Talk:Public image of Barack Obama/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

July 8, 2009 Rasmussen poll

July 8, 2009 Rasmussen poll of Obama's job approval: 32% strongly approve. 37% strongly disapprove. This information from July 8, 2009 should be cited in the article. I cannot add it myself, as I have been topic banned, and can only make suggestions on talk page, so I am asking someone else to please add it. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth should we? It's a daily poll. Not even WikiNews tracks daily variations in polling numbers. That's the most absurd recentism I've ever seen proposed. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Rasmussen is a well-respected pollster, Mike. What are your thoughts on at what point we do note the drop in approval ratings within the article text? Unitanode 16:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I found this on a similar article about Bush43, so perhaps a brief mention of a decline in approval rating is merited here? Unitanode 17:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Same polling service one day later On July 9, 2009, 30% strongly approve, and 38% strongly disapprove. Yes, it's a daily poll. But the webpage also shows the long term trend, and it has changed substantially over time. Just one month earlier, on June 9, 2009, it was 36% strongly approve, and 28% strongly disapprove. In one month, the "Presidential Approval Index" went from +8 to -8. That's notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

With George Bush's approval ratings, we got a 19% so it was instantly added, declared invalid, and thus followed an edit war. The concensus was to 'sit on the results' for at least 2 months before you do anything. One respected poll may be way outside of the norm even if done perfectly with a perfect group to get results from. Long term trends are useful, but daily poll results vary too much for anyone to get broken up over. I have no issue with Obama's results modulating over time, its expected, but a single days results are pointless. So are a weeks. A month's trend can be useful, and several months more so. A single day in July, not so much. Just wait, things will work out to determine if Obama maintains his popularity or it dwindles, but you, as an editor, need to sit on it until you have a trend instead of an outlier. Obama is going to be in office for years, you have time. RTRimmel (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The reason I was a bit swayed by this was that I seem to remember similar numbers (a negative trendline) from a recent Gallup poll, but I'm not certain about that. I'll see what I can dig up on the subject. I'm not fervent one way or the other on this, I just took a look at the Bush43 artoc;e to see if there was any precedent for inclusion. Unitanode 21:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring note

I note here that I left a warning on Saturn's talkpage regarding the slow-motion edit war against consensus that he's engaging in here. I note that he used his rollback tool to remove it from his page. Unitanode 16:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And how is that relevant to this page? --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You are edit-warring on this page, Saturn. And as Gustaf points out below, this article is part of the Obama article probation as it is. Even without that, though, slow-motion edit-warring is still not acceptable. Unitanode 16:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Remember that the article is on probation, and criteria stricter than WP:3RR can apply. I think that one more unjustified reversion would merit a visit to WP:AN/I. PhGustaf (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't unjustified, nobody disagreed on the talk page, so I assumed there would be no problem. To blatantly assume bad faith like this, says alot about the editors on this page. Especially the ones who revert and refuse to discuss on the talk page. This is hilarious. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Almost everyone disagreed with you at the talk page. Unitanode 17:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Just looking at the above thread there at least four editors who disagree with you and have voiced why it should not be included in the article. Brothejr (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
But their reasons were proven false. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, this is turning into an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument. Brothejr (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
By who? The editors ignoring my discussion, reverting, and then assuming bad faith? --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
By you by ignoring what others have been saying. Please stop now. Brothejr (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Saturn, no one is assuming bad faith. The part of WP:AGF that many tend to overlook is the "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary..." part, and I find your explanation that "nobody disagreed on the talk page" to be a false statement. There are several here that disagree with you, and you surely are aware of that. That plus the two times now you have edited against clear consensus to put this teleprompter stuff into the article are examples of "strong evidence" as far as I am concerned. Tarc (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I have addressed every argument that every editor on this page has brought up. If I haven't please bring specific examples to my attention. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
However, addressing every argument does confer consensus to it. A clear majority of editors have to agree with yourarguemtns to be a consensus. Yet, the majority of editors here have not agreed with you and have said you did not prove your point. This is turning into a clear case of tendentious editing. Brothejr (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not democracy. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Nor is it your personal fiefdom. This is a classic example of WP:TE. Unitanode 17:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
How can this article not be biased when all the editors of the article are clearly biased in one way and then label anybody who actually is neutral as being a POV warrior? --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see the thread directly above this one. How am I "biased"? Unitanode 17:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You are ignoring weight arguments in order to prevent mention of Obama's teleprompter use to be included in the article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The weight arguments weigh against you, nor for you. Unitanode 17:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
How? The editors against inclusion simply made claims. I had actual evidence. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm disengaging from Saturn. Someone else have a go. Unitanode 17:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Saturn's understanding of "discussion" is sufficiently flawed that engagement is not worth while. He believes it means, "Everybody listen to Saturn", and that Saturn has no obligation to listen back. He has shown no indication that he pays attention to arguments contrary to his (see the "incorrectly" thread) so there's no point in making them. PhGustaf (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, you're not helping your argument by attacking me. I have given evidence for inclusion. Do you have evidence against inclusion?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My last on the teleprompter bit

unproductive contentious discussion about editors, not article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Here's the thing: it's not going in, and it's been explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over why it's not going into the article. If you attempt to add it again, against the clear consensus here, I'm pretty sure you'll be either blocked or banned from these articles. Unitanode 18:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your useless post which adds nothing to the discussion. I now see that you believe it will not be added simply because you say so. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The fact is that all the claims above have been proven false. January 2008 seems to begin the coverage of Obama's teleprompter usage, not March 2009 as is mistakenly claimed. This is covered in a wide range of reliable sources including the New York Times and is not simply attributed to Rush Limbaugh. The subject received more coverage than "Obama Republican," which is given a prominent section in this article. Please give me evidence that this is trivial or a violation of WP:WEIGHT. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Trying to prove that your opinion is right or that someone else's opinion is wrong is abotu as productive as trying to herd cats. Again, this is not a battleground, but it is increasingly apparent that you are treating it as such. You made your case...though it was untimately nothing new brought othe table that hadn't been tried a few months ago...and it is more than obvious that no one here has been swayed one iota. I believe the telepormpter inclusion would give undue weight to a trivial blip of an end-of-the-news-cycle type of story. WP:RECENTISM was more than applicable back when it was still a new item of the day, and now that we're a few months down the road, we can see that it had no effect on anything, no lasting impression or meaningful relevance. Just being picked up by a reliable source does not stamp it for automatic Wikipedia inclusion; there are other policies to note as well, cited above, and it fails to meet them. And indeed, this is my "last" on the teleprompter issue as well. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The teleprompter is an important part of his public image, and that's not my opinion that's a fact. I've already proven that this is not simply something that has been going on for a few months, it has been discussed regularly in the news media since the primary season began, and continues to. It has also received passing mentions in various articles because it has become something the public identifies with Obama. So I reject your label of the information as a "trivial blip," and I ask that you prove this claim with evidence. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Still riding (again) on the "teleprompter" thingy? It didn't gain consensus while the election was still going on, it didn't get consensus since then even so it was brought up several times and it doesn't seem to get consensus now. These are the facts, plain and simple.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a Democracy. It appears to me that concensus is wrong, especially if those editors can't provide evidence against inclusion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately (for you), consensus is one of the strong bases of WP. If you feel consensus is against policy/guideline or else state it. Just don't tell other editors they're wrong "because" [sic] you're right.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not. I've provided evidence that supports my claim on the weight issue. The "concensus" has not. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I urge you to please take these kinds of warnings seriously. I was topic banned from all political articles (but not their talk pages) for three months, and one of the reasons cited for my ban was that I kept adding information about Obama's teleprompter usage. Please learn from my mistake, and please take these warnings seriously. I don't want anyone else to be restricted like I am right now - it is not at all a pleasant experience. That being said, I agree with you that it sometimes appears that consensus is wrong in situations such as these. But getting banned is not fun! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If nobody can provide evidence and nobody is attempting to, why would they ban me? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You sure won't be banned or similar for your edits on the talkpage.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the teleprompter should be in this article, as well as my ideology section. I believe that wikipedia is not a democracy and that many of these editors who don't allow either of those two contents have not yet given a single legit reason for not bringing it to the article. It's very clear that many of these editors have a liberal agenda, and therefore do not want content criticizing Obama's public speaking skills and his ideology. --Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"It's very clear that many of these editors have a liberal agenda...". Am I included in your "secret list"??? If so I would like to know so I can respond.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You are not on my list. But if you were, how would respond to that? Just curious lol.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
How I would respond to it? I just wouldn't. But nice to know that I'm not on your "list". As for your question: I simply go with established (or new) consensus if it doesn't seriously violate policies. I have in general a stronger opinion against negative edits to an article (as they need strong sourcing) in comparison to neutral (my favorite) or positive edits as they usually at least don't do harm to the subject and I don't have any agenda when I'm editing WP. Satisfied? And BTW, I concour with Unitanode's statement below.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Claiming that other editors "have a liberal agenda" is not acceptable. Please retract and strikethrough that accusation. Unitanode 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This is not the proper place to make personal requests. Ask on his talk page. If you want to actually discuss this article, which you currently refuse to do, then do so. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
He made the accusation here, and I asked him to strike it here. Unitanode 21:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Still, that is not discussion related to this article. Please only discuss the article Public image of Barack Obama on this page. So far it seems all of your posts on this page relates to user conduct, please discuss the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Meh. Unitanode 21:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I think William meant the question above (from Jerzeykydd) directed at me (which I answered in compliance with talkpage guidelines). Although seeing his new post while I type this up I'm not so sure anymore. Maybe some misunderstanding? Unitanode made a reasonable request and in the right place.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
No, he meant my reply to JK. My request for JK to strikethru his accusation still stands, as does my meh about Saturn's thoughts on my request. Unitanode 21:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Then he is way off in my opinion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please. Let's discuss the article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please, stop nitoicking about it. The bad-faith comment was made by Jerzeykydd here, and it has been condemned and requested to be retracted here. You have done nothing but exacerbate the situation by repeatedly asking others not to talk about it.
As for the article, there is really nothing else to discuss. Everything said in previous sections, or in the old AfD for the separate article (linked somewhere above, I believe) are all valid responses to your question. You may not like said answers, but they are the opinions of those who have wished to weigh in. At this point it'd really be best to just move on. Tarc (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that there are allegations of weight issues and no evidence for the allegations. That is the whole basis for exclusion and if it can't be defended, how can that be concensus? And please remember, this is not an article, it's a small mention. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama, many who voted delete asked that some information in the article be placed in Obama sub-articles. Also, there were many keep votes, so I believe there is concensus to include the information on this basis as well as the basis supported by fact. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
What you believe and what is true are two very different things. Unitanode 22:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It is true. Thank you. I made the correction. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, one thing I do know is that if you put your version of "truth" into the article, it will be interesting to see what happens. Unitanode 22:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you giving me permission? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I was expressing interest in what would happen if you did. Actually, I'm fairly certain that you'd at least be topic-banned, and perhaps even blocked, so no, I don't recommend that you continue editing against consensus. Unitanode 22:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, consensus supports inclusion if you consider the AFD and the evidence which supports my claim. I highly doubt that I would be blocked for making the edit. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
No unbiased observer reading the above commentary would agree with you. I came to this as an uninvolved editor, and I don't. Would you be blocked? I think so. Would you be topic-banned? I think so as well. Unitanode 00:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Honestly though, it doesn't really matter. There has been no evidence demonstrated against inclusion, although there is evidence for inclusion, and an AFD confirms that most users believe the information should be placed somewhere. A completely unbiased editor would disagree with the empty claims that were being made by those supporting exclusion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
By now I'm just amazed how far ignorance can get.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
How can you actually say that? Like I've said before, those supporting exclusion cannot find evidence that the proposed edits violate WP:WEIGHT, and so they begin to attack editors that support inclusion. I'm not ignoring anything, like I've said above, those supporting exclusion are simply making claims they cannot back up. I'm not the one who can't get the point. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary of what was productive in the above conversation: do NOT edit war. Doing so is unproductive and against wikipedia policy. Wikipedia articles follow consensus. Consensus must change for an article to change. Please continue if you have content-based not editor-based arguments to make.--Loodog (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


Anyone have any documentation on the use of "black" to describe Obama? I have picked up anecdotes but nothing documented and substantial. It seems people disagree that he can be called "black" since he is biracial. Has Obama ever described himself this way? -- Techtonic (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Cut-and-pasted from the answer to Q2 on the Barack Obama page. Unitanode 02:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

    Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. Thus we use this term in the introduction. Keep in mind, many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American." Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body.


I removed references and a clause in Temperament that included 404s, opinion articles, liberal think tank links, and an article that also contained the sentence "And the mere image of ultra-volatile, careless John McCain in the White House was enough to scare the majority of the electorate into supporting Obama."

This whole article is so incredibly overrun with liberal bias. I assume that, like the rest of the Internet user demographic, a HUGE percentage of Wikipedia editors are liberals, maybe this is the cause. Either way this article is a good lesson to users to STAY AWAY from Wikipedia when it comes to American Left vs Right neutrality.

Unfortunately I don't care enough about Wikipedia to spend 5 months battling liberals to get the article back to neutral so I'll just leave it how it is. Liberals 1, Wikipedia 0. (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


I saw this article solely because of an ANI discussion.

There is no sub-section of Obama's image as a great speaker. This may be an omission. However, if it is mentioned, fairness dictates the mention of his notable teleprompter use. Have one without the other is POV.

Because of the huge fights associated with the teleprompter issue, I can see why there is no mention of the great speaker image/teleprompter image.

This is just an analysis and not a proposal to have such section or not have it. User F203 (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  • This has been discussed many times. Consensus is that such mentions do not really have a place in this article. UnitAnode 23:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Great! No mention is the peaceful way. Otherwise, if you mention one area and not the other (great speaker vs. teleprompter), then it's a huge war. I prefer peace. User F203 (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Both should be mentioned, they are both notable and can be found in reliable sources. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Around the world section.

It is written "In addition to this, Obama has established close relationships with prominent foreign politicians and elected officials even before his presidential candidacy"

This is true but McCain did receive some endorsements from a few foreign leaders.

Given that Obama articles is such a battleground, let others fight it. I learned my lesson with the Ireland issue. User F203 (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama book #1 on New York Times bestseller list.

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies by Michelle Malkin is #1 on the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction bestseller list. This should be mentioned in this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Best-seller lists are specifically excluded in the criteria for book notability (see WP:BK), so it really shouldn't be used as a criteria for being mentioned in an article either. Tarc (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This is what is says: "A book's listing at online bookstores such as Barnes & or is not by itself an indication of notability as both websites are non-exclusionary, including large numbers of vanity press publications. There is no present agreement on how high a book must fall on Amazon's sales rank listing (in the "product details" section for a book's listing) in order to provide evidence of its notability or non-notability." That refers to the bestseller lists of individual sellers, such as and Barnes &, not the best seller list overall for all sellers taken together, which is what the New York Times list is. Therefore, an overall list that combines all sellers, such as the New York Times bestseller list, is not excluded in the criteria for notability. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Write out your proposal and where it should be located in the article, and I'll see if I can add it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Curious - what would this add to the article? If it's that there are people that don't like him, that's pretty obvious. If it's specific accusations about something, BLP becomes a concern that needs to be addressed. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
William S. Saturn, thanks. Here's my suggestion: In August 2009, Michelle Malkin's book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies reached #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list for hardcover nonfiction.[1] Grundle2600 (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Ravensfire2002, it shows that people are disappointed that Obama's actions as President did not match his campaign promises. As the book has 76 pages of endnotes, it very well meets the BLP requirements. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Just because a right-wingnut writes a critical book doesn't mean it has any relevance to a public image article, as it is just gonig to turn into a laundry list of fawning and whining. Perhaps once some time has past and there's an accumulation of reliable material, we can start up an article similar to List of books and films about George W. Bush. Tarc (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
As Tarc said. I'd suggest looking at material from the end notes, not the book. It doesn't yet meet the criteria for being notable. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Grundle, specifically, which section do you think this should be added to? --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't be anywhere in this article. I looked through the similar Bush article (see below), and -- while there's a LOT more criticism there -- it doesn't include every anti-Bush book that came out when he was president. Neither should this article. It's unencyclopedic to do so, and thus unacceptable. Move past partisanship here, guys. UnitAnode 03:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how many anti-Bush books were New York Times Bestsellers, but I do feel it is notable to the public image of Obama considering the public is buying the book in such a large volume. Regardless of their views, the public is interested.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Being on the Times' best-seller list does make it notable. It deserves to have it's own article, and it needs to be linked on the page of the author. But simply being on the best-seller list does not make it a notable contribution to the public image of our 44th president. UnitAnode 03:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Who buys the book? --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Who do you think? UnitAnode 04:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The public. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Then you were just begging the question, so why did you pretend to pose it to me? The people who buy Malkin's book are (obviously) fans of Malkin already, which was the point of my reply to you. It's also why being on the NYT best-seller list by itself isn't enough for inclusion here. UnitAnode 04:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You asked back, so I answered. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. However, I believe that the public purchases in large volumes a notable book, which is a view of the president, and therefore falls into the realm of this article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
My post wikilinked to a page that answered your question, so it was clearly not meant to actually be asking the question back to you. She (and all authors of her ilk, both right and left on the political spectrum) preach to the choir. I have friends of every political hue, and the only ones I know who read Malkin, Coulter, et al are the ones who already agree with them. The ones I know who read Franken and such from the left, are those who already agree with them. I've yet to see one of my more liberal friends reading Malkin, or one of my more conservative friends reading Franken. They play to their bases, because that's where they make their money. You don't feed red-meat to vegetarians, and you don't feed tofu to Ted Nugent. UnitAnode 05:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
But the fact remains that the book is a bestseller. I can't show the demographics of the buyers, but I do know the simple fact of the matter. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
And the other fact is that simply being a best-seller doesn't make it necessary to include it in this article. UnitAnode 05:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The argument is that I say a book about the image of Barack Obama that is bought by a large enough volume of the public to be a bestseller, merits inclusion in this article. You believe it does not. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You've yet to make any sort of convincing argument that a book clearly written for a specific audience has any real relevance to this article. UnitAnode 05:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The argument is getting circular, I was just about to say that even if the book was written for a specific audience it is still a bestseller. Let's see what other editors have to say on the matter. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I work (part-time) in the book trade. The bestseller lists are notoriously manipulable and subject to the "preaching-to-the-choir" syndrome. I would say that the mere presence of this ephemeral attack piece (like many ephemeral anti-Bush2, anti-Clinton, and anti-Bush1 works) does not make it significant enough to include here, although it should be mentioned in Malkin's article if it isn't already. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Chiming in late: If Obama wrote a best-seller, it would be notable for the Obama article. This is not. I'm sure best sellers have been written about Washington, OJ, Rupert Murdoch, and Donald Trump: this does not mean that this is one of the most notable things about them.--Loodog (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is not about Obama, it's about his image in the public. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
That is a distinction without difference, as unless Malkin were a noted presidential historian, or in some way particularly qualified -- through education and such -- to comment upon Obama's public image, the book is not suitable for inclusion in this article. UnitAnode 17:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
If a noted historian writes a book that sells no copies, it should not be included. The public buys the book, this is not the historian's image of Barack Obama, it's the public's image. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
William, you're setting up a classic straw man, which I don't appreciate. Who said anything about how many copies a book sells or doesn't? Book sales simply are not relevant to whether or not the book is a reliable source for this article. There are noted historians who are qualified to write intelligently -- and dispassionately -- about Obama's public image. Malkin isn't one. There are pop culture experts qualified to write such a book. Malkin isn't one. Malkin is simply a vociferous critic, who has -- suprise! -- written an attack-based book about Obama. Just as I wouldn't support inclusion of Bush-bashing books in the equivalent article on Bush43, so Malkin's doesn't belong here. UnitAnode 18:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
William, that is incorrect. If a notable historian writes a book about a person, that book is going to be considered a reliable source about that person. It doesn't matter how many copies are sold or not. See #5 at the top of WP:NB, plus the WP:Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Academic_books section. The number of sales may or may not make a book notable, but that has nothing to do with it being considered a reliable source. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
William, my argument makes no distinction between person and person's image. "There was a best selling book about [guy]" is not automatically one of the most notable things about (the public image of) [guy].--Loodog (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that the book is not being used as a source. It's simply an aspect of the public image to describe. Unitanode and Ravensfire are looking at this in a backwards way, and misunderstanding the purpose of this article. This is the "public image" of Barack Obama, or how the public views the president. The public are the one's who make a book a best-seller, and therefore reflects their interests. The funny thing about this is that in this article, references in comic books are notable but not best-sellers. That is illogical. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
William, you're not going to get anything remotely resembling any consensus to add what you and Grundle are wanting to add based on this book. If you're really wanting this, your best bet is an RFC or the reliable sources noticeboard. A well-written poll is the kind of source that would appropriate for the comment you and Grundle want to add, not a book. Using a book to reflect public opinion is illogical. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
That's not what I'm doing. I'm stating that the best-selling status reflects interest.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It reflects interest in the book. Full stop. ANYTHING else inferred beyond that is OR. You don't know WHY people bought the book, so you can't say what their interest is in the matter. You can only say that X people bought the book. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You can't even say that! That's what I'm talking about when I called those lists "manipulable". Carefully planned bulk purchases at the right venues can artificially inflate the reported standng of a work. It's by no means unheard of for a wealthy fan of a volume to buy literally thousands of a work at a discounted price to spread to others, thus pumping up the ranking for a while. (For a fictional example, see Rex Stout's The Doorbell Rang.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course the really good example of manipulation is CoS, and their efforts in the past to keep Hubbard's books on the lists. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Well then, I guess you can base its exclusion on your own conspiracy theory, I can't really argue about that. I just don't understand how depictions in comic books are acceptable in this article while New York Times Best-Sellers are not. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you don't understand wikipedia criteria for inclusion. A good place to start would be Notability. You might also find Wikipedia:Notability (books) useful if you wish to understand why your suggestion is inappropriate. In the meantime, I don't think it's productive to argue about things you claim to not understand.--Loodog (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Loodog, don't make false claims you can't back with evidence. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Loodog sent out a message to the editors discussing the matter above on this talk page, advising them to stop discussion because they have no valid argument against inclusion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You need to stop. That's not what he said at all, and you know it. You don't listen to any arguments presented to you, so what's the point in replying to you over and over? Your post here is mischaracterization to the point of being an outright lie. Please refrain from similar posts in the future. UnitAnode 04:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and what is the arugment I'm not listening to. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


I'm submitting this for review. The current version gives no information on the Muslim heritage of Obama (his grandfather, father and stepfather) and does not allow for the possibility, or include any of the evidence that Obama may have had some aspects of a Muslim upbringing or religious identification, since reliable sources confirm that his stepfather went to the mosque and sometimes took Obama with him, and that he was registered in the catholic school as a muslim as the religion of his father. Remarkably, the very word "muslim" appears to have been scrubbed from many Obama articles. In all fairness, I've referenced Obama's claims that his stepfather was a non-practicing muslim, and that his mother took him to Easter services, but claims on his part which may be at odds with established fact are not neccesarily gospel truth either, or are claims of "consensus" over any controversial issue that the matter has been fully settled in favor of Obama.

Obama was raised in a semi-religious atmosphere by his non-traditional family. His spiritual change of heart as an adult and his coming to believe in Christianity is a major part of his autobiography Dreams from My Father. Obama has stated that he "felt a beckoning of the spirit" at this time. He has also said that his political/ethical beliefs are "guided by his Christian faith" including belief "in the power of prayer."[2]

Obama was raised as Christian by his mother who took him to Easter services, and more recently was a member of a Christian church.[3] Obama has officially stated "Barack has never been a Muslim or practiced any other faith besides Christianity".[4] Nevertheless, as his grandfather had converted to Islam, and his namesake father was born into Islam (but no longer practicing at the time of Obama's birth), and his stepfather was Muslim his heritage had many ties to Islam. By July 2008 polls showed that some Americans believed that he was Muslim or was raised Muslim (12% and 26%, respectively, in Pew[5] and Newsweek[6] polls).

Citing the latter poll by CNN's Larry King, Obama responded, "...I wasn't raised in a Muslim home," and he said that advancement of the misconception insulted Muslim Americans.[7] In November 2008, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute expressed in a news report (reacting in part to a satirical New Yorker cover) that ethnic caricature involving faulty depiction of Obama's faith harms Muslim Americans, impeding their "opportunity to participate in the political process."[8]

Much of the speculations and allegations came from chain e-mails of unknown origin during Obama's presidential campaign.[2] A publication which speculates about Obama's concealed Muslim religious affiliation include The Obama Nation (published August 1, 2008) by Jerome Corsi. His book opens with a quote by Andy Martin, who The Nation,[9] The Washington Post,[10] and The New York Times[11] have identified as the primary source for the allegations that Obama is concealing a Muslim faith. Middle East scholar

Daniel Pipes has repeatedly claimed that Obama is a Muslim in The Jerusalem Post and his website.[12] He alleged that Obama falsely claims that he had never been a Muslim, and that "the campaign appears to be either ignorant or fabricating when it states that Obama never prayed in a mosque." In a 2004 interview with Cathleen Falsani, Obama said that his stepfather was a non-practicing Muslim. [3]Pipes concluded that despite official statements, “Obama was born a Muslim to a non-practicing Muslim father and for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father".[13] Pipes wrote an article for FrontPage Magazine entitled "Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam." Media Matters for America described Pipes' article as promoting a "falsehood".[14] However, an article in the Chicago Sun Times debunking the myth acknowledged he was registered as a Muslim at St. Francis Assisi Catholic school.[15] [16] The same source also noted that Obama's 3rd grade teacher and neighbors saw his stepfather sometimes take "Barry" with him to the mosque when he went to pray.

I've added a bit to the article about how his dad was a raised Muslim but a "confirmed atheist" and all the other jazz that was in the main Barack Obama article. Let me know what you think.--Louiedog (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I found another link to a copy of the same Chicago Tribune article that no longer works:

[1],0,4165671.story Obama madrassa myth debunked By Kim Barker Tribune foreign correspondent March 25, 2007

Some issues with this article

First, let me state -- as I feel I must -- that I have no sympathy for those who have been attempting to shoehorn every criticism that comes down the pike about Obama into this article. I particularly loathe the tactics of a few who shall remain nameless for purposes of this post. With that said, in doing some research about whether this article needs to include mention of Malkin's book -- which I have decided, it should not -- I found the parallel article on Bush 43. The differences are striking -- and telling. The article about Pres. Bush is little more than critical in nature, while this article has very little truly critical commentary on Pres. Obama.

My question is this: how can this be remedied? This does not reflect well upon the project and its biases -- both real and perceived. I see two real possibilities here: either (1) the Bush article is "scrubbed up" a bit, and some of the more inflammatory and tangential criticism removed, or (2) this article allows in more information that is critical in nature. This is not to say that every time someone screeches and howls about his birth certificate, it should go into the article, or that every time a right-winger writes a book attacking him, it should find a place here. However, the disparity between the two articles is -- in my view, at least -- wholly unacceptable. I'm interested in hearing some ideas. UnitAnode 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument. As far as I can tell, Bush has, so far, been much more criticized than Obama. I think this has something to do with the fact that he got the US into pointless wars, threw out rights enshrined since the magna carta, and was impervious to any scientific advice. But it might also have something to do with the fact that Obama has been in office less than 8 months, while Bush had 8 years to attract criticism. Wikipedia reflects the weight of reliable sources, we don't balance criticism for political reasons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
OTHERCRAPEXISTS is completely unrelated to the point I was making. It's a guideline for arguments not to use during deletion discussion, and is not relevant here. My point is that while I could understand very much if the GWB article had a bit more critical commentary than the Obama article -- given the nature and tenure of the two men's administrations -- what seems odd to me is that one is comprised of mostly negative material, while the other contains almost none. This is not a negative argument, against any one particular thing in either article, but rather a positive one, about what we can do to ameliorate the perception of bias that's inherent in such a circumstance. I'd hardly say that this constitutes an attempt to "balance criticism for political reasons", but rather an attempt to make certain that we aren't letting our own political biases color our decision-making on such articles. Lest anyone doubt my motives in this, please feel free to browse my contributions to political articles. I'm no "wingnut" one way or the other. In fact, I've even been accused of "ownership" on a couple of articles by people who think I'm too pro-Obama. But I have no need to propagate the anti-Bush (see Stephan's "pointless wars", "threw out rights", etc. above) or anti-Obama (see William's various posts above) positions. I just want to see us have articles on these subjects that an encyclopedia can be proud to contain. Right now, the Obama public image article is much closer to that than the Bush one is, but neither is there yet, which was my point in my initial post to this thread. UnitAnode 03:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Unitanode -- this article lacking in balance. It is largely a negative portrait written from a partisan point of view, with few or no counterbalancing statements. One way to remedy this is to put a balance tag at the top. Please do not remove it until these multiple issue are resolved. KeptSouth (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Which article: Bush or Obama? If you mean the Bush article, then you should be on that article's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Obama's image as a smoker

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Would it be OK to add this image to the Depictions section of the article? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Apart from being trivial and unnecessary, it is also disallowed per Wikipedia:NONFREE#Images 2, #8. Tarc (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
And apart from the above it is not appreciated to pull editor's legs. Keep the soap out.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention, if you think that cartoon is about Obama being a smoker, you're really missing the forest for the trees.-- (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

female inclusion

I know it's stupid, but... the New York Times ran a front page article on Obama's apparent lack of female inclusion in casual events and that "There is a sense that Obama has a certain jocular familiarity with the men that he doesn’t have with the women". So, it's silly but sourced. I guess that means it should be included here. See also: The Guardian's article and ABC's piece on NOW's reaction.--Louiedog (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My only concern would be WP: News articles, which states "Articles should not be about events that have strictly passing significance and interest". Being reliably sourced is good, but is the issue of more than transient notability. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
They say that notability is not temporary.--Louiedog (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


I created a section for Events alleged to have affected Obama's public image. I had intended to source it entirely from established news organizations rather than blogs et al, and my edit included more than a dozen such references (87 through 101). Even so, another editor reverted the entire section. If the section only cites reputable secondary sources which themselves categorize each event as one which seems likely to affect Obama's public image, that seems encyclopedic to me. Penny for your thoughts regarding Events alleged to have affected Obama's public image. --24dot (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts - WP:UNDUE, at best. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I performed to revert per WP:BRD. Events such as the special olympics joke, the fox news "controversy" etc may have drawn the ire of some (or many?) individuals, but it remains to be seen whether or not these items have made any changes to his Public Image, the subject of this article. They appear to be merely criticisms, and many of the sources were editorials. If, for example, Obama becomes known for telling inappropriate jokes, then the special olympics bit has some context with regards to that larger aspect. But he's not, so I'm unsure of the purpose of those sections. That your sourcing was not blogs does not mean the content is merited for inclusion -- please provide reasoning why this information is important to the article. thanks, --guyzero | talk 02:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Really, all that is just a play-by-play of anything that shows up the news. While we're at it we would have to add the Kanye West "Jackass" incident, the fly-swatting/PETA incident, the fact that he took Michelle out for a night on the town, his speech in Cairo, and every other little thing that captures CNN's attention for 15 minutes. WP:NOTNEWS is exactly why we don't have this.--Louiedog (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Obama has certainly become known for his TelePrompter; it's quite conspicuous and an inextricable part of his image. Let's try this again, with an exhaustively well-sourced and painfully balanced new section entitled:
"Reliance on TelePrompter". Please keep in mind this revision resulted from the WP:BRD thread above, and I'm the first to agree it is superior to my first effort. --24dot (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A "conspicuous and an inextricable part of his image" for Limbaugh fans perhaps, but not anything mainstream or reliable, no. This was once an article that was deleted several months ago, and it has no place here either. Conservopedia is thataway. Tarc (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The section I wrote already has over two dozen high-quality reputable secondary sources, sources which have commented upon the matter for years. Are they all in cahoots with Limbaugh? What about Biden and White House employees? It seems silly and unencyclopedic to ignore the matter of Teleprompter use just because it is ever-so-slightly unflattering for Obama. Even though Tarc summarily reverted it just seven minutes after I posted it, you can read it here and decide if you think it's a hit job on Obama. It's not. --24dot (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The Teleprompter use by this president has been covered widely in reliable sources and merits inclusion on this page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Disagree, per WP:UNDUE. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no basis for that objection. What is your reason for disagreeing? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF, then read WP:UNDUE. BTW, using colons to indent clarify to whom your comments are addressed. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
You have not supported your argument. You have simply made an absolutist statement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I am uninterested in WP:DRAMA and do not want to turn this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I am also not interested in being WP:BAITed, so I will stop replying to you in this vein (see WP:DNFTT). I reiterate that the suggested addition does not meet the requirements of WP:UNDUE, as described. Rather than debating, consider finding WP:RS to support proposed text, and showing it here. If the sources support it, and the text proposed does not provide undue weight to a minor issue, then you and the original proposer will gain consensus (I'll certainly support it). Otherwise, this talk is all hat and no cattle. Finally, please follow the conventions in WP:INDENT. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand, but given the numerous reliable sources spread over the period of years, how can you label it a "minor issue?" --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

While there might be merit to some of this, statements like "Several widely reported incidents have tended to reinforce the image of Obama as dependent upon prepared script over off-the-cuff banter." and "Obama's seeming unwillingness to modify his planned remarks has also reinforced this image." are WP:SYNTH by any measure. The most helpful thing would be for the pro-teleprompter folks to bring quotes here that support that telepromptering is a part of O's image, either through (a) polls or (b) commentators making statements about how the teleprompter usage is perceived by the public.--Louiedog (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Facts from WP:RS make for good additions to the article. Uncivil commentary and unsupported statements do not. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Problem is, last time this was inserted the other side simply goes out and grabs the tons of reliable sources that say he's weaning himself off of the teleprompter and his many speeches made without it making the entire issue look rather silly. Plus, its basically a conservative only issue as only Rush and his friends really beat on the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd be willing to entertain sources that provide quotes claiming that telepromptering is a part of O's image, either through (a) polls or (b) commentators making statements about how the teleprompter usage is perceived by the public. Without those, this is more a discussion of truth and not a discussion of verifiability.--Louiedog (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Links to past discussions on this;

Simply being "reliably sourced" is not the be all and end all decider of what gets to be an article or what gets to be in an article. Tarc (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree - there's an alphabet soup of policies/guidelines/etc. to meet (WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, etc.). I hadn't even seen the simplest WP:RS, though, in this discussion thread. Resist... temptation... to... hat.... Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? You tried to include a quote from Wonkette about this? You are aware that Wonkette is satire, aren't you? --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem in short form is that Teleprompter of the United States is basically a made up Rush Limbaugh controversy. It does not get enough press outside of that limited arena, and most of the sources there are not WP:RS. We can find some, but we can also sources saying that its a non issue and even more that say that it was a made up controvery by right wing talk radio, which is what shot down the first Teleprompter controversy of Barack Obama. At best its minor. We need some WP:RS and hopefully they are from major news sources this time. RTRimmel (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The material at Public image of Barack Obama#Reliance on TelePrompter is reliably sourced and not POV. If any editor(s) sincerely believes the subsection is WP:UNDUE here at this article, please suggest a better home for the material. Summarily deleting it is unproductive. --24dot (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A topic that has been done to death, and was one of the primary issues in getting one of the worst of the POV-pushers topic banned from Obama-related articles. Digging up this dead horse and kicking it yet again is probably a very good way to join him. Tarc (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that's more than a little heavyhanded, no?
What happened to the "D" in WP:BRD?
So until its flaws have been better defined, I'll stand by what I've written and plan to reinstate it again tomorrow.
Of course, I hope for constructive discourse with other editors. --24dot (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
That's not quite 'D' though, is it? This has been discussed before, with the consensus to not include the material (see above). 'D' would be discussion to change the consensus to include the material. Ravensfire (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, the "D" implies you getting consensus for your addition and threatening to revert without it isn't going to help. 6 paragraphs along with two offset quotes, etc. is certainly UNDUE for this material. Can you cut it down and post a single sentence or two at most of summary here on the talkpage for discussion? thanks --guyzero | talk 20:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


The "D" means that an editor should try to "D"-scuss the matter, like I did here.
AFTER that comment, my later comment explicitly said that I would NOT revert UNLESS no flaws were enumerated.
I infer that conscientious editors mainly object to the length of the subsection as I'd earlier put it in this article.
So, I've been humble. I have not reacted blindly with an "undo". I'd ask for the same courtesy as I boldly put a dramatically shortened version into the article; it's three sentences plus the Biden quote which is too good to cut IMHO. I look forward to a productive Discussion!
--24dot (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Not how it works, bud. You know damn well this has been a contentious topic in the past, seeing how you bumped a months-old thread. This has been rejected soundly in the past, both as a section of this article and as a standalone topic, so it is up to you to show what has changed since then to address the numerous problems that other editors have expressed with the material. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
When I suggested "one or two sentences at the most" above, the multiple paragraphs[1] along with a section header and clearly not NPOV Biden quote was not at all what I had in mind. As Tarc says, its on you to get consensus. --guyzero | talk 22:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not like this has ever been discussed before. That is a flaw - ignoring consensus which is to not include the material. You need to address the concerns brought up in those previous discussions, concerns which led to the view not to include the material. It is up to you to work on changing that consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
So looking at the sources provided, I now support inclusion, though not with nearly as much detail and length. Washington Post writes, "It is amazing how swiftly a presidential tendency turns from observation to joke to meme. Barack Obama -- called "the most eloquent political speaker of our time" -- has become known as the teleprompter president." CNN says, "The Democratic presidential nominee has never tried to hide the fact he delivers speeches off the device, though normally he doesn't use one at standard campaign rallies and town hall events."
I wouldn't call Joe Biden's comment notable enough because he's not speaking for anyone else. I'd also say HuffPo isn't relevant because it's just them commenting on Letterman's point that it's a good thing to use the teleprompter. The politico news piece is likewise probably not appropriate because it just the author making a note of O and the TP, rather than talking about what people think about O and the TP. mymodernmet isn't particularly notable as far as I know though if Fox News calls him the Prompter-in-Chief, such a statement might be article-worthy if we're willing to accept Fox News as mainstream media.--Louiedog (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Going from the last diff, the section title should be more along the lines of "Public Speaking". Start off with a similar first line, but 4 sources for humorist? Really? And three are nearly identicle? Just one would be more than sufficient there. The section as written is a unbalanced criticism section, saying "praised as an orator" then everything else is about the TP is WP:UNDUE. Might be intestesting to see if there are any opinion pieces for when Obama is not on a TP, focusing on he does as a speaker without it. Likewise, Obama was known for having his Blackberry around, is the TP reliance a sign of someone more comfortable with technology? *shrug* No idea, but it's another possible angle. As the section is written, it should not be in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This is absurd and I would oppose any kind of inclusion. Unless someone can show me the difference between reading from prepared text on paper and a teleprompter. It's just a silly right-wing meme meant to put up an issue that is not there. Every President since Eisenhower has used a teleprompter in one way or the other. Some were good at it like JFK, Reagan and Obama, some were not so good. Points of reference. Here you can see LBJ and GW Bush read from a teleprompter. Here is Ronald Reagan reading from a teleprompter. Robert Schlesinger of US News and World Report has an article that sums up the whole ridiculous attempts by Obama's opponents to paint using the teleprompter as something unusual.

The teleprompter is a fancy version of a prepared text. Used skillfully, it enables a speaker to deliver a speech more effectively because one does not have to look down periodically to read one's speech. But it's an acquired skill, and not one easily learned, which is why presidents (and others) are sometimes loath to use the thing. Dwight Eisenhower was the first president to use one and hated it: He thought that it could work if the speaker could control the pace at which the text scrolls by. But again the important point here is that using a teleprompter means that the prepared text scrolls by on a screen rather than on pages in front of the speaker. That's it.

Among the modern presidents, extemporaneous versus reading-prepared remarks skills varied. FDR was exceptional with a prepared speech and could also ad-lib; Truman was terrible tied to a text but very effective off the cuff; JFK was at ease both ways (his "ich bin ein Berliner" speech was mostly extemporized); Nixon preferred to speak without prepared remarks, instead memorizing an outline and then speaking without a text; Reagan was a master with a prepared speech and was OK off the cuff so long as a quip or anecdote would suffice, but extemporizing with substance could be problematic; Clinton was well-known for his ability to extemporize (recall his speech to Congress when the teleprompter had the wrong speech).

So again. In order for it to be included, one will have to explain the difference between using a teleprompter and prepared text on paper, prove that Obama is not an author and is unable to write, and prove that other Presidents have not used the teleprompter or prepared text. In other words, no. Absolutely not. It's not notable or unusual, but just an empty allegation with no meaning. DD2K (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post says he's "known as the teleprompter president". This has nothing to do with how many ways a speech can be prepared, written, or delivered - the article is from a mainstream source that isn't right-wing and has stated that teleprompter is a part of his image and so I'm now pro-inclusion. Whether it's a deserved image or its connotations are deserved (esp. considering his unscripted Q & A with Republicans) is open to debate but the source calls it a part of his image. C.f. Gerald Ford's public image was that he was a klutz when in fact he was a talented athlete. A totally erroneous public image that was still a notable one.--Louiedog (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, first of all, it's not "from the Washington Post", it's an op-ed in the Post by Michael Gerson. Do you know who Michael Gerson is, besides writing op-eds for the post? I'll quote you the opening lines from his Wiki bio:

Michael John Gerson is...a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He served as President George W. Bush's chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, as a senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006, and was a member of the White House Iraq Group.

Sounds pretty "right-wing" to me. Also, do you honestly believe the average American, or anyone outside some the people inside the Beltway and/or right-wingers ever even thought the words "teleprompter President"? Besides, if one reads the article cited, it has more to do with speech writers and delivery than Obama himself. My vote remains unchanged, it absurd to add anything like what's trying to be added. There is no there, there. It's not a negative to be able to give a speech in a more efficient and rousing manner. As much as his detractors would like to believe it, it's just not logical, factual or worthy of debate. DD2K (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Are we at the point where a "Public image of Barack Obama FAQ" might be a good idea? Tarc (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop censoring this article. The public perceives Obama as the "teleprompter president," to say otherwise is simply ignorant (and that's assuming good faith). --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Discussed and rejected ad nauseam, there is no censorship. There is zero perception of a "teleprompter president" outside of the Limabugh audience. Shall we create a Palmgate article just because the drive-by media has been having fun with Sarah lately? Tarc (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Go ahead but it's not a very good analogy. The teleprompter issue has been going on for almost 2 years, the Sarah Palin issue hasn't even been going on for a week.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
No, what's really ignorant is to believe that Obama is regarded as "the teleprompter President", when that's just an absurd right-wing meme being pushed. Again, tell me the difference between being able to use a teleprompter in an efficient and eloquent manner and reading from a paper script. Or words written on your palm for that matter. The only difference I can see is that one is what a professional would be able to do, and the other is more like something a middle schooler would do. DD2K (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no "teleprompter issue". Teleprompters have been a standard tool for politicians for decades and there is nothing weird or remarkable about their use. Obama has recently demonstrated he can be equally eloquent without one - when he pwned the GOP at their very own retreat, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
My vote is changed. I did not notice that it was an Op-ed. And although Op-eds from notable papers may be included as sources per WP standards, this now IMO does fail to be a "mainstream" source (i.e. outside of the right-wing). The CNN piece just called TP usage peculiar, but doesn't claim that it's public perception.--Louiedog (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
How a president is portrayed in the press is not a part of his public image? --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The president is not portrayed in the manner in which you claim. Tarc (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not ignorant to believe what is fact. DD2K, I can see that you are not ignorant, you are pushing a political agenda of censorship. Scjessey, stop pushing this irrelevant argument that it doesn't matter because other presidents used scripts, the difference is that previous presidents weren't documented in the press and made fun of for their usage. Your opinion of his "eloquence" is also irrelevant. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
No, what's irrelevant is your personal opinion. First, there is no difference between reading from a teleprompter and reading from notes or scripted paper. It's pure fantasy made up by Obama detractors. It's a fact that every President since Dwight D. Eisenhower has used the teleprompter in one way or the other to deliver speeches or to address the Nation. There is no there, there and it's a silly right-wing meme. I'm sure that POV pushers, which you are one, would like to believe otherwise, but it's just not logical, factual or credible. Also, please don't break up the flow of the comments on talk pages. It alters the context of other editors posts. DD2K (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
There has been no personal opinion in my posts. Please reread them and then reread your own to see the irrelevant comments you have inserted. It makes no difference if it is "fantasy" or created by the "silly right-wing," it is still an aspect of the president's public image. Wikipedia is in no position to take stands on whether or not a public image is correct or not. Take for instance what was mentioned above: the public image of Gerald Ford as a clutz, which was far from the truth, however it is wikipedia's responsibility to show how that portrayal was important to his public image. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that "the public" view Obama in the way you describe. It is possible that a tiny demographic adopt this view, but that group would be considered very much on the fringe. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Well William, that's not altogether correct. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle to spread negative connotations about WP:BLP just because they can be cited by a small fringe of society. While it's not the job of an encyclopedia to take sides on issues, it surely is to be factual. So it definitely does matter if there is a difference between reading from a teleprompter and scripted paper, or if other Presidents have used the device. It's part of the process in discerning whether something is a correct statement/comparison or a false statement/comparison. This is especially true when it involves adding material to a WP:BLP, of which this article is connected to(look at the top of this page). I will quote some portions of WP:BLP for you so you understand what I am referring to.

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.


Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability.

Also, you should read WP:Coatrack regarding this particular issue. So to sum things up, you are incorrect to assume that Wikipedia must insert anything that can be cited into WP:BLP articles, guidelines have to be followed. Not to mention, we do not throw our intellectual capacity for thought out the window when writing articles and then call it WP:NPOV. I am not opposed to any addition of this issue, but the attempts so far have been poorly written and tabloid-like. It's better to be left out altogether than any mention that isn't intellectually honest. That's not encyclopedic, that's tabloid. DD2K (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Egads this is tiring. Mr. Saturn, or anyone else, is there a specific addition to the article which you would like to discuss adding. If not, all of the yes it is, no it isn't here isn't really leading us anywhere. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been suggested that Obama's teleprompter use cannot be mentioned prior to showing:

  1. The difference between teleprompter and text on paper
  2. That Obama is not an author
  3. That Obama is not able to write
  4. That no other President used a teleprompter or prepared text

Those suggestions are laughably irrelevant, and will be ignored.
I attempted to address every other addressable matter from Talk:Public image of Barack Obama#TelePrompter2010 in the latest revision. For example:
* An objection was raised about the number of humorist references, and Huffington Post refs; those complaints are addressed in the latest revision.
* The suggestion to reduce the size of the teleprompter discussion was addressed, albeit not to a "one or two sentence" limit, which is indefensibly arbitrary; the body discussion is now three sentences.
* Someone implied that the Washington Post citation should plainly state its context as EDITORIAL; that is now done.
* Someone seemed keen on including comments by Robert Schlesinger's editorial from US News and World Report (which I'd previously cited but not quoted); a quote now been included and cited.
* Someone implied that comments by Obama's vice President regarding Obama's teleprompter use are 'tabloid-esque'. I disagree, but shall remove that stumbling block from my January 29, 2010 edit.
If there are other objections to my current edit, please do not bleet and crow in a vague, useless way. Please enumerate specific objections, quoting from Wikipedia guidelines if possible. Thanks! --24dot (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted this right-wing talking point garbage. There has been a longstanding and consistent consensus against this ridiculous prompter nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


FYI, here below is the so-called "right-wing talking point garbage" and "ridiculous prompter nonsense".
Refs have been removed for clarity, and useful edits suggested by User:Orangemike (differentiating editorials and op-ed pieces) have been humbly incorporated:

Both as a candidate and as President, Obama has been praised as an orator even while his uncommonly frequent use of TelePrompters has been noted both by humorists and commentators; an opinion writer in The Washington Post claimed that Obama "has become known as the teleprompter president" while a Politico article on "Obama's safety net: the TelePrompter" was dismissed as "a contrivance, and grist for the right wing mill" in a U.S. News & World Report op-ed.

Obama's use of speech prompting technology at news conferences has been noted by veteran commentators such as CNN's American Morning anchor John Roberts and Associated Press Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier. Other journalists have defended Obama's consistent use of speech prompting technology, noting that Obama routinely participates in writing his own speeches, prefers a 'disciplined delivery of carefully crafted text', and is to be commended for 'sticking to his rhetorical plan'.

Rather than summary revert, I wish useful discussion had occurred. I'll try to figure out to generate a RfC now. --24dot (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Obamamania: The Dark Side

The article falsely claims that "many aspects of the public image of United States President Barack Obama are unusual among American politicians and stand in stark contrast to those of many of his former opponents." Yet one of Europe's leading magazines by circulation, Spiegel wonders if Obama is "too much like his predecessor:" "Er war zu sehr damit beschäftigt, die Folter wieder einzuführen und einen auf Lügen gründenden Krieg zu führen, als dass ihn die Zukunft der Menschheit hätte interessieren können." The point was seconded by the front page of the Tageszeitung which displayed an image of Obama merged with George W. Bush alongside the grim question: "How much Bush is there in Obama?" The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung finds the watery taste of Obama lacking in substance and describes it as "Bush Light". The Ottawa Citizen calls it a coup for democracy. The Tageszeitung writes, "Whoever saw Obama as a prince of peace has made a mistake." Handelsblatt writes, "One thing is clear: there is a realization that the intelligence system is being hampered by its own organization. He has not come up with any new answers than those of his predecessor (Bush family heir, George W. Bush)." [17],1518,druck-661622,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. For some time, it has been commonly stated in the US media that Obama is very much like his predecessors - went to elite universities, had a high income before being elected president, surrounds himself with political cronies, favors big corporations and Wall Street, believes in continuing US wars in the middle east, etc. The article gives undue weight to this one view, with the first sentence in the lead, which is supposed to be concise, actually repeating it. (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit to lead

The lead section is supposed to be concise. The first sentence of the existing lead is not concise because it repetitive and the repetition also gives undue weight to one idea or view. Each clause in the current lead sentence says the same thing:

Many aspects of the public image of United States President Barack Obama are unusual among American politicians and stand in stark contrast to those of many of his former opponents.

Therefore, there are two ways to remove the repetition:

1. Many aspects of the public image of United States President Barack Obama are unusual among American politicians.
2. Many aspects of the public image of United States President Barack Obama stand in stark contrast to those of many of his former opponents.

I have chosen the first alternative because this article contrasts his image with that of politicians who have not been his rivals and the term "stark contrast" introduces POV into the lead. (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: This discussion ended long ago, in overwhelming opposition to the proposed change. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Without substantive discussion, editors have repeatedly reverted a three-sentence, well-referenced subsection on Obama's Teleprompter use. See deleted section. Is the topic encyclopedicly notable, as evidenced by multiple references over several years (and noting that a previous, longer subsection had more than twice the references, and an earlier editor criticism was that the prevision revision had too many references)? --24dot (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The above seems to violate the RfC guidelines. Specifically:
  • Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template.
-- Scjessey (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion of this right-wing talking point that has received virtually no coverage by mainstream media. Use of these devices is common and unremarkable. Any sort of coverage would be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. Numerous talk page discussions have yielded a solid consensus against pushing this POV, and repeated attempts to shove it into the article (as well as other Obama-related articles) have become tendentious to the point of being disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose as weightless trivium. He used a Blackberry a lot before the Secret Service took it away from him; that's actually more important, but not worth including. PhGustaf (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nothing has changed since this first appeared as a Limbaugh meme almost a year ago, which despite the RfC initiator's claims, has been discussed ad nauseam. It failed as a standalone article, and has been consistently rejected for inclusion in this article, per WP:CONSENSUS. I question why an RfC was brought up at this time, as there has been no change in its notability, or lack thereof. TOTUS and Teleprompter of the United States get a redirect to a jargon list, and that is more than sufficient for this minor political meme. Tarc (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - continues to be a trivium; even sillier than the so-called "Gore Effect", because at least most of those pushing the latter admit that it is a moronic joke. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - on the basis of no mainstream sources outside of the right-wing identifying TelePrompter usage as a notable aspect of how the President is publicly perceived.--Louiedog (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Wikipedia supposed to present the facts. Whether you think the fact is irrelevent is your opinion. Relevent or not, it should still be included.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The fact itself is not interesting and the section does not tell the reader why they should care. Re: Jerzeykydd's comments, which facts do we stop at? What color socks? What kind of toothpaste? Certainly many "relevant" facts are also boring and not worthy of space. What is interesting is the fact that so many publications have discussed this fact. It's a story that is self-propelled by the media, not the general public. Perhaps the section could be improved by adding a little "why" as well as "what." So the topic of the section should not be "Obama uses Teleprompter" but "Media obsessed with Obama's use of teleprompters" or "reaction to Obama's teleprompter use." Why did the Washington Post bother to write about it?--Panda609 (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with this previous comment by Louiedog: "The most helpful thing would be for the pro-teleprompter folks to bring quotes here that support that telepromptering is a part of O's image, either through (a) polls or (b) commentators making statements about how the teleprompter usage is perceived by the public." --Panda609 (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose As I've stated above, in one of the many times this has tried to be added here, this is a right-wing talking point that has no basis in reality. Perhaps we should start another conspiracy theory article about Obama and the teleprompter, with right-wing claims that there is some kind of difference between Obama reading from a teleprompter or any any President reading from one. Or from scripted notes for that matter. This is almost as tedious as those trying to add 'Muslim' to religion or Kenya to his birth place. It's a non-issue that is a contrived WP:COATRACK. Just because some sources recite right-wing talking points in discussions does not give credibility to the talking points. DD2K (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is kinda ridiculous. WP:UNDUE WEIGHT anyone? This appears to be an example of a special interest group attempting to fabricate reality. Then again, perhaps the George Bush article should have a section called the "The Malapropisms President". Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support (Don't care if I'm late) The fact that he has earned him a nickname, that is quite well-known by MANY people, is fact enough. It hardly hurts any image, but it is still needed. Not doing so results in a BIASED edit to Wikipedia. Halofanatic333 (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further discussion

  • Support well referenced throughout many years. As I said before: "The fact is that all the claims [about WP:UNDUE] above have been proven false. January 2008 seems to begin the coverage of Obama's teleprompter usage, not March 2009 as is mistakenly claimed. This is covered in a wide range of reliable sources including the New York Times and is not simply attributed to Rush Limbaugh. The subject received more coverage than "Obama Republican," which is given a prominent section in this article. Please give me evidence that this is trivial or a violation of WP:WEIGHT"

All these months later, evidence has failed to be provided. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Instead of discussing, PhuGustaf conceals the post and writes "Still boring after all these months. Note that the NYT also covered his dislike of beets." I ask him to point to other sources that discuss this "dislike of beets." Also, I could care less what Goofball thinks is boring. Boring is not an argument against inclusion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
See [2], [3], and [4], for a start. Or one of the other 541,000 Google hits on <Obama hates beets>. PhGustaf (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
RfCs do not stay open for 2 fucking months, as you should well know. The proposal was made, the proposal was rejected. Move on. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not participate in the RFC. The RFC failed to address the important issue mentioned above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you please direct me to the part of the RfC guideline that states "they are closed after 30 days except when William S. Saturn hasn't had a chance to comment yet" ? Tarc (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Just think of this as starting a new section. Just tell me why I am wrong, and I'll move on. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Surely the reasons why are contained in every post in the RfC that begins with Oppose. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
That was a vote. There needs to be consensus, which requires a clarification of how WP:UNDUE is being applied. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You're not discussing this rationally. You asked for "why" so I pointed you to where you could see why, then you deflected the discussion to one about a vote rather than a consensus. I'm an outsider to the USA, but I care about Wikipedia. There must be due process, and the RfC was closed. As for the vote vs consensus issue - Because some editors will stick strongly to a view, a consensus won't always reflect everyone's views. It will tend to reflect the views of a strong majority. Outliers have to just be accepted as a reality at times. That doesn't even mean you're wrong, just that the consensus at the time was different from your view. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
No, when issues are raised then they are discussed. Wikipedia is not democracy. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course. What is your point? HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
My point is to discuss the application of WP:UNDUE while taking into account my above statement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it's time to concede the argument. Besides you and me, no one else has agreed with us on this issue.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I won't concede until I'm given a valid explanation of why I am misunderstanding the application of WP:UNDUE in this article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. As I said above, I'm an outsider to the US and its politics, and new to this topic as well. I AM interested in the amazing and surprising success of Obama, but I see no need to be told that he used a Teleprompter. I would have assumed that he did. I am aware of very few politicians anywhere in the world who don't use such tools for organized media appearances. What is more important is what is said and what is done. The means of promulgating the message is hardly an issue. Well, except when new tools such as Facebook and Twitter are used. That WOULD be of interest. But a Teleprompter? Stop wasting Wikipedia space. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, but wikipedia must reflect what is being reported in the media. For example, the media regarded President Ford as a clutz even though the characterization was false. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Looking through the latest batch of Obama Teleprompter hits on google, we have a bunch of new ones such as Jon Steward on Obama's use of a teleprompter in 6th grade or the Onion reporting that he cannot make it through a family dinner without one. So now the comparison has began to mock itself? In the style from the Gerald Ford article, "In spite of Obama's demonstrate speaking ability, Rush Limbaugh painted him as a President who extensively used the teleprompter. While the coverage of Obama's teleprompter use originated with Limbaugh, by 2010 the notion itself was the subject of widespread derision by many media outlets. Barack Obama utilized the teleprompter usage was comparable to prior presidential candidates and he was repeatedly demonstrated to be able to function without the use of a teleprompter." RTRimmel (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Support reopening the discussion and taking it to a vote and doing so on a regular basis as is necessary. How can you possibly "settle" an argument when the news and events are surrounding it are ongoing? As more skits, more news reports, and editorials mention and satirize Obama's teleprompter use it becomes more and more relevant and there is more weight. If you still don't think it has gained enough weight than vote Oppose when the vote comes around, but don't forever close off the vote, doing so is inappropriate in this case when the story is constantly growing. Ink Falls 21:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
No, just show a mainstream source that either has polling data about people's perception of O's TP usage or makes a claim about people's perception of O's TP.--Louiedog (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Ink Falls, you have to understand why people were against putting the teleprompter in the article in the first place: because people thought that no mainstream source had it, right wing bias, etc. I don't agree with them, but we shouldn't reopen until we have the votes to get it passed. We need to get new people in the discussion that support putting it in the article and/or have the editors that originally opposed it to change their minds. Until then, reopening discussion will be a waste of time.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It is complete delusion to suggest that this is "constantly growing". This is a dead-end, Limbaugh-championed meme that had its proverbial 15 minutes in certain corners of the blogosphere, and little more. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The failure in comparison to President Ford also should be mentioned. Ford's presidency was hurt, badly in many circles, by the perception he was a clumsy. It dogged him and prevented him from getting his agenda positioned as successfully as was necessary. Further if you ask people about Ford, that's one of the first things they remember. By the same token, the teleprompter controversy has done nothing to Obama. So we don't necessarily even need sources saying that there is a teleprompter controversy, but rather that this controversy is significant to the President or his agenda somehow. This is why it fails WP:UNDUE, because its hasn't affected him. RTRimmel (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)