Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Fawn M. Brodie/1

Fawn M. Brodie

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept Consensus is keep and take to dispute resolution. Szzuk (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am listing this page for reassessment based on Good article criteria #4 and #5 (mainly #5). The same issues that No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith has, Fawn M. Brodie also has, as it's author.


 * 5. Is it stable?
 * Ongoing edit wars since prior to May 2011 (instead of October 2010):


 * 4. Fair representation without bias:
 * This is directly in regards to #5. The "Fair representation without bias" cannot be determined.  If one side of the edit war is correct then the article is bias in favor of the "apologetic Mormon" viewpoint. If the other is correct the article is bias in favor of Fawn McKay Brodie hypothesis, at the exclusion of DNA research.  Therefor the Good article criteria #4 can't be agreed upon.

--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs)


 * I think it would make more sense for you to take this article through the normal WP:Dispute resolution processes. An edit war between partisans is not going to be solved here.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not about the disputed content of the edit war nor I edit the page since 11 March 2011. This is only about the above items and the fact that there has been an edit war ongoing since october.  A GA cannot be involved in an edit war and this one has been since May 2011.  This article has undergone almost 100 changes since the GA Review on July 1, 2009, most of which are not "Vandalism" changes. Can you honestly say that it has been stable'?   Additionally, how can it be a "Fair representation without bias", when no one can agree if the article is Bias or not?  If these do not apply to the Article, then it is not GA anymore.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * An article is not required to stay the same after it's listed as GA. Almost 100 non-vandalism changes in the past two years is a good thing.  Most articles that meet the GA requirements—or even the FA requirements—can be and are improved after their listing.  The fact that changes happen is not grounds for de-listing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So then please explain to me at what point dose a page, involved in an edit war for months, deserve to be delisted. The changes are not the issue, its the "stability". I honestly don't understand.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We do delist articles which are unstable, though we first seek out a means to stop the disruption. I agree with WhatamIdoing that GAR is not the best place to resolve edit wars or content disputes. It is better to come here after attempts at dispute resolution have failed. There is nothing significant on the talkpage or on ARTEST4ECHO or John Foxe's talkpages. I note that there is some personal friction between the two, though I don't see how that directly relates to this article. Unless someone disagrees in the next few days, I will close this GAR as a keep.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I have only made one edit to this page and it is was a minor edit (adding a wikilink) unrelated to any edit conflict on this page. I have nothing to do with the edit war or content dispute on this page, and this GAR has nothing to do with the contents of that dispute.  This has to do with the fact that this page has had an ongoing edit war since May 2011 and is therefore "unstable".
 * Second, To ignore delisting an unstable articles based on past "some personal friction" between myself and John Foxe on a different page is not WP:Assuming good faith. I listed this page for the reasons above and for no other reason. To ignore a legitimated request based on a different page and different issue is unfair.
 * I still haven't gotten a good explanation as to when a "unstable" page should be desisted. One month, six months, a year?  The only reason either of you have given is that "we first seek out a means to stop the disruption".  This page has gone to those "means" and are still not stable.  So that doesn't explain how a Good article can be involved in an edit war and still be a GA.  The Good article criteria #5 clearly say "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute."  This page clearly doesn't meet that criteria anymore, therefore I don't see why this page should be a GA.
 * However, Since it seems that there is no consensus on this and it appears to be leaning towards "keep", I am more then happy to have you close this GAR, but I would still like to have a good explanation on how long it take for a "unstable" page with and ongoing edit war to be delisted. Your welcome to close this page and explain it better to me on my own talk page if you wish,so that the GAR can be closed.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't ask that someone attempts to resolve a dispute themselves if they have history of conflict with someone involved in the dispute; but we would ask that they raise the matter of the dispute at a dispute resolution forum rather than at GAR. If an article is still unstable AFTER appropriate steps have been taken to resolve a dispute, that is the time to bring the article to GAR.
 * My point above is that I looked on the talkpage of the article, and on the talkpage of the GAR nominator - ARTEST4ECHO, as well as the main contributor to the article - John Foxe, and found no attempts at dispute resolution. I did, while I was looking, note there was some friction between these two people, but that the friction appeared to be unrelated to this article. That is, the communication I noted between the two people was not related to this article, and so couldn't be seen as being part of the dispute on the article nor any resolution process. So it looked as though the nominator had gone straight to GAR rather than first attempt dispute resolution.
 * I hope that's a bit clearer. I do dispute resolution myself, but I'm already involved, so I wouldn't want to take this one on. Try Editor assistance or Dispute resolution noticeboard. And good luck!  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)