Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama

What's with the strange formatting of this AFD
What's with the strange formatting of this AFD? Usually, the comments are all in the same section, not split out into 'Keep', 'Merge' and 'Delete' sections (presumably to remind us this isn't WP:Votes for deletion). Is there any reason why a different structure was used on this one? Robofish (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can blame me for that. The nature of the responses, with multiple replies and comments, made it hard to see who thought what. I thought rearranging them into these 3 groups would make it a little easier to follow. I've seen other AFDs formatted in this way, but I apologize if it isn't the correct form. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not the usual form - I'm not sure whether it's better or worse. I can see the advantages (it does make it much easier to read) but there are drawbacks as well (it encourages people to see it as a vote, not a discussion). I don't think there's a real problem with it, but it might be something to discuss on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion in future. Robofish (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, ChildofMidnight decided to make a big issue out of it an filed a report at WP:ANI. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually removing the discussion of sources that indicate notability and rearranging the discussion to your liking is a big deal. It's totally inappropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why I wrote the comment explaining myself above. There was no need to file an WP:ANI report, but I suppose I should expect nothing less from an agenda-driven editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to chime in with what's pretty clear now: Scjessey made a mistake in reformatting this AfD to falsely resemble a vote. However, it was a well-intentioned mistake, and he has realized the error an apologized for it. The closing admin will do fine in sorting out the actual discussion, and I am certain Scjessey won't do anything similar on future AfD's. All of us will find other places to make other mistakes though... live and learn. LotLE × talk 20:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, that I dislike this format and think it should go back to the other format. Ikip (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, I formatted it this way because (a) I have seen this formatting style before, and (b) I did not know it was wrong to do so. No further discussion on this matter is necessary, and it would be impossible to refactor it back to how it was. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A note to the discussion closer
Both Scjessey and ChildofMidnight have edited the AfD discussion to remove comments by others; please see the page history for confirmation of this. I will not be attempting to restore any material; however, I ask that whoever closes this please be aware of the removed comments and take them into account. Although I have expressed an opinion in this AfD, the bad behavior is on both sides, and I am not attempting to affect either side by making a note of it. I hope, therefore, that this notice can be read as neutrally as possible. In any case, please be aware of it. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear - I did not remove any comments. I removed a list of sources that was a duplicate of the list on the article talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care to have a discussion of why either one of you believes you can justify your actions - obviously, both of of you believe you can justify your actions, at least to yourself, or you wouldn't have done it. I merely note that both of you have removed others editors' comments. That is objectively problematic, regardless of whether you believe it so or not. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently I made a mistake. I was trying to remove the duplicate keep as my edit summary and edit show.  Apparently I was working from an old page and accidentally removed comments. This was obviously not my intention (look at the edit and edit summary) and wouldn't serve any useful purpose. Please remember to assume Assume Good Faith and refrain from making personal attacks. A mistake is not the same as intentional disruption and refactoring. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And Scjessey has stated, both here and at your frivolous AN/I report, that he re-factored with the intent to make the process easier to read, not realizing that that is generally frowned upon. So, unless you are doing a do as I say, not as I do sorta thing with WP:AGF, there is no "intentional disrupition (sic)" to be found here. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Scjessey continues to make personal attacks and to insist that it's okay to remove discussion of sources (which was done in addition to reordering the comments). This is incorrect and bringing neutral party attention to the matter is proper. Scjessey hasn't been receptive to pointers in the past and refuses now to accept that removing discussion of sources is inappropriate so the matter can be dropped. This isn't the first time they've been notified that certain behavior are improper and refused to listen, which is unfortunate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm only going to say this one more time, because it is clear that you need things to be repeated to you often and slowly. I did not remove any comments or discussion. I only removed the completely inappropriate list of sources that was a duplicate of the list on the talk page. Moreover, respondents to an AfD are supposed to look at the article to make their decision, not the entreaties on the AfD page itself. And as an aside, it now seems that almost all the sources are discredited, since they reported on the basis of an inaccurate press release and got all the facts wrong. Sanity 1, Limbaugh 0. Now, leave me the hell alone. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Children, please. If this discussion had a snowball's chance in hell of affecting the outcome of the AFD, it might be worth arguing. Drop it and move on - find something useful to do. Rd232 talk 23:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out that to have "only removed the completely inappropriate list of sources that was a duplicate of the list on the talk page" is inappropriate. Then we can not only drop this, but avoid having this problem repeat itself. Unless of course you think removing lists of sources is appropriate in AfD discussion in which case I'm happy to listen to the reasoning. Thanks kiddo. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ok babydoll :). As far as I'm concerned Scjessey has learned his lesson; IMO remarks that might suggest otherwise are just retrospectively defending the reasoning for the action already taken, not justifying future repeats. In any case, we should really give him/her the benefit of the doubt. Rd232 talk 03:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to give him/her the benefit of the doubt just as soon as he/she stops arguing that it's okay to remove lists of sources provided in AfD discussions. Party on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Posting a list of sources on an AfD to try to convince people of the legitimacy of an article is just as much of a process violation as anything I have done. People taking part in an AfD are supposed to make their decision based on a study of the article and talk page discussion, and not rely on anything said in the AfD itself. You are making a big issue out of this because you don't think my editing record supports your agenda. I admitted it was wrong for me to refactor the AfD, but I will not concede that there was something wrong with my reason for doing so. That just isn't going to happen. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes on the refactoring (which has since been undone)

 * Comment In addition to refactoring this discussion the nominator also removed this comment:

Sources cited in the article
This subject is notable. -- Grundle2600 (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The New York Times
 * U.S. News & World Report
 * Times Online
 * The Daily Mail
 * The Politico
 * This is very inappropriate as sourcing is a key issue in AfD discussions. The refactoring has effectively ended discussion despite the fact that several editors noted there is substantial coverage in reliable sources including an entire NY Times article on this subject. This information meets inclusion criteria on its own or merged, and I hope the closing administrator weighs the arguments against our guidelines and can some how take into account the nom's actions and their prejudicial impact on discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Only the sources were redacted in the refactoring, not the comment. Unfortunate, yes, but of little significance for the discussion since delete arguments do not dispute the media coverage - they dispute that this coverage justifies the existence of the article. Rd232 talk 05:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I had asked Scjessey to restore comments he removed, but he refused. Because of the extensive changes and refactoring done I had trouble determining what exactly was removed, but per your comment I removed the duplicate keep. Unfortunately I must have been working from an older version of this page because some recent comments were deleted by my edit. They look to have been restored and I'm sorry for the mistake. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not remove any comments. Not a one. I removed the list of sources only. This lie you perpetuate is extremely tiresome now. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I attempted to un-refactor the comments so as to put the main recommendations into chronological order (the indented comments each go with the main comment to which they apply). Hopefully everybody's material is in the right place now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bad idea as I pointed out at your talk page. You can't make the impossible possible unless you are.....[fill in what you think].--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the latter part of your comment refers to. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Forget the latter part. It just tried to introduce some humor........ --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I created this mess in the first place. I thought I was doing everyone a favor, but it turned out to be a bloody disaster. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it was a good idea in the first place but was worried about comment changes (which turned out to be unwarranted) and if it would be proper procedure to do so. It turned out that it wasn't and you (Scjessey) acknowledged it as ChildofMidnight acknowledged his/her mistake [now please don't compare the extent, etc..... thanks].--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In any case, what's done is done, and what damage it's done is mostly to people's blood pressures. I think it's time to drop the matter, have a cup of tea, and move on. PhGustaf (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You opinionated this earlier ( on the talk page somewhere I think) and you're right. Another change of the page but at the end it doesn't matter since no harm was done in either case. I agree in the fullest to put it to rest.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of article version posted 23rd March
(snipped from the project page since content is more appropriate for an AfD talk page - User:Collect's "keep" vote is still on the main AfD page but also here to preserve the flow of the discussion) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment How many of the votes relate to the article as it now stands, and how many relate to early versions? After Limbaugh delivered his TOTUS rant, there was a massive effort to get that label all over the web.  The original article was part of that effort, presenting Limbaugh's criticisms as factual and vilifying Obama.  As it now stands, the article counters the now-widespread misinformation, and demonstrates that Limbaugh basically made it all up.  I would submit it's a useful resource for that reason. Morag Kerr (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Getting more than enough outside coverage, not just from Limbaugh. If the reason is that it is only to push Limbaugh's remarks, that claim fails. And "IDONTLIKEIT" is too common a theme above to be used for weighing reasons here. Maureen Dowd in the NYT "Barack Obama even needs a teleprompter to get mad. " And I suggest that when she takes up a topic, it is not because Limbaugh asked her.  NYT again (right wing rag?) "Presidents have relied on teleprompters for decades, but none as extensively as President Obama." dismisses the claim that "they all do it."  "For Mr. Obama, a teleprompter means message discipline, sticking close to his intended words." So we are left with notability: passes, one-sided issue = only if O'Dowd and Limbaugh are buddies. It is not just "derogatory remarks by Rush Limbaugh" - it is in the general press, and if Dowd is an example, the genie is not about to go back into the bottle. As long as the article ends up NPOV, the issue remains. Collect (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "OMG reliably sourced!" argument is becoming a bit of a strawman, as that is not the rationale that has been cited in the calls for deletion. Tarc (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it's a damn sight more reliably sourced than it was. But the main reason given for deletion is that the subject is trivial.  Which it is, on one level.  However, the sheer amount of coverage this has got as a result of Limbaugh's false report being spread all over the web is phenomenal.  This very article in its original incarnation was a crude attempt to do just that.  The article now documents exactly how false Limbaugh's accusations are (drunk president reads out the whole of Cowen's speech, no less!), and so provides an accurate balance to all the lies swarming out there. Morag Kerr (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, maybe Obama does use the teleprompter more than earlier presidents. Is that a criticism?  Dunno.  He uses technology in general more than earlier presidents.  He's of a younger generation than any of his predecessors.  Maybe it seems natural to him to use the thing, when his predecessors would just have scribbled something on the back of an envelope.  Maybe he really isn't a very good extempore speaker, and needs the cues to keep him right.  Even if that's the case, if he's delivering his own material, does it matter?  What does matter is that criticisms should be factually based, and not founded on a pack of lies disseminated by Limbaugh and his fans.  This article now provides some factual basis, and exposes Limbaugh's lies for what they are. Morag Kerr (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As the nominating editor, I have something to say about this. The quality of the article has significantly improved since I nominated it for deletion, and it pleases me that an effort has been made to do this; however, the reason for nominating it in the first place has not changed. It is still a POV fork designed to put a negative spin on what would usually be a perfectly normal activity - something so trivial that it could not find a place in any of the existing Obama-related articles. That's a textbook fork. Any claims of notability are, to be frank, misplaced. Reliable sources are (a) discredited repetitions of an inaccurate press release, or (b) reports about the discredited reports, or (c) conservatively-biased opinion pieces. This is an example of the Right trying to make a positive thing (wanting to deliver an articulate speech that stays on message) into a negative (Obama "cannot" deliver speeches without it). That's exactly the same as turning a positive (Obama's popularity, which is what won him an election) into a negative (Obama's celebrity). The plan is to attack what is positive about Obama and make it sound negative. Anyway, I digress. If content only seems at home in a "criticisms of..." article, it is almost certainly inappropriate for its own article. This is still a POV fork, and it should still be deleted, despite the (good) efforts of editors to improve its quality. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree almost 100%. As an unbiassed observer (I'm not even American), this absolutely looks to me like the right trying to discredit Obama on about the most spurious grounds imaginable.  However, my point stands.  The criticisms are out there.  The scores of blogs and articles about this aren't going to go away.  Is there not merit in keeping a Wiki article that can be referred to as evidence that Limbaugh was simply making it up in his much-publicised TOTUS rant?  Why not add more material covering the positive advantages of Obama's skill in using the device, if you feel more balance is required? Morag Kerr (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The criticisms "out there" are from political and ideological opponents of Obama, and a smattering of reporters who had nothing better to do that weekend than rewrite a press release. If you say that the article should be kept to document Limbaugh's behavior, then in belongs in a Limbaugh-related article. If you say that it should be kept to document the advantages of using a teleprompter, then it really has nothing to do with Obama. What we have is an unfounded criticism about Obama that had no home, so a home was created (this article). That's POV forking. Your final sentence really sums up the problem - you are suggesting that we add more positive material to "balance" the negative material. Flip that around, and you get the situation on the Obama article where anti-Obama folks are trying to shove negative material in to "balance" all the positive material, along with talk page claims of "hagiography" et al. It would be like writing an article about a world-renowned gynecologist and then insisting the article contains material about abortions he performed. No - adding positive material for "balance" is just adding weight to the negative material, legitimizing it. Delete. And for the record, I'm not an American either. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "If you say that the article should be kept to document Limbaugh's behavior, then in belongs in a Limbaugh-related article." Well, that's an idea....  Morag Kerr (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't think I'm seeing the right-wingers and the Limbaugh fans supporting the retention of the article now though. I wonder why? Morag Kerr (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If so, Limbaugh (the "chubby messiah") must have issued a "cease and desist" order and his clones backed off. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, but honest, all you've done is tip the angle of the coatrack so it is now pointing in the other direction. A version of the article slagging those that criticized Obama for telepromptering really isn't any better than a version that highlights the criticism of telepromptering. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This stuff is, at best, a footnote to the article about Teleprompters. I remember an incident when LBJ was reading off of his Teleprompter and it started to play a passage he had already read, and when he caught onto that after a few sentences, he had to start making it up. It was hilarious. But that was live TV, long before the VCR, and long before Al Gore invented the internet, so there's likely no Youtube of it anywhere. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the clear evidence of Limbaugh's lies and spin far more interesting than the fact that it is about a teleprompter accident. Maybe Scjessey is right and it really belongs in a Limbaugh article. Morag Kerr (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Limbaugh is going to spend the next four (or maybe eight) years nitpicking everything Obama does. We can't be documenting every one of his little rants. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Slippery slope fallacy. Nobody's forcing anyone to document anything. If someone thinks something's worth documenting, they'll document it, and if the weight of opinion says it isn't, it'll die.  There's plenty trivial gripes already in the Rush Limbaugh article, and this one is as notable as any of them. Morag Kerr (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I bet there are. As with other pundits like O'Reilly and Olbermann, they thrive on this stuff. The late, great Paul Harvey drew some controversy because of his generally-conservative views, but he always tempered it with a sense of humanity and positive outlook that the modern pundits lack. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking Scjessey is right. This isn't about Obama, or at least insofar as it is about Obama, it's about as important as which tie he happened to be wearing one day.  The interest is about Limbaugh, specifically that it is an example of Limbaugh whipping up a controversy by making statements/implications that are verifiably and patently untrue. If the article is deleted, I vote to include a shortened version of the misrepresentation of the St. Patrick's Day incident in the Rush Limbaugh page.  In particular to provide a record of the actual events for reference in relation to the "drunk Obama read out the whole of Cowen's speech" fairy-tale. Morag Kerr (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the article (at least recently) wasn't only about the St. Patrick's Day event. It also included info from other areas as well. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and no. It was first posted on 19th March, and although some prior background was included, it launched pretty quickly into quoting David Byers' erroneous account of the events of the 17th on the assumption these had happened as described.  It then moved quickly on to Limbaugh, and specifically his "TOTUS" jibe.  That was the main thrust, and it was all founded on what happened on the 17th.  Anything before that was nothing but right-wing tittle-tattle with nothing but right-wing commentary to support it.  It was the appearance of the "Obama thanked himself" articles in serious newspapers that gave the thing enough of a semblance of notability to get the thing off the ground. Take that away, and there's not much left. Morag Kerr (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

←Being conservative, I'm trying to look at this in a NPOV light. As much as I agree with many of Limbaugh's views, his "I know better than anyone" ego is irritating. But, to get back on topic before my post gets de-forumized, perhaps a better topic would be US Presidents and technology - going back as far as JFK using TV for debates, or even as far as Lincoln and the choo-choo. Might be something long range, but I'm gonna work on it. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 17:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Letterman has given this some air time, so fair warning. Also Ched, I don't disagree with that, but I think invariably the issue is that mentioning anything other than "Obama also used a teleprompter, like very US president has in recent memory." is nothing more than a way to trojan in negative (not based on fact but opinion) material about the President. You also have relevance: if there is nothing unusual about Obama's use of a teleprompter (frequency has no bearing on what is "usual" in this since because you can't quantify it) then why bother mentioning it at all?216.96.150.33 (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Maybe Scjessey is right and it really belongs in a Limbaugh article."
 * That isn't exactly what I said. It was an  construct. I don't actually believe it belongs anywhere. That includes the article on teleprompters, BTW. There is nothing noteworthy about a specific teleprompter incident. I was once involved in a summit in London when Margaret Thatcher delivered a 40-minute speech almost verbatim after her prompter failed right at the beginning. Awesome stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thatcher definitely had the gift of gab. And I don't see what the big deal is about a prompter. Reagan, "the great communicator", was indeed outstanding when he spoke from a script - and why not? He was an actor. He was not quite as good extemp, though he was still miles ahead of Dubya. MLK spoke from notes when he delivered his famous speech at the Mall, the one ending, "thank God I'm free at last". The interesting thing is that the "I have a dream" part isn't in it - that came to him as he was speaking. Maybe the issue is too much reliance on notes, but that's not really up to wikipedia to worry about. That's a matter for reliable sources (of which Limbaugh ain't one). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, slight misquote. However, why would you think that the part about Limbaugh having stirred all this controversy up by essentially lying about what happened, doesn't belong in the Rush Limbaugh article?  Given that the misconception that Obama really did read Cowan's speech is now widespread, is it not appropriate that the accurate version is available on Wikipedia? Morag Kerr (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly? I don't think this is a big deal for Limbaugh either. He spouts lies and half truths almost constantly, and if we gave coverage to all of them we'd have a 10Mb article. Use of a teleprompter is not worthy of any encyclopedia article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll see what the eventual decision is. I think we've gone over the argument fairly.  My point is more that I favour retaining an account of the actual events of the St. Patrick's Day incident as a record (to counterbalance the squillions of blogs and articles out there repeating Limbaugh's version), not that I believe it's notable in its own right.  Though having said that, it's as notable as a lot of other stuff in that bloated Limbaugh article. Morag Kerr (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

None of this belongs here - it should be on the talk page for this AfD (excepting the "keep" vote from User:Collect at the top). Does anyone object to me moving it over there? If no one does I'll do that, or someone else should feel free to do so. This discussion has gotten rather far afield the purpose of this page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't object if you do it. Morag Kerr (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I don't think it belongs on the talk page either. I think it should be archived in the round file. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If its permitted, its a good idea. Are there any rules about moving text from an AfD discussion? If not then I'd agree the best home for it would be on the article talk page. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved it here to the talk page, obviously. I don't think it violates any AfD rules as this is exactly the kind of discussion that is supposed to happen at an AfD talk page, rather than on the main page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)