Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Freemasonry/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Freemasonry
- Article is still a featured article.
No references, Taxman request them to be added 2 weeks ago, as no action seems to have been taken I think it's time to give it a deadline of two weeks. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:29, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Absolutely oppose removal. These attempts at imposing standards retrospectively should stop now. Deadline indeed! Filiocht 14:47, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
- I call nonsense, if we don't hold ALL of our Featured articles to the same standard we invite ourself to a heavy degradation of quality, as we grow bigger our standards grow as well, this is good as it motivates editors to improve articles beyond their current state, up to a higher level. The same is done with Featured picture by the way. Anyways, a featured article without references makes me cringe. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:59, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
- It has already been agreed on that the requirement for featured articles to have references should not be retroactive; however, I do agree they should be required. I cannot support nor oppose this nomination. Johnleemk | Talk 18:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm interesting, I would have strongly opposed such a decision. Proper source references are an essential element of any decent work of writing where most of the content is often rewritten directly from sem-original sources. For the wikipedia to be taken seriously we need to be able to do simple fact-checking which is made considerably easier if references are provided. While I think references are important for any article on Wikipedia that has evolved from stub-level, I think they are essential for a featured article. I think it's a shame for articles to be presented on our front page as being our "best work" to lack proper references. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 19:07, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose removal Too trivial a reason to remove something. And there's no absolute requirement to have references for a FAC anyway. jguk 20:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Did you read Wikipedia:What is a featured article at all? But anyways, this is part of a much bigger issue with out FA's, as noted in the discussion on the talk page. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:02, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- As a point of fact, Wikipedia:What is a featured article says: 'Include references when and where appropriate' which is not an absolute requirement. Filiocht
- Agreed, but don't you think references are especially important in an article on a semi-secret society? If we don't include them in an article like this we might as well leave em out on all our articles. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 19:21, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
- But consensus is that it is always appropriate for any article being nominated at FAC, so what's the difference? Filiocht, are you really going to argue that references are not critical to the credibility of Wikipedia? - Taxman 13:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Please leave the straw man out of this. I am not arguing against references, I am arguing against a particular way of imposing new conditions retrospectively. Also, you do not help your case by first appealing to the authority of Wikipedia:What is a featured article and then shifting to an Argumentum ad numerum when that authority is shown not to exactly say what you thought or claimed it did. I'd like to see an informed debate that arrived at a genuine consensus before this page becomes bigger than WP:FAC is. Filiocht 14:46, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Well this should go to talk, but here goes. There's no straw man, I asked you a question. And it is not a Argumentum ad numerum because the only 'truth' I am pointing out is the very fact that there is a consensus! It is not that case that "that authority is shown not to exactly say what you thought or claimed it did". It is simply that I am asserting my own interpretation of the policy that it is always appropriate. And that I've never seen anyone disagree that that is the way it should be. Exactly as I stated! If you're going to spend time claiming a logical fallacy, please be sure there actually is one. And yes, I'll welcome the informed discussion to come to a recognized consensus on the issue. If the only point you are really going after is that requirements should not be retroactively applied, then I disagree and a number of people on the talk page do too. The only people I've seen agree with your point are people that seem to not understand the value of references to FA's. - Taxman 21:55, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- 'Filiocht, are you really going to argue that references are not critical to the credibility of Wikipedia?' is a straw man; I have never argued this. I do not agree that there is a consensus; if a majority may have expressed a single view, this does not constitute a consensus, hence my reference to Argumentum ad numerum. What I object to is the arbitrary creation of a deadline for the addition of references in the original listing above without a consensus as to what that deadline should be. My objection to removal stands, and it seems I'm not the only one objecting, so once again, there is no consensus. Filiocht 08:42, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Well this should go to talk, but here goes. There's no straw man, I asked you a question. And it is not a Argumentum ad numerum because the only 'truth' I am pointing out is the very fact that there is a consensus! It is not that case that "that authority is shown not to exactly say what you thought or claimed it did". It is simply that I am asserting my own interpretation of the policy that it is always appropriate. And that I've never seen anyone disagree that that is the way it should be. Exactly as I stated! If you're going to spend time claiming a logical fallacy, please be sure there actually is one. And yes, I'll welcome the informed discussion to come to a recognized consensus on the issue. If the only point you are really going after is that requirements should not be retroactively applied, then I disagree and a number of people on the talk page do too. The only people I've seen agree with your point are people that seem to not understand the value of references to FA's. - Taxman 21:55, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Please leave the straw man out of this. I am not arguing against references, I am arguing against a particular way of imposing new conditions retrospectively. Also, you do not help your case by first appealing to the authority of Wikipedia:What is a featured article and then shifting to an Argumentum ad numerum when that authority is shown not to exactly say what you thought or claimed it did. I'd like to see an informed debate that arrived at a genuine consensus before this page becomes bigger than WP:FAC is. Filiocht 14:46, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- As a point of fact, Wikipedia:What is a featured article says: 'Include references when and where appropriate' which is not an absolute requirement. Filiocht
- Did you read Wikipedia:What is a featured article at all? But anyways, this is part of a much bigger issue with out FA's, as noted in the discussion on the talk page. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:02, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose removal - I think we need a structured process for reviewing the older featured articles, as discussed on the talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I still don't think "lack of references" is yet a sufficiently strong reason to de-feature a featured article, so long as the rest of the article is OK. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
