From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Kept status
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept 09:57, April 25, 2008.
[edit] Review commentary
- Notified User:NapHit, User:PeeJay2K3, User:The Rambling Man, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football
Breaches WP:FACR (4): "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." A large chunk of the prose (Route to the final) is a summary of the finalists' earlier matches in the competition. This is longer than the description of the match itself (Match summary). I raised this on the Talk: page the day it was on the front page (Featured article??); nothing has happened since. jnestorius(talk) 12:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think this nomination is in good faith but is actually quite frivolous. The nominator disagrees with the format of the article though this was discussed in the FAC which was only 4/5 months ago. The article is almost identical to the article that passed FAC: now, then diff. (The diff shows that only paragraphs have been split and no text has been added/taken away).
-
- As was said on the Talk page, the fact that the FAC succeeeded with pretty much the current article shows the flaws of the FAC process. This concern was raised (by others) during FAC; nothing was done; it passed nonetheless. What happened to Wikipedia:Consensus? You shouldn't be able to ignore the objections of a minority; if you're not not going to the address them, you should at least say why you think there is no need to do so. Woody concedes the section might "seem a bit big"; if you can explain how this seeming is in fact an illusion, I'll be happy to concede. jnestorius(talk) 12:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Consensus at the FAC was that the article was fine as it was. One person disagreed. Have you tried raising these issues recently on the talk page? The day it is on the main page is not the best day to ask it given all the unwarranted attention it gets from those pesky vandals. Any improvements would be lost in a myriad of edit conflicts.
- It is not a question of conceding, it makes it sound like a battle or war of attrition which is not what we want. I agree that there is some redundancy that could be trimmed. I just think that the talkpage would be a better place for this. If there was dissention or a flat lack of support on the talkpage then it should have been brought here. Woody (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it is appropriate to discuss the finalists route to the final as this impacts on the final significantly. I agree that it might seem a bit big in relative terms though. It is entirely comprehensive regarding the final and it lists all that you would want to know about the final. I see nothing that could be added and as such for me, it meets the featured article criteria. Woody (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- The solution is not to add stuff but to take stuff away: trim all the padding out of the "Route to the Final" section. simply give the group tables, and leave the exiting knockout results. There could in principle be relevant bits from earlier matches: suspensions, injuries, or cup-tied players, affecting team selection; if the teams had met in the group stages; if a player had done something notable in an early match and emulated his achievement / made up for his blunder in the final; etc. But ordinary match details are irrelevant: what does it matter if "Crouch headed in Bellamy's corner on 58 minutes" in Bordeaux months before? jnestorius(talk) 12:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree that irrelavent details should be trimmed, list them on the talkpage... Woody (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yeah I was suprised when this passed. I only gave weak support because of this. There is clearly an outstanding opp vote that you can clearly see on the nomination page. I alway thought that all outstanding opp vote had to be addressed in someway before Raul passed them, maybe he made a (gasp!) mistake. Buc (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, opposes considered unactionable by the FA director(s) do not have to be acted upon. Also, if consensus of editors is that an oppose would be detrimental to the article then again, doesn't have to be acted on. It is all a matter of common sense. In this case, it is obviously quite contentious, but still should have been passed given the comments on that nomination page. Woody (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that but looking at the nom page it Opp just seemed to be overlooked. Buc (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was also passed during the <cough> Larenedo phase. I don't see anything that can't be fixed up quickly without need for a FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Well seeing as the user who brought up the removal debate is taking a wikibreak, I would like to get consensus on how we approach this issue, I think what jnestorious proposed about trimming the route to the final section to include the tables and a bit of ino about how they got to the final. Anyone else got any views? NapHit (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concern is focus (4). Marskell (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not entirely sure this needs to be in FARC but I'm moving it to get further comments. I don't have a problem with the structure, personally. Marskell (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here is what we came up with on the talk page of the article, instead of the current route to the final section:
-
Teams qualified for the Champions League group stage, either directly or through three preliminary rounds, based on both their position in the preceding domestic league and the strength of that league (see UEFA league coefficient). Both Liverpool and Milan entered the competition in the third and final preliminary round: Liverpool by finishing third in the FA Premier League 2005–06, Milan by finishing third in Serie A 2005–06. Milan had originally finished second in Serie A, but were deducted 30 points for their part in a match-fixing scandal. The original punishment, reduced on appeal, would have barred them from the Champions League altogether. The group stages were contested as eight double round robin groups of four teams, the top two qualifying for the knockout stages. Knockout ties were decided based on home and away matches, with the away goals rule, extra time and penalty shootouts as tiebreakers if needed.
We would then have a paragraph mentioning the knockout stages, which should clear up the problems people had with the article, anyone got any other views about this? NapHit (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Provisional Keep - Overall a great article, but please get someone to give it a quick run-through. I found some minor issues, including several instances of linking the same page twice in a section. For example, Alberto Gilardino is linked twice in Route to the final: A.C. Milan. There are also some punctuation errors, such as this from the Liverpool section, "This was the second time in three years the two sides had met at the semi final stage" - dash needed. I also noticed a pair of one-sentence paragraphs in Match summary. I do think, though, that it should still be an FA, provided some cleanup is performed. Giants2008 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here is a more specific list of small problems that need to be ironed out.
- Route to the final, A.C. Milan: In the second leg against Red Star Belgrade, perhaps say that both goals mentioned were scored by Milan.
- Liverpool F.C.: Liverpool won the match late in the game, as Mark Gonzalez" Don't like this at all. How about "Liverpool won the match with a goal in the 87th minute, as Mark Gonzalez...".
- I looked at the ref for the game above, and it says that Liverpool scored in the 32nd minute. The article, however, states that Liverpool equalized four minutes after Maccabi's goal. Is this a convention in the sport, or an error?
-
- Another look at the reference shows that it is supposed to be this way, and I left it unchanged. My mistake. Giants2008 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- "5 times champions" change to "five-time champions".
- Craig Bellamy linked twice in section.
- Maybe mention Liverpool and Chelsea's two meetings in 2005–06. It will help show that the sides were familiar rivals.
-
- Couldn't find a good place for it. Giants2008 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Problems before the match: UEFA linked twice.
- Commas before "who got" and "who received".
- Redundancy fix: "for their lack of provision for the clubs' disabled fans".
- Match ball: Change is to was twice.
- Match summary: Leading goal-scorers is first one-paragraph sentence. Also could use a citation.
- Move ref 44 down to cover Milan's luck in their white strip.
- The odds part is the other one-paragraph sentence; also seems trivial to me.
-
- I didn't want to make a possibly controversial change in the middle of more routine copy-editing, so I let this stay. I'm still not crazy about it, though. Giants2008 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- First half: Marek Jankulovski linked twice.
- "however the referee did not judge this to be handball" Should "a" come before handball?
- Second half: Change first sentence to "the majority of possession."
- Add comma before "but Milan held on".
- Post-match: Dash for then teenager. Giants2008 (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've taken care of most of these myself, and left notes above for the others. Giants2008 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept 09:57, April 25, 2008.
[edit] Review commentary
- User:Filiocht, User:Pakaran, User:Dpryan, User:168..., User:Synaptidude, User:Diberri, User:RedRabbit1983, Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology notified.
This article has been nominated for Featured article review because it does not fulfill criteria 2(c) of featured article criteria. It referencing system is inconsistent and has only 5 inline citations. Medos2 10:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are references (1c) and their formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong retain and immediate close as frivolous. Footnote counting at its worst. This is textbook stuff, and five textbooks are cited; I would expect almost all of this article to be in any of them. I see no inconsistency in citation; does the nom mean something invisible to the reader, like sometimes not using cite templates?
- What would be actionable is the following: Find a claim which has no explicitly indicated source, and which is likely to be challenged. Look in any one of the five textbooks, and if you don't find it trivially using the index, list it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Remove The citation is sparse and there are three different methods of referencing. No scientific article would get published with a hodge-podge of referencing methods. This was not to do with footnote counting. I admit that there are very few sources but the fault is due to the lack of in-line citations not the lack of sources. —Preceding signed comment was added by Medos2 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC), but its signature was removed while fixing wiki markup errors.
-
- In short, your problem is not that you disagree with the article, or regard it as unsupported, but that the five footnotes use different styles. Since they source different materials, this is in part unavoidable. You could have fixed that yourself; I've now done it. I hope I have rightly replaced the one that was a broken link. Take it out if you find it unnecessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I DO regard it as unsupported. There are NO footnotes in this article. Footnotes usually appear in books at the end of pages. They offer further information allowing the reader to continue reading if he/she expands on. They are self contained within the article or book etc. The five "footnotes" you are refering to are in-line citations linking to references. They are not the same. You miss the point about my inconsistent referencing. There are 3 sections at the end of the article - General sources, Primary sources and specific citations. The first 2 sections should be included within the in-line citation section to indicate what information has been used from the source. The section in-line citation should also be retitled references.Medos (talk • contribs) 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- What can be decided as what is likely to be challenged in this type of article? Most people are unaware of action potentials and therefore you cannot verify that claims one way or another. I know from personal study that the content is accurate and you are correct to add that any text book is likely to have this information. I cannot see the logic of the claims as the in-line citations that are in the article reference facts which are as easily challenged as almost any other part of the article(with the possible exception of citation 2 which is more likely to be challenged). Medos (talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- That is a matter of editorial judgment. Put footnotes where you think the textbooks don't cover things, or someone may find the text surprising. But an unnecessary footnote or two is harmless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Textbooks don't cover things? What someone may find surprising is difficult to say. I have no objection to the use of what you refer to as unnecessary "footnotes", in fact the lack of them is the whole problem with the article.Medos (talk • contribs) 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Prose needs work I think it could stand some re-writing. Even the first sentence: "An action potential is a "spike" of positive and negative ionic discharge". It can't be both positive and negative. That would just cancel out. Later on we learn that it is a dynamic change: "An action potential is a rapid change of the polarity of the voltage from negative to positive and then vice versa" which seems clearer. Similarly, the term "resting potential" is used in the first paragraph of the "Overview" section but is not defined until the next section. Besides which, there shouldn't be an overview section as the lead should be the overview. These are just examples from the first few lines. DrKiernan (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree in part with that comment realting to the first sentence. It is very misleading. By saying it's a spike I'm presuming the author intended to refer to the sudden change to positive charge followed by a negative charge. It's a tricky point for me because I know the topic. The sentence is not exactly wrong but I will admitt that it's badly worded. The key point I suppose is to make sure that it's not interpereted as if the change in charges is happening simultaneously. It's just very quick Medos (talk • contribs) 15:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep featured pending a more compelling rationale for removal. Without an indication of what statements are likely to be challenged, it's difficult to find referencing problems. An ideal article on this topic, I think, wouldn't contain much that isn't found in a basic neurobiology text, so it's hard to see where challenges would come from. As for reference formatting this is a minor concern and not sufficient grounds for removing status; it does not materially diminish the quality of the work. I do think the article could use some better diagrams but this is not essential. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Remove. Tagged, appears abandoned since long ago with no regular editor keeping it up to date. The WP:LEAD is at best a meager summary of the article, and contains a throwaway sentence that typifies some of the text ( This article is primarily concerned with the "typical" action potential of axons). There are parenthetical see also's throughout the text (example: When the membrane of an excitable cell becomes depolarized beyond a threshold, the cell undergoes an action potential (it "fires"), often called a "spike" (see Threshold and initiation); better prose would be to incorporate these links seamlessly into the text. See also needs attention and there's an external link farm. Throwaway sentences provide examples of prose tightening needed (The sequence of events that underlie the action potential have been outlined below:) Serious attention to wikilinking is needed, and there is a lack of inline citations, per 1c. Attention to the difference between a minus sign and a hyphen is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Update, fabulous progress, a bit more to do to bring it over the hump: overwhelming TOC, tighter focus on topic and rationalization of TOC is needed to consolidate sections, External link section consolidation needed, and there is still substantial uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Struck my oppose. The article as of now is under 50KB readable prose, an appropriate size, the TOC is not overwhelming and External links are reasonable. There are still uncited sections, but as the article has now been vetted by editors knowledgeable on the topic, I'm satisified. Congratulations and kudos on the extraordinary effort by all to bring this article to standard: I think we can conclude after all that work that the nomination was neither frivolous nor an exercise in footnote counting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Remove. Needs much attention in terms of style and footnoting. Could be resubmitted quickly. Needs the caring hand of someone knowledgeable in neurophysiology. JFW | T@lk 23:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- So go find a neurophysiologist; I'm not one. But if this well-written technical article is delisted for these trivial reasons, FA will have ceased to serve the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Vote struck - some splendid work has been done here, and it can remain FA as far as I'm concerned. Points for further improvement would be the minimising of redundancies with related topics, but this is IMHO not a reason to FARC it in any form. JFW | T@lk 20:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Remove Lacks inline citations, several formatting problem including WP:DASH issues. The prose needs significant work; it is interrupted by parenthetical comments rather than flowing, for example. There is also an "Overview" section, is it poorly named or an attempt at extending the lead outside the lead section? Jay32183 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Always ignore MOScruft. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as MOScruft, and the FA criteria explicitly states that the relevant style guideline should be followed. The article is poorly written, poorly sourced, and poorly formatted. That is the exact opposite of the intention of FA. Using hyphens when mdashes should be used is actually incorrect punctuation, it's not just a stylistic preference. Jay32183 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- But it's not the difference between good work and our best work; indeed, it's not the difference between a respectable article and a public embarassment, which is what FA all too often draws. Fix the article if you can; but try judging it on content first - [hyphen intentional] to do otherwise is destructive to WP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- WP:FA?#2 says "It follows the style guidelines". Formatting must be perfect in FAs. However, formatting is not the only problem this article has. It is poorly referenced and poorly written. The article needs a major overall to meet the good article criteria. Your assertions of "MoScruft" and "cruftmongering" are nothing but disruptive. It is not helpful FAC/FAR, Wikipedia, its editors, or yourself. Promoting incorrectly formatted articles as our best work hurts Wikipedia. Jay32183 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- That says following instead of (IIRC) complying with, precisely because they are guidelines. They should not, and need not, be followed to the letter; to do so is misapprehend what they are.
- FA status does not imply that an article is beyond the reach of improvement; we would have hardly any FAs at all, if that were the standard.
- Meddling with dashes is much easier than actually reading the prose of an article; that, in turn, is much easier than reading and understanding the content. Please stop wasting our time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a waste of time. FA does not mean cannot be improved, however, it does mean there cannot be any noticeable mistakes. I'm not going to waste my time fixing dashes in a sentence that needs to be rewritten. If the dashes were the only problem I'd fix it myself. Since this article is poorly sourced and poorly written, it requires a major overhaul with expert attention. Pointing out the formatting errors so that anyone who takes on the large task can fix all the noticed problems is a necessary part of FAR/C. Jay32183 (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: As far as my search engine can find, there were two instances of a hyphen being used for emdash, and one case in which it was being used between figures. I have emended these grievous sins against the sacred MOS; Jay could have (and, by the principles of this page, should have) done the same, with much less effort, and actually contributed something, however trivial, to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I had only found one and I was not going to fix it unless the entire article were rewritten since the prose is absolutely terrible, and the hyphen may no longer have been there from the restructuring of the sentence. There's no point in formatting an article that is poorly written. That's the point you seem to be missing. Jay32183 (talk) 08:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Remove As I said above, the first sentence is, in a sense, wrong (it can't be both positive and negative at the same time). The second sentence is, in a sense, wrong (sponges are animals and they don't have nerves, so action potentials are not essential to animal life). The third sentence is, in a sense, wrong (Plants have brains? Watch out for that triffid!!!). Need I go on? I'm not convinced that the material (or I should say the way it is presented) accurately represents current knowledge on action potentials. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- The first sentence is correct. It's very badly worded but it's not wrong. When the word spike is being used it means a rapid influx of positive charge quickly followed by a rapid influx of negative charge. There is nowhere that it says it happens at the same time and I doubt the author intended that to be the case. It is badly worded though that I will not deny. I have responded on this issue before.
- Your example with sponges is wrong. They do use action potentials.(see here) A better example to have picked would have been animals from phylum protazoa as they are unlikely to use action potentials (Although I am not completely sure if that is true.)
- The third sentence is not in any sense wrong. Plants do have action potentials (see here) The article also did not say anything about plants having brains. Please refrain from remarks like such as they add nothing to the debate.
- This article is quite accurate. These accusations are unfounded. It has style problems, referencing problems, wording problems but not accuracy issues. Medos (talk • contribs) 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then would you list the problems, either here or on the talk page with a link here? It would be the greatest service to fix them yourself, since you understand the material; but a list is the first thing we need, either to fix or defend them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I would like to fix it. I have some idea how to go about that but at the moment I haven't got the time. After the 11th of March it is more likely that I'm able to do it, but until then I plain and simply can't. Sorry. There are editors who are capable of fixing it. Try to find those who have done the most edits on the page and it'll be likely they'll be a good help. Use this tool to find them Try to undstand that it is quite tedious looking for accurate journals. What can be read in 5 minutes can often take about one hour to work on. Medos (talk • contribs) 22:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly we understand that what can be read in 5 minutes can take an hour to work on; this is why so many reviewers avoid reviewing content altogether. But if you can, over time, list problems with style and wording, we may be able to help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- It's nothing to do with that lack of effort. I've got my disertation to submit, so I have to work on that. Equally while I do understand the topic I would't say Iäve got a particularly good knowledge of it. My area of knowledge is drugs. I try not to add too much as a result. But after the 11th I will make an attempt. I just haven't got the time to compile lists or fix things. Medos (talk • contribs) 23:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not questioning its accuracy. I'm questioning the way it's written. Note my comments are on the way the material is presented—"in a sense", "the way it is presented", "accurately represents"—you have misread my comments, as shown also by your inability to appreciate a joke. DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm not misreading you on your statement on accuracy. You were commenting on the information and I responded to each point.
I'm not convinced that the material (or the way it is presented) accurately represents current knowledge on action potentials.
- You did slightly comment on the presentation I will admit, but your primary argument was on the accuracy of the article. Medos (talk • contribs) 11:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- No, it wasn't. I know what I was trying to say. I have amended my comments to improve their presentation. Perhaps you could invest as much time in improving the article's prose as you do in improving mine? DrKiernan (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hold until Medos has time; when he does (and I wish him luck on his thesis), it would help if he would look at FAC first to see the level of writing and sourcing that we actually promote now-a-days. I believe he will emerge with a much higher opinion of this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Plea for patience I'm willing to mollify the critics of this article, but I need time? I'm traveling through the 2nd week of March, but I'll be happy to commit my fullest attention to the article thereafter, if you all can be that patient. Please don't delist it until I've had the chance to improve it! I think you won't be disappointed with what I do with it. :) Willow (talk) 09:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- OK, we'll wait. Marskell (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- With Willow on board, I'm happy to wait. Pls disregard my Remove for the time being, and Willow, pls ping me when it's ready for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- A month is long enough, and the article hasn't yet improved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Drat, I know you all are getting impatient but I was away for several weeks, remember? The past two days, I just wanted to bring a few articles to a decent state so that others could look at them while I'm working on this one. I haven't forgotten; I have my materials ready for this one, and I'll start on it tomorrow, I promise. If it's not suitable for FA by next Friday (April 4th), then by all means delist it with my blessing; I agree that it's presently not up to our standards. Willow (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm sorry, I need a little more time; we're very busy here with wedding preparations, which do not run by a train schedule. Is it OK if I start next week? I'll try first to allay the major concerns by adding inline citations throughout — primum non nocere! ;) But I think the article might yet be improved significantly; I intend to make the article more accessible and, I daresay, more encyclopedic, with everyone's help. If people could be as specific as possible in their criticisms, say, on the Talk page, that would help us immensely in improving the article, don't you all think? :) For example, if you don't like the writing (1c), what aspect of it do you dislike and why? As Bertie Wooster says, "Omit no detail, no matter how small!" ;) Appreciating all your help, Willow (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Don't worry, Willow, we can still wait. Marskell (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep in mind that very little additional footnoting is necessary. Stretches of uncontroversial facts (looks like most of the article) really just need a blanket reference to a good textbook. See Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. — Laura Scudder ☎ 01:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Continue to hold. I agree with the commenters who talk about the inconsistent reference style and the possible need for more in-text citations and/or page-number references, but per the discussion above these concerns are being worked on. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I left some sample edits, inline comments, and External links needs to be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- We've been holding for a full month, and Willow is actively editing other articles now. Based on what I saw yesterday when I worked on the article, I'm concerned about how far from featured status it is, and think it's past to either get moving, or remove. The prose and article organization need significant work, and it remains largely uncited two months into review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Remove, there are insufficient citations to support the text. Although textbooks are perfectly acceptable as sources, is a reader is unsure about part of the text, they shouldn't have to search trough an entire book to verify if that part of the text is true, they need direct citations with page numbers. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Striking improvement due to the heroic efforts of WillowW, another gold star for this star editor. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Tim! I'd be happy to hear any suggestions that occur to you, now or later, for improving the article. Good luck and God-speed your real-world efforts, Willow (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: If it matters, I've also agreed to help copyedit this article, so maybe keep holding for another little bit? I like Willow's 4 April deadline. – Scartol • Tok 23:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have also agreed to help copy edit this article. Awadewit (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Irresistible grace, aka, unearned favours? ;) Several of us (Scartol, Awadewit, Geometry guy, and TimVickers) have been working diligently on action potential and I hope that you think it's coming along nicely. :) It's certainly larger and better referenced than it was a week ago. Nonetheless, there are still large sections unreferenced and (if I may say so) poorly written. A difficult choice lies before the jury: whether to do the merciful thing and grant us more time to improve the article, or to do the just thing, condemning the article to the judgment of another WP:FAC. Either way, we'll continue working. Hoping for the former — but not fearful of the latter, Willow (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Reluctant remove. The article is improving slowly, but still not written well-enough, nor adequately (in-line) referenced. However I am confident that Willow and her team will tidy up the article over the next couple of months, bringing it up to standard for a new FA candidacy. Axl (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Changed to keep. The article has significantly improved. Axl (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hold: While it is not fully there yet. I think the progress of this article is fantastic. It's a true testament to all who have working on it. I'm very close to changing my hold to a keep. Medos (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well now, I just can't go and remove something that has received work this very day. So yes, hold until the work stops. It won't be the first time. I just noticed, at a glance, two sections that have literally no material beyond See also links; it still does need work. But all of our best minds seem to be on the job! Marskell (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you both! It's very heartening. :) We'll try to be like Scheherazade, delighting you day after day, until you reprieve the poor article. It hath reached me, O auspicious Kings... ;) Willow (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, if anyone would like to help out... :) Willow (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm grateful for the week-long stay of execution we've enjoyed — but I'll be even more grateful for your suggestions (on the Talk page) of how to improve the article, especially from those who voted to delist the article. Thank you, all, and I hope you like what's been done so far! :) Willow (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I just took a brief glance and quickly spotted MoS errors, Wikilinking needs attention (I noticed potassium, for example), and there are still citation issues, example: Mauro A (1960). "Properties of thin generators pertaining to electrophysiological potentials in volume conductors". J. Neurophysiol. 23: 132–?. Considering that I easily spotted these issues, I didn't spend any length of time reading or looking further. The article is quite long, with 61KB readable prose WP:SIZE; has summary style been effectively used ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps I should be more clear. I'm not asking for a review of MoS issues; I agree that the article is not ready for that. (As an aside, you should clarify WP:MOS that boldface equivalent names such as nerve impulse must come in the first sentence, or else not be bold-faced.) Instead, I am asking people to judge the scientific merit and completeness of the article, FA criteria 1(b)-1(d). Is a key concept not covered? Does a section need more thorough referencing? That sort of thing; the MoS stuff will follow once the content has stabilized. Summary style was used, but if anyone feels that some part could and should be condensed, I would be happy to try. As it is, a few subsections have not been filled in, e.g., the pacemaker potentials, so we might yet need to expand those parts. Willow (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, External links are taking over the Table of Contents:
- 14 External links
- 14.1 Animations
- 14.1.1 Voltages and ionic flow
- 14.1.2 Propagation; saltatory conduction
- 14.1.3 Resting potential
- 14.2 Lecture notes
- 14.3 Plant action potentials
That would be complex as part of the article body TOC, much less External links. There are misused dashes throughout (emdashes are not spaced), and numerous hyphens where minus signs are intended. I suppose the one- and two-sentence sections are still under construction, so I'm concerned the article will end up larger than the current 61KB readable prose size, and summary style should be considered somewhere (perhaps a daughter article on either Mathematical models or Experimental methods). It would be helpful if Notes were specified as a, b, c ... to distinguish from References 1, 2, 3 ... see Gettysburg Address. (I'm sorry if you're not yet ready for this commentary, Willow, but this sort of work can be considered at any time by anyone who has time to work on it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps another update is in order, now that the week is winding down? (1) To the best of my knowledge, I dealt with the MoS problems in dashes/hyphens/minus signs on the morning after Sandy called our attention to them. (2) I subsequently filled in the three 1- to 2-sentence sections with referenced paragraphs. (3) I've just now reduced the subsections within External links to four subsections and no subsubsections; I hope that's OK? I feel that the subsections are useful for reader navigation and I have not found them proscribed in the MoS for Featured Articles. (4) I agree that the article is overly long, and will be looking for ways to cut it once the referencing is finished. (5) I do not agree that the Mathematical and Experimental methods sections are somehow less important and should be stricken, but that's a matter of taste and better discussed on the Talk page. (6) I'm skeptical that a typical reader will be confused between [1] and [note 1] but I'm willing to gamely try to accommodate the desire for alphabetical footnotes. I'm not willing, however, to use the deprecated {{note}} template, which does not produce automatically incremented footnotes. I therefore wrote this extension (with this internationalization file) to the MediaWiki software. My solution produces automatically incremented letter superscripts as requested; however, a much better solution was finished the next day by Steve Sanbeg, which uses the "note 1, note2, etc." format. I adopted Steve's solution for this article, but he and I will be collaborating next week to merge our solutions and give Wikipedians the tools they need to write stellar articles. :) Willow (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- PS. I think the time has come for everyone here to vote the article up or down. Is the present article representative of the best of Wikipedia — or not? If not, then spell out what you want fixed. I won't argue with your points here; I just want a worklist and don't want to live under this Damocles sword any longer. I propose that the voting be closed tomorrow night at 00:01 UTC on 20 April (UTC). If any of you choose to remain engaged with the article afterwards, your insights and contributions will always be welcome. Willow (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, fabulous progress by all involved: 370 edits and 35KB additional prose since PMAnderson's "strong retain and immediate close as frivolous" almost two months ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Willow, I would ask TimV to vet the science. When he is happy with it, go back and take care of the minor things. Marskell (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yikes, What happened? What used to be a very clear and concise article about action potentials originally written and organized by Synaptidude is now a strewn-together mess of anything related to electrophysiology of excitable cells. I think the effort to retain the FA status has caused the article to bloat into something somewhat cumbersome and difficult to read. WHile all the additions seem to be well meaning, I would strongly suggest splitting the article up nto smaller articles. Or rather keep it as it is but rename it something like "Physiology of Excitable Cells" and keep the old Action Potential article as a sub-article of this. With everything from mechanism of resting membrane potential, to voltage-clamp methods, to neurotoxins, to ion pumps, to diameters of anions and cations, there is too much material that is not even directly related to the mechanisms underlying an action potential. Plus it is poorly organized and some inaccuracies seem to have been introduced. Nrets 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Oof. I don't know the first thing about science, so I can't really judge the applicability of the newly-introduced material, but I do know that WillowW has poured hours and hours and hours of her life into this article, and I've found her edits to be comprehensive and engaging. I don't have an opinion about forking, organization, or inaccuracies (could you be more specific about those?), but I certainly don't feel that the writing is less clear than it was. – Scartol • Tok 01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Mathematical models and Experimental methods at least could be spun out to daughter articles (and those external links still :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The number of my edits, or the hours of my life, devoted to the article are irrelevant if I've truly made the article worse, and hopefully I would have the good grace to revert my work if everyone believed the original article to be better.
-
-
-
- I agree that the present article is too long, and after making some explanatory images/animations, I'd intended to go back and trim things down. But the compression of information into "brilliant" prose takes time; wasn't it Byron who wrote, "I'd have written you a shorter letter, but I didn't have time?" ;)
-
-
-
- Nevertheless I have some hope of winning over Nrets to the new version of the article. What is unfamiliar may often seem strange and ugly until you grow used to it; for example, the first time I heard The Magic Flute, I told my friends, "Ugh, what is that awful music?" ;) but it took only two hearings to make me fall in love. Also, critical commentary from learned scientists are needed to help the article improve; we've had all too little of that hitherto. :( On the other hand, Nrets may come to appreciate the sense and organization of the present article.
-
-
-
- Let me lay out my reasoning for the present article, and others can say whether they agree or disagree with that approach, and why. This page is gradually growing longer, so I propose that we move our discussion of article content and organization to the Talk page. It'll be time well-spent if we can agree on an approach and realize it. Shall we? Willow (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- PS. I notice that scarcely a word remains of the original version, which may be relevant to some decisions here. I've tried in good faith to answer the appeal to save the article, but a two-week review has become a three-month rescue mission, and I won't be dismayed if people choose to delist it. It seems a little unfair for the present article to sneak into FA-dom on the coattails of a rather, umm, laconic original FAC discussion without having to withstand the rigors of a modern FAC discussion.
- I've had a superficial look at it, and on that basis would be very disappointed if this lost its star. I do hope the remaining objections can be acted on. TONY (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- The main hurdle I see here (relative to Marskell's suggestion) is that TimVickers has looked at it, and he's lodged a Remove declaration. (His declaration was insufficient citations, and we still find entire uncited sections.) I just restored the TOC (which had been hidden by restricting the level): WP:WIAFA crit 2b is relevant to FA status, so the TOC shouldn't be hidden with a parameter. I continue to suggest (3rd time) that a lot of content needs to be moved to daughter articles to streamline the article. Perhaps if that is done, TimVickers can be enticed to take another look; I suspect he could bring it over the hump if the article could just be reduced to a less overwhelming TOC and more manageable size. It's too much good work to lose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Also, help is needed on filling in missing PMIDs and DOIs; normally I do this on FARs when they're close, but there's a lot to do. If some text is summarized, there will be less, so I'd rather do this when I'm sure the text is settled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I got through ref number 50 checking on and updating PMIDs; the work isn't as hard as I thought, because a lot of the research used is very old, before PubMed indexing. I'll try to do more later, but from 50 on need PMIDs or DOIs checked. The bigger concern is that there are enormous swatches of uncited text, entire sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I appreciate that there are several unreferenced sections, although I hope that you think the sections that are referenced are done so well? I'll try to get to the PMIDs and other sections today, and I daresay that Tim might yet change his vote. The question of daughter articles is best considered on the Talk page; we recently had serendipity on the Mathematical methods section.
-
-
-
-
- There are a few minor cosmetic points that I would appreciate to have clarified, since I can't find them in the MoS guidelines:
-
-
-
-
- The limitation on the Table of Contents level was suggested by Awadewit, who used it at the FA Joseph Priestley. Where is the guideline stating that this method is forbidden?
- I've delved a little into in Help:Section and WP:WIAFA pages and I can't find an MoS guideline that specifies the maximum number of subheadings. There are size suggestions, to be sure, but the current sizes seem OK. It seems strange that the Wikipedia markup language should permit four levels of sectioning, if only two are allowed by MoS. Personally, I don't find three levels of sectioning to be overwhelming; I actually like the organization and ease of navigation.
- I likewise can't seem to find the MoS guideline that says that – must be replaced by –. At least my eyes have trouble distinguishing the two, but maybe that's because one of them is closed. ;) As an explanation, I prefer to have the en-dashes written out because it helps me in proofreading the article; my eyes also have trouble distinguishing between hyphens and en-dashes. I honestly cannot always see the difference unless they're next to one another, and many other editors mistakenly use hyphens for page-number ranges.
- WP:MOSDASH, one of MoS's sillier sections; it should not be permitted to interfere with any clear and consistent system of punctuation. WP:IAR is policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again for proofreading, it's easier for me if the pages numbers are not abbreviated, e.g., 249–261, rather than 249–61. Although it's redundant, more typographic errors can be caught with the first approach than with the second. For example, if the pages of an article are 17343–17353, then one might not catch the deletion of a preceding digit thus 1743–53. If the MoS guidelines state that the page numbers must be abbreviated, then I'll happily go along with the consensus, but I would like to know whether there is a choice. Willow (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
WillowW, are you unfamiliar with Diberri's script for filling cite journal templates with PMIDs? I've offered to help with this sort of MoS, PMID, and citation grunt and cleanup work several times, to take the load of the trivial work off of you, but I would use the automated tools available to us, and stick to the standardized citation formatting provided by Diberri and used in most bio and medical articles. By using an individual style in the article, you prevent others who want to help from using Diberri's tool, since doing so will result in inconsistent citations. My goal was to convert the citations that were already in the place to the format used by Diberri, to make it easier for other editors to continue adding citations in a consistent style, using the automated tool. Anyway, I can see you have a number of preferences and prefer to go it alone on this (and I certainly understand eyesight issues :-)), so I'll stay out of the way on the little stuff I usually help out with. I remain uncomfortable about the TOC issues (particularly the External links), and the use of the {{TOClimit}} template, which takes the TOC from this to this, obscuring the full article structure. There is not a guideline that forbids this template (as far as I know; it's use in FAs is fairly new, and how it relates to crit 2b is unclear). There is, however, a WP:WIAFA criterion (2b) that we evaluate the TOC in FAs, and if it's hidden, that might not be noticed by reviewers. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Sandy,
- I'm sorry, I don't have the pleasure of understanding you? I did not know about Diberri's tool, so I'm very grateful for you pointing it out! :) But Diberri's tool doesn't find the PMID for a given reference; rather, it does the reverse, making the reference from a given PMID. I haven't checked lately, but I think the article needs more of the former than the latter; but that can be amended by anyone with enough patience going to the PubMed website. I would appreciate any help on that score, as you and others have done already! :)
- Friendly Wikipedians may also find other references at Pubmed that they wish to add, using Diberri's tool and for that I would thank them from the bottom of my heart, as I do everyone who's added references. (You know who you are. ;) The format produced by Diberri's tool is nearly identical to mine; please compare Diberri's example
-
-
-
- Mendozo Hernández P (April 1975). "[Clinical diagnosis and therapy. Intravenous and oral rehydration]" (in Spanish; Castilian). Bol Oficina Sanit Panam 78 (4): 307–17. PMID 123455.
- with my standard format
-
-
-
- Mummert H, Gradmann D (1991). "Action potentials in Acetabularia: measurement and simulation of voltage-gated fluxes". Journal of Membrane Biology 124: 265–273. PMID 1664861.
- Aside from the digit on the second page number, the two formats don't seem inconsistent, right? The page-number issue seems readily fixable—once we agree on a standard format—and, anyway, inconsistent formatting of a second page number doesn't worry me too much, although perhaps I should try to empathize with the academic mindset better.
- I'm not sure why you think the TOC was invisible? It was always visible for me, just reduced to the top-level headings, just like Joseph Priestley. Here's the version] that you saw; maybe you missed the TOC, or maybe it was a browser issue?
- Another plea for help. As anyone may see from the article history, I haven't given up hope or grown faint, and I'm slowly but surely referencing everything with the resources I have available to me. I understand that the topic is strange and foreign, and that many people can't spare time to look for references or help in other ways; I really do! But those few who can contribute, those happy few who will contribute, their work radiates grace. :) Willow (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think the TOC issue is not really what is at issue. Per this discussion, it would seem that the TOC should not really be a big issue. What should be a big issue is the organization of the article. If SandyGeorgia has a problem with the organization of the article, we should discuss that. The TOC is a red herring at this point. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- As covered in my earlier posts (and echoing Nret's post, that the article may be straying from a tight focus on the main topic, crit. 4 of WP:WIAFA), my concerns were mainly in three areas: External links, Mathmatical models and Experimental methods. I believe two out of three have now been addressed (I haven't checked the article today), but I'm not convinced the issue of the original intent of crit. 2b has been sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
WillowW, I'm sorry you didn't have or know about Diberri's tool; it's mentioned at WP:MEDMOS and is widely used for citing most of the med/bio FAs I've been aware of, which tend to follow that format and have consistent citation. I was trying to advance the citations that were already in place to agree with the Diberri tool, to assure that new PMID citations added with Diberri's format would be consistent (see for example TimVickers additions); I'm, sorry the page number conventions is an issue (just trying to help). With Diberri's tool, yes, you have to have the article, but by simply plugging in the PMID, you don't have to manually generate the citation ... have you been doing all that work manually (ouch!) ? If you just put PMIDs inline, I can convert them and format the refs; that's the sort of help I can offer, to lighten your load. This is a frustrating situation: I am not a content expert, I can't cite the article, but I can help with the MoS cleanup, PMIDs, citation formatting, etc., yet although I've offered to do this work, I have not found a way to help that has met with your acceptance. I don't know the topic, so I can't help cite the article, and it's discouraging that other content experts haven't pitched in. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have indeed been doing everything by hand, but don't worry, I think I'm as fast as Diberri's tool. ;) It also takes me less time to write & n d a s h ; than it does to scroll down and pick it out of the menu. It helps that I drink a lot of good coffee. ;)
- I'm surprised that you think I've been unaccepting of anyone's contributions; I've never reverted anything, have I? I'll confess to smiling over the replacement of all my –'s to –, but I hope you'll forgive me for that? I think the problem is that you ask me to fix something and I actually do it, which maybe is surprising? For example, you complained about the WP:DASH usage; so when I read that, I fixed it. You asked for letter superscripts, and by serendipity, I had already programmed that a few weeks earlier. You asked for more referencing, and I'm trying to do that, too. It runs deeper; you asked us at WP:MCB to fix this article, so I'm faithfully trying to fulfil that wish as well. Please don't mistake trying to fix problems with being unwilling to accept help. It would be great if people wanted to pitch in. Please believe me, Sandy, that you're cordially invited to help out however you wish to, as is everyone else; we're all in it together. :) Willow (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Aw, Willow :-) I suppose if I mistook anything, it was claims elsewhere that you had to go it alone and no one else would help: just noting that I offered :-) Nice job by all involved !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: This sentence from the start of the second paragraph should be re-phrased: "An action potential is provoked on a patch of membrane when the membrane is depolarized, i.e., when the voltage of the cell's interior relative to the cell's exterior is increased." Axl (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Changing to Neutral. Haven't had time to fully review the new article, but it's clear my original analysis is no longer relevant after the rewrite. Jay32183 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Keeping' for now. It was better than most of what we promote before this process, and it still is. We are not looking for articles beyond the possibility of improvement; there aren't any. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- This review is a few days from the three month mark and massive improvement has been performed by Willow and others. While small quibbles may remain, it's time to close this. Marskell (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep - WillowW mentioned Irresistible grace. Well, clearly this article has been saved (nothing sacrilegious intended, of course). --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- A deep, heartfelt thanks to everyone who helped with this article, and also to those who wished to save it, even if they weren't able to help as much as they wanted to. There's warmth and strength in knowing you're not alone. After 1,001 edits (well, not quite ;), Scheherazade has been reprieved, and I hope she will delight you all for years to come, a summer-moon in a winter-night. :) Willow (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept 09:48, 16 April 2008.
[edit] Review commentary
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Films notified.
I've done some major restructuring of the article over the past few weeks, and I want to make sure that I haven't screwed anything up too badly. Specifically, I'm requesting a prose review for the entire article. Any other suggestions are welcome also. Helltopay27 (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comments by User:Canadian Paul
I made a couple of slight prose changes. If you disagree or want an explanation, please just let me know and I'd be more than happy to discuss. Other than those slight changes, I had no major problems with the prose. Here's a few more quick and very subjective comments/questions. Feel free to strike anything you do/disagree with. I didn't check much to do with referencing, since I'm assuming that was all covered when the article first became featured.
- Is "documentarians" a real word, or at least one use to describe their job? It sounds right, but Firefox spell check tells me it doesn't exist.
- Under "Plot", the last sentence of the first paragraph ends with "and grows increasingly disturbing as the film progresses." This seems a little POV to me. I've seen the film and do agree, but if you could find a citation to back this up, it certainly wouldn't hurt. I don't think it's a huge deal though.
- Per WP:CONTEXT, I'm not sure it's helpful to Wikilink crew in the plot section.
- In the plot, I changed one part to "Due to the efforts the military"... it might help to clarify whether this was the American military or the local military.
- One very very pedantic grammar change that I didn't make was, in the second paragraph of "Production", I believe it should be "delayed shortly" rather than "shortly delayed", but I think I may confusing two different grammar rules, so I may be wrong on this one.
- I think that the second sentence of the first paragraph of "Direction" would work better as two separate sentences, but that might just be me and my distaste for two sentence paragraphs. I think it disrupts the flow a bit, but others may disagree.
- Second paragraph of "Direction": "David Carter of Savage Cinema..." What is Savage Cinema and why is David Carter qualified to tell me about this film? If Savage Cinema has a Wikipedia link, then it should be linked. If not, no more than half a sentence should be spent explaining what Savage Cinema is. Same with "Scott Ashlin of 1000 Misspent Hours", "The Paly Voice" later under "Interpretations" and "Rob Humanick of The Projection Booth" in the same section
- In the introduction to "Reaction", I think that the little side comment ((which was ultimately the case)) is unnecessary.
- Following from my comments on "Direction", under "Critical response" there's a quote from "Mike Bracken". You need to explain who Mike Bracken is and why he's qualified to comment on the movie, because there's no way at the moment to tell the difference between him being a professional reviewer or some guy on the Internet who gives his opinions on movies. Same with "Sean Axmaker", "Nick Schager" and "Eric Henderson"
- My one referencing concern was the end of the "Soundtrack" section where "and is a highly sought item by fans of the movie. In August 2005, the soundtrack was released again, this time in the United States, on the Coffin Records label." is uncited. The last part arguably doesn't need a citation since its inherent to its own existence (although a ref certainly wouldn't hurt), but I would think the fact that the CD is highly sought after would be POV without a citation.
Apologies if I accidentally deleted something in the edit conflict. It was unintentional. Cheers, CP 00:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Response
- Yep, it's a word for someone who makes documentaries, according to Dictionary.com Unabridged and American Heritage Dictionary.
- I've always been suspect of that phrase, but I've always kept it in because it helps the article's flow into the synopsis. I'll remove it unless someone provides a citation.
- I didn't even notice that anyone had wikified the cast. I'll change it.
- I changed it further for grammatical reasons.
- Changed based on the fact that I agree, it sounds better.
- I'm not even sure how to break this sentence up without it sounding forced/awkward.
- I've removed all Paly Voice references because, unbeknowst to me at the time of adding the reference, it's a high school newspaper! The other websites are established cult horror magazines/websites that don't happen to have a Wikipedia article. I'll establish that within the article.
- Another sentence that I've been suspect of. I agree, it's unnecessary, and I've removed it.
- All of these reviewers are featured on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning that they are professional reviewers and members of various writing unions. I don't think there's any way of establishing this without sounding very sloppy (i.e. "These reviewers are all featured on Rotten Tomatoes").
- Sorry, often I add information that I know personally that doesn't necessarily have a reference perse (i.e. word of the mouth). However, I think that bit is necessary, so I'll try to scrounge up a citation from somewhere.
Thanks for the review! Helltopay27 (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: Again, like an idiot, I completely forgot to exploit the commentary in the Mondo film books that I have, which certainly makes the authors' opinions relevant. I've removed all suspect reviewers (save those on Rotten Tomatoes) with similar opinions made by these authors.
Also, I re-separated the paragraphs in the Interpretations section, as this covers both interpretations and not just the media angle. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- What's the status on this one? Do the nominator and others think the prose has improved sufficiently? Marskell (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm satisfied. Issues were raised on the prose, and I was able to resolve all of them. The problem is, like I said before, is that we didn't really get a very broad scope of opinions. Helltopay27 (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns is prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not moving this because I feel it needs to lose status but to get a few extra comments. Is Canadian Paul around? Marskell (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with the prose but why do the documentary interviews have retrieval dates and are the web-sites used as sources reliable? 14:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.8.2 (talk)
- Yes, they're reliable. Just because they're websites shouldn't necessarily imply that they're not reliable. Most of the websites are the websites of the reviewers that are cited. I'll fix the retrieval dates; they're for if they interviews were online. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - no major issues. --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I really don't think that this needed a full-blown FAR just because an FA had some substantial edits, frankly. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, one of the best FAs I've read in a while. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks. Wasn't expecting that one. As to Girolamo Savonarola, I didn't think that a peer review was for featured articles, and I didn't expect for it to move on to be a FARC. Like Marskell said, it was listed as a FARC not necessarily for being demoted, but to obtain additional comments. Helltopay27 (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was closed 06:08, 15 April 2008.
-
- Stifle notified a number of people active in the current edit war, but I notified HailFire[8], User:Jersyko[9], and Steve Dufour[10] as well.--Bobblehead (rants) 17:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Users notified by Stifle: Davidp[11], Tvoz[12], Ronaldomundo[13], Belfunk[14], Scjessey[15], Kossack4Truth[16], Andyvphil[17], Grsz11[18]. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Featured Article Review #1: January 2007.
- Featured Article Review #2: July 2007.
- Fails criterion 1 (e) in that the article is not stable and has required full protection on a number of occasions. Stifle (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The stability criterion is:
-
1 (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured article process.
I do not support FAR of an otherwise fine article only because it has had to be protected due to normal and natural fallout from the election cycle. FAR is not dispute resolution. Unless the article has other significant issues, I suggest closure or withdrawal of this FAR.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Struck, POV issues have subsequently been raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is obviously going to be some dispute on a controversial topic such as a major election candidate, and it is likely to be protected many times by nature of the topic. I agree with SandyGeorgia on this one. I would support keeping this as a FA at the moment. Yahel Guhan 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not support the Barack Obama page as a featured article given the dispute surrounding N/POV. A group of editors is vigorously protecting this article from information that is noteworthy but that is deemed negative by those editors. A great deal of discussion has taken place on the Talk page regarding these issues. While some biased edits are certainly coming from editors who seem to insist on forcefully discrediting Obama, the pendulum has swung entirely in the direction of fan-like protectionism, which is undermining Wikipedia principles. --Davidp (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- There was no mention of POV issues (1d) in the FAR submission, and they haven't been documented here; the submission mentioned only 1e, stability. Pls clarify with specific POV issues warranting review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is currently an edit war going on over whether or not a classification of Barack Obama as a liberal in the Senate career section is appropriate and whether or not there should be a long description of Jeremiah Wright's controversial comments and their impact upon his presidential campaign is required in the presidential campaign section, or if a summary of the controversy in line with WP:SS is appropriate. Here's a diff that shows fairly well the content that some feel is missing, while some feel is WP:UNDUE.[19] --Bobblehead (rants) 17:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be a problem... As Sandy noted, FAR is not dispute resolution. Removing this one from the list over some edit warring seems to be pushing it. This nomination seems clearly to be a proxy for other more reasonable means of dispute resolution, which it should NOT be. Work it out at RFC or on the talk page, but not here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just a note, Stifle is not involved in the current edit war and only came to the article because I requested full protection to force a ceasefire.[20] --Bobblehead (rants) 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Has an RFC or any other dispute resolution method been tried? This situation is going to be ongoing during the election cycle; we don't defeature an article over expected minor differences, and FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- An RFC is currently in progress on the labeling but has only generated two serious responses since it was started. Which I believe was missed in all the other activity on the talk page. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Additions that are reverted are POV, as well as go against the policy on article size, as this article is well over the desired size limit. Detailed additions that are added are inappropriate when they are throughly covered elsewhere (in other articles). A FAR is way out of line here. Grsz 11 19:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- First, WP:SIZE isn't policy; it's a guideline. Second, the article is very well within WP:SIZE (even with the additions linked above, it was still at only 40KB readable prose, well under the 50 KB readable prose max suggested guideline, which is often passed in featured articles). Arguing to keep that text out based on size isn't gonna fly. At any rate, that discussion belongs in an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think the article is in excellent condition at the moment, and easily worthy of FA status; however, the ongoing edit war caused by a small group of biased editors who wish to specifically highlight or fabricate criticism of Obama has made the article somewhat unstable. Consensus building has failed, because this group of editors simply ignore the outcome of any meaningful discussions and do their own thing anyway. Sadly, I don't feel I can recommend FA status on this basis. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Withdraw Nomination - This isn't cleanup or dispute resolution. And instability is when the definition of a planet is changed and the definition of a planet articles needs a massive rewrite. Day to day additions and copyediting for the political season doesn't need rewriting of the whole article but the paragraph in question. There doesn't seem to be massive instability, and so it shouldn't be brought here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if this is a request or otherwise, but I decline to withdraw the nomination. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Renomination There is indeed a content dispute going on about this article. The idea that this means it is inappropriate to immediately reconsider this article's FA status is simply bizarre. Many of the criteria for FA status are about content, not form. Wikipedia's "core" content policies include WP:NPOV, which this article currently largely ignores, and if its content fails NPOV it cannot be an FA.
- Just because Stifle chose to specify criterion 1(e) in his nom is no reason to ignore the fact that this article fails, miserably, criteria 1(b) and 1(d), as follows:
1. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
- (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
- (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.
- Background information: Obama, after three years working to coordinate the politics of black churches in Chicago, made an unforced choice to put aside his religious skepticism and join a church whose linked Black Liberation theology and active politics, exemplified by its pastor, then of 16 years in that post, was very familar to him. And he's remained a faithful congregant for 20 years while that politics has been preached from the pulpet and reflected in encomiums from the pastor and the church's publications for such as Louis Farrakan, etc.
- This content is missing from the article. For that reason, among others, we have a content dispute. Yes, the POV that this is a significant part of Obama's bio is a POV. But NPOV policy does not require that we eschew content that is POV. It requires exactly the opposite. It requires that all significant POV be represented. And given the severe hit Obama has taken in the polls it's pretty clear that the POV that Wright's politics is significant is not a WP:FRINGE POV. So... if it's not there Barack Obama fails NPOV. And if it fails NPOV we must either fix that or withdraw the FA designation. QED.
- As if that weren't enough, there is a refusal to attempt to reflect the attempts of reliable sources to place Obama's politics on the political spectrum. Now, Obama has said that such political labeling is "old politics"[21], but there is another POV, namely that he is intentionally obscuring his politics because those politics, correctly perceived, will not be palatable to sections of the electorate. Again, NPOV requires that both POV be represented. The latter is not in the article. If it's not there Barack Obama fails NPOV. And if it fails NPOV we must either fix that or withdraw the FA designation. Again, QED. Andyvphil (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, that's a legitimate POV dipute that wasn't spelled out originally, and if it remains unaddressed and remains an issue, than a FAR makes sense. But, before coming to FAR, have you all allowed enough time for other dispute resolution measures, for example, RFC? FAR is not dispute resolution. (It's hard to imagine why such text isn't just incorporated considering its importance, but has that been addressed through other means, before coming to FAR?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah that's all well and good, but unfortunately it is also complete nonsense. Andy says, "and given the severe hit Obama has taken in the polls it's pretty clear that the POV that Wright's politics is significant..." Except that isn't true at all. Today's poll indicates that Obama is still leading in the polls. Although neck and neck with Clinton, he is polling as beating McCain when Clinton is not. This poll was conducted specifically to see what impact the Jeremiah Wright affair had, and it turns out that he has lost a tiny bit of ground with Republicans, and lost almost nothing with Democrats. In otherwords, the Jeremiah Wright issue was not significant at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't argue politics on the FAR; the question here is whether the FAR is necessary or other means of dispute resolution have been pursued. Clearly there is a POV dispute, now that more complete info has been posted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I disagree with that assessment. True we should not argue politics on the FAR, but we should not dismiss statistical polling analysis, as simple politics. If you really think the Wright issue rises to the level of POV dispute, and isn't just basic misleading and tendentious editing, then you need to look at those polls and the others and see for yourself whether it has has any affect on the public (as opposed to the media which WP is biased towards because thats where our sources generally come from) the polls show no effect, and yet our text DOES have a mention of this controversy, just not a LONG one which is what some people want. You could argue that the polling data supports TOTAL EXCLUSION of the Wright issue. However no one is arguing for that because it violates undue weight, specifically that the issue is due some weight. And consensus has supported that version, the hue and cry of certain notorious editors aside. It has mention, and I think the issue is closed in the minds of most. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Another long answer about political differences and views, with no discussion of dispute resolution steps tried. We're a long ways from November, and FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- after being the initiator of two dispute resolution processi on Obama Campaign 08; I can tell you that they are not as helpful as you would hope. Neither me nor the other disagreeing party ended up using the suggestions from a 3-o request, and my plea for help on the BLP noticeboard has been entirely vacant of admin comments since it was posted. So I think many admins are simply waiting until 2008 is over before touching these articles. That being said- any help would be nice because as I can verify when I got mis-reported for 3rr, blocked for 31 hours, and then unblocked on a BLP exception- even the Dispute Resolution process is yielding a pretty scattershot consensus right now. I support dispute resolution and agree that maybe FAR is not the best venue for these concerns, but at the same time perhaps Dispute Resolution needs more teeth to handle what is happening on some pages lately. I would also look at who is accepting policy and who is abusing it.72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Neutral "Featured Article" has no meaning to me. I don't care if this label is applied to Senator Obama's article or not. The editors who are editing the article hoping to influence the election one way or the other would do much better to spend their time volunteering for one campaign or the other. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Just to add another perspective, I'm sharing this quality assessment that I recently discovered on the web. I'm still hopeful for renewed progess toward consensus through the current RfC, and I encourage editors concerned about this BLP's placement or non-placement of Sen. Obama on a "political spectrum" to return their focus to that still open discussion. That said, I would agree with 72's perception that the apparent hands-off approach of at least some of Wikipedia's more experienced editors has made progress slow going. It's the main reason that I too recently proposed nominating this article for a third featured article review. --HailFire (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment, I believe this is one of the finest political figure articles on Wikipedia. One or two unresolved content disputes do not make an article instable. I agree with Sandy Georgia's statement that FAR is not dispute resolution. · jersyko talk 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm taking this off my watchlist, as it's quite clearly merely a content dispute (one that I don't have the time or inclination to participate in at the moment). I suggest closure of this FAR and use of dispute resolution. · jersyko talk 03:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Jersyko and others that although there have been a few content disputes, this high-profile article overall has remained quite stable and has been so for a long time which is a feat, given the attraction the article has to politically-motivated attacks. It continues to be deserving of its FA status. Tvoz |talk 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- The original nomination was wrongheaded, so much so that I'm not entirely convinced that its intent was not to fail, poisoning the well for a later attempt and providing another argument for retaining the article's current status as an annex of the Obama campaign site. The "stability" of the article is the problem, rather than the opposite. The fact that the article has FA status (which is a scandal, but understandable since the pro-Obama claque active in controlling the article can be expected to, and has, weighed in en masse on any nomination and FAR) has been used repeatedly as an argument for the proposition that it cannot possibly have NPOV problems, and most recently as an argument for repeatedly deleting the POV template from the article head despite the many allegations of POV on the discussion page (and here) and in contravention of the instruction in the template that it should not be removed while the discussion is taking place.
- SandyGeorgia's naive observation that "It's hard to imagine why such text isn't just incorporated considering its importance..." has been met by denials that the issue is of any importance at all. Never mind the assertions that any mention of ratings in the "Senate Career" section is some kind of a smear. The claque is entrenched and prepared to be unreasonable and I see nothing in the "dispute resolution" process that is going to result in NPOV making a beachhead in the article. But there is no reason to wait interminably for some other process to complete before proceeding here. The article doesn't deserve FA but has it. The duty of a neutral editor in this process is to try to improve it and if (when) that proves impossible remove the designation. So, let's do it, if we can. Andyvphil (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yet your idea of making this article neutral consists of your own POV, like here and here. Several perfectly acceptable alternatives have been proposed, which offer absolutely no comments either way on the "controversy", yet you still insist that you are right. Grsz 11 00:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- nb: Grsz11's idea of NPOV is this edit, removing from the section of the article on Obama's Senate career info on the National Journal and ADA ratings of Barack Obama's Senate career, as well as Obama's comment in response to the former that ideological labels are “old politics". Grsz11's comment explaining this act of censorship is "rmv POV edit. source didnt work. is this mentioned on Clinton's article?". In fact both the NJ rating and the ADA ratings are mentioned in Clinton's article, all five citations in the deleted material work, and what is POV about mentioning a rating significant enough to prompt a reply from Obama, including that reply, is beyond my comprehension. If he thought the ratings I added (ADA) or restored (NJ) were unrepresentative, he could add more. Instead it is demanded that a treatment of ratings acceptable to the pro-Obama claque be produced and agreed upon before the subject be mentioned at all,. which agreement is indefinately withheld, keeping the article free of any mention of the subject indefinately, which is clearly the desired result.
- Also, WP:NPOV:
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.
- It's not my idea that adding POV different than Obama's is what is necessary for NPOV. It's in policy. Non-negotiable policy, in fact. Andyvphil (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment If an article is the subject of an ongoing edit war, it fails FA criteria, regardless of who's in the right. If some users or parties are clearly in the wrong (or are disruptively editing), then admins should consider blocking. I don't see what's so hard about that. - Chardish (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. I suggest that this FAR remain open for at least one week after the expiration of full protection so that our current problems with FACR 1(e) can be addressed under the watchful eye of editors with broader experience in managing the FAR process and assessing FA status across all of Wikipedia. --HailFire (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- If it's not hard, tell us: Are they? Am I? And if it fails FA criteria, in your opinion, when can we move on to the next stage? Andyvphil (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- As I said on the article talk page a while ago, FAR is intended to be a deliberative process, and we don't just "move on to the next stage". FAR is not dispute resolution, and by the time this comes up for "keep" or "remove" voting, your content dispute will likely be yesterday's stale headlines, and FAR reviewers are not likely to engage in that dispute. Dispute resolution is a better means of addressing the issue. Further, whether or not the article carries a little featured star won't solve your differences, so FAR isn't the best place to bring them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with Barack Obama is not a content dispute about whether or not to give the Wright connection the attention it deserves, or whether to mention the National Journal's characterization of his voting record as the most liberal in the Senate and his near-perfect (54 of 55) 3-year ADA record. These are merely symptoms of the control over content excercised by the resident pro-Obama claque, and that shows no sign of becoming yesterday's headline. This article fails FA criteria 1(b) and 1(d) and that shows no sign of changing. The time to remove FA status was when it failed the criteria. I repeat: can we get on with it? If not, why not? What are we waiting for? Andyvphil (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Get on with what? Have you read the instructions at WP:FAR? All reviews last a month, many last two. Dispute resolution is that-a-way. After ya'll stop arguing politics on the FAR, and if deficiencies wrt WP:WIAFA are demonstrated here, and if the article moves to FARC in a few weeks, editors may then declare Keep or Remove and the article may or may not be delisted. In the meantime, FAR will not solve the dispute nor is it intended to, and removing the star (or not) will not either. But I've said this a few times already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, the instructions read:
Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria.
So we can get on with this (move it to the next stage) in a week or two. I'm not expecting this FAR to solve the dispute. I expect the claque to remain in control, in fact, and for the article to remain biased. Nothing is going to change any time soon. Andyvphil (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment - If I could just chime in here.... It would be hypocritical of me to suggest that this article be delisted while I am helping editors get John McCain to FA status, but I do notice some problems with the ongoing dispute. I do not feel that the article should be delisted as of now, but would like to comment on the ongoing situation; call it an outsiders prospective :)
-
- First, I only check in on this article every once in a while, and both of the last times I did it has been fully protected. That can be somewhat of a problem when passing the stablity criterion.
- Secondly, I do feel that Jeremiah Wright's comments (and that's putting it nicely :) ) should be included, or at least more of a mention of them than what is currently being presented. I support this position for four reasons: 1) Although he has sort of begun to bounce back in polls, it hurt his campaign hard; he dropped in the polls sharply after this story broke; 2) his story on knowing about the comments changed, wherein he first said he never heard them, and then said, "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."; 3) he has largely denounced the comments, but has not denounced the pastor; and 4) he made a speech on race solely because of the incident(s).
- Third, As we have been doing with John McCain, the major detail can go in seperate subarticles (in this case Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008) but there is usually a mention in the main article; that should definitely be done here. This was (and still is) a big part of Barack Obama's campaign, like it or not, and it is only NPOV to include more than what is already written about Wright in the section. Happyme22 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- it bothers me that all your reasons for inclusion are examples of Original Research. You say you want more but you can't articulate a reason why. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Where's the hypocrisy? I'm presuming your help includes letting the McCainiacs know they can't have it all their own way. Delisting Obama should be a salutary lesson and is probably a necessary step on getting Obama back to where it deserves FA. If (First, Second and Third) it doesn't meet FA criteria, why don't you think it should be delisted? Andyvphil (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm worried about people thinking that I am or was a hypocrite for voting to delist this one while supporting McCain's *eventual* nom, coupled with the fact that I am a Republican. But I also do not feel that that should stop me from telling the crowd what I feel is wrong with the article.
-
- There are NPOV problems. From reading over the article, I only see two criticisms of Obama: "He was criticized by rival pro-choice candidates in the Democratic primary and by his Republican pro-life opponent in the general election for a series of "present" or "no" votes on late-term abortion and parental notification issues." and "has been criticized by progressive commentator David Sirota for demonstrating too much "Senate clubbiness," and has been praised by conservative commentators, including George Will who encouraged him to run for president. But in a December 2006 Wall Street Journal editorial, former Ronald Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan advised Will and other "establishment" commentators to avoid becoming too quickly excited about Obama's still early political career."
-
- The second phrase above is furthermore not entirely correct, because it implies that all conservative commentators love Obama, which is surely not the case. After seeing really only two criticisms in the article, the main editors' objections to adding more about the Wright controversy is, in my humble opinion, only another indication that there is some POV.
-
- I have been working on the Ronald Reagan article for about a year. If you take a look at it, you will see that I, who authored the majority of the piece, am not a POV editor, and my points of POV in this article should be taken seriously. As for my IP friend above, Sir, you must not know what original research is, because I have used citations from reliable, published sources. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Here's seven more. The wording is more subtle perhaps than the ones you've quoted, but all of them clear challenges to Obama's statements or positions:
-
-
-
- Through three televised debates, Obama and Keyes expressed opposing views on stem cell research, abortion, gun control, school vouchers, and tax cuts.[43]
- In a nationally televised speech at the University of Nairobi, he spoke forcefully on the influence of ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya.[66] The speech touched off a public debate among rival leaders, some formally challenging Obama's remarks as unfair and improper, others defending his positions.[67]
- Obama's energy initiatives scored pluses and minuses with environmentalists, who welcomed his sponsorship with John McCain (R-AZ) of a climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050, but were skeptical of his support for a bill promoting liquefied coal production.[70]
- In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially and politically charged sermons made by Obama's longtime pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright.[98][99] Following significant negative media coverage, Obama responded to the controversy by delivering a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[100] In the speech, Obama rejected Wright's offensive comments, but declined to disown the man himself.[101] Although the speech was generally well-received for its attempt to explain and contextualize Wright's comments,[101][102] some critics continued to press the question of Obama's long-standing relationship with Wright.[103][104]
- Before the conference, 18 pro-life groups published an open letter stating, in reference to Obama's support for legal abortion: "In the strongest possible terms, we oppose Rick Warren's decision to ignore Senator Obama's clear pro-death stance and invite him to Saddleback Church anyway."[136]
- Film critic David Ehrenstein, writing in a March 2007 Los Angeles Times article, compared the cultural sources of Obama's favorable polling among whites to those of "magical Negro" roles played by black actors in Hollywood movies.[177]
- During his Democratic primary campaign for U.S. Congress in 2000, two rival candidates charged that Obama was not sufficiently rooted in Chicago's black neighborhoods to represent constituents' concerns.[175]
-
-
- Agree with you about the "praised by conservative commentators" bit, a recent addition to that sentence that needs fixing. We also cover his smoking, and could put back the teenage drug use if editors do not consider it undue weight for a WP:SS. But please note that the above bulleted excerpts are drawn from sections spread throughout the article. Each one has its own talk page history too. The article you see today was forged through many POV challenges and sustained, good faith consensus building efforts involving editors of all views. I don't think an election means we have to discount all the collaborative work that has gone before, and I hope you, as a fellow editor who is actively engaged with politician bios and therefore understands the level of effort that goes into getting and maintaining FA status, will hear this plea for assistance. I invite you to have a second read through of the article and reconsider your assessment. We definitely need your perspective and fair assessment here. Good luck with getting McCain to FA. I'll come over and offer some suggestions. --HailFire (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Well I want to thank you for your work on this article. I personally know how hard it is to get an article to FA status, especially one of a political figure. But I also know that the article has to be FA-fit and free of POV, something that this article seems to be having trouble with. Thank you for presenting these statements above, although I'm not sure that the first and last count as criticisms simply because they contain negative words. So that gets it down to eight, which isn't too bad for a pretty new political figure. But now he is a candidate for the most powerful office in the country, and should be treated as so.
-
-
-
- As you requested, I have reread the article. As of now, I do not favor delisting the article, but I do think that attention needs to be brought to certain places that are, in my view, questionably POV. These largely include the sections "Political advocacy", and yes "Books". I can give you a list of what I feel needs to be changed to make the article more NPOV, but I don't want to clog up this space in doing so. I will begin compliling a list in my sandbox and present it upon request or upon the closer of this FAR. I'm looking forward to working with all the Barack Obama editors. Respectfully, Happyme22 (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw nomination. Remove. This article fails both the WP:NPOV test and the stability test. Compare it with the articles about George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John McCain and other recent presidents and presidential candidates. Each has entire sections devoted to criticism and controversy, even though they are no longer titled, "Criticism and Controversy." Hundreds of words are allotted to the substantial criticism from the other side of the the political spectrum that each of them has attracted. Here, there is no criticism. It is not allowed. It is banished to satellite articles, and it's been proven that virtually no one reads these satellite articles. The Obama biography is completely sanitized and shrink-wrapped. Never is heard a discouraging word. It reads as though it was written by Obama's campaign staff despite two major controversies (Wright and Rezko) and thousands of news articles and opinion columns about these controversies. Here are the criteria:
1. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
-
- (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
- (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.
-
- This article fails. It deserves to fail. Andy and I will continue to insist on NPOV. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again, can you provide section links to those sections in the other articles, atleast so they can be compared. I just did a quick search of Clinton and the word "criticized" only comes up in the Lewinsky section, and to say that she was "criticized by some Democrats for spending too much on a one-sided contest" for her 2006 reelection. The McCain Lobbyistgate is given one sentence under the 2008 campaign section, and the only other time "criticized" is used, is a single phrase about his actions in the Senate Commerce Committee. Grsz 11 13:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I am confused about this as well. The only article that has a "criticism section" out of the BLPs listed by Kossack4Truth above is George W. Bush (who warrants his own special criticism page, obviously). This is just more anti-candidate BS, to be frank. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I think Kossack4Truth intended to write "Sustain nomination"? The nomination in question being the current featured article review? --HailFire (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict?) Don't play "confused" Scjessey there is a section titled, "Controversy over military service and awards" for John Kerry and very extensive sections titled "Whitewater and other investigations" and "Lewinsky scandal" for Hillary Clinton while Obama has sycophantic praise like, "An October 2005 article in the British journal New Statesman listed Obama as one of "10 people who could change the world, the only politician included on the list." TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- That is slightly misleading. The section in John Kerry is probably mis-titled because the controversy revolved around the BS put out by some 527 liars, rather than anything controversial about the man himself. I don't work on that article. And Barack Obama doesn't have anything in his life that is comparable to Whitewater, or the genuine scandal surrounding Bill Clinton's infidelity. Either way, neither of these articles have a "criticism" section. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- For "Whitewater" substitute "Tony Rezko". Of course in Barack Obama he's merely "controversial", with unspecified ties to the purchase of Obama's house, and no mention of his having been a client, important campaign contribution bundler, or being currently on trial for extortion. Of campaign contributions. Andyvphil (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- And yet Barack has no titled section about his church so people can find more information on the subject. Even my suggestion to include the fact that his teaching was "part-time" appears to be too POV, and yet somehow a magazine saying he can "change the world" is more relevant than his actual experience. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Obama's religion is covered in the section entitled "personal life". It does not need a special section all of its own. Besides, I thought the State isn't concerned with matters of religion?
</sarcasm> Also, the part-time thing isn't "too POV". Since there are no sources, it is original research, and therefore inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- The only thing we are told in the "Personal life" section of Barack Obama about his church is its size. Before the Wright sermons hit Youtube I spent about a month trying to insert a couple sentences noting that the church was highly political and Afrocentric, and that Obama had distanced himself a bit from Wright. "Wrong section", "no consensus", "smear" and (this is my favorite) "you have to register to see that source -- strongly discouraged!" (the source was the New York Times). Andyvphil (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- As has already been said repeatedly, Andy, this is an article about Barack Obama. It is not supposed to be an article about his church. As for the NYT thing, my answer to that is (in his best Dick Cheney) "so?" I couldn't care less if it was the NYT - I don't read it and I think sources you have to register for (or in some case, pay for) should be discouraged. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- The church is important enough to have a link to it in the contents, so people can click it, and then if necessary go from there to an appropriate article (I think it does this with Kerry and Clinton). And my part-time assertion is NOT original research, YOU just refuse to read my sources and constantly accuse me of making unverifiable claims. Not only that, if I do provide sources, you simply state it doesn't belong in the article or try to move the bar in some other way. Unacceptable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've now read the Chicago Sun-Times source (I could not view the other one) and it does indeed say he worked part-time. I would be happy to support the inclusion of that term in the article, and I will do so on the article talk page momentarily. As for Trinity, it is currently overlinked in the article. It is linked in the infobox, and it is linked twice in the "personal life" section. The last of these three links should be delinked according to Wikipedia convention. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think the question of POV in this article is a very good one, and right now most concerns should be treated with equal weight. I have outlined my concerns above, and have acted upon them. I am going to present a list once the artice is unprotected and the dispute is largely resolved. I would recommend to others who also would like to voice their opinions to do that as well. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Jayron32 says "some edit warring", Judgesurreal777 "ongoing edit war", SandyGeorgia "clearly there is a POV dispute". That point is established. It's also clear that some find the RFC's dismal and are opening up FAR as a side process simultaneously on the chance that DR might remain dismal. And that there is no consensus based on the
current article. FAR is a warning sign to edit warriors that-- youse guys better cool down, or-- in a couple more weeks, we'll talk about losing your star. As a
Ron Paul editor, who faced this exact same form of political attack two months ago (media hand-waving about the "racist" quotes of others) in an article that seems to have survived it, I can affirm there may be stability down the road. But guess what if there isn't! And meanwhile HRC, McCain, and Paul all have their eyes on that star. All we can do is affirm the pillars and improve WP and trust those principles will overcome petty partisanship (albeit expressed in ostensibly neutral processes).
John J. Bulten (
talk) 14:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- You may be interested to know, since you write "That point is established", that the POV tag was editwarred off the article page on the graounds that it was vandalism to apply such a tag to an article with FA status. Andyvphil (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't exactly call that a valid rationale for removing the tag... Happyme22 (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- The controlling claque doesn't rely on valid arguments. They rely on a numerical superiority in available reverts. Works, too. Andyvphil (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree completely and it is revolting. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Remove This article is unstable and is undergoing an edit war so it cannot be a featured article. Furthermore, many who support the FA status are familiar names (Jersyko, Bobblehead, Hailfire, etc) Those people are famous for banning a lot of people on the excuse that they are a sock of Dirk Benedict (not exactly the right name, but it's Derk something). Their POV pushing by banning people is not in the ideals of Wikipedia. By the way, I am not for or against Obama and to show that I am not a sock, I am signing on with my IP. I am Indian and do not support or oppose any of the American candidates. I am KVS.
122.164.124.108 (
talk) 11:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- This was originally registered as an "oppose" but I have changed it to read "remove" --Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and Remove are not declared in the review phase; please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- This article should fail FA status because of some misleading areas which hide negative but true information and replace it with inacurate information. See the articles talk page, specificially the part about the police union endorsement. This could be an FA is only it were written by NPOV people without interference from POV pushers. Maybe there could be a temporary ban on all editing except from non-Americans who are neutral. 122.164.124.108 (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- That's funny. The most obliviously pro-Obama editor ("The reason there is so little criticism of Obama in the article is that there is so little to criticise.") is a Brit who has actually offered the fact that he can't vote for Obama as "proof" of his neutrality. 'Taint so. Andyvphil (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- You are misquoting me again, Andy. If you go back an re-read the thread and my comment in full, I was suggesting that the reason Obama doesn't draw much criticism is because there isn't much to criticize. The fact is that editors like you are reduced to making mountains out of molehills in an attempt to portray Obama in a negative light. And what evidence do you have to say that I am "pro-Obama" exactly? You will find I edit Hillary Clinton-related pages with the same neutral hand. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Here in America, we had a campaign by the British newspaper The Guardian to influence the 2004 presidential election in favor of the Democrats. The Guardian matched volunteers from among their readers to registered voters in the battleground state of Ohio, encouraging a one-to-one correspondence to convince the Ohio voter to vote for John Kerry rather than George W. Bush. I'm a Democrat, I voted for Kerry (and Gore four years earlier), and I believe Bush is the worst disaster in the history of the presidency, but I resent such efforts to meddle in our elections. So such efforts have happened before and they come as no surprise to me. And they came from Great Britain, Scjessey. Fancy that. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Remove There has been a systematic attempt to ban anyone who doesn't favor a pro-Obama POV so this is proof of bias. as further proof, Scjessey is very interested in knowing my username because he wanted to know why he couldn't find "KVS" as a user name. Well, it's because it's just part of the user name (like Newyorkbob or so forth). I would not be surprised that they will try to ban me because I advocate NPOV, which happens to be pro-obama at times, but anti-obama at other times, whichever is the truth. Because of the banning attempts by others, the real voice can't be heard, which is reason to deny FA. That's like banning everyone except Saddam loyalist from Wikipedia and then putting Saddam Hussein article for FA which includes only the version that he is a grate Iraqi patriot. I am sorry for being so blunt but POV pushers are really bad in this article.
122.164.134.73 (
talk) 11:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, I am KVS.
- This was originally registered as an "oppose" but I have changed it to read "remove" --Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and Remove are not declared in the review phase; please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep, clearly this article is still right to be featured: it's quality and coverage is as good and better than other FAs, and it's maintaining that on what is an unstable topic. The opposition above confuses the topic's instability with the article's instability. I proposed one easy change on the article talk page: more sub pages, which'll stop some of the trouble. This should remain FA.
Wikidea 14:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- This was originally registered as a "support" but I have changed it to read "keep" --Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and Remove are not declared in the review phase; please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Remove: This article subtly includes a strong bias towards Obama. One way it does this is through overuse of quotations:
"No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice."
Questioning the Bush administration's management of the Iraq War, Obama spoke of an enlisted Marine, Corporal Seamus Ahern from East Moline, Illinois, asking, "Are we serving Seamus as well as he is serving us?"
"The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into red states and blue states; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."
"That is why, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a house divided to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still live, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States of America."
"We should be asking ourselves what mix of policies will lead to a dynamic free market and widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility [...] we should be guided by what works."
Reaffirming his commitment to net neutrality legislation, Obama said "once providers start to privilege some applications or web sites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out, and we all lose."
"We are taxing income from work at nearly twice the level that we're taxing gains for investors," Obama said. "We've lost the balance between work and wealth."
"Businesses don’t own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution."
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
In the July-August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, Obama called for an outward looking post-Iraq War foreign policy and the renewal of American military, diplomatic, and moral leadership in the world. Saying "we can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission," he called on Americans to "lead the world, by deed and by example."
"I've never been a heavy smoker," Obama told the Chicago Tribune. "I've quit periodically over the last several years. I've got an ironclad demand from my wife that in the stresses of the campaign I do not succumb. I've been chewing Nicorette strenuously."
"I'm a pretty good poker player."
In his preface to the 2004 revised edition, Obama explains that he had hoped the story of his family "might speak in some way to the fissures of race that have characterized the American experience, as well as the fluid state of identity—the leaps through time, the collision of cultures—that mark our modern life."
"Michelle will tell you that when we get together for Christmas or Thanksgiving, it's like a little mini-United Nations," he said. "I've got relatives who look like Bernie Mac, and I've got relatives who look like Margaret Thatcher. We've got it all." "What it really lays bare," Obama offered, is that "we're still locked in this notion that if you appeal to white folks then there must be something wrong."
"I wouldn't be here if, time and again, the torch had not been passed to a new generation."
Keep in mind I did not include all of the quotes in the article. If you look at the other candidates, then the quotes I did NOT include vastly outnumber what is shown in those articles. Not only that, providing quotes, from a politician, as proof of policy is lazy writing and inaccurate. Seriously, we have wikiquote for a reason - an encyclopedia isn't supposed to read like a fluffy interview from Time. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, this article includes things like his left-handedness, his love of chili, his desire to be an "architect" if he had to choose alternative career. These are defended as being relevant because it was from a "human interest" story, but all of this fluff crowds out, and excuses valid additions to the article, with excuses of "oh the article is too big already."TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh,here's another gem that has no business being in an encyclopedia article, "An October 2005 article in the British journal New Statesman listed Obama as one of "10 people who could change the world,"[185] the only politician included on the list."
Sorry but some British political rag saying he can change the world is hardly relevant. We might as well include something about him being voted the "sexiest Senator" by People. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This article was featured in 2004 and maybe it deserved it back then, but he was an unknown then, and lots of new information, not fluff, has been kept out of this article and minimized. The fact that it was featured 4 years ago has been an excuse to remove the NPOV tag despite its obvious bias.TheGoodLocust (talk)
- Imagine that. This article actually quotes Barack Obama as a reliable source about... Barack Obama. --HailFire (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- And yet the other political articles don't feel the need to bloat themselves up with so many direct quotations. Politicians lie and exagerate about their beliefs while on the campaign trail, which is why his policies and views should be inferred from his ACTIONS rather than his words. This is an encyclopedia - not his campaign website.TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, this article clearly fails wikipedia guidelines under WP:NPS since it includes so many direct and lengthy quotations - inclusion of his keynote speech is the clearest example of this. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NPS discourages "lengthy quotations". Aside from the 2004 DNC keynote speech, which has been dramatically cut back, the remaining quotations are all well within the limits established by WP:NPS, which says, "Smaller sources and samples are acceptable in articles."
- Incidentally, the focus of FAR is generally the determination of whether a featured article needs changes in order to keep its star, not an effort to remove it. We're all here to improve the encyclopedia, and we should all remember that the goal is to have as many top-quality articles as possible. It's a difference in approach: not "This article should be de-featured because...", but "This article needs these improvements to remain featured: ..." The former is antagonistic, while the latter is collaborative. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Then let's discuss what this article needs: fewer buckets of whitewash, fewer editors trying to whitewash it, and fewer whitewash brushes. Let's reduce the number of self-serving Obama quotes and increase the number of quotes from his critics, perhaps even a conservative or two, wouldn't that be fair? Let's devote a minimum of 100 words (and one blockquote from a critic) to the Wright affair and the Rezko affair. Consensus here supports the idea that the article is POV in favor of Obama. The underlying principle of NPOV is to represent all significant POVs fairly. So far, any POV that doesn't serve the Obama campaign well is not represented in this article. There are sound, well-based and very reasonable criticisms of Obama regarding both Rezko and Wright. Rezko, the other slumlords, the association with the Daley political machine and "The Combine" in Springfield, all of these topics should be examined. It doesn't just have an effect on the presidential campaign. It affects the true and complete picture of Obama as a whole man, the man behind his rhetoric. The part that he would like to keep hidden behind the curtain, like the "Wizard" of Oz.
-
- This is all from reliable sources like the Chicago Tribune, and Chicago Sun-Times.
-
- I would like to spend more time and space on Obama's work at the Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland firm. He worked there for nearly ten years. For such a young man who didn't start his professional career until his late 20s, a ten-year term of employment is a very substantial entry on the resume. In fact, Obama worked longer at this law firm than for any other employer. He represented many clients with social-based concerns such as civil rights cases, but he also represented slumlords such as Rezko. It was his early association withe Rezko that brought Obama to Rezko's attention as a possible political candidate. Rezko started raising money for Obama's first political campaign and Obama just grew from that seed. Obama is a gifted public speaker and some have allowed that gift to hypnotize them, but there's much about this man that is worthy of reasonable criticism, and the critics have been very critical. There are many notable critics of Obama. No one can say that the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and National Review are not notable. Show Wikipedia readers a small sample of what they have had to say. Cut Obama quotations to make room for it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- From the FAQ on the article's talk page:
-
-
- Q2: This article is over 100kb long, WP:SIZE says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened?
- A2: The article size restrictions mentioned in WP:SIZE is for readable prose and, as of March 26, 2007, this article had 37kb of readable prose, well within the 100kb of readable prose limit in WP:SIZE and within the size restrictions for Featured Articles.[22] Please consider adding Dr pda's prosesize tool to your monobook.js so you can see the size of the readable prose on an article.
- Once again. Per WP:SIZE, the readable prose maximum guideline is not 100KB, it is 50KB. The size of the Obama article is right in line. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- No need to hold additions of NPOV material hostage to cuts. Andyvphil (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- For once I agree with Andy. Rather than removing encyclopedic material about Obama using his own words, it's more productive to focus on adding encyclopedic material covering the viewpoints of notable critics. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Remove per others. I actually came here to nominate it for removal myself, until I saw this. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and Remove are not declared in the review phase; please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Remove I outlined my problems with article above, and instead of voting to remove it, I compromised because I'm flexible and I wrote a list of POV quotes/issues that need to be tackled to keep this FA. I introduced the list on the talk page, and many discussions have taken place as a result. From them, it is my sense, and certainly that of others, that the main editors of the article are pro-Obama and are blocking any significant requests to remove what is clearly POV.
- Keep and Remove are not declared in the review phase; please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here's a quick example: in the "cultural and political image" section, it is written "[Obama] has been praised by conservative commentators, including George Will who encouraged him to run for president." - I brought this up earlier as an example of the POV, because it is lumping all Republican commentators (including conservatives) into this category. Sean Hannity, Larry Elder, Hugh Hewitt, Neil Boortz, and other Republican commentators deserve their own voice too, and cannot be spoken for by only George Will, one of few conservatives to support Obama. When introduced on the talk page, I was told that it would be a WP:BLP concern to reworded this, and later I was told it would be putting too much undue weight on the subject. None of those are valid claims, because the statement is a flat out lie.
- Another example, also from "cultural and political image": "Writing about Obama's political image in a March 2007 Washington Post opinion column, Eugene Robinson characterized him as "the personification of both-and," a messenger who rejects "either-or" political choices, and could "move the nation beyond the culture wars" of the 1960s." - What about the other side's argument? According to WP:NPOV, both sides arguments need to be present, and that is not the case here. There is a phrase attributed to Peggy Noonan below this one, but that phrase is not sufficient because it is not giving an opinion of Obama himself (as this one is), but rather a "warning" to Republicans to not get too caught up in him. My questioning of this was met with more BLP concerns, and I'm not sure why. It was also said that not every praise has to be countered with criticism; I know that to be the case, but just about every praise in the article goes unchallenged.
- Yet another example: "Time magazine's Joe Klein wrote that [Obama's] book "may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician." - okay, this is probably the most POV statement that I found throughout the entire article. It gives the opinion of one magazine columnist (just one single one), out of thousands worldwide. It's great that Mr. Klein thinks that, but he does not speak for every magazine columnist and surely not every American. The quote needs to be removed because it is factually and historically innacurate; it is the POV of one single magazine columnist. This was met by saying that it is the standard to include reviews of the book; this may indeed be a review of the book, but it is one review of the book. There is not any way to prove that is is facturally and historically accurate.
- Another huge problem: There are too many quotes by Barack Obama, especially in the political advocacy section. I understand that they are his views on current topics/issues, but our job as Wikipedia editors is not to let Obama tell his story (that's something that you would find on his campaign website), but to write about his views in a neutral manner. The quotes need to be paraphrased, so that the info is coming from us, not him directly. This was immediately rejected.
- As I hope you can see, there are significant places of POV in this article, which is mainly guarded by pro-Obama people, and I see no sign of them changing anytime soon. I gave the editors' a chance by introducing my NPOV thoughts and pointing out where there are problems, but the bulk of them were simply tossed out and rejected for ludicrous reasons. That's not what I call a featured article. Happyme22 (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Perhpas the biggest problem is that the article is tagged for POV and conflict of interest; this is not suitable for a featured article. Happyme22 (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- What we need, Andy and Happy, is to stop talking about it and start doing it. The consensus on this page is that in order to keep FA status, the article must be transformed from a hagiography into a true biography, that shows the flaws in Obama that his supporters are trying to hide. Josiah Rowe has agreed that quotes from Obama's critics should be included. So to give just one example, Happyme, please try to find a notable reviewer who had something critical to say about Obama's book, to counter Joe Kliein's glowing praise. Evidently the glowing praise, and the self-serving quotes from Obama, are going to stay. So let's find some critical comments from notable people and add them in appropriate places. I will start by posting an announcement of our consensus on the article's Talk page. Let's all remember that our purpose here is to make this article satisfy Featured Article criteria, and thereby make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Hey, I'm ready and willing to "change", as Mr. Obama says so often (sorry, I couldn't resist!). I'll work with you, Kossack, and others but until the article is more netural, I have to keep my vote of removal. Happyme22 (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I think some editors need to keep in mind this is a BLP, which needs to be taken in perspective of Barack Obama's life and career, not just things relevant to his presidential campaign (e.g., his church controversy). My personal opinion on the matter, in terms of improving the article, is that there should be both praise and criticism removed from the article to make it have a more NPOV. But I still think it should remain a featured article, despite its perceived flaws. --Ubiq (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- This was originally registered as a "support" but I have changed it to read "keep" --Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Featured articles are supposed to be flawless, and you have just admitted that there are flaws. The article is currently tagged for POV and for editors' having a conflict of interest, thus violating FA criteria 1d. Why should this remain featured if it clearly violates the criteria? Happyme22 (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Remember that I said "perceived flaws". That's an important distinction between what you attributed to me. I consider the word flawless to be equivalent with perfection. I personally don't believe it's possible to make a perfect article...about anything. I've seen countless other featured articles that I consider to be flawed in certain ways. Also, just because it was tagged for POV doesn't mean it was tagged justifiably or that the tag reflects the consensus of the editors. That tag has been added and removed for quite a long time. --Ubiq (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and remove are not declared during the review phase, and none of the declarations entered during review will be considered if/when the article moves to FARC. Please strike Keep/Remove comments above, and read the directions at the top of the WP:FAR page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Then Close and move this to FARC. I have identified the deficiencies under FA criteria, I have proposed and attempted to implement remedies, and I was reverted within two minutes by Scjessey. This FAR has been underway for 11 days and is a waste of time, because certain editors like the article the way it is (biased in Obama's favor) and will revert any attempt to bring it into compliance with NPOV. Move on to FARC, and take away its Featured Article status. It isn't even a Good Article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Your changes were reverted because they were expressing your personal point of view and carried undue weight. FAR is not supposed to be used as a tool to force personal opinion and destroy neutrality. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I would agree that Kossack's revision dealing with Rev. Wright was too long and giving too much undue weight on the main Obama article. Happyme22 (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fourth request to participants Please read the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. Articles are in the review phase for at least two weeks, often longer, and the point of the review phase is to identify deficiencies and hopefully address them. I've explained several times on this FAR that there is no such thing as speeding up the process, and FAR is not dispute resolution. Please read the instructions at the top of the FAR page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose FA - This article is a start but far too biased. There is heated discusssion even in subjects that shouldn't warrant discussion. The bias is in favor of those supporting Obama even to the point of threatening to ban others, calling them socks, deleting good and neutral information. Negative information is sometimes needed for truth. How about Nixon article with no Watergate or Clinton with no impeachment. There are about 30 areas needed, far too many to list. The simplist way is to turn it into a good article and then work cooperatively to improve it.
Rezko, Pakistan, hiding slightly negative stuff as a phrase are examples.
FA status also is wrong if some people are threatening others saying that they are socks. That's why I refuse to sign in using my user. I will only use my IP. Another guy from India used his IP so there's proof that at least two people are not socks, even if they share similar views. Sharing similar views is not a crime. For example, I disagree with murder. If you disagree with killing any person for enjoyment, then are you my sock? No! I wish I could say it in a nicer way but the situation is bad in this article.
Also note, like that other IP guy, I am not American. I am neutral in the presidential contest in America. 116.12.165.227 (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC) (IP in Southeast Asia)
- I don't think it's appropriate for a user who has been involved in the article for less than 15 minutes to make a judgement on the behavior of the users. It's not a personal issue, I just don't think it's possible that you can make such judgements after such a short period of time. Grsz11 04:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also, the behavior of the users towards another has no relevance to the overall content of the article. User A could call User B a sockpuppet as much as he wants, but User B is still going to edit as he sees fit. Grsz11 04:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is a move to chase NPOV editors away like me (I'm already fed up with the hostility) and then banning the rest who don't leave. Therefore, FA review is flawed towards approving a bad article.
-
-
- Another point is that that Wizardman says to ignore IP comments. I sign in by IP because if I don't, someone will think of a flimsy excuse to ban me. It also shows my location so you can't say I'm a sock of 99% of the world, just 1% in this part of the country. I say these comments because this article is unlike 99% of other wikipedia articles. In those, you can edit and people will be reasonable.
-
-
- Another point to improve is his voting "present". Most political commentators and the press believes he did this to avoid difficult votes. Most politicians don't do this so it is important for his biography. It does not mean Obama is a bad person, just that he can't make up his mind in a public way. There are many, many other examples like this. We should correctly catagorise this article as a good article, not a FA. A FA is like giving a bad student an "A". 116.12.165.227 (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is mentioned, towards the bottom of the State Legislature section. You must realize that a lot of the IPs come to the article just to say stupid things, like "I think we should note that Obama is a Muslim" or "Why aren't Obama's socialist views mentioned?" You, however, came and offered a relevant opinion. I don't think you were shut down in any way. Grsz11 03:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning towards keep. I like how all these removers who are IPs are coming in, it obviously shows that they have an axe to grind in some form, they're no big deal. However, my issue is on stability. Because of the edit warring, the fact that he's in a huge active election right now, and the controversies and issues of what to have/not have in the article will only get worse, I'm reluctant saying keep as fa or remove fa. Wizardman 16:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Along those lines, the instability is inevitable with an individual involved in an extremely high-profile current event. Should every article about a current event be delisted, as none of them can maintain stability. The instability mainly comes from a ton of IPs who keep coming in trying to post some crap about Obama. Grsz11 00:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and Remove are not declared in the review phase; please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Support promotion to FARC list (deleting FA star), much room for improvement - My English grammar is bad so please indulge in reading my comments. This article is POV, though less POV than before. It needs a POV tag. There are major areas that need fixing / a whole re-write.
One example is hiding his Pakistan invasion support. I knew this and I see it has been on talk page only to be removed. This is very unique so it qualifies. There are many cases like this.
Another example is the description of his tax policy. The Wall Street Journal Asia (yesterday) says how terrible he is and even JFK knew economic policy better than Obama. It says that Obama owns little stock unlike 48% of Americans, many of them middle class (not fat cat).
All these do not say Obama is bad man just the facts. But some seem to want to hide it. Hiding things from encyclopedia means that FA is not deserving.
I also mention on talk page that I do not sign my user name because of threats to ban people. That kind of intimidation alone is reason to deny FA renewal. For your information, I am a neutral in American politics. I am a Korea editing from Seoul. Here is proof for the people who attack others accusing them of sock. Why is it that some people think my ideas are golden, your ideas are sock? 219.240.73.145 (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — 219.240.73.145 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Can you point out where there are "threats to ban people"? Pakistan is mentioned at Political positions of Barack Obama, because it is just that, a political position. This issue on the talk page has not been removed, it's [[23]], where the same thing was explained to that user. Grsz11 06:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- This is a FAR for Barack Obama, not Political Positions of Barack Obama. Threatening to invade a country and being the only senator that is saying this make it noteworthy, not something to be hidden away in a sub-article. Tvoz is the person threatening to ban people who want a fair article. See talk page. When one side threatens another with ban, then it frightens away them so the people who threaten can make the article like they want. So only a few people have guts to speak out the truth. Even I scared so I don't want to use my username. Also to prove that I am no sock. 219.240.73.145 (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — 219.240.73.145 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Obama also wants to increase soliders in Afghanistan. So he is pacifist sometimes and warmonger sometimes. This is very interesting and worthy of encyclopedia. Hiding it in Political Positions is not right and reason to make this article a non-FA (because it is incomplete). With Bush we don't hide any mention of Iraq and mention it only in political positions. How about Japanese in WW2 - should we hide all war crimes, like they did in Korea, and hide it in a sub-article. No, that is POV. Since Obama article is POV, it needs a tag and needs to lose FA star and hopefully work on it to re-earn it. 219.240.73.145 (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — 219.240.73.145 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I do not want to argue. I give you my comments. You can do what ever you want with it. 219.240.73.145 (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — 219.240.73.145 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
-
-
- Oh give it up already. Now you're from Korea? The only threat made about blocking anyone is to anyone who uses sock puppets to evade a community ban and you have been told that over and over and over - including when you incorrectly brought it to AN twice and when you complained on talk. So stop bringing my name into your specious argument. Tvoz |talk 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fails FA There are so many reasons given by others why there needs to be improvement before the FA is renewed. There is also worldwide support that this article needs too much improvement to reach FA status that it should be re-categorized as not a FA now. This is happening despite threats to ban others, intimidation, and hostile accusations of sock puppetry even though there is clear proof of IP in multiple countries, such as Korea, Singapore, India, and users from UK that there is no sockpuppetry. In fact, a few users are saying that if you disagree, you are a sock even if you are in different continents or countries.Barry O. Bama, III (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)— Barry O. Bama, III (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
-
-
- Oh please. Tvoz |talk 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Two weeks expires tomorrow. Edit warring to keep NPOV out of article still fully underway. Suggest we move to FARC without unnecessary delay. Andyvphil (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well if you would stop violating the neutral point-of-view, Andy, there wouldn't be any edit warring in the first place. Besides, it is my understanding that the review process can go on for as long as necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Andyvphil, this is really becoming exasperating. No matter how many times I have asked you to read the WP:FAR instructions, and explained that we don't rush the process or proceed to FARC "without unnecessary delay", you (and several others here) don't seem to acknowledge the way FAR works. This is beginning to look very disruptive, tendentious and pointy. We don't try to undermine articles here; we try to restore them to status. The purpose of a review is to identify and hopefully solve issues. Please "read the manual"; no one is going to rush this process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- You think that's exasperating? Andy just flipped the bird at consensus and multi-reverted the Barack Obama article back to his favored version that violates WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:RECENT - for the umpteenth time. He thinks policies and guidelines only apply to other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Same. FAR is not the local whining department; that belongs in Dispute resolution, where it should have been taken to begin with. Please keep discussion here on the FAR focused on WP:WIAFA. Perhaps we need to start moving large blocks of off-topic posts here to the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- No need to move to FARC. The specific concerns raised by Happyme22 have all been addressed, mostly by HailFire, who's done an admirable job staying out of the partisan fray on the talk page and remaining focused on the article. It should be clear from the tone of this page and the talk page that the instability concerns are inevitable for any article of a politician running for national office. Despite that, I think that this article maintains Wikipedia's highest standards most of the time, and withstands partisan onslaughts quite well, due to the continual work of several dedicated Wikipedians (whose work, incidentally, has been favorably noted in the national media [24], [25], [26]). If this FAR moves to FARC, the voices of editors actually concerned with Wikipedia standards will be drowned out by partisans on both sides who use this article's featured article status as a proxy war for their preferred candidates. That's not what FARC is about, and I think we can avoid it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is true that they have all been addressed; whether they have been acted upon is another matter entirely. Many have, and I thank User:Ubiq and especially User:HailFire for discussing these with me and implementing changes. But there are some that have simply been dismissed and I believe that they would be greatly beneficial to the page and help improve its standing. I must say that the article has changed quite a bit since myself and others raised multipe concerns, and the change was a step in the right direction. Happyme22 (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixes needed. I'm not sure if the article is unprotected yet, but I'll list some deficiencies that need correction in case work can begin, these are samples only of attention likely needed throughout:
- The lead could use rearrangement; he goes from being a child in Indonesia to being married and having children, and then goes to college and work. It's jarring.
- There is a lot of WP:OVERLINKing, resulting in a sea of unnecessary blue. In the lead, we find unnecessary links to words like lecturer, public administration, and a number of countries everyone who speaks English has heard of. Please eliminate the overlinking so that the high-value links can be found and appreciated.
- WP:MOSNUM error and inconsistency (the previous sentence correctly has two years old"): ... where Obama attended local schools in Jakarta from ages 6 to 10.[8]
- WP:PUNC, logical punctuation needs to be reviewed and corrected throughout, example: ... the Harvard Law Review's "first black president in its 104-year history."
- Incorrect date linking, see WP:MOSDATE, full dates and month-day combos are linked, solo years and month-year combos are not: Obama launched a campaign committee at the beginning of July 2002 to run for the U.S. Senate in 2004[38] and ...
- External jumps in the text, example: ... provides for the web site USAspending.gov, managed ... External jumps belong in External links or citations.
- WP:MOS#Captions, problems with punctuation on sentence fragments in most image captions.
- Another WP:MOSNUM issue, review thoughout: ... Obama won the eleven remaining February primaries and caucuses ...
- Incorrect use of WP:DASHes, example: ... In the July-August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, ...
- WP:HYPHEN here? ... to their current $1.6-million house in neighb ...
- More WP:MOSNUM, ... In Chapter 6 of Obama's 2006 book ...
- Missing WP:ITALICS, ... rose to the top of the New York Times Best Seller hardcover list ...
- The citations consistently refer to New York Times; it's The New York Times. Why is CNN italicized in some citations, not in others? Italics are for book titles, newspapers, magazines, journals, periodicals. Not Cable TV.
- Malformed date in citation: Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate. New York Times. Retrieved on 04-07-2008.
This is not bad; if the article is unprotected, these kinds of corrections are tedious but shouldn't take long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- About the lede, the order doesn't appear to be a problem. It says married in 1992, then ran for office an 1997. It doesn't give years for his schools their, so I don't think it's a problem. Grsz11 05:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, after looking at that part, I couldn't see how to arrange it any better. So far, almost all of these things have been fixed. I looked for any other instances of cable news or network news being italicized and fixed them. I only have a few things I'm uncertain about:
- Chapter 6 was changed to Chapter Six but am not sure if it should be Chapter six instead.
- The dash in July-August was made into an extended dash, not sure if should be July/August or something else perhaps?
- The USAspending.gov was delinked but not sure if that's enough to make it correct.
- And if there's anything else you notice, let us know. --Ubiq (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The dash in July–August is an en dash, used to denote a range of time. I added a footnote citation to the USAspending.gov which includes a link to the site's FAQ page (supporting the statement that it was established as part of the Coburn–Obama Transparency Act); I assume that if people want to visit the site they can get there either by following the link in the footnote and then navigating within the USAspending.gov website, or by one of the links at Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Actually, come to think of it, we should make sure that references to joint legislation like the aforementioned Coburn–Obama Act have en dashes as well, as recommended at WP:DASH. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Alright so the dash and the website URL are settled, any thoughts on the Chapter Six? My inclination is that it's fine, but again I'm not sure. --Ubiq (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I think it should be Chapter six: I can't think of any reason the Six should be uppercase. With the MoS items addressed, the article is in good shape relative to what usually appears at FAR. It is well-written (1a), comprehensive (1b), well sourced and factual (1c); and complies with MoS (2), images (3) and length (4). Questions remain about 1d, neutral and 1e, stable. If you all can work with a balanced, reasonable experienced editor like Happyme22 to resolve the POV concerns, you should be in good shape and experienced reviewers here will overlook the handwaving and hollering. However, article disruption, POV and edit warring should have been dealt with via dispute resolution, not FAR, so if you can't get the disruptive editing under control, while working with an NPOV editor like Happy to address the POV concerns, instability will likely continue and the FARC phase may not go well. Please heed this advice; I've been saying for many weeks that the regular editors needed to engage dispute resolution, and not rely on FAR to resolve the POV issues; POV concerns cannot be ignored, and FAR can't solve this for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- 1e, stable, is going to be extremely difficult to satisfy from now until November and possibly onward if he gets elected, and the only way I can see that it would remain stable would be if the article got full protected until then (which I personally wouldn't see a problem with). And while I respect Happyme22 as an editor (he's been nothing but nice, civil, and helpful), my personal experience is that he's not the NPOV expert/guru that you seem to touting him as, or at least not necessarily more so than some editors already currently working on the article. But do consider that a few of his suggestions have been taken up by the editors and that the article is now better for it (at least IMHO). --Ubiq (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is very clearly an unstable article and should be moved to WP:FARC without further delay, for that reason alone. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "OK, that's a legitimate POV dipute that wasn't spelled out originally, and if it remains unaddressed and remains an issue, than a FAR makes sense...." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Information on Obama's voting record and the nature of the controversy over Wright, not to mention the POV tag which the quoted sentence makes absolutely clear is entirely appropriate, is still being edit warred out of the article.[27] The instructions which SandyGeorgia seems wrongly convinced that I have not read say "Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria." It isn't. It shows no sign that it will ever meet criteria 1(b) and 1(d). Futzing with he hyphens and italics doesn't address this.
SandyGeorgia has suffered amnesia about what he/she said and isn't addressing it. Well, is it "very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria"? I think not. So what does "unless" mean to you? Andyvphil (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- All that voting record stuff is overly-specific, Andy. In a six-paragraph section, the voting record in your version accounted for three of them. That's clearly a case of undue weight, isn't it? Please consider putting them in United States Senate career of Barack Obama, from which they are strangely absent. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I've taken the initiative and added the voting record text to United States Senate career of Barack Obama#Voting record. I will mention this on Talk:Barack Obama in a moment. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Ubiq. Dabbydabby (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and Remove are not declared in the review phase; , per SandyGeorgia. And when we do move to FARC, try to contribute more than your vote. Or don't bother. See WP:NOTAVOTE. Andyvphil (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Can you not bite? Thanks. Grsz11 13:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I only growled and nipped. Andyvphil (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well you shouldn't. Besides, I wasn't aware of what was going on at the time, and I just casted a vote. (which I know now that this isn't the place.) Anyways, it would be kind of you to talk with a better attitude. Dabbydabby (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
There's definitely POV at work in this article, and the page is protected from any NPOV by Grsz and others. It should certainly be reviewed. thezirk (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please take a look at your edit, see if it was really needed, and re-examine your accusations. Thanks, Grsz11 13:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've been following the article for a long time. I made edits hoping my ideas could be improved upon, as I felt they'd improve the article. But I knew you'd revert, as you have a pretty consistent pattern of reverting anything negative, even if it belongs, unless you've given your approval.thezirk (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Close FA Review as keep - As I said at the beginning of this discussion, this is not a forum to battle out the difference in opinion on the article, that is for the talk page, this is also not dispute resolution, and it is inappropriate to engage in this discussion here. There is no need to turn FAR into a war zone. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The article os a war zone, with the most recent warring to keep out a perfectly NPOV explanation of the origin of Obama's connections to his important financial sponsor and currently fixer-on-trial, Tony Rezko.[28][29] What part of criterion "1(b) 'Comprehensive' means that the article does not neglect major facts and details" is lost on you?Andyvphil (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Discussion has been going on for a long time to little avail. Any edits have to go through Grsz and others who guard the page, and as a result this article is POV, unimprovable, and unfit for FA.thezirk (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Can you point out an instance where I reverted because I "didn't like it"? You may not understand such policies as WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. The article has been improved, by editors who have continuously worked towards consensus and compromise on various issues. It's not very fair for you to say the things you do, when it's clear you haven't been paying much attention. So read up on those, then get back to me. Grsz11 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's a bit irrelevant for you trying to push the use of "23-year" rather than "longtime" relationship. That's the only contribution you made to the article. If you really think there are POV issues, try to fix those, rather than something so trivial, and then go complaining because it was reverting (by someone other than me as well). Grsz11 20:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
[edit] Removed status
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed 10:49, April 25, 2008.
[edit] Review commentary
- Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history, Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, User:Piotrus and User:Jacurek
Article has several issues and no longer meets the criteria.
- Length (4): At 94 kB of readable prose it is too long.
- Lead (2a): The lead is too short for such a long article.
- Lots of external jumps.
- In parts a lack of citations (1c).
- The External Links section needs to be shortened.
- Inline citations need to be formatted.--Peter Andersen (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
When I have written it two years ago I was quite proud of it. Unfortunately today it's not to our standards (lack of inline cites). I will see if I have time to work on this again; I agree with most of the above comments - with the exception of length - we have quite a few FA around that size. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus, please let me know what can I do as far as improving this page. I would be happy to help bringing this article into the standards. I also agree with you that length of the article is necessary for a reader to have a clear understanding of a complex history of Polish Jews and especially relations of Jewish Poles with their Christian counterparts, which is too difficult to understand without being provided with wider information. There is so much interest in the cultural past among both Poles and Jews and a quality Wiki page regarding the subject is for sure appreciated by all. This project helps so much to combat anti-Polonism found among many Jews and plain stupid anti-Semitism found among many Poles. I have always been amazed at how twisted that history has been.--Jacurek (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am not thrilled with the size, and would like to see better use of summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The main part of the Interwar period 1918–39 section is Anti-Semitism. Many aspects of Jewish life should be described.Xx236 (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Janusz Korczak is referred here as a writer only.Xx236 (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Wrong: One famous leader was Janusz Korczak, the director of the Jewish orphanage...Besides, the article isn't about Korczak, so his full CV isn't required here.
- Wrong? The sentence you quote is about the Holocaust and I mean pre-war Poland. Korczak wasn't a writer only, he was a social activists and his writing was based on his social experiences. The pre-war paragraph is biased, because it doesn't describe the Jewish life in Poland, eg. Korcak's activities, but rather the anti-semitism.Xx236 (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Menachem Begin was released from the Polish Army.Xx236 (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Movies
Jews produced many Yiddish films but also Polish nationalistic ones 1918-1939. In Communist Poland many directors were Jewish, also some movie stars were.Xx236 (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Jedwabne - the Jews were burned in a barn rather than beaten. Xx236 (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe Józef Kuraś deserves to be mentioned. Xx236 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- The article is too long, at least twice the recommended length This is due, to some extend, to
- a flowery (pseudo)journalistic prose: Enthusiastic greeting of Soviet troops by Jewish residents, with flowers, kisses and pro-Soviet speeches was a common occurrence in almost every Polish town and village.[14] Jewish men offered gifts to the Russians while women kissed Soviet tanks.[15] Young Jews, often well-educated and from rich or religious families, now addressed each other as "comrade."
- to not sticking to the subject: The permanent council established at the instance of the Russian government (1773–1788) served as the highest administrative tribunal, and occupied itself with the elaboration of a plan that would make practicable the reorganization of Poland on a more rational basis. The progressive elements in Polish society recognized the urgency of popular education as the very first step toward reform. The famous Komisja Edukacji Narodowej ("Commission of National Education"), the first ministry of education in the world, was established in 1773 and founded numerous new schools and remodeled the old ones - what this has to do with the Jews??
- The summary style, recommended above, would make the article shorter, but it seems that even when this technique is attempted, it does not preclude verbosity: the The Holocaust: German-occupied Poland section is about twice as long the the main article Holocaust in Poland
There also are minor technical points, easy to fix, for example:
- more than 80 percent of Polish Jews were easily recognizable, while 20 percent could be considered assimilated So, even assuming that every Jew was in one category or the other, we already have more that 100 percent of Jews :-)
- centuries should be described using Arabic, not Roman numerals: 14th century, not XIV century
- Summary: Fail
Jotel (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Jotel, you made few good points.--Jacurek (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Some other problems - "With Endecja party influence growing, although they never held office." The Endecja article mentions the party winning seats in parliament. "It has been estimated that more than 80 percent of Polish Jews were easily recognizable, while 20 percent could be considered assimilated." This sentence was lifted without attribution from the Jewish Tribal Review website [30]. A quite controversial site, not affiliated with any academic or mainstream orgs. "For these Jews, Communism had an almost messianic appeal, while the Soviet Union was regarded as their natural homeland." Needs attribution. "The fight against these informers was organized by Armia Krajowa, with the death sentence being meted out on a scale unknown in the occupied countries of Western Europe." Needs attribution. Many statistics are unsourced. Novickas (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Novickas --Jacurek (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
"Many Holocaust survivors however have rather negative attitudes toward the Poles based on their experiences before, during and shortly after the war. Most claim that vast majority of Christian Poles were passive witness, sometimes even glad that the Jews were being removed and did nothing to aid their neighbours. It is hard to know how many Christian Poles, who were also victims of German barbarity[3], had sympathy for their Jewish neighbours but were paralyzed into inaction by fear.
Do you guys think this line is necessary and why ?(why not and why yes) If Yes, should this be in the summary ? Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- First this needs citations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this book a good source ? [31] --Jacurek (talk) 07:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There is information about Jewish parties in 1919 and nothing about the period till 1939. How many seats did Jewish parties obtain? Were there Jews among PPS representatives?Xx236 (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting question. Until 1930 Jews were represented in the Blok Mniejszości Narodowych (the article notes how the party performed in elections in general, but we have no info on % of Jewish population voting for the party and the no. of Jewish members of parliament); I am not sure what were the Jewish voting patterns afterw 1930.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
http://wydawnictwo.sejm.gov.pl/publikacje/publikacja_337.html Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC) http://czytelnia.onet.pl/0,1210800,do_czytania.html Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it's too late to comment, but... Over the past year, there have been many unsourced additions to the article. There are large sections of the article without a single source cited (1c). The existing sources are a blend of footnotes and inline references (2c). Several editors have raised questions of neutrality in the article (see the Talk page or the article's edit history) (1d). There has been a lot of edit-warring, and it got so bad at one point that the article had to be protected (1e). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- You mean that the article is not anti-Polish enough for you ?
- Over the past year article has been improved significantly, it is way better that it was before.--154.20.146.225 (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Anti-Polish character of some sections within last year article was quite striking …now it is more balanced.--199.175.219.1 (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you for demonstrating what I wrote about allegations that the article isn't neutral. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Is anti-Polish "neutral" for you Malik Shabazz? As far as I remember last year opening of the article was blaming Poland being "somehow" responsible for the Holocaust. Is this neutral for you also ?--199.175.219.1 (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are you finished ranting? If the article was "anti-Polish" last year and "more balanced" this year (note: more balanced but still not neutral or balanced), and editors are now arguing whether portions of the article are antisemitic, clearly there are questions about whether the article is neutral. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
...and the "editors" argiung about anti-Semitic (you must be joking !) nature of this article being you and MORDOR, right ?--24.85.253.221 (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It's rather only Jacurek and a couple of anon socks (previously banned proxy included) who insist on inserting on this unsourced, anti-Semitic OR. M0RD00R (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are length (4), lead (2a), referencing (1c), and formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Remove per nom. --Peter Andersen (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Remove: lacks citations, needs a copyedit and there are too many external links. The citations that are given are not formatted uniformly. There are long stretches of text unbroken by any images, and overall I would agree that it is too long. I can see that there is active editing but I'm not sure that anyone is determinedly working on it. DrKiernan (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like massive effort is going to be needed here just to clean up the references that do exist. The lead needs serious pruning. Not much happening, so closing. Marskell (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed 12:48, 23 April 2008.
[edit] Review commentary
- Notified: User:Jimbo Wales, User:Jmabel, User:Polaris999, User:Redthoreau, User:Zleitzen, User:FayssalF, User:205.240.227.15 (blocked since 2006)
- Completed the notifications to WP Bio, WP Basque, WP Caribbean, WP Cuba, WP Argentina and MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I would encourage editors to also read the Article Talk Page where most/all of the changes and concerns are being addressed. Thanks.
Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 18:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This article reached FA status in the spring of 2006. Concerns now include WP:LEAD, WP:SS, WP:EL, and WP:NOT#LINK. In short, the article may no longer met Wikipedia:WIAFA. Feedback and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Mattisse 18:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify all involved editors and relevant WikiProjects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: long-standing concerns on the talk page about NPOV are more serious than the other issues raised above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Promoted version per Dr pda prose size script:
- File size: 143 kB
- Prose size (HTML): 61 kB
- References (HTML): 24 kB
- Prose size (text only): 42 kB (6963 words)
- References (text only): 7 kB
- Images: 122 kB
Current version (Feb 23)
- File size: 385 kB
- Prose size (HTML): 113 kB
- References (HTML): 108 kB
- Prose size (text only): 69 kB (11599 words)
- References (text only): 42 kB
- Images: 348 kB
The article is better than 50% larger than the article that was promoted in 2006; it's not unlikely that POV has crept in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article has taken an un unbelievable amount of cruft in External links and lists. Citations aren't correctly formatted. There are WP:MSH issues, WP:GTL issues, and WP:ITALICS just on a quick glance, the article will need a lot of basic cleanup to meet crit. 2. In looking at the content of some of the extremely lengthy footnotes, the article size underestimates the content here, since so much is in footnotes. There are fundamental prose and copyedit needs apparent even in the verbose WP:LEAD (example: Opinions on Guevara vary from being prayed to as "Saint Ernesto" by some rural peasants in Bolivia where he was executed.[13] to the view of him as a "ruthless killer" by some Cuban exiles.) This article will need extensive work to be restored to status, and that's without even analyzing it for the POV issues raised in talk page archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question - Since there is an independent article called The Motorcycle Diaries, and since there was no independent section on The Motorcycle Diaries in the original Feature Article as there is now, could the large section that is now devoted to The Motorcycle Diaries be moved there? Mattisse 21:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand the contention that the current article must mirror one from 2 years ago. Articles are fluid and increase with more information with time. As for the Motorcycle diaries I would be ok with moving it if others thought that would be best, but I could also make a case for it staying put as it could be seen as the "watershed" moment in his life. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- The idea is that as the article grows, you move information into subarticles. The main article is to be in summary style. Mattisse 22:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good candidate for summary style; a book/movie about him need not occupy a good chunk of his bio, especially when there's already a separate article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think Matisse should delete all the external links if him or Sandy finds that best, and in compliance with not having them in a FA. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Editors should justify the presence of each link per WP:EL. An article that is comprehensive will have little need for external links, as the important content will either be in the article or in the sources cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy, I see that What Should be Linked states that only "neutral" material should be linked. Thus I believe that at minimum all the opnion analysis should be removed. Redthoreau (talk TR 03:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and trimmed the external links with the intention of removing non-neutral sources, and non-established media links. I feel that the remaining ones all derive from fairly credible and neutral sources and thus may be able to remain if others agree. Your thoughts will be appreciated. Redthoreau (talk TR 03:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redthoreau, can you justify every external link left, per SandyGeorgia above per WP:EL? To quote SandyGeorgia: An article that is comprehensive will have little need for external links, as the important content will either be in the article or in the sources cited. One of the category discouraged is newslinks. Please justify links to CNN, The New York Times, BBC, etc. If these links are important, then they would be incorporated into the article. I am going to remove the one to Time 100, as it is already a reference in the article. Mattisse 14:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that it's gonna be a very long and very hard haul before this article is up to professional standards on any of the following: writing, comprehensiveness and neutrality. I first saw this article a mere three or four days before Matisse took it here to FAR. When I saw it, my jaw dropped. This is not FA quality, and with all due respect to the numerous editors whom I'm sure have put many long hours of work into it, it is not even near FA quality.. Firstly (but not most importantly), I would strongly echo Matisse's concerns about WP:LEAD. The lede needs extensive reworking. It is not a summary of the article. Moreover, it makes no mention of controversy regarding Guevara (in direct contradiction of WP:LEAD). Secondly, the hagiographic tone of the article nearly completely disregards WP:NPOV. It does make some glancing mention of controversy regarding Guevara's life, but those remarks are glaring in their brevity and unobtrusiveness, like grains of salt buried far down in the sugary glaze of praise. I hope that participants in this FAR will return time and again to this key point: adhering to NPOV does not mean that some mention is made somewhere in the article of some aspects of controversy. It means instead that after reading the article, I cannot tell whether its authors support or oppose the article's subject. This article fails that test resoundingly. Where is the other point of view, as exemplified by this quote from Terrorist, Sadist, and Left-Wing Saint by John H. Fund (THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR DECEMBER 2007/JANUARY 2008):
Alvaro Vargas Llosa, author of The Che Guevara Myth, says that Che was in reality the architect of Cuba's infamous labor camps, which housed dissidents, gays, and devout Catholics. He was also a sadist who loved to simulate executions as a form of torture. "At every stage of his adult life, his megalomania manifested itself in the predatory urge to take over other people's lives and property, and to abolish their free will." Vargas Llosa writes.
There are other, more trivial problems. For example, the formatting of the refs is haphazard, but this should require only a few minutes' work to correct. But I think this article needs weeks of work. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment Citing Alva Varga Llosa as an expert on Che Guevara would be like citing James Dobson on the National Organization for Women. Llosa is a long-time rightwing ideologue (just like his father, the Peruvian novelist), who now runs a think-tank out of the Independent Institute, which has a bunch of dubious people on its staff, including S. Fred Singer — the well-known global warming skeptic. it is clear that you are approaching your evaluation from an extremely bias stance for you to even mention his extremely partisan evaluation. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I have to agree in general with the above statement about neutrality. Should this article's name be changed to Che Guevara's icon image? Mattisse 15:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- This article has deteriorated so far in every aspect of WP:WIAFA that the only viable alternative I can see at this point (regardless of whether it retains featured status) is a revert
to the featured version, and starting over from there. Whatever new issues that version may have in terms of POV or tighter standards now at FAC, they pale in comparison to the mess that currently exists at that article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree - That would be the easiest way to take care of the problems. The more I look at the original version, the more I appreciate its writing. Mattisse 17:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- A revert won't take care of all of the problems, but may provide an easier starting place. Reverting that far back causes other cleanup issues (deleted templates and so on), and the article would still need to be brought to current standards and examined for the hagiographic POV issues mentioned by Ling.Nut. I just don't think it's possible to restore this article to status from where it is now, and in its current state, it should have cleanup and POV tags on top regardless of whether it retains featured status. We should currently be warning our readers that what they are seeing on that page is not neutral and not representative of Wiki's best work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Again I agree. I do not know how to convey to the other editors the seriousness of the mess. Mattisse 17:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, there is at least one POV fork. Mattisse 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- User:Polaris999 has expressed his agreement with the revert you propose on the article talk page. It would save wasting our time and energy on this version, rather than using it to bring up to standards the older version. Mattisse 17:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Reverting that far back will necessitate other types of work, and a coordinated effort to first restore/update/fix what's there (in terms of links and templates that will go dead, etc.) before reviewing/adding/changing content. You may want to give it a few days to make sure everyone is on board and that you have solid consensus and a plan for how to proceed with the restoration that a revert will necessitate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- User:Polaris999 is discouraged and feels that restoring it and fixing it will only result in it quickly descending again into the mess it is now. For himself, he would prefer to move on. I would be willing to try but I am not an expert on the subject matter. Without User:Polaris999, I could not handle the POV attacks and such. In fact, even with him we probably could not. Perhaps we should just do as he suggests and let go of the article allowing it to face whatever fate awaits it. You probably should put whatever tags you think belong on the article. I am discouraged also. Perhaps if you reverted it, I could see how much work is involved. It could not be worse than it is now. Mattisse 18:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- This is Wiki. You can lead a horse to water and all that. If it can't be fixed via consensus, my advice is to tag it and move along. Working on messy POV articles is never fun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- What are you guys talking about? I believe the article is fine now and exceeds all wikipedia standards. I feel that there is on overreaction on the suggestion of a few people (whose objectivity on the matter can not be conclusively asserted) and that deep breathes need to be taken before doing something as drastic as reverting to a 2 year old article (erasing all of the contributions of editors over the past 2 years). To me a 2 year old revert is unconscionable and extremely unnecessary and would constitute vandalism, for all intents and purposes.Redthoreau (talk TR 18:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- If that's what you think, then someone should tag the article with {{POV}} and {{cleanup}} since everyone else agrees both are needed. The article is not currently meeting featured standards, and if there isn't a coordinated and concerted effort to restore it, it looks to be on track to lose its star. What a shame to see such destruction; Zleitzen wrote a fine (if possibly slightly POV) article. What is there now is a POV messy article, in bad need of serious cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redthoreau, User:SandyGeorgia's opinion is the one person whose opinion really counts here. Quality management of Feature Articles is her job here at wikipedia. Her opinion is the most important in determining article quality. It is the fact that you will not listen to her that contributes to my feelings of hopelessness. Mattisse 18:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- That's not quite true, Mattisse; I am but one participant in consensus here. Right now, there are four editors who disagree with Red; if others agree, he is against consensus, and that can be dealt with. But I am only one editor here, no more, no less. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Sorry. I meant that in the sense of knowledge, not power. Mattisse 19:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment -- I would be willing to try to fix the article if you revert it. User:Polaris999 may perhaps be persuaded to work on it, although he is discouraged now. Neither of us are willing to work on the current version. Mattisse 18:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment Why don't you make a list of the things you believe are out of compliance if you deem it so, in order for others to use their efforts as well ? Also everyone knows that in a trial you have more than one "expert" evaluate a situation, as the presence of 2 experts in a room, usually means 2 differing opinions. I see a great deal of “sky is falling” but not much analysis on the objects which we should look out for. Also POV is a subjective matter, and I feel that some people who resent Guevara’s legacy, resent the fact that his legacy, and at present, his iconic status, is overwhelmingly a positive one. That is not opinion, but fact, as the overwhelming amount of evidence points out. Although he is not analogous to Gandhi (in the latter’s noble stance of non-violence), for the purpose of analogy, can you imagine criticisms of Gandhi’s wikipedia page being that it does not equally present the “darker side of the man”. Requiring that all of his failures as a person, also be catalogued to the point where basically on paper everyone appears to be half-villain/half hero. Some people are not viewed as a 50/50 split, however, despite the fact that they may be very despised by a select smaller group of the population. Should President Thomas Jefferson’s wikipedia page lead with the sentence: “A President to some, but a slave owning rapist to others” ,,, etc. The article in its current state I believe includes both the positive and negative legacy of the influential figure that Guevara was, and I feel that anyone with more than a ‘cliff-notes’ polarized view of the man, would view it as such. An additional problem I also see with Guevara, is that there is the individual man and then what he has “morphed into”. The two are inexplicably linked and can not be separated from one another with ease – as with most historical figures who later receive a status of veneration. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- If who reverts it? Me? I'm not willing to engage in an article where there are massive issues, cleanup and POV. If regular editors aren't willing and able, I'd say tag it and move along. Better yet, wait for more editors to weigh in and see if consensus is overwhelming, in which case, Red would need to adapt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- If the final consensus is to revert back to the featured version, I am willing to do the revert, my edits to the article itself haven't been particulary significant (mostly consisting of external link cleanup), so there shouldn't be major problems. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Question to User:Caribbean H.Q. - Would you also be willing to work on the article after the revert, fixing broken links, templates, etc.? I am willing to help as I can, but I am not technically proficient regarding templates and such. Mattisse 17:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, Mattisse. I am a bit of a "templater" and would be glad to work with others, or on my own, to update those as needed. It is mainly the POV issues in which I do not wish to participate. -- Polaris999 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Polaris999, we could calmly focus on a summary style biography of Che Guevara, not adding material unless requested through FAR comments. Some source links will need fixing and upgrading. I am willing to do what I can. We could take the revert and focus purely on FAR objections that are brought up. Red is welcome to help as is anyone who is willing to focus on the goal at hand. Lets get the facts of the basic biography in place. He has been dead for over half a century so not much is new from two years age. Then others can do spin offs on topics as they choose but leaving the main article in summary style. Mattisse 19:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just to make this clear for users who may not be familiar with the terminology, "spin offs" here means what are sometimes referred to as "child articles", "sub-articles", etc. Whatever name is used for them, they are separate, standalone articles, that can be linked to from the main CG article but are not an integral part of the article itself.
- Another point that needs to be stressed, I believe, is the importance of accuracy. I think that each editor should be responsible for the accuracy and coherency of what he writes and that if a contribution is found to be lacking in either, or for some other reason is not in compliance with Wikipedia standards, it will be deleted with a reason given on the Talk page. Trying to endlessly correct error-laden contributions is a self-defeating approach as it only encourages careless editors to persevere in their sloppy habits. Your thoughts? -- Polaris999 (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree. The article should stick to the generally agreed-upon facts using sourcing per WP:V and WP:RS. If it is done now, with SandyGeorgia looking on, we can be assured of sound feedback for the two weeks. If any material is in doubt or not substantially supported in the article, then it goes. No adding of material without vetting the referencing first. Mattisse 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Being able to work under SandyGeorgia's watchful eye is a convincing reason to proceed as soon as possible. How long do we need to wait to consider that there is a consensus for the revert, which I notice User:Caribbean H.Q. has volunteered to do? -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I count, you, me,
SandyGeorgia, and Caribbean H.Q. (by volunteering since he has contributed previously to the article) are in favor. I count one oppose. That is four to one. User:Ling.Nut has not weighed in since the revert was proposed. Mattisse 21:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- User: Jmabel has responded that he will not be able to participate because of other demands on his time. User: Zleitzen is currently inactive on WP and it seems probable that he will not be responding. I am inclined to think that if User:Jimbo Wales were planning to participate he would have said so by now since he has responded to messages on his Talk page that are more recent than the one I posted there notifying him of the FAR ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the situation. It may be a Don Quixote effort, but I would like to do what we can. At least we could give it a try. In my mind, it is better than letting it continue as it is. We could only improve it under SandyGeorgia's eye. Then, with a clean start, it would be easier to stay on top of it. I admit I had stopped watching it so I was horrified when I realized what happened. I'd be willing to do the revert if User:Caribbean H.Q. doesn't turn up again. Perhaps we could contact him. Mattisse 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I am only willing to work on this article if it has a healthy start under FAR auspices. Otherwise, I am not. I am not clear how much longer FAR will give us. Could FAR be extended if it takes much longer to get consensus? Mattisse 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Mattisse, your comment above and in the edit summary that accompanies it — i.e, "can FAR review time be extended if consensus takes much longer? It will be impossible to work on under other conditions, IMO" — goes directly to the nexus of my concerns about this effort. Even if the CG article is able to maintain FA status following the FAR, once it is "released" back into the public domain I anticipate that it will soon begin to deteriorate again. This article has a long history of attracting "mad hatters" who fill it up with whatever POV happens to suit their fancy. Most alarmingly, the resultant buildup of "cruft", as User:SandyGeorgia has described it above, seems to be increasing at an increasing rate. While User:Jmabel and User:Zleitzen were active, they made extraordinary efforts to control the situation. Once they had departed, the floodgates were open, and everything would seem to indicate that as soon as the FAR is completed those floodgates will be open again because the 3RR means that, in the end, any determined editor can simply inundate and overwhelm those who attempt to control him. -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I have my reservations also. That is why only if there is time to develop a well established article under FAR, even an FA which I would aim for, will I consider it. I share all of your concerns. I am really tempted to take the whole thing off my watchlist right now and just not know what happens. If it goes on much longer, that is what I will do. We both know how awful it can be. We both have been painfully through it, me more with a prior article with Zleitzen, but we both know. I am becoming very uncertain whether to continue, especially as I see Red continues not to understand. It is very draining. Mattisse 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- As long as steady, productive work is underway, FAR is usually extended (that is up to Marskell, but he has never denied it as long as steady progress is being made. On the other hand, if you get mired in edit wars and POV-pushing, he could decide to pull the plug and defeature). As far as my "watchful eye", I can check in every day or two, but can't be actively involved on an hour by hour basis (for example, tonight, I lost several hours to a sockpuppet at FAC). A revert will bring a lot of work, but if you go that route, FAR can be extended, but you've got to be prepared for the work. Almost all of the growth in the article and its TOC since the featured version is unnecessary, and that content should be spun to daughter articles now, if you're going to go the route of revert. Returning to the clean, cruft-free article that was featured would be a good start, but it will still need to be examined for POV. All sides of the Guevara story need to be accorded due weight, not just the rosy myth. With four agreeing, to one against, I'd say you have consensus, but you might still want to give it a day or so to make sure there are no surprises, causing a waste of time. Maybe in the meantime you can decide what to do about all that image cruft the article has taken on; it looks like a picture book, and you'll have to decide which to keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note that although I declined [32] doing the revert so early in the FAR process, if any edit wars explode I will do the revert and try to keep a control of how the content is subsecuently managed, this is not my current intention but if it must be done to maintain the article's quality it will be done. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You also might consider that there could be a better version to revert to. Maybe spend some time examing these three versions?
After that, it begins to sprawl, with lots of cooks in the kitchen. If you revert, you'll probably need to preserve the current infobox, "stuff" at the bottom of the article, and review current images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Reverting to the original FA version is probably an efficient approach, if chaff significantly outweighs wheat among contributions since the FA date. The original info is still in the article hist (has not been erased), plus one could copy/paste the text of the current version to a temporary workpage in one's user space for easy reference, if desired. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- (ec x 1) Certainly, I read the Featured version some months before the flood of edits that began in January and recon that this version had some statements that needed sources but it doesn't seem to have the several POV issues that have been noted since last summer, I will make sure to the review the other two versions as well. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Agree with User:Ling.Nut. Prefer this to a drawn out discussion over "which" version to use. Each will have a favorite. Using the version provided by SandayGeorgia is preferable do deciding whose favorite version we should use. Mattisse 04:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Polaris999 and I will wait for the revert. We are too burned out to do anything unless there is a clear purpose. Neither of us feel like working on either article in the hypothetical. We have both had horrible wikipedia experiences on these articles. We are both only tentatively willing if something happens soon. It cannot continue to drag out. User talk:Blnguyen feels an spa is involved and I do too. I am willing to do the revert, but I want to do it now. Polaris999 has many reservations in getting involved again, as do I. The longer we wait, the less likely there is that we will work on it and the more likely Polaris999 will back out. I am unwilling without him. I think by tomorrow, if a decision is not made about the revert I will take it all off my watchlist. Perhaps after then, someone can notify me if there is further relevant news. Mattisse 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unless all of you are committed to a solid month's work, FAR can't really help restore this article. It's up to you all; you're the ones who are knowledgeable in the content area, we can only help, but we can't lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have looked at all three versions that User: SandyGeorgia has identified as possible rollback points. I would be fine with working on any of them, but have a preference for Zleitzen edits in early August because I would like to preserve as much of Zleitzen's work as possible. If we go back to the original FA article, we will probably end up pasting much of Zleitzen's subsequent work into it, but then his contributions will appear under our names instead of his which does not seem fair. -- Polaris999 (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- That version is fine with me as I have the same desire to preserve Zleitzen's work. Mattisse 13:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Viewing the August version in detail, I would reject it as a good starting place. Zleitzen barely worked on the article between the mainpage date and that version, so it isn't mostly his work, it increased the article size with a lot of crufty lists (for example, external websites). I'd prefer either of the first two, but reject the third as crufty and too long and falling into WP:NOT (an indiscriminate collection of links, lists, websites, etc.) Later today, I'll put the beginnings of a revert plan (including the steps needed to restore the article) on the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- O.K. Whatever is the least controversial. I originally opted for the version promoted for that reason. Could we put an {{in use}} tage on it when we start? I notice someone added a POV pic just now. Mattisse 15:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Later today I will put up a list of steps, and then if everyone agrees, work can begin (assuming there is no opposition). I'm still getting through my morning watchlist. Reverting is easy; putting the pieces back together will require some coordination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I figured reverting was easy as I have a copy of the promoted version in my sandbox. There are broken/dead references and pictures have been deleted, so those need to be fixed. Plus some references are not up to snuff and need to be upgraded. Is that what you mean by "putting the pieces back together"? And, of course, we will address any POV issues. Mattisse 15:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I will add it to the talk page later; the FAR need not go into detail that can be covered on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have never seen a reversion such as is going to be done to the CG article and am wondering if someone could please explain to me whether the Talk page and the Talk archives will be preserved as they are now, or will they also be rolled back? -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- This can be discussed and explained on talk; the FAR page need not go into detail. I will get there as soon as I can, but this page keeps popping on my watchlist :-) Yes, the talk page is preserved, and no, we don't need Mattisse's sandbox version; reverting is not rocket science. Someone may want to save the current version in a sandbox so it can be accsessed in the future. Now, can we please resume these details on the article talk page, and not clutter the FAR, as others will need to read through this page in the future ? The FAR is where we discuss whether the article meets WP:WIAFA and needs to be removed from WP:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Adding link to steps on article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Ok all steps have been taken and so far only one user has opposed the revert, I will be taking action tommorow if nothing changes. Polaris there have been simmilar reverts in Featured Articles, the latest one that comes to my mind is Link (Legend of Zelda). - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Taking action tomorrow"? Did you see that all talk page participants have already agreed to an orderly plan to revert and restore?[33] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, we have a plan after talk page discussion over who will do what. Sandy is going to do the revert itself. Mattisse 13:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. You are welcome, of course, to join the talk page discussion! Please do. Mattisse 13:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You should become aware of the relevant thread on my talk page, I am familiar with the plan. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I've decided to stick with my initial instincts and bow out; it's a difficult situation, but I hope the article will pull through and retain status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I no longer support the target revert date of March 2006, as only now have I realized (thru articlestats) that the target revert version does not include the work Zleitzen put in to the article. Zleitzen's work on the article began after that date, so my assumption that a revert to the featured version would be the fastest way to recover the work Zleitzen put into the article, and build from there, were incorrect. Certainly, the article has seriously deteriorated since he stopped editing in July 2007, but the March 2006 target isn't necessarily the best revert target, as Zleitzen's improvements began in August 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please remember that anything added on or after June 8, 2007 was the result of the POV tag added by Jimmy Wales and was part of what became a revert war and not reality reflective of the careful work of Zleitzen. These were merely fruitless attempts to restore previous wording in the article. Then the article was locked down for a month. So I would not count anything on or after June 8 as important regarding Zleitzen's work. Mattisse 16:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- On checking revision history of 2007, all but a couple edits made by Zleitzen were reversions (almost all). In addition there are two or three corrections of mess ups caused by someone's addition of material by restoring previous material and not "contributions" to the further enhancement of the article by Zleitzen. Mattisse 17:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- My verson of the history shows a few trivial edits in July, and none thereafter in 2006. In April, May and June 2006, Zleitzen did not edit. Mattisse 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, my version of the edit history shows Zleitzen did not edit the article in January, February or March of 2006 either. Am I looking in the wrong place? His personal contribution history does not show edits to the article then either. I am confused. Mattisse 17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Mattisse, you are correct. That is why I had supported the latest version of the three that SandyGeorgia originally suggested for the "target" (early August) as it contained some of Zleitzen's edits. However, after you and I had expressed our preference for that version, she said that she had changed her mind and the early August version was no longer acceptable to her and that we would have to choose between June 19, 2006 and March 10, 2006 versions. -- Polaris999 (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I applaud Sandy's instincts; even appearances of COI should be avoided.
- All sides here should bear in mind Knucmo2's third law: Attempts to change POV articles to NPOV invariably result from a different POV. (Like the rest of Raul's laws, this exaggeration requires several handfuls of salt; but there's meat all the same.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Diffs:
Unfortunately my browser crashes in trying to look at the diffs. I am not sure what point you are making when looking at the one diff my browser could handle. Could you be more specific? Mattisse 19:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- These were largely for my own use, and anyone else who cared; I really don't see much difference between Sandy's three preferred versions and the state when it was put under review. But I have not done close comparison. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - we have reduced artticle size 89 kilobytes long. Mattisse 05:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I am bowing out from editing the article further, as I realize that SandyGeorgia and others who counseled against the impossible POV problems were right in my case. I have done what I can. As changes are no longer being discussed on the talk page but are being done unilaterally, I have no choice. There is no longer an atmosphere of collaboration. User:Polaris999 and User:Redthoreau will carry on. Mattisse 19:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Disputed Neutrality
- The article now has a “Neutrality in Dispute” tag (which I disagree with, but nonetheless) ... for those that do dispute the neutrality of the article in it's current form ... what are some of the statements in the article that you believe compromise it's neutrality? Or represent a particular editor’s POV? And be very specific with exact quotes ... no generalities which will not be helpful. Also if you dispute a particular statement ... provide a “retranslation” for how you believe the same statement can be made to imply greater neutrality. If you believe a statement should be removed from the article let us know which one and why you feel justified in calling for its removal? Redthoreau (talk TR 04:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment about the Cuba section The "Cuba" section could use some reorganization so that the paragraphs are chronological. More context is needed about his roles within the Cuban government (and why are the dates of his appointments in footnotes? Wouldn't they be better and more helpful to the reader to just integrate them into the main text?) A copy-edit is needed: "Guevara later served as Minister of Industries, in which post he helped", "...would drive economic growth, all that was needed was will". In my opinion, the section should discuss more about his role in the "great debate" of moral vs. material incentives. He was a vocal advocate of "moral incentives", and his philosophical musings during this time were certainly influential in Cuba, if not altogether successful in getting Cuba to adopt his particular economic views. "Guevara played a key role in bringing to Cuba the Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles..." Really? What was this key role? Explain! BuddingJournalist 05:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please change Cuevara: to Guevara —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.149.2 (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Following the recent events I think it will not be possible to resolve any of the concerns presented here, the article is currently protected from editing due to edit warring wich obviously conflicts with the stability criteria and the situation has only gotten worse since protection, there appears to be no hope of keeping this listed as a FA. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), focus (4), referencing (1c), and formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Marskell, can you please provide some more elaboration on these issues. I am willing to work diligently to address all of your concerns; however that would be more easily accomplished with more specificity. Thanks. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- To all Editors
-
- Where do things stand?
To the myriad of editors who have commented on this page, and who have made suggestions, I am sending out a request to have you all view the newest version of the article (as of March 27 - One month after the FAR review into effect) ... and please update your critiques, suggestions, criticisms, etc. The article has had considerable modifications, been drastically reduced in size, gone through extensive grammatical and word editing, and had a good deal of "excess" content removed, etc over the last month (thanks to the hard work of several editors). When comparing the two versions, the improvement I believe is clear from when the review went into effect. To view the difference ...March 27th 08 version ----vs---- Feb 23, 08 Version = when the Review was ordered. For comparison also see the version which originally received FA status ---> March 10, 2006. It would be my contention that the current version at least exceeds the quality of the original FA version, but it is the collective view that matters here. So please make your opinion known as it is appreciated. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Place to update critiques as of March 27 (one month later)
Since the article has been altered so drastically since the original review ... I am creating this new section to voice those concerns about the current March 27th version of the article. Thank you and please feel free to make any and all suggestions. Also specifics are appreciated as they will allow editors a chance to rectify your specific concern. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Continuation of Neutrality and Cleanup ???
Since considerable edits and alterations have been made to the article in the past month since the institution of both of these tags, I feel it is prudent to re-examine their validity and gage whether editors still have specific concerns in relation to the either of these issues in the article. If you are an editor who does, and thus feel the tags should remain, please state so below and justify your reasoning. Also if you believe so, make suggestions on how your specific concerns could be alleviated. Thank you. Redthoreau (talk TR 23:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Restored
I've taken the liberty to read both versions of the article from over the last few months and I have to say that it has degraded considerably and has unfortunately been the subject of over editing which has affected the tone and balance of the article. I've restored it in part whilst removing the overly long external links and media which is now in a sister article but if it is to be condensed considerably (which it needs to) this should be done properly and without affecting the real meat of the article. It should be fairly straighforward to condense it again and try with effort to retain the balance and important points of the article. This is the best solution I believe. It is very unfortunate to see an article erode like this. I can imagine there will be people outraged and will try to revert. But I genuinely believe this is best step to keep the FA. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 15:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
*Remove The talk page discussion is very active, and the diffs provided above and elsewhere indicate substantial stability issues. The article is bloated with detail which could be siphoned off to daughter articles. Some sentences are unclear in terms of sourcing, relevancy, and whether such details are disputed or not. For example, it shouldn't be necessary to have a 300-word footnote quoting numerous sources for whether or not he had a medic degree. I don't think that these issues can be worked out over the course of a FAR. FAR works best when there is little controversy and a single or a small band of editors work diligently to improve an article. Often, FARs like this one have ended in acrimony. On balance, I think it's better to break this article away from this process and let its regular editors work out the article's problems over a longer timespan. DrKiernan (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC) the preceding was struck out by DrKiernan 11:03 10 April 2008. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Remove Not FA material. Here are just a sample of the many problems plaguing this article. Also interspersed are some suggestions and questions.
-
-
- Agreed that this is not FA material, but here come some comments and responses in any case... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Why does the article spend so much time explaining "rough" in a footnote from the lead? Surely, his travels through South America can be properly detailed in the body of text, and trivial information (such as "Conveyances used" and "nights spent in") can be eliminated. There are also no sources given for this. Where'd that "definition" come from, and why is it even needed? "It is hoped that..."?
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Is there a compelling reason to detail his family tree (and in such confusing fashion)? Seems like a rather large digression from the main subject.
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. Though the way in which his family is treated remains somewhat confusing at times. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "This statement in a letter written in Costa Rica on December 10, 1953 is important because it proves that..." We should be very careful with statements like this. How about ascribing this to some scholar ("According to ____, this letter proves that")?
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "by Jon Lee Anderson" Introduce him here on first use to provide context to the reader instead of later.
-
-
- Fixed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "he would have to affiliate himself with the Communist Party of Guatemala." Explain further! Why did he not want to affiliate himself with them?
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "At that point, he turned down a free seat on a flight back to Argentina..." Again, explain further. An FA-quality biography should do more than just narrate the choices of its subject. It should seek to explain (with proper sourcing) the possible motivations behind such choices. This, of course, does not mean that we should present motivations as fact when there is scholarly doubt; attribution ("according to" is your friend) is necessary.
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "It was during this time in June 1955" Redundant prose, no?
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- What's going on in this sentence? "...a Comandante (English translation: Major), respected by his comrades in arms for his courage and military prowess,[17] he gained a reputation for bravery and military prowess second only to Fidel Castro himself." " Note the orphaned quotation mark. Also, why not just "(major)"? Readers will understand that that is an English translation.
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "high in the Sierra Maestra" While I know what the Sierra Maestra is, some readers may not. A link would be quite useful here. Please double check that the article is not assuming knowledge such as this in other places too.
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Though wishing to push the battlefront forward and frustrated by his more stationary role, Guevara spent the period developing contacts with sympathetic locals." "Though" does not work here. Also, the clauses in this sentence imply a connection, but ideas do not seem to be connected.
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "
Of note, Che..."
- "
It should be stated, however, that the aforementioned José Vilasuso..."
- "I am innocent." Reason for italics?
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "12 June 1959" Why the sudden change to this date format? And unlinked?
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Guevara also travels as head of an official delegation" Why the sudden use of present tense in this paragraph?
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Later, Guevara..." Surely, it would be more informative to give the date here in the main text body rather than hide it in a footnote for some reason?
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "He believed that volunteer work and dedication of workers would drive economic growth, all that was needed was will." Huh?
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Time was also set aside to write several publications." Why the passive, when the active works perfectly well and sounds so much better?
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- My above critique of the Cuba section still stands: The "Cuba" section could use some reorganization so that the paragraphs are chronological. More context is needed about his roles within the Cuban government (and why are the dates of his appointments in footnotes? Wouldn't they be better and more helpful to the reader to just integrate them into the main text?) A copy-edit is needed: "Guevara later served as Minister of Industries, in which post he helped", "...would drive economic growth, all that was needed was will". In my opinion, the section should discuss more about his role in the "great debate" of moral vs. material incentives. He was a vocal advocate of "moral incentives", and his philosophical musings during this time were certainly influential in Cuba, if not altogether successful in getting Cuba to adopt his particular economic views. "Guevara played a key role in bringing to Cuba the Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles..." Really? What was this key role? Explain!
-
-
- Most of your specific points are no longer at issue. But I agree that in this section, as others, re-writing, expansion, sourcing, and organization are needed for coherence and coverage. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Some saw Guevara as the simultaneously glamorous and austere model of that "new man."" Smells like a weasel.
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "arguing that conditions in the various Latin American countries that had been under consideration for the possible establishment of guerrilla focos were not yet optimal." I have a feeling this is sourced incorrectly.
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Guevara
previously in August of 1964 laid out why..." Explain. In a speech? In writing?
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Although Guevara was thirty-seven at the time and had no formal military training..." What's the purpose of this paragraph? It seems like this is leading to something significant, but eventually goes nowhere.
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I am surprised that the Congo section does not rely on Piero Gleijeses' seminal Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976. Probably the most comprehensively researched account of Cuba's foray into Africa. Consider relying on the many documents in Gleijeses as research for this section.
-
-
- I believe that there's a move afoot to get hold of this particular source. NB though that this is far from the only missing source. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- ""He was a big man - well built..." Why the italics?
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Why are there two separate footnote styles?
-
-
- Fixed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Some examples of where citations should be provided but none are:
- "He was an enthusiastic and eclectic reader, with interests ranging from adventure classics by Jack London, Emilio Salgari, and Jules Verne to essays on sexuality by Sigmund Freud and treatises on social philosophy by Bertrand Russell." Something so specific needs a source.
- "It was during this period that he acquired his famous nickname, "Che"..."
- The last half of the fourth paragraph of "Guatemala".
-
-
- These specific instances have mostly been fixed, but plenty others remain. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- References are not formatted with any consistency.
-
-
- I think this is mostly now fixed, though I'd say they are not formatted the way I would do so. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- These specific sources are gone. Mostly the remaining ones are OK, I'd say. There are some exceptions. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I think these are fixed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Please check that all images have proper source information (many that are presumably copied from another website are missing URLs), use the correct permissions tag, and have correct fair use rationales where applicable (for example, the Der Spiegel cover image does not have a fair use rationale for this article).
- Article does not conform to MOS standards, and the text's formatting is not consistent. In particular: superscript citations should have no space between them and punctuation, and should be placed after punctuation; spacing around em dashes is not consistent; currencies are not properly formatted; hyphens used instead of en dashes.
-
-
- Agreed. Numerous MOS problems. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- External links need clean up. The numerous links to photo galleries of him really serve no purpose. Linking to a collection of archival footage of him would be much better than linking to individual videos clips. That being said, linking to copyright violations is a big no-no. In fact, I can't see a good reason for any of the links to be there. Can any of those be justified?
-
-
- No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- In general the article suffers from inconsistency, whether it be in formatting, or more importantly, prose. In some areas, the article reads quite well and flows like a well-written biography. However, many times, the text will suddenly jump to a completely different tone and subject in the middle of sections. BuddingJournalist 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Agreed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- BuddingJournalist, I appreciate these specific suggestions. Did you intend to correct them yourself, or for others to make them? Thanks. Redthoreau (talk TR 20:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I took your suggestion and fixed the external links/archival footage which are now moved. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I also think it should be noted that some of these suggestions by BuddingJournalist refer to a version of the article that was unnecessarily reverted to, from before the extensive editing of the past month or so. The article was doubled back to 160 K bytes this morning and has since been returned back to 74 K bytes ... and thus some of these critiques refer to parts of the article already corrected. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- BuddingJournalist, thank you thrice for contributing those detailed comments. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Restore to FA version - Why should size constitute a problem? It was promoted as 138 K bytes, so why should now somebody question its size? The problem was the number of additions made, all of which are POV and crap. Also good to note that an FA about a dead person should not necessarily be constantly edited and substatially changed post its FA promotion. Of course, Wikipedia is an ongoing project, but the most important thing to do after FA promotion is MoS and techinical breaches. With all due respect to Polaris, Mattisse and Redthoreau, all of whom are apparently great editors, comprehensiveness is far more important than size. Guevara's illustrious life should be written comprehensively, regardless of how long it would be. Only after this new, short version was established, and as you call it, "weeks of edits", the tags were added in. Isn't it a shame that such an amazing article is being demoted in front of your face? Not weeks, months and even years of work have gone into that. And when one editor wants to help and restore the well written, well referenced, comprehensive version, it's being reverted? Look at the FAR, the remove votes are coming now because of that. I'm shocked! Do something guys before we lose another great FA!!! Shahid • Talk2me 23:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well actually I was going to get around to copy editing it today and writing what I thought would become a good article but seems as I;m not permitted too, I wish you luck ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- A few things as facts are important to prevent misunderstanding: (1) The article was not promoted at 138 K --- the version which originally received FA status ---> March 10, 2006 which was probably around 60 K or so. (2) The 138 K was the version that was reported for a FA review ---> Feb 23, 08 Version. (3) Compare that with the current version WHICH HAS gone through extensive edits over the past month March 28, 08. I would contend the current version is of BETTER quality than the March 10, 2006 version which recieved FA status. Redthoreau (talk TR 23:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- The size is not a problem. What is a problem is that is still unflinchingly in violation of 1d (WP:NPOV). My remarks far, far above (search for the words "NPOV does not mean") still stand. The criticisms of Guevara are not explored, in any meaningful sense of the word. A criticism that is not explored is one and the same thing as a criticism that is dismissed, and dismissing criticisms is a prima facie case of vilating WP:NPOV. There are also many other concerns with 1a, 1c and WP:LEAD, a few of which are detailed below. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- The WP:LEAD has several Easter egg wikilinks. Why is "imperialism" linked to anti-imperialism, "capitalism" linked to anti-capitalism, "pivotal role" linked to Battle of Santa Clara, "dozens" linked to Additional materials on Che Guevara, etc. Does the rest of the article have so many easter eggs? Ling.Nut (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I have purged the article as a whole of as many of these as possible. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why is colonialism mentioned in the lead? Was he ever involved in a war in a country that was actually a colony? I think neo-colonialism (which is also there) is the correct term... Ling.Nut (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- This is now gone (replaced by imperialism?), though I think FWIW that discussion of colonialism would not be unjustified. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- "The justification for the execution of torturers and other brutal criminals of the Batista regime..." Wikipedia isn't taking sides here, is it? Everyone Guevara executed was a Batista torturer and/or a brutal criminal? Every excution was justified? Stunning disdain for WP:NPOV. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- This has been fixed before I got to it, and has been further fixed by pointing out that the source is (or rather was) a legal advisor to the Cuban govt. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- "...in Guatemala so as to perfect himself.." Huh? Did he become a monk? "Perfect himself" is an unexplained term that is suspiciously ascetic/religious, a la Hebrews 5:9. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Looks as though this is fixed: it's a quotation. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- There seems to be some redundancy in the WP:LEAD that could be trimmed: He's an author in the first para, then a prolific author in the last; his photo is mentioned in the first and last paras, and perhaps other things. My fingers are itching to condense this, but the changes would seem to involve a bit more than mere polishing around the edges.. so I won't do it during a FARC. Ling.Nut (talk)
-
- Your specific points have been addressed, though you're right that there's more than polishing required here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- "disciplined brutality" In addition to being an oxymoron, this is also an example of Wikipedia taking sides (better known as a violation of WP:NPOV). Ling.Nut (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- The phrase no longer features. FWIW, I don't see it as either an oyxmoron or NPOV. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- " as everything from a 'saint'to a 'butcher'" I see quotation marks... needs to be attributed/cited as a direct quote.Ling.Nut (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- This phrase no longer features. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Online at Stockholm Spectator is a broken link, last accessed 2006... did the nominators/reviewers check all the links in this article? Ling.Nut (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- This links is gone. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- oops found another broken link; someone really needs to check all these (and the easter eggs...) Ling.Nut (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Ditto. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- "It is also said that he memorized.." ..said by whom? By a reliable source that can be cited, perhaps? Ling.Nut (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- If this is about memorizing "Martín Fierro", there's a source now. (Though I don't believe it!) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- "became known for his radical perspective even as a boy, idolizing Francisco Pizarro..." Poor word choice, since "radical" implies "political".. was Pizarro radical? Had Pizarro read Saul Alinsky, perhaps? Ling.Nut (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- There's no mention of Pizarro any more. FWIW, I don't see that "radical" implies "political." --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just a note on alternate versions: this article quotes time magazine (in an improperly formatted cite, by the way) as saying "Moments before Guevara was executed he was asked if he was thinking about his own immortality." But this source gives a different account:
-
- Mallin, Jay (1968). "Che" Guevara: Some Documentary Puzzles at the End of a Long Journey. Journal of Inter-American Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1. pp. 74-84. ... A second officer came up and asked what was the matter. The former replied, referring to a Spanish story, that Guevara "must be thinking about the immortality of the burro." (other sources verifying this version here; shades of Thinking about the immortality of the crab)Ling.Nut (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's an "allegedly" in the following sentence at least. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you majorly, Ling Nut, for taking the time to make these comments as well as some edits to the article. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- You're welcome... but errm, sorry I created the impression that I was finished:-) So... more serious factual discrepancy: Wikipedia says"It is estimated that a few hundred people were executed on Guevara's extra-judicial orders during this time" Meanwhile, this source says: "In his book Che Guevara: A Biography, Daniel James writes that Che himself admitted to ordering 'several thousand' executions during the first year of the Castro regime." Ling.Nut (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Frontpage is a horrible source. The James biography isn't that great either, as far as I can see: depends on how much the 2001 version is a re-write, but it's basically a 1969 book as far as I can see. The three reliable (if none of them very sympathetic) biographies are Anderson, Castañeda, and Taibo II. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, from the same source: "In 1960 Castro appointed Che as Cuba's "Minister of Economics." Within months the Cuban peso, a currency historically equal to the U.S. dollar and fully backed by Cuba's gold reserves, was practically worthless. The following year Castro appointed Che as Cuba's Minister of Industries. Within a year a nation that previously had higher per capita income than Austria and Japan, a huge influx of immigrants and the 3rd highest protein consumption in the hemisphere was rationing food, closing factories, and hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of it's most productive citizens from every sector of its society, all who were grateful to leave with only the clothes on their back." These and many other claims from a critic need to be either verified or disproved. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Frontpage is a truly horrible source. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- (1) Humberto Fontova is not a credible source for anything in relation to Che Guevara. As much as I enjoy the humor of an author citing himself in his own footnotes ... a historian who uses the term "Useful Idiots" for his ideological opponents in the title of his book on Guevara -(and misattributes it to Stalin, = factual inaccuracy in the title is always a good hint of a books credibility)-, is hardly an objective source. Now as for the other claims, I am already convinced of Fontova's penchant for cherry picking things out of context, or merely making them up out of thin air ... so I don't find it worthwhile to follow all of his crumb trails. To me it is like arguing with a Holocaust denier or someone who doesn’t think we landed on the moon. If you do however, feel free, and I will address the claims individually. Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 14:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are we operating under the assumption that the overtly bias and partisan FrontPage Magazine is even a credible source to utilize in an Encyclopedia article? Redthoreau (talk TR 18:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The article lists its sources. That is the main point, and I hope we will not overlook that. Secondarily, criticizing a criticism because it comes from a critic is like criticizing an egg because it comes from a hen. Most criticism of polarizing figures (such as Guevara) comes from people whose status as critic is entrenched. That does not invalidate their comments, if they can verify them. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm gonna wrap up my participation here; I have things to do in real life. But one last comment: The crucial role played by the American press, esp. the NYT and esp. Herbert Matthews is vastly underplayed here. Herbert Matthews really did make both Castro and Guevara, who were well aware of this, and manipulated his writing. See for example in the New York Times, 4 Jan. 1959 (p. 7):
- 'Che' Guevara states: "I have never been a communist. Dictators always say that their enemies are communist..." [Conde, Yvonne M. (1999). Operation Pedro Pan: The Untold Exodus of 14048 Cuban Children. New York: Routledge. Pages 5-7. My access to the LexisNexis news datbase only goes to 1969; may need to look at microfiche to verify this].
- Matthews writes, "One thing must be said. This is an acknowledgement to an extraordinary young man, Fidel Castro. The American people wish him good fortune.."
- New York Times Havana-based correspondent Ruby Hart Phillips wrote of the impact of Matthews' stories of 1957: "From that time on youths flocked to join the ranks of Castro's insurgents." Ling.Nut (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not entirely sure of the point here: arguably there could be more on Matthews, though that would mainly concern reception to the Cuban revolutionary cause abroad. The question of either Castro's or Che's Communism, especially in the last 1950s, is indeed rather debatable. More surprising here is the lack of any analysis of Guevara's political philosophy, particularly his notion of the "new man." --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- LingNut, I understand that Matthews and the New York Times has become a convenient revisionist, and straw man “scapegoat” (especially amongst the current day far-right) for the failings of the US state department to prevent the rise of Castro and ultimately nuclear missiles 90 miles from Florida ... but the reality is not that simple. First to address your specific points:
- That statement by Che is historically accurate (see Arbenz, Mosaddeq, later Allende and even Mandela etc). --- Also it is accurate in the sense that he never did refer to himself as a “communist”, and had never joined an official communist party. Guevara viewed himself as a “Marxist”, as he told Time Magazine when they did their Aug 8 1960 cover story on him (where he dawned the cover).
Then he explained the Cuban revolution with uncompromising clarity. "What is its ideology? If I were asked whether our revolution is Communist, I would define it as Marxist. Hear me well, I said Marxist. Our revolution has discovered by its methods the paths that Marx pointed out." "Castro's Brain", Aug 8 1960, Cover Story for Time Magazine
-
-
-
- One needn't be a "flaming commie" to describe the actions of Fidel Castro during that time as "extraordinary". Landing on an island with less than 20 men alive against a force of 20,000 soldiers, and 3 years later coming out on top ... is by most accounts an "extraordinary" feat. History shows that many revolutionaries have attempted it ... but Fidel is one of the select few who has ever been successful doing it. Of note Ed Sullivan and former President Harry Truman also viewed Castro as the "George Washington of Cuba" without being "closet communists".
- So is Phillips contending that scores of young Cubans decided to join Castro's and Che's guerrilla group after reading the NY times? Also this is an example of possible "correlation" but not necessarily "causation". "Yes she gave birth when it rained, but they necessarily are not connected". Just because young Cuban youth flocked to join the revolution at a time when Matthews was also writing positive press for the NYT, doesn't mean the two are connected. If all that was necessary was positive publicity in the NY Times to engender desire to join the military, I am sure the US military would have tried it a long time ago. Redthoreau (talk TR 15:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Article is hopelessly POV The article remains POV but one editor retains control over the article and any attempts to change the POV. For example, I believe it would be best to correct information that is 50 years out of date in the lead. From my point of view, using a 50 year old puff piece from Time Magazine to characterize our current view and beliefs regarding the Cuban Revolution and Che Guevara is incorrect. Further, there is an editor that reverts current editing by editors arbitrarily and without community discussion. Is that not contrary to the point of FAR? Or am I not understanding what is supposed to happen here? The article is filled with POV from my point of view, but I am not allowed to make little changes. Also, LingNut's attempts to change the POV has been reverted. Thanks. Mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- My response: (1) I would encourage all editors to read the articles talk page for a more "contextual" view of Mattisse's complaints, whose accuracy I disagree with. He has shown no contradictory evidence to dispute the Time piece, and is merely venting in his usual manner by now misrepresenting the facts to suit his desires. Coppertwig has been observing all of what has gone on, and I am sure can attest to the reality of the situation. Although Mattisse’s, veiled reference to me is “cute” in nature, it is inaccurate as the talk page shows. I always provide accompanying information to back up my claims, however in this instance, he simply says “it’s 50 years old, thus it is out of date”, without providing any corroborating evidence to back up his claims, but the title name to a book. (2) Mattisse has been given ample opportunities to display what he believes is POV about the article, and also yet to do so, (why bother when he can just cast the unfounded aspersion, which is easier). (3) I want to solely deal in content, but Mattisse makes it very difficult with his constant barrage of accusations and veiled impugnation of the accuracy of my provided content. (4) Speaking of inaccurate, Mattisse already has confessed to including a story of a battle where Guevara “supposedly” fled like a coward and almost shot his own man, which for all we can tell thus far, only occurred in his head (see “Citation for story?” from the talk page / it has thus luckily been deleted). Redthoreau (talk TR 23:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just look at the publication date which is 1960. To me that means it is reflecting the thinking in 1960. Mattisse (Talk) 23:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- And ? So your sole contention is that an article and interview written in 1960, about an individual living in 1960, is by definition inaccurate, when addressing the ways he was viewed in 1960? And by implication we should trust a book written 40 years later (which you have provided no information from), to "better inform" us of how Guevara was viewed a year after the Cuban revolution in 1960 ? Redthoreau (talk TR 01:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think the lead should either specify that what is written there reflects a view from 50 years ago in a popular magazine at a time when the media image of the revolution had been romanticized, or the reference should be one that is a more current point of view and reflects current evaluations in the light of current knowledge, e.g. the revelations in his person diaries etc. as in Joh Anderson's book. The lead shcould be forth right, I think. Mattisse (Talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm with Mattisse here. The lead should summarize the article. I don't think the phrase "Castro's brain" has entered into the lexicon of scholarly work about Guevara. Anyway, many of my criticisms above still stand; I'm still a remove. Final quick comment: the lead of a featured article should not contain simple grammatical errors. BuddingJournalist 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have added "while being viewed" to express that this was a 1960 contemporary view, which it was (I would describe being labeled something while on the cover of Time Magazine, classifies as a good "view" of the perception of the day, at that time. Redthoreau (talk
- Non-Controversial/Content TO DO list
There are several tasks which the article needs that are non-controversial and basic.
(1) All the books in the Source Notes and References need to have ISBN #'s (most do, but a few don't) ISBN Finder
(2) Format all the dates uniformly by Month/Date/Year using the "Middle endian format" - i.e. (March 5, 1965) (note: no 0 before the 5)+(month name spelled out) = rationale for this format being it is an English version of the article, and this is the accepted dating format for the U.S. (the largest English speaking country).
If any other editors have basic article tasks which are not controversial or content based, please post them below, and if you are an editor who wishes to volunteer to take up one of these tasks ... please let others know, so we don't have editors working on the same thing. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Is Neutrality still in dispute ???
When the Neutrality tag was placed on the article, it was 3 months ago, when the article was twice the size, and before thousands of edits (by numerous collaborating editors). Also the neutrality tag was NOT part of the FAR process, but separate and came later. Do editors still have doubts about the article's neutrality in its current state as of APRIL 6, 2008? If so, what are they? (And please be specific, so we can address them). If not ... then I believe the tag could be removed. Redthoreau (talk TR 00:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- According to Wiki template tag policy,
Wikipedia:Dispute templates They should normally not be used without a clear description from the applying editor of the rationale, preferably presented in a numbered list form in a separate section which includes the template name. As these items are dealt with, it is suggested each line be struck through. Some guidance should be given by the posting editor as to what action will resolve the matter when using section and article (page) tagging templates.
-
- Being that no editors have mentioned further neutrality concerns, I am going to remove the POV tag. IF an editor believes that it should be reinstated, then feel free to do so, and include a list of concerns to address, as the aforementioned policy guideline suggests. Redthoreau (talkTR 23:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I POV tagged it. the concerns are above, for all to see. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Me and Coppertwig have been addressing the concerns one by one for some time now. We have a To-Do list and Coppertwig has been including your concerns all throughout the process. There is a process for a POV tag as I note ... and you are not following it. Also the tag is separate from the FAR process and came later. I asked if editors had further POV concerns and none were offered. The article is not POV, just because you may believe it to be so. You are more than welcome to assist in the editing process and include your own input. If you would like a POV tag to be included then you are supposed to list a specific list of grievances for us to address in reference to the current article. You have not done that as far as I can tell. It is not enough to post a link to a biased extremist source and then ask why that information is not included. Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 04:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ling Nut, I have tried to contact you, but it says you are in retirement. Nevertheless, almost all of your concerns above have been addressed and fixed. The Easter Eggs are gone, "Imperialism" is gone, "Perfection" has been fixed, "Justification" comment has been corrected, Coppertwig specifically ordered the book you mentioned and it awaiting its arrival etc etc etc. I feel like we are being very collaborative, and you are non appreciative. Have you taken note of how much me and Coppertwig have addressed of your concerns? Also I would encourage you to make a specific list of POV concerns in its own section, per Wiki policy and then if me and Coppertwig or others do not address them - then a POV tag can be re-added. Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 04:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Errm, I don't mean to put too fine a point on it, but there is no policy for POV tags.. or at least, you didn't link to one. :-) You linked to Wikipedia:Dispute templates, which is neither a policy nor a guideline. I assume it's an essay, but there is no essay tag on it... so I added one.
- Evidence has been provided that Guavera denied being a communist (when it suited his purposes early on), admitted to ordering 'several thousand' executions, and was a failure as a "Minister of Economics." I do not see this reflected in the article... thanks. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ling Nut, so if there is no policy ... then I am justified in removing your tag just as you are in placing it back. (You want the tag and I don’t – thus it is 1 to 1). The back and forth will achieve nothing ... which is why I have tried to reason with you and show you how me and Coppertwig have made great efforts to alleviate your concerns, 80 % of which have already been fixed. ---> Read the Talk Page and see. All you have offered in return is a sporadic appearance out of "retirement" and a blanket "swipe" and accusation that we have not. We have been addressing your concerns as we discover reputable sources that support your claims. You are also free to add this "new information" that you believe is not included. When making claims that are not part of the accepted record of events, the burden of proof is on you to provide the credible evidence. You say Che admitted to "ordering several thousand executions" ... well where is your credible source? The only thing I have ever seen this cited in is WorldNetDaily and FrontPage.com hit job articles or by Humberto Fontova – an extremist source that is unacceptable for an encyclopedia. Never in reputable sources. If you have them ... please enlighten us ... or feel free to add the information yourself. The failure of us to include your questionable claim does not amount to POV, especially when nobody has stopped you from adding it. As for a failure as an economics minister ... feel free to provide that information as well. Nobody would argue that financially his term as Economics minister was successful … but it is debatable how much he personally brought on the poor economic performance. As for denying to be a "communist" when it suited him ... I would dispute that claim. He was on the cover of Time Magazine in 1960 and admitted to being a "Marxist". This is consistent with how he always referred to himself for the most part. There is a litany of hundreds of speeches; letters etc that he wrote and he always seemed to make it clear he believed in Marxism. I am not sure what you are getting it by claiming we are not including his denials. Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 13:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Reply I left a note on RT's talk about my lack of access to English-language books of any kind. The simple fact is this, however: This article offers nothing resembling a scholarly critique of Guavera's life. It addresses no claims. Are the claims above merely the made rants of a drooling moonwalk denier, as RT suggests? OK, no problem.. find sources that discuss these claims. Find ALL sources, not just sympathetic ones.... Che Guavera is important. we can argue about whether or not he deserves to be important, but that wouldn't change the fact that he IS important. Therefore, his life deserves real scholarship and a hard look ayt real issues, not... a very diligently-written puff piece, perhaps. The credibility of Wikipedia is at stake. That's all. later! Ling.Nut (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I want to address your concerns Ling Nut, and want readers to view the article as fair, but for me it is important that the origins of claims be credible ... so that we can have a comparative debate as to their accuracy. I am 100 % sure that someone who believes Fontova's skewed viewpoint ... will always view a scholarly article of Guevara as the hagiographical puff writing of a "Useful Idiot" (to use Fontova's moniker). I am open to any claim ... but "revised" views of historical figures, carry a heavy burden of proof ... especially if you are going to argue that 90 % of everyone who has ever written on the subject has gotten it "wrong". Anyone can write a claim on a partisan website. Relying on FrontPage.com would be like relying on a fan site like CheLives.com -- Both have no interest in historical accuracy. Could some of Fontova's claims have merit? Possibly. But since I am familiar with so many of his aspersions, and the ultimate reality of how he merely spins them out of context or makes them up, I doubt his veracity for intellectual honesty. Now as for the "sources" he cites ... I have also went digging for a great deal of his claims in the past - only to find them non-existent. However, I am still open to researching a particular claim he makes - if you believe it warrants attention. Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 15:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Che Guevara en Español --- For those that speak Spanish ... the Che Guevara en Español article was a wealth of information that could possibly be incorporated in this article or other Che related articles. Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 13:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: At every turn, at every point, this article swallows conventional wisdom about Guevara's life — written by those professing and demonstrating their admiration for Guevara — with an occasional figleaf buried in footnotes or glancing mentions of other troubling facts. I ask you, is this scholarship? Where are the words of Leo Sauvage and Daniel James? The latter is listed twice in the bibliography, but his works are never referenced. Where are the words of Captain Gary Prado Salmon, whose company captured Guevara? He stated that the role of the CIA and especially of Félix Rodríguez in the capture and execution of Guevara was overstated by a grandstanding Rodríguez. Where is... any attempt at all.. to cast a critical (in the sense of discerning, discriminating) scholarly treatment of Guevara's life? We are blithely parroting the shtuff one could find in People magazine— and this is a shame and a blemish on our reputation (such as it is). Ling.Nut (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Conventional Wisdom" sometimes contains "wisdom" and truth does it not? The argument against it could be made by anyone with a stool and a blow horn. Usually over the course of years ... the majority of accepted opinion can morph into "conventional wisdom" ... although yes it can also transform into myth. I consider Jon Lee Anderson the pre-eminent expert on the life of Che Guevara (as he spent 5 years researching his life, traversing the globe, was given access to all of his personal writings, and spoke to every living person who ever knew him). The end product was an 800 page book that could be seen as the "Encyclopedia" on Che Guevara. Do you dispute this? To your issues. (1) Leo Sauvage was a drama critic, best known for his "conspiracies" on the assassination of JFK. His text on Guevara is entitled: "Che Guevara: The Failure of a Revolutionary." Have you read it? I have not, but will if you recommend it. What do you think he states that is missing from this article and what makes his opinion credible? (2) Daniel James is most likely a credible author on Che Guevara and I believe that his ideas should be included in the article. I can begin including his book sometime in the next few weeks if you would like me to, or of course anyone else including yourself is welcome to include his research. Obviously up to this point, no editor has deemed it worthy of inclusion. (3) As for Prado ... him and Felix have conflicting stories. As for who to believe ... I'm not sure. I guess both could be included ... but really either way ... they are the words of Che's "foes" ... and I am not sure how much validity/accuracy they have, and should be taken with a grain of salt. (4) I am not aware of People Magazine ever writing about Guevara ... is this sarcastic hyperbole or actual fact? (5) I would also include Jon Lee Anderson to have conducted a critical study ... he speaks of many unflattering aspects/executions/brutal behavior etc ... and I believe approaches the subject with great objectivity. Do you dispute this? (6) Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 05:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- As you know, I have no access to English-language books. I am also supposed to be working on an <accursed> dissertation, and so do not have the time to devote to being as meticulous as I was when involved in three other FAs.. but here, in two minutes, I uncovered the "revisionist" opinions of the captain commanding the unit that captured Guevara.. and his book is never even mentioned herein! [Note: I mentioned this in talk:Che Guevara re a {{dubious}} tag I very recently placed on the article]. The word "cherrypicking" springs immediately to mind. My point is this: what else is missing? Where O where are both sides of the story? Where is the scholarship? Do we as Wikipedians want to hang the bronze star on this article, along with whatever aura of credibility that lends, knowing that it does not really take a comprehensive look at his life, knowing that it was written by those who gaze at Che in adulation? or do we wanna take the time to dig deeper? Do we owe it to the (roughly; includes bots and repeat visitors, I think) 171,039 people who have viewed the article in the past two weeks to do a far better job? Ling.Nut (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ling Nut, I have addressed my ?'s for the dubious comment on the Talk Page. As for your other comments above ... (1) If you don't have access to English texts, nor the time to devote, then maybe it would be prudent to wait until you do have ample time, and then you can include these others sources which you feel are legitimate but absent. (2) I believe the article does take a comprehensive look at his life. Obviously we could make it 5 times longer ... but Wikipedia also has size recommendations. (3) Your primary contention seems to be that you believe any researcher who doesn't share the same view on Guevara, must be gazing in adulation, as opposed to you who is not. In that regard, who do you believe are these researchers who are worshippers of Che which are included in the article? Obviously if you distrust a particular source you are welcome to challenge its inclusion. (4) Might it be the case that the majority of information about the life of Guevara is somewhat positive, because of the fact that probably 27 of the 32 books written on him depict that "narrative" of events? I believe this essay on undue weight helps express why maybe those who are opposed to Guevara ideologically (as you have stated you are) ... may view the popular narrative on his life as "puff", while viewing their potential fallacious and less popular “smears” as "fact." Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 08:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Undue Weight =To me the most important policy of wikipedia ... especially in reference to POV disputes.
Undue weight --- NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT
Redthoreau (
talk Redthoreau 08:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi RT, I think we're all familar with WP:UNDUE. :-) I am not actually writing from a position of opposition; I am writing from profound academic skepticism. This is a meaningful difference, as i tried to explain on your talk page. My point—my main point— is that not enough has been done to ensure NPOV has been followed. Where are the quotes by the critics? There are none, none and none. Where is the critical analysis? There is none, none and none. Wanting to see them examined extremely carefully and discussed (at least the high points!) is not WP:UNDUE. :-) ... [Please see, for example, significant variations between the Wikipedia article and a firsthand account, briefly described on the article's talk page here] Ling.Nut (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, but I think the point Ling.Nut is making is that the article should, in many cases, not just state one thing as if it is fact, but mention that one source says this and another source says that which oontradicts it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ling Nut, A good deal of the critics statements probably belong in the Legacy of Che Guevara article, which was broken off from this one, to prevent long length. Just as I would contend there are not really many quotes by "admirers" of Guevara in the article at present (especially in relation to how many there actually are). I have entire books of glowing prose in relation to Guevara, and could really make this article seem like a eulogy for Christ himself, if that was my intention, which it is not. There have been entire books of poetry and 20 + songs in tribute written to Guevara - more than any 20th century figure I can almost think of. When judging the article in this context, I actually think it is pretty "fair". The problem will inevitable arise once it becomes an issue of "positive and negative" tit for tat ... that the "positive" statements on Guevara, greatly outweigh the negatives. That is not to say that they are accurate, but they are definitely far more numerous. For every detractor and criticism I can list 3 praises … thus how best to deal with this in an article with NPOV ??? Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 17:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- What I'm hoping to encourage here is an editorial atmosphere which does not reject out of hand all and every source which is critical of Guevara. Unfortunately, we currently have an atmosphere that does reject out of hand all and every source which is critical of Guevara. That is prima facie evidence of systematic violation of NPOV. Such NPOV violations are really hard to spot, because they are sins of omission rather than commission. One way to spot this problem is to scan the article rather than becoming absorbed in reading it—and look for any real discussion or consideration of controversy or criticism regarding its subject. Note that I didn't say "mention" of criticism; I said actual in-depth discussion. Couldn't find any? Conclusion:hagiography, open and shut. This article cannot be retained as FAC because of the unswerving underlying POV of the editorial approach, and the resulting lack of meaningful criticism. I pointed out a few examples, they were all brushed off as crap—symptomatic, I maintain, of the very thing that disqualifies the article at this time. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ling Nut, I agree and want an editorial atmosphere, and do not reject criticisms of Guevara out of hand. Also it is not a necessity that each individual have a plethora of criticisms from their ideological enemies. You seem to be implying that all individuals are 50 % good 50 % bad ... and thus an article should read that way – painstakingly logging the diametrical positions of both sides of the coin on every issue (i.e. Guevara shot the man who tried to kill him, but some say it wasn’t really necessary?). Could it be that the reason there are not more criticisms of Guevara, is because the overall narrative is that he was more of a "heroic" figure than a "sadistic & evil" one - at least in the minds of those who examine his life and write about him. Of course there are people that make scores of attacks ... you give me any individual (regardless of how beloved they may be by a portion of the population) and I can point you to several books of full out attacks on them. For example go to Google and put in a person’s name that usually has an overall "positive" legacy ... and type in something negative and you will scores of questionable information. I believe that a possible point of contention may be that you view Guevara as you personally told me, more like "Stalin or Pol Pot" ... and to that charge I would disagree, as would the evidence. Thus I wonder whether you will ever be happy with the final product? As it may always read "hagiographical" to you. I hope this is not the case, and assume you are acting in good faith, and you are obviously an intelligent guy ... that is why I hope that we can reason with each other and create the most "fair" article as possible – about an obviously important and beloved/hated historical figure. Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 17:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Overgeneralization. Redthoreau has stated that Anderson is critical of Guevara, and the article currently uses for example the Time magazine article "Che: A Myth Embalmed in a Matrix of Ignorance", which is certainly critical. Redthoreau has made arguments that certain particular sources are not reliable; I encourage you to post arguments to the contrary, Ling.Nut. Redthoreau, please note that some sources may be notable and worth mentioning even if the material in them may not be true. The article need not repeat the information as if it is fact but it may be worth mentioning that certain sources said certain things, also providing contradicting statements from other sources. Readers who encounter sources saying things quite different from what the Wikipedia article says may be bewildered or think that the Wikipedia article is wrong; but if the Wikipedia article acknowledges that certain things have been said and also gives alternative accounts then everything fits together better. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Cherry picking. The sole quote from the critical Time article you mention is as follows: ...Moments before Guevara was executed he was asked if he was thinking about his own immortality. "No," he replied, "I'm thinking about the immortality of the revolution." Sounds pretty heroic to me... As for claims that critical sources are biased and thus unreliable... at first glance, four (4) of the sources used in this article are from Ocean Press which publishes "books offering a radical global vision of politics and history". This publisher can scarcely be imagined to be neutral. Why then are pro-revolutionary sources okeydokey and critical sources qvatsch? I should look at the other publishers.. meanwhile, the article says "hundreds" were executed at Guevara's command, and buries in a footnote the observation that "Different sources cite different numbers of executions". But Guevara himself estimated 1,500 executions, as per Daniel James, ed., The Complete Bolivian Diaries of Che Guevara and Other Captured Documents (Stein and Day, 1968, New York), p. 226. These are the sort of glides past reality that need to be examined in great detail... Ling.Nut (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- The advertising motto of Ocean Press is not relevant to the material they publish. They publish Che's diaries, manuscripts, books on him, etc which are the same from publisher to publisher. As for "cherry picking" - As I mention in the talk page ... the way to give more credibility to a statement, is when it goes against the author’s main narrative. Thus when someone includes a positive statement amidst an "attack piece" ... you can usually be sure that the positive statement has merit … as it goes against their overall narrative. For instance, when someone writing an overall positive article about Guevara, includes an unsavory aspect it is the same. In addition, I doubt that any reader will find 1,500 executions any more “negative” than 200. It isn’t like a person would think … well 200 executions are ok … but 1,500 not so much. They will either find them all legitimate acts during war time against a vanquished dictatorial regime, or genocidal acts of a madman. But yes we should include other death estimations as well if they are sourced. Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 17:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've added a to-do item to the to-do list to "Include Daniel James reference to Che admitting to "several thousand" (or was it 1500?) executions". Perhaps Redthoreau will do this; the user indicated above a willingness to add info from that author. Our public library has "The complete Bolivian diaries of Ché Guevara, and other captured documents / edited and with an introd. by Daniel James."; I might get that out sometime in the next few weeks. Our library also has Fontova ("useful idiots" etc.). I'm thinking of reading it at some point. Adding information from a book like that would help broaden the range of perspectives presented by the article. Redthoreau, do you have any reasons to reject the book other than it being extremely derogatory (which is exactly the reason I'm seeking it out, to be able to have the article mention such an extreme perspective)? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Yes I have read all of "useful idiots" and find most of the book to be an out of context rant of scurrilous accusations with little to no merit. Fontova is good about taking an actual fact - and then adding 20 layers of editorial nonsense on top of it along with insults ... spliced with a barrage of questonable sources and hardly any specific footnotes. If you feel like wasting your time, I suggest you do read it ... and then you will see why it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. There are credible sources for unflattering material on Guevara ... and his life features several unflattering aspects ... but Fontova is not one of them. Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 16:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- (undent) I must confess that I owe everyone on this page an apology— not for anything I've said (I mean, not that I'm aware of... but if I have been too sharp then I do apologize), but for popping in and out and not taking (or more accurately, not having) the time to examine all sources scrupulously. Well, I hope to have some real free time this weekend. I'm sorta mulling over the possibility of going door-to-door begging of all of my friends or acquaintances on Wikipedia for a fact-check-o-rama. Even if that doesn't pan out, I hope to be able to do some actual checking... or as much as I can, given that I only have access to online resources. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- The History Channel's Documentary
Recently the History Channel (hardly a bastion of Communism) released a 1 hr 30 min documentary entitled: "THE TRUE STORY OF CHE GUEVARA", where Jon Lee Anderson also narrates parts from his book. You can watch the full film --> Here -- and I would recommend that all editors watch it if they have the chance, as it helps give you a basic overview of his life and the accomplishments/controversy's surrounding it. Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Two months at FAR, almost to the letter, every previous editor gone (scared off? afraid the article will end up at ArbCom ?), and still cleanup needs. Those strange notes still. If this isn't prohibited in MoS, it should be:
- Ernesto Guevara was born[›] on May 14, 1928 in Rosario, Argentina, the eldest of five children in a family of Basque and Irish descent. His mother was of Basque ancestry, while his father had Basque[›] and Irish[›] roots.
External jumps in captions, WP:PUNC (logical punctuation), WP:MOS#Captions (punctuation), and WP:MOSDATE issues throughout: that's a 5-second flyover without engaging the prose or text or citations. The article, after all this time, still isn't cleaned up, and I'm wondering if the regular editors plan to come back, and the POV wars will erupt again, once the FAR closes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Sandy, you have refused to answer inquiries, and be a part of the "repair process." If you are concerned with the article (as the above post leads me to believe) then why don't you assist in the corrections? The editor you cited when you stopped is no longer editing the article, and new editors have taken his place - namely the very hard working Coppertwig, myself, and now Ling Nut is contemplating adding his knowledge. This article has gone through a night and day transformation in the past 2 months and I would contend is far better than the original that was awarded the star (compare for yourself if you doubt it). Regardless of how much work I and others put in ... there will always be the "drive by negativity" to diminish our efforts ... usually by editors who themselves have either "left" the article for good ... or by editors who have never put in any effort to fix it in the first place. You have many talents and can be a great asset when it comes to proper formatting ... why don't you help us with your knowledge ... instead of stopping by every few weeks to criticize the article, before disappearing again? Respectfully, Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 04:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I suspect that Sandy feels she has other things to be doing. Anyhow, done: I've just got rid of "those strange notes," a large proportion of which were in fact no longer tied to any part of the article text. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Remove The technical issues here are problem enough. Let's not even get into the problems with sources and comprehensiveness. Let along any POV issues. I suspect, moreover, that the fact that the article is on FAR is a distraction rather than a stimulus. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Actually, I've now spent quite a lot of time on this article tonight. I'd say really that POV issues are not very significant: the article does not consistently push any particular line, though there are awkward POV moments both "for" and "against" tucked away in various corner. Mostly, it's just badly written and poorly referenced. It needs plenty of work. It's a great pity that various editors (at least two) have walked away in frustration in recent weeks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent Work JbMurray
You have greatly improved the article, and I agree with 100 % of your recent and numerous edits. I hope that you will find more time to continue your excellent contributions, and now have no doubt that the article will retain FA status. Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 14:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, thank you. But I should say that I still have considerable doubts... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Can you please do another round (if you have time) of corrections as you did last night? At the speed that you worked, I feel that one more "barrage" might correct nearly all of the remaining voiced concerns. Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 17:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again, thank you for your confidence. I'll try to undertake another sweep in the next day or so. However, you (and others) should note that among the things I did was to add a number of "fact" tags. I also discuss problems and gaps in the article's sourcing here. It will be non-trivial to fix these issues. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's great that JB is involved but if this article still needs massive work a couple of months on it's time to close it. Work can continue, of course, and eventually be brought back to FAC. Marskell (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed 18:41, 18 April 2008.
[edit] Review commentary
previous FAR (17:12, 17 January 2008)
I am nominating this article because it only has one inline citation and the lead is too short per WP:LEAD. There is no grandfather clause on Wikipedia and this article is not up to the current standards. --Maitch (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Note Please provide where, in your opinion, are in-line citations required. Joelito (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- As I said last time, these are valid points, and we must hope that one or more people with access to good libraries can provide the inline page refs from the books used. I suspect this will not be impossibly time-consuming, though obviously a great chore. Some of the tone is rather essayish, using "we" etc. But as many said last time, in general this is a very fine article, to which only formalist objections have been raised, and as few changes as possible should be made. Perhaps if a number of people could offer to look through one of the 6 sources each for page refs? Do FAR rules allow a review to be launched a day after an old one closes? Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not usually Johnbod, and the nom is probably not wise imo, and will likely only lead to more drama and tension, will entrench positions further, and will not contribute to resolving the wider issue. Any discussion on grandfathering etc should be held in either the FA or FAR talk rooms and should be more general than one specific article. Ceoil (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. The previous nomination (only a couple of days ago) was my first foray into FAR, and it was not pleasant. Assuming good faith, I will choose to believe
Maitch was unaware of the previous FAR, and that this nomination was done in good faith. Even so, it should probably be speedied, not because it's invalid, but because discussion needs to happen on policy regarding this class of articles before we move forward with further such nominations. -- Bellwether BC 13:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I have started a discussion at WT:FA#Grandfathering revisited. Comments welcome there. Marskell (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Note to Marskell and Joel31 - you can leave this FAR alone if you don't want to handle it. I'll deal with it myself. Raul654 (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Grandfathering or not, let's leave this FAR open. The lead is insufficient per Wikipedia:Lead section and criterion 2(a), and lacks a reference for direct attributions such as "This part of the book is a pun on 'tub,' which Alexander Pope says was a common term for a pulpit" per criterion 1(c). Neither of these issues are being considered for grandfathering, so that discussion is not germane to these points. Pagrashtak 16:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will leave this open under the assumption that Raul will close it. As a precedent needs to be set, he can set it with this one, which will aid in future at FAR.
- As a means of moving forward, why doesn't someone draft a lead and present it here? This is usually easier than it seems. Perhaps Johnbod, if he's familiar with the work. Bellwether has also suggested s/he knows the material. Marskell (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't even have the full text these days; I could only really do a precis of what's there. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- A reference for Pope saying that the pulpit of a Dissenter was called a Tub is on page 88 of the 1729 edition of the Dunciad; "The pulpit of a Dissenter is usually called a Tub"; [35] is the link to Google Book's version of it. Throwawayhack (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Citations I can add inline citations to this article based on the list of "References". It may take me a few weeks, but I am willing to do this because I think the article is of such high-quality. I would hate to see it de-featured. Awadewit | talk 17:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent. Raul654 (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- My only question is whether this is really necessary. The article is fair and non-controversial right now, with few facts likely to be challenged. Would we be talking about a few (say, 5-7 or so) added strategically throughout the article, or a "bombing" of 20 citations that breaks up the wonderful prose that the article currently contains? -- Bellwether BC 17:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- For the sake of sanity here, why don't the reviewers put little "fact" tags by the pieces of information they would like cited? Or, if that is distasteful (although technically easier), perhaps they could list all of the facts they could like cited here and I could slowly cross them off. I would just plead that, if I am going to do this (which is actually quite time-consuming to do well), that reviewers and editors don't squabble over which facts they want cited. Add the tags or prepare a list over the course of a few days or a week. Then I will get to work. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 18:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- A previous reviewer made a list of 30+ things they considered to be in need of referencing. The reviewer became angry when people informed him/her that a vast majority of the list of needed citations, did not, in fact, need citations, and were obvious on their face. This is the problem here. The article is not loosely-written, with wild claims, or even claims that seem outside the bounds of modern scholarship, based upon the references. Could a few citations here or there help? Possibly. But a list such as the one provided by the previous nominator (not this one) would cause this wonderful article to become cluttered with unnecessary citations, in my view. -- Bellwether BC 18:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- The minimum starting point is the direct quotes. I hesitate to fact tag beyond that, given Geogre's opinions on the subject. Awadewit, you're as talented anyone on literature pages, so you can probably judge for yourself what needs citation? I don't think this needs dozens. The prose might need some looking at. I don't like the first person plural in use, for instance. Marskell (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I typically cite a lot of things in Wikipedia articles I would never cite in my academic work because I think Wikipedia still needs to prove itself to the world. However, on A Tale of a Tub, I will not do that as I can sense it will become a problem. I will try to cite only what I would cite if I were writing an academic conference paper and wanted to have my citations on hand for questioners on the panel. I think other people can deal with the prose. Awadewit | talk 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am just about done reading and adding citations. I have deliberately added very few. However, we will have no citations for the "Cultural setting" and "Historical background" sections. We need a couple of eighteenth-century history books. I can recommend some, but it would be best to know what Geogre was using when he wrote these sections. Awadewit | talk 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I mentioned below, there are modern analyses made in "Cultural setting". The print revolution is compared to the Internet. Someone wrote that, but who? Another example: in the "Summary" section, it is said that the character Jack is named after John Calvin. Then there is a list of "modern descendants", some that have little to do with Calvin or English Dissenters. Mennonites are lineal descendants of Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz in Zürich, not Calvin. They are primarily of Continental origins, not English. Charismatics groups have a wide variety of beliefs, so the connection to English Dissenters is tenuous at best. I am curious about who wrote this statement. It is an example of modern analysis from a secondary source somewhere. I would like to look this up because I believe it is wrong. But then there is no cite. I know there are objections to adding citations to this article, but I agree with Awadewit. Wikipedia has to prove itself and without the citations, this statement looks like an example of a mistaken opinion or vandalism. We ought to treat all articles equally and not make an exception with this one. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- In reply to the first point, the answer is surely every commentator and academic who has written on either subject in the last few years. Must one cite cliches? Johnbod (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think we need to carefully sort out potentially problematic statements. For example, if Johnbod is saying that we don't need to cite cliches (if we should even be using cliches in our articles), I think he is mistaken in this case. I have frequently heard the eighteenth-century print explosion compared to the internet at conferences (but certainly not by every academic who writes on the topic). However, it is usually compared to the late eighteenth-century print explosion, which was much more dramatic than the one early in the century, and the comparison is always made with several caveats. If we are going to make that comparison here, which can be useful and instructive, we should be careful. I'm curious to know if the comparison has been made for the early part of the century and what caveats would be necessary. Awadewit | talk 14:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- No doubt it depends what conferences one goes to etc. I'm more used the hearing the comparison in respect of the C15/16 myself, but that reflects my interests. I think caveats can rather be taken as read - clearly there are also enormous differences. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- But that is just the problem right there. If the analogy is used for all of the print revolutions between 1500 and 1800, how useful is it? And I hardly think that the cavets can be "taken as read" if I hear academics explaining them to other academics. I don't think that we can assume our readers understand the differences between a print revolution they may never have heard of and the internet revolution. That is asking a lot. One of the reasons for not using cliches is because they are imprecise - I wonder if this cliche is too vague to communicate effectively what we intend. Awadewit | talk 15:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- There has to be a middle ground between a fully nuanced academic comparison and a cliche so vague it has no use to anyone. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have not gotten around to sourcing the historical background, of which the religious statements RelHistBuff mentions are a part. RelHistBuff, if you know of a book that would detail this genealogy, that would be most helpful. Awadewit | talk 14:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II: Propaganda and Politics from the Restoration until the Exclusion Crisis by Tim Harris might be a good source for the "Cultural setting" section. I haven't read this book in awhile, but I'm fairly confident that Harris deals with the themes discussed in that section. Dmoon1 (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you - I'll check it out. Awadewit | talk 16:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that book is really just about crowds. I'll try to dig up some general citations for these sections, but I might not get to it until after March 15. Awadewit | talk 05:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine. I read the book for a seminar course on Early Modern Britain and couldn't exactly remember what it was about. Sorry it was no help. Dmoon1 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- [copied from above] In the "Summary" section, it is said that the character Jack is named after John Calvin. Then there is a list of "modern descendants", some that have little to do with Calvin or English Dissenters. Mennonites are lineal descendants of Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz in Zürich, not Calvin. They are primarily of Continental origins, not English. Charismatics groups have a wide variety of beliefs, so the connection to English Dissenters is tenuous at best - from RelHistBuff - Reading Ehrenpreis, I came across the following sentences, whose content I think would work better in place of this the current material on dissetners: "If we consider the possibilities available to religious men, for instance, in 1696, we may say that those who rejected the Church of England could be either Roman Catholics or Dissenters; and if Dissenters, they were most likely to be Presbyterian. They might also belong to other Protestant sects: Independents (or Congregationalists), Baptists, Anabaptists, Quakers, and so forth; or they might doubt the divinity of Christ and be Socinians or deists....Among the sects which acted as dangerous, expanding rivals of the Established Church, the Presbyterians (who were usually the ones intended by 'nonconformists' or 'dissenters') were easily the strongest." (1:191) Awadewit | talk 21:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Quite why "modern descendents" are needed is unclear. One could just remove the two RHB rightly objects to, perhaps adding Congregationalists instead (English independent Calvinists), or add more from Ehrenpreis or elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- This has been changed. Awadewit | talk 05:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone bothered to tell the author this has restarted? --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, has anyone bothered to tell the talk page? It doesn't look like it. Pagrashtak 17:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep! Keep! By Any and all means Keep! It is misguided meddling to judge past FAs by current standards, unless their quality has drastically and noticably declined. This is clearly not the case here. It would be a travesty and injustice to see yet another of Wiki's finest sacrificed on the pedantic altar of ¡¡¡M0aR N0tZ0RZ!!!. If it is too early to vote, then please move my comments to the appropriate section, for my opinion will remain unchanged.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I am uncomfortable with the use of the first person in the article. Example: "The change in British society brought about by the print revolution was roughly analogous to our own experiences with the Internet." It makes me wonder who made the statement. If I read that in a book, I know who the author is. But who wrote that in Wikipedia? The "Cultural setting" section, while it is nice to read, appears more like an personal essay rather than encyclopedia article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'll say it again - shouldn't someone tell user:geogre this has been restarted? Raul? Maitch? If nothing else it's bad manners.--Joopercoopers (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- "our own experiences" zapped, and FAR template added to the talk. I suspect Geogre is well aware the FAR was restarted, to template him would be unfair. Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Notification of User:Geogre I have notified the primary author of this article that it is standing for review again. It's a bit disconcerting that no one felt it necessary to notify him at his talkpage. -- Bellwether BC 01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and LEAD (2a).
Comment: I waited a while to move this. Awadewit suggested "I will try to cite only what I would cite if I were writing an academic conference paper." Has that been done? The lead still needs more. Raul said he would close this, so the final decision can be his. Marskell (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've added to the lead; about doubled it - long enough now without getting too involved I think. I think the referencing is now ok too. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to have one or two references for the general history sections, but those will take more time to find. However, I think that all of the major claims in the article now have citations. If anyone could help out with the general history references, I would really appreciate it. I am quite busy with my own academic work and I don't think I will be able to do much on this front until after March 15. Awadewit | talk 01:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Personally I think we probably have articles (referenced let's hope) on all that, and a bit more linking to full articles might be better than citations here. Most of the points have many whole books on them - a reference to a single page somewhere is not ideal. 02:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking of whole books. Finding the right book is difficult, though. Awadewit | talk 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have done what I can regarding the notes for the moment. Awadewit (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the 'likely to be challenged' criteria is met now, and the lead is sufficient, and otherwise the article is grand. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Remove Still a lot of unreferenced paragraphs with POV/OR. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Examples please! Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- "In any case, the digressions are each readerly tests; each tests whether or not the reader is intelligent and skeptical enough to detect nonsense. Some, such as the discussion of ears or of wisdom being like a nut, a cream sherry, a cackling hen, etc., are outlandish and require a militantly aware and thoughtful reader. Each is a trick, and together they train the reader to sniff out bunk and to reject the unacceptable."
- "If he was not a particular fan of the aristocracy, he was a sincere opponent of democracy (which was often viewed then as the sort of "mob rule" that led to the worst abuses of the English Interregnum.) The cultural stakes were high, and Swift's satire was intended to provide a genuine service by painting the portrait of conspiracy minded and injudicious writers."
- "If Swift hoped that the Tale of a Tub would win him a living, he was disappointed. Swift himself believed that the book cost him any chance of high position within the church. It is most likely, though, that Swift was not seeking a clerical position with the Tale. Instead, it was probably meant to establish him as a literary and political figure and to strike out a set of positions that would win the notice of influential men. This it did."
- "It is most consistent in attacking misreading of all sorts. Both in the narrative sections and the digressions, the single human flaw that underlies all the follies Swift attacks is over-figurative and over-literal reading, both of the Bible and of poetry and political prose. The narrator is seeking hidden knowledge, mechanical operations of things spiritual, spiritual qualities to things physical, and alternate readings of everything."
- "As has recently been argued by Michael McKeon, Swift might best be described as a severe skeptic, rather than a Whig, Tory, empiricist, or religious writer. He supported the Classics in the Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns, and he supported the established church and the aristocracy, because he felt the alternatives were worse. He argued elsewhere that there is nothing inherently virtuous about a noble birth, but its advantages of wealth and education made the aristocrat a better ruler than the equally virtuous but unprivileged commoner. A Tale of a Tub is a perfect example of Swift's devastating intellect at work. By its end, little seems worth believing in."
- "Although officially the king was supreme, there could be no doubt that the Commons had picked the king and could pick another instead. Also, although there was now a law demanding that all swear allegiance to the monarch as head of the church, it became less and less clear why the nation was to be so intolerant."
- "The Tale was immediately popular and controversial. Consequently, there were rumors of various people as the author of the work — Jonathan Swift then being not largely known except for his work in the House of Lords for the passage of the First Fruits and Fifths bill for tithing. Some people thought that William Temple wrote it. Francis Atterbury said people at Oxford thought it had been written by Edmund Smith and John Philips, though he thought it was by Jonathan Swift. Some people thought it belonged to Lord Somers."
- "Stylistically and in sentiment, the Tale is undeniably Jonathan's. Most important in this regard is the narrative pose and the creation of narrative parody. (Previously, parody had referred only to poetic compositions.) The dramatic pretense of writing as a character is in keeping with Jonathan Swift's lifelong practice. Furthermore, Thomas Swift has left few literary remains."
- --Kaypoh (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
What on earth is OR or POV about: "The Tale was immediately popular and controversial. Consequently, there were rumors of various people as the author of the work — Jonathan Swift then being not largely known except for his work in the House of Lords for the passage of the First Fruits and Fifths bill for tithing. Some people thought that William Temple wrote it. Francis Atterbury said people at Oxford thought it had been written by Edmund Smith and John Philips, though he thought it was by Jonathan Swift. Some people thought it belonged to Lord Somers." - unless you are implying the whole thing has been invented? Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Popular" and "controversial" are peacock terms. The paragraphs has a few opinions about who wrote A Tale of a Tub. The opinions must have references and no weasel words like "rumours" and "some people thought". --Kaypoh (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait a second. Are you challanging the fact that the book was either popular or controversial? This is evident from even a basic scan of the sources. "some people thought" is more problematic; working. Ceoil (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think Kaypoh needs to think about his use of terms. Both "popular" and "controversial" are (or can be) objective and indeed necessary terms to use about a published work. Equally rumour and "some people thought" are not weasel words but reports of historic facts; "some modern scholars think" is weasel words if not referenced, but references to C18th gossip are not, though referencing is needed. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- My openion is that the remaining challanges lack substance, and this should be closed. Ceoil (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think both lead and referencing should ideally be further improved, now that we have started this process. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I can do more at this point. It is actually very difficult to find specific references for sentences in an article. Awadewit (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Remove: I had a comment during the FAR phase. The use of the first person in my opinion is not what I would expect in an encyclopedia. The "Cultural setting" section reads more like a personal essay. I have no idea where the information came from. The comparisons with the modern age makes me extremely uncomfortable and even if it can be sourced somewhere, it gives the appearance of WP:OR. There was also a mention of whether clichés should be included in our articles. This article is not an example of our best. Add to that the inadequate lead section and the poor referencing throughout the article, as a neutral reader, this article would not make me confident about Wikipedia. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hold please Can I have a week to have a stab at refing the remaining sections. No promises, but I'll try. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments: In addition to the problems I mentioned during the FAR phase, there are prose, punctuation, spelling, and grammar problems throughout the article. Some examples:
- "the English had suffered a Civil War" sentence should be restructured. The clauses associated to the conjunction are not equal items. Comma after "under the Puritan" needed. A "the" is needed before Interregnum.
- Comma needed after "married to a Roman Catholic"
- "sanguinity" has different meanings in my dictionary, but not the meaning of "blood line"
- "Also, although there was" does not need "Also".
- Comma before "by John Nutt" is not needed.
- Why is the "Dryden himself" sentence in a parenthetical element? Others similiar "Swift's publisher for the" and "Previously, parody had".
I found these only by lightly scanning a few paragraphs. This article needs a serious copy-edit. All my comments refer to violations of criterion 1a which is why I voted to remove. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- It's a lot quicker to add/remove these commas yourself, and add the "the"s, than tell us all about it, especially as you will be aware the main editor on the article is not participating here. Johnbod (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- There are a lot more that has to be done. I am not saying that these are the only problems, otherwise I would have done it myself. I give these as examples to a much deeper problem in order to show the non-compliance with 1a. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- RelHistBuff, I've ironed out these as best I can, and other ocurrances of similar instances that I found. Would appreciate if rather than passivly vote remove, you could point or fix similar instances. Remove is after all a fairly active position to take, given that there are willing editors offering to respond. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I removed a few parentheticals and one first person use and I added a comment. But really this is only window-dressing. As I said, there are deep problems (prose, referencing, lead). Without the main author who has Ehrenpreis and other sources in front of him and is actively participating as what normally happens in the FAC process, this really cannot be brought to standard. Someone else will need to adopt the article, work on it, peer review it, and bring it back to FAC. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep featured. A very high quality article; the remaining concerns above are not material to the reader's experience. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Remove lack of inline citations for most things, especially interpretative, are not part of FA and need to be fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments I'm not voting, but these comments can be taken as a sort of "peer review".
- In the lead the three main branches should be defined, as this can be misread as Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox.
- "Alexander Pope says..." Where? I don't see Pope listed anywhere as a reference.
- "Swift also connects to "Jack of Leyden"" Where does Swift connect this, in the Tale itself or elsewhere? Who is Jack of Leyden anyway? I don't see any explanation anywhere.
- What's a layer cake? Rather an odd comparison, kind of digressing (!).
- "Many critics have followed...Ehrenpreis" Hmmn. This sentence is referenced to Ehrenpreis, so he can't be a reference to his own importance. The sentence should be reversed, with the "many critics" coming after the Ehrenpreis reference. Also, it strikes me as unlikely that Ehrenpreis was the first to mention this, but he might have been, in which case it might be better to say, "Many critics, including Irvin Ehrenpreis,..." but then later on I see it says "Prior to Ehrenpreis, some critics had argued..." The sentence starting "Many critics have followed..." could be moved down adjacent to the rest of the discussion on this aspect.
- "20th-century reader". Why 20th-century? What was peculiar about the readers of the previous century?
- "Given the evidence of A. C. Elias..." What evidence? I don't see any.
- "It became possible for anyone to spend a small amount of money and have his or her opinions published as a broadsheet. It also became possible for nearly anyone to gain access to the latest discoveries in science, literature, and political theory, as..." I think the poor and illiterate would disagree. Perhaps: "For a small amount of money anyone's opinions could be published as a broadsheet. Access to the latest discoveries in science, literature, and political theory was easier, as..."
- "...did not gibe" I don't think this is the right verb. "gibe" means "scoff" or "sneer" to me, not "compare favourably".
- "There is no normative value in Rome, no lost English glen, no hearth ember to be invoked against the hubris of modern scientism." Huh?
- Twice in the article it says something like "see below for further discussion", such statements indicate problems with the structure of the article.
- "A Tale of a Tub has often been offered up as evidence of Swift's misanthropy." Duplicated in a preceding section.
- "it was alleged that James was Roman Catholic" can this be re-phrased to avoid "alleged"?
- "Anne was rumored to be immoderately stupid" What is "immoderate" stupidity? Suggest rephrasing to "Anne was perceived as weak"
- "Samuel Johnson claimed..." Where? I don't see Johnson listed in the references.
- "Jonathan responded to this allegation by saying that Thomas had no hand in anything but the smallest of passages, and he would welcome hearing Thomas 'explain' the work, if he had written it." Perhaps this should be referenced. DrKiernan (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that most of these problems result from a lack of inline citations, and that the article wouldn't need to be up for FA review if every line (or most lines) had references. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Raul had said he would deal with this one but did not respond when I pinged him about it. The majority here are in favour of removal, and DrK, while not actually voting, presents a comprehensive list of problems with the article. The comment on three branches of Christianity is astute: even in the body, where the brothers are identified, the article doesn't explain that these are not the three primary branches, in general. The 20th century comments and the internet comparison are highly assumptive (as are the comments on "tolerance" and modern Great Britain). I don't have a problem with the prose, on the whole, but patches of this article seem clearly indicative of off-the-top-of-the-head original research. Not uninformed OR, but OR nonetheless. The Pope reference is another good example: we've extended some leeway on these older lit FAs on the assumption that the references, if not an inline citation, would direct a reader to the appropriate spot—but here we're quoting Pope who is not even in the references. These are just examples—the problem seems pervasive.
-
- Thus I am removing. Marskell (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed 17:15, 11 April 2008.
[edit] Review commentary
- Notifications completed: Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, User:Twunchy (FA nominator), User:John Foxe, User:COGDEN, User:Gldavies (primary active contributors)
Criteria at issue: 1a, 1b/1c/1d
- 1a (well-written). Simply put, this article is not engaging prose. For example, just in the lede, the word "said" is used four times, in two different contexts. Large sections of the article are disorganized or redundant. See, for example, the quote about rustling the pages at the end of the "Translation process" paragraph and its recurrence in "Format, binding, and dimensions". Many, many references and descriptions are of what the plates were "said" to be, but a substantial number of them do not give us any indication of who said these things in the prose itself; see especially the first sentence in the "Engravings" section. This lack of prose attribution makes some antecedents unclear: in the "Origin of the plates" paragraph, "Book of Mormon" appears to be the antecedent of "these men". Also, a couple of claims are strangely prefaces as being the statements of "non-believers" (see especially in "Unsuccessful attempts to retrieve the plates"). Even details such as the punctuation of [sic] is inconsistent: square brackets are used in the same paragraph as parentheses in "Unsuccessful attempts to retrieve the plates"! (Serpent's Choice))
- Comment on well-writtenness: There is no doubt room for stylistic improvements. However, as to the term "said", we are somewhat limited by WP:NPOV considerations. Almost every single statement by anybody in the article is contested, and we have to constantly reflect that. I don't think any of us should ever be willing to sacrifice NPOV for readability. Who said each of these things is noted in the footnotes, and I don't think it is really important in all cases to say who said what, particularly when multiple people said that. It would work against well-writtenness if we listed all the subscribers to each statement in every instance. However, I'll take a look over the article and make stylistic improvements. COGDEN 21:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- 1b (comprehensive), 1c (factually accurate), 1d (neutral). Here covered together as aspects of the same fundamental problem with the article. Simply put, there is no criticism, no discussion of the claim that the plates may not have physically existed at all, or been forged, or been a modern artifact. The article spends only a stubby paragraph on the plates' supposed origin as a pre-Columbian artifact (and even in that, fails tp. Claims of other origins reside entirely within the spinout article Origin of the Book of Mormon. The article admits that there are other arguments in the "Other metal plates" section at the end, but does not treat them neutrally or give them due weight. Here these alternatives are "apologetic studies" or "apologetic ideas", and are mentioned virtually only to be discounted. Statements and assertions (although supported by reference) such as Smith's ability to translate the plates without them being in his physical presence are utterly uncontested. Scholarly rejection of the concept of Reformed Egyptian is relegated to its separate article (which bluntly states "No non-Mormon scholars acknowledge the existence of a "reformed Egyptian" language as it has been described in Mormon belief.") -- no rejection of the validity of this purported language, in any form, is present in the plates' article. There have been claims on the talk page that this treatment is due to the nature of the plates as a religious belief rather than an article on a physical, historical artifact. But the tone of the article does not bear this out; the text clearly implies that the plates were real objects, even describing sourced speculation of the precise alloy involved. Regardless, even for highly contested religious-historical articles that are below FA status (Jesus), there is sourced analysis of the accuracy of claims. This article, in contrast, has none of that. The blurring of religious doctrine with historical events has led to some extreme peculiarities. In the "Retrieving the plates" section, the text seems to treat without skepticism that the citizens of a New York town "sent for a skilled necromancer".
- Additional note: Although the article contains an impressive 175 footnotes and 58 supporting references, a summary audit of their breadth and nature is concerning. A plurality of footnotes are references to the writings of Joseph Smith, Jr. himself, and are thus primary sources at best. Several more statements are sourced to the writings of Brigham Young and other Mormon contemporaries. Even the secondary sources do not generally appear to represent independent scholarship. Only three of the 58 references were published after 1900. The FARMS Review (ref 17) is a publication of questioned scholarly independence and quality. Dialogue (ref 26) is considered a more independent source of Mormon scholarship, but is still solely associated with the field. Finally, Improvement Era (ref 32) was the then-official publication of the church. There is not a single reference from a journal, book, or any other source published within the last century other than those three articles in dedicated Mormon publications. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Almost the full range of criticism in academic literature is, indeed, found in this article. It doesn't reach out and grab you, however, because almost all the criticism in this field is in the form of "How could anybody believe X?" or "How could anybody not believe X?" That kind of criticism doesn't need to be stated, because it is implicit, except in a "criticism of..."-type article specifically about the criticism. I disagree that this article needs to get into the pros and cons of reformed Egyptian. The article is already a large one, and this is adequately covered (or should be) in the reformed Egyptian article. If we included everything in all the subarticles, the article would be too long to be a featured article. The statement that Brigham Young said that Palmyra citizens "sent for a skilled necromancer" is not reasonably disputed by any critics or apologists. Necromancy was a clearly-documented profession during the time period, and Brigham Young said that. There is no literature disputing that Brigham Young said that, or that someone Young considered to be a "skilled necromancer" was called to Palmyra by Smith's neighbors. I agree that the final "Other Metal Plates" section can use a good going-over, and I'll make a pass. COGDEN 21:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- As to the breadth of the sources, this article represents almost the entire universe of primary sources on the subject. Certainly secondary sources are important, too, but not at the expense of primary sources. Like I said before, this is already a long article. It is a big job to say what all the primary sources say, let alone say what the secondary sources said about the primary sources, and what the secondary-secondary sources said about the secondary and primary sources. This has always been meant to be a very factual article presenting in an encyclopedic way that is known about the golden plates. More detailed secondary and derivative analyses by Joe Evangelist and Mary Mormon could certainly be added to the footnotes and in the sub-articles, but they are somewhat outside the scope of this article, limited by size as it must be. COGDEN 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I suppose I'll stand corrected on the necromancy issue, although I'd love to see that referenced to a secondary source instead of Young, since it just appears so strange at its face to a modern reader unfamiliar with the material. However, as to the sourcing, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Articles are constructed primarily from reliable secondary sources, using primary material (with caution) where applicable or to provide unique insights. Especially to be FA-class, an article must summarize the full range of scholarly views and interpretations, giving each weight appropriate to its level of recognition and acceptance. The plates have been discussed in The New England Quarterly[36], The Journal of American Folklore[37], Religion[38], and in no shortage of books published after 1900 (this one discusses the translation-as-fiction in Chapter 1 in some depth, just as an example). And those references were the fruit of less than 5 minutes with Google Scholar, far from an exhaustive effort at research. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It is easy to find Mormon studies articles. The ones you cite here are good articles, but they belong in sub- or super-articles such as Origin of the Book of Mormon and Historicity of the Book of Mormon. We can't discuss the conclusion of every single Mormon studies article in one Wikipedia article that has to do in some way with the Book of Mormon. That's why we have so many Mormonism-related articles. COGDEN 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I've expanded the "Origin" section to cover the range of theories as to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. There are basically four theories, which I listed there. However, the full discussion is already the subject of a couple of sub-articles. Thus, I think it's most appropriate to summarize them here, then use summary style. COGDEN 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Despite its recent main page appearance, this seems a particularly week FA. Some of the stylistic concerns are easily fixed, but many require a return to their references. And any approach to the tone and content of the article would require a substantial investment in additional research and sourcing. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Three to six months is the minimum suggested time between promotion and review. Considering the minimal Support level on the FAC, I recommend this continue in review; one of the three Supporters entered several dubious declarations at FAC,[39] and one is an active article editor, so a new look could be warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
As I have mentioned on the talk page of this article, this review process is not just a forum for complaining about this article. Instead of taking the attitude that we must knock this article out of FA status, just because of religious dissent, is not constructive to anything in Wikipedia. I propose that instead of just writing paragraph after paragraph of complaints, please address your concerns with the article directly in the article, we needn't waste our time blowing steam in side forums. I oppose the review of this article simply because I see a POV motivation behind those wanting this article shot down, as referenced on the talk page, there are many dissenters to this article that have voted this into review simply on the "I don't believe in this" motivation. I will reiterate that regardless of religiously motivated attacks on this article it still stands as a very well documented, and well written article. As for the attacks on the primary sources, I believe that those should be the gold standard of references!! You can't get a better source than the primary ones. If you disagree with the source that does not change the fact that it is a primary source or the fact that it was said or written by the author. Disagreement is one thing - dismissing sources because you don't like them because they don't support your contrarian views is another arguement not to be had here. Twunchy (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- My problems with this article have nothing to do with its topic. Please do not resort to casting aspersions about my motivation. As to the primary/secondary issue, that is a Wikipedia policy. "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." In Wikipedia, primary sources are simply not the "gold standard" of references. Whether or not I like the primary sources quoted in this article, or agree with them, or, indeed, whether or not I ascribe to the Mormon faith, are all irrelevant. The sources do not meet the expectations of FA-quality referencing. Could an article on this topic reach FA-quality? Possibly. But it will require a ground-up rebuilding, based on the kind of material Wikipedia expects of reliable sourcing. The references appear to exist to craft a comprehensive article. The three modern secondary sources that are referenced in the article will help to support adherents' claims. I have cited above a handful of sources that take varying stances and positions; the book I noted, for example, claims the translation is an outright fiction, but then goes on to discuss its impact from that perspective. This is a well-studied topic, there are doubtless dozens more. But this is a long and exacting process. Despite the fact that I have a backlog of Wiki-tasks that I never seem to make headway on, I am willing to assist with this article as best I may ... but in the meantime, it is not an example of the best that Wikipedia can offer and will not be for some time, nor in a form that resembles the current text. Serpent's Choice (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- If it means anything, it seems Sperpent and I agree on a lot of the basic issues of this topic. Also, I would want to retort that when I tried to engage in constructive dialogue on issue on the article I was completely ignored and called on for my lack of belief in the relgion behind the article. In fact the only time I could get a reply was when I used vieled jabs at the relgion and even then the issues I arose were not addressed, just the jabs. I have decided that a ground up re-construction is the only thing that can make this article readable. It is often disjointed and repeatative and includes several sourses and phrasing that would lead one to believe that the article is stating a fact and not an article in a system of beliefs. As well valid critism seems to be muted if available and a separate section outlining the main critism, namely the dispute over the existence of the plates themselves, seems all but required in order to keep NPOV in the article as a whole. There also seems to be quite a bit of ownership applied to the article as well by various editors, but I guess that goes with most reglious/controversal articles. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think there is quite a bit of misinterpretation of this Primary sourcing issue, to quote wikipedia:
Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
- only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
- make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
As I see most of these cited primary sources in the article, they are being used according to the policies above, there is no interpolations or inferences from these, there are just statements of fact as they pertain to the original quotes. These quotes would not change in a secondary source! To quote the secondary source that is quoting the primary source is just adding a level of complexity that isn't necessary if the information is the same. If used properly wikipedia has no issue with primary sources. Here's my warning to all who venture into the secondary sources pertaining to the topic...many are very biased...some to the extremes (on both sides). The issue is of great controversy and one typically doesn't delve into this subject without a noticable bias, they are typically written from either a skeptics perspective or an apologetic perspective, with very few hammering out a balanced approach. Good luck with the overhaul, I think you've signed on to quite the task. I for one don't have much time to start reading new books to find the same information that already exists...I see this as akin to building a new road right next to a perfectly good one, just because of a few potholes...an excersise in futility I predict. It will only placate those who dissent to the topic in their satisfaction that they shot down such blasphemy. Twunchy (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- there are just statements of fact as they pertain to the original quotes - Not fact, unveriable heresay. They may have said them but with the primary and secondary source is required to confirm that they were commenting on the object in question if the information is to be used about it.
- my warning to all who venture into the secondary sources pertaining to the topic...many are very biased...some to the extremes (on both sides).
I would say the primary sources are equally if not more biased then any editor could be and their entry into the article itself, epseically to the degree of over 150 citations, creates an automatic POV problem.
- The issue is of great controversy and one typically doesn't delve into this subject without a noticable bias
I would equate this in a way to evolution when it comes to controversay. If you asked someone who believed it in if there is a controversy, they will say no. If you asked someone who doesn't, they will say yes. This is really the reverse of that case. There is absolutely no proof they existed, besides the testimony of 11 to 13 witnesses. Any one of those witness and or a follower of them, at least in my opinion and I believe the wikipedia policy follows me, would be an uncredible witness. I am not saying there should not be an article for the subject, a system of beliefs is information that is real and encyclopedic but I would hardy say that there is an actually controversy over the plates because if they existed, no one went about making it independantly verifable and therefore from a scientific and encyclopedic point of view they did not exist, from the information we have. Besides the disjointed-ness of the article, that is its main flaw that make it non NPOV, most sections leave the reader believing that they are reading an actualy account of history and about plates that no one can verify actually existed.
- ...I see this as akin to building a new road right next to a perfectly good one, just because of a few potholes...an excersise in futility I predict
I agree, this article is in such a mess that try to fix it with patch work will not due. That is why I and Serpent suggested a ground up approach to fix it. I would say the best bet is to take the references from each section and the section itself and parse through it. Go section by section until it is complete. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a flaw in your logic when dismissing these quotes, I will again reiterate that if someone said something, and you are quoting what they said, that is NOT hearsay. Hearsay is from SECONDARY sources, a third person perspective. Hearsay is exactly what it looks like...a compound word meaning (simplistically) "I heard someone say"...AKA a rumor. If a quote is direct, it fundamentally CANNOT BE hearsay by definition. I think your arguement stems from the fact that you believe what Joseph Smith and his followers were talking about is made-up or fictional...and therein lies your POV. To discount or dismiss what someone said, repeatedly mind you, even if you don't believe it, doesn't change the fact they said it. This article must show both sides of the coin, not just your side. There are over 13 million people who implicitly belive this, without a doubt. Perhaps there are more who don't believe it but we still must remain neutral to the subject. This means there will be information included that you might not like, that doesn't support your viewpoint. I don't like some of the non-believers propaganda in this article but I haven't been complaining about the inclusion of such, because I recognize the need for balance. And to your point of proving the plates existed...this is not necessary, THIS IS A MATTER OF FAITH, not science. Until you can PROVE to me that God himself, or Moses, or the Miracles of Jesus exist, I will not accept this arguement. Again you CANNOT prove matters of faith. Twunchy (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- First, your defination of hearsay is significantly different than mine. Mine goes along with the more or less legal version, found on the hearsay in US article of Wikipedia actually and it goes "Hearsay is the legal term that describes statements made outside of court or other judicial proceedings." I think we can agree that Joseph Smith made zero effort to have any sort of independant or judicial review of the matter. I will go further and show the defination as to why I use this standard of hearsay, again from the article, "The theory of the rule against Hearsay is that assertions made by human beings are naturally unreliable. It therefore becomes necessary to subject such forms of evidence to “scrutiny or analysis calculated to discover and expose in detail its possible weaknesses, and thus to enable the tribunal (judge or jury) to estimate it at no more than its actual value” (Wigmore on Evidence §1360)." I think the natrual unreliablity is clear in that the golden plates make the foundation for Smith to become a propheit in his own reglion, which would seemingly rule any of his, and his followers testimony on the issue of bias (of course, that is on the idea that you believe being made a propheit in a reglion is a non neutral thing.)
-
- so just to get this straight, anyone who might be a believer in this cause is unreliable? By what standard? By your standard if an independent witness see the plates, and then believes in them they are automatically then unreliable? Your logic confounds! Twunchy (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Now for some retorts: I think your arguement stems from the fact that you believe what Joseph Smith and his followers were talking about is made-up or fictional...and therein lies your POV I'm going to ignore that made-up and fictional are the same thing ... and say that I've made my point of view clear on the subject, but as for the encyclopedic sense I believe I have a fairlt decent track record of simply wanting the facts laid out in the best way possible, naming balanced, which this article is not. I believe it is your POV that is causes you to ignore my pleas for balance and retorting to calling me a reglious bigit, hater of all that Mormon is really below this debate.
-
- I dare you to find anywhere in my posts in which I called you a bigot, sir, there are no such inferences. Twunchy (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There are over 13 million people who implicitly belive this, without a doubt. Well I can go on all day about how foolish a statement like this is. How many people believe in the Loch Ness Monster? Does that make it real without any actual evidence? Uri Geller in the 70's was widely believed to have supernatural power until James Randi proved him a fraud, does that mean he had supernatural powers in the 70's because millions of people believed it then, but now he is a mere mortal because less people believe that? You seemed to even doubt this as a valid point yourself, and so I would say that just because it is a reglious belief does not make it true, and in most cases, it is likely not given the nature of reglion in general.
-
- again as a matter of faith you cannot lump believers of a religion into the same group as conspiracy theorists and fictional or paranormal accounts, if you disagree with a religion that doesn not give you the right to compare them...apples and organges is the arguement...religion vs. fiction...they are not in the same realm. Twunchy (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
means there will be information included that you might not like, that doesn't support your viewpoint. Well I think I can direct this at you. There IS information you WILL not like because it DOES NOT support your viewpoint.
-
- and I am stating such sir, there are already contrarian viewpoints and non-believer's statments, but there just apparently isn't enough in the article to make you happy about your POV.
don't like some of the non-believers propaganda in this article but I haven't been complaining about the inclusion of such, because I recognize the need for balance. Where is the 'non-believers propaganda' It is inbetween the part where you explain the history in great detail about how Joesph Smith found the plates and talked to Angels? Or the part where you list that the plates maybe real because of circumstanial evidence that in ancient times people used metal to write down history? (ignoring, of course, that the Jews and the followers of Jesus did not follow such a method, even though Mormonism is a supposed continuation on them)
-
- Because the Jews and Jesus didn't write on golden plates...Mormonism is false...again your logic confounds. Twunchy (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
THIS IS A MATTER OF FAITH, not science.... Again you CANNOT prove matters of faith. Well I agree there, and I believe I stated that on many occasions and I even went so far as to say that the article should exist because it is an article of faith. I am begining to think you read one line and then go blank on the rest of my paragraphs. But as a matter of faith that is not supported by any scientific evidence and an article of faith that occured in the realm of scientific discovery (aka Not the same as Moses and the ten commandments because scientist weren't around in 1000 BC) I would think that holding it to a higher plane evidence (higher meaning more then because Joe Smith said so) is not too much of a task, espeically if you are purposing that millions of people believe this. Remember, you claim is millions believe this. I would go so far as to say billions do not. So if we weighted the article on that, it would not exist. The fact the article is given the creedence of existence shows my NPOV on the subject. All reason and science would not give it an agrument. That said, it is deeply flawed. The article regluar cites one to 4 unreliable characters of history and goes into great detail as if one were describing actual recorded series of events, which is not the case with supported evidence. I would think that a balanced article would clearly state that it is the system of beliefs in the Mormon reglion, not a factual account, the existence of the plates is highly disputed and the facts of the belief system by put on display as opposed to this long telling of history. It seems as though the article was blown up with rhetoric and historical referencing on purpose to give the story more weight, with would be against NPOV. Anyway those are my comments on that for now. Please refrain from attacking my belief system and focus on the issues of the article. Thank you. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- All this talk about the reliability of the sources is beside the point. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to evaluate the sources. Our job is to present the sources in a neutral way. Whether or not Joseph Smith was a reliable source, or by contrast whether people who knew him but disbelieved are reliable sources, is irrelevant.
- The theory expressed about about primary sources being "bad" is held by a vocal and activist minority of Wikipedians, but it is not a consensus and never has been. The best Wikipedia articles, and the ones most likely to have Featured Article status, rely mainly on primary sources. Here, there is no benefit to citing Scholar Bob's quotation of what Scholar Jane said about what Joseph Smith wrote, when we can cite directly to Joseph Smith and get it straight from the horse's mouth. If, for some reason, Scholar Bob's opinion is notable or adds to the subject matter, then we can cite Scholar Bob as a primary source for Bob's opinion, too. We do that in some cases with this article, but there really isn't much room to include a full level of meta-information about the golden plates.COGDEN 20:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- The best Wikipedia articles, and the ones most likely to have Featured Article status, rely mainly on primary sources. Can I have some examples please, of FA articles where the primary citations are done by primary sources, and signicant edits. Thank you. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC) NOTE: I can provide ten examples that counter the claim right now but the onus is on you to support your facts.
-
-
- Certainly. Examples are not hard to find among the best Wikipedia articles. Since primary sources are the most authoritative recognized sources of the cited information, the best articles will naturally use them whenever possible. It's unwise and bad practice to use a second-hand source ("according to x, y said z") for a point when a more authoritative one ("y said z") is available. If the more direct source is not available for some reason (it was lost or never published), then the second-hand source is recognized as the primary source. Looking at the FAs for February, I notice that Feb. 1's featured article Through the Looking Glass (Lost) is based primarily on primary sources such as press releases, original reviews, original journalism and interviews, etc. Same with Dookie on Feb. 2, Knut on Feb. 4. In Feb. 5,s Las Meninas, most of the citations are primary sources, although they are also secondary too (as most academic primary sources such as journals are). Most of the citations in Feb. 7's Thoughts on the Education of Daughters are cited as primary sources for the information cited. Golden plates was Feb. 8. Of these articles, I think that Through the Looking Glass (Lost) was one of the most remarkable, and it also happens to be the one most heavily based on direct, authoritative (that is, primary) sources. COGDEN 08:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- You definition of a primary source doesn't appear to fit the definition most wikipedians use. For Lost, the only primary source is the episode itself and the press releases. All other sources; reviews, interviews, original journalism are all secondary sources Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Since this article could be under review for a month or longer, brevity and specificity wrt WP:WIAFA is helpful. Serpent's Choice has presented reliable secondary sources; overreliance on primary sources will be an issue when independent reviewers start to look at the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- See, thats the catch 22 with editting this article, I consider myself independent which is why i entered the discussion, but then I get accused, just about everytime I edit, that because I am not a believer I am too biased to edit. So, how do we overcome this? Have only Mormon's discuss the history? I think we need to start with making sure people realize the article is a mess first, then we an agree on how to fix it. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- What will matter in the final analysis as to whether the article remains featured is WP:V and WP:WIAFA; discussion should be grounded there, and any other ranting just takes up bandwidth. This for example, All this talk about the reliability of the sources is beside the point. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to evaluate the sources. won't go anywhere when other editors start looking at whether the most reliable, independent secondary sources are adequately represented here, or whether the article has an overreliance on primary sources. Arguments should be grounded in policy, not individual editor opinions. The review phase gives you an opportunity to highlight issues; the clearer and briefer the better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Status check? Changes so far. Have any of Serpent's secondary, scholarly sources been consulted or incorporated, and are there any decisions about them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- The primary concerns with the page have not been addressed. Most of the editing in the last week has been quibbling over the lede. I have advocated a 'sources first, then rewrite' approach, rather than an attempt to simply shift the sourcing of the current material to secondary works, but from my end, this has been slow; I do not have ready access to a lot of the necessary references, especially from the theological standpoint. Efforts to solicit them on the talk page have not yet drawn a response. Bottom line, this is fundamentally the same article as last week. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- The case for lengthening the article
Serpent's Choice has proposed making the article longer by adding additional secondary sources. Can we please discuss the trade-offs between such increased content and article length? Featured articles are expected to not be too long. Some are longer than others, but this article currently stands at about 32 kb of readable prose, which is usually considered about the right size for a featured article. By adding a lot of additional secondary and tertiary commentary about the subject, we would of course expand the size of this article, which presently stays close to the raw facts and presents them in a balanced way, without much secondary apologetic or critical analysis, musings, or theologizings by biased apologists and critics. The biased secondary material is of course important and interesting, but would greatly expand the scope of this article, as well as its size. If we add a lot of secondary material, does that mean we need to split off some sub-articles here, and have, for example an article like Obtaining the golden plates? Also, can we rely on the other articles that already do discuss this secondary material, such as Origin of the Book of Mormon and Historicity of the Book of Mormon.? COGDEN 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The current readable prose size (per Dr pda's script, and as discussed at WP:SIZE) is only 30KB, which is well under the 50KB guideline. There is plenty of room to expand.[40] By the way, the current WP:LEAD doesn't seem adequate. Also, I adjusted footnote placement (see WP:FN) and reference size (see WP:MOS regarding text size, the article was smalling twice the refs, making them hard to read). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Possible secondary sources
Serpent's Choice proposes that beyond the raw facts, we add additional secondary commentary from a number of apologetic and critical sources, and that we should identify the sources first, then include the commentary in the article. So that we have everything in one place, I'm starting a list of potential secondary source that we've discussed thus far. Anyone can add additional secondary sources they think might be pertinent.
- David Brion Davis (1953), "The New England Origins of Mormonism," The New England Quarterly, 26(2). Proposed by Serpent's Choice.
- A.E. Fife (1940), "The Legend of the Three Nephites Among the Mormons", The Journal of American Folklore, 53(207) 1-49. Proposed by Serpent's Choice.
- This is a great article about the Three Nephites, but it is not germane to the subject matter of golden plates. We can't fit all Mormon studies topics into one article. The scope of an article on golden plates is necessarily limited. COGDEN 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Kunin, Seth D. (2003) "The Allegory of the Olive Tree: a case study for (neo) structural analysis", Religion 33(2), 105-125. Proposed by Serpent's Choice.
- Eva Hung (2005), Translation and Cultural Change: Studies, John Benjamins Pub. Co. Proposed by Serpent's Choice.
- Another good Mormon studies contribution. However, it belongs in the sub-article Historicity of the Book of Mormon or Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, not here. Everything in this article about the golden plates themselves is already in the Wikipedia article. Hung's new secondary contributions to the field are good, but they belong in the Historicity or Linguistics articles. She has nothing new to say about the plates themselves. COGDEN 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comments Please fix the References section as soon as possible, as its current layout is incorrect and misleads the reader. It should not be numbered; it should be bulleted. The footnotes are numbered. By numbering the references, the reader can be confused when seeking a citation. Please change the # to *. See WP:MSH: the section headings are very long and several are repetitive; can they be shortened? Why the bulleted list instead of two paragraphs in "Other metal plates in the Latter Day Saint Tradition"? Missing conversions, fixes needed throughout, see WP:MOSNUM, example: ... from 60 miles away, ... (add km conversion). WP:MOSDATE, the article has inconsistent date linking. If you link some, you have to link all month-day or month-day year combos, example: ... September 22[13] in ... and ... him to return the next year, on September 22 1824, with the "right person", ... dates are linked elsewhere in the article, so they need to be consistent. Solo years and month-year combos aren't linked. For an article this size, the WP:LEAD does not appear adquate: it needs to be a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article, highlighting all important points, so that if the reader goes no further, they have a broad overview. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- tick References section improvement is addressed. COGDEN 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- tick Fixed date inconsistency issues and bullets in metal plates section. COGDEN 22:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- tick I've shortened and improved some of the headings. COGDEN 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- tick Added unit conversions. COGDEN 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- tick Expanded intro. (Note, there might be some controversy on this one. It is under discussion.) COGDEN 00:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just a note: There should probably be added some additional citations to the lead, as I'm certain a few statements will be challenged. Twunchy (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1c), and neutrality (1d). Marskell (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I see there's been a lot of work and comment on this one. Moving it down to get crisp declarations on article status. Marskell (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weighing in
I've been following this discussion and wanted to voice my opinion. I think Serpent's Choice has raised some very good issues. No one would accept, say, the article on Intelligent Design without a criticism section or something talking about the proponents on the other side of the fence. Neither would an article on the Flat Earth view be accepted as feature content if it only used references from sources supporting such a viewpoint. This standard should also apply to this article. I have done a lot of reading on the subject and have found no sources outside of Mormon publications that support the plates as credible in any way, if they existed in the first place (which most non-Mormon scholars contest). It is lopsided to leave out honest and reasonable questions of the historicity of the subject at hand. It is not a matter of being a Mormon or not, but whether a subject being portrayed as real and history is such. Pages on Jesus and the Bible have a well-rounded viewpoint (for the most part). So should this article. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- It is lopsided to leave out honest and reasonable questions of the historicity of the subject at hand.
- This issue is briefed in the first section of the main article, but has it's own article here -> Historicity of the Book of Mormon.
-
- I have done a lot of reading on the subject and have found no sources outside of Mormon publications that support the plates as credible in any way, if they existed in the first place (which most non-Mormon scholars contest).
- There are many non-LDS sources quoted and incorporated into this article, with many of Joseph Smith's peers and antagonists quoted in the article, and as to the discussion on a criticism section, much discussion has been made concerning a separate criticism section but Wikipedia discourages criticism sections here WP:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section.
-
- It is not a matter of being a Mormon or not, but whether a subject being portrayed as real and history is such.
- Obviously therein lies your viewpoint, but it is stated in the article that the Golden plates' existence is a matter of faith, particularly the LDS faiths, but their importance whether they existed or not should not be diminished by peppering the article with skeptical POV statements, and reassurances such as "if they existed", or "if they were real" etc. There is a basis as to their existence, and many statements and volumes of arguements have been written about the subject, both for and against, but even given the lack of an examinable modern artifact you can't just dismiss their existence all together. The statements within the article are based on the best sources available, typically primary sources, of Joseph Smith and his followers and also of his critics. Because a person may or may not believe the statements presented does not mean that the statements are invalid or misleading...if it was said, it was said, and it is accurately quoted here. Twunchy (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Welcome to the discussion, Kristamaranatha. I'm always pleased to see other knowledgeable never-been-Mormons contribute to the editing of Mormon articles. Nevertheless, I believe Twunchy has the better of the argument here. The majority opinion, that the golden plates are mythological, is well represented in the article as it stands. To have a separate section which says in effect, "O, pshaw, there weren't any golden plates" would sound silly or petulant and could not be proven anyway. A "criticism section" might also work to Mormon advantage. They would rightly demand a rebuttal, an "apologetic section," and would be able to quote from credentialed apologists (such as those from FARMS) who have made a cottage industry of defending the more wacko LDS beliefs. The uninitiated would be no better served than before.--John Foxe (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I checked out the Origin of the Book of Mormon and Historicity of the Book of Mormon articles, which I think are well written and well-rounded presentations of the subject. My question is whether it is sufficient to say that "there's another article about these objections" and leave it at that? In other cases there would be a great outcry to include at least something about objections. As Serpent laid out, most of the sources cited are pre-20th century and do not really provide a well-rounded view of the subject at hand. I have noticed that the section of the Golden Plates article dealing with these objections has been fleshed out a bit, which is a great development since the beginning of this debate. I have a lot more confidence in the article as it stands because of that. Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm all for additional, relevant, and "well-rounded" information from late twentieth- and twenty-first-century secondary sources, but I think you'll discover them harder to come by than you imagine. Most critical and apologetic writing of the last fifty years simply reconfigures in modern dress arguments that were advanced more than a hundred years ago. Can you give us an example of a secondary source that you believe is being ignored in this article?--John Foxe (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- The only one I can think of off the top of my head is The Kingdom of the Cults. It may sound POV to have "cults" in the title, but I think they do a good treatment of Mormonism as a whole and raises some good objections to the origin of the plates. Kristamaranatha (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have read this source, and I will object to every attempt to include this tertiary source (yes it is more akin to an encyclopedia-not a secondary source), "Kingdom of the Cults" as a reference for this article. I will state that this book is quite possibly one of the most extreme POV sources not only about the LDS religions, but many, many others including hinduism, buddhism, islam, jehovah's witnesses and many more (on a rough estimate there's 2-3 billion people belonging to the collective of "cults" mentioned - more adherents than christianity itself). The authors of this book had one intention when writing it: to scare people (good "christians" I assume) away from the religions profiled therein using slander, deragatory statements, and misinformation. This is not a reliable source, it is a work of intolerance against anything but what the authors agree with. Twunchy (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults has too many negatives to be used as a source for this article, Kristamaranatha--and the most important of these have nothing to do with the actual content of the book. For one thing, Martin got his doctorate from a degree mill (and used the title "Dr." even before he put his money down). Mormons with first-rate academic degrees could easily be cited in opposition. Further, there's nothing important in Kingdom of the Cults that wasn't noted a hundred years ago and that is not already reflected in this article, such as the unusual Mormon definition of the word "translation" or Joseph Smith's previous interest in magic, "glass looking," and treasure hunting. So citing Martin would provide no additional light on the golden plates; it would only generate plenty of heat from folks like Twunchy.--John Foxe (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Many helpful suggestions have been discussed and addressed, and the article has improved immensely. There are always improvements to be made in any article, but this one continues to represent the best that Wikipedia has to offer. Much of the remaining criticism seems to come from people who are not yet fully on-board with the NPOV principle and/or are not familiar with the existing literature on this subject. COGDEN 03:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fixes needed: Why are the alternate names in the lead in italics? See WP:LEAD, WP:MOSBOLD and WP:ITALICS. WP:MOS#Ellipses (spaces) attention needed throughout. I still see WP:PUNC issues (logical punctuation on quotes). Shouldn't Book of Mormon be italicized on every occurrence ?? Is this apostrophe correct (plural?): it in his parent's home in Manchester. Another check through for p. vs. pp. (^ Quinn 1998, p. 195–196. ) Unformatted URL here in a citation, and if dates are linked in the article, they all need to be linked: ... Salt Lake City Weekly, December 27, 2001 [1]. Several unformatted citations (example: The Voree Plates - Mormon scriptures - brass plates ); we need a publisher, last accessdate, author and publication date if available on all websources. Here's another example: ^ BBC news report "The six sheets are believed to be the oldest comprehensive work involving multiple pages," said Elka Penkova, who ... don't just say BBC news report. We need a title and last accessdate, see WP:CITE/ES. Per WP:GTL, portals belong in See also (not External links). Since this article doesn't have a See also section (which is good), I'd rather see the portals at the top of the references rather than so far down in the article, but that's a matter of personal choice. I don't think this article got a good review at FAC, but it has gotten a good review here, and it's very clean (once these minor issues are addressed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- lead italics: I understand this to be correct, since it is a combination of a bolded defining term, plus a reference to a word or an idea, as in "John did not like to be referred to by the term fairy". If italicizing is incorrect for some reason, I have no problem with that. COGDEN 07:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- italicizing Book of Mormon throughout. Addressed. COGDEN 07:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- logical quotes. Addressed COGDEN 08:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- ellipses. Addressed COGDEN 08:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- "parent's home". Addressed COGDEN 08:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- "p." vs. "pp." Addressed COGDEN 08:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unformatted url . -- I don't see any unformatted urls. COGDEN 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- linking dates Addressed I believe all full dates have been linked. Follows the standard that the only linked dates are those where date-preference formatting would apply, to avoid overlinking. Thus, Month-year and year-only dates are not linked. COGDEN 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- incomplete citations Addressed
- portals to See also . Addressed The article doesn't have a See also section, and doesn't need one, so I moved the portals to the very end. COGDEN 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please let me know when the citations are formatted, so I can have another look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I finished the incomplete citations, the unformatted URL has already been fixed, portals are Wikified content (which has preference over external content), so they shouldn't be buried at the end like that, and my opinion is that they are unsightly down there, but that's personal preference. They should be moved up per WP:GTL, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Status? Has Serpent's Choice been asked to revisit the concern about lack of secondary sources and overreliance on LDS sources? Roman Catholic Church was just denied featured status, partly for this reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize for my long absence from this article (and Wikipedia in general). I have been attending to the serious illness of a close friend and my own bout with the flu. I will look over the current state of the article and see where we stand. I also have acquired several sources that, if not present, I will attempt to include. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong remove Fails 1b, 1c and 1d. Examples from the first three sections only of unacceptable claims insufficiently supported by reliable independent references and lacking any counter-criticism include:
- "The last three of the angel's requirements were corroborated by non-believers" No, they corroborate what Smith or his father said, not what the angel said.
- Addressed changed to: "Smith's understanding as to the last three of the angel's ..." COGDEN 23:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- "When he fainted because he had been awake all night," No, he may have been dreaming all night, or faint through illness or over-work or because he had a vision. This sentence only uses a Mormon source in an attempt to support the thesis that Moroni was real as opposed to a figment of Smith's imagination.
- Addressed changed to "When he fainted because, he said, he had been ..." COGDEN 23:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- "using his seer stone to locate the place where the plates were buried" or to locate where they were supposedly buried or pretending to use the seer stone.
- Addressed changed to "place where he said the plates were buried" COGDEN 23:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- "At the proper location, he saw a large stone covering a stone (or possibly iron) box.[36]Using a stick to remove dirt from the edges of the stone cover, and after prying the cover up with a lever,[37] he saw the plates inside the box, together with other artifacts." This is essentially all supposition based solely on what Smith said.
- Addressed changed to "At the proper location, he said he saw ...." COGDEN 23:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fails 1a. Peculiar turns of phrase from the first three sections only include:
- "The golden plates cannot be examined by disinterested scholars," Obviously, because they either do not exist or were returned to Moroni. This sentence should either be removed or rephrased such as "The golden plates, if they ever existed, were never examined by disinterested scholars."
- Addressed COGDEN 23:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- "the angel appeared a fourth time" there is ambiguity here: was Smith awake or unconscious during the vision? DrKiernan (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- As to whether Smith was awake or unconscious, Smith never said. COGDEN 23:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the changes but there are still issues in the succeeding sections. My examples are just from the first three. All the instances where disputed events are mentioned should be phrased so as to make clear that they are events as reported, not as events which are verifiably true and proven. DrKiernan (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please remove the graphics; they render the page unreadable. Something isn't "done" until the reviewer says it's "done", and graphics just get in the way. DrKiernan gave samples only of the prose issues; marking them "done" doesn't solve the prose issues. Graphics slow down the page load time for all of FAR (and its archives) and render it less readable for everyone else who has to sort out where thing stand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Addressed...I hope that works. Twunchy (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for changing these. I kept meaning to. COGDEN 23:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep Aside from objectors to the subject at hand, this article is still, as it was to begin with, a very well written article that satisfied the requirements of the initial FA status. The objections likely stated against this article are typically from those who disagree with the subject of the article itself, and arguements typically come from either a "traditional christian" background and view the article as heretical and forwarding a "cult" perspective, or from an agnostic or even atheist perspective...thus leaving out the global perspectives, i.e. not just "christians" object to or believe these things. Those who object to the article over religious differences are failing to see the article as a whole instead, singling out a few statements from perhaps a pro-mormon source, ignoring all of the statements from non-mormon and critical sources and claiming the article demonstrates a pro-mormon POV that truly does not exist within the text of this article. A lot of the discussions focus on the existance of the plates themselves, and the lack of an examinable artifact. These claims are placated in the language used in this article, such as "existance of the plates is a matter of faith", and "According to Latter Day Saint theology", etc. But seemingly some people will not quit attacking this article, with arguements veiled in semantics, rather than in fact or substance, until it loses FA status because their POV is not overwhelming the article. So in my opinion, this article should remain a FA, it satisfies all requirements 1a-87z (sarcasm implied), and although controversial, still represents the best wikipedia can offer about the subject presented, whether you like or or not, and whether you agree about it or not. Twunchy (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are there additional secondary sources not cited in this article?
- Comments. If I am commenting in an incorrect location, SG retains the carte blanche I gave her to chop and move my comments around.
- This review doesn't come as a surprise. The article was recently brought up at the Fringe theories noticeboard here. I was the first responder and noted that it was an FA, so it couldn't be overtly fringe-y. (I am a noted optimist.) By and large the commentary there indicated that it was acceptable, but not exceptional. It was noticed that it relies too much on within-LDS sourcing, so much so that one editor recommended that {{in-universe}} be slapped on it. (In fact, the expected reaction to the "work of fiction" phraseology in that template if used on this very article caused {{in-religion-universe}} to be written.)
- Another look at it shows that it is almost entirely sourced to primary sources. This is not in keeping with good practice, and definitely leads to POV problems. To choose a (non-FA yet comparable) example at random, the article on Acts of the Apostles uses the primary source only for the "summary" section, moving to reliable, academic secondary sources (many independent) to discuss questions of questions of authorship, origin, historicity and other analyses. The current approach in this article is, to put it mildly, wholly inappropriate and cause it to fail 1b and 1d, but especially 1c.
- Thanks for your time, and I hope this FAR is less problematic than the last one on which I commented. Relata refero (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- What "reliable, academic secondary sources" are being ignored in this article? It's like Mark Twain's quip that everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it. Enough already of generalities; give us specifics. I want a list.--John Foxe (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Are you claiming that none exist? Relata refero (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am. None at least that have been ignored in this article. If I'm mistaken, please provide the evidence.--John Foxe (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. There are none in the article. By definition, if even one exists anywhere, all available secondary academic sources have been ignored. At the very least, a good portion of it could be sourced to Arrington-Bitton. The translation section should benefit from the fact that this effort has been widely studied by linguistic scholars and scholars of translation - especially postmodernists, for some reason; Douglas Robinson, one of the foremost names in the field, has a couple of papers on it, I think, and probably a good-sized section in his book, though I don't have access to it at the moment. There are, obviously, hundreds of sources. If there wasn't even one, as you seem to imply, I would be nominating this article for deletion. Relata refero (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Prove your point by providing the name of just one "reliable, academic secondary source" discussing the golden plates that's on par with the scholarly secondary works by Bushman, Quinn, and Vogel cited in the article. I have no doubt that something's been missed. But I'm also confident that your sputtering indicates cluelessness about what that might be. --John Foxe (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Aren't we the polite one. Well, of course I'm relatively clueless. Like most FA reviewers, I'm not exactly an expert on this subject matter. I do know a problematic article when I see it, though. Since you mention that Bushman, Vogel, and Quinn are "cited", lets look at why I didn't mention them. Quinn on Smith's astrology and on the context of treasure-hunting - reduced to a footnote. Instead a quote from a 19th c book's in the main article for the latter point. Bushman is used only for the small section on "other metal plates". And Vogel - well, I'm glad you added him a few days ago, but do you really one line makes up for writing the entire remainder of the article based on primary sources? (Don't say that all academic discussion of the reported discovery process belong in Historicity of the Book of Mormon, please, that stunted article discusses only the historical allusions made in the translations and whether they correspond with evidence available from elsewhere.)
- Please see above, where I have already provided specific reliable, academic secondary sources that could be helpful. Arrington-Bitton is one (I understand it is, in fact the standard work on the subject), and Douglas Robinson's Who Translates. For an example of what this article loses by ignoring such work, the line "Smith's process of what he called "translation" was not typical of the usual meaning of that word" lacks any of the contextualisation required; so-called spirit-channelled translation has been extensively studied. Really, I can't imagine why you think three lines and two footnotes based on secondary sources and then slavishly repeating primary sources is the best that Wikipedia can do. Relata refero (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- You said earlier that there were no secondary sources cited. Now you've had to explain away three first-rate ones. Arrington-Bitton is essentially a textbook, a survey history of Mormonism. The golden plates are covered in one paragraph on page 12. The windy theories of Douglas Robinson may indeed be worthy of notice in the section of this article dealing with translation. I would encourage you to incorporate them if you can. Of course, they have nothing to do with the golden plates per se.--John Foxe (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) Let me make it quite clear I don't like your tone, and I suggest you smarten that up a bit. On the actual business at hand, there are no secondary sources used as support for major claims. Let me repeat: this article has three lines and two footnotes based on secondary sources. If you call that "explaining away three-first rate ones", I'm afraid that there is likely to be no response. This is an FA sourced practically entirely to primary sources. That's unacceptable. That the golden plates are covered in two pages in the main survey of Mormon history is hardly surprising; what is surprising is that that is considered inappropriate to use as a source. And if theories of translation are irrelevant to this page, why is there a section on it? Remove it, please, as irrelevant to a FA candidate. The more I read this article and the associated literature and WP articles, the more clear it is to me that the design of this page, what has been chosen to stay in and what appears to be considered "irrelevant", the style of sources used, are all designed to keep legitimate scrutiny of doctrine out. That is unacceptable anywhere, and especially in an FA. Relata refero (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- You've still not provided even one "reliable, academic secondary source" discussing the golden plates that's on par with the scholarly secondary works by Bushman, Quinn, and Vogel cited in the article. If including more citations to say, Bushman, Quinn, Vogel (or even to the paragraph in Arrington-Bitton) would satisfy you, I don't see why that couldn't be done. But your concern seems to be rather with what you perceive to be the article's pro-Mormon bias. Here I bow out because I'm not a Mormon, never have been a Mormon, and consider the authenticity of the golden plates to be on par with the authenticity of the Golden Fleece.--John Foxe (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I did. I mentioned Douglas Robinson specifically. About the general bias of the article, well, of course that's a problem. But the central problem that I came here to comment on remains the measly three lines and two footnotes based on secondary sources. If it can be fixed, excellent. If its not, then I don't think this should remain an FA. Relata refero (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I think it is unwise to focus on hypertechnical distinctions about whether sources are "primary" or "secondary" in this article. Good featured articles can be, and are, written either type of source exclusively. Actually, if you want to detour into arcane historiographic theory, almost every source here is both primary and secondary. A secondary source is simply a source that repeats something that someone else wrote. If the "secondary" reference has an original idea, that counts as a primary source for the new idea too. Most secondary sources, if the author has something original to say about the subject matter, are also primary sources. Likewise, most of the "primary" sources are "secondary". But lets not get bogged down in historiographic distinctions here. What we need to ask ourselves is: (1) is there a source, of whatever type so long as it is reliable, for every proposition made in the article, and (2) is every proposition made in the article presented in a neutral way? I think the answer to both questions is pretty much yes, although any article can be improved if people continue to work on it. As to the second question, I think the most telling indicator is that Mormons think the article is horribly anti-Mormon, while skeptics think the article leans pro-Mormon, and purely apathetic people, with no stake in the game either way, think it's pretty good. That means we have succeeded. COGDEN 01:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- No. All articles must use reliable secondary sources. If such sources don't exist then a subject isn't notable and we are engaging in original research. It isn't frequent that I agree with RR but in this case he is spot on. And furthermore, the claim that "A secondary source is simply a source that repeats something that someone else wrote" demonstrates deep misunderstanding about what generally constitutes a secondary source for Wikipedia purposes. The reason we rely on such sources is that they can do original research and such. This is in fact close to the actual meaning of secondary source in common parlance. If there is some separate meaning for certain areas of historiography that's hardly relevant to Wikipedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree with JoshuaZ. The article appears to be pseudoarcheology in that it uses primary sources, many of which date to the early history of the Mormon church, where they were doing anything they could to validate their religion. This article is not neutral, and will not be without significant rewriting utilizing modern and peer-reviewed secondary sources to add to the scholarship. If COGDEN wants a Mormon religious treatise, why not copy the Doctrine and Covenants, and call it a day? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break
- Remove Religious articles have to make one of two choices: either state it is an allegory or religious doctrine, such as Noah's Ark, which stays neutral by not trying to scientifically or archeologically prove that the Ark existed (which the last time I checked was placed in a POV fork from the article). However, once a religious symbol, story or personage is claimed to be "true" or had existed, and utilizes sources to verify it, then the NPOV must account for the wealth of data that may or may not confirm the existence of the Golden Plates. Given that there is no archeological support for what was written in the Book of Mormon, I'd almost start with the fact that the culture that supposedly created it did not in fact exist. Accepting the Golden Plates as a matter of religious faith is fine, then the article should state it as such and should not attempt to prove its existence, like Noah's Ark. If you want to use science or archeology or historical texts to "prove" its existence, then WP:RS, WP:VERIFY. and WP:WEIGHT need to come into play, much like articles on Creationism or Intelligent design. Right now, this article is merely a Mormon D&C advertisement, and is hardly scholarly and neutral. And Cogden's last point, that Mormons think its anti-Mormon, etc, is a one man synthesis of no statistical merit. The article is a religious tract, and it belongs in Wiki-mormon, not here, because it is not neutral. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 12:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is difficult to accurately comment on sources you are not familiar with, but I assure you, a lot of thought and discussion has gone into making these citations balanced and accurate. This is a complicated article, but if you read it carefully, you will see that the article in no way tries to "prove" anything. This article is about what authoritative sources have said about the golden plates. That's all an encyclopedia can do. It cannot take any position about the truth or falsity of sources, it only can relate them.
- But it is simply untrue that the citations in this article are one-sided. Actually, most of the sources cited in this article are by disbelievers, many of whom intended by their statements to cast doubt on the existence of the plates. We cite these sources here, despite their strong opinion, because it is not our place to judge. Likewise, we cite Smith himself, and those who said they saw the plates or the translation process. If we did not cite these people, (1) we wouldn't have anything to talk about, and (2) the reader would leave the article with a sense that the point of the article has been missed. But overall, most of the sources are indeed secondary. It's understandable that people would make a mistake like this about the nature of the sources, because you can't really know this unless you read the sources and are familiar with who the author is and their point of view. To assist people in understanding this, here's a table that should hopefully lay this issue to rest:
| Source |
Believer/Skeptic |
Primary/Secondary source |
| Anthon, Charles |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| James Gordon Bennett, Jr. |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Abram W. Benton |
? |
Secondary source |
| Emma Smith Bidamon |
Believer |
Primary and secondary source |
| David S. Burnett |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Richard Lyman Bushman |
Believer |
Secondary source |
| Willard Chase |
Skeptic |
Mostly secondary source |
| John A. Clark |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| James T. Cobb |
Believer |
Secondary source |
| Abner Cole |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Lyndon W. Cook |
Believer |
Secondary source |
| Oliver Cowdery |
Believer |
Mostly secondary source |
| David Crystal |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Peter Daniels & William Bright |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| E.B. Grandin |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Jonathan Hadley |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Isaac Hale |
Skeptic |
Mostly primary source |
| William J. Hamblin |
Believer |
Secondary source |
| Abigail Harris |
Skeptic |
Primary source |
| Henry Harris |
Skeptic |
Primary source |
| Martin Harris |
Believer |
Primary source |
| Eber Dudley Howe |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Joseph Knight, Sr. |
Believer |
Mostly secondary source |
| Fayette Lapham |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Joseph & Hiel Lewis |
Skeptic |
Mostly secondary |
| Frederic G. Mather |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Brent Lee Metcalfe |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| J. Cameron Packer |
Believer |
Secondary source |
| Grant H. Palmer |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| W.W. Phelps |
Believer |
Primary source |
| P. Wilhelm Poulson |
Believer |
Secondary source |
| Orson Pratt |
Believer |
Secondary source |
| Read H. Putnam |
Believer |
Secondary source |
| I. Woodbridge Riley |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| B.H. Roberts |
Believer |
Mixed |
| Andrew Robinson |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Katharine Smith Salisbury |
Believer |
Secondary source |
| Benjamin Saunders |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Lorenzo Saunders |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Orson Saunders |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Joseph Smith III |
Believer |
Secondary source |
| Joseph Smith, Jr. |
Believer |
Primary source |
| Lucy Mack Smith |
Believer |
Mostly primary source |
| William Smith |
Believer |
Mostly primary source |
| Edward Stevenson |
Believer |
Secondary source |
| Wilbur F. Storey |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Tvedtnes |
Believer |
Secondary source |
| Pomeroy Tucker |
Skeptic |
Mixed |
| Orasmus Turner |
Skeptic |
Mixed |
| B. Wade |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Richard S. Van Wagoner |
Believer |
Secondary source |
| Ronald W. Walker |
Believer |
Secondary source |
| David Whitmer |
Believer |
Mostly primary source |
| Stephen Williams |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Roger D. Woodard |
Skeptic |
Secondary source |
| Brigham Young |
Believer |
Secondary source |
-
- Totals: 30 skeptical sources, 25 believing sources, 44 secondary sources, 13 primary sources. COGDEN 02:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Further commentary NPOV issues aside, I find the reference section problematic. First of all, as others have mentioned, the lack of non-LDS sources is amazing. A truly neutral article, that attempts to the espouse the archeological nature of these tablets, deserves a significant amount of commentary on the pseudoarcheology and pseudoscience presented here. Furthermore, the references themselves lack ISBN numbers for a number of books (suspiciously, the one non-LDS book did lack an ISBN). The lead is not balanced, it is not neutral. Again, if the editors want a piece of Mormon dogma, then please write it as such, and make no claims that it actually existed (for which there are no secondary and reliable sources). If you're going to rely on pseudoscience, then for NPOV to exist, we need a balanced article, not an LDS First Presidency press release. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is no lack of non-LDS sources, as you can see the above chart. Most of the sources are skeptical, and an even greater majority are non-LDS. As to your concerns about archaeology/pseudoarcheology and science/pseudoscience, these are good concerns, but these issues are not discussed here, either pro or con. This is the wrong article for that. This material is more related to the Book of Mormon than the golden plates, and should go in articles like archaeology and the Book of Mormon, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, Genetics and the Book of Mormon, or one of the many other Book of Mormon-related articles. Like any article, there has to be a limit to its scope, or it would mushroom into something truly gigantic. We should not expand the article to include either the content of the Book of Mormon or Mormonism in general. COGDEN 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- remove Orangemarlin and DrKiernan bring up points that are fatal to this being an FA and are not fixable without massive rewriting. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- More commentary Section comparing the existence of other precious metal plates, though interesting, do not confirm or deny the existence of these golden plates. That's one of the prime tenets of Pseudoscience by utilizing confirmation that it happened someplace else. Based on that logic bats and birds are the same, when, from a biological, evolutionary, and scientific standpoint, they are both flying vertebrates, and that's about it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have to admit I am quite disappointed with the English writing in this article. For a purported FA, the writing is not good. "Smith's claim to have found golden plates was noted locally, and the distraction of having the curious attempt to see them, as well his own lack of money, caused Smith to move to northern Pennsylvania" for example is a long sentence and awkwardly worded. There are numerous similar examples throughout the text. It needs, at the very least, a serious copyedit.--Filll (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- A lot of changes have been made recently as a result of this process. It certainly needs a new copyedit. I've fixed the sentence you mention, and am going through it to find other stylistic problems. COGDEN 05:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Remove - Poor writing; not neutral; unreliable sources; problems with undue weight; ownership problems, etc. A copyedit will not fix this mess, it needs to be started over from scratch, and must be written from an academic not religious perspective. •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- The sources are reliable. They are all published in peer reviewed journals or books, and you can find them in any library. As to ownership, I haven't really seen that problem. Various people have worked on this at various times, but nobody has ever, to my knowledge, attempted to "own" the article. As to undue weight, the issues discussed in the article are almost exactly the range of issues that are discussed in the literature, both apologetic and critical, and in about the same proportion, although frankly, the range of issues mainly line up with the most common issues that come up in critical literature. I don't think this is a weakness, however, because by and large, we have included at least those apologetic issues that have merited serious discussion in the field among critics. COGDEN 02:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Commentary- The writing can be improved but is really pretty good considering the corpses from past edit wars that litter the field of battle. The sources are perfectly reliable and the tone neutral. No naysayer ever provides the names of academic secondary sources he presumes must exist out there (but don't). It's necessary to say I'm not a Mormon, I've never been a Mormon, and I believe the golden plates are so much hooey.--John Foxe (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I been around this project long enough to know that when someone says "I'm not this", it means very little to the rest of us, who have seen it over and over again. I don't care if someone is LDS or not. The article is not neutral, because, since it is hooey, and they're significant peer-reviewed scholarship to indicate it's hooey, then where is it in the article. If the owner of the article wants it to be a religious document parroting the Doctrine and Covenants, hey I'm there supporting its FA. But if it wants to be neutral, then all the aspects of WP:NPOV need to be followed. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- You need to be specific about what kinds of citations you think should be added. There could very well be articles out there that are germane to this topic, which we could add to the footnotes, and if so, I'd like to know. Many of us on both sides of the "Are the Plates Real" issue have scoured the literature on this, and I think we have it covered. There are other citations that provide the same information that is already cited, but not much else remains. COGDEN 02:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, by the way, I was taught the basics of Chemistry by Henry Eyring, and my recommendations for Medical School were written by Ted Eyring, who taught me more about inorganic chemistry than I care to remember, and Henry B. Eyring, both high level members of the LDS church. I wonder what that means? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Provide evidence that the article ignores "significant peer-reviewed scholarship." What are specific examples of articles and books not treated in this article? (I'm not sure that your relationship to the Eyrings has any deep significance, except that if you went to the University of Utah, you were probably raised around a lot of Mormons.)--John Foxe (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. No one has yet pointed out a valid, neutral, non-Mormon secondary source on Mormonism and the Golden Plates that could be used to improve this article's NPOV that isn't used already. Haven't any non-Mormon doctorate students published theses or dissertations with research on Mormonism? Haven't any American non-Mormon sociologists studied Mormonism? I heard somewhere that sociological researchers in other countries have studied Mormonism because they see it as a unique sub-culture in the history of the United States. Has anyone tried to search for secondary sources in other languages like German, French, or Spanish? Surely some neutral and reliable source has studied and published commentary on Mormonism somewhere. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- There are lots of articles by non-Mormons on various aspects of Mormonism, but there are hundreds of Mormonism-related articles, and they should be cited in the appropriate article, rather than here, unless the article is specifically about the plates. But I think we have already covered the universe of opinions on this subject pretty well, and I doubt there are many non-Mormon sources that add something pertinent to the topic here, which isn't already discussed. There are some additional Mormon apologetic issues, but some of them have not received discussion from non-Mormon critics; so these Mormon-centric issues are not included. COGDEN 02:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Remove The main problem is that the article does not clearly demarcate between religious mythology associated with LDS belief and fact. Compare this to the Shroud of Turin or other similar articles to see my point. Wikipedia featured articles are supposed to conform to WP:NPOV. This article does not because it doesn't make it clear that academic scholars who are non-Mormon deny that the plates are anything more than a Joseph Smith hoax. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Who are these "academic scholars" who deny that the plates are no more than a hoax of Joseph Smith? Name them.--John Foxe (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Start wwith these 374 sources and count how many who are not Mormon believe that these things are anything other than a witting or unwitting hoax. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- A Google list of random mentions is not what I had in mind. I want the names of "academic scholars" who specifically declare that the golden plates were a hoax. I'd like names with citations to explicit declarations that the golden plates were a hoax (which, for what it's worth, I firmly believe).--John Foxe (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really have time to do that. Sort through it on your own. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- You can't prove a negative. The articles say that the Golden Plates were real. Where's the proof of that? Joseph Smith? Sorry, but everything he ever said was a bit suspect. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- The article is already clear, beginning in the very first section after the intro, that many non-Mormons believe that the plates were a hoax. The views of the above 374 sources are either (1) already represented, or (2) only mention the golden plates in passing. We can add them to the footnotes, but what does it add to the article? We don't have to cite every source in existance on any given point, just the most authoritative ones. Now, if any of these 374 sources contributed new information to the article that is not already covered, then we should be interested, and that would be relevant to featured status. But that's not the case here. The range of discussion of these 374 people are already covered here. COGDEN 20:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- The issue, which becomes apparent to anyone who does research in this field, is that unlike the shroud of Turin, nobody can prove, through scientific means, that the golden plates were a hoax, or that they did not exist. The plates are not an extant artifact, and thus are more like the ark of the covenant than the shroud of Turin. The sole source of information, ultimately, for proving their nonexistence are the statements of Smith and his associates, many of whom were believers, and many of whom were skeptical. All modern skeptical authors writing about the plates cite the very same sources that are already included in this article. Since there is a consensus that these sources are the ones that are considered most authoritative as to "hoaxitude", these are the sources cited. The article has covered, pretty well, the universe of the most authoritative and widely-cited sources critical of the golden plates. COGDEN 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- The very way you phrase it, "many non-Mormons believe that the plates were a hoax" is a bit ridiculous. Name one notable non-Mormon who doesn't believe the plates were a hoax. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Closing: I have waited quite a while here. In part, I was concerned that after the arbitrary break a posse seemed to have been rounded up to remove, which is frowned on at FAR.
That said, the removes take this one, both in numbers and arguments. The most germane comments remain Serpent Choice's from the beginning. The word "said" does not just appear four times in the first paragraph. It occurs 108 times in the body. "Smith said... His father said... the angel said..." This is not simply a matter of dull and repetitive phrasing, but reflects a serious structural problem: the article is simply a retelling of the Mormon story. No criticism, no metatextual discussion, no modern scholarly interpretations, and "no discussion of the claim that the plates may not have physically existed at all, or been forged, or been a modern artifact." Nothing. The closest we get is a tacked-on section at the end that tips over into apologism. This article does not meet 1a, 1c, or 1d and should be completely revamped if it is to be brought back to FAC. Marskell (talk)
- That's your call, but I'd consider this carefully because it is a policy decision and something of a shift in the meaning of the FA categories. In the past, 1c, and 1d have only been about verifiability of the sources (what people have "said" about the subject matter) and neutrality and balance of their presentation. It has never been about verifiability of the truth of the sources, or bias in the individual sources themselves. This subject matter cannot be discussed without very liberal use of the word "said"--ie, what Smith "said", and what his skeptical critics have "said", which never agree. If we remove the "saids", we violate WP:NPOV--thus, removing this article as FA on this basis means that articles on this type of subject matter are inherently non-featurable. Nothing regarding this topic is verifiable except what people have said, and this article represents essentially everything that has been said in published, scholarly sources. Mormons cannot prove the plates exist, critics cannot prove they do not exist. Thus, if this is our criteria, these types of articles on inherently controversial and nonverifiable subjects like Xenu and Noah's Ark should all be removed as featured articles. As to there being no discussion that the plates were a hoax or did not exist, that's simply incorrect. Look at the first section, which was added in response to Serpent Choice's comments. Also, look at the footnotes throughout the article. COGDEN 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
