Template:Did you know nominations/America's 60 Families


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

America's 60 Families

 * ... that America's 60 Families was said to be comparable to Karl Marx's Capital?

Created by DarjeelingTea (talk). Self-nominated at 23:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC).

But I must note I've found some small inconsistencies with the sources (the ones I could read online). I think they should be fixed first. (I will elaborate now.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1. Section "Content", paragraph 1. The first source reads: ""America's Sixty Families" (1937) proposed that a small group of wealthy families held sway over the economy and the body politic, while their financial interests controlled the press. "The United States," Mr. Lundberg wrote, "is owned and dominated today by a hierarchy of the richest families, buttressed by no more than 90 families of lesser wealth."". I can't see how this could have been used as a source for anything in the paragraph you wrote. Cause, for example, it says "90", not "440". 2. Section "Reception > Critical and popular reaction", paragraph 2. It discusses two speeches by Harold L. Ickes. There are 3 sources. The only one I can actually read is the third one, and, as far as I can see, it's an article by Ickes in The Progressive magazine, not a speech, and it doesn't mention any speeches he ever delivered. 3. "Reception > Critical and popular reaction", paragraph 3. The source is the pamphlet itself. The pamphlet talks about some "America's 60 families", but it doesn't mention the actual book or Ferdinand Lundberg even once. I think the statement that Joseph Hansen actually cited the book America's 60 Families needs a third-party source. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough. I can't read the source for the hook ("Preview not available"), so AGFing there.
 * Some inconsistencies with the sources:
 * Moscow Connection thanks for the review. To your concerns:
 * I've struck the words "in a speech" in the Ikes paragraph (The Progressive article was actually the text of a speech Ikes delivered but, in the absence of a RS stating that, I think you make a good point and have genericized the paragraph).
 * I've eliminated the pamphlet paragraph.
 * I perhaps didn't make it clear in the arrangement of references, but paragraph 1 is actually double-cited to the NYT and to the book itself (the jacket notes, specifically). The book source also supports the excerpt. To make this clearer I've copied the endnote number to the end of the quote so it appears both there and paragraph 1.
 * Please let me know if you have any questions. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's a speech, then it's a pity you had to generalize the sentence. You should try and find a source for it being a speech. (Some time later, I mean. Now the article is good to go.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Good to go, with the offline hook reference accepted in good faith. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)