Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Zionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Zionism
- Article is no longer a featured article.
I request that this article be taken off featured article status due to it being the centre of frequent edit wars and having its neutrality and factual accuracy disputed. Vacuum | tcw 02:38, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- (Not a vote) Sigh.... Raul's 5th law is a harsh mistress. →Raul654 03:50, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Edit wars are no reason for removal -- Chris 73 Talk 04:02, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, they are - "A featured article should... Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy (no ongoing edit wars)." →Raul654 04:05, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Support removal of any article where accuracy and/or NPOV are under dispute. Filiocht 09:36, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Oh dear - support removal until it reaches a stable state. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Object to removal. The article is not that bad, in fact I don't see any major problems. Anyone can come in an say they object to the material, and that should not automatically remove an article from featured status. It appears that disputes are being successfully discussed on the talk page. I see some issues in POV, that no discussion exists of the negative effects of zionism in this article, but overall it is not such a bad article that it should be removed. - Taxman 14:44, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- The question is, can we say that this is one of Wikipedia's best, and then have the reader see that its accuracy/POV is under dispute? I am inclined to think not. Filiocht 14:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- So then I can place a disputed template at the top of any featured article and it should be removed as a featured article? - Taxman 17:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- If there is an actual dispute about POV or factual accuracy, particularly if there is an edit war, then yes, the article should have its Featured status suspended or removed. If someone capriciously adds dispute notice, then no, it should not be removed. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- In general, I have chosen to interpret and act on the policy (wrt disputes on featured articles) as follows - give them (the disputants) a few days to sort it out before listing it here. By the same token, disputes that take a long while to sort out should cause the article to be de-featured. →Raul654 21:13, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- This has been in dispute for almost a month now. Filiocht 16:01, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Then I agree - take it down. Sigh... →Raul654 19:02, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
- This has been in dispute for almost a month now. Filiocht 16:01, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
- In general, I have chosen to interpret and act on the policy (wrt disputes on featured articles) as follows - give them (the disputants) a few days to sort it out before listing it here. By the same token, disputes that take a long while to sort out should cause the article to be de-featured. →Raul654 21:13, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- If there is an actual dispute about POV or factual accuracy, particularly if there is an edit war, then yes, the article should have its Featured status suspended or removed. If someone capriciously adds dispute notice, then no, it should not be removed. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- So then I can place a disputed template at the top of any featured article and it should be removed as a featured article? - Taxman 17:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- The question is, can we say that this is one of Wikipedia's best, and then have the reader see that its accuracy/POV is under dispute? I am inclined to think not. Filiocht 14:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
