Template:Did you know nominations/Boston Caucus
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Boston Caucus
[edit]
... that Samuel Adams and the Boston Caucus are alleged to have been behind the Boston Tea Party plot of 1773?
Created/expanded by Aymatth2 (talk), Dr. Blofeld (talk), Rosiestep (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld (talk) at 15:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: QPQ has not been submitted, and is required. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
QPQ completed; need reviewer to do full review. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- The statement in the lead section that "It was perhaps the earliest examples of a caucus" is uncited. Mikenorton (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- The statement in the lead doesn't need to be cited in the lead, but it does need to be supported by citations in the article body. I did find the concept in the article body, but the general idea is that it was perhaps the earliest example of political party leaders gathering in private to hammer out a decision. The sources and article body don't say it was the earliest example of a "caucus" and the activity described is not the only definition of "caucus". IMO, the lead should be revised to reflect what the text says (e.g., "set the model for modern political machine politics") and find some other way to introduce the article's relevance to the word "caucus". --Orlady (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- The footnote "Various theories have been advanced..." cites this source. Maybe the cite in the footnote was not obvious. I have added a few more sources, and slightly rephrased. Presumably groups of like-minded political leaders have met to agree on their position in advance of a formal vote for thousands of years, but this seems to have been the first use of the word caucus to describe such a meeting. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- The concern about article footnoting is resolved, but I discover (to my amazement) that I can't verify the hook. The article and cited sources tie Sam Adams and the Green Dragon Inn to the Boston Tea Party, and they tie the Boston Caucus to the Green Dragon Inn, but they don't tie the Boston Caucus to the Tea Party. Let's try for another hook:
- ALT1
... that American patriot Samuel Adams used the Boston Caucus to become "Dictator of Boston"? - ALT2 ... that the Boston Caucus, of which American patriot Samuel Adams was a leader, is considered an early example of the "smoke-filled room" in politics? --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- ALT1
- I much prefer ALT1, and it is indeed what the source (and other potential sources) said, but closer checking shows it was a calumny. The loyalists hated Adams and called him the dictator who controlled the Boston mob. I have fixed the article to point that out and struck ALT1. ALT2 is incontrovertible, but a bit long. How about:
- ALT3 ... that the Boston Caucus was an early example of the "smoke-filled room" in politics?
- Aymatth2 (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I much prefer ALT1, and it is indeed what the source (and other potential sources) said, but closer checking shows it was a calumny. The loyalists hated Adams and called him the dictator who controlled the Boston mob. I have fixed the article to point that out and struck ALT1. ALT2 is incontrovertible, but a bit long. How about:
- Good fix on the "dictator" bit. Regarding ALTS 2 and 3, we could split the difference on wording with:
- ALT4 ... that the Boston Caucus, of which American patriot Samuel Adams was a leader, was an early example of the "smoke-filled room" in politics?
- I believe that ALTs 2, 3, and 4 are supported by the article and sources, but we need another reviewer. --Orlady (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- The article's length, date and sourcing are fine (with one caveat mentioned below) and there are no concerns about plagiarism/copyvio. The ALT 2,3 & 4 hooks (all really version of the same one) are interesting, short enough, cited in the article and supported by those sources.
- The only thing that doesn't check out, and maybe it's because I missed that bit in the source, is that Samuel Adams 'founded' the Sons of Liberty - Adams was not a member of the Loyal Nine (the precursor to the Sons of Liberty). Once that's clarified, this one is approved. Mikenorton (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- The assertion that Adams founded the Sons of Liberty is given in the cited source, Ferling 2003 p66, towards the bottom. The url in the source description points to page 65, the first page cited, so you have to scroll down a bit. I have thrown in a few more sources to substantiate the assertion. It seems to be a broadly accepted element of the American founding mythology. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I thought that I probably missed it. Mikenorton (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- The assertion that Adams founded the Sons of Liberty is given in the cited source, Ferling 2003 p66, towards the bottom. The url in the source description points to page 65, the first page cited, so you have to scroll down a bit. I have thrown in a few more sources to substantiate the assertion. It seems to be a broadly accepted element of the American founding mythology. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
, as all issues now clarified. Mikenorton (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
