Talk:Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago

Is this really significant enough for its own article?
I question its long-term significance (WP:NOTE). I certainly don't think it rates for "high-importance." »S0CO ( talk 00:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep This was a very important speech by the President and deserves it's own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.36.155 (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Despite the attention of Trayvon Martin's death, I felt that merging into speeches of Barack Obama is the best way. --George Ho (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Recommend Speedy close and keep. I disagree. This was a major speech about civil rights and race relations, given by America's first African-American president. It deserves it's own article. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I know you are excited about the merger. However, while reading the article, even though it determines the Trayvon Martin issue, (in a common sense) an impact of the speech... I fail to see it other than just reactions. And I don't find this speech as impactful as "tear down the wall" by Ronald Reagan regarding the Berlin Wall. I recently acknowledge and must admit my failure to see your hard work. Nevertheless, you must question the media's focus on topics, like Trayvon Martin, who had a criminal background and was assaulting Zimmermann under the influence of drugs. --George Ho (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The speech came after the trial, but wasn't limited to it. It was a major speech on race relations. It needs to have its own article. Your words, "you must question the media's focus on topics, like Trayvon Martin, who had a criminal background and was assaulting Zimmermann under the influence of drugs" shows your bias. Zimmerman had a criminal history for assault, but that isn't what this article is about. Slow down a bit... Juneau Mike (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Juneau Mike - with respect, I feel you should both "slow down" a bit. George does not have perfect English, and sometimes expresses himself less than perfectly - but in my experience (and I have quite a bit, having been his "mentor" for a long period, although less actively recently) George contributes always with an aim to improving the encyclopedia. Sometimes, like all of us, he makes contributions that other people disagree with, and sometimes, when the arguments become complex linguistically, he gives less than perfect responses.
 * I can see why he might have suggested a merger - I don't know if I agree or not, but he's not the only editor to express that question on this page. Nevertheless, I think, with your comment above, and the comment you added to his inactive Editor review page, he is now fully aware of your opinion. On a personal level, suggesting a user may wish to "take a long break" on the strength of one minor disagreement is stronger wording than I would have used. I do understand, though, how it feels when you have worked hard on an article, and you feel another editor is not taking that into account.
 * I can also understand why his comments led you to believe he was biased, even though I trust he isn't - it was just a poorly expressed thought. Yes, opinions of Travyon have little to do with a merger and would have been best not voiced as they are irrelevant and likely to polarise. I don't believe that was the intention, although it's quite understandable that you did.
 * George, I think, has very much taken your comments to heart. He was certainly not trying to upset anyone, and has, I believe, himself been upset by the incident. I'd like to think we could all remember there are human beings on the other side of the keyboard - George needs to understand that people will be upset sometimes when he makes suggestions like this even though to him they are just part of maintaining an orderly encyclopedia. He needs to understand that if a suggestion is rejected, then it is rejected - and he's become much better at doing that, although occasionally, as here, there are problems. He also needs to learn that sometimes when he makes a proposal others disagree with they may misunderstand his motives. I'd ask you to trust me, though, when I say that "arrogance" certainly doesn't come into it. George can be single minded, and occasionally forgets that there are different ways of looking at a problem - but he is not arrogant. If anything he is often uncertain of some things, and benefits from thoughtful explanations.
 * In short, I'd just like to see us all get along - with nobody upset - and I hope my thoughts have been helpful rather than adding to the issue. By the way, it is a very good article and covers the speech succinctly and to the point. Begoon &thinsp; talk  04:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge or delete Not everything the president says needs its own article. I don't even know that this needs to be mentioned anywhere other than Shooting of Trayvon Martin. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not setting up AFD then? --George Ho (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously? A major speech on race relations is being dismissed as just "something the president said or did", as though it has no more significance than Obama kissing a baby or telling an old lady to have a nice day? This is one of the most significant speeches of the Obama presidency. He has given many, many speeches. I have heard most of them. I created an article about only one. A very significant one.


 * Frankly, I think there is a lot of very useful information and articles missing from Wikipedia, because people are cowed by the notability policy. I sincerely hope that one editor with very weak communication skills who has been in trouble numerous times on this encyclopedia does not get what I feel is among my finest contributions to Wikipedia deleted or merged. That's my 2¢... Juneau Mike (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's enough. Comment on contributions, not contributors, or I'll start to see this as a personal attack. I tried above to keep your comments to and about George, here and elsewhere, in perspective as those of an editor upset that a merge had been suggested to "his" article, but there is a limit to how far that goes. Back off, please. More than one editor has now voiced this question, and personalising the discussion like this is incorrect and unacceptable. Begoon &thinsp; talk  05:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep At least right now, this is significant enough to merit its own article. If, with the benefit of future hindsight, a merge is reconsidered further down the track, extreme care should be taken that none of the very good content is diluted or removed in that process, and any future merge should be considered as a true merge, retaining the content, and not a "merge and delete." Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize to George Ho for venting. You are right, it was uncalled for. I do believe that he has not been willing to see both sides of this, although to be honest I have not checked his own Talk Page, or that of others involved in this discussion in a couple of days. To Mr. Ho (no pun intended, I am simply using the honorific, followed by his family name) I would respectfully suggest that another way to look at this would be that one might make the argument that an article he has been heavily involved in, Sam and Diane could be merged into List of Cheers characters, or Sam Malone, etc. If that were proposed, I would likewise be opposed to that and would support the continuation of the Sam and Diane article. Not too long ago I threw a life ring to the Michaela Quinn article, because I felt that her very complex character could not be sufficiently described in Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman without making that article overly lengthy. Previously, that article had been very short, and had become a redirect to the DQMW page. I restored it and expanded it, and still have some work to do. But as far as the article here, I feel strongly that it should be maintained, because it is the only time during the Obama presidency that he has given a major speech on race in America. The speech did not address the merits of the verdict, nor did it criticize the jury. It simply illustrated the African-American reaction to it in the context of a people who feel that they have too often been the victims of race related violence, hatred and discrimination. I realize that when I create a page for something like an active volcano, as I did with Fourpeaked Mountain, it isn't going to face notability scrutiny. It's an active volcano! Duh! :) But I think it is too often the case that when it comes to issues, people and history of humans, the AfD/merge, etc., crowd is quick on the draw and very reluctant to change their mind. My apology to Mr. Ho is sincere, and stands above all else here. But my vigorous defense of this article stands as well. Thank you. Juneau Mike (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And thank you. That's one of the most gracious, honest and thorough apologies I've seen on this site in a while. I agree with pretty much every word you said, and I admire the way you said it. Your analogies are very sound, and your logic excellent. We didn't begin our interactions on a strong note, I guess, but I do look forward to our paths crossing again, because I greatly respect editors who can react as positively as you have done here. I wish I had done as well in some of my past disagreements, because that is how we are ultimately measured.  Begoon &thinsp; talk  22:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete Only notable as a reaction to the Martin case. Lots of people said lots of things about it, from further-reaching podiums. To give an Obama reaction an article over other reactions is non-neutral and undue weight. If it's somewhere near as popular as "I have a dream" or "Tear down this wall" in the future, it can be revisited. But while we're still in the media shitstorm, we don't have a clear enough vantge point to ascertain significance. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please give me an example of a reaction to this case, and the greater African-American reaction to it, than the president of the United States giving a televised speech. Juneau Mike (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see what black reaction has to do with anything. Wikipedia is for general audiences. I won't single out one other opinion of the many (they're all equally non-notable), but search for "Trayvon Martin" on YouTube or Google News, and you'll see and hear thousands from pundits, politicians, journalists, activists and celebrities. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete This wasn't a significant speech that will be remembered as significant down the line. Actually, its not even talked about now. The only major reactions to this speech were from political pundents. I just don't see this speech as being so significant that it warrants its own article. Just because Obama is the first Black president doesn't make this speech historic. I would suggest a deletion. By that Monday, the speech wasn't even mentioned in the news again. Also, I don't think this was even a speech, they were "off the cuff" remarks as described by the media. This wasn't even a speech. Also, the neutrality of Obama's speech can be disputed because there has been criticism of his speech because of the lack of evidence of racial bias or that Zimmerman was a racist. I think that if indeed there is a desperate article (if decided) then those relevant criticisms of Obama's speech should be mentioned. His remarks shouldn't have its on section unchallenged.Rob3gd (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Very significant speech, agreeing with what Juneau Mike said.   [  Soffredo  ]   18:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge some, delete some. These remarks were less notable than his initial remark that his son would "look like Trayvon".Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for multiple reasons, but basically:
 * 1. there's no way to fit it into the main "shooting" article properly. that article is quite long enough, & while the president's speech certainly merits inclusion in that article, that should not be the ONLY OR PRIMARY coverage of it.
 * 2. it received major coverage, & unless we have some policy (which i am not aware of) to "lump all the speeches of EACH president into one article", then this one should rate a standalone.
 * if we are going to lump presidential speeches together (which i would disagree with), then it needs to at least be done FAIRLY & consistently. i.e.: the same treatment for every president.  if we only do it for obama, or only for speeches that touch on certain "controversial" topics, (or etc.,) then that violates npov.
 * i have no objection to including coverage of, & commentator's opinions on, the speech. obviously, that too belongs in this article.
 * Lx 121 (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Very significant speech from our President. This article deserves to stand on it's own.68.35.36.155 (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Ken
 * Keep as a groundbreaking speech. This is notable in its own right because no president had given a speech of this sort before. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or delete. - per Merging and Summary style. This is a subtopic fork of Speeches of Barack Obama and Shooting of Trayvon Martin. The editors of those articles have not found reason to provide a subsection for the United States political catch phrase "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago" or even Speech by the President on Trayvon Martin, which means there is no consensus per the development of those articles for this summary style spinout article. The amount of coverage of Speeches of Barack Obama and Shooting of Trayvon Martin is significantly more than the amount of coverage of Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. Having this article separate from those two articles does not place the subject in context. Instead, it causes Wikipedia to gives it more weight than the reliable sources have given it in comparisons to coverage of Speeches of Barack Obama and Shooting of Trayvon Martin. It is not a major subtopic of either article and should not go in a separate article of its own. There does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. The page should be merge with the broader topics of Speeches of Barack Obama and Shooting of Trayvon Martin to provide the background material and context from these broader article to allow readers to understand Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago in context. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge. What next? Michelle, where have you hidden the peanut butter??? Formerip (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge - I think it's a borderline case, but my impression is that this is not such a lengthy and important speech that it needs to be covered by its own article, when Speeches of Barack Obama exists. Robofish (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge & Delete Much Content Wikipedia is not a newspaper, magazine, or textbook. It is a online encyclopedia that is supposed to be non biased. Irrelevant arguments being made here as if this was: What are we going to put in tomorrow's newspaper? Put it in the Trayvon article, include the quote and keep the other hyperbola to a minimum. 208.54.40.153 (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge - the speech itself doesn't seem to have any long-term significance. StAnselm (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This speech of Barack Obama's focuses not on the death of Trayvon but what was learned from the horrible circumstances surrounding his death and the subsequent trial. The shooting of Trayvon has its own long and intricate article. The trial has its own article. This does not really fit with the article on the speeches of Barack Obama since it was a special speech in response to a drastic situation. It's more than just a footnote but maybe not as important to some people who've never been racially profiled or discriminated against. But then again, I live in Chicago and this speech is quoted often and is important to many people here. I agree with being unbiased, but it doesn't really fit anywhere else. PJColeman (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it doesn't stand the test of time, merge later. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"Major" v. "controversial" speech
Tonight I removed the word "controversial" from this articles lead, in fact from this articles lead sentence. It was put there in place of the original word, "major", that was there when I originally wrote the article. I did not put the word "major" back in its place, because I realize that it could be considered to be an equal violation of neutral point of view. Just wanted to clarify that. I made a few other minor tweaks, but otherwise I am happy with the article as is, including the expanded reaction section. Juneau Mike (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Second Merge Proposal

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have restarted the merge proposal, now that time has passed and emotions have cooled. I do not believe the sparse content here merits its own stand-alone article. All the info here can easily be merged with the Florida v. Zimmerman article without any losses. -- Veggies ( talk ) 08:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This article is about Barack Obama, not about Trayvon Martin, or about the Zimmerman trial. This speech will be remembered as the first speech President Obama made about race relations in the United States, while he was president. This speech will not be remembered as part of Martin's or Zimmerman's lives, or being exclusively about the trial. This was a significant speech by President Barack Obama.Juneau Mike (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply:
 * This speech will be remembered as the first speech President Obama made about race relations in the United States, while he was president
 * Source? The remarks made after the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy and "Beer Summit" came far before Trayvon Martin.
 * This speech will not be remembered as part of Martin's or Zimmerman's lives, or being exclusively about the trial
 * Since it came just after the trial and Obama had already made his "if I had a son..." post-shooting remarks that brought the incident to a wider light, I find this rather hard to believe. Also, the speech is by definition predicated on the shooting of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent criminal trial. To try and divorce it from that into something unprecedented is to try and ride two horses at once. Since it is predicated on the shooting, the only question is whether or not the speech should have its own article or whether it can be cleanly merged into the broader premise. I hold that can be easily merged without a loss of information. -- Veggies ( talk ) 21:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


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