Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks

I was surprised this wasn't already a featured article. Well-written, comprehensive, well-referenced, etc. —PurpleRAIN 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a featured article earlier.--Jones2 16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object This article and topic are way too controversial. Just look at the history, lots of arguing. The article was even protected as recently as four days ago. It is simply not stable enough to be featured, and may never be. --The_stuart 19:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a valid objection - If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. Raul654 16:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object As per The_stuart. Curuinor 05:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Vandalism got nothing to do with being FA level or not. Wiki-newbie 19:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Stability does, though. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, specifically 1E. This article was the subject over an edit war over an external link and use of the {{NPOV}} tag not even a week ago, that lead to the article being full protected. --W.marsh 20:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Though I nominated the article, I would agree. I looked at the most recent 20 or so edits to look for evidence of edit warring, and didn't see any. I guess I should have looked back a little further. The article isn't as stable as I thought. —PurpleRAIN 21:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose unstable, (note I was involved in the edit warning from a few weeks ago) Jaranda wat's sup 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The first paragraph of the lead may be expanded and the articles in the see also could be incorporated to appropriate sections using templates like {{see}} or {{main}}. --Brand спойт 12:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The stability issue aside, I'm not sure it's up to snuff. Why are the aircraft-grounding, continuity-of-government, and rescue-response all the way under longer term effects when they were immediate to the attacks? Perhaps a reorganization of material along the lines of Attacks [to include rescue/civil aviation/continuity of government] > Public reaction > Geopolitical and policy effects > Investigations [which would include current "Responsibility and motive"] > Long-term effects. Anyway, I'm unsure that the 9/11 Commission and its report warrant a named section, but should probably dominate the lead of any relevant section. As it is the Commission-report section seems unjustly puny. What is Gitmo doing in discussion of the international reaction to 9/11? At the very least, the wikilink in the text should point directly to the detention center and the "further" template removed. Perhaps some more material on the charities and their celebrity-spokespeople? It's small, I know, but the controversies dominated news for a while. Anyway, the organizational stuff is just a thought.--Monocrat 07:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, not a stable article prone to edit warring and often changing content. Controversial topic after all, not in the next 15 years or so. Terence Ong 08:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, too controversial. The time has not yet cometh for this article to be featured as people still have too strong feelings for the event which shows in the article and how frequently it is edited. More research needs to be publicly available for the disputes to settle and the article to become stable enough. Lord Metroid 12:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a valid objection, per my comment to Stuart above. Raul654 16:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • strong oppose strong POV issues, and time will tell for sure. --Striver - talk 00:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I would like to see some of the minor sections filled out a little bit: the conspiracy section could be slightly expanded (and, I think, reworked for NPOV); I'm a little concerned to see sections named "Public reaction" and "Muslim American reaction", which could be seen to imply that Muslims are less American than others. Semperf 14:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. frummer 09:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Obviously this topic is extremely controversial, and probably is one of the best articles on wikipedia, but it will never be featured. Mbralchenko 14:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is an excellent, well-sourced article. "Controversial" is not a reason to object -- and what on God's Earth is controversial about it anyhow? And what POV issues are there? I cannot find any. --Jayzel 02:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object. My problem is not controversiality, but the article still needs formatting work and some stylistic "touches". For instance, I see stubby sections like "Survivors" or "Civilian aircraft grounding" - the existence of a more detailed sub-article does not excuse the existence of stubby sections. In other sections there are stubby, one sentence, "orphan" paragraphs, which interrupt the article's prose flow (this in no way "brilliant" or "compelling"). Finally, some "See also links" are not place just after the headings as they should, but at the end of the sections or sometimes somewhere in the middle! These things need fixing.--Yannismarou 10:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The protect tag for edit-warring... The article is in very good shape references-wise, and is pretty comprehensive. The stubby sections should either be expanded or merged, but since they are not fundamental section, that's no biggie. If the protect tag can be explained, then I will support. My only concern is stability with this article, but the article itself is very good. Baristarim 00:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment-Reply Yes the protection is for edit waring. There is a fairly large group of Wikipedia editors who treat this article as a propaganda piece/ press release for the Bush administration. The only sources they consider reliable for the article are those produced by the Bush administration. This is in contrast to Reliable Sources guideline (though the propagandist recently rewrote WP:Reliable sources to elevate the importance of government publications ) which states that independent sources are preferred over government sources. This article should be featured by printing it on White House letterhead and having the presidential seal affixed to it. It has not place featured on Wikipedia. It has no place on Wikipedia at all. --MyFavoriteShop 07:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I have done a lot of work on the article for over a year, I rechecked every reference in early September as being accurate to the section linked and still live. Aside from small tugs of war over words such as "terrorism" and a few minor points, the article has changed very little in the last 90 days. Some may wish to see more conspiracy theory issues in the article but this is not needed since it is summarized in accordance with the undue weight clause of NPOV and linked to a daughter article where the issues are discussed in exhaustive detail. There is a lot of chatter on the talk page of the article, but none of this has resulted in much as far as changes for some time now.--MONGO 13:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The page is currently in full-protection mode, apparently due to edit warring. If it's not stable enough to even allow the editorial process to proceed normally, surely it's not stable enough to be a featured article. --Hyperbole 22:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_September_11%2C_2001_attacks_archive2_14de.html"