Talk:Dick Molpus

Broken link

The link to footnote 7 is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dick Molpus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214005148/http://usendowment.org/dickmolpuschairman.html to http://www.usendowment.org/dickmolpuschairman.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dick Molpus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121123045520/http://www.molpus.com/dick-molpus.html to http://www.molpus.com/dick-molpus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dick Molpus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

NB Jon698 was original reviewer in June, but subsequently recused due to level of their contributions. Goldsztajn took over the review.

• I will do a review of this article shortly. I have reviewed previous Good Article nominations for Mississippi politicians and I even wrote a Secretary of State GA article (Kathy Karpan). Jon698 (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Indy beetle: I am currently going through the article and doing my usual thing. I noticed that there were a few missing details so I opened up Newspapers.com and going through those newspaper archives to add stuff to the article. It will take a few extra days to complete the review. Jon698 (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Indy beetle: Okay so at my current pace of reviewing ~500 newspaper articles per day I will probably get done with my edits within nine days. Afterwards I will do the review, but since I have contributed so much to the article I will ask for a second opinion. I really love working on this article and this is the first time I have ever collaborated with somebody. This article could become a FA once everything is done with lol. Jon698 (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the newspaper sweep. Its hard working with only the OCR data, so I only ever manage to a handful of articles. I also agree outside eyes would be good for this, but now we can be sure that the article is quite comprehensive! -Indy beetle (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

• I am done with my significant edits to the page and handing the review over to somebody else. The article is good enough in my opinion, but due to my large amount of edits somebody else will have to complete the review. Jon698 (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Jon698 @Indy beetle - I'll take this. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Leaving this here to fill in. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jon698@Indy beetle just a heads up, I haven't forgotten this, I've just been doing a bit of background research, I'll be able to wrap up my comments by the end of the week. Thanks for your patience. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: Any updates? -Indy beetle (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Indy beetle finishing now, just 24 hours more please. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede - First paragraph, per WP:OPEN, appears somewhat UNDUE and too specific - are the two failed candidacies the most significant aspect of Molpus? More on this point below. Resolved
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	10 random spot checks of sourcing, all good.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Clears COPYVIO tool; a few higher % hits, but this is simply because of the (reasonable) use of quotes.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	My biggest concern with the article is that in relying heavily on contemporaneous newspaper coverage some of the larger themes that relate to Molpus seem to get somewhat lost in detail. There's not a context to his emergence or the change in Mississippi politics in the late 1970s and 1980s where the Democrats abandon their status as the party of segregation. Two things seem to stand out about Molpus from sources taking a broader examination of Mississippi politics at a distance: his role in education reform and as a white advocate of racial justice (and reconciliation) for which he paid a political price in 1995. As an example, there's admininstrative detail on his involvement in the reform of electoral laws, but not a single mention of why those laws were being reformed (eg the lack of a ward voting system ensured no African-American was ever elected to the Jackson City Council). The reforms in education meant children were mandated to attend school and that kindergardens were publicly funded. Resolved
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There's a great deal of minutiae regarding Molpus' election campaigns. For example, full details of the exact dollar amount of every election campaign is excessive, almost all could be deleted or made endotes. The only one which appears notable is the 1988 Senate campaign, because at the time it was the third most expensive campaign in the country and it left Molpus with a sizeable debt. It would be good to apply the {{inflation}} template to the figures which are kept in order to give a contemporary understanding of the scale of spending. The sections on the 1995 campaign and the opposition to the land leases seem somewhat overly detailed (the latter to some extent UNDUE) and could be condensed. Material from the 1995 campaign could be moved to the article on that election itself. In the lease section, it's not at all clear why so much attention is given to the actions of Turney (no first name mentioned?). Winner of the 2008 Champion of Justice from the Mississippi Center of Justice is worth including.Y
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I really appreciate the effort that has gone into this article and I enjoyed reading about Molpus, a person I had not been aware of previously. The article is very close to GA status and I think some relatively minor editing focussed on rewriting the lede, offering some broader context and condensing on details will address the issues I've raised. Resolved

Copy-edits

• "Reelected in 1987 and 1991, he reorganized the office through the creation of four departments and shifted its purpose away from clerical and administrative duties." Away from and towards what? Policy focus?
  • Revised as shifted its purpose away from clerical duties and towards more active policy engagement. I think that encapsulates the shift and primes the following text. -Indy
• "Molpus announced his resignation from Winter's administration in May 1983.[17]" repeated three sentences later: "He resigned from his position in Winter's administration on May 9, 1983"
  • Redundancy removed. -Indy
• "Molpus' position was responsible for administering the Mississippi Business Corporation Law"
  • Changed to The secretary of state was responsible for administering. This seems more appropriate, since the beginning of that paragraph is detailing the status of and responsibilities of the secretary at that time as preface to what Molpus did. -Indy
• "Many white Mississippians disagreed with his remarks.[45]" And some agreed? And what of Black and Indian Mississippians? This sentence is somewhat strange, it mentions the reactions of only one group as if Molpus' statement was only being made for one particular audience.
  • This is what the given source supported saying. I was curious about what black reaction might be, but I've found nothing authoritative about that. If you think this information is distracting and begs more questions than it answers, I'll remove it. The political fallout Molpus suffered from this is already covered in the 1995 campaign section, anyhow. -Indy

References

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jon698 and Indy beetle: finished the review, apologies for the delay. Let me know what you think and feel free to take whatever time you need. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• • @Goldsztajn:
  • With regards to 1b - I have reworked the lede some, removing the mention of the failed Senate candidacy — most major sources on Molpus at best breeze over this. The failed gubernatorial campaign, however, was a major part of his career (and the sources reflect this), so I've left that in.
  • With regards to 3a - Yes, using contemporary newspaper coverage makes it difficult to provide broad statements about trends and context without SYNTH violations. I have tried to provide context where the sources have allowed, mostly through these edits. (With regards to the first edit, Nash and Taggart explicitly mention Molpus as one of the reform-minded and Winter admin candidates which ran as Winter left office; with regards to the second edit, George explicitly mentions the rise of Kirk Fordice as emblematic of the state's shift away from reform towards conservatism). The history of the Mississippi Democrats turn away from segregation is a messy and drawn out one which really doesn't involve Molpus directly, so I don't think a recount is necessary (it mattered more directly to the career progressions of William F. Winter, Cliff Finch, and Bill Waller, as you can read on those articles). With regards to your observation regarding the importance of his role in education reform and as a white advocate of racial justice (and reconciliation) for which he paid a political price in 1995 I think the murder apology and its implications is well covered enough, and have added that he received angry letters and phone calls after giving his speech in 1989. His support of the public school system and the land lease reform is well documented here. I think the advocate for racial justice stuff is largely covered by 1989 apology content and the mention of his creation of the Philadelphia Coalition. As for the sources you've provided, I've actually seen all three (haven't read the relevant section of the PhD thesis for this though). The JFP article is more like a columnists' reflection bemoaning some dismissive comments GOP leaders made. The academic piece on rhetoric is almost too interpretive to be of any good for factual claims and it seems UNDUE to give McPhail's broad opinion extra emphasis. His claim that Fordice was "an avowed racist" is not one I see repeated much elsewhere in factual fashion, and he doesn't clearly establish how the Philadelphia Coalition with Molpus' words directly contributed to the retrial of the main Mississippi Burning perpetrator. George 2015 and Ball 2006 covers the murders and Molpus' apology and subsequent events, including the creation of the coalition, but I don't recall them making such strong claims (and both of those books are about the Mississippi Burning case). As for the elections thing, yes the situation would suggest Molpus' efforts to change election laws certainly benefitted black voters, but I have yet to have found a solid source which explicitly ties Molpus' efforts to that end (if you have one I'm all ears, I don't think the one article about Jackson abandoning at-large elections is sufficient). In summary, I think I've done what I can with the available scholarship to provide context, and while I personally agree with your observations, I don't think we have the proper sources to say much more than what is already said without violating WP:OR.
  • With regards to 3b - I have trimmed out all of the mentions of campaign managers and campaign costs, aside from the 1988 debt, and added the inflation template. Regarding Turney, it was Steve Turney, who actually ran against Molpus in one of the secretary elections (I've added the first name at second mention to clarify), though I've trimmed down the details of that case to what is most pertinent for understanding the dispute. I've trimmed down a few other areas where I don't think the information was necessary. I've also incorporated the most relevant new information from the Ole Miss alumni association source, including the Champion of Justice award. As for the 1995 election, I assure you there are more details in the sources which I left out for fear of it being extraneous. I do think what's there is representative of what the sources deem important. The campaign was notorious for the personal hostility exemplified between the two candidates (sources in particular emphasize the early spat over Fordice's marriage and the later "woodshed" comments). The Neshoba County Fair debate is also still mentioned in the media as a historic moment, since it was the first outright political debate to ever occur at the fair, which has for a long time been a famous stump speech and appearance destination for politicians. The exchange regarding the Mississippi Burning murders is also important to mention, I think for obvious reasons.

-Indy beetle (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Indy beetle, just a checkin, I've not forgotten this, I'll come back to you over the coming weekend. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, RL got in the way, I'll be able to respond in next two days. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Indy beetle - I've gotten stuck down a bit of a rabbit hole of sourcing... emerging shortly! Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Re-review

@Indy beetle: - emerged from the rabbit hole! Thank you for working on the changes. A couple of reactions to your comments above and some further comments.

In terms of my original comments, it's not that I was saying to remove mention of his unsuccessful campaigns from the lede, it was they had overwhelming prominence; all one got from the first paragraph was that Molpus was a failed politician, when clearly he's far more than that. I've made a few further points about the lede below. (I also see now I linked to [[WP:OPEN]] when I should have linked to MOS:OPEN, which probably made my point unclear.)

In terms of the other points, again, perhaps I was not very precise with my words, I did not mean to imply that there should be paragraphs of (new) research, but simply that, for example, Molpus gets his start working for a governor who abandoned previous support for segregation. I was only intending to suggest a sentence (or two) about context. But I can also see your POV and I don't feel this is a crucial issue for this GAN.

In terms of the 1995 governor's race, none of what you write above I disagree with, it's just that much of the material is relevant for the article on the governor's race. The section details the electoral campaign, but this is an article about Molpus; it would not be UNDUE to focus more on Molpus' (or less on Fordice's) role in the campaign. For my reading there's too much detail in general - that's why my suggestion above about much of the material could be moved to the article on the governor's race and more could be condensed. To put it another way, here's two examples of what I mean:

Campaign-focussed (current text)	Subject-focussed, condensed (possible text)
Both candidates proposed tax cuts, though through different means. Molpus suggested reducing the state sales tax on food from 7 percent to 3.5 percent with a corresponding cut of 1.5 percent in overall government expenditures, saying that such a scale-back would encourage legislators to maximize government efficiency.[103] Fordice, who favored an income tax reduction, accused Molpus of flip-flopping, since Molpus had supported a sales tax increase in 1992.[104] Both men supported bond issues to finance economic development efforts, though Molpus accused Fordice of employing general obligation bonds in a "helter-skelter and out of focus" manner that created too much debt.[103] Molpus stated he would create a new statewide bonding program with "a clearer, long-term vision".[103]	During the election, Molpus campaigned for reductions in sales tax on food and government expenditure while proposing the issuing of bonds to finance economic development. Fordice claimed Molpus' tax plans were inconsistent, given his earlier support for a sales tax increase in 1992.
The campaign was marked by personal animosity between Molpus and Fordice.[99] Early in the contest Molpus stated that he had "irreconcilable differences" with Fordice's policy positions. Fordice had used the same phrase to describe marriage troubles with his wife, Pat, in 1993. At a joint appearance before business conference in April, Fordice brought his wife on stage to defend their marriage and accused Molpus of taking "thinly-veiled cheap shot" against their relationship.[100] Molpus maintained that his words had been misunderstood, but the media widely reported the exchange.[100] Fordice also demanded that Molpus resign from his office, since the secretary of state was responsible for overseeing elections and thus had a possible conflict of interest in doing so while running for another state office. Molpus refused, calling the solicitation "ridiculous".[105]	The campaign included bitter relations between the candidates. Fordice portrayed statements from Malpus on the governor's policies as veiled attacks on Fordice's marriage and claimed that as the Secretary of State was responsible for elections, Malpus should resign due a conflict of interest. Malpus rejected the accusation of making personal attacks and refused to resign, calling the suggestion "ridiculous".

• With regards to the above, I have moved the original text to the 1995 Mississippi gubernatorial election and trimmed it down here mostly along the lines you have suggested. -Indy beetle (talk)

I would not suggest that we use Wikipedia's voice to term Fordice an "avowed racist", but there's a preponderance of independent sourcing demonstrating his dog-whistle, race-baiting politics and close associations with white nationalism/supremacy (and some revealing non-independent ones too). I do not think it's necessary to echo Fordice campaign denials on this issue. (ie, the sentence: "Molpus' supporters accused Fordice of prevailing due to the use of racist dog whistles, a charge which the governor's backers disputed.")

• • Removed the "disputed" fragment. -Indy beetle (talk)

On the electoral reform issue, my searches have not revealed more at this point and this is not an issue to hold up the nomination.

Further comments

• Lede: looks better, however, I think the first paragraph rather than being purely chronologically descriptive, should offer some kind of qualitative overview. For example, in 1990 Molpus is recognised for having expanded access to public education and supporting racial justice and reconciliation in Mississippi. Wiritng 25 years later, George offers a very clear summary on of Molpus' achievements as secretary of state; significant contributions towards the expansion of public education, electoral reform and the resolution of "unresolved civil rights crimes". NB the last quoted part - George does suggest Molpus' words directly contributed to the retrial of the main Mississippi Burning perpetrator. Just to be clear, it's not to suggest the speech causes the resolution of those crimes, or even that it is a catalyst, but it was an important, notable element of that process. Also see this 2020 piece. To reiterate, these points should, in some form, be in the opening paragraph.
  • Have a look at the lede now. I think this addresses your concerns, but I'm wary of running afoul of SYNTH.
• Changed photo in the infobox: while not running explicitly afoul of MOS:LEADIMAGE, I find this photo somewhat unflattering and less than neutral. Ideally a photo from his time as Secretary of State would be best, but given there appears only a choice of two, I feel the image from the yearbook is better; I would recommend swapping the yearbook photo back to the infobox and using the new photo in the later life section.
  • I frankly have my doubts about the copyright status of the college photo (archive.org suggests the yearbook is copyrighted and is available "for personal and research use only"). Also, Molpus is only 21 in that photo, and I do think the photo of him at a more mature age is more "representative" of him as a public figure, even if he is sweating in the Mississippi summer. -Indy beetle (talk)
• Elections: "Steve Turney, one of his opponents in the Democratic primary, camped outside of Molpus' office for twenty-three days in 1986 to protest the change in land leasing laws.[34]" This sentence is UNDUE - why discuss the third placed candidate in the primary and not the second (Jordan)? I think there's good reason to discuss the opposition to the reforms to rents on leases, and this is already covered well in the Commerce section. The 23 day protest could be mentioned there.
  • I've moved this information down to the Commerce section. -Indy beetle (talk)
• Tenure: "Many white Mississippians disagreed with his remarks;[44] he received several critical letters and threatening phone calls in response." The second part of this sentence is appropriate although does underplay the nature of the remarks ("26 death threats in three days"), without further context the first part is not and raises too many questions. After a search on Newspapers.com I found multiple reports where Molpus was praised for the speech at the time. Every source I came across refers to the speech as historic; the fact that it continues to be discussed 30 years later attests to its significance. There's also somewhat of an imbalance in the article - there's more coverage of the speech negatively (ie reactions against it) than positively, again despite the overwhelming discussion of the speech being presented for its historical significance and impact. One possible way to address this issue would be to give the quote from the speech more prominence using {{quote box}}. I'd also suggest mentioning the 40th anniversary speech in 2004 in the later life section; the speech is discussed in multiple sources.
  • With regards to the 1989 speech, I have a full reactions paragraph which now reads: Dearman summarized the public reaction to the speech, saying, "A lot of people were opposed to it, but a lot of people were glad he said it." Many white Mississippians disagreed with Molpus' remarks; he received several critical letters and threatening phone calls in response, including 26 death threats. Some Mississippians credited Molpus with restarting public discussion of the murders and their significance in the state.[50] Reflecting on his statements and their impact on his political prospects in 2021, Molpus said, "It was not a mistake to say those words. Things are more important than winning. Governors come and go, but those words are something I still feel good about."
  • With regards to 2004, added That year he also helped organize the 50th anniversary commemoration of the Mississippi Burning murders, and spoke in favor of state and local efforts to reexamine and prosecute the case.

• Quite a few dollar amounts remain in the article; did you feel the {{inflation}} template should not be used?
  • I've added the inflation template to the cumulative increase in revenue to public schools from the land leases, but I think to add it elsewhere would be overkill, especially considering that most other instances of dollar amounts involve relative costs and differences (e.g. Steve Turney, whose land lease rose from 25¢ per acre to around $7 per acre). -Indy beetle (talk)

References

In summary: if you would address the issue of the opening paragraph, try a further summarising of the 1995 election section and respond to the further comments. Thank you for your patience with me and regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Indy beetle Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments. There's a couple of points of divergence, but nothing now, from my perspective, that warrants this not being a GA. Ideally, I still feel the entire section on the 1995 election should be further condensed but that issue can be held over for the FAN ... :). Again, thank you for your patience and your work on the article. I'm just waiting for a response from @Jon698 to a query on the reviewer status record and will then go ahead and promote this. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Jon698 has responded, all GTG, promoting now. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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.

Jr. or III?

• @Indy beetle: While I was searching through Newspapers.com I found Dick's full name, but I also found this. Both his father and grandfather were named Richard Henderson Molpus as well, but most sources refer to Dick as Jr. Should we refer to him as "Richard Henderson Molpus Jr." or "Richard Henderson Molpus III". Jon698 (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• https://www.newspapers.com/clip/103647864/clarion-ledger/

• Nevermind I figured out the problem. His grandfather's middle name was Hezekiah not Henderson lmao. Jon698 (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes I had seen that in one of the sources I used. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography / Politics

The following attribute would be a great addition to WikiProject Biography. The following addition would be {{WikiProject Biography |politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Low}} – Done! Adamdaley (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)