Talk:Bring Us Together
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Jarodalien in topic Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia
 | Bring Us Together is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 18, 2011, and on June 4, 2021. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Known for only one event
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was moved to Bring Us Together Aervanath (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a biography of a living person known for only one event. Per WP:ONEEVENT, I wonder if this couldn't be incorporated into a related article, such as First inauguration of Richard Nixon or United States presidential election, 1968, or repurposed to become an article on something like "Bring Us Together Again". --Orlady (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly, but I think it is better here. She got considerable coverage until after the inauguration in January, and newspapers were interviewing her as late as 1977 for her views on Nixon. That should cover the persistance angle. I don't think it would be worth more than a line in the 1968 campaign article. This girl was the Joe the Plumber of her day. Still, are there precedents?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, there's plenty of precedents -- for example, when a biographical article about a nonnotable victim of a notable crime is repurposed to become an article about the crime. It impresses me that what's notable about this is not Vicki's biography, but the story of the sign, the slogan, and its impact. Indeed, many articles about this story don't include her name or mention it only in passing -- which is basically what the WP policy says to do. I am thinking that the article should be refocused and retitled as Bring us together again -- an article about the slogan. Bill Safire's article about the phrase in this online book and the discussion in this other online book have both influenced my thinking and provided additional sources. Her biography (cut down from the current version) could be part of the story, but should not be the main focus. You're right that she has continued to get a surprising amount of news coverage through the years, so she's relevant to the story (and I think that the DYK hook could remain as is), but I still don't see her as the main story. --Orlady (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting that Safire gets her name wrong. I'm not going to go to war over a hook, I do DYK more for my amusement than anything else, my focus is usually at FAC. I'm going to give this some thought and look over my Nixon references. I think you make a solid point that this could be a better article as Bring us together.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, Safire's not the only one to get her name wrong. A couple of my ghits were news articles that spelled her first name "Vickie" (less serious than Safire's error, but still an error). --Orlady (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think you are probably right, and will work over the article in my copious spare time. I'll let the hook run though because it is going to take some time (I have things which are higher priorities, honestly) and I'd like readers to see a cohesive article if they click on the name. Whatever the kid's name is.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- The article struck me as a little weird too. (I saw the DYK.) I would vote for it to be renamed "Bring us together again." Some of the personal details about her could be taken out and her name be a redirect. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- p.s. It seems like she helped Nixon get elected. Joe the Plumber helped McCain lose. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) kinda considering leaving this be, but doing a separate article on "Bring us together" ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see you requested a move; suggest you amend to "Bring us together" rather than "again".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. That seems like the more notable expression.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Might be better to have two articles, one on the girl and one on the slogan. This is a Joe the Plumber sort of thing, and I think she is notable. Just because they didn't have cable in 1968 didn't mean this wasn't a big deal.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I was about to flag this for non-notability, but see there's already been some discussion of this. In addition, there's a privacy concern. Is it really necessary for Wikipedia to ensure that any Google search on her name hereafter will take the user to a discussion of this one incident, occurring when she was thirteen years old? The general ethical issue is discussed at http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_10-2009_05_16.shtml#1242179591 192.12.184.2 (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- If people feel that way I agree, as I generally do about privacy issues and so forth on WP. In this case I don't think it's any real problem, there is nothing wrong with what she did or anything negative about her in the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Steve. And jeez, dude, if she is still alive, she's 54. I don't wnt to get into the specifics of the horrible example in that blog, but we have articles on Elian Gonzalez affair, and Jeffrey Maier. I would agree with a higher standard in dealing with a minor, but we use common sense too.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Who's who?
editIt says: " ...January 1977, working as a loan teller at a bank in that town. She was then the sole support of her family, with her husband unemployed. Rev. Cole left the ministry out of disillusionment and turned to selling small airplanes." Is this talking about Vicki or her mom? It says "her husband" and then "Rev. Cole" who was Vicki's dad. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Vicki, of course. The info about Rev. Cole isn't strictly relevant, I guess, but I figured it was worth including.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I took off the sentence about her dad's career. It seemed like kind of a distraction. I still support renaming the article and taking out some of the info on Vicki that's not related to the sign incident and later developments of that. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I won't put it back. I would like to keep the article and see one about Bring Us Together, but if there's a consensus for a move, I'll certainly do the necessary work on the rewrite.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think two articles, or this one as it is for that matter, would do any harm to any one. However please consider if there is anything of interest to a general reader about her life except what's related to "Bring Us Together." Steve Dufour (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like only 3 people expressed an opinion. If you agree that there is a consensus to rename the article to "Bring Us Together" and remove personal information I will go ahead and do that. If not, leaving the article as it is is not a problem for me. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think consensus is a bit more than that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know how we can get more people interested. But like I said, if you don't agree I will not move the article, since you seem like the person who is most involved with the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- The RM will attract more people, probably.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Joe the Plumber
editWhatever else happens, I'd like to see the mention of Joe taken off the article. If someone compared, say, George Bush to Napoleon you wouldn't put that in Napoleon's article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think that's apples and oranges. This is more like comparing Jeffrey Maier with Steve Bartman. Caught up in a presidential race/result through no fault of her own. As far as I can tell, the Coles made no attempt to make any money off the situation, unlike Joe Wurzelhoffheimcratzskishire.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Should we take off the mention of Joe then? Steve Dufour (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think you are being overly picky, but I'd have no objection to Joe as a see also.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Should we take off the mention of Joe then? Steve Dufour (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- I took him out of the intro but left him in the body. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Rewrite
editI'll probably rewrite this article tomorrow to fit the new title. Anyone else is free to jump in first.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Bring Us Together/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jappalang (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
Major aspects of this incident are covered, but some just seem to inspire more questions than normal.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
On hold till issues are resolved
- Pass/Fail:
Lede
"The phrase "Bring Us Together" was used by the Democrats when Nixon proposed policies which they opposed, as they sought to remind Nixon of his pledge to bring the nation together."- I find this an awkward phrase; I think it might be better to break it into two sentences.
Rally and sign
What are "Nixonettes"?- Girls, apparently, just told to cheer and provide atmosphere at a campaign rally. There's a couple of hundred refs to them on google books.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- A brief descriptive clause of their role ("girls recruited to provide atmosphere for Nixon's campaigns" or such) would help. Jappalang (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Girls, apparently, just told to cheer and provide atmosphere at a campaign rally. There's a couple of hundred refs to them on google books.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
"... provided with paper red, white, and blue dresses and signs."- Paper dresses?
- Red white and blue paper dresses, sort of cheerleader style with longer skirt, probably, worn over the kid's normal clothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think this bears a bit of elaboration; reading the current statement, I was thinking they wore only the paper dress (imagine if it rained...). Jappalang (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- It was actually very windy that day according to the Blade article, which I imagine would not help matters any.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think this bears a bit of elaboration; reading the current statement, I was thinking they wore only the paper dress (imagine if it rained...). Jappalang (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Red white and blue paper dresses, sort of cheerleader style with longer skirt, probably, worn over the kid's normal clothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Paper dresses?
"... and the police dropped the rope holding the crowd back."- Classic noun plus -ing issue (ambiguity): the police dropped the rope and thus held back the crowd?
"As the crowd surged forward, Cole was bumped and pushed in the crowd, dropping her sign."- I believe the second and third clause can be rephrased (into active phrase) to retain crowd as the main subject.
"Instead of picking up her sign, Cole pushed forward to get close to the train, and as she neared the train, she saw another sign on the ground, face down. She picked it up and displayed it without even reading it."- This is going to beggar the question: so who made this sign?
- No one knows. I have an article that the town did some investigating once Nixon did his thing, and they could not discover who made it or what happened to it. It is from the Toledo Blade, if it is any help.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- If that is the case, I think we can use The Blade to say something like "The Blade later investigated this sign, but could find no clues to its origin or creator." Jappalang (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- No one knows. I have an article that the town did some investigating once Nixon did his thing, and they could not discover who made it or what happened to it. It is from the Toledo Blade, if it is any help.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is going to beggar the question: so who made this sign?
- "... who suggested the sign, "Bring Us Together Again" was about boys, not politics."
- I fail to comprehend this: why was this phrase about boys?
- As in a boy and girl who had been bf/gf, and then separated, and thinking of getting back together. Jeez, the kids were 13, anything made them think of sex! In repressed rural Ohio, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- That might be for them; I guess I am too innocent? In my early teens, lingerie catalogues were the closest thing we have to Playboy material and "Bring Us Together Again" would not have provoke such thoughts... Jappalang (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- As in a boy and girl who had been bf/gf, and then separated, and thinking of getting back together. Jeez, the kids were 13, anything made them think of sex! In repressed rural Ohio, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I fail to comprehend this: why was this phrase about boys?
Victory speech and Inauguration
Should inauguration be capitalized in contravention of WP:MOSHEAD?
"Nixon had used the phrase, ..."- Should this not be "Nixon used the phrase," in the chronological scheme of things?
- Boldly implemented by myself. Jappalang (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
"Reporters and photographers descended on Deshler, about 45 miles from Toledo, and interviewed the girl in the principal's office."- So how did they find out it was Cole? Did a friend reveal it to the press, or was it her own claim?
The President-elect invited Reverend and Mrs. Cole and their family to attend the Inauguration. The family was brought to Washington by the Inaugural Committee. Vicki Cole carried a replica of her sign on one of the floats in the Inaugural parade.- Could be rephrased; furthermore, was it a "replica" (exact recreation) if she threw it away and others may not have remembered it?
"... because she carried the sign. or even because she made the sign, ..."- Is that supposed to be a period in the quote?
"... after he was fired from the Nixon Administration for differing from the White House over civil rights policy."- What was the Presidential line and what stance did Panetta hold against this?
Political fallout
"Safire, in his political dictionary also published in 2008, implies that the sign carried by Cole may never have existed."- With what did he back up this opinion?
Image
File:Bring Us Together.jpg- Any online link, or library index/catalogue number for reference? Does it need to take up the entire screen?
Putting the GA on hold till the above are addressed. Jappalang (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I will work on this mostly tomorrow, I expect. Regarding the image, it was not available online, the Nixon staff went to some trouble to find it for me, and I've sent in an OTRS request to confirm the template based on email confirmation that I've gotten from the library. As that is not a "permission", I have not put a OTRS pending tag. I am afraid that if you shrink it, you lose the legibility of "Bring Us Together Again". I am open to ideas there. I've been unable to devise a good crop. I think it is important to show the girl, show the sign, and show Nixon.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect what you might be looking for is commons:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010Aug#Clipping images on Wiki is possible.2C_but.E2.80.A6_2, where Incnis Mrs clipped an image to achive something like commons:User:Incnis Mrsi/clip. However... is it not strange that Cole's sign is the only one facing away from Nixon? Jappalang (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that sign is two-sided.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I uploaded a cropped version of that here. As you can see, without the context of the float and the reviewing stand, it loses a lot of context. I suggest this may be a time to IAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that sign is two-sided.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect what you might be looking for is commons:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010Aug#Clipping images on Wiki is possible.2C_but.E2.80.A6_2, where Incnis Mrs clipped an image to achive something like commons:User:Incnis Mrsi/clip. However... is it not strange that Cole's sign is the only one facing away from Nixon? Jappalang (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I've got everything, subject to comments made. Let me know what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- That resolves quite a bit, but I think the "Nixonette" and the paper dresses do need a bit of elaboration (the phrase about boys bit can be left alone). Furthermore, the image does need something to verify it is public domain; perhaps ask an OTRS member (Stifle or David Fuchs) to verify the request? Is
{{OTRS pending}}truly not appropriate here? Jappalang (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)- I have now elaborates on them (the dress looks like an over the shoulder jumper dress, she wears it in the photo in the TImes article, but I realize that is not visible). I have asked Elcobbola to expedite the image and add the template, and in the meantime have added the OTRS pending template. Did you see if the two "Nixonettes" and "paper dresses" were OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem; all issues resolved, passing this as GA. Jappalang (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have now elaborates on them (the dress looks like an over the shoulder jumper dress, she wears it in the photo in the TImes article, but I realize that is not visible). I have asked Elcobbola to expedite the image and add the template, and in the meantime have added the OTRS pending template. Did you see if the two "Nixonettes" and "paper dresses" were OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- That resolves quite a bit, but I think the "Nixonette" and the paper dresses do need a bit of elaboration (the phrase about boys bit can be left alone). Furthermore, the image does need something to verify it is public domain; perhaps ask an OTRS member (Stifle or David Fuchs) to verify the request? Is
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vicki's first choice
editWehwalt, I see this is a feature article, but there's no reason for you to immediately delete my contribution regarding Vicki's well-documented first choice, Robert Kennedy. Your undo summary says "there's no question" about this fact, but that is a misleading argument: you do not mention the fact in your rewrite at all. At the time, it was seen as an embarassing disclosure for Nixon, and played a part in his dropping of the slogan. There is nothing "POV" about the addition of this fact whatsoever. I added it carefully into the article text, using completely impartial language. My contribution is relevant and fully referenced from a highly-regarded book by award-winning journalists: your removal of it is completely unjustified. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- The whole part about it costing Nixon personal advantage is highly POV.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia
editI have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Wehwalt for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)