Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Page 13

Good article review (archive)

(Page 11) →

To archive an article from the disputes page, check over the dispute, and see if any enforcement is necessary. For instance, if a discussion results in 5 editors for delisting an article and 1 against, then delist the article as you archive it. If a dispute is close, for instance, an approximately even amount of editors taking a side, try to make a new comment rather than archiving, to see whether the dispute should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, a good rule is to not archive anything that has a comment less than a week old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion.

Contents 1 Articles reviewed (add archived ones at the top) 1.1 NFL playoffs 1.2 Clinical Depression 1.3 Netflix 1.4 Liverpool_F.C. 1.5 Foie gras 1.6 Autobianchi Primula 1.7 Mickey Mantle 1.8 Katie Melua 1.9 Armia Krajowa 1.10 Great Red Spot 1.11 Mario 1.12 Anton Alexander von Werner 1.13 Invasive species 1.14 Platform game 1.15 I Not Stupid

Articles reviewed (add archived ones at the top)

NFL playoffs

Result: There is no dispute here it seems

Since this article is only nominated and failed for GA status, comments here moved to talk page. Is that correct? Kghusker 03:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable with that, since I am unsure whether my impression of the article's comprehensibility level was correct. If I had felt confident that I could correctly judge it, I would have failed it immediately. Now that is is failed, it can remained failed, unless there is someone who wants to recheck it. / Fred-Chess 18:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it either, but if nobody wants to dispute what happened to the article, I guess there's no problem here :/. Homestarmy 03:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if everyone is ok with it, feel free to archive this thread :-)

Fred-Chess 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. but the lead could be expanded. Sumoeagle179 11:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Clinical Depression

A MOS nightmare, this article is laden with {{fact}} tags, really short paragraph and sections, entirely unreferenced sections, few inline cites in general for such a long article, listy areas that need conversion to prose, numerous redlinks, among other problems. Teemu08 21:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delist.Rlevse 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment to the nominator I left the appropriate message on the article's talk page for you. --Ling.Nut 04:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delist too many lists... this would be better with more shorter sections leading to other pages on the subject.Balloonman 05:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Too listy, and has a few external jumps. LuciferMorgan 15:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist because of the great need of more references. (I have divested the article of its red links.) Aleta 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Netflix

• Delist User:Shimeru just promoted this and he is not on the list of reviewers, but that is not why I'm nominating for delisting. A mere two days ago an anon noted on the article talk page that this still needed lead work. The lead is not close to GA quality. Shimeru promoted it anyway. Article editors had plenty of time to fix this, so I think this should be delisted. That Rlevse has left or is on long wikibreak is irrelevant.Sumoeagle179
• Neutral I've been reviewing articles for a while. There's no requirement to be on any list. Several other prolific reviewers are not on the list. At this point I do not intend to add myself to or allow myself to be added to the list. If this means that my participation is not welcome, or that I am going to be shadowed and assumed to be contributing in bad faith, I will simply decline to contribute any further. On the subject of the article, Rlevse's departure is relevant in that he could not provide feedback to the editors of the article. Rather than leave it on hold, I elected to pass it with the expectation that the lead would be addressed. If it's not, I don't object to delisting and would have done so myself. Shimeru 21:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist External link in the lead, lots of one-two sentence paragraphs, a one sentence section, references aren't formatted properly, image in the infobox requires fair-use and the lead is too short. Instead of passing it because Rlevse wasn't around you can fail it, noting what the problems are so that next time the editor nominates it, the issues will be addressed. M3tal H3ad 05:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a question about the fair use, do you mean the logo? It looks tagged to me :/. Homestarmy 20:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I could, but it wasn't missing by such a wide margin that I'd feel it necessary. Almost everything you pointed out was a trivial correction; I cleaned up most of it myself in a couple of minutes, once I understood what you were talking about. The "external link" you're referring to is in fact the nasdaq template, so that's still there -- it's entirely appropriate for an article about a NASDAQ-listed business to use that template. Most businesses should be using a similar one. I think your reviews may be somewhat too strict if you're failing businesses for doing so. (Addition: No, that was one of the things I'd asked -- he'd meant that there was no separate typed rationale repeating the information. I subsequently added that line to the image page.) Shimeru 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• delist per M3tal H3ad. I'm not gone, I was on a needed wikibreak, but I see where the idea came from. I think Sumoeagle179 got the idea that one must be listed to pass articles because there is a movement in that direction, and I support that. It is definitely highly encouraged.Rlevse 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done here, then, once I finish up with the last couple I've put on hold. Wikipedia has quite enough bureaucracy already, I think, and I don't care to encourage more. "You're not on the list"... bah. That aside, though, I'm glad to see you back, and sorry if I stepped on your toes by going through some of your holds. Shimeru 22:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You didn't step on my toes, I just don't think the GA is warranted.Rlevse 01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of nor seen any sign of this movement to only allow people listed on the GA reviewers page to list articles. I mean, what's the point anyway? Its not like GA reviewers are elected, if somebody volunteers, they should be allowed to review articles. Homestarmy 22:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that the confusion over reviewers being on the list somehow started from the fact that there is one. Otherwise, why have a list? I can see how Sumo thought this.Rlevse 01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delisted... seems that's where consensus was heading, and I have no particular desire to drag things out. Shimeru 04:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Liverpool_F.C.

Result: 4 to 2, Keep

The article is very confusing and poorly written and I do not know if this is because it was ok when it was reviewed and changed or if because it's a lazy review. Either way.. I'm asking for another review of this article. I am also going to nominate it in the football project group for re-write.--ChrissMari 19:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead is a bit awkward as it doesn't even try to explain the so-called "disasters", which it could be expanded to do with maybe just a few more words. Also, sentences such as "It was felt that Liverpool might have recovered in 1947 when they became Champions once again, but it proved to be a false dawn, and in 1954 Liverpool were relegated." are scattered around the History section, which is similiar to the drama-inducing language i've seen in alot of these sportsy articles, and is not NPOV. If the lead was fixed or preferably expanded and these sorts of sentences removed, then maybe this would be a GA, but for now, Delist. Homestarmy 22:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• KeepDelist it has cite needed tags and inconsistent refs too.Rlevse 21:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)....concerns met.Rlevse 14:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I see zero cite needed tags. The article is well referenced and contains a large amount of good information. I agree that a few sentences with too familiar a tone have crept in, but that alone does not a bad article make. aLii 00:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The concerns Rlevse mentioned have been fixed.Sumoeagle179 11:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is in a continual improvement drive, issues are continually being addressed. This article is in my opinion a "good article" with some tweaking needed.Jamie 09:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Foie gras

Result: 6 to 1, Delist

This article keeps being summarily removed from GA status. The person doing so has not asked for it to be reviewed. I think the article is fine and has only improved since it was first added to the GA list; indeed, I think once the POV pushing has moved aside it might move towards FA. SchmuckyTheCat 19:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Listed The current editing war raises some stability concerns, but I don't feel that alone is grounds for delisting. The article is thorough and well-cited, and removal of the GA tag by one of the involved parties appears to me to be an attempt to make a WP:POINT -- the proper procedure would have been to bring it here, not simply remove it. (To be fair, he might not know that -- but he does cite WP:WIAGA, suggesting he's read the GA pages.) I also don't think GA review should be used as a substitute for WP:RFC or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, though I note that an RfC has been attempted with little response (and said response has apparently simply been ignored by those who disagree). I think I'd recommend going to mediation at this point, and perhaps arbitration if that fails. The argument's been going on for at least a month, and nobody seems willing to budge, so some form of outside opinion is clearly needed. Shimeru 22:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mm, there are some real concerns regarding the article. However, I can't help seeing the delisting/review attempt as part of the ongoing POV war -- nominator has ulterior motives regarding its delisting, the opposing side has ulterior motives regarding its remaining listed. Suspect that this will only be addressed in satisfactory manner following arbitration. (I added this yesterday and forgot to sign. Shimeru 19:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

Delist Upon further consideration, the situation has not improved; rather it continues to deteriorate. Though the article is generally much improved in the last few weeks, the factional infighting will not allow this to be a good article. Although I hate to give the appearance of offering disruptive editors what they want, it seems fairly clear that the issue will not be resolved in the near future. Suggest revisiting the matter after mediation/arbitration/defenestration has occurred. Shimeru 19:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep listed as per the very valid arguments made by User:Shimeru above. And, for the record, an RfM has been initiated here.--Ramdrake 23:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep listed the GA tag is being removed without discussion because of sour grapes. SchmuckyTheCat 23:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep listed for now The person who delisted it didn't give time before delisting it, as Schmucky pointed out immedietly on the talk page. But now that its on this page, we can at least discuss the article's so-called problems and try to work something out. Homestarmy 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the article appears to of been heavily fought over since about the 17th, as this diff between then and now indicates: [1]. Looking at the comparison to see if anything was really changing, it does look like its pretty unstable. However, if it gets more stabilized within the time of this review's archiving, I don't see why this couldn't stay a GA. Homestarmy 23:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is true. To some extent, I think the argument has actually strengthened the article. It seems to be becoming repetitious and unproductive over the last week or so, though. I hope it can be worked out at mediation. Shimeru 02:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, something else I pointed out on the talk page is that the adversarial positioning of the last few weeks has resulted in improvement even if the changes made by the detractors don't stand. This is causing the article to improve towards FA quality, not degrade. SchmuckyTheCat 16:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Delist. The article was delisted from GA by myself, following the guidelines above.

1. It should be uncontroversial that there is currently an edit war concerning the article. The fact that one party, oblivious of discussion, is constantly making the article more pro-foie gras POV, doesn't imply there is no edit war. A dispute resolution process has been started (Mediation Cabal called). The mediation cabal process was initiated by user Ramdrake, who is part of the pro-foie gras side; which at least implies he recognizes there is a dispute! The article thus does not satisfy good article point 5 ("It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars."), which is by itself enough to delist it.

2. The article is in a heavily biased state. Just to name one point, currently the intro reads like an advertisement for the product; while the simple factual information that foie gras is a disease is repeatedly removed from the intro, on the pretext that it might scare people from not eating foie gras. Thus the article does not satisfy point 4 ("It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect: (a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias; (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.").

3. The article contains a many false or unverifiable statements; most of the history section is sourced merely on a book called Foie gras: a passion by a foie gras producer.

For all these reasons, the article clearly does not satisfy the good article criteria.

David Olivier 01:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• For the record, User:Ramdrake and User:SchmuckyTheCat (along with User:Trevyn, should he choose to comment) are among the more vocal on one side of the argument. User:Olivierd (along with User:Benio76, should he choose to comment) are among the more vocal on the other. Olivier, Schmucky, and Benio have all unilaterally delisted or relisted at this point -- several times each. I have asked on the talk page, twice, that the article remain listed until this review is complete. I am now asking here as well. Please do not allow your edit war to spill over into GA -- the purpose of this review is to address the GA-related part of the dispute. As a matter of good faith, I would like those opposed to allow the current GA status to remain without further interference while the review continues (since the article was a GA prior to the dispute). As a matter of good faith, I would also expect those in favor not to interfere with its delisting, if that is the result the review should come to. The process has begun; please don't waste time trying to end-run it. That will only lead to another reversion war, and none of us needs that. I would suggest using the time and energy instead to make a case for your respective arguments at mediation. Shimeru 03:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

1. While I agree the edit war is obvious, unfortunently, the rules were changed a few weeks ago to mandate giving people time before immedietly delisting an article. I don't like it either, it causes all sorts of problems in more obvious cases for delisting and discourages aggressive patrolling of the GA page in my opinion, but I don't think this is really a WP:IAR moment here, Wikipedia won't collapse if the GA tag stays on this article. However, mediation cases or otherwise don't necessarily make an article unstable :/.

2. I don't know much about Foie Gras and am only familiar with it outside of Wikipedia because there's been that thing over here in the states with cities outlawying it, but i'm reasonably certain that "disease" wouldn't be the right word. In most contexts, it implies some sort of bacterial or viral infection, which a liver, even if increadibly swollen, is not. Now, the liver might itself beome diseased, but i'm not sure why that would always happen, I think the words you'd be looking for would be something along the lines of "causes a malady of the liver." but even then, I think you'd need some references choosing the right word there.

3. Showing us some of the statements you feel is false would be helpful :/. However, keep in mind, for an article to be "well-referenced" doesn't mean that every single line of the article has to be clearly referenced. Homestarmy 20:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question in point 2: a disease does not necessarily imply an infection by bacteria or viruses. Two examples are cancer and heart attack, which generally have nothing to do with an infection, but are called diseases. The condition force-feeding puts the birds in is generally described as pathological, i.e. a disease (for instance, the European Union 1998 report, p.41: "this level of steatosis should be considered pathological"). The only explanation that has been given by the pro-foie gras side for not stating in the article that the birds' condition is pathological is that it would scare people from eating the product. See for instance Ramdrake here: "it can certainly make the reader think they are eating diseased organs, which is not an impression we want to impart on the readers.". Note that the "impression" that Ramdrake does not want to impart on readers is the truth itself, since foie gras is indeed a diseased organ. Wikipedia is to state the truth, not to patronize its readers in the interest of one POV.

That is but one issue. The whole page - including the history section - is tailored to "impart impressions" favourable to foie gras. Wikipedia is not the place for advertisement.

Now just one example of a statement in the article that is false: "Scientific evidence regarding the animal welfare aspects of foie gras production is limited and inconclusive." That statement is in the intro, unsourced, and is not sourced elsewhere; it is in contradiction with the conclusions of the EU report stated above (which is a scientific report by the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare), p.65. It is a very serious falsity, since the welfare issue is at the heart of the controversy. False statements, unsourced and doubtful statements, systematic undue weight and other POV issues abound in the entire article. The history section, for instance, is the kind of "impression giving" that the pro-foie gras side like, but is very poorly sourced (sourced mostly on books like "Foie gras: a passion", written by a foie gras producer).

Concerning stability: until the issues are resolved, the article will either be constantly unstable, under the effects of edit wars, or will stabilize in a totally POV state, as a result not of consensus, not of reasoned argument, but of brute force from one side against the other.

David Olivier 03:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Delist - It is unstable at present and there is no sign of it stabilising any time in the near future. If it does stabilise, it can go back through the process at a later date.-Localzuk^(talk) 01:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the article is definitely not neutral and does not deserve to be listed as GA. I will give you a most evident example. In my last editings, I tried to insert this paragraph into the intro:

The name "foie gras"^[1] refers to the abnormal growth of liver produced in birds by force feeding, which induces an accumulation of fat in the liver called fatty liver.^[2] This phenomenon has been interpreted as just a natural adaptation by some experts^[3] but as a real pathology by others.^[4]

As you can see, I give sources for both opinions about foie gras being or not a "pathology" and I used a neutral word for steatosis, calling it a "phenomenon". But this paragraph has been deleted three times.

The last revert has been made by SchmuckyTheCat who wrote:

(rv, nothing abnormal about the animals basic physiology.)

Well, the INRA rapport, that I cited to source the opinion about foie gras not being a "pathology", states:

Dans ces espèces, une stéatose hépatique physiologique, quoique modérée, permet la fourniture d'énergie pendant les jours de migration (Bénard et Labie 1998). Cette capacité d'adaptation naturelle du métabolisme lipidique permet d'expliquer à la fois l'intensité de la stéatose hépatique de gavage et sa réversibilité, dans des conditions certes extraphysiologiques, mais non pathologiques.

In other words, even that source recognizes that the natural fattening of the birds liver is "physiological" while the fattening produced by force feeding is "extraphysiological".

On the other hand, this unsourced and biased statement, which has been deleted by me and other editors:

Scientific evidence regarding the animal welfare aspects of foie gras production is limited and inconclusive.

has always been restored and still is in the intro. And remark that this is in contradiction with scientific evidence cited in the article itself. Benio76 03:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've actually inserted two quotes from the EU Report on Force-feeding that back the assertion just above (i.e. evidence is "limited and inconclusive"). So, now it is properly cited.

Also, steatosis is mentioned at least twice in the article, just not in the intro. The dispute is currently about whether it should be mentioned in the intro as well.--Ramdrake 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, your first quote from the EU report says that evidence at the physiological level is small; it does not say it is inconclusive, and does not mention welfare. Your second quote is only relative to one specific study. The fact is that the report states its own conclusions: foie gras is a pathological steatosis (p.41: "this level of steatosis should be considered pathological"); "force feeding, as currently practised, is detrimental to the welfare of the birds" (p.65); that last sentence is the conclusion of the whole report, at the factual level; how on earth can you hope to use a source to "validate" something that is exactly the opposite of what it actually says? David Olivier 14:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The source saying that the "evidence at the physiological level is small" goes to support: Scientific evidence regarding the animal welfare aspects of foie gras production is limited, so small-limited I'd say it's pretty well supported. Second, your quotes serve only to prove my point: if I can quote a part that says animals aren't stressed by the process, and you find a quote saying it is detrimental to their welfare, I'd say this is a nice eample that the evidence isn't really conclusive on one side or another yet.--Ramdrake 20:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake: Your first quote is about the physiological level, not about welfare. I already said that. Do I have to say it another 20 times? This is a good example of your systematically ignoring the arguments that are given to you. And your second quote does not say that the animals are not stressed; it says that one specific experiment was inconclusive. You have not quoted a part that says that animals are not stressed. Really, this is getting strange! David Olivier 20:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this again: the INRA concludes as such:

Dans ces espèces, une stéatose hépatique physiologique, quoique modérée, permet la fourniture d'énergie pendant les jours de migration (Bénard et Labie 1998). Cette capacité d'adaptation naturelle du métabolisme lipidique permet d'expliquer à la fois l'intensité de la stéatose hépatique de gavage et sa réversibilité, dans des conditions certes extraphysiologiques, mais non pathologiques.

One of the passages (p.41) of the EU report now states this:

...this level of steatosis should be considered pathological.

while the conclusion (p.65) actually states:

Some pathologists consider this level of steatosis to be pathological but others do not.

So, considering one expert report says the condition isn't pathological, and the other says some consider it pathological while others do not again very strongly suggests the evidence is inconclusive.

Second, the complete quote saying the evidence is small actually reads as such:

Whilst studies of the anatomy of ducks and geese kept for foie gras production have been carried out, the amount of evidence in the scientific literature concerning the effects of force feeding and liver hypertrophy on injury level, on the functioning of the various biological systems is small

I would say concerns about injury levels and the functioning of the various biological systems are indeed concerns about the welfare of the animals. All, in all, I would then say that the quotes support the assertion that:

Scientific evidence regarding the animal welfare aspects of foie gras production is limited[2] and inconclusive[3].

I hope this puts this one to rest.--Ramdrake 13:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Your first quote is from INRA specialists, whose research is openly paid by foie gras producers; despite that, they essentially recognize that foie gras is a pathological condition, since that is what "extraphysiological" means, even if they go to pains not to use the word. The passage of the EU report p.41 that says the level of steatosis is pathological is the conclusion of the study of the report on that issue. The p.61 (not 65) sentence you quote as saying the opposite does not state the opinion of the Committee but that of other pathologists and is meaningless out of context. As for your third quote: it regards one limited aspect of welfare. The EU report states that it has come to a definitive conclusion: "The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare concludes that force feeding, as currently practised, is detrimental to the welfare of the birds.". You can disagree with that conclusion, you cannot say they didn't reach it. The EU report is not a source for stating that evidence is inconclusive, and your insisting on keeping those quotes is intentional statement of false information. David Olivier 16:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As everybody can see, after my comment an editor rushed to insert a "source" of the non neutral statement (and you all you can judge of the accuracy of his/her actions by the comment of Olivierd...) but did not restore my paragraph and gave no reasons for ignoring it. Why the biased statement should stay? Why my neutral paragraph, which improved the intro with a linguistic and scientific definition of foie gras, must go? Benio76 19:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To Homestarmy: I stopped editing the article to discuss here about its neutrality - by the way, the current version (i.e. the version supported by Ramdrake & co) is openly biased and to leave it "stable" fits to show the biases. But you wrote: the article "does look like its pretty unstable. However, if it gets more stabilized within the time of this review's archiving, I don't see why this couldn't stay a GA", therefore I ask you: does the reviewing process mean that we have to stop editing the article until the process achieve a conclusion or not? If not, obviously I will resume editing it. Benio76 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

These debates normally take awhile for contentious articles like this, i'd like to read everything that's been said here first, then i'll probably change my vote as it looks like there's some serious concerns here. I only voted keep for now because it was not delisted properly, but on stability, these discussions normally last quite awhile and then its normally about a week after it ends before the discussion is archived and the decision is enforced, so it seemed entirely possible to me that the article may stabilize before the debate ends. Homestarmy 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that a bad article can stay on the "good article" list litterally for weeks or months, despite a cogent case having been made for its being delisted? That does make mock of the idea of a good article list! David Olivier 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For some time, yes. It's designed that way so that a single editor can't run roughshod over the process. The main issue as I see it isn't stability -- it's NPOV. In theory, if you're right, the article should include your changes, and then be stable. If you're wrong, the article should not include your changes, and then be stable. The instability is a result of a disagreement over what is neutral. And the content dispute is really a matter for mediation, not for GA review. I do note some unrelated concerns, however:

• Some web references are not properly formatted. They should list "retrieved on" dates and page titles, at the very least. It might be helpful to use cite-web for them.
• There are way too many external links. That's almost a full screen of them. No need to have 18 controversy links, nor multiple FAQ links. Cut the total number down to maybe 6-10.
• The "Consumption" section focuses exclusively on France. Room for some expansion there, I think. (Unless it's the same elsewhere -- in which case, why mention France specifically?)
• The references in the lead should be moved to the point in the body of the article where the information is repeated. This isn't necessary for GA standing, but it is a style guideline FA uses, so might as well be addressed while the article's being worked on.
• I do see one POV concern regarding the lead specifically: "Along with truffles, foie gras is one of the greatest delicacies in French cuisine—with an 80%[2] fat content, it is very rich and buttery, with a delicate flavour unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver." I would refactor the sentence to something more like: "Connoisseurs consider foie gras one of the greatest delicacies in French cuisine and describe its flavor as rich, buttery, and delicate." (Truffles seem to have nothing to do with this article, and the specific fat content is better left for somewhere in the body. Shimeru 23:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Other proofs of the POV of the current version of article:

1. Intro.

The intro says: "Along with truffles, foie gras is one of the greatest delicacies in French cuisine". I removed several times the reference to truffles, which is superflous in an introduction, and changed the statement in "foie gas is listed as one of etc.", because defining or not foie gras as a delicacy is a choice by "experts", it is a convention, and certainly not a matter of fact. Well, this editing has been boycotted: the truffles thing has been restored, pretending that it "establishes the context", while the referency to the French delicacies is presented again as a matter of fact. Remark that Mr Ramdrake wrote that the reference to truffles is "relevant" and must stay in the intro. The same Mr Ramdrake said that the scientifical definition of the foie gras as fatty liver is just a detail which must not stay in the intro...

2. Historical section.

Sources. The article starts with a wide "historical" section about foie gras. The sources of this sections are highly criticizable. When I got involved in the article, the whole section was unsourced (see a 20th December version); nevertheless,the article was listed as GA and I see now that when it has been listed as GA, on 12 November 2005, the situation was exactly the same (see the 14 November 2005 version)- it is most surprising to find an article with a wide unsourced historical section among the "good articles" of WP... and to realize that it has been listed as GA for more than a year... Well, I asked for sources. And the section has been filled with quotation from a single source: Ginor, Michael A. (1999), Foie Gras: A Passion. I found that it is a commercially biased source (Mr Ginor is a foie gras producer): Olivierd and I alerted the editors, but they did not remove it and simply added other sources. Here is the information that I founded about these new sources. The only two people who seem to have some historical and archeological skills are Harold McGee, who studied technology of food, and Joseph J. Hobbs (author of the article quoted in note 9) who is professor of geography: but remark that these two persons are invoked only to source the first paragraph of "Ancient Times", about Egyptians. This means that the rest of the "historical" section is sourced on "food writers", "chefs", "recipes collectors", etc.: Katherine Alford is director of a recipes network, Alan Davidson was a "food writer", Maguelonne toussaint-Samat is a "food writer" and I found nothing at all about Ilaria Gozzini Giacosa. I think that these authors would not be considered as reliable sources in an academic context, but I know that WP guidelines about sources reliability are wider and would allow to the paragraph to stay in an "ordinary article". The point is, this section sourcing being really weak, is foie gras worth to be listed as good article?

Relevance. The "historical" section actually talks more about history of force feeding than foie gras: we are told about Egyptians, Romans and Jews force feeding geese to fatten their liver. I ask: shouldn't this section be moved to force feeding? Remark that when I asked the editors to improve the article with a description of modern techniques of feeding in the foie gras industry, such as raising birds in small cages, I've been told that this is matter for the force feeding article. The point is, isn't it because the "history of foie gras", with its legendary and picturesque elements, give a positive bias that the editors insist for keeping it, as it is, in spite of its inaccurancy? If a historical section must stay in the article, why is it that the transition from ancient times practices to modern times practices of producing foie gras should not be mentioned? If it is not to keep a positive POV?

Benio76 00:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Intro: I agree about the sentence you mentioned, as I noted above. I also agree that there's no particular need for the "scientifical definition" in the lead -- the French definition is already there, and the controversy appears to be reasonably summarized currently. It should, however, be in the body of the article.
• History: Not entirely sure of the problem here. Are you suggesting that the history provided is inaccurate? If so, what are your sources? Is your problem that it's a book commercially available for sale? That doesn't mean it's not a viable source. You complain that "food writers" are sourced, but for statements such as 'In 1570, Bartolomeo Scappi, chef de cuisine to Pope Pius V, published his cookbook Opera, wherein he describes that "the liver of [a] domestic goose raised by the Jews is of extreme size and weighs [between] two and three pounds."' that seems appropriate -- who else would you expect to write about the contents of a Renaissance chef's cookbook? As you yourself say, sources were provided when you asked for them. You now say that these are insufficient. Have you found any alternate sources to offer? Note also that a source does not have to be a "scholarly article" in order to be reliable; in this case, a "food writer" is quite possibly more reliable than, say, an English professor, because one is writing within their field of expertise and the other is not.
• Relevance: No, the history section definitely belongs. I don't see anything too POV there, though a word or two could probably be changed -- it seems to be written in fairly neutral tone, for the most part. If you're arguing it's inaccurate, I assume you have a source you're basing that upon, so you should use that source to expand the history further. Modern methods have their own separate section. Force-feeding methods seem to me to be covered; don't see why use of cages shouldn't be mentioned, though. An in-depth discussion of modern feeding techniques should indeed be left to the main article on force-feeding; a "see also" link could be warranted (see the main and details templates for two possible approaches), though I see there's already one in the "Controversy" section. I might recommend moving "Production" to follow "History" to maintain better flow from ancient history to modern methods; "Main producers" would then follow the "Production" section, which seems to make sense. Shimeru 02:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's not because it's the scientific definition that "steatosis" should be in the intro. It's because it's something people care about. People generally don't want to eat diseased organs. That may be based on a superstition, but it is not up to us to decide.
• I continue to think the history section is badly sourced. That an ancient author such as Pliny the Elder mentions something once is not proof that it was in effect so. If the only sources for the existence of force-feeding of geese in Antiquity are one sentence by Pliny the Elder and one bas-relief found in Egypt, that paucity of reliable sources should be mentioned. Furthermore, the "force feeding" shown on the bas-relief seems a vastly more mild form than that which is used today; no pipe, just putting the food in the beak. In that sense, all that ancient history of "foie gras" is largely irrelevant. (It is also only relevant to geese, while ducks, a different species, account for the vast majority of foie gras marketed today.) On the other hand, the evolution that has produced modern force-feeding - with a tube that goes to the stomach operated by a pneumatic pump, while the animals are held in small cages - is hardly mentioned at all. All that serves to create the idea that force-feeding is a time-honoured practice. All those stories can be found on almost every site that sells foie gras. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement.
• No, the techniques for force-feeding do not belong on a separate page. They are part an parcel of what an animal has to go through to produce the substance. They are the central reason why foie gras production has been outlawed in most of Europe and in a number of other places. They are not to be hidden away, no matter how much foie gras enthusiasts hate them being known.

David Olivier 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So, in other words, you're admitting you want steatosis in the intro because you want to influence readers (through telling them foie gras comes from a diseased organ) into not wanting to eat it. I commend you for your honesty in admitting it at last.

Second, several historical reconstructions of events come from one or two clues found by archaealogists and the likes (see for a famous example the Rosetta Stone which allowed the Egyptian hieroglyphic system of writing to be first understood). A reference to Pliny should be considered more than adequate, unless you have contradictory evidence. Science works by building on the best evidence available, and right now, the sources supplied are among the best. Until someone turns up new evidence that says those accounts are wrong, they must be taken as being the closest to factual we can get. Unfortunately, at this point, your arguments that maybe Pliny the Elder wasn't giving an accurate description, or that it applies to geeses and not ducks (not anybody's fault the practice changed over millenia), are unsupported POV, litterally specious arguments. And also litterally, if the practice has endured continuously for about 4500 years in one form or another without being decried (until very lately), then it is indeed a time-honoured practice. And if the same story can be found on several sites, that does indeed goes to prove it is verifiable.

Lastly, the fact that it has been outlawed in nine countries of Europe doesn't make it outlawed in "most of Europe", if you can count the countries of Europe. The controversy in the article isn't "hidden away", as you're saying, it is in fact so prominent it takes up about half the article as it stands. Even tobacco doesn't have as large a controversy section as this.--Ramdrake 18:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Ramdrake, you have gotten it backwards. You stated: "it can certainly make the reader think they are eating diseased organs, which is not an impression we want to impart on the readers.". Avoiding imparting a bad impression about foie gras is the only reason you have given for keeping that information out of the intro. As for myself, health arguments against foie gras are not particularly my cup of tea. But I believe that information should be included if it is verifiable, relevant to the subject and of interest to potential readers. Those are my criteria and I think they should be everyone's. Whether or not a piece of information will increase or decrease the sale of foie gras is not a valid criterium.

Your insistence on not including this verifiable and relevant piece of information serves as a good illustration of the special immunity the foie gras lobby has obtained regarding its product. Fried spider producers have not obtained an immunity against their product being described on Wikipedia as "a brown paste consisting perhaps of organs, eggs, or excrement". What would be thought of someone who came and claimed to have that information suppressed, or hidden somewhere and/or watered down just because "it can certainly make the reader think they are eating something ucky, which is not an impression we want to impart on the readers" (just to paraphrase Ramdrake)? I don't think such an argument would be warmly welcomed. But the foie gras lobby seems to have hypnotized people into giving it a special priviledge.

I ask foie gras to be treated like just any other article, with the same standards of NPOV and relevance. That is all.

About Pliny: The example you give of the Rosetta stone is irrelevant. That stone did not serve as a proof of how hieroglyphic texts were to be read; it only served to give insight into how to read them. The validation of that insight was precisely that it worked, i.e. that it allowed other texts to be read.

A reference to Pliny proves only that: that Pliny said it. In Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of who makes an assertion. If all that is said about the history of foie gras rests only on Pliny and on one bas-relief, then that should be make apparent, and the history section written in a less affirmative tone. That too would be uncontroversial for any article - except, it seems, for foie gras.

Concerning the number of countries that have outlawed foie gras production: yes, it is most of Europe. If you didn't catch that, go back and read the article.

David Olivier 23:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's again be clear on a couple of things: there are no objections to integrating steatosis in the bodyu of the article (as a matter of fact, it's already mentioned there three times). The objections are about mentioning it right in the intro. There are issues of importance and suitability that make the majority of editors not want it in the introduction. You will also notice that the repulsive part about the description of fried spiders (the one you quoted above) is at the very bottom of that article. However, since this is basically still a stub, it doesn't have an intro or any other delimited sections per se. I'm quite sure that whenever it does, that sentence will not be in the intro (as currently it is in a part of the article that doesn't correspond to the embryonic intro).

Second, the example about the Rosetta Stone and its significance is relevant; please check your history books if you need confirmation. And if you disagree with the history of the dish as it is presented, please present your sources that contradict what is in the article. You cannot contest a thoroughly-referenced section based on innuendo about the competence of its sources, or the relative paucity of the historical material. You need actual data that point to inconsistencies in the historical reconstruction.

And lastly, if memory serves correctly, there are currently in excess of 40 countries in Europe. How can 9 countries be "most of Europe"?

unfortunately you sound more and more like you're objecting to various parts of the article for the sake of objecting. This isn't constructive at all, and actually borders on the trollish. I would suggest you revise your objections in the light of all the evidence that has been brought to you.--Ramdrake 14:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Steatosis is currently mentioned in the article in three sentences that are each tailored to make that condition appear normal rather than pathological. But when the EU report's conclusion - "this level of steatosis should be considered pathological" - was put into the article it was repeatedly deleted by the pro-foie gras side. Actually even INRA specialists paid by the foie gras industry recognize it is an "extraphysiological" condition, which is a cute term for pathological. Any food item that is produced by inducing a well qualified disease in an animal would have this fact mentioned in the intro, because anyone would find it interesting, whether they are or are not interested in the welfare of the animals.

The information about fried spiders is not hidden in the article; it is not in the intro simply because it is not relative to the spiders as a whole, but only to their abdomens. It is the main information given about the abdomen. Since making the bird sick with steatosis is part of the definition of foie gras, and since it is an exceptional way to produce food, it would very naturally be mentioned in the intro if it wasn't that some people do not want it to be known. It is plainly a salient defining fact.

Concerning the Rosetta stone: if you have objections to what I said, please state them. Your contention that the weakness of sources should not be mentioned given there is no contradictory evidence is absurd. It would imply that even the weakest sources supporting that there is life on Betelgeuse Five count as valid sources in the absence of any evidence to the contrary!

Yes, there are currently over 40 countries in Europe; and some 30 in which foie gras production is forbidden by virtue of the ruling of the Council of Europe. Read the article. Why is it necessary for you to quibble over such things?

As for my objections in general: the whole article is filled with POV, misleading and inaccurate statements. I was asked to state some, and I have. Yes, it implies petty quarrelling, because that is what you and others have repeatedly forced me to do by not recognizing the obvious.

David Olivier 15:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you seem to mistake p.41 of the EU report for the conclusion; it is not part of the conclusion. The conclusion specifically states:

Some pathologists consider this level of steatosis to be pathological but others do not.(p.65)

And the INRA reports states:

Dans ces espèces, une stéatose hépatique physiologique, quoique modérée, permet la fourniture d'énergie pendant les jours de migration (Bénard et Labie 1998). Cette capacité d'adaptation naturelle du métabolisme lipidique permet d'expliquer à la fois l'intensité de la stéatose hépatique de gavage et sa réversibilité, dans des conditions certes extraphysiologiques, mais non pathologiques.

Again, two sources, one saying this level of steatosis may or may not be pathological, while the other says it definitely isn't. The rest, AFAIK, is your POV. The information on steatosis is not hidden in the article on foie gras; it just isn't in the introduction.

Concerning the weakness of sources, you're putting on the same footing the writings of Pliny the Elder, an established historian from Antiquity, with those of Douglas Adams, a writer of fiction. That's just plain wrong, not to mention bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Again, please cite any sources which contradict what is in the article. As stated earlier, many historical reconstructions are indeed based on a paucity of evidence but nobody questions them unless they find evidence to the contrary.

And please, I am referring only to those countries where there is specific legislation against gavage and/or foie gras production, which number nine or ten in total (out of 40+). The Council of Europe's ruling prohibits it "except where it is current practice", which subtracts a number of countries (among which France, Bulgaria and Hungary to name but a few) from your list.--Ramdrake 16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I quoted from science fiction, to make my point. Sorry you didn't get it. Now when I do find someone who seriously believes that life exists on Betelgeuse Five, will I be able to state that as a fact on Wikipedia, as long as no one finds contradicting sources? As for the number of banning European countries: when a country voluntarily enters an international treaty, that treaty counts as law. The number of such countries that are exempted in name of their having a current practice of foie gras production must be hardly more than the three you cite, plus Belgium and maybe Spain. David Olivier 16:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You would be able to state that as a notable opinion, if that person was an expert in exobiology and astrophysics. Now, Pliny is a world reknowned historian from Antiquity.You are comparing apples and oranges to try to make your point; that doesn't work.--Ramdrake 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Pliny may well be "renowned", that does not make him a reliable source. Otherwise we are going to have to believe things like this:

Above the Nasamones, and the Machlytæ, who border upon them, are found, as we learn from Calliphanes, the nation of the Androgyni, a people who unite the two sexes in the same individual, and alternately perform the functions of each. Aristotle also states, that their right breast is that of a male, the left that of a female.

That is from the same Natural History in which Pliny the Elder mentions cramming geese and sows with figs. The unreliability of the source should be mentioned.

David Olivier 11:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Intro: it is funny to see that Ramdrake has been the first to say - in the talk page - that the mention of steatosis in the intro would bother people:

there generally exists a societal taboo about not eating diseased animals. [...] By putting in the introduction that foie gras is equivalent to steatosis of the liver, we are making it sound like eating foie gras is eating diseased animal, which is pretty repulsive, and a rather certain way to make sure people don't eat foie gras. Ramdrake, 27 December, 13.57

and, just some minutes after, he contradicted himself:

First of all, foie gras isn't a disease, but a food. Ramdrake, 27 December, 14.29

It is clear that Ramdrake just wants to push his positive POV and does not even mind coherency! If the foie gras isn't a disease, I don't see why Ramdrake is worried about people's taboo! Moreover, my editing don't even say that foie gras is a disease! It is plain and neutral, it is relevant as basic information, it must stay in the intro. I will restore it.

• History
• Sources: it is evident that this article abused the qualification of GA for more than a year: this would already be a good reason to remove it from the GA list. But you want other reasons.

I already said that one of the "sources" is a foie gras producer (Michael Ginor): this means that he is biased and it is in his interest to make up a nice history about the assumed glorious history of his product. Since we have no proof that this Mr Ginor can claim Archaeological, Historical and Linguistic skills, independently from his activity, I see no reason to consider him trustworthy and I will remove all references to him from the article.

Actually, Ramdrake's failed example of the Rosetta Stone is helpful in another way: it reminds us that nobody can work on historical topics without having a good training in Languages. It is legitimate to ask if the authors of the quoted books are trained in Ancient Greek, Latin and Jewish languages. For example, it is said in the article that the ancient Greek poet Cratinus wrote about geese fatteners: did Mr Ginor and Ms Toussaint-Samat read Cratinus directly? If they have not, their books are actually not secondary sources, as requested in NOR, but tertiary sources: i.e., Ginor and Toussaint-Samat read someone who read Cratinus who spoke about the ancient geese fatteners. To assume they read Cratinus directly, we need informationa about their Linguistic training.

To Shimeru: the problem is neither that food writers books are on sale - academic books are on sale too - not that they don't write "scholarly articles", but that it is doubtful that they read directly the ancient sources they speak about; it's far more likely that they read others' secondary literature and that they took what they wanted.

Indeed, the following statement:

It was not until the Roman period, however, that foie gras is mentioned as a distinct food, which the Romans named iecur ficatum^[5][6][7];

do not furnish the occurencies of "iecur ficatum" in Latin literature: this statement gives no evidence of Latin writers mentioning the term "iecur ficatum" as a distinct food. Do Ginor and Giacosa know which Latin authors used ths term? and did they read them?

Then, the historical section established a direct and univocal connection between the force feeding and the word "ficatum" which meant "liver" in vulgar Latin and was the root for the words meaning "liver" in Romance languages. This Latin etymology was founded on a book about French language; I searched in an etymological Latin dictionary and I found another explanation. Concerning the Romance languages, I searched in an etymological Italian dictionary and I found a third explanation. Therefore, I improved the etymological information.

Then we have Plinius:

Pliny the Elder credits the Roman gastronome Apicius, to whom is attributed the sole surviving Roman cookbook, with feeding dried figs to geese in order to enlarge their livers

Actually, Apicius was almost contemporary with Plinius: I will readjust the statement to make it clear.

Finally, the statement

Hence, the term iecur ficatum, fig-stuffed liver; feeding figs to enlarge a goose's liver may derive from Hellenistic Alexandria, since much of Roman luxury cuisine is of Greek inspiration.

is an unsourced supposition, therefore I put the ^{[citation needed]} tag.

• Relevance

There is a wide part in the "historical" section about Jews' concerns about foie gras, concerning their peculiar way to slaughter animals. This part would be perfect in kosher. If the editors want it left in foie gras, well, they should better stop discussing the relevance of the controversy section.

Benio76 13:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Benio, I would appreciate your not quoting me out of context as you just did. The first quote was meant to say that foie gras was equated by some with a liver in a state of hepatic steatosis, which I believe you yourself admit. The second quote was meant to say that the expression "foie gras", both in English and in French, is meant to designate the dish. The condition that is akin to foie gras in humans is normally called "(hepatic) steatosis" or "fatty liver" (which is a cognate of "foie gras", admitted), but my point was that the specific words foie gras are AFAIK resevred strictly for the dish, and not used to name the condition.

On the historical section, Ginor is a foie gras producer and a chef, so he is indeed an expert on the history of cuisine, especially in his specific field of expertise, which is foie gras, in which he is likely to be more cognizant than your average academic historian.--Ramdrake 13:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Benio:

• You "improved" the etymology by rendering it into French? This is the English-language wikipedia; please provide a translation.
• The information to which you refer in the historical section deals specifically with foie gras production. Information about raising birds does not, unless it is similarly integral to the process. Bear in mind the guidelines regarding "undue weight."
• Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising. It is also not a forum for promoting animal rights. I would not accuse others of POV pushing while you are doing so yourself.
• Apicius was contemporary with Plinius; he is not a "contemporary Roman gastronome." Please be careful with your choice of words.
• Can you establish that the writers did not read the sources they draw upon? (Note that reading in translation is generally considered acceptable even in academic circles.) If not, on what grounds do you say they did not? Why do you feel they need to "claim Archaeological, Historical and Linguistic skills, independently from [their activities]" in order to have researched from such sources? Do you require archaeological, historical, and linguistic skills in order to employ sources to edit this Wikipedia article? Must you be a veterinarian to cite sources on steatosis, or a politician in order to cite the laws banning production in some areas? If you are not a veterinatian or a politician, does that fact make those sources suspect, because you may not properly understand them? I think you would agree this chain of logic is... stretched, at best.
• Removal of sources from an article without a solid justification (that is, evidence, not "I question them") is disruptive. I would refrain from doing so or threatening to do so. Shimeru 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Shimeru, first of all, please stay calm. Then, please read carefully before answering, or you will not catch others' arguments.

• Concerning the etymology, I repeat in other words. The "etymology" of the Latin word "ficatum" furnished by other editors was founded on a book about French. I replaced it with an etymology taken from a Latin etymological dictionary. Do you think that a book about French is more relevant than a Latin etymological dictionary to establish a Latin etymology? (it is not my fault if I could not find an English edition of a Latin etymological dictionary - in any case, I will furnish the translation). Is it just a coincidence that the etymology furnished by other editors established an univocal connection between force feeding and the word "ficatum"? Is it just a coincidence that they did not find alternative interpretations of this word, while I had no difficulty to find alternative interpretations? Anyway, here you have the first inaccuracy of the historical section: the established etymology was badly sourced and incomplete.

• The information to which I refer does not concern "foie gras production" but jews prescriptions about slaughtering:

Some Rabbis were concerned with the kashrut dietary complications consequent to overfeeding geese, because Jewish law prohibits eating a treyf animal. The chasam sofer, Rabbi Moses Sofer, contended that it is not a treyf animal as none of its limbs is damaged. This matter remained a debated topic in Jewish dietary law until the Jewish taste for goose liver declined in the 19th century.[29] Another kashrut matter, still a problem today, is that even properly slaughtered and inspected meat must be drained of blood before being considered fit to eat. Usually, salting achieves that; however, as liver is regarded as "(almost) wholly blood", broiling is the only way of kashering. Properly broiling a foie gras while preserving its delicate taste is an arduous endeavour few engage seriously.

While the information about the change of raising methods is directely relevant to foie gras production, because it explains "the recent increased availability of foie gras" and the fact that "Duck foie gras is the cheaper and, since a change of production methods in the 1950s, by far the most common kind": you can read these statements in the Consumption paragraph of foie gras and you can easily see that there is a lack of explanation in this paragraph. Why is the foie gras more available? What change of production methods does the article talk about? Do you agree that mentioning factory farming in this paragraph would make it more accurate and understandable?

• How do you interprete things like telling that foie gras is cheaper but not telling why? Is the adoption of factory farming method in the production of foie gras an AR activists opinion or a fact?

• Thanks for advancing my English. By the way, here you have the second inaccurancy of the historical section: Apicius is a collection of recipes dating from 4th-5th century AD which was traditionally attributed to an unknown "Caelius Apicius" and not to the Marcus Gavius Apicius mentioned by Plinius. so, the presumed Roman inventor of foie gras is not the author of the only surviving Roman cookbook. Is it enough to doubt of the accuracy of the source furnushed by Borgqueen for this statement? (See her 26 December editing)

• Well, we all can see now that there is in the foie gras Bibliography a book called A taste of ancient Rome written by an unknown Ilaria Giacosa who did not know that the only surviving Roman cookbook, called Apicius, was not attributed to Marcus Gavius Apicius but to "an otherwise unknown 'Caelius Apicius', an invention based on the fact that one of the two manuscripts is headed with the words 'API CAE' (see Apicius). Do you believe that this author read the source she wrote upon? Do you think that her book is a reliable source? Do you think that her book can remain in the bibliography?

You ask: "Do you require archaeological, historical, and linguistic skills in order to employ sources to edit this Wikipedia article?" Well, you can see that in the case of Latin etymology the editors should better have had more linguistic skills... But my remark was not about foie gras editors, it was about the sources they employ! It is the reliability of their sources which is under dispute! Maybe you are just suggesting that food writers' work of collecting information here and there is similar to WP editors: but the work of the ones can not be based on the work of the others, and vice versa! If food writers collect information from secondary sources, they are tertiary sources, just like Wikipedia (please see Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). You say that I must not be a veterinarian to cite sources on steatosis, and it is true, but I have to cite veterinarian sources about steatosis, don't I? I can't just cite other people who read (maybe) veterinarian sources! Do you think that a veterinarian section about foie gras based only on foie gras producers and chefs collecting veterinarian information would gain credit, just because they are "experts"?

• I gave a solid reason of removing Michael Ginor's book from sources: he is biased. See WP:NPOV Bias.

And finally, I'm still waiting for an explanation about why the mention of foie gras being affected by fatty liver should not stay in the intro, while suppositions about Egyptians can stay... are we not supposd to follow the guidelines of undue weight?

Benio76

All right, since you demand a reply: 1) A Latin etymological dictionary should provide a better source, yes, assuming it is being employed in a neutral fashion. I have no way of checking that, since I am not fluent in French. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the previous source was wrong; you have not shown it to be so, only substituted your own interpretation of which of several definitions was meant for the previous one. As something of a linguist, I also note that phrases (such as ietur ficatum) may take on meanings as a whole distinct from the meanings of their individual parts (ietur and ficatum), and so providing an etymology of each word individually may not, in fact, be the most accurate representation of the phrase's meaning. Of course, in this case, I have no way of knowing. 2) The section you quote deals with Jewish culinary beliefs as applied specifically to foie gras. It is not a treatise on, for example, the meanings of "treyf" or "kashrut." I still do not see the issue. 3) Are there sources that state that this is why foie gras is now more available? If so, add the information. If not, speculation isn't good enough. Simple. Any additions, of course, should be limited specifically to foie gras production and should not be a treatise on, for example, the treatment of animals on a factory farm. 4) Its adoption is probably a fact (although I haven't checked personally to confirm this, it seems reasonable given what I know of agriculture in general). Its implications may or may not be. Consider, for instance, the difference between the statements "There is evidence supporting global warming." and "There is evidence supporting global warming, and unless something is done about it, there will be widespread natural disasters and mass extinctions in the future." The first is fact; the second is not entirely fact. 5) No, I don't believe it is. The article said "to whom is attributed the surviving Roman cookbook," not "who wrote the surviving Roman cookbook." There is a difference -- the book is often (mistakenly) attributed to that Apicius. The wording could be clearer, however, and tracing the article's history, I see that it used to be: "Pliny credits the Roman gastronome Apicius, whose name is associated with the sole surviving Roman cookbook, with feeding figs to geese to enlarge their livers." It was not, by the way, BorgQueen who added that information; she only sourced it. 6) I think you've reached a false conclusion. If the book says what you say it does, then yes; however, I note that the citation to the book has nothing to do with Apicius. It is cited in regards to the etymology of ietur ficatus. I can see that older versions had a citation of the book at that point; however, it's since been replaced by a citation of Pliny, which leads me to believe that the citation was in fact for the Pliny claim, and not for Apicius being the author of the Roman cookbook. 7) Couldn't you? Isn't the EU report you cite a case of politicians collecting information from scientists and redistributing it? If so, then it has no more credence by your logic. 8) So what if he is? Sources don't need to be unbiased. To take a more extreme example, Mein Kampf is a perfectly appropriate source for an article about Nazism, Hitler, or even World War II-era politics and history, even though it's unquestionably biased, so long as it's applied to the article in an unbiased fashion. If you're contending that's not happening here, that's another thing, but "I'm going to remove everything depending on this source because it is biased" is not appropriate and counterproductive. 9) Oddly, I do see a notice of "the possible health consequences of an enlarged liver" in the intro. You're complaining because your specific wording is being contested, and that is a debate I choose not to further involve myself in. Shimeru 19:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Benio, if you want to remove all references to Ginor because he is biased, you'd also need to remove just about all of the criticisms of foie gras production, since they come from AR groups and groups that overtly want to stop gavage, which means they are at least as biased as Ginor.
• Second, please take a look at your sources on steatosis. Only a minority of them come from veterinary circles, with most of them coming from AR circles. So, there again, there seems to be a double standard.--Ramdrake 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Most of the criticism actually comes from the EU Scientific Committee report, from governmental and international bodies, and from national and local legislations. Furthermore, criticism is systematically attributed to the criticizer (such as saying the EU report concludes that force-feeding is detrimental to the welfare of the birds), while everthing lifted off from Ginor is stated as a fact.

• It is recognized even at INRA that foie gras is steatosis; and recognized very generally that it is a disease.

David Olivier 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Ramdrake, are you raving? Have you read "my" sources on steatosis? It is the INRA itslef!

Please, see my editing about steatosis: [2] and please read that the source I gave to state that foie gras is the result of steatosis is an INRA article called La stéatose hépatique des palmipèdes gavés : bases métaboliques et sensibilité génétique. Here is the beginning of the article:

Chez les Palmipèdes, l'induction contrôlée d'une stéatose hépatique par gavage permet la production de foie gras.

And here is the summary:

Introduction 1 / La stéatose hépatique de gavage 1.1 / Composition du foie gras 1.2 / Aspects cellulaires 1.3 / Facteurs de variation 1.4 / Bilan 2 / Mécanisme de la stéatose hépatique de gavage 2.1 / Particularités du métabolisme lipidique des oiseaux 2.2 / Effet du gavage 2.3 / Influence de l'origine génétique Conclusion

Go and look for proofs of the reliability of yours Ginors, Giacosas, etc. instead of wasting my time.

Benio76 14:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Shimeru, since your first interventions in this conflict you have passed yourself off as a neutral voice. You are not an administrator, and your interventions have from the start been strongly one-sided: "deciding" that the article was to keep "good article" status for the time being, claiming for yourself the right to reinterpret the Wikipedia rules, deciding that the article should remain GA-classified until it settles down, i.e. indefinitely, and openly defending the article's GA status itself. Now you call the other party "disruptive" just because you don't care to take the time to understand what they have said; and accuse them of AR POV pushing just when they attempt to reestablish NPOV in the article. Concerning your point above about sources: it is not up to us to establish that the foie gras enthusiast and producer Michael Ginor didn't read the primary sources. It is up to those who wish to use him as a source to establish that he did; or rather, to establish what those primary sources do say, since an openly biased and qualifications-deprived author such as Ginor is not by himself a valid source at all. As a consequence, references to Ginor's book as a source should be removed from the article. The foie gras page should also be delisted from GA status, pending conclusion from a review to reinstate it. David Olivier 12:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think both sides are being at least borderline disruptive and are pushing POV at least to some extent. Only one side, however, is here threatening to remove cited claims without producing evidence to back that removal, stating that entire sections of the article should be deleted, and comparing Pliny the Elder to Douglas Adams in terms of reliable sources. If I am no longer completely neutral, it is because I am naturally inclined to prefer the side that does not do these things, all else being relatively equal. This does not in any way suggest that there is nothing to criticize in that other side's practices, nor that I support them. I think, frankly, you all need to stop editing the article, go away for a few days, have a nice cup of tea, come back, and work out your differences in a reasonable fashion, and only then make any further edits. Knowing something of human nature, though, I do not expect this to happen. Shimeru 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is only one side who "threatened" to remove claims, because the other side actually and repeatly removed several sourced claims. Did you take a look at the history of the article? Have you read carefully this discussion? I put in the Intro this neutral statement:

The name "foie gras" refers to the abnormal growth of liver produced in birds by force feeding, which induces an accumulation of fat in the liver called fatty liver. This phenomenon has been interpreted as just a natural adaptation by some experts but as a real pathology by others.

sourced on a dictionary, an INRA article and the EU report. This statement has been removed with raving explanations, saying that foie gras is not steatosis, that the growth of the liver is not abnormal, etc., to which I answered citing the article from INRA (the French institute financed by foie gras industry). See above... and above... and above... (again, have you read this discussion?)

And you did not answer to my question: why this statement can not stay in the intro, while the nice fantastic tales about Egyptians can stay? And you neither answered to all the arguments I gave above to critice the reliability of the "historical" sources: actually I produced evidence, it is up to you to answer. Benio76 10:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; I was busy yesterday writing new articles. The response you request is above. Shimeru 19:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Benio, the statement was merely reworded and moved out of the introduction, it wasn't removed from the article altogether. As far as your contention that the history section has any errors with it, I'll be gald to correct it myself once you supply sources that point to any specific inaccuracies.--Ramdrake 14:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The actual quote which can be found in the article is as follows: force feeding induced hepatic steatosis in the duck or goose which was totally reversible"—"some pathologists consider this level of steatosis to be pathological but others do not, with hepatic statosis being linked to the Wiki article of the same name. I'd say that is pretty much the equivalent of what you tried to introduce in the introduction; the only difference being it was moved to the production methods section.--Ramdrake 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delist. I think i've seen enough of this thing now to change my vote to delist confidently. The article is currently fully protected, and although I can't see the banners on the talk page, the protecting admin says there's a mediation and peer review going on. The edits preceding the protection appear to be part of quite a fight, and it doesn't appear that it had slacked off since the time before the review came here, so the article clearly wasn't stable. I've actually read most of this discussion, (I was actually bored enough to do it :D) and I have to say, the accusation that the references are lousy doesn't seem a very well-founded one, there's nothing in Wikipedia policy about having sources being representative of the very top of the top of whatever field would cover the subject at hand, just that they are reliable, which doesn't demand perfect standards of reliability. You'll all have to work out what references are really best on your own, over time I think its likely more higher class references will pop up anyway, but until the article becomes stable, I think it'll be hard to look at the content from the history section and whatnot for GA status unless it can be assured that things aren't changing and being fought over so much. Homestarmy 15:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delist: While the article was originally delisted without due process due to an edit war, the edit war doesn't show any signs of subsiding, and mediation hasn't begun yet. The article, having been protected, in the version it is now, is reflective of this opinion tug-of-war which is also reflected on this page and on the article's talk page. As such, and given that the road to consensus may indeed be a long one, and that the article is likely to undergo significant re-writing as part of the mediation process. I think the honest thing to do is to delist it for now, and once the mediation has resolved the issues (hoping it can), to promptly seek relisting at that point, based on what I expect to be some significant chnages having been brought to the article. Right now, the article reads like it's torn between two conflicting viewpoints; that's not my idea of a GA, although I'll be the first one to say it should be able to get back to that level quickly, if some sort of consensus can only be reached.--Ramdrake 17:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, is this thread a new record for length? It is certainly in contention. Delist not stable. --Ling.Nut 15:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Special Relativity review might of been slightly longer if you count both reviews since they were back to back. Homestarmy 15:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the next step? Almost everyone now seems to agree the article should be delisted, but right now it is still listed. David Olivier 12:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if nobody objects, WP:SNOW could probably be applied here and the article be delisted, assuming nobody raises some critical objection to that within the next few hours. Homestarmy 13:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation has actually started on the article, so there is a chance it could get somewhere within a reasonable amount of time. I would kindly ask that you neither speed up nor slow down its delisting as a GA. I think it's important to follow process to the letter on this one. Thanks.--Ramdrake 14:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The rules (Which I did admittedly write :D ) aren't much in the way of a process, "a good rule is to not archive anything that has a comment less than a week old....". I mean, it was sort of vauge on purpose, nobody protested them anyway. Homestarmy 14:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So, I'd say a week from the last comment about whether or not to keep the article. I'd guess that would be the comment from User Ling.Nut. Is it too much to ask?--Ramdrake 14:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That can suit me. Though since the issue is that of delisting, it would be logical for the one week delay to start at the last "keep listed" comment, whenever that was. In any case, if there are further "delist" comments, they should not count as prolonging the delay. David Olivier 14:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Would someone please move ALL of the above to the article's talk page, other than comments SPECIFICALLY relating to it's GA status? About 9/10 of the above is a continuation of the talk page war, spilled onto an irrelevant message board.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would, but they're so intermingled I wouldn't know where to begin.--Ramdrake 21:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The review is normally slated to come to a conclusion tomorrow (Jan 16), and I suppose the whole discussion will be archived then. So be patient. David Olivier 18:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the content really needed for the talk page, it sounds like its more of the same from the real talk page. Many of the comments still refer to GA guidelines or something. Homestarmy 20:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A week has passed without any comments, so as agreed above the article should be delisted. I am going to do that. I don't know how to archive the discussion, though; could someone else do it? David Olivier 09:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Autobianchi Primula

Result: 4 to 2, no consensus

I question if the article fulfills two of the criteria. 3. It's not very comprehensive compared to other good car articles. 6. It should be possible to find some free pictures to illustrate the article. --Boivie 15:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and like most other Car articles i've seen, its written like advertising. Homestarmy 03:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: I don't see it as advertising at all. It is basically a description of a 60's car. Considering that it is similiar to an Austin Morris, it would be very difficult to "advertise" or "promote" such a car. As for comparing the "comprehensive"ness with other GA car articles, well, it is difficult to get English language sources for such a car (while it's no problem for the US-built Taurus or Town Car or a special exclusive car). This article will never get FA, but it is a perfect example of a short GA. I would note one criticism. There should not be a footnote to the Italian Wikipedia as it is not considered to be a reliable source. Unfortunately Bravada, the major contributor to this article (as well as one of the defenders of the GA project), is no longer around. --RelHistBuff 17:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep agree with RelHistBuff Balloonman 08:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove "while the coupé was graced"? Reads like a copyvio, although the source does not appear to me on web. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is a typical non-anglophone mistake. The French would also use "grace". Anyway, I just changed it to "fitted" and removed the Italian wiki cite. --RelHistBuff 08:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• delist not comprehensive. Sumoeagle179 03:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mickey Mantle

Result: 5 to 0, delist

Looking at the article, I find the lead to be relatively weak for a GA. Plus, there are no inline citations at all. I'm sure that would take some time, but until then it's hard for me to consider this a GA, but I wanted to ask others about it, since the rest of the article's good. --Wizardman 16:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am planning to do a major rewrite of the article once I get a hold of several books, but I agree with wizardman about the article write now, many quotes without citations and the prose is fairly bad in some places. Delist Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delist This article needs alot of foot nots to meet WP:WIAGA criteria 2b. Tarret 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delist as per 2b. (Note that criteria 2b has been rewritten. I believe it is in a stable state now.) / Fred-Chess 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delist, that major re-write would be helpful, the last days section in particular is written with a depressing overtone. Homestarmy 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Katie Melua

Result: 5 to 1 (the one was the failing editor), list as GA

This article recently failed a nomination because the cites were not standardised and the images didn't have fair use rational. Looking at the page, I can not see a problem with either. There is a minor issue with the images of the album covers as the rational on the images page is for the respective album articles, but I think the same rational can apply to this page. Philip Stevens 10:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

From what i've read of this whole publicity photos and fair use debate, there certainly isn't much of a consensus on either side, so I don't see why an article should be failed for having non-compliant fair use when the debate is still going on :/. While the form of citation might be inconsistant, having more than one form doesn't mean it fails to have "an accepted form" of citations, unless something else is wrong with this article, it looks like it should be Passed. Homestarmy 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The bio image is a simple picture that can easily be replaced. Hbdragon88 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have changed the the bio image. Hera1187 08:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Fix the citation format if you didn't do so already and you pass. The image rationale debate is an unholy mess and any enforcement of it would be unfair to the editors. --tjstrf talk 23:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The citation format has been standardised. Hera1187 08:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep.Sumoeagle179 11:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep.Rlevse 14:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Armia Krajowa

Result: ehrrrm, like 2 or 3 keep to 1 delist, it wasn't delisted.

Article have quite big NPOV problems. I tagged with POV one section, plus a lot of {{fact}} needing in article from long history, there are some doubting statements also. Really needing some neutral contributor to review this article and deliver his/her assessment. M.K. 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I agree that the article has some 'cite needed' tags that were added after it was reviewed; this is indeed a concern that needs to be addressed. However I diagree with the NPOV tag, no sources has been presented to dispute the single fact mentioned on talk that led to the addition of this tag to the article (the fact is backed by 3 reliable sources).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another note: We are trying to identify are the sources which contributor presented actually are reliable. Please see and article talk. M.K. 23:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I.e. the English book published by Routledge, and the largest Polish daily newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza. As far as I can see they fit WP:RS quite well.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Be a bit more patient and show more trust to neutral contributors who will review this article - they will asses all aspects of this article, including and provided source credibility in AK context. M.K. 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems not many people noticed this review, but it looks like alot more editing to the article was done, does anyone here still think there are problems? Homestarmy 21:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead is too short and does not summarize the article.Rlevse 03:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep lead could use expanding and there are two external jumps, but I'd keep it.Sumoeagle179 11:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep lead fixed. Rlevse 15:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Great Red Spot

Result: 7 to 1, delist

It's a science thing. No inline cites. --Ling.Nut 19:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it is one of the older GA which was added before we had a formal process. However you may do as you (or someone else) feels. Tarret 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is longer than the content, leading me to believe it is not a summary, and besides, by being older, this should of been one of those "Excellent Short articles" we were technically supposed to be nominating. This certainly isn't Excellent at all, and furthermore, it isn't very Good either, delist. Homestarmy 20:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention & it was warned by Agne too.--Ling.Nut 20:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delist.no cites, too short.Rlevse 23:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  GA does not have to be long. But this one could be expanded. For example, old theories about its origins could be mentioned.--JyriL ^talk 16:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per aboveBalloonman 16:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delist There's not even a list of references. --RelHistBuff 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hmm There was a request for references/citations three months ago, and none have been added. The odd thing, though, is that they (and a good deal of content) seem to have been removed right before that warning was given. diff between Sept. 19 and Sept. 27. Still not many inline citations there, but a much better article all around, and able to be saved. I'm somewhat puzzled as to why the change wasn't reverted. Will work on doing so when I have the time. Shimeru 21:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  Have done so via revert and re-addition of significant changes (there weren't so many after all). Article is in better shape. Shimeru 22:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Listed at this point. Appears to meet the science specific-information citation guidelines, if I'm understanding them correctly. Would request the above editors re-evaluate the article, as it is significantly better currently than the version that was reviewed. Shimeru 19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about this, the Mechanics section doesn't appear to be clearly referenced.... Homestarmy 20:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Believe that falls under "uncontroversial knowledge" in Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Might be mistaken, though; I'm not an astronomer. Shimeru 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, so where's the citations in the beginning of the section which cover everything? Homestarmy 21:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delist for now. Neds more references and could probably be expanded. --Wizardman 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist, not properly referenced. Not a GA issue, but there are too many images. Do the article really need two animations?--JyriL ^talk 16:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mario

Result: 4 to 0, delist

Someone has replaced all mentions of Mario with Jesus, this needs to be rectified pronto.88_fourganger

That seems to of been fixed, GA status is not revoked for vandalism :/. (That'd bump the majority of articlse off of the list quickly i'd think.) Homestarmy 02:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The "relations" section has an {{unreferenced}} section. The lack of citations in that section fails the factually accurate and verifable section (2a) and may possibly be original research (2d). Hbdragon88 06:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel the article as a whole needs more inline cites to retain GA status. LuciferMorgan 02:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

that one section definitely needs refs.Rlevse 23:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Odd, in that section now, there are references, what's the deal with that? Homestarmy 02:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, User:King Toadsworth put them in. It still needs some more, though. –The Great Llama^{sign here} 22:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Anton Alexander von Werner

Result:Delist 4-0

I don't know enough about the subject matter and available references to judge whether the biography could be expanded much, but what concerns me most is the lack of information outside a basic biography, namely analysis/criticism of his works and any influence he had on German art or culture. Quarma 04:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delist This article is very short... which probably isn't in and of itself enough to get it delisted, but for a supershort article I would expect exceptional prose and thought. This article is almost exclusively redlinks. It has wording that shows mild POV (Eg "Among his more important works must be named".) I'd like to hear more about why "chiefly interesting for the historic value of his pictures of the events of the Franco-Prussian War." And explanation of some of those redlinks and why they are important.Balloonman 05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No lead section, since there isn't actually any sections, therefore, it can't comply with WP:LEAD. Delist. Homestarmy 03:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delist per above. LuciferMorgan 18:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Invasive species

result: Delist 2-0

Since the merge with the article "invasive plants", the article focuses mainly on plants, rather than discussing invasive species in general. I think a thorough review work is needed. Gidip 15:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Erg, that looks bad. How was this merge conducted, what did the article look like beforehand? Right now, there's almost no wikilinks which in my experience indicates it hasn't been looked over much, the lead is far too long, the references almost all seem to be from a list given on the talk page with little explanation on how they actually reference the article, yea, this doesn't look good. Homestarmy 16:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Delist and add appropriate tags, also expand to explain other than plants. Tarret 21:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. Gidip 10:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Platform game

result: Remain as failed GA 4-1

This article was denied good article status based on its use of weasel words (I have gone through and removed these, and some POV statements to which they were attatched) and for questions of factual accuracy based on the way in which the article words certain claims of historical firsts. I feel that this is short-sighted and shows a lack of understanding for the nature of documenting video game history, and that the entry is ultimately the most factually accurate article on the subject, correcting many of the common misconceptions on the matter.

The basis for the questions of factual accuracy show a poor understanding for the nature of documenting video game history. Unlike common historical facts like, say, "the first man to walk on the moon" or "the first powered flight", there is often a great deal of misinformation and a harrowing lack of consensus among different sources. Because of this, I simply citing sources claiming that a given game is "the first 3D platform game." is not only insufficient, but more likely to be false than true.

The approach I took in making these claims was simply to find the earliest example that is well agreed upon as meeting a certain criteria. For example, I can find a dozen references that corroborate that Alpha Waves is 3D, that is is a platform game, and that it was released in 1990, years before any other games meeting those criteria. I cannot, however, provide a single source to claim with absolute authority that it was "the first 3D platform game." I could find numerous examples of sites wrongly claiming that higher profile games released many years later were the first 3D platformers, but I don't think that this supposes I should include information that is undeniably false simply because it is a common misconception.

Ultimately it is difficult to say with absolute authority that any game is "the first" of any kind without a comprehensive breakdown of every game to exist. The article says things like "The first 3D platformer was probably Alpha Waves," not because it is a random guess without factual basis, but simply as an acknowledgment of a lack of authoritative sources on the matter. There are many historical facts which are subject to a degree of uncertainty, and I don't think wiki entries should shy away from acknowledging this.

• List I does,in my opinion meet the GA criteria however I also believe that a citation which shows that Alpha Waves was the first 3D platform game would improve this articles accuracy. Tarret 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment:I just explained why such a citation is impossible, and also meaningless. If you google "first 3D platformer" you'll find hundreds or references to much later, obviously incorrect claims. But Alpha Waves is universally recognized as both 3D and a platformer, and it's earlier than anything else claiming to be such. Does that mean with 100% certainty that it is the first? No. There could be a yet even more obscure game out there some where. But it does make it a better article than anything else you'll find, and more accurate than if I posted false information substantiated by 100s of websites written by people who have never heard of Alpha Waves.

I DID, however, cite information concerning Alpha Waves date of release, it's billing as a platformer, and its recognition as such by others. This is the best that can be done. I did the same for Jump Bug, the first scrolling platformer. Most sites will claim Super Mario Bros was the first scrolling platformer, and I could cite that a dozen times over, but I know of at least 6 that came earlier, and Jump Bug is, by years, the earliest of them all.

Citing sources that arbitrarily claim a first does not make an article more factual. Establishing when it was released and how it meets the criteria is far more pertinent.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.183.1 (talk • contribs) 22:04, December 31, 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose GA. The article is not bad, but the lead needs to be rewritten to conform to WP:LEAD and the article is filled with debatable points that are not referenced. Neil916 (Talk) 04:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:Which points would you debate? The article has been extremely stable in that regard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frogacuda (talk • contribs) 20:32, January 1, 2007 (UTC)
    • Just pulling examples out of the "The single screen era" section as examples:
      • "Whether or not this game is a platformer is debatable, as it didn't have a jumping element, nor any ability to fall, but it was definitely a direct influence on the early platformers that would follow."
      • "This game also introduced Mario, an icon of the genre."
      • "Donkey Kong was ported to many consoles and computers at the time, and the title helped to cement Nintendo's position as an important name internationally in the video game industry."
      • "This title, along with Chack'n Pop, laid the ground work for Bubble Bobble, which, in turn, influenced many of the single-screen platformers that would follow."
      • "It went on to become the best selling game on the system, and was a breakthrough for the genre."
    • --Neil916 (Talk) 22:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Really. You would honestly dispute that Mario is an icon of platform games? You're being dishonest. Even if you hate Mario, he's one of video gaming's most recognizable figures, if not the most.

And I suppose you think that Nintendo first commercially successful game in the US wasn't a help to them? Because it clearly states that it did in the reference that was already there, which you clearly neglected to read. Or maybe you menant that Nintendo is unimportant to the videogame industry? Come on, now.

You're really using a bizarre concept of "debatable" here, if you bothered to click the pitfall link you'd find your answer to that one. By debatable, I meant is there anything that you or indeed anyone believes to be untrue.

If you read ANY OTHER GA article on Wikipedia it has statements like this which are simply intuitive and uncited. Look at the Personal Computer Game entry, for example. Also look at any music-related article for similar statements about influence.

• Oppose GA. Article seems quite POV even now, not necessarily for assertions it makes, but how the article overall is written. There's alot of "of course" and "obviously" sort of statements in there, which doesn't seem quite right. Homestarmy 04:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment:The phrase "of course" and the word "obviously" do not appear even once in the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.183.1 (talk • contribs) 19:58, January 1, 2007 (UTC)

"sort of statements" being the key here. "As is so often the case with gaming firsts..." is where the trouble starts. Homestarmy 20:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Well since the article specifically mentions maybe 6 or 7 such instances, I don't think an external reference for that is really neccessary. Jump Bug, Major Havoc, Legend of Kage, Alpha Waves, Geograph Seal... all moderately obscure games, all distant firsts. The phrase was thrown in there to make light of the ongoing pattern in the article. I will rephrase it to "like many of the other games mentioned in this article" if it makes that clearer.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frogacuda (talk • contribs) 20:41, January 1, 2007 (UTC)

Its not referencing for the statements I was concerned about, it was the simple fact that they existed in the article, and were not neutral. (Or wern't part of some quote or something) Homestarmy 01:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If it were not neutral, what exactly would it be demonstrating bias against? I find your statement confusing.Frogacuda 02:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• delist per Homestarmy. Sumoeagle179 11:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose GA I think Sumoeagle means oppose GA also obviously. Assume good faith from your fellow editors here they really are right in this instance. Statements like, "The first game of this kind was Space Panic." When you are saying something is the first of anything you really need a source. Even if things are common knowledge (or you think they are) you need more sources in the article because several times things are summarized without sourcing which leads to the question of who is summarizing. Quadzilla99 02:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I Not Stupid

result: Remain as failed GA 1-0 (only 1 person actually voted, but consensus was reached)

When failing I Not Stupid's GA nomination, ExplorerCDT raised three main issues: images, lack of details and poor writing. Here are my responses regarding each issue:

• Images:

When I inserted the screenshots into the Plot section of the article, all of them were right-aligned. It was Ryan-D's idea to "rearrange the screenshots for variety". If aligning all the images to the right, or even removing some of them from the article, will cause it to pass the "Images" section of the GA criteria, you are welcome to do so.

I re-aligned all the images to the right. Does that address this concern, or do you need some images deleted? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Lack of details

Due to systemic bias, finding referenced information on Singapore topics is considerably harder than finding referenced information on American topics. Findng 27 references for this article is a remarkable achievement.

In addition, GA primarily caters to shorter articles, and does not demand "comprehensiveness", only "broad coverage". For both of the above reasons, the article is written in summary style.

ExplorerCDT commented that the article "does not delve into depth concerning the extent of the satire and satirical devices". The "political satire" section previously contained more details, which I removed after other editors raised concerns that they may be [[WP:|original research]].

• If adding a few unreferenced statements will address this concern, without causing the article to fail criterion 2, I will do so.
• If addressing this concern will cause the article to fail criterion 2, I will give up on GA status, and leave Wikipedia.
• If, for reasons outlined above, the lack of details is deemed acceptable, I will focus on other addressing other issues.

• Poorly written

Although this article has undergone an extensive copy-edit by E@L, I agree that the prose still needs improvement. Is there a WikiProject dedicated to copy-editing articles?

Just found this: Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. Maybe someone there will be willing to help. — WiseKwai 11:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Which sections are well-written? Which need the most work? Are there any recurring mistakes? Be specific in suggesting improvements.

The Taiwan earthquake has disrupted my ability to access and edit Wikipedia, so I may not be able to respond in a timely manner.

I filed this GA review not to request that the failure of the GA nomination be overturned, but to post, and seek, clarifications on the issues that cause the article to fail. Depending on the circumstances, it may be appropriate for the article to be placed on hold for up to 14 days (not 7, because of the Taiwan earthquake), to give me time to address the issues, ultimately resulting in I Not Stupid passing GA.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There's nothing wrong here that can't be fixed in a week or less, IMO. The lead doesn't seem to mention the social commentary in the movie, and the resulting public dialog. The article does have some two-sentence paragraphs... all of which would probably take about 30 or 45 minutes to fix. I'm not aware of anything in WP:WIAGA regarding image placement. I found some promising-looking sources on http://scholar.google.com/, but frankly, it's looking OK already. In addition, I'm sure I could find untold numbers of good references on LexisNexis... Some of the online sources may be questionable... I'm not saying they are... I would have to look at each one in turn to see if it's too promotional, too blog-like or Geocities-like. At this point I haven't looked at any of them, but just skimming the reference section, they look respectable enough. --Ling.Nut 16:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Taiwan earthquake has disrupted my ability to access and edit Wikipedia, and school starts on 3 January. That's why I'm asking for 14 days.

While I know the prose needs work, pointing out specific problems would help me greatly.

I'll check out the sources on Google Scholar, and if any of them are useful, I'll add them as references. What's LexisNexis? If it does not suffer from systemic bias, I hope it will provide me with some useful references.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment — To clarify, I rearranged the images for two reasons - firstly, for aesthetic appeal, and secondly, because the initial all-right alignment caused the images to stack out of line with the intended associated text. In hindsight, ExplorerCDT was right in that that there are too few words to justify the number of images. I'm not sure which screenshots should be kept and which shouldn't, though you might want to take a look at the featured film articles at WP:FA#Media for ideas.

I understand your disappointment, especially taking into account all your work on the article, but like Ling.Nut mentioned above, it's not all that far from GA status. Take a break to destress and come back to work on the article again when you're ready. -ryand 06:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be lying through my teeth if I said I wasn't disappointed. However, ExplorerCDT raised several valid concerns. I filed this GA reivew to post, and seek, further clarifications, which would help me address these concerns.

Regarding the images, I don't see any stacking out of line in the version you linked to (perhaps your screen resolution is lower than mine). Let's right-align all of them again, before deciding which to nix.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• delist.Sumoeagle179 11:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I Not Stupid never was a GA (the nomination failed), so it can't be delisted. I'm filing this GA review to post, and seek, clarification on the concerns addressed by the GA reviewer. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems all want it to not be GA. Take it off this page now.Rlevse 14:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If the problems can honestly be fixed, it doesn't seem very fair to just delist it when the review is still going on, when the Foie Gras review started it was almost unanimous to keep, yet of course, as it went on, most of us changed our vote when the situation became clear. Homestarmy 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)