Talk:Gettysburg Address
|
|
Do we need not ONE, but TWO versions of the source text in this article? RickK 05:43, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I think an annotated version of the differences between the speech as given and as traditionally known is useful, but I think the annotation should be relegated to a less prominent place in the article. Also, the casual tone ("What Lincoln really said contrasted to what you heard in school") is I think, inappropriate. orthogonal 05:49, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I have made some changes for greater clarity and to emphasize that the changes were made by Lincoln himslf and do not change the substance of the speech. JHCC 19:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, I'm not saying what I did is perfect. If it changes, I won't stomp my foot and scream; a different format may be better. That was really an initial draft, and thinking about it now, the casual tone should have been avoided. But I'm gone until Sunday.-- user:dino
According to this side (http://lilt.ilstu.edu/drjclassics/texts/pericles/gettysburg.htm), it's the revised version at the Lincoln Memorial --SeanO 13:02, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Gettysburg Address
Good article but it contains errors and contradictions. For a start, I'm sure the President never said "but but"......Captain Beefart
Rendered?
I'm sorry but I don't understand this bit:
"Lincoln's actual speech follows (broken into paragraphs for clarity), rendered in Lincoln's high-pitched, western twang:"
How and where is it so rendered? For it to say that in the article, I would expect to be able to hear a soundfile of someone impersonating Lincoln or maybe (which Heaven forfend!) see an attempt to write down his pronunciation. But what follows is not actually "rendered" in anything other than italic text. If what was perhaps meant was a comment on his voice, how it sounded when he made the sppech, then maybe this could be made clearer, but I find the wording quoted above a bit confusing. Any chance of a change please? Oh and btw it is a brilliant article! Nevilley 07:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
- well fixed, thanks. Nevilley 00:44, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Wrong?
I'm not sure it's appropriate to use the words "wrong" and "incorrect" to describe the revised version. It was revised by Lincoln, after all, and it appears on the Lincoln Memorial. Not only that, but the semantic differences are not huge. The "incorrect" type labels give the article a (unintentional, I'm sure) sneering tone.
1789?
Shouldn't it be the Constitution of 1787?
True, a sticky point. At United States Constitution we see that it was completed in 1787, but the new government came into existence on March 4, 1789. dino 03:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Factual errors?
According to The Library of Congress site on the Gettysburg Address (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/gadd/gadrft.html), there is still "considerable scholarly debate" over which version of the speech Lincoln really gave. It includes transcripts of the Nicolay and Hay drafts (the two earliest), comparing them and giving the story of the two. This article really needs to either be rewritten to reflect the fact that Lincoln's exact words are still unclear, or else refute that claim somehow.
Also, there are more than just two versions of the speech. This site (http://www.papersofabrahamlincoln.org/Gettysburg%20Address.htm) has scans of several different versions of the speech scanned in, though without transcripts. I couldn't tell at first glance which version is presented here on Wikipedia as Lincoln's true version but it should be given its official name (Hay Draft, Nicolay Draft, etc.), as should the second "incorrect" version. Not only would this be more official and correct, but it would also get rid of the need for awkward references to "The often-quoted, revised version of the speech" etc.
For these two reasons, I am including the {{Disputed}} tag on this page. The two pages listed above are very reputable and give information contradictory to that presented here on WP. I'm going to try to help fix these up but I really don't have much time (I'm leaving for two years in a week) so I might have to leave it for others. I really hope this article gets fixed up as the Gettysburg Address is a very famous speech and also has a very interesting (and obviously complicated) story behind it. - biggins (talk) 23:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
where from?
I'm just wondering how the "original" version of the (according to the article partly improvised) speech should have passed down to us; I don't suppose it's been taped. Are there any eye-witness reports? -Zar alex 09:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
History
Article needs more information about how the speech became as famous as it is now if it was not received so warmly following its initial delivery. --Lowellian 07:18, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)