Talk:Original Oratory

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 October 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus/keep.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Debating (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Debating, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DebatingWikipedia:WikiProject DebatingTemplate:WikiProject DebatingDebating articles

[Untitled][edit]

It seems too informal, especially in the last section. I don't have enough experience to fix it well, but maybe someone with more knowledge about the topic could fix the informality. Also, as far as I know, there has been no nationwide shift to oratory being humor only. I see mainly serious oratorys as it talks about earlier. NeSS 18:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems the last section directly contradicts the last section in regards to the content of an OO. I too have not seen a shift toward only humourous Oratories. I've added a {{cleanup}} tag to the article Gsham 13:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many oratories as i have been in speech for two years now and not all of them have been dramatic. Most of them in fact have been inspiring.

I suggest changing "Intro Hooker" to "Introduction," which is a less casual term. Also, consider removing the entire "Progress" section because 1) it reads like advice, and not like a descriptive encyclopedia entry, and 2) it simply isn't an accurate description of the state of Original Oratory. Structural expectations (such as "problem/cause/solutions") tend to be regional trends.76.168.126.84 00:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this be split into persuasive and informative OO. Two clearly different categories.

I'm a speech coach, and the last section, while not great, is ONE interesting approach to creating a speech. I'd keep it, but change its heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.5.136 (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign. I fixed some of the grammar, but I still see the main problem in this section to be a particularly insipid example (individuality) used throughout, and a somewhat informal approach. 216.164.5.136 (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC) CCoe[reply]

I agree with previous posters in that the overall article is too informal. Granted, speech and debate isn't exactly a subject one would find in an encyclopedia or dictionary; it's not a formally defined activity in itself. I would compare it to the hip hop culture in that both have unwritten but "established" rules and codes of conduct that aren't necessarily fodder for a rigid encyclopedic definition. Nevertheless, there are still areas requiring improvement, such as this excerpt from the article's introduction:

"These are the questions the competitor and the judge should ask themselves before performing an Oration, to either an audience, or especially yourself. The key to gain the audience's attention isn't through your topic, it's through your passion. For instance, your topic could be that people today are lazy, but instead of changing it, they are accepting it."

In this case, the writer's overuse of the second tense renders the article far too colloquial. There are also numerous grammatical inaccuracies that detract from the piece's legitimacy and rhetorical effectiveness.

I would also argue that the article attempts to compress the Original Oratory event into an overly generic definition. There are regional variations on the speech format and delivery style that are conspicuously lacking from the article. For instance, Northern California oratories tend to possess more empirical and analytical data substantiating arguments made, and their delivery style is polished, clean, and formal. Meanwhile, Southern California oratories focus more on anecdotal stories for their pieces of evidence, and their delivery style is more colloquial and emotional.

All this I have learned from word of mouth, from my prior speech and debate career. Nquach (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles appears to be constructed in a manner that resembles a guide or a "how-to" rather than an encyclopedia. This is especially apparent in the sections "Steps of an Oration" and "An Example of Speech Construction." I suggest a minor rewrite. ~24.27.39.74 (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyeditor passing by[edit]

I revised some of the style used in this article, but also removed the latter half of the article as it was instructional and did not reference the event in any form. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]