Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.57.216.125 (talk) at 16:49, 21 June 2009 (→SDS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I would like to remove the "Notability" tag. While Rathke may not be a household name, his stature on the left is undeniable and he has had his fingerprints on more projects than just about any other left-wing organizer over the last thirty years. You may not like what he does, but there's no denying that he's done it, and he's an important figure currently and historically. It's especially notable that he started and continues to lead ACORN, and that would be enough, but as this article shows, he has left many other notable impressions on the nation's political landscape. Politics608 (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Politics608

Actually, no, Rathke does not continue to lead ACORN (as discussed in ACORN Cracks Wide Open by Carl Horowitz). Asteriks (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits

A new editor has repeatedly inserted the following content:

A member of the radical ] ] (SDS), he dropped out in 1968 to join the anti-draft movement. <ref>Rael Jean Isaac, Erich Isaac. ''The coercive utopians''. Regenrey Publishing. 1983</ref><ref>Andrew C. McCarthy. ''

I have removed this for a number of WP:BLP violations, and will continue to do so. It is contentious material that requires solid sources. The citation provided doesn't provide a page number, but nowhere in the book does it refer to Rathke being a radical marxist, dropping out of anything, joining anti-draft movements, etc. Since this isn't discussed elsewhere in the article, it's also not lead-paragraph material. I will continue to remove it per WP:BLP; the content being added is not in the source provided. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a page # and the National Review Article has been added as an additional source. -PC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pecker Checker (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Google books has the book ref; I can't get a full view, but on page 168 it does mention him being in SDS (I don't know the context, so I don't know if it supports the "marxist" or anti-draft portions. The McCarthy article is online here; the Rathke mention is on the second page. It mentions him in SDS and describes SDS as "communist"; nothing about the anti-draft movement. If the book or another cite does support this, I'd think the education section would be more appropriate than the lede. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article on SDS specifically states they were neither Marxist nor Communist. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of the book on my shelf and the reference to Rathke going on to work against the draft is in the next paragraph. - PC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pecker Checker (talk • contribs) 02:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I now also have a copy of the book, and there is nothing at all about Rathke going on to work against the draft in the next paragraph... or anywhere else in the book. In addition, the reference to the SDS membership per page 168 of this book is cited to footnote (#4) to New Spirit magazine, March 1979 issue (page 22), which only speculates on the SDS relationship. As this is a WP:BLP, a more substantial source will be required. I find the outright deception that "the reference to Rathke going on to work against the draft is in the next paragraph," when it clearly is not, very disconcerting. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

SDS

I think the mention of "activist for SDS" in the Education section seems very weakly supported. There seem to be too highly partisan sources given, with no real evidence for the significance of this claim. Moreover, absent some connection to his known activities, "activist" seems like an over-characterization, where "member" might be more neutral. However, if we use "member", it is even more questionable that this factoid is particularly germane to the biography. LotLE×talk 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just saying "member of" or "activist with" doesn't contribute to the article, and really has no relation to his notability -- let alone the fact it would have been when he was a teenager. The two sources being cited, an opinion piece from NRO 2 weeks before the presidential election, and a 1983 book that footnotes the alleged SDS connection to a New Spirit source, are not quality sources. The NRO article is full of falsifications and polemic, while New Spirit only confirms that Rathke opposed the draft, but does not indicate he was a member of SDS. So not only is it non-notable trivia, but unsubstantiated, too. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. His membership in the SDS is noteworthy precisely because it has been noted by so many sources. For example: , , , , .

And Xenophrenic, I think that the monitors would be less than pleased with you hiding a blanking of content with a vandalism tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.216.125 (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for opting to discuss your edits. When content in a WP:BLP is disputed and removed, it is unproductive, and against policy to continue to re-insert that content before the dispute is resolved.

Can you please explain your views on the relevance of the SDS association to the notability of Wade Rathke? The fact that it was replicated in several similar sources doesn't, in itself, make it notable (or accurate, for that matter). Xenophrenic (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one making complaints about it and your complaints of it being a BLP violaiton seem tenuous. So far out of those who have commented on it, JeremyMcCracken seems to be in favor of inclusion and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters seems agnostic. That’s certainly not the kind of consensus you are claiming to have.

As I said previously, it seems to be notable because other people have noted it. The SDS was a major organization and his membership in it certainly seems important enough to mention, and if it was not important enough to mention, no one would have mentioned it, your doubts of the accuracy of the material are not relevant to this discussion unless you have something that directly contradicts his SDS membership. 75.57.216.125 (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)