|Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted so long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.|
|This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
It seems to me that the "Fundamentals of public speaking" are mainly just someone's opinion. Whose? --LMS
Another merge discussion
- Disagree with merge
I disagree with the merge, while linked, the two are separate concepts. This article can cover good public speaking technique and the public speaker can cover the "business" of public speaking, where many former politicians (it is a political stub afterall) or businessmen or whomever go on paid speaking tours. There is significant room to grow for both articles. Reflex Reaction 15:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreement with merge
Both pages are small and although there are differences the basic concept is simular if not exactly the same; surely the point of an artical is to expand on the basics. People are intelligent enough to distinguish between the two.
- Agree with merge
Without public speaking, you have no public speakers. Without public speakers, you have no public speaking. Without Public Speaking, there would be no large presidential speeches, or school yard assemblies, without public speaking, there would be alot of parliament
The concepts of each are the same, and both can be defined in one entry.
- Disagree with merger
I think 'public speaking' should not be merged with 'public speaker', as the laters common applys to a certain amount of professional ability in the public speaker, and the former, of anyone who speaks in public.
- Strong Disagree They are two entyirely separate articles.Frelke 07:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree These topic are two completely seperate things, and it should be kept that way.Thepangelinanpost 23:01, 07 March 2006 (EST)
- Disagree I disagree. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Different concepts, Add see also to both pages.Ghostieguide 02:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I have removed both the merge templates. There is no consensus and no real interest. Lets move on.Frelke 12:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Removed Frat Boy
This Sentence isn't appropriate next to a description of Hitler and Dr. King:
Removed lalalalallsajrfojkhdigfjshreuitghksfjgkwaeyhiuehgj hi people!
See also and Ext Links
I have just reverted the previous edits by TheTrueSora as as far as I could see the links seemed to have been trimmed at random. I'm not saying they were at random, just that it seemed that way to me. Could we have a bit of talk about what should go and what should stay ? Frelke 16:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there may be an error or omission in the second sentence of the following excerpt taken from the "Training" section of the article. "Public speaking" inserted after "but," may do the trick. Also, in my opinion, the entire second sentence is merely the opinion of the author, unsupported, and superfluous.
Using a forum such as Toastmasters to practice public speaking skills after receiving professional training is a time-tested approach to developing one's ability to speak well. It is difficult to really receive any formal training but, can still be taught and practiced by those seeking to improve their public communication skills. --Thanks184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
i think pulic speaking is very important motivate other but first thing can we motivate ourself? and a book cannot be helf to be puplic speaker its on you to how to overcome the situation. Go for a training offer by noted speakers that can helf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Orator/Oratory/Public speaking merge proposal
One year after the prior discussion, it seems there hasn't been enough of an effort to demonstate why oratory should be separate from public speaking (as the former is a branch of the latter); thus I have proposed a merge here. In addition, the orator article appears to be nothing more than an unsourced list which would have a hard time passing AfD (per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE) once the sourced entries are removed. Clearly a sourced list article, with objective rules for inclusion, would be better (with an appropriate title of the form "List of...."), but in the meantime, oratory and orator should be pared and merged with public speaking. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- After a 12-day discussion with no participation, I've WP:BOLDly redirected Orator into Public speaking as the former was a mess of unsourced OR. The tags have been adjusted for the other two articles. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support all I cleaned up the oratory article, scoping it to the classical schools of public speaking, but I don't see enough potential for content to necessitate separate articles. It really just makes everything more confusing that way. -Verdatum (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to be an ad for toastmasters. The only thing toastmasters is good at is getting people comfortable with one environment; the same people, places, room, subjects, etc. A manager in my company has allegedly been attending toastmasters for a few years now, and his public speaking skills stink, and that's being very, very polite.
The only thing that will get a person to stop being afraid of public speaking is a direct, immediate removal of the mental block that seems to exist in 99% of the population. It is an unfounded fear that keeps people from the front of the room. Nothing more, and toastmasters uses all sorts of fancy b.s. to keep people thinking that going to these seminars is the one and only thing that will help them, when in actual fact, a good instructor can get someone talking within one day, maybe two at the most.126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added the new (stub) list Types of speeches as something that needs to be checked & could be merged here. I also agree with the old proposal to merge oratory to here. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
proposed merge with human microphone
an editor has proposed human microphone be merged into this article, but there is no discussion on this talk page, or on the talk page for "human microphone". i have no opinion on the merge, but i reckon there should be a section to contain any discussion about this merge, so here it is. -badmachine 00:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. There wasn't a link from this article to Human microphone, so I added that. It's not a big article and probably won't become one, but it's complex enough that it doesn't fit cleanly in any one place. It's a social tool closely associated (for now at least) with the Occupy movement forced by legal restrictions, that has a significant impact on the content of the speech while providing a unique experience for the audience. Bennetto (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose More than an enough material (in content and sources) for a separate article. Steven Walling • talk 19:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Currently, "Forensics" redirects to this "Public Speaking" article. I believe it would be beneficial to add Individual events (speech) and Debate to the Disambiguation page as well. Forensics often refers to competitive, interscholastic speech/debate events as opposed to public speaking in the general sense. I am not entirely sure how to implement a redirect, however. Graphemie (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)