Talk:The Political Cesspool/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Previous deletion

Does anyone know why the old page was deleted and replaced by a new one? --rock8591 13:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

Another user (forgot who he was) deleted this page saying it was a "non-notable neo-nazi radio show, no sources". After some thought, I decided that the show was definitely notable (I mean, look at the guest list, there are some very high-profile people in there, like Ted Nugent!) Also, a group outside the United States (the Tel Aviv-based Stephen Roth Institute) has written articles mentioning it.

So I decided to recreate the article, but I made sure that the new version had plenty of reliable sources (which the old article was somewhat lacking in, I'm afraid). I also added a few extra bells and whistles that the old article didn't have (an infobox, for example). I'm confident this incarnation of the article will not get deleted, since it doesn't have any of the problems that the old one had.

Thanks for asking! Stonemason89 (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that any user can just delete pages right off the bat. Considering that quite a few notable Wikipedia editors were active in the talk portion of that page. rock8591 03:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can nominate a page for deletion, but only admins can perform the actual deletion. In this case, it was proposed for deletion by user:Sloane

and the final deletion was made with this comment: (Expired PROD: non-notable neo-nazi radio show, no reliable sources).   Will Beback  talk  05:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like the British The Times also mentioned the show too, just a day or so ago. A "non-notable" subject wouldn't get that kind of attention from overseas. So I think I made the right decision by re-creating the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Strange too, because I remember the last nomination for deletion. There was no discussion area to vote for "Keep" or "Delete" and after a certain number of days, it got deleted by default. rock8591 11:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

Speaking about that too, it's good to see that we have several people watching this page as well; there really hasn't been many trolls at all (maybe once a month); nice to see Stonemason, Will Beback, Animate, and some others like Goethean around. --rock8591 19:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Image

I think this page could use an image; there are quite a few photos of Edwards & Co. circulating over the Internet that could be used, including at least one photo of the host posing with Pat Buchanan. However, I know almost nothing about GFDL, image rights, etc. Any help would be appreciated. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Very few images are available for free use on Wikipedia. Sometimes people on Flickr release their pictures under one of the CC-by-SA licenses, and even more rarely celebrities will donate a picture of themselves. Otherwise there's not much chance of finding usable photos.   Will Beback  talk  04:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What about the one that's on the SPLC website, the commonly seen everywhere? http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6025/jedwards112007180x238.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what its licensing status is. I'm not entirely sure. Stonemason89 (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a publicity photo. The show might be willing to release it formally.   Will Beback  talk  12:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What about James Edwards' appearance on CNN? What about using Print-Screen to take our own image from that clip (on YouTube or other clips), if that can be done? rock8591 13:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

Good thinking, but no, that image would still be copyrighted by CNN.   Will Beback  talk  20:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the show's official logo; apparently, Wikipedia policy allows copyrighted logos to be used, at least in certain circumstances. It's better than nothing. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Now we have a picture of David Duke and of Confederate Park as well. While we'd ultimately like to have a picture of the hosts, no such pictures appear to be available at the moment that satisfy GFDL policy. Oh well... Stonemason89 (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Contact information

I found their contact information here: [1].

The Political Cesspool 6600 Stage Road Ste 107, Box 156 Bartlett, Tennessee United States 38134 James1134@aol.com

Not sure if it's worth adding to the article or not, though. Any thoughts? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Contact info is rarely added to articles.   Will Beback  talk  01:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"White Supremacist" versus "White Nationalist"

An anonymous editor recently changed "nationalist" to "supremacist" in the lede. I don't want to start an edit war; personally, I don't care either way, but I can see why some people might have strong opinions one way or the other. Any thoughts as to which one would be more appropriate in this case? The SPLC calls them "white nationalist", but they have also been labeled supremacists (in Newsweek, The Times, etc.) Any feedback would be welcome. Stonemason89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

We can report both terms.   Will Beback  talk  02:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As this isn't the best example in the world, I think this is very much similar to a discussion about a mafia; they may term themselves an "Italian heritage society," outsiders will term it a "gang." Still, regardless of the term used, we're still describing the same entity, the mafia. --Rock8591 22:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, what is your opinion of this audio recording of the Political Cesspool? It's one of their episodes. Any relevance or light shed? (I'm sure the Political Cesspool will deny it.) I'm not just saying to to be rhetorical btw - just that I'm not much of a pro at Wiki editing and need someone else to incorporate stuff that I find.

Specifically, the 8:50 - 29:40 mark: http://americacast.ezstream.com/play/index.cfm?fuseaction=asx&broadcastid=CB16B3282&From=brd&rand=9232&resize=0&intro=0&Org=acast&CFID=17062576&CFTOKEN=45817240&CFID=17062576&CFTOKEN=45817240

Highlights at 9:21-9:48, 10:35-11:20, 13:07-13:38, 16:05-16:19, 17:50-18:54, 22:15-22:36, 24:16-24:13, 25:38-26:01, 26:35-29:40. - rock8591 09:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's dangerous for us to try to characterize talk show rhetoric on our own. For the purposes of our work here, those broadcasts are primary sources. For the general guideline on using primary sources, see WP:PSTS. Briefly, we should only use them to illustrate or supplement secondary sources that cover the same issue. So if we have a source that discusses the Political Cesspool's view on homosexuality then we might point to this or quote from it as an example. But I don't think we should add anything on our own.   Will Beback  talk  19:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Wikipedia, or knowing how to edit or format much of it; I do think first party sources (such as excerpts from the show itself) in this case could be of great help in discussion. Oftentimes, I've noticed that it's a common debating tactic for some to say that a third party source (such as the SPLC) is unreliable when it provides information that they themselves do not agree with. --rock8591 12:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Winston Smith...always pretending to be the victim and playing the reverse racism card when he gets caught with his own devices. It's definitely the same Winston Smith, considering that very weekend, he was parroting the exact same opinions with the exact same verbiage on the radio show. Hopefully this will deter any more vandals and edit wars regarding the "nationalist" vs. "supremacist" vocabulary. http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8122/64275178.jpg - image http://kriswager.blogspot.com/2009/05/words-have-consequences.html (link to page) -- 11:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And again, LOL Winston. Scroll halfway down the page and to the comments section. [2] Screenshot: [3]-- 19:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandals

Not sure why there's several vandals by Wikipedia guests recently with no username. Also seems to be many adjectives instead of facts on the page gratuitously inserted in, so I reverted everything back to May 27th, in accordance to Stonemason89's most recent edit. Last but not least, there's no excuse for the blatant misspelling of words. - rock8591 05:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave the vandal a {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} warning on his/her talk page. See Template: User Warning for more information on how to warn vandals off. If the vandalism persists, just increase the level of the warning to {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} or suchlike, and if the user continues to vandalize, than there is a forum for reporting this to the admins.

This seems like the type of page that may attract quite a bit of POV-pushing, fringe theories, and vandalism in general from unregistered and newly registered users. If it gets to be too bad we can always semi-protect it, too, although that would be a bit premature at this point in time. In the meantime, keep an eye out for any suspicious edits, and maybe watch-list the page, too. Thanks for reverting the vandal! Stonemason89 (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

KNAC

An anonymous user added an unsourced claim that the Political Cesspool was being aired on KNAC, a California internet radio station. While it's not entirely impossible that this could be the case, I find it extremely unlikely due to the fact that KNAC is a heavy metal radio station (its slogan is "Pure Rock"), and I could find no evidence on its official website of a connection to The Political Cesspool.

Perhaps the user was confusing it with KNAK, which does air TPC. Regardless, I removed the claim, but if someone can find a reliable source that proves TPC is indeed aired on KNAC, please re-add it. Cheers, Stonemason89 (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Very strange insertion indeed. Rock8591 (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

David Yeagley / Ted Pike

Looks like David Yeagley is going to be a guest on the show tonight. Despite being part Native American, he's also written some shockingly racist anti-black and anti-multiracial articles, so it really shouldn't be a surprise that he's going to be a TPC guest. He's basically the Uncle Ruckus of the Native American community. Since he's rather notable, I'm going to add him to this article tomorrow.

Perhaps I'll remove the mention of Robert Walker Whitaker from the article as well; although Whitaker has his own WP page, it woefully fails the criterion of WP:NOTABILITY and so I'm having second thoughts about mentioning Whitaker in this article. He definitely isn't one of the more notable TPC guests. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Most notable guests are probably David Duke, Jared Taylor, and Ted Pike by far. I believe Ted Pike has appeared on the show for a total of 200 episodes. Rock8591 (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ted Pike currently does not have his own article. If you know enough about him, perhaps you could start one. Generally I don't like adding redlinks to the guest list, which is why I haven't added him to the list yet. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ted Pike now does have his own article, sort of. It's here: National Prayer Network. Feel free to contribute! Stonemason89 (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Jared Taylor

Is there any proof that Jared Taylor is a "Holocaust denial activist"? Apart from the fact that you don't like his views, that is. I'd say that's not sufficient.

Chogolisa (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-read that section again; the article doesn't state that Taylor himself is a Holocaust denial activist. Rather, it mentions Taylor together with several of his fellow white supremacists; most of whom DO deny the Holocaust. Stonemason89 (talk)

Vlaams Belang

Is there any proof that VB is "extremist" and if yes, how? Again: that you disagree with their (conservative) politics doesn't suffice.

Chogolisa (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The source for the Dewinter statement is an article by the well-respected Stephen Roth Institute, which specializes in the study of anti-Semitism-related topics. And calling VB "conservative", while technically true, is also misleading by omission; it's sort of like saying the moon is "a spherical chunk of rock" without giving any indication that you are actually talking about the moon. Referring to VB, the BNP, Jobbik, or any of those other parties solely as "conservative", while technically true, is also misleading and it will likely give people unfamiliar with those organizations a highly distorted view of them. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Critical Photo

A critic of the Political Cesspool (blogger Pam's House Blend) has released a quirky, doctored photo of Edwards, among other things. You can see it here:

[4]

and, to get more context, here:

[5]

Perhaps we could add it to the article in a "public reception" section or something? Stonemason89 (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I REALLY do not think such is a good idea; if anything, this reduces the integrity of the article, by citing a relatively non-academic source, and a facetious personal blog. --rock8591 01:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Those photos aren't appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

dead link

Ref #5 is a dead link for me. — goethean ॐ 15:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, odd. WMC-5 must have taken that story off their website for some reason, or perhaps it was an accident. The link definitely did work on May 1 (the listed access date); perhaps it might be possible to access that page using a "wayback machine" of some kind. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Success! I was able to find a working Wayback Machine archive of that page from web.archive.org. Also, I noticed that there were two different refs which led to the same url, so I combined them into one. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Guests

There are so many notable guests now that I think it might be a good idea to reformat that section, partly or fully, as an embedded list of some kind. Some of the sentences in that section are starting to look quite "run-on".

If we did that, we might be able to put a short descriptor with each name. For example, we could mention that Jamie Kelso is a Stormfront senior moderator, rather than merely putting him in a list of "white nationalist, neo-Nazi, and Holocaust denial activists".

I see no reason to remove any of the names; everyone listed in that section is is currently notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. However, I do think that once the section will need to be reformatted once it reaches a certain size, and I think it may have reached that size already. Any feedback? Stonemason89 (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. — goethean ॐ 17:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've reformatted the guest list; however, I wonder if we should arrange the guests in any particular order, and if so, what order do you think would work? Arranging them by ideology (like put all the Holocaust deniers together in one section, all the gun-rights activists in another, etc.) as we did before? Or maybe it would be a better idea to just put them in plain old alphabetical order? Anyone have any opinions? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Guest List Oddness

How odd. I distinctly remember that back in April, when I first examined [6], there were some names on there which aren't there now, such as Michael Bray and Thomas Woods. Indeed, the current guest list refers to itself as a "sampling" of guests who have appeared on the show, which implies that it is not a complete list. Bray and Woods were featured, no doubt about it, but the only way we'll be able to list them in this article is if another RS has mentioned them (or mentions them in the future) as having been guests on TPC.

I tried to look through the Internet Archive Wayback Machine for older versions of [7] to see if I could find any versions of the list with Bray or Woods on them, but I got a message saying that access to all archived versions of the page was blocked by the site's owners using robots.txt. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The interviews with Bray and Woods aren't in the TPC archives anymore; they must have been deleted. So we can't use those as a source either. How inconvenient. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I found a source verifying that Bray appeared on the show; his name has been added to the List of Political Cesspool guests. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Political Cesspool/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. 'Well-written - Prose and Manual of Style

• For the title of the article, The Politcal Compass should be italiczed.
• In the "Foundation and history section", please wiki Tennessee House of Representatives in the first paragraph this section rather than the "Awards" section. This is where THR first appears. For the second paragraph, who is the real name of "Winston Smith"? For the third paragraph, please list CofCC after Council of Conservative Citizens on initials in the first sentence and italicize The Nation in the second sentence of that same paragraph. Italicize American Free Press in the fourth paragraph.
• In the "Statement of principles" section for the "...and its statement of principles is:", change to "...and its statement are as follows:" For principle number 7 on secession, in 1776, was this part of the American Revolution of 1775-83, and for 1865, secession took place in 1860 with the American Civil War fo 1861-5? Please clarifiy this.

Comment: "...and its statement are as follows:" doesn't make grammatical sense to me (singular "statement", plural "follows"). Perhaps you mean "...and its statement of principles is as follows:"?

Second of all, as far as the American Revolution and Civil War things go, those are James Edwards' words, not mine. I presume the 1776 date is a reference to the Declaration of Independence, but I can't read anyone else's mind to know for sure. The 1865 thing appears to be a mistake on James' part. Would be a good idea for us to put in something like (NOTE: the Confederate States of America actually seceded in 1860) after that sentence? Stonemason89 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• In the "Activism" section, wiki Memphis in the first sentence and pipe in Shelby County, Tennessee in the "county" between "black" and "official". For the first sentence of the second paragraph, put in Paula Zahn Now in parentheses after Paula Zahn's CNN show which is now discontinued.
• In the "Controversey and criticism" section, put SPLC after the Southern Poverty Law Center in the first sentence of the first paragraph. For the last sentence of the second paragraph, please wikilink Women's National Basketball Association.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable

• For "Political Cesspool on Facebook" in the "External links", please list "Log in required" after the link.
• Rest is fine.

3. Broad coverage - no issues.

4. Neutral - no issues.

5. Stable - Comment: Additional changes made after review was started on October 2, 2009, but this assisted the article in its growth, even cleaning up one deadlink reference and piping in a second reference.

6. Images - No issues. Both pictures posted had proper copyright tags.

7. Overall - Placing on hold until the following items can be resolved. Chris (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I have taken care of all the review issues mentioned here, except for two involving the statment of principles, which I would like some clarification on (see my comments above). Stonemason89 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply. I told you wrong on the the front title. This should be bold and italicized which can be done by adding five 's before and after the title. Sorry about that. About your first comment in the "Statement of principles" section, go with your suggestion. Sorry about that. Same thing with the second suggestion you have listed. This should help you on that. The rest of the corrections look good. Chris (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Looks like everything has been taken care of now, is this true? Stonemason89 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is. You got GA on this article. Congratulations. Chris (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Chris (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Winston Smith

Last year around this time, there was a huge edit war on this page. One specific topic broached was whether or not the Winston Smith on the radio show is using an alias for Harold Covington. I have definitive proof that he is not, so please DO NOT try to cite any references that may say such. Citing things that may be false (even if unintentional) has the potential to greatly ruin the integrity of this article so please DO NOT do it. To do so would not help the article in any way.

Here is an interview that Harold Covington gave with Prothink radio not too long ago: http://www.northwestfront.org/ , http://www.prothink.org/2009/09/04/prothink-interviews-harold-covington/

A cursory listen to the audio clip will show that the voice of Harold Covington and the Winston Smith of the Political Cesspool are very different and are not that of the same person. --rock8591 20:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I read the Newsweek article, and it didn't mention anything about Covington. I believe it is one (and only one, from like 2006 or so) of the SPLC's articles that made this claim. The Newsweek article, if anything, implies that Winston Smith is the guy's real name (since it doesn't put his name in quotation marks); if his real name is Winston Smith, then he cannot be Covington. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That mishap was a huge reason why this Wikipedia entry was deleted the first time. Even unintentional mishaps have the potential to greatly soil an article; certain Wiki editors were very uncooperative and failed to understand that simple fact at the time. Now it should be cleared up that Winston Smith of the Political Cesspool is not the same person as Harold Covington, though the latter sometimes goes by "Winston Smith." In any case, a real life conspiracy theorist named Winston Smith; how ironic. The article looks good now.--rock8591 18:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Strange Bedfellows

Apparently Edwards' articles are now being carried on an LGBT news site: [8]. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sudden Surge in Pageviews

There was a sudden, extremely large spike in pageviews on October 25, 2009. See: [9]. Anyone know why this is? I don't really know; I do know that October 24 was the show's five-year anniversary, but if that was the cause, why did the spike in pageviews occur on the 25th then? Weird. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review Request

As I plan to nominate this article for FA status soon, I have put in a peer review request to see if there is anything I need to do to improve the article before it can be considered a valid FAC. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The peer review has been archived here: [10], feel free to look at the suggestions to improve this article. I plan to follow through with some of the suggestions myself, too. No hurry, though... Stonemason89 (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Miller's supposed "Master's Degree"

The show's official website claims that cohost Eddie Miller obtained "a master's degree in race relations" on "the mean streets of South Memphis".

That seems like an intended, racist joke on Miller's part. I don't think he really has a master's degree in race relations; he spent his college years in the military, anyway. So please don't add any reference to Miller's supposed "master's degree" into the article, since he doesn't really have one. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A few additional comments

I don't have a lot of time, but here are a few further comments following my recent peer review. I can see that work has been done, but there are still some significant weaknesses. Mainly:-

• "Other names" in the infobox: where does this unattributed description come from?
• The Foundation and history section still looks weak; the suggestions I put forward at peer review have generally not been implemented.
• The prose style is fragmented, with far too many short single-sentence paragraphs.
• The article is further fragmented by having too many, usually very short, subsections.
• All sources used are on-line. Has there been no analysis of the impact of this and similar radio stations in printed form (books, articles etc)?

I can't really offer more, but good luck with it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll try to rectify some of these issues (for example, I have already fixed the first). I might not be able to fix all of them, though, as I don't have any access to print sources relating to TPC. Any contributions from other users would be quite welcome if they could provide such citations, though. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Separate page for views expressed on the show

In response to some of the feedback this article received during its peer review and FAnom processes, I've decided to create a separate page which will go into the show's views in more detail; this article, according to the feedback I received, goes into too much detail regarding the show's views (see WP: Summary style).

Rather than just deleting some of the excess detail, though, I've decided to use it to create a new page, Views expressed by The Political Cesspool (not in article namespace as of this writing). There is already a strong precedent for this; see Political positions of Pat Buchanan, Political views of Bill O'Reilly, Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, etc. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is now online, it is called Views expressed by James Edwards and The Political Cesspool, since most of the views listed are those of James Edwards, but there are some references to Winston Smith and Bill Rolen in there, too. Feel free to contribute! Stonemason89 (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone listed Views expressed by James Edwards and The Political Cesspool on AFD here, claiming that it was a "POV fork". This is blatantly untrue, though (and I said so on the AFD discussion, urging a speedy keep), so I am confident it will survive. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it did not. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Template

I added Template: White nationalism to this article (and to James Edwards), and edited the template itself accordingly. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Paleoconservative?

Could The Political Cesspool be considered paleoconservative? I ask this because the page on Paleoconservatism links to the group when mentioning Paleoconservative broadcasting groups. I don't think it is. 72.93.241.60 (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

They have described themselves as paleoconservative before. However, that doesn't mean they are paleoconservative. I could say "I'm actually a duck, I just happen to be unusually tall and I don't have wings or webbed feet", and that wouldn't make me a duck. Most descriptions of the show in third-party sources refer to it as white nationalist, neo-Confederate, white supremacist, or "pro-White" (always in quotation marks). I'm going to remove the link that you mentioned from Paleoconservatism for that reason; feel free to re-add it if you disagree (but please give a reason, if you do). Stonemason89 (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Racism, Schmacism!

Looks like this is the "biggest announcement in the history of the show", per TPC website. Feel free to contribute, I'm out of town this weekend. rock8591 15:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a brief mention of this (apparently self-published) book to James Edwards (radio host). Not going to add a mention of it here unless it actually becomes as notable as Edwards keeps claiming it's going to be. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead Sources

I had to remove 2 sources (the Courier-Journal one and the Newsweek one) from the article since they became dead links and are not accessible in the Wayback Machine. Fortunately, both were relatively "minor" sources (neither was cited for more than half a paragraph at the most), so removing them doesn't impact the flow of the article very much, if at all. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Normally, we don't remove sources just because they are no longer linkable. Newsweek is in most US libraries, and even the newspaper is theoretically accessible.   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I'll re-add them as offline sources. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC comments

Hello. I'm trying to help clear the backlog of nominations at FAC and this one is near the bottom, so here we go.

• Of the list of people in the lead: Jerome Corsi, Jim Gilchrist, Michael Peroutka, Sonny Landham, Nick Griffin, Thomas Naylor, and Pat Buchanan, Buchanan is the only name I recognized. Can you add a qualifier to these names? Politician? Writer? Professor? Even a bit more like "British Nationalist Party chairman Nick Griffin"?
  • Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• The sentences about the kickoff at the barbecue kind of hangs there begging for notability. Why is it important to know that they held a kickoff at a barbecue?
  • Sonny Landham (an actor who was in the movie Predator) spoke at that barbecue; that was initially mentioned in this article, but another editor in the past asked me to remove the mention of Landham because it was primary-sourced and thus pushed the boundaries of BLP. I suppose that without the mention of Landham, the barbecue is no longer as interesting, so I've removed the barbecue comment for the time being. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• This sentence: Winston Smith has said, looking back, "[t]he emphasis is different now. We don't talk as much about what blacks have done to us; we're more focused on ourselves and our own culture. pops up out of nowhere. Although it's inherent that a white supremacist organization would not be nice to American black history and culture, it's not inherent what their philosophy is and how it has been expressed. Smith's quote explains actions that have not yet been described. It's confusing and it looks out of place.
  • That quote comes from the Newsweek article. If you read the Newsweek article (no longer available online), it is about a recent trend in which white supremacists have been attempting to sanitize their own image by claiming to be more "pro-white" and less "anti-black". Whether they have actually changed at all, or if they are just claiming to have changed, is left up to the reader. I've moved that quote (and the one about being "politically incorrect") to a more appropriate location and added a short blurb about the context in which Newsweek was quoting Smith. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see the article online (lucky me). I think the point of Smith's quote is missing in the article. Radio programs like The Political Cesspool and other white nationalist/ supremacist groups are gaining popularity because of the combination of the economic downturn while a black president is in office. I think that's important to state in the Wiki article, and it puts Smith's quote about how, say, the Klan in the 50s and 60s operated on a different philosophy. I may be stretching here, but where they were actively offensive (a pun, but that's mean to mean strategically), now groups are taking a more defensive tack. --Moni3 (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry; yes, this one is still online (albeit at a different URL from the one at which it originally appeared). I was thinking of a different article when I said it was offline; sorry, I can be more than a little absentminded sometimes. I've attempted to clarify the Smith quote a bit further; is this wording fine? Smith's quote was mentioned as an example of a shift in philosophy among American white supremacists in recent years following the late-2000s recession and the election of a black president; many such groups have been attempting to gain new recruits and increase their political influence by rebranding themselves as defenders of "white heritage" while de-emphasizing their dislike of minorities and Jews. Seems like this sums up what Conant's article was about. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• and he wrote an essay called "Why I Love Pat Buchanan" in which he stated that he "loves" Buchanan because "he tells it like it is". Watch for redundancies. It's pretty clear Edwards loves Buchanan per the title of his essay. Try "and he wrote an essay called "Why I Love Pat Buchanan" in which he expresses his devotion to the politician because Buchanan "tells it like it is".
  • Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Explain white nationalism and the philosophy of the Third Position.
  • I don't think this will improve the quality of the article. If readers want to know more about these topics, they can visit the white nationalism and Third Position articles. This article already mentions that Third Position is a "form of economic nationalism", and frankly I think that is enough. Adding a complete description of that philosophy here would only distract the reader from the main topic of this article. If you have any suggestions about how I could change things (without bogging down the article with too much detail about 3P and WN), though, feel free to say so and I'll try to implement them. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:Jargon, terms that are linked and may be obscure to readers without familiarity in a certain field, such as American or Southern politics, should be briefly explained. In FAs, links should not serve as explanations for readers. I wasn't necessarily looking for an entire paragraph on white nationalism, but a clause: "a political cohort that advocates white nationalism—a philosophy that asserts whites in the U.S. (or wherever) should be a nation unto themselves and live separately from other races—and a form of economic nationalism known as Third Position that ascribes to a similar "separate but equal"..." uh...sorry the lead of that article is obtuse and I can't tell what it means. Hopefully you can make a graceful statement out of that. Did I make myself clearer? --Moni3 (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Done; I used your wording, more or less, to describe white nationalism, while I described Third Positionists as rejecting both communism and capitalism while supporting ethnic separatism and what they view as the interests of the working class. Does this work? Stonemason89 (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Do all the guests agree with white nationalism? Do any of them espouse views diametrically opposed to the show's philosophies? How does it play out if they do? Screaming matches?
  • The article already mentions that two Native American activists have appeared on the show. As far as your other questions go, there are currently no reliable sources available that answer them definitively. Speculation about hypothetical "screaming matches" isn't really relevant; since no reliable sources have written about them, they would be non-notable whether or not they have occurred, and thus not worth mentioning. In short, none of these questions represents an actionable objection, except for the first, which has already been taken care of. Objections to FAC nominations must be actionable, according to policy. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear here either. Although I read about Carl "Twofeathers" Whitaker--who may or may not be a real Native American...that's ambiguous in the article, and some other guests, it wasn't clear to me if Edwards et al invite people on the show who agree with him. As in, he only invites people on the show who will not oppose his views. I wasn't looking for a breakdown of screaming matches. I was more interested in what the show presents to listeners. Earlier in the article it's made fairly clear that the show's not going to present listeners with two or more sides and let them decide for themselves, except they state that they intend for listeners to make up their own minds, I guess with one side presented. Well...that's confusing but it's not your fault. I'd never heard of Jerome Corsi. I've never read The Obama Nation so I don't know what the premise of the book is. Does Corsi write that people in the country have become slavish fans of Obama and therefore somehow neglecting their race? Does he write that Obama's presidency is bringing people together in a Hands Across America type of celebration? I simply don't know. If the article goes to the main page, many other readers won't know either. The paragraph that begins Constitution Party nominee Michael Peroutka appeared on the show is clearer. It explains who those folks are. --Moni3 (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone knows whether Twofeathers really is Native American or not, since I don't think his genealogical records (if any exist) have been released to the public. All we can say is that he claims that he has Native American ancestry, since that's all we can gather from the available reliable sources. As far as Corsi goes, The Obama Nation contains many racist comments, which are quite well-documented (in addition, of course, to the similar comments he's made in the past, outside the pages of that book). I'm obviously not going to mention all of them, but I will add one or two Corsi quotes, together with the accompanying controversy, since I think that might give readers a better idea of what Corsi's attitudes are. Thanks for your suggestion!

Done. The premise of Corsi's book was its allegation (based on little to no evidence) that Obama is some kind of radical black Muslim who dislikes white people; this was obviously an inflammatory claim and an attempt on Corsi's part to "scare" white people, but it didn't work. Does this clear things up? Stonemason89 (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• 'It has also commented on the show's interview with Filip Dewinter, a member of the Belgian Parliament who is a leader in that country's extremist Vlaams Belang movement. What was the context of the comment?
  • It was in an article about antisemitism in Belgium. I added a short mention of that. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• who led an army against the United States this needs to be explained. Forrest led several successful Civil War campaigns and is largely credited with starting the Klan.
  • That was Sharpton's explanation for protesting Forrest. As the article explains, Sharpton's objection to Forrest's memorial was not based on racial issues (like the Klan) but rather on Sharpton's view that the Confederacy was a rebellion against the United States. Do you have any suggestions for how I could phrase that better, or do you think it's fine as it is? Stonemason89 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Jones also awarded Edwards and Farley with an honorary city council membership. For what?
  • The source (which is offline) does not say exactly, but it can be inferred that it was in response to Edwards and Farley's defense of Forrest Park. There is no need to say so explicitly, both because the source does not do so, and because the reason is fairly obvious. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I think there needs to be some tweaking of this article. It's not quite ready for the main page. I believe FAC participants should support or oppose, and I generally dislike when folks leave "Comments". So I'm going to oppose on these grounds, for comprehensiveness and issues with prose. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)