Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/History of South Carolina

History of South Carolina

 * Article was de-listed and re-nominated per a controversy with original vote - not a featured article

This article was recently presented and rejected as a featured article candidate. After its initial rejection, the author immediately renominated it. There had been major, substantive objections to the article by several editors, including myself. The repairs were superficial and inadequate, and the way the article was renominated meant that editors who had been following the process had no real notice a new nomination was in place -- instead, the old one appeared to be present but dormant. The editors who made the most detailed and specific objections did not support the new article, or withdraw this objections. This amounts to "gaming" the FA process, and while I don't claim that the author/nominator was acting in bad faith, the failure to notify the objecting editors and to invite them to review the repairs was a subtantial lapse. The problems with the article -- for example, the failure to address the "nullification" crisis and related political issues, the Indian Removal Act -- remain; the attempted repairs amount to adding fairly generic references to these matters, without reaching their substance. Monicasdude 14:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. If you have problems with the way this went through the FAC process, it may be better to open up this issue via Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Previous experience tells me that this page is only here to allow removal in conformity with existing process, which is not what is requested in this case. Buffyg 14:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I object to it substantively as well. The treatment of the important historical issues mentioned is so inadequate as to mean that the article fails the comprehensiveness standard. It's not as though the issues are obscure or insignificant, yet their combined treatment is shorter and less detailed than the discussion of one barely-notable recent issue. Monicasdude 15:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

(UTC)
 * Listing an article here only two weeks after it was promoted (2 August) is also "gaming" the FA process - the instructions above say Do not list articles that have recently been promoted—such complaints should have been brought up during the candidate period. ... [such] listing is likely to be summarily removed.  Why didn't you object to the second nomination?  The second nomination included a link to the first nomination, although it didn't explicit say that the old objections were addressed:  do the other previous objections all still think that their objections have not been properly addressed?  Why didn't they check whether their objections has been addressed when it was re-nominated?   (The facfailed template was added on 25 July, after the first nomination failed, and then FAC was added again on 26 July, so I don't buy the argument that the contributors didn't know it had been renominated, although renomination immediately after failing is a little unusual). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:54, 18 August 2005


 * Why didn't I object to the second nomination? Because I had no notice of it. It was put up almost immediately after the first nomination failed, even though the author/nominator had said it required major work and would be put up "later." I had a "watch" tag on the original nomination, which didn't note any of the postings regarding to the second. Are you really saying that it's necessary to check the FA candidates list in detail day after day to see if the discussion you had taken part in had been replaced by a different discussion with the same name? Renomination immediately after failure is, I think, more than a little unusual, and fairness to the editors who put their own efforts in to commenting on the article should have prevented this from happening the way it did.
 * As for "gaming," I think that taking advantage of a gap in the guidelines, without explaining the circumstances (and without even putting the FAC tag on the talk page; that was added later, by someone else) can fairly be categorized that way. I'm not trying to take advantage of any gaps or avoid any guidelines. I'm looking for any appropriate place to comment on what I believe to be an abuse of procedures, whatever the author/nominator's intentions, and I think this is the most appropriate and most visible place to do so. I've been entirely open about my action -- the first line of the comment notes the "recent" promotion of the article -- and it's entirely unfair to suggest I'm "gaming" the process in an attempt to evade the spirit of applicable guidelines. Monicasdude 16:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. As said above, the article should not be here b/c it was recently promoted to FA status. In addition, several of the people who voted against the article in the first FA round supported it in the second round. I remember when the article first came up for FA review and the major objection seemed to be that it's record of history stopped with the Civil War. As a result, the author corrected this. I'd suggest taking your objections about the article to the article's talk page and also editing the article to improve it.--Alabamaboy 17:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The objections I referred to dealt with the pre-Civil War 19th century period, and were dealt with only cosmetically; the editors, myself included, who raised such objections didn't vote in favor of the FAC. And raising the issue on the talk page does nothing meaningful to address the procedural question. I don't think it's fair to the editors who took the time to review and comment on the defects to allow their objections to be summarily dispensed with using a renomination process that didn't give them any real notice. Do you check the list every day to see if a discussion you commented on has been replaced by another discussion with the same name? Monicasdude 17:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Then I would raise the issue on the Featured Article talk page and with the editor who promoted the article before everyone had a chance to vote. If for a period of time the article's talk page did not mention that it was again a FA candidate, then that is an issue that should be raised. However, if you have issues with the pre-Civil War 19th century parts of the article, why not simply make the changed (under the Be Bold theory of Wikipedia editing). If your concerns are legitimate and you cite them with good references, the article's original editor will have to accept them or bring them up for a discussion.--Alabamaboy 18:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There were 4 or 5 editors who made substantive objections and did not support (or even comment on) the renomination. I'm not competent to repair all the objectionable material, nor should it be the responsibility of the objecting editor(s) to write new text to cover obvious omissions. Whatever the motives of the author/nominator, the way this was done, even if technically within guidelines, allowed the second nomination to avoid the detailed review/comments that the initial nomination received, without really addressing the problems that were pointed out. Monicasdude 19:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, I'd like to make the point that the FARC process does not allow you to redress these problems at this time in this place. I would add the relevant tags to indicate the article's current defects for documentary purposes and ask the people managing the FAC process to consider whether there was a material oversight here. I'd reckon the page you were watching was moved, so you didn't see the new submission. If you believe that items were acknowledged in the first failed FAC and that it was a reasonable assumption that the second FAC should not have been submitted if these issues were agreed, you will be asked whether you saw the second FAC show up on the talk page of the article, which you ought to have followed along with the first FAC page. It is far more reasonable to allow that this was a reasonable mistake whereas the resubmission for candidacy was not. I do not, however, believe the FARC process cannot address those grievances because you are asking for an exception to the letter of one law to honour the spirit of another. Buffyg 19:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear (see also the comments on User talk:Monicasdude and my talk page) - I think User:Monicasdude does have a point, and this may be a good place to draw attention to it, but it is not the right place to resolve it (I'm not sure appealing to the "letter" or "spirit" of the "law" is the right approach either - Ignore all rules ;). -- ALoan (Talk) 19:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * (responding to BuffyG) -- I'm going to have to be blunt. The author/self-nominator said, in at least two places, that she acknowledged major problems with the articles, that it required substantial work, and that it was "much too soon" to resubmit it. She then put it back up about 24 hours later, adding a few hastily written, superficial (at best) paragraphs; made no effort to communicate with any of the objectors, and didn't follow the established procedures for an FAC nomination. You're faulting me for believing somebody's acting honestly and in good faith, and ending up being hoodwinked. Where else should I have put comments like these, and would you support me if I put them there? Monicasdude 19:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If your case is as clear as you claim here, my support is likely to be rather beside the point. I am neither one of the powers that be nor faulting you in the manner you claim; I am simply telling you that this means of appeal (FARC) is virtually certain not to be heard as legitimate because it is not the right forum and is in fact in manifest contradiction with the basic rules of this specific forum. I can say that what you've said of your case tells me that there are other forums where your case can get a hearing. I would advise you to seek out a user advocate and lay the issue out on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Buffyg 20:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I have raised this issue on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. We will see if they have any insight on it or can work it out. --Alabamaboy 22:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep it on. No good reason outside of 'playing with the system'. -- A Link to the Past 00:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly thought that it had improved enough since it was first first nominated to warrant nominating it a second time, looking at the differences between those two versions. I had only been with Wikipedia a week and I thought that there were people checking the FAC everyday. I thought that as long as it had undergone enough changes for it to meet all previous objects and FA requirements, which I thought it had, that it could be nominated a second time regardless of time. I'm sorry and did not mean to "manipulate the system." I deeply appreciation your criticism and would not like to see anything I say misconstrued as an attack. Toothpaste 00:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say that is all perfectly understandable. I'd recommend taking taking into account Monicasdude's concerns and working out the edits on the article. This can only strengthen the article in the long run. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep My opinion of the FARC for South Carolina is that it is bull. Does this vote warrant count or   I need to explain it further?--Kiba 01:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless you're eight years old, yes, you do. And you should review the Wikipedia civility policies.Monicasdude 14:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. One of the best policies on Wikipedia for civility is to call those who disagree an eight year old. Get the Hell over it; the article is FA quality. Are you arguing that the people who voted on it are wrong, and you're right? All YOU are doing is being pedantic over this. You aren't FARCing this article because of its quality; rather, you FARCed it because it was renominated too quickly and you didn't notice it. Get the HELL over it. -- A Link to the Past 15:13, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * This response is an unreasonable characterisation and your line of argument borders on hectoring. Monicasdude is asserting that materials shortcomings addressed in the first FAC were not addressed before the candidacy was resubmitted. Monicasdude appears to have been reasonably confused about how to track the FAC and objects that this should not occlude the fact that changes made to allow for the second FAC were not reviewed by those who raised them in the first, just as Toothpaste appears to have been confused about the substance of the shortcomings and the appropriate means to verify that they were addressed. It is unreasonable to acknowledge on the one hand that "it was renominated too quickly" and then to pass over the question of whether that should call into question that outcome of that renomination. Without prejudice to this argument, I believe this simply needs to be addressed through another process, as this process is not intended to address shortcomings in the FAC process but defects thereafter introduced into FA articles. It is, to say the least, intemperate, for you to inject abrasive rhetoric where Monicasdude and Toothpaste are discussing with level heads and good manners. Buffyg 16:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Where am I? Is this some horrible world where calling someone an eight year old is considered good etiquette? What's next, "Good day, poopy face dop poop eater", is that going to become proper? -- A Link to the Past 17:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you were not called an eight-year old. You said that you thought the FARC was "bull" and asked whether you needed to explain yourself further. That question need not be taken as rhetorical. Monicasdude said that the argument would not suffice "[u]nless you're eight years old," which would indicate that she took you seriously enough to ask you to explain yourself in a calm and reasonable fashion; I can't say exactly how seriously that would be. I'd argue that up to that point, the argument on either side was about demanding unambiguous civility. Rather than substantiating your point in good faith, you replied by arguing incivility with statements of the form "get the hell over it," which moved this from being a misunderstanding in which your possibly rhetorical question may have been taken earnestly but met with irony to a clear self-contradiction in which you argued incivility by being decidedly uncivil.
 * That was the wrong sort of irony for sorting things out. Please take a step back to let your head clear — you'll see that we are not elsewhere slipping down any slope of accepting bad etiquette if we can all now be gracious about this. Buffyg 18:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I was not called an eight year old, if you were to read closely in on this. Kiba called it bull (which isn't that proper of a thing to say), but then he made the insinuation that unless he's an eight year old, he should explain why it's bull. Personal attack or attack on an edit of theirs. Hmm... -- A Link to the Past 22:53, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Apologies for that bit of confusion. There is, however, a considerable difference between telling someone that it would be immature not to explain themselves and calling them an eight year old. In the instance at hand the first response is to ask someone to indicate clearly that they are not acting churlish by complying clearly with policy (there's no insinuation there); the subsequent response imputes a distinct act of incivility that isn't exactly what that person said and meets it with unambiguous incivility. I can see that you're cooling off and reconsidering with a measure of grace; please continue to do so. Buffyg 23:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here. From discussion on Wikipedia talk:featured article candidates, I wasn't aware if this problem had been resolved or not, but I can see now that it hasn't. First, I'd like all the personal attacks to cease immediately. Second, I agree with Monicadude's comments that this nomination amounted to gaming the process (about which I am not pleased...). As the nomination itself was tainted, I think Monicadude was correct in bringing this problem to the FARC, despite the instruction to avoid bring up recently promoted articles. I wrote that requirement, you see - the reason was to avoid people nominating articles here that had recently been legitimately promoted; on the other hand, Monicadude has a point that this aritlce was not legitimately promoted, so I don't really have an issue with him bringing it to attention on this page. I'm tempted to resolve the problem by "defeaturing" it and renominating it on FAC, along with a paragraph explaining the situation. Comments? &rarr;Raul654 19:48, August 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank, Raul. This seems eminently fair. Having been through a similar ordeal over the Anschluss entry, I thought it reasonable to refer Monicasdude to the FAC talk page first, since that appeared to be where the process failure happened. Unless there are objections here and given that the article has already been demoted, will this FARC be closed after a brief period to lodge objections? Given that the demotion is already done, it seems to me that it may be appropriate to go ahead and archive the FARC, as it's already been effectively actioned. Buffyg 20:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree--this is fair. I was naive in thinking that the situation was resolving itself. Doing as &rarr;Raul654 sayas will enable the process to be done in a fair manner. --Alabamaboy 21:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks: I agree, that would be the best solution. (I have removed this page from WP:FARC, by the way, although it is still in the FARC archive.) -- ALoan (Talk) 23:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Raul, too. Can we have a notice on the FAC page similar to the one we have here? It would have helped me out a lot when I first relisted it. Toothpaste 23:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)