Talk:Public speaking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Linguistics  
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Literature  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


It seems to me that the "Fundamentals of public speaking" are mainly just someone's opinion. Whose? --LMS

Another merge discussion[edit]

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.

  1. Strong Disagree They are two entyirely separate articles.Frelke 07:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Disagree These topic are two completely seperate things, and it should be kept that way.Thepangelinanpost 23:01, 07 March 2006 (EST)
  3. Disagree I disagree. (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. 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[edit]

This Sentence isn't appropriate next to a description of Hitler and Dr. King:

Johnny Gannaw the current president of the fraternal order of Rangi Ya Giza at University of Redlands, class of '08, is well known for his confidence and poise during public speaking sessions.

Removed lalalalallsajrfojkhdigfjshreuitghksfjgkwaeyhiuehgj hi people!

See also and Ext Links[edit]

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. --Thanks75.68.192.62 (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A book that can help minors with pulic or private speeches is Help I Need to Give a Speech -- (talk)DJ 19:38, 16 September 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 (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Orator/Oratory/Public speaking merge proposal[edit]

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. (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. (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    It looks like that has been reverted. I believe the orator article has a small bit of relavent content, but the random list is a mess. I see no reason not to merge it. -Verdatum (talk) 22:04, 23 December 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)


Do we really need a discussion on the etymology of the word "forensics" in the first paragraph? It's not even the title of the article! Yaris678 (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to see this has now been dealt with. Yaris678 (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2009 (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. (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[edit]

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)

Worldview tag[edit]

I have added a flag to the article because the section on national and international organisations is largely US focused and appears rather random. Libby norman (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Forensics Redirect/Disambiguation[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Public speaking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Techniques and trainings section as a HOWTO[edit]

The Techniques and trainings section appears to my eyes to merely be one big How-to which is forbidden by Wikipedia policy WP:NOTHOWTO.

Paragraph 1 is unsourced but isn't horrible otherwise.

Paragraph 2 is a list of techniques which is both unsourced and an example of being a How-to.

P3: Another table that is unsourced and is a How-to.

P4: Random inspirational quote that should be given some context and moved elsewhere.

P5: Another table promoting a specific method (How-to) that is also unsourced.

P6: Talks about the fear of public speaking and organizations that can help. It is unsourced. With proper sources this is probably salvageable. Removed spam links.

P7: Yet another table/list telling us how to speak publicly. At least this one is sourced but again it's a how-to and is against policy.

In the end at the very least all the tables should be removed and the remaining tagged as needing citations. SQGibbon (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the tables and added tags. SQGibbon (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with SQGibbon actions and definitions partially, added tags to certain content and pasted technology sentence under technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

How are the remaining tables/lists not in violation of WP:NOTHOWTO? From that link "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook" and "instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not". Those tables are clearly telling readers how to be successful public speakers. SQGibbon (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks like for reference only, it doesn't guide, it explains a process. This page seems to get 600+ views daily from a 90 day statistics. Removing the whole content might become counter-productive. I guess we have to take the middle-road where their is a give and take on the issue. See Stress (psychological) it mentions coping mechanisms, management, scales(which i am not satisfied)...etc. Nobody usually edits them out saying a guidebook because its counter-productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Examples from the tables "Be creative in presenting the idea" and "Accept fear and anxiety as a motivation force to ebb through circumstances". I don't see how those are "for reference only". They appear to be telling the reader what to do in order to be effective at public speaking which is in direct conflict with the quote I provided above about the imperative mood. Now if there are "schools" (like Greek rhetorical schools or contemporary analogues) of public speaking then it would be good to mention them and list some of their core ideas especially to distinguish them from other such schools. But the tables right now are not in support of any particular school or approach and only serve as advice unconnected with anything else.
And it really doesn't matter how many hits the article gets and how important those tables are to the hits if the content is in violation of Wikipedia policy. It's not counter-productive to keep the content in line with our stated encyclopedic standards. There is no ad revenue or public speaking community we are trying to create here so there is no way that losing those tables will be counter productive to Wikipedia.
And yes, there are lots of similar articles that have these exact same problems and have become magnets for this kind of poor, in my opinion, editing. This article at least has a chance of being fairly clean while still retaining significant content.
Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic content about various subjects. It is not here to tell people how to do things like improve their stress management or public speaking skills. Those things are way outside our scope and belong in websites dedicated to that kind of personal improvement. SQGibbon (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The section requires rewording in its tone, that's a solution I can find and I have taken a swing with it. (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort here but the problem was never one of tone but of content. These two lists are how-tos -- they instruct people in how to be more effective public speakers. That is the problem and is in violation of the Wikipedia policy above. SQGibbon (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)