Talk:National Speech and Debate Association

message: 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)
thread_title:  2 Articles

message: 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)
thread_title:  Events 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Joy of Tournaments? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. --Whiteknox 17:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competitive Appearance 

message: I edited the points and merged form the main page points, as suggested.  Does everyone agree with that move? -- Dominant One Talk 05:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points 

message: 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)
thread_title:  State league pages proposed for deletion 

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

message: *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)
thread_title: National Speech and Debate Tournament

message: ===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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Past merges

message: *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)
thread_title: National Foresnics League

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Rostrum

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Addition 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification of distinction between legal and speech forensics 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nflseal.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Points Maximum? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Video Crew 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[United States Extemporaneous Speaking]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Foreign Extemporaneous Speaking]] 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Subject not notable on own merits Rogermx (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Expository address]] into [[National Speech and Debate Association]]