Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 23

Common Cold

 * Result: 3 to 0, delist

Nomination for delisting due to:
 * many sections are very poorly referenced and there appear to be many unverifiable statements
 * the pathology section discusses transmission, not the pathology
 * the treatment section is poorly organized -- a mix of approved OTC drugs for symptom relief, palliative patient care, unproven supplements, experimental antiviral drugs, and folklore. G716 07:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist
 * The lead is currently an introduction rather than a summary of the article. It introduces information not expanded on in the article and also lacks any information from 'Prevention', 'Treatment', 'History', and '"Cold" as a misnomer'. This needs to be corrected per WP:LEAD.
 * Wikification of words like "nuclei" and "asymptomatic" per WP:CONTEXT, and US$" and "GB£" per WP:DATE. Removal of inconsistent wikification of years, decades, and centuries considering they don't really add context per WP:DATE.
 * The article is currently riddled with fact tags and cleanup templates.
 * The second half is very listy/stubby.
 * References are not consistently formatted, which is preferred by criteria 2b.
 * The article would benefit from some images as well. Lara Love  T / C  16:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist - the mechanism of infection needs more elaboration. Avis12 18:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Constitution of Belarus
Result: Article renominated at GAC resulting in promotion to GA.

Was denied GA status due to lack of citations recently. So, with the help of Piotrus, citations were added to all sections and to anywhere else I can think of. If there is any other issues with the article, please let me know. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't really see any problems with the citations at the moment to stop GA. If these citations were added after the GAC was reviewed though, then it should be listed on the page again. LuciferMorgan 08:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were added after the GAC was failed. I am still pretty new to this process, so I didn't want to rush this back to GAC without checking with yall first. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's cool - good luck the 2nd time around. LuciferMorgan 14:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead could perhaps be longer? (WP:LEAD says roughly that you should distill each major section of the article to a paragraph or sentence, and then put it in the lead) -Malkinann 09:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how long, since pretty much this constitution is like almost all others. Plus, the issues with the constitution I have seen are not because the document is flawed, but by the guy who runs the whole show. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * CommentWhen developing the Constitution, Belarus was influenced by the constitutions of various countries, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the United States. It may need citation. Avis12 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Renominate at GAC - Citations look good to me, although, I do agree with the previous comment that the statement of the constitution influencing others should be sourced. The lead is sufficient, in my opinion. I don't see the necessity to summarize each section of the constitution. Minor issues I found are italicized quotations. Per WP:MOS, quotations should not be italicized simply because they are quotations. Per WP:MOS, only if the text is italicized in the original, should it be so in the article. If a different style is used, it must be for good reason and an editorial note, preferably in brackets, should be included to show that the emphasis has been added. Additionally,  Is the name of the gazette, "Zvezda"? If so, it should not be in quotations, rather it should be italicized. Otherwise, according to WP:PUNC, punctuation should be outside of quotation marks except in cases of full quotations. Therefore, it would then read   There may be other minor issues at these, but they should, hopefully, be found by the GAC reviewer.  Lara Love  T / C  20:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Raëlian Church
Result: Renominated at GAC.

I should ask for this article's failed good article nomination to be reviewed, as there is no basis for the claim that there are image tag problems (which led to quickfail), especially as of now since all the images in the article are in Wikipedia Commons, except the one in the infobox and the picture of Raelian symbols. Nevertheless, in the past four days, I have made significant improvements and additions (over 140 edits) to the article. ☺ ▬█ ♪♪♫  I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢  18:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the George W. Bush article history and had noticed the number of edits since 16:00 of June 4. It seems I made more edits to my article than all the edits in the GWB article since then. ☺ ▬█ ♪♪♫  I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢  18:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Footnotes, your ref tags should be after punctuation. -Malkinann 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's true. Punctuation includes commas as well as periods.  If you do a search on the article right now using (CTRL+F), you'll find many ".[" and several ",[" but no "]." or "],".  When you commented, there was only one "]." - an excess period.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 03:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also read that it is not required that the ref tag be next to puntucation if it is not at the end of a sentence. Your link says:

Where to place ref tags

Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers.[3]

When placed at the end of a clause or sentence the ref tag should be directly after the punctuation mark without an intervening space,[3] in order to prevent the reference number wrapping to the next line.[3] The same is true for successive ref tags.[2][3] The exception is a dash[3]—which should follow the ref tag. This is the format recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style.[4]


 * ◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 04:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As of now, there are no violations of "Footnotes" in the Raëlian Church article.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 04:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Is this: "Canadian sociologist Susan J. Palmer has studied the movement for more than 15 years[9] and says the movement intentionally stirs a moderate level of controversy which leads to criticism by both religious and non-religious fronts." in the later citation for Palmer page 77? -Malkinann 07:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, I have to admit, I didn't want to have too many footnotes in the lead, but I will add one to that.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢  ◙◙◙

This image: Image:Symbols (Raëlism).png probably needs a detailed fair use rationale to be on the safe side. This may have been why the article was quickfailed last time.-Malkinann 11:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If I'm reading the nomination correctly, significant changes and improvements were made after the failed nomination for GA. If that is the case, it would normally be recommended to renominate at GAC, however, if image issues were the only failing criteria, the reviewer should have put the nomination on hold and suggested the issues be fixed. That is not a time consuming task. With that said, my recommendation is to  Put nomination on Hold  and have the failing reviewer determine if the failing issues have all been adequately addressed. If so, the nomination should be passed. Lara Love  T / C  20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently, using fair use images without a detailed fair use rationale is a quick-fail criterion, but knowing which image was problematic would probably have been helpful. -Malkinann 00:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know why that totally skipped my mind. It's even mentioned in the nomination... I'm blonde, please forgive me. With that said, I change my recommendation to Renominate at GAC. Regards, Lara Love  T / C  05:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is currently nominated (again) and has been since June 4. Why it is here for review concurrently is beyond me. Argos '  Dad  19:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was quickfailed (some time after 4 June), and the quickfail was contested in this review (8 June), and I believe the quickfail was found appropriate. It didn't really have consensus, though, because for about a week, it was only me and the nominator commenting, and a consensus of two is a bit iffy to my mind.  Sometimes when a review is motioned to go back to GAC, it's recommended to backdate the nomination. -Malkinann 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hippolyte de Bouchard
'''General consensus was for the article to be renominated at WP:GAC which was done by the nominator before a complete consensus was reached. Message left on article talk page to also recommend suggested changes be made to the article before its review.'''

The article has been unfairly "quick-failed".

"Scan the article and decide if an article can be "Quick-failed" before an extensive review. Some issues that may lead to a quick fail 1. A complete lack of reliable sources, see WP:Verifiability.[1] 2. Obviously non-neutral treatment of a topic, see WP:Neutral point of view.[2] 3. The article has any cleanup banners, including but not limited to cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced, etc, or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, huh, or similar tags . 4. The article has been the subject of recent ongoing edit wars.[3] 5. The article uses copyrighted images which do not meet Wikipedia's fair use policy. "

Aparently, the problem was that the footnotes were before and not after the dot (ie. "[REF]." in staid of ".[REF]") It was necessary to make one single minor edit to change them. How can you say that it was "a complete lack of reliable sources"??? >( --Argentini an 22:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Put on Hold - if that was all the problem that the editor could see with the article, they could have put it on hold, explained what the issue was in the talk page, and then let you fix it. However, the citations don't have enough information with them - see WP:CITE for more information on what extra information your citations need. -Malkinann 23:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Back to GAC, definently not a small enough number of references to warrent instant failing on that alone, though several sections do appear to be without internal citations, they might possibly be covered by the general references, and that probably deserves a closer look. Homestarmy 23:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Back to GAC with the endorsement of GA/R. This article may not quite meet GA standards yet, but it deserves a proper review, and the chance to improve during the process, e.g., through the hold mechanism mentioned above. Quick failing was an understandable error made by a (no-doubt busy) reviewer who saw that the article had recently been quick-failed at GAC. Geometry guy 00:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse fail - From merely scanning the article, I have the following recommendations for improvements before this article is renominated:
 * Ensure that all sentences end with some sort of punctuation. There is at least one sentence (in the lead) lacking a period.
 * Ensure all dates are wikified. I saw several that were not. Possibly none in the article are.
 * There seems to be a shortage of inline citations in places. To say that someone ordered him to do something is the equivalent of a quote, therefore requires a source, for example.
 * The references need to be formatted consistently.
 * I can see that a lot of hard work has gone into this article. I think with a little more it can achieve GA. Good luck with your edits. Drop a line on my talk page if you have any questions or need some assistance. Lara Love  T / C  05:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ty Cobb
'''Result: Issues of nomination addressed. Article brought back up to standards, therefore will retain GA.'''

Article fails several GA standards at the moment: It is tagged as being unverified (#2), and it is not currently stable (#5). There is an edit war going on due to an apparent NPOV non-issue for several days. The issue is about whether we can say that Cobb is considered one of the greatest players of all time, which can be sourced but is considered NPOV by a lone editor and is constantly being removed. |these Wholesale changes were made to the article several days ago because of it, and the lone editor is constantly |just reverting the article to anything resembling this particular state even though there is a 40% less text and 75% fewer citations then it used to have. The article is just devolving into chaos. -- transaspie 06:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Get the information correct before you start accusing people of things. I am not the lone editor to make this statement, I'm just the one reverting the information.  That statement has NOT been sourced and is being inserted by a person that has been harassing me for days.  As I mentioned, I did not intend to remove the content that I did in that specific edit and even said to PUT IT BACK IN.  That aside, the article is still in horrible shape and needs to be fixed.  Rather than make a POV statement like - He is the greatest, or one of the greatest, or something to the effect .... I would like to show you a piece of text that I helped get into the article on Babe Ruth
 * In 1969, he was named baseball's Greatest Player Ever in a ballot commemorating the 100th anniversary of professional baseball. In 1998, The Sporting News ranked Ruth Number 1 on the list of "Baseball's 100 Greatest Players." The next year, baseball fans named Ruth to the Major League Baseball All-Century Team.
 * That type of statement is a MUCH better way of communicating the same information. It is NOT a statement of opinion and can allow the reader to make their own conclusions.  //Tecmobowl 06:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I will apologize for any comments I may have made to accuse you of being the only person to claim NPOV, because I can agree with you on that in some ways. Reading through the pre-revert article, there is the statement that "Cobb is considered one of the greatest players ever"...and wouldn't you know it, there is absolutely no part of the article which makes any references to reinforce that statement.  In this regard, you are correctly obliged to remove it.  A statement like that is perfectly fine in an introduction only if you source it somewhere in the article.


 * For example, the article on Michael Jordan clearly states that he is "[w]idely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time..." without a cite, but THEN has a section of his legacy which clearly reinforces that statement. That's perfectly acceptable.  Nothing written about Cobb in the old article enforces its claim of him being the best.  If I had noticed that before, I probably wouldn't have been so rash about it here.  I'm sorry for overacting about it.


 * Beyond that, however, even you admit the rest of the article needs work. If we restored the old longer article but removed that NPOV line in the intro, and trimmed one section you've adapted into its own article, can we roll with that or does it still need work?  -- transaspie 12:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist, looks like some very bad instability: . However, if this diff is just because of one person reverting to the same version over and over, which version is closest to the version that passed GA status? If the article has changed radically, it may just be a better idea to re-nominate for GA status, that way, you can be more certain that the article in whatever form it turns into is really a GA. Homestarmy 15:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist Currently not the same article I passed a few months ago. I would say probably reverting back to that version, but I wouldn't want the work to be undone for the many editors who may have contributed more information to the article. But as Homestarmy said, as soon as the article has returned itself to the GA standards, do renominate. --Nehrams2020 05:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A week ago I looked at this article and though it was great. With a bit of work it could be FA quality. I look at it now though and it's in shambles. I don't know what happened but the article's virtually destroyed now and is in need of a complete fix-up.  Delist  Changing to keep now that the article's fixed.-- Wizardman 16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

cautious keep ooops, no, now it's strong delist oh wait looks like we can keep it now... er wait, delist' it no longer meets criteria 5---stability... regain the stability and I'd be willing to revise my opinion... but as is, I would encourage you to go to RFC. Get people on your side... Balloonman 03:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)*Tentative keep looks as if the edit warring is over...Balloonman 19:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made a plea on the talk page to get this article reverted back to the longer, more cited version in an attempt to keep GA status. If I can't get full co-operation on this, then you probably should just delist. -- transaspie 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has been reverted for now...it's not exactly the same as it was because one of the initial sections was spun into its own article and one paragraph disrupted the flow of the article and was deleted. It may be slightly unstable in case I deleted good parts of the destroyed article and messed it up in the process.  Hopefully, the reverted article is a cautious keep.  -- transaspie 03:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the talk page, and i'm not sure I understand, has the article been reverted close to what the article was like when it was first reviewed, or close to a version about a week old? I see there was some talk about trying not to lose a very large number of citations.... Homestarmy 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It resembles the article that was a week old, though I'm discovering I have to clean up some aspects of the larger article, much to my annoyance. (It's VERY cautious keep now)  It is similar to the article that was passed for GA, but about 20 more citations were added.  The article that was destroyed removed some 70 citations and a lot of them have been restored now.  Still, I have cautious pessimism about this article because I'm having to clean various parts of it up and possibly replace an entire section soon (the one section I chose not to revert for some stupid reason). -- transaspie 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (Meh, dealing with this whole article has been very chaotic for me lately.)
 * If the article requires some work, maybe it would just be best to let it not be a GA, and then re-nominate it so you can be sure that whatever changes you make really are consistant with the GA criteria. Homestarmy 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is one of the targets of a sockpuppet (a sockpuppet that's not even trying anymore, IMO), which will further damage it's ability to be stable. Add to it that certain aspects of the article are not universally among those that follow the article, and maybe a hopefully temporary delisting would work.  It would certainly make me feel better because I have put myself under far too much pressure to fix this article on my own and I wouldn't feel so rushed about fixing it. -- transaspie 18:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (I'm thinking the article is currently between GA-class and B-class)
 * Reverting the article back to normal subsequently led to another user reporting me to an admin and resulted in the article being locked for a week. This needs to be delisted.  -- transaspie 11:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A shame about your troubles with this article, if the problem is that bad, have you tried Mediation or RfC yet? Homestarmy 23:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to properly do that. WP:RFC is confusing to me.  All I know is that this article is causing me severe and legitimate mental health problems and I wish I never involved myself with this article in the first place.  I need help because I can't do any of this stuff on my own.  BTW, the article has since been unlocked...one condition that I was not made aware of for the article being unlocked was that it would be reverted to "destroyed" status.  One lone dissenter wanted the article like this, and the user got their way.  I can't win.  :(  strong delist -- transaspie 08:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Update - Article fixed After long negotiations and much editing, the damage has been undone and it should be back to GA quality now. Guanxi 16:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looks fine to me. Lara Love  T / C  19:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Kudos to Guanxi for bringing the article back to its old GA self. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The diff from when this article was promoted and what its like now still seems to show much disparity, was it reverted to a version somewhat later than the GA version? Homestarmy 23:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... I think I misunderstand something, because the answer seems too obvious to me: 'Of course it's different, people have been editing it for three months'. GA status doesn't lock the article; it still can and should be improved. Maybe this will clarify it: One particular edit did the damage; I undid the damaging parts of that edit; I did not revert the article back three months. Guanxi 00:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just though people meant it was reverted to when it was a GA. Homestarmy 01:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see no glaring problems, and the way I see it, a negotiated end to a dispute makes an article fairly stable, even if the history doesn't show it. Homestarmy 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Promiscuous (song)
Results: Issues addressed; Nomination withdrawn.

I failed this article during its first nomination, and I think there are still some lingering problems. The lead doesn't have any summary of the "Critical reviews" section. The "Critical reviews" section is two sentences long; one is seven words, and the other is five quotes thrown into one sentence. Some of the information about its performance in Canada is not covered by the source provided. None of the information about how the music video performed is referenced. The table of chart positions is a complete mess. Number ones should not be boldfaced, there shouldn't be parenthetical numbers, and the number of charts is way too much (see WP:CHARTS). ShadowHalo 07:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * After some fixing following this review, anything else? igordebraga ≠ 00:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Expand the second paragraph under critical reception to like 3 sentences. M3tal H3ad 08:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - It appears that the issues have been addressed. Lara Love  T / C  19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there anything else we can do here? Homestarmy 01:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional reviews/recommendations for consensus? I don't feel right about processing a discussion with one recommendation... my own, at that. :/ Lara Love  T / C  07:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep - it seems fine now. :) -Malkinann 05:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nomination Definitely improved.  ShadowHalo 05:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Beelzebub (Sand Land)
'''Consensus: Delisting upheld due to in-universe prose. 4-1'''


 * Comment - I'm lost here. Why was it delisted exactly? I don't see how the article can get better than it stands now. Lord Sesshomaru
 * The comment left with the article says that it's too "in-universe" - that it doesn't really establish Beelzebub's significance or influence from the wider world. Manual of Style (writing about fiction) would be the applicable style guide. -Malkinann 06:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So all I have to do is establish the character's popularity and what else? Lord Sesshomaru
 * Don't treat him as if he's real in the prose, (e.g. instead of saying "he is this", say "he is shown as this") have more stuff on his character design and real-world influences on the character. There's a section in the writing about fiction MoS called "perspective" - you could use it as a checklist. Are there any interviews available with the creator?  Have a look at other GA or FA fictional characters to see how they do out of universe prose.-Malkinann 00:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep delisted agree with Malkinann... and the sentences are very "he did this and x happened then he did this and y happened, but z didn't happen because of this." It makes for a choppy uninteresting article to those not familiar with the subject.Balloonman 18:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment should I place In-universe at the top of the article or In-universe/Anime and manga instead? Lord Sesshomaru
 * Whichever you'd feel would be more useful. anime and manga might attract the attention of the larger anime wikiproject, perhaps? -Malkinann 01:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse delist - I agree that the in-universe issue needs to be addressed. Lara Love  T / C  17:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist The main reason this article should be failed is that it is not broad enough. It only delves into the character's history, with no other sections of information. The in-universe is part of this, and additional information may be difficult to find, but at this point the article should be delisted until it is further expanded. --Nehrams2020 08:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike Matusow

 * Result. There was no consensus to delist, and perhaps a consensus to keep, following article improvements. The main issue was the short lead: some argued that this is sufficient for such a short article, but there were concerns that the lead does not overview the contents of the article adequately. However, no comments have been made in the last week, so the result is do not delist. I attempted to address some of the concerns about the lead before archiving. Geometry guy 19:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has quite a few issues. The lead is incredibly short. The refs are placed incorrectly (i.e. spaces between footnotes, spaces between periods and footnotes, etc.). There are TONS of short paragraphs, and in general, the prose is not up to par. The vast majority of the references come from either CardPlayer results pages or a single article on Matusow- and considering his success and controversial nature, plus the popularity of poker, I'm sure there are dozens of articles from reliable sources regarding Matusow. A few statements are uncited, especially in the "Personal life" section, where sources are particularly necessary. This section also discusses all of Matusow's issues, but doesn't mention other aspects of his life- hell, the article doesn't even tell me if he has a family. Finally, there's an unnecessary trivia section full of short sentences that should be integrated or removed. Overall, I don't feel that this article is currently worthy of GA status and would urge delisting. -- Kicking222 16:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist - The issues with placement of in-line citations seems to have been corrected, however, this article fails to meet criteria. Here are some of the issues I found:
 * The lead is weak. It should be a summary of the article per WP:LEAD.
 * "Matusow suffered from bullying when going through school" - Is this covered by the ref at the end of the paragraph? Speaking of that ref, there needs to be a page specification.
 * The second paragraph of "Early years" is improperly sourced. The ref should be after the claim, not clumped together at the end of the paragraph, as is done here with ref 5 and 6. Speaking of ref 6, Full Tilt Poker should not be wikified as such in the source, it should be fulltiltpoker.com.
 * Under "World Series of Poker", WSOP is used. In order to use abbreviations such as this, you need to first include them in parenthesis following the spelled out use. Meaning: World Series of Poker (WSOP). Subsequent uses should then be the abbreviated. (Fixed myself.)
 * The tiny table under "World Series of Poker bracelets" seems pointless.
 * The first sentence under "Other poker events" needs to be reworded. It seems to be missing an and after the comma, or "earned" should become "earning".
 * Stand alone years and months need not be wikified. In this case, I only see one of each. (Fixed them myself.)
 * I agree with the nomination that there are far too many stubby paragraphs. Many one sentence. These need to be merged together. "Other poker events" is, in particular, very stubby. It reads like a trivia section.
 * I'm also in agreement with the nomination that the claims in the personal section MUST be referenced. Speaking of mental health issues, drug use, arrests, and suicidal thoughts must be proven. WP:BLP is clear about this. The last sentence, about how his view on life has changed, also needs to be referenced.
 * Trivia sections are unacceptable per WP:Trivia.
 * There are not enough sources; there is too much reliance on the same sources. There is also information missing from sources, some which I have pointed out above. Page specifications and dates of articles. Regards, Lara Love  T / C  19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I congratulate Lara on fixing several problems. For the rest, I remind her of the lead of WP:WIAGA: The good article criteria measure decent articles; they are significantly different from the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles.
 * Many FA's do not have two or three sources for every fact; on this subject they may not exist.
 * As for the trivia section, WP:Trivia does not require or recommend deletion; it recommends incorporation. Here that would mean a paragraph on "Tastes and lifestyle" or some such; but I don't see that as much of an improvement over the section as it stands. Yet the facts are of some interest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thank you for pointing out the criteria for me, but I know it. And, frankly, I'm not quite sure why you wrote that out considering you're backing my point while opposing it.
 * First, GA criteria does not measure decent articles; it measures satisfactory articles.
 * Second, as noted in the link you so kindly posted distinguishing between FA and GA criteria, "A Good Article must only comply with six style guidelines;" lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation, as listed in WP:WIAGA (emphasis mine).
 * Both require factual accuracy and verifiability, which this article lacks in places. GA criteria 2b requires there be reliable sources for quotes and challengable material.
 * Additionally, I did not recommend that the trivia section be deleted. I know what WP:TRIVIA recommends, which is why I included the link and pasted the template to the section. Trivia sections have the potential to be a dumping ground for inaccurate and/or non-notable information. That is inappropriate for GA. Notable, accurate, and appropriately sourced information should be worked into the article, anything else should either be removed from the article completely, or transferred to the talk page until it can be appropriately worked into the article.
 * While your participation in the process is appreciated, I would prefer you base your votes on the GA criteria. Regards, Lara Love  T / C  05:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, you might want to create a topic on the WP:WIAGA talkpage to change "decent" from "satisfactory" in the criteria lead. They more or less mean the same thing, anyway. &mdash; Deckiller 14:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep&mdash;please remove the trvia section and integrate those one sentence paragraphs. Then it's an easy keep. The second paragraph of the lead section could be expanded a bit, but that point alone wouldn't be worth failing over. &mdash; Deckiller 15:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Conditional keep&mdash;the prose needs a bit of work as well. I went through and worked on the article a bit, but it needs additional work from someone with more available time. It's generally clear, but the tone is a little off in some areas. Some weak verbs are used ("go" and "take"), which usually take away from the prose being clear. It just needs another pair of eyes before it's a definite tweak. Also, the first paragrpah of Personal Life needs a citation or two. &mdash; Deckiller 15:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But what about all of the other points? What about the entire article basically coming from two sources? What about the lack of citations? What about the incredibly small lead? -- Kicking222 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The short lead is in perfect sync with the guidelines of WP:LEAD an article that has less than 15K characters should have 1-2 paragraphs. This article is 6K characters---thus on the short side and deserving of only single paragraph entry.  As for sources---there are more than 2 sources. Granted some of the sources are blogs---but this is one case where blogs is appropriate.  They are not simply blogs of some poker fan, they are blogs of some of the most notable poker players in the world.  Even  blogs by Matasaw are appropriate.  In short this isn't one of the best articles, but I have to vote to Keep.Balloonman 05:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I read back over the article, which has had several changes (and I made a few more). While some of the above issues have been addressed, most have not. The biggest issue I have is the reliance on ref 5 with no page specifications. The claims made with that reference as the source are harsh claims. While I'm not saying they aren't true, I am saying that by WP policy, there needs to be strong, reliable sources to back them up. If that can't be done, the information needs to be deleted. As it is now, it still does not meet GA standards, therefore my vote stands. Lara Love  T / C  19:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm not attached to the article enough to start fact checking and sourcing (especially since I just made a few tweaks), so someone else who worked on the article extensively in the past will have to step up if others agree with your points. &mdash; Deckiller 01:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Reference 5 that you point to is an interview with Mike for the Gambler Magazine. There are no page numbers.  The issues that are discussed are things that Mike himself says and are often discussed by TV commentators during games.  Mike "the Mouth" Matasauw is known for having a big mouth (he hides nothing, shares everything, and wears his emotions on his sleeves.)  If anything his bringing them up isn't "harsh" but rather self promotion.  Mike'x ego likes to remind people how bad he messed up so that they know how far he has come.Balloonman 16:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying the entire magazine is that one interview? If not, it needs a page specification. Also the ref currently reads, "Kaplan, Michael. "Me and My Big Mouth", August 2006. Retrieved on June 1, 2007." It would appear that the publication is missing, which furthers my point that additional information is needed in regards to the referencing. As for everything else you've stated, without reliable sources, that's all OR. If it's included in the article, it MUST be backed up with sources. Lara Love  T / C  04:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, what I'm saying is that the entire interview is on one website, thus there are no pages. I shoud correct something that I said above. I thought that this was "Gambler" which is a respected magazine (and thus I thought this was their online portal), instead it is "Total Gambler."  I'm not familiar with TG, but it looks like a credible site dealing with different aspects of gambling. As for everything else I stated, yes it is OR... but it is why, if I were to question the facts presented in the interview, it would not be because they are too harsh, but rather because Mike is "the Mouth."  Mike likes to portray himself as the hard luck story who has made it big.  (Yes, I am a huge poker fan.)Balloonman 05:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I now realize the issue. The link is outdated. I'm not sure if that was the case previously, but it's no longer on the site's server. Unless it can be retrieved in archive, or replaced with another source, that information is going to need to be removed. Lara Love  T / C  06:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The link is weird... it's not dead, but every other time I try to get to it, it doesn't work and tells me that it can't find the article. The other half it works just fine... I was JUST in there, but I had to load the page 3 times before it pulled up the article.Balloonman 14:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment while archiving: for me, this link worked the first time, but the second time (and thereafter) it redirected me to a registration page. Geometry guy 19:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

 * Result. No consensus to delist and so retain as GA. This provoked a long discussion, most of which concerned whether the article approaches this controversial subject from a neutral point of view, and whether it was properly sourced, cited and balanced in coverage. The lead was particularly criticised for presenting a point of view, rather than an overview. During the course of the discussion there was much improvement to the article, particularly to the lead. These improvements were sufficient to address the concerns of several of the reviewers, but not all of them, so that in the end no consensus was reached. No further comments have been added in the last week, and so I am archiving the discussion, with the article retaining its current GA status.
 * I note that one of the "keep" recommendations is on the condition that the improvements "won't be reverted after the GA/R". I did not deem this condition to be relevant because the discussion is being archived based on the current form of the article. An article can of course be relisted at GA/R at a later date by any editor who believes it does not meet the criteria. Geometry guy 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am asking that the article Holocaust denial be reviewed and moved down from its current status as a GA. The reason for this is that the article makes the assertion that "Holocaust denial is the anti-Semitic claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II". I believe the rest of the sentence is reasonable enough, but the first part is a very bold claim which implies directly that all Holocaust revisionists/deniers are anti-Semitic purely by that one quality alone. When you scroll down to the notes at the bottom which are alleged to be its "proof", you will find that they are all, in fact, opinions by people, not actual, factual, documentation showing the conclusive evidence needed to justify the claim that all holocaust revisionists/deniers are by default anti-Semitic.

In addition to this, I would like the entire introduction evaluated for bias, and relevance: "Bias: The purpose of the introduction seems to serve less to inform the visitor about the movement and more to demonize and criticize it before they have even ascertained what it is about later on. Buzz words like 'anti-Semitism' and 'Nazi' are thrown out as being analogous.  This effectively accomplishes the logical fallacy known as 'poisoning the well' which then effectively creates the situation where the author's perceived antipathy towards the movement is demonstrated." "Relevance: In keeping with the idea that the introduction's purpose is to give a synopsis of the entire page, this one fails not only because it is biased against it from the start, but because it represents nothing which follows it. The page is describing the movement, its ideas, and the people involved with it, not for demonizing it and critiquing it.  This, in fact, is done on another page, Criticism of Holocaust denial, where it would be far more relevant and worthwhile to read."Vissario 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Vissario, who has created an account on Wikipedia solely for the purpose of defending Holocaust denial (or, as he prefers, "revisionism"), seems to ignore the fact that there are a dozen reliable sources backing that statement, and they are unequivocal. For example, the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity says "Holocaust denial is a new form of anti-Semitism, but one that hinges on age-old motifs." In fact, all reliable sources view Holocaust denial as antisemitic; he has failed to produce any that say it is not antisemitic. In addition, he creates some sort of false standard for statements regarding antisemitism; he seems to think there is some "factual" way of measuring antisemitism - perhaps antisemites have a unique blood chemistry, or antisemitic claims are measurable on some sort of spectrometer. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"he seems to think there is some 'factual' way of measuring antisemitism - perhaps antisemites have a unique blood chemistry, or antisemitic claims are measurable on some sort of spectrometer."

In fact there is. When they go on record as saying (or making actions which lead to the fact that) they are anti-Semites and that they do think Jews are a problem, I can safely agree with you that they are anti-Semites. But as of yet, there is nothing which causally proves that Holocaust revisionism/denial equates to anti-Semitism. What there is, however, is studies and surveys that it might suggest that one is anti-Semitic, not prove. And that is what this review is all about, correcting the flawed logical assumption that holocaust revisionism/denial is automatically anti-semitism.

And please, lay off the ad-hominem imputations that I am some type of neo-Nazi who joined this site for the expressed purpose of promoting anti-semitism, Nazism, et cetera.Vissario 22:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have to "impute" anything about you; your own words condemn you:
 * "...this just reaffirms to me once again that there is some insidious force on this planet which teaches each successive generation that it is NOT okay to question the motives or ideas associated with Judaism or anything even remotely related to it. Why else would the ADL spout the word ANTI-SEMITISM whenever you claim Zionism is little more than fascism and land-grabbing? Why else would the government pour millions of dollars a year into 'Tolerance' museums which actively collect and create propaganda? Why else would most major European countries (Including good ol' Canada!) actively censor and repress those with 'undesirable tendencies towards racism and contradictory ideas about the Holocaust'?"
 * and
 * "I submitted it to a GA review, but at the looks of it with all of the liberal, Jew-sympathizing PC-nazis, i highly doubt it gets far. This shows once again that people are raised from an early age to present their anus to Jews and not ask why."
 * Do you have anything to add? Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you bringing a quote by Jayjg from the Holocaust Denial page here, or did Jayjg make that comment in response to this review request? It's not that clear to me whether Jayjg made that comment here or whether you copied it here.... Homestarmy 23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I made that comment here. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as GA. Although I think that the article might be improved in a number of ways, I think that as a whole the article meets the GA criterea and should be kept as such.  Personally, I think that the lead would be stronger if "antisemitic" were to be removed from the first sentence, and if a section were added to the body to discuss the antisemitic nature of the phenomenon.  But the crafters of the article have put together a comprehensive and (as far as is possible in these matters) balanced account of the phenomen.   Buck  ets  ofg  23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG Delist as GA {EDIT pulling my opposition so that I can re-read article, it appears that significant changes have been made this past week.Balloonman 06:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)} I really wanted to support this as a GA--I think holocost deniers are idiots.  But I don't believe it does meet GA criteria.  It is too POV.
 * First, I agree that the word antisemitic should be removed from the first sentence. While I agree that it is generally anti-semitic, I have problems with labelling people who hold that position as defacto anti-semites.  Make the argument in the body of the article, the fact that it's in the first sentence clearly demonstrates the POV of the article.
 *  there is little or nothing in the way of debate among reputable scholars concerning whether the Holocaust occurred. This sentence opens up a few cans of worms. What is a reputable scholar?  Is this POV?  Eg is a scholar who denies the holocost by default a non-reputable scholar?  Are there scholars who deny it?  This and the following sentence are too strong of statements to go without citations---even with citations, it is still probably POV.  Again, these statements show strong POV.
 * Revisionism vs denial... all the sources are one sided. It's like the pro-life/pro-choice debate.  You can find any number of pro-life sources that state that pro-choicers should really be called "Pro-death" and any number of pro-choice sources that say pro-lifer are really "anti-choice."  I've always been of the opinion that you respect what the different party's want to call themselves---and then distinguish between them.  But in an NPOV article, the description prefered by the group being described should be used... not the term used by that groups detractors.  And let's face it, just as the two parties in the abortion debate want to define the terms used to describe their opponents, so too do people want to do so here.  By using the label that paints the opposition in the worst possible position, you are showing POV.
 * By starting every sentence of the section dealing with the position of revisionists with "They claim" you are again creating a feeling that "they" are only making "claims" that can be discarded. By using bullets and failing to make the section into a coherent prose section, the article further detracts from their position and introduce POV.
 * The extensive use of bullets in this section is also not indicative of a GA quality article.
 * There are NUMEROUS statements that need citations. I know they exist, but when dealing with a controversial subject, they are necessary.
 * The section that begins with As Holocaust denial, by whatever name, is not considered to be historical research by mainstream scholars, there has been a substantial debate on the right way to respond to deniers.  This reaks with POV. This paragraph would be better presented by stating that there are three schools of thought regarding responses to Holocaust revisionist. 1) The position that views them as deniers and not worth responding to (the position that comes accross in this article) 2) The group that tries to raise awareness of the issues while not recognizing revisionists as valid.  3) The group that confronts them head on.

I couldn't read this any further. The POV of the article is so poignant that this article clearly deserves to be delisted as GA. It is clearly written from the position that revisionists are wrong and not worthy of being listened to---and while that may be true, it is not the place of an encyclopedia to perpetuate that sentiment.Balloonman 03:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One other note about the article. The article dismisses people and scholars who challenge the accepted position.  For example "Holocaust denial... is not considered to be historical research" or the statement about "reputable scholars".  These statements (and many more in the article) are in fact saying that anybody who questions the holocause is by default not engaged in "historical research."   I was trained as a historian (completed the course work for a Masters in Religion (Ma.R.) in Church History) and these statements seriously bother me.  It would be comperable to a 19th century scholar being condemned for questioning the existence of Jesus Christ.  Most scholars accept that a person named Jesus lived, but today there are serious religious scholars who question that! A hundred years ago, they would have encountered opposition such as I find in this article. A few centuries before that everybody knew that the earth was the center of the universe, and anybody who believed otherwise was not a legitimate scientist.  When you start attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument, you are not NPOV.Balloonman 14:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Earth article is written from the POV that the Earth is more or less a sphere, regardless of the views of the flat-earth society. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but where does the Earth article make statements that are as biased as those presented here? EG I didn't see anything in the earth article that attacked people who don't accept the scientific position.  So I checked the Flat Earth article.  Again, it discusses the Flat Earth Society, but it doesn't attack them.  Even the Flat Earth Soceity article doesn't go to this much effort to say that people who hold to that position are idiots.  Global Warming is another area where there is virtual unanimity amongst scientists.  While most scientist agree that Global Warming exists and most of them place blame on humans, there is not an effort to universally discard people who object to human influenced Global Warming.  How about Evolution?  Most of us believe that anybody who objects to Evolution does so from a religious bias.  But the article on evolution doesn't simply discredit opponents as religious zealots with their heads up their butts.  The Creation-evolution controversy states, "while support for creation based alternatives where evolution does not take place is minimal among scientists."  This is much more NPOV than declaring anybody who disagrees with Evolution as a not reputable scholar.  Nor does the Evolution article make any claims the study of creationism is "not considered scientific research."Balloonman 16:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article simply factually lists what reliable sources say about Holocaust denial. And it is a fact that none of those who support Holocaust denial are reputable scholars, and is often commented on by reliable sources. The closest they ever had was David Irving, and he was discredited in a court of law. Jayjg (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When you start defining a position as "by definition" not reputable, then you are ending any possibility of a reputable scholar discussing the subject. You are precluding the possibility of somebody producing any evidence to the contrary.  Creationist Scientist are not respected as scientist---their methodology is full of holes.  But the articles that deal with those subjects don't simply define creationist as non-reputable/non-scholars---Likewise the Flat Earth Soceity.  It may be true, but when you make the statement, "This is the way it is, and anybody who disagrees with this position is by definition an idiot" then you are embarking on POV.Balloonman 16:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say that "by definition" anyone who disagrees is an idiot. Reputable scholars do discuss Holocaust denial, and they are listed in the article. I don't see the sentences in the article that you are referring to. Regarding the length of those bullet sections, it was supporters of Holocaust denial who kept insisting on lengthening it and adding more and more of their "good arguments". Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply do a find on the talk page for the two sentences I quoted above and it'll take you straight to the two statements that I quote. But it's beyond just those two statements, there are others that are full of POV.


 * Keep as GA
 * My strong suspicion is that this is a spurious request by an editor with an agenda, but to assume good faith and summarise my reasoning:
 * 1. The opening sentence: Describing Holocaust denial as antisemitic is supported by the sources given. The reasoning is that, regardless of motive, indulging in Holocaust denial is an antisemitic behaviour. The article does not blanket-label all Holocaust deniers as antisemites (although this may well be the case), but rather describes the act of Holocaust denial as antisemitic.


 * 2. The subject: All reputable sources dismiss Holocaust denial as a worthy field of study for reasons explained fully in the article. There are no alternative interpretations supported by sources of similar quality. One can tendentiously argue that this state of affairs is POV, but that's just the way the facts stack up.


 * 3. Balance and POV: There are undoubtedly parts of the article that can be improved. However, if the overall tone is to make Holocaust deniers look like idiots, this is only because that is what mainstream verifiable sources say they are. It is not our business to editorialise in order to water down mainstream viewpoints and promote minorities with an agenda - even if as a result we stand accused of being a majority with an agenda; "balance" does not mean we need to give weight or credence to all discredited viewpoints from discredited individuals. To borrow Jayjg's analogy above, it would be like trying to maintain, in the face of all the evidence, that the Earth might actually be flat (or may one day be proved flat when society and geophysics advances enough to escape from the worldwide Round Earth conspiracy).


 * If valuing the truth makes me a "liberal, Jew-sympathizing PC-nazi", then I can only say that I'm flattered ;) EyeSereneTALK 17:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't argue with you that the person who first nominated this may have an axe to grind, but to address your comments: 1) By including the antisemetic statement in the first sentence you are applying the label that all who challenge the holocaust as being anti-semetic. Now it may be true, but that should go into the body of the article, not the first sentence where it sets the tone and the POV.  It says that anybody who defends this is by definition anti-semetic (and I am sure there are some who have applied that label to me because I am critical of the tone in this article.)  2) There are other issues (Flat Earth, evolution/creationism, etc) where the issues are essentially closed for debate.  But the articles discussing them attack the position---not the person making the argument.  When an article attacks the person, it looses credibility.  This is a position where the facts are strong enough to speak---it doesn't have to make ad hominem attacks! 3) Again, the articles discussing flat earthers doesn't attack people who hold to that position.  The articles on Creationism/Evolution don't attack people who beleive there is scientific basis for Creationism.  You CAN make a strong article without the blanket labels---and I believe the article will be must stronger and less POV if you did so.Balloonman 18:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I should note that the article discusses three groups of scholars who oppose holocaust deniers---the first group simply refuses to recognize those who oppose the holocaust because it might make it "appear a legitimate field of inquiry." The article is clearly in this camp.  I am more in the camp of the Nizkor project---the facts stand on their own.  In an enclopedic, I believe it it more important to let the facts stand on their own, than to simply discard a position you don't agree with.  In order for this article to be GA in my opinion, it needs to be more Nizkorish than We're right they are wrong.Balloonman 18:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep as GA The issue seems to be one of POV. It seems that the two ways to establish a violation of NPOV is to show that (1) there are statements made not supported by reliable sources or (2) there are reliable sources taking a different position from the one presented in the article. Since nobody seems to be arguing the former, the issue is what, if any, reliable sources have been ignored. The originator of this challenge would seem to be the person who should provide this information -- it should be presented something like this: ''There are a significant number of holocaust deniers who are not anti-semitic. I refer you to the works of Historian Mr. X who has a PHD from University Z who has written substantially in peer reviewed books and journals on the Holocaust. His works have shown that it is possible for persons with no anti-semitic bias to follow generally accepted standards of historical research and conclude that the Holocaust did not occur.''

Of course, the problem is that no such person has been cited if, in fact such a person exists. As someone else said, the closest the deniers have come up with is David Irving who now has no credibility in any academic setting.

Defenders of down grading this article need to do better than making allusions to other events in science or religion that have been reexamined. The reality of the Holocaust is based on physical examination of death camps, oral testimonies, and a wealth of documents -- many provided very conveniently by the Nazi bureaucracy. What new evidence do you folks believe will turn up that will overcome this mountain of evidence? What evidence exists now to refute this mountain of evidence? The latter has been addressed through an international examination by a over a half century of legitimate (i.e. credentialed, published, and peer reviewed) scholars examining in detail all aspects of the Holocaust and the evidence is overwhelming.

To accuse the editors of this article with a violation of NPOV you have to show (not simply throw up your hands and say well maybe there's something out there) that there is another POV that needs to be considered. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * COMMENT I encourage the regular reviewers here to review the archives and previous discussion of the article on its talk page. Do a simple search on the term POV and you will see that multiple people (many admins) have been critical of the NPOV of this article.  Those voices are squelched by the articles main defenders.  Two of my favorite comments so far are "Whether the article is POV or not, it is an accurate statement of the current ( 2007 ) politically correct position."  So political correctness overrides POV?  And regarding quoting Holocaust Deniers, "They're not reliable sources. You need to quote what scholars of the Holocaust denial movement have said about it."  So the subject that is being described cannot be quoted because they are not reliable sources on what they believe.Balloonman 19:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but this is a misunderstanding of the article's approach ;) The position is that Holocaust Deniers, because of the huge weight of contrary evidence including court cases in many countries, cannot be trusted to represent their beliefs honestly... therefore their reliability as a source is questionable at best. We are right to be concerned to achieve NPOV (political correctness should never override the truth), but I also think we must be prepared to accept that, whilst a worthy goal, in rare circumstances it may not always be attainable or even applicable. EyeSereneTALK 20:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can reluctantly accept that as a possibility---but I still have misgivings about articles whose sources are all critics of the movement. I am also extremely concerned because a quick review of the talk page will show that numerous people routinely are challenging the NPOV of the article.  I do not beleive that it is NPOV---and that the perponderance of people who challenge it is evidence that it doesn't read as a neutral representation of the facts.  The talk page reads as a page of people who read the article and find it NPOV---but they challenge that they are overwhelmed by the hardcore editors of the article.Balloonman 20:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I replied to you on the article talk page, it's best in all article if we report what secondary, scholarly sources say about something, rather than primary sources. All the moreso in this case, where the group has been proved in case after case to have deliberately misrepresented the truth about both themselves and the Holocaust. Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as GA. The article, while not up to FA status, is certainly well-written and well sourced. The few minor quibbles Ballonman has with certain sentences are not enough to remove GA status; nor are the concerns of the editor who fears that "liberal, Jew-sympathizing PC-nazis" are "raised from an early age to present their anus to Jews and not ask why." Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Why are so many individuals given their own sections, are these people all seriously that notable that the article has to discuss all of them like this? Going at it one person at a time just seems a bit weird to me, though of course if there's an explanation, i'd like to read it, currently, it seems to be making the article much longer than it could reasonably be. Homestarmy 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article actually is pretty good when it starts talking about the individuals. It's the first third of the article that I have POV concerns about (and a severe derth of citations throughout the article.)Balloonman 00:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please be specific about where the article needs citations? I'd say ""deniers" have been criticized for seeking evidence to support a preconceived theory, omitting substantial facts.", and the entire section of "Claims of the holocaust deniers" really stand out to me as lacking citations.  Its daughter article, Criticism of Holocaust denial is also somewhat under-referenced. -Malkinann 01:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been working on this article. It is actually better than my first impression---once you get past the introduction and first couple of sections.  One of the things that I am trying to do is adding  where it is necessary.  (Of course, when I did so last night my 5 requests for facts was labelled as "excessive tagging is disruptive.")
 * That's fine, but stop removing sourced fact, ok? Jayjg (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The only sourced fact that I removed was the name of a person that shouldn't be in the intro. But you've decided to undo most of the changes I made (and reverting back to a significant amount of POV.) So,I will keep my objection as delist.Balloonman 04:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Was it ever a GA to begin with? It doesn't seem to have went through the process for its original GA. Anyway, I think there are certain issues which need to be addressed before GA status is granted. So I don't copy-paste, here is the link: []  . V .  [Talk 03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was never nominated on the GAC page and was promoted by User:Matt Yeager on December 27, 2006. Matt Yeager is an experienced editor who has minimal edits (3) (in his last 3000) on any Holocaust pages---2 were when he promoted the article to GA.  While I do not believe this article is GA quality, I don't believe the fact that is wasn't passed in traditional manner is a valid reason to delist.  If anything it is an indicator that the GA process is broken---I mean, it only takes the opinion of a single editor to pass an article to GA.  As a side note, I read the article as it existed on [December 27th], and I would have passed it.Balloonman 04:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be the version that had at best 1/4 the volume of footnotes the current version has. You need to start using more objective measures of GA status; it can't just be because you disagree with what the sources say. Jayjg (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My *MAIN* criticism is the POV... not the sources. It needs more sources, but the POV wasn't nearly as pronounced as it is now... and actually I was coming back here to state that I might not have passed it after all.  WHen I read that version with this version the POV is less, but it is still there.Balloonman 04:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The POV in the article reflects the POV of the many reliable sources used. Some people have whined about the article being POV, but not one has ever managed to bring even one reliable source that contradicted anything in the article, much less the stuff they were whining about. Wikipedia is a source-based encyclopedia; time to stop whining, and start bringing reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And herein lies the problem. You see people who are critical of the POV in the article as whining and unable to support their position.  An article can be factual and still have POV problems---which this article does.  POV comes out in how it is put together and argued.  The words chosen. The adjectives used.  The way the opposing point is portrayed.  I am not disputing the facts, I am disputing the POV in how those facts are presented.  This article has been criticized for months for its POV---and I think that's because of the way the facts are presented and how the opposition is discarded and people who question the facts are labelled as antisemites and cast in negative perspectives.Balloonman 05:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the people objecting to the "POV" in the article are, like the nominator above, those who also think "that people are raised from an early age to present their anus to Jews and not ask why." I'm tired of the hand-waving. Over a dozen reliable sources say Holocaust denial is antisemitic. Find some that say it is not. Oh, and please stop canvassing for people to come here and oppose GA status, ok? Jayjg (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that the people I 'canvassed' are the ones who questioned if this should be taken to GA/R on the talk page and one person I have previous relations with who just last week compained about the rampant POV on the article. As for 'hand waving' think about how the article is written and you might be able to avoid it---but you have to be willing to compromise on the wording and allow other perspectives to make edits.  There are different ways to say the same thing that both sides can accept---it happens all the time on WP.
 * Despite what your 'sources' may say, questioning the Holocaust is not by definition antisemitism. Yes, it is widely considered an antisemitic activity, but denying it is not necessarily a result of anti-semitism.  For example, a person could be honestly ignorant of the subject---or can have honest questions/concerns about the issue.  One might be unable/unwilling to accept the fact that such attrocities could be true and be unable to accept that humans could be so mean/inhumane---without any thought of who the victems are.  There are any number of reasons why the average Joe might deny the holocaust.  But when you equate denying the holocaust to being an antisemite, you apply a label that people don't want and you squelch honest questions/dialog.  This prevents people from asking honest questions for fear of being labeled an antisemite.  A few small changes in wording and tone can address these and make the article stronger. Believe it or not you can say the same thing AND address the POV concerns that people have.  Just because an issue is controversial or the resources are full of POV, doesn't mean that it is acceptable to have POV in the WP article.  Note: I am talking about the average person who might deny the historical facts (and do so vigorously)---not the leaders of the movement, who should be familiar enough with the evidence.  I don't challenge the facts, I challenge the presentation and wording.Balloonman 06:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say people who deny the Holocaust are antisemitic; they say that the claims are antisemitic, which is a different thing. Someone might use the phrase "Jew you down" out of ignorance, not antisemitism, but it's still an antisemitic phrase. This has been explained to you before, so it's rather disheartening when you act as if it hasn't. Jayjg (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(response to above; didn't want to indent any further for readability) I have no hesitation in acknowledging that Balloonman and others have raised their concerns from a genuine desire to see the article improved, but as I'm sure you've seen from the talk page, editors with rather different motives (like this chap) frequently weigh in with the same objections. This tends to stifle constructive debate on the talk page, I think partly because some of the article's regular editors are fed up with answering the same points over and over whilst entertaining the suspicion of trolling, and partly because visitors abandon their position and give up once they become aware who their 'allies' are. This is a shame, as like most articles it would probably benefit from a wider input. Re the "antisemitic" claim: The article follows the sources in stating that Holocaust Denial is an antisemitic act... just as if I were to use racist language to describe someone, I would rightly be guilty of a racist act - even though I can justifiably claim that I am not in fact a racist. On WP, the NAMBLA article (for example) describes these pillars of the community as advocating pedophillia in the first paragraph, despite the fact that I believe many of them reject the description as stigmatising them. However, sources agree that this is what they do. The Holocaust denial article does not go so far, merely describing the act (not the person) as antisemitic. And, as had been pointed out, although at first glance this does indeed sound POV, no-one has yet produced any decent sources to say otherwise. You are technically correct in speculating that it is possible that someone could come to Holocaust denial for non-antisemitic reasons, but again we have no evidence that anyone ever has... and according to the sources, arriving at that position by whatever means makes one automatically guilty of an antisemitic act, because that's the way it's defined (just as expressing certain notions about coloured people is a racist act, even if the notions were not expressed from racist motives). I'll not pretend that it is fair, but that's the way it is. The world is POV on this issue. EyeSereneTALK 13:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody is born with an historical knowledge of the circumstances in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. At some point in a person's education they might pick up Irving's "Hitler's War" and think he has some good points -- especially if the person has read nothing else on the subject.  However first and foremost Holocaust Denial is a conspiracy theory and the article makes that very clear in the lede.  While your above statement suggests otherwise, wouldn't you agree that this innocent reader of Irving would not be classified as a Holocaust Denier, by anything or anybody quoted in the article, until they take that next step and buy into the "why" of the issue -- the International Jewish Conspiracy?  Perhaps there can be some other "why' involved in Holocaust Denial, but nobody has produced reliable sources to suggest that there is. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree with that - you put it better and more succinctly that I did ;) As a point of interest, 'Hitler's War' does have some valuable historiography amongst all the dross - it's just that the chore of sorting through the falsehoods, misrepresentations and outright lies poisons the well: I gave up on it as a waste of effort. EyeSereneTALK 17:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources are all one sided and creates a circular reasoning. Per your own words and according to the sources, arriving at that position by whatever means makes one automatically guilty of an antisemitic act. Anybody who denies the holocaust is thus by definition anti-semetic--and not a reputable scholar. This is often called a "conversation stopper."  You apply a label to somebody you disagree with so that you can discard anything that person has to say. Per the sources and your definition, you can't honestly question the subject without being an anti-semite---and that reaks with POV!  Yes, the sources cited are all in agreement---but there are others who do disagree.  For instance Noam Chomsky is under a lot of fire for saying that holocaust denial doesn't necessarily equate to antisemitism.  But because taking that stand makes them by definition anti-semetic, you deny them a voice.  "You can't be trusted to share your perspective because by denying your antisemetic, you prove yourself to be a liar."  IMHO, the best way to do alievate this problem is with the simple change that I proposed (And I know this can be improved further):
 * "Holocaust denial is the beleif that the genocide of Jews during World War II - referred to as the Holocaust - did not occur in the manner or extent described by current scholarship. Due to the nature of the subject, it is widely accepted as an antisemitic activity."
 * This opens up the posibility that one can deny the holocaust for other reasons, but it also makes it perfectly clear that doing so is widely accepted as an antisemetic act. It is much more POV and the sources support this statement.  The sources (as they are opinions and one sided) do not support the current version!  I can find scores of pro-lifer's who will call somebody who supports pro-choice a "baby killer" or "Pro-death" (and vice versa). But simply because I have sources doesn't make their opinions reality.  BTW, you may notice that I am a somewhat regular contributor to this page---you'll also notice that I usually don't get this involved with GA/R's.  What is different about this one?  I really want this article to be a GA, but in its current state there is NO WAY that I can support it.  I started reading the article with the perspective that user:jayjg was correct and it really is a bad faith nomination.  But the very first sentence showed me that while the nominators motives might not have been pure, that he might be correct.  The implied POV in the article has to be cleaned up.  Also note per WP:WTA Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint. "The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it is pejorative or inflammatory in nature."Balloonman 14:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the article doesn't say that people who deny the Holocaust are antisemitic, it says that Holocaust denial claims are antisemitic, which is a critical difference. Regarding your "sources are all one-sided" and "widely accepted" phrasing, I keep asking, where are the reliable sources that say it is not antisemitic? Jayjg (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As you say, a conversation stopper. (edit: I had misread your comment, sorry!) "Anybody who denies the holocaust is thus by definition anti-semetic--and not a reputable scholar." - no, they are by definition committing an antisemitic act. It is the nature of Holocaust denial (which involves using methods incompatible with accepted historiography) that makes them irreputable. They are not necessarily antisemitic; the distinction here is between the person and the deed. Like I said, I don't pretend that this is fair, but it seems to be the way the evidence stacks up. Personally I like your suggestion - maybe instead of "widely accepted" something like "almost universally accepted" would be strong enough to accurately reflect mainstream sources whilst admitting the (albeit remote) possibility of other POVs? I suspect though that compromises on this are going to be difficult because, as Tom pointed out, evidence hasn't surfaced that supports any other POV. BTW, I don't usually get this involved in contentious subjects either - I came across the article on Recent Changes Patrol... and my first impression was of a possible POV too. However, following up the sources I reluctantly came to the conclusion that just about everything is supported (not that maybe rephrasing some bits wouldn't help a tad) ;) EyeSereneTALK 17:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The intent may not to label people as anti-semetic, but that is the way it can be read. People who don't accept the holocaust (for whatever reason) will challenge the definition because they are not opposing it for antisemetic reasons. By making this simple change, you take the wind out of their sails.  As written, people read it and say, "That isn't always so, that's blatant POV."  But if you state the fact that it is denying the holocaust as represented--then NOBODY can deny that sentence.  Then if in a separate statement you state that the position is regarded as anti-semetic, you avoid all arguments because nobody can argue that is it isn't viewed as antisematic.  NOBODY can argue that Holocaust Denial isn't universally accepted as being antisemetic. Even people who take the position that Holocaust Denial isn't antisemetic can not argue that it's not viewed as antisemetic by the larger population. It makes two sentences that stand alone and are incontrovertable---as written it are takes two statements (one which is ultimately an opinion---despite being widely accepted) and trying to make it into a fact. There are other places where simple changes will go a long way towards strengthening the quality of the article and getting rid of POV.  You can get rid of POV by making statements that individually support a logical conclusion---without assuming the logical conclusion.Balloonman 19:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My predicament here is that I find myself in agreement with both you and Jayjg. Your suggestions are reasonable and I respect your judgement - the sticking point is that no-one has answered Jayjg's question by providing a source that claims HD is not antisemitic. Thus the article can be justifiably written that way. I'd hope that a compromise is possible, as my instinct is to prefer a less accusative phrasing, but I can't argue with the current version from a standpoint of accuracy. You make a good point though that, if it is perceived as being POV (by people without an axe to grind), the article becomes counterproductive no matter what the facts are. Maybe we can all agree to alterations from this standpoint? EyeSereneTALK 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason why there are no reliable sources that state Holocaust Denial isn't antisemite is because holocaust deniers can't be trusted---thus it is an apriori determination that there are no reliable sources making that claim. E.g. if a holocaust denier makes the statement, it is discarded because he can't be trusted and is naturally an antisemite because he holds the position that defines him as such!  But if you want a source, look up Noam Chomsky on the articles talk page.Balloonman 21:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would love to meet and share a meal with Professor Chomsky, but his academic field of expertise is not history or the Holocaust. Chomsky wrote an introduction to a work by French Holocaust Denier Robert Faurisson in which Chomsky's concern was freedom of speech rather than a defense of Faurisson's specific arguments. Chomsky was writing, as he usually does, as a political activist, not an historian. Political activists with a specific agenda, regardless of whether you agree with that agenda or not, are not reliable sources on matters requiring objective, historical analysis. At this point the lead sentence in the article that you have a problem with ("Holocaust denial is the antisemitic claim...") is supported in the footnote by fifteen separate sources -- all with exact quotes from those sources. It defies any logic I can think of to label such over whelming evidencce as POV. Tom (North Shoreman) 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Chomsky is an anarchistic figure, who for me personifies the 'Rebel without a cause' persona: "What are you rebelling against?" "What have you got?". He is generally respected as an academic, and could certainly be used as a pretty accurate barometer of opinion on the political left. However, as Tom points out, his issue is not with the Holocaust itself but with the principle of freedom of expression for Holocust deniers. I suppose his words could be included in the article, but it would have to be from this perspective (ie opposing stifling of dissenters) rather than supporting their position. EyeSereneTALK 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as GA. The article is well referenced, and I don't see a major problem with the article describing holocaust denial as largely anti-semetic, since the two do go together to a large degree.Jimmuldrow 02:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Do you have anything to add?"

Why yes, I do Jayjg.

When I joined this site, I had no intention of coming here and making the entire Web site bend to my beliefs about the Holocaust or the forces behind it, rather, my intention was to have this foul, biased, and utterly aggreggious assertion removed that it was okay to label people based on the actions of a few and to report opinions, not facts. You can disagree with Holocaust revisionism all you want, but facts are facts, it is not your place to pass on your beliefs onto other people purely because you have the power to edit Wikipedia pages. I have not edited any page to pass on my beliefs and just because you feel you have the moral majority and righteousness to criticize me and people who think similarly, you don't either. Nobody does. And nobody ever should.

I have already made my arguments many, many times and have presented them to the best of my ability. To sum them up, this article lacks any distinguishable objectivity in the first paragraphs, it fails to cite sources which adequately vindicate the integrity of those unobjective claims, and it resoundingly fails to present information in such a way as to "report the facts" and nothing else.

I do not ask of the community to accept Holocaust Revisionism, I simply ask of it to report on it, not personally judge the merits of it. And as to critiques of me, I ask you, what does that have anything to do with my argument? Nothing, percisely. Ad hominem arguments are okay in casual discussion, but in actual arguments, they are the stuff of 3rd-graders pandering to accepted moral authority to bypass actual logical points.Vissario 22:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Jaygj, Good luck with the article, I still believe that it needs help in tone/POV---but among the rational people making comments, I seem to be in the minority. Just to clarify my position, I personal believe that an action/claim cannot be inherently racist or anti-semetic. It goes back to my Catholic Heritage, mortal sins require full knowledge that the action is a sin and it must be done with deliberate and complete consent. In other words, no action (regardless of how grave) is by definition a mortal sin, it requires knowledge and intent. What does this have to do with this subject? In order for something to be anti-semetic/racist you have to have motive/intent, and claims/actions do not have motive/intent---people do. A person can deny the Holocaust without knowing or intending to be offensive to the Jewish community. (I gave a few examples above---people who are ignorant of the facts or can't accept them for other reasons.) So the next question becomes can the action be viewed as anti-semetic/racist? Yes. The Holocaust Denial undoubtably is viewed as an antisemetic position. But that ultimately is an opinion (even if universally accepted.) I really do think that the small change(s) that I proposed would help with the constant POV criticisms the article gets. NOBODY can argue that Holocaust Denial isn't the belief that the Holocaust didn't happen the way mainstream historians say it did. NOBODY can argue that the act isn't considered to be an anti-semetic act. Individually those two sentences cannot be contested--even by the most ardent revisionist/holocaust denier. (They may argue that Holocaust Denial isn't anti-semetic, but they can't argue that it isn't viewed as such.) The problem with the lead, IMHO, is when you take those two indisputable sentences and make them into one. You are merging a fact with an accepted opinion and declaring that opinion as fact. 99% of the world may agree with the belief that Holocaust Denial is antisemetic (I do), but it doesn't change the fact that this is ultimately an opinion. I believe it to be so, but that doesn't make it so. From there, I have other minor quibbles about the POV, but I sincerely believe that you would take most of the wind out of the sails of people if you made that opening sentence into two. IMHO you won't loose anything, but you will make the lead unassailable. Others, like myself, who don't believe that actions/claims can have motives will have a hard time accepting that an action/claim is inherently anti-semetic---actions/claims can be considered antisemetic, but they lack the necessary motive/intent. Anyways, good luck with the article, it look like it will survive the GAR.Balloonman 19:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC) *Delist Too much is unreferenced and too many fact tags-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist. I did quite a bit of copy-editing. I formatted some refs and fixed some minor errors. In its current state, I cannot recommend that this article sustain GA. It is riddled with fact tags, the second half is very stubby, particularly the "Ahmadinejad and Iran" section. I'm not sure that the quotes are correctly formatted, but I'll have to do some research to be sure. (I saw that there was an inconsistency. I added quotation marks, which I think is proper form, making the article consistent.) I'd like to see consistency for all references. Currently, many are not formatted. I did some, but I see there are others needing attention. It seems to be a well-written article, but there are issues that need to be addressed in order for it to meet current GA criteria. Lara Love  T / C  05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't too difficult to point to areas where this article does not meet the criteria: referencing, arguably, but more obviously the lead is not an overview of the article. Oddly, the article begins with the sentence "This article is about the history, development, and methods of Holocaust denial. For Criticism of Holocaust denial, see Criticism of Holocaust denial." but the lead appears closer to a critique than a summary of history, development, and methods. I also don't understand how an article entitled "Criticism of Holocaust denial" can be the main article for a section entitled "Claims of the Holocaust deniers".


 * However, this is an important, impressive and comprehensive article, and I think I would do the editors a disservice by only pointing to technical issues, so I feel I have to bite the bullet and address the issue of neutral point of view. Indeed I think that this is probably the underlying reason for these minor issues.


 * I do not, however, share the view (that some have expressed above) that the article is biassed or incorrect in any way. Indeed I agree with pretty much everything the article says about holocaust denial: it is evidently an anti-semitic activity, and its proponents show no respect for scholarship and historical fact. I also agree that calling it "holocaust revisionism" is absurd, and applaud the section of the article which discusses this issue.


 * Instead my concerns about point of view are that the article is not written with a neutral encyclopedic viewpoint. People come to an encyclopedia for information and they make up their own minds on any issue based on the information that they find. So it is worth asking, who is this article for? There is no chance to convince a committed holocaust denier that their activity is anti-semitic, for example, so this article is not for them. Instead the likely reader is someone who has heard about holocaust denial, wonders "is there anything in this?" or "what's that all about then?", and turns to Wikipedia. Such a person needs to be informed about the subject, and shown that this is anti-semetism. They should also go away armed with the facts so that they can share them with others.


 * For instance, the incredibly long first footnote does not show readers that holocaust denial is anti-semitic, but tells them that a large number of sources, including many scholarly ones, believe it to be so: a reader could take it as an "argument from authority". What shows them that holocaust denial is anti-semitic are the ridiculous claims themselves, the methods by which they are advanced, the way that they contradict the historical record, and the sorry sight of adults dressed in white robes holding placards claiming it was a Zionist conspiracy.


 * That is the reader's reaction to the information. The article itself should not react to the information. Indeed it is far more effective to counter anti-semitic claims by presenting them from a neutral point of view. Neutral point of view is not achieved by backing up strong statements with more and more footnotes, but by making every statement in a neutral tone and letting the reader decide. The article at the moment comes across as being defensive, and may cause some readers to go away wondering if it has an agenda, or to get the feeling that the article is saying to them "this is what you should think" (argument from authority again). I'm sure this could be fixed without "watering the article down": WP:NPOV and its FAQ contain lots of good advice here, especially "Let the facts speak for themselves". For the moment, though, I have to recommend delisting.


 * I have a lot of sympathy with the editors of this article. Writing and maintaining such an article is pain, especially when those with an agenda attempt to disrupt the process. Although the analogy is not perfect, I can perhaps point towards another article which faces similar problems: Evolution. Here the overwhelming consensus of scholarship is that evolution by mutation and natural selection is fully supported by the evidence, and is the best available explanation we have for the diversity of life. Nevertheless, there is a vocal minority of "deniers" who claim that evolution doesn't happen. Now take a look at the article, Evolution itself (and its subarticles on the objections). It is a featured article, and with good justification, in my view. It presents the reader with the information they need to decide. Yet I am sure that the overwhelming majority of readers (those who are not committed "deniers") will come away feeling pretty convinced about the scientific standing of the the theory of evolution. I hope it provides some inspiration. Geometry guy 12:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: some improvements have been made to the article, particularly, the lead. If these improvements continue I may change my recommendation. Geometry guy 20:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep FA changed my vote due to recent changes-- Sef rin gle Talk 04:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist The article on The Holocaust includes discussion of the approximately 5m gentiles murdered in addition to the 6m Jews. The Holocaust denial article does not consider these. It should devote space to whether the denial applies to all (or some) of the gentile categories and whether different deniers vary in which murders they deny. This in turn will cast light on what role anti-Semitism plays. Until that issue is addressed the article's coverage is not broad enough to justify GA status.--Peter cohen 23:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed on the article talk page. The point, as I understand it, is that the issue of the 5m gentiles is simply not on the agenda of most holocaust deniers. However, I agree with you that this issue needs at least a well-sourced paragraph in the article itself. Geometry guy 20:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. Certainly it's clear to me from looking at David Irving's website that he is anti-Semitic. I'm sure that, at least in Britain, a lot of neo-Nazi's are more anti-Black and anti-Moslem than they are anti-Semitic but they find it necessary to deny the Holocaust because the 11m deaths are a vote loser. Iranian Holocaust denial is more motivated by anit-Zionism, wanting to knock away what they see as one of Israel's most powerful arguments for existence. Without proper references to sources which analyse these complexities, the article is not Good. --Peter cohen 00:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my 'vote' to Conditional Keep. I doing this for the following reasons:
 * IMO while the article wasn't a Good Article to begin with, I believe the original nominator made the nomination for impure motives.
 * The changes to the article these past two weeks have been substantial. It is a vastly more balanced article IMHO than it was before.
 * While there are a lot of citations needed tags, I placed most of them on the article myself. I don't feel as if they are impossible to find.(And I see an concerted effort to get those tags.)
 * It's conditional because I am not fully convinced that it won't be reverted after the GA/R.Balloonman 04:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus Summary
''Below are the recommendations as listed above without the accompanying comments. This is for the sole purpose of clarification, as this discussion is nearly 50kb.'' Note to archivist: Do not use this summary to determine consensus. Accompanying arguments included in the above section should be weighed when determining whether this article should retain its GA status. Note to participants: If you disagree with this process (it is a proposed procedure), please comment on the talk page.
 * Delist nomination by Vissario 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as GA. Buck  ets  ofg  23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG Delist as GA. Balloonman 03:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * temporarily pulling objection to article---appears vastly enhanced. Will reread.Balloonman 06:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing sentiment to Conditional keep elaborating above.Balloonman 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

*Delist -- Sef rin gle Talk 05:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as GA. EyeSereneTALK 17:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as GA. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as GA. Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist -- . V .  [Talk 03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC) <(v indicated on the articles talk page that the article should be delisted, he linked that comment in the above discussion.Balloonman 07:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Keep as GA. Jimmuldrow 02:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist. Lara Love  T / C  05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist -Malkinann 23:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC) - There needs to be a supporting argument for this recommendation in the section above. Lara Love T|undefined / C  05:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC) I have participated in the above discussion.-Malkinann 07:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist &mdash; Geometry guy 12:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Note the recommendation is towards the end of the long comment that I made above.
 * Delist (reasons inserted above this summary list) --Peter cohen 23:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep FA changed my vote due to recent changes-- Sef rin gle Talk 04:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)