This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject HoustonTemplate:WikiProject HoustonHouston articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Big 12 Conference, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the American college athletic conference on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Big 12 ConferenceWikipedia:WikiProject Big 12 ConferenceTemplate:WikiProject Big 12 ConferenceBig 12 Conference articles
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The section on the Kennedy speech is OR, both because it doesn't cite any sources and provides original analysis of the significance of the speech. There is probably some secondary material somewhere analyzing the speech in this way but, as is, this is entirely WP:OR -Etherfire (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Apologies again @UW Dawgs:, I didn't see the OR section tag originally when I searched for the tag. Regardless, I didn't want to just outright delete OR in case anyone has substantiated versions of this analysis. But the final two paragraphs are clearly OR, and I'd be fine with deleting them since they are (for the first) speculative analysis of the motives behind the mention of the speech and (for the second) unwarranted statements about its prescience (which is perhaps more a violation of WP:NOT).