Template:Did you know nominations/Federalist Party (Philippines)

The following is an archived discussion of Federalist Party (Philippines)'s DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: rejected by —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 06:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC).

Federalist Party (Philippines)

(

)

... that the iterations of the Federalist Party in the Philippines advocated the annexation of the country as a U.S. state?

Created by Howard the Duck (talk). Self nominated at 06:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC).

– Not sure if this is a DYK requirement, but the "Post-World War II Federalists" section is un-sourced. Either way, it doesn't put the hook in jeopardy.--12george1 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I tried looking for info about that but all I find are vote totals (which are supposedly sourced in the articles that use them). Either way, that section doesn't state if whether that iteration advocated for U.S. statehood so that should be clear enough that it doesn't suggest it campaigned on that platform. –H T D 15:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  - Well, since it doesn't put the hook in jeopardy, I guess I could let it slide.--12george1 (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Reviewed: #Pinus driftwoodensis. –H T D 05:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Regrettably, it is a DYK rule of thumb that each paragraph in the body of the article have at least one inline citation. And in this case I think it is necessary, given that the Federal Party of the Third Republic gives vote totals and percentages, to source them. For all but the first iteration, the article is missing key details like founding and dissolution. I'm also not sure I understand the opening sentence, and its use of "at one point": while they were Federal(ist) parties, didn't they advocate for statehood? When the first party gave up that platform, they also changed their name, so presumably they didn't exist as Federalist any more. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've used the reference found in Philippine Senate election, 1959; I used to have a PDF of the book but when my old hard drive died, I wasn't able to recover it. –H T D 04:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
As for foundation, and dissolution, I believe the article is explicit on these:
- Foundation: "The Partido Federalista (Federal Party) was one of the first to be formed, on December 23, 1900."
- Dissolution: "...their statehood platform was rescinded, and the party was named as the Progresista Party."
The opening sentence takes care not to include the Third Republic Federal Party, as we dunno what they were advocating. –H T D 04:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I may not have been clear: my point about founding and dissolution was that you only gave info about them for the original Partido Federalista, but not for either of the other two Federal(ist) parties listed. In fact, I'm wondering whether the Third Republic Federal Party even belongs in this article: there's no information about its aims or intentions, and its vote-getting is so minuscule that I doubt it qualifies as notable at all, with 477 total votes from two presidential elections. For all we know it could have been Abcede as a one-man "party". (The "at one point" phrase does not succeed in excluding the Third; what it does is confuse the reader. This needs revising.) You might want to ground the Fourth Republic section better in the times: the Federalist candidate came in third, but incumbent president Marcos won with well over 80% of the vote, and had been the one who instigated that martial law in the first place. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes. Abcede's party was indeed a one-man party. He was the only candidate of his party in the Senate elections his party contested, and he always came dead last (or near dead last). I'll see what I can do with the Fourth Republic party. –H T D 05:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Howard, what's up with this? You added a couple of phrases to the Fourth Republic Party, but didn't address whether the Third belongs at all: it doesn't appear to be notable in the slightest. Do you even know that Abcede advocated the Philippines becoming a U.S. state? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm stumped, TBH. I found this court case vs. Abcede, saying that he was charged of scammed people, but no mention his political beliefs. This virtually allowed anyone to run for president, reducing the Commission on Elections power to a purely ministerial role. What if I relegate this to the bottom as "Other uses", that should imply that his party doesn't have anything to do with the Philippines becoming a U.S. state? 06:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This article still doesn't really hold together. It's now about two distinct Federalist parties 80 years apart—Abcede's party under a different name seems dubious on all sorts of levels and not notable, so it shouldn't even be alluded to in the intro, and perhaps should be dropped entirely: different name, unknown aims, insignificant vote totals, and a one-man creation by a scam artist. Also, the latest Federalist party: has it continued? Was it a one-election wonder? Anything about its founding? You might want to make the article just about the two Federalist parties. If you do mention the so-called "Federal" party, it should get maybe 100 characters of coverage, enough to dismiss it. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a participant in Philippine presidential election, 1986, so I dunno what happened to them. The WP:RS failed to mention to what happened after the 1981 election. As for the Abcede's party, I'd probably put it on a "Other uses" or similar section. –H T D 03:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sold on the idea of two (three, even) different parties being in the same article. If you can find a clearer link between the parties apart from their name, I may reconsider. For example; was the intention of the second Federalist party to revive the first Federalist party and/or is the second one seen (by notable sources) as a successor to the first one? I don't know. Right now, the article stands out to me as a glorified disambiguation.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 12:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The three parties are distinct organizations. The first and the third espoused a U.S. statehood platform. The second one is probably not related other than a name. –H T D 12:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, but that reaffirms the need for splitting this article.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 13:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I considered doing that, but we'd have 3 stubs, one of which is in danger of deletion, instead of having a nice article. –H T D 13:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, two wrongs don't make a right.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 13:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't we've stooped to the level of quoting... quotes. The first and third parties are clearly connected by platform. When things can't stand on a single article, it's a good idea to put related on one article. Think of it as an article about a genus where information on its species can't stand on a single article. It's the second party that is causing problems. –H T D 14:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want this article approved, it may be in your best interest to try and improve the article instead of trying to convince us reviewers that the shortcomings of this article should be overlooked.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears any further improvements would be in vain as apparently the issue now is if an article should include information about three organizations, two of which are related by "ideology" (for lack of a better word), and the other which is barely notable and is probably not related but in name. –H T D 05:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to put this one here, to see if any other editor sees room for improvement. But I - like the nominator - am not optimistic about it. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 06:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)