished. It is a lie that needs to be corrected. Moreover, the fact that it's a lie needs to be documented. --Acyclic (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OR / WP:SYNTH to call the imprisoned "slaves". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not what I or anyone said. A large percentage of the imprisoned are forced to work, and this is slavery. --Acyclic (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, without WP:RS, your interpretation of the imprisoned being forced to work as slavery is WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

13th Amendment, Section 1 "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." emphasis added. Acyclic is correct. I see no need for additional sources stating that slavery remains legal in the U.S. Rklawton (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

However, we'll need reliable sources to indicate just how many people fall under this exception to the abolition of slavery. Rklawton (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

We might wish to distinguish between "slavery" and "chattel slavery". Rklawton (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

We might also clarify that Lincoln began the process of emancipating slaves in areas under rebellion, but that's not the same thing as abolishing slavery. Rklawton (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The ACLU and The Marshall Project have a new report and an article on the matter. To quote from the report, "There are roughly 800,000 people working while incarcerated in state and federal prisons in the United States". --Acyclic (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The report calls it "captive labor" and "incarcerated labor", distinguishing it from "chattel slavery" and the "free labor force provided by slavery". Children are not born incarcerated, nor is the prisoner and their children property. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No one alleged prison labor to be chattel slavery. It is wrong to associate the word slavery with chattel slavery. Prison labor is one of the ten documented forms of slavery in the 21st century. An incorrect association wrongfully demeans and discounts all non-chattel forms of slavery.

The article on Abraham Lincoln, as it stands, is very wrong in its claim of Lincoln abolishing slavery. Slavery has existed in the US in multiple forms since the Civil War. It clings to the oversimplified and incorrect association of slavery meaning chattel slavery. --Acyclic (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Fine, we can change the lede to say "abolished chattel slavery in the United States". Neither this page, nor this article, is the place to get into the (entirely proper) discussion of prison labor as a form of slavery. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No let's not change it, The Reliable sources determine Wiki's position., the 13th amendment specificially calls prison labor "involuntary servitude"--a decisive argument is that none of the many state laws about slevery before 1865 dealt with prisoners. Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree, lets not change it. Using a select few sources, which don't even discuss Lincoln, is irresponsible sourcing. Now, if you put forward a biography of Lincoln that made the distinction, I'd consider it. But having perused my library, I couldn't find any that made that distinction. I'll also note that the ACLU source doesn't call prison labor slavery, it describes it as involuntary servitude. In fact, the use of slavery in the ACLU paper makes it apparent that the reader should understand slavery to have meant the enslavement of black folks prior to 1865. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It is the current sourcing in the article that is irresponsible. I am not here to play word games about what is blatantly obvious. Those who cannot see slavery even when it is so clearly imposed on nearly a million people — will never see it coming when it affects them personally. Involuntary servitude is unquestionably a form of slavery. First they came for the prisoners, and eventually they will most definitely come for you. Private equity is already well on its way in buying up pretty much everything, effectively then forcing everyone to work for prison-like slave wages, which would in practice be indistinguishable from slavery. This comes together with a more insidious form of slavery that is utterly undocumented — it is imposed by coercing people to use an unsound national currency that is rapidly inflated, as is now the case in the USA, thereby denying them the prospect of saving money to ever be free from wage labor. --Acyclic (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The 13th talks of TWO conditions, slavery and involuntary servitude. Reliable sources agree that slavery (as defined in 1865) was abolished and involuntary servitude for prisoners is allowed. Rjensen (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps slavery as defined in the 1800s was abolished thanks to Abraham Lincoln. Even so, the English Wikipedia of today is meant to use the English of today. It cannot make claims using the English of over a century ago, especially with regard to claims that do not hold true today. Articles must change as the language evolves. For this reason, using the term "chattel slavery" instead of just "slavery" could be a good first step. If tomorrow we learn that intelligent extraterrestrial aliens have been secretly living among us, we will then have to update the article to clarify that chattel slavery was abolished "for humans". By the way, involuntary servitude doesn't end when the prison sentence is over, as prisoners are put significantly in debt (without their consent), requiring further servitude. --Acyclic (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2022

Abraham Lincoln was also a surveyor. Please include as part of his Occupation. 98.45.214.136 (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It is already mentioned, near the end of the section /* Early career and militia service */. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The other thing is that he was also a postmaster but both these jobs are mentioned in passing, not as occupations that he spent a lot of time in, that had a large impact on Lincoln's adult life or on his time as President. Shearonink (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2022

By the spring of 1863, Lincoln was ready to recruit Black troops in more than token numbers. Please capitalize "black" when referring people. Dmgwikid (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So I looked into this question for a moment, and it seems Wikipedia generally does not capitalize this word. While there has been some movement in this direction, most dictionaries still recognize the uncapitalized variant as more common, and it is Wikipedia policy (can't quite find it at the moment, perhaps someone else could link) to use the words that are most commonly used. This is to say, when it comes to language change, Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. David12345 (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

You're looking for MOS:RACECAPS. 3mi1y (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

So it would seem my summary is not quite correct, and there is in principle no policy prefering one over the other? And the change is not made because absent consensus the default is not to change it? David12345 (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You're right in general, as I understand it (I think you're referring to WP:COMMONNAME). I just happened to know there was a specific section for this exact thing.

As for what that section says: uhh, maybe? I can see two possible readings of the relevant sentence:

> The capitalized form will be more appropriate in the company of other upper-case terms of this sort [than the lowercase form would be in that context; we have no rule for other contexts]

> The capitalized form will be more appropriate in the company of other upper-case terms of this sort [than it would be in other contexts]

But I'm just rules lawyering. I don't have a strong enough opinion on this to actually advocate for either one. 3mi1y (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See MOS:RACECAPS ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022

In the "Early Life" section, third paragraph, change " 'partly on account of slavery', " to " 'partly on account of slavery,' " 73.188.136.172 (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The present text is not incorrect. The quoted material is within the quotation marks and does not include the comma. Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

First lead sentence

@HighlyLogicalVulcan: I have just reviewed the guidelines at WP:Lead and I recommend the nicknames be moved to the Legacy section of the article. My reasons are that the terms are not neutral and are subjective.Hoppyh (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether they are subjective is not really the point, it seems to me. What matters is whether these nicknames are commonly used, if they are we should say as much. This would not imply that we as editors think they are in fact accurate descriptors. By comparison, Alexander the Great and Ivan the Terrible are also named that way, even though those are clearly highly biased descriptions that quite a few people would strongly object to.

I do suspect, however, that some of these nicknames are more common in retrospect than during his lifetime, and it might be relevant to point this out or to change the emphasis on the nicknames as a consequence. For what it's worth, David Herbert Donald's biography does not mention either nickname anywhere. David12345 (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I should clarify I am not the one who added the nicknames. --HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@HighlyLogicalVulcan: Pardon my error. Hoppyh (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries. --HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The nicknames have been added back into the first sentence of the lead, in error I believe. Again, I think they would be more appropriate in the legacy section if properly sourced. Hoppyh (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey Hoppyh, to be clear, I was the one who restored the nicknames to the lead. What is your concern with having the nicknames up there? I'm not saying I would be opposed to moving them, but I think they are very common and as such should be mentioned. I could see how the Legacy might be a better fit, especially since they are very commonly used in pop culture. I should note that "Honest Abe" was in use by the time of the Lincoln Douglas debates, as per p.244 of David Herbert Donald's Lincoln (my earlier conclusion that he didn't mention it was premature) David12345 (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that the first sentence of the lead is reserved only for the most salient points of the article.Hoppyh (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

On further reflection, it propably would indeed be best to move them to the Legacy section. I'll do that tomorrow. David12345 (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

David12345 (talk) I agree that the nicknames should not be in the opening sentence. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

David12345 (talk) The nicknames -- The Great Emancipator and Honest Abe -- have been removed from the opening sentence. Honest Abe appears twice later in the article, so there's no need to add it. The Great Emancipator appears only once, negatively: "some African American intellectuals, led by Lerone Bennett Jr., rejected Lincoln's role as the Great Emancipator." I will now add a statement that he was known by that moniker.

Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Maurice Magnus, for taking care of these changes. The current version will do fine. David12345 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Assassination

Would someone please look at the last paragraph under "Assassination." I am not up on the assassination, but I can say that Donald p. 599 provides no support for anything in that paragraph. Maurice Magnus (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

So to be clear, the article currently says the following:

"Two weeks later, Booth, refusing to surrender, was tracked to a farm in Virginia, and was mortally shot by Sergeant Boston Corbett and died on April 26. Secretary of War Stanton had issued orders that Booth be taken alive, so Corbett was initially arrested to be court martialed. After a brief interview, Stanton declared him a patriot and dismissed the charge."

I'm not going to type out the entirety of page 599 of Lincoln; in any case, the only relevant sentence is: "not until April 26 did Stanton's men trace him to a farm in Virginia, where he was shot." It says nothing about Stanton's response to Booth's killing. David12345 (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

David12345 (talk The question then is whether Steers supports the claim about Stanton's response. Maybe someone with a copy of the book can check. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox- party affiliations

As it stands, the infobox says that Lincoln was a Republican from 1854-1865, and a Whig before 1854. But the date of his party changeover was 1856. There was no Illinois Republican Party until 1856- they'd failed to organize such a party in 1854- making Lincoln's joining the party in 1854 impossible (though he was one of the first members in 1856). The article quotes Lincoln as identifying as a Whig in 1855, and says he "held out hope for rejuvenating the Whigs"; as noted in the article Electoral history of Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln ran as an (anti-Nebraska) Whig in the 1855 Senate election, and ended up losing partially because anti-Nebraska Democrats balked at supporting a Whig; the article further says that "As the 1856 elections approached, Lincoln joined the Republicans...." (cf also pp. 122-124, 129-133 of With Malice Toward None by Stephen B. Oates, or pp. 183-186 of Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin.) I'm making the change now, and leaving this more detailed explanation as to why here. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Link the first instance of "log cabin" to its article

I sent this article to a non-native English speaker, who asked me what a "log cabin" meant before continuing. This link might be helpful for readers who are not familiar with this specific type of building, but I cannot edit the page to do so. 73.248.191.246 (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

73.248.191.246 (talk) Done Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Portraits

There are, as you know, many portrait s of Mr. Lincoln where his face and head have been transfer red to the body of another sitter. Presumably the portrait of at least one sitter was incomplete before the Lincoln face was added, so the original sitter may havebeen already dead. This sitter was a small man with short arms and legs, who's wearing shoes rather than boots. The Lincoln face is hardly an ornament on this body , and the one other l know of has Mr. Lincol n's face on the gody of a tall man, closer to the mark but still wearing shoes.76.71.34.171 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there an edit you're requesting? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Some work needed to retain GA status

I'm going through old GA articles to see if they still meet the standards. This article seems to be in need of some TLC to meet standards again. @Abecedare tagged the Native Americans section, which seems to be based on to a large extent on 19th century sourcing.

The article overall is quite long (14,000 words), and there may be opportunities to use WP:summary style better.

I hope this can be addressed. If nobody steps forward, I'll start a WP:good article reassessment in a few weeks. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Femke This project has been on my back burner, I've got a lot going on but I'll see what I can do. No guarantees though :) I'm probably better suited to fixing the native American section (I have some sources on point) than shortening it up. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant! I can imagine that Arbcom will take priority, so I'll hold off with nomming for longer. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I just removed some images as they cluttered the page, which still looks messy. I think the legacy section will need some serious trimming. Wow (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Add a link to "Contempt of Court" article

The phrase "Contempt of Court" appears in this page, and there should be a link under that phrase to https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Contempt_of_court for easy discovery. 76.135.26.84 (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Good point, I've gone ahead and done that. -- Iritscen (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Law license/bar admission date

The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission's online database reports a "Date Admitted" of September 9, 1836. - knoodelhed (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll update the article with the specific month and day.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Stephens

Since Abraham Lincoln was an observer to the battle, should it be mentioned in the battle section? 2601:14B:281:56D0:C882:E33A:4BB:4C07 (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2023

2A02:C7C:A514:D400:3D1E:E721:4B40:B972 (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Says “John Lee Wilkes enter at 10:15 mortality wounding Lincoln. Then goes on to say was in coma for 8 hours and died at 7:25. Just a rumour the timing.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Surveyor

Abraham Lincoln was also a Land Surveyor ans it is not reflected in his Occupation. 69.181.84.206 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Lincoln worked at many occupations, I'm not sure this article needs to include them all. When this matter was brought up last month, both myself and another editor thought that the surveying being mentioned in the Early career and militia service section was enough. Lincoln also piloted a flatboat to New Orleans, was county wrestling champion at 21, and served as a postmaster for a few years...all three of those activities are mentioned in the article but not listed out in the article's infobox. Not every fact about a person's job history needs to be or is supposed to be listed in their article's infobox. Shearonink (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

. 202.88.249.95 (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address error

The text claims that in Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address he made a point "that slavery would end". He did not make any direct mention to slavery at all. Gives the impression that he stated this during the address, try to make it more accurate

One of the drafts of the Address: [2]

Textbook stating the lack of slavery inclusion: American Pageant pg. 459, Subtitle: Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address Burnerburnerburner8 (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The citation mentioned is inaccessible to me but I don't disagree with the assessment that he did not in so many words state that slavery would end. We can surmise that he meant that slavery would end but he did not explicitly say that. I think letting the Address speak for itself is best & so I have adjusted that sentence in the article. Shearonink (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2024

Abraham Lincoln rode a pink unicorn to the heavens Mango Mexi (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done, clearly not a serious request. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Gettyyaburg Address error

the text clams 65.60.206.193 (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. I have no idea what you are talking about. Please re-state if serious etc. Shearonink (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Date of assassination

On the 14th not the 15th 81.78.246.9 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

He was shot on the 14th, but died on the 15th. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving Category

An edit on May 27, 2024 was "Moving Category:United States politicians killed during the Civil War to Category:Politicians killed in the American Civil War." I don't think that "during" should have been changed to "in," because to be killed in a war is usually understood to mean on the battlefield. Even "during" is problematic in Lincoln's case, because Lee had already surrendered when Lincoln was killed, and, as it states at American Civil War, "Appomattox is often referred to symbolically as the end of the war." Even though, as it states at American Civil War, Lee's surrender only "set in motion" the end of the war, it nevertheless does not seem right to say that Lincoln was killed during the war. But "during" at least is better than "in." I will not edit this but will leave it to others to do so if they wish. Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2024

Add pages=35-36 to reference 78 (The Collected Works Volume 1 reference), since that's where the quote is in [[3]] (pages 84 and 85 in PDF).

Sorry, didn't realize Collected and Completed works were different. Please add page 109 to the citation[[4]].

GrapesRock (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Question: @GrapesRock, which citation? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 08:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Reference 78, which is the first citation after "It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher" GrapesRock (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Now that I have auto-confirmed perms, I've edited in the page number GrapesRock (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2024 (2)

Change Reference 187 to go to Volume 6[[5]] rather than Volume 4 of Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. The First Inaugural Address is on page 169–170 (pages 221 and 222 of PDF) of Volume 6 and is not found in Volume 4.

Er sorry, Collected and Complete Works are different. In that case, add that the page is 333 per to reference 187, which comes after the block-quote from his "First inaugural address, 4 March 1861" GrapesRock (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Now that I have autoconfirmed permissions, I've enacted this change GrapesRock (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2024

The Lincoln Memorial is no longer in top 5 visited, rather it is in the top 10, so note that.

More explicitly, please change "and is one of the top five most visited National Park Service sites in the country." to "and is one of the top ten most visited National Park Service sites in the country." GrapesRock (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I just changed it to "one of the most visited" as it does not need it to be jumping around each year, and the exact number is not crucial, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Sandburg 1926 seems miscited on two occasions

I've been going through the citations which reference Sandburg 1926 and the page numbers seem wrong. I've already corrected the page numbers on two occasions, but I can't find proper page numbers for the following two references:

• "Thomas Lincoln bought or leased farms in Kentucky before losing all but 200 acres (81 ha) of his land in court disputes over property titles."
  • cites Sandburg p. 20 (as of writing: citation 11), which says nothing about losing all but 200 acres (and I can't find support for this claim anywhere in Sandburg)
• "In 1860, Lincoln noted that the family's move to Indiana was "partly on account of slavery", but mainly due to land title difficulties."
  • cites Sandburg 1926, p. 20 and Donald 1996, pp. 23–24 (as of writing: citation 18). I can't speak on whether Donald supports this claim, but once again nothing on page 20 in Sandburg supports the claim

GrapesRock (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I have the DHD book on loan from my library and can verify that second ref.

On pages 23-24, it says "In 1816, when Abraham was only seven years old, the Lincolns moved across the Ohio river to Indiana. Many years later he stated, quite accurately, that his father left Kentucky "partly on account of slavery, but chiefly on account of the difficulty in land titles in Ky."

DHD doesn't tell the reader that Lincoln said this in 1860, but in the footnotes he does source the statement to p. 61-62 in vol 4 of Lincoln's Collected Works ed. Roy P. Basler, which covers Abraham's 1860 autobiographical statement. In it Abraham says that "From this place he removed to what is now Spencer county Indiana, in the autumn of 1816, A. then being in his eigth year. This removal was partly on account of slavery; but chiefly on account of the difficulty in land titles in Ky." (Yes, that's Abraham writing in the third person. Go figure.) https://books.google.com/books?id=LQjla5mLYdcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false So yeah, "In 1860, Lincoln noted that the family's move to Indiana was "partly on account of slavery", but mainly due to land title difficulties" is an accurate statement with a suitable source.

The first statement, "Thomas Lincoln bought or leased farms in Kentucky before losing all but 200 acres (81 ha) of his land in court disputes over property titles," is more difficult to verify.

In pages 22, DHD gives an account of Thomas Lincoln's property holdings thus: "Thomas... accumulate[d] enough money to buy his first farm, a 238-acre tract on Mill Creek, in Hardin County, Kentucky... By 1809, Thomas Lincoln had bought another farm, this time one of 300 acres, on the south fork of Nolan Creek (not far from Hogdenville). It was called the Sinking Spring Farm, because it had a magnificent spring that bubbled from the batter of a deep cave. Here, on a little knoll near the spring, he built a one-room log cabin, measuring 16-by-18 feet. Here Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809. He had no recollection of the place of his birth, because his parents moved before he was 2 years old. The land on Sinking Spring proved very poor, ... [so Thomas bought] a smaller but more fertile farm, some ten miles to the northeast, on Knob Creek... It was of this Knob Creek farm that Abraham Lincoln had his earliest memories."

So here we have 3 properties: a "238-acre tract on Mill Creek", a Sinking Spring farm of 300 acres, and a Knob Creek farm of unspecified acrage.

DHD then says on page 24 what happened to these properties: "He [Thomas] had trouble gaining a clear title to any of the 3 farms that had purchased in Kentucky. The details were exceedingly complicated, and not particularly important: one had been improperly surveyed, so that it proved to be 38 acres smaller than what he had thought he had purchased; another had a lien on it because of a small debt by a previous owner; in the case of the Knob Creek Farm, non-Kentucky residents brought suit against Thomas and other occupants of the rich valley, claiming prior title. Having neither the money nor the inclination to fight for his claims in court, he heard with great interest of the opening of Indiana, territory from which slavery had been excluded by the Northwest Ordinance. Here the United States government had surveyed the land and offered purchasers guaranteed titles to their farms. [And so Thomas went to Indiana.]"

That's maddeningly vague. From just this paragraph, which constitutes the entirety of DHD's account of Thomas' property losses, it's ambiguous whether Thomas "had a lien on" his Sinking Spring property and lost 38 acres from Mill Creek, or the other way around; which would mean that he might have been left with only 200 acres (if Sinking Spring had the lien and Mill Creek the 38 acres), or 300 acres (if Mill Creek had the lien and Sinking Spring the 38 acres). I make those calculations assuming that Thomas lost his Knob Creek property, which I think is implied by him getting sued and not fighting in court, but I'm not very educated on legal matters so idk. I'm also assuming Thomas lost whatever property he had a lien on, based on my understanding of what a lien is after Googling the term. In the footnotes, DHD's only source for Thomas' property holdings is Lincoln's Parentage and Childhood by Louis A Warren; "My account of Thomas Lincoln and his property holding derives principally from Warren," says DHD. Luckily, Lincoln's Parentage is stored in full for free at Google Books (I love the Internet!) https://books.google.com/books/about/Lincoln_s_Parentage_Childhood.html?id=iRlCAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false; however it's 300ish pages and I can't be bothered to search the whole thing for details that are supposedly "exceedingly complicated."

Thus, I could not verify that "Thomas Lincoln bought or leased farms in Kentucky before losing all but 200 acres (81 ha) of his land in court disputes over property titles," based on DHD's book. I don't think it's necessary to say exactly how many acres Thomas had left anyway; we can just say something like "Thomas Lincoln bought or leased multiple farms in Kentucky, but could not gain clear titles to all of them and lost hundreds of acres of land in property disputes."

Side note here, but Lincoln by DHD was published in 1995, not 1996. Idk exactly when that error in dates was added, but glancing at the page history I can see that as early as March 2020 https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Abraham_Lincoln&oldid=947624055# this page had that error. That ought to be fixed.

TL:DR: Donald 1995 p. 23-24 is a perfect reference for ""In 1860, Lincoln noted that the family's move to Indiana was "partly on account of slavery", but mainly due to land title difficulties." I could not verify that "Thomas Lincoln bought or leased farms in Kentucky before losing all but 200 acres (81 ha) of his land in court disputes over property titles," and I recommend that we simply edit out the exact number. I hope this comment helped, and let me know if you need to verify anything else that's cited to DHD or might be in there somewhere. Woozybydefault (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for checking those citations! I've tried to implement them here, if I messed something up, feel free to give a holler here, or go forth and change it yourself :-). I kept Donald as 1996 for now, since the linked Google Book says the date was 1996 (though it also says it was originally published in 1995). I'm not sure whether the linked book is a different version or whatever is up with it. GrapesRock (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Most Oates citations fail verification

The brief of this is that most of the Oates 1974 references seem like they're not supported by the book listed in the Bibliography and what my preliminary explorations were into what the proper citations might be.

I was able to find a (probably) different version of Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct available in the Internet Archive, with the Lincoln section between pages 97 and 107. Further, I found that the scope of the text was limited to just actions taken while president based on p. xxviii.

Most of the citations don't seem supported like they could ever be supported in text by this Oates book, since they are things that happened before Lincoln became President. The only one that seemed related was citation 207 Oates 1974, p. 115. which is largely supported by pages 99–101 of the archive copy, though I don't see anything about a telegraph.

I kinda wonder whether these citations are from some other Stephen B. Oates book and just cited as Oates 1974 instead? I did notice in this diff that both {{sfn|Oates|1974|p=226}}, {{sfn|Oates|1974|pp=15–17}} were introduced, replacing ref names that referred to Oates1994, but the other Oates sfns that were introduced in this change were originally named either Oates1974 or "Oates1974", so I don't know what their deal is.

<ref name=Oates1994>{{Cite book|url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=Dqti86cewuYC}}|title=With Malice Toward None: The Life of Abraham Lincoln|last=Oates|first=Stephen B.|date=June 30, 2009|publisher=Harper Collins|isbn=9780061952241}}</ref> is what those two citations used to refer to, but I don't know whether this is the right version of the book, nor how to cite it (it's odd that it was referred to as Oates1994 even though the google book is from 2009 and it was originally published in 1977). I do know that it's available on the archive though it has a different ISBN.

Anyways, that leaves 5 Oates citations that I can't explain, namely 83, 89, 119, 130, and 152 as of this revision. GrapesRock (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)