Talk:Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address

United States: Presidents / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

copyvio

I have removed the paragraphs copied from a copyrighted website, http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/inaug2.htm Hal Jespersen 00:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should have different sections, why isn't it listed under "stub"? Ryse 00:42, 1 May 2007

Name Change

I have reverted the change in the name of this article to "Abraham Lincoln 1865 presidential inauguration". Lincoln's Second Inaugural address is one of Lincoln's most famous, most significant, and most quoted speeches. This article is about his speech, not his inauguration. When historians write about the speech, they use the speeches title. The following from WP:NAME seems to have been totally ignored by the editor who made the change:

The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed.

Absent the development of consensus ON THIS DISCUSSION PAGE for a name change, the name should remain as it is. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. I strongly suggest that the name remain "Lincoln's second inaugural address". It's one of the most famous speeches in U.S. history, and the article is about the speech, not the inauguration. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article on the speech is certainly notable in its own right - there should be a separate one on the inauguration. Joshdboz (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally (and likely prematurely) moved this article. I agree that there is no reason the inauguration and the address can't have separate articles when it is warranted. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your premature (but good faith) efforts were easily remedied. However Chrism has complicated the issue with his tagging of this article and directing that all discussion be directed to the Obama Inauguration discussion. It needs to be made perfectly clear that whether this article is renamed rests entirely on the discussion on this page, not the Obama page. You seem to be agreeable to maintaining this article with its current name, but I'm not sure that this will be the position taken by Chrism and others. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. And I appreciate your pointing these things out. If we wanted to establish consensus and create a new convention for naming US presidential inauguration articles, that should be taken to WP:Naming conventions or the Village Pump or similar. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The belated tag added to this page wants to divert all of the discussion on this issue to an article on Barack Obama. While I have registered my opposition there and encourage others to do so, I consider that forum as illegitimate since it goes against the guidelines I cited above requiring that each article be treated on a case by case basis. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was an ill-advised tag, particularly since everyone who has expressed a view wants the title to stay where it is now. Lincoln's second inaugural is one of the most important speeches in American history - there is wide, wide agreement on this point - and it's absurd to think that it should not have its own article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilkes Booth

What is the source for John Wilkes Booth in the photograph? Lusanders (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture caption is incorrect. It is not the only photograph taken of the inauguration. Also, the man identified as John Wilkes Booth is the wrong guy. Here is a good reference regarding where Booth is in the pictures: http://boothiebarn.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/booth-at-lincolns-second-inauguration/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.124.29 (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

The fact that Barack Obama mentioned Lincoln's speech seems to me to be a minor point that does not fit with the theme of this article. I would imagine that this is not the first time someone has referenced what is obviously a very important speech in American history. It is just something that seems important right now because it is in the news recently, but in the larger picture the Fort Hood shooting is a relatively minor historical event. As a result I am going to remove this reference. If someone wants to add it back in please explain your reasons. It is not a big deal to me, but the way it is currently written the information seems out of place.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is recentism. I am sure that if you google any random president plus a choice phrase from the speech, you'll come up with something.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"He had long wondered...."

"He had long wondered what God's will might have been in allowing the war to come, and why it had assumed the terrible dimensions it had taken." What is the source for the assertion "He had long wondered..."? Are there writings by Lincoln or other sources to substantiate this? Otherwise, it seems like he may just as well have not ever had thought about it until he started writing the speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.61.130 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. For some reason, I'm just now noticing this talk page entry, but I've made a correction in line with the point that you raise here. Thanks for your input! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too much original research

This article is a mess, I propose to revert back to an earlier draft that isn't so overloaded with original research and other garbage. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. And quite frankly, there needs to be something in the introduction explaining WHY this speech is so famous or important. The speech is not so well known just because it happened to be the inaugural address that Lincoln gave upon reelection, or because its tone was of "sadness," etc. This is a speech that is all but universally renowned as the one of the greatest speeches in American history and an extraordinary work of political prose. Many historians have argued that it is the greatest speech Lincoln ever gave, and many consider it the greatest (by far) of all U.S. presidential inaugural addresses (not to mention countless presidential speechwriters have studied it and tried to emulate it). There needs to be something in the introduction that explains that (or at least recognizes it) up front. I seem to recall that there were things like that in earlier versions. The stuff about Booth and company being in the crowd is interesting, of course, but is of secondary importance for the intro. Harry Yelreh (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous person's statement, but I'm curious as to what "original research and other garbage" you're referring to. I'd like some elaboration on that (or maybe just a link to the previous version you want to revert to), if you'd be okay with that. Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full speech quoted

Is there a reason why the entirety of the speech is quoted in the article? For what purpose is there a link to Wikisource, when there is another conflicting version of the text in the Wikipedia article, as well? And which one has the authentic speech, Wikipedia or Wikisource? The first paragraph has a different wording, and punctuation throughout the text is as well different. I'd think that Wikisource should suffice. --Enyavar (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Mine eyes have seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord"

I added the first part of the Battle Hymn of the Republic for emphasis. 73.85.201.78 (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Audio recording

The audio version of the second inaugural address has an egregious mispronunciation. “Deprecated” is read as “Depreciated.” 2600:6C50:67F:D562:AD0F:76A:7EF2:FFCA (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]