Talk:Andrew Johnson's drunk vice-presidential inaugural address

	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.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirits

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirits, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spirits or Distilled beverages 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.SpiritsWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritsTemplate:WikiProject SpiritsSpirits articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Spirits WikiProject task list:

This list is transcluded from the tasks page, to edit it click here.

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Spirits:

Tagging all articles that fall under our scope with {{WikiProject Spirits}} and assessing their quality and importance to the project.

Title

Did Andrew Johnson also deliver a sober vice-presidential inaugural address? If not, including "drunken" in the title of this article seems unnecessary (although it did grab my attention). Plantdrew (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew He did not have any other VP addresses that I know of, LOL. But this *is* the only known drunken inaugural address in US history and/or this speech is only notable *because* he was (allegedly) blasted out of his mind. I'm not going to cry if "drunken" goes away but I also think it's the most important adjective that describes this event. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ jengod (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that the drunkenness is what makes it notable more than anything else, so I'd keep it in the title personally.★Trekker (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "drunk" is a clear violation of WP:CONCISE, and per the maxim of quantity does indeed invite the false inference that Johnson gave some other sober address. The proper place to explain a topic's notability is the lede, not the title. jnestorius^(talk) 13:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest @Jnestorius? jengod (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Johnson's vice-presidential inaugural address jnestorius^(talk) 16:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per our style on existing inaugurals this would probably be Vice-presidential inauguration of Andrew Johnson. However before proposing the move I urge you to read the article in full. I would argue that in certain cases concision verges on misrepresentation. Cheers, jengod (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the article focuses on the address, then the models for the title are Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address, and Harry S. Truman's 1949 inaugural address. If the article has broader scope of the entire ceremony, then the title could be Vice-presidential inauguration of Andrew Johnson on the model of Second inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. I don't agree that "concision verges on misrepresentation"; cf featured articles Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7, Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989), Coventry City 2–2 Bristol City (1977), none of which titles explains why the topic is notable. jnestorius^(talk) 00:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if address/speech suits because, as the article explains, there is no verbatim transcript of the speech--mostly because he was so incoherent. The government version is universally agreed to be a coverup, so that aside we have some reports that "we couldn't figure out what to write down that he said", a scrap from a London paper, a quasi-phonetic transcript from a guy in Buffalo who seems to have had some sort of linguistic savant abilities, and a secondhand report of one other line that surfaced years later.

The speech per se was essentially gobbledygook and there was no way to report on the content without stating bluntly that the new VP was blasted out of his mind and gibbering at the podium.

So, of the two, Vice-presidential inauguration of Andrew Johnson would be preferred. That said, the inauguration event, which lasted roughly 30 minutes, is reported in the context of how did this man become (allegedly) drunk, what did he say and how did he behave while (allegedly) drunk, what did the people in the audience think about the behavior/speech, what did Lincoln do, what did the media and pop culture say about it, how did Congress react to the newly important issue of "drunk at work", how did his inaugural drunk impact the remaining 40 days of his VP term, how was this covered up in later years, etc.

The very long tail of this incident is covered further in Andrew Johnson alcoholism debate, which is what this article was spun off from. jengod (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Pre-ceremony"

It's all I can do not to change this hed to (what would seem the more accurate and appropriate) "Pre-game" . Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case It may or may not have had that subhed in an earlier draft but it was determined to be "old vandalism" and changed. :) jengod (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do “aftermath” and “consequences” need to be two different sections?

Im confused as the difference between the two sections and whether they should be combined or renamed (consequences changed to something more like “legacy” or “impact”?

Sydpresscott (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sydpresscott Definitely doesnt need those specific subheads. And anything in those two sections could probably be rearranged in several possible ways, and/or trimmed. Please dive in if you see fit! jengod (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]