Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19 June 2022 [1].

Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957[edit]

Nominator(s): AviationFreak💬 15:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This filibuster is the longest ever conducted in the US Senate. As this is the article's second nomination, sending pings to buidhe, Hurricanehink, AryKun, Kavyansh.Singh, Hog Farm, and ChrisTheDude who left reviews at the previous nomination. I have completed a source-prose integrity table, which is on this nomination's talk page, as that was the primary concern at the last nomination. AviationFreak💬 15:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check[edit]

  • "An agreement among the Southern senators to not stage an organized filibuster had been reached in Senator Richard Russell's office on August 24, four days prior to Thurmond's speech." — checks out; as for "four days prior to Thurmond's speech", it is basic maths (we have his filibuster date cited)
  • "The filibuster began at 8:54 p.m. on August 28, 1957 with a reading of the election laws of each of the 48 states" — mostly checks out (doesn't mentions "1957", though)
  • "During the filibuster, Thurmond sustained himself on diced pieces of pumpernickel bread and small pieces of ground steak." — checks out
  • "Most Southern Democratic senators opposed the filibuster, despite its popularity among their constituents, because (as Richard Russell put it) the South had already secured a compromise in the bill which would be jeopardized by a filibuster and there was not enough support to prevent a cloture vote anyway" — mostly checks out, but rather than "oppose", "did not join" would be more accurate.
  • "The filibuster failed to prevent the passage of the bill, and further failed to change the vote whatsoever." — checks out
  • "Thurmond's filibuster has been described by historian and biographer Joseph Crespino as "kind of a urological mystery"." — checks out (even the historian part "For historians, the most puzzling aspect ... says Crespino."
  • "Goldwater asked Thurmond to yield the floor to him for a few minutes, and Thurmond was able to use the restroom while Goldwater made an insertion to the Congressional Record." — checks out

Of the above spot-checks, I found one minor trivial issue. Rest all fine for these seven cases – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "opposed" to "did not join". AviationFreak💬 17:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kavyansh.Singh, I am just checking that this is only a spot check, and not also a formal source review? Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Gog the Mild, this is just a spot check. However, I did passed a source review on the previous FAC, and am willing to check the sources again if no one else comes ahead. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kavyansh.Singh. This is getting towards the end of the process and still lacks a source review. If you were able to follow through on your generous offer it would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, sure, done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

Note: I supported the first FAC

  • "The bill in question worked to make voting more accessible to African Americans.", "as the civil rights bill was designed specifically with the voting rights of African Americans in mind." — Repetition?
    • Changed "as the civil rights bill was designed specifically with the voting rights of African Americans in mind" to "and has contributed to Thurmond being referred to as a Confederate" (referenced in body) as I felt that "His filibuster is widely seen as racist today." would be a pretty stubby sentence
  • "the bill passed the Senate less than two hours after Thurmond's conclusion" [emphasis added] v. "The bill passed two hours after Thurmond finished speaking"
    • Removed "less than"
  • "alongside the Eisenhower administration" — first time mentionning Ike in the prose, so should have his full name (Dwight D. Eisenhower administration would work, I think)
    • Done
  • "The filibuster began at 8:54 p.m. on August 28, 1957 with" — missing MOS:DATECOMMA
    • Done
  • "and was signed into law by president Dwight D. Eisenhower" — if you agree with my third suggestion, this should then be "President Eisenhower"

That is it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: I've completed these suggestions, let me know if you have any others! AviationFreak💬 17:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If you have time and inclination, would appreciate if you can review any of these. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink[edit]

I supported last time, happy to support again. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

@AviationFreak: I don't have much to say on this one, except great work! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few references are out of numerical order, e.g. [25][8], [36][2]
    • Fixed
  • "described as such by the newspaper" - maybe specify "described as racist.."? (I think the current wording could be interpreted as described as a filibuster..., although perhaps that's unlikely)
    • Done
  • "In his biography of Thurmond titled Strom Thurmond's America.." - maybe "In his biography, titled Strom Thurmond's America.."?
    • I feel this could be ambiguous, as "his" could refer to either Thurmond or Crespino
  • Consider adding the year of publication of Strom Thurmond's America when it's mentioned.
    • Done
  • Consider adding a brief decription of the Southern Manifesto in the article.
    • Done. Let me know if you'd like a more in-depth explanation.
  • Can "Southern Caucus" be explained a bit? I can imagine what it is, but not, for example, how many members it had.
    • From what I can tell the "Southern Caucus" or "Southern Bloc" was more of a general way of referring to senators from the South (which, like most cultural regions, has a fuzzy definition). It definitely existed as a concept ([2] [3] [4]), but I don't know that it was a traditionally organized group in the way we would think of a Caucus in a legislative body today.
  • "as Richard Russell put it" - "as Russell put it"
    • Done
  • Ref 43: Do we know that Torrence successfully defended their thesis? (I have absolutely no reason to believe not.) Seems like the info here could be easily verified by a different reliable source.
    • It appears so, but you definitely have a point. Replaced with a NYT piece from earlier in the article.

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thanks for the review! All done unless otherwise stated, let me know if anything else sticks out. AviationFreak💬 04:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EW[edit]

I'm here, as promised; sincere apologies for the delay. I usually focus on prose at FAC, although I'll comment on anything that comes to mind. For the record, I reviewed this article for GA status last year.

  • MOS:JOBTITLES: I would capitalize President in "by president Dwight D. Eisenhower" and lowercase senator in "a United States Senator" (twice).
    • Done
  • "a record that still stands today" and "in the Senate to date": This is an issue under MOS:DATED (which I'm not particularly fond of, but c'est la vie). We're supposed to use "as of 2022" (or whatever other year the sources are from).
    • Done; Senate source is undated but I still used "as of 2022" since presumably it's up-to-date as an official gov't source.
  • "widely seen as racist today": This is from the lead, but it doesn't seem to be in the body anymore. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, so I'd replace or remove this part.
    • Done; IIRC this was in reference to WaPo in the past, but as there's only one source cited I suppose "widely" isn't supported anyways.
  • "has contributed to Thurmond being referred to as a Confederate": This is a bit confusing standing alone in the lead since it seems to be referring to literal Confederates. I'd either quote Crespino directly or just save the Confederate issue for the body.
    • Done, just in body now. Let me know if that sentence sounds too short/clunky.
  • The first sentence of the "background and goals" section just strikes me as a bit rushed. Obviously we don't need every intricacy of the bill's procedural history, but a little more detail wouldn't hurt. I'd open with the "While the Fifteenth Amendment" sentence, then mention what the bill was designed to do and who supported it, then briefly describe its journey through Congress (passed the House; watered down somewhat in the Senate to mollify Russell's bloc). I'd also note that the bill gave the attorney general the power to file suit in civil rights cases.
    • Done. I think it's pretty solid now, but I'm not an expert in legislative process and a read-over would be appreciated.
  • Footnote 2: Instead of citing an unrelated source (which raises WP:SYNTH issues), just cite the WaPo article, which says this explicitly.
    • Done
      • Oh, I'm sorry: I meant the second one in the notes section (regarding Alaska and Hawaii), not the second reference. The one you replaced (the Eisenhower Library source) was fine and you can add it back. Apologies for being unclear. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries - Just clarifying that this is the proper reversion? AK/HI Ref change done as well, that didn't sit quite right with me either.
  • "continued with readings of": I'd say "readings from" since the sources don't indicate that he read all of Democracy in America. (That would be too much even for Strom!)
    • Done
  • "The bill passed two hours after Thurmond finished speaking": What was the vote?
    • Done, an apparently abstention-laden 60-15
      • The papers blame their absences on weddings, vacations, and "an official overseas junket". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according to The Washington Post" and "by the newspaper": Perhaps this is just me, but I prefer attributing these sorts of things to the author rather than the paper, hence "according to The Washington Post's Gillian Brockell" or something like that.
    • Done. Left "by the newspaper" as-is since it should now be clear to a reader where the description comes from
  • Be consistent on whether you capitalize Southerners
    • I have the second use capitalized because it refers to people as members of a cultural group (MOS:PEOPLANG), but I left the first uncapitalized as it's a direct quote.
  • "personal political aggrandizement.": Punctuation goes outside the quotation marks (MOS:LQ)
    • Done
  • "Most Southern Democratic senators did not join the filibuster": Did any of them? If so, who?
    • Yeah, this was worded poorly - Clarified that they all did not
  • "anti-civil rights filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964": You can probably remove "anti-civil rights" since it's not explicitly in the source (plus, it should be obvious that a filibuster against the Civil Rights Act is anti-civil rights). By the way, I'm not sure [5] is the best source to use here: it labels itself a "blog", so I'm uncertain whether it meets the FA reliability standard. It should be easy to find a higher-quality source, anyhow.
    • You'd think - In all seriousness though, I've re-refed to Facing South. Our article on them calls the parent org "progressive" and I think that's accurate from a poke around their website, but they seem reliable and this is more of a factual than an opinionated claim.

That's all from a first read-through; I'll probably have more to add once you've gone through the above. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: Thanks for the review! All done unless otherwise stated. AviationFreak💬 03:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Extraordinary Writ, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, Gog—further comments below. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two little things:

  • "watered down by a compromise to satisfy the Democrats" – the "to satisfy the Democrats" part doesn't seem to be in the source.
  • "on the stand" – this connotes testifying in court. Perhaps "while on the floor", "while speaking", or something like that?

I think I'm otherwise prepared to support, with the caveat that I haven't gone through and checked source–text integrity systematically. Many thanks for all your hard work on this article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

General remarks

  • Most of the sources are same from the first FAC, where I conducted a source review, so I am not questioning Politico again, thought the reasoning remains same: I feel that Politico as a whole is not the highest quality reliable source, but due the reasons stated in the first FAC, combined by fact that it is used just once to cite an uncontroversial fact makes be believe that this particular piece is fine in this article.
  • The Fox News reliability fine as it was originally from the Associated Press.
  • Not sure whether NPR is the highest quality reliable source, but per this, the author of that piece appears to be a subject-matter expert, so fine.
  • Same question for it being WP:HQRS arises for Miller Center, but the author is PhD, a subject-matter expert on "Harry S. Truman and his presidency", so it is assumed to be a high quality source.
  • All print sources look fine

Issues

  • "He was 54 years old when he filibustered the bill" — source for age? I don't see this mentioned in the prose.
    • Don't see any sources that state this explicitly (pretty sure I used some sort of CALC reasoning for this in the past, but the lack of a source or mention in prose is still a problem), so I've removed it.
  • Link Miller Center of Public Affairs
    • Done
  • The Fox News link https://www.foxnews.com/story/thurmond-holds-senate-record-for-filibustering is showing 404 error for me.
  • Suggesting to add Institute for Southern Studies as a publisher for the Barber 2021 source
  • As we are spelling NARA and NPC, souldn't we be doing the same for BBC News?
    • Assuming "NPC" is a typo for "NPR" I'm trying to format the names of the publications based on our articles for them - Same acronymization-or-not, same italicization, capitalization, etc. - NARA and BBC both match the article names for them, but I've acronymized NPR as our article on them is at NPR
  • For the same reason, "U.S. Government Publishing Office" should be "United States Government Publishing Office".
    • Done per above rationale

That is it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Mostly done - There were a couple (cosmetic) points where my reasoning is a little different. Let me know if anything should be revised. AviationFreak💬 04:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - due to my fairly heavy participation on the previous nominations, I am considering myself recused on this one @FAC coordinators: Hog Farm Talk 04:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I weighed in on the previous nom so likewise should recuse. (t · c) buidhe 04:36, 19 June 2022 (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/Strom_Thurmond_filibuster_of_the_Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957/archive2&oldid=1093885298"