Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Freemasonry

Freemasonry

 * Article is no longer a featured article.

Article fails WP:V and WP:NPOV. Specifically, edit war over the "anti-fremasonry" intro-paragraph is distressing - and it is ongoing after concerns raised on the talk page: (post WP:V comments),  (post WP:V comments),  (pre WP:V comments). Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What "anti-freemasonry" opening paragraph? Furthermore, the featured template clearly identifies the featured article as a previous version (with link), so what exactly is the point of removing the template off the page otgher than for the sake of your doing osmething to it? There is no claim that the present article is featured, and it doesn't change the fact that it was at one time featured.  Also, what is the point of claiming removal based on V and NPOV violations after placing an "edit lock for reference re-edit" template on said article? MSJapan 17:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in the diffs I provided. This is not the only failure of the article as it now stands. The template for previously featured articles is . This article is far too long, lacks pictures or illustrative graphics throughout, and a host of other things that make it not featured anymore. It's not your fault that it's been driven to the dirt by problematic editors over the past few months, but it's not an example of the best of the best anymore. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree This article has changed since it was featured, and has been the subject of many edit wars. Ardenn 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree All you need to do is look at the difference between the featured version of the article and the current article, and you can see they are completly different. It needs to reapply. Seraphim  18:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also i'd like to note that Freemasonry became a Featured article before the Criteria were established. Even in it's older state it was never checked against our current Featured article standards. Seraphim  20:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree Unfortunately the revert wars and poor POV editing have been on both sides of a pro/anti Masonic dispute.--Vidkun 18:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Why, suddenly, do some users think it's so NPOV? It hasn't changed so so much w/o citation of one kind or another. & it is, actually, fairly well cited, if one actually reads the Notes, See Also section, The External links, the Catagory:Freemasonry articles (& if one really wants to do their homework, Catagory:Freemasons), & especially if one goes through the 12 archived talk pages. This article didn't  get  to be featured by being bad, poorly cited, & it's no less cited now. There's a  lot  of hard work by a lot of people here. They often dispute eachother, & nearly as often come to terms & learn to compromise. This issue takes immense homework reading nearly endless pages & links to even discuss, but by all means, read away. Grye 09:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at the featured article version, and the current version they have 0 similiarites. (i put a diff link in my comment). Also just because something is cited doesn't mean it's NPOV. Seraphim  10:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree-Any article that suffers from NPOV and merge issues should not be considered a featured article anymore. NorseOdin 14:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The only merge issues This article suffers from is others merging into it. Nobody ever rightly said "This article should be merged into that one
 * 'Your userpage article could suffer from NPOV if someone throws the tag on it. Grye 22:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Who put the NPOV tags on this article recently? When did the current ones first appear, like in the last month? Grye 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If they were not there now, I would reinsert them - "It is referred to in Macoy's Masonic Manual as "a beautiful system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."" - "Freemasonry uses an initiatory system of degrees to progressively explore ethical and philosophical issues, and that the system is less effective if the observer knows beforehand what will happen." It's "less effective" and that is an obvious fact? And that's just the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipocrite (talk • contribs)


 * Strong remove. An article that is protected, subject to 2 seperate merge discussions, a npov dispute, and edit warring does not "exemplify our very best work". Article hence fails on 1 of WIAFA. Mikkerpikker ... 18:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, with some sadness and anger. Articles on subjects relating to Freemasonry have been the subjects of edits that are hard to accept as good faith (see Jahbulon) and this is no exception.  Smerdis of Tlön 21:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree - The article is just as good as any other FA, one of the reasons it suffers is because it is a contervesial issue, and that the page is frequently vandalised. I don see any reasoable argument for its removal, for the most part only biased POV claims that do not seem to have much backing to them. Avador 04:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)