Jump to content

Talk:The Star-Spangled Banner/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Stafford Smith's music

The section called "John Stafford Smith's music" shows "sheet music version" that's the modern version of the tune, not Smith's version. There is already an image of sheet music labeled as "The earliest surviving sheet music...." There's nothing wrong with showing sheet music for the modern arrangement, but it doesn't seem like the appropriate section. While the other "earliest surviving" sheet music isn't identical to Smith's version of the tune, it's at least very close. It would make sense to have the "sheet music version" in the section called "National anthem" and either remove it from the section about Smith's music, or replace the sheet music in that section with a version of "The Anacreontic Song." Hagrinas (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Star-Spangled Banner. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The poem by FS Key

The original 1814 poem by FS Key, "Defence of Fort M'Henry" contained four verses. A fifth was added by Oliver W. Holmes in 1861. When the National Anthem lyrics were adopted by Congress in 1931, What was adopted? Was it the first verse which is usually sung, the original four verses, or all five verses, which were adopted?50.4.68.31 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Barry Glasgal 9/6/17

It's unclear, but presumably not just the first verse. The statute says, "The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem." I've added that to the article. John M Baker (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Spelling: "The Star-Spangled Banner" or "The Star-spangled Banner"?

Seems to me the correct spelling of this article should be with a lower case "s" in "Spangled" (i.e., "Star-spangled Banner") because "spangled" is being modified by the word "Star" and, therefore, it is part of the word "Star". That is, "Star-spangled" is 1 word, not 2 words. Because it is only 1 word, it can have no more than 1 Capital letter. Therefore, is its spelled "Star-spangled", not the current "Star-Spangled". That's why we spell American-born Chinese, Seventh-day Adventist Church, etc. (Contrast these with Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration, Tydings–McDuffie Act, U.S.–Russia Business Council, Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America, etc., where the second word is -not- modifying the first word but is an equal with it.) Mercy11 (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It's the title of a song/anthem, so we use the spelling that is used in reliable sources. Older sources appear to use "The Star Spangled Banner", while more modern sources use "The Star-Spangled Banner". - BilCat (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Star-Spangled Banner. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Two meanings of the anthem

@User:Gilliam: I would appreciate further feedback on your undoing of my edit to the The Star-Spangled Banner article. Your "still editorializing" comment is puzzling to me. First of all, why "still"? Was there some attempt to put this information into the article in the past? Also, why "editorializing"? It seems relevant (and published in a secondary source) that there are at least two interpretations for the meaning of the national anthem. People who think it is about fallen military are puzzled when someone protesting the anthem says that they are not disrespecting the military; and likewise people who think it is about the country generally are puzzled when someone accuses them of specifically disrespecting the military. Without taking a stance on which of these interpretations is true and without taking a stance on whether protests against the anthem are reasonable or not, etc., I think it is relevant to the article to inform people that there are these two interpretations. I would appreciate your detailed thoughts on this matter, and likewise from any other interested parties. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe your addition was irrelevant to the history and legal aspects of the anthem, even if it fit the editorial narrative of the newspaper article you cited. Maybe if you added it to the protests section it would make more sense.– Gilliam (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response, @User:Gilliam. It is my thinking that the fact that there are two interpretations is true whether or not anyone ever protests during the anthem, and thus that the section on protests is not particularly relevant for this information. Although the article has sections on what the anthem is, its history, when it is sung, etc., I see no section specifically dedicated to its meaning and/or to why it is sung. The "Customs" section seemed most relevant of the existing sections. What do you think about creating a "Meaning" or "Purpose" (sub)section? If those titles are too "editorializing", what would be better? Where would we put it? 64.132.59.226 (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add a new Meaning/Purpose section. I only objected to adding an interpretation of the anthem's meaning to the modern public to the History or Legal sections of what is an 18th-century war song.– Gilliam (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I gave it a try. If you find it lacking, please modify it appropriately. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it again. As it currently stands it's unacceptable in an encyclopedia. You can't have a statement "some say" that is only backed up by one source that doesn't entirely support the claim either. At the very least it needs re-writing to avoid the "Some say" phrasing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: Rather than my thrashing about trying to find an alternative to "some say" that will not get reverted, would you suggest language that should pass muster? I will seek additional references. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You would probably view my suggestion as unhelpful, but I don't consider the information necessary to the article, so wouldn't include it at all. I think you will struggle to find the overwhelming sources you need to confirm such a theory and warrant inclusion. Bear in mind you are talking about the national anthem for the United States of America - not the meaning behind some two-bit pop song. Your sources need to be unimpeachable - and to specifically cover enough interest to be valid representations of the American public at large. It seems that if you google "what does the star spangled banner mean" and similar phrases you can find sources that will support pretty much any interpretation you choose to champion - hence your original comment of "People who think it is about fallen military are puzzled when someone protesting the anthem says that they are not disrespecting the military; and likewise people who think it is about the country generally are puzzled when someone accuses them of specifically disrespecting the military" is true, because one of those lovable things about the American Joe (and Joanne) is that they think what they want, Goddammit. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

March 3 or March 4?

March 3 seems to be consider the day the song was adopted as the anthem, yet the article states Hoover signed the bill on March 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

British ships of the Royal Navy

"British ships of the Royal Navy"

If they are ships of the Royal Navy, they are bound to be British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.70.49.32 (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

There are other Royal Navies in existence besides that of the UK. - BilCat (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Errors in Article

These errors are being picked up by media outlets. Need to clarify.

The first publisher of the song's lyrics, a broadside printed by the Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser, titled it "The Defence of Fort M'Henry." Francis Scott Key did not title his verses. [1]

The first sheet music publisher, Thomas Carr of Baltimore, gave the song the title "The Star Spangled Banner" because this phrase is the only recurring one in the lyrics. Ferris, p. 25 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Key explicitly wrote the words to fit the melody of "To Anacreon in Heaven."

Hankcash (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I added some information about the modern history, as it is presented at History.com that did cite their sources. I'm sorry to be so lazy as to not use their original sources. I did get the archived version, so if they edit the page because of current controversy, it'll be all there.

I'm just thinking of those who want to know when the anthem became a fixture at sports events. It seems fairly ridiculous to many, but there it is. DegreeofGlory (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Marc Ferris, Star-Spangled Banner: The Unlikely Story of America's National Anthem, p. 23

Appropriate to include analysis of fifth verse and the sixth verse wholesale?

Paging BillCat. RepubliqueD'UnionArabique (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The edits mentioning Donald Trump are poorly sourced, not notable, and just don't belong here. Also the mention of "right-wing mass movements in the US" is just false. Do you mean the Republican Party? MikeR613 (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't the note about Trump links go in its own topic section, not under 5th and 6th versus? Ecarzon (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources for expanding article

  • Wheat, Shawn (June 11, 2019). "Daily National Anthem tribute to become a tradition again on WIBW". wibw.com. Topeka, Kan. 'We at Gray Television and at WIBW are bringing back the national anthem to start our tradition local day,' said Roger Brokke, General Manager for WIBW-TV.

Senator2029 “Talk” 03:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there is any connection between Turlough O'Carolan's Bumper Squire Jones and The Anacreontic Song and in turn the star spangled banner. Considering that Bumper Squire Jones sounds almost identical to Anacreontic song this seems very likely. If so why isn't it mentioned on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.43.46.230 (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2019

In the first verse of the National Anthem, there is a punctuation mistake. If you re-read Francis Scott Key's original paper with the Star-Spangled Banner, you will notice that the apostrophe between the word "rocket" and the possessive apostrophe " 's " is "rocket's" not "rockets'".

O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming? And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there; Ryan kamal (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable, secondary source that supports this change. Even the image of the sheet music here doesn't support this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

Can I please edit the anthem? Joe Sestak (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2020 (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. aboideausapere aude 19:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020

Link "raised fourth" to: Secondary_chord#Secondary_dominant 2601:404:C681:1D20:307C:F818:48A:A26A (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Amkgp 💬 11:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Small edit to protest paragraph

Made a small edit to a sentence that assumed the third verse of the anthem condemned slaves that defected to the british side. This is not agreed upon by the experts at all, and the source given says this as well. Some historians claim its slang for colonial marines, not african slaves. Since there is not consensus as to the meaning of the lyric, I changed it to include the ambiguity. I also removed the root as a source since it is not considered a reliable source by wikipedia. Open to feedback. (User talk:Scottiekaz) 01:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

2.1 Performances Add paragraph

The anthem was performed by Lady Gaga at the inauguration of President Joe Biden on 20 January 2021.[1] Welly616 (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. We don't list every single performance of the anthem. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-21/j-lo-and-lady-gaga-blow-the-roof-off-bidens-inauguration/13076714

Arrangement of recordings

@PyroFloe: Thank you for your efforts to improve the visibility of audio samples in this article. That being said, I have reverted your edits changing the arrangement of national anthem renditions on this page for the following reasons:

  • You are correct that most national anthem articles have an instrumental in their infobox. However, I do not think that this is an established convention. It is mostly because some of the only high quality, freely usable recordings of national anthems have been made by the U.S. Navy Band, which does not generally perform its national anthems with vocalists. Therefore, we shouldn't take the fact that the US Navy Band's instrumental recordings are in every infobox as an indicator of a community consensus that this is the way it should be. This pattern is just a matter of necessity.
  • Using the National Anthem of Russia article as an example is not particularly compelling. You are correct that it is a featured article and that it arranges its recordings in a particular way. However, not every aspect of a featured article is unassailable, and when it last attained its featured status it did not have a bunch of audio recordings stacked at the top of the article, and the first (video) recording on the page included vocals (it was placed before an instrumental audio recording and an instrumental video recording).
  • I believe that the best "headline recordings" for articles about pieces of music are:
    • Faithful to the composition (A performance without errors is better than a performance with errors.)
    • Unabridged (The full piece is better than a 30 second sample.)
    • Performed in the most original/common manner and style (A classical arrangement of a classical piece is better than a jazz arrangement of that classical piece [for the article about that classical piece].)
    • High in audio quality (A 2020 320 kb/s recording on modern digital equipment is better than a 1890 phonograph recording.)
    • High in performance quality (A recording by a professional orchestra is better than a recording by an elementary school band.)
Admittedly, this is not a guideline; it is just my opinion. However, I feel like these are pretty reasonable standards which should not be particularly objectionable.
Both the Navy Band instrumental and the Army Field Band choral recordings are faithful to the composition, unabridged, and high in performance quality. I will note that the Army Field Band recording had roughly half the bitrate; I have since updated that file so that the two files have a comparable bitrate. Hopefully this addresses any quality concerns you might have had. This leaves one final consideration: the manner and style of performance. "The Star-Spangled Banner" is a song; it is sung. It is most commonly heard sung by a vocalist or choir, and as a national anthem its words carry its most significant patriotic meaning. Therefore, to use an instrumental recording when an otherwise equally good recording with lyrics exists would be a disservice to readers of this article.
  • Presenting the reader with 5 similar audio recordings at the top of the article is not of great importance to most readers, so it should be placed further down the article. Ideally, the recordings would be dispersed throughout the article in the most logical places (e.g.: a section about historical performances includes the 1915 recording). In the absence of this logical placement, perhaps it is appropriate to place several media files at the top of the page. But I feel like the best solution would be to keep them in the already existing "Media" section at the bottom of the article, as this is consistent with an inverted pyramid style of writing.  Mysterymanblue  06:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit on 9 March 2021

Ive restored a comment about a performance screwed up, which is referenced further in this talk page as being used externally. Ive further restored a block about popular adaptations by sports teams which was removed a few years ago for lack of citation. However the block is reasonable cited to me, and I invite others to further cite it. Zapman987 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted this, as it's mostly non-notable trivia. Some of it isn't even cited, and still has the citation needed tags. After being gone 7 years, the onus is on you to gain support to re-add this. BilCat (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Understood, Ive back reverted the bit on Aguilera, as it directly supports a citation request. Will work for the rest before restoration. Zapman987 (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. If a citation is needed, just add the citation. BilCat (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Its a direct example in support of the statement, with the example cited. I believe this supports wikipedia's goal of "using own words" to create content. Zapman987 (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I still don't understand. "Using own words" refers to writing cited content in one's own words instead of copying the text verbatim. What did you rewrite here? BilCat (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"Professional and amateur singers have been known to forget the words, which is one reason the song is sometimes pre-recorded and lip-synced.[citation needed]" This is the statement. My edit is to include an example which supports the statement. Granted Im also paraphrasing "my words" with the previous content here. Im not trying to take direct credit for this, merely to support the previous content with further reason why it should be present. I think part of your confusion is you think me C&P here. Im more trying to restore previously included content, as I support why it was here. I also think you may be confusing my 2 blocks. I agree with your reasoning on the lack of citation for my large block, which is why Ive left it removed (I actually proposed moving it to another page that better fits it I think). Zapman987 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: Remove the Hyphenation

The original song title (as far as I am aware) does not use hyphenation. That is a modern convention. So shouldn't this page use the original spelling? Dsmith77 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Key?

I found there is a category, Category:National anthem compositions by key, but the article doesn't state what key this song is in. Anyone there with musical knowledge that could put this article in the correct musical category? Liz Read! Talk! 16:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? Francis Scott Key! BilCat (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hahaha, Always good to have a bit of humor on Wiki, BilCat! But in all seriousness, Liz, it is supposed to be in B-flat major (source), but like most traditional songs, people change the key willy nilly all they want.  Mysterymanblue  23:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Can we include?

{{Americas topic}}

It should have appeared in the article. The United States is part of the American continent. 27.79.240.89 (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No, because it's redundant to the existing navbox,

{{National Anthems of North America}}. BilCat (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021

I don't think it should say that Francis Scott Key was an amateur poet, if he wrote the defense of fort Mc'Henry how can it possibly say amateur. Good day Sir. JaySantowski (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Reading the article, and also Francis Scott Key's own article, it would appear that he was indeed an amateur poet and a professional lawyer. Are you having some difficulty with the term amateur? I feel that it is quite clear. What exactly do you think it should say? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2021

Should we place a wikilink for "United States" in the infobox? 49.150.96.127 (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. No earlier link to the United States in infobox. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert Ripley's involvement in the creation of the star spangled banner

On November 3, 1929--just a week after the stock market crash--ripley made a shameless statement in his first Sunday panel for Randolph Hearst: america has no national anthem The sensitive, writhing public went catatonic as Ripley correctly asserted that the star spangled banner was nothing more than an unofficial anthem, with the Melody lifted from an old English drinking song. But it took a little more than a year for Congress to pass a one-sentence bill, and on March 3, 1931, president Herbert Hoover signed into law "the Star spangled banneras Americas national anthem. Ethan helsley (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Older Publications

I understand what I am about to describe is not the norm, and has not been for some period of time. However, I believe that it is important to somehow make the following information accessible. In "The Educational Music Course. Fifth Reader", (dated 1902) by L. W. Mason et al., I have noted a few differences from modern publications. Firstly, the tune is accredited to Samuel Arnold. I am aware that this is not the case, but I find it noteworthy. Additionally, the text from "Oh say does that..." until "...home of the brave" Is repeated before beginning the next verse or ending the song. This happens for every verse, albeit with different lyrics. This is not an isolated incident, as two music discs played here indicate. If image proof from "Fifth Reader" is required to add this information to the article, I will happily provide it. Heil Kaiser (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There is another small detail, but I won't dive too far into that unless the changes already mentioned are deemed significant enough to warrant an explanation Heil Kaiser (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Poet

Key is described as an amateur poet. Why is the word "amateur" used? How many American poets in the first half of the 19th century were "professionals"? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:846C:4F3:E288:BA35 (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2023

Can we re-add the rest of the lyrics? I mean, only the first stanza is here! There are supposed to be at least 4! And if we are able to keep the Civil War stanza, we should be able to keep the others as well! To make it clear, re-add the following verses:

"On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep, Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes, What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep, As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses? Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam, In full glory reflected now shines in the stream: 'Tis the star-spangled banner, O long may it wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

"And where is that band who so vauntingly swore That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion, A home and a country, should leave us no more? Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave: And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave, O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

"O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved homes and the war's desolation. Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.' And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!" 179.251.87.155 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. BilCat (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
So i need a consensus? There are a couple of users directly above me that would like them added, in the topic titled "lyrics", does that count as consensus? If this ends nowhere, i will take this to WP:DRN. Also, if they're not enough, answer me this: why does the USSR anthem get the full lyrics, as does the Ukrainian anthem, and the Australian anthem, and most other anthems on this wiki, but not this one? Do you see the double standard here? I request that you re-add the full lyrics, as the guys above, combined with the other anthem pages, should be a reasonable sign that consensus has been reached on this topic. Do you think so? If you don't, and you're willing to fight me, i will gladly take this issue all the way to ArbCom if i have to. 179.251.87.155 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I'd note that the policy the editors who are removing the content link to cites Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, which states clearly: If out of copyright, shorter texts – such as ... short songs (most national anthems) – are usually included in their article. I'll ping @Binksternet and @Magnolia677 (the editors who removed the content) to see what they think. I personally don't really have an opinion here one way or the other though. Tollens (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not fighting you. I simply answered your question. You need a clear consensus before using the Edit Request feature. BilCat (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
My concern is that the complete lyrics are 32 lines long. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
That's your concern? The Turkish anthem is 40 LINES LONG, not counting the verse number lines, and it has the full lyrics on Wikipedia! So i don't think there's a line limit for the national anthems, and your concern is not really valid. I hope i made myself clear, because at the rate we're going, eventually you and @Binksternet are going to have to explain to the Arbitration Committee why having too many lines is enough reason to remove the lyrics of a national anthem from Wikipedia. 179.251.87.155 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
So, is everyone happy, or are we going to the DR noticeboard? If we're done here, can we re-add the lyrics? @Tollens says it's okay. 179.251.87.155 (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
To be very clear, I do not support the re-addition of the lyrics any more than I support their removal. I agree that the lyrics are incredibly long, quite possibly too long to match the spirit of the "shorter texts" part of that line. Tollens (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Consensus? Again? We're really not doing this, are we? Are we taking this issue to WP:DRN? I'm sure you read our discussion on this topic. I'm more than willing to take this issue all the way to ArbCom, @M.Bitton. Just so you know. I will ask you and everyone reading this one more time: Can we, or can we not, re-add the lyrics? 179.251.87.155 (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
After all, most anthems on Wikipedia, current and former, have full lyrics on them, the editors who removed them cited a policy, that makes an EXPLICIT exception to national anthems, as @Tollens pointed out, thus making the justification for the removal false, and the removal itself a questionable action, if not a potential policy violation. So i believe i have made myself clear. I want @Magnolia677 and @Binksternet to explain precisely why we can't have the full lyrics here, or they're going to have to explain that to a WP:DRN moderator. Maybe even an Arbitrator. If they can't explain, then we can re-add them, right? 179.251.87.155 (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
You are an IP editor from Brazil and the only edits you have ever made are to this talk page. Are you a proxy for a registered editor? I don't feel comfortable being intimidated by a potential sock of some other editor. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
The answer is no. Sorry. 179.251.87.155 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, are you trying to make this personal? I already made a pretty valid point, and i have yet to see you make one. I'm petty sure i saw something like this on that Flat Earth essay. It's at WP:FLAT, if you're wondering. 179.251.87.155 (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
While I don't have an opinion on the matter either way myself, I will point out that making threats is not typically a very good way to get what you want. Tollens (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
This wasn't really a threat, though. 179.251.87.155 (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, am i the only person in this thread that made a valid point? 179.251.87.155 (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
(Just so you know, the reason the edit request was denied is that consensus is mandatory before implementing an edit request - see WP:ER.) Tollens (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh. I see. I'm not really a wikipedia expert though. Didn't know that policy. Can we still re-add them? 179.251.87.155 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Not without consensus (which there doesn't appear to be right now) - that's the entire point of that guideline. Tollens (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion of all verses based, i.a., on example of Turkish anthem combined with guidelines cited. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:846C:4F3:E288:BA35 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed 73.127.80.119 (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I have added a wikisource template link to the original lyrics since that is fully compliant with wikipedia policy while not just ignoring the full lyrics. Slaymaker1907 (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Lyrics

Someone removed all but the first stanza from the article without justification,I can’t fix it because the page is protected. Can someone else please do so? 73.127.80.119 (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I did but they removed it again Princessp2008 01:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I did not add the lyrics again since it seems like there is not consensus on including all the lyrics, but I have added a Wikisource template link to the full lyrics. Slaymaker1907 (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Star-Spangled_Banner/Archive_3&oldid=1226892938"