Talk:Pound Cake speech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation
This page was cited by http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/cosby

Contents

[edit] Legitimacy of term? (Ghettosburg Address)

Is this a legitimate term for Cosby's 2004 Speech commemorating the 50th Anniversary of Brown v. the Board of Education? It sounds like a neologism to me. The transcript itself is titled "Pound Cake Speech" and I can find no reference to the term "Ghettosburg Address" made by Cosby himself. In fact, the only reference for the term I can find (apart from Wikipedia) is as a name for a 1970 Babs Gonzales album [1]. Thus, if no one has objections, I'll be proposing this for deletion. — LeFlyman 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The phrase was coined by the website that hosted the full text of the speech. The speech was removed from Wiki resources & pedia due to copyright infringement. I would feel if you deleted the article itself you would be doing a great disservice as the text & context of the speech is very important. If you feel the need to rename it to "Pound Cake Speech" then please do, but don't remove it from Wiki. --Duemellon 15:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Done before

This has been hashed out before, though I think references to it were deleted due to copyright infringement (previously there was an entire transcript here). It is a neologism, and it will never amount to a Wikipedia article. Just leave it as a reference in Bill Cosby. It doesn't need its own article. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It needs a link to the external resource which was removed from the Bill Cosby article & moved to this one. --Duemellon 17:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources, NPOV

There are no sources about the idea that the speech was not actually divisive. I will clean up a bit now, and a lot later if no sources are forthcoming. Jim Apple 05:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are explanations for some of my deletions:

"Those statements are only known by the transcripts of the speech." -- This is unverified and probably unverifiable, as someone somewhere has reported on the speech since the transcript came out. Wikipedia, for instance, has now done so. Thus, I know about these statements without having read the transcript. If the intention of this statement is that nobody who was at the speech reported these statements to any press, then that should be stated, though it also might be unverifiable.

"The transcripts were not publicly released but was attained by a resource that posted on a websit in it's entirety." So, they were then publicly released. In any case, the significance of Bill Cosby not releasing the transcripts is not established. Perhaps he just didn't get around to it.

"and those who were able to get the information in context (reading the speech) don't find it divisive." Not encyclopedic, not verifiable. Jim Apple 06:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the first external link says the transcripts were released to the website. I think that counts as "transcripts were publicly released". Jim Apple 06:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There are no sources about the idea that the speech was not actually divisive. The media portrayed the speech as divisive, however, reading the text in context, while considering the reaction of the audience (applause by Jackson & other leaders as mentioned in the media), shows it was NOT divisive. If you feel it was poorly worded, what do you propose?
Those statements are only known by the transcripts of the speech. This is to show that the points mentioned (Black Muslims & remarks about xTians & Police) were not reported by the national media. Looking around for a long time I have never found any national or international media report Cosby's critique of the xtians or police in the same speech. In contrast, the misrepresented (out-of-context) statements is easy to find.
As for the transcripts being released. There was a huge delay of the release. The website that posted them originally framed acquiring it as a coup, not that they were nicely released. Most of the initial reports note how the full transcripts were not available. The slowness which they were released left the media as the only source for checking the intent of the speech.

What he said was in no way derisive or insulting, but the media's portrayal of it explicitly declare it was. This can be seen by simply reading the transcript and comparing it to how it's shown in the media. We are NOT in the business of reporting what the media says, we are in the process of reporting the ACTUALITY of the event. The transcripts are the actuality, the media is an interpretation. In this case it would appear the media interpretation, for whatever reason, is biased. I wanted to note how this was happening in this situation, that the media's interpretation is what caused the controversy. When the transcripts, the source, is taken on it's own in proper context the controversy goes away.

It's simple: The media suggest the tone & intent of the speech were something that it clearly was not meant to be by reading the speech from start to end. --Duemellon 13:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What I propose about whether or not the speech was divisive is that we cannot make judgements absed on the text of the speech itself. We can talk about reaction of the speech, and portrayal in the media, but to say, "the speech isn't offensive" is not out job here.
Please see my statements about about "only known". Clearly, the people at the speech knew. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to say "the mainstream media didn't report." We can say that the NYT, WP, LA Times, didn't say anything, or we can reference someone in the newspaper biz saying "Other newspapers didn't report". Otherwise, this is original research.
We are not allowed to decide here what is actually insulting. We can report that, according to the transcript released by Cosby, the audience clapped, or laughed.
I know that you want to note that the media is biased; Wikipedia, however, is not the place for original research or interpretation.
To add info about media misportrayal, we can cite omissions from certain articles and statements in the speech, though we cannot say "This is not offensive." Jim Apple 21:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Media sourcing should NEVER be our only source
We are to report on the speech, reaction to the speech and impact the speech had. If the only reaction we're allowed to show is the media's reaction it is NOT an honest reaction and in this case it is not unbiased. The other sources are not going to be as readily available as the media. Some of their sources, although possibly biased themselves, should not be dismissed out-of-hand. Who's to say what is a valid media outlet & what isn't? Noting an omission is very relevent and possible to prove. Just simply reading the speech u can see where the media is totally mischaracterizing it. The choice of words reiterates the speech as if Cosby is insulting all Blacks and making statements that the results of Black people's oppression is completely within their own control which is definitely not what was intended (just by reading the speech)

Removal of headlines & reporting summaries
The removal of the headlines & characterizations by the press is a disservice to the impact the speech had. Without inclusion of how it was framed by the media the "backlash based on media' has no verifiable citations either.

Insulting?
Although we cannot say it was insulting or not, we can point out that the audience, made up of a large population of Blacks & social leaders reacted approvingly to his sentiments as noted in many reports. One could infer that if no one at the speech was pissed then it probably wasn't as damaging as the media portrays. --Duemellon 22:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as "Media shouldn't be our only source", please see WP:NOR. We must cite sources. If your propose sources other than the mainstream newspapers, then that's great. However, Some reputable publication must be cited.
I'm sorry, but original research is just not allowed here. Jim Apple 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Citations Are THERE, read the speech

  • I refer you to the speech itself which has a much broader explanation of his views. There are also mentions in media reports that those who were in attendance applauded the speech. Being a "reputable" source is a matter of opinion more than anything. It's obvious by reading the speech transcript that the intent of the speech, color & tone, is much different than how those "reputable" media outlets portrayed it. How are they more reputable if they so clearly misrepresent the speech?

Independent Research is not the same as noting contradictions of interpretation

  • There's "independent research" then there's common sense and conclusions drawn from the facts. If you read the transcripts you can clearly see the intent of the speech was targetted at very specific section of the Black community & comparing that to the headlines created by the media you can see the media expounded on facets of the speech in a way to incise the reader into believing Cosby insulted the whole of the Black community. The source that is cited, repeatedly, is the speech itself! We do not need the media to interpret the speech, the speech is right there for us to compare.
As for "no independent research" this a contradictory imperative as we are to create articles based on information we discover in a way that centralizes sources in a responsible fashion for people to see. There are articles in this resource that don't & probably never would, exist in another encyclopedic resource so their sole creation had to happen through individual or group effort researching and drawing it up independent of any central source that may have mentioned it before. Wiki articles, to avoid copyright infringement as well as to include less followed articles, requires independent research for them to exist.

'Black Muslim' is an organization, not a double-demographic descriptor

  • The "muslim" bit, someone removed the "Black" Muslim part. The Black Muslims are a religious organization known as "Black Muslim". To remove the word "Black" sort've makes me wonder if (whoever removed it) even read the speech before editing this article.

Some is NOT none and NONE is not some

  • Removed the statement that "some did not report the remarks about xtians, police & Black Muslims" because NONE did. Find it differently & we can change it to "some" but the media portrayed his speech as being solely critical of Blacks (as a whole) but left such statements (which would typically embitter the "White community" against him) out. There's independent research, but there's also putting the situation in proper context. It would be a horrible article if WW2 didn't mention it is considered a result from WW1 or that Martin Luther was living during almost utter-domination by Catholism. The way the media chose to portray this with no real research of their own in a way that declared division and insults from a patriarchal figure & role-model in the Black community made them part of the story about the speech. --Duemellon 13:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The tag that this is NPOV is invalid as there was no discussion regarding this. If you claim NPOV but have no specific suggestions on how to improve it or information contrary to the POV provided, your claim of NPOV isn't valid. Removing tag. --Duemellon 13:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The audience wasn't offended"

I have noted that the transcript released by Cosby's publicists shows pauses for applause. Jim Apple 14:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The mainstream (meaning: AP release) notes that Barak & Jesse Jackson were there & that the audience was applauding. It's not limited to references in the speech or audio. --Duemellon 20:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "No mainstream media reported on all aspects of the speech"

Please provide a citation for this, or at least a list of newspapers that did. Jim Apple 15:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The only way to verify an omission by "everything" is to cite everything that DID report on it & note its omission. A task that is a waste of time and misleading. Beyond that, there would be no source that did report on all aspects of the speech and the one that comes closest is the places where the speech's transcripts reside.

[edit] "The speech would not have divided black community opinion had the transcript been released"

This is an opinion, and cannot be put in Wikipedia, unless we say "[suchandsuch famous commentator] said that this speech would not have divided black community opinion had the transcript been released". If Cosby said so, we can certainly include that. Jim Apple 15:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember re-including that language. That point of contention is no longer contentious. --Duemellon 20:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "regular muslim"

I removed "black muslim & regular muslim" only because it implies that black muslims are irregular. Jim Apple 15:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Black Muslims are the name of the organization. It is okay to call the group "Nation of Islam" "Black Muslims". In the context of the speech he is strictly talking about the Black Muslims/Nation of Islam group. He does not mention "regular" Muslims. --Duemellon 20:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] okay, making progress

Wanted to thank you for your doggedness. There were some points which were POV and I couldn't see them. I had a major reorganization of it right now, so please reread & let me know. The statement of the audience's reaction requires a comparative note as it is put in response to contradict the newspaper's description. To just have it there with no explanation as to WHY it's there kind've makes the note meaningless. --Duemellon 20:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have time to respond to everything now, but thanks for your note, and I hope we can continue to work together on this article. Jim Apple 05:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving/merge

I disagree/w the call to merge it. It was separated to appease those who felt it was too indepth. The amount of information lost when it becomes a subtopic in the main article detract from available detail. --Duemellon 05:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scathing comment on police

Is in the text of his speech. He clearly compared the efforts of the Black Muslims to the effectiveness of the police saying the "police can't do it" which was clearly a comment to the polices' lack of capacity or interest in resolving the crime problem. It IS the polices' core duty to reduce crime either by apprehension or prevention, which, in that statement Cosby clearly says an unauthorized nonexecutive group of people disassociated with law enforcement, who do not turn in criminals nor investigate the crimes in a legal capacity, are doing more against crime than those people who are ordained to do so.

That's pretty harsh & that's going back in.

If you don't believe that's what is said, please discuss. It would appear pretty cut & dry. --Duemellon 11:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A move/merge request was added again. I again disagree for the request to merge it & ask for a discussion. --Duemellon 13:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Mareino

for adding the sections & making this point of the article that much clearer.--Duemellon 14:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speech text

If we're going to have the speech's full text, it should be on Wikisource. I doubt though that copyright allows us to post it at all. Theshibboleth 01:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource does not allow fair use. s:Template:PD-manifesto is probably the most applicable. --Benn Newman 02:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] original research dispute

There is no such thing as an article in any encyclopedia talking about the history or portrayal of the "Pound Cake Speech". Therefore, any creation of an article about the speech is original. Every single thing about this article could be considered "original research". One aspect of the speech, in historical context, is the media's reaction & portrayal of this. That information can be found throughout and is an aspect of the speech's importance in Bill Cosby's history. The inclusion of the speech's portrayal in popular media go hand-in-hand with it's controversial status. --Duemellon 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia considers the media to be reliable sources for our articles. We rarely use encyclopedias as sources, considering them to be less-desirable tertiary sources. There may be a misconception about the meaning of "original research. Please see WP:OR. -Will Beback · † · 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Quoting media articles is not original research. Quoting a columnist who criticized the media for misrepresenting the debate is not original research. Using selective quotes to prove an original point — that the media misrepresented the speech — is original research. Deltabeignet 03:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Saying it was "selective" is the problem. It's not selective. It was widesweeping. There was reaction to the media coverage as well. This mischaracterization of the speech is clear & part of the importance of the speech & it's impact. There was outrage from the Black community based on the mischaracterization. How do we include that historical point? To leave the speech as some dry thing that had no impact is doing encyclopedic records a disservice. It's relevant to the Gettysburg Address to talk of it's impact and reception by the masses, peers, and rivals. I don't see how this is "original". I think you're looking at the way it's coming across as "negative" but what if, in reality, that is the reality? How is that original research & not factual? --Duemellon 12:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, if you can source the "outrage from the Black community based on the mischaracterization," that is not original research. Without sources, it is. (Even with sources, stating that kind of thing as a fact rather than an allegation is dangerous.) Deltabeignet 03:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So, citing an article stating a black person or group said they were mad at Cosby for saying this is good enough proof to show it's not original research? Wouldn't I have had to go get the information? This article doesn't exist anywhere else. There is no standard way to cover it. It's mere creation is an example of original research. Someone decided it needed to be an entry, then someone created it based on the information they had available. That's pretty original. I'm just not making that distinction in my head. It seems subjective at best. --Duemellon 19:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)