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

Just a Speech
I have been reading on the blogosphere that last night's speech was not the real state of the union, just a speech.Can i get a confirmation on that please. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The linked reference says nothing about an Obama State of the Union address. 68.40.194.16 (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama Speech on February 24 2009 was not a state of the union address his first state of the union will be sometime January of 2010 the speech made by President Obama was a speech to a Joint Session of Congress Mayorofrosharon (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Official SotU
Are the details of Bush's address to Congress on the state of the Union published? If so, this information should be included here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.43.19.188 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed link on Governor Jindal's response from republic to Republican Party (U.S.A.) - dforthofer, 2/24/09 9:21 a.m. ET

Is it correct to call the 2/24 address SotU?
Its not the SotU Address, so is it correct to have this article? -- TRU  CO   02:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No its not correct i really think we should change it to the state of the nation address.User:Mayorofrosharon03:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC))..

They were calling it the Presidental Address to the Congress... seemed like a SotU to me.

Is it right to call it Barack Obama speech to Joint session of Congress, 2009?Iamwisesun (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The page currently says, "It was not an official State of the Union Address, because it is the first year of Barack Obama's presidency." Citation for that? 98.209.219.62 (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, considering this isn't a regular event, shouldn't the year be first? Joshdboz (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should be first (ie) 2009 Barack Obama Speech to a Joint Session of Congress Mayorofrosharon (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

State of the Union Address: Proposal to remove template, and remove article from category.
Since the speech wasn't technically a State of the Union Address, as cited currently in the article, I feel that the State of the Union Addresses template should be removed, and the article withdrawn from the State of the Union Addresses category. Does anyone else agree? Thank you in advance for reading, and for responding should you do so. Allventon (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I herein agree that the template should be removed and the article also withdrawn from the State Of The Union Category, since it isn't a real State Of The Union Speech Mayorofrosharon (talk)03:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seconded (or thirded or whatever). Remove it forthwith.  I'd also fix the Obama template so it doesn't have a double-redirect issue.  MicahBrwn (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I re-added the template (before I saw this discussion). This was a State of the Union in everything but name. Many people refer to it as such (albeit mistakenly), and will expect to see it listed alongside the others. I made a note on the template that this speech, along with two others, are not official State of the Union Addresses. I would encourage someone to improve the wording to make clear what the difference is, but not to remove the template (or the link on the template to this article). If there's a redirect to this article as 2009 State of the Union (which the consensus seems to be there will be, over at that discussion), then it makes sense to include it on the template, with an explanatory note. Otebig (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you, Otebig, for your work on the template. Though this article may be "a State of the Union in everything but name", it is still not a State of the Union.  I agree with the re-direct, but I do not agree that the re-direct gives precedent for the template; a re-direct covers popular search terms, the category and the template are specifically catered for State of the Union Addresses, as evidenced by the titles "State of the Union addresses" and "State of the Union Addresses".  "Many people refer to it as such (albeit mistakenly), and will expect to see it listed alongside the others"; I do not believe that because people expect an error, we should include that error.  Besides, the article does explain that this isn't a State of the Union, and how it isn't, which I think is sufficient to address the issue as opposed to including a template and category.   Allventon (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then should the template be renamed? As noted in the State of the Union article, up until the 1930s the speech was referred to as the "President's Annual Message to Congress", so by the current standard (if the speech was technically called a State of the Union or not), nothing before the 1930s should be on that template. It seems silly and unhelpful for people using the site to split up what are essentially the same annual speeches due to a not-completely-formalized naming convention. Maybe a more encompassing title, such as "Annual U.S. Presidential Addresses to Congress", or something of the like, would be more appropriate. Otebig (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur that it would be silly to split up, and I am open to a title change. I think removing "State of the Union Addresses" from the title would be so controversial as to erode the chances of that course reaching consensus agreement, however.  Perhaps "President's Annual Message to Congress/State of the Union Addresses", to demonstrate the morph between the Annual Message and the State of the Union?  Allventon (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Should we start a move process? Otebig (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Do you want to start it up, or shall I?  Allventon (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Move?

 * Barack Obama speech to Joint session of Congress, 2009 →  — Revert back to the original title. Per State of the Union Wikipedia article pages. —
 * Comment: See first paragraph, which states it was not officially a State of the Union Address. Plastikspork (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn I decided to nominate the redirect (2009 State of the Union Address) is listed at RFD to deletion. ApprenticeFan (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Move, again?
moved to option 2. See below.

Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, 2009 → ? &mdash; As Obama is planning another speech to a joint session of Congress next week, should we move this to:
 * Barack Obama speech on the economy to joint session of Congress, 2009
 * Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009
 * Barack Obama first speech to joint session of Congress, 2009

? F (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting dilemma (assuming of course that the upcoming speech will get an article). This one was clearly billed as a SOTU-like speech, whereas the next one is strictly about healthcare (right?). I'd say for the moment wait and see, and if there is a desire to create a new article perhaps the problem will solve itself depending on what the media calls it, 2009 Barack Obama healthcare speech, etc. If not, you're suggestions might be appropriate. I'd wonder what others think. Joshdboz (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If anything the article should be deleted. It's just a speech. Every speech by the president gets coverage by the press and nothing indicates this one is special.  TJ   Spyke   21:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This was pretty much the State of the Union address, except it couldn't be called that because the State of the Union is only given in years subsequent to the President's inauguration. @harej 04:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't the State of the Union speech, so it should not be treated as such. It should be held up to the same standards as any other speech.  TJ   Spyke   17:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you're getting at TJ, why not have an article for the hundreds of Obama/McCain/Clinton campaign events that received significant coverage in reliable sources? This is I think where common sense has to come into play.  If you feel strongly about this, by all means bring this to AfD to get broader input, but considering the fact that this was hyped in the media as his first (unofficial) state of the union, I think it should probably stay.  That doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved ; ) Joshdboz (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As a third-party, I've gone ahead and moved the article to Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009, the second of three proposed choices offered above by User:F. You folks had plenty of time to decide on this move, and the second speech to Congress begins in less than four minutes. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a 'State of the Union address'
Other then it's not being called a 'State of the Union Address', why wasn't it called a 'State of the Union Address'. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Presidents usually never deliver a State of the Union merely days after they've been inaugurated, like Obama was on the 20th of that year. A President who has been on the job in less than a couple of weeks is not expected to effectively, as the U.S. Constitution says, "give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient". If they do, they'll just basically repeat the gist of what they were already saying during the campaign and in their inauguration speech. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)