# Talk:America's 60 Families

This review is transcluded from Talk:America's 60 Families/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: 凰兰时罗 (talk · contribs) 01:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:凰兰时罗 - thanks again for your review. I've tried to correct most of the issues you raised, however, am having issues with the following: 

I'm unable to find RS indicating Ickes' quoted from the book in multiple speeches beyond the two referenced. Could you point me to those and I'll add them in?
I'm unable to find contemporary viewpoints regarding the book, beyond Caro, except in non-RS outlets like conspiracy websites.
The cover image of the book is from a 1945 printing so the imagery will still be in copyright and, I don't think, we can move it to the commons.
DarjeelingTea (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I'm traveling this week -- I'll get to this by Friday. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Friendly participation I want to note that it's a pretty fascinating topic, I found the article as it is interesting. Compliments aside, some criticisms:

Is there a reason for noting the dedication? It's not usually considered notable for inclusion in articles as I understand it. If there's a reason for inclusion, if the dedication was to someone famous, or for notable reason, that would be a different matter.
Neutrality: 凰兰时罗 noted that this might be a problem. The book seems to be somewhat conspiracy theory-like, it seems it is correct to say it was also libelous (although they weren't judged guilty, they reached a settlement). The description here: "[According to Lundberg, 60 families] held total control over national institutions". I don't know if even as a description of content it's NPOV. I looked over at WP:Fringe and I quote "It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose."
It seems to me that the lead should use the word "plutocracy". It is the accusation made by the book, is it not? "total control" by the rich? The phrase currently there is long, stylish, maybe a run-on, but seems to inadequately inform: "It is a journalistic expose of wealth and class in the United States, and how they are leveraged for purposes of political and economic power, specifically by what the author contends is a tightly interlinked group of 60 families." - it's not only that they "leverage" for power, which I would understand as a reasonable part of democratic politics, but that they dominate, constituting a plutocracy. The rest of the article seems to indicate this concise description of the book.
--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 15:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: Newcomer to GA process, hoping to get familiarity by participating like this, and then in the future nominate and/or review.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 15:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Dwarf Kirlston - thank you very much. I've removed the dedication section and added "plutocracy" to the lede. To your second point, the book is absolutely conspiracy-minded and, in fact, in recent times has even been sourced by fringe sites like InfoWars, etc. (That said, there are no independent RS that make this observation as the book really is not a source of contemporary discussion or conversation beyond Robert Caro's decennial mentions of it; it day in the sun passed many decades ago.) LMK if there's something specific you'd like me to add to this point, though. (P.S. I'm not sure if 凰兰时罗 is still reviewing this, so, if you'd like to take over the review I'm not sure anyone would object.) DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I did notice he said he'd be back on friday, what is it, already almost three weeks ago? But I would not be prepared to take over. Although he said "I'm learning this process myself" and this would also be my case, I will still wait a while to review articles for GA. I would like to maybe even nominate an article myself first. I did check 凰兰时罗's contributions and his last one was to this GA review. Maybe you'll have to ask for a re-listing over at WP:GAN? wait a little bit more? Ask a WP:GAN veteran? Your call.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 12:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Also I think the NPOV problems in this case are serious and even if there aren't sources that state this it would seem reasonable to me to fail it just because of that. I mean I really don't even know whether doing that would be appropriate. Anyway good luck!--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 13:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
As of now, I do have a few offline diversions, but I was checking this page from time to time. My understanding is that NPOV problems have not been resolved, and some other folks double-downed on that. Hence, I was waiting... 凰兰时罗 (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
凰兰时罗 - can you be a little more specific about what changes need to be made to bring it into compliance with NPOV (keeping in mind, I can't change the actual content of the book)? DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Further comments I have tried to do some research, and also to elaborate a bit on routes for improvement:

This previewable book from google books [1], from what I understand the doctorate of someone who is now a respected Dutch professor of political science with his own wikipedia page Meindert Fennema - seems to give some well needed context. According to Fennema in page 4, Lundberg's work is not marxist by any means, (despite in the current wikipedia article some reviewers comparing the work to Marx, and saying that it belongs to the "socialist" critique.) According to him it's part of an "popular -or populist- anti-trust tradition".(Pg 4) The analysis is interesting - this tradition not being really against capitalism, but against "the domination of money capital over productive capital". (currently the article has only a couple of phrases which could connect it to the anti-trust movement, which is "purportedly identified a cartel of families" - cartel here a key word, and "capital interconnectedness" I think the notion of connectedness is not what it's ludicrously blue linked to, but exactly to trusts)
I managed too see this from the O'Connor review "Lundberg bases his estimates on the 1924 federal income tax, multiplied by three" - I don't know if O'Connor proceeds to dispute this methodology, but it seems a rather dubious methodology to me. The article currently I believe says he estimates from the 1924 taxes, but I would think such a simple method of estimation would merit a mention.
I'm actually quite a bit curious as to what it says in Lundberg's rebuttal to critics "Who controls industry?: And other questions raised by critics of America's 60 families, with a note on the case of Richard Whitney." I believe it's not the critics we are seeing in the current wikipedia article, as so far I don't think I've seen any in the article that merit the name, other than the libel lawsuit. I mean I would imagine some of these critics are of the kind that we seem to want for the NPOV criteria.
I've tried looking at the NPOV criteria for GA status. WP:NPOV says "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."  If we were to just only from this it would indicate that I was wrong regarding that you would need more critical sources in order for it to be NPOV. But it is a bit confusing you see because WP:Fringe seems to disagree with this general rule. I'm not entirely sure to what extent America's 60 families fits into WP:Fringe. To say that money has an unfair role in politics would be perfectly sane, rational, mainstream I would say. But to say the USA is a plutocracy where money has "total" control over politics, I would think maybe would have to be repeatedly couched in language like "While the power of the very wealthy in politics is a widely held concern in US politics, the book holds the extremist/fringe view that...". And the problem in part with no critics, no critical RS with this opinion, is that the person calling the view as "extremist" or "fringe" is nobody but yourself. I'm not saying it's not a conspiracy theory unless a scholar says it is, but unless a RS says it, it's hard to cover the issue adequately in wikipedia. :/ I'm not sure you both agree with my assessment @凰兰时罗: and @DarjeelingTea:.
(As to not being able to change the book, or to create non-existent critical sources, I would say that not all articles are meant to be GA's, many articles don't have adequate sources that permit adequate coverage, doesn't that sound like the truth?)
--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Dwarf Kirlston - I'll certainly add the source you found. Beyond that, I can't engage in disputing or critically analyzing the methodology Lundberg uses without violating WP:OR. As I understand them, your concerns are largely with whether the book is NPOV (which it isn't) as opposed to whether the article about the book is NPOV. Given that, I probably won't be able to resolve this to your satisfaction. I might be misunderstanding your concerns, and if so I apologize. Either way, sorry it didn't work out. I wish you the best of luck in your future GA reviews. - DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me on two counts: The Methodology is covered by a source. The O'Connor review available in JSTOR. I was not saying that you should include my estimation that it seems dubious, but just a description of the methodology, especially if it's just "1924 tax returns multiplied by 3", specially if it's that simple.
Second count that I think you misunderstood me: I am not sure that this counts as a Fringe theory. You, DarjeelingTea have said it is pretty "conspiracy theorist". If it is, here's what WP:Fringe, a part of the NPOV criteria, says: "If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." There's a difference in that this is not about a mainstream idea, this would be an article about a Fringe theory book itself. I think maybe correct wording might mean that it's possible to adequately apply the WP:Fringe guideline. An example I looked at just now is The Genesis Flood a fringe theory book. It's not a GA, but it covers the mainstream view both in the section background and reception. I think WP:Fringe means that the mainstream view should be noted, not as substantially as in an article on the US government, but noted.
I am a newcomer to GAN so I would not say it's not worked out for me. I hope I have made productive comments here. Discussed the criteria clearly and in a civil way. I think even if this fails its nomination it was a valid nomination too. As a famous quote says "If you want to succeed double your failure rate" :). I hope to continue commenting until it the GAN is closed. I really enjoyed discussing NPOV so far - good practice for when I review and/or nominate. But thank you for the luck :).
Note: I am also not very happy with the edit you made [2]. I think that needs rewording, reworking. The sentence which I had noted was something of a run on became larger and more unwieldy. "leverage for power" is easy to understand, "leverage for dominance" is a bit counterintuitive, a bit nonsensical: "amount of dominance" is somewhat spoken of "dominated a little bit", "totally dominated", but I would say that domination is more understood as a yes/no possiblity. You either dominate or you don't, and thus "leverage" for "more" domination doesn't make a lot of sense.
--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 14:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
DarjeelingTea asked me to step in and offer my guidance since I've listed myself as a GA mentor. It appears 凰兰时罗 has essentially abandoned the review; although they have commented within the past week, their response doesn't seem to indicate a willingness to fully engage with the review process. In reading through the above discussion, I notice several suggestions of neutrality issues in the article but very few actionable concerns. Some of the comments are rather tangential and difficult to parse, but seem to largely consist of abstract musings on the nature of the book itself rather than the content of the article. We're bound in our analysis by what secondary, reliable sources have published; as the nominator noted, it's not our place to judge the author's methodology as "dubious" or classify his work as a fringe theory. The book may be total hogwash, but that's not for us to decide. As for the assertion that not "not all articles are meant to be GA's", that isn't a valid objection. If sufficient sources exist to verify the notability of a topic, there's no rule that prevents its article from becoming a GA.Near as I can tell, all of the actionable issues from the original review have been addressed. The book is relatively obscure, so I think the "reception" section is about as comprehensive as we're going to get. My only suggestion for further additions would be a brief description of the central points (if any) of Who Controls Industry?, since it's directly related to America's 60 Families. I think this would benefit our understanding of the latter work and the criticisms it received. Otherwise, I think the article generally meets the GA criteria in terms of completeness, clarity, style, referencing, stability, and illustration quality/licensing. What I'd like to do is give 凰兰时罗 a couple more days to chime in and let us know whether they have any outstanding and actionable concerns regarding neutrality. If not, I anticipate listing the article as a GA. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Juliancolton - thanks so much; I'll make the edits you suggested today and ping you in a week if 凰兰时罗 hasn't had a chance to return by then. Best- DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for my lack of responsiveness. When I started this review I was actively editing, but the nominator asked for an extensive delay. Now, conversely, I'm pressed for time. Since a few qualified reviewers stepped in, I kindly ask them to finish the process. At this time, I can't promise to get back to specifics in timely manner. Again, I'm sorry. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I've been considering asking for an opinion about this article over at the Fringe theory noticeboard. I am under the understanding that different from Juliancolton's understanding that "If sufficient sources exist to verify the notability of a topic, there's no rule that prevents its article from becoming a GA." - Fringe theories and related topics do have further relevant requirements in order to meet NPOV requirements. But I think that if JulianColton will take over as GA reviewer and he, as a veteran reviewer does not identify these as concerns, I think he is perfectly within his rights to grant GA status.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 19:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dwarf Kirlston: I don't follow. What about this article needs to be reviewed at the fringe theories noticeboard? The simple fact that it exists? Broadly speaking, NPOV and verifiability policies are the same for all articles, regardless of subject matter; the more contentious a claim, the more strongly it needs to be supported by reliable sources. If this article makes any specific claims that you feel are not adequately substantiated, then by all means please bring them to my attention. Likewise, if you can identify any factual omissions or instances of WP:UNDUE weight that compromise the article's neutrality, I'd love to know about them. Otherwise, I'm afraid there's nothing we can do about a niggling sense of vague dissatisfaction. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The claim that "the US is a plutocracy" is what I am saying is a fringe theory. The nominator has agreed with me in regards to this, that the book is in fact "conspiracy theorist" to some extent. The article goes at great length about this theory. According to me this book then would be a "fringe theory book", and would therefore require adequate contextualization. And that's why my comment then was made that "not all articles are meant to be GAs" not as a standalone criticism, but as part of the fact that if the only commentary, even if published in RS, is not NPOV, then there is perhaps not insufficient sources for there to be a wikipedia article, but maybe insufficient for there to be a GA status article. The NPOV standard for GA status would be higher than for a normal wikipedia article. This is my reasoning which I believe you had misunderstood. There's a lot of text in this GA nom which it seems you perhaps read somewhat hurriedly. As I said however I am a newcomer to GA, I am not willing to take over, I was hoping to help the more experienced official reviewer, if you can help me to understand GA criteria, and NPOV policy better I would be pleased.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 00:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I actually spent upwards of an hour reading this discussion in its entirety several times over, since much of it made so little sense to me. Having said that, you're right in that I still don't fully understand your reservations. It's simply not true that with articles about non-mainstream works/subjects, "the NPOV standard for GA status would be higher than for a normal wikipedia article." Neutrality is an absolute requirement for every article, regardless of subject matter or quality assessment. It may be the case that "normal" articles are generally not scrutinized as closely as ones that have been submitted for review at GAN, etc., but if an article fails GA criteria #4 then it must also fail NPOV. In other words... an article isn't allowed to be a little less neutral simply because it isn't recognized as a GA. You seem to be hung up on classifying America's 60 Families as a fringe work, and you may be right, but I think the article discusses it in a fair and balanced way. I'd like to know, specifically, why you feel the article doesn't provide "adequate contextualization." What content is missing? Which facts are given too much consideration? Which reliable sources have not been utilized? It should be noted (or perhaps reiterated) that I have no reason to blindly defend this article or its GA nominations, and I'd be more than willing to accept that I've overlooked or misjudged a serious problem. As it stands, though, I don't see any evidence that this is the case. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay basically what I would imagine would be correct treatment would be a mention of the mainstream view of US democracy. Maybe that money has a lot of influence but far from total influence, something to that effect. The problem in part for it to not be WP:OR, is that this would have to be part of a discussion by RS. Again going back to the "not all articles are meant to be GA's", so far no source I've seen does this.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for clarifying. Personally, I don't feel that it's necessary to directly refute Lundberg's claims, since the article makes it clear that those are his contentions and not ours, and the "Critical reaction" already discusses criticisms of the book's central points. That said, we'll see what the folks at the fringe theories noticeboard have to say. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe the recent I believe addition to the article of a Saturday Review of Literature review by Oswald Garrison Villard addresses the NPOV/WP:Fringe concerns to a degree. I would then change my "objection" to "weak objection" in view of this.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 19:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have a serious problem editorializing a refutation of the book. If RS directly refute the book's premise, they must absolutely be included, but inserting random sources that say "money has a lot of influence but far from total influence" that aren't in direct reference to this book, purely for purposes of balance, is WP:OR.  DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I have posted 2 questions up at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#America's 60 Families. Hopefully some comment from a veteran from there will help clarify this issue. :/ (I'm a bit worried about WP:Forumshopping personally, I hope that I am acting adequately here. I mean I also think Fringe is very complicated policy, so I feel I've acted somewhat in the proper fashion)--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Juliancolton: would you be prepared to take over, have you taken over the review from 凰兰时罗's hands? I'm sorry about this having taken hours to read. :/--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Other than the NPOV concern I would say I do have one big objection to it becoming GA. Namely the non-treatment of the anti-trust movement. Bizarrely interconnectedness of capital is bluelinked not to "trust" which I believe it should link to, but to the religious/spiritual concept. In the reception the book is compared to Marx's the Capital. It seems to me that its classification as socialist or part of the very different democratic anti-trust movement, is indeed a "main aspect of the topic." I have provided a RS that does classify it by the way, and it seems to me that a lack of such classification would make it fail criteria 3.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the bluelink. DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


### Influence on Fringe Theories
I came across the link to this discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard... and I have a suggestion: What seems to be missing from this article is discussion about the book's influence.  If one googles "60 families control world" you find lots and lots of fringe theory websites that repeat the claims that were first made in the book... indeed many of these websites directly quote it.  This book has obviously influenced an entire genre of fringe theory, and mayor  have started that genre.  In other words... whether the book itself should be classified as "Fringe" may not be the important issue... the important issue may be that the article does not discuss the book's influence on subsequent fringe theories.  I would suggest that a section on "Influence" be created. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

We did discuss this previously. Keeping in mind that a media audit (e.g. googling the book's name and finding a lot of references on conspiracy websites) is WP:OR and that InfoWars, etc. are non-RS, can you recommend any sources that discuss its influence in the fringe? If you know of any RS that state this is influential in the fringe, I would love to add them. As I said when this was brought up previously, it undoubtedly has been picked-up by CTers, but unfortunately my personal cognizance of this fact isn't a RS.  DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


### Update
Hi Juliancolton- I've made some additional changes to the article as discussed. It doesn't appear the original reviewer has been back to WP in the last week, though, could I take you up on your offer to assume this GA review? Thanks! DarjeelingTea (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this phrase adds a POV or certainly the suggestion that this really is a journalistic expose in the classical sense of good investigative journalism. Doug Weller talk 20:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Good point, Doug Weller. I've changed it to "argumentative analysis" (was also thinking maybe "inquiry"?). DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

With no outstanding concerns from the initial reviewer or other editors, I believe the article meets the GA criteria. Nice work DarjeelingTea, and thank you for your patience with this rather prolonged and unwieldy process. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)