Talk:The Political Cesspool/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Stormfront as a Syndicate

Fact check: Stormfront Radio has not carried The Political Cesspool since September, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TPCFanFor Facts (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source to prove your claim, it's not going in the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source that currently proves it? Facts ought to be needed to prove something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.101.69 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that it will matter to the editor of this page, because this article is clearly biased against The Political Cesspool and contains many factual errors that I will bring to the attention of the show's staff, but here is a link that proves Stormfront no long carries TPC: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=7773220&postcount=1. Stormfront radio (with the exception of the Jamie Kelso and Paul Fromm shows) ceased to exist after Derek Black became an AM Talk Radio Host himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.70.231 (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Others who appeared on that show.

Ted Nugent the musician appeared on there back in 2008, and Father of Mel Gibson (Hutton Gibson) appeared on the show in January of 2010 to promote his traditionalist Catholic views.

Ted Nugent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent

Hutton Gibson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenthere (talk • contribs) 19:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Dispute

How do I lodge an official dispute about the neutrality of this article? I'd like to do so.

Also, there are factual errors such as Stormfront being a syndicate. They used to be a few years back. This needs to be corrected but always gets reverted back.

Can anyone advise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.70.231 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources that counter what is included in the article, please explain what points you think are not neutral and provide the citations: links to websites or page numbers for books. List passages that you think are poorly written with your sources that counter them. Not all sources will be considered good enough or reliable, but the discussion can start here. There are avenues for dispute resolution, but the first step is the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been restoring the text since the editor is not providing any justification/evidence for the text removal. And the editor is a single purpose editor who just arived to make this deletion to this article. Hmains (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=7773220&postcount=1

Stormfron't own program guide for Saturdaty night doesn't list The Political Cesspool. Does that count? Probably not with y'all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.70.231 (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What passage in the article are you protesting? This assists with checking the source cited. The link you provided is a message board, and per the rules of reliable sources, message boards are not sufficient to determine what Stormfront's connection is to the show, particularly because the show is not mentioned. Can you provide an official statement from Stormfront, such as a story from one of their publications or a press release that declares they have no involvement in the program? That would be ideal. --Moni3 (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So Stormfront's official program lineup isn't reliable? What a joke. Clearly they no longer air the show. How hard is it for you to admit this and move on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.70.231 (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat difficult when I don't know what passage in the article you're referring to. Can you indicate that, please? --Moni3 (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"The Political Cesspool is a weekly talk radio show syndicated by Liberty News Radio Network, Accent Radio Network, which has also appeared on the Stormfront Radio, a service of the white nationalist and supremacist website Stormfront.org."

The Political Cesspool is only syndicated bu Liberty News Radio and Accent Radio Network, the reference to Stormfront should be omitted for accuracy's sake, but each time I try to do so I am punished by the Gestapo agents of this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.70.231 (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Has it ever appeared on Stormfront radio, even once? As a ctrl+F indicates Stormfront is not mentioned again in the article, and it appears to be disputed, Stonemason, can you cite the fact that the show appeared for any length of time on Stormfront radio?

The Stormfront article uses this as a citation, which is somewhat shaky for a featured article, but it does indicate that Stormfront broadcast The Political Cesspool at some point. [http://www.stormfront.org/radio/Stormfront-Media/index3-06-10-08-112.html Stormfront radio] website seems to endorse it and offer it for download, although that page does not say if they ever broadcast it. Here's another source indicating the program is broadcast by Stormfront, but again, not ideal for an FA. --Moni3 (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Next time, sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). As a curiosity, the IP that left the above comment geolocates to Hanoi, Vietnam (!). Also, you shouldn't blame me for this dispute; I wasn't the one who kept re-adding the bit about Stormfront Radio. Look at the recent edit history of the article. While the claim was sourced originally and shouldn't have been removed, I'm also not the type of person who likes to engage in edit wars, and so when someone else claims that a certain statement is inaccurate and removes it, I generally don't like to "fight it" (see WP: BATTLE). Usually, I revert them once or twice. However, in this case, the person (or persons) who were trying to remove that bit from the article were so persistent, I eventually decided to back down. Personally, I no longer think that statement should be in the article, since it's turned out to be so controversial, and one of the criteria for featured articles is stability. However, I don't own this article, so if the other editors on this page want to keep re-adding the statement, there's not much I can do to stop them. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I think this settles it. I appreciate you taking the right stand on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.70.231 (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Stonemason, I moved your comment because it split mine and it makes it look as if you're telling me to sign my comments when they are signed. Hmains replaced the information about Stormfront, but I put it in a hidden edit because it has not been proven that Stormfront broadcast the program. I found three questionable cites, two of which reasonably could have used this article as a source, therefore making it more confusing. Is there a directory of radio stations or radio programs, some kind of industry-related publication like TV Guide or local newspaper TV listings that can settle this? I realize it's frustrating to encounter unflattering commentary, Stonemason, but let the judgments fall by the wayside and concentrate on the citations. Facts, cites, and verifiability take priority over names and allegations. --Moni3 (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding you, Moni3; I didn't realize you had written the paragraph beginning with "Has it ever appeared on Stormfront radio, even once?". I was under the impression that that paragraph had been left by an anon (specifically this person: [1]), since it didn't seem like something you would write. So that's why I responded the way I did; I thought you were an anon who had forgotten to sign your comment. After going back through the edit history, it looks like I was wrong about who had written the paragraph, and that you were the actual author. So again, sorry about the misunderstanding. As far as Stormfront goes, earlier versions of this article featured Media Matters for America citations, and MMfA has put out quite a few articles saying that this radio show is syndicated by Stormfront. However, the MMfA citations were removed about a month or so ago due to the fact that other users had informed me that MMfA does not qualify as a reliable source. I must have removed the MMfA citations without removing the associated content, and so this whole argument is partially my fault. Not completely my fault, since Oescp and Hmains kept restoring the content even after I had stopped doing so, but it's still partly my fault and so I take responsibility. Like I said earlier, since one of the requirements for a featured article is stability, any statement that turns out to be as controversial as this one has should probably be removed until a more reliable (non-MMfA) source materializes, which may well happen in the future. Until that happens, I don't think we should fight a BATTLE over this statement since that won't lead to anything constructive happening. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about the confusion. It is what it is. I was trying to determine if Stormfront ever broadcast the program, as the passage in question is presented in two tenses, making it seem as if it was broadcast by Stormfront at some point but is now no longer. However, I also understand that compromises must be made due to lack of source material or our access to better ones. I don't know anything about radio. I have a fairly large library at my disposal, however, and I know there must be industry guides somewhere. I just don't know where to look. If you ran across references to radio broadcast guides while you were writing the article, let me know and I can see if I can look it up somewhere. If not, then I suppose the article will stand as it is. --Moni3 (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So is everything settled? Raul654 (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.190.59 (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned in a book

Today I was at a Barnes & Noble and I happened upon the new book by John Avlon (whom I always liked) so I sat down and started thumbing through it. It wasn't long before I discovered that he had devoted a half-page in that book to discussing Pat Buchanan and his involvement with "white minority politics" and this radio show. I'm going to add a brief mention of that to this article. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Watch for Meatpuppets

James Edwards himself has just posted this blog entry: [2] in which he accuses me of being some kind of "Zionist" and encourages his blog's readers to edit this article to push their own POV. I think this article could use some additional watchers to keep this kind of meatpuppetry in check, should it end up happening. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You have clearly lost your credibility Zionistmason. You care for this article and guard it like a raving splc zionist. Wis (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2010

I've given this editor an only warning, he will be blocked if he does this again. I am wondering if he is following you, following this page, or noticed this for some other reason. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Wis saying he thinks I'm one of these people, perhaps? Or is he saying he thinks I'm a fraud? In any event, yes, his comment was a NPA violation. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

139 edits in 6 years? Not his only account, I think. — goethean ॐ 06:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite a lot of speculation. Nope this is my only account. The moderators are guarding this quite heavily. Im wondering if the SPLC has a hand in this. You are not the only one who can speculate based on nothing. Wis (talk) 29. August 2010

Wis is correct in his assessment, which, of course, is why he is being hammered so hard by the Wikipedia thought police. That this page was semi-locked because I tried to remove excessive (and repetitive) condemnation of The Political Cesspool from the main article is proof that objectivity is not what the editors of this page are looking for. But, surely that was never in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.43.20 (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Including the one above, in the last few days the page has been edited in a similar fashion by 4 IPs from Memphis, and a new named account. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinion, not fact

I will be adding the phrase "in their opinions" to the following sentence because the text currently reads as if this is a fact. It is not.

It has attracted criticism from The Nation, The New Republic, the Stephen Roth Institute, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Anti-Defamation League for promoting antisemitic, nationalist, white nationalist and white supremacist[9][10] views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.38.228 (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was removed because the language in the sentence already implies these publications are stating their opinions. Your additions make it needlessly redundant. --Moni3 (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the language, as written, makes such an implication. It still appears to me as though you are stating a fact. I have therefore re-added the phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.38.228 (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact that these organizations have characterized the radio program as antisemitic, nationalist, white nationalist and white supremacist. Their characterizations are their opinions. You are going to be reverted again. I refer you to the three revert rule. If you continue to re-add these needless clarifications, you may be blocked. --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for attempting to add objectivity to this article? I have no doubt! Be that as it may, while it IS a fact that these organizations claim The Political Cesspool to be antisemtic and white supremacist, it is NOT a fact that the Political Cesspool is such. The article clearly reads that the radio program IS antisemtic just because these organizations say so. It must be made clear that these are only their opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.38.228 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No, blocked for edit warring. The article does not state empirically that The Political Cesspool is antisemitic, nationalist, white nationalist and white supremacist, just that the above-named organizations have labeled it such. This is a featured article, and the standard of writing in it is very high. Language is toned to be as forthright as possible. Redundancies have been edited out in multiple copyedits. Your point is already taken in the article. You're going to have to be satisfied with the way it is presented or provide an alternative way to pose the point without being redundant. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Language is toned to be as forthright as possible." Is that a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.38.228 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am actually a laugh riot, but it does not translate well over the Internet. It was not a joke. Evidence as such can be seen in the three peer reviews and four nominations this article had for FA status. You can find those at the top of this page under "Article milestones". --Moni3 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case I hope to help this article reach another milestone. Objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.38.228 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are passages that do not seem neutral to you, please point them out and suggest alternatives to their current wording. There is certainly a way to do this dispassionately and expediently. --Moni3 (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the unsigned IP. No reasonable person could draw the conclusion that the sentence in question (It has attracted criticism from The Nation, The New Republic, the Stephen Roth Institute, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Anti-Defamation League for promoting antisemitic, nationalist, white nationalist and white supremacist[9][10] views.) is written as though it is only an opinion. When you read the passage it reads as though it is a fact. I'm afraid something should be done about this or there will be endless edit attempts to that line. I see nothing wrong with adding "allegedly." Those organizations are alleging that the show promotes antisemtic views. They are not the final authority on what is/isn't antisemitic. This is merely their opinion. Sorry, Moni, you're wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FactsRFun2 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The text has changed slightly since that line was cut-and-pasted. — goethean ॐ 15:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No reasonable person could draw the conclusion that the sentence in question...is written as though it is only an opinion.

That's because it's not an opinion. It is a fact that the show has been criticized. — goethean ॐ 15:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Then let's just say, "It has attracted criticism from The Nation, The New Republic, the Stephen Roth Institute, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Anti-Defamation League." It's a fact that the show has been criticized (and praised, by the way, but I know that'll never be allowed to placed into the article). It is not a fact that the show is antisemitic. The passage reads as though it is a fact that the show is antisemitic. That's what needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FactsRFun2 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC) — FactsRFun2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So you want the article to say that the show has attracted criticism without specifying what the content of that criticism included. That would be vague, nebulous, uninformative, and a waste of space in the intro. So I oppose your proposal. — goethean ॐ 16:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that a few minutes after the article was semi-protected, a new account shows up to make the edits above. It is difficult in these circumstances to AGF. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I simply want the sentence to clearly read that the show has received criticism, but it is nothing more than the opinions of said organizations that the show is antisemitic. This article tries to imply that it is a fact that the show is antisemitic. I can see that "discussing" the issue is of no use. You might as well permanently lock this article.

In the meantime, what proceedures can be used to get the current FA status of this article removed? I'll look into it mysel;f while I await your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FactsRFun2 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review. — goethean ॐ 16:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Does anyone know if Ron Paul has appeared on the show or not? There is some evidence to indicate that he has, but I haven't been able to find a source that would prove it with 100% certainty. If anyone is able to find a source proving (or disproving) that Paul appeared, that'd be quite helpful. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when have facts ever been a concern for this particular article? If someone on the SPLC blog said he was on that's usually enough for this Wiki entry. Go ahead and post that Paul appeared. Who cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.156 (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Content

James Edwards and Austin Farley established The Political Cesspool on October 26, 2004, as a paleoconservative [11] alternative to GOP radio shows such as the Sean Hannity Show

Unless I missed it, the content in bold is not supported by the sources. Truthsort (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That comment was not added by me, but by another user (I forgot who). At first I thought it was OR, but then I discovered that it was based on this "about us" article by the show's staff. I added a reference tag to make clear that the GOP/Sean Hannity comment is how they describe themselves. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Claim Descent from Confederate Soldiers? Proof, Please.

"Most of the show's staff claim descent from Confederate soldiers.[4][14]"

Your citations do not prove your assertion. Receiving an award from a Southern partisan organization is not a claim of Confederate soldier ancestry. The only mention of such ancestry is in #14 by Eddie Miller, and Eddie Miller does not constitute "most of the show's staff." Revise your misleading article.

By the way, "Mason", when are you going to update your Blogspot blog?

Fairness4all (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Fairness4all

That blogspot blog does not belong to me; it's someone attempting to discredt me by making me look crazy. You wouldn't happen to know anything about who did that, would you? Stonemason89 (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the article cited in link 14, written by the show's staff, includes the following phrase in reference to Miller: "Like most of the staff of The Political Cesspool, he has ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, of whom he is very proud." So, no problems there. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That still is not proof that the others have made such a claim. Until the other hosts say or write something to that effect, then you have no right to put words into their mouths or info into their bios. Unless, of course, you now suddenly believe everything that Miller says. Have you contacted the hosts and asked them to verify?

All I know about your blogspot is that it has your name on it, it's been up for quite a while, and it's consistent with what you do on Wikipedia. If it's truly not your blog, then maybe you now know how it feels to have someone put words in your mouth and mischaracterize you. If it IS your blog, then maybe you're surprised that you got caught. Also, your Wikipedia shenanigans, NOT your blogspot, discredits you.

Fairness4all (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Fairness4all Sept. 27 2010

Concerns

FA?

I'm surprised that this was promoted. There's nothing special about the writing. It's over-referenced, overlinked, too many quotes, repetitive. Why, for example, would these two points need five references (all templates)? And this is just the worst example:

Corsi scheduled another promotional appearance on The Political Cesspool one month later, however, he canceled this appearance, citing "travel plans that changed". James Edwards said that he believed the incident "just goes to show what incredible pressure everyone in public life is under to never have anything to do with anyone who speaks up for the interests of white people."

And that's not how the word "however" is used; should be "but" with that structure. I haven't looked to see whether there's been deterioration since the promotion.

Notes

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

For a controversial article like this, there's really no such thing as overlinking when it comes to references. A statement with only one or two references to back it up is more likely to have its accuracy or verifiability challenged. Having too many sources should be the least of our worries. Better to be safe than sorry, in my opinion. But if you disagree and think any of the references aren't needed, you can always be bold. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking and over-referencing are separate issues. It's overlinked; that has nothing to do with controversy. But it's also over-referenced, because there are often multiple refs for one simple point, which means the reader can't find the relevant reference. What are the references for the point above that has five ref tags after it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking a look at that sentence again, it looks as if you're partly right; the second out of the five references isn't really directly relevant to that paragraph, so I removed it. Hopefully that helps things. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the first of the five references looked like it'd be better off elsewhere in the paragraph, so I moved it there. Now there's only three references in a row, which IMO is okay and is better than five. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

But why are three references needed for: "Corsi scheduled another promotional appearance on The Political Cesspool one month later, however, he canceled this appearance, citing "travel plans that changed". James Edwards said that he believed the incident "just goes to show what incredible pressure everyone in public life is under to never have anything to do with anyone who speaks up for the interests of white people.""? Which ref supports which point? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, your statement about but/however doesn't make sense: one month later, but, he canceled this appearance, citing "travel plans that changed". would be completely unacceptable. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is: "Corsi scheduled another promotional appearance on The Political Cesspool one month later, however, he canceled this appearance ..." That's a grammatical error. It should be one of the following depending on the meaning (there are others; these are just the obvious ones):

• "Corsi scheduled another promotional appearance on The Political Cesspool one month later, but he canceled this appearance ..."

• "Corsi scheduled another promotional appearance on The Political Cesspool one month later; however, he canceled this appearance ..."

• "Corsi scheduled another promotional appearance on The Political Cesspool one month later. However, he canceled this appearance ..."

• "Corsi scheduled another promotional appearance on The Political Cesspool. One month later, however, he canceled this appearance ..."

• "Corsi scheduled another promotional appearance on The Political Cesspool; however, one month later he canceled this appearance ..."

• "Corsi scheduled another promotional appearance on The Political Cesspool. However, one month later he canceled this appearance ..."

• "Corsi scheduled another promotional appearance on The Political Cesspool, but one month later he canceled this appearance ..."

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll go with the last one mentioned. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead

While I agree that this article isn't FA material, I must suggest that your added criticism in the lead is also repetitive. The SPLC's opinion of the show is referenced throughout. At the very least, your edit should be amended to read that The Political Cesspool has hosted FORMER members of the Ku Klux Klan. In fact, the only one I can find for sure is David Duke, who has also been interviewed by every major talk radio and television program in the country. (Perhaps it should read, "a former member of the Ku Klux Klan.") Furthermore, Duke was in the Klan in the 1970's, nearly three decades before The Political Cesspool first went on the air. Does Wolf Blitzer's Wiki entry read that he has hosted Klan members? Duke has appeared on Blitzer's show.

There are already many people who feel that this article is flagrantly biased. Right or wrong, to have it read as though this radio program frequently interviews current members of the "Ku Klux Klan" is misleading. Regardless of its ideology, this show has had many big names as guests, as Stonemason points out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.68.227 (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your claim that David Duke has been hosted by "every major talk radio and television program in the country". Also, Blitzer (unlike Edwards) never described Duke as a "Christian man above reproach". Quit trying to draw a false equivalence between Blitzer and Edwards. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

So because Edwards views Duke favorably, and Blitzer doesn't, that changes the fact that Duke has appeared on both of their programs? Hmm. Interesting logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.68.227 (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Stormfront

I was going to restore the invisible sentence about the Political Cesspool having been broadcast by Stormfront Radio, but I see the source, the research group Media Matters, has been rejected as not reliable. Can someone say why? It isn't a personal website and it seems to have a staff. More about it here; staff list here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't my decision; the reliable sources noticeboard has rejected Media Matters for America as a reliable source before, presumably because the group isn't neutral politically. If you disagree with this characterization and feel that it should be a reliable source for this FA (or FA's in general), why not take it up at RSN? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be neutral; if that were true, we'd have no sources left. And it's not the RSN that decides whether a source is reliable. Do you have a link to the discussion, and what were the actual arguments against reliability, neutrality apart? Also, could address the points I raised above? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is here. This article failed one of its earlier FAC's due to the fact that AniMate objected to the use of MMfA as a source. I wasn't willing to remove the MMfA paragraphs just yet, and as a result, the article failed. Only after I later changed my mind and went ahead and removed the MMfA stuff was this article able to pass its fourth and final FAC. Perhaps you could take the issue up with AniMate if you disagree with his views re: MMfA. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You said there was a discussion on the RSN. Do you have a link for that? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Animate as arguing that the FA should fail because of Media Matters. He's arguing that it should fail because of its reliance on such sources, which would suggest it's not very notable, and that it would be stretching things to base a high-quality comprehensive article entirely on partisan sources. I agree with him on that point. But removing Media Matters alone, especially for a point that no one disputes the accuracy of, is not the solution. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, several anonymous (IP) users had disputed the accuracy of the Stormfront statement, and kept removing it to the point of edit warring and 3rr violation; they claimed that Stormfront no longer syndicates the show. I eventually decided that it wasn't worth it to keep fighting a BATTLE with those users, and agreed to let the statement be hidden for now. If you want to restore it, go ahead, but be aware that doing so might re-ignite the same argument that was put to rest before. You might want to read the talk page archives here Stonemason89 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

They don't dispute that Stormfront used to broadcast it, and it seems clear that it did, because Media Matters has linked to an example of it. So that is not in dispute by anyone that I can see. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then I will re-add the statement in the past tense. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiple refs

There are lots of examples of multiple ref tags after fairly simple points, so the reader can't see which source supports which material. For example:

Edwards sits on the Board of Directors of the American Third Position Party, a political group that advocates white nationalism [24]—and a form of economic nationalism known as Third Position[25][26][27][28] The Nation wrote that Edwards "has leveraged sponsorship from neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial groups to become America's most popular white supremacist radio host."[4][29][30]

That's eight references for two sentences, including three references for one quote from the Nation. What is the point of that? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, [24] and [25] are not references, but footnotes which explain the meaning of the terms white nationalism and third position. The footnotes were added at the request of another user during a FAC, who felt that the above two terms were not self-explanatory and needed to be defined. I have removed [4], since it isn't relate directly to the quote in question (it only mentions that the show has been mentioned by The Nation. [29] and [30] can and should stay, since both of them contain The Nations quote verbatim. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you need two refs for one quote from the Nation? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it showcases the notability of the quote. We have a secondary source (the Nation article containing the quote X) and a tertiary source (an article in another publication that quotes The Nation as saying X). Stonemason89 (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to showcase the notability of a quote in The Nation. The multiple referencing is making the talk show look more notable than it is, and is making it hard for the reader to see which source is the relevant one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Slim that the notability of the quote is not relevant, so the second source isn't needed. These sources reporting activities on the show (ie quoting The Nation as saying X) would only potentially be relevant in the "Controversy and criticism" section, in a context where the WP article was reporting the extent of notoriety / criticism of the subject, by noting the extent to which, for example, the appearance of guests on the show was then reported upon and criticised elsewhere in the media. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Stonemason, would you consider going through the article, please, and removing the second, third and fourth refs supporting each point? One is normally enough, and having so many makes them difficult to check. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sponsors

Which is the reference that supports the first point?

Council of Conservative Citizens,[1][6][7] The Occidental Quarterly,[1] Listeners[1]

And what is "Listeners?" Do you mean its audience, or is Listeners another organization? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the front page of the show's official website, which includes banner ads for all the show's sponsors in one location. And "Listeners" is the show's listeners; the show is largely listener-supported. Do you think there is a better way of describing them? Stonemason89 (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at how the show describes it; probably just use lower-case or audience. So the show is saying that its audience sends in money? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear these are sponsors; I clicked on one and it doesn't seem to exist as an organization. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Italics in headlines

I see a couple of examples of newspaper headlines in italics. These should be ordinary quotation marks, with italics reserved for books. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify what you're asking, you want something like The New York Times to read like "The New York Times", right? That's not correct. Newspaper titles should be italicized. --Moni3 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless you mean "Godzilla crushes city" as a headline, then that should be in quotations. --Moni3 (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, newspaper headlines. I saw a couple in italics. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The name of newspapers should be in italics and the titles of newspaper articles should be in quotation marks.   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of articles

I'm concerned about the number of articles this barely notable radio show seems to have spawned. There's this one (deleted after a PROD, but recreated), James Edwards (radio host), List of Political Cesspool guests (deleted at AfD), and Views expressed by James Edwards and The Political Cesspool (deleted at AfD), all created or restored by Stonemason. This one was on the main page as a DYK on May 7, 2009, James Edwards was a DYK on 23 November 2009, and this one is proposed as a TFA for October 16, all of which seems like promotion to me.

Does James Edwards have any notability apart from this talk show? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The latter three were spin-offs; during this article's FA and GA nominations, several users objected to certain pieces of content on the grounds that they were more related to James Edwards personally than to the show, or that there was too much information about guests, etc. I don't like deleting content that I created (naturally), so instead of deleting it outright I used it to create spinoffs, two of which were ultimately deleted as you mentioned. To accuse me of "promotion", however, is a blatant AGF violation and a borderline Personal attack; if you can't comment on this article without making statements like that, SlimVirgin, then maybe it's better you refrain from editing or commenting on this article. Also, "barely notable" isn't an accurate description anyway; it's definitely notable according to Wikipedia's standards. Stonemason89 (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any indication that you created these articles because of suggestions at GAN or FAC. The timing suggests otherwise. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As controversial and embarrassing as it may be, The Political Cesspool Show has been making regular national/international news stories since at least 2007. To say that it is "barely notable" is, at best, ignorant. It certainly has garnered steady and increasingly frequent media attention. Why the sudden flurry of interest in this article, SlimVirgin?

Also, you complained that this article is repetitive, yet you added a litany of criticisms to the lead. The criticism the show has received was adequately covered before your edits. I see no point in adding more as it will only further irritate the trolls who monitor this article. Do you have an agenda here? 74.226.66.138 (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)