Talk:Resignation of Shirley Sherrod/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1


I have heard him called charles, not lester, several different times and including by Melissa Harris-Lacwell. I think cnn got it wrong and everyone is repeating the error.

The author of the above link claims to know the Sherrods personally. Thediva (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was corrected in our article. Tvoz/talk 05:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


should this article be link to Fox News controversies page? i think the page should remain while the story plays out. Fox News still has not been total up front with they explanation of how they distorted the story. 12:50, 21 July 2010 User:Buzzards27

Fox didn't distort the story, in fact, they didn't even report on it until after she had been forced to resign. There's no need to unfairly get Fox caught up in this any more than they already are. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Simply untrue. Fox did not *air* the story, but it propagated largely in part before her resignation because of its publishing on Fox is being deceptive by simply repeating that they did not "air" the story until after the resignation - the story got its legs from the Internet, not from cable news. (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Citation needed. Where's your evidence that the story propagated largely because of its publication on and not on the numerous other websites that picked up the story?Crcarlin (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree to leave it as it's the best source with good resources and pretty complete information I've seen. JoyceD (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an evident internal inconsistency within this article re: the dissemination of the video on the Fox News cable channel. There is consistent mention that Fox did not air the story on July 22, 2010, which is supported with citation; however, this cited quote appears shortly thereafter: "During the night, Bill O'Reilly, who, on Monday July 19, was the first on cable television to air the edited version of the clip originally posted by Andrew Breitbart on" Again, this seems internally inconsistent, and requires clarification regarding the sequence of events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There were many inconsistencies in the article about all kinds of things that I've been trying to fix - I'll take a look at this one. I do know that FoxNews itself has been making a distinction in the last few days between their actual news operation - like Shepard Smith's news program - and their news commentary programs like O'Reilly's. So that may be why there is an inconsistency here. The fact is that O'Reilly aired the edited tape on Monday and called for her resignation, and I believe he was the first to do so. Tvoz/talk 18:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move page to either suggested title, per discussion below. - GTBacchus(talk) 03:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Resignation of Shirley SherrodRacial controversy regarding the resignation of Shirley Sherrod

  • User:Smile1234smile 13:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The above comment is typical of the left leaning people on the net.
    If the part about Breitbart saying it was not about Sherrod but about the NAACP "calling" the Tea Party racist, and if Sherrod had not, herself, said that her firing was CAUSED by the NAACP calling the Tea Party racist then this would stay conveniently here for people who type in Sherrod to Google Search and find this article.
    So much for "fair and balanced" ...... "Fox news...distorted...the story." Fox News HAD NOT RUN the story before she was fired.
    So much for a knowledge of the timeline.
    And, I'm going to copy this whole page to my hard drive in case somebody deletes my comment. (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No. Fox did not show the story on their cable network before the resignation, but they did publish it on their widely-rad web site, (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fox news did nothing wrong. They reported that she got fired because of this blog video. In fact, Glenn Beck even supported Sherrod. For the record, I sense a lot of anti-Fox News attitude in this Shirley Sherrod article. I remember a while back Fox News reported that Wikipedia often had liberal themes in politically-oriented articles. Conflict of interest? I think so. This is the fault of the NAACP, USDA, and White House... not a news company. This article needs to be unbiased, and needs edditing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The real story is the incredible reaction of the audience to the woman's racism. The lady said she intentionally didn't help out the white farmer much, and the audience thought it was hilarious. Hence, it's ironic the NAACP is criticizing the Tea Party over nonexistent racism when their organization features racist speakers and the audience laughs when speakers tell how much they screwed over white people. Sure, the lady may have actually helped the farmer. But it doesn't matter - it's not about the lady, it's about the audience's reaction and what it says about the NAACP, especially considering the organization's recent pronouncements.

This page should either be deleted or be adjusted to focus on the real story - the audience's reactions to the racist comments (there were numerous examples in the speech) made by the lady. It's clear the NAACP has a culture of anti-white racism.EconExpert (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that issue is notable and should be mentioned in the article (Breitbart emphasized this issue as well). However, your proposal ignores the majority of the issues involved.Jarhed (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not clear at all, and even Rich Lowry agrees that the "audience defense" doesn't hold water:

And aside from that, it's not Wikipedia's place to "make clear" what the story is really about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Putting "racial controversy" in the title is needlessly inflammatory. The one event that everyone can agree occurred was the resignation, so that's how the article should be titled unless more details come out that make another title more appropriate. Powers T 20:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

For name change - "Racial controversy" is exactly what it is by definition of "racial" and "controversy". The resignation is not the only thing that is factual and well-referenced. The YouTube videos show the initial video that was edited and the full video. It's controversial as there is an obvious difference of opinion. It is racial as she was accused of being racist against whites. This is a very well-referenced article as it stands at this moment and I couldn't find one better anywhere on the internet. We need to keep it while it is pertinent. JoyceD (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to leave the title as it is, why do you go on to talk about how "racial" and "controversy" are appropriate words to use? Powers T 23:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

She did not resign she was fired, this article leaves a completely wrong impression of the facts. It MUST be renamed.-G (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: The current title is neutral and 'Racial controversy' is unnecessary. However, I agree with Ggb667 that she was fired and the current title is misleading. Perhaps 'Firing of Shirley Sherrod'? (reference: [1]). Or how about Shirley Sherrod controversy? --RegentsPark (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose as needlessly inflamatory and non-neutral. If any move is made, I vote with Ggb667 and RegentsPark to move to 'Firing of Shirley Sherrod'.Jarhed (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Move, part II?

Resignation of Shirley SherrodShirley Sherrod — In short, passes the Chesley Sullenberger test. Subject is being lauded in many reliable sources as one whose backstory provides a model of Rosa Parks-like heroism, with the prestige print dailies/weeklies/broadcast outlets falling over each other in their rush to research full bios on her--her story, Sullenberger-like, capstoned but not substantially comprised of details having to do with this recent turn of events that brought her such widespread attention. (OK. a little bit of crystal balling there, maybe. But I'll see what I find and come back....)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

  1. Time: link.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  2. NYT profile ("Times Topics")--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Violates single event notability, does not pass the Sullenberger test. Notion that she is famous in the same sense as Rosa Parks is just media fluffing.Jarhed (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that Sherrod was notable even before the current media controversy, as founder of New Communities, leader in the Pigford v. Glickman case, and first black Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the USDA. I'm a little concerned about reframing the current article as a biography, though, because it is very focused around the current controversy. IMHO, it would be better to split the article into a biography and an article on the media controversy. (In the case of Sullenburger, there's an article about the water landing of US_Airways_Flight_1549 in addition to the bio of the pilot). I also agree with those who have commented that the current article could use a better title, since Sherrod's resignation is just part of the story. Perhaps Shirley Sherrod media controversy might work? CordeliaNaismith (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I like your title change suggestion. It is more likely that if Sherrod were notable before this incident she would already have an article.Jarhed (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe that you might be wrong to categorize Sherrod as a politician.Jarhed (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • i would also support a fork per Cordelia. Accotink2 talk 01:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. [Note: Am original "suggester," above.] I've seen readership data that suggest pushing info to subarticles greatly reduces readership. Sherrod's biographical section in its current state in this article is modest enough not to detract from the coverage of the debacle provided IMO.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Asked to resign?

Was she? That needs to be made clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talkcontribs) 18:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I found a U.S. government reference to "forced resignation" and added it to the article. JoyceD (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ms. Sherrod's Account -- mis-cited!

I was interested in her explanation of the *full force* remark, so I followed cite note #4, which goes to:

This link has nothing that supports her explanation of *full force* (search for e.g. 'rally'), and I suspect other subsections under Ms. Sherrod's Account are likewise not supported by this link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It is now cite #2, and it still does not back up this section of the article. I am going to delete the citations where it does not support the article text —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The *full force* remark is: "I didn't give him the full force of what I could do." i.e. She knew what she could do, and she did not do all of it. The article states that she clarifies the remark with "I wasn't really sure of what I could do because at that time, I thought they [white people] had the advantages." Note that here she is saying she is not sure what she could do. Thus, the later statement appears to contradict (rather than clarify) the first. I did not see in the video where she says she is clarifying the *full force* statement -- this is only asserted by the wikipedia article. As such, I am removing the lead-in to the later quote from the video. It should be re-added if there is a proper citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


The lede para includes this sentence: It was later revealed that the woman in question did not do anything racist. While I certainly agree that entire video, in context, was intended as a parable or a cautionary tale, I am a little uncomfortable with this statement. Some of the language Sherrod tossed off, particularly the term "his own kind", indicates, to me anyway, an overt reliance on race to characterize and personalize her interaction with Mr. Spooner. Also, it's my understanding that her initial reaction may, in fact, have been motivated by race, and it was only later, as she got to know the Spooners, that she realized and corrected her actions. Does anyone else share my concern here? Ronnotel (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the lede to read "It was later discovered that the original internet video was edited and may not have accurately reflected Sherrod's comments." While we can't necessarily interpret her intentions in making any particular statement, we can know from cited articles that the video was edited. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
fine by me. Ronnotel (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This statement implies that the content of the original video was modified, and the context of the statement implies that the edit created the notion that she did something racist. This implication is false as can be seen by referencing the original video directly. Please be careful with such statements.Crcarlin (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, the full video is not exculpatory of racist sentiment.Jarhed (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If I ever saw I white man tell a black women to "go be with one of her own kind", I would have trouble resisting the urge to punch him in the face. There's little-to-no difference between that statement and what Ms. Sherrod said. (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Boehner's comment

House Minority Leader John Boehner, a Republican, criticized Andrew Breitbart's airing of only a small portion of the video. He said, "It’s unfortunate that whoever laid this out there didn’t lay out the whole story, as opposed to a part of it... They only put a little piece of the story out there and people make judgments and they rush and they make bad decisions.[1]

Why was this removed? (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Other Issues/Analysis Section

This section seems to be a number of brief mentions on topics related to the resignation. It seems more appropriate to add links to other articles on these topics rather than discuss them here. Instead, would it be more constructive to add mentions of this case to the articles on the 24 hour news cycle and racism in the United States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginnircyborg (talkcontribs) 05:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed KKK murder of her father claim

It is not in the video (or transcripts), referenced for the claim. Ronabop (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"White farmer" according to CNN interview: (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit tag

The copyedit tag is needed because much of the article as edited is poorly phrased and otherwise not in keeping with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. It has nothing to do with anyone's views, it has to do only with consistency in the encyclopedia's style and appearance. The tag alerts editors who may not have been reading this article to come over and help out with the writing, so it should not be removed until editors agree that it is up to standards. Discussion here on Talk, of course, is always in order about this or anything to do with improving the article.Tvoz/talk 16:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed much of the overlinking and dealt with some format issues like too much italics, but a formal copy edit should wait until the page has stabilised. Fences&Windows 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
And I have gone over it and extensively edited it, removing a great deal of repetition, incorrect italicization, other MoS problems, and improved the writing which was problematic in many places. I've checked and corrected many of the citations but more work is needed on this article. Tvoz/talk 06:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Also - since this page is being read a great deal right now - over 22K views yesterday - I think it was imperative that it meet at least minimum standards. No doubt more copyediting will be welcome once it stabilizes. Tvoz/talk 06:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Public Opinion

This assertion ("The general public almost universally criticized the decision to make her resign and sympathized with her plight.") is not properly supported -- the cited 'New York Times' reader comments are not exactly indicative of 'the general public.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmck3 (talkcontribs) 22:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Right - I already removed that. Statement was POV, OR and we don't consider reader comments to be reliable sources. Tvoz/talk 06:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Careful about charges of drastic editing

We need to be careful about propagating overstated charges that the original video chopped off the redemption aspect of Sherrod's statement.

I remember watching the original version of the video and coming away with the impression that she was telling a story about her own redemption. Imagine my surprise to later hear that the original video hadn't had the content that I remembered seeing but was instead edited to evilly keep it out.

Looking for some clarification on this I found this page that contains the full transcripts from the original excerpt and from the NAACP's released video. Sure enough, the redemption story was in the original video, and the editing doesn't skew her story out of proportion as so many claim.

I'm not sure how to incorporate this citation into the tone of the article, so I'll just suggest keeping it in mind when making edits.Crcarlin (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that blog you are citing is not a reliable source and Breitbart himself did not present this at all as a story of redemption - this is how Breitbart characterized the clip here:

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

I stand by our characterizations of the piece, which are based an many reliable sources. Tvoz/talk 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You can view the original video for yourself. Note the date it was posted. Unless you think Google and Youtube have joined forces with the Conservatives, this confirms that the "many reliable sources" are wrong. And no, Breitbart didn't present it as a story of redemption, but so what? To him the redemption wasn't the salient point, so he didn't dwell on it, but that doesn't mean it was removed from the video. In fact, it's worth noting that he retained the redemption part of the video in spite of it not being his main theme, which shows the opposite of the heavy editing claimed by many.Crcarlin (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Forced to resign?

"Forced to resign" This sounds silly? Either you resign, or you are fired, there is no such thing as forced to resign, unless extortion is going on, you can resign out of your free will, you have to agree to it. I'll change it to simple resigned, until there is clarification what kind of force or extortion if any was going on. Hobartimus (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

  • how about "pressured to resign"? in politics, being forced to resign is the new "being fired"--Milowenttalkblp-r 04:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "Forced to resign" accurately describes what Sherrod herself reports and what the sources say. It may have been a condition of her employment that she would resign on demand, for political reasons. Nevertheless, that's what it is.Jarhed (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a blp

Subject is notable enough to merit a blp, true. However, with concern to the present article, I have moved the blp cats over to the redirect page per wp:RCAT. (Link to redirect's tkpg: Talk:Shirley Sherrod.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"heavily edited" vs "highly edited" vs "excerpt"

someone removed the characterization of the breitbart video as "heavily edited". i saw nothing here about it so i undid it. however, the articles history shows there are several options. but i doubt complete removal is the best one. comments? Badmachine (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed "edited" to "excerpted" because that's what it was. Comparison of the original video (verify the date to convince yourself that it was the original) against the full video shows no editing at all: the transcripts are identical. That's certainly not heavily or highly edited, and since the original video even included the "I learned better" part of the talk (yes, news reports are inconsistent on this point-- check for yourself), I'd say important context was included and the excerpt wasn't done in such a way to give a false message.
Therefore, I think the video was, at most, lightly edited, and probably not particularly edited at all. It was an excerpt of the same quality as anyone would see on a nightly news cast.Crcarlin (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
A distinction between "edited" and "excerpt" is meaningless, since taking an excerpt out of something is by defintion "editing" it.
Of course the distinction is meaningful, as it's plenty meaningful to talk about whether the edit takes the form of a modification of content (such as pasting Elvis in the background) or an artifact of reproduction (such as a letterboxing). The former is far more insidious than the latter, and right now people are interpreting the video's "editing" as indicating the former when it was much more of the latter.Crcarlin (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Use of the terms "highly" and "heavily" are emotional/subjective and should be avoided by wikipedia editors. It would be okay when quoting someone else, but should not be done in the "voice of Wikipedia". (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and 'heavilyhighly edited' is a direct quote from a New York Times article, and was cited as such and mentioned in edit summary. I've done what I could to take this article from an inarticulate, contradictory, incorrect mess and bring it into some kind of Wikipedia standard, but I am not going to edit war with people who seem to be trying to minimize the reality of what that original tape was and distort the article. I'm bowing out and will wait until the POV SPA hoards who have predictably descended on here disappear, as they will, and we can get back to constructing a neutral and accurate encyclopedia. Tvoz/talk 16:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
So what is Wikipedia's policy about referencing provably wrong statements from respected sources? Yes, many, many news reports from legitimate sources are referring to the original video as having had its content modified and are reporting that the video does not contain the learning experience Sherrod expressed, but a quick look at the actual video proves them wrong. So in this case, who wins, the consensus news reports or the original source?Crcarlin (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand. "Heavily" and "Highly" are subjective descriptive terms that its fine to source from someone else, who says "Highly ______". But it's not okay for Wikipedia editors to make the term up and just tag things with the terms from... nothing. It's not okay to take an article that says "Mark Moran praised the rock album Mercy" and change it to "Mark Moran highly praised the rock ablum Mercy" when the source does not say it.
That's all I'm saying. (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
And don't get me wrong, I value your many helpful edits on this page. (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
ok the cite says "highly edited" so i changed it to that. im not even sure youtube vids can be used as a citation, especially that one. Badmachine (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, so again it comes down to what Wikipedia should do when a generally reputable source is provably wrong. The original video is supposedly highly edited largely because it cuts off important parts of Sherrod's message, but referencing the video itself, those parts were included. In my opinion the primary source should win.Crcarlin (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we must depend on reliable sources for cites, however, it would be stupid for us to adhere to this requirement when the sources are demonstrably wrong. The narrative that is developing is that Breitbart edited the video and posted it for nefarious purposes. While Breitbart's role in the controversy should be acknowledged, his wrongdoing is far from clear despite the developing narrative. Here is a source where Breitbart says that he didn't edit the video:
Jarhed (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


Added Wlink of "resignation under pressure" to Firing#Forced resignations, which reads, "A forced resignation is when an employee is required to depart from their position due to some issue caused by their continued employment. [...]"--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how useful that is, considering that it cites no sources.Jarhed (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing of the video

This article needs to make clear two things: 1) That Breitbart did not edit the video he posted, and that 2) The full video was produced by the NAACP and was in their possession the entire time. These facts are incorrectly stated throughout the article and it will require more than a few edits to fix. I am ready to make them, but I would like to make sure we are all on the same page.Jarhed (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how do you know these two 'facts'? I have not seen them unambiguously reported as facts in any reliable sources. We should only present what has been reported in reliable sources, remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. LK (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Please confine your comments to discussions of the article and refrain from lecturing about WP policy. Here is an RS for 'did not edit':
As for the second fact, it is confirmed right in the article with this ref:
Once again, these facts are obfuscated in the article text. They are critical to properly understanding the narrative and should be clarified.Jarhed (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify. I am preparing to make these edits, but I want to avoid being reverted. If anyone is planning on reverting these edits, please let me know now.Jarhed (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

i dont see any part of the article that asserts that breitbart composed the edited video. in fact, the article mentions his claim that the video was sent to him already edited/exceprted/whatever. with regard to lawrencekhoo citing policy, that is ordinary practice. please be civil and read the guidelines, including this one. Badmachine (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I will make some minor edits. Please refrain from lectures on WP policy absent a violation, thanks.Jarhed (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
tpmmuckraker is a very sketchy source. It seems like citing TMZ or 4Chan to me.
We can cite Breitbart's denial of having excerpted/edited the video himself to the Howard Kurtz article, which is a reliable source done for a prominent newspaper. (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
TPM is a reliable source as per RS noticeboard.Jarhed (talk)

Lester Maddox?

According to an occasionally reliable source (Wikipedia), Lester Maddox was Governor of Georgia from 1967 to 1971. It is therefore difficult to see in what sense the closure of a communal farm in 1985 due to inability to obtain USDA financing can be attributed to the practices of his government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that there was the failure of the communal farm and later the foreclosure of the Sherrod family's own farm. Is clarification needed? Freakshownerd (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
After reviewing the source, I agree that this mention needs to come out of the article. Maddox is mentioned in the article but no association to Sherrod or her land project are made. The mention of 'segregationist' seems needlessly provocative without a better source.Jarhed (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
It's also noted in this source Time Magazine "It was 1985, 20 years after her father was murdered by a white man who was never prosecuted, and the nearly 6,000-acre collective farm she had helped form in the early 1970s to create a sort of African-American utopia in the midst of Georgia's white farming community was going under. Governor Lester Maddox, a segregationist, called the tract of land "Sharecropper City," and refused to sign off on a grant that could have helped the families who owned the farm stay afloat." Freakshownerd (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I was able to suss out the date the co-op was founded: 1969. Edit made.Jarhed (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Daily Caller article

There's a sentence I removed from an earlier version of this article, which was re-instated, and I've just removed again. Here it is:

The Daily Caller has observed that liberals have also used racism for political advantage, citing liberal JournoList contributor, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, stating "If the right forces us all to either defend [Jeremiah] Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them –- Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares –- and call them racists."[1]

Including this sentence is highly misleading, as it implies that the article in question was a response to this event. It wasn't. Here is the article quoted from:[2] Note that it contains no mention of Shirley Sherrod, and is in fact about a different event entirely. It is linked to from a Wall Street Journal article that also mentions Sherrod, but that article doesn't draw any link between them. Including it here is original research, pure and simple, and I'll revert anyone who re-adds it. Robofish (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your revert as the edit is drawn, however The Daily Caller article was making news contemporaneously with the Sherrod controversy and a case could be made that it contributed to the media atmosphere.Jarhed (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Good move, Mr. Fish. (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course, you are right about original research, and if somebody makes the case that the Daily Caller article influenced this incident, it will have to be made by a reliable source, not us.Jarhed (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


I for one think this article would benefit from a timeline laying out the chain of events surrounding the resignation and reporting. As it is, the timeline information is scattered throughout the article. (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Posted a ref to the Media Matters timeline.Jarhed (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cordelia, you removed the explanatory sentences about the MM timeline. The issue is that MM is perceived to be a partisan outlet, and controversy over using their timeline is likely. I was trying to head that objection off at the pass. If we can agree to use the MM timeline, rather than reconstruct our own from sources, I think that will save a lot of time and discussion.Jarhed (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the context for the MM timeline. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. If anyone has a better idea for a timeline than to use the MM one, I am all ears.Jarhed (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Full video quotes

There are two editors reverting each other on the racial quotes that were added to the full video section. I request that everyone make an effort not to attract undue administrator attention to this article by edit warring. As to the quotes themselves, I think it is hard to make a case to exclude actual quotes that a person makes. However, edits can be made about the quotes to present them in the most NPOV manner possible.Jarhed (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're talking about the single revert that I made of quotes that were just readded by another editor, but as this whole incident emphasizes, selectively choosing excerpts from a video can distort their meaning. IMO, it's preferable to use quotes that have been commented on by reliable third-party sources, and so the newly added quotes which are sourced to the full video don't look helpful to me. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Mention in a secondary source is certainly a fair standard. Let me tell you my concern. There are many people who believe that the full videotape exhonorated Sherrod, but there are many people who do not. I think that NPOV requires that we be careful not to scrub the article of fair criticism of her.Jarhed (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, it looks like the organization of the article has deteriorated since last time I looked at it, and that the article has accumulated sections of pointy quote salads. I've gotten rid of three examples that looked especially egregious to me: 1) A pointy & very selectively excerpted timeline that seemed to be entirely focused around suggesting that Fox waited a responsible amount of time before reporting on the issue (but my goodness, the NAACP had the whole video the entire time). 2) A collection of quotes sourced directly to the full video (how were these quotes chosen? seems like original research) 3) A sentence stating that Howard Dean compared Glen Beck to the government of Iran (from looking at the citation, Dean didn't, and even if he had this wouldn't be especially relevant to this article). I agree that we shouldn't be scrubbing the article of fair criticism, but at the same time it's important to make sure that the quotes that are selected are fair, representative, accurately summarized, and placed in context. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, since the anonymous editor has not engaged with us in discussion here, I support your edits right now, and if he reverts you again without discussion, I will support you in a request for administrator assistance.Jarhed (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"threw Rosa Parks under the bus"

I'm thinking that maybe we shouldn't include this quote from MSNBC saying that Sherrod is like Rosa Parks and the NAACP/Obama "threw Rosa Parks under the bus". It seems, at best, insensitive on many levels, and, at worst, highly offensive.

Thoughts? (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain more about why you find this quote highly offensive, because it is not clear to me.Jarhed (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Rosa Parks is an African-American civil rights activist who famously refused to give up her bus seat to a white man , as the segregation rules of the time mandated. She was arrested and became an icon of the civil rights movement.
The visual image created of black people taking this old woman and not only throwing her out of her bus seat-- but those black people hurling her body over the front of the bus and running her over is... problematic, to say the least. (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
A further complication is that the MSNBC statement was made by Pat Buchanan, an 'old right' conservative with a history of advocating what is perceived by many as racist policies and of saying things considered to be racist. (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The reference to which the Pat Buchanan comment is cited (Mediaite) also remarks that Buchanan's bus metaphor was an unfortunate choice of words. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We're documenting reality, not making a school report. If it's "insensitive" or "offensive" to some people, it's coming from the person who said it, not from Wikipedia. It's part of the ongoing story we're reporting on. Although if you don't think it's relevant, you could argue that point. Tragic romance (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Fox News Channel vs.

Somebody made an edit stating that these two entities are not the same. Given that Wikipedia redirects say they are the same, I would like to know the source for this edit.Jarhed (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinks in excerpted video quote

In order for us to wikify the quote, we have to interpret it, which is original research. I think they should all come out.Jarhed (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Removed Wfication guilty of wp:OR, per Jarhed's observation above.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I meant all of the links. We have no way to prove that what the people being quoted is the same as what you are linking to. In addition, you appear to be wikifying every tiny nook of this article, and many of the links you are making are controversial. I would appreciate some discussion before you do any more work that might need to be reverted.--Jarhed (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Because saying edits are controversial without citing policies they violate equates to arguing wp:IDONTLIKEIT, please go ahead and point out which specific links you deem controversial per wp:UNDERLINK and wp:OVERLINK and remove them, with your rationales, per wp:BRD.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
For example, Jarhed, you find the Wikilink at the phrase in the article "all-white grand jury" leading to the Wikipedia article "All-white jury" (whose lede is, "An 'all-white jury' is an American political term used to describe a jury in a criminal trial, or grand jury investigation, composed only of white people, with the implication that the deliberations may not be fair and unbiased") to be controversial. How so?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
As a counter example, from the Sherrod quote: "So I figured if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him." Finding a link for this statement will be problematic. I propose that, instead of arguing about interpretations in the quotes, that we instead just unwikify them and let them stand on their own. Oh, and the policy I am talking about is NPOV.Jarhed (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Going afield from actual edits I've made, let's look at the hypothetical that I had boldly highlighted a phrase reading "taking care of own kind" (in the context of ethnicity) and Wlinked it to "Pennsilfaanisch Deitsch." Yeah, I'd say your then reverting this with rationales "o/r, RSes & pov" would be fine, with my then being free to discuss my contention with you that such a link wouldn't be controversial. However, in another hypothetical, if in some article hinging on an individual's "bribes taking" I highlight this phrase and Wlink it to the article editors have painstakingly assembled for "bribery," and this were objected to, I would expect some kind of coherent explanation--for example, as to why bribes-taking being thought equivalent to bribery should be thought controversial, namely "unsourced," "non-neutral" and/or so on.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

<== Referring to the Amish in the context of a discussion on racist statements is extremely contentious, but you make my point perfectly. I see no value in anyone arguing over the nuanced racial meanings in anybody's quotes. Let's please just put the quotes up and let the readers decide for themselves. There is no need to fight a battle over racism here.Jarhed (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Well, 3 days ago, Politico excerpted this quote of professor Cornel West from Playboy: "I'll fight for the right of Glenn Beck to express his opinion. Even he has a right to be wrong, which he is most of the time. ... Beck appears to have a certain preoccupation with black folk. Why is he so obsessed with black people? I notice he doesn't give the Amish that much attention." (link)
But, more seriously: Jarhed, since we are talking about hypotheticals instead of real edits, the conversation has turned into one about PROCESS. (Stuff which is entirely TANGENTIAL however to IMPROVING THE ARTICLE, ITSELF, btw!.....) So, yes, in that context, I tossed an obviously bad "suggested edit" (not a serious one) out there to illustrate how editors go about addressing actual edits and giving ratinales for reverts in place of, say, implying that another editors' contributions are worthless and bullying away from lending a hand on the article, which latter method of discussing is not effective collaboration, is all, right? [In point of fact, if somebody wanted to be SUPER technical about it, any Obama related articles are on probation, and under probation no edit warring whatsoever is allowed, and anything over 1RR is by definition edit warring; so, technically, someone could go through the process of requesting that U and your edit warring partners leave based on the lot-o'-yous's edit warring here. I myself wouldn't do that, though, because I assume good faith, even with concern to edit warriors who at least avoid the 3RR "middle rail" such as you guys.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC) [Striked some text.]--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I do not understand you at all. I believe that all wikilinks should be removed from all quotes as original research and because I think it will be harmful and against the spirit of WP policies to interpret them for links. If you object to this, I would like to know why.--Jarhed (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
yup. the mos 'quotations' section reads: "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." also linking from within quotes is ugly, imo. Badmachine (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, Badmachine, I'd venture that an observation of feature articles would reveal that as much as possible in this context means "err on the side of underlinking" but not to reflexively and blanketedly avoid all instances of linking, in my humble opinion.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
yup. leaving the links for chapters 11 and 12 helps the worldwide view, especially since those terms dont appear elsewhere in this article. Badmachine (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, if you will go back and edit all quotes with an eye toward underlinking, I consider this discussion done.Jarhed (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Journalism hoaxes category?

Roll up section (my discussion with another editor that veered into a debate about the semantics of the word journalism)
--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Seems open-and-shut case, per the reliable sources. E/g, Breitbart's friend Jonah Goldberg: "[...]Andrew Breitbart released a misleadingly edited video of her. (Breitbart, a friend of mine, insists to me that he did not edit the video himself.)"(link)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Breitbart is a journalist? No, he's not. He's been asked if he's a journalist to his face and he said no. This is not a 'journalism hoax' because he is not a journalist. Easy logic. (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

IP, would you take the word of the NYT? July 25: David Carr writes: "[[Andrew Breitbart, a conservative blogger, lighted the race fuse by promoting a heavily edited tape of a relatively ancient speech by Shirley Sherrod, an Agriculture Department official. And last week, Tucker Carlson, creator of The Daily Caller, published another set of private postings from Journolist, a now shuttered e-mail list, that seemed to reflect a kind of conspiracy of left-leaning thinkers and journalists. Both men, professed conservatives, would seem to be as much provocateurs as journalists." (link) In any case, indisputably, Breitbart websites hire journalists (e/g Scott Baker) and publish journalism; but, even if it were to be accepted that they do not, the fact is that many of the articles within the category:Journalistic hoaxes are not perpetrated by news publications or journalists, per se: (e/g, Thatchergate, many others...).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite an example of a journalist who does something like this?Jarhed (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Jarhed, the category in question uses the term in the way reliable sources do, to mean "reporting" and, indeed, to indicate things that are not legit--that is, hoaxes. No? Cf. the WSJ: "While Breitbart-style opinionated journalism can provide healthy competition, it cannot substitute for straight news." (link)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The category indicates stories that are hoaxes, intentionally designed to mislead. There is no evidence that is the case in this instance. Your source demonstrates that if Breitbart is a journalist, he is in a category of journalism by himself.Jarhed (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

By himself, you say, Jarhed? Hmm, an idea: essentially a genre within his own right within the Wpdia category:Journalism genres? Well, after all, Hunter S. Thompson is credited as the proponent of "gonzo journalism." (However, I think it would be out of our place to unilaterally award A.B. such an eponymic honor, don't u? ;~) --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Anyway, I googled the exact phrase "sherrod hoax" and got 895 results. Still, I guess there's plausible deniability at play here so concede the issue.Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Point taken that Breitbart is no American style, institutional journalist. Nevertheless, dig this quote from Slate, July 22, 2010: "Breitbart's model currently combines aggregation with commentary and original reporting—a kind of right-wing Huffington Post but uglier and less comprehensive, albeit with far fewer costs. The investigative portion, according to his plan, will snowball." (link) And the Slate profile also reports how Breitbart wrote in High School and college papers, after college worked as a music-scene reporter, did research for Drudge and Huffington, blah blah blah. The New Yorker profile tells same tale.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC) That is, if I get CNN to run something bogus it's a hoax, but if Breitbart does, it isn't...because he possesses some unique status?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Second stab: I am neutral about whether this almost-universally regarded journalistic shennanigan should be termed a hoax. However, the contributor of the category has not stepped up to defend it and the editor who reverted the contribution eventually came to express the contention that an appelation of "hoax" to an arguably unintentionally misleading excerpt is controversial. Thus as the matter stands now, the argumentation favors leaving the category off (again: myself being neutral about the "hoax" designation, in that I believe it likely the case but also know that Breitbart has said he did not know the full context when he posted the misleading excerpt. (However, this would just push off the perpretrator of the deception to possibly being someone other than Breitbart, in my book.))--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

recent reversion

User:Jarhed recently reverted me to reintroduce this statement into the article: "Sherrod rejected claims that she was racist and further stated that she told the story to audiences to make that point and the incident helped her learn to move beyond race." This sentence implies either that "she told the story" to make the point that "she was racist" or that she "rejected claims that she was racist". Neither of these interpretations make sense, and in any case, they are contradicted by the source. The sources states: "She said the experience helped her learn to move beyond race and she tells the story to audiences to make that point." In order words, it is an anti-racism story, or to be more exact, a story about moving beyond racism. Can we please have a better standard in editing, and follow the sources cited please. LK (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If I reverted a considered edit, I apologize. There are some editors that are pushing controversial edits about racism without discussion. Go ahead and change it back and let's take a look at it.--Jarhed (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


With regard to the link I proposed to the "lynching" article: Was Hosie Miller's killing racially motivated? Sherrod can be shown to believe so. Of course, left-of-center commentators agree with her telling (e/g, Kris Broughton believes so: "[...I]n both the killing of Mrs. Sherrod’s father and in the killing of Bobby Hall multiple white men acted in concert to end their lives. Given the times that these killings happened, and the circumstances under which they occurred, most reasonable people would conclude that they were racially motivated killings."); yet, note that almost all right-of-center commentators do, as well. Thus, the question becomes, Is there some legitimate source that believes otherwise; and, if so, should we consider these nay-sayers' belief to be a minority opinion or to have equal footing with the rest?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the Sherrod controversy and not about the racism she encountered as a youth. A mention is fine in her bio section, but unsourced references to lynching are going too far. I request that you tone down your rhetoric, which seems needlessly inflammatory to me.--Jarhed (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
To my own ears, my tone is completely dispassionate, yet I will admit that the subject matter itself is highly charged.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Have now "stubbed" Hosie Miller.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Breitbart non apology

I removed this from the lead, but saw it further into the article. I know the lead is suppose to summarize the article but not sure if this belongs in the lead. Not sure if its the best to have things reported that folks haven't done, but maybe appropriate here since he appears unapologetic about the whole affair. It feels like proving a negative. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it would be best form to allow Breitbart's non apology speak for itself rather than to spell out that he hasn't apologized. (E/g: "Breitbart said he was provided the misleading excerpt by a contributor whose identity he is protecting, yet defends his posting of it anyway for reason /x/, /y/, and /z/."--and let readers note his non apology on their own?)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. Newsweek: "Breitbart remains unrepentant, and argues that the video still shows racism in the NAACP. He has not apologized." (link)
  2. CNN: "Breitbart 'had to know that he was targeting me,' Sherrod said. 'At this point, he hasn't apologized. I don't want it at this point, and he'll definitely hear from me.'" (link)

--On second thought, maybe the non-aplogy is of note, under the circumstances.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The OP's point is that the non-apology is not notable enough for the lede and I agree with him.--Jarhed (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There have been several recent edits concerning whether or not Breitbart has apologized. Whatever the case, the argument demonstrates that saying Breitbart "outright refused" to apologize is not correct (that is, he refused at first but not now). In addition, I dislike all of the edits that insert "as of" dates. WP is not a crystal ball about what might happen in the future and I think we should stick to facts. My personal opinion on this subject is that the various apologies are mentioned way too much in this article. It reads to me as if it was written for some very thin-skinned people who are overly sensitive about apologies. I do not give a rat's behind about who apologized to whom about anything.--Jarhed (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

as of has its place, frinstance "as of 3 august 31 jul she has not accepted the USDA job offer", but his not apologizing seems trivial to me. an apology is just a gesture. if she made a gesture at him, i doubt that would be notable, although funny. Badmachine (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
"as of 3 august" precisely states a fact in a citation, but otherwise is poor art that can be written better, and it might sound ok right now, but are you going to come back and update it infinitely? Some people thought that Breitbart's insistence on not apologizing was notable, but now that he has said that he regrets his part in the controversy, not so much.--Jarhed (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thats why whoever added the as of statements used the {{as of}} template. i agree that it is poor prose. two of these remain: as of 1 aug the source of the breitbart vid is unknown, and as of 31 jul she has not taken the usda job. i dont like them there but they are accurate, even if whoever added them doesnt update them. Badmachine (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a preference one way or the other whether that statement is included in the article, although I think it's not adequately central to include in the lead. There certainly are at least several RSs in support of the statement, for example the two given above by Hodgson-Burnett plus several others such as

--Ed Pilkington's July 22 article in The Guardian which says "So far he has been one of the few parties in the saga not to offer an apology to Sherrod, though he has said he felt sorry for her."
--Ronald Radosh, "Andrew Breitbart Owes Shirley Sherrod an Apology" Hudson Institute, July 21, 2010 (The Hudson Institute is a very conservative organization). Radosh's piece was also published here by the conservative/libertarian media outlet Pajamas Media.

The point of my partial revert (here) was that it was not WP:OR as said in Jarhed's edit summary (here, with the edit summary "little apology" is original research). Rather, it was merely a slightly inaccurate rendering of the source, the Guardian article I just mentioned, which didn't say "offered little apology". What the source said was "So far he has been one of the few parties in the saga not to offer an apology to Sherrod ...". But I'm certainly OK with a consensus editorial decision to remove it. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
In this controversy, a lot has happened since July 21st.Jarhed (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Jarhed, I agree that the non-apology is now passe, given the offer by to S.S. to sorta beer summit with her (minus Obama). And, wrt the as-of templates, I also agree that it is poor form to be too precise in their dates. What Wp:as of actually says is, "If you suspect that a fact in an article will become dated at some point in the future, and want to ensure that people will update it, include a tag of the form {{As of|year}} or {{As of|year|month}}"--so, in any case, I'll now go back & re-edit the 2 remaining so they at least read better. Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you were right to specify the date earlier in the controversy. As it gets older, some of the issues will naturally solidify.Jarhed (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

the length of this article is absurdly long

this story simply does not warrant a page this long. this page needs to be severely shortened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

IP, come on in with the rest, they say the water's fine.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
to me, this article does not seem "absurdly long". Badmachine (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on excerpted video section

I request that the editors who are warring on the excerpted video edit please come here and discuss. Here is what this paragraph said yesterday:

Subsequent events showed that the posted video was an excerpt of broader comments that conveyed a differing interpretation. Breitbart has said that he did not edit the video and did not have a copy of the entire speech.[2] The full video was produced by the NAACP and was in their possession when Breitbart posted the video.[3] Breitbart's source for the video is at present unknown.

I disagree with all of the edits after this version as being POV or superfulous. In addition, I request that all editors stop inserting bare URL references. At a minimum, please specify a CITE tag with a URL and title.Jarhed (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Point blank "all of the edits"? Geez, stop the bullying. Also, per wp:CITE: "While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters is that you add your source—provide enough information to identify the source, and others will improve the formatting if needed."--and assuredly all experienced editors know not to request that all comers supply fancy citation templates under some implied threat to delete any contribution lacking them, without a legit rationale. (That said, if any editors here are in a hurry or are phobic of cite templates, I do remind them that it would not take them much extra effort to at least make a link using the article's name or description: Good luck!)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your accusation of bad faith and I refer you to wp:Bare URLs.--Jarhed (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hodgson, the accusations of bad faith are entirely unwarranted and uncalled for. All he said was he "requests." He never made any "implied threats." Take it down a notch. Not everyone is out to get you. Tragic romance (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Some editors have updated the above paragraph and as of this writing I am reasonably satisfied with its NPOV. Thanks for your effort.Jarhed (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


There's some disgusting denialism going on this page. Here are some facts, objective facts=

  • 1)The Breitbart video had its first news exposure on It was quickly picked up by other news websites such as the AJC one and the CBS news one.
  • 2)Bill O'Reilly's mentioning on FNC was the first time that the story was mentioned on the air, and the show was taped when news of Sherrod's resignation had not yet been reported. However, the program was not broadcast until after Sherrod resigned and O'Reilly's staff confirmed that fact by corresponding with the USDA.
  • 3)The video was also mentioned by St Loius Tea Party organizer Dana Loesch on Larry King Live, and on Anderson Cooper 360 (both on CNN). It was discussed on Hannity and On The Record with Greta Van Susteren (both on Fox) as well.
  • 4)The following day, Fox covered the story as did CNN and MSNBC. CNN covered it the most.

Again, "facts are facts". (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that you are frustrated, but I urge you to assume good faith. I would like to remind everyone that NPOV is our goal here, and that none of us can achieve that goal without the others.Jarhed (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Initial broadcasting of Breitbart video

According to the MM timeline, the Sherrod video was first broadcast on The O'Reiley Factor after Sherrod had already been forced to resign. Somehow that fact keeps migrating out of the article. If someone wants to change that fact, I would appreciate it if they would discuss that here first.Jarhed (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a pertinent fact.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't seem to find the first mention of the video on Here it is. I watched the whole video and couldn't find where she explicitly renounced racist thought. We need to find the time mark where this happens and cite it. Otherwise, the claim that the video was taken out of context becomes very weak. Perhaps 26:00 or thereabout? Frotz (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The video is a primary source and is not useful as a cite. Any such data that you want to include in the article needs a reliable secondary source, such as a newspaper.--Jarhed (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be at the very least presented as "here's the posting that started the ball rolling". Frotz (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If you are talking about the initial Breitbart article at BigGovernment, I assure you it is a ref in the article.--Jarhed (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Jon Stewart video

The Jon Stewart video used as a source in this article is a 10-min comedy sketch. I don't see why that is an important element of this story. Tragic romance (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Jon Stewart's opinion is (arguably) relevant since we can find multiple secondary sources referring to it. (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit banner

I think the copy edit banner should come off. The article looks fine to me.Jarhed (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

i agree. Badmachine (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Phrases such as "left-of-center" used as adjectives

Per wp:MOS's hyphen section:

"Many compound adjectives that are hyphenated when used attributively (before the noun they qualify: a light-blue handbag), are not hyphenated when used predicatively (after the noun: the handbag was light blue); this attributive hyphenation also occurs in proper names, such as Great Black-backed Gull. Where there would be a loss of clarity, the hyphen may be used in the predicative case too (hand-fed turkeys, the turkeys were hand-fed)."

--and Wikipedia's style in this regard aligns as well with the form preferred by most presses and press agencies, e/g, the AP Stylebook, NY Times, Univ. of Chicago Press's manual of style.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I could not care less one way or the other, just please hypenate the paragraph consistently.Jarhed (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Addt'l legal op?

Dunno if Ron Coleman takes plaintiffs' cases in addition to those of defendants' but, in the interest of fairness, I think his commentary (which might appear to generally favor the standpoint of a bloggers association, such as he's general counsel to) should be paired with that of some expert that's more sanguine about such a case's merits, if poss.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Jarhed (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Governor Lester Maddox

I am sure that somebody identified Maddox as a Democrat as an NPOV edit to counter the mention of "segregationist". I think that a compromise is in order here.--Jarhed (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

compromise is always in order. how does being a democrat counter the assertion that he is a segregationist? Badmachine (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously it does not, however, in the context of Sherrod's victimization by racist political partisans, it is pertinent.--Jarhed (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
then undo my edit, but i fail to see how the political affiliation of a long dead dixiecrat is pertinent to a 2010 event. the democrats are not the same party as they were in maddox' time, just like the republicans are not the same party as they were in lincoln's time. to me, the addition looked pov. Badmachine (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't make the original edit and I am not reverting anyone. The edit is a little POV, but then so is the mention of Maddox in this article.Jarhed (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW, there is a discussion of this same subject up there somewhere ^^^^^.Jarhed (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote standardization

Some of the quotes in the article use blockquote, some quote. Is there a distinction or should somebody standardize these?--Jarhed (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

i think multi-paragraph quotes use blockquote. Badmachine (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Well if referring to use of quotatation template, namely, block-quotes-with-the-outside-borders: they're all for Sherrod's NAACP speech. But if they defeat the intended purpose of distinguishing among the many quotes in an effort to make the article less and not more confusing then please do go ahead and refactor. Thanks.-- (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
That's a good idea, it just was not obvious to me.Jarhed (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I've turned on the quote box template's "fat quotes" parameter. Better?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Simply lovely.Jarhed (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
<winks>--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuity problem

In the article we have the following three sections:

Sherrod's account ==> Spooner family's account ==> Full video

The full video is discussed in Sherrod's account, then the reaction from the Spooner family, then the discussion of the release of the full video. This probably should be fixed, but it will take a little bit of rewriting.Jarhed (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote not a quote

The last paragraph describing Obama's appearance on "The View" has a quote footnoted as (89) - When you go to that link, the line is not a quote from the President and it is grammatically incorrect:

Mr. Obama said America needs to do a better job dealing with race, and said many - including how own administration - are to blame for on overreaction to "deceiving" excerpts of Sherrod's comments, which were part of a larger story about how she realized that race should not be the determining factor in who she helps.

"including how own administration" - should that be HIS own admin, or OUR own admin...?

Can someone please fix this - research the quote or delete this reference. (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Jarhed (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Readability for video lengths

I don't like the edits that keep inserting the number of seconds in the video lengths because it screws up readability. This construct, "2 minutes, 38 seconds of video" has a casual tone that needs to be made more formal. It is clear from the text that Breitbart posted a major excerpt. I'm not sure what the exact number of seconds adds to the narrative at the expense of readability.Jarhed (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrt the too-casual of tone, it's now been more "scientifically formalized" to a video 02 minutes, 38 seconds in length. Cf. the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "But a review of the entire 43-minute, 15-second speech -- released Tuesday on the NAACP Web site -- showed that Sherrod was giving a cautionary tale about the evils of racial separation."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done!… Pushed more precise figures to end notes.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Among options at wp:REFNOTE, I used template:ref label/template:note label to segregate article's few textual endnotes from its many source references.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.--Jarhed (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Good article

I changed the article to B class in the templates. If somebody cares about good article status, you should submit this article and see how much further it needs to go.--Jarhed (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be a part of the 'WikiProject African-Americans' or whatever it's called? (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It is very possible that the people reading this do not know the answer to your question. If you care, you might need to research a better place to ask.--Jarhed (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Apparently that is the wp:WikiProject African diaspora: which - - I added (tho I don't know how many editors find their way to the article this way. p/s As an experiment I included any projects likely appropriate rather than the usual random selection.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I have never seen a WP article that was a member of so many projects. Please review WP doco for including project banners and make sure that this article is not running afoul of a guideline.Jarhed (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, oddly enough, the wp:PROJ has almost no guidance at all on it! Hmm. Nevertheless, I'll cull truly peripheral Wikiprojects. And, Jarhed, if you or other editors see any I miss, you/they 're of course welcome to remove some, too.Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I rmv'd Albany, which is inactive, and organizations, because it seems to be a minor aspect of the article. However, the article is such a mix of issues--biography/cyberlaw/farming co-ops/African-American civil rights/politics/US state of Georgia--that I think the article adds something to each project left IMHO. Although it is downright surprising it's so many!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Move discussions

Would somebody please close the move discussions on this page as per 7 days. If you still want to move please start a new discussion. I will vote no.Jarhed (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  • oppose move suggestion(s). this article title seems just fine to me. Badmachine (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

This article has been placed on probation due to disruptive editor behavior on the main Obama article. I *hate* working on articles that are on probation and this development makes me sick. This article is about a controversial incident and it is easy for people to get emotional and frustrated. Standard WP guidelines will solve the problem so long as we make an effort to follow them. For my part, I will do my best to contribute positively.Jarhed (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

All articles under the rubric of the project Barack Obama, de facto, are under the self-same "probation," according to the community's consensus. This is the case whether the article is so tagged or not; however, we can go ahead and untag the article, if the tag causes offense. There has been little contention on this article, surprisingly; so perhaps the timing of the tag having been placed up there--or even the fact that it was put up there at all--is unfortunate. (By the way, probation doesn't actually introduce any new rules to live by, per se. It simply encourages editors to more stringently follow existing rules--which, in practice, means that policies on probationed articles only seem more stringent, sometimes.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a very welcome development. Wikipedia- generally speaking- is a s**t stain of gossip mongering, ideological haranguing, fandom obsession, and endless flame warring= see criticism of Wikipedia or hit the 'random article' button a few times and tell me with a straight face that this place has made any contribution to society. This place the same as 4chan but with more mods.

In the few- and I mean very, very few- times that Wikipedia can be any good, it has editors watching each other like hungry cannibals ready to snap at each other as well as continuous intervention by outside forces in administration and elsewhere. Thank GOD this article is under probation. I wish it was placed under sooner... (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of your criticism, I don't think this is the best place for it.--Jarhed (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mention in Slate

This article was just mentioned in Slate (magazine):

--Jarhed (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sherrod's land trust work in the '60s

Sherrod graduated from college in 1970. The ref is a college paper that conflates her record with that of her husband. I am comfortable with references that show her as the co-founder of New Communities, but not much more than that.Jarhed (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sherrod (Shirley) appears to have been applying her learning as she matriculated/researched. Her thesis was titled “The Multi-Purpose Farm Cooperative as an Approach to Saving the Black Farm.” Yellow Springs News writes that Sherrod's thesis "details an innovative model for ensuring the economic success of black farms that includes marketing, processing, wholesaling and financing. According to the RDLN Web site, Sherrod’s thesis 'continues to provide a blueprint for her ongoing work with black farmers and others.'"--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You are confused. The thesis you refer to is her master's thesis.Jarhed (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
<pensively raises one eyebrow> Because Sherrod graduated in 1970, it should be presumed she started college in the late 60s--during which period she and her husband also were founding land trusts, which eventually lead, of course, to the founding by twelve families of the farm collective New Communities in 1969. Then, in the 1970 Sherrod attended graduate programs. So... "during all of the period, mid-1960s on," Sherrod can be seen to have been indeed researching the topic "The Multi-Purpose Farm Cooperative as an Approach to Saving the Black Farm," for which work she was awarded her masters in '89.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Striked.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Original research. We have multiple reliable sources that she is the co-founder of New Communities, and a college newspaper with an agenda to push that says she did more than that.Jarhed (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
wp:OR refers to Wpdians, not small town newspapers--and I trust that reporter Megan Bachman at the Yellow Springs News (the town where Antioch U. Midwest is, where Sherrod of course got her masters) got the news right about Shirley's (among others') pioneering role in the land trust movement. But, if their reporting should be doubted, then
  1. This article says that Chuck Matthei told the article's author (Metthei's colleague Chuck Collins) back in the Sixties that the Sherrods “had devoted their lives[...]to reversing several generations of black land loss in the rural south. They were[...]greatly influenced by Gandhi’s ideas of nonviolent economics and village economics.”
  2. Here is the video of Sherrod's keynote address to the 2009 annual convention in Athens, Ga., of the National Community Land Trust Network--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

<==Original research, as in the synthesis you made about Sherrod's 1989 master's thesis having something to do with her teenage college years. None of these links you provide are reliable sources for controversial statements, and I notice that even the Yeller Springs News talks about Sherrod and her husband. I'm not sure why you are so insistent on pushing this synthesis of yours that appears in *absolutely no reliable sources*. Am I missing something?Jarhed (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

<sighs> Um, yeah. Again, please, Jarhed, please specify what edit to the article involves an wp:OR issue. As for talkpage commentary, yes, in response to your contention that Yellow Springs News got its reporting wrong, I pointed what logically can be surmised from the chronology of events. Yet, even in this case, when you continued to express doubt in the Yellow Spr. News's interpretation, I provided a couple of quick, additional sources for the same. (Hey, wd it make u feel better if I striked this talkpage analysis you take exception to and let these sources speak for thmslvs?)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
"During the 1960s, Sherrod helped to form several land trusts in southeastern Georgia". This statement is not supported by a single reliable reference and is "logically...surmised" by you, which is original research. In 1969, Sherrod was a college student, worked on a farm, co-founded New Communities, and was a member of SNCC. That is enough accomplishment for anyone, and I am not sure why you are trying to give her some sort of superhuman academic and community organizing capabilities. I wish you would just put the sentence back the way it was, which was fine.Jarhed (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It occurs to me that you might not realize that the sources you provide are not reliable. Puffington Host is a blog. Yella Springs News is a local weekly. The video is a primary source. If you don't understand these categories, please go read the reliable source doco thoroughly.Jarhed (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Really it comes down to this: In 1969, the likelihood of anyone putting a poor, black, female, 21-year old college student in charge of founding anything is pretty far-fetched. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying that we need something just a little more verifiable than your logical intuition.Jarhed (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
<ec>: Mea culpa! I now see that I'd overreacted, Jarhed, to your dismissal of Bachman's reportorial professionalism and didn't bother to magnifying-glass in on the 60s dating in connection with Sherrod's land trust activism. Nevertheless, this too-long-of-thread is witness to the fact that generally philosophical discourse holds no candle to specific concerns being laid out; and I appreciate you now having done so--and, again, mea culpa. <clears throat> OK. That said, what the Yellow Springs News's Bachman reported was that "In the 1960s and 1970s, Sherrod and her husband Charles were instrumental in developing the nation’s first land trust, starting a movement which produced three in the Yellow Springs area — Home, Inc., the Tecumseh Land Trust and the Vale Land Trust."

Yet Bachman didn't say that the Sherrods started the trusts in the 60s; she reported that the Sherrod's helped start a 60s movement that in turn led to land trusts being formed in Bachman's paper's, general, Miami, Ohio, area. So I'll edit the text to more accurately state the dating in the source. Thanks!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Per wp:RS, local weeklies (as always, used with discretion) can often be particularly reliable with concern to things in their local purview. (I'll return momentarily with a quote from it or another pertinent guideline.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Dude, local weeklies mostly will print anything that will please their advertisers and are *not* reliable for controversial facts such as this. If you can't find a better source than this, please revert yourself. Once again, trying to make Sharrod seem to be this community-organizing prodigy just sounds silly and hammers the credibility of the entire bio.--Jarhed (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
My "cous.": if sources /x/, /y/, & /z/ said she is a prodigy, and such statements are deemed notable, then the readers can make up their own minds, is all. Sure, some puff pieces raise so-termed wp:REDFLAGs and should be considered rather wp:POORSRCes. Absolutely. But in the case of Bachman and her editor, I'd say not; and, in fact, the wp:RS page does not discriminate against reasonable use of small town newspapers enjoying professional editorial oversight (college papers included, btw!)

As to Chuck Collins in the HuffPo: What I quote are his actual recollections, carefully stated as sourced to him. This passes WP's muster cos, per wp:SELFPUB, wp:NEWSBLOG, and wp:Rs#Scholarship, blogs indeed can be relied upon...for info about the person writing the blog post or his opinions (if otherwise notable): in this instance, Collins's person/Collins's opinions. Furthermore the HuffPo enjoys editorial oversight, wins numerous awards, and has more readers than any online journalism source other than that, say, of the online version of the NYT.

Sherrod's keynote to the Nat'l Community Land Trust Network is a wp:PRIMARY source--(A) showing she's recognized as an activist/expert by her peers; (B) showing in a reliable fashion information about Sherrod herself and showing what Sherrod's opinions are within her area of interest/expertise. (And the NCLTN's site has its own editor, ain't some randomly anonymous blogpost.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

<==Good lord, a primary source CANNOT BE USED for a controversial BLP fact citation. Go search the RS noticeboard for HuffPo and tell me again that it is a reliable source for controversial BLP facts. You have already read and ignored the RS doco that says that you can't use a local weekly for a controversial BLP fact cite. I can't believe I am having to waste my time explaining this to you, and I request again that you revert your edit unless you can find a reliable SECONDARY source for your controversial BLP fact.--Jarhed (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll add a endnote that will cite Susan Witt & Robert Swann's academic article about how New Communities' founding in '69 by members of the Albany Movement served as a laboratory and model in the movement toward the development of Community Land Trusts throughout the U.S.
  • It's here: in which Witt & Swann relate that Swann and Albany leaders modeled New Communities' land trust organization on legal concepts used in Israel. "The perseverance and foresight of that team in Georgia, motivated by the right of African-American farmers to farm land securely and affordably, initiated the CLT movement in this country." (CLT="Community Land Trust")--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I've posted this note on the RS noticeboard (plus, per wp:CANVASSING, a pointer to the R/S-B discussion, on the OR noticeboard; another at the BLP noticeboard; & also one at the "village pump").--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You are being unreasonable. Sharrod is reliably sourced as the co-founder of New Communities and nothing else. If your local weekly fact were reliable it would have been picked up by the national press. Sharrod was 12 years old at the beginning of the 60's. Your edit is nonsensical and I request yet again that you revert it as not reliably sourced for a controversial fact in a BLP.Jarhed (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Hodgson, your recent edits are at variance with WP guidelines. Your footnote to some unknown academic research doesn't even contain a citation, please remove it immediately. Your edit saying that the Sherrods' land trust work started in 1969 is idiotic; you are trying to shoehorn facts into this article that do not belong. Charles Sherrod is the notable individual who was the early land trust pioneer. Shirley Sherrod was the co-founder of New Communities in his wake. Also, please remove all of the land trust edits you made to the info box, including the reference to the government case. Shirley Sherrod was unknown before this incident.Jarhed (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The article now says that Shirley was a pioneer in land trusts who co-founded N.C. in 1969--the note to which statement in the article itself has two references attached: namely, current footnotes numbers 92 and 93.

Shirley was notable for co-founding New Communities prior this controversy. (Mrs. Sherrod managed the collective's stores, while her husband, the Rev. Sherrod, managed many of its field operations. Please see wp:BIAS with regard to avoiding alleged WP systemic bias concerning editors' considering female accomplishments equally of note to be of less encyclopedic important than very similar male accomplishments.) Reams of news articles attest to various aspects of Shirley's notability as a longtime activist for African-American/other land collectives.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a quote from a source already used in the article:

She married Charles Sherrod, who was part of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and had come to town to register black voters. He was a leader in the coalition of civil rights groups known as the Albany Movement.

In 1969, the Sherrods and other leaders formed New Communities Inc., a cooperative farm run by committee. For the next 15 years, about a dozen black families lived and worked there.

These citation games you are playing are completely at variance with BLP. BLP facts must be supported with inline citations to reliable sources, not non-standard footnotes to original research. The google book reference does not even *mention* Sharrod, and the other reference is the low-quality reference that cannot be used for controversial BLP facts. If you contend that Sherrod was notable before this incident, please provide a link to a single reliable source proving your assertion now.Jarhed (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
BLPs must be careful not to reflect systemic bias. I have repeatedly relied on written guides. If you disagree with some precise edit, instead of casting vague aspersions, please do the same, as anything less equates to simply an argument of wp:DONTLIKEIT.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the quote from the source from the note to the main text, restoring the missing in-line cites.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

As for the non-standard footnote, look up "original research" on your own.Jarhed (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, sir, I've moved the quote from the note section to Shirley's bio section, restoring the missing in-line cites as you suggest.

Btw, thank you for allowing more eyes on the matter by participating in the discussion at the RS noticeboard, Jarhed. (Note that I have also made a good faith effort to broach a neutrally worded expositions of the original research or bio/livingppl allegations to the OR and BLP noticeboards here and here, should you wish to chime in or post a new threads, to do a better job than I did in presenting your "original research" and "BLP vio" contentions, as well.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I want you to revert all of the changes that you made after you inserted the mention to the 1960's. That version was well-sourced and stated Sherrod's accomplishments just fine. The current version is non-sensical and is not supported by the citations.Jarhed (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Please address specific text, to avoid an argument unsupported by guidelines (as, case in point: the reference to the 1960s you mention was removed long ago already).

Here is the text currently disputed, in full:

In 1969, Sherrod and her husband helped pioneer the land trust movement in the U.S., co-founding New Communities, a collective farm in Southwest Georgia modeled on kibbutzim in Israel.<RuralDvlpmtOrg><CNN> According to scholarship by land trust activists Susan Witt and Robert Swann, New Communities' founding in 1969 by individuals such as the Sherrods connected to the Albany Movement<SmallTownPpr> served as a laboratory and model in a movement toward the development of Community Land Trusts throughout the U.S.: "The perseverance and foresight of that team in Georgia, motivated by the right of African-American farmers to farm land securely and affordably, initiated the CLT movement in this country."<AcademicPpr>

Located in Lee County, Georgia, the 6,000-acre project was the largest tract of black-owned land in the U.S.<RuralDvlpmtOrg>

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I will ask you yet again to either produce a reliable source for this statement: In 1969, Sherrod and her husband helped pioneer the land trust movement in the U.S., or to revert all of your edits.Jarhed (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I will also ask you, yet again, to produce a single reliable source that Sherrod was notable before July 19, 2010, or remove all of the subjects you have placed in the "Known For" section of her infobox.Jarhed (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the in-line cite for the "land trust pioneer" assertion. (And, tomorrow I hope to find time to add in-line cites for the infobox notability assertions you dispute.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's edit to infobox sourcing subject's notable connex, Albany mvmt's, NC Inc's foundings--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The inline cite you provide is not reliable as per the RS guidelines that you already acknowledge that you have read. Please either provide a reliable source or revert your edits. As for the "Known For" items in the infobox, please remove them all until you can provide a reliable source.Jarhed (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
wp:RS and the community (including the commenters so far at the RS noticeboard) feel weekly community newspapers with journalistic oversight are fine. It is only you who objects. Find someone who agrees with you before you declare your interpretation the same as WP's.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
As you wish, let's continue this discussion on the RS noticeboard.Jarhed (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The correct link to the now-archived RSNoticeboard discussion is here: wp:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 72#New Communities, Inc., and the CMT movement.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Note: Since no talkpage or noticeboard readers have chimed in other than myself in response to Jarhed's assertions about sourcing in the article's bio section, I've now, in a good faith effort to somehow attract attention to the matter, went ahead and tagged it with a {{BLP Refimprove|date=August 2010}} tag.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Sherrod bio

I request that all edits to the Sherrod bio stop now and that the editors making these edits come here to discuss. Your edits are of extremely poor quality: you are introducing numerous red links and causing cite errors, among numerous other problems.Jarhed (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that Jarhed deleted two in-line citations soucing dates added to the bio section. The organizations Sherrod headed are notable. Per wp:REDLINK, "Sometimes it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable." In a word to the wise (and per wp:DONTLIKEIT/basic Wikiquette) please be specific in your challenges to sourced material as otherwise vague pronouncements can be/is perceived by a conscientious editor being attacked as bullying.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Per wp:Wikiquette: "Do not label or personally attack people['s...]edits. [...] This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you must criticize, do it politely and constructively. Always make clear what point you are addressing[...]."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I deleted was an invalid cite that was causing a cite error in the template. I would like to remind you that this article is on probation and I request that you not accuse me of doing something that I did not do.Jarhed (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for deleting the broken ref parameter (and for the article probationary warning, too; sincerely). I fixed the citations and put em back in. --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Still, Jarhen, per wp:PRESERVE, I suggest that you might consider in the future the use of a template:citations broken tag?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
So does that mean that you are going to stop making changes to the BLP until we discuss them here?Jarhed (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Each time you make what I perceive as arch comments (such as the one I'm responding to), I feel obliged to respond; yet, wouldn't our time be more productively spent focusing on precise edits/improvements?

In any case, taking your query at face value (for what this might be worth): Under Article Probation--even under the hypothetical where editors have been asked by an admin to keep to 1RR--it's still allowed for them to edit wp:BOLDly. So, in other words--please, per wp:BRD, if you see some detail another editor has added to Sherrod's bio that you don't believe passes muster according such WP guidelines as wp:RS, wp:NPOV, wp:BLP/wp:NOTABLE, and the like, yes, please do go ahead revert it along with the cited general rationale...and, if others then should disagree, they and you can come on talk and reason together, respectfully, to state your cases about it.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


It has been requested that I bring the following matter to the talkpage: i/e, Jarhed requests that no edits be made to the biography section, arguing [with my automatically discounting, per wp:TALKNO, his argumentation's more ad hominem aspects], that the subject lacks sufficient notability to merit such detailed treatment of her background. This aspect, however, I think is pretty much overcome by wp:N#NCONTENT, which says, "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." In other words, once it's determined that a person is going to be given space on Wikpedia, we are then free to routinely fill in the basic parameters of that person's life such as the dates that person held various positions and the like.

Is it possible that Jarhed is arguing undue weight? Turning to that guideline we see e/g that...

"The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. ... An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

--In any case, per Jarhed, recent addition of what I believe to be routine biographical information has become controversial. The substantial portion of the following is the material being disputed.

Beginning in 1965, Sherrod worked as an organizer with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee's Southwest Georgia Project. Co-founder of such organizations as the Southwest Georgia Project for Community Education, Sherrod also organized childcare and pre school programs throughout Southwest Georgia and participated in voter registration drives.SRuralBWomenInitiative 1993–1996, Shirley's work was assisted by a fellowship awarded her through the Kellogg National Fellowship Program.SRuralBWomenInitiative Prior to 2009, she served as the Georgia State Lead for the Southern Rural Black Women's Initiative.SRuralBWomenInitiative

From 1985–2009,FederationSouthernCoops Sherrod led the Georgia office of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, assisting black farmers in retaining their land.CNNSRuralBWomenInitiativeWaPo From 1999–2000, Sherrod was Executive Director for Community Alliances of Interdependent Agriculture.FederationSouthernCoops

From July 2009–July 2010,FederationSouthernCoops Sherrod worked for the U.S. Department of Agriculture as its Georgia State Director of Rural Development.SRuralBWomenInitiative

In late July 2010, no longer a federal employee (nor thus constrained by the Hatch Act), Sherrod campaigned for her local Democratic Party United States Congressman.LATimes Further information: United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia, 2010#District 2

A specific question to the community is, If no additional editors chime in one way or the other, which of the following tags might I best affix to the section: template:like resume? template:peacock? template:puffery? template:cleanup-laundry? template:importance-section? or merely throw on a template:recently revised tag?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  • About to comment - wow, what a wall of text! I have no opinion about this at all, and I'm unlikely to read the arguments beyond the first few paragraphs before commenting because I would rather look at this with fresh eyes. Afterwords, maybe, to see if that changes things. On the face of it, a small publisher that is independent from the source and that has some editorial oversight or fact checking generally is a reliable source. Or more properly, the specific articles are, in absence of any reason to the contrary, reliable for uncontroversial facts. If the fact is controversial or disputed in good faith, I think we begin to resort to finding other sources (if it's important, bigger sources must have covered it and if not it may be untrue or unremarkable), consensus, and the adage that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Reasons to the contrary may include pushing an agenda, an article clearly out of the expertise or competence of the author and editors, a humor or opinion piece, a serious concern that the information is simply incorrect ("conflated with that of her husband..."), and so on. Exactly what fact is this source being used to support? Is it the sort of thing that would be in other sources if true and noteworthy? If so, and there aren't any other sources, why not? Is there any reason why the fact is scandalous or controversial? Seemingly incorrect? Okay, let me take a look. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm very confused by this. Could someone state relatively succinctly (and without arguing a position too much) exactly what the question is? What is the disputed content that is proposed for inclusion or deletion, and what is the source in question? - Wikidemon (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikidemon: Thanks for your reading this over and especially for your neutral, insightful commentary.

In response: What I think the basic argument is (prefacing with a non-concise, chronological run-down of some of Jarhed's and my thrusts and parries):

  1. I added, without Jarhed's negative comment, the original language that Jarhed later wanted the article reverted to.
  2. Yet I changed this to what I now admit was a poorly formed edit (...viz., that said the Sherrods had started several landtrusts in the 1960s--unfortunately, my having misconstrued what the Yellow Spring News had said: only that the Sherrods had pioneered land trusts beginning in the '60s).
  3. Jarhed noticed my problematic edit and offered his trademarked, over-arching pronouncements (per my POV).
  4. I immediately fixed the edit in question (to then say that the Sherrods were land trust pioneers that started New Communities in 1969).
  5. This didn't satisfy Jarhed, who took the tack that the Yellow Spring News was a no-go for any fact in a blp, period.
  6. I googled recent news, failing to immediately come up with beaucoup mentions of the Sherrods' having been, quote, pioneers, unquote; yet plenty of cites connect the Sherrods with New Communities. Yet I did quickly find the Huffington Post piece by the farm collective activist who knew the Sherrods in the early 70s who lauded their activism in this area, as well as the video of Mrs. Sherrod's 2009 keynote speech the National Community Land Trust org's annual meet-up--leading me to believe that the description by the Yellow Spring News of the Sherrod's as land trust pioneers was straightforward reporting. At this point I posted the reliable sources noticeboard thread.
  7. Jarhed said in this thread that I had made the bogus edit about the Sherrods doing vague stuff in the 1960s. In truth, I'd changed this text to specify "1969," etc., as soon as Jarhed lodged his first complaint about this.
  8. Throughout all of this, the eyes of any random Wikipedia passersby glazed over with no-one offering their commentary until now (even though Jarhed also put up a notice on the Editor Assistance Requests page.
  9. [At this point, Jarhed also argued that the resume subsection was too wp:PROMOTION-like; however, this is in many respects a side issue, in my opinion and, in any case, didn't cite any policies on the talkpage with concern this matter. (In fact, after insisting that I bring the matter to talk, Jarhed became a phantom.) I thus consider this aspect of the disputations between us moot unless he or someone does again pick up its cudgel.]
Summary of what actual contention, I think, remains
A.  Per Jarhed's arguement at the very bottom of the RS Noticeboard thread, he contends that per wp:RS, no statement about Mrs. Sherrod can be sourced to Yellow Springs News.
B.  I, User:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden, argue that Shirley and Charles Sherrod were land collective activists who in 1969 became founding members of the New Communities, Inc., land trust--per such reliable sources as cited in first sentence here: "Resignation of Shirley Sherrod#New Communities land trust"--including a particularly informative article in the local, Yellow Springs, Ohio, News.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment shoehorned in later: A USA Today story says, "Sherrod spoke about the incident Saturday [21 August] at a meeting of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund in Epes, Alabama. She said her work with other agencies to help poor counties in south Georgia was overlooked during the controversy." Could this go toward documenting that Sherrod's positions/dates with various advocacy/assistance agencies are notable and have relevance to the rest of the article?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I had much the same reaction as Wikidemon, and I added a section below asking for a brief summary of each opposing position. I then removed it after I realized that Wikidemon had already responded to the 3O posting. I appreciate Hodgson-Burnett for stating his view of the disagreement. I suggest that the other editor involved in the dispute do the same. Figureofnine (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's been a couple of weeks since user Jarhed expressed his belief about the unreliable nature of reporting by the Yellow Springs, Ohio, News, so, per wp:IAR, if nothing else, I will now go ahead and remove the Hey!-This-article-may-need-better-sourcing? tagging I'd put on its bio section a week ago now. I wish to express thanks, first, especially to Jarhed for initiating this discussion in his sincere interest toward improving the article, and also, belatedly, to users Wikidemon and Figureofnine for doing their independent preliminary glances into Jarhed'd criticism about sourcing via Y-S News (even though they ended up "very confused" by both Jarhed's and my arguments in this lengthy thread: as Wikidemon wrote and of which Figureofnine, I believe, indicated he'd had "much the same reaction"------ ).

S.S.'s possible legal claim of malice against A.B

Heads up: Interesting how e/g the WSJ's and the NYT's and others' analyses of a libel suit make this huuge deal over A.B.'s posted correction to his piece! However, media criticism blogger Scott Rosenberg points out, it really isn't one: "[A.B.'s] implication is: 'Our story holds up, Sherrod said what we said she said, but we goofed on this little detail of her employment at the time.'" (I don't remember if or how this correction is spoken of in our article. Eventually gonna check.)

Yet the director at of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard tells Salon the non-correction buttresses a demonstration of A.B.'s acting with (legal) "malice"--since, per Salon: "It seems clear that Breitbart knew at the time he posted the correction what was in the full video."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we should be careful about putting legal speculation in the article. It is easy to run afoul of BLP by repeating unproven allegations.Jarhed (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday the US 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals US 9th said, with concern Price V. Stossel, "The context in which Price’s words were presented materially changed the words’ meaning.” Ruling's said to be a positive sign w regard a potential Sherrod v. Breitbart case.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


Should this article be renamed to "Shirley Sherrod"? - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Per wp:PSEUDO:

"An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context."

I think that whether this would apply to Sherrod's not having a stand alone article is debatable, yet I think that the referenced subsection of the wp:avoiding harm guidance page does support the existence of some article dedicated to the Sherrod video excerpt/firing/etc. incident.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC
  • In obamaspeak, call it "lipstick on a Pigford"! (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed split

Readable prose size is 24 kB, but this article is now 251 kB, which is quite substantial in size, if not word length. Perhaps a split of the biography section would be appropriate for size reasons now? --Bsherr (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. References, tables, etc. do make up a significant part of the article. It is cleanly divided into readable sections, and splitting would only separate tightly related information. Reywas92Talk 16:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn. --Bsherr (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, don't withdraw Bsherr. You're absolutely right. The title of this article is "Resigantion of Shirley Sherrod." Therefore, the entire section called "Biography of Shirley Sherrod" doesn't belong here at all. Further, the section entitled "Reaction and Subsequent Statements by Sherrod" seems to cover the bases quite adequately and I would suggest that the section entitled "Selected Analysis and Commentary" and "Left-Right Politics" don't belong here either. Outside of the few who were first to mention it, who really cares what various commentators think, one way or the other? Too much heat-not much light. I'd remove "Biography," "Selected Analysis" and "Left-Right" as completely unnecessary to an article about a "Resignation." richrakh````
I just moved the biography. Ann arbor street (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote tag

I don't understand why there are too many quotes in this article.

This is a controversial subject, with disputes over who said what, and the exact wording is critical.

If someone paraphrased the quotes, they might not paraphrase them accurately.

Would anyone object if I removed the tag? If so, why? -- Nbauman (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

IMO, go ahead.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is this article in an encyclopedia?

This is a blog post at best. A partisan tempest in a teapot that is already forgotten by most. Ann arbor street (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree - too reactive, with too many lengthy quotes. It should be summarized as a media rush to judgment with too little information. Perhaps some caution about videos is being learned, but slowly. Parkwells (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reduce or eliminate sections

"Reactions to incident" and "Selected Commentary" are not selective enough, repeating previous comments and assertions, and adding new ones, but not advancing the overall summary or conclusions. Needs to focus on the issues of media overreaction to limited information, with everyone trying to react to the continual news cycle. Need to be summarized, with quotes reduced by different sources - what is the bottom line? Parkwells (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


This story is less about the quotes of the initial statements, or lengthy later ones, than about the fact that everyone overreacted with only part of the story. It should rely on third-party RS, not continued lengthy quotes. They verge on WP:COPYVIO, as fairly long passages from copyrighted sources. Summaries and commentary should emphasize how people interpreted the materials and acted.Parkwells (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Being as factually accurate as possible

I noticed a number of statements with the [citations needed] tag in the article, most notably a claim that Ms. Sherrod was ordered to resign by the White House. I am not a wikipedian, simply an avid reader and this statement carries a lot of weight with it. This article could use some extensive work by the community at large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)