Talk:Orator


 * A page split of this page was split to oratory in 2007. The page histories of that version and List of orators have been merged as of 04:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC). The talk page of the split page exists at Talk:Oratory (speaking).

List
There should be a list of orators who lived in the era between ancient and modern times. Rintrah — Preceding undated comment added 7:16, 17 July 2006‎

Stupidity
It seems stupid, that on the wiki page for orator, is a quote taken from the wiki page on orator, about what orator means.¨ Bobber0001 20:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just about to say something myself about that. I'll edit it out.

Why isn't Mussolini in the WWII era? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.236.204 (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah why isn't Mussolini mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.237.119 (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Lists, Barack Obama & the Aricle in General
I'm sorry, but the "Yes We Can" speech by Barack Obama is too recent to be judged as a famous speech. Remember, too, that just because it is praised amongst a minority of people at a given moment (Obama supporters), does not make it historic. This is also a current event that is important now, but may not be important 2 or 3 years from now. I have no problem with Obama, and am not doing this from a political standpoint. This is just an absurd "jumping the gun" addition. See Recentism. I have removed that reference, but also take issue with – actually – a majority of people in those lists. I think we need consensus on what needs to be done with these lists. The problem is that many of them are political speakers, and the fame of their speeches is objective. Others are simply pop culture icons. Beyond any of that is the fact none of these listings are sourced. The entire article needs serious cleanup and sourcing, period, but I think these lists in general need immediate attention. Remove people whose speeches' notability cannot be sourced by scholars or other professional speaking organizations, or who don't have decades of history binding a particular speech or speeches to their legacy or generational history. I am in favor of removing ALL names and speech references from the lists (Pulpit, Other, and Modern), except the ones that can be individually sourced as significant historical speakers or speeches. If we let people add their heroes just because they personally think they gave some great random speeches, this article is going to turn into a lengthy, ludicrous battleground. Thoughts? 72.213.129.138 (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Obama's "Audacity of Hope" speech however is not recent, being 4 years old now. Yet it continues to circulate among lists of prime speeches given of the past 20 years.  A speech being remembered a month later is and of itself a miracle in todays society.  To find people quoting a 4 year old speech by a then state senator from Illinois?  That to me says he does deserve a place in this list.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.85.118 (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would go one step further and remove all of the lists, regardless of if they can be cited. Perhaps a Category Page: Orators would be more useful--Iclavdivs (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama is NOT a great orator, and he doesn't have great skills in that area. Mario Cuomo, on the other hand, is one of the greatest orators in American history. He should have been on the list, for he is famous in that area, not Obama.--Susan Nunes 11 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.61.135 (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the names amongst these lists are uncited and this is a problem. We need citations for each name or else anyone can put any name they see as deserving to be a famous orator. We have already seen controversy with the addition of Barrack Obama.

If we cannot find a good system to define a famous orator or to cite them then I suggest removing the lists from the articles. --AirLiner (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations!
As it is, we have some POV and some apparent OR... but not in the way of sourced citations. Furthermore, there seem to be no stated criteria for inclusion on the various lists in the article. Without these, the article winds up being meaningless. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Recall that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection and that arbitrary lists without criteria or citations are routinely removed/deleted. Because of this, I've proposed a merge of this article with Oratory and Public speaking - if the latter two don't get merged with this, either this article should be merged with Oratory or deleted. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirected/merged
I've boldly redirected Orator into Public speaking as it was virtually all original research, and nobody bothered to participate in the discussion. Any sourced material in the original orator article that seems appropriate for incorporation into the target should be moved over (with the source noted). 147.70.242.41 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Aramaic anyone?
de-oraita was/is Aramaic for expounding the law, and this was a language used in ancient Israel well before Hellinization period. For example this book It is just possible that this was borrowed by the Greeks for just this activity? Essentially it was delivered by a rabbi to his school, that used to be a semicircle of steps for sitting on...remind anyone of something :) --124.184.92.15 (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Pulpit orators
Examples are:Fact
 * William Lindsay Alexander
 * Jean-Nicolas Beauregard
 * Jean-Baptiste-Charles-Marie de Beauvais
 * Henry Ward Beecher
 * Henry Whitney Bellows
 * Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
 * Louis Bourdaloue
 * Charles de Bouvens
 * Athanase Laurent Charles Coquerel
 * Father Divine
 * Louis Farrakhan
 * Thomas Guthrie
 * Robert Hall
 * John Henley
 * Vincent Houdry
 * Rev. Jesse Jackson
 * Joseph de Jouvancy
 * Thomas Ken
 * Jean-Baptiste-Henri-Dominique Lacordaire
 * Jean de La Haye
 * William Jay
 * Jean-François-Anne Landriot
 * Hugh Latimer
 * William Laud
 * Camille Lefebvre
 * José Agostinho de Macedo
 * James Martineau
 * Jacques-Marie-Louis Monsabré
 * Timoléon Cheminais de Montaigu
 * David Moriarty
 * Gian Paolo Oliva
 * Péter Pázmány
 * Rev. Adam Clayton Powell, Sr.
 * Berthold of Ratisbon
 * Father Abram J. Ryan
 * Girolamo Savonarola
 * Georg Scherer
 * Robert South
 * Valentin Thalhofer
 * Gioacchino Ventura di Raulica
 * Antonio Vieira
 * Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl
 * Johann Geiler von Kayserberg
 * Friedrich Ludwig Zacharias Werner

The above list is simply way too long. The other examples come from several walks of life, and are famed above others either for a particular speech, or just in general.

Obviously, all those who orate from the pulpit, just as politicians, will be above-average in volume (and quality) of oration. But to list them all, even if we were to limit the list to just Christian clergy, would be prohibitive.

This list needs to be pared down quite a bit.

Suggestions as to which should stay as pentultimate examples, would be welcome. Be prepared to explain why, and with more than "I think so". - jc37 06:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a simple issue to address... All we have to do is insist that, in order to add a name (or keep a name currently on the list), a citation to an independant third party reliable source (or even two) must be provided ... one that says the person is noted for his or her oratorical skill. If such citations are not provided, remove them from the list. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. The arbitrary lists of orators seemed ungood from the first time I saw this article.  There is no need for the list to be exhaustive; anyone wanting a list of all orators could get it through what links here, or by way of category tagging.  -Verdatum (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lists are appropriate per WP:LIST. (And categories should never be used to replace content.)
 * The problem above is just as Blueboar notes. There is no indication that the above pulpit orators are better or worse than any other pulpit orators.
 * Compare to the modern section, where the speeches and such are at least linked (or in some cases a linked sub-heading provided), so that the reader may at least find further information (including presumed references) on those pages.
 * So if either of you (or anyone else) would like to help sift through the above pulpit orators for the "better than average", such help would be appreciated : ) - jc37 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Writers
Maybe describing twain an dickens as popular sources of entertainment undermine their contributions to literature to an extent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.229.15 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize the two categories were mutually exclusive. -Verdatum (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)