Talk:2019 State of the Union Address

Claim that Trump sold ads re: his SOTU speech
Content was added that indicated POTUS Trump "...is using the State of the Union address to bilk his supporters into donating to his 2020 reelection campaign." This article is from the website HillReporter.com which is said by many to be somewhat partisan (left-leaning) and not terribly reliable. The content was reverted twice and re-added a 3rd time after which I reverted one last time and requested the OP bring the topic here for discussion which I am initiating now. IMO, this content does not meet WP:RELIABLE and if false, it can certainly be considered slanderous. Conversely, if true, I'm not convinced that this article (2019 SOTU) is its proper home provided it belongs on WP in the first place. I also believe this content may violate other key WP polices as well. Please share your thoughts. airuditious (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * After a bit more research, I find that the article mentioned herein is referring to the fundraising I discuss elsewhere on this Talk page. However, this article mischaracterizes Trump's fundraising as "selling ads" and attempts to mislead the reader into believing Trump was selling ad-time\space related to the SOTU.  This is of course false. airuditious (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi airuditious, Thank you for your diligent effort for research and examination.  Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep content re: Trump campaign fundraising?
Content has been added mentioning the Trump campaign using the SOTU for fundraising purposes specifically with how donor names were displayed along the bottom of Trump's Facebook page during the SOTU broadcast. Fundraising at any point during a re-election campaign is not particularly noteworthy be it in the lead-up to the SOTU or at any other point during a campaign. In fact, the only thing notable about fundraising in our time might be how new techniques and\or media are used to accomplish the goal - for example with what Obama did in 2008. However, nothing Trump did in connection with this SOTU is new or noteworthy and even if it were, I struggle to see how it belongs on the SOTU article page. Furthermore, I did check other SOTU Wikipedia articles and none that I surveyed contain any reference to fundraising of any kind. Those articles appear to be constrained to the event itself and then how remarks made by the POTUS relate to matters of the Country and World. Therefore, I am inclined to remove this content but I think it is worth a discussion prior to doing so. Thanks. airuditious (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh. Seems OK by me to remove as OFFTOPIC.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Bold text in "Notable invitations"
Do we need the names of guests to be in bold text? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't about "need" but I do see how the "bolding" on the names helps to make the article easier to read and to delineate between discussion of the different invitees. Seems to be a style choice but one that makes the article better overall - Therefore my preference is to keep. airuditious (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's actually discouraged per MOS:BOLD. There are a few instances where bold is warranted, and this list isn't one of them. Also embedded lists are rather amateurish and should generally be replaced by prose per MOS:PROSE. But most Wikipedia articles are poor quality anyway. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Your point is noted but I still disagree - not with you per se but with MOS:BOLD. However, as we both know, no single article is the appropriate place to set\modify policy and of course I will abide by consensus whatever it ends up being.  But because I don't see BOLD fully addressing this specific instance, I suggest WP:IGNORE might support the use of bold formatting in this instance because I do think this article is made better as it is easier to read. In any event, I suggest we wait for a bit more consensus on the formatting question. As to the actual content quality, no argument from me - completely agreed and I may take a pass at that part of it here in a bit.  Please comment on my edits once made if need be - Thanks. airuditious (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Prefer not bolding names. They’re in a bullet list.  Wikilink to their BLP if they have an article, and wikilink in the explanation of who they are as appropriate, but that’s all.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)