Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Timeline of modern American conservatism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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: rejected by Allen3 talk 00:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Unresolved POV issues

Timeline of modern American conservatism

[edit]
(
)

Washington For Jesus, Washington D.C., 1980

Created/expanded by Lionelt (talk), Rjensen (talk), 96.35.124.13 (talk). Nominated by Lionelt (talk) at 11:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: The attendance figure seems dubious. This source pegs attendance at 200,000. This source also quotes a figure of 200,000. The National Park Service apparently supports the 200,000 figure ([1]). The Orlando Sentinel cites 200,000 for the 1980 event ([2]) This source says 200,000 to 500,000 (and the higher figure is attributed to Pat Robertson, an event organizer).
    It seems like reliable sources generally come down much closer to 200,000 than 500,000. Given the diversity of sources I turned up, I'm a little surprised that our articles use an estimate of "500,000 to 750,000" - the higher number seems totally unsourced and unsupported, and we totally fail to acknowledge the range of figures seen in most independent, reliable sources. MastCell Talk 22:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Per User:MastCell, it would be a good idea to come up with an ALT since the figure currently being used is in dispute. Otherwise, the article should also describe that there are conflicting accounts of how many people gathered at the rally rather than settle for one figure that reliable sources disagree on.—Biosketch (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ... in 1960 conservatives, angered when GOP presidential nominee Richard M. Nixon strikes a deal with Nelson Rockefeller, vow to organize at the grass roots and take control of the GOP. – Lionel (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
That's better. As a nitpick, you may want to specify what the deal in question was, since the hook naturally prompts one to wonder and it's not really answered in the timeline article. I'm assuming it refers to Nixon's vice-presidential choice of Lodge (an establishment conservative) rather than Barry Goldwater (a representative of the right wing of the GOP)? MastCell Talk 17:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that American conservatives went from winning just five states in the 1964 Presidential election to winning 49 states just twenty years later?
Captures the timeline aspect of the article better, I think, and has the added benefit of not being as confusing as the above hook. The fact that Reagan won his second term by a landslide is not in the article but probably should be. NW (Talk) 23:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The original hook is of disputed accuracy, so I don't think it belongs on DYK. ALT2 equates all American conservatives with the GOP presidential nominee, which I don't think is appropriate. ALT1 could be okay, but as MastCell notes it lacks context. It also needs to be wikified and the tense corrected, 1960 having come and gone. Lagrange613 07:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm splitting this off as ALT3 since it's pretty different from ALT1. I count 244 characters, which is too long. This would also need more wikilinks, for example to Republican Party (United States). Lagrange613 17:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Now it's 205 characters. Getting closer. Lagrange613 02:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Picture? Nixon? Rockefeller? – Lionel (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind explicitly justifying the claim of a fivefold expansion? That is, what are the "before" and "after" versions, and how are you measuring size? Since the article's mostly bullet points the standard page size script isn't very helpful. Thanks. Lagrange613 05:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The timeline had no lede to speak of. The 5 fold expansion was achieved by substantially expanding the lede and adding introductory prose to a few of the decades. On 10/10/11 DYKCheck indicated 1529 chars for this version [3] and that 5-fold expansion began on 10/8/11. – Lionel (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. This nom has more problems than I thought. It's true that the version as of 00:00 8 October had only 85 characters counted in the standard script vs. 1,529 for the version you link, but like I said most of the article's content is in bullet points that the page size script misses. Indeed, the addition of the hook's fact eludes the page size script. By my quick and dirty copy-and-paste-to-Word metric, the 8 October version has 11,896 characters, and the 10 October version has 16,118. The current version has 21,060, not even a twofold expansion from 8 October. It seems to me that this wouldn't qualify for DYK under a common-sense application of the rules, but I'd like input from someone with more experience at DYK review. Lagrange613 16:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Actual entries in a list do not count toward the character total. Only the prose, i.e. lede, introductory text, etc. DYKCheck is accurate for lists and as I mentioned in this case reports a 5-fold increase. – Lionel (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Readable text is text outside of lists, tables, picture captions, etc. (At least for DYK purposes). If the original article only had 85 chars outside of the list, then that is 5x expansion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This strikes me as gaming DYK, but not everything needs to accord with common sense, I suppose. Citations are needed at several points in the article; rather than hash them all through here I've just marked them. Also, the attendance figures at Washington for Jesus and the Taxpayer March on Washington are dubious; please replace them with more neutral estimates. Finally, since Rjensen, The Four Deuces, and 96.35.124.13 also contributed substantially between 8 and 10 October (indeed, Rjensen added the hook fact) they should share the credit. Lagrange613 16:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Not gaming the system at all. More akin to a quirk. I encountered this when I got a DYK for a list of TV episodes. On the 5th day DYKCheck reported it was way too small. I had to scramble to add prose. It's just the way it works for lists. FYI I asked the others on Talk if they would help write prose to get to 1500 chars and my invitation was ignored. – Lionel (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Before calling something "gaming the system", perhaps you should look at the rules. It says right there: "The length of both the old and new versions of the article is calculated based on prose character count, not word count. Prose character count excludes wiki markup, templates, lists, tables, and references; it is calculated using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js or a similar extension." Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
As a side note, by my count the prose as defined by DYK rules went from 111 characters to 1529 characters. That is a 12x expansion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I've read the rules. I think it's not in the spirit of DYK to add 1,444 characters outside bullet points to a very prose-y list and then nominate someone else's addition that isn't even part of those 1,444 characters. I've understood the rule to ignore what's in lists as motivated by a desire to get a rough picture of an article's size given that most lists have relatively little prose. In this case, though, you'd have a fine article if you just took everything out of bullet points. (Indeed, you'd get roughly a tenfold expansion; should I now go about Wikipedia converting prose-y lists and nominating myself for DYKs?) Not counting that prose strikes me as doing things right instead of doing the right thing. Lagrange613 00:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
WHAT DO YOU MEAN "someone else's addition"? Here's a list for you:
  • I created the list.
  • I vigorously defended the list from a fellow WPConservatism member who AFDed it.
  • I added at least half of the entries.
  • I added all of the pictures
  • I added practically all of the prose.
  • I created the {{Conservatism US footer}} because the sidebar didn't work
  • And I am the one languishing on this subpage for 3 weeks waiting for this thing to get on the main page.

I suggest in the future you get your facts straight before you start making unfounded accusations. PS--Here's the thread where I invited other editors to help get the list to DYK. Did I get any takers? NO! [4]– Lionel (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the edit that introduced the hook fact into the article. Rjensen made the edit, not you. Which facts don't I have straight? Lagrange613 04:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake, this is the most ridiculous bickering. As a neutral third party, I'm going to agree with fellow neutral third party Crisco 1492 that this article has been adequately expanded. Furthermore, reviewing the article history, I have been bold: I have added Rjensen and 96.35.124.13 as co-expanders, including adding their DYKmake credits to this nomination (I'm leaving The Four Deuces out because their contributions, though numerous, are quite minor [copy-editing, wording changes, etc.]). Now, could you two get on with the review instead of bickering over length and credits? OCNative (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose - This article is not neutral. I've added a list of problems to the talk page at Talk:Timeline_of_modern_American_conservatism#Bias. Raul654 (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    • To start bandying around POV tags at this early stage of the article is premature. The list of "problems" is more aptly labelled a list of suggested improvements. Every article at this stage is going to be incomplete. This is not a POV issue, but an {{expand-section}} issue. Note that this is also the sentiment on the article talk page.[5] – Lionel (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm feeling tempted to say no as the article does not seem stable. For a highly contentious subject like politics, stability is a must. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Tagged for neutrality, needs major work. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)




Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Timeline_of_modern_American_conservatism&oldid=1022930882"