Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Origins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Removal of Origins of the American Civil War

Note: Size issue fixed. Article going through the nomination process again. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

Mav:

Knock it off. You know very well that you and your "news style" pet peeves and hangups aren't "consensus." You're acting like a dictator, attempting to use your assault on this article as a cover to impose your one-man "news style" dictates. I have two things to say to you: Wikipedia is not an almanac and you do not constitute consensus. 172 23:49, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The origins article was added without following the quidelines: "Items that have been listed for a week, seconded/supported by atleast two editors not involved in the article, and with no outstanding objections for listing on Wikipedia:Featured articles need to be moved there. " An anon nominated that article and you, the major author, seconded it. That article's FA status has also been disputed by two people for some time now. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War Thus it should be removed until the dispute is over. --mav 00:36, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned one persons objection is enough to show that there is no concesus for it to stay, thus requiring its removal. The other reasons (which, outside of the part about the anon, seem valid to me) are pretty much uneccesarry if we go by concensus, as I suggest. Sam Spade 01:06, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What's with the status is disputed tag? It's not added to all the other articles of disputed status? There's nothing special about it (other than the fact that one single user really dislikes this style of this particular article). Mav and I hold different views regarding the content and structure of history articles, but hopefully we can work this out on the appropriate pages. 172 12:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't like the tag eh? Well then I will take Sam's advice and follow the guideline on this matter by removing the entry - something that should have been done, per the guidelines, when the entry was first posted on the de-FA list. I had assumed somebody else had done it before. --mav

Actually, it's your arrogance with respect to stylistic preferences that I dislike; I just consider this tag (and now the removal) a manifestation of this attitude. Everyone else has bestowed ringing praise on the article, but your stylistic preferences constitute consensus and compel you to dismantle the article and turn in into an almanac piece. You have the overview, the timeline, and the executive summary page. That high school teacher, e.g., had the main body of the origins article. If you're getting what you want, why not live with a variety that allows others to find what they want? 172 06:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Where does it say that there should be a consensus to remove? Where was the consensus to list? The origns article was listed in the first place by mistake since it did not follow this guideline: "Items that have been listed for a week, seconded/supported by atleast two editors not involved in the article, and with no outstanding objections for listing on Wikipedia:Featured articles need to be moved there." The guideline for removal is this "If you are certain that an article should not be featured, just go ahead and remove it from Wikipedia:Featured articles and add it to #Recent removals and proposals for removal together with your reasons to remove it." I have followed the guidelines, you have not. So please stop re-adding that article until this dispute is over. --mav

Nomination for removal does not constitute removal. If you woke up one morning and decided to nominate User:Michael for admin, could he become an admin after a week? If I put World War II on the VDF, could I delete the article after a week? Or better yet, if decided to nominate you for de-adminship, could I revoke your adminship after a week? No, these actions would never get the required consensus. And right now the nomination for removal page reads like the kinds of stylistic arguments that we've been having for the past year and a half rather than a consensus. I'm concerned that you're using this featured articles matter in order to vindicate your stance in this stylistic argument. I'm going to have to rummage through the page histories to see if any other articles were removed on these dubious grounds. 172 08:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to stay out, but have decided to jump in. Our policies, as spelled out on the candidates page as well as Wikipedia:Wikipedia maintenance#Featured articles state that as soon as an article is objected to, it should be removed from the list and not be readded until the objections are cleared. Therefore, I'm now going to be bold and remove the article.

Huh? It says that the objection stays up on the nominations for removal until there is a consensus, in other words that the process continues until there is a consensus. It's not a matter of adding a new article to the page, but removing one already up. By your logic, if I nominate anyone for de-sysop, his/her adminship is suspended until my objections are withdrawn. 172 10:03, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your example is faulty. This is not Wikipedia:Requests for de-sysoping, but Wikipedia:Featured articles. The only policies that apply here are the ones developed to select which articles should be featured; and my interpertation of those policies, as the editor who wrote many of them, is that the page should be delisted until the objection is resolved.

Do we use the same procedures to create an sysop that we do to determine if a page should be deleted? Then why should we apply either of those procedures here. Getting a page listed on Featured articles is harder, requiring almost complete agrement, than getting a page deleted or having a user promoted to sysop. By the same logic, it should be easier to delist an article here than it is to undelete an article or desysop a user. Gentgeen

I'm strongly inclined to agree with Gentgeen - the whole idea seems, to me, like it should be hard to get onto this list and easy to "fall" off". High standards necessitate this kind of format. →Raul654 10:31, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

No, it's pretty clear that they are separate processes. Otherwise, all articles promoted to featured status would remain on the "nominations with unresolved objections" after having been promoted. If this were the case, in the event of an objection, the article would be moved from "nominations without objections" to "nominations with unresolved objections." But this is the process occurring before an article is promoted. 172 12:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are trying to make the featured article process something that it is not. The guidelines clearly state that if there are objections then the article should be de-listed. And even if a non-anon nominated the article to begin with, at least two users not involved with the article need to have seconded the nomination. You, the main author, were the only second. At the very least the article should go back through the nomination process since the first one was flawed. --mav

You're not fooling me. These are two separate processes. A nomination for removal does not equal removal. Otherwise, it would not be called a "nomination." The guidelines would state that any user could have any featured article removed unless he/she withdraws his/her objections. By your reasoning, someone could come up with an objection to every single featured article, cast the only vote, and remove all the featured articles. That's probably a good way of going on a Wiki strike, don't you think? BTW, I'm reverting you once again. 172 09:53, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The nomination process was flawed, now there are two different people challenging the status. Per the guidelines the article should be de-listed. What guideline are you reading? --mav

The ones cited above (I forget by which user). There's no consensus. And who's this other user? Raul? He made some comments a while ago when you first put the article up. But they're now irrelevant. He objected to there being no single short lead-in sentence, necessary for briefly summing up the article on the main page. However, this has not been the case for weeks. Once again, I'm going to revert you and crush your delusions that you're a one-man "consensus" of the people. They call this megalomania. 172 10:41, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)\

I have cited the guidelines and that is all you have to say? Where is the guideline you speak of? I already pointed out that a single objection is all that is needed for something to be de-listed. Raul also said "Everything Mav said is true" at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War. Nowhere did he withdraw his objection. In addition to that Gentgeen and Sam Spade have said that the Origins article should be removed on procedural grounds. Raul also said so. That is 4 people saying that the article should not be listed and 1 who says it should. Sorry, but you are outvoted. --mav

Raul stated that there was no single intro lead-in sentence with the topic in bold letters. I wrote one minutes after he had noticed this. So "what Mav said" isn't "true" anymore. Nor is it even clear if this is to be regarded as a "vote" in the first place. Right now, the only thing that's left on the featured articles candidates' page is a stylistic debate between the two of us, which really belongs on the Talk:Origins of the American Civil War page. It's anything but a "consensus" in favor of removing a featured article. Gentgeen did say that the article should be removed on procedural grounds, but I already responded to him. I explained that by the same logic, anyone has the right to effect the de-adminship of any sysop if he/she doesn't withdraw his/her objections within a week. So if Gentgeen wants to chime in on this matter once again, we can let him speak for himself.

BTW, if this is how you deal with users who happen to have different ideas about stylistic matters, what's stopping you from demanding my de-adminship, or anyone's de-adminship, on grounds that if you don't withdraw your objections to this person's adminship within a week, he's out - that's it - and your opinion is consensus. Next time you don't your way on an article, are you going to try to ban users who disagree with you? 172 08:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I just have to add that this is probably one of the lamest arguments in the history of Wikipedia. We can't seem to change our opinions, or anyone else's. If we have different opinions over the article, we should discuss this on our talk pages or the article's talk page. 172 08:31, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again - where does it say that there needs to be a consensus to remove? All I have seen is statements to the effect that if a person thinks an item should be removed then they should remove it. And that is beside the point that the article in question was listed counter to the guidelines in the first place. Your mention of other procedures for different things is a straw man argument. --mav

Well, to jump back in, and make the columns a reasonable width, I still feel your bringing in such things as admin status is a straw man. This dispute should be settled by the policies regarding Featured articles, not other parts of wikipedia, and my reading of the policy about listing here hasn't changed. Any article whos inclusion on this list is disputed/objected to can and probibly should be removed until the status is agreed upon. Gentgeen 08:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This ain't a staw man. Sure the stakes are a hell of a lot more important for de-adminship, but the same processes are going on. A consensus hasn't been established, so the stylistic argument between the two of us can stay up on the Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War page until more people can chime in. 172 08:51, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Consenus is also a straw man since that is not part of the guidelines for the de-FA process. But just for fun there is a numerical consensus to de-list the Origins article since 5 have expressed an opinion that only 1 (20%) disagrees with. --mav

No, the one that matters is the debate on Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War. And no one else seems to even care. It's just back and forward between you and me, arguing over what we like to see in articles pretty much. 172 09:01, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's too bad we were not getting any attention, actually. We both got some pretty good ideas out. You'd think that a Mav vs. 172 showdown would attract some more attention. 172 09:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The point about whether or not to de-list this article while the dispute is being worked out has the 80% support needed to be considered consenus (not that that is needed since the guidelines do not require that). And yet you revert in opposition to this consensus. I find it ironic that you said I was being dictatorial. --mav

Not really, but we even seem to be forgetting about what we were arguing about. Our argument over how to divide the article turned into an argument over featured status, which turned into a separate argument over the procedures for de-listing an article. That's pretty lame, but at least we made the dispute a little more interesting. Anyway, when the others were chiming in, they were commenting on our arguments over the procedures for de-listing an article. This doesn't mean that people are casting votes on Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War somehow. 172 10:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Our argument here is about de-listing on procedural grounds. So far on that point four different people have agreed that the article should be de-listed. Yet you ignore that very basic and obvious fact and continue to act against that agreement and against the clear guidelines in this regard. Instead you try to make up your own guidelines. --mav

There you go again. When you're online and I'm not it's easy to say that your version of the guidelines carries more weight. Then you don't have to bother even recollecting what we've been arguing.

"Four different people" have not agreed that the article ought to be de-listed. Yes, several users have made various comments at various times regarding the procedural grounds for de-listing an article. But these comments have nothing to do with the page that decides whether or not a particular article on Wikipedia:Featured articles ought to be featured.

Instead, the outcome of the de-listing process depends on what has been established at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War. Yet you ignore that this is essentially a debate between the two of us. The nomination provoked what really amounted to a stylistic argument concerning history articles on Wikipedia between the two of us, not a consensus of you and "four different people."

So you're claiming that featured status cannot be restored until your objections are "withdrawn" (translation: whenever I start kowtowing to your stylistic preferences). In all fairness I acknowledge that if you had raised these objections weeks ago when the article was listed on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates (rather than Wikipedia:Featured articles), your stance - unless withdrawn - would effectively be able to block the listing of the article. If you had found it under Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates# Nominations without objections before writing your objection, the nomination would simply be moved down to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates# Nominations with unresolved objections.

Right now, however, featured status isn't contingent on the withdrawal of your nomination for removal in Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. The nomination for featured article removal is a separate process. While the stakes are not nearly as high, the process of attaining featured status is analogous to the process for attaining status (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Nominations : Wikipedia:Featured articles :: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Nominations for adminship : Wikipedia:Administrators); in the same sense the process for the removal of featured articles is analogous to the process for de-adminship (Wikipedia:Featured articles : Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates :: Wikipedia:Administrators : Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship).

You objected to an article already found in the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log, not an article found under the heading Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates# Nominations without objections. Likewise, a user can accuse one of the Wikipedia:Administrators of abusing admin privileges by filing charges on Wikipedia:Possible misuses of sysop rights. But unless these complaints lodged by this user are backed up by a considerable number of additional users, the process of desysoping will stall. Similarly, your nomination for removal posted inWikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War falls way short of grounds for automatic removal - or even removal within one week - as things stand right now. Calling whatever has been established in Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War a consensus falls short of even a slippery slope (In all seriousness, it's really a spot that we happened to find for an argument.) Yet you ignore that the nomination for removal has simply stalled: we're the only two people who seem to care. So the dialogue will remain posted on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates for the time being. BTW, are you hoping to turn around and say that your opinions have been affirmed and speak for "policy grounds?" It looks like strong-arming to me.

Finally, if one accepted your premise that a nomination for removal warranted removal from the list right away, e.g., any single user could single-handedly wipe out the entire list of featured articles. Someone could object to every article on the list and refuse to withdraw his/her objections. However, since the removal process is analogous to Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship, there are safeguards against such a scenario. The safeguards that I cited above are even preventing you from asserting your stylistic preferences by these strong-arm tactics. 172 09:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Strawman. --mav

Hey, don't make me try it just to prove a point. That strawman has fangs. 172 20:48, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Raul said: "I'm strongly inclined to agree with Gentgeen - the whole idea seems, to me, like it should be hard to get onto this list and easy to "fall" off". High standards necessitate this kind of format. "

Okay, and I like high standards too - for featured articles and all other articles. But this is not a support for your nomination in Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War. 172

It is support to de-list items that have been disputed. The Origns article has been disputed. --mav

Gentgreen said: "The only policies that apply here are the ones developed to select which articles should be featured; and my interpertation of those policies, as the editor who wrote many of them, is that the page should be delisted until the objection is resolved."

Sam said: "As far as I'm concerned one persons objection is enough to show that there is no concesus for it to stay, thus requiring its removal."

Again, this was the case for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Nominations without objections. You missed that stage, sorry. 172 18:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

An anon nominated it, you, the main author, seconded it. That is counter the addition guideline. Thus that article should not have been listed in the first place. --mav

Meaningless attack. See my response at Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War. 172

The guideline says: "If you are certain that an article should not be featured, just go ahead and remove it from Wikipedia:Featured articles and add it to #Recent removals and proposals for removal together with your reasons to remove it."

It doesn't say, e.g., "If you nominate an article for featured status removal, remove it from Wikipedia:Featured articles." You cannot be "certain" about your reasons to remove it any longer; despite all the attention that our bickering has drawn, no one else has chimed in. Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War has stalled. It's been languishing as a debate between the two of us about stylistic concerns that pertain not to this article but also many others. I've hardly been forced to back down on my defense of a variety of article formats and styles, in-depth coverage when necessary, and attention to historians contending interpretations. 172 18:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've already pointed out that your interpretation of the guideline is in a minority of one. --mav

The detail of which is here:

• "If you are a sysop, remove it from the list and make an entry in the Recently removed articles, and reason for removal section of the candidates page explaining why it was removed; or if you are not a sysop, list it on the talk page, with your objections and a sysop will continue the process." and "Treat such articles as new nominations with built in objections; i.e. if the problem is fixed and no one objects for a week, add it back to the list. "

And I'm another sysop, and I'm also continuing the process. When it comes down to it, it's the two of us disagreeing again. 172 18:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are working against the process. The problem has not be fixed yet, so the item should not be added back in yet. --mav

All that agrees with the notion that the article should be de-listed until the objection is fixed or a consensus forms that the article is still worthy of listing in spite of the objection. So far there is no consensus in that direction and in fact 2 out of the 3 people who have expressed a direct opinion on the matter at the de-FA talk have stated that the article still has problems (mainly it needs to be split up).

Are you reading minds? I'm not seeing that. But in all honesty I'm only considering Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War. Wikipedia talk:Featured articles seems to be getting the attention, not the discussion that determines whether or not the article is removed. 172 18:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm reading words, not minds. I suggest you follow my lead and read what the users above said. --mav

If the size issue gets resolved as talked about on the Origins talk page, I will withdraw my objection and will ask Raul to do the same.

How does Raul fit in? He was noted that there was no lead-in sentence weeks ago. But there is one now - end of story. 172 18:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not end of story - My major issue with that article was its size. Raul agreed with that. The size is still an issue. --mav

At that point I will second the nomination for re-listing. Since you are a main author of the article, at least one other person will need to also agree with me.

Your idea of creating a New Imperialism-style would be such a disaster that I'd not only oppose this hypothetical second features nomination but also list the entire article series on the VFD. I don't care about the featured status whatsoever. But I wasn't born yesterday. I know that you're using this as a way of thwarting and discrediting my opposition to the major changes that you had proposed. 172 18:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That idea is off the table at the moment as part of my proposed truce. Right now I would be happy with the article being split - something you say you agree with. --mav

Until then, the article should be de-listed. --mav

Nope. Until then, the article can stay on Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War. 172 18:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK - then it still would remain de-listed here. --mav

No, you say that it has been "de-listed." This is still disputed. I agreed to let the article go unprotected - as a service to those maintaining the page. In fact I'm the only one who doesn't get anything out of the agreement. It effectively allows your version (w/o the origins article) to stand as the current article for the next 48 hours BY DEFAULT. I don't want to start regretting that decision, so don't rub it in that you came out ahead DUE TO LUCK. You got lucky with the timing. Unless the discussion is no longer stalled in Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War, we will pick up where we left off before the page protection (hopefully with fewer reverts). 172 00:11, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection

From my edit summary: Unprotected. By mutual agreement, neither mav nor 172 will edit this page for 48 hours. Anyone adding/deleting origins of the american civil war will be reverted.

I would encourage mav and 172 to start a poll to sort out their differences. →Raul654 23:30, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

We already have a poll. Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War is the poll. It hasn't been touched in days. But if we finally start seeing support for his stance from anyone else, this issue will go away. It would be put to rest forever at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. 172 05:50, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

172, FYI - mav has started proceedings to get it back into the featured articles. See the featured article candidates page. →Raul654 05:52, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

What a wise guy! Mav's pretty slick and sharp. The whole time I've never made a statement in favor of featuring this article. We were arguing about whether his single nomination constitutes removal. IMHO, if he wants the article to be featured, he ought to withdraw his nomination rather than start new proceedings. I was concerned with being marginalized because I don't have anything close to Mav's level of influence, which is binding whenever content and stylistic concerns crop up. If this were international affairs, e.g., Mav would be the United States and I'd be Haiti. But oh well. At least this isn't so important now that the NI-style summary is no longer an issue. 172 06:08, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for mediating everything and defusing tensions so adeptly. 172 06:09, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well thanks - I guess that makes me the UN :) →Raul654 07:18, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)