Jump to content

Talk:September 2009 Barack Obama speech to a joint session of Congress

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

LifeNews.com

[edit]

Not a reliable, neutral source. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's unusual. I only used it to support the claim he was a cardiothoracic surgeon. JEN9841 (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with a link to his official website which makes the same claim and avoids any neutrality/BLP issues. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

Stressing inappropriate Republican response over the content of the speech smacks of bias Sirrom8 (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but using reliable sources to accurately report a factual incident captured on film and audio and reported by every major media outlet on planet Earth is not a form of bias. The fact is, this article is less than a day old, and the speech section has not yet been written. This is not POV in any way, and your tag is inappropriate. Viriditas (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not in this case. The outburst has received major coverage in the mainstream media, which includes Fox News Channel - Congressman Yells 'You Lie' at Obama During Speech - Political News - FOXNews.com. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 16:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas - I shall not post any more changes here until reviewing Wikipedia's policies. This is the first time I have attempted to post on a current-events page, and I have made very few Wikipedia edits overall. I would still say in English, however (as I am not particularly familiar with Wikipedia's terminology), that the point of view of this article was not neutral. In my opinion point of view is affected not only by whether one includes opinions or whether included facts are verifiable, but by what facts one includes and excludes, and by the order in which included facts are presented. Sirrom8 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously stated, the article is less than 24 hours old. This means it will continue to grow. There is nothing POV here. Viriditas (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been given undue weight considering the lack of other content, but in the overall scheme of a well rounded article, it doesn't appear excessive, and is probably just about right. Joshdboz (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing here that would imply a POV slant. The neutrality tag is inappropriate. The idea that a President would be heckled in a speech to a joint session is notable and newsworthy. 204.57.75.26 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, claiming that the article will be expanded in the future is irrelevant to whether the article as it currently stands is written from an NPOV perspective. And considering that the article currently goes into more detail about how the Republicans responded during and after the speech than the actual speech itself the article clearly has NPOV related issues. The neutrality tag is designed to encourage editors to address the NPOV issues, which can include expanding the article. Your argument against the tag makes no sense in that context, since the tag itself may be the catalyst to expanding the article. Argel1200 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't irrelevant that the article is less than 24 hours old and in the process of expansion - it's an important fact. There is no neutrality issue that I can see, and the tag doesn't belong in the article. We don't tag new articles as "POV" simply because some sections are incomplete. We use specific expansion tags for that purpose. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no precedent for removing an NPOV tag without discussion/consensus. You visit my talk page and redress me for doing the same, and yet here you are. The fact is that people are using this and surrounding articles as vehicles for the healthcare debate--this is not the appropriate context. What we are chronicling here is an outburst that happened the night of the speech. Nothing further. Outside context as to the Right and Wrong (the veracity) is up to the reader to research on their own or in other articles which explore these topics. Leave it out.Yeago (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeago, you seem to be confused about how Wikipedia works. The burden of proof is on the editor adding the tag, not removing it, and that burden has not been met. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section about Politifact is only there to corral readers into the liberal arguments which purport to debunk Wilson's comments. However, this is not an appropriate format for such dissection. The context of this article is the speech, and Politifact has nothing to do with that. If you are so interested in chronicling the healthcare debate, there is already HR 3000 where this material would be better suited.Yeago (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeago, the material you removed here is suported by many reliable, secondary sources. These sources discuss Politifact and Factcheck in direct relationship to this speech and Wilson's outburst. Your opinion about "liberal arguments" is not a rational justification for your removal of this sourced content, which is part of the media's coverage of this article. WP:NPOV is very clear on this matter, and the coverage in reliable sources tells us this is an important part of the discourse. If this isn't making sense to you, let me know and I'll explain it another way, otherwise, I have already warned you twice about removing sourced material from this article because you don't like it, and you are leaving me no other course of action but to report you for intentionally disruptive behavior. We have reliable sources discussing this topic and your argument for removal does not hold up. I'm afraid that you are going to find yourself either blocked or banned from this article if you continue. This is my last warning. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to report whatever you want. If you think your "last warning" means anything to me, you're wrong. I maintain that the content represents a non-neutral dissection and gives undue weight to the illegal immigrant aspect of the healthcare debate, which is better chronicled in related articles. This article is about a speech. There is a huge plurality of thoughts and opinions in America about the healthcare debate and Politifact simply doesn't represent them.Yeago (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how we use the term "non-neutral" nor "undue weight", so you're confused about what those words mean. Please visit WP:NPOV and show me a specific passage that justifies your removal. All topics have analysis and commentary, and this speech mentioned illegal immigration. Reliable sources throughout the media have analyzed this aspect of the speech and Joe Wilson's objection to what he sees as the coverage of illegal immigration. And we have multiple reliable sources specifically discussing Politifact and Factcheck in relation to this speech. The material will be added back into the article because there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports the removal of it. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion continued here. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

heckling - give the facts

[edit]

It seems to be a simple factual question that the article doesn't address: Obama claims that his proposal excludes illegal immigrants from subsidized coverage, and someone else claimed that he this is not true. Who is right? It seems pretty basic to establish the facts before focusing on the decorum of the heckler. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think the context you added works well. Joshdboz (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was pointed out that just after the 17-minute mark in Katie Couric's interview with Barack Obama on July 21, 2009, Obama's body language appears to answer that question: http://www.CBSNews.com/video/watch/?id=5178969n&tag=related;photovideo - watch his head movement compared to the rest of the interview; you can draw your own conclusions. Although that's the issue at the center of controversy based the outburst is based on, I don't think the subject of this article is broad enough for the discussion of the "factual question" to be aired here. RobSimpson (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be important to note that this is not the first time a president has been heckled. Two examples from politico.comLink title In 2004, Democrats delivered a “Chorus Of Boos” during Bush’s State Of The Union when he called for renewal of the Patriot Act., according to the Washington Times.

In 2005, Dems howled, hissed and shouted "No!" when Bush pushed for Social Security reform in the SOU: "Foreshadowing the contentiousness of the coming debate, Democrats broke decorum and booed twice," according to the National Journal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkeyvulture123 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about Members of Congress booing a borderline constitutional law (Patriot Act), this is about an empirically false statement howled by a Congressman. It was a breach of decorum, but moreover, it was itself a lie. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 15:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not merely a question of heckling. Calling someone a "liar" is unacceptable behavior in every parliament or other legislative body in the Anglo-Saxon world, cf. Unparliamentary_language. There is simply some language that is unacceptable in debate, there are lines that cannot be crossed. This event is significant because Rep. Wilson crossed that line.87.160.225.99 (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the representative/senator who indicated that this was a racist remark? RobSimpson (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Carter suggested it was. Not sure if a Senator of Representative has said so. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 15:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion??

[edit]

Why is this article being considered for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the nominator's reasoning and decide for yourself here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009. Joshdboz (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Prwagner3 (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Norington

[edit]

Brad Norington writing for the The Australian described it as a 'fiery speech' to keep alive his push for a government run health insurance scheme.[1]

Why is Norington's opinion important for this article, and why is his opinion stated as fact? The "push for a government run health insurance scheme" is POV. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the Australian is the largest newspaper in Australia and Mr Norington is writing in it. the statement in no way implies that it is a fact. I do not feel any part of this statement is anything but NPOV. please do not go around removing cited info without any discussion or reason . thanx Wikireader41 (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you feel and what is are two different things. Regardless of how large The Australian is or isn't, we don't cite opinions as facts as you have done. The opinion that Obama is trying to push for a government run health insurance scheme is a POV, and does not accurately represent the subject. It is an opinion that belongs to Norington, and the way you have added it to the article most certainly implies it is a fact. Furthermore, it is a fact that The Australian has a documented history of poor reporting, poor fact-checking, and poor reliability, and often takes biased positions in regards to Obama, particularly from the right. For this reason, we need to be very careful with how we use sources and represent the material. I see no reason why Norington and his biased statement presented as fact should be in this article, and I question your understanding of RS and NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto applies to you. the statement is just that. nowhere does it imply that it is a fact. it is stated in a RS and reported as such. The Australian does not have a history of poor reporting and is considered a RS so please refrain from making false allegations. I question your understanding RS and NPOV. This important speech got worldwide media coverage and since we are debating the merits of the article in an afd this helps establish its notability. Cheers Wikireader41 (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are turning this article into another hodgepodge of randomly selected opinions like all the other bad articles on Wikipedia. I want to see a narrative structure with threads connecting all of the ideas in each section. In other words, a story, connected by major themes and positions that educates the reader on the topic. And, we don't need to use unreliable sources to do it. Norington's opinion is deceptively written as if it were true. The entire purpose of the speech was to come to the center, not to "keep alive" or "push" a program on people. This is POV language that isn't even accurate, and it comes from a source that has a reputation for poor reporting. It doesn't belong in this article. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now you've added, "Al Jazeera English described the speech as a 'stern parent issuing a warning to unruly kids'. Could you explain exactly how this important and informative? It isn't, of course, and shouldn't be here. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is a suitable addition to section on response of world media. why is what AJE says not important Wikireader41 (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it serves the purpose of turning this article into a morass of random quotes connected together without meaning or purpose. It shouldn't be in the article. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
these are not random quotes. this is the response of prominent media outlets to this particular speech. it definitely belongs. you may not care about what AJE says but it is very popular in many areas and is considered an RS. many readers will find that statement useful and WP is read all over the world not just in the US of A. NPOV demands we present all points of view ( not just American)Wikireader41 (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are random quotes tied together without any narrative. This is the hallmark of most poorly written Wikipedia articles. It's basically a bad list of quotes. What kind of information value does "a stern parent issuing a warning to unruly kids" have in an encyclopedia? The media coverage section was intended to talk about coverage. It is now talking about random opinions about the speech - a completely different subject. Some of the sources you are using are talking about the writing and composition of the speech, and this can be grouped together into a new section. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and the opinions of the media are somehow different from media coverage. wow. 01:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they are completely different. One is an opinion about the media itself and the coverage of the speech, and the others, as I have shown above, have nothing to do with that subject. I think I see the problem. "Media coverage" does not only mean "coverage of the speech by the media". It also means coverage about the broadcast, network, and internet distribution channels. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikireader41, you just added word for word content from this source to the speech section. You need to write the material in your own words and pay special attention to the differences between Wikipedia policies and guidelines and the wrtiting style used by the sources you are quoting. You can't copy and paste material like you have just done. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you pay attention it is not cut and pasted and is substantially different. feel free to reword it if you please. I am well aware of WP policies so do not pretend you know them better. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though you changed a few words, I removed the entire passage as plagiarism/copyright violation. Please remember that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia uses a different writing style and makes great efforts to add unique content that conforms to this style. Changing a few words does not prevent plagiarism or copyvio, and the majority of the content you added was copied word for word. Please don't do that again or I will file an ANI report about you. For further information, please read Wikipedia:Plagiarism or contact the talk page for help. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikireader41, I am now reporting you at ANI for repeatedly plagiarizing material from copyrighted news sources. You will receive a notification about this report momentarily. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sure I have fixed that sentence though. do not feel there is any copyright violation. that is what he said and that is wghat is cited. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is what reporter Sheldon Alberts of the Canwest News Service said, not Obama, and you stole the words used by Alberts. This is plagiarism and it needs to stop. You are being reported. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you mean that canadian author accused the special interest groups of scare tactics and promised a battle with white house ?? have you actually read the text or heard the speech ??? go ahead with the ANI report if you wish. I dont see what the copyvio is about. it is clear we have had some content dispute above and you are falsely accusing me of copyright violationWikireader41 (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has to do with you repeatedly plagiarizing material from copyrighted news sources. We don't do that on Wikipedia. Here, we write articles in our own words and use the policies and guidelines as a foundation for our edits. You were already reported and notified on your talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full text of President Obama's speech to Joint Session of Congress on health care from wikisource

[edit]

From: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Health_Care_Speech speech \

(text snipped by AySz88; it was just a copy of the text from the above link)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 0cdcnctx& (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The full text should be left at wikisource; this article isn't meant for that. There's already a link to it from the article. —AySz88\^-^ 15:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politifact okay?

[edit]

A Politifact page notes that the statement that prompted 'you lie' was actually not a lie, which would probably be relevant context. I'm not entirely sure they're an acceptable source, though. —AySz88\^-^ 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible we can use it, but I don't know for sure. It belongs to the St. Petersburg Times, so it looks ok, but I would be very careful to use attribution, such as "PolitiFact, a project of the St. Petersburg Times, reports..." Viriditas (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the politifact.com article is opinion. On the factual side one could add the following passage from politifact.com: Illegal immigrants would likely be able to buy insurance on the national health insurance exchange. We don't see anything in the bills that would hinder that. A Congressional Research Service report issued Aug. 25, 2009, confirmed our observation. The House bill "does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens participating in the Exchange — whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently," the report said.

This is in contradiction to the Presidents stament, “"There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkeyvulture123 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't contradict it one bit, and what you've repeated here is a talking point. The bill does not change the status quo. In other words, there is no proposal to insure illegal immigrants. Is that clear enough? Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to be argumentative, but I think it is clear that this is just a word game. It is true enough that “there is no proposal to insure illegal immigrants” – I would agree with that statement. However it is clear that all attempts to bar illegal immigrants from participating have been defeated by the Democrats. This is not to say that their participation would be large scale it just means that the systems that are in place to make sure participants in other, similar programs that the federal government offers, are not in place with in this program. I think to make this Wiki article less biased it is important to explain why people feel that this is a problem, not just say that because it would not have a big impact it should be ignored. Also it goes to the point of why Joe Wilson yelled out. No one is claiming that illegal immigrants will not be insured by this program. The very article you sited stated “ ... illegal immigrants would have the chance to purchase insurance in the public option, a government-run health care plan that would offer basic coverage at a low price.” President Obama said, “There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false.” If there is nothing to keep them from using the system and they will almost certainly be in the system then President Obama’s statement is not accurate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.39.200 (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is important, notable, and has been covered by reliable sources. How do you suggest representing the topic in a more neutral and accurate fashion than we have now? Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a mention of context from various sources, but it looks like it grew too long and eventually got nerfed. I've put in a more concise version of it now. —AySz88\^-^ 02:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeago (talk · contribs) has been removing this section; the latest edit summary was "Removed synthesis. There's nothing connecting his outburst to those sources and they fail to address the "loopholes" that Wilson' seems to have been addressing." The sources are rather obviously prompted by the outburst (especially the fact-check ones), and the text already mentions the supposed "loopholes" in not preventing illegal immigrants from purchasing insurance themselves. Yeago, are there other ones you think are relevant? (Also, you should see WP:ANI#User:Yeago.) —AySz88\^-^ 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is curious to me that nobody has attempted to add any elaboration upon Wilson's outburst, I believe because it would be instantly removed as synthesis. Moreover, I disagree that the reader needs to be corralled into a debunking of Wilson's outburst instantly after the statement. I believe there are perfectly appropriate places to refer to various aspects of the healthcare debate, but I disagree that they need to happen in this article. The truth is that this and related articles have become charged with politically giddy editors who can't help themselves but have the debate here. This would be a great place to give some background into the outburst, but it isn't being done.Yeago (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand; your request for elaboration seems to contradict the request to not refer to the debate. There was some elaboration before this edit, when you removed it. I've just changed my summary of that section to be a little more clear, and I think it's very much restricted only to the context needed to understand what prompted the outburst and disagreement. I am not aware of any, erm, more subtle elaborations of Wilson's comment. —AySz88\^-^ 06:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that discourtesy to the President interrupted his speech has been given undue prominance.

[edit]

The outburst has been placed ahead of, for instance, the Republican response. It should be included as part of the Republican response, or else moved further down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0cdcnctx& (talk • contribs) 14:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the bulk of the details about it into Responses, but since it did in fact insert itself into the speech, I left a brief note about it in the Speech section. —AySz88\^-^ 06:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Markets

[edit]

The old wording in that section included the phrase "bottom line" which is pretty PoV. That phrase is used in almost exclusively negative connotation. I think the wording I placed in is also PoV, but from the other side. Some help would be appreciated as I had a bit of trouble coming up with good, balanced wording. EricLeFevre (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republican response

[edit]
Unresolved

The article says that the Republican response was given by Congressman Charles Boustany. But what what did the Republicans actually say in this response? Isn't the content more important than the identity of the speaker?

The article also says that "with a few notable exceptions", the Republicans did not applaud. What were these exceptions? If they were notable, shouldn't they be mentioned here?

--The very model of a minor general (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. This needs to be expanded and clarified. Viriditas (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other bias

[edit]

In the critical reception, there is nothing negative stated at all. This is a significant oversight as slightly more than half the people in the U.S. currently oppose the concept (I believe the latest polls were 52%-45% against-support). — BQZip01 — talk 04:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting a Fox News/Sean Hannity talking point, which is equivalent to citing the Weekly World News. Actual polls show that Americans are evenly split among class, income, generational, and political party affiliation. And we're talking about reactions to the speech, not what somebody thinks about health care in general. Viriditas (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I speaking my mind and don't watch FoxNews/listen to Sean Hannity. However, even if I did, legitimate criticism should be included and not just positive platitudes. — BQZip01 — talk 18:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've been following the polls, and the only polls we should represent in this article are the ones that have a direct relationship to the speech. There were several, I believe. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm talking about but under "critical reception" it seems that it is missing anything negative. — BQZip01 — talk 03:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources show a post-speech "bounce". They weren't negative. Current polls are showing a return to pre-speech levels, which is not surprising considering the scare tactics about "death panels" and "health care for illegal immigrants". Of course, ask any physician about "death panels" and they will laugh at you. And yet, people like Sarah Palin keep repeating it. And ask them about health care for illegal immigrants, and they will tell you that no competent physician would ever turn an illegal immigrant away. Do you want your child to catch pertussis from someone who hasn't vaccinated their child or can't receive medical care because of their immigration status? Disease does not recognize (or care) who is a citizen and who is not. Whomever is using these ridiculous and ignorant scare tactics isn't qualified to hold public office. We need facts about the health care bill proposed in the speech, not the propaganda being promoted by special interests who clearly don't give a damn about the health of the American people. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Viriditas, please remember to keep discussion about the article. Thanks. —AySz88\^-^ 04:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "death panel" discussion is in the speech and should be expanded in this article: "Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple." Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, ok. My point is that there is nothing negative in the criticism. Given the state of it, a single sentence would be appropriate. — BQZip01 — talk 02:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me something to go on? How about picking one or two sources/links you think we can use? I can't read your mind. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because half of people still oppose Obama's healthcare plan doesn't mean the speech wasn't a good speech; even the best speeches don't have huge effects. Maybe there should be something here putting this speech's effect in the context of other speeches; that is, of course, not necessarily negative. There really might not be very much negative stuff said about it; I'm certainly not aware of it. —AySz88\^-^ 04:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on who is asking the question, how it is being asked, and who is being polled. According to some polls, almost 80% support the public option for people who can't afford it. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which isn't what I'm talking about here. Surely there is some negative reaction, not just positive and neutral reaction. — BQZip01 — talk 05:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the "Republican response" thread above. I think we need to focus on expanding that section; After all, it is, essentially, a negative response. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would give the impression that there is no negative feedback outside the republican party, which isn't true, but an appropriate expansion of the Repub's response would certainly be apropos as would more details of the speech. — BQZip01 — talk 18:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added

[edit]

I added a well-sourced sentence in this paragraph regarding negative feedback on the speech. This gives one sentence of positive feedback, one pretty neutral, and one negative. Seems balanced to me. — BQZip01 — talk 18:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant AFD - Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)

[edit]

AFD discussion, is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Miller (South Carolina politician) (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009. 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}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009. 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}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_2009_Barack_Obama_speech_to_a_joint_session_of_Congress&oldid=1208058301"