Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Political Cesspool/archive2

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 19:30, 25 January 2010 [1].

The Political Cesspool

[edit]
Nominator(s): Stonemason89 (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This article has received a second peer-review from User: Brianboulton, and all of Brian's concerns from before have been addressed. I am confident that this article now meets FAC standards. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose, 1a, 1c, 2a. Interesting for sure, but several large problems lurk just in the lead. MoS problems exist such as malformed citations. Potential BLP problems exist; after reviewing the ADL and its criticism, I'm not convinced we should be using them as the sole source when publishing information about living people (such as Buchanan). Random fact checks just in the lead reveal items not reflected in the body text and not sourced at all. Original research issues, again just in the lead, mentioning terms like "far right" and "conspiracy theories" without writing about, defining, or sourcing them in the lead. I'm sorry but such a charged topic needs much more attention to sourcing, a strong lead that reflects the body text, BLP concerns, and so on. Quite a way from ready.
  • Parallel structure problems in the lead: "First broadcast ... from radio station WMQM" and then "currently broadcast ... at radio station WLRM" Surely the former is correct.
  • Several citations are malformed and contain double quotation marks.
  • Per WP:BLP, I would exercise extreme care in how you characterize living people in the article. For example, the only photo in the article is of Pat Buchanan, effectively making him the "poster boy" to people who are just skimming. Are you saying he is representative of their typical pool of guests? Also, the only sources you have for his appearances and quotations is the ADL. Can we find a more mainstream news sources to add to that para? I'm not sure if the reliability or neutrality of the ADL has ever been called into question, but from the looks of their article they've been embroiled in plenty of criticism and I'm thinking it couldn't hurt to beef up the sourcing when we're calling out living people for appearing on extremist radio shows.
  • Just to note, the photo in the article was originally of Jared Taylor. However, another user deleted the Taylor photo, forcing me to switch to Buchanan. If you object to the use of the Buchanan pic, I could replace it with a photo of Nick Griffin, who has also appeared on the show multiple times. He might be more representative of the show's typical pool of guests than Buchanan would be. How does that sound? Stonemason89 (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the guests are mostly from the US, I now think David Duke would be more representative of the show's guest list than either Buchanan or Griffin. I'm going to switch to a photo of David Duke, who, you're right, is probably more representative of the guests the show has had. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It clears up the image problem, but it doesn't clear up the problem of using the ADL exclusively to source information about people like Buchanan appearing on the show. We need to find some mainstream, neutral news sources. I mean, we have a link right in the References section calling Buchanan an "unrepentant bigot". It's not neutral and it's a BLP problem waiting to happen. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'll see what I can do. Would changing the shown title of that article in the References section work? I've done this before. For example, the Jesse Lee Peterson article makes a non-controversial statement (namely, the fact that Peterson is friends with Virginia Abernethy), which is cited to an article whose title, unfortunately, is the potentially-inflammatory "Jesse Lee Peterson: Minister of Minstrelsy". When adding that link as a source to Peterson's article, I made sure to change the title to avoid causing a BLP controversy. I could do the same with the more "controversially-titled" ADL articles, if that would work. I may also remove some of the more sensational Buchanan-related claims from the article. At the same time, though, I don't want people to think I'm "sanitizing" the article or trying to "whitewash" the subject's image. It's a fine line I have to walk. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference titles, and the section of the article related to Buchanan, have been edited, with some of the more potentially-inflammatory material removed. Do you think I went far enough (or possibly too far)? You might want to look at the edit history to see what I changed, and how I changed it. If you don't think I went far enough, please let me know. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randomly checking a statement in the lead, you write: "It has attracted criticism from The Nation, the Stephen Roth Institute, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Anti-Defamation League for promoting far right, white nationalist, and white supremacist views, as well as related conspiracy theories." What does "far right" mean in this context? The linked article says it is a subjective term that is open to many meanings. I looked down in the Criticism section and I see this sentence roughly repeated, but no mention of the "far right" term or any source calling it "far right". I'm not saying it isn't, but we can't write things like this without sourcing it. Again, "as well as related conspiracy theories" Highly vague and again, unsourced. You don't mention conspiracy theories anywhere else in the article? You can't write things in the lead that aren't expanded and explained in the body text.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see what I can do to address these concerns. Some of these terms ("far right", etc.) were added by other editors than myself. I'll assess the situation and see if anything can be changed. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like User:Slimvirgin edited the lead very recently (less than 1 day ago), changing it quite a bit; you might want to look at the edit history to see which version you prefer; I haven't quite decided yet. First of all, Slimvirgin removed the word "allegedly" which had previously appeared before "promoting". Also, the phrase "as well as related conspiracy theories" was not present in the article before this edit; originally, I used the phrase "and conspiracy theorist views". As far as conspiracy theories go, they've presented the views of quite a few 9/11 Truthers, "New World Order/North American Union" types, and Holocaust deniers (Chuck Baldwin, Michael Collins Piper, Paul Craig Roberts, Jerome Corsi, David Ray Griffin, Willis Carto, David Duke, Mark Weber, etc). Hope that clears up any confusion as far as the labels go. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also believe the term "extreme right-wing" was used at first, and later changed to "far right" by another editor. Do you have a phrase in mind that you think would describe the show more accurately? Personally, I think the show is far right, white nationalist, etc., but I'm also aware that some people might disagree with me. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE: I replaced the mention of "far right" with "anti-Semitic", due to the sourcing concerns you brought up. There are enough RS's to verify that the show has, indeed, been criticized for anti-Semitism quite frequently, whereas the term "far right" has not been used nearly as often to describe the show's ideology. I also removed the "...as well as related conspiracy theories" bit for now; while the evidence is out there that this show promotes conspiracy theories, I want to wait until finding a better source before I add mention of this fact back into the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually irrelevant what I think would describe the show; it only matters what is reflected in the body and sources. So if we call it "anti-Semitic", we need to have that backed up in reliable sources (not the ADL, obviously, unless we are writing specifically that the ADL accuses the show of being so). --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the lead more closely. The article does not call the show anti-Semitic, it merely states that the show has been labeled as such by its critics (which is unambiguously true). Mentioning the fact that the show has been called anti-Semitic by its critics is not the same as saying the show is anti-Semitic. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am well aware the the ADL has had some controversies over the years. There are some issues (such as anything having to do with Israel or the United Nations) where it would definitely not be wise to use the ADL as a source, since it clearly has a bias on those particular topics. Their research into the white-nationalist movement, however (which includes The Political Cesspool) is far more respectable and less controversial, and I would venture that even many of the strongest critics of the ADL's stance on Israel and Palestine would not find anything to disagree with in the ADL's articles on David Duke, Richard Barrett, Ted Pike, The Political Cesspool, etc. It's almost as if the ADL is two different organizations; a controversial pro-Israel organization, and also a non-controversial pro-racial-equality organization, wrapped up into one package. The ADL articles that I cited clearly belong to the non-controversial, pro-racial-equality side of the ADL, and so I don't think those citations are an issue here. It's important to think on a case-by-case basis, and to keep in mind that some organizations may be reliable sources for articles pertaining to some issues, but not to other issues. As an analogy, Charlie Sheen is a reliable source for articles about Charlie Sheen movies or the Lee National Denim Day, but he is not a reliable source for articles about 9/11. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we should accept the ADL as a source for anything other than their own opinion, especially where living people are involved. It seems like they are interested in publishing fantastic sources to support their lobby, much like PETA and other similar agencies. I'm not advocating that they be excluded—only that we use mainstream, vetted media sources for overall claims we are making. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've toned down some of the more controversial ADL-and-Buchanan-related material from the article; see my comment above. Perhaps you could take another look at the article to see if you think it's now okay? Stonemason89 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments We've made some strides toward reliable sourcing. However, my confidence remains low in the sourcing overall. I'm not convinced the article is comprehensive; we eschew mainstream news coverage (for example, The Commercial Appeal appears to write stories or blogs about the show in some regularity, but you have nothing from this, the nearest major newspaper.) for apparent trivia (Frith "continues to visit the WLRM studios on occasion"?) sourced to the station's own web site. Overall, the bulk of the sources are the show's web site, the Memphis Sewage article, or the ADL. I think you've got to hit the library for newspapers at the very least—start with Newsbank or Access World News. Additionally, I did some random source-checking and found statements that are not backed up by the sources used, indicating the need for a full source audit. We've still got BLP problems: absolutely no one should be listed as a guest on this show without an independent, reliable source. Needs scouring for that issue.
I haven't come across too many mainstream news articles about the show; I'm sure they exist, but they are likely either offline, or require a subscription to access. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Searching at my library database, I've found several sources you haven't used. For example, writers at The Commercial Appeal apparently blog about the show frequently, get quotes from local officials, and so on. There isn't much in the article on local reactions to the show being hosted near Memphis.
I live in Minnesota, so I don't have access to The Commercial Appeal's articles, except for those they have posted online. A search for online Commercial Appeal articles referencing the show comes up with no results, see: [2]. You seem to have access to a Memphis-area library, perhaps you could help out sometime? Stonemason89 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's confusing to me that we have some sources of criticism with citations in the lead, and some without. Generally, citations are only needed in the lead if the item is controversial or likely to be challenged. Are those either? I'd rather we cite all or none of them, and I don't have a preference which.
Okay, I'll go with "none". Stonemason89 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • " as a paleoconservative alternative to GOP radio hosts such as Sean Hannity." Parallelism missing here. You wrote that they started a (show) as an alternative to a (host); really, it should be show–show.
I didn't write that paragraph; it was added by another user (namely, User: The Squicks). I'll try to tidy it up, though. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not confident in the Sonny Landham item. I'd like an independent source backing up his involvement with the show. Again, a potential BLP problem—we can't have only the show's own web site backing it up.
Okay, I'll just remove it then for now; I haven't been able to find any independent sources for it yet. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Austin Farley left the program in November 2005 to spend more time with his wife and four children; he was replaced by Winston Smith. Farley remains on good terms with Edwards and the show's other staff members." Problematic. First, the source gives a different reason for his leaving (to run for office). Second, it says nothing about his remaining on "good terms"; how would they know, anyway? Only Farley or the show's staff could make such a claim.
There's a conflict there, between Memphis Sewage and the show's official website; one source says he left to spend time with his wife and kids, the other source says he left to run for office. Because of this, I'm going to simply state that Farley left in 2006, without stating a reason. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "James Edwards is active in the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), and the show has hosted several leaders from the CofCC and publications affiliated with it as guests." Again, uncomfortable with pegging anyone as a guest on this show without an independent, reliable source.
There's always the show's own guest list to back up that claim, but it's not an independent source per se. I'm probably just going to remove that statement then. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for the quick replies. I think we'll want to find the sources rather than just removing the information in these cases (unless you are just removing it as an intermediate step) because that brings us further away from comprehensive. We really do need information on guests and keynote speakers and what-not, but we've got to have the independent sources. Re: library access, I only use what's available at any public or university library (I live in Arizona). You'll have to go to a library that subscribes to major news databases and start digging. Librarians can help. I am certainly willing to help, but it is not something to be done within the short time frame of an FAC nomination. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will need to visit a library sometime, then (though it won't be very soon because in the upcoming months I will be busy with college classes, etc). Looks like this article probably won't make FAC this time around; but maybe the 3rd time will be the charm. Again, thanks for all your feedback! Stonemason89 (talk) 05:14, 25 January 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/archive2&oldid=1136457848"