Talk:Rainbow/PUSH

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Illinois Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

African diaspora High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article needs to better explain what function the Rainbow and PUSH where formed to do and what as a combined entity they do these days. Where they cival rights orginizations like the NAACP? Someone knowledgable on the Rainbow/PUSH should expand the article. --Cab88 01:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also needs to be known what the Rainbow/PUSH organization calls its' combined self, and what it is known as for short. it certantly can't be Rainbow/PUSH! Also, WHY was the National Rainbow Coalition formed, if there already was Operation PUSH? --EdgeCalibur 00:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same rainbow coalition that goes around in buses trying to force construction sites to hire there members? because if so we NEED to include some sources about there violence record. Joesolo13 (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per
  tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Per
  tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of
  [?]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for

1. Well written?: Clear language usage, easily understandable read. At that, it was also a most enjoyable and interesting read for me, personally.

2. Factually accurate?: Article is sourced to (9) good sources, all look like they satisfy

WP:CIT

. Nice.

3. Broad in coverage?: Foundation, Functions of organization, Goals, Merger are all good explanations. Going forward towards your next

WP:RS

sources for this, might be better off in its own small subsection. Also, add some more commentary on contemporary notable actions of the organization.

4. Neutral point of view?: Article does appear to be worded in neutrally phrased syntax and language.

5. Article stability? No talk page incivility that I can see looking back. No edit warring going back (3) months in edit history.

6. Images?: 2 tasteful images, one is cc and the other is public domain. Nice. I'd just suggest if you get a moment to transwiki them both to Wikimedia Commons, so they can be used across projects.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. —

Nope, the source is unacceptable. We do not use unreliable, polemic radical right-wing (or radical left-wing) Web sites as sources, particularly ones run by

talk) 20:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I generally stay out of the fray on political issues by sourcing from

WP:LOTM) 04:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia is(at least in part necessarily) by design entirely susceptable to Manufacturing Consent-style propaganda. However, basically that system often keeps stuff "on the back pages", and there are a lot of sources like [[The Guardian], truthout or "specialist magazine" sources, so perhaps you can try search there.(keep in mind "talk page not discussion forum")88.159.79.223 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]