Talk:Day of Infamy speech

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

Emendations[edit]

In listening to the audio of this speech at www.radiochemistry.org, I noted a number of small discrepancies between the recording and the written text presented here. I have taken the liberty of bringing the written text in conformity with the recording, so that it can be a more accurate representation of what was actually said by President Roosevelt. RandomCritic 00:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons with contemporary events[edit]

Comparisons with contemporary, highly charged political events, are both extraneous to the subject matter of this article and easily read as an attempt to insert a POV slant into the article. The slant can, depending on one's presuppositions, be read as pro- or anti- a particular political side; however, it cannot be plausibly read as neutral. An attempt to associate or contrast an American political figure with President Roosevelt must suggest either approval or condemnation to the reader. That is not the point of Wikipedia; more to the point, it is not the point of the article, which deals with Roosevelt's speech. The fact that it is sourced does not make it less POV or less irrelevant.

An attempt to describe how Roosevelt's speech has been referenced subsequent to it delivery is not off-topic, but the associations in the extracts removed below can hardly be shown to be direct references to the speech.

Nor was Roosevelt the last president to invoke this recurring theme in American politics. As commentators have pointed out, the same basic theme was re-used by President George W. Bush in his speech to the nation on September 11, 2001 following the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which he contrasted the "evil, despicable acts of terror" with the "brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity" that America represented. Following the attacks, there was (in the words of Richard Jackson) "a deliberate and sustained effort to discursively link September 11, 2001 to the attack on Pearl Harbor itself" — an indication of how Roosevelt's framing of the Pearl Harbor attack had become part of the fabric of American national recollection.[1]

The subject matter of this article is Roosevelt's speech, not general themes of the United States under attack. There is no indication in the above quote or reference that Roosevelt's speech is directly, explicitly, and unambiguously referred to in the speech of any other person. Lacking that, it is impossible to justify its inclusion in this article. Regardless of the intent in including this extraneous material, the fact that it is extraneous, and appears in the context of highly charged political debate in the United States, cannot but suggest to the average reader that the article is attempting to push a particular political point of view. Without considerable rewriting to avoid this perception, and citation of actual references to Roosevelt's speech as the focus of commentary, this material cannot be used in this article.

[urging the American people never to forget the attack and memorialize its date] in much the same way that "September 11" later became the universal shorthand for the terrorist attacks of 2001. [1]

This is hardly a relevant allusion to Roosevelt's speech; nothing in this comparison sheds any light on Roosevelt's use of the date, and indeed, there is absolutely no evidence offered of "December 7" being used "in much the same way that "September 11"" is. (To the best of my knowledge, the only popular shorthand for the attack on Oahu is Pearl Harbor.)

The material is therefore deleted. RandomCritic 02:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison with September 11 is something that was made by numerous commentators and politicians; academics writing on how the "war on terror" has been portrayed have pointed out direct similarities between Bush's 9/11 speech and Roosevelt's infamy speech. I've added a citation for this. As for the use of "December 7" as popular shorthand, I'm afraid your knowledge is lacking - it most definitely was used this way in multiple media, with slogans such as "Avenge December 7" and "Remember December 7th" being used on famous wartime propaganda posters. You might not like the comparison with September 11, but it's verifiable and reliably sourced, therefore I've restored it to the article. Please don't delete it on the grounds of your own POV. -- ChrisO 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's not reliably sourced -- a vague, impressionistic association of words does not demonstrably qualify as a reference. Not only is there no citation of the speech itself (failing WP:V) but, if there were, it would fail verifiability for the simple reason that there is no reference to Pearl Harbor in that speech. That is not POV; that is fact. Unverifiable material will be removed. RandomCritic 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote? Of course there is no explicit reference to Pearl Harbor - the contention (which you haven't addressed) is that academic commentators have noted similarities in the language and framing used. The statement "Silberstein draws direct parallels between the language used by Roosevelt and Bush, highlighting a number of similarities between the Infamy Speech and Bush's presidential address of September 11" is completely accurate and clearly referenced. The preceding line, "Roosevelt's basic theme was re-used by President George W. Bush in his speech to the nation on September 11, 2001, in which he contrasted the "evil, despicable acts of terror" with the "brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity" that America represented in his view" is derived from the observations of Richard Jackson's book, which is also referenced. I can reword it to attribute the observation directly to Jackson, but the point stands. You don't have to agree with what Silberstein and Jackson say, but you can't reasonably deny that they've said it. -- ChrisO 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't you think it would be a bit more productive to discuss content that you disagree with rather than reflexively deleting it? It might be helpful if you brushed up on Wikipedia:Etiquette before continuing this discussion. -- ChrisO 23:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Richard Jackson, Writing the War on Terrorism: language, politics and counter-terrorism, p. 33. Manchester University Press, 2005

Cryptonomicon[edit]

I read in the Cryptonomicon that there had been a mistake, and the message declaring the end to the piece had arrived a day after it was supposed to. Is this correct? Fissionfox 07:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the Japanese declaration of war, yes - there was a communications problem between Tokyo and Washington, so the Japanese embassy in DC didn't learn of it until after the attack at Pearl Harbor had been carried out. -- ChrisO 08:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened was that a message from the Japanese government arrived at the Japanese embassy in Washington D.C. However, the message was not correctly marked for immediate decryption and by the time the embassy got to it, it took too long to decode it. The message told the Japanese Ambassador to deliver it 30 minutes before the attack (although the message never mentioned any attacks, it just gave a time of day to deliver). The message was also not a declaration of war, it just said, as FDR said in his speech, that negotiations were ended. It is true that the US codebreakers actually read the message before the Japanese Ambassador and the remark was made, "This means war." The Japanese government had not even written a declaration of war until after hearing of the successful attack. Go here for the full explanation: Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Breaking_off_negotiations Fanra 02:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full text of speech[edit]

I have twice deleted the full text of the speech, as Wikisource carries it and we have a very prominent link to Wikisource. Binksternet (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary and context[edit]

For the ignorant/non-American/me could we get a summary of the speech and the context in which it was given? --Danger (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Danger Thanks for the suggestion, Done! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh There is an adubile cough at abt 3:55, and 4:14 on the CSPAN recording of the speech. Albeit a minor part I think that it would serve as a good fun fact to find who this was. 2600:1700:34D0:A690:146:16F5:2A8D:4B84 (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Infamy Speech. 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) 18:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 May 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Infamy Speech → Day of Infamy speech – Google Scholar says that the form "Day of Infamy" speech is more common than Infamy Speech (however capitalized).[1] In most sources there are quotation marks around "Day of Infamy", but according to WP:TSC these should not be used in article titles. I also think that including "day of infamy" is likely to make it more WP:RECOGNIZABLE, per the NGRAM[2] (t · c) buidhe 02:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Loafiewa (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2021 (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.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Day of Infamy speech/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 22:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Lead[edit]

  • MOS:OVERLINK - you’ve got seven links in only the first paragraph, which can hamper readability at the beginning. Since you’ve got public speech linked twice, once in the lead and once in infobox event (although that link points to the wrong target), I would recommend linking to public speech (as the type of event) in the infobox only. Per OVERLINK, there’s no need to link "everyday words understood by most readers in context", which would include the word "speech". Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Day of Infamy speech", sometimes referred to as just "Infamy speech"’'
    • sometimes referred to as the Infamy speech
  • According to author Sandra Silberstein, Roosevelt's speech followed a well-established tradition of how "through rhetorical conventions, presidents assume extraordinary powers as the commander in chief, dissent is minimized, enemies are vilified, and lives are lost in the defense of a nation once again united under God."
    • The use of this quote seems very odd to me. Silberstein is writing primarily about 9/11, and drawing some kind of modern analogy with the past for various political reasons. I would ask to see another source, concerned primary with the speech, that draws the same or similar conclusion about religion. The reason I say this is because the obsession with god in this context didn’t occur for another decade or more, with the Eisenhower administration, and subsequently with further efforts at anti-communism during the Cold War. So if you can offer another source, preferably an expert on FDR, who makes the same point, I would be interested in looking at it. I’m not comfortable with the way Silberstein is being used here. At the very least, it probably shouldn’t be in the lead as it attempts to frame the speech using a post-historical lens, which is a NPOV problem. If you’re going to use a quote like this in the lead section, make sure it is from a subject matter expert and authority who is directly discussing the topic and is known for their neutrality. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note, I see on the talk page that POV concerns were raised about this in 2007. That seems like a very long time for this to go unaddressed. At the very least, it should be removed from the lead section. I have no problem with it being used in the proper context in the body of the article, such as in the context of post-9/11 discourse. Right now, as it is used in the lead, it’s purely ahistorical, and that’s problematic. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speech had a immediate positive response and long-lasting impact
    • the speech had an immediate positive response
  • It is one of the most famous speeches of American politics.
    • That either doesn’t need to be said, or if you think it does, it should appear at the end of the paragraph after you explain its impact, not before. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is does has to be said. Not every speech is most popular in American politics. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laura Crowell of the University of Washington wrote that Roosevelt worked diligently on his speeches, and he "regularly provided the basic thoughts which he wanted to incorporate in an address ... [brought] the manuscript to the precise length; content and tone he desired in now widely understood."
    • Something is wrong with that quote. Look at the source material. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

  • MOS:OVERLINK - same issue as above, again with the first paragraph. The first paragraph is where you want to be extra mindful of avoiding OVERLINK, because this is where you draw the reader into the article. It looks like you’ve got 11 links in that one paragraph alone. You don’t need to link to "law firm", for example, and you could probably chop it down to half the number of links. It’s important to use links sparingly. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Address to the joint session[edit]

  • It was intended not merely as a personal response by Roosevelt, but as a statement on behalf of the all-American people in the face of great collective trauma.
  • The first paragraph of the speech was worded to reinforce Roosevelt's portrayal of the United States as a victim of unprovoked Japanese aggression. The initial draft read, "a date which will live in world history". Roosevelt rephrased it as "a date which will live in infamy." The wording was deliberately passive. Rather than speaking in the active voice ("Japan attacked the United States"), Roosevelt chose to speak in the passive voice to emphasize America's status as a victim.
    • Thats the second ahistorical issue using post-9/11 sources making political hay about FDR in the post-historical context. This is a NPOV issue. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I don’t like to fail articles without giving the nominator an opportunity to fix problems. However, the article has major NPOV issues that can only be resolved with a total rewrite, and I think it’s likely that many of these issues predate the involvement of the nominator and go back more than a decade. I say this because the talk page shows User:RandomCritic raising these same issues back in 2007, and nothing appears to have changed in the intervening years. My recommendation is for an interested writer to focus on using sources from subject matter experts about the speech and FDR, and not to solely rely on framing the article around post-9/11 political discourse, which is the current problem. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Viriditas - Thanks for the review. I am willing to work on the article. The main concerns raised are that the article does not follow a neutral point of view  ... Well, everything mentioned in the article is indeed from reliable sources. I don't understand the issue with post-9/11 sources. The speech has received much recent attention just because of 9/11 and JFK assassination. We also do have various pre-9/11 sources too. Our work is to summarise what realible sources discuss. The overlinking issue (which I didn't notice earlier) would be easy to fix. I am not much concerned about the quick fail, which I can re-nominate. But that fact that I was not given any chance to respond is a bit, unfair. The issues raised could have been resolved within the due course of GAN. Is there anything else which makes you feel that the article is not neutral. - Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Im sorry that you feel it was unfair. I honestly don’t think the article could have been re-written in seven days, so failing it was my only option. I would not recommend re-nominating it at this time. As for the NPOV issue, which appears to predate your involvement, the overriding concern about post-9/11 sources being given undue weight with their opinions stated as facts was expressed on the talk page in 2007, with no attempt to fix it in the intervening years. I wasn’t aware of this problem until I reviewed the article and then decided to look at the talk page, only then realizing that my current concerns had already been expressed a decade before. I don’t know how much more clear I can be about the problem. Please focus on eliminating all the sources about 9/11 and the war on terror, and writing this article only from subject matter experts and sources about the subject, first. Then, when that’s been done, go into the 9/11 and war on terror literature for supplementary context, criticism, and debate. It should not, however, be used to frame the article, because that is entirely ahistorical, and presents this subject in terms of post-9/11 commentary, which in itself is only one perspective among many. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although you improved the article alot, the legacy section still has many of the same issues that it did before. There are many sources about Pearl Harbor / FDR that discuss the speech and are not cited. I agree with Viriditas that it's not GA at present, although knowing how fast you can write I might have put it on hold so that it could be rewritten to focus on WWII rather than later events. (t · c) buidhe 02:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to both of you. When I said that I will re-nominate, I meant renomination after fixing the issues. Will look at the other sources soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Day_of_Infamy_speech&oldid=1206897349"