Bonkers The Clown (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
You Can Act Like A Man (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
* '''Keep''' -there's work being done on it AWS, and it shouldn't be too difficult to bring the article up to scratch. <font face="Georgia">[[User:You Can Act Like A Man|<span style="color:Green">'''Basket''' </span>]]<sub>[[User talk:You Can Act Like A Man|<span style="color:orange">'''Feudalist''' </span></sub>]]</font> 16:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
* '''Keep''' -there's work being done on it AWS, and it shouldn't be too difficult to bring the article up to scratch. <font face="Georgia">[[User:You Can Act Like A Man|<span style="color:Green">'''Basket''' </span>]]<sub>[[User talk:You Can Act Like A Man|<span style="color:orange">'''Feudalist''' </span></sub>]]</font> 16:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
:* That's not an argument at all. You haven't addressed the nomination argument, you haven't brought up a single policy or reference to back up your claim of keeping it. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 17:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
:* That's not an argument at all. You haven't addressed the nomination argument, you haven't brought up a single policy or reference to back up your claim of keeping it. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 17:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
::*You go ahead, girlfriend. Another non-policy based and pro-[[Mary Whitehouse|'I don't like nathty wordth']]-based criticism... How many time do you wet yourself when ''[[Boyz n the Hood]]'' comes on?!?! LOL if you don't hack the lingo bredren {{smiley|27}} Cheers! <font face="Georgia">[[User:You Can Act Like A Man|<span style="color:Green">'''Basket''' </span>]]<sub>[[User talk:You Can Act Like A Man|<span style="color:orange">'''Feudalist''' </span></sub>]]</font> 09:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' - If we censor this article <span class="plainlinks">[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=nigger&fulltext=Search the other 1,366 articles of similar comprise]</span> are in peril as well. This is actually a ''speedy keep''!—[[User:John Cline|John Cline]] ([[User talk:John Cline|talk]]) 17:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' - If we censor this article <span class="plainlinks">[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=nigger&fulltext=Search the other 1,366 articles of similar comprise]</span> are in peril as well. This is actually a ''speedy keep''!—[[User:John Cline|John Cline]] ([[User talk:John Cline|talk]]) 17:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
:* What the hell? I didn't even make a single argument about censoring. It has nothing to do with that, but the utter lack of good references. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 17:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
:* What the hell? I didn't even make a single argument about censoring. It has nothing to do with that, but the utter lack of good references. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 17:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:42, 17 September 2013
Niggers in the White House
- Niggers in the White House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm going to keep this simple and just look at the sources. I think the article is artfully written, but it is stretching references that just aren't there. Let's go through them.
- Reference #1: Is this one from the Theodore Roosevelt Center. It's just a simple listing of the poem itself with a brief description, just like the site lists all the other letters and things written by famous people. It doesn't really confer anything to notability at all.
- Reference #2: Is this from the Presidential Collections. And it's basically just a copy of the Roosevelt reference, it links to it and everything. Nothing to do with notability here.
- Reference #3: Is this from an old 1903 printing of the poem in the Dispatch. It's just a printing of the poem with no commentary at all. It adds nothing to notability.
- Reference #4: Is this book that has a single sentence on the poem. Very much trivial coverage.
- Reference #5: Is this book, which does't appear to mention the poem at all or even obliquely, unless i'm mistaken.
- Reference #6: Is this book, which also doesn't appear to mention the poem at all.
- Reference #7: Is this book, with yet again no reference to the poem.
- Reference #8: Is this book, which is actually the best reference so far, with a full three sentences on the poem. Which is pretty much nothing and really still just trivial coverage.
- Reference #9: Is this news article, which is actually directly about the poem. It is a 1929 article from the Evening Tribune. But it is far more about the incident of it being read and then struck from the record than any real commentary about the poem. That and the datedness of the source really just makes it seem like a minor event.
- Reference #10: Is this news article, which is paid-locked, so I can't judge it on quality. But the title has nothing to do with the poem, so I can only assume the coverage in it is trivial. And, again, it is a dated 1929 source.
- Reference #11: Is this, which is the same as reference #1, just in image viewer format.
- Reference #12: Is this, which is the same reference as #1 and #11.
Do note that the article is subject to change. So the references align with this version of the article, which is the one I was reviewing.
Now, onto the Bibliography section.
- Number 1: Is this book, which is not in a readable format. But when I put the name of the poem into the search bar, nothing comes up. It doesn't appear that the slur "niggers" is even used in the book.
- Number 2: Is this article in JSTOR that is about the White House dinner that the poem was a response to. But the poem is not mentioned in this article at all.
- Number 3: Is this article, another from JSTOR about the dinner. Again, no mention of the poem at all.
- Numbers 4, 5 and 6: I'm not going to read, because they're pretty long. But they both appear to be about the dinner as well. If the poem is actually mentioned in them, please let me know, but i'll assume it's not.
- External link #1: Is this article, the one and only external link and actually a recent news source! That doesn't mention the poem at all. Okay, moving on then.
So, in total, we have a bunch of sources that don't mention the poem at all, a few sources with a single sentence on the poem, and then a tie between the dated 1929 news article on the poem that is more about the incident and the three sentence bit about the poem in a book. You pick which one you think gives more notability.
But, all in all, there doesn't appear to be any notability of significance here. Maybe enough to have a single paragraph in another article, but certainly not enough to have one all on its own. Thus, I think this article should be Deleted.SilverserenC 06:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure: although the sources seem to be of poor quality, it seems to me that the article is on important history of the US, and thus possibly notable. Why not slap it with a refimprove instead, and give the creator a chance to find better sources? HandsomeFella (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I of course wrote the above before I read Bonkers' mature input on the talkpage of the article. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I have access to the NY Times article "White House Tea Starts Senate Stir". New York Times. June 18, 1929 (reference 10 mentioned in the AfD nomination, and currently reference 9), and it does note that this poem was included in the Senator's racist motion, and its inclusion was directly criticized by two other senators and eventually struck from the record of proceedings after a debate, so it is relevant to the topic of the article and provides substantive coverage (about six paragraphs) on the poem and its reception. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy close as keep For the love of all things nigger... but seriously, we do not expect this to have staggering coverage. Just this much coverage is enough to warrant a decent article. Furthermore, it passed a stringent DYK review and is currently on the main page. You can't go against us. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that the DYK nomination was unusually "stringent". The reviewing editors did their jobs well, but there wasn't anything beyond the norm. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- However I feel that most' DYK noms are stringent, and some drag for weeks before they can get approved! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that the DYK nomination was unusually "stringent". The reviewing editors did their jobs well, but there wasn't anything beyond the norm. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm surprised the dinner that set this in motion does not have an article itself. Is there a section on it somewhere? I distinctly recall learning about the dinner in high school, and given how long ago that was, it must have been covered to quite an extent. If it turns out the dinner is notable enough for its own article, then this poem may fit better as a section therein. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- But this poem surfaced at two dinners. Not just that dinner, so it would not seem right. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability is not temporary (regarding the old sources), and by gosh there's a heck of a lot of controversy. This goes into some detail as well, as does Life. Likely quite a few offline articles as well. This reminds me of "Langit Makin Mendung" in a way: a controversial work of literature that is terrible as literature, but notable as a social artefact. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. I have added another reference. There are lots out there, and it is a significant historical artefact. StAnselm (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- You added a single reference about an event. It's certainly better than all the other sources, but there is no evidence of ongoing coverage or any critical coverage at all or discussion of the poem outside of the event itself. This gives the event notability, not the poem. SilverserenC 17:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - it appears notable, sadly, and has been preserved by the Library of Congress. GiantSnowman 12:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Weak delete While notability is not temporary, I don't see how article meets the lasting effects, geographical scope, depth and duration of media coverage criterias from WP:EVENT guideline. It seems to be century old WP:SENSATION. Article has serious issues with sources, including citations to material that does mention the subject matter at all. Unless refimprove'd, I'm inclined to delete per nomination. jni (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know, even a mention (not a citation) 70 years later (1996) is already better than most newspaper publications get. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The poem appeared in several places (including, temporarily, the record of the US Senate), and the Baltimore Afro-American printed (most of) the poem in covering the Jessie De Priest incident, along with commentary on the abhorrent racism displayed by the poem. This seems to be a small, but significant, item in U.S. history, and helps to build a picture of US Society in the early 20th century, with numerous sources mentioning it (some in the article, some noted on this page, and also others). Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. -- 101.119.29.159 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Expand and rename into an article whose main topic is that White House dinner with Booker Washington itself, which appears to be a lot more notable, and to which the existence of the poem is basically just an historical footnote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Due to Bonkers' very mature comments relating to the article, I wish it could be deleted. It's notable, though, so it has to stay. Future Perfect at Sunrise brings up a decent point also, but we can discuss at talk. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, per Crisco, I think this is a historically notable subject and should be kept. Personally I think that the poem's unmitigated dreadfulness on every conceivable level makes it a subject worth keeping a record of. Removing record because of fear of causing offence also contributes to these things being forgotten. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, historically notable, passes GNG, possibly expand and rename per User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's suggestion. Cavarrone 15:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Expand and rename as per Someguy1221's and Future Perfect at Sunrise's suggestions. Not notable enough in its own right to merit an article, but a legitimate component of an article on the actual event. Awien (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep and topic ban Bonkers from articles related to race for lack of competence. The amount of commentary on this more than 100 years olf poem establishes notability fine. SilverSerens argument that the coverage is not substantial is not convincing, clearly it is not comparable to the amount of coverage expected for high literature but for the kind of satirical/racist poem it is it is clearly substantial. Its not as if we could expect someone to write a book about it. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy keep this is obviously a notable historical item, and well worthy of an article. Technical 13 (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep deletion serves no purpose but to hide information that is valuable and of real historical interest. I see no reason why it should be renamed. Paul B (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- And yet another non-policy based argument that doesn't address the nomination statement or any actual policy reason for keeping the article. SilverserenC 17:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- The poem is only marginally notable, for sure, but there is no reason not to err on the side of inclusion for the reasons I gave. We are not a bureaucracy. And, frankly, I doubt anyone believes this would have been listed for deletion were it not for the title and content of the poem, even though your nomination does not say so. Paul B (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -there's work being done on it AWS, and it shouldn't be too difficult to bring the article up to scratch. Basket Feudalist 16:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's not an argument at all. You haven't addressed the nomination argument, you haven't brought up a single policy or reference to back up your claim of keeping it. SilverserenC 17:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- You go ahead, girlfriend. Another non-policy based and pro-'I don't like nathty wordth'-based criticism... How many time do you wet yourself when Boyz n the Hood comes on?!?! LOL if you don't hack the lingo bredren Cheers! Basket Feudalist 09:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - If we censor this article the other 1,366 articles of similar comprise are in peril as well. This is actually a speedy keep!—John Cline (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- What the hell? I didn't even make a single argument about censoring. It has nothing to do with that, but the utter lack of good references. SilverserenC 17:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I sense your frustration Silverseren! I think this is going to be one of those times you'll regret expending so much good effort on folly; but I think you've undertaken a fool's errand. I didn't include a bunch of interlinks to policy because it is my nature not to template an editor as regular as you; and I didn't link fool's errand either for the same respect in your competence. Frankly, I don't want to delve into this subject beyond the cursory review I'd done in proximity of the article's creation. And I do remember seeing enough to warrant the subject's inclusion as having met the burden of wp:gng.
12 online accessible links from wp:rs and 6 book citations is overkill in suggesting it relates to the threshold of significant coverage. Personally I think three solid references are sufficient to secure verifiable notability for a subject, and the additional references are for verification of the article's content; which I'm certain that you know the threshold for content inclusion is less stringent than the threshold for notability.
I'll keep an eye on the emerging consensus in this discussion and if deletion becomes viable by some measure, I'll compile a more specific argument; but this discussion answers itself from a rudimentary level, and I think you know this as well. I also took a very close look at your AfD contributions and do get a sense that a politically correct element exists within this nomination. And I think you mean well by your manner; but it's folly I tell you, and avoiding folly is a divine utterance to my understanding.—John Cline (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Addendum - By the way, I agree with Maunus that Bonkers The Clown is disrupting the discussions I've seen regarding this topic and I wouldn't suggest suffering his malfeasance much longer.—John Cline (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable, WNC, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, really? Is it that hard to make a policy based argument or at least discuss the nominator's argument? You do know that the closer is meant to disregard any non-policy votes, right? SilverserenC 18:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- And you know that having the nominator respond sarcastically to every "Keep" is rude and annoying, right? As for your complaint WP:NOTCENSORED and [WP:NOTABILITY]] are policy-based !votes, and that you, as nom, don't get to limit the grounds on which other editors based their decisions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Merge to an article about the dinner itself, the one given by TR with BTW as a guest. The dinner itself is the important thing. The "poem" is reaction to this event. The effect of this article is to give undue weight to the negative views while just barely mentioning the positive. BayShrimp (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per nom. And yes, this is what I meant to say: the nominator's given multiple reliable sources that cover this poem sufficiently — the nominator's tone, together with the "hurry let's get it down immediately" tone of the WP:AN thread that brought me here, make it appear as if the nominator's ultimately motivated by dislike. Citations such as #9 are from established news media, and unlike WP:NOTNEWS-violating stories on the latest events, this article uses news media from years later to demonstrate that the poem remained a topic of interest decades later. "Datedness" is no reason to reject a source, unless it's something scholarly that's later been shown to be wrong; this would have passed our notability criteria eighty years ago, so it remains notable now. Meanwhile, the nominator's making irrelevant objections about certain sources not discussing the subject at all: they're given for background purposes, and they don't hurt the article. We have enough coverage to write about the poem itself, and we have enough background information to place it in context, so let's allow it to remain a separate article. Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that any of the sources that discuss the poem in a non-trivial manner are the 1929 ones about the Senate event. That would give notability for the event, not for the poem. There is no evidence at all of enduring notability here. And please keep your assumptions about my motives to yourself. SilverserenC 18:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, delete this article or bury it in the test of another article where no one will find it. No one wants to point out the Jim Crow racist history of the "Democratic" Party and make it easy to find for those interested in non-revisionist history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.124.242 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Merge this poem is by an anonymous author written over 100 years ago and is of no historical significance except as a reaction to the dinner hosted by teddy roosevelt for booker t. washington. It belongs in a section labeled as "reactions to the dinner." Agree with Bayshrimp. — Dadahorse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC).
- Keep. Please assume good faith about my DYK review. I resent suggestions that I failed to review the sources. I did review the sources, and I agree that some added context without directly discussing the poem. As others point out, however, the poem is discussed directly in multiple sources from the article. Is that level and amount of discussion up to Silver seren's standards? Obviously not, but the detail in coverage necessary for an article (per WP:GNG) is something that reasonable people can (and frequently do) disagree on (and consequently a prime ground for discussion and consensus-building). Bonkers has behaved embarrassingly throughout this process and I would support a topic ban if anything like this continues (Silver seren himself is starting to bludgeon the process as well). Nevertheless, the poem is notable. Others have mentioned a merger, but there is no article to merge to yet, and that discussion should wait until there is such a target. The fact that the poem was republished for a second historical event makes this seem unlikely. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- You haven't explained how it is notable. I clearly pointed out how, out of the 12 references, 4 are just a catalog listing of the poem, 1 is just a reprinting of the poem itself, 3 don't mention the poem at all, 2 have trivial 1-2 sentence coverage of the poem, and 2 have coverage of an event in the Senate in 1929 that has more to do about the event than the poem itself. So, where is the notability? SilverserenC 23:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's simply not true; several references discuss the poem, particularly in the context of it having been read in the US Senate in 1929. And I would strongly oppose making the article about the dinner, since that means erasing the Senate episode from the article. -- 101.119.28.204 (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Which one(s), 101.119.28.204? Awien (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Comment I totally agree with Silver Seren: in all the references that mention the "poem" at all, it is as a passing glance in coverage of the actual events. None of them (barring oversight on my part) are about the "poem" itself, which is what would be required to demonstrate notability. Awien (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. "Of course there is satire... The white presidential family and the niggers are heavily ridiculed in the poem. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ " If there is a valid topic here, the article needs to be deleted in its present form as a racist attack page and re-written from scratch by disinterested authors. --86.181.17.180 (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)— 86.181.17.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Fortunately, the article has been largely rewritten. -- 101.119.28.204 (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Merge into article about the dinner. I agree with FutPerf. The dinner was the notable incident that got most of the attention. The poem is historically significant and deserves to have its own section in the main article, but the main article should be on Teddy Roosevelt's invitation to Booker T. Washington. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, a merge is not ideal per reasons laid out by IronGargoyle above. Also by merging content definitely will be swamped. Let it stay as an article on its own and perhaps include a "See also" link to this article if there is an article on the Washington/Roosevelt dinner. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
A simple request
Can anyone show me a single reference that has non-trivial coverage of the poem that is not printed directly after and is not about the 1929 event? That's all i'm asking for. SilverserenC 23:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest you take this page off your watch list and find something else to do for a few days. The nomination states your case well enough that you don't need to badger respondents. An admin once told me to do this when I was getting increasingly annoyed and frustrated with a policy discussion. I didn't realize my behavior was rapidly becoming disruptive and confrontational, and it probably saved me from my first ever block. Sometimes it's best to just let things go; this is doubly true when you find yourself compulsively and angrily replying to policy discussions. It's not worth it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)