Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Yom Kippur War

Yom Kippur War[edit]

Article is still a featured article.

It is so sad to see such one-sided and one-dimensional article in the main page today's feature article:

FIRST: In the article's talk-pages so much has been said about what is considered an already biased TITLE of the article. A war between two parties, why be named according to the culture and language of only one?? Especially that it already has different names, notably equivalent national ones of the OTHER party! Thus, in the Arabic Wikipedia the same article is titled "the October War", which is the common name in the Arabic language and culture. No NPOV on the titling level. Please see for the debate on the talk-pages: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

SECOND: A serious deficiency in references: Even that there are a bunch of books listed in a ref. section, perhaps only ONE of them is being very particularly and frequently referred to, and seldom to other refs. Also see in the talk pages: [6] [7] [8] [9]

THIRD: Very evident and obvious lack of NPOV. It will be found that many detailed information has been given with no refs. at all. But the story of the war has been told as if the other party, here the Arab, is in the wrong, weak, or OTHER-SIDE. Thus, it is so evident, even to those who will have no passion or sentiment to the perhaps still glaring consequences of the war and the Arab-Israeli conditions of relationship, that this article is truly and quite intentionally one-sided, and far from the NPOV status. This lack of NPOV is refelected also in the Arabic version of the article, but the other way round, of course. Please see in the talk-pages: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Having this article as today's feature article will surely upset the feelings of so many "somepeople", and quite understandably, if you look up the matter calmly and genuinely. It is possible that it be also upsetting to those who do not want Wikipedia's feature articles to be in such politicized quality.
(This page has been removed once recently without a talk!) Maysara 15:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Numerous people have commented that this is one of the best written featured articles. Also, in regards to the naming: there were two separate polls, one of them unanimous (15 supporting the current name and 0 opposing) and the other nearly so (30-8), that the current name is fine (wherein it was shown that the current name is BY FAR the most common using any metric). Raul654 16:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Raul654, Although you have had many discussions before also with numerous people about the title-name problem, it seems that they have not been of any help as to convince you that a certain NPOV problem is quite evident in here. You say numerous people think this a feature article and you defend it as if it was a property or art-work of yours. But you provide absolutely no definition of what is sufficiently numerous for a feature article. After all, "somepeople" have to decide it to be a feature article in order for it to be displayed in the today's feature article in the main page, but this is precisely what brings us here to talk about. However, our discussion is not here confined to the title-name problem but it also includes problems of referencing and NPOV status. There might be a consensus about the first, but the later, it seems, there cannot be such consensus. It is fairly evident that these problems most seriously indicate that this article is not by any degree eligible as to be a feature article. It might not be bad, effort might have been most devotedly spent in it, but still, it continues to be problematic in many essential aspects upon which a feature article is defined, one of which is particularly the strongly disputed NPOV status of the article. I am convinced that this article might become worthy of it being a feature article if you try to cool down and think about your own contributions more genuinely. A POV template was once added by User:Unfocused, was it you who removed it? Or was it another such template that you removed it? Don't you think they can contribute a lot to the discussion about the neutrality of this article? I hope you'll more calmly think those issues over. Thank you, Maysara 17:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Raul654 PPGMD 20:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep If you can't get support for your views on the talk page, don't bring it to FARC. - Taxman ^Talk 20:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But why not? I might not be able to get support on my views of the content of the article itself in its talk page, but I think if I want to debate its featured status, this is just the right space (that is, some editors might not be interested in debating my views of the content of the article itself in its talk-page, but they still might be interested in debating and contributing to whether it is worthy of its featured status or not). Also, I have provided 14 supporting links from the talk-pages, please click over them with the mouse! Thank you, Maysara 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Agree with other editors.--Alabamaboy 21:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Raul654, and nice timing from the nominator. feydey 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)¹b[reply]
Speedy Keep. Potentially bad faith nomination, particularly on the naming question. Batmanand | Talk 09:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Humph! How frustrating! If you don't believe it "bad faith" nomination, if you don't think it so, you then just don't say potentially! What does "potentially bad faith" matter or signify?! Humphph! Apart from that you're most probably, just used to encounter with it, and that I, correspondingly and consequently, am a person with a bad faith! It is amazing that you then link to the, "assume" good faith page. But go on, I am sorry for the wretched quality of my faith, keep keeping, speedily! Maysara 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above, but the article's refs do need to be improved. (one random example: "In 1971 Israel spent $500 million fortifying its positions on the Suez Canal" is uncited). Mikker ^(...) 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see anything wrong with the article. On the contrary, it is very well written and sourced. --Jannex 13:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As for the title, there has been a lot of discussion and 2 or 3 votes. There's no need to starting another one. About the POV issue, I would like for the nominator to show me precisely which sections are having a problem so I can take a look at them. Thank you. CG 13:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just am unable to understand why so many are confusing debating the content of the article itself with debating its eligibility to be featured! I am here not asking to change anything with the article itself (such as doing more votes for its problematic title situation). I am here asking you to reconsider whether it should be featured or not, no more, no less. I personally believe it is not a horrible article. Itself is quite an informative one, apart from its very evident POV condition. But this is another matter from it being featured or not. My argument is that it is not sufficiently merited to be featured for the reasons I mentioned above. I think, and I though everyone thought, that a feature article is one that is very well referenced (especially in matters where providing no reference is totally inappropriate, such as here) and one that at least embraces lesser dispute and controversy about its very NPOV status. A bad article 'cannot' be featured. A good one 'maynot' be featured as well, if the later is still below the standards of featuring.

as for the "precisely which sections having a POV problem". I really don't know how my voluntary help to you should be helpful, if you're unable to see for yourself! However, I have given some links from the talk pages, in the THIRD argument of mine about the, POV, issue. See above. Thank you, Maysara 15:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZZ66bgd I cannot understand how such an important event in ME history can be viewed from a single biased perspective. Is it for the lack of other more neutral resources or that the Wikipedia Community houses a Zionist agenda? Just wondering...65.186.68.236 00:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please state "remove", "keep", or explain what should be done with the article and why. Nonsense votes will not be considered in a decision. Kosebamse

That is not a "nonsense vote." This process is not a vote at all. All valid actionable objections will be taken into account, regardless of whether the person is an anon, or if they put "ZZ66bgd." That said, blathering on about a Zionist agenda will get him nowhere. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? Didn't you know? We are all part of a super-secret Jewish cabal that will soon take over the world! <long sinister-sounding laughter here> Mikker ^(...) 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know i'm part of a Jewish cabal... And if i'm not, I ought to join it ;-). But seriously, given the very high standards of Judaism related articles on wikipedia in relation to other religions, you can't help but think that an outsider would see this as a pro-Jewish website (not that it is). For me a Keep. Thethinr e dline 18:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No good reason for being here. Giano | talk 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, however voting with the "speedy" modifier is improperly dismissive of the legitimate concerns of people who disagree with you, and only serves to create greater schism in the community, as well as greater schism between Jews and Arabs. Please allow more room for civil disagreement. People voting "speedy" should check themselves more carefully for POV bias. This is an entirely legitimate candidate for FARC discussion. Personally, I think there is obvious bias, but don't think the baby should go out with the bathwater. Problems with this article itself should be solved by discussion and editing. Un focused 18:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User that nominated this for a FARC first posted on the talk page, he didn't get a response within a few hours and he put it up for FARC, IMO since he didn't even give it a day for the process on the talk page for people to show support, or non-support, it's a bad faith nomination, thus qualifying for a speedy modifier. PPGMD 18:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I'm confused. If there is indeed "obvious bias" the article should obviously be de-featured. (See 2(d) of WP:WIAFA). Can you provide an argument as to why the article suffers from bias? Mikker ^(...) 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already discussed the most obvious point of bias on the talk page. A Wikiproject group of editors who have this article on their watch list have successfully defended their POV. If the most obvious bias doesn't get addressed by reasonable discussion, why bother with the rest, especially when you know you've already stirred the supporting base of the POV currently expressed?

I'll state again here that "the rest" of the obvious bias I'm referring to isn't really all that much or that harmful, in my opinion, even though it's clearly present. This is why I voted "Keep".

However, this article's current state regarding the bias I did try to remove has clearly shown me that Wikipedia is doomed to a certain degree of uncorrectable populism. I've accepted the project as it is rather than how I'd like it to be, and adjusted my participation in response. Un focused 16:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is as unbasied as it can be. That said, how can an article on a surpirse devastating invasion on the holiest of holidays possibly not make the defenders look like the good guys. Tobyk777 01:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of one side or the other as "good guys" is a moral judgement, and is inherently flawed with POV. Please see the NPOV tutorial. Un focused 16:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a moral judgement. If someone murders someone else, the murderer is the bad guy. It's pretty obvious. When talking about an un-prevoked invasion with no purpose. It's almost as obvious. There is no need for judgements or identification of the good guys. One side was brutaly atacked, and the other defended themselves. Tobyk777 03:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please take the time to review WP:NPOV, especially the examples of Saddam Hussein and Hitler. You are simply wrong. Identification of a "bad guy" in ANY dispute is a moral judgement that is properly left to the reader; an encyclopedia documents facts (which can be expected to clearly illustrate who the bad guy is) without including any individual moral judgements. Un focused 17:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: no problem with POV; some of the single-sentence paragraphs could easily be merged. Tony 06:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]