Talk:Cory Booker's marathon speech

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Article name

[edit]

Should we call it "Cory Booker Trump presidency filibuster" 107.201.182.97 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or something that shows that it's a filibuster about Trump's presidency 107.201.182.97 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like "Cory Booker filibuster of the Trump second presidency" 107.201.182.97 (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer including Trump in the title, regardless of the definition of "filibuster". "Cory Booker's marathon speech protesting the second Trump administration" seems too lengthy, though. SpookyPal (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the Filibooker. NBC News said it: Sahil Kapur on X: "THE FILIBOOKER: Cory Booker has been holding the Senate floor and speaking for more than 14 hours to protest the "grave and urgent" threat posed by the Trump administration. He's showing no signs of stopping." 2600:4040:5A0B:3B00:64B9:775D:B507:A65 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a filibuster, per The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, CNN, CBS News, the Associated Press, NPR, Axios, The Hill, and Politico. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making that clear btw 2600:1700:C9A0:2040:CE1B:F610:5193:6F02 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ABC states it is a filibuster and it has delayed senate proceedings, including a vote on at least one bill per NYT. Pages that talk about other "filibusters" include Ted Cruz and Al D'Amato (references to a 1992 filibuster), neither of which were filibusters according to the rules those journalists are citing, since they did not delay any votes. PinkSkies132 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ABC later removed that from the title and the article proper. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still in the article, and wikipedia still uses a looser definition for filibusters in the other pages. Is consistency in definitions not important? PinkSkies132 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it use a looser definition? I suspect those will be changed in the near future. AviationFreak💬 23:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I linked them above, they are on Ted Cruz and Al D'Amato's pages. Further information suggests that other speeches also listed as filibusters may also not be filibusters, including Rand Paul and even Strom Thurmond's filibuster, which sources at the time did not consider a "true filibuster." PinkSkies132 (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Wikipedia already has "Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957". I feel "Cory Broker filibuster of second Trump presidency" would be a more accurate description of what the filibuster was about. 35.145.235.141 (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This phrasing doesn't make any sense at all. Senators filibuster bills, not presidencies.
I also oppose putting "filibuster" in the title. This speech has been called a "marathon speech" by AP, The Hill, CBS, MSNBC, USA Today, Reuters, Detroit Free Press, and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. BBC calls it a "marathon address" and CNN calls it a "marathon speaking session". The AP article says "Booker’s speech was not a filibuster", the USA Today article says "it is not considered a filibuster", the Reuters article says "Booker, whose speech was not a filibuster". The NYT piece linked by PinkSkies132 calls it a "marathon floor speech" and says "Unlike Mr. Thurmond’s speech, Mr. Booker’s was not a filibuster". The ABC piece in the same comment no longer calls it a filibuster, now calling it a "marathon speech". OceanGunfish (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do articles usually have possessives in the title? 115.188.132.65 (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is acceptable for articles to have possessives. See Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References/Works Cited section

[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to stream line the references section using the cite function that is built into wikipedia however it appears that somewhere along the way of the articles creation to know a formatting was created which has the references/works cited listed twice. My edits using the cite function have been reverted twice now as page is automatically placing them in the "shortened footnotes section" which appears to be just duplicating the information shown in the references. Pinging @User:ElijahPepe since both reverts were done by this user Leaky.Solar (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how shortened footnotes, which is a format that has been applied to many pages, works. See WP:SFN. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But do we *have* to do shortened footnotes? I agree with Leaky.Solar above, and expanding on that, since I don't completely know their opinions on this, but mine are that this makes the page look crowded and more confusing for the average user. You now have to click twice just to get to a reference when usually you could just click straight to the reference from the citation (making it easier for the average wikipedia reader to navigate). I won't just change it all around without consensus to do so, but would you be open to someone changing it to do the references in the more commonly used way? (And/or would anyone reading this rather it be that way? I don't know if there are enough people who care to work on a consensus about this, but since someone has already mentioned this, figured it didn't hurt to expand this conversation) Wikipedian339 (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Senators List

[edit]

Is there any way we can organize/better elaborate on the various Senators who provided Sen Booker with questions? Trilomonk (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if a chart with all democratic senators would be appropriate. Name, state, whether or not they asked a question in support. I’d recommend a “topic” column but I’m unsure if I’d like to send any editors delving through the full 25 hour video. SpookyPal (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So no Republican and only one of the two independents (King but not Sanders) asked questions? 2001:A62:1481:2502:A5D7:6564:FB70:5810 (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Typo. *All Democratic senators who spoke. SpookyPal (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Picture recommendation

[edit]

Should change the main wikibox picture to sometime around the 24:18 minute mark where he breaks the record. 68.180.94.184 (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In support of this, or at least any picture from him at the speech. Would prefer this, however. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 00:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to find a full video of the speech to use the infobox. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is 25 hours long. But I have found the livestreams from his Senate Facebook page and have been downloading those for us to upload here as a webm. I can convert them tomorrow during the day and try to get them up. SDudley (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's their copyright status? 2001:A62:1481:2502:A5D7:6564:FB70:5810 (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Public domain. They are direct works of a United States Senator published on his own page. SDudley (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filibooker

[edit]

Should reference be made to the term Filibooker, used informally on social media and by NBC's Sahil Kapur (/sahilkapur/status/1907063066317168710) THE FILIBOOKER: Cory Booker has been holding the Senate floor and speaking for more than 14 hours to protest the "grave and urgent" threat posed by the Trump administration. He's showing no signs of stopping.

Could make for a snappy subtitle and redirect Mkenzx (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not used by multiple reliable sources, it should not be included. CorrectionsJackal (correct me) 15:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of the term, I think "marathon speech" or "record-breaking speech" are plenty. Of course, redirects are cheap, so I have no objection to making a redirect that points to this page. --Elonka 22:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am Spartacus

[edit]

The inclusion of criticism by deputy press secretary Harrison Fields that references some remote out-of-right-field mention of "I am Spartacus" has nothing whatsoever to do with Booker and should be removed. Buster7 Chat 06:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also totally unclear what the "I am Spartacus" moment even was... 2001:A62:1481:2502:A5D7:6564:FB70:5810 (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Buster7 Chat 15:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matter before the Senate when the speech began

[edit]

The article states that the Senate was debating the NATO ambassador nomination when his speech started. This is incorrect. While the vote on that nomination was the next business after the speech (because of a unanimous consent agreement that allowed the Majority Leader to schedule the vote for that time), at the beginning of the speech, the Senate was actually debating the nomination of Harmeet Dhillon, of California, to be an Assistant Attorney General. This can be easily verified from the video of the Senate proceedings. 192.76.8.218 (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had check reference 4 and reference 5, I did not find the nominated NATO ambassador or Harmeet Dhillon if they were mentioned in the sources. 199.212.70.19 (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speech done

[edit]

The speech is done so this article is now very outdated. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyq24388ppo TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh wait it is just my phone wont show the current version of the article nvm. TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questioners

[edit]

I have taken the liberty of creating a table that lists all those who asked Booker questions. We can further expand this information with their timestamps and topics. Does anyone have an opinion on whether we should add the table as-is, or wait until we have more information to fill in? (and if anyone would like to fill in rows here, please feel free!)

Sorted Questioners Table by First Timestamp
Name / Affiliation State Position Timestamp Topic
Chuck Schumer (D) New York Senator (Minority Leader) 02h00m, 03h40m, 15h33m, 21h41m, 24h19m Medicaid cuts, tariffs, Congratulations
Lisa Blunt Rochester (D) Delaware Representative 02h13m tbd
Andy Kim (D) New Jersey Representative 06h27m tbd
Chris Murphy (D) Connecticut Senator 07h30m, 09h34m, 11h02m, 16h22m tbd
Peter Welch (D) Vermont Senator 11h20m tbd
Dick Durbin (D) Illinois Senator 12h12m tbd
Kirsten Gillibrand (D) New York Senator 12h23m tbd
Tina Smith (D) Minnesota Senator 13h02m tbd
Raphael Warnock (D) Georgia Senator 13h30m tbd
Amy Klobuchar (D) Minnesota Senator 13h53m tbd
Ron Wyden (D) Oregon Senator 14h32m tbd
Maggie Hassan (D) New Hampshire Senator 14h55m, 17h16m tbd
Chris Coons (D) Delaware Senator 14h56m, 20h55m tbd
Ed Markey (D) Massachusetts Senator 15h12m tbd
Mark Warner (D) Virginia Senator 15h23m tbd
Elizabeth Warren (D) Massachusetts Senator 15h48m tbd
Chris Van Hollen (D) Maryland Senator 16h28m tbd
Angela Alsobrooks (D) Maryland Senator 16h50m, 22h18m Housing crisis
Tammy Duckworth (D) Illinois Senator 17h02m, 20h31m tbd
Chris Coons (D) Delaware Senator 20h55m tbd
Tim Kaine (D) Virginia Senator 21h23m tbd
Tammy Baldwin (D) Wisconsin Senator 22h01m tbd
Mark E. Kelly (D) Arizona Senator 22h29m tbd
Catherine Cortez Masto (D) Nevada Senator 24h24m tbd
Jeanne Shaheen (D) New Hampshire Senator 24h45m tbd



--Elonka 23:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elonka I love tables and think this is a great idea! I wish I had thought of this sooner so I could've been tracking while watching it live! Wikipedian339 (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking of watching it at high-speed to grab the timestamps, but at the same time, I don't want to miss what he's saying! There's a transcript up on the CSPAN site, but reading the words is very different from listening to him, he was a very interesting and animated speaker! --Elonka 04:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you a ton for the initiative on this. I was hoping the article could get something like this. One thing to note is that we also need to include senior senator from MD Chris Van Hollen. He spoke to Booker during the housing policy section. Trilomonk (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Easy peasey! Would you like to give it a shot? Just take a look at how the other rows are formatted, and add another one (or copy/paste) and add van Hollen's name. Don't worry, you can't break anything, it's Wikipedia! If it gets tangled, just bail out, and then someone else will fix it. --Elonka 18:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have copied the table over to the live article. There may be errors, so feel free to doublecheck! What's needed now is to link all the Congressional names, and to add which topics they spoke on. Thanks in advance for the help! --Elonka 04:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the References/Works Cited section?

[edit]

Would anyone be opposed to me switching the works cited section to just one reference section (that's most common on wikipedia)? It looks like the original editor used shortened footnotes, but it seems to make it more confusing for both the readers and editors (as someone earlier in the talk page talked about struggling with inputting citations since the normal way they did it apparently wasn't working the same). I also think the average reader will be confused or annoyed having to do extra clicks to get to what they're actually trying to see if they're trying to look at articles that were cited. I read about shortened footnotes (SFN) on wikipedia and don't actually understand the point of it or why it would be better than the more commonly used way. So, if no one's opposed, I'd like to change it to the way references are most commonly done on wikipedia(?) Wikipedian339 (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would definitely support this. I just went through and unified all the citations in the article to SFN format per WP:CITEVAR, and it made me realise that the SFN citation style is really only the most efficient option for articles where the majority of sources are books or journal articles and each is referenced multiple times (with different page numbers). The sources for this article are all news articles/web sources so no page numbers are needed, even for repeated citations. Also, all sources are currently from the same year (because it's an event that only just happened) and a couple of journalists have written multiple sources each, so there's several uses of '2025a', '2025b' etc. which feels clunky in my opinion. I think a more direct citation style (eg. just using refnames for repeated citations) would make loads more sense here, and would make life easier for both readers and editors. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikipedian339 Thank you for your work so far on updating the citation style! I'm just wondering, in this edit you added Jenna Amatulli as an author for this Guardian article of April 2, but the only author credited on the article page itself is Milman (the article is shown on Amatulli's editor profile but she is not credited explicitly by the source, either as editor or author). What was your reasoning for crediting Amatulli as a second author? I didn't want to remove the parameters without consulting you, as this may well be one of the many WP:MOS policies I'm not aware of! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, sorry about that. I guess when I hit the automatic citation button and put in the link, Wikipedia must've added her because I didn't do it manually. But I don't see her name on the article, so I think you're probably safe to delete it. Thanks for catching and checking! Wikipedian339 (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that makes sense! Thanks for letting me know, I have updated. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiktok Likes misinforming?

[edit]

There is a section which describes over 350 million people liking the TikTok live, but the way TikTok likes work is that you are able to like a live multiple times, meaning that it was probably less than 350 million people if it was only a received amount of likes. should we change it so that it says it simply RECEIVED that many likes? Laugoose (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is misleading; I think it's worth updating to reflect what you've described. Bilksneath (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Buster7 Chat 04:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 22:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Cory Booker
Cory Booker
  • Reviewed: Approved
  • Comment: Historical, unusual and curious
Created by ElijahPepe (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

ArionStar (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Draft article moved to mainspace within the allotted time; new and long enough. Sourced, but I had to remove some CLOP and add attribution and quotes to poorly quoted material. I also lightly edited the lead.[1] QPQ not required. Technical note: in terms of the picused criterion, the image doesn't actually appear in the article, it appears in the {{Cory Booker series}} template which appears in the article, which I should think qualifies just the same. Love the idea of adding the video instead, but I will leave that to others to decide. I was bold and went ahead and removed the strange and highly unusual wording of "Democratic's" from both hooks.[2] I've never seen the party referred to in that way and I think it called for a bold removal. If anyone thinks mentioning the party is important, there are a number of conventional ways of doing so. One of my faves is to write "Cory Booker (D-NJ)" but it may not be needed. As for the hooks, I have no real strong feelings, but the wording of ALT3 doesn't really work so I don't approve it. I approve ALT1 and ALT2, but minor changes may be needed per the above. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Speech duration

[edit]

In this edit I changed the listed duration of the speech from 25hrs 5min to 25hrs 6min based on this BBC News article, and in subsequent edits I added the relevant citation in the text: [1]

That BBC article has since been updated to list the duration as "25 hours and four minutes", a figure which is also quoted by some other sources: [2][3]

However, I think most sources (including Booker's website) quote the duration as "25 hours and 5 minutes": [4][5]

For now, I think I will change the duration back to 25hrs 5min as this is the figure quoted by the majority of sources. According to the on-screen time shown throughout the video, it looks like the speech began at 7:00pm ET and ended as the time turned from 8:04pm to 8:05pm. I've had a look and haven't been able to find an official timestamped version of the congressional records (I don't know if one exists?) but it might be worth keeping an eye out for more definitive sources that give a precise answer as to the duration.

References

  1. ^ Ahmadi, Ali Abbas (2025-04-02). "Cory Booker breaks record for longest Senate speech after 24 hours". BBC News. Archived from the original on 2025-04-02. Retrieved 2025-04-02.
  2. ^ Bohannon, Molly. "Cory Booker Breaks Record With 25-Hour Speech Blasting Trump". Forbes. Retrieved 2025-04-02.
  3. ^ Murray, Isabella (April 1, 2025). "Sen. Cory Booker breaks Senate record with marathon 24-hour speech protesting Trump and Musk". ABC News. Retrieved 2025-04-02.
  4. ^ Milman, Oliver (2025-04-02). "Cory Booker breaks record for longest Senate speech with Trump condemnation". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2025-04-03. Retrieved 2025-04-04.
  5. ^ Corbett, Jessica (2025-04-01). "'It Can't Be Business as Usual': Cory Booker Praised for Historic Stand Against Trump-Musk". Common Dreams. Archived from the original on 2025-04-02. Retrieved 2025-04-02.

Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questioners/Watching the speech section

[edit]

Creating this topic for discussion after @John Bozeman's recent edits to the section currently titled Watching the speech (previously 'Questioners'). I previously moved the WIP table to a sandbox for work on formatting, and I am also working on timestamp-linked citations at another of my sandboxes. We have been discussing changes at John Bozeman's talk page. Very thankful to @John Bozeman for the work they have put into this! Lots of good information to work with here; I think some aspects of the new section could use outside input/tweaking regarding due weight, editorial tone, and other Wikipedia:Manual of style considerations. Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've made quite a few edits to the section over the last couple of days, so just for convenience here are the diffs of my edits from 23–24 April 2025 and today, 25 April 2025. I plan to carry on gathering Congressional Record citations for the content/topics of the questions, so will hopefully add them into the table at some point. Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]