Talk:Pledge of Allegiance

Relevance of reference 33

What relevance does this have with the rest of the article? It seems to contrast with the rest of the section, it conflicting with the facts presented in the section. The reference cited just seems like an advertisement/op-ed for the author's book. Does ref 33 (and the paragraph it supports) have any relevance? Explodicator7331 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It does seem relevant to me, but an interview is a very low quality source for this purpose, and I do not know that the author’s views are sufficiently notable to merit promotion in the article. John M Baker (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't have any relevance. It's one person's view, and it's not important to the topic at large. Also, it doesn't really sound like that's a major consensus on the topic. I'm going to remove it. Mrfoogles (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Reference 12 - not reliable

Reference 12 [1] seems pretty sketchy and doesn't cite any sources itself. A more reliable source is needed. Montauk07 (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Perfecting the pledge versions. Citation 1 conflicts with itself.

Having respectfully paused my changes, checked my sources and explained how I have no desire to vandalize either the article, the diligent work of others, nor promote questionable sources, I will now be bold owning these edits. --Wclaytong (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

THE PROBLEM: The box versioning the pledge threatens edits will be considered vandalism. Though mostly right, corrections can be well sourced. This week, I edited the in line instance of the original pledge to exactly match what was published September 8, 1892 in The Youth's Companion magazine. I did this before seeing notes not to change the five versions in the box (which I didn't). The original version (first of five) cites an ushistory.org page which conflicts within itself - it lists the version in the box at the top of the page (with its minor errors) then spells out the true original in a paragraph near the bottom of that page, directly taken from the source. I sent polite correspondence to them highlighting the discrepancy. The key points made to them which I include in support of my desired changes:

ATTEMPTING TO HELP ONE CITED SOURCE SEE THEIR CONFLICTING TEXTS

The content at https://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm is nearly perfect but is also in conflict with itself regarding the pledge’s ‘original form.’ The correct original version is perfectly documented within your paragraph cited near the end of that page from Youth’s Companion, 1892. There should be no comma after nation. Liberty, Nation and Justice should each be recapitalized (only in the 19th century original version) as was the practice for ALL nouns thru the industrial revolution.  

MINOR TEXT CHANGES ONLY IN THE 1st VERSION, REMOVING ONE COMMA IN 2nd-4th VERSIONS

The second, third and fourth versions in the article's box, also need the comma removed between "nation" and "indivisible." Since different sources are cited for each, I'm hopeful this can be decided here. Still unsure how talk topics engage invested editors. I suspect many are tired of this topic which includes 100+ years arguing authorship and new evidence when it seemed everything had been exhaustively studied.

WHY SOMETHING AS SMALL AS A COMMA IS A BIGGER PROBLEM HERE

1st Point: The article specifies when and which words saw changes, causing a net expansion from 22 to 31 words (all additions but one). If we could agree that 'nation' and the adjective 'indivisible' were not originally divided by a comma, then without pre-1954 sources explicitly inserting said  comma (as happened in 1954 with under God) it should not appear in the first four versions.

2nd Point: Since most Americans alive today learned only the "under God" version, any of us attempting to type an earlier pledge is primed to put that extra (modern) comma somewhere. A typist feels a comma before typing the 11 letters of "indivisible." That's where that punctuation goes today in the 31 word pledge and discipline is required unlearning that, to avoid blemishing (perhaps vandalizing) early pledge history.

3rd Point: While most groups speaking the pledge pause before saying indivisible, oral reading should not determine punctuation style. Especially within an American text that has been described as "respectful", "sober", "poetic" etc. If pauses in group cadence determine punctuation, we would expect a comma between "nation" and "under God" too (we don't).

4th and Final Point: "One nation indivisible" denoted more than just referring to ourselves as "One nation". Just as many Christians feel strongly today that a comma should never be placed between “one nation” and “under God” 19th century Americans had serious reasons for declaring us “one nation indivisible.”  Less than 40 years had passed since concluding a bloody, civil war. Americans died fighting on our own soil; literally battling to either cause or stop our ONE country from dividing into TWO countries.

I respectfully propose the removal of four commas from the first four pledge versions and the capitalization of three letters only in the first version. Our amended national pledge under God should not overshadow causes important to those who fought and died, neither to see the country divided nor to enable 21st century Wikipedia editors to disfigure the ghosts of pledges past. Wclaytong (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The vandalism warning was added to the infobox to help slow down the true vandals, which was one of the main reasons I got involved in this article. Since I'm not a historical expert on "Pledge of Allegiance", I can't argue if anything in the infobox is right or wrong, but per Wikipedia:Verifiability rule we all need to ensure changes can be verified by future editors, thus reference(s) may need to be added or changed. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)