Talk:The Star-Spangled Banner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Errors in Article[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

@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. (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? (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. (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. (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?[edit]

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 (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

British ships of the Royal Navy[edit]

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