Talk:Gettysburg Address/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

old comment

The text of the fourth paragraph runs into the "only confirmed photo" of Abraham Lincoln and looks really bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.38.188 (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Mencken, redux

I put back the Mencken criticism, I know we debated it before and I would be happy to discuss again. Other than the contemp. news reactions, there is little mention of any criticism of the GA, and certainly Southerners (and apparently libertarians) have some negative things to say about it. Even if we disagree, I think it is not NPOV to ignore the existence of criticism of the GA, however, misguided it may appear to be. I'd be interested in feedback.Kaisershatner (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I can think of several problems with including the quote. In the first place, you reference the Lew Rockwell website for the source, but this obviously has provided only an excerpt from some larger source to which it provides no reference. If the quote is even accurate, would the full context cast possibly a different light on Mencken's observations? Was he really writing about the Gettysburg address or was this paragraph strictly a small part of a much wider attack on Lincoln or some other political issue of the time? Lew Rockwell is a political advocacy website and not a reliable source for history -- unless you find a source from a reliable secondary source referencing the quote with the type of information you would normally expect to be included in a footnote, the quote does not belong in a Featured article.

Second, a quote from a non-historian is very effective, descriptive, and sourcefull, Depression-era political essayist. If historians consider the quote relevant, then surely they will have referred to it in their own works.

As far as NPOV, if the only criticism (other than contemporary criticism which is covered or non-reliable neo-Confederate criticism) that you can come up with is this eighty year old quote, then it appears you are giving way too much undue weight to Mencken. You need a reliable secondary source that describes what actual contemporary criticism there is concerning the address itself as opposed to Lincoln in general (which is how I read Mencken's quote). Leaving the quote in would require, in order to balance the POV, an explanation of exactly why Confederate soldiers were not fighting for self determination. Do you really want to open up this particular article for that type of debate?

At the least, since as you acknowledge the quote has been discussed before, it should not be included unless there is a consensus reached that it should be included. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom, thanks for your (fast!) reply. I will take out the Mencken quote for now based on your logic. Keep in mind I have no particular axe to grind, I assume my hundreds of edits here are some evidence of my positive interest in the GA. It does bother me, however, not to include any criticism AT ALL, to me it seems the weight is all on the admiring side. I guess I can keep looking for better sources, though. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC) PS- No, I really don't want to open this article to that kind of debate, I really don't want a five paragraph pro/anti/Lincoln/slavery explosion here. I just want to make sure we aren't leaving out something important. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What little modern American criticism of the Gettysburg Address that exists, principally from libertarians and modern defenders of the Confederacy, focuses on an alleged dissonance between Lincoln's espousal of freedoms and the conduct of the Civil War: author H.L. Mencken, in "Note on the Gettysburg Address," wrote that "The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves."^[1]

Kaisershatner (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Critisism of the speech

At http://www.acws.co.uk/archives/misc/quotes.htm at the bottom of the page, has some comments from the Chicago Tribune, George McClellan, and the NY Post on their reaction to the GA. They are very negative toward the speech. This shows that the speech was not universally embraced. Leobold1 (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Connection to Dr. King's I Have a Dream speech

I've copied the start of this discussion from my talk page. --Chris (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi - the use of "score" as a measure of anything went out with the 19th Century - you really don't think that Martin Luther King Jr, while standing in front of the statue of Lincoln, coincidentally used the formulation "five score"? Kaisershatner (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Dr. King's speech, I'm not disputing that there is a connection (though I don't really see a strong one) but right now it's unsourced original research. I'm just requesting a reference for that claim. --Chris (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's more circumstantial evidence, besides the location of the speech (in front of Lincoln), the use of "five score" to echo the GA, also it seems as if MLK had the GA directly in mind: "King would speak last, and four days before the March he told Al Duckett, a black journalist who was ghostwriting a forthcoming King book on the Birmingham campaign (eventually titled Why We Can't Wait), that his August 28 oration needed to be "sort of a Gettysburg Address."["http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2005/Jul/15-590366.html] I will keep looking for other citations. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

(Added by user:StatesManship):"Abraham Lincoln's carefully crafted address, portions plagiarized from the General Prologue to the first translation of the Holy Bible into English in a.d. 1384 by the Reverend John Wycliffe, the "Morning Star" of the Reformation where was written "The Bible is for the government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Lincoln omitted the reference to the Bible and failed to credit his source, likely from Bartlett's Familiar Quotations edition of a.d. 1863 that quoted Wycliffe. Lincoln's comments at Gettysburg, known today as the "Gettysburg Address", were secondary to other presentations that day by such notable speakers as Edward Everett Hale, yet came to be regarded as one of the greatest speeches in American history, even if one of the most memorable lines for which "Honest Abe" is most remembered was "borrowed" or taken without attribution from an English priest."

I think we need a citation for this; also I would want to amend the language a bit - "plagiarized" is a pretty strong term. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Cannot" vs. "can not" - revisited

I raised an issue 2 years ago, to which nobody disagreed, but it still went nowhere and I got sidetracked. I still think it’s important, and I’ve revisited it at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#"Can not" vs. "cannot" in the 1860s. Interested editors may care to see what’s going on over there, and maybe contribute their thoughts. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Purpose

In the infobox, the purpose of the address was given as, "To give the Union soldiers a redefining of what they were fighting for". This strikes me as particularly ugly phrasing. I've replaced that with "To redefine the purpose of the Union in fighting the Civil War." This seems less clunky; if it's also less accurate, I hope somebody will fix it! Dricherby (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Political significance

Hilltoppers, I revised your addition, and added some fact tags. Specifically, I also deleted some analytical sentences without citation: "Hence, his decision to go to Gettysburg and urge the Union to "highly resolve" that the dead there "shall not have died in vain" was Lincoln's way of saying that if the "Copperhead" peace Democrats get their way, then the men who there gave the "last full measure of devotion" would have done so for no reason at all." Also, this totally unsupported para - did Mrs. Bixby start to support the war because of the GA? Not according to the wiki article on her. Also, attributing the 1864 election results to the GA seems to me to be a stretch: "The political power of Lincoln's rhetoric was undeniable. Even a Copperhead with the misfortune of Mrs. Bixby would be moved by Lincoln's call to "be here dedicated to the unfinished work" that men like her sons had thus far so nobly advanced. Perhaps the most important political consequence of the power of the Gettysburg Address is that Lincoln indeed won the election in 1864, thus assuring that the war would continue until the victory had been achieved." If I am wrong, please let me know, I would be happy to discuss. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

(1) In-house only

(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

(4) Typos and misunderstood coding

(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

(5) Edit-mode clutter

(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

(6) Limited application

(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

THESE PAGES SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BE EDITED.Italic text THANKS.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.87.221 (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.168.230 (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does this say "Civil War"?

In the section addressing the opening lines "Four score and seven years ago" the article states he was referring to the Civil War. Four score and seven (87) years before the address was the Revolutionary War. Obviously the address itself refers to the events of the Civil War, but the "iconic opening lines" were referring to the Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.151.90 (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles Hale's transcript

Does it exist still? Imagine Reason (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Where's the address?

I visited the article to look for the appearance of the phrase "full measure" used in Obama's inauguration speech today. Correct me if i am wrong, but this long article does not have the short Gettysburg Address included in it. Seems crazy to me to omit it. I imagine that many readers arriving here would be looking for the actual text, and would be frustrated not to find it. It's in the public domain. To address that, I added a "For" link at top of page: For the text of the Gettysburg Address see Gettysburg Address at WikiSource. I believe this is helpful and hope it will not immediately be deleted for arcane reasons. doncram (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's there, you just need to keep looking.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, i see it is buried in this long article somewhere under the section title "Lincoln's Gettysburg Address". Further it is "hidden" in that section, which starts off talking about there being different versions and all that, and the Gettysburg Address text which follows looks like it is going to be another boring quote about the complexity of it all. While looking for it before, I had read most of the preceding sections, skimmed the first paragraph of this one, and checked out one or two of the 5 versions sections which follows. The text is not easy to find. I think my reaction of frustration is natural and likely is shared by other readers arriving here. A section titled "Text of Gettysburg Address" would help so that readers could see that in the TOC. Not being invested here, I'd prefer to have just a short article and to relegate almost all of this current article to something else: "Debates and controversy about the Gettysburg Address" or something like that. But if there is just one article, a reader's path to the Address itself should be streamlined somehow, and/or the Text should appear in the very first section after an intro paragraph. doncram (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

EDSITEment Lesson The Gettysburg Address (1863)—Defining the American Union

Dear Editors: I work for the EDSITEment program of the National Endowment for the Humanties. We produced high quality free lessons plans in each of the major humanties and social studies areas which are commonly taught in K-12 classes. Our feature on Abraham Lincoln http://edsitement.neh.gov/spotlight.asp?id=138 has already been accepted for inclusion as an external link by the editors of the Abraham Lincoln page on Wikipedia. I would like to nominate our EDSITEment lesson The Gettysburg Address (1863)—Defining the American Union written by the Lucas Morel a distinguished Lincoln scholar for this page http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=764. Thanks --Joe Phelan ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelcaprice (talk • contribs) 20:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization and/or proposal for article split

The current article is too long, and there is too much arcane arguing about what is the exact text. In recent edits to the article, it is disputed how many words are in the text. Most readers would be better served by a short article giving whichever is regarded to be the archetype version of the address, saying it has 272 words in 10 sentences, and adding a footnote that there is academic dispute about possible other versions is most accurate, with a link to a separate article.

I suggest cutting out the bulk of the article to a new one titled "Controversy and context about the Gettysburg Address" or something like that.

The current article outline is as follows:

    * 1 Background
    * 2 Political significance
    * 3 Program and Everett's "Gettysburg Oration"
    * 4 Text of Gettysburg Address
    * 5 Criticism
    * 6 Lincoln's sources
    * 7 Five manuscripts
          o 7.1 Nicolay Copy
          o 7.2 Hay Copy
          o 7.3 Everett Copy
          o 7.4 Bancroft Copy
          o 7.5 Bliss Copy
    * 8 Contemporary sources and reaction
          o 8.1 Audio recollections
          o 8.2 Photographs
          o 8.3 Usage of "under God"
    * 9 Carl Sandburg's summary
    * 10 Legacy
    * 11 Notes
    * 12 References
    * 13 Bibliography
    * 14 External links

I think it is suitable for a wikipedia featured article (FA review processes seem to demand expansion and lots of references), but it is not suitable for a good short article fully meeting most readers needs, in my view. Would there be support for a split of the article? doncram (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mencken quote

This is not a criticism of a fine article. I merely note in passing this remark by H.L. Mencken, quoted in the article: "The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union solders in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves." Doesn't this suggest that Mencken saw the war entirely in terms of states' rights? He seems to have been blind to the extent to which abolition was an issue. Insofar as the Union soldiers were fighting against the right of the slave-owning states to maintain and indeed extend slavery, they were fighting for the self-determination of everybody in America, not just the white people. Lexo (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems

List of problems with this article. Also, noted them at FAR.

*A number of references needed in history section, note the fact tags I added.

Cites added except this needs to be changed or cited:"Lincoln's "few appropriate remarks" summarized the war in 10 sentences and 272 words, rededicating the nation to the war effort and to the ideal that no soldier at Gettysburg had died in vain.[citations needed]" Kaisershatner (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

*More information is needed about citation 10. This is a reference to the New York Times.

~~I think this is now cite16? Anyway, provided full biblio info for the Times article. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)~~

*There are too many pictures jammed together on the right of the article.

~~I suppose we could work on this, I happen to disagree that there are too many pics, so I will leave it for now. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)~~

~~The number of pics is fine, try and space them out over the article by putting them on both sides. KnightLago (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)~~

*A number of referenes needed in the Address section.

~~Everything here was covered except the Nicolay copy section. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)~~
~~The Lincoln's sources section contains a one sentence paragraph.~~
~~Fixed. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)~~
~~Reference needed in the five manuscript section./References needed in Nicolay section.~~

~~Put those two together; as above, only Nicolay still needs citing. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)~~

The writing in the individual letter holders sections is not great.

*References needed in the Under God section; this also poorly written with a long uncited quote. *The myths and trivia section needs to be incorporated into the article. Per the manual of style and WP:TRIVIA specifically, such sections are to be avoided.

~~The in popular culture section needs to be completely reworked also.~~
Sources have problems, see: 6, 8-13, 15-18, 20, 22, 24-33.

"but would only moments later be eclipsed." - this is opinion, and contradicted by the criticism section.

KnightLago (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The caption under the picture in the heading Program and Everett's "Gettysburg Oration" indicates Everett gave a two-hour oration. However, the content under that same heading indicates Everett's oration ended three hours later (assumingly after it began). This discrepancy should be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.12.78 (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if someone changed it and forgot to remove the tag, or if you simply misread it, but it currently says two hours both places, as well as later in the article, so I'm removing the tag. Tad Lincoln (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of purging any criticism of the GA from the article, despite my love of the speech and basic agreement with it. So I've been looking into better sourcing for the anti-view. It is heavily laden with anti-Lincoln, pro-Confederacy, anti-Federal, the Lost Cause people, and even pro-Slavery views, but there you have it.

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War

Thomas Dilorenzo. p 113-4. "It was equally absurd for Lincoln to argue that representative government would 'perish from the Earth' if the Southern states were permitted to secede peacefully. In the 'Gettysburg Address' Lincoln claimed that the war was being fought in defense of 'representative government' but fact exactly the opposite was true." He then cites the Mencken quotation as the best expression of this viewpoint. I will keep looking. Kaisershatner 16:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a crushing review of DiLorenzo:[1] Kaisershatner 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I would call that a weak review. Here are some rebuttals to it: DiLorenzo and His Critics on the Lincoln Myth and [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26530 Let the ad hominem begin] and Rewriting History, American Style.

It turns out that neo-Confederate is the term for many of the people who have voiced criticisms of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. I am wading through stuff trying to find something right for the article, am I alone in this? Kaisershatner 20:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are going to find much other than neo-confederate sources. There is certainly criticism of Lincoln and his policies by legitimate historians, but I am unfamiliar with any that focus on the Gettysburg Address itself. The closest I can come think of is those sources that focus on the time line projected by Lincoln -- 87 years puts the formation of the nation in 1776 and makes the Declaration of Independence as the most significant document of American nationality. This contrasts with folks who would argue that it was the ratification of the Constitution that actually created the United States. Presenting this debate might be interesting, but I personally think it is beyond the scope of this article. Tom (North Shoreman) 20:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kaisershatner - we must have some criticism, or the article is simply POV Lincoln worshipping. Calling anyone who critiques Lincoln or the GA "neo-confederate" is childish. No one in their right mind would call the yankee sophisticate journalist HLM a neo-confederate! So I'm adding a critique section, with quotes from Lysander Spooner, Sheldon Foote, HLM, and DiLorenzo. PhilLiberty (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was improperly formatted and served to make unreadable about forty footnotes. This is a current Featured Article and you have decided, without any discussion, to add material (DiLorenzo and Mencken) which was previously considered and then NOT ADDED to the article. Some Foote material MAY be acceptable, but it should come from what he has written on his trilogy on the Civil War and this is already included elsewhere in the article. The Spooner material is part of a general tirade and is not a specific criticism of the Gettysburg Address. There is already a contemporary reaction section to this article that could possibly, with consensus, be expanded, but a criticism section based on fringe sources (why can't you find an ACTUAL historian to say what you want to add) does not appear to be warranted.

You have been engaged in an edit war over Lincoln on several articles, including United States Declaration of Independence, and you now seem to be expanding that agenda to this article. The addition of your intended edits should not be made until consensus is reached on this discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should get consensus before you revert this well-sourced material. So far, it looks like 2-1 that criticism should be included, and not just one line of contemporary criticism. I fixed the unclosed ref. Sorry about that. PhilLiberty (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's review your sources. (1) Spooner -- I checked your reference and it does not mention either Lincoln or Gettysburg. (2) DiLorenzo -- Discussed previously. Contrary to your claim that you have a 2-1 vote in your favor, both I and the other editor who commented on it agree that DiLorenzo is not a proper source. (3)Mencken -- Discussed previously and the decision was reached not to include it. Mencken was a popular writer in the first part of the 20th Century but he was not an historian. The quote praises the speech but disagrees with Lincoln's policy. (4) Foote -- He disagrees with Lincoln's policies. Does he have an actual opinion on the speech?

The article, as it exists, does not get into an analysis of the text line by line, although there are certainly historians who have made such studies. Where the article discusses specific language, it does so only to clarify what actual words were used or where Lincoln might have found the inspiration for certain phrases.

Phil wants to change the focus of the article into a discussion of whether the Union or the slaveholding CSA were actually fighting for "self determination" or "self preservation". Indeed, there is nothing in the article explaining Lincoln's arguments on these subjects -- shall we add several sections explaining Lincoln's policies to balance he criticism that has been added against them? I again reiterate that this is already a Featured Article (one that I had little or nothing to do with) and a consensus should be obtained before this article goes down this road with questionable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Spooner is remarking on the famous claim that government by consent, i.e. "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" would perish if not for the war of forced unification. Foote is remarking on the same claim. This is certainly pertinent. HLM is considered one of the foremost journalists of the 20th century - certainly a credible source. History is only part of the story; analysis and evaluation is also important.

Tom> "Phil wants to change the focus of the article into a discussion of whether the Union or the slaveholding CSA were actually fighting for "self determination" or "self preservation". Indeed, there is nothing in the article explaining Lincoln's arguments on these subjects -- shall we add several sections explaining Lincoln's policies to balance he criticism that has been added against them?"

Yes! Evaluating whether the claims made in the Address are true or false is very important. More important than e.g. the Five Manuscripts part about minor variations in wording. PhilLiberty (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted -- you want to change the focus of the article. The original call for a criticism section was directed at the speech, not the content of the speech so at this point your opinion is a minority one. Hopefully others will chime in, and if there does develope a consensus to include content criticism, then we can discuss the actual sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Mencken quote was criticism of the (content of the) speech. The call for criticism was always about content. When speaking of criticism, one generally means content. What did you think "criticism" meant? Voice timbre? Literary style? Certainly an article about the Gettysburg Address should discuss the content of the Gettysburg Address. Do you agree? PhilLiberty (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt your ability to read another editor's mind -- that editor is certainly free to check in and clarify his intent. I do not believe that this article should become a review of all of the pros and cons of every policy or position hinted at by Lincoln in the speech. The very brief speech should be discussed as it was intended, and it was not intended as a policy speech. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article should not "become a review of all of the pros and cons of every policy or position hinted at by Lincoln in the speech." But it should address, discuss, and critique the specific extraordinary claims made in the speech. I agree that "it was not intended as a policy speech." It was intended as propaganda. Such propaganda begs for criticism. Omission of criticism amounts to using Wikipedia as a braindead propaganda organ rather than an encyclopedia. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We may not be able to hallow a ground, but it sure looks like we have hallowed the hell out of a slickly worded, mendacious warmongering speech. My attempt to get Mencken and More on Lincoln's Speech included among the external links lasted all of two minutes. I think that article makes a lot of good points that should be addressed, but Wikipedia readers are all supposed to join the continuing Lincoln worship, I guess. BobbyHedgehog (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not like the criticism written by H. L. Mencken wrote. I think it is important to have criticism of the speech, but I would find something else. Mencken says that the speech said that union solder's gave their lives for "self-determination". Lincoln said nothing about self determination in the speech. Lincoln said nothing about states rights in the speech. Lincoln said the solders were defending "a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal". Were does Menchen get self determination from that? He is not a historian. He is not very smart. It doesn't make any since to include an irrational argument on this page. I suggest that we find other criticisms, that make more since. 99.135.153.149 (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section seems extremely POV. It is a one-sided ideology argument which extends far beyond the bounds of the speech. The article states explicitly that the content of the article is contentious not on its face but in its application. Criticism such as this, which applies specifically to this speech is appropriate. Arguing the underlying ideological debates which were fundamental to all aspects of the period is not.

It is typical for criticism sections to include responses to those criticisms and I can find no place more appropriate than here. However, due to the extremely broad nature of these arguments, a sufficient explanation of the issues underscoring this debate would be extensive. The debate of whether self determination favors the north or south is far beyond the context of this article.

The speech is praised from a historical context. The praise leads directly from the significance of the speech itself and does not reach beyond that scope. I find it extremely inappropriate to apply a different standard to the criticism section for the sole purpose of balancing it. It the speech were so balanced in such a context, then it would not be so notable.

The criticism sections should be limited to the criticism of this particular speech, not on the broader, underlying ideological arguments. Even if some mention of them is justified, a brief summary, with citation should be sufficient rather than the direct citations.Blaimjos (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, sitting here 10 000 km away from the United States of America, Lincoln was fighting for black people's right to self-determination, and the Confederates were fighting against that right. Lincoln states in the first line of the Gettysburg Address that the Founding Fathers were also fighting against discrimination and some royal divine right (insert white man divine right here) of one class of people being superior to another class. As I understand it, that was the meaning that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. saw when he quoted Lincoln's words "five score years" later. 23:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Aldo L (talk)

Somehow I lost track of the fact that the DiLorenzo, Spooner et al section had been readded despite a lack of consensus. As noted above, the sources used are fringe and the criticism is primarily directed at Lincoln's policy rather than the speech itself. There is further on down the article a section for contemporary reaction to the speech which is certainly relevant concernig criticism made at the time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are solid sources, and they are about the speech. The section you deleted is necessary for balance. I'm putting it back in. PhilLiberty (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Einhorn reference, while apparently reliable, is simply repetition of material already in the "Contemporary sources and reaction" section. Since this section describes both positive and negative initial reaction, how is there a lack of balance? Spooner, Mencken, and DiLorenzo all had political agendas and there is not an historian among them -- Dilorenzo in particular is not recognized as a reliable source by actual historians. On Foote you do not provide a page number. However what he writes in the second voume of his trilogy is significantly different. He writes there of the memorization by school kids that the speech "would be memorized in the future by millions of American school children, including those of the South, despite his claim that a victory by their forebears, in their war for independence, would have meant the end of government by and for the people. The speech did indeed scour [Lincoln had expressed fears right after the speech that the "speech won't scour], even in dark and bloody ground." Here it is clearly Foote's opinion that the speech was a success.

The material you added attacks the concept that the North was fighting for self-determination, instead arguing that it was the South's defense of its right to protect and expand slavery that was really about self-determination. A back and forth on the merits of this issue in an article about the speech is hardly appropriate. Despite yourclaim that you are only trying to provide balance, nwhere else in the article is there any attempt to discuss the Union's position on self-determination. This appears to have nothing to do with balance and everything about looking for a venue to attack Lincoln.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also a legacy section in the article, but it does not appear that the material has any place there. Boritt in "The Gettysburg Gospel" has a chapter on the legacy of the speech, both nationally and internationally. There is no indication from his 40 pages that these types of criticism are anything other than isolated anecdotes. In his chapter covering immediate reaction he follows the usual pattern -- he describes both the negative and positive reactions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sandburg

This is an interesting quotation. I don't think it belongs in the introduction. In an abridged form we could probably include it somewhere? Thoughts? Kaisershatner (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC) In the words of the great poet and Lincoln-biographer Carl Sandburg:

He has stood that day, the world's foremost spokesman of popular government, saying that democracy was yet worth fighting for. He had spoken as one in mist who might head on deeper yet into the mist. He incarnated the assurances and pretenses of popular government, implied that it could and might perish from the earth. What he meant by "a new birth of freedom" for the nation could have a thousand interpretations. The taller riddles of democracy stood up out of the address. It had the dream touch of vast and furious events epitomized for any foreteller to read what was to come. He did not assume that the drafted soldiers, substitutes, and bounty-paid privates had died willingly under Lee's shot and shell, in deliberate consecration of themselves to the Union cause. His cadences sang the ancient song that where there is freedom men have fought and sacrificed for it, and that freedom is worth men's dying for. For the first time since he became President he had on a dramatic occasion declaimed, howsoever it might be read, Jefferson's proposition which had been a slogan of the Revolutionary War - "All men are created equal" - leaving no inference other than that he regarded the Negro slave as a man. His outwardly smooth sentences were inside of them gnarled and tough with the enigmas of the American experiment.

I added this quote, as I felt that it is an eloquent summary of the speech and its significance as viewed by a great 20th century poet. I agree that it can be abridged slightly and moved elsewhere, although I don't know where.--PloniAlmoni (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried reinserting the quote from Sandburg later on in the article, in a less obtrusive place. I think the quote has added value and should be left in the article. PloniAlmoni (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a poet's gushing nationalist rant belongs in this article. I'm going to move it into a footnote of the Legacy section. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

the length of Edward Everett's oration

Available sources appear to agree that it lasted two hours. The comment in the topic about 3 hours is perhaps an editor's inference from the caption on the Lincoln picture which says that he arrived 3 hours before he was to speak. Tedickey (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

The above statement from the "greatest speech in American history" strikes me as a case of extreme hypocrisy, the nation in question didn't mind exploiting slavery at the time and didn't mind butchering natives defending their homeland so obviously all man were not considered equal, some were considered so inferior in fact that it was ok to exploit or exterminate them, it should be pointed out in the article.Sergiacid (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, and welcome to wikipedia! Please see WP:NOT a discussion forum. Thanks, and good luck. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Actor reading the address

Surely there must be a sound recording that better embodies the spirit of the occasion than the wooden one given with the current sound clip. Nasnema Chat 18:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Looooong-existing vandalism

This vandalism remained unnoticed for over a year (a grand total of 14 months). To be fair, the vandalism was hidden inside a reference. However, I think it still pretty funny . Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In case anybody's wondering, that comes very close to the all time record of 15 months. Bsimmons666 (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Text of Gettysburg Address

I understand we cannot change the wordings or spellings, but is it OK to change the dash "-" in the quote to semi-colon ";"? I personally find that to be a little more appropriate. 222.153.232.120 (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary typo

When undoing Samchopin's edit, I meant to enter under God is in the Bliss Copy. Finger sliped and I hit the enter key too soon.--Chuck369 (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Decisive?

As discussed in Battle of Gettysburg#Decisive victory?, how decisive the battle was is controversial, yet this article states it baldly in its introduction.

Jlittlenz (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If the Battle of Gettysburg page itself acknowledges the decisiveness of the battle, it should not be listed so here. The article will not loose anything with this taken out. I will remove the reference and if anyone has a problem we can discuss it here before replacing it. Jonmark22 (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln and "government of the people, ...

An editor has claimed that Lincoln "lifted" the phrase from the Rev. John Wycliffe. Earlier, in an edit that was reverted, the editor had written that the text had been "plagiarized". Obvious POV asside (the editor appears to me to have twice used the phrase "Honest Abe" in a sarcastic manner) no reliable secondary source has been provided that links Lincoln with Wycliffe -- the editor apparently has made the collection himself. I have reverted the material until a reliable source is shown to have made that link.

The editor also added a full paragraph on his thesis in the article lede. Even if adequate sourcing is later provided, this is only one of several theories on the origin of this phrase and does not belong in the lede. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ma.?

In this sentence - The Springfield, Ma. Republican newspaper printed the entire speech ... the Republican predicted that Lincoln's brief remarks would "repay further study as the model speech".[66] - I believe "Ma." should capitalized to "MA." Just checking to make sure I'm not missing something. :) If there are no objections, I'll be happy to change it. Cheerfully, Clementina talk 07:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That's minor enough for you to correct yourself. There's no need to ask for advice. Be bold! :) Protector of Wiki (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Lincoln at Gettysburg

The caption for the photo claims it was snapped as Lincoln arrived and before his speech. Ken Burns in his Civil War documentary and some other sources I've seen over the years say it was taken after the brief address, and that that was the quickest the photographer could get off a snapshot. No idea which is true, but I thought I'd raise a contradictory point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.44.133 (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Any chance we could get some clarification on this? The current wording is confusing. I'm not an expert on the subject, just a curious reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.181.140 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Influence of Louis Kossuth

"The spirit of our age is Democracy. All for the people and all by the people. Nothing about the people, without the people. That is Democracy, and that is the ruling tendency of the spirit of our age." - Lajos Kossuth Governor of Hungary, spoken before the Ohio State Legislature, February 16, 1852, more than a decade before Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.[1][2] Kossuth gave a speech at Columbus, Ohio. At the Ohio State House a plaque still hangs commemorating his talk to the Ohio Joint Assembly on February 6, 1852., where A. Lincoln was one of the organizer of the event. Lincoln's famous pharse : "government of the people, by the people, for the people." derived from this Kossuth speech. It inspired the famous phrase said by Abraham Lincoln in his funeral oration at Gettysburgh: government of the people, by the people, for the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.105.148 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that says that Lincoln was inspired by Kossuth. At the present all I see is your opinion that the words by Kossuth inspired Lincoln when he was composing the Gettysburg Address. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The Gettysburg Times: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2202&dat=19581117&id=2DkmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=g_4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=806,2984551

And you can found hundreds of sources here:

http://www.google.hu/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=kossuth+%22gettysburg+address%22#q=kossuth+%22gettysburg+address%22&hl=hu&prmd=imvnsb&ei=Ev-bTpW2IozwsgbCkvnlAw&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=77c893e921ae17d6&biw=1920&bih=1017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.166.130 (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I checked a few of your sources. While I see comparisons between Lincoln and Kossuth, nowhere did I find anyone saying that Lincoln was inspired by, or even aware of, the passage by Kossuth being discussed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Although the "Gettyburg Times" claims that Lincoln helped organize Kossuth's visit to Ohio, the inspiration cannot be confirmed. There are some terms used in parallel, but such terms were surely used by all "great" orators of those times and since. No, any link is purely assumed. You would have to ask Lincoln personally, otherwise. Alandeus (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Camel-case

Hey.

The various copies of the speech are referenced with capital initial on the word "copy". Is that really good? To me, the word copy is not a proper noun, not even in this context. I can [understand] that the word address is capitalized in this context, but copy?

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point, actually. I wanted something authoratative on this, so I checked the Smithsonian Institution's web page about the copy in the White House. Here are their words:

President Abraham Lincoln wrote these remarks for the dedication of the Soldiers National Cemetery on November 19, 1863. He produced this copy in March 1864 to help raise funds for the Union cause. The manuscript, often referred to as the Bliss copy, was kept by Alexander Bliss, one of the book's publishers.

Similar non-capitalization is also followed in a Library of Congress article. So, following their example. it should be the Bliss copy, etc.

I suggest the next well-versed-in-Wiki person who agrees with this should go ahead and make the change to lower-case, like "Bliss copy." The main reason I didn't is to avoid being a majority of two.

Doug C. --98.232.69.171 (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, since no opinions to the contrary in over a month, am editing all capitalized uses like "Bliss Copy" to the usage in the Smithsonian and L of C sources cited above, like "Bliss copy,"and similarly with "Draft." One more small step on the road to perfection... Doug C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.69.171 (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"create a unified nation in which states' rights were no longer dominant."

What does the Gettysburg Address have to do with states' rights? KevinLuna (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, that the Civil War was fought for reasons that include the federal government being able to restrict current and future states' use of slavery. Nowadays, most people regard slavery as irreconcilable with the principles of freedom. The Address suggests that those attending as well as the nation as a whole be dedicated, among other things, "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom," which relates to restoring civil rights to the slaves who had been unjustly denied them.

Doug C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.69.171 (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Location Controversy

We should care about the location because tourists care about the location. It's the #1 curiosity of first-time visitors to Gettysburg National Cemetery.

Except for a conflict/misunderstanding between Garry Wills and William Frassanito I would declare the Frassanito site "official," change the name of this section to "Platform Location," and remove all evidence of the Controversy.

In Wills' Pulitzer-prize winning 1992 work he claims (p.210), "The author of the best book on Gettysburg's photographs, William A Frassanito, has been convinced, and says he will alter the next edition of his book to accept Harrison's reading of the pictures." When Frassanito's 1995 "Early Photography at Gettysburg" came out, he not only contradicted Harrison's interpretation but rejected the notion that he had ever indicated consensus to Wills or any agent of Wills.

Granted, Wills' discusssion appears in Appendix II, probably not one of the credentials which rendered the Pulitzer prize to the overall work. Also, Wills' Appendix contains little discussion of methods.--Donaldecoho (talk) 10:56, 03 September 2012 (UTC)

lincoln

well in my opinion he was a very nice and honest president i believe he was better than any of our current presidents . again my opinion.!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.252.210 (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

MLK's reference by style, expanded & reinstated

I looked up and read the entire text of Martin Luther King Jr.'s historic "I have a Dream" speech, looking for a specific reference to the Address.

While the speech specifically mentions Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, the only link to the Gettysburg Address is the similar style of their opening phrases.

I have edited to have the more-explanatory phrase ", by the style of his opening phrase," added. The existing text needed this clarification as there is no explicit reference in King's speech. Doug C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.69.171 (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

History of becoming an icon?

It would be interesting to have a section that discusses how the speech went from being just another speech to one that sixth grade students around America memorize and which is recited every Memorial Day. RMcPhillip (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A very interesting Masters paper, "Virginians' Responses to the Gettysburg Address, 1863-1963," by Jared Elliott Peatman (google for "peatman_southern_impressions.pdf) covers the ground that interests you. According to Peatman and his sources, and generalizing, IN THE NORTH the Gettysburg Address reached its peak around WWII as "the greatest speech in the English language," but Southerners were still ignoring the Speech in 1963 and bristling about the idea of racial equality.

Interestingly, the Peatman paper covers selection of textbooks in the South and complaints by CW Veterans that textbooks were "too Northern" and "overemphasized slavery." BTW, Peatman wrote the paper for 'Bud' Robertson (and others) at Va Tech.

Recently/curiously, I happened to encounter a fairly modern Nat'l Park Service web page that referred to the Address only as "the greastest speech of the Lincoln Presidency." Many of us consider the 2nd Inaugural as his greatest speech, and entire books have been devoted to this notion.

How the fame of the Gettysburg Address rose to surpass the "House Divided" and "2ndIA" is still a question. Perhaps, the sensitivity of the GA context and its appropriateness for the context reigns supreme.

In my 52nd year, I have finally come to understand how the Civil War had anything to do with Democracy "perishing from the earth.--Donaldecoho (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The speech may be too polarizing for one section. To a modern-day Neo-Confederate Ultra-libertarian, such as author Thomas DiLorenzo, the Gettysburg Address consists of the dung droppings of the anti-Christ. I'd call the section "Trajectory of Greatness" and would enjoy contributing to it.--Donaldecoho (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why 'Father Abraham' used "4 score & 7 years ago"

"Four score and seven years ago" was chosen by Abraham Lincoln instead of "87 years ago" - which he said in a speech on July 4 at the President's House (later called White House) - because of its reference to Genesis 16:16 (KJV), "Abram was fourscore and six years old when (the slave girl) Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram." In Gen 17:4-5, God says, "As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham: for a father of many nations have I made thee." [ref]King James Version - Bible[/ref] Lincoln was affectionately referred to as "Father Abraham" by many Northerners and in the Northern press since running for president in 1860. There was even an 1862 Stephen Foster song entitled We Are Coming Father Abram (Abraham), 300,000 More [ref]A Treasury Of Stephen Foster, (Random House, 1946)[/ref] [ref]CD Abraham Lincoln Sings On, Douglas Jimerson - Tenor (AmeriMusic, 1998)[/ref]. Lincoln the master-politician would 'play this up' without being immodest. Also, "4 score & 7 years ago" infers the 4th day of the 7th month: July 4, 1776. Gen 16:16 is the first time that "score" is used in the KJV Bible and Abraham Lincoln as the 16th President and the address of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue seems as if were destiny. (Using gematria, P is the 16th letter, therefore, President=16resident.)[ref] http://7seals.yuku.com [/ref] Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This may very well be true, however you need a reliable source, rather than your opinion, that says that Lincoln had a specific biblical verse in mind when saying "Four score and seven years ago". The material regarding Father Abraham seems to have little or nothing to do with the Gettysburg Address. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

'Doubting Thomas': Pardon my immodesty, but I'm the leading expert on Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War, the Bible, and many other topics. Lincoln practically had the entire Bible memorized and worked direct quotes into his speeches and conversations without identifying them as Bible quotes, i.e. "A house divided against itself shall not stand". Most historians know this as the famous sound-bite from Lincoln's 1858 House Divided Speech from the floor of the Illinois House of Representatives. Almost no one has connected it with Jesus in Matthew 12:25, but there it is. So is that just a 'coincidence' or just "my opinion"? Of course not. Do I have a 'reliable source' ready for that connection? No, but it's obvious! Do we need to have a 'reliable source' if we say, "The day is split between light and darkness"? Anyone who has done any serious research on Lincoln knows that he used Bible phrases alot, as did others; even this article eludes to that! Edward Everett in his Gettysburg Cemetary Ceremony Speech said, "In as much as ye did it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye did it unto me." On p. 108, of The Gettysburg Gospel (Simon & Schuster, 2006) the author Gabor Boritt refers to that quote then says, "Many decades had gone by since Everett's ordination as a Unitarian minister and, as people will do, he mixed up some of the words he quoted from the Book of Matthew. Many in the audience knew their Bible well - Lincoln did - but none showed that anything was amiss. Back home, Everett would find the accurate text and put it into the official version of the address. Nor did any who might have found some irony in hearing on a battlefield these words from the Gospels comment on the matter." Anyone who has done any serious research on Lincoln, the Civil War, and American music knows about "Father Abraham" (there's several youtube videos of it). People in Gettysburg shouted "Father Abraham" at him when he arrived there the night before his address. [ref]The Gettysburg Gospel p. 74[/ref]. "4 score and 7 years ago, our fathers brought forth", "Abram was 4 score and 6 years old when the slave girl Hagar gave birth to his son" - this is the first time that "score" appears in the Bible. "(GOD speaking) My covenant is with you; you shall be the father of many nations...your name shall be Abraham, for I AM making you the father of many nations." Tom, you may not see the OBVIOUS connections here, but those that were present at the Gettysburg Cemetary Ceremony were religious, knew their Bible, and made the connection. Later, as Lincoln's 272 words made their way around the Northern papers (the Southern papers did not print it), thousands - perhaps millions - of others made the connection of 'Father Abraham'. Over 10,000 books have been written on Lincoln - second only to Jesus (Einstein is third and 'moving up with a bullet') - and no one has gotten this issue of source/reference/symbolism correct until I wrote about it on the morning of July 2, 2008 from a Gettysburg bed-and-breakfast. I wrote Gabor Boritt - Director of the Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College in 2008 with this "4 score & 7 years ago" revelation and he replied that I got it right. The Gettysburg Times published my discovery on their website. The Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library in Springfield has published my discovery on their website. Two Civil War Internet forums have published it. It's obvious. The info needs to be reinstated in the article. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brad Watson, Miami (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that with the time you spent writing the above rant you could have re-written your info and included proper citations to reliable sources. "It's obvious" is not a reliable source. RMcPhillip (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, things that are obvious sometimes don't need to be sourced. Any conclusions drawn, however, would likely need a reliable source. And without question, it is always best to rely on reliable sources. -- Avanu (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If no one figured it out until 2008, then it can't be obvious. Just because he used biblical allusions doesn't mean this was an allusion to Genesis 16:16. Why would he allude to the birth of Ishmael? Even if for some reason that he ddid reference Genesis 16:16, that doesn't imply that he was indirectly referencing Gen 17:4-5. It's not remotely obvious. A Civil War internet forum has zero credibility. If the director of the Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College really thinks this is credible, then he can make the claim himself. If the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library considers this credible, provide a link.--RLent (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

requested addition to "Legacy" section of Gettysburg Address entry

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At the end of the "legacy" section of the Gettysburg Address entry, it would be useful to add: On November 14, 2013, five days short of the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, the editors of the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, "Patriot-News" (formerly the "Patriot and Union") issued a tongue-in-cheek retraction of its 1863 editorial ridiculing Lincoln's words at nearby Gettysburg as "silly remarks." The retraction began: "Seven score and ten years ago, the forefathers of this media institution brought forth to its audience a judgment so flawed, so tainted by hubris, so lacking in the perspective history would bring, that it cannot remain unaddressed in our archives." sources: http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/11/a_patriot-news_editorial_retraction_the_gettysburg_address.html http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/2013/11/my-great-great-grandfather-hated-the-gettysburg-address-150-years-later-hes-famous-for-it/ Doug321 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Material from above sources has been included with this edit. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"On" or "Upon" this continent?

I recently had to memorize and write the Gettysburg Address for a quiz in school. The text in my book had "Upon this continent," while Wikipedia has "On this continent." What is the right version? Which version did he speak at Gettysburg, and what is the standard version now? Thanks. ~~Blaze~~

The article goes into some detail about the different copies of the address. Celestra (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The word "cannot" is spelled incorrectly in the text of Lincoln's speech. It is one word, not two. Please change it to the correct, one word spelling. 151.132.206.26 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The text is the version which is written on the Lincoln Memorial, the "Bliss" copy. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Gettysburg Address is called such because it was delivered in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania - on the site of the Battle of Gettysburg. It is called an 'address' because President Lincoln was'addressing' (speaking to) the people gathered there for the dedication of the national cemetery.

.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). 98.244.152.177 (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_was_the_Gettysburg_Address_called_the_Gettysburg_Address#slide3

Note: Thanks, but you need to provide the exact text you would like to add in a "please change X to Y" format when using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also, please provide a relaible source for any facts; wiki.answers.com is not a reliable source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

'Father Abraham' and "4 score and 7 years ago, our fathers..."

This article needs to make reference to how Lincoln was commonly referred to as 'Father Abraham' in a comparison to the Biblical Abraham. The famous 1862 Stephen Foster song We Are Coming, Father Abra'am is the BIGGEST example of this. Lincoln used his connection to "Father Abraham" when he famously began his Gettysburg Address with "4 score and 7 years ago, our fathers...". This was a quote from Genesis 16:16 of the King James Bible, "Abram was 4 score and 6 years old when Hagar the slave woman bore his son Ishmael" (paraphrased). The fact that Lincoln was the 16th president at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. appears to be a proof of destiny. - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced original research. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Modernization

Surely, "government of the people, by the rich, for the rich"? --Martin Wyatt (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It would seem to disagree with http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe that Wycliffe's introduction to the Bible was the source of the Gettysburg quote. of the people for the people by the people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.74.77.178 (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Brackets and "Under God"

Another user has edit warred to place brackets around the phrase "Under God" in the text on the basis that "There is still considerable debate in the historian community, over the use of the words "under god". Thus it is best to bracket the the words so that both side may be represented" [2]. Sources I've found, however, all include the phrase in the text: Associated Press, NY Times University of Maryland University of Minnesota Encyclopedia Britannica National Park Service, etc. Calidum 16:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I read the change-comment as the editor stating that because there is some difference of opinion whether Lincoln should have used the phrase, then it should be set off in some manner. I do not recall anything in the WP:MOS which would allow this TEDickey (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As I have noted at MartianColony's talk page:

The section that you are editing is the Bliss version, which includes the words "under God", and does not bracket them. You can't change a direct quote. The question of whether or not Lincoln used these words is already covered in the Usage of "under God" section, and the conclusion is that most likely yes, he did.

I don't see anything that needs to be done with either the quotation or the rest of the article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguous caption

"To Lincoln's right is his bodyguard, Ward Hill Lamon."

Does "right" mean from his perspective, or as we are looking at it? 81.132.196.237 (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The person sitting just behind Lincoln to his right appears to be his bodyguard. TEDickey (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested correction of broken links in Notes section

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The URLs for the links to the images of the Bliss copy (note ^e) are no longer correct. The correct URLs are:
Page 1: http://www.papersofabrahamlincoln.org/documentimages/GABliss1.jpg
Page 2: http://www.papersofabrahamlincoln.org/documentimages/GABliss2.jpg
Page 3: http://www.papersofabrahamlincoln.org/documentimages/GABliss3.jpg
Page 4: http://www.google.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmantrolls101 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Jfmcneirney (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"that that nation might live"

" That"seems to have been repeated twice .Check it plz :) Happy sage (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gettysburg Address. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553688/George_Bancroft.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.neh.gov/projects/transcripts/lostandfoundtranscript.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.randi.org/jr/101003.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210000843/http://abrahamlincoln200.org:80/for-kids/lincoln-coloring-book.aspx to http://www.abrahamlincoln200.org/for-kids/lincoln-coloring-book.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Discrepancy with Wikipedia "Abraham Lincoln" article

In a photo caption that accompanies this article, it states that there are two confirmed photos of Lincoln at Gettysburg. However, in the Wikipedia "Abraham Lincoln" article, a photo caption states that there is only one confirmed photo.Bunkyray5 (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this as well. Some one should address this. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2017

This edit request to Gettysburg Address has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

'The Prologue to John Wycliffe's first English translation of the Bible, which first appeared in 1384,[23] includes the phrase: This Bible is for the government of the people, for the people and by the people.'

There is no evidence that the phrase appeared in the prologue to Wycliffe's bible. See John L. Haney, “Of the People, by the People, for the People,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 88, no. 5 (Nov. 7, 1944): 363. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Good catch. The source previously cited is a blog repeating claims that the source you gave debunks well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Similarities to Pericles' Funeral Speech

In the Section "Lincoln's sources", only Garry Willis is cited as discussing the parallels between the Gettysburg Address and Pericles's funeral oration in his 1992 book "Lincoln at Gettysburg" (and then McPherson in reviewing said book). However, this parallel was also discussed earlier by Louis Warren in 1946, or perhaps even earlier, in his book "Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: An Evaluation"."Louis Warren, "Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: An Evaluation" (Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. 1946), pp. 18".

Warren writes: "Only one other great speech has been compared favorably with that of Lincoln at Gettysburg. That is the funeral oration by the immortal Pericles at Athens. There are many striking similarities in these two speeches. Both were delivered where brave men had fallen in battle. In Greece, Athenians had fought against Spartans, North against South, Greek against Greek. In America, the ground was where Puritan grappled with Cavalier, North faced the South, and American met American. Both Lincoln and Pericles began their orations with direct references to the contributions of the "fathers." Pericles began, "I will begin then with our ancestors, our fathers inherited, etc." Lincoln opened with, "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers, etc." It is significant that both orators, separated in time by centuries, should begin by commemorating the works of the fathers."

While there may be other sources of this comparison (as evidenced by the first sentences in the Warren quote above), I believe it is misleading to only cite a single source for this idea and that Warren's work should be included as well in the article.

Google Scholar finds numerous other references. Here are a few (citation format may be wrong since it's been some time since I did this)

Stow, Simon. "Pericles at Gettysburg and ground zero: Tragedy, patriotism, and public mourning." American Political Science Review 101.2 (2007): 195-208.

Goodman, Florence Jeanne. "Pericles at Gettysburg." The Midwest Quarterly 6 (1965): 311-36.

Stevenson, James A. "Pericles's influence on the Gettysburg Address." The Midwest Quarterly 35.3 (1994): 338-354.

Ideally this all could be referenced, though someone would need to read the refs. first. Also, I bet if you looked in these or further in google scholar you'd find yet earlier ones, so the one you give (from 1946) may well not be the first. But yes, agree it's misleading to only cite Willis.

Loren Rosen (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gettysburg Address. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

TFA

I'm thinking about rerunning this one at WP:Today's Featured Article on its anniversary in November, provided we can do something about the bad links. - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, there's been no recent work on this one. I'll throw it into the pile at User talk:Dank/Sandbox/2, and unwatch here. Please ping me if there's progress. - Dank (push to talk) 23:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

IABot repaired two of the dead links; 6 4 left to go. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Four fixed; thanks DrKay! - Dank (push to talk) 13:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address in Obama interview

It may be trivia, or useful, depending on context, I just though it might be included in the article: "There was a desk, upon which rested some obviously sacred object, covered by a green felt cloth. “There are times when you come in here and you’re having a particularly difficult day,” said the president. “Sometimes I come in here.” He pulled back the cloth and revealed a handwritten copy of the Gettysburg Address. The fifth of five made by Lincoln but the only one he signed, dated, and titled." - http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile-barack-obama

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gettysburg Address. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gettysburg Address. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Caption on photo of Lincoln

It says "One of the two confirmed photos of Abraham Lincoln[1][2][3] (sepia highlight) at Gettysburg, taken about noon, just after he arrived and some three hours before the speech. To Lincoln's right is his bodyguard, Ward Hill Lamon. The current version of the file does not have the sepia highlight. 146.115.21.211 (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

And the body of the article says there's only one photo! ApLundell (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2018

This edit request to Gettysburg Address has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In just over two minutes, Lincoln reiterated the principles of human equality that were espoused by the Declaration of Independence[6] and furthermore, proclaimed the Civil War as a struggle for the preservation of the Union sundered by the secession crisis,[7] with "a new birth of freedom"[8] that would bring true equality to all of its citizens.[9] Madiwiernusz (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2018 (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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Problematic repetitions in Intro

The second and third paragraphs of the intro now read:

Lincoln's carefully crafted address, secondary to others' presentations that day, came to be seen as one of the greatest and most influential statements of American national purpose. In just over two minutes, Lincoln reiterated the principles of human equality espoused by the Declaration of Independence [6] and proclaimed the Civil War as a struggle for the preservation of the Union sundered by the secession crisis,[7] with "a new birth of freedom"[8] that would bring true equality to all of its citizens.[9] Lincoln also redefined the Civil War as a struggle not just for the Union, but also for the principle of human equality.[6]

Beginning with the now-iconic phrase "Four score and seven years ago"‍—‌referring to the signing of the Declaration of Independence eighty-seven years earlier‍—‌Lincoln invoked the United States' founding principles as set forth in that document, then reminded his listeners of the peril to those principles posed by the Civil War then in progress. He extolled the sacrifices of those who died at Gettysburg in defense of those principles, and exhorted his listeners to continue the struggle for survival of the nation's representative democracy as a beacon to the world‍—‌urging resolve

that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

In each of the paragraphs, the DoI,the meaning of the CW, and the "new birth of freedom" are mentioned. Also "In just over two minutes" only makes sense in contrast to Edward Everett's two-hour oration, which is not mentioned; besides, Lincoln only needed two minutes to deliver the address because it was just 271 words long. Lastly, in "secondary to others' presentations that day" it is not clear in what sense Lincoln's address was secondary to others' presentations, and it is not quite correct to say that there were several other "presentations"—setting aside the music, there was a prayer, EE's oration, AL's remarks, and another prayer, and prayers aren't presentations. I propose a consolidation, with clarifications and corrections, like this:

Although not the day's primary speech, Lincoln's carefully crafted address came to be seen as one of the greatest and most influential statements of American national purpose. In just 271 words, beginning with the now-iconic phrase "Four score and seven years ago,"‍ referring to the signing of the Declaration of Independence eighty-seven years earlier‍, Lincoln described ours as a nation "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal," and represented the Civil War as a test that would decide whether such a nation could endure. He extolled the sacrifices of those who died at Gettysburg in defense of those principles, and exhorted his listeners to resolve

that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

I have incorporated the best of the two original paragraphs, which came to 233 words, in a single paragraph that comes to 151. Wordwright (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018

This edit request to Gettysburg Address has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

all i want to do is put a "an" before adress it bugs me that it isnt written properly for such a big part of our history Parker beckwith (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you specify where in this article you would like that change made? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:21, 11 April 2018 (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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Terminology

As I read the article, it states that responses included "Democrat-leaning" publications and "Republican-leaning" publications, which would surely be confusing and misleading terms to people in the 21st Century, as 19th Century "Democrats" would be right-wing and "Republicans" would be left-wing. I would like to suggest these be changed, but I won't do so without discussion. Thedoctor98 (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've waited 6 weeks and nobody has interjected; I'll make the change to left-leaning and right-leaning publications and hopefully discussion can start then. Thedoctor98 (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2019

This edit request to Gettysburg Address has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "would determinevwhether such a nation" to "would determine whether such a nation" because there is typo after "determine" and before "whether" where the "v" should be replaced by a space. Julianfortunas (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Julianfortunas Fixed. Thank you.--Chewings72 (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2019

This edit request to Gettysburg Address has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

there are 272 words in the Gettysburg address 71.224.127.7 (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2019 (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. MadGuy7023 (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Envelope 'myth'

Perhaps this will prove to be helpful? I rarely use Wikipedia anymore, so forgive me if I do this incorrectly, but I thought this important. I just noticed that Wikipedia suggests Lincoln's draft of his Gettysburg address on the back of an envelope is considered a myth. As additional evidence that this may have happened, I'd like to point to the 1943 book "Those were the days: Tales of a Long Life" by Edwin R Hewitt (of the prominent Cooper Hewitt NY families). He wrote on page 180 of his book that his father-in-law, James Ashley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Mitchell_Ashley, former congressman of Ohio and future gov of Montana, told him the following: "James Ashely told me he went down to Gettysburg with Lincoln in his private car, to hear the President deliver his Gettysburg address. Ashley was sitting in the next seat behind Lincoln. The President took out a large envelope from his pocket, placed it on top of his beaver hat, and wrote the speech that all of us now know as the Gettysburg Address. James Ashley told me that he was quite sure that President Lincoln would have given him the envelope afterward, if he had asked for it, but this never occurred to him and he always regretted not having done so." .... as a side note, I have found Hewitt's descriptions in his book on other topics in my area of research to be consistent with what I have known to be true, and thus have little reason to doubt his re-telling of Ashley's story. It's possible James Ashley's presence in the car could be documented somewhere.

Moabman1 (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

^ Mencken H.L. ""Note on the Gettysburg Address."". Retrieved 2007-11-28.

[1] Mencken H.L. ""Note on the Gettysburg Address."". Retrieved 2007-11-28.

[1]