Wikipedia:Featured article review/Richard O'Connor/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 17:18, 1 April 2007.

---

Richard O'Connor

Review commentary

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) informed via email. Messages left at Leithp, Biography and MilHist. LuciferMorgan 16:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Message left at UK notice board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fails 1c, as there are zero inline citations. Seems pretty well-written, not sure if it fails anything else yet though, hence sending it here.--Wizardman 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Rather, I'd like it to be looked at and possibly delisted because it fails 1d with it's POV language. Let's ignore 1c during the debate (to prevent more people quitting) and just concentrate on 1d.--Wizardman 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, in this case, the problems with 1c are problems with 2 as well; see WP:MILHIST#CITE. Kirill Lokshin 13:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last part of that guideline is completely ridiculous. It means that anyone, no matter how incompetent, can demand a citation anywhere. How is that compatible with consensus building? / Peter ^Isotalo 00:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can discuss that particular point at our leisure, but it's the first five parts that are actually the issue here. Kirill Lokshin 12:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The intro could be reworded to be more encyclopedic and less promotional. Wandalstouring 17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems perfectly well written and informative. I see no problem with it. If other editors, as at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Restoration literature, have a problem merely because it lacks footnotes or whatever, I suggest they add them rather than expect other people who see no problem to do so. The references are all listed, so it is just a quick trip to the library for those that feel so strongly on the subject. Giano 10:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly a good point. Alas in my case, I just check the library databases and none of the books are in any libraries near me. It is very well-written, except for the lead which kinda sounds pov to me.--Wizardman 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fails criterion 1. c., listed at WP:WIAFA. If nobody addresses the problem, the article will be defeatured in one month'ish. LuciferMorgan 22:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No Lucifer, it will not. That is not the way these things happen, as you very well know. If you don't like the page - fix it yourself. Giano 22:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost on Cite-countitis

The whole point of this wondrous review process, as I understand it, should be to see if an article's QUALITY has declined over time. It hasn't. Except for some minor, mostly positive, additions/corrections it is essentially the same as when it appeared on the mainpage on Boxing day 2005. Go on, check the history and see. The only major thing which has changed since then has been the tumor-like growth of citation-countitis. When I wrote the bulk of this article, inline cites were not a writ in stone requirement...they were a suggestion and stylistic choice. But over time more and more started suggesting and doing it that it became derigueur...almost to the point now that many FAs and FACs suffer from deriguer-mortis due to over-citation. Is it really necessary for Half-Life 2 to have over 5 dozen cites?! Some Pokemon articles have even more! So Quality here now means verifiability which means cite-counts...all else has become secondary. Overtime this means all Wiki-FAs will read like a bunch of Ibids, which no one really wrote and no one really wants to read either. It is unfair to apply new standards to old FA's unless the quality has notably and drastically decayed. This is clearly not the case here. Wikipedia is not an academic institution nor a professional journal, nor should it put up the pretense that it is in anyway. Requiring every sentence in every FA to be cited will not make the project better, nor improve its notorious reputation for inaccuracy and mediocrity.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was reading through the LHCMA online source and was disturbed to find that the prose of the "Early life and the First World War" section in the Wikipedia article adheres quite closely to the LHCMA text. Compare, for example:
  • LHCMA: "Richard Nugent O'Connor was born in Srinigar, Kashmir in India on 21 August 1889"
  • WP: "O'Connor was born in Srinagar, Kashmir, India, on August 21, 1889."
  • LHCMA: "He was posted to Colchester in January 1910 where he attended a signalling and musketry course. During 1911 to 1912, the battalion was stationed in Malta, with O'Connor as Regimental Signal Officer."
  • WP: "In January 1910, the battalion was posted to Colchester, where he received signals and rifle training. It was then stationed in Malta from 1911 to 1912 where O'Connor served as Regimental Signals Officer."
  • LHCMA: "O'Connor's early service during World War I included periods as Signal Officer of 22 Brigade in 7 Division; Captain, in command of 7 Division Signal Company; and Brigade Major in 91 Brigade, 7 Division. In February 1915 he was awarded the Military Cross, and in March of that year saw service in the Battle of Arras, and attacks on Bullecourt."
  • WP: "During World War I, O'Connor served as Signals Officer of 22 Brigade in the 7th Division and captain, in command of 7th Division's Signals Company and brevet brigade major in 91 Brigade, 7th Division. He was awarded the Military Cross in February 1915. In March of that year he saw action at Arras and Bullecourt."
  • LHCMA: "In June 1917, O'Connor was appointed temporary Lt Col and commander of 2 Infantry Battalion in the Honourable Artillery Company, as part of 7 Division, and was awarded the DSO."
  • WP: "O'Connor was awarded the DSO and appointed brevet lieutenant-colonel in command of 1st Infantry Battalion of the Honourable Artillery Company, part of the 7th Division, in June 1917."
  • LHCMA: "The Division was transferred in November that year to the Italian Front, near the River Piave, for operations against Austrian forces. In late October 1918, O'Connor was directed to capture the island of Grave di Papadopoli on the River Piave. The operation was successfully carried out by 2 Battalion between 24 and 27 October, and O'Connor was awarded the Italian Silver Medal of Honour and a Bar to his DSO."
  • WP: "In November, the division was transferred to the Italian Front at the River Piave to assist the Italians against Austro-Hungarian forces. In late October 1918, O'Connor was directed to capture the island of Grave di Papadopoli on the Piave River. This mission was successfully accomplished by 2nd Battalion, and O'Connor was awarded the Italian Silver Medal of Honour along with a bar to add to his DSO."
  • LHCMA: "O'Connor worked alongside Maj Gen B L Montgomery, Commander of 8 Division, to monitor and control areas of unrest between the Arab and Jewish communities.
  • WP (Inter-War years): "It was here he worked alongside Major-General Bernard Montgomery, commander of the 8th Division, to try to quell unrest between the Jewish and Arab communities."
  • LHCMA: "In August 1939, 7 (later 6) Division was transferred to the fortress at Mersa Matruh, Egypt where O'Connor was concerned with the defences of the area in view of the massed forces of the Italian Tenth Army over the border in Libya."
  • WP (Inter-War years): "In August 1939, 7th Division was transferred to the fortress at Mersa Matruh, Egypt, where O'Connor was concerned with defending the area against a potential attack from the massed forces of the Italian Tenth Army over the border in Libya."
• Although there are certain tweaks to the phrasing, this basically amounts to plagiarism (this is why citing sources is essential!). Much of the rest of the article diverges from the LHCMA summary format and goes into much greater detail. However, it would be a good idea to check the WP article against the print sources (to which I don't have access) for possible plagiarism as well. Gzkn 08:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information you say is plagiarism. looks to me like reporting of basuc facts, which can only be written in so many different ways, for instance:

• • LHCMA: "Richard Nugent O'Connor was born in Srinigar, Kashmir in India on 21 August 1889"
  • WP: "O'Connor was born in Srinagar, Kashmir, India, on August 21, 1889."

I don't see how that could be written in any other way - would "While crying lustily ^[1] on the 21st day of August 1889 ^[2], in the little known ^[3] town of Srinigar located ^[4] in Kashmir a province of India, the small, pink but beautifully formed ^[5], Richard Nugent O'Connor made his first joyous appearance into the world" be any better of more encyclopedic? I think the same could be said of the other points you have found. There is a limit to readable encycloped phraseology of basic facts. Giano 09:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I certainly agree that it would be hard to write his birth in any other way. But I fail to see how taken as a whole, this doesn't constitute plagiarism. If you had submitted this as a college paper, you'd be kicked out. If you wrote this up and published this in the real world, you'd be fired by your editor. Gzkn 09:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn I wish I'd used that opening Giano! And thank you for giving me the first genuine laugh I've had on here in many moons:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that plagiarism isn't the problem for wikipedia that copyvio is - In fact, really as all we do is report what secondary sources tell us - all of wikipedia is plagiarism. Copyright violation is another matter. You cannot copyright facts, only verbiage - so if you've included the same facts and changed the verbiage then you're ok (I'm no lawyer, but this is how I understand the law). This article seems to sail a bit close to the wind on the verbiage and there are sentence clauses which need looking at, but the author has obviously gone to the trouble of rewording most of the sentences. --Joopercoopers 11:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, plagiarism isn't reporting what secondary sources say; it's reporting it using the same or very similar phrasing (see here for a good example of paraphrasing that is OK and paraphrasing that is not OK), which is what is done here. Also, I'm not sure where it's stated that plagiarism is OK in Wikipedia. If Wikipedia allows plagiarism in articles, that policy/guideline surely needs to be changed. Gzkn 11:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that site includes the phrase plagiarism is: "any facts, statistics, graphs, drawings—any pieces of information—that are not common knowledge." In that case when writing about the obscure people and subjects I write about - I can't even ref an obscure fact to a particular reference book - because I didn't discover the fact, and as "own research" is banned - looks like half the pages on wikipedia are going to have to be deleted for plagiarism. C'mon we need to get real here Giano 11:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you just, y'know, cite where you got the fact from? Plagiarsm doesn't refer merely to taking things from other sources; that's perfectly fine. It's only when you take things from other sources and don't credit them that it becomes a problem. Kirill Lokshin 12:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gzkn, I don't dispute this article has been plagiarised, I don't think it's a good idea, but as far as I'm aware there's nothing to prevent plagiarism on wikipedia - the policy relates to copyright violation. That's a nice link you provide for any student wanting to know how not to fall foul of a university/college/shool's rules - but wikipedia is neither of these. In any event the article says authors need to be cited if they are paraphrased - I see the reference is provided as no.1 in the references section. We just need to decide whether or not the prose constitutes copyright infringement. --Joopercoopers 12:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if we just cited that website for those chunks of text, are we getting somewhere? And Giano, I find it how you're so adamant about refs not beign a big deal when you could certainly take care of that as well. That's onyl plaigarism currently due to no citations, is it still plaigiarism if we add them in? Probably not. I think I opened a can of worms on this FAR...--Wizardman 15:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the issue of prose, which doesn't look to be a problem anyway, there's no need to cite this material to avoid plagiarism, of all things. The items you identify, like the guy's birthdate and military appointments, are obvious common knowledge. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't flatter yourself too much...all you've really done is start another tempest in a teapot...an all too common sin of late round these parts. Still, I hope it works out for you and your IRC buddies let you into the cabal for performing this lil service for them. You deserve eachother.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying above - could you rephrase? Giano 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article very badly needs inline citations. It doesn't look like it should be a problem article, since there are books listed at the end. Anyone interested in the subject should be able to cite it. Jay32183 01:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone interested in actually checking those sources should read them. Since you're assigning this task to other editors, I assume you haven't done as much. So what possessed you to assume that there are claims in the article that are controversial or difficult to verify? Not mere footnote counting, I hope. If you want to question fact statements you should have a good reason to do so. Blaming the lack of individual page citations without a specific reason to do so is not constructive criticism. Peter ^Isotalo 15:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any claim that isn't made to a specific source, which is every claim in this article, is difficult to verify. The general reader should not be expected to read all of every book on a subject just to make sure the article is correct. I do not count inline citations, but this article isn't even close to "Good Article".This article either gets citations or gets removed, end of story. Jay32183 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jay, I'd like you to consider something if you'd indulge me. If I pointed you to page 36 of a book where a particular sentence said erm ".........Jay vanquished all of his enemies, ate their livers and would regularly play football with their heads before retiring to bed with his supermodel harem" but page 35 had said something like "The pattern of imperial defeat and humiliation stands in stark contrast to the propaganda of the day, which held that" page turns to 36 "Jay vanquished........" - This is probably an extreme example, but makes my point - pages in sources need to be read in context, what comes before and after, affects what is written in the text and often whole pages cannot be read in isolation. WP:ATT and WP:CITE only ask that sources be reliable and facts verifiable, not that we should feed verifiers with page numbers that might not tell the whole picture. --Joopercoopers 11:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is why you would need to cite the page numbers for all of the information, not just some of it. The example you give shows one part of that being cited and the rest uncited. I would now have the ability to verify that statement without reading all of every book listed as a source. This is a general purpose encyclopedia; every user needs to be able to verify any random fact without doing an independant research project. Otherwise there is no point for anyone to actually use Wikipedia. By the way, the only way for the amount of citation this article currently has to meet FA standards would be to make the Tropical cyclones project to stop making articles, because they always use citations to the level the FAR and FARC regulars expect. Jay32183 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really. What I was suggesting is that pointing to specific page numbers might not necessarily be the panacea you think it is. Statements in sources often require context and for the purposes of verification, that context might be the entire book (horror of horrors!). Theses are established from premises and then tested - to dip into that at an arbitrary point might misrepresent the thrust of the book and so the whole purpose of citation - ie. verifiability is lost - the easy quick fix you seem to want is flawed. Anyway, thorough inline citations are simply not policy - why are you arbitrarily deciding that because a defacto standard has emerged from a small group of editors that are encamped at FAC and FARC that this is consensus of the community regarding policy? The policy wording is woolly I'll readily admit, the where necessary needs some definition, but blanket citations certainly aren't the spiriti of the policy. regards --Joopercoopers 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It does not matter how you rationalize it. The fact that this article has a significant portion of uncited text means it does not represent Wikipedia's best work. Either add citations or stop complaining that people are upset that they aren't there. As I've said in previous FARs and FARC, all arguments against adding inline citation boil down to laziness. The article can't be feautured and have people claiming that the article does not need to be held to the same standard that all the other articles are held to. Jay32183 00:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sigh, please read the policy 'complemented by inline citations where appropriate'. Wikipedias best work is thus not contingent, as you maintain, on inline citations. It does matter how things are rationalised, but you clearly haven't bothered to read or comprehend anything I've written if you can characterise it as an argument for laziness. Sticking you fingers in your ears and singing 'la la la' is no way to debate. --Joopercoopers 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Jay, you do have a lot of nerve in trying to brand anyone who requests a specification as being lazy. I think we need to be blunt about this: ¡¡¡M0aR N0tZ0RS!!! isn't amendable regardless how hysterical other FA authors are about footnoting. Go read up on the topic and get back to us when you can specify reasonable doubts. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • If inline citations are not added I will vote "remove" when this article goes to FARC. If there is not consensus to keep then the article will be removed from featured status. I am very familiar with FA criteria, anyone suggesting this article meets FA standards is clearly not. There are five complete sections that are uncited, which is ubsurd to consider for FA status. You should probably know that arguing against adding inline citations has never once saved an article, but adding inline citations has saved many. All FAs need to be held to the same standard. I can not be bullied into anything. This article flat out fails WP:ATT, because five sections of text are not at all attributed to reliable sources. If the infomation were harmful to the article or to Wikipedia as a whole I would delete it outright. There isn't anything harmful, but that doesn't mean it meets FA standards. Jay32183 01:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ok, well your position is clearly entrenched (and strident!). But you should realise that consensus is not unanimity and it would be a terrible shame if this article lost its status. --Joopercoopers 01:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It will be a shame if this article lost its status, which is why citations should be added. Don't kid yourself, it is one or the other. Consensus is not does not need to be unanimous, but one editor saying "this is a significant problem" out weighs a million editors saying "I like it". Jay32183 01:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • So then please point to that which you think is unverifiable or from an unreliable source. Your assertion that every user needs to be able to verify any random fact without doing an independant research project is a misrepresentation of the policy and so you just saying 'I don't like it' and I'd like to implement a different policy should also be discounted. --Joopercoopers 01:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • While you are having a think about that you might be interested in the actual poilcy formation that is going on here. --Joopercoopers 01:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (removing indent for spacing) Generally, any statement containing a number, including a date, should have an inline citation. I can get a lot pickier than that after this first step is taken care of. It's not worth the effort to add fact tags if I know no one will add citations. Jay32183 03:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the verifiability of an article is judged by what individual editors think is a fact rather than what actually is a fact? I'm pretty sure that if you had taken the time and effort to do research, just like the article author(s), and explained why you thought certain statements had to have a citation, you'd probably have gotten a few of your requests granted by now. Or at least a good explanation as to why they would be unnecessary or even inappropriate. But you've already decided on your course of action. Hell, you're even telling us you're not going to specify your criticism properly until the FARC and that you're seeing this as punitive bureaucratic maneuver, rather than a review of article quality. That "any statement containing a numer, including, a date" has to be cited by default is patently ridiculous and results only in layout disasters. It makes a mockery out of proper citation formats and serves only to add the illusion of increased verifiability. Peter ^Isotalo 11:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To your first question, yes. WP:ATT and WP:V both state this quite clearly. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true". When I write articles I add citations as I go, I don't wait for people to tell me they're missing. After a few times of not doing that, every Wikipedia editor learns that or leaves the project. If none of the military history specialists are going to work on this then I will absolutely decide "remove" when it comes time for FARC, which will happen because no one is working on adding the citations. If your problem with cite.php really is a "layout nightmare" then I suggest you leave Wikipedia to work on a paper encyclopedia. Jay32183 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for sharing your views with us Jay. Although those are views not peculiar to us all, I note that yours is only one vote towards acheiving concensus. I very much hope Peter does not follow your suggestion and leave as he is a valued editor here. Giano 18:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • When I originally put this up for FAR, I did it to see the consensus on where and when the 1c criteria should be applied, as well as if this article needs it to stay at FA status. I didn't intend for the war that it's turning out to be, with people threatening to quit. I mean, I've seen users who tag one-sentence stubs as unreferenced and whine that those need citations (which is going way too far), so I've seen the whole scale of ref necessity. I'm contemplating pullign this off of FAR just because it's clear that nothing's going to change on this article.--Wizardman 18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • One editor the author has quit, and it has just been suggested another does too because he does not agree with Jay. Quite a lot us do not agree with what goes on down here but we have no intention of quitting, no matter how hot it is made for us and the articles we edit. Giano 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If an editor quit because he or she refuses to use inline citations then good, it is beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole. If this article were not yet an FA and you submitted it to GAC it would fail. The article is at best B-class, I'm not even nit-picking yet; I only do that to A-class articles that already passed GA or an article with the people defending willing to do work. This discussion is showing that the primary editors of the article do not care to bring this article up to FA standards and would rather bring FA standards down to this article. That always results in removing the article from FA status. Giano it is seriously time to put up or shut up. Do the work or stop defending the article, because you are only wasting everyone's time with this piece of trash article that blantantly fails WP:ATT an official Wikipeida policy. Jay32183 19:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are the one who feels strongly that the work needs doing, so I suggest you prove your worth here, and do it. Giano 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not have the expertise in military history to do this article justice. The article will be much better off if it is improved by some one who is actually interested and fully understands the subject matter. In addition, if FAR regulars fixed every article that came through here, none of us would have time to do anything else. It's not really your unwillingness to do the work that bothers me, it's your blind defense of this article as if it actually meets FA standards that bothers me. The article doesn't meet FA standards and you need to accept that. It would be great if all articles were FAs, but it quality not quantity so we need to have strict quality standards or the overall quality of Wikipedia degrades. Jay32183 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My God... Get off that high horse and get realistic. There are no bloody FA reviewer privileges. You don't have the right to put down other people's work just because you feel like it or because it fails to please an extremely specific form of article referencing. Especially not when openly and shamelessly admitting to complete ignorance of the topic. We're protesting because we think that the FA requirements have become so narrowly defined that even a perfectly good article like this can be demoted by people who don't take article reviews seriously. Now if you want to put your money where your mouth is, why don't you come and try your fine skillz as a FA reviewer on the article I've recently nominated for an FAC? It's called medieval cuisine and is over 40k long and has less than 30 footnotes. Some paragraphs don't even have a citations... Scandalous! So let's put your sense of what FAC consensus really is to the test. C'mon. I dare ya. Don't forget to add a few lines to your objection about what a terrible burden my contributions to English Wikipedia have been. I'm sure you'll be quite the rabble-rouser! Peter ^Isotalo 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are flat out wrong that this article is anywhere close to FA standards. If the next words you say are not "I will start adding citations" or "I will find some who can add citations" or "This article needs a lot of work" then you need to stop talking all together. Defending this article is a bad idea. Your opinion of the FA criteria is irrelevant. This article meeting the FA criteria is the only thing that matters in this discussion. Like I said put up or shut up. You cannnot defend an article you have no intention of improving. I'm not nitpicking, I'm not counting citations. I don't care how many there are. I see numbers in the prose with no citations, which is a violation not only of Wikipedia policy and FA standards but of the Military History Project guidelines. I don't care what you opinion of me is, and I will continue to treat all articles that come through FAR in the same manner regardless of what you or anyone else, including Jimbo, says. Featured Article status is completely meaningless if the reviewers are not hardasses. So quit your whining. Jay32183 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since you're combining all that attitude with overt ignorance of the topic I'd say you're actually being nothing but a smartass. And I'm certainly not whining. I just asked to receive the full brunt of your hardassness at an FAC of an article that you indirectly consider a threat to Wikipedia (after all, I wrote it). Just be careful. You might very well look like nothing but a dumbass... Peter ^Isotalo 21:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost on plagarism charges

The other night I was on my way to thank Gzkn for adding cites to Sir Richard...I, briefly, thought the old wiki-spirit of we're all in this together had not completely died off. Then I saw why, he took the time and effort. Not to try and help a fellow contributor, nor to maintain a featured article, but as part of an effort to smear me with the tar of plagarism. Well chuck me in a Turkish prison and call me Essjay!
So this is what it comes down to...lying and fraud are rewarded here, while honest, good-faith contributors are slandered and persecuted. I recieved no monetary rewards or fame for writing most of this article. I merely donated my time and efforts to try and help the project and do some justice to one of the forgotten heroes of the Second World War. Instead my reward is getting wrongly accused of fucking plagarism! Let me ask you this, Gz, since you are such an self-proclaimed expert on the subject, and probably as close to being professional copy-editor in real-life as I'm a candidate for pope; If I were a smart lil plagarist, then why did I list and link the Liddell Hart Centre at the top of the reference section? That is a rather dumb thing to do eh. Moreover, if I had plagarized this article, wouldn't it had been brought up on FAC or when it appeared on the mainpage or otherwise long before now? That would make all those who read and reviewed it as big of an idiot as me wouldn't it? Unless, of course, there was no plargarism and you don't really understand the meaning of the word or have your own, personal, twisted, definition. I did change the wording and I did give my sources, just not in a form that the anal, pinheads who are running this project into the ground now demand (see above). Last I checked that's not plagarism, unless the godkings of the day have adopted some obscure new policy on it. And last I checked, Wikipedia is no more a publication than the writing on a chalkboard, an Etch A Sketch, or the graffiti on a restroom wall.
Wikiland has become a through-the-looking glass Bizarro World, where lying, fraud and destroying the work and reputations of others is not only tolerated but rewarded. Fortunately, I still live in meatspace, where I've been spending a lot more happy time since the culture of this community turned sour. Out here in the real world, plargarism is a pretty damn serious charge. One you'd better be prepared to back up in court, unless you want to face counter-charges of slander and libel. This is one of many reasons why I keep a pair of meat-eating attorneys on retainer. I might discuss this matter with them and decide how to proceed should this witchhunt bullshit clusterfuck of a process continue in such a manner. We could probably make a good case for mental stress and emotional pain and suffering as well. One of the many advantages of living in a college town (one which, incidentally does not allow Wikipedia to be cited as a reference source) I also happen to know a lot of professors with real, not wiki, degrees who would gladly testify in my favor, especially in light of recent events.
Now if you wish to construe this as a violation of WP:LEGAL and use it as an excuse to block/ban me or delete my account here...go for it. It will not make me any less inclined to seek a legal remedy should myself and my consul deem it necessary. If you wish to de-list and de-feature Sir Richard, then go ahead. I no longer wish to have my name, or even my initials and pseudonym, associated with this project. I'm quite sure Sir Richard would feel likewise.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well done to the FARC regulars, another FA editor unlikely to write another - keep up the good work. Giano 16:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, making legal threats isn't looked on kindly in Wikipedia, and certainly won't get you anywhere, as the page you pointed to kind of highlights. Secondly, just because one user accuses you of plagiarism (their page claims they have left Wikipedia) doesn't really mean anything. (I've seen far less civil claims made, and generally it makes the accuser look worse than the accused, believe me.) Defend yourself from such claims if you must, but really, giving oxygen to things allows them to breathe and sometimes it's better allowing them to die a natural death instead - let's face it, most people really don't care what Person X thinks of Person Y, and in fact, if anyone's still reading at this point they're pretty determined. Thirdly, FA conditions *have* changed since 2005. The bar has understandably raised as the community has grown - what was the best the community could do in 2005 can be bettered now, just as Olympic records set 20 years ago no longer matter in most sports. The whole point of FAR with those old articles is to get those articles to meet the new standards. This should not be difficult, and should be entirely possible to achieve in a civil manner. Otherwise, we lose two or three good contributors, or at best, they hate each other and won't work together again, and nobody benefits - neither the contributors, nor the project. Orderinchaos78 10:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the garbage spurted by Jay in this review? He actually considers the article writer lazy because he's not providing him with random and completely unspecified citations. There's not a single valid counter-argument of fact in the entire review! That's what most of the recent "raised standards" have lead to; run-of-the-mill ignorance being passed of as qualified and constructive criticism. Ghost has a very good reason to be upset about this careless, unqualified and overly pedantic review.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable

Above, I notice Jay32183 declaring that "this article either gets citations or gets removed, end of story", and that "all arguments against adding inline citation boil down to laziness"; advising Peter Isotalo to leave the project; gloating that Ghost has left it; and telling Giano to "do the work or stop defending the article, because you are only wasting everyone's time with this piece of trash article". I have two things to say to Jay:

• 1) Please take a look at the current version of the criteria--it doesn't say "where appropriate" any longer, and what it should say instead is being discussed at the Featured article criteria page—I hope everybody noticed Joopercoopers mentioning it above. It's surely of interest to anybody editing WP:FAR.
• 2) Please don't be so rude. Telling people (let alone a fine FA editor like Peter Isotalo) that it would be a good thing if they left the project is completely unacceptable. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Gosh, I only noticed this disaster area today. Another FA writer gone; another FA critic gone. Can we please try to stop eating each other?

I completely disagree with a number of statements that Jay32183 has made above:

"This article either gets citations or gets removed, end of story"

No, that is not how this process works. We discuss the article, some changes might be made, and then determine consensus.

"every user needs to be able to verify any random fact without doing an independant research project"

No, you should expect any direct quotations (yes, they should be cited) or facts that are "likely to be challenged" to be cited (i.e. inline citations "where appropriate") - are you aware of any?

"Otherwise there is no point for anyone to actually use Wikipedia"

Of course there is - an editor has read the sources, decided what is important, and written the article - that is why you read any encyclopedia rather than resorting directly to the primary and secondary sources.

"all arguments against adding inline citation boil down to laziness"

What an insult to the careful editors who spend time and trouble deciding which facts have to be cited and which don't, to create an article that is appropriately cited and also not littered with distracting superscript footnotes or parentheses.

"The article can't be feautured and have people claiming that the article does not need to be held to the same standard that all the other articles are held to"

I would suggest that the standard is not what you (and many other people) think it is.

"If there is not consensus to keep then the article will be removed from featured status"

No, it will only be removed if there is consensus to remove it. That is how this page has always worked.

"If there is not consensus to keep then the article will be removed from featured status"

No. That is not how the process works. (Are you familiar with recent FAR/FARC discussions on similar articles? This conversation is not new.)

"one editor saying "this is a significant problem" out weighs a million editors saying "I like it"."

No. This suggests that you are not aware of how FAR/FARC works.

"any statement containing a number, including a date, should have an inline citation"

What, "William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066"? "1+1=2"? "Half of 10 is 5"?

"every Wikipedia editor learns [to add citations as they write] or leaves the project"

<raises hand> I have written a substantial number of articles without adding citations as I write, and I am still here. Are you inviting me to find the door?

"If your problem with cite.php really is a "layout nightmare" then I suggest you leave Wikipedia to work on a paper encyclopedia"

Harvard citations, or indeed any other form of citation, is jsut as valid as cite.php. As it happens, I rather like cite.php, where it is appropriate, but it has its place.

"If an editor quit because he or she refuses to use inline citations then good, it is beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole"

What an outrageous statement. Are you seriously telling me that we are better off in the absence of the creators of featured content from before a requirement for appropriate inline citations was added to WP:WIAFA? If only editors of the calibre of Lord Emsworth and Filiocht were still active.

"This discussion is showing that the primary editors of the article do not care to bring this article up to FA standards and would rather bring FA standards down to this article. That always results in removing the article from FA status."

Well, the author and several others think that this article meets the featured article criteria, or at least does not fail the criteria to the extent that you are claiming (I think Kirill Lokshin has made some good points below, but it is notable that he is not demanding citations of every number, date, fact, dot, comma, jot and tittle).

"You cannnot defend an article you have no intention of improving."

Just watch. You clearly feel able to attack an article you have no intention of improving.

"I'm not counting citations. I don't care how many there are."

Really? I thought you were complaining that there were not enough?

As for the jibe that this is a "this piece of trash article" - well, honestly. Compare this article to what you see after hitting the random article button. Trash? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I maintain all of those statements. If you can't accept that, too bad. I can provide further explanation if you are confused, but everything I said is 100% true. Jay32183 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think ALoan is confused at all, perhaps as an editor who makes frequent main space edits perhaps he feels a greater empathy and understanding for an article and its author than you do and as such is better placed to comment than you are. You seem to delight in telling respected contributing editors they are not needed, but your own writing [1]seems to show a certain lack of experience. Please when addressing such editors in the future could you adopt a more polite tone. Thank you Giano 19:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You maintain that they are all 100% true? So FAR operates by some process other than consensus? [how exactly?] Every statement in every article needs a footnote? [no] All authors who oppose carpet-bombing of footnotes are lazy? [no] Everyone who does not like cite.php should leave? [no] Every editor must comply with the current vogue for footnotes, or leave? [no]

Perhaps you should explain further, because I must be "confused". -- ALoan (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one burden of evidence falls on those trying to add or keep, not those trying to remove. FAR does operate on consensus, but unlike RM and no consesnus is not maintain the current situation, because to be an FA requires consensus in the first place. All encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source, which no one can confirm unless it is attributed. I'm practically quoting WP:ATT and WP:V which is weird since I've been told I've never read them. I feel insulted being told to take a more polite tone with "respected" editors, since editors who do not wish to cite their sources deserve no respect as an editor becuase they are completely unreliable, regardless of how much respect they deserve as people. Jay32183 20:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we agree that FAR (and FARC) operate on consensus. Now, the question is, what happens if there is no consensus? I will gladly be corrected, but, in the past, in cases where there has been no consensus, the status quo ante has prevailed - that is, articles that are featured remain so. The purpose of a FAR is to examine an article and determine, by consensus, whether its featured status should be stripped or not (the point being that, to be "featured" in the first place, it had to obtain near-unanimity at FAC in the first place). FAR is not FAC; neither is FARC.

I am not sure if legalistic concepts like the "burden of evidence" are helpful, but there is clearly an initial burden on those seeking to remove a an article's "featured" status to identify areas where an article fails to meet the featured article criteria - an evidential burden, if you will. The question is then whether those objections are justified or not, and what should be done about them.

I hope you will agree that, as is apparent, there is a legitimate dispute regarding the extent to which inline citations are required to provide verifiability and attribution. This article clearly has sources, and I have no reason to doubt that the sources support the text; indeed, I have yet to see anyone saying that the text is wrong (quite the opposite: some are saying that the text follows some sources too closely). What is the purpose of inline citations, in this case? To demonstrate that the editor has read the sources?

I don't see how describing an article like this as "trash", or calling editors who disagree with you "lazy", or telling them to leave, helps very much. Nor do I see much support for your rather extreme position that every jot and tittle requires a specific citation. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My assessment of this article stands. It has five sections of unattributed text. That text either needs to be attributed or deleted. Here is a direct quote from WP:ATT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." Jay32183 20:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jay, let's get started on deleting 90% of Wikipedia. Where would you like to begin? Biennial plant is as good a place as any. After wiping that one out (except for the last sentence, it's got a footnote), you could do Analgesic. Keep working on your uncited text deletions until you get blocked. You'll no doubt defend yourself as the paragon of the WP:ATT policy, but you'll also have gone completely over the edge. There are a lot of excellent editors here expressing concern with your black and white approach, and I agree with them. FAR/C is declining because of this blindfolded approach in which editors with no substantive article commentary keep a) nominating fine articles, and b) pushing their favorite policy outside of any context (citation policy does have a context). I have followed this FAR with (sad) interest, and even though we've seen two editors leave during this FAR (one for reasons I can't assume, but...), you're still going with this "my way or the highway" talk. You're only decreasing the chance of having anyone improve this article, as I doubt they'd want their contributions to be seen as placating you. If this comes off as offensive, I only intend it to be as offensive as your comments here, summarized by ALoan above. –Outriggr § 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking FAs here. They have to be perfect, which means everything is cited, no excuses. Jay32183 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who ever said that FAs have to be perfect? WP:WIAFA makes no such demand - just that it "exemplifies our very best work" - and, as Wikipedia:The perfect article, says that it "may not be attainable". Kindly nominate any one FA that you think is perfect, and I will give you a list of faults (although hopefully only minor ones) as long as your arm.

Thank you for your quotation from WP:ATT. It may help to remember that policies and guidelines are descriptive, derived from community consensus, not impose in a prescriptive manner, and that they should be read purposively, not in a legalistic manner. This quotation is quite a good example of what someone else said above - like any quotation, it needs to be read it in context:

Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.

"The material" here clearly refers back to the "material" mentioned in the previous sentence, being "quotations and ... any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". I agree, quotations should be specifically cited, as should material that is "likely to be challenged" (these are occasions when it is "appropriate" to add specific citations). But I still don't see which statements in this article you think are "likely to be" challenged - what evidence do you have that any of them are wrong? You have simply traduced the whole article.

And I still don't understand how you can maintain that all of those statements above are 100% correct. Perhaps that was just a rhetorical flourish, but I don't think it helps the discussion. I find the opinion that editors who don't agree with you should leave particularly offensive. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's perhaps best if we leave Jay to find his way back to earth on his own; our help is clearly unwelcome. Can we satisfy Kirril's concerns without Ghost and are they all reasonable? --Joopercoopers 10:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing you guys. Five sections of unattributed text is unacceptable in an FA. Kirill pointed out several sentences that need citations because they are pure speculation without them. I don't care if a statement is likely to be challenged. I did mention before that I was deleting the information because it was unharmful, but that does not excuse your unwillingness to cite the article. The only excuse I've seen you guys give for not wanting to add them is that it will clutter up the page. If you guys really think that being pretty is more important than being well sourced then there is something seriously wrong with you. Why can't you guys accept that the article needs work. I'd have added fact tags if there was some one here willing to take them seriously. I will admit that this isn't the worst article to come through here and that this article is sourced well enough to pass AFD with flying colors. Read some of the hurricane and tropical cyclone articles, then you'll see how inline citations are supposed to be used. You also need to remember that "surprising" does not just refer to "I assumed the opposite of that was true" but also to "I didn't know that at all". I'm sure if you asked a bunch of random people about details in this article one of the most common responces would be "Who's Richard O'Conner?" especially after leaving the UK. Don't forget that the US, Canada, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand all speak English and have as much right to know where the information is coming from as those in the UK. Be careful about what you deem "common knowledge", just because you knew it doesn't mean anyone else did. Jay32183 18:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have one more crack at this for you....."Five sections of unattributed text is unacceptable in an FA" is simply incorrect, 'citations where appropriate' is the policy it is quite possible that citations are not appropriate in those five sections. Running around wikipedia, making up your own rules against consensus is starting to look like disruption - you might want to consider this policy though "Users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies may be blocked if there is a consensus among uninvolved users that it is necessary" from WP:BLOCK. But as you don't seem interested in reading WP:ATT I don't imagine the blocking policy is any more chastening to your zeal. --Joopercoopers 19:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accusing me of having not read WP:ATT. The reason the "where appropriate" is being removed is so people stop whining when they're told to add them, that's the biggest problem with discussions like this. You never realize this discussion has happened many times and the people saying citations are not necessary have lost everytime because their points are in direct contradiction with policy. Most of the things you're telling me I am wrong about are written directly in WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:NOR. This article is written as orignal research and does not maintain a neutral point of view, simply because it is uncited. I'm glad you don't work for a journal, cause you'd have been fired for presenting this attitude to your fact checkers. There are zero valid reasons to be against adding citations. Did you know people can be blocked for continually adding material without citing sources? Jay32183 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all there - present and correct - what you are arguing about are the special instances when the text says something so surprising that we need to be sure it is accurate. In those circumstances, it is appropriate to add citations to ease the fact checking process, otherwise - read the reference work. --Joopercoopers 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look JC you are wasting your time here now Jay is just being facetious. The page is now referenced to and beyond the standards required. Please stop banging your head against a brick wall. The reasons given for nominating this page here have been more than met. I'm now looking for other motives here - I can't imagine there are any but there does seem to be a vindictive air about the place, but then there always has been at FARC. Giano 20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still no where near the standards for GA. FA is stricter than GA. You need citations in those five sections. Still, no valid reason has been given as to why the article does not need citations. Jay32183 20:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back on track

As enjoyable as the general philosophical debate here may be for some of the participants, why don't we get back to discussing the specifics of the article? ;-)

Ignoring, even, the question of citing statistics (although, broadly speaking, there's rarely such a thing as an undisputed casualty count), the article has a serious problem with presenting subjective qualitative judgements and opinions as fact, omitting even the expedient of citing them to the specific historians who are presumably their source. Some of the more flagrant examples:

• "Though arguably one of the finest generals of WWII, O'Connor's modest, unassuming manner has caused historians to overlook him in favour of more flamboyant figures."

Kirill, I'll see what I can do to satisfy your concerns tonight regarding this, but I'm of the opinion that citations should be provided where the article is likely to surprise the average adult reader. Given that the online reference says "The life of O'Connor is usefully described in The 'Forgotten Victor' by John Baynes" I think it's reasonable to assume this statement is correct. --Joopercoopers 10:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Yet for demonstrating a dignity, courage and character which extended well beyond the battlefield,..."

Reworded

• "The British, however, were better trained, better led, had (for the most part) better weapons and equipment and greater mobility."
• "O'Connor intended to use all these advantages to the utmost."
• "What followed was a masterpiece of manoeuvre, concentration of forces, firepower, and combined arms."
• "a remarkable military achievement and a true British blitzkrieg."
• "he responded in his usual modest, unassuming manner, 'I suppose one could characterise it as a complete victory.'" (an uncited quote, to boot)
• "In a grand strategic sense, however, the victory of Operation Compass was not yet complete."
• "a formidable foe under a commander whose brilliance, resourcefulness, and daring would prove a worthy match"
• "a virtual Club Med for senior allied prisoners"
• "O'Connor proved more than up to the task"
• "Such actions, if taken, might have bypassed the main German defences which had bogged down XXX Corps, and could have salvaged Market Garden, saved thousands of lives and shortened the war in Europe by weeks or months."

(Avoiding things such as these is essentially the thrust of point 4 of WP:MILHIST#CITE, for anyone that cares; but I would hope that the problem is obvious even without reference to any formal guideline.)

The article is at some points more hagiography (even if, perhaps, justified hagiography) than serious encyclopedic assessment. It may indeed be that the consensus of historians on the topic is that O'Connor was a great military genius; but, even if it is, the reader really has no way of knowing that the opinions given in the article are those of actual historians if this is not indicated explicitly in the text. Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with your assessment of those statements. Jay32183 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how do you feel about my assessment of your input, just above, Jay? Bishonen | talk 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • I don't care, and I'm confused as to why you think this is keeping on track when it has nothing to do with the state of the article relative to the guidelines of FAs or relevant WikiProjects. Jay32183 22:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Jay it may be a good idea if you forget the FARC pages for a while, and returned to basics etc. You will find some useful advice and information here [2]. You semed to be very confused over what constitutes a good page, or even what is currently meeting the criteria for a FA. I can't fix this page, because it is not my subject and I have never edited it. You are obviously far more wise and more caring about it than me, so when you have brushed up on criteria etc I'm sure you will be able to do a fine job in making meet your own exacting standards. Good luck. Giano 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a good page is debatable, wouldn't everyone agree? LuciferMorgan 22:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to that, LuciferMorgan, and hope we can return the focus to the problematic statements that Kirill pointed out above. Instead of attacking each other. Jay32183 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please come up with some detailed criticism of your own from now on, Jay. You going "what he said!" after all those remarkably insolent invectives (even though you hadn't said a peep about any of the points raised by Kirill) doesn't exactly smooth things over. Peter ^Isotalo 23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did say I would go into more detail after you cited all the statistical information, which includes dates. You shouldn't need me to point you to it. Kirill's assessment is just a starting point as well. If that doesn't get done there's no point in delving deeper. Now stop attacking me and either work on the article or help others find what parts of the article need work. Jay32183 23:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KETTLE, Jay. That being said, Kirill makes a great point, I'd say forget about the citations and let's concentrate on that language first.--Wizardman 23:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Kirill makes a curious point, I just wonder where the page has changed since Kirill made this comment here [3] and if he felt it was so awful why not say so then instead of making it a featured article over on his War Portal. Giano 10:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The portal's featured article queue isn't meant to second-guess the featured article process; if an article achieves FA status, it's eligible to get put into the queue, regardless of my personal opinion of it. This article had just recently been promoted at the time I made that comment. (And, of course, the general attitude concerning inline citations was a bit different then, due in part to the difficulty in actually setting up footnotes correctly before cite.php was introduced.)

But you weren't asking just out of idle curiosity, were you? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wording is a little unusual in places, "cut a swath" is ok, but "gobbling up strongpoint after strongpoint ". Can strongpoints be gobbled? Could do with citations for paragraphs like:

  "In two months, the XIII Corps/Western Desert Force had advanced over 800 miles (1,300 km), destroyed an entire Italian army of ten divisions, taken over 130,000 prisoners, 400 tanks and 1,292 guns at the cost of 500 killed and 1,373 wounded - a remarkable military achievement and a true British blitzkrieg."

  - Francis Tyers · 08:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind such wording if it was made clear that it is the opinion of a historian and for this reason a direct quote from a source. As far as citation goes, the problem is not about citing everything, but using page numbers to cite at every spot of the article. If you do want to verify the statements in an article you usually have to read the complete chapter, except for numbers and direct quotes. I suggest to add some references at the end of each chapter where it is listed which chapters of the books in the bibliography can be used to verify the presented information. This boils the whole footnoting issue down to a requirement of 25 notes. Wandalstouring 13:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns were lack of citations (1c) and POV language (1d). Marskell 11:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 17:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove no actions being taken to remedy problems with 1c and 1d. Jay32183 17:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the peer review script the article also has some issues with 1a, by not sticking to only British spellings. Jay32183 06:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you specify any of those inconsistencies? Peter ^Isotalo 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. Even ignoring 1c, no attempt was made to remedy 1d (except for adding an accuracy disputed tag...)--Wizardman 18:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not going to bother voicing further opinions here, presumably this is an example of giving "FACers a dreaded fright" as described by the regulars here [4] Anyone currently with a page on FAC should take note because "Mark my words; January through March 2007 (Tony's absence) will be key FA nom dates for future FARs ".................yuk! I think I shall go back upstairs and stay there. Giano 23:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove, unless citations are added.--Yannismarou 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold your horses I'm going to have a go at proofreading the article tonight and see if I can smooth out the glorifying passages, but we certainly have not had any proper discussion as to how the article is in violation of 1c. Could the editors voting to remove because of lack of citations please specify their demands? What fact statements are in doubt and why? Peter ^Isotalo 16:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are {{fact}} tags in the article. They were there before this moved from FAR to FARC. Jay32183 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't suppose anyone has a reason to contest either the quotes of figures (that for some reason are seen as harder facts than those written without digits) other than not being aware of them before reading the article. Except for quotes, there doesn't seem to be an overall pattern in the citation requests. At least not tat I've been able to discern. Peter ^Isotalo 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've made some adjustments and smoothed out or removed the last of the questionable wordings. I don't think it's fair to say that 1d is an issue anymore. As for citations, I'm fairly distressed at how bluntly they've been handled. Sandy's somewhat random addition of fact tags just before the FARC wasn't particularly smooth consider that the FAR was filled with so much mudslinging and off-track pedantry. In fact, the only editor voting to remove who has actually produced more than "what he said"-criticism is Wizardman. Peter ^Isotalo 08:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Peter, the fact remains that this article has almost no inline citations, and that if it was now a FAC it wouldn't pass.--Yannismarou 11:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already addressed 1d and I have signaled my willingness to work on the perceived lack of citations, so I would like to see those objecting to meet me halfway and motivate their doubts. Sandy has tagged a lot of random facts, Jay has only produced over-generalized and belligerent bluster about wanting de-star any FA that doesn't have as many footnotes as he's used to, and the rest of you (except Wizard) are really just adding "what they said"-votes. Again, there has been little or no constructive discussion during the course of this review. Peter ^Isotalo 13:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Sandy wants to defeature any article that does not have the volume of footnotes which is demanded for the current FACs, and I agree with that. I don't understand what you want us to do in terms of the citations. The deficiency is clear here: Any assessment in the article should be cited; this is what happens with all the currently promoted FAs. Old FAs like this one must reach the current standards. Otherwise, we have FAs with double standatds: the old and the new ones. Do you want to add tags throughout the article wherever I think they are needed? I am afraid they are everywhere needed. And the only solution is to add the missing citations. At least, that is what I did, when two other FAs were endangered, and I worked adding citations (among other things) trying to save them.--Yannismarou 16:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, ignoring the slippery slope of what FAC consensus actually is, you've mentioned citing assessments. What assessments would those be? Peter ^Isotalo 17:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Sandy wants to defeature any article that does not have the volume of footnotes which is demanded for the current FACs, and I agree with that. — HUH? Whoa !!!! No, that's not the case at all. I don't look for a certain density or volume of footnotes at all in articles I review, nor have I ever supported that notion. I am out of time today on a slow dialup, and just saw this comment. I will get back to this review over the weekend, or as soon as I can. Without double checking the article today, I recall that I tagged specific examples of items that need to be cited (although I doubt that I tagged everything; I usually tag only samples). I recall direct quotes, opinions without attribution, and other items highlighted per Kirill as failing 2. There may be more; I'll check this weekend or sooner if I can get back online. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm starting to realize more of the problem now. The inline citations really came aboard in later 2005 (before I ever joined), yet this was an FA in 2004. However, we have to hold it to these standards, and that means inline citations. Without them, it we were to want to confirm a sentence, we'd have to go through all the books listed to find out if it's fact or not, the inline citations make this a far easier task. We don't do it because we think the article's fake, we do it for easier researching and referencing.

Now, as for 1c, I added a couple fact tags myself in. I'll explain why I added them to try and show you guys the reason for them. First off, the sentence "O'Connor was now forced to hold the line at El Agheila with a single understrength division, negligible air cover and over-extended supply lines." How do we know the air cover ws negligible, and the supply lines overextended? Certainly it is located in one of the books, but if it can be cited directly from one of them, then it proves the statement, as opposed to WP:AGF. Another one was, "The two while returning to safety after a night reconnaissance mission were captured by a German patrol on April 7, 1941, mostly due to Neame driving the wrong way." Okay, how do we know Neame was driving the wrong way? Maybe he was driving the right way. But if it's right from one of the books, then we can say, "okay, he was in fact driving the wrong way". I think this explains everything.--Wizardman 17:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how do you know that he died in 1981, that he was in charge of the Experimental Brigade or that he fled from captivity in 1943? This still strikes me as being random stabs with the primary intent of simply racking up an unspecified number of footnotes.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is still uncited text, not the number of citations. Jay32183 04:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.--Yannismarou 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so if I cite the passages currently tagged, you'll consider the article referenced enough?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay32183 says that "The problem is still uncited text, not the number of citations". Firstly, if the number is not important, then perhaps only a handful of citations (of whatever form: footnotes, parenthetical, whatever) would be the appropriate number in a particular case such as this one - even, in some cases, none. Secondly, the "problem" is not uncited text, per se: as Peter Isotalo says, it is determining which points it would be appropriate to support with a citation.

More worryingly, Yannismarou says that "Sandy wants to defeature any article that does not have the volume of footnotes" - volume of footnotes? Volume?!? Of footnotes??!!?? Per litre, perhaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on! Let's not play with words! It is clear what I mean, and irony does not help. Per substance ALoan! Cite what should be cited, and the article will not lose its star. Instead of exchanging arguments here, do that and save the article. At least, that is what I did, when I defended tow articles in FAR. It is that simple!--Yannismarou 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you haven't done so here, so I don't think you're entitled to wag your late-coming finger at us. And I have worked on improving the article. I'm just making sure that we pin down what needs to be cited and why so I won't become some Sisyphus of the League of Footnote Counters.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I am not obliged to improve the article. I am here as a reviewer. This is the role I chose and I am entitled to do so. You are here also as a reviewer and a defender of the article. Good! It is also your right to do so! And I am not wagging any of my fingers at you or anybody else! I just present arguments. And I am happy you won't become a Sisyphus of footnote counting; but I also hope that this article will not be sacrificed like Tantalus' child after an endless discussion about footnote.--Yannismarou 10:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with more specific citations Having read most of the above discussion, I have been moved to sign in in order to comment. Not wishing to stir things up I was surprised at the level of controversy this one unassuming article seems to have brought about (especially the recommendations that article writers should leave!). Having looked at this and other FA's I was initially surprised about the low level of inline citations, but looking more closely I assume that it is because other military history FA's I've seen have cited most statements with specific page no's etc and then listed them individually, and therefore have similar numbers of actual sources, but long reference lists.

I believe a citation for every sentence is almost certainly going overboard (Military History Project may not agree with me), I think most people would expect one citation per paragraph/section for ease of fact checking (1 is probably sufficient for simple bio details), just as a guide to say which pages or chapters of a particular work or works one could find information in the same vein, ie the initial bio paragraph having a citation to the initial bio pages/chapter of one of the references should be sufficient. More complex/frequent citations may be thought necessary by most for military manoevures etc as it's not always possible to be sure who is right in these circumstances. For personal preference I would like the following edits to be considered.

• A general section citation for Early life (already there I think), Inter war years and Retirement and more complete referencing for Italian offensive, Reversal and VIII Corps and OMG as military manoevures are being described.

Still needed I feel, but I think other people are better placed to decide what needs to be cited. Had I got the references and knew how to do inline citations then I would be prepared to help. Terri G 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A title for the Preceded by/Succeeded by box at the bottom as I'm not sure what position it relates to.

 Done (maybe I missed it before actually) Terri G 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With these changes I think it more than satisfies the FA criteria as I understand them. Even without the changes I would have a neutral stance on the article. I hope whoever is currently working on the article finds my comments constructive. Terri G 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has asked for every sentence to have a citation, but for every claim to be cited. If an entire paragraph comes from the exact same source then it is perfectly acceptable to cite the entire paragraph at once. Just for clarity, are you a "conditional keep" or a "keep, but there's always room for improvement"? Jay32183 18:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to imply that every sentence needs citations (or that anyone had requested them), but I have seen plenty of FA's where it seems almost every sentence is cited, so I was just trying to point out that whoever is good enough to do the work needn't see the changes I've suggested as a massive chore. I'm a "keep, with room for improvement" I suppose, because if it wasn't done, I wouldn't change to remove as the references are there at least and I have no reason to doubt what has been written (I'm no expert). Please don't take offense if I don't pop back regularly, I drift around a lot. Terri G 19:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I strongly believe that the criterion for a good encyclopedia is exactly the opposite: I am entitled to doubt whatever is not cited. We are not Britannica, which has its name behind each article - a name synonymous to quality and credibility. Here we are anonymous users, not professors or well-known experts, and we have to prove and verify whatever we write. That is what I believe, and that is why I always defended the inline citing as a necessity for high quality Wikipedia articles, a necessity preserving and prompting quality. And that is why all the currently promoted FAs are adequately cited. I ask you once again: does anybody of you arguing against citing honestly believes that this article would be promoted if it was now a FAC?--Yannismarou 21:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No but we're arguing that a lot of FAC-reviewers these days engage in more or less random and gratuitous footnote counting. "Cite this (more than you already have) because I tell you to" seems to be the current slogan. And, no, you don't need to answer that. We already know where you stand on this.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To give some criticism on the "can be improved" claim, the article became an FA in 2004. Inline citations became common in 2005 (sometime before I began my wikicareer). So, in theory, one could say that this article has had well over a year to meet the "new" FA criteria. Part of me's thinking that these people who refuse to vote delete are saying that citations are no big deal just because the others say they are. I'm not saying we need 100 citations; if 1 per paragraph or even 1 per section suffices, that's fine. The problem is that instead of improving the article, there is still whining that the article doesn't need citations. Yannismarou's right on this one. I mean, if this article came to WP:GAC now, it would probably be failed, let alone FAC. As I've said, I sent it here in hopes that it could be improved to an FA-quality article by people finding those references, adding in footnotes, and making this article great. Instead, we have people bashing each other that the article doesn't need footnotes. But like I said, ideally I want this to be an FA, it just isn't though.--Wizardman 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even noticed that 1d has been amended?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Then time to focus on 1c.--Yannismarou 10:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't think any of us are "whining" that the article doesn't need citations - I have been objecting to the idea that there is some "density" or "volume" of inline citations that is a requirement - they are required when appropriate; no more and no less - and Peter Isotalo has been asking people what they think should be cited, so he can actually do the necessary (which is what I thought this process was about).

It may be worth mentioning that HighInBC was asking for more citations for medieval cuisine recently, just days after it was promoted! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many things need citing ALoan, and do not compare a recently promoted article where, with very few exceptions, almost every paragraph is cited with this article whare almost no paragraph is cited! Citation tags had been added, but (I think) they were removed without the addition of the demanded citation (If I am wrong, I apologize). Now, do you want to start form scratch? OK, then! Let's do it:

• "If O'Connor's suggestions had been followed, the main German defences which had bogged down XXX Corps might have been bypassed and Market Garden salvaged." Who says that? Who argues that this would be the outcome of O'Connor's suggestion? What sources support this assertion?
• "O'Connor's unassuming manner has been less noted by historians compared to more colorful Allied military leaders". What historians mentioned his "unassuming manner"? Mention; otherwise, it is WEASEL.
• "His imprisonment during the conflict's truly decisive phases robbed him of many prime opportunities to prove his abilities further." "Robbed him" is a strong expression; who supports the assertion that if hh was not imprinoned, he would have proved his opportunities further (where and how? Blur and vague assessment).
• "In late October 1918 the 2nd Battalion captured the island of Grave di Papadopoli on the Piave River for which O'Connor received the Italian Silver Medal of Honour and a bar to add to his DSO.[1]" This in the only inline citation. But it is not properly formatted! Only title I see and url; publisher? Work? When was it retrieved? And why don't you use Template:cite web.
• "Many of the theories of mechanised, combined arms manoeuvre warfare put forth by J.F.C. Fuller (the brigade commander), Basil Liddell Hart, Heinz Guderian, and others at the time were being practiced by 5 Brigade." What source verifies that the 5th Brigade practiced such methods? Source needed here.
• "He returned to his old unit." Who returned?! The subject of the previous sentence is different. Such things make me wonder if the prose of this article is up to "brilliant". And somebody should also take care of the many typos I encounter.
• "He would later say the lessons he learned in mobility during this time would serve him well later in Libya." Say when, where and how? Sorce, please! Even "indirect" quoted like this one should be cited and verified.
• "In August 1939, 7th Division was transferred to the fortress at Mersa Matruh, Egypt, where O'Connor was concerned with defending the area against a potential attack from the massed forces of the Italian Tenth Army over the border in Libya." Source verifying the "concern" of O'Connor is needed here.
• "These would stop the Italians long enough for reinforcements to arrive, bolster the defence and, eventually, launch a counteroffensive." According to whom? Which analyst verifies that?
• "The British, however, were better trained, better led, and possessed (for the most part) superior weapons, equipment and mobility. O'Connor intended to use all these advantages to the utmost." Who verifies their higher training and equipment, and O'Connor's intention?
• "As a result, O'Connor, his adviser Brigadier Eric Dorman-Smith, and his men began to realise just how poorly led and ill-prepared their foes were, despite having a huge numerical advantage." What source verifies that O'Connor indeed felt this way? How do we know that he regarded their foes as "poorly led and ill-prepared"?
• "By mid-December the Italians had been pushed completely out of Egypt, leaving behind 38,000 prisoners and large stores of equipment." Verify the numbers, please.
• "Despite this setback, the offensive continued with minimum delay, and by the end of December the 6th Australian besieged and took Bardia, which fell along with 40,000 more prisoners and 400 guns." Again these numbers need verification. Which is your source.
• "O'Connor cabled back to Wavell, "Fox killed in the open..."[citation needed]" Provide citation as requested here.
• "In two months, the XIII Corps/Western Desert Force had advanced over 800 miles (1,300 km), destroyed an entire Italian army of ten divisions, taken over 130,000 prisoners, 400 tanks and 1,292 guns at the cost of 500 killed and 1,373 wounded.[2]" Oh! Another citation, saying "Dupuy". Is this enough?! Of course, not! Citation, please!
• "In a strategic sense, however, the victory of Operation Compass was not yet complete; the Italians still controlled most of Libya and possessed forces which would have to be dealt with." Another uncited assessment.
• "O'Connor was now forced to hold the line at El Agheila with a single understrength division, negligible air cover and over-extended supply lines.[citation needed]" Provide requested citation.
• "But the two, while returning to safety after a night reconnaissance mission, were captured by a German patrol on 7 April 1941, mostly due to Neame driving the wrong way.[citation needed]" Provide requested citation, please.
• "Montgomery suggested that O'Connor be his successor as Eighth Army commander but that post was instead given to Oliver Leese and O'Connor was given a corps to command." What source verifies Montgomery's suggestion?
• "In later life, he would remain in touch with his fellow prisoners from the Vincigliati escape club and the members of the Italian resistance, who had aided him during his escape." How do we know that? Who verifies that he indeed was in touch with his fellow prisoners?
• "These concerns would later prove to be well-founded." Proved how? Incomplete and uncited assertion. Who argues that his concerns would later prove to be well-founded?
• "Churchill was impressed by O'Connor and the two would continue a correspondence.[citation needed]" Provide requested citation, please.
• "O'Connor raised concerns that the Germans might launch a counterattack, and strongly recommended the ground gained by VIII Corps be consolidated before continuing on further against Caen. This was ignored, however, and the Germans did exactly as O'Connor had feared. VIII Corps was pushed back over the Orne. O'Connor tried to re-establish a bridgehead during Operation Jupiter, but met with little success." Important assessments and events about O'Connor's proposals and the way they well received that should be cited.
• "O'Connor maintained an active correspondence with Churchill, Montgomery and others, making suggestions for improvements of armoured vehicles and addressing various other problems such as combat fatigue. Some of his recommendations were followed up (such as for mounting "rams" on armoured vehicles in order to cope with the difficult hedgerow country), but most were ignored." What sources verify the correspondence with Montgomery? Who tells us about which of his recommendations were followed and which weren't?
• "If O'Connor's suggestions had been followed, the main German defences which had bogged down XXX Corps might have been bypassed and Market Garden salvaged." This assertion definitely needs citing: who says that this would be the outcome if the suggestions were followed? This is not even an event; it is an hypothesis. Who support this hypothesis? Are there any different opinions?
• "When he wrote to Montgomery about this, he was assured this was unlikely." Citation needed: how do we know that Montgomery reassured him? Who verifies the particular correspondence between the two of them?
• "As was O'Connor's habit, he stayed in touch with members of VIII Corps after his transfer to India, and closely followed the accounts of their advances." Again, how do we know that they were in contact, and that O'Connor "followed the accounts of their advances"?

These are the major issues which IMO should be fixed so as this article to keep its star. And, as I tried to make clear, it is not enough to provide the necessary citations, but to provide them in the right formatting and to properly format the current very few (2) citations. And something else: I don't want to make a lecture here, but if you want to see how a proper war-related article should look and how it should be cited, just check all the articles of Cla68. If this article starts to look like any of these in terms of quality and citing, I'll be a "keep" voter. Until then, I am a "remove" one!--Yannismarou 13:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there was exactly one relevant comment in there, but that had nothing to do with citation, but rather with how a certain sentence was worded; I tweaked the statement about his notability. And complaining about a bloody reference format? It's completely bloody obvious from the reference list. They're but centimeters apart! Otherwise this is exactly what I was talking about when expressing my fear of becoming the wikipedian Sysophus of citation pedantry. The "assessments" you're talking about here are pretty much just assessments in the sense that they can't be reduced to fact statements like "X is Y". Saying they need a citation merely because of that is patently absurd. You're going to pile your subjective requests for citations on top of one another haphazardly until you reach that gratuitous "volume" of footnotes that you checklist-type reviewers without any knowledge of the topic want because it looks good. This is not constructive criticism, and the only alternative I see is to combat ballot-stuffing with ballot-stuffing. So keep the article.

And the idea that all articles on military history should have a particularly pedantic form of footnoting, no matter the topic, is ridiculous. The members of the WarProject may think that their favorite topic is the absolute pinnacle of academic verifiability, but I don't and pretty much the entire historical establishment would scoff at such haughty arrogance. I believe you're an incompetent and sloppy reviewer and that your modus operandi is nothing short of an overt attempt to encourage anyone to demand random demands for random facts in random articles. I have nothing more to say other than I hope to God that you and rest of your nitpicking ilk who flaunt their astounding ignorance in every topic imaginable ever sniffs out an article that I've been involved with.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ho! Ho! So your answer is a personal attack: "I believe you're an incompetent and sloppy reviewer and that your modus operandi is nothing short of an overt attempt to encourage anyone to demand random demands for random facts in random articles...I have nothing more to say other than I hope to God that you and rest of your nitpicking ilk who flaunt their astounding ignorance etc.etc." Nice! Thanks, pal! The Tantalus myth seems indeed stronger in your case than the Sisyphus one!--Yannismarou 14:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Peter - article is attributable and the claims the article makes are not so surprising to justify citation. If Yanni would like his citations put in a particular way and the (unidentified) typos fixed - I suggest he FIXIT, but for me it's fine. --Joopercoopers 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove, as the article is still laced with uncited hypotheticals and subjective judgements; all quibbling over the other details aside, anything that is inherently a matter of opinion must be attributed to the person promulgating that opinion. For example:
  • "O'Connor's unassuming manner meant that he is less notable compared to more colorful Allied military leaders..." - I assume that whoever wrote this meant that he had been noted less than them, rather than that he was less notable; but, as it is, this is an extremely controversial assertion.
  • "These would stop the Italians long enough for reinforcements to arrive, bolster the defence and, eventually, launch a counteroffensive" - according to whom?
  • "the two finest remaining divisions in the British Army following the Battle of Dunkirk" - according to whom?
  • "The British, however, were better trained, better led, and possessed (for the most part) superior weapons, equipment and mobility" - according to whom?
  • "just how poorly led and ill-prepared their foes were" - according to whom?
  • "a formidable foe under a commander whose cunning, resourcefulness, and daring" - I'm aware that this is a widely-held opinion, but it is an opinion nevertheless, and we therefore need to know who espouses it.
  • "If O'Connor's suggestions had been followed, the main German defences which had bogged down XXX Corps might have been bypassed and Market Garden salvaged." - another hypothetical; which historians have argued this?
• Not to mention the two direct quotes that are still uncited, despite already having been tagged.
• (Frankly, I find the hostility expressed by some people towards highly-productive writers of featured articles—and towards the Military history WikiProject as a whole—rather baffling and disturbing, all things considered; but that's another issue.) Kirill Lokshin 03:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, all the attacks in this discussion have been anything but consructive. I don't want to bring other discussions into this, but maybe I should ask Peter about the article I have on FAC. That may be WP:COI, so I won't touch it, though if someone else wanted to bring it up that's fine. More importantly though, I find Peter's position to be very undermined by his resorting to personal attacks. Plus, I have no idea what that PA is even tryign to say... I may ass that it now lacks a photo in the userbox. (Though I can add that myself).--Wizardman 19:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there must be a page somewhere in this great encyclopedia you lot could go and write/improve instead of pontificating down here about what is one of Wikipedia's better pages - the conversation here is pathetic to read - Everytime I look at the calibre of behaviour here I become more disgusted. Giano 22:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove. The article has improved dramatically at FAR, with a good deal of the uncited hagiography removed, but cite tags have been removed, and there is still far too much uncited opinion and judgment, including uncited direct quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost On Two-Faced gods

Indeed, I'm beyond disgusted. It is in this context that I write what follows. First, my sincere thanks to Peter, Joopercoopers, ALoan and of course Giano for defending what is largely my work from being torn apart by the pedantic Wiki mob mentality.
Second, those who sanctimoniously preach civility should try practicing it themselves. My camp was not the first to invoke the charge of plagiarism. If anyone has had their charachter slandered by this sad farce it is I. Riping apart someone's work, though technically not a personal attack, can often be tantamount to it and is bound to lead to hard feelings and due retaliation. Which, of course, gives you fucking Pollyannas the chance to act all shocked, and hurt and whine about personal attacks. Haughty words of civility are meaningless without the true spirit of such behind them. Most of the criticism levelled here are destructive rather than constructive and clearly violate this spirit. Further evidence of the vast chasim between the core principles of Wikipedia and current practices.
Now Kirill, my old colleague, Giano asked you a very pertinent question above; I just wonder where the page has changed since Kirill made this comment here [5] and if he felt it was so awful why not say so then instead of making it a featured article over on his War Portal. I find your response very slick but unsatisfactory. And even if you did not wish to "Second guess" the FAC processs, you still had ample opportunities to raise your objections there and afterwards. It would have been a LOT easier for Leithp and myself to have added cites then or at least fixed the wording which you now seem to find so wanting. It is highly unfair to the writers to come after us now, over a year and a half later, and demand citations. Leithp has moved at least once (not all of us live with our parents) so his books have gotten mixed up and we both have (gasp) actual lives outside of Wikipedia.
So why tear the article apart now? How will that improve it? How will it improve Wikipedia? If we were to remove every uncited statement to satisfy you and the others then all that would be left would be a single paragraph stubb...which is basically all it was when we found it. Surely since it has been so long you should be able to grandfather it through, after all the recent edits made by Peter, Joopers and others? Or is it too much now to ask you to be reasonable rather than rigid?
Back then, Kirill, you may not have wished to second guess FAC's standards, but today, as the prime mover and shaker of the mighty mighty military history project, you have no qualms about setting up separate standards and processes for peer review and classification...adding to the instruction creep gauntlet any poor FAC author must pass through. But you are right, since you place the standards of your project ABOVE those of Wikipedia at large, then I conceed it does not meet current MilHistProj standards. I therefore vote to REMOVE the mil hist project tag from this article, since it was written without the project's current enlightened guidance and has become such an embarrassment to it.
As for the wording, well Peter raises a very good point, why not JUSTFIXIT yourself. You are, afterall, a master of dry, bland, dull prose...charges I defended your FACs against, if you recall, back in the days when compelling narratives were considered more important than cite counts.
If Peter is the Sisyphus of this drama and Yannismarou the Tantalus, then you, Kirill, are Janus. I, for my part, shall be Timon. I cast my contempt at the lot of you and return to my cave. I will never contribute so much as a single sentence stub to Wikipedia again. I regret that I ever wasted my time here. My gift to you is dirt.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Now, maybe I'm wrong on this, but I find that when I'm writing articles, making it well-written, the prose compelling, and creating a great article is the hard part. Referencing and citing sources are the easy part. Here's the catch-22 though. No one wants to change the article, which defeats the purpose of having submitted this in the first place. And now, instead of reaching a consensus or improving the article, we have a 100kb document that encompasses personal attacks, whining on both sides, and a great user who's fed up with this site. Even though I still think it should be delisted, I regret ever nominating this after seeing how this has played out, and I'm disappointed with both sides. There's never gonna be consensus, so I have no idea what to do with this article... I mean, I have access to roughly 20 college libraries, and here's what I turned up for whether or not I have access to references: Barclay, no; Barnett, yes (2nd edition though, not 1st); Baynes, no; Docherty, no; Dupuy, no; Keegan, most likely (Churchill's Generals is at a library where it would take me a while to get it); Smart, no.

But I have thought of a compromise. If this does get delisted, I will cite whatever I possibly can, and upon that re-submit it to FAC. I'll try and cite some things before that, but who knows. But I honestly don't know where this is going anymore, so hopefulyl this will be closed soon.--Wizardman 02:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please spare us your crocodile tears and half-hearted offerings of help. I have a better idea, as suggested above, NUCLEAR CLEANSING. If it is delisted, delete everything but the first paragraph. Then you, or more likely someone else, can start over from scratch. No muss no fuss.--70.171.22.74 02:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, there's the rub. Nuking it seems to be suggested by some, yet I'd be surprised if anyone supports it enough to go and do it, because the nuclear option is the last thing I want. Plus the lead was one of the parts I didn't care for to begin with. But hey, at least I'm trying to create a compromise, even though it'll probably be futile...--Wizardman 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise..Ha! Your "compromise" is offering to put a band-aide on a gapping chest wound and calling 9-1-1. Peter, Coopers and others have made many edits over the last several days to try and address some of the concerns. But instead of acknowledging their efforts, you and your ilk keep raising new objections, making new demands and adding more of those fucking ^{[citation needed]} tags. A REAL compromise would involve accepting the wording changes that have been made and only demanding citations for statements that truly scream out for them, which is really not that many. Failing this, I support the nuclear option...I not only support it, but I'll do it. And I'll do it with a gleam in my eye and a song in my heart. Just watch.--70.171.22.74 06:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your solution is "waa, waa, I'm taking my article and going home". Wow, how constructive. Oh, and adding references is not hard, just add some already. I added one earlier without really trying. And if I'm putting a bandaid on a gaping wound, then you guys are just starting at the half-dead body and saying "it's fine", which it's clearly not or else we wouldn't be here. If nothing else just add a citation on the quotes! It's common sense for those to need citations. Besides, if you were to go nuclear I'd just put it back up anyway.--Wizardman 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I understand what you're trying to do now. Once you get this article defeatured, you will "fix" it with cites, then resubmit it to FAC and voila! Thus you can claim credit on a Featured Article. What a clever lad you are. You and Janus should hook up, the two of you would make for a very scary team. And if you're going to accuse me of assuming bad faith here, then I plead no contest. Dealing with the likes of you has taught me that it is safer to assume the worst of human nature.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime I see the time and effort some users spare to attack all those users asking for citations, I just wonder why they don't spend this time in adding the citations, and get over with it. A series of rhetorical schemes and exhibitions (some of which are indeed of high quality, but this is not the place for that), but nothing about the substance. I'm afraid to say that, but I tend to believe that some users are not interested in whether this and other articles will keep their star, will be delisted, upgraded etc. It looks to me as if their only interest is to make clear their point. Because I can't see any other explanation when a user proceeds to a long intense and passionate analysis of his point, and then declares that he leaves Wikipedia. And something else: The innuendos about who wants the best for Wikipedia (which sometimes are getting straightforward attacks and insults), the effort to undermine other user's quality and contributions add nothing here; the contempt with which users and projects are treated by some Wikipedians reminds me of a discussion in my country, Greece, about who's more patriot! Oh, come on now! We all spend hours and hours in Wikipedia! More than the normal, in a way that some others, some outsiders may regard us as sick bastards or some kind of fricks! So, let's cut the bullshit here! Nobody is more "patriot" than the other!
Giano is one of the best editors around. Kirill is the driving force behind the encyclopedia's best project, and a writer of some of our best articles as well. Sandy reviews almost every FAC and FARC; he is now travelling and still reviews; he was reviewing when nobody of us was interested in FARC. Wizardman assesses hundreds and hundreds of articles in WP:BIO. So, I don't see the reason for expressions like "disgustion", "dirt", "pathetic". I really don't understand that! Why are you taking it that personal guys? It is just an encyclopedia! And you may regard this article as one of the best of Wikipedia. I respect your opinion, but I regard this article as a poorly cited and needing improvement article; therefore, for me it is a mediocre article. If you don't respect my opinion, Ok, I can live with that, but this is my opinion, and I stand by it, refusing to prove who I am, why I am here and what I or you have done for Wikipedia, because this is irrelevent. I also refuse to attack anybody else here, because I do appreciate all your contributions and effors here - and this is not a hypocrisy but an honest belief. And you know something else, Wikipedia would be a much better place if we learnt to respect one the other, and if we realised that despite our disagreements we work harshly for this dum project that has intruded into our life. And RHD you declare that you are out of the project, but how do I have this strange impression that you are so passionate with it that you'll be soon back. And, RHD, if I had to chose a role for myself (and not to be assigned by others) ... no ... I wouldn't like it to be Sisyphus neither Tantalus ot Ianus ... No no ... I would travel to France of Enlightment and I would pick Voltaire's role, and I would hope that every other Wikipedian choses the same role.--Yannismarou 10:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis, we'll start respecting your self-assigned role as an FA reviewer when you start taking the task seriously. As long as you believe that it is your God-given right to demand a footnote for anything you deem unfamiliar enough, no matter the counterarguments or your own ignorance of the topic, you're nothing but a footnote counter.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter that is the attitude that caused me to lose my cool in the first place, and right now you're only begging Yannismarou to do the same. The reasons Yannismarou has given for requesting those citations are explicitly listed under Wikipedia:Citing sources#Why sources should be cited. Jay32183 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing, (I'm glad the conversation has died down, let's keep it at that) I went and looked over the article again, and I am proud of the keepers, who actually did do a lot of work on this in between when this was put up and now. Although my vote stands, 1d was fixed, and the article was fixed up very well. I asked for this FAR to be closed now that things have finally settled down. (Plus, it caused more harm than good anyway, too many people quit.)--Wizardman 17:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEWSFLASH...it hasnt...see above. You opened this can of worms, it is only fitting you dine upon your share before it closes. Also I want to address Tantalus/Voltaire/Yanni first:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.