# Talk:We choose to go to the Moon

Why not include the actual speech here? It's in the public domain. Surely anyone coming here to read this article wants the speech itself more than anything else. Instead, it's not even linked to until you get to the footnotes right at the end.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.127.150 (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC) 

Very late, but we do link the whole speech at the bottom, quote "Wikisource has original text related to this article: We choose to go to the moon". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Why was part of the speech cut out of the text? Specifically, why was the sentence "Why does Rice play Texas?" cut out?  50.101.169.185 (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It was removed by JustinTime55 on 17:48, 17 April 2015. I'm adding it back. 50.101.169.185 (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It was not "cut out", it was moved to a footnote. It was an inside joke (understood only by Rice personnel familiar with the football rivalry) which Kennedy inserted for humorous effect, and was only marginally relevant to the speech's topic of choosing to go to the Moon. Other things are also similarly footnoted, such as repeating the fragment "we choose to go to the Moon" several times in reaction to the audience response, and repetition of a phrase "and the others, too" which seems to make little sense in context of the final sentence (he had already said "We choose to go to the Moon, and do the other things"), possibly indicating he might have temporarily lost his place in his original text (despite its faithful transcription in the published source links.) These are taken as spontaneous reactions to the live audience, and not actually part of the speech's text. Indeed, most published recordings end that section with the phrase, "one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win"; again, adding "and the others, too" here makes little sense.
The speech was also a bit long relative to its main thrust of the Moon landing, therefore the excerpts given here are edited for relevance. The article does not suffer by not including the complete text, which is available in the linked recording, on Wikisource (there should be a link added here), and in the External Links.
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a JFK fan page JustinTime55 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I could understand cutting a long and obscure passage, or focusing on the most-quoted heart of the speech... but why elide a mere 5 words, in the middle of a section that's otherwise reproduced in full?
The joke is part of the historical setting, and indicative of Kennedy's rhetorical choices in appealing to the stadium audience. It wasn't narrowly for "Rice personnel" – the whole football-loving region, which he butters up earlier in the speech with Texas-focused flattery, would have understood it. I'd agree its premise is a bit cryptic for others – but the choice of putting such a cryptic joke in, as the set-up line right before the historically grandiose call-to-action, is something that makes the line rhetorically interesting. (Indeed, the 'aftermath' section of the article includes a quote from Rice historian who emphasizes how the regional appeal was an important aspect of the speech.) By all means, a footnote to explain it makes sense. But a footnote that substantively edits the speech, substituting a Wikipedia editor's judgement for that of the original speaker, interferes with the encyclopedic reference value. Gojomo (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the position that it is important to not excise the Rice/Texas statement out of the text.  Here is an important aspect that has not been mentioned here yet:
Listen to the audience reaction.  The biggest outbursts of applause that JFK gets during this speech are in response to his jokes.  One being the football joke.  Another being his 'hot as the Sun' joke.  So many of the highlight reels skip the jokes, so it gives the impression that the huge outburst is in direct response to "We choose to go to the Moon..."
This gives a distorted impression.  Just look at the response of the people on the podium behind Kennedy during this huge applause.  They are laughing quite noticeably.
- football joke, audience outburst
- hot as the Sun joke, audience outburst
I have re-inserted the full text, and in the notes gave further info on just how hard it has proven to be for Rice to play Texas.
This speech is JFK the salesman at his best.  It would be a disservice for us as editors to remove the best parts of what made him a great communiciator.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, a lead should summarize the article properly but this lead does not. Summarizing is difficult but the lead is the most important part of the article. Hekerui (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't pay much attention to the leads. The lead for this article has hardly been changed since it was created in 2013. Given the article's short size, MOS:LEADLENGTH limits the lead to two paragraphs. What details in the article do you feel deserve to be added to the lead?  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that the two links under External links change from this:

"John F. Kennedy Moon Speech - Rice Stadium". Johnson Space Center. Retrieved March 19, 2018. Transcript and video of the speech.
"Address at Rice University, Houston, Texas, 12 September 1962". John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. Retrieved March 19, 2018. Drafts of the speech, with hand-written additions by Kennedy.}}
To this, which is arguably much tidier:

Text and video of the speech on the website of the Johnson Space Center
Drafts of the speech, with Kennedy's handwritten annotations on the website of the JFK Library
I had changed this (see [1]), but my changes were reverted. — Hugh (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye7, my fingers are itching to insert 'no' at "and there was indication of what should be done next" but it's just been GA'd so I am not sure/bold enough.
And maybe a 'the' in "but the future of American space program remained" and a z in characterised? Also, while looking for more info on 'indication/no indication', I looked at Apollo 11 - there are 2 ref errors, 44 and 64. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Corrected. I'll get back to Apollo 11 after Easter.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Two editors are reverting my edits without properly explaining why. They are

restoring incorrectly used bold face
No, that use of boldface complies with our manual of style: see MOS:BOLDLEAD JustinTime55 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
No, not the bold in the lead. The bold in the body of the article. Doktor Rotkod (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
implying that the article is about the phrase "We choose to go to the moon", instead of being about the speech which contained that phrase
removing an explanation of the very phrase they want to imply the article is about
inserting opinions
Both editors failed to give any convincing reason for their reverts. Both appear to have completely misunderstood the point of my edits. One has gone so far as to lie about me, falsely claiming that I did not explain what I did. Thus, I think it's abundantly clear that neither is acting in good faith. Doktor Rotkod (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

No, you are the disruptive one. Continuing to revert the reversions is called WP:Edit warring. When you remove material which other editors have found in reliable sources, the burden of proof is on you to explain your changes. JustinTime55 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
And I explained my changes. Why lie by pretending I didn't? Doktor Rotkod (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I am inclined to agree that the article title does not seem to match the subject of the article, and perhaps the article would be better titled along the lines of "We choose to go to the Moon speech" or "President Kennedy's Apollo program speech". Clearly the article is about the speech, not about the tagline. However, I do not agree with Doktor Rotkod's calling the other editors "disruptive", and the Rice/Texas matter seems to be unrelated. I'm sure there are other famous but not officially named speeches that we have articles on. Mission Accomplished speech, Barack Obama Selma 50th anniversary speech, and Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech may be good examples. Has this been discussed before with regards to this article? ST47 (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The article is about the speech. It could have been titled " "Kennedy speech at Rice University, 12 September 1962", but has the current title per WP:COMMONNAME: it is how a reader would most likely search for it. The article details why the speech is memorable, so most of it is about Kennedy's rhetoric. He engaged his listeners by appealing to their self-image as Americans, Texans and members of the Rice University community. He invoked their self-image as descendants of explorers and pioneers. He didn't say the government is going to the Moon or NASA is going, he said we are going to the Moon. The football references were critical to his engagement with the audience: just as the fans say we are playing Texas, so we are going to the Moon, and just as beating Texas is hard, so going to the Moon is hard, but Rice is playing Texas because that is what we do. (And at Rice, it is understandably the football aspect of the speech that is remembered, along with the tagline.)  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
FYI, Doktor Rotkod has been blocked as BKFIP. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed this. This is a common issue with speeches on Wikipedia and MOS:FIRST should be consulted. It states The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. Obviously, the subject of this article is the speech, not just one sentence in the speech. The article focuses on the background before the speech, the delivery of the speech, the rhetoric of the speech, etc. I have made the necessary change. Now something like "The name derives from..." could be added to the lead, similar to Infamy Speech, if everyone thinks it necessary. However, the first sentence should reference the speech itself, not that "tagline". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  20:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

What goals or actions, was the late president talking about when he stated " We choose to go to the moon, 
In this decade, (and do the other thing's.)" And the conclusion read, "one we intend to win, (and the others too.)"  What are the other things? 97.120.165.33 (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a great puzzlement that apparently only JFK was capable of answering. It seems to be an editing error on his part; his first draft must have had a different order. He talks about "other things" (45 Earth satellites, Mariner probe to Venus, navigation and weather satellites) after those two references. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

After reverting twice without bothering to think of a reason, User:Hawkeye7 attempted to come up with a post hoc justification on their third revert. But what they came up with was untrue, and dishonest. They claimed:

This is important. It is fully sourced. There are no grounds for its deletion. Deletions leave parts of the article unreferenced
"This" and "it" imply that the user thinks they were undoing one change. They were undoing three separate changes. I think it's quite clear that they have no justification for their behaviour other than a dislike of someone editing "their" article.

They have not explained why they undid my removal of some incorrectly used bold face.
"...is the part of the speech remembered by sports fans" is a laughable claim. Something resembling it appears in the source given, a regional newspaper, but that does not mean that one should abandon basic common sense. Extrapolating from fans of American football from Texas to "sports fans" as if it's a global truth is preposterous. "Oh, so you're a sports fan, are you? Then you'll remember what Kennedy said about Rice playing Texas in 1962!" Come on.
Personal opinions cited to someone's blog are neither important nor "fully sourced".
Nothing is unreferenced after these silly claims and personal opinions are removed that was not already unreferenced. Hahhahahha (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
You were invited to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. (WP:BRD)
The change history is not an appropriate venue for discussion. The talk page is for that.
The comments referred to in the article accurately reflect the sources.
You were reverted by myself and another editor. The claim that I am the only one is without basis.
The crude removal of references leaves the last two sentences of the Speech delivery section unreferenced.
The use of jokes and topical references and playing to his audience were an important part of Kennedy's style and engagement with his audience.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)