Talk:Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech

AfD

NOTE Most of the debate about this article's merits seems to be taking place off Broadway here[[1]] at the session considering scrapping it altogether.--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 07:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That debate now closed -it's a keeper.!--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hooray, hooray! I love being on the winning side (for once)! --Kenatipo (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Odd that there is no discussion here at all. Surely an article that has attracted such warmth on its "Lets delete it" page would have a parallel discussion here on improving it? Am I missing some aspect of this? With regard to improvement - some text from the speech would help, as would international reaction to it, which is ENTIRELY absent as it stands--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 04:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Check back soon. I am going to summarize and quote from the speech, and add that to the article. There is one Canadian response now. I have also seen a few responses from the UK. You are free to add more international responses. Cullen328 (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice to hear at least one other voice in here -how very odd that we are only two-maybe chat will bring more. I have split the response section into international and domestic and have included one more international source so far. I am going to look at Le Monde,Sydney Morning Herald,Guardian and the Irish Times for further material and at UK and EU leader reactions. Are you going to start an analysis section? The Guardian linguistic comparison of the Palin and Obama speech using Wordle is worth a look.[[2]] As is this Sydney Morning Herald article which records some "back to business as normal" growls from USA pols at the end.[[3]]--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 05:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The historians section is great-I think the preçis of the speech still needs work. What is central to its power is the linking of personal to national morality and that link is still not clear from it as it stands. I would like to find some negative responses-apart from the ravings of that looney Phelps guy and a SMH headline which refers to an odd tone I have found nothing yet.--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 07:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your participation. The main battle is at the Articles for Deletion debate. If this article survives that process, then the discussion can shift here to the talk page. Time being limited, my summary of the speech was perhaps a bit cursory. I appreciate your additions. Cullen328 ([[User

@Cullen328 nice to see all your hard work on the historians bearing fruit- see last keep recommendation on the delete debate--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

WRT the french press, Le Monde article is behind a paywall, Liberation's one is on their blog part, I'll have to check whether it made it to the newspaper. I can add spanish quotes, I guess we need the german coverage. Comte0 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, Cullen

Keep up the good work. I feel this speech deserves its own article. The speech summary is a great leap forward. Two opinions: aren't most of your "historians" Obama worshippers? Garry Wills especially needs to be toned down, IMHO. And, the pundits section should be pared down to, oh, say 3 thoughtful conservatives and 2 liberals? The article will continue to have my support in the AfD discussion. --Kenatipo (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. These historians may well have a generally favorable view of Obama, but I think it is a rhetorical stretch to call them "worshippers". All have very solid credentials. We don't require reliable sources to have a neutral point of view, but only require that of our writing and selection of the sources. These were the only historians I could find who have discussed the speech. If any more can be found, I am all in favor of including other assessments of the speech for balance. Cullen328 (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

more editing recommendations

Garry Wills is a prize-winning idiot. As good as the speech was, it is not in the same class as the Gettysburg address or Harry the Fifth's speech at Agincourt. Just delete everything related to Garry Wills. I think the 30 million viewers fact should be ref'd, so I'll find and add one. --Kenatipo (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your additions and support. You are entitled to your opinion about Garry Wills, but he won the Pulitzer Prize for his book on the Gettysburg Address, and has also written books about Nixon and Jefferson. He's been published regularly in the New York Review of Books and the New York Times for decades. He is a reliable source regarding presidential speeches. You may not agree with Wills' comparisons, but when a source with his credentials makes those comparisons, then that is notable. I would agree to adding more muted opinions by other historians to balance Wills' enthusiasm, if such sources can be found. Cullen328 (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Anybody got anything on the Vatican reaction to the speech ? I did come across a USA Rhode Island bishop who did not like it as he saw it as hypocritical of Obama to mourn one child whilst promoting abortion of others -include ? Something from Osservatore Romano/The Pope would be nice but its site is clunky especially for non Italian speakers. something from European philosophers or Historians might be useful too. The language of the debate on the delete consideration page is fascinating -it deserves an article all by itself  ! --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 08:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/ is hard to navigate. By manipulating the url, I can reach http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/008q01.pdf which is the front page at the time of the speech, but there's nothing related to Tucson. I guess the best thing to do is to send them an email. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they are cool on Obama re abortion, but the very strong Christian religious thread in the speech ought to have attracted some Vatican comment. The philosophical aspects also echoed some of the Sermon on the Mount in parts ....--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Several international sources compare this speech with Palin's blood libel affair. It might probably be worth expanding this article in that direction somewhat. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless those sources look a lot different than I suspect they do, I don't think she should be mentioned here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is worth mentioning. Palin's statement did not influence the speech so far as we know (and, coming beforehand, obviously could not have been influenced by it). bd2412 T 22:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Comte, with all due respect, don't even think of going there. --Kenatipo (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the comments. Comte0 (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed name change

Right now, the article seems to be missing a definite article "the". The formal name of the article should more closely reflect the name as reported by Wikisource. How about Barack Obama speech at the Together We Thrive: Tucson and America memorial? Cheers! bd2412 T 22:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the title of the White House transcript of the speech is : "Remarks by the President at a Memorial Service for the Victims of the Shooting in Tucson, Arizona". Regards, Comte0 (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Both titles are a bit long though, I like how the current title looks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It should at least be Barack Obama speech at the Tucson memorial, or maybe Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech. bd2412 T 01:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those two suggestions sound better and I would be willing to support them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the second, as it is more concise. bd2412 T 04:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Some editors seem to object to the word "memorial" thinking that the article violates WP:MEMORIAL. I was thinking possibly "Barack Obama 2011 Tucson speech" as a concise and neutral title. Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The people who think that don't understand the policy, and would probably delete Lincoln Memorial if they could because it contains the word. The policy is to prevent people from writing articles about deceased individuals premised solely on the fact that the subject is deceased. The policy has nothing to do with this specifically notable event. In any case, any concerns about this article violating WP:MEMORIAL were dispensed with when those arguments were rejected by the failure of the AfD. bd2412 T 05:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, of course, BD2412. Cullen328 (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Support changing to Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that is the best option. Does anyone object to this change? bd2412 T 14:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I support this change of name. Cullen328 (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else? I think we can go ahead with this, absent any further comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Atmosphere in the hall

I think it would improve the article if we said more about the "pep rally" atmosphere in the arena and how Obama successfully dealt with it. And also how many people (including Obama, I think) found the atmosphere disconcerting. --Kenatipo (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt to have a line on this, if properly sourced. However, if you intend to indicate that Obama found the atmosphere disconcerting, or appeared to find the atmosphere disconcerting, you'll need to find a source for that as well. bd2412 T 14:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I just copied a line from the shooting article and dropped it in the "Public opinion" section. Where else to put it? --Kenatipo (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

When whoever rated this article gave it a "C", did they bother to give specific recommendations as to how to improve the article? I don't know where to look for their specific recommendations. I see the general recommendations about C-Class articles, but some suggestions specific to this article would help. --Kenatipo (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know who did that but here are the criterias for "B" class taken from WP:BCLASS so I guess that's what needs to be worked on. WikiManOne (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.

It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged.

The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.

It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.

The article has a defined structure.

Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.

The article is reasonably well-written.

The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.

The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.

Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.

It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

Thanks, WikiManOne. But when I say specific, I mean specific ! For example: there are too many domestic responses, there are too many international responses, Garry Wills' comments are silly, the photos are ugly, etc., etc. You know, specific problems. How can the C grade (or any grade) be assigned without getting down to that level of specificity? And, how can we find the person or persons unknown who assigned the grade so we can ask them for real specifics? --Kenatipo (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is all the assessor wrote:

21:09, 22 January 2011 Knowledgekid87 (talk | contribs) (8,081 bytes) (Article is a bit big for start class, and appears to have structured paragraphs, assessed as C if someone wants to revert then it's fine here.) (undo)

Obviously, doesn't leave very much. WikiManOne (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Kid ! How about some real detailed specifics? --Kenatipo (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please ignore all my comments in this section. I did not know how the grading system worked. I made the bad assumption that it was more formal and done by perhaps a committee of perhaps vastly experienced editors. Thanks, WikiManOne. --Kenatipo (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Its no problem, B class is more strict on grading than C is and this article I thought was above start class given it's structure. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You mistook B class for Good articles which are indeed reviewed. Since I haven't seen any specific concerns about the points made above, I've been bold and bumped the review to B-class. The newspaper coverage could be expanded, with quotes from The New York Times, and German, Spanish, maybe Russian and Japanese newspapers, but I don't think this is a major issue. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the grades are here: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Comte0 (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

attn: Cullen -- I'm changing Garry Wills para.

I read Garry Wills in the NYRB. He does not compare the Tucson speech favorably with the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural. So, I had to take out the word "favorably". Sorry 'bout that, Chief!

Wills:

"avoid any suspicion that they were calling Obama a second Lincoln. Well, I am willing to risk such opposition now, when I say that his Tucson speech bears comparison with two Lincoln speeches even greater than the Cooper Union address. In this case, Obama had to rise above the acrimonious debate about what caused the gunman in Tucson to kill and injure so many people. He side-stepped"

You'll be thrilled to know that my opinion of Wills increased infinitesimally. He did teach me a new word, though. Proleptic. As in "Obama's proleptic Nobel Prize". --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I am somewhat amused at how you read the Wills passage that you truncate so artfully here, and that you conclude that his comparison was not "favorable". Would you characterize the comparison, then, as "unfavorable", or "neutral"? At least reading Wills has bolstered your vocabulary, and mine as well. Warmest regards. Cullen328 (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wills' willingness to endure "opposition" to his comparison of Obama's speech to the Lincoln speeches mentioned might be construed as a "favorable" comparison, but I am willing to concede the point, and allow the passage to stand for now, as per your current edit. The article is fine as it now stands. Thank you, and I appreciate your thoughtful attention to the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We're having a small misunderstanding about one expression: "compare favorably". Just to make sure, I looked it up. When someone says "X compares favorably with Y and Z" it means that X is better than Y and Z. Wills didn't say that the Tucson speech was better than the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural, so I changed the article to reflect that. He just says the speeches are comparable. (He's wrong but entitled to his opinion). Wills views the speech favorably as do most who heard it, including me. But, IMHO, it's nowhere near Gettysburg Address class. Oh, and I didn't truncate anything. I just copied the whole block that the relevant sentence was in and pasted it. --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, Lincoln wrote the entire Gettysburg Address himself. We already know that Obama didn't write the Tucson speech by himself. Another argument against saying Tucson and Gettysburg are comparable. --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC) This article will be reviewed shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In order to pass a GA nomination the article must meet the following standards:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

1. B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

3. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Reviewer notes: This article is not ready for GA status at this time. Too small an editing history in the last month to see giving a hold with this much work. If editors return and work is accomplished, please resubmit and notify reviewer.

• Lede does not reflect article content well and has repetitive wording.
• Section headers should not reflect the subject per MoS. "Writing the speech" - "Summery of speech" headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated. Other heading are longer than are needed.
• The article misses a major issue, what the speech is about. The "history", "Origin" or "Background" to provide a clear understanding of why the speech was made is missing and should be above all sections.
• There are 30 references in this article...but not a single reference or inline citation in the entire "Summary" section.
• The body of the article suffers from the same repetitive wording of the lede. Use of the same phrases read badly.
• The sections "Domestic response" and "International response" needs copy editing. They are basically lists of reviews separated as individual short paragraphs and require tightening and prose to add context.
• While the article has a few negative mentions, over all it does not read in a neutral manner. Comes across almost idealistic. This may be cleaned up with copy editing and further research.

Overall the prose is quite poor and a great deal of referencing is required. A change in tone to be more neutral and encyclopedic is also very much needed. The fact that the article skips the issue of background or origin concerns me a great deal. This, of course could be linked to the main article on the subject of the speech itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised this article was nominated for GA. I was thinking about renominating for deletion in the future, once the recentism has worn off. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Note on title

The title is not precise or concise. Please consider a renaming. I did not use this in the review...however it may be used in the next. Per MoS, titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article. It may be better to use the term "President Obama" rather than the more casual and informal "Barack Obama" as this is a presidential speech. I suggest the shortest version that would be recognisable: "President Obama Tucson memorial address" or "Tucson memorial presidential address" the latter being the more encyclopedic and desirable to my eyes.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the title is very concise. Compare George Washington's Farewell Address. We generally do not use honorifics in article titles, and I don't think there is much substantive difference between "speech" and "address". However, if you think people are likely to search for different titles, you can always redirect those titles here. bd2412 T 18:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BD2412 that the current title is fine, and my understanding is that we don't put people's titles like "President" or "Senator" or "Dr." in article titles. The article has already been renamed once. Redirects are fine. Cullen328 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is not a biography of a living person. Honorifics and title naming conventions which you speak of are guidelines for such. For that matter the first name need not be used in this article. "Obama Tucson memorial address" would suffice. Again...the article title need not mention Obama at all. Why would you compare a C class article to an article you are attempting to bring to GA or use the excuse "Its already been changed once"? Perhaps you mistake my intention. This was a note from the reviewer as to a problem in the title that may interfere with with a GA review in the future. Misinterpreting MoS doesn't actually help to raise an article to such. Consider this: a speech is not directed towards a particular group, while an address is. Just something to think about. As for the Washington speech, if you consider the title, you would still need to change to Barack Obama's (ownership) which is not needed for titles as well. Washington farewell address could be used. The article is not about the document, the written speech itself. It is about the actual event...his speech, given at... Another problem with the Washington article is the capitalization of each word in the title and ALL section headers. A big problem with that article. As a reviewer I would caution you from comparing articles. This isn't really a matter of what I think is best over another opinion. This was meant to simply explain my perception of a problem that might interfere in the future.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/01/15/1818346/obama-consulted-clergy-scripture.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110117125032/http://www.slate.com:80/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2011/01/14/obama-s-tucson-speech-was-more-about-parenting-than-policy.aspx to http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2011/01/14/obama-s-tucson-speech-was-more-about-parenting-than-policy.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110116183952/http://www.cspan.org:80/Events/President-and-First-Lady-Honor-Victims/10737418834-1/ to http://www.cspan.org/Events/President-and-First-Lady-Honor-Victims/10737418834-1/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)