Talk:George Washington's First State of the Union Address
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Cyfal
| Information about this edition | |
|---|---|
| Edition: | Library of Congress: George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 2 Letterbooks, Letterbook 25, Images 121-127 of 308. |
| Source: | Library of Congress: George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 2 Letterbooks, Letterbook 25, Images 121-127 of 308. |
| Level of progress: | 75% |
The original printing seems to have used long-s characters, can we replace? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Bahá'u'lláh. 03:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am a fan of the long-s being used where it was in the original. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just started proof reading, Index:Washington - State of the Union.djvu it has some minor differences (punctuation, etc) from the "Massachusetts Spy" version. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Is there a reason that the index is not transcluded, and if so, should we create a separate page? - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Most likely for the same reasons facing the U.S. Constitution transclusion - sacred cow syndrome. I took great care in locating and then citing the offical U.S. government archive source (either its ARC locator number or GPO/FDsys URL - basically an URL using the official dot gov domain) so these rehashes & reprints, although historically sound, made by newspapers or Journals of the day, locked away private copies "signed" by Washington, Lincoln etc. themselves and other 2nd, 3rd or 4th tier suspect sources did not somehow overshadow the actual god-damn documents as they are held in trust for generations to come by our National Archive system. If you version dab something like this you do it a dis-service imho. I say boot this copy once the proper and permanent source is located for Washington's index linked above. — George Orwell III (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd hate to see it get booted, though I understand your reasoning. I noticed the same with COTUS, but left it per your request. It is a printed version, and it's been validated, therefore I would like to see it used somewhere. Unless I've misunderstood what you meant regarding dabbing, since this is coming up often, how about the title links must directly link to the historical document, and then offer a link to a dab page for other reprints? This will always bring the reader directly to the historical document, and in the case of extraneous, but potentially important re-prints, the option to see what else exists by use of {{similar}}? - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Personally I don't believe a reprint from the 1780-something Mooseknuckle Courier et al. is significant in any way, shape or form when you have the original (or closest copy thereof) in hand. I don't think there is any value being added by hosting additional rehashes of the same work, especially one as significant as this, just because we can. Its just my opinion and I have no objection to someone preserving the irrelevant at the end of the day either; I just refuse to take part in it. — George Orwell III (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- K, I think I'll transclude it somewhere and add a versions to this; to be unreasonably naive, I don't want to be the one assigning which publications we should keep, however ridiculously easy of a call it may be. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ahhh—wait George, I'm talking about this one: Index:Washington - State of the Union.djvu, which, according to the en.wp is Washington's handwritten copy. That is not transcluded. So, this should be transcluded in the main space,right? - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's the one that should have been here all along. I mean Washington did put his hand to that revision, signature and all. Until I fix my time machine to verify the audio matches the text, we'll just have to trust the Library of Congress' opinion that the hand written content is indeed what what was spoken by Washington on that day - not what some copy hungry local-paper editor thinks Washington said 5 states away & days after the fact. (damn you flux-capacitor:) — George Orwell III (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, maybe that index belongs at something like "George Washington's handwritten notes for the First State of the Union"? I did not check to see if that version is identical to what was "spoken" although I imagine there could be differences. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- ...and maybe you've solved your dab problem that way. Naming the other versions something just as anal like "Obscure, long defunct newspaper's interpretation of George Washington's supposed First State of the Union Address (as told to the editor by Mrs. Beasley of the Beasley bakery -- official maker of muffins for Congress)".
- Dude - get a grip; you are over thinking this. We will never know 100% what was spoken that day. Logic dictates these handwritten pages were the ones read before Congress (i.e. spoken out loud) and were submitted for posterity by Washington in his signature some point shortly afterwards. There is no Congressional Record in the form that it exists in today to cross reference it with (to the best of my knowledge) like we can today. — George Orwell III (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ha, I think I may have only been underthinking this—what I was assuming simply due to the existence of the non-transcluded version and the index, coupled with your initial remarks to remove the index, was that we had a locked version which was sourced, not by index, to what was supposedly said according to the {{text info}} boxes references, and the one which Washington submitted, the index, which may or may not have been what was said. Unless I am still confusing this, they are one in the same, and I am going to add the index to the article. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, maybe that index belongs at something like "George Washington's handwritten notes for the First State of the Union"? I did not check to see if that version is identical to what was "spoken" although I imagine there could be differences. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's the one that should have been here all along. I mean Washington did put his hand to that revision, signature and all. Until I fix my time machine to verify the audio matches the text, we'll just have to trust the Library of Congress' opinion that the hand written content is indeed what what was spoken by Washington on that day - not what some copy hungry local-paper editor thinks Washington said 5 states away & days after the fact. (damn you flux-capacitor:) — George Orwell III (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ahhh—wait George, I'm talking about this one: Index:Washington - State of the Union.djvu, which, according to the en.wp is Washington's handwritten copy. That is not transcluded. So, this should be transcluded in the main space,right? - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- K, I think I'll transclude it somewhere and add a versions to this; to be unreasonably naive, I don't want to be the one assigning which publications we should keep, however ridiculously easy of a call it may be. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Personally I don't believe a reprint from the 1780-something Mooseknuckle Courier et al. is significant in any way, shape or form when you have the original (or closest copy thereof) in hand. I don't think there is any value being added by hosting additional rehashes of the same work, especially one as significant as this, just because we can. Its just my opinion and I have no objection to someone preserving the irrelevant at the end of the day either; I just refuse to take part in it. — George Orwell III (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd hate to see it get booted, though I understand your reasoning. I noticed the same with COTUS, but left it per your request. It is a printed version, and it's been validated, therefore I would like to see it used somewhere. Unless I've misunderstood what you meant regarding dabbing, since this is coming up often, how about the title links must directly link to the historical document, and then offer a link to a dab page for other reprints? This will always bring the reader directly to the historical document, and in the case of extraneous, but potentially important re-prints, the option to see what else exists by use of {{similar}}? - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Most likely for the same reasons facing the U.S. Constitution transclusion - sacred cow syndrome. I took great care in locating and then citing the offical U.S. government archive source (either its ARC locator number or GPO/FDsys URL - basically an URL using the official dot gov domain) so these rehashes & reprints, although historically sound, made by newspapers or Journals of the day, locked away private copies "signed" by Washington, Lincoln etc. themselves and other 2nd, 3rd or 4th tier suspect sources did not somehow overshadow the actual god-damn documents as they are held in trust for generations to come by our National Archive system. If you version dab something like this you do it a dis-service imho. I say boot this copy once the proper and permanent source is located for Washington's index linked above. — George Orwell III (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Too late. Only difference was punctuation, italic text & stupid pic of MooseKnuckle or whatever Spy (which is where the original text "started from" before it morphed into the LoC handwritten content eventually). You misunderstood I guess - I wanted the indexed validated copy here and dump the existing non-transcluded suspect contributions from jump. — George Orwell III (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
In section 3 the word 'economy' is spelled 'oeconomy'.
- Yes, this spelling is what Washington wrote. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
In section 5A, perceive is mispelled als percieve. BTW, why can't I edit this page myself? The hint You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions. is not very helpful... Perhaps to prevent vandalism? --Cyfal (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Percieve is what the original text has, so I have not amended it. However, I've added sic to indicate this.
The reason the page was locked down is that featured texts should not require further editing and we indeed prevent vandalism, particularly while they are on the mainpage. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, I didn't realize that in the original. -- Cyfal (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)