Talk:Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2011

Scheduling controversy
I would like to keep the section on the scheduling controversy. It has received extensive converge in the American media. And I find it very notable and significant (or depending on your point of view, an indictment on both American culture and politics) that a U.S. Presidential speech had to be scheduled to avoid conflicts with both an opposing party's debate and a football game. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

 * Merge into American Jobs Act to include a small mention of this. This really isn't as big of a deal as the media has made it. Frankly, this is a better description. A paragraph at most, but definitely its own article.  upstate NYer  13:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Merge into American Jobs Act. The sooner, the better. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Oppose: Well, I was originally thinking of adding content similar to Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009, including analysis of the speech itself, the scheduling controversy, and reactions. I'm not sure that will all fit (or in fact be appropriate) on an legislation article like American Jobs Act. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And yes, it appears to be similar as it was in 2009. Obama makes a major speech to Congress outlining a major domestic proposal or reform, and we get separate articles on the speech itself (Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009) and ones on the actual reform and legislation (Health care reform in the United States, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010). I will, however, note that Articles for deletion/Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009 ended up being a debate on whether to keep or merge the material; as of now, no merge on the 2009 articles has ever taken place. And the 2011 events on the economy and jobs may not necessarily be that notable as it was it 2009. with health care reform. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge this "Jobs act" into the other article because it is not an act of legislation, nor is it a bill. It is just a fact-sheet and Obama in front of a teleprompter. There is no "bill" yet, nor an congress enacted, thus it's not an act. The bill/act has not yet occurred, and this seems like WP:Crystal if we get the direction of merging the wrong way. How do we know Republicans won't turn obstructionist yet--would we simply delete the article? Until we know if the article would be some day deleted if inaction happens, I don't support any merge. 67.77.174.6 (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Now I just support straight, clean merge. I will drop a note on scssjay's talkpage. 67.77.174.6 (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I disagree that you can do a straight clean merge. An analysis of the speech itself, the scheduling controversy, and immediate reactions (including the unprecedented lack of an official televised opposition GOP response to a presidential address to a joint session Congress) should not be in a legislation article, whether at just the proposed stage or way into the congressional process. Conversely, details about further debates, legislative history, and follow-up lobbying by both sides, should not be in a speech article. Furthermore, both UpstateNYer and Scjessey's comments were made when this article was in its infancy, before I started to greatly expand this page. I need assurances that all of this content is to remain intact. Whether it it is your personal opinion that "this really isn't as big of a deal as the media has made it" is irrelevant, and should NOT be the basis to merge. Per Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, a topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and is therefore presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. If it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article, such reasons should be based on official Wikipedia policies and guidelines like What Wikipedia is not, not reasons like "I personally think the media has blown this out of proportion". Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am very impressed with the quality of this article; however, I am still in support of a merge because I think the content of this article belongs in the American Jobs Act article. I'm pretty sure this entire article could be stuck into the other article with few (if any) changes. This article would become a redirect to the other in order to preserve the edit history. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think it still too early to make that judgement and do a merge. Because these are still relatively current events, I'd prefer to wait and see until a few months now and see what happens until they become "history", and then apply the so-called ten-year cleanup test later on. That is what was decided with the Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009 article, and what ended up happening as the legislation went though Congress, Health care reform in the United States, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 were expanded greatly, and thus the article on the 2009 speech had to remain separate. If the American Jobs Act does not get anywhere by 2012, is absolutely rejected, and goes down in history as an insignificant footnote, then I might agree to merge. But if the Act actually gets through somehow, or if it becomes a very significant "wedge issue" during the 2012 campaign, that article could possibly increase in size. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This speech was Obama's method for presenting his "American Jobs Act" (even if it doesn't become legislation). The proposed legislation and the speech are inextricably linked. They are not independent of one another. Frankly, what happened previously with the vastly more complicated healthcare legislation is not a good guide for how to proceed in this instance. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I will concede that there is significantly less activity on this subject as it was two years ago, whether the number edits and discussion comments by Wikipedians, or coverage in the media. That usually is a good indication of whatever long-term importance or significance it will have in the future. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)