Talk:Teleprompter

CamelCase

Isn't TelePromTer a brand name? RickK 03:54, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Should this be moved to the funny capitalization? --Jiang 03:58, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm wondering. Is there a generic Teleprompter, or are they all made by the company with the brand name? RickK 04:01, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I suppose we could do a redirect, but how many people are going to know to use this capitalization on (say) a search Dhodges 17:01, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh wait... there is a redirectDhodges

If anyone knows why exactly TelePrompTer is capitalized the way it is, the article would benefit from it. ---anon. 03:53, 09 May 2005 (UTC)

I've always understood that TelePrompTer was trademarked, albeit socially genericized. I think this merits mention in the first paragraph rather than late in the article as it is now. I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure how best to do it without interrupting the flow of the lead. See Onesie for an example of a similar situation. Lawikitejana 22:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So Filmation was originally owned by the original inventers of the teleprompter. I think this should be mentioned in the article. Brittany Ka (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Presidential glass

I added the photo of President Clinton. I hope it doesn't clutter up the article too much -- I think it's a useful depiction of how teleprompters are used. kmccoy (talk) 09:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's helpful. CsikosLo 16:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 0.0.0.0.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.143.113.193 (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested merge

Someone has suggested that this article be merged with idiot board. Strikes me that the latter is a sub-stub scarsely requiring a formal merge. Perhaps we could do a section on colloquial terms for teleprompter. --Dhodges 03:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added an etymology section to the document which should help clear up some of the confusion surrounding the trademark status of the word. I also agree that idiot board should be removed, since it fits nicely in the list of generic terms.
- AeroIllini - 21:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hackability...

Have these things ever been hacked/hijacked?

Autocue

A quick Google fight on .uk sites shows four times as many hits for autocue as for teleprompter. I'm British, and "autocue" is certainly the usual generic term here. The article notes that it is one of the "other common generic terms" used "in certain Commonwealth countries", but for the UK at least it's much more than a common alternative: it is much more common than "teleprompter". 86.149.133.230 (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Autocue is a brand name covering a series of broadcast products (teleprompters, news integration systems, etcetera). To call a teleprompter an Autocue is incorrect, as not all teleprompters are manufactured under the Autocue brand. (See http://www.autocue.com/ for more.) 64.139.82.221 (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC::)

In addition to this, generally Wikipedia does not go with a trademark or company name in place of a noun when a naming conflict arises. See: Ice Pop, vs "Popsicle," despite the latter being a far more popular term. 67.48.108.189 (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Innovations Section -- Spam?

The whole section titled "Innovations In Teleprompting" reads like spam by Jumbo Bright Prompters. It was edited by an IP from Salt Lake City, Utah, coincidentally the location of this corporation. I assume entries like this should be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.13.135 (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this deceiving audience

Shouldn't there be a write on its very idea of deceiving people that they are giving spontaneous speech?

TOTUS

Okay, kids. What's with this?[1] Yes, President Obama uses a teleprompter, and yes, it has become the subject of everything from comedy pieces to Republican talking points. But what does this have to do with an encyclopedic understanding of teleprompters? That's the point of the encyclopedia, you know. To convey understanding of subject matter, not to talk about current events. Wikidemon (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur it doesn't belong in this article. It's not "widely cited" but even if it was, it has nothing to do with this technology. Some weird disruptive campaign is the only reason the material would appear here.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Where then does it go if not here? CENSEI (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Free republic, rush limbaugh home page, your home page, blog/talk show/website of your choice really. It's not encyclopedic content -- it's just a comedian's schtick.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, its nice to see how well a quick canvas can bring out the meatpuppets. CENSEI (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've said this once, I've said it a thousand three times already. It's chocolate puppets to you, sir. Wikidemon (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

But in all (not) seriousness, there is nothing like a little POV disruption to bring out the responsible editors on the project. I don't think it's well supported yet, but if I were to guess, within 3-5 days TOTUS will have enough traction to be verifiable as a cultural meme, in which case... well, I hate to give you any ideas but if it's notable and it's verifiable, it fits somewhere in the encyclopedia.Wikidemon (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the blathering about Obama using a teleprompter. Every US president, beginning with Eisenhower, has used one at least some of the time. LBJ and Reagan were particularly fond of them, Nixon and the Younger Bush didn't like them. Jhobson1 (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It's simple, according to Politico.com's Carol Lee. No US president has made such pervasive use of the TelePrompTer as Barack Obama. It's noteworthy, and Obama is both the most prolific Presidential user of the device and the single most noteworthy. No animus toward Mr. Obama is implied by that statement, and I object to having my edits reverted for what I consider to be very insufficient reason.

Since Mr. Obama is not a performing artist, but the chief executive of the world's remaining superpower his attachment to the teleprompter, even during photo opportunities at grade school classrooms and cabinet meetings IS noteworthy. It's atypical of any of his predecessors, according to the politico.com article I cited.

In support of that view, Lee provided a quote from an acknowledged expert on the history of the Presidency:

“It’s just something presidents haven’t done,” said Martha Joynt Kumar, a presidential historian who has held court in the White House since December 1975. “It’s jarring to the eye. In a way, it stands in the middle between the audience and the president because his eye is on the teleprompter.”

I am aware that Fox News Channel has mentioned Mr. Obama's use of the teleprompter. They're a news channel; occasionally, they report news. Their reporting of a genuine news story that happens to coincide with Fox's particular biases doesn't "contaminate" a story that other commentators have also noted. Is Jon Stewart's Daily Show http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/1b43o1/obama-speaks-to-a-sixth-grade-classroom non-Fox enough? I'd say it was clear evidence of the notability of Obama's use of the teleprompter by someone who recently dropped an F-bomb on Fox News for their "phony patriotism."

It's difficult to justify not mentioning this use of the teleprompter by the current President of the United States. It seems to me that, had wikipedia.com existed during the Reagan administration, the people objecting to this mention of its use would be citing his use of it lovingly. It's disingenuous to question how relevant Obama's extensive and historically unprecedented use of teleprompter technology is in an article on the teleprompter itself. Obama brought the teleprompter into the public square and introduced it to a whole new generation of people who didn't even know it existed. His use of the device is definitely relevant. Suppressing its mention is the questionable move. loupgarous (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The justification is, as discussed throughout this page over the years, this is an article about the device, not an article about politics. Nothing has changed since the last time that discussion was had. The nonsense about Obama using the teleprompter extensively was a very minor partisan political talking point that came up briefly during an old election cycle, is not a relevant or significant part of the history, design, use, etc., of teleprompters, and does not help the reader understand the material. The Politico article is indeed neutral and reliable, but it is a wonky minor piece written for junkies of politics minutiae while this non-controversy was pending. Politics columns often cover the substance behind fake controversies, something that does not establish weight or relevance. Being a comedian, Jon Stewart is not a reliable source. Please avoid accusations of bad faith, they do not help the discussion. Wikidemon (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Despite all the discussion above, wikidemon has reverted my changes twice. No comment or discussion here, just reverted it with a note to the change log saying I haven't discussed the changes I wanted to make (which I clearly did above). This isn't the first time wikidemon's done this sort of thing. I'd be willing to discuss his issues with my changes, but this deletion - falsely charging that I didn't discuss the reason for my changes when I've done so at length with citations to support the need for the changes - strikes me as nothing but politically-motivated suppression of content. My sources were politico.com and the Daily Show, neither of which has been accused in the past of being unfair to President Obama. The sources included comment by a recognized historian of the White House on WHY Obama's use of the teleprompter is notably different than that of his predecessors - the historian actually SAYS THAT. Reversion of those changes without comment other than a false accusation that I didn't discuss the changes I made is highly questionable. So is suppression of content which is clearly relevant to the social history of the teleprompter and its use by the current President of the United States to a degree stated by an historian to be unprecedented. loupgarous (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I won't respond to accusations of bad faith, sorry. By the way, you're edit warring, at 2-3RR now. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a pity that you won't respond to descriptions of your conduct. And you started the edit war. And have continued it. I'm entirely willing to let an arbitration committee decide who's commented in good faith, and who's done arbitrary rollbacks with NO effort to discuss the matter. And, reading up on this thread, you seem to have gone against the consensus that if good sources can be found to document the notability of President Obama's extensive and unprecedented use of the teleprompter, they ought to be used to document it. I haven't noticed that politico.com is partisan in US politics one way or the other; while Jon Stewart IS a comedian, his use of Obama's visit to a sixth-grade classroom, teleprompter before him, is very good sourcing of the CULTURAL impact of Obama's use of the teleprompter.

Stewart's monologue on this subject, complete with footage of Mr. Obama's visit to the classroom and reading from a teleprompter, is actually a good source in two different ways:

- it demonstrates the ubiquity of the teleprompter in Obama's scheduled appearances;

- it also documents the cultural impact of this ubiqitous use of the teleprompter, and by a man who is generally sympathetic to Obama and his political objectives. Are you seriously saying that Jon Stewart's a tool of the right wing? It doesn't matter if he's a comedian playing at journalist or a journalist as such - his use of that appearance as subject matter for a sketch (I never claimed it was a straight news story at all) testifies to cultural impact. It supplies evidence that mention of Obama's use of the teleprompter doesn't lend undue weight to the issue.

Anyone interested in checking the facts of the matter ought to look at time stamps on these posts. Wikidemon inserted a post discussing the matter above my post stamped 15:41, 15 October 2014, but the stamp on his post shows he made it AFTER that post of mine. It looks awfully like he tried to create the impression that he discussed this matter here BEFORE he rolled my changes back. There's assumption of good faith (which Wikidemon demonstrated by accusing me of editing another article on Christmas Eve when other editors wouldn't see it) and then there's credulity.

Why did you put that post ABOVE mine when the time stamps show it clearly was made AFTER I made mine, Wikidemon? I don't expect you to respond to that question, but it's a useful question. loupgarous (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. You made two signed, threaded posts. One was somewhat substantive, the other was mostly an unprovoked and off-putting personal attack. I addressed both, commenting on the substantive comment, and nothing on the other that I would not respond to accusations of bad faith. If you are an editor who wants to carry drama here from some other article, drop it. Seriously, if you want to improve articles on Wikipedia you need to do so without reflexive attacks on other editors. Your ridiculous accusations of bad faith are unhelpful and are pretty much shut down any meaningful discussion. More to the point, your proposed addition is POV, poorly sourced, of undue weight, not relevant to the subject at hand, runs against consensus, and you're trying to force it in the article by edit warring accompanied by personal attacks. I rejected it for all of these reasons, and by WP:BRD you should have left it alone instead of trying to start an edit war. When this settles down I'll restore the stable version of the article. Please don't try to re-insert this material without establishing consensus. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk)

I reject your assessment of my proposed addition as POV, it was a factual description of the contents of two neutral, good sources. The proposed addition described the evolution of the teleprompter from a device used occasionally for momentous speeches by Dwight Eisenhower to Barack Obama's indispensable aid to delivering a wide variety of speeches in locales as divergent as the Capitol to the Treaty Room of the White House, to a sixth-grade classroom. That is an undeniable historical development in the actual use and the utility of the teleprompter. I'd appreciate it if you mentioned any specific POV parts of my proposed addition. I don't think you can, because there weren't any.

As far as consensus is concerned, I tried establishing consensus with you in entirely good faith, stating my reasons for making the proposed addition. Jon Stewart was cited to show (a) footage of Mr. Obama actually using a teleprompter to talk to a sixth-grade class and (b) the perception of such uses of the teleprompter as part of a comic meme. Politico.com's White House correspondent was cited to establish that Mr. Obama actually does use teleprompters more than previous presidents. She, in turn, cited an historian who has covered the White House since 1975 to affirm the points she herself made as well as to describe the cinematic and telephotogenic aspects of Mr. Obama's use of teleprompters. None of that has POV or undue weight issues, a White House correspondent for a major political news Web site AND a White House historian agree that Mr. Obama's made more frequent and extensive use of the teleprompter than previous presidents. How's that POV or undue weight? I'd like an explanation of that, please.

Mr. Stewart isn't just a comedian. He's a nationally-televised comedian whose specialty is comment on politics. When he sits in front of a screen showing President Obama reading to sixth-graders from a teleprompter and does a monologue based on that, you are right in saying that the text content of his monologue - what he says - isn't a source. However, the act itself is very firm documentation of President Obama's use of the teleprompter in a sixth-grade classroom (affirming the points made in the politico.com article) AND also demonstrating the comic meme which Mr. Obama's use of the teleprompter has become. People won't laugh at things they don't find funny, and Mr. Obama's use of the teleprompter to deliver a speech to a sixth-grade classroom, as we can see from the Daily Show excerpt http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/1b43o1/obama-speaks-to-a-sixth-grade-classroom, as Mr. Stewart and his audience agreed, was funny.

This isn't a Fox News talking point, it's not Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh denouncing Barack Obama per se. It's a nationally-recognized comedian who has defended Barack Obama recently on a nationally-recognized television show acknowledging an already wide-spread comic meme. And the Daily Show clip is thus an EXCELLENT source. It doesn't matter if your mileage differs. The history of the teleprompter was materially affected by Mr. Obama using it in unprecedented ways. If you choose to revert my edit again, I certainly hope you can present coherent reasons for so doing. Because when Teleprompter stabilizes again, I will place the proposed addition back in in a manner consistent with the anti edit-warring rules. You have to obey them, too. loupgarous (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no getting around the fact that at the time, this little story of the day about Obama's supposed teleprompter problem was a partisan political issue. You clearly believe this is a POV issue too, or else you wouldn't be calling the rejection of your edits "politically-motivated suppression of content". Filling articles about things with trivial political stories relating to them is not very encyclopedic. Obama had a cigarette problem, does that mean we mention that in the article about cigarettes? He was subject to a conspiracy theory about his birth certificate, do we add that to the article on birth certificates? He was accused of playing golf and taking undue vacations when he should have been attending to affairs of state, does that go in the articles about golf and vacations? As far as I know most or all of these were also covered by political comedians. It's hard to take the suggestion seriously that these are reliable sources that establish that there is any weight or relevance to the subject. While we're talking sources, if you look at what the neutral sources say instead of cherry picking a single neutral source amidst a sea of partisan ones, they confirm that the teleprompter criticism was a partisan attack on the President: a theme " rippling through GOP circles" and used by "Republican presidential candidates".[2] On the subject of editing rules, please heed consensus, which has been that this material should be excluded. WP:BRD is considered better than revert warring material that others have rejected. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Scanning Reversal

I was rereading this article and I realized the word "horizontal" had to come out when it came to scanning reversal. It can be done with a vertical reversal as well. (One or the other not both.) To prove this try this: Take something...say a magazine and set it flat on the table in front of turned away from you, opposite of how you would read it. Take a mirror and hold it over it at a 45° angle, top towards you, as it would be on a prompter. What you see in the reflected image has the vertical orientation correct but needs reversal of horizontal, just as the article originally stated. BUT...now set the magazine in the direction it would be to read and look in the mirror again. This time the horizontal is correct but the vertical needs to be flipped. So you see it can be done either way. BTW, this is NOT original research (not allowed on Wiki) but common sense and surely known to all in the world of prompters. The suggested demo is just for discussion page folks. Filmteknik (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of the new-style ones

This type is now ubiquitous and needs an explanation in the article.

The transparent, flat type of teleprompter, whose visible portion is only a gray glass panel, is now the ubiquitous type and needs an explanation - currently the explanation of this type's tech is very glossed-over. Is there a video projector positioned on the floor below this type of teleprompter, projecting an inverted image up onto the screens? Can we have a photo showing the projector's position? Tempshill (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I added this, using your image. Pemboid (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

"Criticism of telemprompter use"

Sections similar to this one have been deleted before, see comments above. This was never much more than a Fox News talking point. And it has little to do with teleprompters specifically, it's more some kind of naive disappointment on the part of people who don't seem to realize that, yes, the president reads pre-written speeches. Find me a president that didn't. Consequently, I have removed this section. Hairhorn (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is one of the many WP:POV memes being advanced offwiki to try to make the president look bad. Every once in a while one of them has enough inertia to escape the blogosphere and venture out into the mainstream press. But even where something is notable as a meme or a criticism the question becomes whether and where to include it in the encyclopedia - WP:WEIGHT, WP:POV, and relevance, among other policies and guidelines. I don't think it's reasonable to plaster minor partisan criticism of the president in every article about the points on which the president is criticized, e.g. his smoking habit in the article about cigarettes, his adopting a non-rescue dog on the article about dogs, his organic garden annoying the factory farm industry in the article about farms, etc. If there were an article about Obama's speechmaking or public appearances it might belong there. What may be appropriate here is that use of teleprompters although nearly universal carries a slight taint because people think it means you cannot speak for yourself. That issue is not at all unique to Obama. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hairhorn, so you could have removed just the Obama mentioning, not the entire section. There is criticism, and you cannot erase this fact. You deleted cited work without sending messages or discussing first. This article is not suppose to hide the fact that there is criticism in general. I am re-instating the section. John Hyams (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

... I explained my changes on the talk page, as one normally does. And my latest comment would be that the section as it currently reads is not supported by the sources given. It currently reads "Often there is criticism regarding the use of teleprompters by speakers who only appear to speak spontaneously and fluently to the crown of listeners, while in reality they read a premade speech." But the sources given largely concern Obama, they do not demonstrate that there is "often" criticism. You're trying to expand this beyond its reach. Hairhorn (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's probably my doing when I tried to make it more general. Probably a little WP:OR or operating from memory there, but isn't that a frequent criticism? I bet if you hunt around you could find some reliable sources on the public image of teleprompter use, and it might even make for an encyclopedic description. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As a point of order, per WP:BRD we generally stick with the status quo, and it's the responsibility of editors proposing a change to justify it and gain consensus first. Being properly sourced is important, but not the only criterion for inclusion. Also, please be very careful about the WP:3RR rule. It's a good thing to talk about. I don't object to the material or the fact that the cites for it relate to Obama, I just wouldn't want to single him out among all the other people who use teleprompters, and are sometimes chided for it. Other people may have different opinions. Also, I think it would be best to find a home for this in some other section rather than have a stand-alone section with just one sentence in it. That's a little disjointed. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'll google for the word "teleprompter", Google will automatically suggest "Obama". This may give you an idea about the magnitune of the criticism. Of course, Obama is not the only president who used it, but the criticism regarding Obama arose due to his natural talent to speak in front of an audience, a talent which contradicts the notion of using such a device. Regardless of Obama, the criticism on this device is likely to be raised again spontaneously by others. There will always be criticism on using this device, and Wikipedia cannot hide this. John Hyams (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And if you google "miserable failure".... At any rate I don't get the impression that anyone is trying to hide anything. Just make sure claims made (eg: "often there is criticism") are backed up by the sources given. And you'll have to convince me that the criticisms are about teleprompters, not simply about reading a speech written by someone else. Hairhorn (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the word "often" or replacing it with another word. John Hyams (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, okay, but weakening the claim doesn't make up for a lack of sources. Hairhorn (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a weak section that appears to have been put in originally for political purposes. All the reference links relate to President Obama and are not critical of teleprompter use in general, but rather his delivery style; the main complaint being that he is too proficient in his delivery. I'm inclined to remove it in a few days unless it can be strengthened with referenced, non-political, scholarly criticism worthy of an encyclopedia.--Seaphoto^Talk 04:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You can add other citations providing examples regarding other people. As I said already above, if you'll google for the word "teleprompter", Google will automatically suggest "Obama". I welcome additional/different citations regarding criticism on other people. The section was not added for any political reason, you could say the same on the George W. Bush photo (why not use an Obama photo?). But I don't care Bush appears in the article, because I focus on the subject, not on politics. John Hyams (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition, there's a difference between using the device and over-using it, as Obama appears to do. Again (as I say above!), examples of criticism on other people are more than welcome. John Hyams (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: this section of citable and and discussed material should not be removed without further discussion and agreement to remove it. John Hyams (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion was not "resolved" as you say in your edit summary. It came to a stop where no more posts were made, but it ended with you as the only one in favour of keeping this section as it stands. That's hardly grounds for re-inserting it. This section is here largely for polemic - rather than encyclopedic - reasons. And bearing citations is not in itself reason enough to retain text in an entry. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I adhered to your request regarding the word "often", without mentioning Obama (even though I thought he should be mentioned), and the rest is properly cited, so it was resolved after we last talked. Then, user Seaphoto commented and I replied to him and he did not respond further. If you still think this issue is not resolved, please add an appropriate dispute tag to the section until the matter is resolved. Note that we both cannot revert anything anymore per the 3RR rule, but if any other editor wants to remove properly cited and noteworthy content, then he/she can do so after providing Wikipedia-accepted reasons. Otherwise, I will report the deletion on the Administrators board. John Hyams (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can set that aside for a moment and imagine a statement that does not mention and is not sourced to any active politician, do you think the observation itself is encyclopedic and noteworthy... that the (over) use of teleprompters carries a stigma of being perceived to have oratorical skills that are weaker or less extemporaneous than they appear? Is that something that an interested reader previously unfamiliar with teleprompters should know about the devices in order to be well-informed? We could always change the sourcing and preserve the comment. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not limited to "interesting stuff" only, and we have it in order to illuminate the knowledge of readers (who in this case may not know that some criticism exists; there's no reason to hide this information from them). Also, interesting is a very subjective term, what interests one person may bore another. As for noteworthiness, we've discussed it already, Google thinks it is noteworthy enough to autocomplete "teleprompter" searches with links about some criticism, late night TV shows made fun of the over use, and numerous sites think it's noteworthy to write articles just about this. John Hyams (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It may have been discussed before, but a consensus has not been reached; it is a weak section that is less about the teleprompter as a device and more a critique of a one man in particular. The sources are biased, and such criticism more properly belongs, if it is NPOV, in the appropriate biographical article rather than this about a device.--Seaphoto^Talk 20:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have already relpied to that when you first joined the discussion (see above). Also, most sources online are critical of one man, that's the reality and I can't change that. Type "teleprompter" on the Google search box and it will complete with the name of that man. However, I tried to find sources that don't criticize that man, and in fact justify or explain that man's use/overuse of the device. Only the David Latterman video item makes fun of the man, the written articles are defending him in the most part (if you actually READ the sources). In any case, I am placing a dispute tag in that section. John Hyams (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole "type teleprompter into Google" thing is a non-starter, as I tried to allude to before. If you type "why" into Google, you get this list of suggested searches: "Whyville / why do men have nipples / why is the sky blue / why is my poop green". The fact that there is internet chatter about something demonstrates little about its value as encyclopedia content. Not everything everyone talks about merits inclusion. Hairhorn (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget, "Why can't I own a Canadian?" - Wikidemon (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

People, occasionally there is criticism (use or overuse) and we can't/should not hide it. Anyway, to resolve this issue, I have opened a case for help from the unofficial "Mediation Cabal": Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-02-17/Teleprompter John Hyams (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My opinion in points:

• Telemprompters were used before Obama
• If there is a credible criticism, rather than politically motivated one, we should be able to find sources for it before this fuss about Obama using started
• If the inclusion party could find sources before say 2009 (i don't know the exact time) then we should keep it, if not then not.

By the way, one of the political tactics which were recently used effectively, is to turn your opponent strengths to weaknesses. If your opponent is a war veteran, then attack his service career (John Kerry). If he is popular then say he is a celebrity. If one of his strengths is he is a good speech deliverer, then say he is a Telemprompter president.[3]. Sole Soul (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My reply (and I'm not even Rupublican!):

* Telemprompters were used before Obama - Obama is not mentioned in the section. The citations mention him, but they try to justify him in the most part. The criticism was mainly on the overuse, not just the use. And, according to the criticism, using the device contradicts Obama's natural talent to speak in front of an audience (unlike "dumb Bush" - shown in the article above that section).

* If there is a credible criticism, rather than politically motivated one, we should be able to find sources for it before this fuss about Obama using started - The sources are already there, more would be great. Again, the criticism is mainly on the overuse, not the use.

* If the inclusion party could find sources before say 2009 (i don't know the exact time) then we should keep it, if not then not. - Wikipedia is an online infomation source, even the most updated news is included in thousands of articles. Also, if a 2008-2009 phenomenon adheres to Wikipedia:Notability, then I don't see the problem. Evidence of political criticism is part of what Wikipedia includes.

That's it, I can't repeat answering to the same statements over and over again...

John Hyams (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was not clear, I meant that if my first point is correct then that leads to point two, and if that is true then it leads to point three. Sole Soul (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is in here we need to make it clear that it is about Obama, and that it is a Fox talking point with out any real basis in fact (or did you not notice that the debates had no teleprompters? Or that McCain and Palin use Teleprompters for all of their public addresses too?) --137.229.131.34 (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The citation I relied on for my mention of Obama's use of the teleprompter was in politico.com ("Obama's safety net: the TelePrompter," Carol L. Lee, 5 March 2009 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19663.html)

"“It’s just something presidents haven’t done,” said Martha Joynt Kumar, a presidential historian who has held court in the White House since December 1975. “It’s jarring to the eye. In a way, it stands in the middle between the audience and the president because his eye is on the teleprompter.”"

This citation eliminates any WP:UNDUE concerns, in my opinion. Of course, Jon Stewart also remarked on Obama's use of the teleprompter in the Daily Show much more entertainingly. http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/1b43o1/obama-speaks-to-a-sixth-grade-classroom. I think I'll cite that, too, if anyone thinks Obama's use of the teleprompter is a Fox News talking point. loupgarous (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Per my comment in the TOTUS thread above, I have removed this material again as being poorly sourced, POV, of undue weight and questionable relevance, and against consensus. By my count we had two discussions already on this topic when it was an active issue, one in 2009 (initiated after a sockpuppet's edit) and the other in 2010, both times failing to gain consensus). Examining both discussions there were a total of three editors who argued that the material should be included, including you (Vfrickey) and the sockpuppet, and six people who argued for its exclusion, including me, a mediation cabal member, and an IP. There has been no new development on the topic since the 2010 discussion, and AFAIK no new sourcing that wasn't around then. Consensus can change, but if so it's not going to be changed by a discussion between two editors. If you really feel this is worth a shot then why not propose an RfC, where a wider group of editors and perhaps some who took place in the earlier discussions can be notified and weigh in. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Inventor

Should this be the basis of a biography of the inventor, or just a ref in this article? Jim.henderson (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Stageprompter

I removed the following addition as unsourced and possibly promotional: "In 2010 a British company developed a computerless, covert prompting device called the Stageprompter. This was primarily designed for artists and bands performing up on stage but has many other features that are useful in a wide spectrum of industries / uses. The Stageprompter can be linked together for several performers and can be operated off stage or by a single foot switch onstage. Being computerless it is a very simple device to set up and operate which gives it a major advantage over traditional Teleprompter's." Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Detecting Teleprompter Usage

Watch Miller's eye movements: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJRRA-4vBdg --DL5MDA (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Teleprompter at Latvian Television.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)