Talk:Ron Dellums

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Ron Dellums was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 16, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

2.2.5 "Opposition to integration of gays in the military"[edit]

That entire paragraph needs proper citation. Another editor weighed in on this topic by reverting the paragraph. I'm inclined to keep it out of the article also until it can be properly sourced from the Congressional Record, or any other sources, particularly the part about Dellums opposing defense appropriations "on economic principles." This is no place for WP:OR. Please weigh in on this, I'd like to hear from other editors on this issue. CriticalChris 06:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that few seem to have been particularly interested in this (the above author posted nearly four years ago), but this passage also caught my eye. Not only is the sourcing lackluster, but I think the title is misleading, for it suggests at a casual glance that Dellums was opposed to integration. Rscannix (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Primary sourcing, UNDUE, POV, SYNTH[edit]

I undid this edit for the following reasons

  • "Far Left" - The article on the Peace and Freedom Party calls them left, not far left, while the Black Panthers were describes them as black nationalist and socialist; these are centre-left, not far left. (Maoist, for example, are far left). Seems like POV pushing to label these groups as "far left".
    • Supported by these groups - two primary sources, from 1968 and 1970 - are used to support the statement that support for Dellums came from these groups. Using two primary sources from 45 and 47 years ago to draw conclusions seems like WP:SYNTH
    • Focussing on support from two groups, without a proper analysis of where Dellums support came from in a broader context, raises concerns about WP:UNDUE
    • "Often referred to as a political radical" - again, it's inappropriate to draw from 45-47-year-old primary sources.
  • Nicaragua - again, a statement without context, drawn from a 35-year-old primary source, raises questions of UNDUE.

We can't have editors delving into ancient primary sources to cherry-pick bits of information or draw novel conclusions. Guettarda (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And this uses an SPS to make disparaging statements about a living person, which is not acceptable per policy. And it looks like there's existing information sourced to David Horowitz's "FrontPage Mag", which is not considered a reliable source for news, far less for a BLP (per extensive discussion in the archives on WP:RSN. Guettarda (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • It was not cherry picking that the primary sources are not "ancient." These two bogus criticisms are evidence of WP:BIAS
  • The sources used were standard accepted sources, among them the New York Times.
  • Because a source is 45 to 47 years old does not make it false. In fact it is very appropriate considering that they are contemporary sources.
  • Calling the Black Panthers "centre-left" is laughable. The group is even listed as Far-Left in the article on Far-left politics. And John F. Kennedy historian Arthur M. Schlessinger in "The Imperial Presidency" (p. 258) referred to the Peace and Freedom Party as Far-Left. Both groups are connected to the Workers World Party, a Marxist-Leninist group. It is you who is pushing POV.
  • The two assertions about WP:UNDUE are fallacious. The sources used are all Reliable Sources and the assertions appeals to novelty, a logical fallacy.
  • As for the message regarding living people, said articles should have both positive and negative information as long as they are supported by the facts, otherwise they will not have a neutral POV.Rickm7x (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Additionally, you incorrectly removed an item as SPS, but if you had looked at the source it had a pdf of the actual letter. The letter can be seen on the cited page, therefore it does not constitute SPS.Rickm7x (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not add information from FrontPage Mag. That was another user. You need to check your facts before making accusations.Rickm7x (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on the above, I undid your revisions and removed the citation from FrontPage Mag that was introduced by another user/editor as SPS.Rickm7x (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The letter can be seen on the cited page, therefore it does not constitute SPS - Please don't make as transparently false a claim as this. Guettarda (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. Articles need to be based on high-quality secondary and tertiary sources. Especially controversial material about living people. When you pick two sources from almost half a century ago, you're cherry picking. Why? Because you aren't representing the full spectrum of primary source material. Of course, we can't fairly represent half a century of primary sources. Which is why we use secondary and tertiary sources.
  2. Yes, some of these are reliable sources. I never said otherwise.
  3. Quite honestly, I know nothing the Peace and Freedom party (PFP). So sure, if you provide a source that says that they are Maoist or Marxist in their ideology, I'll believe you. But saying that they were linked to the Workers World Party is just the typical sort of claim that people make who are trying to invent reasons to invent connections. You know, like the people who have to label groups as Far Left. In the book "Maoism in the Developed World" it says that "a diversity of far left groups" operated in the PFP. The book "The Negro in Third Party Politics" says the same thing. The book "Presidential Election" refers to it as a "far left group." In the book, "Tom Bradley's Campaign for Governor" it calls the PFP "the flagship of the far left." Is this a sufficient amount of secondary sources from respected authors and presses that call it Far Left? As for the Wiki article, it's wrong.
  4. Please read WP:UNDUE. It's entirely orthogonal to WP:RS.
  5. And no, WP:BLP does not permit unsourced or poorly-sourced negative material. Even when it's true. That's just policy. Guettarda (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
A. Voting information is of necessity going to have to come from that time period. Moreover, the sources constituted reliable mainstream news sources. That is not cherry-picking. Additional sourcing can be added, but it will not change the factual information that was included. For the information on Ron Dellums' secretary, this is also cited by Guenter Lewy in "The Cause that Failed" (Oxford University Press) on p. 223. Another source is "The Grenada Documents" (Sherwood Press) which transcribed the documents. But again, seeing the original document itself is best, which is on the blog.
B. Maoism and Marxism are not the only examples of the Far Left. In fact, however, the Black Panther Party was Marxist and around the time the subject ran for office, Eldridge Cleaver, a leader in the BPP ran for President on the Peace and Freedom Party. This is noted on his Wiki page. If you read the Wiki page for the BPP you will see it is designated as Far-Left. Providing the link to the WWP was just to provide an example as I did not think it necessary to provide multiple sources, but if that is what is needed to end this, I will.
C. "Orthogonal" is a technical term with different meanings depending on the context. Do you mean tangential?
D. Nothing I provided was unsourced or poorly-sourced.Rickm7x (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ron Dellums. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Ron Dellums. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ron Dellums. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ron Dellums. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)