Talk:Pledge of Allegiance/Archive 2

Purpose
This page fails to mention that Bethamy, after being dismissed from his position in 1891 was a PR director for Upham's Company which sold US Flags to schools. The pledge was created as a PR move to boost sales of the flag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.233.55 (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
I'm pretty sure this page has been vandalized, as I have never heard the Pledge of Allegiance as such: "The Pledge of death to the Flag: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of Iraq, and to the Dominican for which it falls, many Nations, under 50 Cent, divisible, with death and crime for all.", should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the head. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute."

Looking on the history of edits, this seems to have happened a few times. I can fix it, but should this page be locked editing-wise to prevent more problems?

Cas315 (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone had previously replaced the introduction with what said something alonge the lines of "people recite it loud and proud so that god can hear it. The military would usually place their hands over their hearts...". Crazy nonsense that was not only false, but of bad taste. I have replaced it with what was cached on Google. If there's a more recent TRUTHFUL version of the introduction, please replace mine! Edward (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Extraneous separation
Don't you think that "addition of 'Under God'" should be a section in History, instead of its own section? That almost seems POV to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.203.91 (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Archived talk page
I have archived the talk page, as there was no current discussion taking place, and the comments ranged from 2002-2007. Anakinjmt 05:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

More specific category needed.
This should be moved to "US Pledge of Allegience" = a "Pledge of allegience" doesnt automatically mean the American one - Not only is it a generic term, there are other states and countries with such things.70.189.213.149 05:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree Roger (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that only the US calls its pledge to its flag "Pledge of Allegiance". I believe other countries only call it a pledge to their flag. Though not a country, the "Pledge to the Texas flag" is also a pledge. Edward (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Retired soldiers to salute
An older gentleman in my Toastmasters club says that now retired and discharged soldiers (and sailors, etc) are now supposed to salute the flag in civilian clothing, not use the hand-over-heart method that is standard. Has anyone else heard of this, and is there any proof anywhere either way? &mdash;ScouterSig 16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about it. I doesn't sound right, though. People in uniform carrying weapons in their hands "present arms". People in uniform without weapons in their hands salute (which is another style of "present arms"). People in civilian clothing place right hand over heart. That's what I've always heard, anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The U.S. Code (TITLE 4, CHAPTER 1, §4) says:
 * The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”, should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.
 * It recognizes only two situations: in uniform or out of uniform. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There must be an addition to the code. My Drill Instructor says that they (whoever they are) made it so that retired military veterans may salute whether in or out of uniform. "Present arms" is a military drill term. It is the command given for armed soldiers to salute with their weapons. When not in formation, they will also go to the armed version of a salute, depending on whether they're carrying a rifle, guidon, sword, or the colors. Scurvybill (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Controversial Sub heading
Now, I may not be an American, but I do know that Encyclopedias are supposed to be neutral. The subheading "New Birth of Freedom" when describing the inclusion of "under God" does not seem to be neutral. In fact, the text included in the article seems, suspiciously, to have been lifted from another website. If, after 1 month, no has replied back to this talk giving a satisfactory explanation, then I will think there is no objection to me removing the sub heading for a new, neutral one. Microphotgrapher


 * I've removed the heading entirely. It wasn't needed and was certainly POV. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Archives of this Talk Page
I can't see how to access the archive. It's not under the link labeled "Archives". I'm going to have to look through the history.

-Misha

216.254.12.114 09:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[One Minute Later]: Ooh. "Show". Hee hee. Silly me. What an unnecessary collapsable table.

-Misha

216.254.12.114 09:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Archives and Comments on McCarthyism
I suggest someone "unarchive" the talk page (if that is even possible) It has a lot of important discussion. And in light of what has been happening in the past few years in the USA, I feel very skeptical about the motives for it being archived. In other words, I feel suspicious someone would rather us not see all the controversy - just like many people in the USA would rather we didn't know that the words "under God" were not a part of the original text. In other words, I am afraid the controversay in the archived talk page has now been somewhat buried.

A second comment is that I am very suprised, and again suspicious, that there is no mention of McCarthyism anywhere in the discussion of the pledge, even though on many other websites the connnection between McCarthyism and the adding of the words "under God" are often cited.

If someone feels so inclined, I suggest they add a link to McCarthyism and a link to the pledge on the McCarthyism page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.85.167 (talk)


 * Well, it was archived because nobody had engaged in any discussion whatsoever for roughly four months. I have made the archive box a little clearer to avoid problems such as the previous poster not realizing immediately where the archive was hidden. --Stormie (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * McCarthyism and the change to the Pledge were two elements of the Cold War era, but not necessarily directly related to each other. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a whole section in this article that talks about "Under God" being added to the pledge at a later date. Wikipedia isn't a discussion board for the opinion of historic interpretations, it's an organized scrapboard for the facts, and I feel the facts have been well-displayed.12.26.68.146 (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

citation needed
Somebody has already tagged the statement "Bellamy said that the purpose of the pledge was to teach obedience to the state as a virtue", as needing a citation. I'm just seconding that request. A bizarre claim like that *really* needs a citation and further explanation, or else it needs to be removed. (Why would he cite "Liberty" in the pledge if that was his purpose?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKEdwards (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't go so far as to call the claim "bizarre" (it's somewhat in keeping with the late 19th century socialist zeitgeist, and probably not oxymoronic to contemporary sensibilities), but it should almost certainly be cited (if only to put it in context) or expunged. The only references to the phrase I could find seem to lead back to Wikipedia, which isn't good. Eastcheap (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Francis Bellamy
Does anyone have a citation for Francis Bellamy being a Christian Socialist? I was reading the Encarta entry for the Pledge, but I couldn't read anything about him being a Christian Socialist. Not that I'm doubting, I'm just wondering if we're sure this is accurate... 12.26.68.146 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any particular controversy on that point. Online, I found a few chapters of Dr. John Baer's The Pledge of Allegiance, A Revised History and Analysis, 2007 (chapter 3 in particular).  He's also described as a, "prominent member of the Christian Socialist movement," in the biography published by the Grand Lodge of British Colombia and Yukon (and cited in the Francis Bellamy article). Eastcheap (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Verrsion
Since this has become a contravery in the last few years, I believe it would be appropriate to have a section about this. Sweetfreek (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"render the military salute"
According to Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 4, US Code, persons in uniform are to "render the military salute" and not simply "stand at the position of attention" (unless indoors). I made this correction and the change was reverted. However, I would not have made the correction if I hadn't first checked it against the source. You need to make sure the information posted is accurate and consistent with fact. --24.27.110.167 (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comical Uses
Isn't it a little offensive to have this section? It pokes fun at this highly patriotic composition. In addition, it's missing citations. Can we help out? -- Mr. E. Sánchez  Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 04:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Country
The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag is an oath of loyalty to the country. US is the Country now, as in the pledge - One Nation Under God? KSiimson (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda for Federalization
This article does not even mention any controversy surrounding the notion that the Pledge of Allegiance was designed to promote the idea that power should be centralized in a federal government, rather given to the states. The "one nation ... indivisible" clause may not be as controversial as "under God", but it certainly warrants some discussion about federalization propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.80.2 (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not there should be controversy, as far as I can tell, there isn't. If you believe you have found notable articles discussing this, feel free to add the information in with citations (or link to the article here, if you feel uncomfortable with adding the information yourself, and someone else may eventually incorporate the information into the article). --Zarel (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Added and cited.Kcornwall (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the citation. I couldn't find any mention in the reference you added.--Work permit (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a reference on this issue . Here's another (drat, that one was on Wikipedia's blacklist). And here's yet another . The pledge itself clearly states that the U.S. should be one nation, rather than a union of individual sovereign states. This issue was a major focus of the Civil War and continues to be at the heart of much of the politics in this nation to this day. How is this a non-issue?--128.187.80.2 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words?
In the section about the words "under god" the author uses weasel words, I believe. "Many critics..." Who?

Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.243.155 (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Big problem with wording...
"The event was conceived by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, in a campaign to sell American flags and American nationalism to public schools."

If you actually go to the references cited, one is an opinion piece, and the other does not indicate the level of cynicism in that statement. Unless I'm way off base here, that statement reads like someone who created something for the sole purpose of making cash. Yet reference #3 reads much, much differently. I'm not denying that there was a profit motivation, but I don't see that as the driving purpose the statement seems to indicate.

Am I way off here? Vulture19 (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)