Talk:2006 State of the Union Address

message: The text of the speech is available here. All improvements are very appreciated. KI 02:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Text of speech

message: Watching his static performance, I bet the Democrats are seriously regretting choosing such an awful orator. KI 03:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kaine is just awful

message: The Yahoo! News source cited by this article is unstable.  Yahoo! News isn't a source itself.  It's not a news service.  It's a news aggregator.  The actual, stable, source will be an actual news service. Uncle G 09:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 2001 State of the Union Address by George W. Bush
2002 State of the Union Address by George W. Bush
2003 State of the Union Address by George W. Bush
etc.
The first line of the 2001 entry should explain "This speech was titled "Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on Administration Goals", but is commonly categorized as a State of the Union Address due to public perception, and the State of the Union Address' common use as a platform to announce a prospective legislative agenda."
If we simply drop the ordinal issue, which does not have a clear answer, from the title and content it seems like this addresses most concerns. DrWitty 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Let this painful and bloody chapter come to a close. --Bigtimeoperator 23:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have no problem with 2001 State of the Union Address and then you should have no problem adding the number 1 in there. We should distinguish by the speeches using their ordinal, with the year if you want, but more importantly the ordinal. I would change "perception" to "nomenclature" but otherwise I agree with the above. KI 23:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I acknowledge your point, and you are not wrong. But neither is Bigtimeoperator.  There are two sides to the argument, there are two uses in the press, and there are two opinions within Wikipedia users, which means you are proposing an inherently ambiguous Title unless you are arguing that every single one of these sources is definatively wrong.  I disagree about "nomenclature" because that makes the argument self-referential. DrWitty 23:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I give up. Clearly no one agrees with me. KI 23:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for titles: using GWB as an exemplar

message: CNN does not capitalize the "a" in address , nor does MSNBC , nor does BBC News .  I'm fairly certain the title is accurate with the "a" lowercase. --tomf688{talk} 23:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one disagrees. I didnt like how you deleted content. That's why I reverted. KI 23:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was responding to this edit summary made by DrWitty. --tomf688{talk} 23:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I acknowledge your examples.  How is this different than the Gettysburg Address? MSNBC (actually, MSNBC and Newsweek) uses inconsistent standards on that as well.  The first link I included isn't even consistent, since Address is capped in the text but not the headline.  I was taught that the titles of speeches, whether short form or not, are capitalized, but... ? DrWitty 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't pretend to be an expert on capitalization, and I'm not really convinced either way on this issue.  However, in line with similar articles such as the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, and examples provided in the media, I was under the impression that "address" should not be capitalized.  ... Any english majors out there? :) --tomf688{talk} 00:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm seeing it done both ways by even the White House in a Google search for "State of the Union Address". The Wikinews article link in the sidebar of this article caps address. In sum, I think it should be capitalized in the article title because that is a title, and it looks odd otherwise. It seems it can legitimately be lowercase in the text itself. DrWitty 00:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Guide to Capitalization, the speech is a proper noun that refers to an event.  As I said earlier, only the article title really grates on my sensibility. DrWitty 00:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh lord, kill me for writing this out, but I think I just got it as far as entries in the text.  Do you consider it to be the State of the Union, which is an address, or is it the State of the Union Address, which is an event.  That doesn't affect the propriety of capitalizing all nouns in an article title. I care about that, but not this. DrWitty 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pretty sure I missed what you just said, but since the actual State of the Union page doesnt have address in the title, perhaps we should also take out address on these pages? Also, we could use a disambiguation page for George W. Bush's State of the Union addresses, and a List of State of the Union addresses. KI 00:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it reported as the State of the Union or the State of the Union (A/a)ddress, so I see no particular reason to favor the latter. Regarding the grammar: If you believe that this use of address refers to any formal presentation, then it is treated as a common noun and you'd write State of the Union address, but if you believe that this use of address refers to an particular and important event, then address could be considered part of the name of the event and you would use State of the Union Address. It's the sort of fine distinction that made me detest English classes. That's why I think you see multiple forms. Another example of no definative answer. DrWitty 01:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, address is in the title on that page (State of the Union Address).  Address is also a necessary term as it wasn't always an "address"; during the 19th century, it was simply a letter.  Not until Wilson "addressed" Congress regarding the State of the Union was it an address. --tomf688{talk} 01:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well originally it was an address, Jefferson changed it to a letter. KI 01:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is interesting because I am learning things, but could we just agree that it is appropriate to "Capitalize all words in a title except the articles (a, an, the) and prepositions and conjunctions fewer than five letters" in accord with the rule in that Guide to Capitalization? DrWitty 01:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont feel strongly one way or the other, but if we change the name of this article, make sure to change the title of the Democratic response page, the 2005 state of the union address page, and the two Adams' addresses. KI 02:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of "address" 

message: We need a note about that comment. Jack Cain 02:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  human-animal hybrids 

message: On January 7, 2008, my edit to the 2006 State of the Union address article was reverted by Tanthalas39 with the following comment left on my talk page:
:You asked on my talk page if I was joking by leaving you the above warning. No, I was not joking. Your addition of "Jay Bennish (U.S. high school teacher who suggested in one of his classes that Bush's tone was "eerily similar" to that of Adolf Hitler's speeches in that both were very ethnocentric)" is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies of no original research and verifiability, and completely inappropriate to the policy and tone of Wikipedia. From the comments other users have left for you, it's pretty clear that you do not have a good understanding of Wiki policies. I would suggest reading up on the two I supplied.
I'd like to hear other people's opinions. What is "inappropriate" about that edit? If the addition of an internal (!) link to a page on a State of the Union Address is reverted within less than ten minutes, and if this link is to a critical voice, does this not rather sustain those old allegations of Wikipedia's, well, Americocentrism? (As always, not a rhetorical question.) <KF> 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Inappropriate Edit"

message: 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!
* http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/ratings/cl-et-quick3.3feb03,0,7646962.story
** In 2006 State of the Union Address on 2011-05-26 02:15:04, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 State of the Union Address on 2011-06-14 07:16:23, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2006 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110131222703/http://legacy.c-span.org/Transcripts/SOTU-2006.aspx to http://legacy.c-span.org/Transcripts/SOTU-2006.aspx
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) 18:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified