Talk:President Obama on Death of Osama bin Laden (SPOOF)

Structure of the article

By way of explanation:

• The "Content" section presents how references have described the video's content, and is intended as descriptive even if some quoted language is colorful (e.g, "swag"). RCraig09 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Viral video--statistics and distinctions" presents objective statistics and achievements. RCraig09 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Media coverage and popular response" is organized by references arranged generally chronologically by publication date, with different days' references being grouped by paragraph. The short-length reviews in the final paragraph (originally beginning "Video views were possible...") were presented to show how the video became viral, and (obviously) not to literally tell Wikipedia readers "This video is good." Reviews are permissible if sourced independently of the subject, despite the fact that positive reviews may sound like a promotional "tone." RCraig09 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

WP: Reliable Sources states "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." (emphasis added). Therefore, responsible attempts to delete a reference should include reasoning why it's unreliable for the content for which it's cited. Vague, self-serving edit summaries such as "fails WP:RS" are clearly inadequate (see Diagram: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement). RCraig09 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

By the nature of subject of this article (a spoof video), some references describe the content of the video (and can be verified by simply watching the subject video), while other references are opinions, reviews, or critiques (which can be verified by reading the source). Again, the reviews are presented to show how the video became viral, and (obviously) not to literally tell Wikipedia viewers that "This video is good." RCraig09 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"One-sided"

The Deletion discussion page and the article's "TooFewOpinions" tag indicate the article or references or article are one sided. This is because the references I found were essentially unanimously positive to the extent they talked about the article (various references, which I did not include, talked about Obama's original speech but not this video). Additional references with quotations and intelligent discussion, are welcome, though my Google search was thorough. RCraig09 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a BLP

This article is about a video, not a living person. Deletion nominator Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) is, politely put, incorrect in stating the video has "no independent notability apart from the performer involved,"-- as disproven by the content of the thoroughly referenced "Content" and "statistics and distinctions" sections (especially before his series of deletions of 29 July 2011). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)'s attempts to apply WP:BLP to an article about a video are not grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. RCraig09 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Constructive versus destructive edits

• The ultimate destructive edit is to delete a reference and its content. Even assuming a reference has "misrepresented attribution" or "misattributed" (per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) ), the responsible and constructive editor response is to attribute it correctly, not to delete reference and content. RCraig09 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Over-generalized and vague edit summaries such as "SPS failing WP:RS" completely ignore WP:RS's statement that "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made." (see Diagram: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement) RCraig09 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Blogs are not inherently unreliable, especially when contributor is "on staff" (CBS News) or even just pre-screened (SF Chronicle). They contributors are not "off the street." Further, Deleter cannot know that these contributors are "promoting" this video. RCraig09 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Claiming something is "promotional" is Deleter's subjective interpretation, and involves his own presumption of someone else's intent: he cannot know that a CBS News staff contributor is "promoting" this video simply by positively reviewing it. RCraig09 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Funny or Die is a notable comedy website, so that being voted to be on its front page inherently constitutes the "significance" that Deleter requires. Yes, positive research takes more time than summarily deleting content. RCraig09 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

WebCite

The article has many sources to WebCite videos that are unavailable anywhere else. WebCite is basically a dead site now, these sources are no longer verifiable and fail WP:V meaning they probably should be "cleaned up" ie. removed per policy. -- GreenC 04:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Lesson: use archive.org it will stick around. -- GreenC 04:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Many WebCite links have been saved by the Wayback Machine. I plan to grind away at replacing the links, over time. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)