Wikipedia:Featured article review/Islam/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 kept 06:02, 9 January 2008.

Islam
According WP:FACR an article that is the subject of an edit war should not be featured. The current edit war has caused [ page protection] and thus Islam no longer meets the featured article criteria Alexfusco5 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Expanding on the nomination: Islam has been protected multiple times since becoming a featured article in May 2007 (admittedly, by myself multiple times). It was protected once in June 2007, once in July 2007 (other than during its appearance on the Main Page), once in September 2007, once in December 2007, and now, again, in January 2008. This seems to be a persistent problem. I understand this is a contentious subject and the repeated edit wars are not surprising at all, but criterion (1e) is about stability. Thus, the question of whether the instability of this article should lead to demotion should certainly be on the table. Additionally, the persistent edit wars are a signal that there might be other problems with the article. --  tariq abjotu  01:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article might do a lot better if substantial changes are proposed and discussed on the talk page first, or if this approach is effectively enforced. Too many people have too many views on the topic, and, given the topic's breadth, it results in people deciding to rewrite sections they think need changing - which other certain editors may oppose. I am partial to some of the disputes mentioned above, so I won't comment on them in general. I will however state that the most recent dispute is the result of a one-man pointish editing spree by Arrow740 who decided that he was just going to add more and more incredibly biased material anytime he was reverted by other editors,   thereby baiting multiple editors into reverting him yet managing to avoid violating 3rr himself. Surely cases such as these should be assessed differently than the free-for-all's from last June/July (which were rightly protected).    ITAQALLAH   02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The recent protection was due to the actions of User:Tigeroo, who reverted six times. He has been the cause of the recent edit-warring. Itaqallah and I agree to the consensus version that was in place before he started whitewashing the jihad section. I've asked itaqallah to explain how my edits violate guidelines or policies and he hasn't been able to do so. The discussion can be found on the page. He didn't mention that I actually removed many of my additions after discussion on the talk page: . Arrow740 (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Arrow, there had been at least four editors explaining to you why your additions violated policies on Talk:Islam. Please don't play these games. You did self revert, but several hours later you were back again making more tendentious insertions.  ITAQALLAH   02:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) As pointed out above, it is not only the recent edit war, Islam is not a stable article look at the [ page protection log] and tell me why with so many dispute protections the article while it was featured how the article is stable Alexfusco5 02:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article has a low quality. As Itaqallah said: "the most recent dispute is the result of a one-man pointish editing spree by Arrow740 who decided that he was just going to add more and more incredibly biased material anytime he was reverted by other editors". This can not be more true. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

FAR is not dispute resolution. Someone needs to better explain why the criteria are at issue, or this will be closed. Marskell (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The criteria at issue is 1e because an article that has frequent edit wars is not stable and as seen in the [ page protection log] edit wars are a frequent problem Alexfusco5 12:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My question would be: is there a basic version underneath the reverts (so to speak) that is holding up over time? I read this at the time of FAC and it's stilll recognizable to me.


 * 1e needs to be treated carefully. Certain articles—Islam is obviously one—are always going to face a constant, low-level instability. 1e has not been used to preclude such articles; if it were, certain core topics could never be FA. That protection log is no worse than Global warming, for example, which was kept here. Marskell (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, but there's no reason for you or Joelr31 to imply that there was no legitimate reason for opening this FAR. Note that neither I nor Alexfusco5 are involved in the conflict(s) with this article, so the reminder that this is not dispute resolution is misplaced. If you were talking to one of the other editors who have commented here, please make that clear. --  tariq abjotu  20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Marskell: Yes but the protection for has mainly been for vandalism and on Global warming there has been less content disputes in more time <b style="color:blue;">Alex</b><b style="color:red;">fusco</b><sup style="color:green;">5 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this was illegitimate in that anyone means badly. But this nom misses what FAR is and can do, and has not properly cited the criteria:
 * The article is f-protected anyway. We can't do anything to improve content at FAR. At least until the 28th the appropriate forum is the article talk.
 * If the problem is that people just can't get along and are shouting at each other on talk, Dispute resolution is that way.
 * Protections in-themselves do not mean a 1e breach or, again, we would be excluding a great many important articles from FA. Global warming, Barack Obama, even Lion, have significant protection logs. One needs to show how the warring has compromised the base article. Here is Islam at the time of featuring; compare to today and you see substantially similar pages. In fact, I find this quite encouraging: the article is holding up well (with the possible exception of Jihad). I've watched it and commented on the initial FAC, and I think it's a good example of Wikipedians keeping their house in order.
 * Joel has closed this twice and I'll be closing again. If people want to talk about 1e in general, WT:FA might be appropriate. Marskell (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2 points 1) I was not suggesting it was due to the protection, I was saying thereis a dispute problem. 2) You can't close this FAR just because of your opinion <b style="color:blue;">Alex</b><b style="color:red;">fusco</b><sup style="color:green;">5 12:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.