Talk:Barack Obama 2008 presidential election victory speech

Date?????????????????????????

Resolved

DATE PLEASE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.167.145 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Article-worthy?

This topic is worthy of an article? Will people seriously just invent a reason to create an article? The article is about the speech; at least have an excerpt. 68.174.67.215 (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd second that. Merge and redirect. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're so eager to delete this article, why not go for these as well while you're at it: A More Perfect Union (speech) The Audacity of hope --Flewis^(talk) 09:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This was likely the most watched speech of the campaign considering it's worldwide audience. You can't deny its notability. Joshdboz (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I must agree that the speech is worthy of an article. From the speech itself, to the moment it marked, and to the reach it had: we must recognize it's significance That said, it certainly needs to be noted that, as is, this article certainly isn't representative of that significance. Perhaps instead of marking this as a merge candidate, it should be marked as a stub. Thoughts? Sprise (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep- Wikipedia already has articles on important speeches incl. those of Obama himself. This is certainly a historic speech and arguably the most important by Obama --Anoopkn (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Even as one of the most fervent defenders of A More Perfect Union, I agree that this should be merged. Yes the speech was important, but it wasn't really important independent of his win or of his campaign. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep- I read this article because I wished to learn more about the woman, not the speech. I clicked upon the link after seeing it in the Nov. 11th "Did You Know?" section on the main page. This article should be linked only, not merged with the Obama speech. Canadian Girl Scout (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Oops: I was referring to the separate article on Ann Nixon Cooper, who's page has a notation saying that there is discussion to merge it to this article.

Transcript

I have the transcript, want it adding in? 82.25.105.211 (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Put it on wikisource and link to it in the article, I'd say. 207.241.238.217 (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

First?

Is it the first time that gay people is recognized in an acceptance speech of a President-elect? And if so should it be noted in the article? 74.15.225.187 (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I also think its worth mentioning--Anoopkn (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually bet but I bet that mentioning of gay people in this acceptance speech must be the first time. And even when it's not, it should be noted in the article since Obama's stand on this issue is quite progressive as compared to those of others. Mekong Bluesman (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Plexiglass Box?

I keep hearing people talking about how Obama had bulletproof plexiglass on either side of him during his speech, but I've found no credible sources on this either way. I think that should be included, and if it's not true, than something about the rumor and why it isn't true.Toolenduso (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I was at the rally and pretty close to him. I took the side view picture on the article, and as you can see, there was no glass immediately to his sides; there was glass to the sides, but a few feet in front of the podium, with what looked like speakers attached to them, so my guess is that it was just a matter of acoustics, rather than bulletproof shielding. I might have pictures to show that more clearly, but not with me at the moment. --Gabbec (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope it was bulletproof glass. See the "security section" --Flewis^(talk) 02:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to discern this before, on an earlier talk page topic, but why are the only sources on this foreign? Where is the American media coverage of this, looks like to me some reporter just assumed it was bulletproof and then that got repeated, thoughts? --IvoShandor (talk) 07:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Reaction?

All the reactions listed in the Reaction section are toward Obama's win, not toward his speech! Mekong Bluesman (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Reactions, arrogance?

"And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand."

Huddled around radios, between dancing about clay huts and ceremonic scarification? "Forgotten corners" of "our world"? Surely I can't be the only one annoyed by the arrogance driving from this admittedly out-of-context quote. Of course personal opinions aren't valid, but perhaps a news source or somesuch around the world have pointed this out? Apocryphite (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Move

I find the 2008 in the article's title to be unnecessary. Obama has made only one presidential acceptence speech so there is no disambiguation involved. As far as I know, this style is not conforming to other speech articles. I will move the page to Barack Obama presidential acceptance speech if no one objects. Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No one seems to oppose this so I will move it now. Reywas92^Talk 17:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Acceptance or victory speech?

The introduction says "acceptance speech". However, does not "acceptance speech" mean the speech at the convention (Democrat and Republican) in which the person formally says to "accept" the party's nomination. The speech on november 4th was a victory speech, I'd say. Besides, he did not say that he would "accept" the presidency (that wil happen on jan 20th, by the way. But the speech then will correctly be called the inaugural speech). The McCain speech was the "conceding speech". By the way, a lot of newspapers write acceptance.

So I suggest we change the title into Barack Obama presidential victory speech, 2008. -DePiep (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, see what New York Times writes: [1] -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)So I'll change it.

Dubious fact

Says here that the bullet proof glass was not visible on television, that's simply not true. The material it is sourced to has to be inaccurate. I watched the speech, I commented to my friends about the glass. It was completely visible, both on the sides and in front of Obama. --IvoShandor (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

 removed --Flewis^(talk) 06:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That was fast, gracias. I must be left wondering, however, how accurate is the article that is being used to source the rest of the sentence, perhaps we should just look for better sourcing? --IvoShandor (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, that "Metro" article is weak, weak, weak. We need a better source here for sure. --IvoShandor (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added this source [2] --Flewis^(talk) 07:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems good. I am curious though as to why most of the Google hits for this fact seem to come from overseas newspapers, I saw it in a FOX news article too, but it's weird to me. --IvoShandor (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that article doesn't mention the glass at all. --IvoShandor (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Here's what I find:

• [3]: article is weak and doesn't seem to use any source for its assertions, Canberra Times
• [4]: again the assertion is just repeated; USA Today
• [5]: this article says it "appears" to be bulletproof glass.

It looks more and more that this was just an assumption made by journalists and then repeated by other outlets. I would like to find a source that has someone in a position to know saying that it is bulletproof glass, until then I think this claim remains highly dubious. --IvoShandor (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

More sources: [6][7][8] --Flewis^(talk) 07:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Some visual evidence [9] --Flewis^(talk) 07:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is making me feel all weird. Why isn't there a source from a U.S. news outlet? That Telegraph blog states ABC Radio News first reported it, and it uses an actual human source to confirm it, though it doesn't identify him by name. That's probably the best of the three you provided, maybe ABC has something? The other two articles seem to be more of the unsourced, repeated assertion. It's not that I don't believe it to be true, and visual evidence doesn't prove it's bulletproof, just that is glass, but in case it's just rumor, we want the best source we can find, go with the Telegraph blog source I would say. --IvoShandor (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

title - election victory to what? "presidential" belongs in title

--98.116.115.220 (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 is enough.--OsamaK 09:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Referances in inaugeration speech; THOMAS PAINE.

Why does'nt this article include the quote from the great revolutuionary, freethinker, and humanitarian founding father Thomas Paine, from his pamphlet- "The Crisis": "Let it be told to the future world that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet it." To be specific, here is exactly what Obama said- "At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: "Let it be told to the future world that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet it." That referance deserves mention in the article like Lincoln and King got. It should be included in the "referances in the speech" part.--Iconoclastithon (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why the move?

Sorry, but the logic makes no sense to me. The rationale given was that it's "already categorized" as an Obama speech, and it's "inexorably linked" to Grant Park. Doesn't make sense to me. Categories shouldn't override article names, and the speech is a lot more linked to Obama than to its location. What do others think? What guildelines are relevant here? It just seems to me that people aren't going to know what the heck the "Grant Park Victory Speech" is, but everyone will know--and interested parties would be looking for--the previous name. Brettalan (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/20081108024514/http://www.timesoftheinternet.com:80/17106.html to http://www.timesoftheinternet.com/17106.html

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) 10:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008. 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://mobile.chicagotribune.com/detail.jsp?key=185118&rc=top2&full=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213061932/http://www.americansatellite.org:80/2008/08/as-u-war-obama-helps-us-believe-we-help.html to http://www.americansatellite.org/2008/08/as-u-war-obama-helps-us-believe-we-help.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710191354/http://www.emilephaneuf.com/?p=29 to http://www.emilephaneuf.com/?p=29

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) 13:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)