Talk:President Bush delivers 2006 State of the Union Address

Original reporting
I watched the State of the Union address, writing this article as the address went on. My only sources, as listed on the article, were used to verify information heard in the address. Ral315 04:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * good job. I went to a movie instead and am confident this article tells me everything important that happened. Neutralizer 05:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know who the designated survivor was?
 * The Sec. of Vet Affairs, I think. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was. Figured it wasn't really important to the article itself, though an interesting tidbit.  Ral315 07:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Good, intresting Article Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 05:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikisource shows itself as a valuable resource. -Edbrown05 09:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOVing
A phrase like stressed that pink elephants can fly is POV if there's any fair chance that people might consider pink elephants can fly as a factual statement. This is why i NPOVed it to emphatically claimed that pink elephants can fly. Whether or not pink elephants can fly (or the equivalent that bush claims) is true is an opinion; the fact that bush wants people to believe the statement is an NPOV fact. Maybe it's true, maybe not. Similarly for the other changes. Boud 16:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

nothing really
The Sheehan bit could be its own related news article with a briefer mention here, it does need to be, as its been worked in nicely here, but I thought I'd mention it if anyone feels like this article is too long, or want to take more of the space for dscussion of things which would not be news on their own. CNN Nyarlathotep 17:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Does the very existance of a "unlawful conduct" charge for wearing a t-shirt constitute "news" under our definition? I never knew about it before. I was considering an article on that aspect. Neutralizer 18:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * All charges now dropped. Fascism doesn't like a spotlight. Neutralizer 23:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

implied target of threat?
what was with the sara, joe & bud part? 194.144.212.254 02:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Who are you talknig about? Jason Safoutin 02:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Iran and nuclear weapons
We saw the "Iraq has WMD" drumbeat; so I think it's important to keep the accusation that Iran wants nuclear weapons npov. It's easy to start accepting and using phrases like "the world should not let them have nuclear weapons" which is assumptive that Iran wants them,at least I think so. If it's a quote,it's ok,of course.Neutralizer 04:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Restoring wikipedia links after Amgine removed some of them. i've put in:
 * Talking about foreign policy, Bush said Iran is held hostage by a clerical elite and that it is not a democracy. He also alleged that Iran has nuclear ambitions, and said the world "must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons."

Here is where bush claimed that Iran is not a democracy:
 * At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half – in places like Syria, Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran –

IMHO it is an NPOV fact that bush claimed that Iran is not a democracy. Boud 12:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

hamas - removing unstated POV context
i've removed which has been criticized by the United States and much of Europe for its past attacks upon Israelis.. Amgine does not like adding context - this is context, not part of the speech, not a link to wikipedia NPOV context, but in any case: to a paragraph. Adding context from just one POV in order to support a political leader's POV is IMHO POV. Adding an NPOV summary from a wikipedia article would have a fair chance of being NPOV. (e.g. writing in this style, we should add for example something like the fact that the Republican and Democrat Parties have been criticised for their attacks against Palestinians). Boud 12:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * either we add fully NPOV context
 * or we add no context
 * There is a difference between context, commentary, and background. Allowing readers to comprehend a speaker's remarks by stating what audience xe was addressing at the time is context.  Saying that the speaker had a terrible speaking voice or didn't address a political issue is commentary.  Going into a detailed discussion of the political history behind a speaker's point is background, and on complex issues requires quite a large amount of text in order to adhere to the NPOV. For background, we link to Wikipedia, which is right next door and is almost guaranteed to already have long backgrounders for stories like these.  So we don't need to write neutral backgrounders ourselves within hours (which we simply aren't geared up to do, regardless of the fact that it is a wasteful duplication of effort).  Context we add to articles, adhering to the NPOV.  Commentary is, as a rule, not-neutral.  We thus only report, in a neutral fashion, commentary made by others. Stating that Bush avoided mention of an uncomfortable political topic is non-neutral commentary, and should be sourced and attributed.  Describing the past relationships between the U.S., Europe, and Hamas is background, and is best done as a link to Wikipedia for a backgrounder. Uncle G 13:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Boud on this one. The reference which has been criticized by the United States and much of Europe for its past attacks upon Israelis. seems unnecessary to the story and highly POV to me. Neutralizer 13:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Entire article POV?
This is just for discussion; I am not criticizing the article as I think it is quite good. But it does give a totally one-sided view of world events. We do not report speeches from US/UK adversaries without including some western reactions and comments;e.g.. Should we be including Hamas's or Iran's reaction to the Bush speech in this article? Neutralizer 13:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? It was part of his speech/event. Jason Safoutin 14:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we be including Hamas's or Iran's reaction to the Bush speech in this article? In order to be consistent with how we report speeches of anti-US leaders? Neutralizer 14:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I included a small bit of Iran's reaction; hopefully this is acceptable. Neutralizer 14:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Reporting dead link www.whitehouse.gov

 * http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/index.html has gone offline. The content in now available at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/index.html.

MerlLinkBot (talk) 12:24, 21. May 2009