Talk:Gettysburg Address/Archive 1

message: __TOC__
Do we need not ONE, but TWO versions of the source text in this article? RickK 05:43, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some changes for greater clarity and to emphasize that the changes were made by Lincoln himslf and do not change the substance of the speech.  JHCC 19:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: I'm sorry but I don't understand this bit:
"Lincoln's actual speech follows (broken into paragraphs for clarity), rendered in Lincoln's high-pitched, western twang:"
How and where is it so rendered? For it to say that in the article, I would expect to be able to hear a soundfile of someone impersonating Lincoln or maybe (which Heaven forfend!) see an attempt to write down his pronunciation. But what follows is not actually "rendered" in anything other than italic text. If what was perhaps meant was a comment on his voice, how it sounded when he made the sppech, then maybe this could be made clearer, but I find the wording quoted above a bit confusing. Any chance of a change please? Oh and btw it is a brilliant article! Nevilley 07:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: well fixed, thanks. Nevilley 00:44, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rendered? 

message: Shouldn't it be the Constitution of 1787?
----
True, a sticky point.  At United States Constitution we see that it was completed in 1787, but the new government came into existence on March 4, 1789. dino 03:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  1789? 

message: According to The Library of Congress site on the Gettysburg Address, there is still "considerable scholarly debate" over which version of the speech Lincoln really gave.  It includes transcripts of the Nicolay and Hay drafts (the two earliest), comparing them and giving the story of the two.  This article really needs to either be rewritten to reflect the fact that Lincoln's exact words are still unclear, or else refute that claim somehow.
Also, there are more than just two versions of the speech.  This site has scans of several different versions of the speech scanned in, though without transcripts.  I couldn't tell at first glance which version is presented here on Wikipedia as Lincoln's true version but it should be given its official name (Hay Draft, Nicolay Draft, etc.), as should the second "incorrect" version.  Not only would this be more official and correct, but it would also get rid of the need for awkward references to "The often-quoted, revised version of the speech" etc.
For these two reasons, I am including the  tag on this page.  The two pages listed above are very reputable and give information contradictory to that presented here on WP.  I'm going to try to help fix these up but I really don't have much time (I'm leaving for two years in a week) so I might have to leave it for others.  I really hope this article gets fixed up as the Gettysburg Address is a very famous speech and also has a very interesting (and obviously complicated) story behind it. - biggins  (talk) 23:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual errors? 

message: I'm just wondering how the "original" version of the (according to the article partly improvised) speech should have passed down to us; I don't suppose it's been taped. Are there any eye-witness reports? -Zar alex 09:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  where from? 

message: From where came language like "Now we are engaged in a great world war, testing whether that island ... " come from?  This type of nonsense seems to go way back in the history, and I don't have the time right now to figure it out.
Any takers?
dino 20:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is going on -- truly strange language

message: I made numerous stylistic and formatting changes to the article, based largely on comments received via the Peer Review process. BartBenjamin 21:04, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First round of Peer Review updates have been made 

message: What I wrote:
:I reverted your spelling correction of "battle-field" because that is how Lincoln spelled it. I recall seeing this specifically referenced in a discussion of how the English language and spelling evolves over time. I, unfortunately, do not own an original manuscript of the Gettysburg Address to verify this, though the fact that it was originally transcribed with the hyphen would tend to back my sometimes faulty memory. The modern spelling is used in the text of the article, of course, but Lincoln's spelling should be used in the transcription of the document itself. Thanks. -- Kbh3rd 04:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback on the Gettysburg Address article. Actually, page 1 of the Bliss document is referenced by a footnote in the article, which directs readers to http://www.papersofabrahamlincoln.org/images/GABliss1.jpg. By examining that page, you'll notice that in Lincoln's own hand, the word either reads "battlefield" or "battle field" depending on how you interpret his handwriting. However, it definitely does not read "battle-field." Bart 15:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Doesn't look like a hyphen to me, and the "e" in script would need a trailing line in that position to avoid being confused with "o".  The near-gap after the downstroke of the "e" could be due to the pen moving up a little during the circular stroke.  (SEWilco 05:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have no comment on how battlefied was/is/should be spelled - but, to my eyes, that clearly is a hyphen. The tail of the e curls up and the pen was then lifted to create a dash before continuing with field. 139.163.138.14 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of "battle field" 

message: I've removed the discussion points on issues related to very old versions of this page. It was becoming too difficult to separate recent comments with irrelevant old ones. By the way, according to Wikipedia style, are you supposed to post new talking points at the bottom of the page or at the top? From the way old pages are chronologically sorted (or lack thereof), it appears that there's little agreement among users. Bart 03:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no rule, but generally new stuff goes at the bottom.  See: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout.  And thanks for cleaning up!  Kaisershatner 13:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I should also have pointed out that typically we don't delete old posts - archive them instead.  []
I'll restore it from the old versions, though, don't worry about it.  Kaisershatner 16:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very old discussions have been removed 

message: This article has lots of well-sourced and interesting items about the history of the drafts.  Might be worth including; no time for it right this minute but I didn't want to lose track of it: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/24.2/johnson.html
Kaisershatner 16:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tracking down the drafts

message: Time for another peer review?  Kaisershatner 16:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC checklist

message: We incorporate images, hyperlinks to related history/Lincoln subjects, audiolinks, etc.  Kaisershatner 16:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: It should exemplify our very best work, representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet

message: I can't judge my/our writing objectively, but at least the grammar and spelling are correct.  I think we are comprehensive - almost every detail I can conceive of has been touched upon in the article, although potentially consider:
* more info on Wills or "the committee?"
* expand the contemporary reactions section w/more citations from newspapers?
"factually accurate":  this article is very well cited, IMO.
"neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) - the only potential area for NPOV probs would be the "textual analysis" section but even that is a stretch.  I revised this section a bit, should be clearly npov if not wholly comprehensive.  Kaisershatner 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: It should be well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable.

message: I reverted the changes by an anon user, which were unsourced, and suggested Brady took the photo himself, something contradicted by the sourced info I found (I may be wrong).  The change should be supported by a reference in any case.  Finally, I think the caption was too long even if correct (the WP:FAC article suggests "succinct" captions.  See also: (Wikipedia:Cite sources)
Thanks,  Kaisershatner 17:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Only known photo caption

message: I reverted the edit which removed "under God" as the transcription in the article clearly puports to be the "Bliss Copy"  which doues read "under God".  This article is well enough referenced that people need not doubt it.  But if any one need I will find the link from over at Wikisource that shows a digital copy in Lincolns own handwriting.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under God 

message: The section entitled "contemporary sources and reaction" must be incorrect in its attribution of a quotation to the Chicago Sun-Times. I deduce this from the fact that the Sun-Times, at least according to its Wikipedia entry, was not formed (by merger) until the mid-20th century. The merger was between the Chicago Sun and the Chicago Daily Times. Perhaps the quote actually belongs to one of the precursor papers. Somebody should look into this. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 06:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicago "''Sun-Times''" 

message: User Bart Benjamin has suggested protecting the page for the duration of the stint on the home page. It is an option worth seriously considering. Capitalistroadster 02:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. There were at least 20 reverts that I saw. It is unacceptable to subject readers to so much vandalism to such a high profile page. Soft protection should be lifted after this page falls off the main page. --mav 22:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Featured articles on the main page should not be semi-protected for extended durations of time, if at all: see User:Raul654/protection. In any case, it's been nearly half an hour since semi-protection, so I'm going to take the liberty of unprotecting it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: These mean different things. In most cases "can not" is a mis-spelling, because what people really mean is "cannot".  
* "Cannot" is the simple opposite of "can".  It unambiguously excludes a certain option.
**I can live for a day without food, but I cannot live for a month without food.
* "Can not" is a much more ambiguous expression, and one that is almost always best avoided.  It means the speaker can choose not to do a certain action; but the decision hasn't been made yet and the option of doing it remains.  
**I can not respond to your absurd claims; or, I can choose to tell you what I really think of them.  When I've made my mind up, you'll be the first to know.   
I raise this here because the "official" text we have for the Gettysburg Address has 3 instances of "can not", and I really wonder if that’s accurate:
* But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground.
The Hay Copy shows this is the way Lincoln himself spelled the words, so it seems to have this stamp of authority.  But the NY Times article from 20 November spells all of them as "cannot".   Given that this was an oral address, the transcribers of the spoken words have a duty to report them without misspellings or grammatical errors.  I believe the NY Times got it right.  Surely Lincoln intended the meaning of "cannot" described above.  That he mis-spelled this when he wrote out the Hay Copy shows his humanity, but I don’t believe we have to perpetuate his spelling errors, particularly in such a hallowed set of words as this.   JackofOz 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you've simply discovered that common usage of that era often spelled out "cannot" as "can not." All five versions of the Gettysburg Address have Lincoln spelling out that phrase as "can not." Perhaps, as you point out, it is grammatically incorrect today, but since history records it as such, I tend to support its literal transcription. Bart 06:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  William Safire has "cannot" in the version in his anthology of great speeches in history "Lend Me Your Ears".  The version inscribed on the walls at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., also has "cannot".  JackofOz 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree with you.  In fact at Wikisource I led the article with the version on the Lincoln Memorial, because it is easier to read.  I just mean to point out this line Of these versions the Bliss version has become the standard text. It is the only version to which Lincoln affixed his signature, and the last he is known to have written: (Gettysburg Adress here)  It implies the Bliss copy is what follows and should be changed if the text is changed to a grammacticly correct transcription.  BTW most the differences between copies are either capitolization and word order. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Cannot" and "can not"

message: I changed the spelling of battle field to battle-field because that mark after the "e" shure looks like a hyphen to me.
see...
--ZASHBOT 04:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of "battle-field" 

message: Hey, is it necessary to have the beginning/end of Everett's oration if we have it in wikisource?  -RadSkat3 17:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Necessary - maybe not.  I happen to think it provides a nice contrast with the simplicity and general tone of Lincoln's words.  The overblown rhetorical droning of Everett is clear from the opening and closing.  Just my two cents.  Kaisershatner 02:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, okay, not bad, not bad.  I agree.  It does sound like something we would today fall asleep at, BUT, then again we now live in a world of decreased attention spans and TV and video games.  Back then, they would read whole 500-page books at a time- nowadays, some people might fall asleep at Lincoln's speech- even if it were in comtemporary language... but you're right, you're right.  -RadSkat3 17:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oration 

message: I have swapped Everett over to the left side of the article so that he "faces into" the text, as per WP:MOS#Pictures. And I must say that I am impressed, even moved, by this article - an excellent example of Wikipedia in action. --Jumbo 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facing Everett 

message: Again, we have a valuable Wikipedia article ending in a section that refers to U.S. popular so-called culture. Such sections greatly demean Wikipedia. A reference to an adolescent movie has no place in an article such as this. If a rap "singer" jabbered about Lincoln's Address, would we have to read about it here? If a Saturday morning cartoon showed Lincoln delivering the speech, should we mention it?Lestrade 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular "Culture"

message: :Certainly, however, one can point out the obvious difference between the right of <I>personal</i> self-determination and the right of communal self-governance.  Arguably, the Union soldiers fought for the former, while the Confederates fought for the latter.
Not to put too fine a point on it, aren't we just editorializing here? Has anyone we could actually source pointed this out? JRM · Talk 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are editorializing. I've removed the above statement. I think Mencken's quote can stand on its own without us trying to defuse it on the reader's behalf. If the rebuttal to Mencken's point is notable enough, there will be a source for this than an aside in a Wikipedia article. JRM · Talk 18:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should take out the Mencken quote entirely.  First, it's not really a criticism of the speech; it's a criticism of the Union cause couched as criticism of the speech.  Any Confederate partisan would agree with Mencken.  Second, Mencken wasn't a Lincoln scholar.  Why is his opinion about the speech worth noting here?  I think in this case, we need not just a reference that Mencken said this, but also a reference that someone notable has taken notice of this quote when talking about the Gettysburg address.  --Allen 03:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey Alan.  I can see your points and it does make a lot of sense.  We might improve the article by cutting this altogether, but one reason I have always liked it is that the article is otherwise unabashedly complimentary.  What I liked about the Mencken quotation is that however misdirected, it is at least a criticism of the speech and provokes the reader to consider whether there is an element of hypocrisy in the Address. (There isn't, in my view, for the reasons you have noted and for those stated in the rebuttal, but at least it might stimulate the reader to think about this question).  Does that make it worth keeping?  Maybe not?  Kaisershatner 13:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal to H. L. Mencken's criticism 

message: Hi; I'm not against moving the content & themes section upward, although I think I prefer it in its previous location, but it should not go before the actual text of the address.  It may be more important than the history of the five drafts but the analysis of the themes ought not to precede the primary source material, imo.  Kaisershatner 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Content and themes section

message: :Lincoln himself, over time, revised his opinion of "my little speech."
OK, and in what way did he revise it? The context does not make it at all clear. - furrykef (Talk at me) 08:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lincoln's revised opinion 

message: In the Five Manuscript section:
"Lincoln's search resulted in the discovery of a handwritten copy of the Gettysburg Address among the bound papers of John Hay—a copy now known as the "Hay Draft", which differed from the version published by John Nicolay in 1894 in the paper used, number of words per line, number of lines, and editorial revisions in Lincoln's hand."
Starting at the dash, the sentance stops making much sense. Can someone clarify the article? TheHYPO 09:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified.  HTH Kaisershatner 15:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No idea what this means: 

message: I've been ruminating over the recent changes to the introduction. On the one hand, it is fitting and proper (ha!) that we should cite our assertion that the GA is one of the most important, etc. speeches.  And if we're going to use a citation, McPherson is a pretty good choice, given his stature as a historian and Civil War expert.  But I am vaguely bothered by placing his name so prominently up there in the article.  Next to Lincoln, he doesn't rate a mention by name. Maybe the solution is to keep the McPherson citation but move it all into a footnote?  This way we cite our assertion but also keep the intro about Lincoln and his speech, without slamming readers over the head with the name of McPherson.  After all, thousands of prominent people have a view of the GA.  I bet JFK or Teddy Roosevelt have said things about it, etc.  Why single out McPherson in this way? Kaisershatner 15:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gettysburg and McPherson 

message: KaiserShatner,
I wish what you said were true that "there does not appear to be an actual controversy" over whether Lincoln said "under God" at Gettysburg.
I don't think that any serious objective scholarly historian would consider it controversial. However, among a number of ideological propandists with atheist agendas, the argument is being made that Lincoln did not utter those words. This is obviously a result of the wild controversy surrounding these two words which has gone all the way to the Supreme Court. If the Newdow faction can provide an argument that Lincoln didn't say those words at Gettysburg, they feel their case may be stronger.
For example, Cliff Walker, an editor of Positive Atheism magazine, claims that Lincoln only inserted the words "under God" in a later draft at the prompting of either Everett, Bliss, or Bancroft. Walker writes the Lincoln had "written out a script of the speech for somebody (I don't have my library fully unpacked to provide the name) and honored that individual's request to make it say 'this nation under God...'" see http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8448.htm
Walker claims that the addition of "under God" was a forgery: "this is precisely what I propose the (alleged) forgers were trying to place into Lincoln's mouth: lip-service to God!" http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8448.htm
Bloggers with James Randi's skeptical Educational Foundation, also claim that the question remains in dispute: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=11448
Steve Krulick, a politician from New York State, has argued online that 
"Maybe he [Lincoln] just coughed and it SOUNDED like 'under God'!... It's possible he never said it, and the words were a later interpolation!" see http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.war.us-revolution/msg/29303d00772acf68
Their biggest argument seems to be the missing words in the Nicolay manuscript, which is why I find the MLK Jr. "I have a dream" manuscript relevant. Although a reasonable person like you may not need the MLK example to see that speakers often divert from the text, unfortunately not everyone sees as clearly as you do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 
Hilltoppers, it was actually User:Tom (North Shoreman) who wrote about the controversy above, but I see where you are coming from and your edits are at least a step in the right direction.  Kaisershatner 15:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under God: "there does not appear to be an actual controversy"... I wish 

message: Is it because of Southern zealots vandalizing the article, or is there an editorial dispute? Childe Roland of Gilead 09:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it locked? 

message: The entire article is written as if Lincoln authored the speech himself.  Not knowing the history of speech writing, that would be an amazing assertion if applied to a speech as for back as one delivered from FDR.
Harburg 21:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the speech written by Lincoln's speech writer? 

message: It's not clear if that quote is the beginning of the address? Or the end? The whole thing?  There is simply no explanation!--345Kai 08:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ???? 

message: The second paragraph says 269 words, further down it says 272. My word processor has 271 based on the text contained in the article. I can understand the answer being 272 (battle field vs battle-field) but I don't know where 269 comes from. In any case, the article should at least be internally consistent. Which figure should be used? Rpeh 08:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a word count is among the speech's least interesting attributes (particularly if the exact wording of the speech is disputed, as it says at the top of the article).  I removed it altogether.  If the point is that Lincoln provided a model of concise plain speaking, then can someone please find a reference to that effect and add it?  --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of words 

message: About the recent addition of a lengthy statement in the fn about "under God," is Krulick in the same class as Randi and the editor of Positive Atheism on this subject?  Especially since Krulick himself apparently thinks the bulk of the evidence is that Lincoln used the phrase "under God?"  I'm just not sure if this adds much to the analysis.  There are probably thousands of people who have publicly opined on this; perhaps we should limit our examples?  Kaisershatner 17:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krulick of the Greens 

message: I am a regular public speaker (a preacher!) and I usually prepare my sermons in a form where they could be read by another. However, when I actually deliver the sermon, it is rarely a word-for-word rendering of the words I have written. In fact, I would state that it never is, except by accident! And if I were to write down the words of a sermon after the event, I might capture some of the changes I made, but probably not all.
Now, Lincoln was clearly an accomplished and able speaker - I don't need to emphasize that; it is a given. But as such, I am sure that when speaking he would react to the audience before him and would almost certainly NOT deliver the address verbatim as written. So why do scholars concentrate on drafts which in the nature of public speaking are pretty well certain NOT to record exactly what Lincoln actually said? A transcript by a listener would be a better source, if such exists. 
It strikes me that arguing about what this draft or that draft says is actually beating the air. --APRCooper (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, people interested in the Gettysburg Address are curious about what exactly was said.  There is no way to know this with 100% certainty, for the reasons you mention above.  Whether the eyewitness testimony/shorthand transcript is perfect or not is unknowable at this time, and whether or not the drafts are exact, they provide interesting evidence about the speech, even without being sure of their accuracy.  So, yes, it is "beating the air" in the sense that the truth is unlikely to be uncovered, but also thorough reporting of the event to provide readers with all of the available source material.  Cheers, Kaisershatner (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, thanks for your interest.  You will find the Hale account is noted in this article.  However, I don't think a single eyewitness report is necessarily more authoritative than Lincoln's own draft(s).  We have no idea how reliable Mr. Hale was, and if you check witness you can find links to research about the (un)reliability of eyewitness testimony.  I think we should include mention of Hale.  About the "focus" on the drafts; they are not merely included as evidence of the wording of the GA, but also as evidence of Lincoln's process in writing it, as well as an interesting historical aspect of how the GA was perceived and used after it was actually given.  (ie, that it was wanted for charitable purposes and that copies of it are highly sought after and were actively sought out in the decades following Lincoln's death).  If you think Hale deserves a more prominent mention, I'm not against that- dig up some sources and we'll have a look!  Kaisershatner (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why concentrate on Lincoln's drafts? 

message: Is this sentence from the 2nd paragraph up for debate?
"It would also create a unified nation in which states' rights were no longer dominant,"
In my amateur Lincoln opinion saying that "states' rights were no longer dominant" based on the GA speech might be a little polemic. I don't think the GA even mentions the states' right v. the powers of the federal government debate. The GA proposed that the Civil War was being fought over "the proposition that all men are created equal."
Yes, within that "proposition" the South's belief in States' rights v. federal power is there. But that argument is absent from the actual Gettysburg Address. --Lester113 19:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polemic Word Choice? 

message: IMO this section is hard to manage w/o POV: I like The Music Man, you might like Relient K, etc., and it gets huge and unwieldy.  I left "I have a dream" which as referenced is at least another Very Famous American speech. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop culture refs