Jump to content

Talk:Pledge of Allegiance/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Erroneous Timeline

The helpful timeline to the side is not correct. It adds the words "under God" in the first revision in 1892, without bolding to indicate a change. I do not think it was in the pledge at any time before 1954, as the article itself explains. I think I'll just change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misha Vargas (talk • contribs) 22:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Added Newdow vs Rio Linda Unified School District to the Article

I have added the recently decided case of Newdow versus Rio Linda Unified School District to the article. Safiel (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

why did you change the pledge of allegiance over and over again till the 1950s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.216.170.50 (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Substitution of the words "under Law"

This entire section is sourced by nothing other than a primary source and, IMHO, requires either additional WP:RS third-party sourcing or removal. Anyone else? JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Why to the flag?

It seems odd that allegiance is being pledged to the flag. Is there any explanation for why this is?173.16.12.107 (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it isn't only to the flag. Did you read the History section? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note that discussion pages are reserved for discussing improvements to the article ONLY, and not discussion of the topic itself. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
"...and to the republic for which it stands..."146.201.16.50 (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

States requiring the Pledge

I think the following seems to be a better reference for the assertion near the end of the article that about half the states require the Pledge in one way or another - I am not sure this site is mentioned anywhere, but it seems like another good reference:

http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000074

Nicholas Duchon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.122.205 (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Another question (to which I don't know the answer; ignorant Scot, sorry) is 'when it says 'require' does that refer to public schools or to private schools as well? Is that true of all the states which 'require' things or does it vary?' This is a question which would need answered (and doesn't appear to be answered by the page linked to) if one were wanting to further disambiguate the article from what it says at the moment (which to my mind is acceptable). 94.193.220.27 (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Proper citation?

Can someone please investigate the correct version of the pledge in 1942? The 'Official versions' table shows that between 1924 and 1954, the pledge was "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

Yet in the Changes section it is quoted as being accepted on June 22, 1942 as "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In the first one there is a semi-colon after 'stands'. In the second there is a comma in that spot, along with an additional comma after 'indivisible'.

Thanks, WesT (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed quote that was concocted in the book the referenced article relies on and cites

The quote was removed because it misleadingly made it seem that this was a direct quote from Bellamy. It is clear from reading the source book, "The Pledge: A History of the Pledge of Allegiance" (Amazon, look inside) that the authors concocted this statement from whole cloth. In the same paragraph, they actually admit that Bellamy's views on immigration were voiced years after he wrote the Pledge. There is plenty of first-hand material that explains why every word in the Pledge was originally included without reference to immigrants - and none that does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcornwall (talk • contribs) 00:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Point of View

This article is written from a purely American point of view and could be considerably improved if other perspectives were taken into account. For example, are children (of American parents) in other countries required to take the pledge of allegiance and are there laws requiring them to do so and have these been tested to the same degree? Are there pledges of allegiance in other countries like Vanuatu or Sierra Leone or whatever and how do their words differ from the single version offered in this article? Additionally, has anyone considered that requiring servicemen to, "remain silent throughout" might contravene their freedom of speech and has this ever been tested in the courts? Think big, guys, and this might become a really great article. Cottonshirtτ 19:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We can only write about what we find in reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source which addresses these issues then it would probably be appropriate to add something about them. But we can't do so based only on our own thoughts and conclusions.   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Picture for "Home of Pledge of Allegiance"

I took a picture of a sign when driving into Mount Morris that reads "Welcome to Mount Morris NY - Home of Pledge of Allegiance - Founded 1794". - On the MM wiki it shows "Francis Bellamy, author of the Pledge of Allegiance was born there." Not sure if there is a place for that picture on this page. JHolicky (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense to have it in the Francis Bellamy article, as it indicates his continued notability that his home town is publicly celebrating him. --Wowaconia (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

More explanation of this bizarre ritual needed [Not!]

"Under God"

@ Robin Lionheart: There are no weasel words in "some suggest," but only greater accuracy. Author Scott A. Merriman has observed that the introduction of "under God" in the 1950s was done during the Cold War, as a way to differentiate the U.S. from the concept of communist state atheism limits the "observation" to one individual; I also cited to Nunberg, which makes 2, which = some. The phrase "in the 1950s" is redundant because it was just said that "under God" was added in 1954. The phrase, "as a way to differentiate the U.S. from the concept of communist state atheism," is awkward, comparing a nation with a concept.
I propose that this is a better sentence: Because the words "under God" were introduced during the Cold War, some suggest it was a way to contrast American values with those of communist state atheism.
Or, we could take Nunberg's words as definitive, and boldly assert, The words "under God" were introduced during the Cold War as a way to contrast American values with those of communist state atheism. Yopienso (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has long been my understanding that the "under God" was added to underline another difference from the "godless Commies" during the post-war Red scare. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
User Yopienso says, "There are no weasel words in 'some suggest,'" indicating a lack of understanding of what the term "weasel words" means to Wikipedia. The verb to weasel, in this context, means to squirm out of attributing the words or ideas being quoted to their proper source. Saying, "some suggest" means you do not hold those who suggested accountable for their words and are granting yourself leeway to escape charges of misattribution. If you have, as you seem to have in this case, two sources, then attribute them. Try this: "Merriman and Nunberg said that the introduction of "under God" in the 1950s was done to differentiate the U.S. from the concept of communist state atheism". No weasel words, no vacuous, "some suggest", just clear, concise, encyclopedic attribution to the correct source. You would of course need to link to or reference your sources aswell, but you already know that. Good luck. Cottonshirtτ 02:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

First Amendment

The article quotes the first amendment incorrectly as having protections against the establishment of religion. This is wrong. The amendment protects against congress respecting AN establishment of religion not THE establishment of religion. There is a big difference. For example Mcdonalds is an establishment of the fast food industry as is wendy's, subway, etc. while THE fast food establishment includes all of them. The first amendment if written regarding fast food instead of religion would read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of fast food"......would this mean they could not have pizza delivered for lunch? Of course not, that is absurd but they would be prevented from making a particular establishment the official national fast food. The intent of the amendment is to prevent CONGRESS from making a law to create a state religion. Catholisism is an establishment, Baptists are AN establishment, Lutherens are AN establishment, etc., while they all combined constitute THE establishment. In other words the first amendment does not prevent prayer in school, Under God in the pledge or mandatory prayer when entering city hall. Secondly, the amendment only puts restrictions on Congress from making A LAW. If I demand someone pray upon entering my home I have not violated their rights. It's all pretty simple logic.

This might be simple, but if you mention "God" (capital "G"), this is normally taken to be the god of Abraham. There are religions which have more than one god, or TBH many people who hold to NO gods, but who have made great input to the USA. Effectively, you are saying that they are to be disregarded, or even excluded from the inclusion in your "One Nation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.67.22 (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.225.211 (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your concerns here, but the article does not quote the First Amendment, either correctly or incorrectly. It offers no interpretation as to that amendment's contents or meaning. Besides which, pizza is my religion, so your arguments only confuse me further. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a distinction without a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.199.33 (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a matter of interpretation and is likely covered more fully on the First Amendments' own article. The interpretations that come up most regarding the Amendment in relation to the Pledge are:

On the one side those holding that the phrase "no law" means that no law or policy can be implemented that places government in the field rightfully belonging to religion. This is called "strict-seperationism".
This is oppossed by those on the other side who hold "an establishment" means that the government is free to engage in religious activity as long as it does not show preference for any particular religion - i.e. if it gives Faith Based funding to any religion that asks that is okay. This is called "accomodationism".

Currently and historically the courts have taken an accomodationist approach, those holding to strict-seperationism point out the problems with this approach such as forcing Christians to give tax breaks to the Church of Satan, or Satanists being forced to do the same for Christians; or forcing atheists and agnostics to pay for the religious activities of religions that declare they are abominations for not believing in their religious system.

In regards to the Pledge strict-seperationists point out that the state is calling on children of various faiths that are all mutually exclusive and go through a rite communally when they would not be allowed to participate in such a manner in actual places of worship (i.e. a Hindu would not be allowed to receive Communion in a Catholic Church as they don't worship the same god/gods) so the Pledge is opposed as creating an artificial religious community for the sake of promoting unity towards the state. Atheists and agnostics also oppose this as they can not be consistent with their positions without appearing to be opposed to the state.
Concerning the original post in this thread, the Supreme Court ruled in Engels v. Vitale that students may of course continue to voluntarily pray as they desire, but they could not be led in prayer by the government. This is because school prayers are written by the state, and are led by teachers and principles who work for the state - this was viewed as an infringement by the state in an area that rightfully belongs to religion.
You are correct that the first Amendment does not apply to private individuals but only to the government. Though the Civil rights laws in the 1960s made it illegal to fire or refuse to hire someone based on their religion or refuse to rent or sell things to them based on that as well. i.e. you can no longer post "No Catholics need apply" or refuse to hire someone because you find out they are Jewish, though this was the case for most of American history.
Wowaconia (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Considered nationalist?

I have a question which could possibly be worked into the article: Is the pledge of allegiance not considered nationalist or even fascist in the USA? Over here in Europe it would be kind of odd to swear children in on their country like durig the dark ages of fashism in the 1930s and 40s. The only time you have to pledge something (at least iN Austria, where I'm living) is when you do your mandatory army service or when you start working for the government eg as a teacher, but it is more like an oath to the office. Could these considerations be taken into account under a possible "criticism - reception" heading? As far as I understand it the pledge of allegiance is also criticised within the US.--Schmutzman (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My experience would confirm the coverage in the Controversy section of the article: most of the criticism regards religious issues rather than nationalism, but see Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance for some sourced material on the subject. AV3000 (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As an American schoolchild in the 1950's, I certainly found the Pledge to be fascist (though I did not know the word at the time} by intuition, and did not like being forced to recite it daily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.199.33 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with the above posts. To the rest of the world this does seem nationalistic or even fascist. The whole idea of expecting people to make this pledge strikes me as something only a dictatorship would do.--109.114.123.186 (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

More photos and film clips needed

All the photos of the Bellamy salute currently at Wikimedia Commons show the second phase of the salute, the part with outstretched arm. To better explain and illustrate the article, photos or video clips should be located showing the entire sequence of the salute. Film would probably be available from the 1930s, up to December 1942, and should be free of copyright restrictions. — QuicksilverT @ 20:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight on controversy

Half this article is about the "controversy surrounding the pledge", this is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:CRITICISM. Is it possible to try and incorporate all that into the main section?

===This is inherently controversial and a political wedge issue. The substance is requirement to give a pledge, which the final and standing decision by the S.C. is that it is unconstitutional. Yet, it remains politically advantageous as both major political parties support the strong pressures on individuals to recite this pledge. This is not criticism by Wiki editors, but recounting the conflict between the legislative and judicial branches of our country. The focus on this controversy is not disproportional at all, in my opinion. Arodb (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Replaced heading "Controversy" with "Supreme Court Rejection of Compulsion of Recitation"

A law that had been interpreted as requiring recitation having this requirement removed is not a controversy, but a change in the essential nature of the law. Although every state has a different law on the conditions of this ritual being recited in school, none after the Barnette decision may require it of the students. This is not a controversy in the same meaning as there is a controversy over abortion or entitlements. The Barnette decision changed the meaning of the subject under discussion, and stands to this day. No main article on The Pledge Of Allegiance that does not, at the very least, excerpt the words of Justice Jackson (even through a more extensive quote is in the "controversy article") is not presenting the appropriate historical narrative of this subjectArodb (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


Seniortrend (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Any instances of teachers refusing to lead the pledge?

Have there been any instances of schoolteachers refusing to lead students in reciting the pledge, and has that been the subject of litigation? -75.57.5.160 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

history of adoption in schools ?

Does anyone know if public schools have been using the pledge for a long time ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.10.169 (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Used by Christopher Hitchens

For what it's worth, the history of the pledge has been mentioned by Hitchens in reference to the recent addition of "under God" on multiple occasions. Some include: The 5th Annual Arthur Miller Freedom to Write Lecture at the Pen American Center, in the article The Best Woman?, in his review of Godless: The Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter Joel.sbateman (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How about a "In popular culture" section, mentioning how it's been used in music, such as the intro of Mosh by Eminem or in the music video of Jeremy by Pearl Jam? --PWNGWN (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

internal contradiction, Bellamy salute

The first image from 1899 shows students saluting the flag with arm across the chest, right hand turned down and held horizontally above the left breast. The Bellamy Salute section says that the salute with the arm across the chest wasn't introduced until 1940s and that the former salute from 1892(?) was that shown in the given image - the image shows the "Nazi salute" style of salute. This appears to be contradictory or at least is unclear. Perhaps the Bellamy salute entails the movement of the arm from lying across the breast to being presented forward of the body, straight and angled up? Needs some work to address clarity/consistency. Pbhj (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This comment is taken from the "Triva" section of the imdb article on "The Red Pony:"

"In one of the school scenes, the children say the Pledge of Allegiance with their right arms extended, pointed toward the flag. This was the Bellamy Salute suggested by Francis Bellamy, who wrote the original version of the Pledge. Due to its similarity to the Nazi and Fascist salute, President Franklin D. Roosevelt changed the position to hand-over-the-heart. This was later codified into law in 1942."

The scene appears on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA0A0ymd0CM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.130.5 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not know when the "Bellamy Salute" began but I quote from a descriptive passage in <"Flags of America: from the time of Columbus to the present day." Sesqui-Centennial Edition ©1926. John Wanamaker, Philadelphia. 28pp., illustrated. [Presently in my personal library.]> In this booklet, the Hon. John Wanamaker, who claims to have raised the first million dollars for 1876's Centennial Exhibition, and had been a member of that exhibition's Centennial Board of Finance, as well as Chairman of the 1876 Centennial Celebration in Independence Square, herein claims to be the "Originator" in 1916 of the Sesqui-Centennial idea for 1926. There follows eighteen pages of color illustrations of the nation's historical flags.

Of interesting note and relevant to the discussion here, there appears on its final page gestural instructions accompanying the Pledge of Allegiance as follows: "Standing with the hand over the heart, at the words 'the Flag,' the right-hand is extended palm up, toward the flag, and this position is held until the end, when the hand, after the words 'justice for all,' drops to the side." Although as described here, the gesture is not identical to the Facist salute, it was obviously similar enough to be abandoned in favor of the hand-over-the-heart gesture referenced above.Sam I am47 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I was born in 1932, and this is exactly the way I remember saying the pledge until the early days of WWII. Thanks for the reference. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

More explanation of this bizarre ritual needed

The article is well-written and explains the origins and procedures very well but the rest of the world want to know more. Essentially we want to know why America has this strange ritual. To us on the outside it seems similar to what you would expect in North Korea and seems so odd that a democratic nation would practise and expect its citizens to do such things. Even if it's not added to the article I would still be interesting in reading all this on the talk page.--109.114.123.186 (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Americans, particularly those who love and respect their country, would take exception to calling this ceremony a "bizarre ritual". The article speaks for itself in its current form. Read it and stop posting stupid comments. — QuicksilverT @ 20:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I would like to make a request to the US government for the inclusion of a subsection to the pledge, similar to what is stated on the Scout Oath when it says "To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight". I mean, since both the Pledge and the Scout Oath already have a section citing God ("under God" on the Pledge, "to do my duty to God" on the Scout Oath)... --Marce 11:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
as an American I agree that it is kind of odd, and speaks mostly to the mental insecurity of people and politicians who have no scruples.
I would suggest that the current US President, Mr. Barack Obama, change the form in which schoolchildren and all other civilians show respect to the flag WITHOUT the hand being over the heart, because that IS disrespectful when my country's flag (Argentina's) is displayed or its anthem is played. I would suggest that everyone merely stand at attention, again, WITHOUT the hand being over the heart. This is because of this so-called "bizarre" ritual. --Marce 18:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fandelasketchup (talk • contribs)
In response to the first reply above, it definitely is a bizarre ritual. The rest of the world are very amused by this ritual and it strikes us as being the kind of thing expected in dictatorships. The fact that the article doesn't mention wholesale refusal to carry out the ritual also suggests that many people are sheep. The article is not well-written. It seems to be aiming for an American audience and as such it doesn't do a good job of explaining why Americans have the ritual, why other countries don't and how a country can claim to be free and democratic if it expects citizens to perform the ritual (especially in schools). As a Brit, I can't ever imagine pledging allegiance to my country - my loyalty to my country depends on the country's actions and is not absolute. I certainly wouldn't ever think of adding the phrase under God. But I must say it is amusing to see people perform the ritual and it adds a bit of pleasure to our day when we witness bizarre acts like this.--XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk 15:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

But why?

OK, I've read the History and Controversy sections but I am still confused. This article needs to mention exactly why Americans do this. I know of no other country, except maybe North Korea, which requires its citizens, especially school kids, to perform such a strange ceremony. That's what this article should be aiming for - explaining to us why Americans do this. It seems very, very odd for a country which claims to be a free country (although the rest of us know better) to require such pledges. Do the majority of kids do this or do most people refuse to do it?--XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk 14:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Other countries that do it are South (not North) Korea, the Philippines, Colombia, and doubtless many more. Colombia, where I have lived, has long required students to recite either the words of the first stanza of a hymn to the flag, or a special student's pledge. I don't know what they have done for the last 25 years.
I don't see that the purpose of this article is to explain why Americans pledge allegiance to the flag; it should merely tell the facts of what we do and the history behind our actions. However, in a word, the why is patriotism. Yopienso (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Judge: 'Under God' can remain in Pledge of Allegiance - Feb 2015

Judge: 'Under God' can remain in Pledge of Allegiance - USATODAY - Should the new legal issues be added to the article? CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC).

Merger Proposal

I propose merging Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance into Pledge of Allegiance this will create a more NPOV article and will avoid giving undue weight to any information by having it located in the same place. The Criticism page only has 5 sections I propose merging as follows:

  • Section 1 - Objections on the Grounds of Religion - This can go one of two ways. if the Pledge of allegiance article gets too big we can either make a spin off article "Pledge of Allegiance and Religion" or since most of the content involves court cases we could make an article "Pledge of Allegiance Litigation" Litigation =/= criticism.
  • Section 2 - Objections that the pledge promotes a socialist state - this can be put into the article. if it is a frindge view we want to avoid giving it undue weight, but creating a second article to address the same topic is a POV fork that we want to avoid
  • Section 3 - Other objections and rulings - This is another section that gives riase to the need for a "Pledge of Allegiance litigation" section and once the section is big enough possibly a independent article. Litigation is often very noteworthy so having a section for it would be beneficial for readers.
  • Section 4 - References - can be merged with these references
  • Section 5 - External Links - can be merged here.

The Merger would take a few edits, possibly the creation of a new page, but it will leave us with an article "Pledge of Allegiance" that covers the good and the bad all in one place. it will create a better more NPOV wikipedia, I appreciate any feedback, suggestions, or assistance with the merger :) Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - The length of both articles added together would be too long. Please give everyone at least 2 weeks to discuss and vote. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Sbmeirow, thanks for weighing in, I agree we need time for a merger decision absolutely. I agree that a straight copy and paste merger would be proplematic, but I do think there are better ways for us to cover the topic instead of two articles for the same topic. I like the idea of creating new topic articles, while you're thinking about it I think we could make a great article "Pledge of Allegiance litigation" since there have been so many cases about it, many of which have established precedents. I think that would be a lot better way to cover the content NPOV instead of "Criticism and non criticism" Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. The criticism article is long and complex. If it was merged into the main Allegiance article this material would form 50% of the combined article. That can be done but it really needs a subject expert. And it certainly needs a proper consensus involving several editors. andy (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I appcreciate you weighing in Andy, I have to respectfully disagree with you, splitting this topic into 2 articles is a violation of NPOV which cannot be overridden with a consensus of editors. I propose we move forward with the merger. and once merged we can address article length with sub topics. for example I think an article "Pledge of Allegiance Court Cases" or "Pledge of Allegiance Litigation" would be an incredible article and addition to wikipedia. Cases around the pledge of allegiance touch on Freedom of Speech and other way complex issues. having an NPOV article that covers that information would be amazing. The solution to this is given to us. we fold the two articles into a single narrative and then split sub topics as needed. Bryce Carmony (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Who is Langmack? Awkward phrasing?

This articles contains these two sentences:

In 1952, Susan Anald wrote a letter to President Truman suggesting the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Langmack was a Danish philosopher and educator who came to the United States in 1911.

That appears to be the only mention of "Mr. Langmack" in the article?

  1. It is unclear to me what relevance he has to this article.
  2. And if there is some relevance, should not the first mention of a person include their fullname?

--50.80.100.93 (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed for state flag pledges after the national pledge

In the lead, it is stated that "A number of states, including Ohio and Texas, have adopted state flag pledges of allegiance to be recited after the national pledge.[4]". The source doesn't contain anything about state pledges being recited after the national pledge. All the source indicates is that state pledges exist, nothing more. Is there a citation for that information or is that information simply incorrect? -- gt24 (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Frank Bellamy of Cherryvale, Kansas is contested author

Frank Bellamy, a fourteen year old boy of Cherryvale, Kansas, entered a contest sponsored by The Youth's Companion Magazine in 1890. He did not win the contest. However, Frank's words were published in the Youth's Companion Magazine on September 8, 1892. Frank's words: "I pledge Allegiance to my Flag, And to the Republic for which it stands, One Nation indivisible: With Liberty and Justice for all." School children around the nation recited the Pledge in unison for the first time to celebrate Columbus Day on October 21,1892. Columbus had landed in the New World on an island he named San Salvador four hundred years earlier.

When Frank Bellamy of Cherryvale contacted the magazine about the use of his Pledge he was told that all entries became the property of the magazine. Therefore, Frank Bellamy of Cherryvale, Kansas had no claim to the Pledge and was given no credit. Francis Bellamy of New York was an employee of the Youth's Companion Magazine. In 1923, Francis Bellamy of New York claimed authorship of the words written by Frank Bellamy. Later John Upham, an editor of the Youth's Companion Magazine, claimed the words of the Pledge belong to him. There was a hearing about the true author of the Pledge of Allegiance between Francis Bellamy of New York and John Upham. The hearing went in favor of Francis Bellamy by what is called "the law of inherent probability." No one from the family of Frank Bellamy of Cherryvale was contacted. Frank died in 1917 from tuberculosis he contacted while serving with the 20th Kansas Volunteer infantry during the Spanish-American War.

I am Joyce Long of Cherryvale, Kansas. I wrote the book "BE THE JURY! BE THE JUDGE!: Who wrote The Pledge of Allegiance?" In 2013, the Kansas House of Representatives and the Senate honored me for my work in claiming Frank E. Bellamy as the original author of the Pledge of Allegiance.72.214.204.74 (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

ok, found some alternate sources: • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Balch Pledge

The Balch Pledge predates Bellamy's, and yet, prior to my edits, had one brief mention in the article. Its kind of silly considering the Balch pledge's one mention was the fact Bellamy thought it was Juvenile and wanted to better it, and yet the article didn't elaborate who Balch was, why his pledge predated Bellamy's, or really anything to provide context. Its especially relevant considering Bellamy pretty much ripped off the Balch salute to the flag. The fact the Balch pledge was widely used by many organizations well into the 1900's, including by the Grand Army of the Republic and Daughters of the American Revolution, means that his pledge deserves quite a bit more real estate than it got previously. Colonel George Balch actually wrote a book on creating more patriotism in schools as well as working to distribute flags to every classroom and school as auditor of the New York Board of Education, again, before Bellamy ever even wrote his pledge. Hopefully someone can add more info about it and edit the little info box on the side, which is annoying because it says "Official versions" despite no official version existing until 1923 at earliest, and the 40's at latest. Zammitj1 (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The Jehovah's Witnesses cases

The article mentions the Jehovah's Witnesses cases in the 40s but does not say the JWs won--one cannot be compelled to say the Pledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.82.148 (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it didn't when you first read it but it does now, and links to the article that explains the Supreme Court case that you are referring to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette

Peace, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.188.9 (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Citation no. 8 is broken

There is no reference to any relevant information available when clicking the link to cite no. 8 with regard to which states do not require recital of the pledge in the classroom. Joniisthecoolest (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done - link rot is common. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Parenthetical statements in the "Legal challenges" section

Hi, Sbmeirow, I don't agree with the additions you made to the article (replacing ones I had removed earlier). They're in Wikipedia's voice, but seem to be editorializing, i.e. expressing an opinion that's not from a reliable source. This seems like a violation of no original research, and perhaps more specifically of no synthesis, to me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There are 2 sentences. Clarify how that applies to the first sentence you removed. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
It's unsourced, first of all. Second of all, it's not directly relevant; the quote refers to coin, not paper money. The only relevance either of those two sentences has to the justice's decision is as a (fairly superficial) counterpoint, and Wikipedia is not in the business of making counterpoints in its own voice. If a reliable source specifically makes this counterpoint, then we can keep it in the article--and cite it to said source--but unless that's true, it's original research to create and place a counterpoint in Wikipedia's voice. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The In God We Trust article states the year and treasury.gov reference in the intro, which you could have checked, instead of slandering it as original research. The original quote from the judge cites currency, oath, prayer and states years for the later two but not the first. Since he didn't state when it was added to currency, I felt that factual information should be added to clarify it (this is not counterpoint). If you don't think this is important, then you should remove the 1787 and 1789 from his quotes, otherwise you need to write some text to clarify the currency issue. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Wait, what? The 1787 and 1789 aren't part of the original quote? If that's so, then yes, they should definitely be removed. If not, it should remain as part of the actual quote. Other than that, the wikilink to the In God We Trust article is plenty of context. Calling something out like that reads as an agenda--why else would that particular fact need to be clarified? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page was moved to "Pledge of Allegiance (United States)" per WP:WORLDVIEW, and WP:TITLECON. The new title is consistent with all the articles in the family, as suggested by user:Sbmirow in the discussion. Two votes were cast both supporting the move, and none objecting. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


Pledge of Allegiance → Pledge of Allegiance of the United States – WP:WORLDVIEW 141.131.2.3 (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Though certainly the phrase "Pledge of Allegiance" is most well known in association with the US, IMHO for the sake of WP:WORLDVIEW it is more appropriate to include the country name in the title. "Pledge of Allegiance" does not necessarily refer to the U.S. alone. I know some will argue that WP:COMMONNAME name applies but I do not agree with this viewpoint. It is rather like arguing that because the term "Secret Service" is most commonly associated with the U.S. that article with that name should go directly to the U.S. Obviously that would be inappropriate.

-- MC

If we going down this road, then it should have a similar format as other countries, such as "Pledge of Allegiance (United States)", see links at Oath of allegiance. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I am OK with that. You have my support. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recitation in school is sometimes mandatory

The article is incomplete/inaccurate, because in Frazier vs. Winn the earlier ruling was partly reversed. The court ruled that schools may force students to recite the pledge, if the students' parents want the school to compel the recital. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/us-11th-circuit/2008/07/23/158772.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.46.197 (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2018

The anti-American piece of shit who deleted "under god" in the last edit needs to be banned.

"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." is the correct text for the Pledge of Allegiance. 72.33.2.18 (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: If you're referring to GorillaWarfare's edit, it was correct. "Under God" was not added until 1954. I suggest that you watch yourself and try to keep things WP:CIVIL around here before jumping to conclusions. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
NOTE TO EVERYONE - It's a google parsing problem, NOT a Wikipedia problem, because this article is correct. Please discuss in previous section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


Google summary problem

When this page shows up in Google results, an incorrect summary is displayed. The words "under god" are missing. I am not sure if it is a tagging issue here or a Google one but I thought I'd mention it. That Guy, From That Show! 01:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting everyone know! It's a google parsing problem, NOT a Wikipedia problem, because this article is correct. We could reorder the contents of the infobox, as another editor did, but the reverse order looked weird, so another editor restored it. Here's a link to see the problem. https://www.google.com/search?as_q=Pledge+of+Allegiance • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Apparently this has been brought up elsewhere but it isn't really a problem with this article. Someone else reversed the order but my thoughts where both it's not the articles fault the way google is displaying it and also you don't read date order from newest to oldest in any other articles and it looked weird so I was the one who reverted it back. NZFC(talk) 08:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

of America 1923 or 1924?

in the text boxes of the changes over the years 1923 to 1954 [1] "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 1923 has "of America". Yet in the article it states that "In 1923, the National Flag Conference called for the words "my Flag" to be changed to "the Flag of the United States," so that new immigrants would not confuse loyalties between their birth countries and the US. The words "of America" were added a year later. " So do we know for sure which it is ? Newyearbaby (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. I had to go to a government source. We should probably get rid of the ushistory.org sourcing since it's not high quality. YoPienso (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
After recent edits, I removed the reference from the "1924 to 1954", because it was the same ref as the bottom 1954 ref. Two references are missing "1892 to 1923" and "1924 to 1954". Please fix. Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Another proposed law that died in Congress

I agree with this change, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pledge_of_Allegiance_(United_States)&curid=59581&diff=846756059&oldid=846023443, and would add that the sources are one-sided and not Reliable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED as proposed. Policy-based arguments for: WP:PTOPIC (pageviews, long-term significance). Policy-based rebuttals: none. (We are country-agnostic, as we neither favor nor discriminate against topics based on the population or country or people or language affiliated with the article's topic; that argument had no basis in policy.)

It's worth mentioning that one editor suggested redirecting to oath of allegiance. This is an interesting idea, but again, no policy-based arguments were brought up for consideration (why should we do that instead of other options?), and it did not seem to acquire popular support. Indeed, a different editor (perhaps unsatisfied with the idea of redirecting?) made the suggestion to make this a concept disambiguation page about pledges of allegiance, but brought forth no policy-based rationale for why the new concept dab would be the primary topic over the U.S. pledge.

In short, in over a week of back-and-forth discussion, not one person gave a policy-based reason as to why the move should not take place precisely as proposed. Therefore, the articles are moved. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 00:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


– This was moved in 2017 in a questionable RM that had 1 participant and no proper discussion. The American Pledge of Allegiance is the overwhelming primary topic in terms of both historical significance and page views, getting roughly 30 times the amount of the other entries put together. This dab page was only moved to the base term yesterday, and in the preceding 30 days the redirect received more page views than the other entries put together. I can't get a multi-entry Pageviews Analysis URL to work so just imagine there's a link to one here, showing the disparity. Xezbeth (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I sympathize with BD2412's argument that it should redirect to oath of allegiance. I would agree if we were discussing pledge of allegiance (uncapitalized); however, WP:SMALLDETAILS applies here. I would encourage BD2412 to start a discussion regarding pledge of allegiance, though (and I hope he will let me know if he does so). 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Balch Salute / Bellamy Pledge are separate works

The article begins with a clearly false statement:

"The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is an expression of allegiance to the Flag of the United States and the republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Colonel George Balch in 1887"

Balch wrote his salute to the flag five years before Bellamy's pledge of allegiance. Balch's salute does not contain the words "pledge" or "allegiance." In fact the word "flag" is the only significant word the two have in common. It is therefore somewhat absurd to state that Bellamy "revised" Balch's work.

Bellamy was inspired by Balch and wrote his pledge as a response or reaction to Balch's salute, but Bellamy's pledge is certainly not a "revision." Balch deserves credit for having written the salute to the flag that inspired Bellamy's pledge, and this is addressed subsequently in the article, but the clearly false statement that leads off the article, a statement contradicted by the subsequent evidence cited in the article itself , ought to be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.3.173 (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I added most of the Balch material and I cited it using primary sources from the period in question. Balch created the first recorded instance of a pledge to the flag. While you are correct in pointing out that the Balch pledge contains neither the words "pledge" or "allegiance" its silly to say that its neither, when it is referred to as such by one of the organizations that actually presided over the Flag Conference of 1923, the Daughters of the American Revolution. The DAR, in 1906, referred to the Balch Pledge in their publication as the "Formula For Allegiance" (primary sources cited in article) and later as the "Old Pledge" to Bellamy's "New Pledge." (another primary source.) In addition, the Grand Army of the Republic also cited the Balch pledge as the "Pledge to the Flag" in numerous instances. Its also widely recorded that Bellamy and James Upham (the other disputed author) specifically refer to the Balch pledge as "too juvenile and lacking in dignity," and that Upham asked Bellamy if he could do better. This would make the Balch pledge and the Bellamy pledge intertwined, as well as their history. Zammitj1 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact that DAR referred to Balch and Bellamyʼs works as the “Old Pledge” and the “New Pledge” supports the claim that they are separate works. It seems to be the consensus of other reference materials — including Wikipediaʼs own page on Francis Bellamy — that Bellamy is the original author of the pledge now used today. I agree with the original comment that Balchʼs pledge should receive mention as a predecessor, but that to describe him as the original author of the work we now refer to as the Pledge is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmabrecht (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The Pledge of Allegiance is a concept that originates with Balch, both in his books, writing, the pledge he wrote, and the influence he wielded as a New York school administrator. It is only through Balch's advocacy that Bellamy encountered the concept of the pledge and thought he could write something better. Not to mention, the Grand Army of the Republic referred to Balch's pledge as "The Pledge to the Flag" right up until the National Flag Conference. To treat the topic of the pledge like a work of art by one man and not as an evolving concept is to ignore context. Zammitj1 (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Holger Christian Langmack and Under God (section was deleted in article for lacking citation; i undeleted it)

Somebody cite this.

@67.0.204.244:, please read WP:BURDEN. I removed this text last week because it had remained unsourced since its addition 9 years ago. And it has included a cite-needed tag for the past 2 years. A search found no reliable independent source for this information. It should not be restored without verification of its significance by an established scholarly source. This text was added originally in its entirety with this edit by an IP in January 2009. The only sources I have found include the 2013 self-published book that you cited above and/or mirrors of Wikipedia published after 2009. I realize this individual existed -- but I can find no RS source which establishes their historical significance for this encyclopedic article. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: In response to a query, I edited this response to remove unfair characterizations and to clarify my original position. The position remains the same: unless the significance of this individual on this topic is established by independent reliable source (e.g., an established historian), the information is Original research. — CactusWriter (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Trump

I am from Europe and have difficulties to understand why everything have to go to Trump this days... well in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su32jm_Z8Yo seem that "under god" was not said, also this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB2aS7RfVAc . I propose the removal of the Trump reference or at least to give the full story--91.177.109.93 (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Trump said the DNC removed it. These are two individual groups offering the Pledge themselves; the DNC had nothing to do with their choice. So Trump's complaint was, at best, inaccurate. In any event, as far as an article intended to inform us about the Pledge of Allegiance is concerned, I consider this to be a piece of trivia that would be better omitted, in line with WP:NOTNEWS. But I'm from the US and I can imagine that this may be the first time millions from other countries even became aware that we have such a thing as the Pledge, and it might be considered encyclopedically significant in that light. So it merits discussion here. Largoplazo (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Heyo! Good discussion. I think the wiki should reflect Trump's falseness, but also the actual thing that happened. It is significant to religious people that certain people in the democratic party (myself included) don't want "under god" in the pledge. The current line reads like fake news: news needs to reflect essentials, not just the superficial. Trump is incredibly superficial, while sometimes, pointing to a real issue: this is how he communicates with his voters, by trolling. The pledge is certainly a front on the American culture war. 2601:447:C080:3020:4497:C4CF:87D7:A947 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I see another editor has removed the statement. Particularly in light of the edit summary, I agree that the text that had been there was problematic, and that Trump's remarks shouldn't be mentioned at all unless and until our coverage is properly conceived. (Meanwhile, Trump has posted a more specific tweet acknowledging that it was the two groups rather than the DNC that had omitted "under God". I didn't look to see whether he'd deleted the previous tweet.) Largoplazo (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

State pledges?

Pledges: Do You Know Yours?

Would state pledges go here as well? -- sion8 talk page 23:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The link redirects back to the main page of PBS. It seems the referenced article no longer exists. WikipediaUser321 (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Frank E. Bellamy

There's an article coming out in The New York Times tomorrow about Frank E. (not Francis) Bellamy being the likely actual author.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Update: It also ran in Art Daily for those without NYT subscriptions: https://artdaily.cc/news/145145/We-know-the-Pledge--Its-author--maybe-not-#.YknfBDUpCUk  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Pledge of allegiance

Plzz make me a short note on pledge of allegiance 2409:4051:2D90:ED17:CE9C:D189:D133:E700 (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pledge_of_Allegiance/Archive_3&oldid=1235649310"