Talk:Pound Cake speech

message: Is this a legitimate term for Cosby's 2004 Speech commemorating the 50th Anniversary of Brown v. the Board of Education? It sounds like a neologism to me. The transcript itself is titled "Pound Cake Speech" and I can find no reference to the term "Ghettosburg Address" made by Cosby himself. In fact, the only reference for the term I can find (apart from Wikipedia) is as a name for a 1970 Babs Gonzales album . Thus, if no one has objections, I'll be proposing this for deletion. — LeFlyman 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Legitimacy of term? (Ghettosburg Address)

message: This has been hashed out before, though I think references to it were deleted due to copyright infringement (previously there was an entire transcript here). It is a neologism, and it will never amount to a Wikipedia article. Just leave it as a reference in Bill Cosby. It doesn't need its own article. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Done before

message: I have noted that the transcript released by Cosby's publicists shows pauses for applause. Jim Apple 14:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "The audience wasn't offended"

message: Please provide a citation for this, or at least a list of newspapers that did. Jim Apple 15:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "No mainstream media reported on all aspects of the speech"

message: This is an opinion, and cannot be put in Wikipedia, unless we say "[suchandsuch famous commentator] said that this speech would not have divided black community opinion had the transcript been released". If Cosby said so, we can certainly include that. Jim Apple 15:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "The speech would not have divided black community opinion had the transcript been released"

message: I removed "black muslim & regular muslim" only because it implies that black muslims are irregular. Jim Apple 15:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: mainstreet Muslims do not recognize NOI(and such) as Muslims  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.237.244 (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for them. Not only do I find that hard to believe, but I also fail to see its relevance. Whether or not one group considers them Muslim has no effect on whether or not they actually ARE Muslim. --74.61.36.1 (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fact. Traditional Muslims do not recognize NOI. Their beliefs are almost a cult of Islam.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "regular muslim"

message: Wanted to thank you for your doggedness. There were some points which were POV and I couldn't see them. I had a major reorganization of it right now, so please reread & let me know. The statement of the audience's reaction requires a comparative note as it is put in response to contradict the newspaper's description. To just have it there with no explanation as to WHY it's there kind've makes the note meaningless. --Duemellon 20:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I don't have time to respond to everything now, but thanks for your note, and I hope we can continue to work together on this article. Jim Apple 05:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: okay, making progress

message: I disagree/w the call to merge it. It was separated to appease those who felt it was too indepth. The amount of information lost when it becomes a subtopic in the main article detract from available detail. --Duemellon 05:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving/merge

message: Is in the text of his speech. He clearly compared the efforts of the Black Muslims to the effectiveness of the police saying the "police can't do it" which was clearly a comment to the polices' lack of capacity or interest in resolving the crime problem. It IS the polices' core duty to reduce crime either by apprehension or prevention, which, in that statement Cosby clearly says an unauthorized nonexecutive group of people disassociated with law enforcement, who do not turn in criminals nor investigate the crimes in a legal capacity, are doing more against crime than those people who are ordained to do so.
That's pretty harsh & that's going back in.
If you don't believe that's what is said, please discuss. It would appear pretty cut & dry. --Duemellon 11:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either that or he's saying that you can't create a law abiding culture in a community by external enforcement - you need to create a cultural shift from within.  The police can't do that - you need a social movement, even if that happens to be pseuod-Islam, to do it.  The police can only catch people who offend - the speach is clearly about removing the mindset that gives people the desire to offend in the first place so. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Scathing comment on police

message: for adding the sections & making this point of the article that much clearer.--Duemellon 14:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks Mareino

message: If we're going to have the speech's full text, it should be on Wikisource. I doubt though that copyright allows us to post it at all. Theshibboleth 01:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikisource does not allow fair use. s:Template:PD-manifesto is probably the most applicable. --Benn Newman 02:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speech text

message: There is no such thing as an article in any encyclopedia talking about the history or portrayal of the "Pound Cake Speech". Therefore, any creation of an article about the speech is original. Every single thing about this article could be considered "original research". One aspect of the speech, in historical context, is the media's reaction & portrayal of this. That information can be found throughout and is an aspect of the speech's importance in Bill Cosby's history. The inclusion of the speech's portrayal in popular media go hand-in-hand with it's controversial status. --Duemellon 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia considers the media to be reliable sources for our articles. We rarely use encyclopedias as sources, considering them to be less-desirable tertiary sources. There may be a misconception about the meaning of "original research. Please see WP:OR. -Will Beback · † · 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Quoting media articles is not original research. Quoting a columnist who criticized the media for misrepresenting the debate is not original research. Using selective quotes to prove an original point — that the media misrepresented the speech — is original research. Deltabeignet 03:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying it was "selective" is the problem. It's not selective. It was widesweeping. There was reaction to the media coverage as well. This mischaracterization of the speech is clear & part of the importance of the speech & it's impact. There was outrage from the Black community based on the mischaracterization. How do we include that historical point? To leave the speech as some dry thing that had no impact is doing encyclopedic records a disservice. It's relevant to the Gettysburg Address to talk of it's impact and reception by the masses, peers, and rivals. I don't see how this is "original". I think you're looking at the way it's coming across as "negative" but what if, in reality, that is the reality? How is that original research & not factual? --Duemellon 12:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, if you can source the "outrage from the Black community based on the mischaracterization," that is not original research. Without sources, it is. (Even with sources, stating that kind of thing as a fact rather than an allegation is dangerous.) Deltabeignet 03:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: original research dispute

message: So what happened since then?
Did this speech had any impact?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.16 (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One result is that an entire book was written in rebuttal of the speech.  Kind of like Ryan's rebuttal of the Moynihan Report. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Aftermath?

message: The link for a purported Nat Hentoff op-ed went to a girlie site called "The Daily Babe" that indicated it lifted the piece from the  Washington Times. The linkback from there to the Washington Times site at  is completely unblyined. There's no telling from the paper's own Web site who wrote that op-ed piece.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Hentoff" EL

message: Forgive what may be a dumb question, but did anything resembling the incident that gave the name to the speech -- the police shooting someone in the head after he stole a pound cake -- ever actually happen? --Jfruh (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I am aware of. It was more hyperbole than anything else. (Or recognizing the senseless nature of much of the violence he was talking about.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  actual pound cake