Talk:U.S. Senator Cory Booker breaks records with marathon speech on floor of US Senate

Watching live stream

I am observing this (via YouTube live stream), started viewing at 3:02PM CDT.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• At least 3 other legislators have interjected questions during his speech. He always clarified, "I do not yield the floor." (words to that effect). Hasn't sat down.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Earliest saved grab on Internet archive -- a little hard to keep up with time progression. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/apr/01/donald-trump-elon-musk-special-elections-florida-wisconsin-texas-arizona-us-politics-live --Bddpaux (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• This is the earliest Internet archive save for the Yahoo article, made at 19:03UTC on Wednesday evening.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC) https://web.archive.org/web/20250401190333/https://www.yahoo.com/news/long-cory-booker-speaking-senator-130935248.html
• The source grab I linked in sources marks it (at 4:00pm EDT) as being at 21 hours straight.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• The 'railing about Russia' thing starts in the video around 7:04 and goes on for quite some time.--Bddpaux (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• The live stream on YouTube, starting around 21:04 UTC -- the comments are coming so fast, I can hardly even see them, appear to be a blur -- I'd estimate about 58 comments per minute. Almost 100% positive, supportive comments.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• A couple of comments: The AP YouTube live stream only spans 11:54 -- not sure why they didn't capture the whole speech. Also: Considering the intent, flow, tone etc., I tried hard to maintain neutrality in delivery (not easy).--Bddpaux (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Someone download the stream and save a copy internally for Wikinews? Gryllida (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

We can only upload fair use media locally[1].

This video was produced by a competing news organization (the AP), the use of which our fair use policy explicitly does not consider to be fair use.

Wikinews is more restrictive about fair use than Wikipedia. Instead of describing forbidden uses, this page serves as a whitelist use types which are permitted. This is driven by the most-useful media for Wikinews being that produced by competing news organizations. Use of such media is absolutely taboo [emphasis added]...

On YouTube, the uploader (AP in this case) retains all rights to the video unless otherwise specified[2]. I don’t see that the video was released with a free use license.

Therefore, we cannot legally download and host the video on Wikinews.

Additionally, it's an 11-hour video, meaning the file size would be massive and likely exceed local file size limits.

The Internet Archive has an archive of the video, and our article already links to that version. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Text

• Somehow, long ago, I got subscribed to a text blast list -- connected mostly to Democrats......(not sure how it happened).....

At 10:55pm CDT, I received the following text blast:
"Paul, it's Cory Booker:
I just walked off the Senate floor. I may be tired and a little hoarse, but as I said again and again, this is a moment where we cannot afford to be silent. We must speak up.
I am filled with hope. My team just told me that tens of thousands of you have voiced your support for my remarks on the Senate floor.
I will be a while before I can fully get through all your messages and powerful stories, but that's clear to me tonight is this is just the beginning. Americans across this country, no matter their title or party, are ready to be heard. I believe that history will show we rose to meet this moment. It will show we did not let the chaos and division go unanswered. It will show that when Donald Trump chose to spread lies and so fear, we chose to come together, to work together, and to rise together. If you support our movement for justice, opportunity, and freedom add your name to stand with me."--Bddpaux (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

On his second term

Booker is on his second term as a US Senator.[3] His first term was 2013 - 2019 and his second, six-year term began in 2019. I updated the statement, included a hidden citation to an existing source, but didn't touch your hidden comment or remove the Ballotpedia source, just in case.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to review this one today so I've left it in the queue and remained relatively hands-off to not disqualify myself as a reviewer.

I may have time Friday morning to do a full review, if another reviewer doesn't get to it before then. I definitely won't have time over the weekend. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The MSNBC source definitely refers to him as "third," but that contradicts other sources. Good catch. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see where the confusion is. It's his third term but his second full term. He was first elected in a special election in 2013. He finished someone else's partial term. He was reelected in 2014 and again in 2020. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Good catch and good correction/clarification in the article. Thank you. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Russia

I checked the AP video on YouTube starting at 6:50 but didn’t hear any mention of Russia. Could the 7:04 timestamp refer to a different video? I haven’t found much coverage of him discussing Russia, and no transcript appears to be available. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Look in the vicinity of 6:44on the video. "...by cozying up to Putin." I may modify that bit just a hair.--Bddpaux (talk)

He actually made more statements than that one, I heard it -- but I don't have time to dig right now. Having a hard time finding a SOLID printed transcript of the whole thing.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the same problem of a lack of transcript. I'm nearly through with my pass and can take it out from under review shortly, so you can do your thing. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I was able to locate the section regarding 'cozying up to Putin.' Thank you. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the rallying point for the Dems

I found it challenging to review the paragraph about Booker as a potential rallying point for Democrats. I aimed to avoid amplifying commentary or original analysis, while still preserving verifiable facts and attributed statements. Since the MSNBC source is an opinion piece, and our WN:NPOV policy advises against repeating other outlets’ analysis unless it becomes newsworthy in its own right, I wasn’t confident the framing met that threshold yet.

From my understanding, phrasing like “Booker emerged as a rallying point” or suggesting Democrats “realized” something falls under analysis, not fact, unless that interpretation itself draws notable coverage. Given that—and the WN:OR considerations—it would be helpful to have input from a more experienced reviewer here. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4847394 [Passed]

Revision 4847394 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I made a few changes to the article during the review process. I removed the informal "senior" senator label—it’s factually accurate but not an official title, and it didn’t seem directly relevant to the focal event. That said, it's not a major issue, and if another reviewer adds it back within the next 24 hours, I’ll sight the change if I see it in time (though I recommend self-sighting to save time). I found the paragraph about Booker as a "rallying point" for Democrats technically difficult to evaluate, as discussed above. I'm open to feedback or a second opinion from other reviewers on how best to handle that kind of commentary. I also reordered some paragraphs to better follow the inverted pyramid style. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4847394 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I made a few changes to the article during the review process. I removed the informal "senior" senator label—it’s factually accurate but not an official title, and it didn’t seem directly relevant to the focal event. That said, it's not a major issue, and if another reviewer adds it back within the next 24 hours, I’ll sight the change if I see it in time (though I recommend self-sighting to save time). I found the paragraph about Booker as a "rallying point" for Democrats technically difficult to evaluate, as discussed above. I'm open to feedback or a second opinion from other reviewers on how best to handle that kind of commentary. I also reordered some paragraphs to better follow the inverted pyramid style. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

I should clarify that I'm open to feedback from other editors, not just reviewers. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I say this without looking at the current state of the article: Take out what you have to take out to get the article published in a timely manner. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Now having looked at it, I have an issue with things like "do not reflect official positions or measurable political outcomes." We don't know that they do reflect these positions/outcomes but we also don't affirmatively know that they do not. I'd have said nothing here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Some good points brought up here. Let's don't play coy here: His speech was (generally speaking) a massive middle finger to the recent actions of a certain president. I tried to NOT FORGET neutrality, but as I've said elsewhere: That can be a slippery eel. I think the inserted phrase tried to militate against bias (again, not an easy task to achieve).--Bddpaux (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

what why

What "Civil Rights Act" is a disambig-like page and why was he protesting it? Gryllida (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I have corrected our link to be specific.[4] The reason why Thurmond filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957[5] is not relevant to our article. What matters is that the filibuster set a record for length, which Booker broke with his speech. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Remove internal category Category:Federal government of the United States

A contributor has requested that an edit be made to this protected page. Once this request is completed by an administrator, please remove this template. You may wish to ask for the help of a volunteer to make your requested edit.

A contributor has requested that an edit be made to this protected page. Once this request is completed by an administrator, please remove this template. You may wish to ask for the help of a volunteer to make your requested edit.

HKLionel TALK 09:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)