Talk:The Star-Spangled Banner/Archive 4

RfC: Should the full lyrics be included?
As discussed previously, in the edit request above, i propose the re-addition of the full lyrics to "The Star-Spangled Banner" to this article.

Users @Binksternet and @Magnolia677 have removed all but the first stanza of the US national anthem. The guideline they cited, WP:NOTLYRICS has a clear exception for songs such as national anthems, which this article is about. When justifying their edits, Magnolia677 stated that their concern was that the full lyrics were 32 lines long, ignoring the pages of longer anthems, such as those of Turkey's İstiklal Marşı (40 lines) and Italy's Il Canto degli Italiani (48 lines not counting chorus) among others. The question is, should the full lyrics be included in the article, or not? Use the Support template if yes, and the Oppose template if no. Should the consensus be in favor of re-addition, the lyrics will be re-added to the article, either by me or another editor. If you're not sure about your opinion, but want to support or oppose, consult the appropriate policies for advice. Thanks for reading and discussing. 179.54.211.52 (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No per WP:NOTLYRICS which has never contained "a clear exemption for songs such as national anthems". Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "If out of copyright, shorter texts – such as [...] short songs (most national anthems) – are usually included in their article." -Text from WP:NPS lead section. Sorry if i misquoted. 179.54.211.52 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see the guidance within NPS. That guidance was added by 18 years ago, with edit summary "adapt to the reality of the situtation", which is not a ringing endorsement. The situation seen by SimonP was very likely one or more editors insisting on adding the lyrics to anthems. It was not a policy based discussion amongst many Wikipedians to determine a project-wide guideline. I am keeping my "no" vote. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your concern with NPS. Is there any discussion or records that support your claim? If so, can you show them? 179.54.211.52 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming anything. I'm stating that the guideline was modified by one person on the basis of observations made by that one person. The guideline was NOT modified by a thorough discussion involving the community at large. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Bink. It seems to me that you're speculating here: 2005 was a very different time for the project in terms of when and where policy discussion took place and how changes got documented, and the lack of a talk page record doesn't necessarily clearly establish that this language was adopted by the impetus of a single community member.   That said, let's just assume for a minute the rectitude of your presumption.  Even then, it's still language that has remained inside a visible policy relating to countless articles for nearly two decades.   That would seem to impute some not-insignificant degree of implicit community support.  I would say under the circumstances that, at this point, the onus is on you to demonstrate how this carve-out is not consistent with the intention of the policy.
 * And honestly, I think said carve-out makes sense: there are two principles being served by WP:NPS: 1) avoiding copyright concerns, and 2) a kind of extension of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Obviously the first does not apply to content not requiring a license or otherwise subject to other intellectual property restrictions, and the NOTINDISCRMINATE concern has to be considered in light of the degree of space needed to quote the work, relative to it's value in an encyclopedic discussion of that work, considering the subject's degree of notability. This is a work of major cultural significance and broad coverage in sources, and it consists of just a handful of verses, so quoting it in full doesn't feel like an imbalance.
 * Beyond that, there's just a basic utilitarian argument here: bar some edge cases, the test we ought to be considering here is "is the typical reader who looking into the an encyclopedic summary of this subject likely to want to see (and to gain benefit from) the full text here?" It certainly won't be every reader, but when it comes to a national anthem, I suspect a significant portion of readers will want to see this content, and/or may get some significant utility from having it on the same page as the rest of the encyclopedic discussion. SnowRise let's rap 06:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes - Per the straightforward language of WP:NPS. The purpose of WP:NOTLYRICS is to avoid indiscriminately including lyrics, not to absolutely prohibit it. In general, for a reasonably short public domain song, I'd probably err on the side of including (with perhaps a discussion about where/how to present it to ensure it doesn't take up too much space in the article), but for a text as thoroughly studied and dissected as the Star-Spangled Banner, yes of course we should include the lyrics. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (as well as ): Your perspective seems similar to mine, so pinging just to make sure you are aware of the recent addition of a Wikisource link to the full text of the lyrics. Tollens (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's not too long relative to the article, and I concur with Rhododendrites. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes per User:Rhododendrites. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes per User:Rhododendrites. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 18:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes Perfectly encyclopedic content for public domain work of reasonable length. Reywas92Talk 02:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes.  Context is king: this is no typical song when it comes to the WP:WEIGHT of sources treating its individual lyrics, nor is it a particularly long set of lyrics. Sn</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 20:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Inclusion is particularly appropriate here because the specific text of the lyrics has become controversial. That is in addition to the many other good reasons already given for inclusion. John M Baker (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Any time there is a controversy about lyrics, the controversial portion should always be discussed in the article, supported by cites. This poll is for uncontroversial lyrics. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The quotation and discussion of a selected portion of the lyrics in the article does not detract from the need to have the full lyrics, so that portion can be viewed in context. John M Baker (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this has been bothering me for months 2600:1011:B06B:2A4D:F1F3:9230:36FB:A6F8 (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, per discussion and for a full descriptor of the national anthem, with the original 1814 lyrics of the poem and including the repeated refrain. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No First of all this is a very poorly written RfC that is in no way neutral. A case could be made to procedural close just on that alone. No one has really made a compelling policy reason to include the expanded lyrics. I would be in favor or removing the Civil War lyrics as well because they don't improve the article. Also, the exception for national anthems mentioned in WP:NPS specifically states If out of copyright, shorter texts – such as short speeches (the Gettysburg Address), short poems ("Ozymandias"), and short songs (most national anthems) – are usually included in their article. That doesn't mean the expanded lyrics outside of what is used in the anthem should be included. The additional lyrics aren't used in the anthem and should be excluded per that guideline. Nemov (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nemov, i appreciate your concern regarding neutrality, but i fail to see how this is not neutral. I mean, this is the first place many people go to when trying to learn stuff, and if we have double standards, especially regarding policy/neutrality, we could lose such reputation. Other editors can explain better, but i take the exception as applying to this circumstance. Besides, why does Wikipedia have the full lyrics for Deutschlandlied when only the third stanza is used as the anthem of Germany? The way you're saying it, "the additional lyrics aren't used in the anthem and should be excluded per that [NOTLYRICS] guideline.", implies that the first and second stanzas should not be on wikipedia as per that guideline. The same thing could be implied for Wybicki's original lyrics for Poland Is Not Yet Lost, which are in that article. With that being said, if you believe this RfC is not neutral, or if you believe WP:NOTLYRICS overrides the wording in WP:NPS, or if you wish to argue for procedural closure, please refer to the Dispute Resolution noticeboard at WP:DRN or to the appropriate Village Pump section at WP:PUMP. For now, however, i say this discussion will remain open until closed or archived. Auto-archival will occur on 13 June, but this can be extended. Thank you for coming here. 179.54.223.254 (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you think that the additional lyrics are not used in the anthem. As our article accurately states, “Although all four stanzas of the poem officially compose the National Anthem, only the first stanza is generally sung, the other three being much lesser known.”
 * As for a procedural close, I agree that the RFC was poorly drafted, but I do not see what advantage a procedural close would have at this point. A number of editors have already commented. Do you contemplate that everyone would just reiterate their comments with a properly drafted RFC, or what? John M Baker (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you think that the additional lyrics are not used in the anthem. I think you answered your own question. The additional lyrics are never used. I've never heard it performed in full. The US plays the thing to death and it's never the expanded version. The short version is the most common version. Nemov (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "First of all this is a very poorly written RfC that is in no way neutral. A case could be made to procedural close just on that alone."
 * I'm not sure what you're seeing that you think supports the assertion that this RfC is not neutral. I've responded to over a 1,000 RfCs as a random FRS respondent in the last ten years, and believe me, I'm very much used to finding issues (large and small) in the tone of the prompt. But my impression as an FRS respondent here as well is that this prompt looks, if anything, above par in terms of construction. It briefly lays out the dispute, presents the poisitions of each side in terms that are accurate to their arguments, identifies the relevant policies, and makes a clear inquiry for respondents to respond to.  What in that is "non-neutral"?  Unless you can be more specific as to what the supposed neutrality issue is here, I don't think your argument has legs, and we're certainly not going to be procedurally closing a discussion that is on course for a WP:SNOW result without a lot more than a vague assertion--and any effort to force such a result is highly likely to be viewed as WP:disruptive.
 * "No one has really made a compelling policy reason to include the expanded lyrics."
 * Is that really your take? Because I see numerous editors above who have quoted a policy that very clearly and directly controls in this situation and validates inclusion, as well as practical reasons for why the inclusion is valuable here. Bluntly, your take strikes me as much, much more based in WP:IDONTLIKEIT than the arguments for inclusion.
 * "That doesn't mean the expanded lyrics outside of what is used in the anthem should be included."
 * This feels like a rhetorical ploy to move the goalposts. These aren't the "expanded lyrics" of the anthem; they are merely "the lyrics" of the song, as they have been for over 200 years.  The existence of concatenated version for speedy use at sport events does not somehow transmute the rest of the longstanding lyrics into an "expansion" of the original work--and more to the point, nor does it erase the substantial WP:WEIGHT of the corpus of sources that discuss the song as a whole.  Now I doubt very much that the average person familiar with this song, American or otherwise, can quote the second through fourth verses from heart, but that's neither here nor there in terms of what is encyclopedically relevant or justified for inclusion through coverage in the sources.  In fact, if anything, it emphasizes additional utility that coverage of those sources and those lyrics adds for the typical reader who may arrive here looking for additional information about the song and its historical context.
 * TLDR: WP:WEIGHT controls inclusion in circumstances such as these, not our idiosyncratic personal impressions about what is "important" or "main" information. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 04:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're seeing that you think supports the assertion that this RfC is not neutral. The editor describes the opposing argument as "ignoring the pages of longer anthems." If you think that's neutral I feel we're at an impasse. This feels like a rhetorical ploy to move the goalposts. The general guideline is to not include all lyrics. The exception is national anthems. The national anthem is commonly what is quoted. I don't find this concept complicated. You have written quite a lot and none of the policy positions in the supporting side really make sense from a policy perspective and in fact feel more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me, but sometimes that's enough to forge a consensus. Nemov (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * According to an act of the U.S. Congress (and more to the point for our purposes here, countless secondary reliable sources), the national anthem of the United States  is  "The composition consisting of the words and music known as The Star-Spangled Banner", not some sub-portion thereof. Your pet theory that the national anthem is just the first verse of the Star Spangled Banner alone (contrary to common understanding, all evidence, and voluminous sourcing) appears to be WP:Original research on your part, which you have not supplied a single source to support.  Look, I appreciate you keeping your cool and discussing this civilly despite my responding with three barrels at once in my post above, but as a matter of WP:verifiability, I just don't think you have a leg to stand on with this interpretation of yours. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 21:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As someone who has had to sing the "national anthem" in public I'm thankful I wasn't forced to sing this extended version or arrested for violating H.R. 14. If people want to pretend the national anthem is long when it's not I won't stand in the way. Nemov (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "had to sing" sounds like you didn't want to - what "version" are you talking about? 2601:589:4100:D47:C028:A45C:E037:328F (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No and I support Nemov's opinion that this RfC be procedurally closed based on the non-neutral wording of the RfC. Wes sideman (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes Wes - that's pretty Un-American to not want the full lyrics here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:580:4580:9F30:2987:83AF:62C7:FAD9 (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)   Striking trolling comment from a blocked user. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 21:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not helpful in the least. Assuming this is not just a troll (or a joe job support), please keep your comments, whether supporting or opposing the proposal, based upon encyclopedic value, project policies and content guidelines, and the strength of sourcing.
 * Let's put aside for the moment that 1) there is no reason to assume Wes is American (as a significant proportion of en.Wikipedians are not), 2) there's nothing the least bit patriotic/unpatriotic about an editorial decision either way on this issue (for an American contributor, or any other), and 3) that personal attacks are not welcome here under any circumstances. Aside from those facts, we also simply wouldn't care in the slightest even if Wes was American, and even if an oppose could be deemed "unpatriotic": these facts would still be irrelevant here.  We will decide this issue according to policy and the sources, not our personal feelings or national identities.  Not only can your !vote not be considered for support of the outcome you are nominally backing,  but as irrelevant nationalistic criteria, voicing it is actually counter-producitive to achieving that result or speeding consensus.  <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 06:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * this is a sock of a blocked user and their vote should be disregarded. Wes sideman (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that additional context, Wes: I thought that comment smelled of trolling. I've gone ahead and struck their !vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE, because this is clearly the same range as one of the identified socks in the SPI and their targeted personal attack leaves no doubt.  Sorry to hear you are having to deal with one of these types. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 21:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * check for yourself - you will see he has a long history of edit warring and constantly violates WP:TENDENTIOUS -
 * he pushes his biased POV every day & also has been blocked. He makes veiled threats and has been brought to ANI many times - just do a simple search.. get enlightened. 12.190.236.106 (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if I was inclined to take a side in this dispute between you two (I'm not), and even if your case were helped by evading your block to lob your accusation (and it isn't), this is still completely irrelevant to this discussion: behavioural matters are the purview of WP:ANI: this page is for discussing improvements to this article. Please stop wasting our time and yours with this line of discussion. Further comments of these sorts will simply be deleted without response. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 06:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just giving you "additional context" so maybe "one of your types" can understand Wes's vote should be struck as well since it's biased towards his agenda. It's painfully obvious. 98.58.220.137 (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe that this RfC has run its course, and wish to close it before auto-archival. Current consensus seems to be in favor of re-addition, with the vote tally being 21 Yes votes, 4 No votes, and 1 Neutral vote. With this, i request that an admin close this RfC. I thank you for your opinions on this matter, and hope that you respect the results of this RfC. Cheers, 179.251.186.30 (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and justify by inclusion of as much verse-by-verse analysis of meaning as may be found. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, if, in fact, the deletion was made due to the length of the text rather than the encyclopedic value (or lack thereof) that its inclusion would have, it should be returned. WP:NOTPAPERKerdooskis (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, The Rest of the verses have more of they story Princessp2008 22:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would improve the article Jack4576 (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes per above. ~ HAL  333  14:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I will mention here that an editor has added a Wikisource link in the lyrics section, which certainly seems reasonable at least for now, just in case that may change anyone’s opinion. I feel that due to the other verses being relatively obscure, they might be somewhat less important to include, but they should certainly be readily accessible. Whether the Wikisource link accomplishes that, I’m really not 100% sure. Tollens (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes - The policy page WP:NPS has a clear exception for national anthems, and for good reason. The text of the anthem is not overly long, and is worthy of discussion within the article.  Excluding the full lyrics would be like excluding a picture of a subject-- this isn't about being a lyrics database, this is educational.  Even having a wikisource link isn't really sufficient for an article on a national anthem-- because the lyrics really should be discussed in more depth and detail, as the specific words chosen in a national anthem can illuminate features of the culture that chose that song to be their anthem.  In fact, I note that the later "protests" section explicitly does mention the 3rd verse, and it's crazy not to provide the full context of that 3rd verse for illustrative purposes and to give the reader the full understanding of what is being said and why someone might object to it.  This is clear encyclopedic value in the way that the lyrics to a pop song would not be. Fieari (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment on RFC neutrality (since that seems to be disputed above) - It's pretty established that an RFC's question should be kept simple and neutrally stated, but that the proposer of the RFC is allowed to make arguments in favor of their point after doing so, just like any other responder to the RFC. I believe that this has been done here... the question is "Should we add the full lyrics back to the article?" which is pretty darn neutrally stated, and then the proposer makes arguments and gives context to why this RFC is here.  Now, to be fully proper, the arguments should be made only afterwards, and on a separate line so that they don't appear on WP:RFC/A, but honestly, it's a pretty minor thing and smells of WP:WIKILAWYERING to avoid gathering consensus.  The spirit of the rule still is being followed even if not the letter. I know this RFC is already a few weeks old at this point, but I think it may help to simply rearrange the RFC proposal above, not changing any text, but simply putting the question up at top and moving the arguments to the next line below. Fieari (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes - The fact that the policy has an exception, what appears at the time of this writing the majority for inclusion, and the existence of longer anthems have been deemed fine says at least in my mind that the lyrics should be in full. 73.127.80.119 (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. The article is long enough to warrant the inclusion of the entire song. There's no firm ratio, so the discussion around the lyrics is large enough to not be considered adding to a lyrics database. SWinxy (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes Having read through the comments above I can't see any reason why not Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes: I'm non-American, and I found that adding the lyrics in is useful. WP:IAR applies here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes: There is encyclopedic value in including the full lyrics and, as mentioned previously, other national anthems with even longer lyrics have been displayed in full, so there's no reason this shouldn't be, as well. JoseJan89 (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes WP:NOTLYRICS is good policy, but it doesn't really apply here - the point of including the lyrics isn't to include them in a database, but rather to provide encyclopaedic value. (I'm assuming it's not a Rime of the Ancient Mariner in length though?) I also don't fully understand how this isn't neutrally worded. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutrality: A neutral question would have been, "Should all four stanzas of the 'The Star-Spangled Banner' be included in the article, or just the first one, to which performances are invariably confined?", after which, the proposer could have included their sig before going on to offer arguments and a viewpoint. The RFC has another defect, BTW, in that it commands us to when there are no (longer) such things. Also, having recognized within 1.5 hours that the reference to WP:NOTLYRICS was erroneous, Proposer should have struck that link and added WP:NPS to save the rest of us (or, more importantly, ) the time scanning NOTLYRICS for any mention of the word "anthem". And finally, I don't see that NPS  full text for anthems, and so it seems to me that completely unused stanzas can remain omitted. We already appropriately mention the contentious "slave" line from the 3rd verse, with considerable discussion, so that suffices. So, finally, NO, do not re-include 2, 3 & 4. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Regardless of totals you shouldn't count votes. You can request a close, but that seems unnecessary as there appears to be a consensus to include. Nemov (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ??? How can you arrive at "there appears to be a consensus to include" without counting votes? Furthermore, if there does appear to be consensus, closing would be the appropriate resolution. Maineartists (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You can review this if you want, but consensus is not determined by counting votes. Requesting a close from an admin is unnecessary. I doubt anyone would object to closing this RfC. Nemov (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * OK then. What's the consensus? In your "opinion". Maineartists (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You'll find the answer to that question above. Nemov (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)