| Revision as of 00:50, 10 September 2015 editHughD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,133 edits →Chicago-style politics (meme): add to stmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:22, 10 September 2015 edit undoHughD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,133 edits →Chicago-style politics (meme): request compliance with talk page behavior guidelines of User:SpringeeNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| :'''background''' The original article], which is also of questionable merit, was created in 2011 to discuss the phrase "Chicago-style politics". (Initial:] March, 2014:]) In April 2014 the subject of the article was unilaterally changed to one which talked about "Chicago-style politics" as a rhetorical statement used to attack president Obama and other democrats.]. Previous content about the phrase was removed. All changes were done without talk page discussion and the editor in question did not reply to an editor who questioned the shift (See ]). Additional editors questioned the ]ing contained in the modified article and consensus was to move ] back to its original subject. This article was created shortly there after to cover the material that other editors found questionable in the original article, thus a POV fork. Since the article was created the editor who created the article has added questionable (]) links in other articles in attempt to prevent this one from being an orphan article. These edits, done initially without talk page justifications, can be seen in the recent edits of the following articles ]]]]. It should be noted that the original article was filled with tags by the creator of this article when consensus clearly didn't support the "meme" direction. ] (]) 19:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC) | :'''background''' The original article], which is also of questionable merit, was created in 2011 to discuss the phrase "Chicago-style politics". (Initial:] March, 2014:]) In April 2014 the subject of the article was unilaterally changed to one which talked about "Chicago-style politics" as a rhetorical statement used to attack president Obama and other democrats.]. Previous content about the phrase was removed. All changes were done without talk page discussion and the editor in question did not reply to an editor who questioned the shift (See ]). Additional editors questioned the ]ing contained in the modified article and consensus was to move ] back to its original subject. This article was created shortly there after to cover the material that other editors found questionable in the original article, thus a POV fork. Since the article was created the editor who created the article has added questionable (]) links in other articles in attempt to prevent this one from being an orphan article. These edits, done initially without talk page justifications, can be seen in the recent edits of the following articles ]]]]. It should be noted that the original article was filled with tags by the creator of this article when consensus clearly didn't support the "meme" direction. ] (]) 19:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::'''Merge''' into either older article as subsection or into Chicago politics article as subsection. In the latter case we would also merge the content of the original "Chicago-style politics" article. The section talking about the phrase certainly can cover the more recent meme as HughD has called it. However, it should also cover the origins of the phrase and earlier uses. It should not be a ] as the new article has become and as HughD's associated edits to other articles have become. ] (]) 00:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | :::'''Merge''' into either older article as subsection or into Chicago politics article as subsection. In the latter case we would also merge the content of the original "Chicago-style politics" article. The section talking about the phrase certainly can cover the more recent meme as HughD has called it. However, it should also cover the origins of the phrase and earlier uses. It should not be a ] as the new article has become and as HughD's associated edits to other articles have become. ] (]) 00:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::] is not a coatrack; it is well-referenced, more neutral, and much better referenced than ]. Explain your application of ] to ] at ]. Depersonalize your comments on content. Thank you. ] (]) 01:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Merge''' (without an opinion of which article gets merged into which other article). There is good, sourced, notable content here and the article is indeed about a subject that meets GNG. However, the non-meme article itself is about a meme, and this one looks like a fork. Not necessarily a POV fork because I haven't really looked into a POV, just two articles that are or should be about the same thing. To the extent either article contains information about the conception of Chicago-style politics as a matter of public perception, a political slogan, etc., that is all essentially about a meme or neologism. Whether that article gets merged here, or this one there, it should concentrate on the origin and use of the phrase, concept, etc., not the history and current of Chicago Politics, which are the the subject of separate articles. And not about anti-Obama use of the phrase versus other uses of the phrase, it's still the same phrase despite varying applications. - ] (]) 19:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC) | *'''Merge''' (without an opinion of which article gets merged into which other article). There is good, sourced, notable content here and the article is indeed about a subject that meets GNG. However, the non-meme article itself is about a meme, and this one looks like a fork. Not necessarily a POV fork because I haven't really looked into a POV, just two articles that are or should be about the same thing. To the extent either article contains information about the conception of Chicago-style politics as a matter of public perception, a political slogan, etc., that is all essentially about a meme or neologism. Whether that article gets merged here, or this one there, it should concentrate on the origin and use of the phrase, concept, etc., not the history and current of Chicago Politics, which are the the subject of separate articles. And not about anti-Obama use of the phrase versus other uses of the phrase, it's still the same phrase despite varying applications. - ] (]) 19:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thank you for your comment. "two articles that are or should be about the same thing." That there is in fact a political meme ], most notable for its usage by Republicans during the campaigns and terms of our first black President and our first President from Chicago, is beyond contesting given the copious reliable sources. As an analogy, drawn from more recent political rhetoric, our article ] focuses on the use of the phrase as a pejorative, and provides background only as necessary to provide context, but does not re-iterate the history of emigration policy in the US. On the other hand, much less clear is that there is a more general topic "Chicago style politics" ''independent'' of the ]. It is impossible to imagine neutral, balanced, verifiable content that would be appropriate in an article ] that would not be ''more'' appropriately added to ]. By their own revised, sadly inadequate lede at ], "Chicago politics is a cliches used for a set of characteristics associated with aspects of the political history of the American city of Chicago, Illinois, (i.e., corruption, patronage, nepotism, authoritarianism)" the intention there is clearly a point of view fork of ] focusing on negative aspects. The recently revised lede and the recently contributed content at ] demonstrate an editorial direction toward a pointed telling of ], free of our usual constraints of balance. | ::Thank you for your comment. "two articles that are or should be about the same thing." That there is in fact a political meme ], most notable for its usage by Republicans during the campaigns and terms of our first black President and our first President from Chicago, is beyond contesting given the copious reliable sources. As an analogy, drawn from more recent political rhetoric, our article ] focuses on the use of the phrase as a pejorative, and provides background only as necessary to provide context, but does not re-iterate the history of emigration policy in the US. On the other hand, much less clear is that there is a more general topic "Chicago style politics" ''independent'' of the ]. It is impossible to imagine neutral, balanced, verifiable content that would be appropriate in an article ] that would not be ''more'' appropriately added to ]. By their own revised, sadly inadequate lede at ], "Chicago politics is a cliches used for a set of characteristics associated with aspects of the political history of the American city of Chicago, Illinois, (i.e., corruption, patronage, nepotism, authoritarianism)" the intention there is clearly a point of view fork of ] focusing on negative aspects. The recently revised lede and the recently contributed content at ] demonstrate an editorial direction toward a pointed telling of ], free of our usual constraints of balance. | ||
Revision as of 01:22, 10 September 2015
Chicago-style politics (meme)
- Chicago-style politics (meme) (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)
WP:NOTE The use of the phrase "Chicago-style politics" as a rhetorical political attack by Republicans against Democrats since 2008 is not a notable topic. A page about the phrase "Chicago-style politics" already exists and has since 2011. Springee (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Strong keep Obviously Chicago-style politics (meme) is notable as per WP:GNG. Significant, prominent coverage in multiple reliable sources includes secondary and tertiary sources, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, International Business Times, the Los Angeles Times, and others. The political meme is more than adequately represented prominently in multiple reliable sources for its own, stand-alone article.
The nominating user has recently taken article Chicago-style politics in a new direction, a point of view fork of Political history of Chicago, while at the same time suggesting deletion of the article Chicago-style politics at Talk:Chicago-style politics; please see Talk:Chicago-style politics#Should this article be wiped and redirected to Political History of Chicago?. Hugh (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Political rhetoric is a legitimate academic discipline and a political catchphrase is a legitimate object of study. A Misplaced Pages article dedicated to a political meme is far from unprecedented, in fact we have a Category:Political terminology with numerous national subcategories including Category:American political catch phrases; member articles include Silent majority, Vast right-wing conspiracy, Binders full of women, and some 50 others. Hugh (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note that this account is the author of the nominated article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Remove (see below) The article in question was created as a WP:CONTENTFORK when the original Chicago-style politics article was recently returned to it's original topic. This article appears to be nothing more than a WP:COATRACK used to discuss various political comments and attacks that happen to contain the phrase "Chicago-style politics". If the intent of the article is to discuss the phrase "Chicago-Style politics" then it should be merged back into the earlier article which at least had a history section. If the intent is to discuss political rhetoric it should be merged either into discussions of the various elections (2008 and 2012 presidential) or perhaps merged into a more general article on the subject. It seems highly questionable to devote an entire article to one of many political, rhetorical phrases. Yes, many examples of the phrase being used can be found and the editor of the article has done that. However, those articles largely discuss other maters, not the use of political rhetoric. Thus the large number of citations are really examples of WP:OVERCITE yet they fail to support the lead in showing that it is relevant to have an article about the phrase as a "meme". Thus the WP:NOTE of this article is in question.
- background The original article], which is also of questionable merit, was created in 2011 to discuss the phrase "Chicago-style politics". (Initial:] March, 2014:]) In April 2014 the subject of the article was unilaterally changed to one which talked about "Chicago-style politics" as a rhetorical statement used to attack president Obama and other democrats.]. Previous content about the phrase was removed. All changes were done without talk page discussion and the editor in question did not reply to an editor who questioned the shift (See ]). Additional editors questioned the WP:COATRACKing contained in the modified article and consensus was to move Chicago-style_politics back to its original subject. This article was created shortly there after to cover the material that other editors found questionable in the original article, thus a POV fork. Since the article was created the editor who created the article has added questionable (WP:UNDUE) links in other articles in attempt to prevent this one from being an orphan article. These edits, done initially without talk page justifications, can be seen in the recent edits of the following articles ]]]]. It should be noted that the original article was filled with tags by the creator of this article when consensus clearly didn't support the "meme" direction. Springee (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merge into either older article as subsection or into Chicago politics article as subsection. In the latter case we would also merge the content of the original "Chicago-style politics" article. The section talking about the phrase certainly can cover the more recent meme as HughD has called it. However, it should also cover the origins of the phrase and earlier uses. It should not be a WP:COATRACK as the new article has become and as HughD's associated edits to other articles have become. Springee (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Chicago-style politics (meme) is not a coatrack; it is well-referenced, more neutral, and much better referenced than Chicago-style politics. Explain your application of WP:COATRACK to Chicago-style politics (meme) at Talk:Chicago-style politics (meme). Depersonalize your comments on content. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merge into either older article as subsection or into Chicago politics article as subsection. In the latter case we would also merge the content of the original "Chicago-style politics" article. The section talking about the phrase certainly can cover the more recent meme as HughD has called it. However, it should also cover the origins of the phrase and earlier uses. It should not be a WP:COATRACK as the new article has become and as HughD's associated edits to other articles have become. Springee (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merge (without an opinion of which article gets merged into which other article). There is good, sourced, notable content here and the article is indeed about a subject that meets GNG. However, the non-meme article itself is about a meme, and this one looks like a fork. Not necessarily a POV fork because I haven't really looked into a POV, just two articles that are or should be about the same thing. To the extent either article contains information about the conception of Chicago-style politics as a matter of public perception, a political slogan, etc., that is all essentially about a meme or neologism. Whether that article gets merged here, or this one there, it should concentrate on the origin and use of the phrase, concept, etc., not the history and current of Chicago Politics, which are the the subject of separate articles. And not about anti-Obama use of the phrase versus other uses of the phrase, it's still the same phrase despite varying applications. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. "two articles that are or should be about the same thing." That there is in fact a political meme Chicago-style politics (meme), most notable for its usage by Republicans during the campaigns and terms of our first black President and our first President from Chicago, is beyond contesting given the copious reliable sources. As an analogy, drawn from more recent political rhetoric, our article Anchor baby focuses on the use of the phrase as a pejorative, and provides background only as necessary to provide context, but does not re-iterate the history of emigration policy in the US. On the other hand, much less clear is that there is a more general topic "Chicago style politics" independent of the Political history of Chicago. It is impossible to imagine neutral, balanced, verifiable content that would be appropriate in an article Chicago-style politics that would not be more appropriately added to Political history of Chicago. By their own revised, sadly inadequate lede at Chicago-style politics, "Chicago politics is a cliches used for a set of characteristics associated with aspects of the political history of the American city of Chicago, Illinois, (i.e., corruption, patronage, nepotism, authoritarianism)" the intention there is clearly a point of view fork of Political history of Chicago focusing on negative aspects. The recently revised lede and the recently contributed content at Chicago-style politics demonstrate an editorial direction toward a pointed telling of Political history of Chicago, free of our usual constraints of balance.
- In summary, our article Chicago-style politics (meme) is focused on a distinct, well-referenced topic, and our article Chicago-style politics is the obvious point of view fork. Chicago-style politics should be merged with Political history of Chicago, where the proposed content will be subject to community review in terms of balance with respect to our neutrality pillar, but that is a separate issue from this deletion nomination. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with that other article, but this sounds right — in which case, the other article should be merged into this one (and any content better suited to the political history of Chicago added to that article, if appropriate and not there already). - Wikidemon (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Merging is a good suggestion. This situation is complicated by Chicago-style politics and Political history of Chicago both being very poor articles. Chicago-style politics has just a handful of well-referenced relevant statements, and most of those are cut and paste from Political history of Chicago. The kindest thing we can do to Chicago-style politics is fold whatever few statements and references are not already in Political history of Chicago into Political history of Chicago, where they have a chance of balance. I've summarized Chicago-style politics (meme) with two paragraphs (usage and reaction) at Political history of Chicago. Thanks again. Hugh (talk)
- I'm not familiar with that other article, but this sounds right — in which case, the other article should be merged into this one (and any content better suited to the political history of Chicago added to that article, if appropriate and not there already). - Wikidemon (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merge This is a WP:CONTENTFORK. Merging back will force the focus pared down to the encyclopedic core rather than the expansive off-topic presentation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merge The reason why I rejected the PROD in the first place was because the PROD concern was inadequate notability. There appeared to be sufficient RS in my opinion, so I rejected the PROD. Now I see that Chicago-style politics exists, which justifies the PROD placer's actions. A section can be added on the Chicago-style politics page. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Now that you know Chicago-style politics exists, could you please take a look at it? I think you will agree it is a very poor article. The merge suggestion is good but Chicago-style politics is untenable as a target for merge of Chicago-style politics (meme), or anything else. Not only is Chicago-style politics very poor, it is doomed: unredeemable given its recent lede proclaiming its charter as focusing exclusively on the negative aspects of Political history of Chicago, a blatant WP:POVFORK: "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article." With its clearly stated scope, Chicago-style politics can never conform to our neutrality pillar. Of course a telling of the political history of Chicago, free of our usual constraint of balance, would be fun to write. Political history of Chicago is also quite sad, but not irredeemably so; Political history of Chicago is important to WP:CHICAGO and needs editorial attention. Of the three articles, Political history of Chicago, Chicago-style politics, and Chicago-style politics (meme), Chicago-style politics (meme) is clearly, objectively, the best written and best referenced. In summary, respectfully, I believe the way forward here is to merge the very few decent statements and refs, if any, from Chicago-style politics that are not already in Political history of Chicago, and keep Chicago-style politics (meme) and summarize Chicago-style politics (meme) in Political history of Chicago (as has been done already, please see). Let's write one, neutral, political history of Chicago, at Political history of Chicago. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)