Talk:Gettysburg Address

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Information about this edition
Edition: Original handwritten manuscripts
  • Memorial inscription: Library of Congress
  • Contributor(s): BirgitteSB
    Level of progress: 100%.svg 100%
    Notes: Completely proofread. Source image for memorial version is captioned as "Transcription of the version of the Gettysburg Address inscribed on the walls at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C." by the LOC. This is a trusted source, but verification of this would be a bonus.
    Proofreaders: BirgitteSB, AllanHainey, Bookofjude


    Can somebody take the Bulgarian translation and put it in its own page? That way it'll be easier to interwiki when we've gotten sub-domains. Thanks! Zhaladshar July 1, 2005 22:47 (UTC)

    copied from my Wikipedia talk page
    I think I put it in the right place in bulgarian sector.--Makedonas 02:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    I moved the others translations myself--BirgitteSB 13:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Textual variants[edit]

    (moved from User talk:Dovi)

    I wonder if it might be better to use a subpage transclusion instead of a template? It works exactly the same way, with curly braces. But you just put a slash in front of the name: {{/Main Text}}, or {{/Section 3}}, etc. The hard links are then e.g. [[Gettysburg Address/Main Text]]. That would allow protection of absolutely stable parts of a larger article, without having to create a bunch of templates. Of course, it's just a matter of organization, rather than substance. Wolfman 15:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Technically it could be done either way. At he: we already have a "culture" of basic text stored in templates that can be recombined in various ways for various editions.
    Here, since there seem to be several slightly different manuscript version of the GA, it might make sense to store each in its own template and allow the user to view them all at the GA page.
    Alternatively, we could select one version, and start thinking about how to best indicate textual variants.Dovi 18:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, it's technically equivalent. I was just thinking more about namespace pollution. It seems to me a bit tidier to keep various protected parts organized as sub-pages to a main article. As you point out, it loses some parsimony if there are multiple versions of the main page; but no less so than an article in template-space already does (e.g. {{Gettysburg Address (1863 edition)/Section 3}} rather than {{/Section 3}} ). But, it's no big deal either way. Wolfman 20:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I mentioned it on your talk rather than here, as I'm not particularly concerned with this article per se. It seems that the broad question of how to stabilize an article is coming to a boil. This particular article just happens to be an example I noticed from your edit comment in RC. Wolfman 20:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I wanted to use GA as an example of a nonprotected page with links and stuff that contains the basic text as a protected template. But that didn't work out so well, since the template obviously can't be frozen until the issue of variants is sorted out (which I was previously unaware of). Oh well. Maybe we'll find a different example.Dovi 20:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Editorial commentary[edit]

    As a UK reader of these it would be helpful to have a WS Editorial note on the main page about the origins and significance of the different versions posted. Apwoolrich 21:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The main significance of the versions is the discrepencies between them as no one is sure exactly what was said that day. Wikipedia has an excellent article on w:Gettysburg Address with much detail. It will probably soon be on the main page. Should we suggest checking out WP earlier in the article? Do you think the comments I added are sufficent?--BirgitteSB 21:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should start the page with an explicit WS Editorial note in bold saying that much more detail about the provenance of the versions is on the main WP article, (which I have just read - its excellent). Maybe you might beef up your comments a bit - saying who Hay etc were. As a general thought I have felt its not a good idea to have WP link buttons tacked at the bottom of pages in WS. In this case it takes time to scroll down to the link button. And readers are often lazy. Apwoolrich 08:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming back today and looking at the page "fresh", I understand your points. In fact I agree we need significant editorial remarks. However I am also thinking there will be users who come for a casual look. I feel that we really need to start with the actual text. I chose the version from the Lincoln Memorial because it was designed to be read and is literally "set in stone". Then I followed with an explanation lifted from WP before the reader would come across any other version. This is something nearly every schoolchild in America is asked to memorize, so it is quite likely to attract casual interest. How do you think this works?--BirgitteSB 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    EXCELLENT! :-) Could not be better.Many thanks Apwoolrich 18:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The revised design looks fine to me. It makes plain what is WS input and what is the text. Kinf regards. Apwoolrich 08:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge textinfo boxes[edit]

    Since we've reached 100%, the fields for the {{textinfo}} boxes above are all identical with the exception of the source. I propose we merge them into the box below, which will also let us remove the extra {{[[Template:edition|edition]]}} boxes on the main page in favour of the one in the {{header}}.

    Information about this edition
    Edition: Original handwritten manuscripts
  • Memorial inscription: Library of Congress
  • Contributor(s): BirgitteSB
    Level of progress: 100%.svg 100%
    Notes: Completely proofread. Source image for memorial version is captioned as "Transcription of the version of the Gettysburg Address inscribed on the walls at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C." by the LOC. This is a trusted source, but verification of this would be a bonus.
    Proofreaders: BirgitteSB, AllanHainey, Bookofjude

    // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I made some minor changes and support replacing the various infoboxes with this one. --BirgitteSB 16:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Call me a sucker for images, but I see the Library of Congress has some Public Domain images of the drafts, I wouldn't mind seeing added, but am too lazy to do myself at the moment Sherurcij 19:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Year category[edit]

    Please add [[Category:1863 works]] to the page. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Added.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update interwiki[edit]

    Hi, Catalan translation has been made: [[ca:Discurs de Gettysburg]] Thanks. Aleator 20:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Added.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, please add pl:Adres gettysburski and replace the current spanish interwiki to es:Pronunciamiento de Gettysburg. Thanks Lugusto 22:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done--BirgitteSB 00:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. We also have a Finnish version nowadays: fi:Gettysburgin puhe. Please add! --Wwwwolf (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks! --Spangineerwp (háblame) 16:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Add spoken copy[edit]


    Please add {{audio file|LibriVox - Everrett Copy of the Gettysburg Address - Michael Scherer.ogg}} beneath ===Everrett Copy=== —Remember the dot (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done... much later! --Spangineerwp (háblame) 04:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Could Category:United States Civil War be added to this page? Quadell 15:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:American Civil War added. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 04:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Image change[edit]

    please correct to File:Nicolaycopy.jpg.

    Done. Yann (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Memorial Version Error[edit]

    The version on the wall at the Lincoln Memorial reads, "who here gave their lives that that nation might live" and not, as recorded here, "who here gave their lives that this nation might live."

    See (large file):

    I fixed it. (No kidding about "large file"!)--BirgitteSB 20:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    One work or multiple works?[edit]

    Looking at where we have been taking works that have multiple versions, seems to be that we have been going to listing each separately by treating each version as a work in its own right. Wondering whether that philosophy should be applied to this work. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd tend to agree but maybe not so much(?) in this case. Most of these are supposedly either early drafts or as was witnessed by 3rd parties of the time. They all are probably valid as far as the progression of refinements to drafts of the speech or as copies were transcribed/inscribed back then goes but the only copy that truly matters (semi-official) would be the Hay (handed over copy to Seward the Secretary of State to Lincoln and typically the repository of such Executive documents of that era before the creation of the Federal Register in the 1930s and all the sebsequent changes regarding what currently culminates as the National Records and Archives Administration today). Its the same story with other such noteable works/speeches by Lincoln (Emancipation Proclamation comes to mind). I think you're inviting a fight over which one contains the content as actually spoken by Lincoln, semi-official or not making any split or disambiguation unlikely (though this is not Wikipedia so I may be overly jaded about that admittedly). George Orwell III (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this should be a dab page, even if it, unfortunately, may result in the loss of its featured status (not like we have too many to begin with). Either way, multiple publications don't belong on the same page, and in regards to George's comment, I don't think we would give any weight to one in particular by dabbing it. Any concerns if I work on this? - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits of "drafted by" to "given to", etc.[edit]

    I made these minor changes on the related WS pages, as historical records show these copies were given to the named people rather than drafted/written by them. Also corrected to have L of C and Smithsonian use of lower-case "copy" except where title-case is needed. Please see Wikipedia's Gettysburg Address main page Talk section for more info. Doug C. -- 06:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Call for minor edit of main Locked page: Nicholas/Nicholay[edit]

    Am requesting of the next authorized person to make a needed change to the locked page this talk is for, Gettysburg Address The change is to correct the name of a draft from "Nicolas draft" to the correct "Nicolay draft" as evidenced in other pages here and in Wikipedia, Smithsonian, L of C, etc. I respect the need for locking pages, but believe this correction would improve the page. I didn't even notice it the first 3 or 4 times I looked at it.

    Doug C. -- 07:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the correction :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Do we have the Project Gutenberg version?[edit]

    The PG version contains quite a few ellipses: which none of the versions here have. Does that mean it's from a different copy? I'm assuming not, and that they're just an artifact of the early days of Project Gutenberg. (I'm trying to add links between Wikisource Index pages and PG identifiers to Wikidata, and this one doesn't fit.) Sam Wilson 05:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]