Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:37, 20 March 2009

Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama

Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A clear POV fork designed to document derogatory remarks made by Rush Limbaugh. Poor sourcing being used to create a thin veneer of legitimacy. Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: See also: Recently closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter of the United States. --Ali'i 16:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That article was about the phrase that Limbaugh used. This article is about Obama's teleprompter use in general. That article was move to here and greatly expanded with many non-Limbaugh referecnes instead of being deleted. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep

• Keep Notability is established and has third party reliable sources. any POV can be cleaned up. 16x9 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• These "third party reliable sources" you refer to appear to be mostly Rush Limbaugh's website, a YouTube video, a couple of blogs, a Rupert Murdoch newspaper and two reliable sources that don't use the "TOTUS" neologism. This warrants a line in a related article, not an article all to itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think Rupert Murdoch isn't a valid source, then why haven't you nominated The Simpsons for deletion? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and discuss merger There is a New York Times article entirely on the subject and some other substantial coverage from reliable sources which is the basis for notability. Clearly the article needs work (an editing issue) and a merger is probably worth considering. But this isn't a good case for deletion since notability is well established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Neither notable nor (here's that word again!) significant. It's pure POV nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep There is adequate news coverage in reliable sources (e.g., New York Times) as the basis for notability. Because some editors don't philosophically agree with the reliable sources (i.e., it is a "Rupert Murdoch newspaper") is not sufficient basis to disregard them. Newguy34 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep umm didnt we just have this discussion? this is a notable topic that and has been covered by worldwide news media sources. it's not just a Rush thing. Perry mason (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think, if you'll read the previously posted arguments, that it is in fact, not notable and not covered by reliable sources. 75.66.180.72 (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

whats not reliable about all those sources (and many others) posted? Daily Mail, Sky News, The Times, Fox News, The New York Times and others have all covered this. sure, rightwing blogs are too dubious to include but we have plently of mainstream, traditional media coverage. of course its notable, it would be insane to say otherwise. Perry mason (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. There is nothing notable about using a teleprompter. In fact, it is a sensible approach to making sure you don't make an ass of yourself in front of a camera. It's been done by presidents for decades, and now that a bunch of right wing people and their newspapers (3 of the 5 sources you listed are News Corp. organs) it has suddenly become a big deal? Nonsense. This is just another POV fork, with POV language like "Obama even read from a teleprompter when he said..." - as if it was a bad thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Notability is established and has third party reliable sources (The New York Times, U.S. News & World Report, Times Online, The Daily Mail, The Politico). It has balanced POV. TOTUS neologism confined to one section - the article has significantly changed. Those claiming POV fork should nominate the Bushisms article for deletion, least their choice in article to delete appear to be un-neutral in POV. Dermus (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC) — Dermus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. If you have a problem with another article, then take it up in the appropriate venue. As for "third party reliable sources"

  Politico; is questionable reliable source

  US News & World Report; an OpEd, and one that critiques conservatives' focusing on this issue at that

  TimesOnline; primarily about the Irish PM, goes into Obama in the middle, then onto to wider US-Irish relation news.

  Daily Mail; about the same as above, only much, much briefer.

  NYT; the only legitimate article about Obama's teleprompter use, and usage by past presidents.

  Limbaugh, HotAir, not within spitting distance of being a reliable source.

  So, no, the claim that this has received "significant" coverage, as required by WP:N, is demonstrably false. Tarc (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss the New York Times story entirely about the subject? There are lots and lots of stories about this subject as the sources you mention indicated. Let's not let our personal POV influence article deletion decisions. I think a merge to an appropriate target is reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you had actually taken the time to read what I wrote above, you would have seen that I noted the NYT entry as the one legitimate source out of the lot, yes. Coverage by one source does not even remotely rise to the level of "significant coverage" as required by notability guidelines however. So no, there are not "lots and lots of stories" about this in reliable sources. After the Times, it drops off to a handful of casual mentions, and from there it is off the deep end into the cozy confines of fringe media. Claims to the contrary are easily debunked, as I have just done to the original editor, and now to you. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - And for the record, I agree with the quote from Bill Burton that's cited in the article: "Whether one uses note cards or a teleprompter, the American people are a lot more concerned about the plans relayed than the method of delivery." -- Grundle2600 (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

For the Love of Jesus, NO IT IS NOT. Unless you can prove this topic is notable outside the fringe, that it has an effect on Obama's public image or has an effect on his daily life (so that it would meet eligibility requirements for his bio), the this article is not appropriate. 75.66.180.72 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think The New York Times is "the fringe"? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do think I'll fall for your fence jumping? "TOTUS!" is fringe. That some gaffes have been reported on by a /few/ sources does not meet notability requirements, and is nothing more than double dipping: Politico talks about his teleprompter usage and all of the sudden Rush is right! No. No. No.75.66.180.72 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is well sourced and there is a New York Times article entirely about the subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about the "TOTUS" part. My concern is with the rest of the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per sources above. Arkon (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge

• Merge the Limbaugh content to the show's jargon article. Remove "that was an experience I'll never forget". Get rid of the flubbed line on Tuesday (nn). Get rid of the opinions at the bottom (kind of POVy). Sceptre 16:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  Looking at the Times article, both premiers fell victim to the teleprompter. Just focusing on Obama is kind of suspicious. Sceptre 16:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  And looking at the NYT article, it appears Obama uses the teleprompter to stick to his own script, rather than to hide a lack of improvisational skill. Sceptre 16:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  This is rather timely, as Obama happens to have attempted to improvise last night - the result is a gaffe about special olympics. See Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_en_tv/obama_special_olympics Dermus (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete

• Delete POV fork and trivium, dumping ground for material not weighty enough for other Obama articles. Maybe worth a sentence or two at Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show. PhGustaf (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete- Un-necessary content fork. Anything that can be said can go in one of the other articles on Obama, either the article on him or his presidency. There is no need for an entire article devoted to how he uses a teleprompter, and keeping it on its own puts undue weight on an entirely minor aspect of the person and his presidency. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. Also not really notable. "It's on Limbaugh!" does not count - everything Jon Stewart says doesn't end up here, so there's no reason to apply a different standard to Limbaugh. Also, a cursory look at Googlenews shows that only the fringe directly address Obama as a 'teleprompter president'; every other news story on the subject is only topical to a gaffe caused by a teleprompter malfunction. Anyway, is there anyway to prevent this kind of crap from occuring in the future? It seems to me that as long as Obama is President, we're going to keep getting people who will create an article $noun_of/by_Obama as a way to honeypot in whatever bad things they want to say about him, and it's completely ridiculous. 75.66.180.72 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and do not merge. Though perhaps a nice piece of essay writing, as an encyclopedi article this is a hopelessly unencyclopedic subject, reads like an essay, and has mostly unreliable sources. Even the reliable sources are mostly in editorial mode and cherry picked. When newspaper X contains an editorial / lifestyle / human interest / humor piece where one particular columnist Y says Z in the piece, it is misleading to say "Newspaper X said Y", and it is impossible to establish any weight to the statement "Y said Z one day in source X." It is a meaningless combination of two matters, Obama and teleprompter usage. Indeed people have written about it but one could say that about thousands of other Obama-related subjects: Obama + basketball, Obama + smoking, Obama + shopping at J. Crew, Obama + travel to Ohio, etc. This particular one has become a darling of some partisan detractors of the president which makes it trivia / cruft of a POV nature. The reason to not merge is that there is little useful content here and it would be inappropriate to move the content wholesale into other articles without the editors of those articles deciding it is relevant, properly sourced, significant enough to include, etc. Anyone editing this article is advised to save a copy of anything useful in their user space, and if they wish propose any additions to other articles at their convenience. Wikidemon (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete without merge. Clearly not written from a NPOV. This is also not an appropriate article for Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a journal documenting the habits of Presidents. Antivenin 16:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I then trust that you strongly feel that the Bushisms article should be deleted. Would you please submit it to AfD? Dermus (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that bushisms is not a worthy article, go ahead and nominate it for deletion yourself. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Egads, whether or not this is even worth a mention in any Obama article is debatable. This highly-POV fork certainly is not notable enough to stand as an independent article. Just another endaround for some to try to get their 5x-deleted "Criticism of Barack Obama" in via other means. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete here but add to Dittopedia, where it will no doubt become an FA. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• WTF I'm obviously not an expert at navigating the landscape of policy and guidelines here, but it seems to me that changing the name of the article to keep it from being deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teleprompter_of_the_United_States) has to be... wrong? Inappropriate? Against the rules? I don't know, but Denmark has never had such a foul odor.75.66.180.72 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In defense of the closure of the previous afd, once the article had been renamed, a lot of the previous discussion had been rendered moot, so closing it made sense. the person who closed that afd stated there was no prejudice against renominating it (and I'm not surprised somebody did). If nobody had, I would have. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and do not merge. This article is clearly a POV fork and the majority of the sources fail WP:RS, WP:V, and a whole host of others. Brothejr (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete without merge. I like to think of myself as objective, and I read Misplaced Pages:Content forking and some related policy/essay pages before weighing in on this. Gaffes like the incident with the PM of Ireland may eventually lead to a Bushism-esque Obama article meriting coverage - but definitely not today. Recognizance (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Teleprompter use by the President of the United States is not new to Obama. Neither is the occasional flub. None of the sources presented establish why this topic should be covered separately from Presidency of Barack Obama. And yes, it's a POV fork. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork and Merge whatever encyclopedic content there may be to the Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh jargon articles, respectively. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure you could get pretty reliable-looking sources for Concerns About What Barack Obama Had For Breakfast as well, but it is possible to have too many articles about one person.—S Marshall /_Cont 19:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I don't see anything encyclopedic about this subject. Allowing it to remain will lead to the creation of similar articles about every President who ever used a teleprompter. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork. Artw (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as POV-fork and content-fork, only created after it seemed difficult (even so not impossible) to include the "teleprompter stuff" in Obama's main article (and mentioning some short summary of this material in one of his subs seemed not to be an option for some).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as content-fork per above. Grsz 21:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Gerrymandered NPOV-violating content fork. Scope of article designed to reflect poorly on real subject of article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Partial merge - Maybe add some of this "material" to one of the sub articles. Just like the Palin sub articles seem to be a breeding ground/container for the muckracker material, hopefully we can contain the Obama muckracking to the subarticles and hope that is enough to satisfy the fringe element. Anyways, Tom 21:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates