Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holocaust/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Holocaust

Not a self-nom. It's comprehensive, well-written, and has lots of relevant links at the bottom of the page. Hasn't been flagged down for edit wars, no disputes on its neutrality. Lots of pictures, too.

  • oppose for 2 reasons, 1) no mention of holocaust denial in that article (yes i know we have one on denial, but it deserves a mention). 2) pure flamebait, i will never support this for mainpage listing due to its potential to devolve into total chaos. I would however like to state I find this article very well written.  ALKIVAR™ 05:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like to point out that point two is not actionable. Furthermore, featured status does not automatically mean the page will be featured on the main page; that discussion is held elsewhere. Jeronimo 07:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I am aware point 2 is not actionable, but I was stating my reasons.  ALKIVAR™ 15:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah. Anyway, this kind of attitude is akin to giving in to vandals. Phils 14:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Say that when you've spent as much time reverting neo-nazi vandals, as people like Ta bu shi da yu and Neutrality have. I've watched, and helped. Neo-nazi vandalism and holocaust denial vandalism causes several admins to be on vandalism patrol 24/7. Theres reasons why people like Silsor have a Neo-nazi target topic watchlist. I dont think we need to give them a big fat target like the front page article. Its like teasing a starving person with a full dinner.  ALKIVAR™ 15:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Featured articles are often vandalised. This is life on Wiki. Objecting to featuring any article based on such argumentation would mean that the vandals have won. Have they? I certainly hope not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd also like to point out that Objection 1 isn't true. Section 9.3 of the article deals with Holocaust denial. Ryan Anderson 22:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • My bad, the time I looked at it that section was not there (probably due to a vandal).  ALKIVAR™ 04:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose because the article does not include that 5.5 million Poles died in its top portion but instead jumps from 6 million Jews to 220,000 Sinti and Roma. The jump is indicative of bias. Telling me that edits need to be discussed first, is violation of Wiki policy. The article does note 5.5 million Poles but one has to add up the numbers and has to read deep. The comment has been added.

The comment has been deleted again. The article notes jewish deaths, then jumps to Roma and Sinti deaths. The natural implication is that the death counts are listed in decreasing order. The absence of Pole deaths suggests a hiding of Pole deaths. A comment compromise has been added.

Yet again the comments were hidden.

  • Commment - I don't think that the article is extensive enough - this is just a comment, not an objections, as I don't feel confident enough in that area. I slightly expanded info on Slavs and added note on Witold Pilecki to resistance, and that coupled with many single sentence paragraphs and quite long see also makes me wonder how many other important facts this article is missing. For such an important subject, the current 40kb doesn't seem enough for me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) Not very well organized--basically poorly sectioned. There are section headings with nothing in them but another section. That one sentence orphan paragraphs lead off some sections seems very odd and doesn't seem to help anything. See other recent featured articles and compare at how well sectioned and organized they are. 2) Many one or two sentence paragraphs is poor form. They show areas that should either be expanded into a full idea or merged with related material. 3) Very little evidence is given for the death toll numbers. Since this is perhaps one of the most contentious and important bits of information in this century, that is unnaceptable. See the Shroud of Turin article for how evidence on a claim can be handled extraordinarily well. Direct citations to sources should be used. What are considered the most reliable sources for the death toll numbers? Supporting the claimed death numbers is only one link to a jpost.com article and the section refers to one book (which is incidentally not listed in the references section). I have a hard time believing scholars consider those the most reliable sources, but if they are thats great. These British and Soviet documents should be cited more directly if they are considered the best sources. So in summary this subject requires much better and more thorough research and citation to be a FA. Only two sources listed in the references section is very innadequate. In its defense the article does seem as NPOV as this topic could be, so great job from that aspect. With some research and the above improvents I would certainly support. - Taxman 18:05, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, mostly for reasons stated by Taxman. There is a lot of information contained in the article, but to become featured it has to be better organized. I also find the number of references rather poor for such an important and sometimes controversial topic. Jeronimo 18:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. There is a much better Holocaust article around, if we can convince the author to put it up. Jayjg (talk) 22:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Ownership of the Holocaust not addressed. Alexsanderson83 11:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)