Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Political Cesspool/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:55, 25 April 2010 [1].

The Political Cesspool

[edit]

The Political Cesspool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Stonemason89 (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it now satisfies all the featured article criteria. You may want to look at the archived peer reviews (1, 2, and 3) and the previous FA nominations (1 and 2). For a more detailed explanation of why I feel this should be a featured article, read here.

Stonemason89 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment for now: some newspaper titles (Los Angeles Times, The Commercial Appeal, etc.) are not italicized in refs. There's just enough non-italics that I can't tell if that's intended. --an odd name 22:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix them. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They have been fixed. In the case of the LA Times, Commercial Appeal, and Memphis Flyer, the newspaper names were inside double apostrophes in the article's source code, yet they were still not being displayed as italics when the page loaded! I wasn't quite sure what to do, so as a shot in the dark I tried removing the double apostrophes. Oddly enough, this caused the paper names to start displaying as italics! I guess that particular template (the "cite news" template) has a very "backward" way of operating, so to speak. There were also two others which were the result of a simple oversight on my part; I've since fixed them. Everything should be fine now. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing backwards about that: they were placed in the "work" attribute, which assumes they are titles of works and italicizes them in {{cite ___}} templates. If you add double apostrophes to them, MediaWiki thinks you want to end the template's italics, so you don't see them. Confused yet? --an odd name 11:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of, but at least I know what happened now. Thanks for clarifying! Stonemason89 (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Well done on the article. Found it interesting to read.
    • I don't think it's meeting the FA criteria of exemplary language, tone and style (which I always feel is the toughest criterion to meet, given that articles are created by disparate individuals). At the moment it very much feels like many Wikipedia articles feel; a list of facts (albeit strung together as sentences) rather than an article with a shape that delights the reader. Because this is such a hard criticism to deal with I will try and return to the article to be more specific but I'm tired and unwell today and my mind isn't up to it. Of course if any other reviewers agree and can be specific, that would be excellent.
      • The problem is that while it would ideally be desirable to be creative and write with a "shape that delights the reader", it's often hard to do this without violating rules like NOR, NPOV, and NOSYNTH. This is especially true for an article about a charged topic like this one; the writing can't stray too far from what is expressed in the sources without compromising the factual integrity of the article. Sometimes there is a balancing act between being factual, neutral, and noncontroversial (as this article tries very hard to be) and being entertaining to read, and it's often tough to write an article that satisfies both. It's sort of like the difference between a news article (factual and neutral, sticks very closely to the sources, but often boring as a result) versus an editorial (which grabs the reader's attention and is more interesting, but is also less factually reliable and often pushes a POV). Sometimes it's difficult to get the best of both worlds. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • People take various stances on this but the use of quotations sometimes feels unnecessary.
      • Section Foundation and History
        • 'the Memphis Flyer has described the show as "popular among white nationalists".'.... as a reader I thought "well, d'uh!" It might be best just to say that audience figures are unknown.
      • Section City Park demo...
        • '"There's a bunch of folk who don't agree with The CA...' - there's a lot of quotation going on here and the story doesn't seem to warrant it. It might be best to lose all the quotes and simply note that the guy appeared on the show, initially resisted criticism for doing so but once informed in more detail of the show's agenda said he would probably decline another appearance.
          • I removed the E. C. Jones quotes per your suggestion, since they didn't really add anything to the story. I left in the Chumney quote, however, since it's more informative and sheds quite a bit of light on the reason she chose not to appear on the show. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ordering of sections
  • Apologies; this isn't one of my best reviews, but I'm not on top form right now. Hope you find it helpful. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Images - File:Politicalcesspoollogo.jpg has no valid FU rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logos are generally considered appropriate regardless of whether they are free or not. See Wikipedia:Logos. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All non-free content must comply with policy, logo or not Fasach Nua (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you saying? Please be more specific about which aspects of the current FU rationale are not "valid", and why. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on WP:NFCI and WP:LOGO I believe Fasach Nua is in error. The image is a logo unique enough that it cannot be sufficiently conveyed in text alone. The image is appropriately tagged with {{Non-free logo}} and {{logo fur}} is being used for the FUR (as suggested in WP:LOGO). It is used for identification of the political group being discussed. I believe this is an example of acceptable use of a non-free image based on the policies I linked to. --SkotyWATC 00:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inappropriate use of non-free content. I also object to the linking of guidelines and claiming them to be policy within the FAC process Fasach Nua (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I'm concerned about some of the sourcing here for a featured article. Is Media Matters for America considered a reliable source? Clearly they have a political position, as they state they are progressive and out to expose "conservative misinformation". They are definitely accurate in this situation, but that doesn't necessarily make them a good source to rely on for featured content. AniMate 05:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only reason I used Media Matters as a source is because there are currently no "better" (more reliable) sources that say the same thing. If I removed the material that was sourced to Media Matters, then the article would be less comprehensive (criterion 1b). Two of the things Media Matters is currently used as a source for is the fact that TPC is syndicated by Stormfront Radio, and that James Edwards joined Stormfront in the past. The only other source I know of that could be used to verify these facts is Stormfront itself, and I'm really not too keen on linking directly to Stormfront unless there is a good reason to. Media Matters also reprinted a lot of stuff that had originally appeared on the TPC official website (James Edwards' blog). Edwards himself might be usable as a source per WP: SELFPUB. However, given the choice between linking to Media Matters and linking directly to Edwards, I think it's probably better to link to Media Matters; however, I could also post both links (i. e. a link directly to Edwards and a link to a Media Matters page that reprinted what Edwards wrote) if you prefer. What do you think would be the best option? Stonemason89 (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • UPDATE: I've added a few more WP: SELFPUB sources that corroborate what Media Matters and the Anti-Defamation League wrote. I like to think that two sources are better than one, particularly when we're dealing with such a charged topic as this one (or when the sources themselves are potentially controversial, as AniMate pointed out). Stonemason89 (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources appear to be misrepresented Here's what our article says:
Sharpton settled for a protest at Forrest Park, which attracted a few dozen, mostly black demonstrators, whom Edwards referred to as "rabble". At the demonstration, Sharpton argued that "We need to show the rest of the world that the day for honoring people like this is over"; Sharpton also said in an interview that his objections were not related to race but to the actions of Lieutenant General Forrest, who led an army against the United States.[47] James Edwards attracted about 200 white counter-demonstrators to the Confederate Park vigil.
Citation 47 is to this newspaper article, though our own article doesn't actually link to it. We currently claim "a few dozen, mostly black demonstrators" showed up to Al Sharpton's demonstration. The Memphis Flyer says "about two-dozen white people" attended the demonstration and that 250 people were present. Conversely, the counter demonstration is described as "a small group of counter-protesters [who] honored Confederate history". The Political Cesspool isn't mentioned at all. AniMate 06:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the description of the rally given by the Memphis Flyer article contradicts the description of the rally given by the Southern Poverty Law Center's Memphis Sewage article: [[2]]. Both are used as sources, and the description of the rallies currently given in the Political Cesspool article (a few dozen Sharpton supporters versus 200 Edwards supporters) matches the description of the events in Memphis Sewage. Thanks for pointing this out, though. Since the two sources contradict each other in their description of the Forrest Park rally, it's probably best to list both descriptions in the article (as in "The Southern Poverty Law Center said that there were X demonstrators supporting Sharpton and Y supporting Edwards, while the Memphis Flyer said Sharpton had Z supporters). That way, we don't "endorse" either account of the rally (which would violate WP: NPOV), but rather let the reader make up their own mind.
This whole issue reminds me of the controversies from late last year when people were giving different estimates of the number of people who showed up at the Tea Party protests. In any event, thanks for pointing out the Forrest Park discrepancy; I'm going to update the article to reflect that. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the section to reflect the fact that different sources have different estimates of how many people attended the Sharpton rally (SPLC says a few dozen, MF says about 250). The "small group" of pro-Forrest counter-demonstrators mentioned in the Memphis Flyer article is not the same group that Edwards organized; Edwards' group demonstrated in Confederate Park (a short distance away from Forrest Park) and is not mentioned in the Memphis Flyer "Monumental Battle" article, which focuses on Forrest Park only, and does not directly mention Edwards or his group--it's only being used as a source because it provides valuable background information on Sharpton's visit to Memphis, which is what provided the impetus for Edwards to organize his own rally. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So there's no disagreement on the size of Edwards' rally; only one source exists for its size (the SPLC, which says Edwards attracted 200 supporters). However, there is disagreement between the sources on the size of Sharpton's rally, so I've updated the article to reflect that. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you mentioned that the article did not link directly to the Memphis Flyer article's URL. This has been fixed as well. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A few minutes ago, I added a subsection ("political positions") detailing the fact that the show's staff chose to remain neutral in the 2008 United States presidential election, since I think it's informative and sheds more light on the show's ideology. This new addition is something of a trial balloon; I think it's worth having, but if anyone else thinks I should remove or change it, please let me know and I'll take your advice. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sourcing is still problematic. You're relying on primary sources and sources from advocacy groups that aren't neutral. Without more neutral, third-party sources I don't think this can be a FA. AniMate 00:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I have pointed out before, there simply aren't very many neutral, third-party sources that have written about this topic; the sources that do exist have been cited in the article already. The FA rules state that you can only oppose a FA nomination if something can be done in principle to resolve your objection(s), and that is not the case here. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, regarding "neutral" sources: very few sources are universally regarded as "neutral". A while back I had this article reviewed by a user who had no problem with using Media Matters as a source but did object to the use of the Anti-Defamation League. There are, no doubt, editors who regard the New York Times, Fox News, CNN, etc., as having biases as well. So it does seem to depend on people's personal attitudes toward each of the sources in question. Personally, I don't see what the problem is; as long as the article iself is neutral, I don't see why the sources have to always be neutral as well. As long as whatever bias the sources may have is not carried over into the text of the article, I don't believe there's a legitimate reason to object. Objecting to a passage in the article simply because the source has a bias (rather than objecting because the passage itself is biased or inaccurate) seems to me to be a type of genetic fallacy, and it often leads to the removal of useful information from articles, thus making them less comprehensive (which is FA criterion 1b). That's my opinion on such matters. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • We're talking about a featured article. Our best. If the best we can do for sources are clearly and obviously biased, it's probably not FA material. The subjects simply limited by the fact they're not really notable enough to be discussed in wider arenas. Sorry, but until this radio show gets some comprehensive, in-depth coverage from neutral sources, I say fail. AniMate 02:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Political_Cesspool/archive3&oldid=1141922426"