Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Charles Ives/archive1

message: *Commment. Wikipedia:What is a featured article? "A featured article has the following attributes" 2.b. "'factually accurate' includes the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations...these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations." Hyacinth 10:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *If that is the case then I can think of at least another 20 FAs which need to be nominated immediately.  Shall we just get on and do it?  Yet, only two weeks such an action was described as "petulant" obviously things are moving fast here.  Rules change so quickly one can't keep up.  If common sense is not applied sooner rather than later there will be precious few FAs left.  Some of the finest of the Wikipedia FAs contain no inline cites at all.  Have you had a look at The Cantos Hyacinth?  Giano | talk 11:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Those darn policies! :) But seriously, this page is for discussing whether the article Charles Ives should be removed from the featured articles. To discuss the criteria for featured articles please see Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article?. Unless you feel this article was listed in violation of the listing criteria (at the top of Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates), please discuss the criteria for listing an article on FARC at Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates. Thanks. Hyacinth 11:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is the place to discuss your nomination.  I just wondered where you are planning to take your reign of terror next, and giving you a few pointers.  You are attempting to set some precedents and should be aware of the consequences of your actions.  You have chosen to make inline cites an issue here, now we are discussing them. Giano | talk 12:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *"Attacking the reviewer" (or in somewhat more obscure terminology, ad hominem comments) seems to be common practice, here and in FAC. I feel most of my comments lately, which tend towards objections, are subject to the same. (This of course isn't logically the place for such a discussion, but IAR runs rampant so I am here guilty of following along. You can insert "stubbornly pedantic", from another recent "attack" on me, if you like.) As the author of the "petulant" comment, I was referring to nominations meant to prove a point and not to good faith nominations: there, the nominator clearly did not believe the nominations merited delisting, so why list them? To try to "prove" the same point being argued here, which boils down to: "Some FAs are above the rules." There is enough flexibility and always IAR with which to influence rules and outcomes in WP, so that if a small group (5? 10?) of editors together in effect argue, "This FA transcends current FA standards", they can actually use rules to make it stick. For example, a current FA won't be delisted without consensus (which is, more or less, unanimity) on removal. So, discussion in such cases is futile, and the intent of the process, to allow FAs to be maintained to current standards, is subverted. Taxman has identified 20+ FAs with insubstantial references, out of nearly a thousand FAs. What's the big deal with dealing with those, one by one, through good faith individual FARC nominations or "preemptive" article improvement? --Tsavage 17:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *See Wikipedia:No personal attacks, specifically "Comment on content, not on the contributor" which I assume also indicates that one should comment on the nomination, not on the nominator. I don't feel that I made inline citations an issue, "What is a featured article?" does. I don't see anything on "Featured article removal candidates" which indicates that my listing is inappropriate. It appears that the article has been improved, possibly to featured article status, because of this listing, and I don't see what is wrong with that. I do not see any similarity between my listing of (so far) one article on "Featured article removal candidates" and the murder of 18,000 to 40,000 people, and I am insulted by the comparison. There is a large difference between suggesting an action requiring consensus and commiting a massacre. Perhaps the suggestion of an alternative, rather than hyperbole, would help your case against removal better. Once that is done we may consider changing the "Featured article removal candidates" to indicate these more appropriate alternatives in similar cases. Hyacinth 12:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *One so far? What is this then  No matter. Oh the joy of writing a featured article and seeing that transient little star. So you are offended are you? - I've accused you of massacre? I can't be bothered to even explain the reasoning against a widely used metaphor - where did you go to school? Just get on the pair of you and FARC what you like.  Nobody owns an article so why should anyone care - I'm certainly beginning to care less and less these days. Giano | talk 19:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)