Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Khandoba/1
Khandoba edit
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Kept by Default (lack of consensus) This GAR has run for about 2 months with no activity at all since early September. There does not appear to have been an opinion expressed to keep or delist by anyone who was not involved with the article. There does not seem to be a consensus among the editors, so this reassessment will be closed without a change in the article's current status. That is not to say that this is a mindless vote-counting exercise because an incorrect or unreasonable vote to keep could be disregarded, but on the surface, every objection seemed to lead either to an agreed change in the article or was met by what seems to be a reasonable disagreement. A compelling reason to delist was not clearly expressed, and the article is not unstable. Aaron north (T/C) 23:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Yogesh Khandke, User:Shakher59 and anon User:74.9.96.122 have disputed sensitive, caste and ethnicity based aspects of this article. See anons comment at the bottom of the GA review [1] and the talk page [2] [3].
- I was notified as the GA reviewer for this article. Please note that the anon's comment should probably be removed from the GA review page, as the review is from almost 2 years ago and has long been closed. Also, I have no opinion on the "sensitive caste and ethnic..." issues of this article - I completed the GA review almost 2 years ago. The article at that point apparently appeared to me to be well referenced and well written (at least enough to meet GA standards). Also please note that the anon's comment on the GA page accuses the article of only citing information from one book - I must disagree as the article appears to reference nine different authors of as many different books. Other than that, I have no opinion of the article's GA status at this time, although I must say that bringing the article so quickly to GAR instead of the involved editors working through the problems on the talk page seems to show a bit of bad faith. Dana boomer (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Same or similar issues on a sensitive topic have been observed since July 22, 2010 [4]. I would gladly accept an accusation of bad faith over promoting as GA something that contains disputed material labeling an entire group of people in a negative way. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is not portraying a group in the negative way, I had just trusted the references, which uses the word; that's why the quotes. When it was pointed that the words may be opinion of 1 author and RS were cited to back it, they were removed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am sure we can find many sources from a different era saying nasty things about, say, African-Americans. Can an article which uses those kind of words, verbatim from the source, be a GA on Wikipedia? Zuggernaut (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- All references except Gazzeteers in the article start from 1977, not a different era. And a point to be noted: GAR nominator notified all parties who disputed the article, even the GA reviewer; except me: the GAN nominator and one of users who is part of the dispute. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, not notifying you was a slip caused perhaps by the knowledge that you are and adept and experienced editor who's been around for many years. 1977 may or may not be a different era depending on your POV but all I can say is several users have disputed (quite strongly and persistently) the words you have used in this article. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- All references except Gazzeteers in the article start from 1977, not a different era. And a point to be noted: GAR nominator notified all parties who disputed the article, even the GA reviewer; except me: the GAN nominator and one of users who is part of the dispute. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am sure we can find many sources from a different era saying nasty things about, say, African-Americans. Can an article which uses those kind of words, verbatim from the source, be a GA on Wikipedia? Zuggernaut (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is not portraying a group in the negative way, I had just trusted the references, which uses the word; that's why the quotes. When it was pointed that the words may be opinion of 1 author and RS were cited to back it, they were removed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Same or similar issues on a sensitive topic have been observed since July 22, 2010 [4]. I would gladly accept an accusation of bad faith over promoting as GA something that contains disputed material labeling an entire group of people in a negative way. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Ms. Boomer, you are absolutely right, editors should work together to resolve issues. However 54 out 60 citations from two articles from just one book is still the problem with this article. Also wikipedia in "Words to avoid" guidelines specifically mentions the word "Cult" and yet this word appears so many times. 24.187.26.104 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Dear anon, please count again. About 20 are from the book edited by Hiltebeitel, although from two different authors' articles. Also, about the cult issue, please read [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Cult. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment There have been no comments on this reassessment for almost 2 months, and there appears to be no consensus. I personally have no opinion on this article. If no further debate or discussion occurs in the next 2 days, I will close this reassessment with no consensus reached. (which means, per the guidelines of a community reassessment, that the article would keep its current GA status by default) Aaron north (T/C) 19:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)