Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:16, 22 March 2006

Charles Ives

The article does not have references or inline citations (both required). There was a request for references on the talk page on Apr 22, 2005. Not a featured article review candidate (Misplaced Pages:Featured article review) because it never had references (did not deteriorate). Hyacinth 08:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: This has been nominated only for its lack of references and inline citations. If that is the case. I think one needs to apply some common sense, it has a list of further reading, and a whole list of external links which seem to confirm the facts, and quite obviously were the references. The article makes no outlandish or controversial statements. I don't see any harm in it remaining a FA. It was supported on it's FA by one of Misplaced Pages's most knowledgable editors who would have spotted a flaw instantly. It also does something which wikipedia does best - gives a comprehensive amount of information on a subject often not often found in other encyclopedias. The page has also survived the ordeal of being on the main page as recently as last May with no one making furious protestations of "rubbish" or "lies". Just because the criteria for present FAs has changed since this was nominated is no reason to sweep away everything then went before. Giano | talk 10:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If it where so easy we both would have added inline citations and ended this discussion. Hyacinth 12:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. No references. Even your basic college paper has references, otherwise it's considered plagerism. Misplaced Pages has to have a higher standard than that. Featured articles are supposed to represent that standard. Any article without proper references should not be in feature status. If references are added and/or all none referenced statements are removed, I would reconsider my vote. --Sketchee 16:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Lack of references. Comment It had ONE vote, the ONLY comment was "A really good introduction to Ives' life and work", and it was apparently added to FA by the lone voter. That doesn't seem to constitute a "review", then or now. That's the current standard for Good Articles. I'm all for being practical and reasonable and IAR and all that, but if the FAC process is to mean anything, all current FAs should have received a review somewhat approximating today's standards, else, why improve? Should the refs indeed be sufficient, and the article so good, it should pass a FAC renom no problem, and get up to speed in the process! --Tsavage 00:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Good Articles" is a daft process understood by no one especially those who seem to pronounce on it (so can be dismissed accordingly). FACs even today based on non mainstream composers or classical dead musicians seem to attract little if any attention, so are you surprised by the pages lone vote at that stage in Misplaced Pages's history? Of course this page in its present form would fail FAC today - but we are discussing the nomination made above not other non specified charges against it - so lets not digress. I am quite sure had the original author been clairvoyant they would have labelled the external links and further reading as references which if you look at them, or read them, is clearly what they were. Giano | talk 01:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• FARC guidelines say nothing about strictly addressing only the word of the nomination. In any case, I guess this is back to the "references" issue. Isn't this a case of "yeah, it makes sense as long as you're there to explain it"? We require inlines when necessary, but limit the "necessity" in the case of existing FAs to whether voters decide if the article is otherwise good (when any reasonable request for inlines should be supported). Now we should do the same for articles without references? If all of this means so little in practice, why not just change "Further reading" to "References"? And why not perhaps add, in complete good faith, a list of general references to a great article with no "Further reading" section, to save it as an FA, or even to get it through a new FAC? I really think verifiability ought to meet a minimum standard of usability, which means cite.php refs (OR toss inlines entirely and just go with a bibliography)... --Tsavage 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment—It's well written; my only complaint is that it's a little short for such an important, multifaceted composer. Keep it, but please expand it. Tony 01:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Commment. Misplaced Pages:What is a featured article? "A featured article has the following attributes" 2.b. "'factually accurate' includes the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations...these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations." Hyacinth 10:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• If that is the case then I can think of at least another 20 FAs which need to be nominated immediately. Shall we just get on and do it? Yet, only two weeks such an action was described as "petulant" obviously things are moving fast here. Rules change so quickly one can't keep up. If common sense is not applied sooner rather than later there will be precious few FAs left. Some of the finest of the Misplaced Pages FAs contain no inline cites at all. Have you had a look at The Cantos Hyacinth? Giano | talk 11:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Those darn policies! :) But seriously, this page is for discussing whether the article Charles Ives should be removed from the featured articles. To discuss the criteria for featured articles please see Misplaced Pages talk:What is a featured article?. Unless you feel this article was listed in violation of the listing criteria (at the top of Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates), please discuss the criteria for listing an article on FARC at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article removal candidates. Thanks. Hyacinth 11:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is the place to discuss your nomination. I just wondered where you are planning to take your reign of terror next, and giving you a few pointers. You are attempting to set some precedents and should be aware of the consequences of your actions. You have chosen to make inline cites an issue here, now we are discussing them. Giano | talk 12:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Attacking the reviewer" (or in somewhat more obscure terminology, ad hominem comments) seems to be common practice, here and in FAC. I feel most of my comments lately, which tend towards objections, are subject to the same. (This of course isn't logically the place for such a discussion, but IAR runs rampant so I am here guilty of following along. You can insert "stubbornly pedantic", from another recent "attack" on me, if you like.) As the author of the "petulant" comment, I was referring to nominations meant to prove a point and not to good faith nominations: there, the nominator clearly did not believe the nominations merited delisting, so why list them? To try to "prove" the same point being argued here, which boils down to: "Some FAs are above the rules." There is enough flexibility and always IAR with which to influence rules and outcomes in WP, so that if a small group (5? 10?) of editors together in effect argue, "This FA transcends current FA standards", they can actually use rules to make it stick. For example, a current FA won't be delisted without consensus (which is, more or less, unanimity) on removal. So, discussion in such cases is futile, and the intent of the process, to allow FAs to be maintained to current standards, is subverted. Taxman has identified 20+ FAs with insubstantial references, out of nearly a thousand FAs. What's the big deal with dealing with those, one by one, through good faith individual FARC nominations or "preemptive" article improvement? --Tsavage 17:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• See Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, specifically "Comment on content, not on the contributor" which I assume also indicates that one should comment on the nomination, not on the nominator. I don't feel that I made inline citations an issue, "What is a featured article?" does. I don't see anything on "Featured article removal candidates" which indicates that my listing is inappropriate. It appears that the article has been improved, possibly to featured article status, because of this listing, and I don't see what is wrong with that. I do not see any similarity between my listing of (so far) one article on "Featured article removal candidates" and the murder of 18,000 to 40,000 people, and I am insulted by the comparison. There is a large difference between suggesting an action requiring consensus and commiting a massacre. Perhaps the suggestion of an alternative, rather than hyperbole, would help your case against removal better. Once that is done we may consider changing the "Featured article removal candidates" to indicate these more appropriate alternatives in similar cases. Hyacinth 12:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oh the joy of writing a featured article and seeing that transient little star. So you are offended are you? - I've accused you of massacre? I can't be bothered to even explain the reasoning against a widely used metaphor - where did you go to school? Just get on the pair of you and FARC what you like. Nobody owns an article so why should anyone care - I'm certainly beginning to care less and less these days. Giano | talk 19:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. No references. Mark 20:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I just added a whole bunch of inline citations from the very thorough Grove article. I think it's rather pedantic to say that the article has no references simply because they are labeled "Further reading", when some of them were clearly used as references. Makemi 05:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as featured article, as it is well written, clear, a good intro to Ives' life and work, has many references, whether they're called that or not, and now has inline citations. <grumble> (Plus J. Peter Burkholder is awesome and deserves an FA on his pet subject) Makemi 07:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (again) If there are specific facts which people still think need to be cited, it's possible they were in the Grove article and I didn't think it necessary to give them an inline. Let me know if you there's something specific you want an inline for, and I'll see what I can do. Makemi 23:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)