Major General James G. Blunt

	O Captain! My Captain! is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	O Captain! My Captain! is part of the Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 17, 2021.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 28, 2020 Good article nominee Listed December 4, 2020 Peer review Reviewed January 1, 2021 Featured article candidate Promoted March 18, 2021 Good topic candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 30, 2020. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although "O Captain! My Captain!", written on the death of Abraham Lincoln, was one of Walt Whitman's most popular poems, he grew to be "almost sorry" he wrote it? Current status: Featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Poetry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry 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.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States History This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States 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.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject United States History To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs Other : Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess: {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

Should we include, as a margin note, that this poem is used in the movie Dead Poets Society?

Dboonz (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dboonz, and thank you, Wikipedia. I came to this article to find just that information. But, knowing Wiki's advice against trivia sections, I figured I'd find what I was looking for in the Article Discussion page. And, voila, here it is! Thanks. Jsharpminor (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now allow me to contribute something useful... Per Wikipedia's policy - articles are about their subjects. This is both useful and appropriate in the Dead Poets Society page, but seems to be unrelated to this article. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why the quoted version of the poem has capitalization altered from the original? Joshr915 (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much here except the poem itself and some references to it. Needs quite a bit of work. VonWoland 06:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else does it, I'll do it over the summer :P Mathwhiz 29 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The audio file could do with replacing as there are some pronunciation errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.151.45 (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only pronunciation errors. The VOICE is not appropriate, I think. Ok, Whitman perhaps had a similarvoice according to what I have read somewhere, but I would rather listen to a manlier, deep, voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.187.162 (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, 66.71.35.223, whomever you are. You picked up on several typo's in the text of the poem that I missed, in spite of a fairly long time scuitinizning it. VonWoland 02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• snigger* --Kizor 20:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the accepted version of the poem -- the one on this page and in my copy of Leaves of Grass -- differs slightly from the final proof pictured on this page: most notably the line in the third stanza "But I with mournful tread" appears as "But I with silent tread". Whitman was known for making changes to his earlier poetry later in life: is this an example? 24.0.97.119 22:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as the caption for the picture says it is his original copy, which was published in 1855, the year the first version of Leaves of Grass came out; he later revised it in 1871 and again in 1888. ;) Mathwhiz 29 (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The full text given doesn't employ any new lines, as it should according to the givin photograph. Might we reorganize it thus? : -

O Captain! my Captain! our fearful trip is done;
The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won;
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring:

But O heart! heart! heart!

O the bleeding drops of red,

Where on the deck my Captain lies,

Fallen cold and dead.

O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up—for you the flag is flung—for you the bugle trills;
For you bouquets and ribbon’d wreaths—for you the shores a-crowding;
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;

Here Captain! dear father!

This arm beneath your head;

It is some dream that on the deck,

You’ve fallen cold and dead.

My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still;
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will;
The ship is anchor’d safe and sound, its voyage closed and done;
From fearful trip, the victor ship, comes in with object won;

Exult, O shores, and ring, O bells!

But I, with mournful tread,

Walk the deck my Captain lies,

Fallen cold and dead.

I know nothing about the poem, so I'm waiting for 48 hours before replacing the version in the articale. Comments, anybody? -- _^ä. 05:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool :P Mathwhiz 29 (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you format it that way. Looks more like a poem, if you know what I mean. Randolf+slayer (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright should state that the poem itself has lapsed into the public domain and is not under GFDL. Drbits (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was much bigger in June. Why is it that everything except the lead, text, and audio has been deleted? Wikisource now has more background information than this article.
--Dromioofephesus (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that myself. The Background & Analysis section was removed in June, and I have now restored it. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The line in particular is "As the voyage ends, so does the captain's life", which the poem depicted to the side clearly states. Unless the problem is with the implied link between the voyage and the captain's life, or with the timing of the captain's death, the "citation needed" should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andr0o (talk • contribs) 04:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The poem was also used in the show Full House. 72.28.208.41 (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is not notable. I, and probably many others, have never heard of a show called "Full House". Graham Colm (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether you or "many others" have heard of it; lists of popular culture references simply aren't appropriate for articles. 70.172.214.70 (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This poem is also being used in the USS Avalon Star Trek Simulation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simchadude (talk • contribs) 13:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to this poem is also made in SUITS, the TV-series 81.129.244.125 (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done No reference, plus we do try to avoid adding uses in non-vital/non-notable ways. A mention on a TV episode is not notable in its own right ES&L 11:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The analysis section is poorly written. It reads like a high school essay.

Furthermore, since the central metaphor of the poem is so obvious, much of the "analysis" is unnecessary. It's enough to simply state that it's about Lincoln (as the introduction does).

I don't have or want a Wikipedia account, so I can't delete the section. The only useful information in the analysis is that the rhyming is unusual for Whitman. That should be moved to the introduction. 98.218.180.142 (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the information about References in Pop Culture, I wish to add Wander Over Yonder to the list of shows that have used the "O Captain! My Captain" line within their show.

HayaMika (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you can help with sources to the others listed, that would be great, too. As it is, uncited information like this runs the risk of being deleted. --Stfg (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be true that 'The poem was known as one of the greatest poems written at the time of the Civil War.' But still it needs justifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.216.206 (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. And that will be hard, since it depends on agreeing what constitues greatness in a poem. It could run and run ;) Deleted. --Stfg (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made an edit to the 'in popular culture' section to enhance the reference to this work in the TV show Park and Recreation. The main article links to the correct wikipedia page (on the fictional company 'sweetums') but I did not know how to make this 'tidy'. It currently has an ugly full URL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adagio67 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the formatting, but I think the whole of the "In popular culture" section is uncited trivia and should be deleted. Graham Colm (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting does not look right (though the links are all correct). currently it's "Parks and Recreation, and as proposed eulogy to Ron Swanson , in series 2 episode 14 of Sweetums (Parks and Recreation)", it should read Parks and Recreation, as a proposed eulogy to Ron Swanson, in series 2 episode 14, "Sweetums"," . (Sweetums is the episode name and has it's own page, as do the character mentioned and the series itself). I've done what corrections I could

I haven't a clue as to what you are trying to say. Graham Colm (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'uncited'. this 'in popular culture' section appears to describe clearly where the poem is referred to/used in popular culture and as such I believe it is of interest and should remain. Not being an American, I was not familiar with it until it was referenced in P&R which, having looked it up and found this page, led to my clarifying the mention of that reference here Adagio67 (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs referencing to a reliable source. Graham Colm (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The line by line analysis seems to be too lengthy and unnecessarily detailed - much like a teacher teaching in a class. Could it be written differently? ''Prabhakar Sarma Neog'' (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imho, it would make more sense if we put the analysis after the text of the poem?--little Alex (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:O Captain! My Captain!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 04:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've reviewed many of my articles, I'll help you out and review this one. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• " and the most famous of his poems during Whitman's life." - Maybe this is just me, but it feels unneccesarily clunky

• cut to "the most famous during his life" how does that seem?

Background

• Link Drump-Taps at the first mention, not the second

• linked

• Was there specific content in Leaves of Grass that was found objectional? Given that several of the quotes in the reception section talk about Whitman not be filthy for once, it would probably be okay to give a little more background into why he got kind of a naughty image in the public mind

• Added a little bit, mostly critics found it far to sexual and objected to some homosexual overtones, which were unpopular to say the least in that day and age.

Publication history

• "It's final republication by Whitman was in the 1881 edition of Leaves of Grass." - Drop the apostrophe

• Done

• It's implied that the reason Whitman did not like this poem was that it was to ubiquitous, but this isn't stated directly. Do any of the secondary sources provide commentary on why Whitman didn't like it? All that's given is a couple of quotes, and the reader is left to draw their own conclusions. This works if the secondary sources don't elaborate, bu if there's some elaboration, that would be nice to add

• I'll look into it

• I'm afraid that my sources don't elaborate. My OR guess is not that he actually disliked the poem but that he was frustrated it became known instead of all of his free verse work, which he felt was the far more representative of himself and his work, but unfortunately Eddie 2020 is not an acceptable source :P

Analysis

• "Stefan Schöberlein writes that the poem "has largely been ignored in English speaking academia due to its sentimentality", with the exception of a 2000 analysis by Helen Vendler.[19]" - Should this get moved to the reception section?

• Schöberlein here was most likelyreferring here to the fact that the poem hasn't been analysed much, which is why I used it to set up the analysis section, but could move it if you wanted.

• "Utilizes elements of war journalism, including "the bleeding drops of red" and "fallen cold and dead"" - Sentence fragment

• fixed. There's no real great place to put this sentence, unfortunately.

In popular culture

• "Captain reference full circle, ending with the students standing on their desks (to the fury of Mr. Nolan) and addressing Keating as "O Captain! My Captain!", as a final farewell to him" - Unclear who Mr. Nolan is

• cut, retained from a old version with more detail (fancruft, really)

References

• Can we get publishing locations for Dimare and Rush?

• sure

• "From Noon to Starry Night: A Life of Walt Whitman. Chikago: Ivan R. Dee." - Chicago is misspelled

• fixed

• Need several ISBNs here: Blodgett, Callow, Eiselein, Price & Folsom, Reynolds.

added (some got OCLCs instead)

• Need either an ISBN or an OCLC, not sure which one they will have: Coyle, Loving 1975, Miller, Whitman 1961

added

• Need locations for: Aaron, Blodgett, Coyle, Eiselein, Lewis, Kummings, Pannapacker, Parini, Podlecki

added

• Be consistent with state abbreviations: You use the style of SC, but you also use N.J. and Calif. Pick one and stick with it

went with spelling them out

• Spell out University of Nebraska Press

• done

• "Aaron, Daniel (2003-01-08)" - Only saw the year there. Might as well just strip the books down to the year, as it's hard to pin down a specific day

• done

• Some of the title are in sentence case, others are in Title Case. Be consistent

Think all the books are now in title case

Overall, good work as usual. Most of my comments are picky ones about reference formatting. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hog Farm: responded to the quick ones, I'll get around to the more time-consuming ones shortly-- time has been caught up in the real world this weekend, I'm afraid. I haven't forgotten about your source review-- I've emailed the university requesting the books, but for some odd reason they don't want non-students waltzing into the library at random, so I need to set up a pick up time-- something about a global pandemic? Anyways, should have them in the next couple days. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Hog Farm I think that's it? Many thanks for the review so far. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's it for GA status. Passing. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following doesn't fit in the article, but am pasting here for posterity: Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“

When the publisher Harper requested to reprint the poem in a school course reader, Whitman said "It's My Captain again; always My Captain,"[1] and wrote that he told John Swinton he was sorry he wrote the poem "but there's no help for it now: let's resign ourselves to the inevitable!"[2]

”

I am having trouble finding reliable secondary sources to support the allusions to Nelson's death that I personally feel every time I hear the poem.

The Religious imagery section provides citations to Schöberlein's contrived interpretation that:

The poem's speaker places its "arm beneath [Lincoln's] head" in the same way that "Mary cradled Jesus" after his crucifixion. With Lincoln's death, "the sins of America are absolved into a religio-sentimental, national family"

There is no support for the implication that Whitman was aware of Correggio's 1525 Deposition.

Yet there is no mention of the simpler interpretation that the imagery of the speaker's arm beneath the head could be based on the image found here^[1] which clearly shows an arm beneath the head at "The Death of Nelson". It is more likely that Whitman has seen images like this 1841 publication ^[2] that fit much better with the nautical imagery of the poem.

It is interesting to note that even if the analysis at "Penny's poetry pages Wiki"^[3] came from a source more reliable than fandom.com, it could not be "quoted". Nelson is never mentioned in the text. Simply displaying the image next to the relevant stanzas has a much more powerful effect (at least on me) than the "Religious imagery" section. Annette Maon (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that a secondary source references Correggio's Deposition, while secondary analysis doesn't substantiate a connection to that image (I've been looking in to some analysis of nelson and the nautical allusions-- there isn't much. While you are welcome to criticize Schöberlein's interpretation all you want, he is a respected scholar and his opinion isn't going anywhere, regardless of what you may "personally feel"-- I bet many people hear many things when listening to the poem. I'm not sure exactly what you want here, we cannot just add an image without sourcing to support its connection. YOu're welcome to find reliable sources establishing this connection. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that Schöberlein's interpretation should go anywhere. As I have no access to his analysis I assume good faith on the part of the editor who added that section. The religious imagery can be relevant and notable even if Whitman had never seen Correggio's painting. The connection to the poem may not be as explicit as the nautical imagery but as long as the secondary source supports it - it is not going anywhere. The only secondary source that I found^[1] with explicit reference to Nelson's death and Whitman's nautical background makes no specific mention of the image which I found at a fandom site. I can not prove a direct link between the two but it seems more likely to me that Whitman might have seen that image (or something like it) in an English book published in 1841 than that he saw a color reproduction of an Italian painting at a time when the technology to reproduce such paintings did not yet exist.

I agree that we can not just add an image without a secondary source to support the connection. It would be nice if someone could find better sources. In the meantime, is the reference I did find to Nelson's death reliable enough to support the connection based on the title of the image? Annette Maon (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]