Talk:National Speech and Debate Association

2 Articles

Ok so this is a bit confusing but all the tournament stuff should be moved into an article about the actual National Speech amd Debate Association whilst the National Forensic League should remain purely about the honor society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.178.4.58 (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

State Leagues

Ok, it needs to be expanded, but why are a bunch of state leagues (most of which don't have WP articles) named and linked to? It's really not necessary to list them, a longer explaination of it would be more valid.

 TheTrueSora 19:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wiki-star: The State Leagues that do have a Wikipedia Article are the most popular State Leagues. It is better to have these Leagues available to readers because they recieve more competitors. The other Leagues or Organizations that have not yet met this feature, are still, and should remain open to any knowledgable individual of that Organization. If you would like to create an Article of these Leagues, then by all means. Otherwise, it looks like we're going to have to be alittle bit more patient.

Thanks! Wiki-star 06:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Being patient is one thing; quite another is making the article look bad. With over 3/4 of the links broken, the article looks terribly outdated and inefficent. TheTrueSora 19:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wiki-star: Well i'm sorry my freind, but sitting here complaining isn't actually going to solve anything now is it? If you think theres something better that can be done, then why not do it? However, i recommend you provide a better resource than what is given. The purpose of editing is to enhance. So whatever you have in mind that can enhance the article then please, by all means do it! Just make sure you know what you're doing, and provide valid and citeful subjects.

Thanks! Wiki-star 05:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

---

One topic you forgot to mention here is "Radio Announcing"

Radio announcing is a 5 minuite speech designed to inform or instruct, much like a story you hear on the radio. If nobody objects I'll go ahead and add this onto this page, and make a page on Radio_(forensics). --Ptolmey 19:33, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

No objections to the page going up even if it isn't, but is RA still an NFL event? I thought it had been retired years ago. jdb ❋ 08:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It might be retired.... but here in Oregon we still participate in it. Maybe somebody who knows more about this should tell us the status of Radio before we include it...

--Ptolmey 19:13, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a mention of radio announcing on the main NFL page [1] Joyous 22:36, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Radio Announcing is no longer part of the NFL but is fairly common in most state speech organizations such as the Iowa High School Speech Association, etc.

--(BojiDebater 03:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC))

I do not think adding content regarding Radio Announcing would be a wise idea. This article is specificly about the NFL and therefore it seams out of place. If its something you care a lot about I would be much more in favor of you adding a section on retired events in general if you feal you have the knowledge to do so.

--(Use:Semag68)

Another thing that should be added is the NFL's recognition of outstanding coaches. It's a pretty big thing where I come from. MooVLuvr 19:23 Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful for people trying their best to understand exactly how the NFL works if someone would give a basic explanation of the hierarchy of leagues and how competitors advance to the national tournament. --HomeschooledDebater 03:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Events

I've taken out the non-NFL events from the Events section. This is an article about the NFL- if your state league sponsors an event the NFL doesn't, that's fine; put it in the page for your state league. This article is for the official NFL events. A list of the NFL events, if you don't trust me, can be found here.

Also, I've removed the descriptions from all the debate topics except for Cx, just because people might know the term Cx and not policy. For the others (L-D, PFD), a description is not required because they have their own Wikipedia pages (which are linked from here).

I judged my first season of local events and am quite excited about speech competition, so forgive me if I come off as a newbie.

Local, State and Regional tournaments earn NFL points as far as I can see. Am I correct? If so, shouldn't we consider them as NFL events, even if they are not present in the national tournament?

If so, we might take a paragraph or two to explain the different levels and their events. Does that make sense?

I'm thinking of working on the NFL related pages as a distraction from the heavy debate at pages Jesus and Martin Luther. I'm thinking of working on local and sectional tournaments mostly, especially judging (since its what I know) Any to do or wish list items? --CTSWyneken 12:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to change the storytelling tab. The event is no longer called story telling It is now referd to as Thematic Interpertation. (T.I) It is also my event so I would appreciate someone making note of it's corecct name. -Jessica Marquez —Preceding unsigned comment added by SnooSnoo4Life (talk • contribs) 02:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Joy of Tournaments?

It seems to me that the fact that Joy of Tournaments hosts the NFL's website is irrelevant and is only a shameful attempt at product placement. Who's with me?

TheTrueSora: Agreed. It has been removed.

agreed. --mtz206 14:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Competitive Appearance

I agree with the Cleanup Request at the start of this article. I went through and fixed a lot of the problems, but I think that someone who has some time and a better idea of dress standards required in the NFL should finish cleaning it up. I did the best I could. (I did compete in forensics in high school.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiteknox (talk • contribs)

Since Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, I think such a detailed description of the required dress code isn't necessary for an encyclopedia article on the NFL. I'm removing it, and will add a mention of "professional appearance" in the general text. --mtz206 (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Whiteknox 17:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Points

I edited the points and merged form the main page points, as suggested. Does everyone agree with that move? -- Dominant <font="navy">One _Talk 05:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. --CTSWyneken 10:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

State league pages proposed for deletion

There is a proposal to delete the pages for California, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Texas.

Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida Forensic League, Inc., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California High School Speech Association, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisconsin Forensics Coaches Association, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Forensic Association, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PHSSL, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohio High School Speech League. --CTSWyneken 13:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

New Speech and debate stub catagory

There's a new stub catagory for short articles related to speech and debate competition. It is: {{Speech-and-debate-stub}} You can view them at Category:Speech and debate stubs. --CTSWyneken 13:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge suggestions

Individual Events

I've flagged Individual events to be be merged here. I'd suggest that the info be split between here and the individual event articles themselves. --CTSWyneken 03:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No. The NFL is only one league that offers the events in the IE page. Besides the fact that other high school leagues (like the NCFL) use those events as well, college league use them as well. Merging a generic term with a specific organization doesn't make any sense to me. -- TheTrueSora 00:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that the events are offered by multiple leagues. But there are several problems with the Individual events page. One is the page title is way too broad. It could refer to Olympic events or a number of other things. Second, the material repeats much of what is on the pages for each event. Third, none of the league pages link to this one. They do, however, link to the events. What little is left on this page when we transfer the information from the Individual events page to the events pages is, as far as I can tell, NFL specific. Does that make more sense? --CTSWyneken 03:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe individual events should be a category? I'm not sure how to do that, as I'm new here, but I think that would be appropriate.

I disagree. While I do also think that the title 'Individual Events' is vague, that is nonetheless the title of the activity. It is called 'Individual Events'. That said, I see your point about the fact that some events have articles, and the blurbs on the IE page are redundant. Perhaps those can be collapsed and linked to the articles for the events. However, the NFL and IE articles should not be merged. NFL presides over IE competition, but also over Debate and Congress; IE is sponsored by many other organizations than NFL as well. Merging them would be inaccurate. Stewunit 01:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with TheTrueSora. Different leagues have different variations on the individual events. If the page may be too broad, then move the article to a page with a more specific title. Putting the info under NFL, however, is miscategorization. --Buckaroo54 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine, if the page didn't basically repeat the information on other pages. I guess I'll make sure the info on this page is in these pages and then propose it for deletion. --CTSWyneken 18:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think the best solution to the identification issue (individual WHAT events) is to re-title the page "Individual Events (Speech)". However, Wikipedia's coverage of speech and debate generally needs to be expanded (I'm hoping to work on that this summer). Then, each individual event will have its own page, and there will be a page describing individual events competition and links to each event and organization. --Svendlarose 06:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, for now, I'll remove the merge flags. Most events do already have their own pages, most of them in need of work. I'll concentrate on getting related pages tagged to display at: Category:Speech and debate stubs --CTS Wyneken 15:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

National Speech and Debate Tournament

• I am suggesting that we also merge National Speech and Debate Tournament with this article as the tournament is operated entierly by the National Forensic League. --Sdevoid 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This proposal seems sensible. (But note that I merely happened upon this article, in connection with my work on the page for U.S. Senator Karl Earl Mundt, who turns out to have been a major player in the history of the organization.) --orlady 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I am also suggesting that we create a list of the past LD and CX champions, of which I have alisting, to be merged into the NSDT section. Thanks --DoctorFociWhom 03:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Foci Whom (talk • contribs)

Past merges

National Foresnics League

• National Forensics League was merged into National Forensic League in 2004. However, the talk page was not merged into this page until today. The only items in Talk:National_Forensics_League concerned the merges: National Speech and Debate Tournament, The Rostrum and Individual Events. ---Sdevoid 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Rostrum

• Not only does this article make no claim to notability, there is simply no information here that couldn't be included in a paragraph in the National Forensic League article. I'm proposing that it be merged there and this page created a redirect. - pm_shef 18:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to The Rostrum - if so, I agree, merging it here seems appropriate. --mtz206 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that The Rostrum should be merged into this one. Following the Wikipedia merging guidelines, I am willing to merge it after 30 June 2006 (over 5 days). I would let it run for longer, but this doesn't seem very controversal. --Sdevoid 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have merged The Rostrum with this article. If, in the future, somebody has a problem with this merger, please place your concerns here istead of changing the article again. --Sdevoid 17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Addition

I don't thing the following belongs where it was added:

• Michael Bacon, a debate coach at Newburgh Free Academy in Newburgh, NY is an example of a double black diamond coach.

I modified this from its original form to look more encyclopedia-like, but if it belongs here at all, I think it should probably go in a "Notable Coaches" type section. (I'm kind of new at Wikipedia, in case you didn't notice) --Whiteknox 03:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Now we have two double black diamond coaches: "Michael Bacon, a debate coach at Newburgh Free Academy in Newburgh, NY is an example of a double black diamond coach. Pamela Ballow, a debate coach at Williams High School in Plano, TX is another example of a double black diamond coach." I don't think they belong in this article. Not only does it seem like vanity trivia, but the context includes no explanation of what a "double black" diamond rating is. --orlady 03:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful to have some sort of rating system explained. My own high school coach graduated at least 2 double-ruby students (and at least 20 others) every year for 20 years. During that tenure, he's had 5 students end up in the national tournament final round (and 1 student who did it 3 years in a row) -- AND, that coach is not the #1 coach in this state by a LONG shot. Where does he stand in the coach's ranking system? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.145.40.44 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I know this is late, but there is no such thing as a "double black diamond" coach. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of distinction between legal and speech forensics

Someone added a note near the top clarifying that legal forensics and speech forensics are unconnected. I smoothed it out a little bit and left it in the introduction, but does anyone want to weigh in on whether it belongs in the introduction? --Whiteknox 14:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO, that note is non-authoritative and, in fact, wrong. (I'm also a bit bothered by the related etymological comments at Forensics.) My sources indicate that the use of the word "forensic" in connection with legal applications is directly related to the meaning related to public argumentation or debate. For example, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=f&p=10 says "forensic 1581, from L. forensis "of a forum, place of assembly," from forum. Used in sense of "pertaining to legal trials," as in forensic medicine (1845)". The more authoritative Oxford English Dictionary has the 1845 example as the first listed use of "forensic medicine", and has examples going back to the 1600s where "forensic" was used in the general sense of "pertaining to legal trials." --orlady 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nflseal.jpg

Image:Nflseal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Points Maximum?

The article says the limit in any one category (e.g. Debate) is 750 points, but I've seen people with more than 750 points in one. What is the actual maximum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.217.48 (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Video Crew

Someone should take a look at the video crew section... the text seems very biased without much facts 24.228.60.155 (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with United States Extemporaneous Speaking

Nothing there to justify a separate article, entirely without references; merge here, then if in time it grows too large for the parent article, it can be split off. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Foreign Extemporaneous Speaking

These forms of extemp exist independent of each other and of the NSDA or NFL. This would be like merging the "football" page on to the "NFL" or "Soccer" page, it doesn't make any sense. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Speech and Debate Association. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020125923/http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/documents/newsDetail.aspx?newsid=115&navid=&pnavid= to http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/documents/newsDetail.aspx?newsid=115&navid=&pnavid=
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/nav.aspx?navid=233&pnavid=202

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) 05:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.speechanddebate.org/competition-events/, https://web.archive.org/web/20140127173700/http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/nav.aspx?navid=195&pnavid=37 and https://web.archive.org/web/20081220103334/http://www.nflonline.org/AboutNFL/YearbyYear. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Expository address into National Speech and Debate Association

Subject not notable on own merits Rogermx (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to execute this, considering that this doesn't seem particularly controversial. As Rogermx points out, this isn't remotely notable enough for an article of its own - it's a supplemental event that happens once a year at one tournament, no other articles exist for the multiple parallel events, and no one regularly competes in this event. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 21:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Page Updates

Hi everyone! I'm a former speech and debate competitor and it seemed like this page needed a pretty major overhaul. I added several sections (with appropriate citations) and added a new photo since I live in Des Moines. I believe this takes care of the alerts at the top of the page, so I removed them. I'm very passionate about speech and debate, so if anyone has any other edits they would like to see made to this page, please reply and I'll get on them. Thanks everyone! -- smwgracer

Hi there! I see that my edits were reverted. Can someone share why? I am a newcomer and really want to help make this page useful! Thank you! -- smwgracer