Talk:A New Beginning (speech)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naming issue[edit]

Requested Move[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I feel like the article naming could be changed. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should be "A new beginning". That is the name of the speech according to the official transcript. DGtal (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article was created before the name of the speech became known. Now that we know it, the article should be moved to the title of the speech per conventions. This is standard procedure. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, since the original article creator reverted the move back to his chosen article name which does not adhere to standard naming conventions, I have moved the speech to the most neutral title, "Barack Obama speech at Cairo University, 2009". The three of us prefer "A New Beginning" as the article title, but until the dispute resolves itself, the most neutral name should be used, and this title takes itself directly from whitehouse.gov. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really do not appreciate this attempt to make it seem that I chose this article name in an attempt to promote some kind of agenda. A message left on my talk page stated that I am only interested in promoting the name of [my] chosen article. Users should not pretend to know what the intentions of other editors are. I was even told that I should reconsider [my] position and [my] editing behavior in the future, which is quite frankly the first time I ever received such a comment during my four years of active Wikipedia editing. The name I chose for the article when I originally created it is not indicative of any kind of hidden agenda and is widely used by the media: it yields more than 4 million results on Google. Speaking to the Muslim world was the aim and purpose of this speech, so I don't see how it is in any way controversial for the article title to reflect that.
  • Secondly, the claim that the original title "does not adhere to standard naming conventions" is factually inaccurate because there are simply no such conventions. Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope speech is titled 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address while his Change Has Come to America speech is located at Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008. Therefore, the current consensus actually seems to suggest that the title of a speech-related article should reflect its intention (keynote address, victory speech, speech to the Muslim world) rather than its mere title, which most people wouldn't be familiar with anyway.
  • Finally, the so-called consensus actually involved only two editors (the first one doesn't count since he merely started the discussion without supporting any specific proposal) and the move was made less than 24 hours after the first suggestion of a new title. Not exactly what I would call concensus. Since the move appears from this very discussion to be controversial, a move request at WP:RM would have been the best way to deal with this as it would have allowed neutral, uninterested editors to express their views on the issue. As for the current title, however, I agree with keeping it. Regards. --BomBom (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes allthough Obama's A More Perfect Union (speech) is there, as are lots and lots of others (ex. A Time for Choosing, I've Been to the Mountaintop, etc...) that are all at the name of the speech. I don't know if the other articles you reference have official names for the speech (I think titling them keynote speech and victory speech is more accurate instead of using made up titles like "Change has Come to America"), but a "A New Beginning" is actually the name of the speech, both in the offical transcript(here) and in the offical video (here). I think it should be moved to A New Beginning as well, there's little reason to use a contrived name like "Barack Obama speech at Cairo University, 2009 " when we have an actual name for it. - Epson291 (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not think the article should be moved to "A New Beginning" as it is not specific enough. As BomBom has pointed out, President Obama's major speech at the Democratic National convetion was not renamed. Moreover, "A New Beginning" is a label that could be given to anything else including a video game (The Legend of Spyro: A New Beginning) that was released before the speech. I think putting the name of the speech in bold within the body of the article is enough.Me3za (talk).

The White House has named the speech, "A New Beginning".[1] We have a dab page, New Beginning that disambiguates appropriately. For some reason, "The Legend of Spyro" is not listed there. BomBom's arguments above are deficient. First, we don't use the search engine test to name articles. Second, this is not a keynote speech given at the 2004 Democratic National Convention by a United States Senator. In that case, it was far more notable that Obama was giving the keynote speech at the DNC; It is not the "intention" that BomBom believes is important here, but the event itself, hence the appropriate name describing the keynote address at the DNC. Third, Wikisource:Speeches gives plenty of examples of speeches named after their title and not the event. Was the speech at Cairo University a notable reoccurring event? If not, then the theme of the speech, and reflecting that theme, the title itself becomes notable; This is exactly what we see. The media reports covering the speech discuss and analyze the unifying idea of a "new beginning", the very title of the speech, and the most common name for the article title. Viriditas (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just vote.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would a week(12 June) be enough to reach consensus?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I wouldn't be opposed to stretching it to two weeks. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support "A New Beginning"[edit]

This should only happen if there is another "A New Beginning" article. There is however none. The redirects would take care of other names.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apperently there is, at least in potential. See Template:Foreverwarseries (under comics). DGtal (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would be "A New Beginning (speech)". (Barack Obama speech) doesn't conform with the rest of articles. It would be (Barack Obama speech) if there was another speech with the same name.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Editor:Diaa's comment below (see Oppose)--Buster7 (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "A New Beginning"[edit]

Oppose per reasons given above --Me3za (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose I am mindful of potential discovery problems for our visitors. I think some inclusion of "Obama, Cairo, and 2009" will make it easier to find in 6 months.--Buster7 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finding the article won't pose a problem, because redirects take care of such problems.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content needed[edit]

I assume something will be added about the content of the speech? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hope so. So far, there is nothing in the article. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This BBC article has very good specific analysis on the content of the speech, in addition to providing the speech itself. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we could include that he invoked the Qur'an [2] which is unusual for a US president.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also...the Bible and the Talmude but agree that the mention and use of the Holy Qur'an was in and of itself a message of Peace.--Buster7 (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
External Links have been added..--Buster7 (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content NOT needed[edit]

Some content is not needed on this page. For example, "Some thought" is not a valid part of the sentence. Then "ranch where the king of Saudi Arabia has many horses" - how is this relevant? Thank you,Shadiac (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that is illplaced and should be removed. - Epson291 (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with removal. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I-P part[edit]

I think it is inevitable the section will be expanded. But you know what I find as most remarkable, and was overlooked by every comment I read? Obama cite 'road map' as a way to piece and 2-state solution, not Annapolis or Arab piece initiative (he mentions the latter but says it requires improvement). Maybe I'll construct later something on the issue. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you do....it is spelled Peace...:-)--Buster7 (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is only spelled Peace at the beginning of a sentence or in a title containing the word, otherwise peace is the form. 97.122.253.70 (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political effects[edit]

This is the same as the "reaction" section. We don't need two reaction sections. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to differentiate between comments made about the speech, and statements and actions made as a result of the speech. Surely it's worth separating them out in one way or another. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
subsections would suffice.Lihaas (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions to post-speech section[edit]

Recently, someone added Fox News talking points from Krauthammer, polemics from Hitchens and an editorial from Peretz. These three "commentators" are neither neutral, authoritative, or relevant, and their so-called "criticism" does not address the speech, but attacks what Obama did not say in order to hijack the topic and use it as a platform for their own agendas. This isn't how we write Wikipedia articles, and I can find no article on any presidential speech that devotes this much undue weight to minority POV. Krauthammer and Hitchens are columnists, and this is hardly reliable, neutral or authoritative as a source. However, this might be acceptable for inclusion if it was notable enough for another secondary source to report about it. Peretz's words would have actual weight if he could get his essay published in a magazine he didn't own. In the end, these sources are nothing more than glorified editorials, and we don't use these unless they are notable enough to have been reported by other RS, or if the authors are notable experts in their respective fields in relation to the topic. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're doing your case a disservice by mixing in what seems to be your ideological dislike for these authors with the real issue, which is notability and undue weight (or lack thereof). In any case, what are you arguing for - that their opinions should be removed, shortened, or something else? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The situation under discussion is at complete odds with your assessment. In fact, you added these three authors to this article due to their ideological dislike of Obama and his speech, not because they are neutral, authoritative, or relevant. For this reason, it is you, not me, who needs to argue for their inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with Viriditas. The three figures (all of which have widely disparate views, and Hitchens was an Obama supporter in 2008!) are all notable as people and their statement are in notable media sources. I share the concerns for undue weight, which is why I have been adding various other material to the section. I believe that that would be the best way forward. The Squicks (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear about what you are in disagreement with here. I asked Korny a question, and for some reason you are replying for him, but avoiding the question. What you and Korny are doing is turning a Post-speech reaction by leaders and players in the relevant fields into a politicized and agenda-driven "commentary", and this hasn't gone unnoticed. Before I address this problem, I will respond to your comment above. You claim that these three people have "widely disparate views", yet a closer examination shows that this is not the case: Krauthammer is a conservative pundit, Hitchens is a centre right polemicist associated with conservative causes and organizations like the Hoover Institution, and Peretz is editor-in-chief of The New Republic and claims to be a "liberal", but his foreign policy positions tend to mirror those of conservatives. Now, you claim that these three people have "widely disparate views", yet we know they all share one thing in common, which is why Korny added them to this article: They are all self-admitted hawks on Israel. Is this a bad thing? No, but their ideological political position does not automatically qualify them for inclusion. Your statement that they are all "notable as people" is irrelevant. Britney Spears and Lady Gaga are notable, but they don't belong here. So, what you are essentially saying is, "we need to represent the hawkish position on Israel in this article." And I will ask again, why, and if we do, why aren't we using experts to do this? Before you and Korny showed up, the Post-speech section portrayed an objective analysis of the reaction from political leaders and experts. Now, you are saying that we need to include pundits, polemicists, and editors who self-publish essays? No, I disagree, and those types of "sources" are generally not acceptable. What bothers me the most, however, is that approximately four minutes before you made the first edit to the article, you made this edit to the talk page. I find this extremely strange. In that edit you added, {{controversial}}, even though this article has not experienced any controversy before you showed up. You also added {{Community article probation}}, even though we haven't had any major edit wars or disruption before you showed up. What is strange is that you added those tags[3] just hours after Korny O'Near added controversial material to the article[4], as if you were coordinating your edits here. What is also strange, is that according to your respective edit histories, neither you nor Korny have ever edited an Obama article before, but your first edit here is to add a controversy and community article probation tag? Can you explain this? Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to "explain" the actions of some other user? Sorry, can't help you there. In any case, there are plenty of Wikipedia articles on political issues that feature editorial commentary - even those on political speeches, like the Checkers speech. Would it be less of a problem for you if there were also more pro-Obama voices in there? And/or they were moved into a separate section, like "Commentary"? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fun little game! I ask you a question, and The Squicks replies. Then, I ask The Squicks a question and you reply! Amazing! Wikipedia doesn't encourage editorial commentary. Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with the site a little bit more. What we do recommend, however, is quoting experts in their relevant fields and relying on neutral, scholarly opinions from neutral, scholarly sources. Please note that the example you provide above (Checkers speech) uses American historian Roger Morris, American historian Stephen Ambrose, and an article about the press reaction from The Washington Post as a source. Can you handle that, or should I wait for a reply from The Squicks? Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't realize that question was just directed to him/her. Wow, you must have really proven something there, good for you. By the way, you're violating one of the basic guidelines here, which is to assume good faith. Also, where do you see that Wikipedia doesn't encourage editorial commentary? I see plenty of evidence to the contrary. If you didn't like that last example, here's one for an actual other Obama speech, which in fact quotes Charles Krauthammer among many others. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I directly addressed your first example, Checkers speech, which is a featured article. The sources used to support the media reaction in Checkers speech are both scholarly and secondary, and meet the reliable source requirement. Please note, all of that material comes from other sources complied by experts or reported by journalists. It does not come directly from commentators, pundits, polemicists or editorialists. Is any of this making sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand, but the absence of direct editorial commentary in that one article doesn't prove that it's somehow discouraged in Wikipedia, which is what you claim. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is discouraged, and every aspect of neutrality and reliable sourcing discourages it. The reason the Checkers speech uses books published by historians and a news article that describes the reaction and not the commentators themselves is because we leave it up to experts and journalists to frame, report, and write about the event in a neutral manner, not editors. Commentators, pundits, polemicists, and editorialists are engaging in statements of opinion and editors who rely on these types of sources instead of articles that report about them are picking and choosing from a veritable buffet of POV. You've managed to alter a section that reported about the reaction into a section that reports about the opinion of the reaction. This is a subtle form of POV pushing, which is why you have tried to surround it with other competing POV's. The original text objectively described the reaction of notable people and players connected to the speech. It did not describe opinions about the event, a change you introduced. This is precisely why we rely on neutral secondary sources. If these so-called opinions (Krauthammer, Hitchens, Peretz) are notable, others will have reported on them in the context of the event. You have managed to skip this important part of vetting a source, and you have chosen to add competing opinions from pundits, polemicists, and editorialists rather than relying on neutral sources and experts to make this decision. Viriditas (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's so obvious that direct citing of opinion is discouraged, then surely it would be easy to find a guideline to that effect? In fact, I think I've found something that proves the opposite: in the reliable sources guideline, it states "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact" - which indicates that they are in fact reliable as statements of opinion. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions are only as reliable and relevant as their sources. The post-speech section previously reported on the reactions of key people related to the event, and it used neutral, reliable sources to do this. You changed this section so that it no longer reported on the reaction of key people related to the event, but on the opinions of commentators who were not related to the event. This deviates from the topic in the section and changes the focus of the article from the historical event and reaction by key people to that of opinions from commentators unrelated to the event - opinions you deem to be important, not reliable sources. So you deliberately altered the focus of this article from that of the historical event as reported by reliable sources to that of opinions of the event chosen by Wikipedia editors. Viriditas (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is, for instance, the EU's Javier Solana (whose opinion is also quoted) related to the event? His inclusion sounds like a judgment call too. I think you're trying to make a clear-cut distinction where none exists. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...not to mention analyst Phyllis Bennis, whose inclusion you didn't seem to have a problem with either. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, Solana's quote is sourced to BBC News, not to a column, article or release from Solana himself. Google News shows that Solana's quote was reported by many news sources and was deemed important considering his position. The editor who added Phyllis Bennis, did so because she works on Middle East issues for the Institute for Policy Studies. The source used to support her statement goes directly to the organization, so without a secondary news source covering it, we shouldn't use it. I would tag it as needing an additional source. Viriditas (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The reliable-sources guideline states that opinion items are reliable sources for opinions. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not wikilawyer over guidelines, as this type of editing behavior looks like civil POV pushing. The reliable sources guideline does not exist independently of other policies and guidelines. If this were an article about Phyllis Bennis, then we might be able to use the IPS source to support her ideas. But this is an article about Obama's speech, and unless the IPS source has been reported on or covered by neutral reliable sources, then we have no indication of its notability nor its importance. Javier Solana's opinion was carried by dozens of RS. Do we see the same with Bennis? What about Krauthammer, Hitchens, and Peretz? We don't pick and choose opinions we personally find significant. We use neutral, reliable sources to report the topic, and this gives us a basic indication of importance. The Institute for Policy Studies website is a partisan think-tank, and this has the same problem as partisan pundits, polemicists, and editorialists. Per NPOV, we want to represent significant POV on the topic. Like the Checkers speech, we want to use neutral sources that describe the topic. We don't pick and choose partisan think tanks unless their opinions appear significant and covered by neutral, secondary sources. What makes Krauthammer, Hitchens, and Peretz's commentary notable? Which news organizations have written about it? The RS guideline states that "opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." But in order to get to that point, you have to first show that the opinion of the author itself is notable, which is why we rely on neutral sources that describe and report on the event. This article isn't about the Institute for Policy Studies, Krauthammer, Hitchens, or Peretz. If the opinions of these authors are important, we will derive the significance of these opinions from sources about the event. You can't just go to any website and cherry pick an opinion and place it here. You first have to show why it is significant. And per WP:NPOV, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." So, if these opinions are significant, like the Checkers speech article, experts and news organizations will have covered them. Take one example: You are arguing that Op-Ed pieces like Krauthammer's[5] are important to discuss statements of fact in this article, but that's not how they are used. If Krauthammer said he loved the color green, we could use his Op-Ed to source that statement in an article about Krauthammer. But when you start discussing facts related to Obama's speech and sourcing comments about the speech to Krauthammer's Op-Ed, you are circumventing the fact-checking process. Nobody has vetted Krauthammer's column or checked it for accuracy. And why is his opinion about Obama's speech important? Which sources have reported on Krauthammer's opinion? Keep in mind, before you started adding Op-Ed's to this article, the material objectively reported and observed comments made by key players, such as Solana, as described by news organizations. Which news organizations have described the opinions of Krauthammer, Hitchens, or Peretz in relation to this speech? And why have you added them to this article? You have changed the tone from an objective portrayal of the event, to a partisan commentary about the event. This is unacceptable. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the edit made against the consensus. I was going to make a serious response to Viriditas, but then I read What is also strange, is that according to your respective edit histories, neither you nor Korny have ever edited an Obama article before. This is pure bull---t and Viriditas knows it is as I have edited numerous articles having to do with Barack Obama before and anyone even so much as spending five sections looking at my edit history knows this. Since Viriditas would prefer to make lying personal attacks than to make serious arguements, her or she should really move on and stop making Wikipedia into their own personal battleground. The Squicks (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is B.S., is that your first edit here was to mark this aritcle as controversial and under probation, when we had no problems until you showed up. Subsequent edits by Korny introduced poorly sourced POV. Per the above discussion, poorly-sourced, POV Op-Ed pieces were removed as their addition by Korny and yourself deliberately and intentionally changed the topic from an objective portrayal about the event, to a poorly-sourced subjective, POV-driven commentary about opinion. This is not acceptable, and I've reverted your revert. Per the core policy of WP:V, those wishing to add poorly-sourced material that is challenged, have the burden of proof. Please provide secondary sources showing the notability of these "commentators" as covered by neutral sources about the event. You cannot simply cherry pick opinions from think tanks and op-ed pieces. Consensus does not at any time override core policies of NPOV and V. You need to provide reliable secondary sources showing that this material has been covered in neutral sources about the event. The post-speech reaction section is not about the opinions of commentators, nor is it sourced to Op-Ed's written by pundits, polemicists, or editorialists. The post-speech reaction section is intended to objectively represent notable people in direct relation to the event using reliable sources about the event. Sources that are at least one-step removed and objectively report on the topic, not an opinion about the topic, are required. By insisting on the use of websites published by think tanks, and Op-Ed pieces and editorials written by pundits and polemicists, you are bypassing the fact-checking and vetting process we rely upon for neutrality and accuracy. If the opinions of these pundits, polemicists and editorialists are notable, important, and significant, neutral reliable secondary sources will have covered them or highlighted their opinion. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
we had no problems until you showed up Any more personal attacks like this by you and I will report you. The Squicks (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Report me. Your first edit here was not to improve the article but to pave the way for POV pushing and edit warring.[6] That's a fact. And your contribution history on sox does not show any significant contributions to Obama-related articles, so you must have have your accounts confused. The fact is, the material was challenged, you were asked to provide reliable secondary sources showing that the material is important and significant, and the problematic use of Op-Ed material and think-tanks as sources was explained to you. So, you continue to have the burden of proof. Simply saying, "I strongly disagree" is not an acceptable form of discussion. Either address my points directly, or stop editing. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. You may vent yourself at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Viriditas. The Squicks (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please do not interpret my not reinserting the Kraut/Marty/Hitchens material as meaning that I either accept your arguments here or that I am okay with either your naked personal attacks or your POV pushing. The Squicks (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to work with you, but what you are saying, arguing, and doing doesn't make sense. You are the one who wants to add the POV material, so you have the burden of proof. Requesting that you use neutral secondary sources about the topic is not "POV pushing" - it is precisely the opposite. The problem is that you aren't familiar with basic sourcing guidelines. For one of many examples, your edit here just added a transcript justifying the use of the following material from Anderson Cooper 360:

The fact that Obama never mentioned the word "terrorism" or "terror" was positively interpreted by many in the Muslim street, given that many of them see a 'war on terror' interchangeably as a 'war on Islam'. American conservatives also picked up on this and argued that it weakened Obama's overall message.

The transcript you added is a primary source. Per WP:PSTS, you need a secondary source that refers to it and you cannot interpret it like you have above. In fact, what you have done is not acceptable for this article, but the pattern is the same. You keep trying to insert opinions into this article rather than sources that report the opinions. I see you just did it again by adding a transcript to the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. This has really got to stop. If you aren't busy adding Op-Ed's written by pundits, polemcists, and editorialists, you are busy interpreting primary source documents, again, bypassing the entire purpose of using secondary sources. I've said this before and I will say it again: You do not get to choose what is important or significant. That is why we use use secondary sources. You need to stop editing against Wikipedia best practices and start using neutral, reliable secondary sources. Stay away from the Op-Ed's and primary sources. Your interpretation of primary source transcripts isn't the way we use sources or write articles. Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Squicks, as I said above, your latest edits to the Post-speech section continues to violate NPOV.[7] You have turned a section that described reports about official reactions to the speech into a partisan commentary that the NPOV policy warns against. You don't get to cherry pick commentators who have nothing to do with the speech, unless their opinions are somewhat notable. You are essentially bypassing the sourcing policy and determining this notability on your own by cherry picking and interpreting televeision transcripts. You need to start using secondary sources that report on the event. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. I have added secondary sources to the article that report the opinion of others. Both of them are not opinions or editorials, they are ironclad reliable sources.
Since we are at an impasse, and since you continue to launch pretensious personal attacks against me, we must take this to mediation/arbitration. The Squicks (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Barack_Obama.27s_speech_at_Cairo_University.2C_2009. I will reply there to any statements and I will not reply here. Please comment there. The Squicks (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Opinion of Non-Governmental Agencies on Speech, primary source issues, and disputed reporting[edit]

Does it violate the rules of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT to have the opinion of people who are not in any kind of government position in the article? At issue are CNN pundit David Gergen,[8] Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies,[9] Charles Krauthammer,[10] Christopher Hitchens, [11] Martin Peretz,[12] Rami Khouri of The Daily Star, and Al Jazeera bureau chief Abderrahim Foukara. Those two other unlinked people are cited to this.

There are also three seperate issues. (1) Whether or not Christiane Amanpour of CNN's statement describing the Muslim world's general reaction as very favorable and supportive is includable. (2) Whether or not her reporting that the fact that Obama never mentioned the word "terrorism" or "terror" was positively interpreted by many in the Muslim street, given that many of them see a 'war on terror' interchangeably as a 'war on Islam', is includable. (3) Whether or not Anderson Cooper's statement that American conservatives also picked up on this and argued that it weakened Obama's overall message is includable. These issues are that of reporters giving their impression of the facts, not their opinions, and their inclusion depends on their reliability and the weighting issue. The source is here.

P.S. This article is under discretionary sanctions. Any personal attacks and/or incivility will be reported to them immediately. The Squicks (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prior discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Barack_Obama.27s_speech_at_Cairo_University.2C_2009 and Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Viriditas are worth reviewing. The Squicks (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that many times in this article we refer directly to US government press releases as citations, which are nothing if not primary sources- and I tagged them all as such. I also tagged the opinion of journalist Richard Spencer since our citation for his opinion is just an article by him (e.g. a primary source). As per Viriditas' statement about sourcing, I corrected the title of the RFC. The Squicks (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The opinions of Reuters reporter Ross Colvin was only sourced to an article by him (primary), and I tagged it as such. I also tagged statements that have no sourcing linked to them at all. The Squicks (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by involved editors[edit]

  • User:The Squicks has not accurately represented the dispute here and this RFC avoids the problem altogether. I suggest that The Squicks take a moment to rewrite it. I have no idea why The Squicks claims that people need to be in a "government position" to be represented and I have no idea where he gets that from. The essential, underlying issue of dispute is the following: The Squicks relies on using opinions from commentators in non-neutral sources written by think tanks, pundits, polemicists, and editorialists instead of neutral, reliable sources about the event and opinions written by journalists, scholars, and historians. The Squicks is cherry picking opinions about Obama's speech from transcripts, Op-Ed pieces, editorials, and think tank press releases instead of relying on neutral reliable sources about the event that discuss significant and important issues and opinions. What this means is that The Squicks is bypassing NPOV and RS, and choosing what he thinks is important or significant about opinions rather than what neutral reliable sources describe, report, and say about such opinions. The Squicks needs to start using neutral reliable sources about the topic that already document important and significant opinions, and he needs to stop cherry picking opinions from primary sources without secondary sources supporting their importance; This includes think tanks, Op-Ed's, and editorials. We use reliable secondary sources to avoid these problems, and I suggest that The Squicks gets back to reporting what other sources say about the speech, rather than what he personally finds important. The post-speech reaction section was originally written to describe notable and significant opinions about the speech using neutral reliable sources about the event. The Squicks changed this scope by focusing on opinionated commentary by think tanks, pundits, polemicists, and editorialists, and he didn't use secondary sources that already noted the importance of these opinions; Rather, he picked these opinions based on whether he personally felt they were important. This kind of bypassing of the sourcing and neutrality policies needs to stop and The Squicks needs to use neutral, reliable secondary sources of the highest quality and integrity that already report significant and important opinions. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to correct some blatant, outright lies in the above statement.
(a)I did not add all of the material that was disputed, other editors did. I added some of it. Why Viriditas chooses to make me as a person his mortal enemy and make me the issue rather than the material itself, I have no idea. But he likes to make things personal and create his own enemies lists and call people bad names; so be it.
(b)I did not cherry pick anti-Obama statements, I added both pro- and anti- Obama ones.
(c)I am bypassing no Wikipedia rules, as the users at the reliable sources noticeboard pointed out. Primary sources can be used. It breaks no Wikipedia guideline. As well, the two sources- News Hour with Jim Lehrer and Anderson Cooper 360- that Viriditas claims as primary I believe (and the noticeboard commentator partially agreed with me) are actually secondary. The Squicks (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources you are referring to in regards to Lehrer and Cooper are television transcripts, which are classified as primary sources. You have been corrected on this point several times yet you keep repeating it. A secondary source in this instance would be a news article about the significance of the show, the people who appeared on it, and/or the importance of their opinions. The fact that you are cherry picking opinions from television transcripts is the problem. Unless we have secondary sources telling us what is significant about those shows (and if they are significant such sources would be easy to find) you cannot determine the importance of the material on your own; Doing so bypasses the RS policy entirely. Why are you suddenly an expert on what opinions are important, which television shows are significant, and which quotes we should use? We use reliable secondary sources to point to those things. Sometimes they aren't explicit, but if the pointer is good enough, it is sometimes acceptable to use the primary source. So, why are Lehrer and Cooper important here, and which sources highlight the signficance of the opinions offered on these shows in relation to the topic? Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, do you have any evidence to back up your claim that a television transcript is classified as a primary source? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed response, I just saw this. You are asking me if a television transcript is classified as a primary source? Well, transcripts are generally regarded as primary source material. A secondary source would be an article discussing the importance of the show or episode, and ideally highlighting the commentator that the editor wants to quote. If that can be found, it becomes more reasonable to allow the primary source material to be used. After all, if a secondary source has discussed it, we have an indicator of importance. So far, we only have an editor choosing the transcript, and no indication that the secondary sources have made note of it. I would be willing to discuss this further if you wish. Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that a journalist summarizing other people's opinions in a newspaper counts as a secondary source, but a transcript of the same journalist saying the same thing on television counts as a primary source? That just doesn't make sense. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you are having a problem understanding this. In the former example, the journalist, working from sources and under the watchful eye of an editor, is making note of important opinions. In the latter, a Wikipedia editor is highlighting what is important from a transcript. I hope this makes sense to you. Viriditas (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that doesn't make sense at all - in both cases, a Wikipedia editor is quoting what they think is important (in my hypothetical example, it's in fact the same quotes). Korny O'Near (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, both cases are entirely different. In the first, a reliable source is highlighting what is important; In the second, a Wikipedia editor is selecting what is important from a transcript, and in this case, the Wikipedia editor is selecting biased opinions from pundits, not from a journalist covering and reporting on the opinions themselves. Huge difference, and if you still don't get it, then there's nothing I can do. We don't get to choose what is important. We let the sources do that. Anyone can comb through a transcript and selectively choose what is important and what is not. In this case, on this topic, we let the journalists do that to avoid editorial bias. In other words, if the opinion of a pundit is so important that it must be represented in this article, then their opinion will have been reported by other sources. And that's precisely what we find with the sources that are used appropriately in this article. Viriditas (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point here, which is that a newspaper column can be either a primary or secondary source, and a television transcript can be either a primary or secondary source; the medium isn't the important thing, it's the nature of the information. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Epson291: I agree, and legitimate, significant criticisms are found in neutral, reliable secondary sources about the speech. They are not found by editors who personally feel that pundits, polemicists, and editorialists are important. Without secondary sources indicating the significance of specific criticism, the editor is bypassing our policies and guidelines which keep our articles accurate and authoritative. As an example, the current version makes use of a BBC News article which specifically highlights the most significant criticism and praise. If the opinions of the political right are notable, they will be covered by reliable sources, and that's exactly what we find with the BBC. Viriditas (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For context, I was the one who originally added some of the quotes being discussed. So - Viriditas' basic argument is that opinion items shouldn't be cited directly, since there's no way to establish notability. While the argument certainly is a valid one, it doesn't appear that there's anything to back him up, either in Wikipedia guidelines, in consensus among other editors (see the "reliable sources" discussion), or in Wikipedia standard usage. You can find opinion items being cited directly all over the place - the article about another Obama speech, "A More Perfect Union", is chock full of them (and it makes for fascinating reading, in my opinion); and you can see other examples here, here (though I helped contribute to that one), here, here and here. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvovled editors[edit]

  • Try to assume good faith. I think it is clear that it is perfectly acceptable to give include opinions on matters from journalists or NGOs, provided it is clear that it is an opinion. Whether or not to include it, or accusations of "cherry picking" quotes, is a editorial decision be discussed and decided on in this talk page. - Epson291 (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a reason not to include opinions from signifigant journalists or NGO's. I think the section could be trimmed down a bit, but long as the overall section stays NPOV, I don't see any reason to preclude quotes from certain people a priori. --Bfigura (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, I don't see why we would need journalists' commentary. Notable NGO's are fine, but I don't see a need to quote the opinions of journalists. (Unless we're talking about an influential editorial from a notable paper). (That said, this is speculation, since I don't even recall if we have any comments from journalists currently). --Bfigura (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political effects - Iran[edit]

"According to The San Francisco Chronicle, the speech may have played some role in the June 2009 Iranian Presidential election between hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his moderate rival Mir Hossein Mousavi, spurring on reformist public opinion.”

I read the article and I thought it was far more ambiguous about the impact the speech had in the Iran election than what the above statement indicate. In fact it mentioned that there are some who think the speech may have played some role in the election but that it's not universally agreed upon. I think the quote below better sums up the argument that the paper was making on this matter:

"Whether Iran's voters embraced those new possibilities remains uncertain."

Furthermore, Obama made his speech on June 4th; after the dispute between the hardliners and the reformists in Iran had already become heated. Notably, the fiery and much talked about televised debate between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi took place on June 3rd.

The referenced article seem to suggest that it remains to be seen whether or not the speech had some impact in Iran, so I believe the Iran portion of this subsection should be erased altogether or at the very least altered to give a more NPOV that includes the observations of the author explaining how the effects of the Cairo speech on the Iran election are still unclear.

Otherwise you need to add other sources to support the claim that the Cairo speech played a notable role in this election. 213.114.129.159 (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Speculation has no place in an encyclopedia article. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GQ article[edit]

Pages 5 and 6 of the below article have some interesting description of the speechwriting process for the speech, that might be useful here:

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/200911/barack-obama-writing-books-writer-robert-draper

69.228.171.150 (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

change the title[edit]

this wasn't some movie, and most people don't know the speech as "A New Beginning." The way Wikipedia does it is as if everyone should know Obama's speeches' titles like on the WH website. It should be called "Barack Obama's 2009 speech in Cairo"Tallicfan20 (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy section[edit]

I've removed the legacy section, as it was original research and had little to nothing to do with this topic. I also noticed that several of the references were misidentified in a manner making it seem like someone was trying to avoid scrutiny of their edits. Viriditas (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created the legacy section after reading the Wiki articles on Abraham Lincoln’s Cooper Union Speech and Dwight D. Eisenhower’s A Chance For Peace Speech which both feature a legacy section for the aforementioned speeches. The main topic of A New Beginning is a restart of the relation between the USA and the Muslim World and how this relation can be improved sustainably. The purpose of the legacy section is to show the beginnings and the outcomes of this effort by President Barack Obama. Insofar the legacy section has something to do with A New Beginning and should in my opinion be restored.

A scientific assessment of President Obama’s efforts regarding the main topic of A New Beginning by historians and scholars akin to Harold Holzer’s assessment of Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech would be wonderful, but given the young age of A New Beginning of less than three years this is impossible. Therefore the quotations on Obama‘s outreach to the Muslim world by persons from the US and the Arab World as well as the assessment by the The Pet Global Attitudes Project and the Washington Post editorial is the contemporary best available material to illustrate the outcomes in other words the legacy of Barack Obama’s A New Beginning speech. In my opinion should insofar this original research be restored alongside the complete legacy section. LSC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.42.55.212 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 2 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

I am currently compiling a list of serious problems with your material over at User:Viriditas/A New Beginning. It should be finished by tonight so that we can discuss it in depth. Right now, there are serious questions about the material, including the use of primary sources, plagiarized content, and misattribution of sources. In the end, this appears to be original research, as you are trying to synthesize multiple sources to arrive at a specific conclusion. The legacy section in the Cooper Union speech article is based on the opinion of historians writing 144-150 years after Lincoln gave the speech. The legacy section in the Chance for Peace speech article is based on sources published 50 years after Eisenhower gave his speech. If you're going to create a "legacy" section, then you're going to have to find reliable sources that treat the topic of a legacy. Since the speech was only delivered in 2009, that's going to be difficult. It is possible that we can salvage some of the content and use it in either new or already existing sections, but I'm going to need to finish my analysis first. Note, you are showing signs of not understanding the sources you are reading, as the "Washington Post editorial" you keep referring to was not published by the The Washington Post but by The Washington Times, and you've even misidentified the link as the "Pet Global Attitudes Project" which doesn't exist. Obviously you mean the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which is still wrong. In any event, I have very serious doubts about using an editorial in The Washington Times as a source for this article. But that's only one of dozens of problems here, which I am working on explaining in my user space. Please consider registering an account, as it is extremely difficult to communicate with you on your user talk page, as your IP address changes every time you login. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to consider registering an account because I agree with your assessments at User:Viriditas/A New Beginning and understand your reasons for removal of the legacy section. It is to early to create a legacy section, as you correctly observed that "Historically, it may be too soon to discuss any kind of "legacy", or to find a single source that discusses it." I salvaged material from the first paragraph of the legacy section and moved it along additional sources to the context and preparation section of Obama's speech. From these reasons the topic legacy section can be closed. LSC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.195.241.33 (talk) 08:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a "criticism of the speech" section.[edit]

As any other major political event (and even non political event), there were numerous criticisms directed at the speech. Some criticism is given indeed in the "reactions" section, but a dominant criticism which views the speech as a kind of "appeasement" policy towards Islam is absent from this entry and should probably be a part of it. Tom Peleg (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on A New Beginning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on A New Beginning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on A New Beginning. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_New_Beginning_(speech)&oldid=1197182572"