Talk:2007 State of the Union Address

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial Comments[edit]

I think it should be added to the page that Iran was mentioned five times, of those five times... 2 blamed Iran for helping Hezbollah, 2 blamed Iran for helping iraqi insurgents, 1 mentioned the UN sanctions imposed on them.

The discussion page is hereby started. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 02:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it the most well-documented and detailed Wikipedia article on a state of the union address ever. ~ Rollo44 02:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good idea. We should all recognize that it might be a mess while everyone is trying to collaborate, but it will all come together in the end. --Czj 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recording it on TIVO on ABC, just FYI. I'll be checking this talk page regularly throughout this evening. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • should we include that he said nucular power (again) just kidding and if writing this is bad please inform me. Sometimesseespeople 02:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael Chertoff shaved his beard and mustache, is this notable? lol ~ Rollo44 02:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to put this up without being sure, but I was watching this with a large group, and we were all positive that at the end, when he went to shake Pelosi's hand at the end, he accidentaly grabbed her boob? Anyone else see this, or were we delusional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die Übermenschen (talk • contribs)

Don't worry. If it's true, we'll see it tomorrow on YouTube. ~ Rollo44 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know how many applause interruptions there were? --Cory Kohn 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 62 seems to be the unofficial consensus. --Czj 03:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 62 According to NBC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.78.230 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Does anyone know which terrorist Bush quoted during the address? It was kind of a dark point in the speech. That should be put in. ~ Rollo44 03:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend we go through the transcript and use it to flesh out his key points in the article. ~ Rollo44 05:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was it just me, or were multiple Senators sleeping? I swear, I saw Barak Obama and John McCain snoozing in their seats. Ittan 19:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought so as well... I pointed it out on Obama, but my roomies seemed to think he was just writing something down...

Transcript[edit]

Could someone find the transcript? I know news agencies sometimes get them early from the white house so they know what happens beforehand. Matrixhax0r 03:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcript Nationalparks 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Nationalparks 03:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page[edit]

We need to decide whether this article is ready to be on the Main Page. In my opinion, we just need a little tweaking and let the edit conflicts die down before posting it.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, shouldn't this be on the News section on the main page? It's rather important in my opinion, and while I think that the article could be fine-tuned a little bit, people will start to talk if the State of the Union address isn't on the Main Page. Rumors of an anti-American bias will circulate, and...Arius Maximus 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was already suggested...go to Talk:Main Page--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a pretty decent working version now... should we frontpage it? --Czj 04:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say front page it; it appears to be newsworthy enough. Tockeg 04:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The process to even get it on the front page seems complicated. Anyone want to post the request?--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a quick request here... hoping it's seen soon. If not, I could go on IRC or something and see if I can get someone's attention. --Czj 04:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to that, too. Let's go to IRC!--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I haven't lurked near enough! What is the IRC server/room you are going to be on? Tockeg 04:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia or #wikipedia-en...doesn't matter--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Thank you! Tockeg 04:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tockeg, you'll need the server too... it's irc.freenode.net. I posted a request there, which I'm told is the correct place to request. --Czj 04:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

I believe the fair use pic needs to go. While the White House is going to make images available soon, the fair use image we have is way to large and not needed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just keep it until we have those Whitehouse images? I think any picture really serves to enhance the article's look at this point. --Czj 05:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. Plus, the image is way to large, so if it is kept, it needs to be reduced by software. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a lot of pictures come and go here. Make sure to document them all so we know which is the best to choose in the future. ~ Rollo44 05:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stream photo is alright, but I hope that is a temp measure. Someone did crop the former lead photo to remove the logos, but it is esentially the same as the lead photo now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Interiot 05:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whitehouse website just got updated, looks like there's a number of good free images. This is the one I vote for, even if it's a bit tall. --Interiot 06:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really, really nice one. ~ Rollo44 06:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the best yet. --Czj 06:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone experienced with image usage help me? If you can, see my User:Rollo44 page. Thanks. ~ Rollo44 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi-protection[edit]

Im sure this article will become a hotbed for vandalizm, can we save time and have it semiprotected? Xlegiofalco 05:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do so, that's here. I'd recommend waiting for the anticipated vandalism to begin though... otherwise your request may be denied. --Czj 05:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, we don't protect articles based on possible future events. —bbatsell ¿? 05:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, request for semi-protection. Vandalism is no longer a future event for this article. There are more vandal edits than contributions to the article, and a whole section was missing for a period of time. We would only need the semi-protection for a few days as soon as attention dies down. ~ Rollo44 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg[edit]

wasnt judge Ginsburg present but in formal clothes? or was it someone that looks like her? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.105.255.245 (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's very much against protocol for a justice to not wear their robes. I saw the same woman and thought I noticed a similarity as well, but I think the chances it was Mrs. Ginsburg are slim to none. —bbatsell ¿? 05:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Answer?[edit]

So what was the final answer from the democrats? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.116.254.100 (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Spelling[edit]

Are you sure about the final -e in "Madame Speaker"? See the official transcript and the article on Madam. <KF> 05:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Congressional Record, it is Madam. See here --Daysleeper47 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling can be switched around easily. Just pick the American spelling.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Byrd at the SotU[edit]

I am not sure about the Robert Byrd assertion. Google returns nothing relevant, and my guess is that he was on the rostrum during a joint session of Congress, but not a SotU. Nationalparks 17:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • assuming that this picture is actually from the 2002 SOTU, it would seem that cheney was, in fact, attending the speech. i think it should be removed. 192.223.226.6 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was, indeed, incorrect, it was in the Joint Session immediately after 9/11. I have added a cite and fixed the wording, although it could use some clean-up. I'm not entirely sure it should be in the lead, either. —bbatsell ¿? 18:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance[edit]

The first thing in the article should not be attendance. This is trivial in comparison to the substance of the speech itself. -Lissa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.222.248.123 (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's not so much that anyone believes it's more important, but that it flows well chronologically. This user doesn't see it as a problem. ~ Rollo44 19:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A brief background of what the state of the union address is would be a better lead in to the speech. Chronological order isn't always (or even often) the best way to present information. -Lissa 205.222.248.123 19:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is "football is cool?" - Windex

Naming convention[edit]

Several of the SOU article use ((year)) State of the Union Address and some use ((year)) State of the Union address as the article title. Can we perhaps agree on a proper naming convention and have the article which don't fit that be renamed? Thoughts? Address as per Whitehouse.gov --Daysleeper47 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Address it is indeed. It's the last word in a title, and therefore is always capitalized.Tockeg 20:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know we didn't have a concensus, but I changed all but 2006, which has seems to have an extensive history of being moved. I felt an admin could best handle that one. --Daysleeper47 20:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a consensus would be required for something of that nature, seeing as it is a grammatical error and nothing more. Tockeg 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about seating[edit]

I am a middle school teacher and I am stumped by a question from one of my 8th grade US history students. Can anyone help? The question is this: on the rostrum, there is the President, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. Just below the rostrum, directly in front of it but closer than the front row of seats, there is a stenographer (I only saw one but I believe there were two). On either side of the stenographer(s), there were four people seated, essentially at the base of the rostrum. Who are these 8 people? They are not the cabinet or any other definable group that I could identify. Any help will be greatly appreciated! Please respond to sfrankel@hcsd.k12.ca.us or post on this site. Thanks!Msfrankel12 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)S.Frankel, California[reply]

Possibly Secret Service. Just a guess. Nationalparks 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...or privileged guests or members of the press. ~ Rollo44 23:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the House and Senate clerks. --Jayzel 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are indeed the House Reading Clerks, Senate Secretaries and from what I can tell from this photo, the House Chief Administrative Officer and sergeant at arms. Also on the same level as the President but next to the Speaker and VP are the House Parliamentarian and the Clerk of the House. --Daysleeper47 16:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the info! Msfrankel12 19:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Msfrankel12 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Health Insurance portion[edit]

More detail on this (not sure how to include this in main article without turning this clause in the doesmtic issues into an entire paragraph) Bush is proposing that everyone with health insurance, weather they bought it from work or not, be given a a new tax exemption ($4500 if I recall correctly for a single with no dependants) similar to the existing personal exemption for taxes (weather or not you itemize) but this would apply to the payroll tax in addition to the income tax. It wouldn't matter if the person's insurance premium was $60 a month or $200 month got it from the employer or not, the person would get the same amount. However, the existing health insurance tax break on payroll & income tax to employees health insurance preimums and the portion (if any) paid by the employer of the actual dollars would be eliminated. (As would the Self Employed health insurance adjument.) Winners would be anyone getting health insurance from someone other than employer and anyone whose insurance preimum is less than the credit. Losers would be anyone whose work provided health insurance preimum is more than the credit. Jon 22:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran and Deficit[edit]

I think it should be added to the page the things he said about Iran, and how he said

"We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule."

This is not true as the deficit has gone nowhere but up in the past 5-7 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.85.170.136 (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Be bold and make your changes if they are apolitical and contribute to the totality of the article. ~ Rollo44 05:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and are sourced. However, that is incorrect, as higher than expected corporate and capital gains tax income has decreased budget deficits over the past two years. —bbatsell ¿? 05:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was focusing on the Iran part... ~ Rollo44 07:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deficit is how much money the govt spent than it took in for a current year, not to be confused with the national debt which is how much money the govt owes. Also, if the budget were perfectly in balance for a year, the national debt would still go up that year because the national debt includes money the federal government owes to itself. Jon 17:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wording[edit]

I think that the wording in the line "Bush advocated saving the people affected by the Darfur conflict" could be tweaked. "Saving" seems a little strong for the bland and impersonal rest of the sentence. CrashCart9 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and make the change! ~ Rollo44 05:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"We will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma -- and continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur. (Applause.)" ~ Rollo44 05:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian response[edit]

Is the Libertarian response even realivent to the article? I can't remember the last time federal congressman or senator was elected under the Libertarian party banner. I also note that the 2006 state of the union article does not mention the Libertarians. What's worse is the sentence that is here requires knoweldge of the Libertarian party platform to figure out what exactly his criticisms of the doesmetic portion of the agenda are. (Which would be exactly the opposite as the cricism coming from the Democrats.) Jon 17:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other criticism?[edit]

There's been a lot of notable analysis written in newspapers since the speech. Thursday's Wall Street Journal has an entire article (page A8) about how conservatives were upset with the speech, and quoted someone from the American Conservative Union saying that "the president left a lot of conservatives shaking their heads". //// Pacific PanDeist * 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcript in article?[edit]

The full transcript of the speech was added to this article. I don't believe that it is appropriate for an encyclopedic article and is rather cumbersome. We can certainly link to the transcript, and it should go on Wikisource if it isn't already (my guess is that it is), but it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia article itself, which should cover the background, facts, and implications of the speech in general. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007 State of the Union Address. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007 State of the Union Address. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_State_of_the_Union_Address&oldid=1196505105"