Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/November 2007

Kept status

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 21:34, 26 November 2007.

---

GameFAQs

Recently was the Featured Article on Wikipedia. Was a fairly controversial nominee. My main concerns with the article are that it just doesn't seem like a good featured article. There is no evidence about why LUE is notable and the article devotes a large chunk to talking about contests. The size is appropriate, but the real information is very small. The fact that GameFAQs pulled an April Fools joke by pretending to change its name to GameFAX is not really the most important fact ever cited. The article talks alot about ads being moved. It also contains unsourced facts in the message board section. I don't think GameFAQs is one of the best articles on Wikipedia (I would doubt it is one of the best 2000), so it shouldn't be listed as a featured article. Life, Liberty, Property 11:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear! The massive amount of references seems to be an attempt to blind with science - yet a fraction of them actually pass WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. Quite frankly I was amazed that this even got FA'd, and especially so that it got on the main page. An amazing 60 out of 85 references are from GameFAQs itself. While there's no question GFAQs is notable, certain sections have little or no importance to the overall subject - the message boards section seems to be a WP:COATRACK as there is nothing remarkable about it yet it contains nearly half the page's content. This is a B class article at best. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the article uses quite a few primary sources to document the history and whatnot, so oftentimes the importance of any given piece of information is decided by editorial judgment, obviously. What facts are uncited? Feel free to add in some {{fact}} tags and I'll add the appropriate footnotes - as far as I know, everything in the article is from the sources given, but obviously not every line has an inline citation. --- RockMFR 14:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's not the fact things are uncited, it's the fact that a little over 70% of the citations suck. This is unacceptable for a FA. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• I have added the fact tag to some uncited facts. Life, Liberty, Property 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have a problem with some of the content, like the section on "Life, the Universe, and Everything"—is this really necessary as a standalone section? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I specifically questioned the notability of including the line about LUElinks and spinoffs sites in general, but WP:CON at the time pointed towards including the line in there. It's good to see some more objections to the line. hbdragon88 23:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been waiting for someone to bring up something actually related to the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, but so far I've not seen much besides a whole lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a healthy dose of primary source paranoia. The points I've seen so far:

• "Was a fairly controversial nominee": The only controversy I see is one person who refused to accept that (paraphrasing) "Oh noes! Another video game article!" isn't a valid reason for opposing.
• "Notability" of various sections: Wikipedia:Notability states "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." As to whether LUE and spinoffs should be given the weight they are currently given, that can be fixed and merits discussion.
• "the article devotes a large chunk to talking about contests": One medium-sized and two small paragraphs are too much? The table makes it appear larger than it is, which could be trimmed if it is excessive.
• "The article talks alot about ads being moved.": I see two mentions of ads in the whole article, only one of which is about them being moved. Since when does "one" equal "alot"?
• Too many primary sources: This seems to be primary source paranoia. If there are primary sources being used for original synthesis or contentious statements, identify them. But if they are being used to support uncontentious facts, there is nothing wrong with them. I don't think GameFAQs has a whole lot of controversy to discuss in the article, so primary sources might be appropriate for a good chunk of the material.
• "a little over 70% of the citations suck": Ditto.
• Nearly half of the article is about the message boards: About 30% by my count excluding references, both by screenfulls and by visible characters. Hyperbole is not helpful.

Are there any points I've missed? Anomie 04:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I wish you wouldn't nitpick by pointing to the definition of WP:N. Yes, it is true that sections inside articles are not absolutely required to have secondary srouces. Yet in my opinion it is commonplace to require as such. Take The Best Page in the Universe, for instance, another website. People have been trying to insert the so-called "Orbitz incident" 2-3 times, and each time I reverted it based on the fact that if we included a non-notable incident like Orbtiz, then that would open the door to basically include a huge long plot summary of each article he has ever written. No. Keep it to those incidents that have garnered outside attention. hbdragon88 07:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

    And I wish people would say what they mean instead of trying to bend WP:N all out of shape. It's a perfectly valid argument that this "Orbitz incident" (whatever it is) might be completely irrelevant to an encyclopedic treatment of "The Best Page in the Universe" (whatever that it). But Wikipedia:Notability doesn't have anything to do with it; WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:TRIVIA might be a good start instead. Anomie 16:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • And now, take GameFAQs. Where does it end? Okay, so we have LUElinks. No reliable source tells us how big 10,000 members is in relation to other spinoffs (and on the anecdotal side, it's extremely huge relatively). So where does it end there? I'd like to include every spinoff I ever went to, and I can point to the primary source that confirms that it exists. There was LUE2 and other great big spinoffs that are related to LUE. What about certain fads? LUEshi too seven AFDs to delete, but the WP:RS say they are as notable as LUElinks is. I can prove those exist, too. Is it notable? The answer, in my opinion, is a resoudning no. We have to draw the line somehwere. Therefore, that's why I discussed "notability" of LUElinks in that context, which does in fact deviate from the overused and beaten-to-the-ground WP:N. hbdragon88 07:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

    I never said that LUE (whatever it is) or spinoffs (which I don't care about) shouldn't be trimmed or even removed. But it's not a Wikipedia:Notability issue, it's WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT#IINFO, and WP:TRIVIA. The problem with trying to differentiate between Wikipedia:Notability and wikt:notability is that people tend to jump back and forth between the two very different meanings as it suits their position (I'm not saying anyone here has done so, but it's even easier to do than to accidentally use a primary source for WP:OR). It's better to just avoid the word "notability" completely unless Wikipedia:Notability is being discussed and avoid that whole problem of conflicting definitions. Anomie 16:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict w/ above) I'm sorry, next time I'll point out that my assertion that "70% of the citations suck" is based on policy. Coming in and making accusations that there's a cabal of users that absolutely hate GameFAQs is "hyperbole" itself. Primary sources are used to prop up extremely trivial content like how GameFAQs' message boards use plaintext, that the board's number is a reference to Douglas Adams, that the administrator got hate mail, that some users of this sub-board of a message board made their own message board, and that the advertisements got moved. The FAC being violated in this case are 1c (reliable sourcing) and 4 (going into unnecessary detail/not focusing on main topic). -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 07:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  Did I ever mention a "cabal" or claim anyone "absolutely hate[s] GameFAQs"? I just stated that this discussion so far is less about the featured article criteria and more about nitpicking the article and wikilawyering to support the nitpicking. If you feel there is "extremely trivial content" in the article, discuss that content. Is there any real belief that the primary-sourced postings references are not authentic, that they contain false, biased, or misleading information, or that original research is happening? If not, then bringing up WP:V smacks of WikiLawyering and the discussion should instead focus on the merits of the content instead of the details of which source is used.

  At least someone finally mentions some criteria! I don't agree with you that there is a problem with 1c, especially based solely on your broad assertion that "primary sources suck", for reasons detailed above. 4 is a valid concern, but it needs rational discussion about the actual content and not argument over unrelated issues. Anomie 16:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Has anybody bothered to read the footnote at the bottom of the article, that says "This article uses posts to message boards as references. These posts are from the site's staff and thus can be contextualized as official announcements and regarded in the same light as announcements on a corporate website"? If they weren't forum posts, would anybody care...I'm guessing not. Oh yeah, and I think the article should uphold FA status, if you hadn't already guessed. Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Life, Liberty, Property, please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects with {{subst:FARMessage|GameFAQs}} and leave a summary of notifications here as in this sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The CVG was notified, and Rock (#1 editor, archtect of the FA) and me (#3, essentailly #2 most edited) already know about it. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• WP:SELFPUB: the article is not based primarily on such sources. If 70% of the sources are all self-published, that's a problem. And if primary source != self-published source, then I apologize. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  I for one accept your apology. Even with a self-published source, the use needs to be considered. For example, reference 56 is certainly self-published, but is there any better possible source for a statement on the site's rules? IMO, WP:SELFPUB generally applies to use of a self-published source in a secondary rather than primary manner. Anomie⚔ 16:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Wait...I thought a self-published source has to be primary. The guideline says that you can't use a SPS to make claims about third parties, so the primary source has to only make claims about itself. And I think 70% is way too much overuse of SPS. In fact, if this was any other article, I'm sure that the nuances and details about spinoffs, LUE, etc. would have been probably removed by now since they do not feature third-party coverage. There was a major war on Han shot first over that issue (including parodies that were only sourced to the parody itself, and now there is a huge comment that says don't add them unless someone else has covered it). hbdragon88 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• I feel that WP:SELFPUB is being misapplied by a lot of people when looking at this article. The point of the policy seems to be that you shouldn't accept someone's claims about themself without proof. So, for example, pages on GameFAQs itself shouldn't be used to support claims like "GameFAQs is popular" or "LUE is important", since they could just be stating that without it being true. However, facts like "GameFAQs terms of service says X" or "Y is a administrator", with links to the terms of service or a page listing the administrators are different. Those aren't opinions or claims that are likely to be false, but facts that are reasonably shown to be true by the site itself. To compare with articles about people, the first set of examples would be like believing the person's word that he is important, while the second set would be like physically bringing that person to every reader's home and showing them that he does indeed have gray hair and a missing finger. I think WP:SELFPUB was worded with articles about people or companies in mind, and since you can't physically bring the person or company to each reader, it doesn't make a distinction between such cases. However, for articles about web sites, each reader can actually view the website themself. I think in this case using links to the website itself for the second type of claim I described are good, since it is really like physically showing the readers what you are talking about. I think we should only try to fix any cases where such links are used to support the first type of claims I described, such as about the popularity of the site. Calathan (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 08:52, 22 November 2007.

---

Privilege of Peerage

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage

Another Emsworth classic, this article has no in-line citations, and is in great need of review. Judgesurreal777 20:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• An excellent article, plainly derived from the listed references; also accurate as far as my knowledge of the subject extends. Please read WP:WHEN, which is cited by our criteria, and say which statements both lack references, and need them. WP:V requires references for statements challenged or likely to be challenged; that would be a good start. Using {{cn}} would probably be preferable to trying to list them here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Standard criteria for Featured Articles is in-line citation of references, and to retain its status, that is what this article needs. Judgesurreal777 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The purpose of this page, if it has any, is to improve articles; the purpose of this discussion is to fix, if possible, the flaws in the article. Your comments contribute to neither purpose; rather, they tend to produce unnecessary citations, which would decrease readability. Please do not act like a bot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Judgesurreal. This article needs so many citations that it would be a wasted effort to list them all, and would be too distracting to add {{fact}} to them all in the article. Some of the more obvious needs: quotes from books, the algorithm for determining rank, and statements like "In practice, however, the Act is obsolete". This article is filled with facts that are not common knowledge where I come from: "Hereditary supporters are normally limited to hereditary peers, certain members of the Royal Family, chiefs of Scottish Clans, Scottish feudal barons whose baronies predate 1587." or "The coronation robes and coronets used at Elizabeth II's coronation in 1953 cost about £1,250". Pagrashtak 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The judgment that the act is obsolete is supported by the extract from the rules of the House of Lords in the References, which . The quotes from Burke's and Debrett's are to be found in the books cited; I just replaced a {{fact}} tag with a reference to one of them, although, in fact, the place cited was perfectly clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The wording of WP:WHEN is, and I quote, Material that anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Are you familiar with the Peerage? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:WHEN is an essay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It also says that challenges should not be frivolous. Did Pagrashtak think to look at Cox, N. (1999). "The Coronation and Parliamentary Robes of the British Peerage." Arma. (Vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 289–293), in the References? He would have found his £1250 there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • There was no indication of which reference supported that statement. Do you expect the reader to search through every reference for any given fact he wishes to verify? Placing a citation at the end of that sentence would improve the article. You asked below for examples of what needs citations; I have provided you with some here. I don't know why you're being so hostile with me. Pagrashtak 14:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I have not been hostile to you, yet. I do, however, think our readers literate enough that, when checking for the source for a claim on the coronation robes, they will look at the only reference with "Robes" in its title; I did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
        • That statement was about "robes and coronets". Perhaps I would have looked in the only reference with "coronets" in the title instead of robes. How am I supposed to know which of the two is appropriate? The entire purpose of citations is to spare our readers this sort of guesswork. Not hostile "yet", eh? Bravo. Pagrashtak 18:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Lord Emsworth is gone. The article is both accurate and lists its sources; the standards of WP:V are clear, and they do not require a footnote at every semicolon. This can go two ways:

• We can identify, specifically, which claims actually need citation. This would be a service to Wikipedia, and if the nominator is unwilling, for whatever reason, to actually look at the listed references, almost all online, I am willing to do so.
• An effort can be made to pointlessly delist this competent and accurate article without improving it. I will consider what means of dispute resolution are appropriate to such disruptive following of the letter of the rules to the detriment of their spirit; I will also consider whether this page is in fact of any service to Wikipedia whatsoever. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thought is, don't complain to us for following wikipedia featured article guidelines and either; complain to someone who can change them to your liking, or fix the article. Judgesurreal777 19:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't complain if you were following them as {{guideline}}s should be followed, with common sense. This is a much better article, as it stands, than most of the articles we promote; it can, if we cooperate, be improved further. But it should not be blindly delisted; so how about some {{cn}} tags? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Once there are some citations, then I will if you wish, currently I would have to CN just about the whole article. Judgesurreal777 20:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not if you were to {{cn}} what needs citation; we may assume sufficient initiative on the part of the reader to actually look at the section called References; but try a few examples. Please also eschew the uncivil attitude of the sidewalk superintendent: you do the work, and I'll sit here and watch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is pointless, I didn't make the rules. The article doesn't meet the criteria, and must be improved or removed. Judgesurreal777 22:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You have missunderstood the purpose of review, which is to improve articles; if you are not going to do so, this was indeed pointless, as was the nomination. Please do not make these disruptive nominations again. The little gold star isn't worth anyone's time; considering which statements may actually need more citation for the reader to verify them would have been both interesting and useful to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I did that just above and was met with rudeness. You complain that we are not identifying what needs citations, yet you treat me with disdain when I do. I would suggest that it is you and not Judgesurreal who is being disruptive. Pagrashtak 14:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

One statement is well-known to anyone familiar with the subject, as our criteria require (I've added a footnote to the most likely actual source for the details), and I found the other in ten seconds by doing the obvious thing. Less frivolous examples, not phrased as WP:INEVERHEARDOFIT, will deserve more respect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:WHEN is an essay, and is NOT POLICY, so there is no point to site it as though it trumps actual wikipedia guidelines and rules. Judgesurreal777 20:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It is linked to, expressly, by our criteria, because it makes sense. As for guidelines, I rely on our policy: two statements have been genuinely "challenged" (and I provided footnotes for them); very few of Emsworth's statements are "likely to challenged", because he did actual research and provided his sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Septentrionalis is essentially trolling here, as far as I can tell. This FA is in legitimate need of review. I would definitely not fact tag bomb, but someone might start with the direct quotes. And then I'd suggest giving DrKiernan a ring. We've saved Emsworth's before. Marskell 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack, and false. I am merely trying to exercise common sense; we do not need a footnote for things readily and obviously obtainable through the existing references. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Eleven of them thus far, and I am very happy they have been saved. I nominate them to be fixed if possible, so that they show wikipedias highest current standards. Judgesurreal777 20:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Judge, focus on the article, ignore disruption. All of Emsworth's older articles need attention, many have been restored to status; keep up the good work. The editors who have been restoring his articles understand what needs to be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No one has touched the article, or challenged a sentence here, since I added footnotes last week. It would be good to improve it by adding notes where the reader will genuinely have difficulties; if none can be found, so much the better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment What about these currency conversions?: "In 1771, the publisher was fined £100—over £10,000 in modern terms" and "in 1953 cost about £1,250,[12] which in present-day terms would exceed £22,000."

The average UK house price in 1953 was £1,800. It is £180,000 today. So, by that standard £1,250 can either be figured as two-thirds of the average house price (£120,000) or 1000 times more than it was then (£1,250,000). The problem with these inflation-based calculations is that they do not relate to contemporary earnings, buying power, "baskets of goods" or job roles. It is better, in my view, to describe the amounts in terms of what people earnt or what you could buy at the time. In other words, say that £100 in 1771 was equivalent to such-as-such's annual earnings or was the same value as such-and-such.

For 1771, a labourer in Southern England earned about £20 a year, teachers about £16, a skilled specialist craftsman (such as a printer) about £50, lawyers about £240. I reckon a literate man who worked as a senior clerk might make £100 a year.

For 1953, I reckon an average worker earned about £350 a year. So, we could claim that £1,250 was "more than three-times the average annual wage of a factory worker".

Now, the problem becomes: does making these statements constitute "original research" by synthesis; or can we get away with it? DrKiernan 13:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to use a price index (to some extent it doesn't matter which, since, even for 1771, they're not going to vary that much) than house prices, which have gotten much more expensive relatively since the introduction of modern conveniences. We should specify price index; the value of silver is frequently used because it's easy, but it's even less representative than houses. As long as we say what we're doing, it should come under the exception for straightforward calculations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What follows is from Global Financial Data United Kingdom Retail Price Index 1271-2007, which is derived from E. H. Phelps Brown and Sheila V. Hopkins, "Seven Centuries of the Price of Consumables, compared with Builders' Wage-rates," Economica (November 1956): 296-314 and the UK Retail Price Index.

• 12/31/1770: 2.9402
• 12/31/1771: 3.1914
• 05/31/1953: 10.3563
• 09/30/2007:208.3

This would, I think, justify, with a footnote citing these figures: "In 1771, the publisher was fined £100—over £6,000 in modern terms" or even "more like £10,000" and "in 1953 cost about £1,250,[12] which in present-day terms would exceed £25,000." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Added them in. Thanks. DrKiernan 17:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur - more citations are still needed. What happened to the dozen or so web-link references listed at the end of the article? They looked productive. Also, the article could definitely use a much larger number of images. Nowhere near current FA standards, salvageable perhaps. The Land 20:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have converted the web-link references to inline citations. DrKiernan 07:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like this review was a big success, the article is now very well cited and should retain its status! Congratulations guys, you did a great job. Judgesurreal777 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Great work, so far. Trial by peers section remains unsourced. We might also expand the lead. Any suitable pics? Marskell 10:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

I've left this up a while but there hasn't been comment in a few days; moving here to get last comments. DrK provided some additional refs yesterday but the lead still needs expansion and it would be nice to have another pic or two. Marskell 07:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy with it and agree that it needs more work. DrKiernan 08:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

At present, I'm disillusioned with this article, and not keen to invest much effort. It fails on grounds of comprehensiveness: some privileges are not covered at all, even quite major ones such as the ability to commit crimes of house-breaking, highway robbery, horse-stealing, and robbing of churches without punishment (granted in the reign of Henry VIII), which was only explicitly repealed in 1841, after an earlier act in 1827 was deemed ambiguous. My main concern is that, even if effort is put into an expansion, it will merely become a rather contrived and loosely-connected assembly of obsolete and trivial snippets. DrKiernan 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead by merging it with the first section, and added two images. DrKiernan 18:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Sep's "An excellent article, plainly derived from the listed references; also accurate as far as my knowledge of the subject extends." and Judge's "the article is now very well cited and should retain its status" comments are both fair. I would not complain if this article retained its status on the basis of their justifiable support for it.

The privilege is, and always has been, obscure and ill-defined; this, rather than the article itself, makes me cautious in giving my own support. While the article does not cover some aspects of peerage that some would consider a privilege (a seat in the House of Lords, for example), it would be difficult to include these because they do not formally comprise the privilege (not all peers, and for most of history no peeresses, sat in the House), and hence these topics may be justifiably, perhaps rightly, excluded from the article. DrKiernan 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Based on DrKiernans statement, I think it can be fairly said that the article is comprehensive, in that it includes all verifiable information on the topic and does not include very minor and/or unreferenceable material. Judgesurreal777 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a comment that the article excludes the (former) right to sit in the Lords, because not all peers possess it? I would have added, but I don't quite see how to phrase it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added "The right to sit in the House is held separate to the privilege, and is only held by some peers (see History of Lords Reform)." to the lead. DrKiernan (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 13:16, 20 November 2007.

---

Ernest Emerson

Review commentary

Notified SandyGeorgia, Mike Searson, Alkivar, Fang Aili, Bradford44, Albatross2147, Orangemike.

Notified Dreadstar, Martial arts, MilHist and B&E.

This article caused controversy when it was featured on the main page a few days ago. Since then, there's been discussion on the talk page and an abortive AfD. It is my opinion that this article falls short of our featured article criteria; it is neither neutral nor factually accurate and should be de-featured.

• Unreliable sources. Some of the claims are sourced from sources which are unambiguously unreliable. The section dealing with his martial arts career uses Emerson's self-written testimonial for his martial arts club for a source. Note it includes a dubious anecdote about Emerson's fighting instruction saving a firefighter's life, though thankfully this is not reproduced in the article. Emerson's fighting credentials as 'Hand-to-hand Combat Instructor for H&K Defense Group' and 'Director of the Combat Research and Development Group' are sourced from a blurb from a police equipment expo. There is no reason to believe that this is anything other than advertising. The testimony of one of Emerson's employees urging the government of Nevada to allow the sale of Emerson knives is also used to back up Emerson's teaching credentials. The only source for the claims that Emerson knives are used in upcoming films John Rambo and Alien Vs Predator 2 is Emerson's newsletter. Some of the other 'sightings' of Emerson knives in films are unsourced.

• As a sample, I checked your first two sentences: what you call a "dubious anecdote" is not included in the article, so it's not relevant to this review. The "self-written testimonial" you refer to is only used as the sole source on two statements:

• After graduating with degrees in physical education and world history, Emerson moved to Southern California for the sole purpose of continuing his martial arts training at the Filipino Kali Academy.
• According to Emerson, he could barely afford the US$12.50 monthly dues, and performed maintenance and janitorial duties in exchange for instruction.

• Are you asking for an additional citation on his degree in world history, or that he performed janitorial duties in exchange for instruction? I didn't go through the rest of your comments, as the first two revealed the same sorts of vague complaints raised on the talk page. What "several editors have stated" or what Google coughs up or criticism that some imagine must exist aren't actionable complaints; if you know of reliably sourced criticism that needs to be included, please point it out. Articles are not de-featured based on IDON'TLIKEIT, so please keep comments focused on ways to improve the article. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not asking for additional sources, I'm asking for reliable sources. You appear to think that what Emerson says about Emerson on the testimonial page of a martial arts website is reliable, though you pointedly do not state this explicitly. Despite your effort to muddy the waters, my claims are not vague, they are clear statements of the form 'X is unreliable'. Having already subjected this article to stringent review, you should be in a position to make counter-arguments explaining why police equipment expo blurbs and lobbying from Emerson's employees are reliable sources.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Questionable sources. Several editors have stated that the knife magazines which constitute the overwhelming bulk of the sourcing are advertorial in nature, though the article's defenders deny this. Some of the articles are available online, many on Emerson's site. I invite editors to read them and make up their own mind: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Lampman remarked that the article has not one word of criticism, and this is true. But it is only following the sources, which are considerably more gushing in their seemingly endless praise of Emerson. American Handgunner states that "So popular are his knives among elite and clandestine forces worldwide, they are often traded on the black-market as barter for goods and favors." One wonders what editorial oversight and fact-checking process these articles have gone through, if any.

• Inadequately sourced grand claims. Emerson supplying the US Navy SEALs is sourced from a published book, Weapons of the Navy SEALs, although article inexplicably uses this only twice, preferring to rely on the magazines instead. The claims about supplying other special forces and police are nowhere near as compelling. For example, all we have is say-so in the magazines that Emerson knives are used by the SAS. This is a strong claim, and needs more convincing sourcing; a book about the SAS would ideal. On his website, Emerson says that "Emerson Knives has long had a relationship with certain elements of the British SAS, albeit a secret one. Well, a secret it shall remain, until someday when books can be written and perhaps we shall all sit around, tip a pint a two and have a chance to tell our tall tales." Lucky it's not so secret that he can't talk about it. One wonders what these 'certain elements' are. In any case, in the absence of any stronger evidence that the SAS use these knives, we should not assume that they do.
• We are told that Emerson has supplied knives to NASA (they 'approached' him) for use on the Space Shuttle and the ISS. The article claims that his knife replaced the Randall Model 17 Astronaut Knife, although a Google search reveals that the Randall was only ever used on the early Mercury missions, so this is incorrect. The sources for the NASA claims include a personal website and Emerson's site, where we are told that NASA never endorses any products, so conveniently they will never confirm the use of this knife. There is no evidence whatsoever that this knife has ever been used in space, despite what the intro says. Note that the picture of the 'NASA knife' just shows a knife next to a commercially available NASA patch, without any logo.

• Comment I took out the bit on the Randall Model 17. That model was the last knife that was as an issue item by NASA, so it's inclusion was probably extraneous on my part or a previous editor. As for the logos on the knife, you are right, it's not on the knife in the picture. I have seen that logo on the knives themselves at Emerson's factory. I can't recall if you can see the logo when you see the knife being used to cut cables in the IMAX tour of the ISS. --Mike Searson 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• We are told that Emerson's wife, Mary, is one of the world's foremost female practitioners of Jujitsu. There is no solid evidence for this.

It's sourced in some of the older material, however I did not realize it was reading as present tense...I changed it to reflect the time they met. --Mike Searson 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Emerson's fighting style, Emerson Combat Systems, is described mostly from Emerson's own words or from blurbs in knife magazines. There is no real information about the uptake or acceptance of this fighting style, we are only told that 'hundreds' of 'law enforcement agencies, members of the US military and civilians' have been trained in this fighting style. Were the police and soldiers were trained as part of their jobs, or simply in a personal capacity (as civilians)? The guarded wording and lack of confirming sources suggests the latter.

In closing, I would ask editors to consider whether this article would be featured if it was about a minor politician, using criticism-free sources and repeating grand claims without a hint of doubt.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The material covered in this article reminds me greatly of our original article on Ashida Kim, sourced solely by the subject's own work. Well I too can publish a newsletter that states I have a diamond encrusted, platinum belt in Zero-Gravity Ninjitsu... doesnt make it factually based. Secondary sources are required for our articles, PARTICULARLY those which maintain featured status.

I still don't understand how an article could make featured status with its references being 90% primary sources and advertisements from catalogs. What ever happened to Featured Article Criteria 1 (c) or 1 (d)? What happened to FA's being required to comply with our Reliable Source policy which states "Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." ? AND "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people." ?

Was WP:NPOV also entirely overlooked in this FAC process? There is not 1 negative statement or criticism to be found anywhere in the article. WP:BLP does not say under no circumstances must a living person not be criticized, but it does say criticism must be verifiable and reliably sourced.

</rant>  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment there is a link of a video of Russian astronauts using the Emerson-made NASA knife on the Space Station, an additional reference is a press release within the article, I suppose you could also ask former SEAL and astronaut William Shepherd, here's a picture of Emerson and Shepherd together at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas with the press release on the NASA knife: [5] The use of various knives used by the SEALs is also well-documented in Richard Marcinko's books, Dennis Chalker's books and I would think sworn testimony in a hearing would be a reliable secondary source as it's given under oath and it also coroborates who uses his knives. The "Martial Arts Club" you refer to is the school owned by Richard Bustillo, one of Bruce Lee's original students and is used to corroborate that Emerson was a student there. What you cite as "unreliable" are being used as secondary sources...and in some cases much more than merely secondary, such as when 12 different articles make the same claims. --Mike Searson 17:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You are aware 90% of Marcinko's books and 50% of Chalker's books are works of FICTION right?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Using video of a cosmonaut and comparing it with a photograph of a knife is WP:OR. However if you can find a flight manifest for that russian space flight, I'm sure you can prove one way or another whether an Emerson knife was used in it. HOWEVER that still does not prove his knives are NASA endorsed as Cosmonauts don't work for NASA. As for a photograph of Emerson and Shepherd together, that proves nothing. I've got a photo of myself and Ron Jeremy. That doesn't prove I'm a porn star, all it proves is that I know the guy. If I was marketing a knife as a NASA knife, I too would pay for an astronaut to show up and flog my product to the masses. You are aware he was paid to be present right?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment the Emerson NASA knife is not for sale to the public, it can only be purchased by NASA, don't get the marketing quip....I guess they hijacked the Space Station and paid actors to do that too. I have no knowledge of Shep being paid to show up at Emerson's booth, if you have proof of this, please bring it forward...thank you.--Mike Searson 18:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. OK, I should have checked the external links. The video does almost certainly show an Emerson knife being used on the ISS.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment much ado about nothing, reference Baby Gender Mentor, Spoo, and have a look at Bill Gates for a company bio. No evidence that the sources are unreliable has been presented, and no concrete examples of puffery have been given. Still. Please understand the difference between referenced statements and puffery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've described four unreliable sources; Emerson's own testimonial, the police expo blurb, his employee's statement and his newsletter. Why do you think these are reliable?--Nydas^(Talk) 18:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Notifications, I've tried to correct and complete the notifications, but there was some extensive canvassing yesterday[6] which is hard to keep up with. See contribs at Albatross2147 (talk · contribs), those declaring Keep at AfD weren't notified, and many of those notified yesterday have never had anything to do with the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I believe this is the list that was canvassed yesterday for the AfD,[7] but I may have missed some:

• Addps4cat
• C d h
• Chump Manbear
• Cloveious
• Excalibur
• Janneman
• John joskins
• Lampman
• Nydas
• Rocksanddirt
• Starkrm
• Tempshill
• Too Old

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• the last statement does not ring true i was not notified about the poll and i voted to remove and was not canvassed to do it, so if there was a percentage of people who thought it should be kept they could have put there name forward like i did to have it removed to say they didn't know it was there is just a fible excuse! 9 to 3 in favour of it going shows the true feeling towards this puff piece John joskins 19:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

the above voted for it to be deleted! just to make it clear John joskins 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

i too feel this article needs cleaned up or sorted out it reads to much like a sales brochure at the moment, and any tme any one comments or tries to do something about it eg, AfD there are about two people who keep overriding it all the time surly this is not in keeping with wikipedia. John joskins 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You've given no examples of "sales brochure" content. Please focus on specific issues that can be addressed during review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, this is a sycophantic puff piece and it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia that it was a front page feature article. Feature article status should be removed. I'll add that notability of each piece of content should be scrutinized; there was formerly a detailed section on guitars with Emerson's name on them. These guitars are not notable; Googling "ernest emerson" guitar yielded a grand total of 49 Google hits. I removed the section by means of this edit but it is crazy that this content made it past the FAC process. Tempshill 20:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Former content isn't relevant to this review, and you've given no examples to support "puff piece". Please focus on specific issues that can be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Remove are not declared during a Featured Article Review; please see the instructions at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I started to tabulate and cross reference the references and footnotes on the page and gave up for laughing. Many are to novels, others which look respectable are to fanzine web sites. There seems to be a complete of proper secondary sources. The telling points, I feel, are his baseball career (which could, so I understand, be normally easily referenced given the total comprehensiveness of stats available for baseball) and equally the status of Mrs E's expertise in a form of martial arts which seems to go unremarked elsewhere. Another point is where did this fellow attend high school - we should be told. Such a stellar student and athlete would surely be listed among the notable alumni Albatross2147 05:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, some citations are to novels; they are citing that the knives are mentioned in the novels, which is a correct citation since that is part of their popularity. Vague criticisms won't help improve the article, which is the purpose of FAR. Do you have a specific example of a statement cited to what you consider a Fanzine and why it isn't reliable? Please give specific examples of improvements needed; if reliable sources don't say where he went to high school, that can't be included. We can't make things up on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• OK, the degrees were cited in the Combs article in Knives illustrated. Mary's jujitsu expertise was cited in the Tieves article and at least one by Pat Covert or Cameron Hopkins...I'll have to go dig them up to be 100% sure. The only thing I can think is that the references got jostled around in the numerous copy-edits over the past year. Marcinko's books are often cited as a contributor to Emerson's popularity among collectors outside the military. I don't know of any links to "fansites". I understand reading a knife magazine may be beneath an intellectual or outright frightening to some, however that does not make them less factual, especially when discussing a knifemaker or knives.--Mike Searson 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm stumped about why Albatross considers naming his high school important for a 52-yo man. Curious, I explored the other FA bios in the same category with Emerson, and none of them mention high school (Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., Glynn Lunney and Joseph Francis Shea, although two of them played baseball as well). I'm equally stumped by this idea that industry magazines are "fanzines"; if that's the case, we'll need to defeature most of the video game FAs because they're usually based on gaming magazines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Do the knife magazines ever give bad reviews?--Nydas^(Talk) 07:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• From what I've been told, if something is really bad or does not live up to how it has been promoted, they simply won't cover it. However, there have been bad reviews given as well to a number of companies and models over the years. They're not going to give a glowing review to someone who doesn't rate it for the simple fact that credibility will suffer. If you really think this is all BS, don't you think the knife-buying public would have discovered it by now? These articles go back almost 20 years. If it's all a sham, why would they continue to write about a company or a man that spends no money on advertising with them? Why are there crowds of hundreds of people at a time trying to buy these knives through a lottery system that are then resold for double to triple their price on the aftermarket?--Mike Searson 07:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's all BS, but I think the articles are exaggerating the biographical aspects. About the technical aspects of the knives, there's much less of problem. Making Emerson sound cool is unlikely to cause any problems with their readership, indeed, the cloak-and-dagger mystique they build up is likely to be popular. This has been toned down for the article, but it's still there. For example, "In 1999, NASA approached Emerson with a special request" (cue theme music) is an overly dramatic way of saying they bought some knives from him. It makes it sound like Emerson was the only one who could provide them with knives.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, OK....I see where you're coming from. So if that were changed toIn 1999 Emerson accepted a contract from NASA to build knives for use on the Space Shuttle and ISS..." or Emerson has been making knives for NASA since 1999 that would be more acceptable? I don't see it as "overly dramatic" but can follow your reasoning.--Mike Searson 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

More then just knives If this article was well rounded, shouldn't there be something on his Baseball career? He was drafted by St. Louis, when was that? what round? Where did he play minor league ball? What were his stats? He must have been at least note worthy as a Ball player to get drafted, Isn't that worthy of a section at least? My problem with this article is it seems to focused on one thing, while this other notable aspect seems undeveloped. --Cloveious 08:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Cloveious, that's a good point. I just have to ask if playing minor-leauge ball for a year or two really that notable outside a sentence or two? I'm not a sportswriter or even a fan outside of competitive shooting, I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that sort of thing. It was mentioned in the biographical articles and in this one in the very beginning (For the record...I did not create this article...I just tried to source it and fix it).--Mike Searson 08:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for a comparison, George S. Patton, the famous American World War II general, was an Olympic pentathlete (1912 Olympics). It gets two sentences in his article, and (as an Olympian) Patton was certainly more notable in his sport than Emmerson was in his. But in both cases, they became famous for other things. His baseball stats are unnecessary trivia. Raul654 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• This article obviously suffers severe problems under our Neutral point of view policy, but if it could be balanced in some way (what are testimonials doing in an encyclopedia article?) it might one day be regarded as a reasonable Wikipedia article, and thence might come to be regarded as one of the best of all such articles. We're really not shown doing our best in this article. It's basically an extended advertisement for a knife seller. --Tony Sidaway 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• On a personal note Emerson is well known throughout the military and law enforcement for making quality tactical knives. Many of those sources I personally read and know to be fully acceptable sources, not catalogs. I don't think it's FA quality, but it's certainly fine enough to stay on Wikipedia. Also for those of you comparing him to Ashida Kim, Emerson Combat systems is a legitimate combatives system, though not one of the best quality or best known. That's really fucking pathetic to compare him to the Bullshido master. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not comparing the fighting system with Ashida Kim... i'm comparing the poor quality of the sourcing with Ashida Kim's article. That's something completely different.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the sources you are talking about...and look at what they are backing up:

"Emerson has written over 30 articles on hand-to-hand combat, knife fighting, history, and knifemaking for publications including Blade Magazine,[73] American Cop Magazine,[74] Martial Arts Experts,[75] Journal of Modern Combatives,[69] Inside Kung-Fu,[71] Black Belt Magazine,[76] Police Magazine,[77] and American Handgunner Magazine.[78]."

The reason those sources "from Emerson" were put in there were to source the fact that he is a published writer. Some editor asked for that way back in the beginning. There's a few others by Emerson about his Combatives system. I'm sure if one were writing about Aikido when it was 10-15 years old, the bulk of source material would be Ushebia or Jeet Kune Do...the bulk would be Bruce Lee's writings. To say these form 90% of the source material is simply not true. I think if I wanted to learn something about a martial arts system, I'd read what the guy who developed it had to say and his thought process behind it...but that's just me.--Mike Searson 01:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We've got three paragraphs, an infobox, a picture and other mentions for a fighting technique that does not seem to have been discussed by anyone except the creator. That raises serious neutrality concerns. Who says that ECS is 'unique'? Does ECS actually work? What do other martial artists think of dubiously capitalised concepts like 'Integrated Fighting Skills' or 'Weapon Transition Skills'? --Nydas^(Talk) 16:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any experience in ECS, so I can't say how unique it is or whether it works, but "dubiously capitalized concepts" are pretty much par for the course in modernly developed military-oriented combat systems. Take a look at this link to an Army field manual for an example. The description in this article implies to me that, at least philosophically speaking, it is similar to other modern military combat systems such as Combatives, Krav Maga, Sambo, and the Marine Corps LINE combat system. Given that this article doesn't actually say whether or not ECS is any good, or if it works, but just states its philosophical and technical goals, it seems reasonably neutral to me. As far as the word "unique": technically speaking, I'm sure it is (no two teachers teach alike, even if ECS was copied wholesale from another system, the way Emerson teaches it would still be unique); probably the word could be deleted, I think it's a trivial difference. Bradford44 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Emerson Combat Systems being capitalised is dubious, but the capitalisation of generic words describing a fairly generic concept is. No-one but Emerson uses them in this way. You are right that the section doesn't say whether ECS is good or bad, but it does use Emerson's own words (rather than a third party) to buttress the importance of these concepts.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't look at the Army manual I linked? It contains sections on topics such as "2-13. Execution at Combat Speed", "3-6. Finishing Moves", "3-8. Defense Against Headlocks", and "7-1. Angles of Attack", to choose a few at random - these are examples of capitalization of generic concepts that I was referring to as commonplace within military combat systems. As far as the use of Emerson's own words, wouldn't the best source of information about which concepts are most important in ECS be the guy who invented ECS? Maybe I'm missing something; could you point to a specific sentence or assertion that you find problematic because Emerson himself is the source of the assertion? Bradford44 20:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

They are only capitalized in the headings, as indeed they should be by any style manual, but in the actual manual they are not. --Janneman 21:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

They are direct quotes per the footnotes and in the original writing they were capitalized.--Mike Searson 22:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If a bank started offering what it called Integrated Refinancing Solutions, which were really just loans, would we use the term? Using dubious proper nouns lends an advert-like tone to the article.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Point 1-- W.marsh said it best on the talk page, "A proper encyclopedic biography puts a person in a historical context, compares him to his peers, explains his legacy..." There is very little of that here. (W.marsh also noted the possible lack of sources for this kind of information, which could be part of the problem.) This article is really more about Emerson's knives than the man himself. It his almost entirely devoted to the development of his knifemaking career. While this is the bulk of his notability, the article should be much more well-rounded. The extensive knife sections could possible be broken into its own article, so the knife detail doesn't drag on and on. Point 2-- The Emerson Combat Systems section needs cleanup--parts are written like an ad, specifically, "This system is unencumbered by the ritual or "sport" aspects of martial arts"; "He has accumulated close to 40 years of experience in a variety of styles and philosophies of combat.[9] As a result he has developed a combatives system known as Emerson Combat Systems" (italics mine). Also, key information is missing--when did he start developing this system? When was it first taught to others? Has the martial arts community responded in any way? Point 3--the bit about guitars doesn't belong in the intro; there is only one other sentence about this in the article. Generally, a lot of the advertising language has been cleaned up, which is a big improvement overall. I won't comment on the issue of reliable sources, since I haven't looked into that. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• De-feature - the large number of questionable sources and the fact that the thing reads like a hagiographic advertisement for the guy's company should have kept this article from featured status, let alone the front page. 1of3 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a neighbor who is highly respected as a carpenter. Despite charging substantially more than the going rate he is offered more work than he can take. He is also a superb cook and a superior gardener. Should I write an article about him? I can cite people who have repeatedly had him do carpentry for them, designing as he went. I can cite those who have eaten his food.

I know other people who are similarly creative in their fields. Perhaps they also deserve articles? Or is it only the fact that his craft is that of a maker of snazzy weaponry that makes EE worthy of an article? Too Old 08:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If his work has been featured in one or more films, sought after by various government agencies or private companies, and written about in multiple published articles, ... yes. Bradford44 16:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

the more you look at this article, the more outrageous it is that is continues to exist at all. Why should making expensive knives in rather small numbers be any more important or interesting than making soup or toilet rolls? There is no evidence of any really new invention or radical design, these are just expensive "toys for the boys" . I'm even thinking of writing a new page on my local village butcher, Paul, who has won numerous UK and Scottish awards for his pies and sausages, purely in protest and to show what could happen if this kind of material is allowed into the 'pedia. Time is running out on this article. Excalibur 20:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you did not even read the article, you just know it's about someone who makes knives and you don't like it. The Wave was a radical new design and is patented. Emerson popularized the chisel ground zero-bevel blade on folding knives and along with Allen Elishewitz, Bob Terzuola, and Chris Reeve ushered in what is known as the tactical folding knife. The production aspect of the business makes tens of thousands of knives a year and according to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Emerson makes over $10 million a year between the knives and the training. Again, the knives are not expensive from Emerson...production models are from $69-$250 or so and his customs are only $550. They get expensive when collectors resell them on the secondary market. What do you mean by time is running out? Are you threataning to vandalize it again?--Mike Searson 03:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See featured article, Baby Gender Mentor. Has your butcher Paul (to quote Bradford44) "been featured in one or more films, sought after by various government agencies or private companies, and written about in multiple published articles"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

'Sought after' is advertising lingo. We know he's supplied knives to the US Navy SEALs and NASA, the rest are not so strongly sourced. Given the vast numbers of books churned out about the SAS (often by ex-members), it should not be difficult to find a solid source stating they have used Emerson knives.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Bradford44 01:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys serious? Can you show me any wikipedia article about a contemporary person of, at best, middling importance that includes information like "he was born (...) in a 400-square-foot log cabin built by his grandfather"? How is such unnecessary detail (some might say hagiographic twaddle) encyclopaedic? Who needs to know that he travelled to his Judo classes "twice a week"? Or what qualities he is credited with in diverse novels? The article is written with a lack of distance, in a non-encyclopaedic style, and, in my opinion, without a sense of proportion regarding the importance of the information it conveys. athinaios 21:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is sourcing and factual accuracy (1c). Marskell 10:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. Some of the problems have been addressed, but others remain. That the SAS and the GSG 9 use the knives (and consider them a status symbol) is a grand claim, and needs a stronger reference than the knife magazines. Some unreliable sources (the employee testimony and Emerson's martial arts school testimony) are still used. The ECS section is severely lacking in independant commentary, and the infobox only adds to the confustion. How are boxing, Jeet Kune Do and Brazilian Jujitsu the 'parents' of ECS? There's nothing else about boxing or Brazilian Jujitsu anywhere else in the article. As noted above, the background section is filled with trite details like '400 square foot log cabin'. We are told that he was 'raised in a family of farmers, craftsmen and teachers'. We are not told what his parent's jobs were (or even their names).--Nydas^(Talk) 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• The first part of the article talks about Emerson's background in the arts you claim are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Three independent sources cite this (Combs, Tieves, and Norman). The Testimonial you are waving your arms about is from the actual school run by the teacher who taught JKD to Emerson. It's not Mr Emerson's website...it's Mr Bustillo's. The testimonial further mentions that Emerson performed janitorial duties in exchange for tuition and how learning the balisong knife intrigued him and sparked his interest in making knives. By your rationale, should all biographical articles be purged of any statements made by the subject? I guess a testimonial from the man on the webpage of the school run by the instructor he trained in is not up to your standards? Edited to add for the non-martial types: Gracie Jujitsu is Brazillian Jujitsu --Mike Searson 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for clarifying about the Jujitsu. Statements made by the subject which cast them in a positive light (the janitor thing indicates a hard-working, humble background) should be taken with a pinch of salt.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• It's actually showing how crude the first knife he made was. I, too was practicing the same art in the same time period and I can remember laying out $75 for a balisong...which was alot of money 20-30 years ago. I personally had saved up a month to buy one...so the thought of someone with access to metal and tools making their own knife isn't that farfetched.--Mike Searson 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you are aware of a reliable source that discusses his parent's jobs or names, please bring that forward. Wiki reports what reliable sources say; we can't make it up. Please give a concrete example of sources you claim as unreliable; others have stated (in the discussion above) that the sources are reliable, and you've provided no evidence to the contrary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• One of the sources is Emerson writing about Emerson on the testimonials page of a martial arts club website, the other is Emerson's employee lobbying the government of Nevada to legalise the sale of Emerson knives. Neither of these are reliable due to the conflict of interest and lack of editorial oversight. If you can clearly state why these sources are reliable, please do so. No-one else apart from you has defended them.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I addressed the school and why I used that reference above, if you care to read it. Are you calling Mr Guzy a liar and alleging that he lied under oath while giving sworn testimony?--Mike Searson 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Was he 'under oath'? It's a meeting, not a court case. He doesn't have to lie for it to be an unreliable source.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I assumed because it was before the legislature that it was sworn testimony (Nevada has a brief legislature compared to California's; that and Mr Guzy is also a Police Officer), I did not realize it was just a "meeting". My apologies on that. The actual origin of Guzy's testimony in the article was to point out how the Company was doing things "legally" as a previous editor (who was also terrified of weapons) was very concerned about legality, etc. since Mr Guzy was corroborating what those of us from the Military and Law Enforcement know about the knives...I thought the quotes were appropriate as they are backing up what the magazine articles are saying. I believe Guzy's testimony to be reliable.--Mike Searson 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable butchers and bakers

OK, I give up, trivia like this stays put. So I have risen to the challenge, and created a page for my local butcher. see: Paul Conway, Butcher Maybe this proves that almost anything can be notable if one is prepared to make the effort to write about it. But at least I've kept it to a few hundred words ;-).Excalibur 13:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:Point? That said the article is referenced and has three separate points of notability, having frequently come accross far worse I can't realy see a problem with it, probably more notable then the average fictional cartoon monster... --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, no convincing arguments about notability or reliability of sources have been raised, small adjustments that were needed have been attended to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep.--Mike Searson (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 02:00, 19 November 2007.

---

Seattle, Washington

Review commentary

Notified Lukobe, Jmabel, Bobblehead, and Wsiegmund as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Seattle, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington.

This article was promoted in early 2005 and I believe it has degraded over time. It is insufficiently referenced which includes the placement of verification and citation needed tags in some instances. There are external links in the body of the article and added citations have not been properly formatted. LaraLove 17:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, nothing to disagree with in as far as the external links in the body of the article, lack of formatting on some of the recently added citations go, and the citation needed tags and I'm starting to go through and clean those up. As far as insufficiently referenced, it does have 76 inline citations and 6 books in the Bibliography. How much more referencing would you like to see? Or conversely, what are the specific areas that you feel are under-referenced?--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Truly. Because in such a textually dense, link-dense, and heavily referenced article, we need some more specific criticisms if we are to address them. - Jmabel | Talk 18:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comments, undercited, and citations needed are fairly obvious, I added a few as samples. Large photo gallery. External link farm. See also farm, items which should be worked into the text. Incorrectly and incompletely formatted citations. Haven't examined the text yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out if someone could put together a task list. --Lukobe 20:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Question on the image gallery. WP:MoS#Images seems to encourage the use of galleries for articles with a large number of pictures and there is no prohibition on galleries in WP:FACR. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps I worded that incorrectly. There isn't necessarily the need for additional references, just the need for additional inline citation. Whether or not the following information is in the current references, I don't know. But these are some of the areas I'm speaking of:

• "Its murder rate peaked in 1994 with 69 homicides. In 2004, Seattle's murder rate hit a 40-year low with 24 homicides. Seattle's crime rate has seen an increase in 2006, as have the crime rates in Tacoma and Lakewood, Washington." - Statistical information should be cited.
• Several sentences under "Economic history".
• "The rivers, forests, lakes, and fields were once rich enough to support one of the world's few sedentary hunter-gatherer societies."
• "The Smith Tower was the tallest building on the West Coast from its completion in 1914 until the Space Needle overtook it in 1962."
• "Seattle Center shares a combination of roles within the city, ranging from a public fair grounds to a civic center, though recent economic losses have called its viability and future into question."
• "early city leaders Arthur Denny and Carson Boren insisted on orienting their plats relative to the shoreline..."
• Seattle is often thought of as the home of grunge rock..." - I know that's common knowledge here, but is it common knowledge world-wide?
• The "Culture" section is without citation after the first paragraph.
• The "Tourism" section has one citation.
• The "Sports" and "Outdoor activities" sections lack citation entirely.
• The "Media" section has one citation.
• Speaking of Boeing, "it remains the largest private employers in the Seattle metropolitan area."
• "It is estimated that King County has 8,000 homeless on any given night."
• "Up to 14 percent of Seattle's homeless are children and young adults."
• The "Government and politics" section has one citation.
• The "Official nickname, flower, slogan, and song" section has one citation.
• The second paragraph under "Education" needs further citation.
• The fourth paragraph under "Education" also needs further citation for the claims of various rankings.
• "In 1974, a 60 Minutes story on the success of the then four-year-old Medic One paramedic system called Seattle 'the best place in the world to have a heart attack'."
• "...the monorail's two trains collided on a curve near Westlake Center where a design flaw made it impossible to pass safely."
• "Southwest Airlines recently requested permission to move its services from Sea-Tac to Boeing Field but did not receive permission."

• Other possible issues:

• Is "In December 2006, the Hanukkah Eve Wind Storm brought very heavy rain and disrupted power to much of the city" really worth mentioning?
• The See also under "Topography" doesn't seem appropriately placed.
• "Thunderstorms in the Cascades sometimes produce frequent lightning, which makes for a brilliant light show for those in town." - The "for those in town" seems unencyclopedic to me.
• The layout of the "Cityscape" section seems very odd to me.
• "Seattle's cool mild climate helps a huge proportion of its population engage in outdoor recreation." - A "huge portion"?
• The See also under "Seattle mayors of note" doesn't seem appropriately placed.
• "There are also a handful of excellent smaller schools" reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. Perhaps remove the "excellent" or provide sources to back it up.
• Make sure the "See also" links are not already included in the body. LaraLove 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed list! Looks like the FA requirements for references have changed since the last time I looked at 'em. Also, I have company in town through the weekend, so unless the rest of the article's editors address your concerns (and the others that I'm noticing) cleaned up, I won't be able to do that much until the early part of next week. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not volunteering to do the bulk of this, but if there is anything someone tries to cite for and can't, let me know: I'm usually pretty good at tracking stuff down. - Jmabel | Talk 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been making some comments on the article's talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone would place explicit {{cn}} notices in the article for whatever is considered to need citation, that would greatly increase the chance of these being addressed. - Jmabel | Talk 23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone working on this? It's not looking good; at first glance, the overlinking stands out. Common words known to most English speaking people (like coffee and earthquake) are linked, and we find trolleybuses linked twice within a few sentences. See WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT, common words need not be linked and only the first occurrence of relevant terms needs to be linked. See also is out of control and needs to be worked into the article. There are still uncited statements. The Gallery is kind of obnoxious for a featured article, but I'm not sure that can be a valid oppose. I'd like to see a stronger citation on most educated city in the US (exceptional claims require exceptional sources); it also needs an as of date and better qualifiers according to what is said in MSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it, but slowly. Thanks for the status check. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and their formatting (1c, 2c) and MoS issues. Marskell 19:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Could you please be more specific on the concerns about citation formatting? I'm unaware of any currently with problems. Or maybe this has already been dealt with. - Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• The references aren't correctly formatted; some have template errors, some are missing information, others have odd layouts. Ref 3, for example, doesn't have a page number. One of the later refs is missing a closing parenthesis. What's up with the (1) (2) etc? I've not seen that before. Lara❤Love 20:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• The (1) and (2) is a cheater way of only using one reference tag to display multiple sources and make the sources stick out a little more than just using a carriage return would allow. If you'd prefer we can use separate reference tags or get rid of the (1) and (2). I am working on cleaning up the formating of the sources, but we're up to 170ish reference tags now, so it's a bit of a long haul. Another one of the editors will have to work on the books that are missing their pages. I don't own any of these books, so I can't thumb through to get the information, alas. Although, shouldn't be too difficult to replace them as a reference. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comments, Jmabel, maybe you can move that large table (below) to the talk page here; it's not particularly helpful with ongoing citation needs and many other issues to list every one of them in table form, and it's taking up a lot of space. With 54KB of readable prose, the article exceeds WP:SIZE guidelines of 30 to 50KB readable prose. There are many candidates for creating daughter articles of detail that isn't needed in the main article; for example, the notable mayors list (if it stays in the article it should be prosified), the Alaskan Way Viaduct, transportation could be a shorter summary, Media, etc. Also, templates are used incorrectly: the main template is used when a summary of a daughter article is included in this main article, and most of those articles are incomplete and aren't summarized back to this article. The article isn't using summary style correctly at all. There are still citation needs. Something needs to be done about the gallery and image placement; it looks more like a picture book than an encyclopedic entry. Listy sections should be converted to prose (see Neighborhoods, for example). Attention to WP:MOS#Captions punctuation on image captions is needed, but first images need to be addressed/reduced; also MOS:CAPS#All caps attention needed on citations. There's inconsistent date formatting in citations; some dates are linked, others aren't. A lot of work remains to be done here before we can even begin to look at the prose; it doesn't look like it's going to make it without a thorough and sustained effort. The article needs to be reviewed for WP:WTA and WP:AWW, example, Time magazine chose Seattle Central Community College for best college of the year in 2001, claiming that the school ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• No response, so I'm going to go ahead and move the entry below to the talk page here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for moving the table. I kept meaning to, just kept forgetting. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've removed the gallery, shuffled the images around a bit, and worked on the captions some. Can we check that off the list, or is there more work to be done in that regard? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, I started through so I could strike, and found several captions not corrected. I would fix them all myself, but this article is so large that editing it is painfully slow, and it took me several minutes to add/subtract a couple of full stops. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• D'oh. Okay. Thanks for making the edits you did. I'll go through and hopefully get them correct this time.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Okay. Now (I think) the images are done. I replaced some images that were not related to the section they were in, expanded the caption on others to include more context, etc. If you'd like any other changes, let me know and I'll do them. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• I did some more MOS corrections (WP:UNITS, WP:MOSDATE, WP:OVERLINKing, WP:DASH, etc.) but I didn't get them all and more is needed. This is one of the slowest loading articles I've ever worked on, so editing it is hard. Reducing the size might be a good thing, even if it is within FA range again. The article is still overlinked and over long (see my sample edits). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the edits you made. I'll see if I can pick up where you left off on some of it. Main problem we're having with the page size is the number of citations (170+), most of which were added as a result of this FAR/FARC. The article has 48k of readable text, but is 118k in size, so I'd imagine WP is choking under the weight of the cite templates. I'm not sure decreasing the amount of readable text will help any when the big problem is the citations. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Done WP:DASH and WP:MOSDATE are done. Still working on the overlinking but I've removed all the double links. I have a question on the WP:UNITS though do things like "4,000 years" and "100,000 attendees" need a non-break space? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Done I think I got rid of the low-value links. The only place I'm concerned about is the last two paragraphs of the Economic History section. There are a lot of links to businesses and Boeing airplanes, but they all seem related to the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at ref 70, with all the street fairs; that is total spam, and verges on WP:NOT. You could delete the entire sentence it's citing, and the article wouldn't suffer. It's that sort of text that is chunking up this article size so badly; that kind of info can be shuffled off to daughter articles, or completely deleted per WP:NOT. Also, please resolve the cite needed tag at ... The Seattle Center Monorail, constructed for the 1962 Exposition, runs between Seattle Center and downtown and is used by tourists and by commuters from the north, who often find it cheaper to park at Seattle Center and take the 1-mile (2 km) route to work rather than taking their car downtown.[citation needed] ... again, this kind of information isn't crucial and could be pruned. I'm very close to a Keep on this article, but ya'll really can prune some of the text. Get out the red pen! If it's already in a daughter article, weigh its value in this article. (Responded on my talk page about WP:UNITS; you're almost there ! Keep at it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the two new examples you mentioned and got all the non-breaking spaces, so the WP:UNITS issue should be resolved. As for the article size.. The article is currently at 44k of readable text and more trimming seems unnecessary to me, especially considering the poor condition that the daughter articles are in. I'm willing to work on the quality of the daughter article so that the corresponding section can be trimmed, but until then removing a sentence from the main article to add it to a low quality daughter article seems an unfortunate decision. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, nice effort ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 13:11, 6 November 2007.

---

2005 United States Grand Prix

Review commentary

Notified WP:F1

TV Coverage section part heavily unreferenced. Article suffers from a "notes" turned "trivia"-like section. Needs to be referenced to be brought back up to FA standard. Davnel03 17:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agree that the notes section was fairly trivia-like. That has been easily fixed by either moving the material into the main text, or deleting it as not notable. I also agree that the TV coverage section needs to be referenced (as well as de-crufted quite severely). This should not be particularly difficult to achieve. 4u1e 13:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• I've deleted the section on TV coverage. That may sound a bit dramatic, but 90% of it was statements that various TV channels did indeed show the race (with details of who the presenters were, and whether they were embarrassed or not). That is not notable, since they always show the races. The only notable bit remaining was the claim that TSN in Canada did not show the race - but a quick google shows no evidence to support that statement, and I couldn't find anything on the TSN website either. If others disagree and feel that material should be reinstated, can I suggest that it should focus only on any stations that did not show the race, with appropriate references.
• I think that addresses both of Davnel's concerns. Some may feel that the article is not comprehensive without a section on TV coverage - and if this is notable it should be easy to find relevant references. The writing is a little magazine style for my taste, but I don't know that that is serious enough for the article to be failed here. Could others comment on that? Cheers. 4u1e 13:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and trivia (4). Marskell 19:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Notes (aka trivia) section has gone. TV section has gone. Only reason I can see for de-listing would be if we felt that some kind of material on TV coverage was necessary for completeness. However, I couldn't find any evidence of anyone actually pulling TV coverage of the race, which is about the only thing that would be notable. Please note that I did some work on previous versions of this article (so may not be seen as neutral), and have only looked at those issues that were brought up for review. 4u1e 16:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Referencing is appropriate for an article of this length, trivia section has been removed. I have also improved small sections of the prose to keep it at FA standard. Otherwise it provides netural, stable and comprehensive detail of the event. AlexJ 15:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The references need formatting. In starting to do that, I noticed an error in the title and info being sourced with the second ref. Perhaps they should all be audited. Marskell 13:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Can do. As this issue has only just been uncovered, can we leave this a couple of days to fix? Cheers. 4u1e 19:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(By the by, as the only two (minor) problems raised at FAR were fixed ages ago, why did this proceed to to FARC? 4u1e 23:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Looking at refs a bit more closely, I interpret Marskell's point to be that the refs (which are almost all web based) do not have publication dates. I can't see any other systematic problems in formatting. They are not in cite web format, but neither are they required to be (I'll probably put them in cite web, as it happens, but the article cannot be failed if that is its only shortcoming). Could Marskell confirm whether I have understood the point correctly? Cheers. 4u1e 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And obviously the other point would be inaccurate use of references, which, having gotten into the article, I wholeheartedly agree is an issue. 4u1e 14:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are the issues. They lack publication dates and, though the web addresses indicate them usually, publishers aren't specifically listed. Factual accuracy is a concern because I only looked at two and found an error; perhaps that's a one-off but it wouldn't hurt to check them. We can wait while you work. Marskell 15:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm finding a lot of little detail inaccuracies, but nothing to die in a ditch over (as they say). When I've done that I'll do the formatting. I think publisher probably = web page for all the articles used, but will check. 4u1e 15:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This should take U.S. English, incidentally (e.g. tyre --> tire). Marskell 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 15:23, 4 November 2007.

---

Coronation of the British monarch

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia:WikiProject British Government, User:Lord Emsworth, and User:Wehwalt

Matches other criterion but lacking inline citations. Craigy (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. If everything is in the references listed it should be reasonably straighforward. Dr pda 22:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: I'm still working on this. The bulk of the article now has inline citations. I will keep going with adding the rest, although any help is welcome. Dr pda 09:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I can clear the Catherine of Braganza cite tag; I just need to find the reference over the weekend. That only leaves one, on the "Kings of Arms' crowns" section (unless someone adds some more cite requests). DrKiernan 16:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've cited these sections, however I have some queries about some of the other sources you added.

• The present exceptions are the supertunica and Robe Royal, which both date from the Coronation of George IV in 1821 [35]. Hilliam, Crown, Orb and Sceptre, p159 says The supertunica was made for George V's Coronation in 1911 Does the source you added (Tessa Rose) explicitly mention the supertunica?
• After the Communion service is interrupted, the crimson robe is removed, and the Sovereign, wearing the anointing gown, proceeds to King Edward's Chair,[21]. Reference [21] (the Order of service for Queen Elizabeth) does not explicitly mention the anointing gown. Also she wore a coronation dress in place of two other items of regalia (the purple and crimson surcoats I think), so I am a little confused about the logistics of changing into the anointing gown. Also the anointing gown is not mentioned at this point in the London Gazette description of George VI's coronation (The London Gazette, 10 November 1937, issue 34453, p7055). Unless you have a source for the use of the anointing gown I suggest we remove the reference to it. Dr pda 08:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep from barely any inline citations to over 62, fantastic. Judgesurreal777 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. I think we need a little more in the lead actually describing the ceremony itself; maybe three sentences. "Participants include..." "The steps involved are..." Marskell 10:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reworked the lead along the lines you suggest, and also split it into a few paragraphs. Dr pda 11:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep this now. You might actually source the fact that all European monarchies have abandoned coronations. Marskell 15:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 10:39, 3 November 2007.

---

Michigan State Capitol

Notified ‎WikiProject Michigan‎, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places‎, ‎WikiProject Architecture, Jtmichcock‎, ‎Pentawing, and Neutrality

Lack of citations and some WP:MOS breaches. Epbr123 21:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose that a minimal requirement for a National Historic Landmark site article to be a Featured article, not met by this one yet, is that it should include reference links to the actual National Historic Landmark Nomination text and accompanying photos set, if such is available. These are highly relevant to explaining why the site became a NHL and provide rich info for the text of the article, besides providing a good follow-on source for the interested reader of the article. Search at NPS search site for NHL nominations / NRHP inventory-registration documents to see the Michigan State Capitol text and photo sets. There are 13 great images in the photo set for this one, by the way. doncram 03:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• I went through the article and added citations where appropriate (much of the information comes from two official sources with the state of Michigan and the National Park Service text) and checked for MOS breaches. If there are still citations needed or further MOS problems, can you point them out? Pentawing^Talk 03:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Pentawing--Thanks for making the effort. I revised your reference further, adding a link to the accompanying photo set within the reference, adding author and correcting the date of the NHL nomination document. You were off by 21 years in the date, somehow. The date I use is the date the author signs it, which is indeed buried within the document, on page 23 of this one. It is the same URL of document, so it must be the same document. Glad you consulted it and used it in the editing. Addresses my specific concern now. (I am not reviewing for any MOS breaches, but overall I like the article.) doncram 01:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Status, Epbr, on quick glance, it's looking good; what is still needed here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's been fixed to my satisfaction now. Good work, Pentawing. Epbr123 23:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Doncram, are you also happy with where it's at? Marskell 10:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Doncram hasn't come back but if Sandy and Epbr are happy I think this can go. Marskell 10:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 08:20, 29 November 2007.

---

Shroud of Turin

Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism notified; Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism notified; User:JDG notified; User:Johnstone notified; User:Eloquence notified

Extreme lack of inline citations. Citation needed tags all over this article, and a reference needed tag at the top. There are also original research tags along with unverified claims tags. It is clear that (until these are fixed) this article no longer meets the FA criteria. PeterSymonds 09:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Not sure why it would be FA based on what I see on the page--Will2k 02:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead is very short also. Pagrashtak 14:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• It's table of contents is all over the place too --Hadseys 18:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and OR (1c), and ToC (2b). Marskell 10:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• ....oh dear. Still a long way to go. Needs alot of refs and copyedit to tighten up text. Fingers crossed.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree; plus MOS breaches aplenty. Tony (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remove FA status. "The controversy" needs references else should be considered WP:OR.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 08:20, 29 November 2007.

---

United States Senate

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Wikipedia:WikiProject District of Columbia, User:Lord Emsworth, and User:Jersyko

Article promoted in 2005 and is no longer up to standard. Only eight citations for a long article and three of them are to news websites. Violation of 1c. Nice long list of books in the bibliography, but none of them are cited. --RelHistBuff 17:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per nom. History secton mentions "Framers of the Constitution" but doesn't specify who these people are and it also treats them as having a unanimous opinion on a bicameral Congress (which may or may not be true). The term President pro tempore isn't defined until after it has been used a few times. Legislative functions section contains an uncited quote. T Rex | talk 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Good impulse, but this is the review part of the Featured Article Review, we are trying to fix it, we aren't yet voting on whether it should be removed. Judgesurreal777 18:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a rehash of the claims made against United States Congress in its FAR and ultimate removal. The featured article criteria do not mandate inline citation. FAR 2c states that inline citations should be used "where appropriate." Where the article can be improved, it should be, but to recommend removing an articles featured status based on the lack of inline citations is not good policy. Only those facts in dispute or require clarification should need direct citation. IMO, adding inline citations for every statement or sentence in the article would detract from the article.

As far as shortcomings and lack of detail, this is meant to be an overview article. There are links to History of the United States Senate (which gets at the Connecticut Compromise and other workings of the constitutional convention and other related articles to provide more detail where appropriate.Dcmacnut 20:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The US Senate procedures are known to be arcane. So this section should be well-cited as a lot of hearsay could easily creep in. The Woodrow Wilson quote is missing a cite. As I said above, a big list of sources are provided and none of them seem to be used. If this article were to be submitted to FAC now, it would obviously not pass. --RelHistBuff 11:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 18:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove: As above. Nothing has been done. --RelHistBuff 17:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c, no progress. Jay32183 01:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Remove 2c - not enough inline citations and lack of standard citation formatting.--Sir Anon 03:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep My arguments and the fact that FAC does not require in-line citations 100% of the time keep falling on deaf ears. The article will probably still be removed, but I don't want to leave the impression that there is no support for keeping it.Dcmacnut 17:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, all featured articles are required to have inline citations using either Harvard referencing or footnotes. It says so quite clearly in WP:FA?, 1c and 2c. "Where appropriate" does not mean "limited to direct quotations". Jay32183 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong retain "Where appropriate" is, however, defined by WP:WHEN, to which the phrase quoted links. Much of this is subject specific common knowledge, or the summary of more detailed articles, which are grounds for exceptions. Much of it is also clearly and expressly cited by the text itself. (For one of many examples, "Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution sets forth three qualifications for senators" would not be improved by repeating the reference in a footnote.) Examples of statements that are both "challenged or likely to be challenged" and for which no source is clearly indicated would have been both actionable and helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Subject specific common knowledge refers to things that lay people familiar with the topic recognize as true. That is not the case with the majority of this article. Jay32183 (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the U.S. Senate would understand the majority of this article. The extensive citations listed at the bottom provide sufficient sourcing for the article for anyone who wishes to learn more about the topic. The majority of the article is concise and lacks the "surprising" or "contentious" factor that would require in-line citations.Dcmacnut (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • It isn't whether they would be able to understand the article, it is whether they would already know the information. You shouldn't be thinking of reasons not to use citations. Citations are a good thing. Please read why we should cite sources, which your arguments indicate you have never read. If readers are reading something for the first time, they need to be able to find out where that information came from. Jay32183 (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
        • • I'm not saying citations are a bad thing, but WP:CS is a guideline and says there can be exceptions. As I indicated, the article has citations, they just aren't in-line. Just as there is a problem with no citations, there is a equally, and in my mind, bigger problem with too many citations. Every sentence in an article does not need a citation, and an overview article like United States Senate which provides links to more detailed wiki articles does not need to be as extensively cited (with inline citations) as some may prefer, since the sources at the bottom are adequate for further research and the more detailed articles with more archane history should be cited in more detail. Too many inline citations detracts from the readability of the article. Moreover, some of the best sources to cite aren't available on-line. Why is an in-line citation so essential, when a reader who "needs to be able to find out where that information came from" can look at the bibliography? Last I checked the sources listed in the article indicate which sections or paragraphs to which they relate.Dcmacnut (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Whether the sources are available online or not is irrelelvant to the need for citations. With regards to readability I don't see your point with regards to this article - it is undercited not over-cited, and is definitely not cluttered with citations, nor would it be if it had a dozen more. I've seen FAs with over 100 citations that were not cluttered, this one has 14. The assorted sources at the bottom are not adequate, please see as examples the places where SandyGeorgia has inserted citation requests. If I want to find out where the information came from, I cannot practically do this - you cannot rasonably expect the reader to sift through all those references at the bottom.--Sir Anon (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I have read it, some time since; it has not acquired anything requiring us to use footnotes where we do not need them. It does not say, and should not, "No footnotes bad; more footnotes good." A list of instances, or a scattering of warranted {{cn}} tags, would be a contribution to the encyclopedia. I have seen no information in this article that I had any doubt where it came from; but I await enlightenment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you subscribe to WP:WHEN, direct quotes, hard data, and opinion need to be cited. They are not in this article. I just cited hard data in the lead, no less. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remove. I cleaned up what MOS issues I could, and cited what I could,[8] but there are citation needs, and the article appears abandoned. Ah, Pmanderson, since you see nothing you doubt, perhaps you can locate the info in the tags I added, because I couldn't. Please do cite the article. Also, what Dcmacnut refers to as "extensive citations listed at the bottom" looks like a farm that needs pruning. It's hard to believe this article requires all those sources, and they are more than our readers should have to sort through to locate Woodrow Wilson's quote, which is nowhere in a reliable source on the net. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The Wilson quote is from Congressional Government, the work by Wilson cited in the notes. (p. 156, editio citata.). It took me less time to find it than to type this note. I recommend that the competence displayed in this criticism be taken into account when deciding the fate of this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the list of sources looks like a quite reasonable set of books out of which to write this article. I do not happen to have them in front of me, and am having to find more difficult sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You should really tone down the personal attacks, PMA, and since you can find the sources so easily, by all means, do cite the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      • A note: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. PMA, please don't add ref tags which refer to non-reliable sources. This article needs to be sourced, not by referring to other articles. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Please don't confuse convenience links with references; the work cited was the American Dictionary of National Biography, a reliable source, the last I looked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Adding that information (American Dictionary of National Biography) helps; citing Wiki articles doesn't. PMA has now cited some of the article, so others might want to revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
            • No wikipedia article was ever cited. I would appreciate retraction of this repeated falsehood. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I tagged this sentence as needing gender neutralization; PMA removed my inline comment. Can someone (Tony) please fix this? In United States Senate#Committees:

• Now, committee chairmen are in theory elected, but in practice, seniority is very rarely bypassed. The chairman's powers are extensive; he controls the committee's agenda, and may prevent the committee from approving a bill or presidential nomination. Modern committee chairmen are not usually as forcible in exerting their influence than the autocratic chairment of the past.

• I also tagged the last sentence as needing a citation, but PMA removed that tag as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • • Come on, Sandy, don't read so carelessly. I provided sources for the entire paragraph of which this is part, (except the detail on Vice Chairmen, which is unlikely to challenged by an honest editor). The relevant page for committee chairmen is p. 44. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remove unless properly referenced (1c). I bristle when I see unsupported sweeping statements such as this, relying for its logical causality on the middle clause "the Senate is smaller and its members serve longer terms". I'm unconvinced of the connections, and as a visitor to WP, I'd want authoritative references for them.

The Senate is regarded as a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives; the Senate is smaller and its members serve longer terms, allowing for a more collegial and less partisan atmosphere that is somewhat more insulated from public opinion than the House.

There's a clear distinction between (1) statements that are derived from, say, the Consitution, and facts that are unlikely to be contested (two senators per state), and (2) what could be opinion or historical conjecture. For example, when I see "intended" and "desire", I want ot be reassured that this is not the result of a WPian's putting words in the minds/mouths of historical figures.

The Framers of the Constitution created a bicameral Congress out of a desire to have two houses to be accountable to each other. One house was intended to be a "people's house" that would be sensitive to public opinion. The other house was intended

It's most unsatisfactory in this respect. The prose could be cleaned up a little: why do we have "most significantly" twice in the last sentence of the lead? I haven't read the rest: let me know when it's been properly edited and referenced, if that happens in time to save it. Tony (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is in fact a cliche, "subject-specific common knowledge," to use our cliche. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Further comment concerning Sandy's query above: I've reworded the passage, but would like just a little more detail about the extraordinary situation where a chairman can prevent the passing of legislation or the approval of a presidential nominee. Surely this is an indirect consequence. Can someone explain how this power is exercised?

The chairman's powers are extensive, and include the control of the committee's agenda and the prevention of committee approval of a bill or presidential nomination. Modern committee chairmen are not usually as forcible in exerting their influence as the autocratic chairmen of the past.

And again, I don't believe the claim about "modern" chairmen (what is modern, anyway? Post-war? Provide references, please, or this will remain a shabby attempt at historical authority). Tony (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• While the source presently cited is not specific, the period referred to began between 1960, when Lyndon Johnson left the Senate, and the reforms of 1974, after Watergate. The chairman's power consisted of his power to speak for his party member, and in practice decide what they (a majority of the committee) would vote, and to speak for the committee as a whole. It was never impossible to buck the committee chairmen; but it made it very difficult for the Senator who did so to obtain anything for his State. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you wind that into the text? It seems important to unpack for our readers what is otherwise an impenetrable process. Is there not a good reference for Senate practice? There is such a text for Australian Senate practice (Odgers, I think). Tony (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do; but I didn't write the article, and it's not my field. One problem is that much of this is no longer Senate practice; another is that I'm going on vacation this week. This is doubtless one of the things Emsworth derived from all the lives of committee chairmen listed in the references. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate all the work everyone on both sides have made on the article, and I understand the views of those calling for greater citation. I have abstained from making sweeping changes to the article since as a former Senate employee, I am too close to the subject. I simply "know" what is true and what is not true regarding the Senate, but am not in a good enough position to find supporting sources (lack of a decent library in my area and lack of sufficient on-line sources). A lot of the statements that people are questioning, to me, are merely a given or a reasonable inference for someone with my Senate background. Were I do undertake significant edits, they could inadvertantly be interpreted as POV. My only goal in this endeavor is to ensure a critical look at the article as a whole. In general, I still think it is a quality article deserving of Featured Status, in spite of its perceived shortcomings in the way of citations.Dcmacnut (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, which modern committee chairmen compare to Johnson or Robinson or Long? I was forced to edit that caveat out because the source I was consulting did not explicitly support it, but it would be easier to check with a name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If PMA is going away, Dcmacnut, you are the ideal person to add citations. It can't be hard to distance yourself from the topic and empathise with the poor readers who know little about it. Citations are a must for many assertions and assumptions made in this article. I'm beginning to think that it should be delisted and then renominated after fixed. It's a good article in many ways, so shouldn't have too much trouble with citations. Tony (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 16:48, 25 November 2007.

---

Sociocultural evolution

Review commentary

Notified users: User:Goethian, User:Slrubenstein, User:Pariah‎, User:DCDuring, User:Tynansanger

WP Sociology notified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

While it is well written and reasonably comprehensive, this 2005 FA has fallen behind its brethren. Poor verifiability and a raft of style issues (tone, organization, length) need to be addressed before this can be called the very best work of wikipedia. Madcoverboy 14:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Would the nominator please make sure that relevant parties are notified as per FAR nomination instructions? Thanks. --RelHistBuff 15:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I did notify the appropriate parties but I didn't update this page. This has now been updated. Madcoverboy 19:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I knew this day would come. I will add this to my 'to do' list, but I could really really really use some help on this one.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to help as I am interested in the topic, but I am not familiar with the literature. A willingness to change doesn't alter the fact that it's likely not FA material. Madcoverboy 19:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The article should still be comprehensive and well-written; what it lacks are inline citations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are too many sections which require sourcing to allow this article to be a FA. Gothbag 17:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• CommentIt's a messy article, I admit, but I feel it should stay as a FA in a scaled back sense. The problem is there are too many variations over the course of centuries. I'd be willing to start an article on Contemporary Cultural Evolution in the Boyd/Richardson sense, but I'm not sure how exactly it should be properly ormatted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tynansanger (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are verifiability (1c), style issues (2), organization and length (4). Marskell 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - per nom. --Peter Andersen (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. Loads of problems. For an example of lack of attention to the details of prose, see "20th-century approaches" and "20th century approaches", and "aimed at provide" in the lead. For an example of content problems, see the first figure, which doesn't help our readers to understand the caption one bit. Tony (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 13:16, 20 November 2007.

---

Marshall, Texas

Review commentary

Notified Wikiproject Texas, Wikiproject Cities, Acegikmo1, 66.190.102.133

Per 1(b), 1(c), and 2(a). The article lacks comprehensive coverage; sections on education, media, and economy are meager, while it’s missing important information on culture and infrastructure or healthcare. History section includes far too much detail while the rest of the article severely lacks comprehensiveness. Too much unsourced material. Lead section needs work. The article was promoted in 2004 when standards were obviously much different. A FAR of the article in 2006 resulted in a pass due to overall lack of interest or dissenting comments during the review. Okiefromokla•talk 18:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You're definitely correct about the history section. It seems longer than the History of Marshall, Texas article, actually, and needs to be compressed per Wikipedia:Summary style. Oddly enough, the history article seems to have no references, while the history section of this article does. Pertinent references should be copied over before or during compression. Pagrashtak 14:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should just replace the current history of marshall article with the current history of marshall section. However, even much of the section is unsourced. Okiefromokla•talk 19:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the two in enough detail. Is there anything in the history article not covered in the history section? Pagrashtak 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I skimmed over them both when I started talking about putting this up for FAR and it seemed that the section in the article was more detailed and better written. So to answer your question, I don't think so. Okiefromokla•talk 20:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I did some reference cleaning and have tagged two dead links. The Wayback Machine doesn't seem to be working for me right now (or at least is really slow), so if someone wants to look into these, please do. Pagrashtak 15:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's working now, but I wasn't able to find those two references. Pagrashtak 15:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Media of Marshall, Texas, I wonder how much growth potential there is. I think we should merge it into the main Marshall article—it's not too long for a section right now. If enough material is added, it can be split out then, or a page created for the Messenger. Pagrashtak 20:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've been trying to drum up interest in this article for months, but have had no success. WikiProject Texas made it the collaboration of the month but there were absolutely no productive edits made during that period. It also doesn't have any major editors anymore. Several editors that were involved in the article over the years have retired from Wikipeida. I hate to sound pessimistic but I don't think anyone with knowledge about this town is going to help improve it to FA standards any time soon... Okiefromokla•talk 20:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Don't mean to discourage anyone from improving this article by any means. Just a little FYI for reviewers. Okiefromokla•talk 20:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Also, the notable residents section needs citations, and would be better as prose. Epbr123 16:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), and LEAD (2a). Marskell 10:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per all - 1b, 1c, 2a. Needs too much work, and there doesn't seem to be enough interest in the article for dramatic improvements any time soon, having already been the Wikiproject Texas collaboration of the month and having its editors informed months ago about an upcoming FAR. Little work has been done. Okiefromokla•talk 21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remove, very little improvement, most deficiencies identified remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 13:16, 20 November 2007.

---

Indo-Greek Kingdom

Review commentary

All Wikiprojects notified. User:PHG notified.

I am nominating this article for the given reasons:

• (1a) - ""Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." At the moment I think that the article is struggling to meet this criteria, there are some really long sentences and some paragraphs with only one sentence. Some sentences use words like "even" "seem to" "seemingly" and "allegedly" which should be ironed out.
• (1c) does not have really enough citations for such a long, long article. Some paragraphs are uncited.
• (1e) "stability" - well atm there are edit wars from time to time.
• (2b) Four levels of headings may be too much.
• (2c) Citations are at times inconsistent and incomplete
• (4) A long article, might be too long

• (2c/d) ?? I am not sure of this, but the article has been the long term subject of an edit war, and allegations that the article is pro-Greek have been raised. For the record, User_talk:Blnguyen#Re:_Indo_greek_Kingdom

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done*(1c) has been addressed (now 100 citations for 41kb)

 Done*(2b) has been addressed (now 3 levels of heading)

 Done*(4) has been addressed (the body of the article is now 41kb) PHG 11:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blnguyen. It is going to be difficult to address these points if you keep blocking the article. This article is a great FA, which of course could receive some improvement.

• (1a) We could go through a general edit of the text to iron out issues.
• (1c) This article already has 113 references. By FA standards, I would think it is already quite large.
• (1e) The article has been stable for the last few months, until new disruption by Devanampriya. Some users (Devanampriya) want to impose an original research minimalist map. Most other users (including myself) prefer a highly referenced map incorporating three reputable sources.
• (2b) I didn't know levels of heading should be a issue for an FA, especially for a long article.
• (4) We could shorten the article by creating sub-articles if necessary.

• (2c/d) The edit warring is essentially coming from a vandal or quasi-vandal User:Devanampriya (case under discussion at [9]) PHG 17:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am happy to unlock this article if people will vow to engage in nontrivial content and changes and only do the presentation related cleanups. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Devanampriya

• It is neither helpful nor civil to be referring to Devanampriya as a vandal. Content disputes are not vandalism. Based on my brief look at the article, there appears to be a legitimate dispute about the map boundaries that are displayed at the top of the page. PHG seems to want to include a map which has borders that indicate a much larger Indo-Greek kingdom than is usually displayed in other reliable sources. Devanampriya also seems to have legitimate concerns that some facts are being misrepresented in the article, and further, Devanampriya appears to have sources to back up his opinion. I cannot say whether Devanampriya is right or wrong, and I definitely cannot say that Devanampriya has always been presenting his concerns in the most civil way possible (he obviously has not). But, the concerns appear to be legitimate issues of neutrality and undue weight, and should not simply be belittled as vandalism. see WP:VANDAL#What vandalism is not. --Elonka 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid Devanampriya is, by Wikipedia definition, a vandal, who also enters into content dispute. First of all User:Devanampriya has also been claiming “Vandalism” towards respectable users such as User:Aldux, User:Sponsianus, User:Giani g or myself. Is he technically a “Vandal”? (according to Wikipedia policy, cf Wikipedia policy#Types of vandalism). I would say probably yes. He resorts to Blanking extensively, by deleting referenced material that he dislikes [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], although I am sure you would argue he at least gives a (usually uncivil) reason to his blanking. He resorts extensively to Discussion page vandalism (To User:Giani g: “You have no knowledge about the subject matter but simply parrot PHG's positions and unleash invective upon me.” To User:Sponsianus: “The only thing nonsensical is your affected claims of objectivity, sponsy” To PHG: “Your claims to fairness are the equivalent of including nazi eugenics theories in modern biology” , “your narrow-mindedness”, “your raging philhellenism in your quest to subvert history”, “you and many of these pseudo-historians”, all this is a sampling of Talk:Indo-Greek Kingdom). He resorts to User space vandalism through various insults of the same kind. He resorts to Edit summary vandalism by making offensive comments there (one of the definitions of vandalism indeed): To Giani g: “you are ignorant in these matters, so stop inserting inaccuracies.” To Kannauj: “it's called fanwank”, To Aldux:”you steamroll over dissent. You are not an objective admin. Recuse yourself”, To PHG ”removed eurocentric fanwank”, all on [16]). And of course Malicious account creation (sock-puppet cases in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Devanampriya to overturn the 3R rule, one of which is detailed hereunder, worthy of account suspension Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User : Devanampriya). PHG 19:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudeness is not vandalism. Violating 3RR is not vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism. Now, if you think Devanampriya has violated 3RR (and I have not seen any proof of that, even taking the anon edits into account), then take it to WP:AN3RR. But again, please stop referring to Devanampriya as a vandal. It's uncivil, and is not helpful at resolving this dispute. --Elonka 19:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just one example. Making offensive comments in edit summaries is considered as Edit summary vandalism and is a recognized example of Vandalism as per Wikipedia. Check Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. PHG 19:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Edit summary vandalism is when someone does something like putting in a summary, "John is a jackass, call him for yourself and find out, here's his phone number ###-###-####". Simple rudeness in an edit summary is not vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism. What vandalism is, is when someone removes a picture and replaces it with a photo of someone's genitals. Vandalism is when someone replaces every other word with a 4-letter epithet. Vandalism is deliberately changing someone's birthyear to 2300. Vandalism is blanking an entire page and replacing it with, "Haha you wankers." Those kinds of things are vandalism (and occur hundreds, if not thousands of times per day on Wikipedia). Disagreements about content, are not vandalism. Now, if someone continues being rude in edit summaries or elsewhere, you should give them warnings at their talkpage, and include diffs of the problematic language. If you have multiple examples of warnings (especially if from multiple users), and the behavior doesn't change, you can report them for incivility at WP:ANI. If that doesn't work, you can start a User Conduct RfC on them, and in particularly egregious cases, if all else has failed and someone just refuses to tone down their rhetoric, you can take them to ArbCom, and the uncivil user could potentially be completely banned from editing on Wikipedia. But that still wouldn't make them a vandal. --Elonka 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you kindly respond to specifics? Wikipedia does say that making offensive comments in edit summaries is considered as Edit summary vandalism and is a recognized example of Vandalism as per Wikipedia, on Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. Devanampriya has been leaving plenty of offensive comments in his edit summaries (actually, mostly offensive comments). Show me a Wikipedia policy that says this is not vandalism. PHG 19:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's called incivility, which is much more serious. But this is largely a verbal dispute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• To return to the issues at hand: I'm not sure this is the best, or even a workable, forum for an article with a content dispute. It is very hard to review a protected article, and it will encourage our worst tendencies to sit back and demand other people do the work; FAR is intended to improve articles, preferably in large things, but also in small, and a protected article cannot be improved. May I suggest a Request for Mediation? I will gladly join, as an independent reviewer of the sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

May I comment that this FA Review nomination of Indo-Greek kingdom is the result of a request made by our vandal/sock-pupetter/blanker User:Devanampriya to User:Blnguyen?... nothing glorious indeed, but I'm glad Elonka rejoices about it. PHG 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious review that I am attempting to undertake. I am not making this a smokescreen FAR to facilitate harassment. The fact is that two concerns raised. I am raising concerns about the writing and style of the article and not the validity of the content contained therein. Devanamapriya has his own complaints, which may or may not be frivolous. He is going to raise these anyway, so both may as well be done at the same time. PHG, you are a serious contributor so it is best that you only be subjected to one set of paperwork rather than two. I have style concerns about this article and its FA status. Perhaps you do not take this FAR seriously on the writing and presentation issues I have raised... At Wikipedia:Featured article review/Greco-Buddhism, I raised similar concerns about the referencing but you appeared to be confident that the references that were already there were sufficient and you only renovated the article for one day. And later it got delisted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just on the issue of references, in the old days people didn't care so much for them, but they do now. But for the record, in case it might be thought that this is a smokescreen excuse, here are the referencing stats for the 3 FAs that I wrote myself.

• Ian Thorpe: 41k main text; 168 distinct footnotes; 240 footnotes when used multiple times -> One ref for every 0.1708k main text
• Harbhajan Singh: 36.5k main text; 130 distinct footnotes; 200 footnotes when used multiple times -> One ref for every 0.182k main text
• Pham Ngoc Thao: 18.14k main text; 28 distinct footnotes; 39 footnotes when used multiple times -> One ref for every 0.465k main text
• Indo-Greek Kingdom: 94.3k main text; 113 footnotes -> One ref for every 0.835k main text

So the level of referencing is lower than what I tend to expect of myself, and I am not expecting something of another which I am not expecting of myself. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done The article currently has 100 refs for 41kb of content, making it one ref for every 0.41k of main text. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to give Blnguyen more credit than that. Blnguyen is a seasoned administrator, and isn't going to take an action just because a single user makes a complaint. Blnguyen's comments for the justification of the FAR (as posted at the top of this page) appear thoughtful and reasoned. And I too agree that the article has been the subject of disputes, and that a Review seems a reasonable option at this point. --Elonka 23:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

They amount to:

• Not well written
  • In fact, it's better written than several articles we just promoted.
  • There are a few minor points which should be dealt with, once the article's unprotected; but they can wait.
• Sentences like By around 312 BCE Chandragupta had established his rule in large parts of the northwestern Indian territories. are unsourced.
  • And so they can be; that's common knowledge in the field, per WP:WHEN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• There is an edit war.
  • So there is; but we should not permit edit wars to demote FAs. To do so would reward edit warriors. There is another instance on this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have struck the concern over the edit war, since it may be taken to be the fact that it rewards edit-warring and stone-walling tactics. In any case, I think the fact that there is a neutrality concern by another person is sufficient here, which I am not endorsing and am not in a position to comment on the content. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the vandalism point, I've ages ago discovered in wikipedia that even in presence of editors manifesting blatant and undiscussed patterns of disruption to a point that is without doubt vandalism, it's better to abstain from using the word vandalism, because using it is of no use for making understand anything. The problem here is, as Septentrionalis noted, in uncivility, and it's an enormous problem; personally, I hardly remember Devanampriya ever being civil, and this from the beginning (so no Elonka, Devanampriya isn't a poor angel provoked by an evil PHG), and has on at least two occasions resorted to mass canvassing among Indian editors, on May 19 2007 and September 8 2006. While I'm disappointed with Elonka, I must agree fully, 100% and even more, that what you said regarding Blnguyen is deeply unjust. Blnguyen is something more than a good editor: he's one of the most sensible I've met in these years in wikipedia, and when he was chosen for the ArbCom I was greatly happy, because it meant there would be a guy who knew what disputes and edit-wars were, and hadn't just made VfD. As I've already said, Blnguyen's actions are perfectly legitimate, and any admin should have done the same in similar circumstances: and keep in mind he hasn't endorsed Devanampriya's objections but simply exposed them. The other criticisms can be easily dealt with, as Septentrionalis has observed.--Aldux 17:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the FAR, I am not making a comment on the intellectual validity of this piece of work, nor do I want to impugn anyone with vague inferences of intellectual skulduggery. I have been a regular crew-member at T:DYK for 16 months and I have been AGF the work done by PHG, since I have been selecting his work for display when it has been submitted, and if I did not pick one of his articles, it was not due to POV concerns. I have removed my concern over the stability issue, since it may be seen to encourage people, on this article or elsewhere, to simply revert arbitrarily or out of malice to try and scupper an FA. But simply in looking at the article, I felt that the presentation of the article needs improvement and it would reduce paperwork if all issues relating to the article would be dealt with and cleared out efficiently in one go instead of having a second load of paperwork for no reason. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, the main concerns, are with referencing, and while they may be considered to be more stringent than most reviewers (since I certainly have a higher rate of opposing FACs and GACs than most people), compared to the expectations I put on my own FACs, I do not feel that I am giving worse than I expect from others.

• Eg, "The supposition that such highly Hellenistic and, at the same time Buddhist, works of art belong to the Indo-Greek period would be consistent with the known Buddhist activity of the Indo-Greeks (the Milinda Panha etc...), their Hellenistic cultural heritage which would naturally have induced them to produce extensive statuary, their know artistic proficiency as seen on their coins until around 50 BCE, and the dated appearance of already complex iconography incorporating Hellenistic sculptural codes with the Bimaran casket in the early 1st century CE."
• "The Greco-Buddhist art of Gandhara, beyond the omnipresence of Greek style and stylistic elements which might be simply considered as an enduring artistic tradition, offers numerous depictions of people in Greek Classical realistic style, attitudes and fashion (clothes such as the chiton and the himation, similar in form and style to the 2nd century BCE Greco-Bactrian statues of Ai-Khanoum, hairstyle), holding contraptions which are characteristic of Greek culture (amphoras, "kantaros" Greek drinking cups), in situations which can range from festive (such as Bacchanalian scenes) to Buddhist-devotional."

• This is commentary/analysis, which I presume reflects the views of one or more suitably qualified scholars. It is not hard raw fact or raw data. Since what is known of the Indo-Greeks comes archaeological fragments and analysis/extrapolation/hypothesising from the partial data, this article is packed with similar bits of prose. This is why there are words like "regarded" "might be" "..would be consistent" are non-trivial, and need to be sourced meticulously. There are many such paragraphs, some consecutively, that are uncited and contain many things such as analysis, postulations, which are not black and white, and are yet uncited.

Secondly, the references are not filled out completely and are rather inconsistent.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• These sentences are indeed worth discussing. They may well be consensus of the sources; I haven't read most of them.
• The argument about Megasthenes is so weak that I suspect the source has been misunderstood:
  • Megasthenes was not "mid 3rd century BC". He represented Seleucus Nicator at the court of Chandragupta, who was a conqueror himself (and most conquerors have large armies), and who was facing Seleucus, the master of the Middle East, at a time when no Indo-Greek state existed. Chandragupta's army shows, not how formidable the Indo-Greeks were, but how hard their task could have become.
• Shouldn't it be Indo-Greek kingdoms? There is no proof there was only one, and some evidence there wasn't.
• I agree the references should be tweaked; for example, the quotation from Athenaeus in the notes should be indicated as such. (This is less serious than it might be, because it links directly to the page with the text.)
• The map should probably be replaced by one showing placenames but no boundaries. Given the evidence, any claim on boundaries is guesswork; preferably the guesswork of reliable sources, but why map guesswork at all?

All these, and placement of {{cn}} tags to show which sentences Blnguyen is concerned about, will be much easier to deal with if the article is unprotected. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment (I'm back from two days out). Plenty of books do show boundaries for the Indo-Greeks (and personally know only one map with names only), so I still favour a map with boundaries, even if there are uncertainties (like many ancient maps anyway). Hence the depiction of the various interpretations in map B. Blnguyen, I'll be glad to put in additional reference, if you can lift the article block. Regards to all. PHG 18:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Greek names should be transliterated consistently; if "Antiochus" and "Demetrius", why "Deimakos"? (Having noticed this one, I'll fix it; but why do it in the first place?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson (sig added later).
• Also, it violates WP:GREEK, which while not official policy, is a naming convention that estabilishes that Latinized names should be used, which "is considered a standard that all users should follow". As for the rename, I'm not very convinced by Septentrionalis proposed name, if a rename is done I would prefer simply Indo-Greeks.--Aldux 01:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That's probably a better idea, although these were certainly kingdoms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• More seriously, why is Demetrius I called anicetus with no mention of Narain's insistence that "Demetrius anicetus" is Demetrius II, only? Reading the sources after the article should not produce surprises. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Demetrius I, "ANIKETOS", i.e. "Invincible" (Pedigree coin minted by Agathocles). PHG 10:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Bopearachchi on Demetrius II Aniketos: Collin Kraay attributed the coin to a 3rd Demetrios, Senior ignores the difference between the first and the second Demetrios, although he mentions the portrait looks different, Bopearachchi attributes it to a second Demetrios, circa 100 av JC. Since you're making the above comment, I suppose that you are not aware that Agathokles minted pedigree coins of the first Demetrius (I) with the adjective "ANIKETOS" (See Bopearachchi, and my photograph of one of these coins at the British Museum here). This is actually the first "Demetrius Aniketos" to be documented. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This omits the attribution of the coins to Demetrius II, who was also before Agathocles. But all this should be in the text of the article, not here; what it has now is a statement of fact, assigning them to Demetrius I. That's one view, not the consensus of authority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi PMAnderson. As far as I know the majority view is that Demetrius II was not before Agathocles. Only if Demetrius I and Demetrius II are considered the same can this conclusion be reached (Whitehead, Senior) It was already in the note in the article. PHG 18:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• More seriously still, this seems to be an unwarranted attempt at synthesis. Tarn, Narain, and Bopearachchi disagree, sometimes quite seriously, on the dating and sequence of these kings; we should say this - it is irresponsible not to. We should say, much more clearly than is ever done, that the length of kings' reigns is, for most of them, a pure conjecture from the quantity of coin finds. Overstrikes, and joint strikes, are suggestive, but not conclusive, evidence for sequence; they do not, of course, prove duration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As an example of the approach that we could be taking, I quote Brill's New Pauly on Hermaeus: The last of the Indo-Greek kings in Paropamisadai (modern south-east Afghanistan) in the 1st cent. BC, perhaps a son of Amyntas [8]. Like so many of the Indo-Greek kings, he is only known through his coins, a large amount of which were issued postumously by Indo-Scythians from Bactria, who had removed him (according to [Tarn] after 30, according to [Narain] around 50, according to [Bopearachchi] around 70 BC). He was married to Calliope.
• Why, and on what secondary authority, is the Life of Apollonius of Tyana being treated as a reliable source for India? I grant that, next to Chaucer and Justin, it doesn't look so bad, but still.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Because Life of Apollonius of Tyana is referenced by a quantity of historians of the period.PHG 14:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Both Tarn and Narain agree that "Euthydemia" is wrong; it is a misguided editroial correction, violating the difficilior lectio principle. If a scribe sees Euthydemia, why should he substitute Euthymedia? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done the map was corrected accordingly. Thanks. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Why Barigaza, not the usual Barygaza? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done the map was corrected accordingly. Thanks. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Summary: This article was a great deal of work, much of it verbally accurate, from abstruse sources; these are its virtues. Unfortunately, it is also full of passages like this: Written evidence of the initial Greek invasion survives in the Greek writings of Strabo and Justin. The error here is not so much that Justin was not Greek, although he was not; it is that the problem with Justin (that he is an unreliable summary of an uncertain translation of a lost Greek source) is nowhere mentioned, although Tarn, Narain, and Bopearchchi all discuss it, and all quote Justin (in Latin).

I am not convinced PHG has understood the context of the sources, or, therefore, that he has understood what they mean, or when they are engaged in conjecture. To check whether this article is intelligently done, and note even where it needs correction, would require collating these three thick books and comparing the result with what the article says.

This may still be better than the average article we promote; I may leave that decision to others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Septentrionalis. Thanks for catching the mention about Justin, of course he writes in Latin indeed. Justin is quoted extensively by modern authors on the Indo-Greeks. He is generally considered as a fairly good source by everyone, although sometimes in error or too moralistic, but he is definitely important among the precious few sources on this subject. He is quoted in this article only when quoted by a secondary source. Thank you for your general evaluation of the article "This may still be better than the average article we promote", I do appreciate! Best regards PHG 20:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing like looking on the bright side; but Meiggs' "wildly erratic" is closer to the mean scholarly estimate of Justin. Even his editor, Develin, doesn't really deny it; he argues that what Justin did is understandable once you see what he's up to. What the secondary sources cite from Justin is all he says about the Eastern Greeks, and they do that because his few sentences are a large percentage of all that exists anywhere. You can find a translation of Justin in the links to Justin (historian); all the relevant text is in "Book" 41, and most of that's about Bactria. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please comment on, and preferably fix, the points above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The Wikipedia article does say though "As it stands, the history [of Justin] contains much valuable information. The style, though far from perfect, is clear and occasionally elegant." It is not really important though, what is important is that he is almost systematically quoted by secondary sources on the Indo-Greeks, and is thought to be fairly reliable in that respect, hence the mentions in the article. He is indeed one of the standard, if imperfect, sources on the Indo-Greeks. Best regards. PHG 07:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not my reading of any of the secondary sources, including Tarn. Please supply citations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? Tarn uses Justin, Narain uses Justin about 10 times, Bopearachchi uses Justin etc... etc... C'mon PHG 13:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course they use Justin; there's very little else. Tarn uses Chaucer. One must consider bad sources, even where good sources exist - and here they don't; as historians of Alexander use pseudo-Callisthenes (and everybody uses Diodorus) because his stories may contain a grain of truth somewhere in the pearl. Again, please give a citation, not for their use of Justin, but for a good opinion of him - not of his ultimate original, "Trogus' source". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Stylistic Issues

Comment - the article looks like a trainwreck at the moment. Too long, too rambling. Child articles need to be created urgently for every section and subsection and this article should hold a summary of all those articles per WP:SS. The TOC is way too cluttered and adhering to WP:SS will help greatly in uncluttering it. Pictures are way too many and all over the place. No consistency in size or arrangement. Loads of MoS issues. Long way to go, really. Sarvagnya 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I must disagree with the last point: I don't care what the Mass of Stupidity says. It should not be a criterion here; it should be trimmed, if not deleted, to remove the large portion which represents some editor's prejudices, and has no relation to the clarity or meaning of articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I did some slimming down of the article (one third!), by bolstering History of the Indo-Greek Kingdom, and creating Religions of the Indo-Greeks. Done for today! Best regards. PHG 18:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the stylistic part needs its own subheading. If for no other reason than having a noticeboard of sorts for updates on improvements. I hope nobody minds.

I would second Sarvagnya's statements about the nature of the writing. It is much too long and would benefit greatly from farming out the subsections into independent articles. PHG's recent update helps, but it is still in need of trimming.

I am not sure about which "last point" Septentrionalis is referring to.

I have already raised concerns about the style of the map. I think it is downright misleading at worst, and entirely too cluttered at best. What exactly he is trying to show is obscure as it has too much different information. I will admit, in terms of aesthetics mine was not that great either. Mostly due to how realistic the background looked making it hard to overlay visible, yet subtle text and colors on it. Overall I'd have to agree with Septentrionalist that color coded cities without clearly colored territory is best. The only reason I didn't was because I knew PHG wouldn't go for it, so it was a non-starter.

Many of the pictures are, likewise, extraneous and there is a fair amount of information in there that just seems irrelevant. Most notably the genetic contribution bit.

Windy City Dude 03:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerns with Existing Indo Greek Kingdom Article

Hello All,

Here is a listing of some of the concerns that I, and users Windy City Dude, Pavs, and Vastu, have had with the Indo Greek Kingdom Article. Please feel free to post on my discussion page if you have any questions. I know there are some users who have been commenting on me above, so just to clarify for the record: my only objective here is to ensure accuracy on wikipedia. I hope that all comments will be focused on the content of the article. I apologize in advance for the length, but I just wanted to be thorough. Thank to the new admins who have taken an interest and invested time in this review.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya 02:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

General Points

This Article is not appropriate for Feature Status designation. The topic was an easy candidate for POV pushing due to the dearth of archaeological evidence required to establish a credible timeline of events and boundaries for political territories and an absence of consensus around the extent of political reach and influence. Colonial and neocolonial narratives were interwoven ( Tarn and Bussagli) in the article. FA status should be rescinded for the following reasons:

• Excessive reliance of author W.W. Tarn (a british colonial writer who is famous for his romanticizing of Alexander of Macedon). To attempt appearance of consensus or a majority view, author Bussagli (who also relies on Tarn ’s discredited theory of a Conquest of the Gangetic plain by Demetrius I) is often cited.

Alternative views are welcome. Besides W.W.Tarn, you are free to quoted Thaper or whoever: "However Romila Thaper considers that etc...". PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's a little disingenuous as you removed the consensus (the ones you and vastu agreed upon) maps and used Tarn as the main source for essentially the entire article. Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative views are welcome, as far as I know, you have never contributed anything to this article, except criticizing its content and deleting stuff. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sources were misrepresented or cherrypicked and discredited sources utilize to generate an inaccurate map (see section “The Map”).

The map is rigourously based on three major sources: "Historical Atlas of Peninsular India" Oxford University Press (dark blue, continuous line), A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" (dark blue, dotted line), Westermans "Atlas der Welt Gesishte" (light blue, dotted line). You are expressing a point of view on these maps, but they are nevertheless properly sourced scholarly works. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Large blocks of primary source material interfere with readability

All writings on the period quote primary material extensively. I actually think primary sources (when quoted by secondary source) bring considerable value to the topic. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• The article is too long. Article should be broken up into Indo Greek Kingdom for political history, indo greek art/architecture, and greco-buddhism for religion.

The article has already been reduced by one third. I am looking at way to shorten it further. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done The body of the article is now 41kb.PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Concerns with original research and unverified statements (see "Inaccurate Facts" section)

Dealt with hereunder. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Map

1. Inaccurate Map

The map in question. PHG 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Indo-GreekOxfordNarainWestermans.jpg is overly expansive, improperly cited, and imposes one questionable perspective.

• Verified Indo greek claims are limited to the modern western Punjab. Anything beyond that remains speculation on the basis of stray and vague mentions in classical texts (i.e the works of strabo, Justin, et al) and indian mythological texts (assorted puranas).

This is your own OR analysis of the situation. The point is that numerous reputable scholars do consider as fact that the Indo-Greeks went as far as Pataliputra. PHG 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Narain actually considers the Yuga Purana as fully reliable: "But the real story of the Indo-Greek invasion becomes clear only on the analysis of the material contained in the historical section of the Gargi Samhita, the Yuga Purana" Narain, p110, The Indo-Greeks. Also "The text of the Yuga Purana, as we have shown, gives an explicit clue to the period and nature of the invasion of Pataliputra in which the Indo-Greeks took part, for it says that the Pancalas and the Mathuras were the other powers who attacked Saketa and destroyed Pataliputra", Narain, p.112 PHG 15:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• A.K. Narain’s scholarship does not support indogreek conquests of the gangetic plain, gujarat, or Ujjain , yet this map improperly cites him.

I don't know. Narain does say that the Indo-Greeks besieged Pataliputra. And the map in A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" is extremely clear (reproduced in dark blue, dotted line). I attached a copy of the original map hereunder. PHG 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Narain actually considers the Yuga Purana as fully reliable: "But the real story of the Indo-Greek invasion becomes clear only on the analysis of the material contained in the historical section of the Gargi Samhita, the Yuga Purana" Narain, p110, The Indo-Greeks. Also "The text of the Yuga Purana, as we have shown, gives an explicit clue to the period and nature of the invasion of Pataliputra in which the Indo-Greeks took part, for it says that the Pancalas and the Mathuras were the other powers who attacked Saketa and destroyed Pataliputra", Narain, p.112 PHG 15:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• 3 sources are cited to defend against NPOV allegations but this map actually combines all three maps into one in order to impose one perspective of vast Indo greek territorial expansions into eastern India. Casual reader will assume that blue maps simply shows progressive expansion of the Indo greek kingdom. This is purposeful misdirection.

We are not contributing on Wikipedia to accomodate "casual readers". However we have a responsibility to promote a balanced and NPOV between reputable scholarly sources. This map is a synthesis of the main views on the subject of Indo-Greek territories and conquests (strictly based on three major map sources: "Historical Atlas of Peninsular India" Oxford University Press (dark blue, continuous line), A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" (dark blue, dotted line), Westermans "Atlas der Welt Gesishte" (light blue, dotted line). PHG 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

We are contributing to accomodate casual readers; classicists have better sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• The westernmans map was provided by user Sponsianus from a german source of uncertain repute. User Sponsianus himself questioned the display of greek territory in the Southeast (i.e. South central and peninsular India ).

Provide a reference for your "a german source of uncertain repute" for Westermans. I don't think you'll find any. PHG 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that there are already issues with that map as even sponsianus noted. The only reason he continues to support the map is because he ardently believes that mathura belongs within the indo greek realm. That he does simply does not justify a completely unsupported extention into central and peninsular India where there are no indications. Also note that as stated by Narain, the geographically breadth of the finds can also be indicative of the quality of Indo greek coins (which is undisputed by any party). Menander coin finds in Britain do not establish indo greek holdings there. That is a point to be mindful of. Also, the oft-cited Maghera inscription still remains debated and its assignment to Indo greeks unconfirmed. There is no scholarly consensus around it--and you will note that Narain does not support Mathura's inclusion in the Indo greek realm and he reprinted with a major supplement in 2003.

Devanampriya 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

“Sponsianus: I agree that the south-eastern parts of the Indo-Greek conquests seem less motivated than those in the north ( Mathura ). Also, the “Atlas der Welt Geschichte” map was actually striped for Indo-Greek territory, full colour only for the original Bactrian kingdom. It was however based on the outdated model that all conquests took place under the long reign of Demetrios I, supported by Menander as a sub-king.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Devanampriya

This map is rigourously based on three major sources: "Historical Atlas of Peninsular India" Oxford University Press (dark blue, continuous line), A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" (dark blue, dotted line), Westermans "Atlas der Welt Gesishte" (light blue, dotted line). It is normal practice to display territory and conquests for any kingdom or empire, even if there are some uncertainties about precise borders. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are sidestepping my point. As Elonka mentioned, to the casual, uninformed reader, it looks like one map showing the gradual indo greek conquest of northern india. It does not show three different views. If you want to show three different views, then make three different maps. However, you would not agree to that suggestion when other users suggested it.

Also the three maps that are "rigourously" cited all differ significantly. Admins are welcome to take a look at them.

The map from Narain's The coin types of the Indo-Greeks clearly shows Greek conquests and territory as far as, and including, Pataliputra. PHG 13:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, this map is rigourously based on three major sources: "Historical Atlas of Peninsular India" Oxford University Press (dark blue, continuous line), A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" (dark blue, dotted line), Westermans "Atlas der Welt Gesishte" (light blue, dotted line).PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too confident about that. The legend makes it seem like that's supposed to be a map of the Graeco-Bactrian empire. My hunch is they just combined three or four different Greek empires into one. Besides, editors have a tendency to just put whatever image happens to be handy on the first page. I saw an edition of Thucydides once with an image of the Battle of Thermopylae on it. I wouldn't take that map to be representative of Narain's arguments. What he actually said is of much greater import.Windy City Dude 01:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I really wonder what you have in mind when you say "three or four different Greek empires into one". Are you a History classmate of Devanampriya? The bottom line is that this map was published by a reputable source (Narain's "Coin types of the Indo-Greeks"), with Narain's agreement (it would be quite incredible that he would dismiss the opening map of his book really!). I don't know if the map was drawn by him or not, but I would suppose so, as I have never seen it from another author, neither is it credited to somebody else, which would be a minimum. Narain does say that the Greeks went to besiege Pataliputra, so I don't see any big discrepancy. Let's stop OR and suputations, this is a good map from a reputable source, and I am afraid your efforts at discrediting it are irrelevant. PHG 12:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Accurate Map

Image:Indo-Greek-territory revision1.jpg on the otherhand, provides a more sober description of actual verified claims of Indo Greek expansions. These are not based upon theory, but actual archaeological evidence. This map is uses the Oxford map as its reference. It is supported by 4 editors.

The map you promote is a minimalist map that displays the smallest possible territory for the Indo-Greeks, and contradicts most of the sources who describe the eastern conquests of the Indo-Greeks (Mathura, Pataliputra etc...). It is POV in that it represent only one view. On the other hand, the larger map is rigourously based on three major sources: "Historical Atlas of Peninsular India" Oxford University Press (dark blue, continuous line), A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" (dark blue, dotted line), Westermans "Atlas der Welt Gesishte" (light blue, dotted line), gives a fair representation of all major views, and gives a better understanding of Indo-Greek conquests. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, ignoring the question. Your reference of the "Oxford Map" actually misrepresents it. The Oxford map actually promotes the so-called "minimalist map" because the authors had the good sense to rely on archaeological evidence rather than speculation. Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And again, other sources do not follow this minimalist view, hence the need to take a balanced NPOV approach. PHG 11:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Content

Critique of Tarn

Tarn’s objectivity has been stained by his excessive romanticization of hellenistic figures. Moreover, succeeding historians have called into question the validity of key theories (i.e. conquest of gangetic plains, etc). Here are some excerpts from Tarn :

1. "We can now, I think, see what the Greek 'conquest' meant and how the Greeks were able to traverse such extraordinary distances. To parts of India, perhaps to large parts, they came, not as conquerors, but as friends or 'saviors'; to the Buddhist world in particular they appeared to be its champions" (Tarn, p180)
2. Tarn p175. Also: "The people to be 'saved' were in fact usually Buddhists, and the common enimity of Greek and Buddhists to the Sunga king threw them into each other's arms", Tarn p175. "Menander was coming to save them from the oppression of the Sunga kings", Tarn p178

This premise is actually debated by scholar Romila Thapar, among others, as it is unknown as to whether Sungas actually persecuted Buddhists (“Decline of the Mauryas”). This naturally indicates the speculative nature of author Tarn’s statements and how far-fetched and rather colonial they are in world-view.

You are totally welcome to add Thapar's version of the events (as I have often suggested, but you never did). There is no way however you can erase Tarn from the face of the earth: he is still one of the major historians on the Indo-Greeks, even if his views are sometimes dated. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

They are not just dated, they are biased and obsolete. Yes, he was an early scholar, but yes, he also interwove his own biases and admitted much speculation. The problem is the article treats speculation as gospel, thereby misinforming casual readers. Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, sources are not "treated as gospel". More refs from alternative sources are welcome. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Facts

• “Sophytes, may have ruled in northern Punjab until around 294 BCE.”

• Contention: Ambiguous and of uncertain validity. Sophytes is an ambiguous figure who may have been either an Indian king (Saubhuti or a macedonian general/mercenary). This should not be mentioned here as he is a minor figure that most likely ruled in Northern Afghanistan and cannot be confirmed as a greek that ruled any part of India .

*This is partially relevant, yet contains some erroneous cricitism. Sophytes struck coins which closely resemble coinage from the city of Athens, and are closely related to other (anonymous) series which are local copies of Athenian coins. Sophytes' name is in Greek and he uses a portrait of a man in a Greek helmet. No Indian kings even struck portraits until far later, let alone portraits of Greeks! To suggest that he was not a Greek/Macedonian is simply nonsense. Narain argues, in the 1950s, that Sophytes was a Greek settler before Alexander: this may be a respectable view but probably outdated. Bopearachchi (American Numismatic Society SNG9, 1998), dates Sophytes to 325-300 BC. But it is correct that Sophytes may have been based in Bactria. Bopearachchi actually doesn't know. He mentions only that one coin of Sophytes was probably found in a hoard in Pakistan.

Note that the Indo-Greek territory begins in the Kabul valley, which of course is not the same as India in the modern sense. It is quite possible that Sophytes held territories in the Kabul valley or even in northern Pakistan, so he should not be omitted. Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that he is probably not even Greek, and so, should be omitted.

Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• “According to Indian sources, Greek ("Yavana") troops seem to have assisted Chandragupta Maurya in toppling the Nanda Dynasty and founding the Mauryan Empire.[5] By around 312 BCE Chandragupta had established his rule in large parts of the northwestern Indian territories.”

• Contention: This has been discredited. Historian Nilakantha Shastri, topic expert, demolished the theory propounded by colonial historians that Greek troops may have assisted Chandragupta on the basis of some mention of “yavanas” in a play Mudrarakshasa that deals with the figures Chandragupta and Chanakya.

Then, you are welcome to quote Nilakantha Shastri (never heard of him though) to balance the above statement, as long as he can be considered as a reputable scholar. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Politely speaking, the fact that you have not heard of him does not reflect upon the respect for and eminence of his work. And this is not a question of balance, this is matter of erroneous statements being made in spite of expert disavowal of a theory. Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, various scholarly views should be presented and balanced in an NPOV manner. This is basic rule of Wikipedia. A theory does not "demolish" another theory. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is emblematic of a misuse of a primary source. The concern here is that you interpreted primary source material yourself (no scholar cited) even while an actual scholar of sanskrit dismissed that very same interpretation.

Devanampriya 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• “In 303 BCE, Seleucus I led an army to the Indus , where he encountered Chandragupta. The confrontation ended with a peace treaty, and "an intermarriage agreement" (Epigamia, Greek: Åðéãáìéá), meaning either a dynastic marriage or an agreement for intermarriage between Indians and Greeks. Accordingly, Seleucus ceded to Chandragupta his northwestern territories, possibly as far as Arachosia and received 500 war elephants (which played a key role in the victory of Seleucus at the Battle of Ipsus):

"The Indians occupy [in part] some of the countries situated along the Indus , which formerly belonged to the Persians: Alexander deprived the Ariani of them, and established there settlements of his own. But Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus in consequence of a marriage contract, and received in return five hundred elephants." —Strabo 15.2.1(9) [6]

• Contention. Inaccurate facts. Unnecessary section. Seleucus led an army in 305 BCE. Accordingly, this section is unnecessary. Seleucus and Chandragupta are adequately catalogued in their respective articles.

Same for rest of Background section. All these matters are not key to the history of the Indo Greeks. Just a lot of unnecessary primary source quotes.

*It is of some interest that there were Greek settlements and interests east of Iran in the period between Alexander and Demetrius I. As a comparison, please look under Alexander II of Epirus in today's Albania, where it is mentioned that his name was known by Ashoka. This is a curiousity but it underlines connection between the Hellenistic and Indian worlds, which were important factors behind the emergence of the Indo-Greek state. Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But it is problematic when it just takes up space with primary references. There's a difference between saying that Alexander left behind or augment greek settlements and jamming three unnecessary paragraphs that express the same point. I hope you now understand my concern. Also, 303 BCE is an error.

Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• The invasion of northern India, and the establishment of what would be known as the "Indo-Greek kingdom", started around 180 BCE when Demetrius, son of the Greco-Bactrian king Euthydemus I, led his troops across the Hindu Kush. In the process of the invasion, the Greeks seem to have occupied territory as far as the capital Pataliputra, before ultimately retreating and consolodating in northwestern India . Apollodotus, seemingly a relative of Demetrius, led the invasion to the south, while Menander, one of the generals of Demetrius, led the invasion to the east.

• Contention: Obsolete theory. See A.K. Narain and E. Seldeslachts. It is not even known if Demetrius I conquered past the khyber pass and expanded into the Indus river valley.

*Here I agree. Demetrius' conquests are only ascertained as far east as Gandhara.

Easily solved. Just balance the text with A.K. Narain and E. Seldeslachts quotes.PHG 14:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is, this was a clear mistake and serious mistake in the article when it was granted FA status. Devanampriya

A theory, even if considered by some as outdated, is never "a mistake". And many of today's theories will be outdated tomorrow. Just balance what is said in the article with what A.K. Narain and E. Seldeslachts say (carefull, A.K. Narain is pretty outdated as well). PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Darwin's theory certainly seemed to demolish the hell out of Lamarck's.

I would like however to mention a modern historian who places the incursions to Pataliputra during Demetrius, Mitchener, The Yuga Purana, 2000, p.65: "In line with the above discussion, therefore, we may infer that such an event (the incursions to Pataliputra) took place, after the reign of Salisuka Maurya (c.200 BC) and before that of Pusyamitra Sunga (187 BC). This would accordingly place the Yavana incursions during the reign of the Indo-Greek kings Euthydemus (c.230-190 BC) or Demetrios (c.205-190 as co-regent, and 190-171 BC as supreme ruler". PHG 14:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Retreat from eastern regions

• The first invasion was completed by 175 BCE, as the Indo-Greeks apparently contained the Sungas to the area eastward of Pataliputra, and established their rule on the new territory.”

• Contention: There is no evidence whatsoever that the Sungas were ever “contained to the area eastward of Pataliputra” or driven from it for that matter. User does not provide any reference.

 Done I streamlined that portion to make the date and territorial issues less central. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• “Conquests east of the Punjab region were most likely made during the second half of the century by the king Menander I.”

• Contention: it is unknown if any were indeed ever made east of the punjab region.

*This is a reference to the conquest of Pataliputra which is well attested in both Indian and western (Strabon) sources. But it is correct that the advance into Pataliputra did not happen in 175 BCE. Definitely not, since Demetrius I was dead by then according to modern sources.Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Most scholars do think you. Referenced in the article. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• It is neither well-attested nor confirmed. It remains speculation. Again, there are issues with readings of Indian semi-mythological texts in that fashion. Funny how you condemn me as a nationalist bent on imposing Rama's bridge to Sri Lanka on history yet conveniently use indian semi-mythological texts (which discuss Rama and his dynastic line) to defend the theorized "conquest of pataliputra".

Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Most modern scholars do use these ancient Indian texts do describe the advance of the Indo-Greeks to Pataliputra. Devanampriya, your personal doubts about the Yuga Purana are totally irrelevant to Wikipedia. What is important is that it is considered as relevant material by numerous reputable scholars: of course Tarn, Narain, but also Bopearachchi or Dilip Coomer Ghose, General Secretary, The Asiatic Society, Kolkata, 2002: "For any scholar engaged in the study of the presence of the Indo-Greeks or Indo-Scythians before the Christian Era, the Yuga Purana is an important source material" or Mitchener: "..further weight to the likelihood that this account of a Yavana incursion to Saketa and Pataliputra-in alliance with the Pancalas and the Mathuras- is indeed historical" (Mitchener, The Yuga Purana, p.65)PHG 18:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Narain actually considers the Yuga Purana as fully reliable: "But the real story of the Indo-Greek invasion becomes clear only on the analysis of the material contained in the historical section of the Gargi Samhita, the Yuga Purana" Narain, p110, The Indo-Greeks. Also "The text of the Yuga Purana, as we have shown, gives an explicit clue to the period and nature of the invasion of Pataliputra in which the Indo-Greeks took part, for it says that the Pancalas and the Mathuras were the other powers who attacked Saketa and destroyed Pataliputra", Narain, p.112 PHG 15:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• “Buddhism flourished under the Indo-Greek kings, and their rule, especially that of Menander, has been remembered as benevolent. It has been suggested, although direct evidence is lacking, that their invasion of India was intended to show their support for the Mauryan empire which had a long history of marital alliances,[48] exchange of presents,[49] demonstrations of friendship,[50] exchange of ambassadors[51] and religious missions[52] with the Greeks. The historian Diodorus even wrote that the king of Pataliputra had "great love for the Greeks".[53]

The Greek expansion into Indian territory may have been intended to protect Greek populations in India ,[54] and to protect the Buddhist faith from the religious persecutions of the Sungas.[55] The city of Sirkap founded by Demetrius combines Greek and Indian influences without signs of segregation between the two cultures.

Alternatively, the Greek invasions in India are also sometimes described as purely materialistic, only taking advantage of the ruin of the Mauryan Empire to acquire territory and wealth.”

• Contention: Original research and POV pushing. Assigning noble motives to violent conquests is not npov. The article should not meant be meant to judge these actions but simply recount them. User’s own post establishes that there is no direct evidence for his “protect greek populations” theory.

All this is highly referenced from reputable sources. If you know alternative theories just list them, but it is totally inadequate to deny sourced material. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• “In Indian literature, the Indo-Greeks are described as Yonas (in Pali) or Yavanas (in Sanskrit), both thought to be transliterations of "Ionians".”

• Contention: Incorrect. Yonas are assigned exclusively to the greeks, but as sanskrit experts and indologists note, Yavanas were assigned to foreigners both before and after greeks. (i.e. central asian tribes, persians, and arabs)

I would be glad to see some references for that, and introduce it in the article.PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

*This has been discussed and the term Yavanas was used for other people only in sources credibly dated after the Indo-Greek kingdom. The Indians met Yavanas of two different types: Greeks from Bactria and Greeks from Alexandria (sea-route) from 43 BC, when the monsoon winds were discovered. Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. The most accessible for all that I could find: Bhasyacharya.N. "The Age of Patanjali". Theosophical Publishing House. Madras. India. 1915 [[17]]

Key Quotes: "That the Hindus apply the term Yavana to all foreigners, not only Greeks, who were living west of the Indus, is plain from the foregoing quotations and considerations: "

"We also come to the conclusion, that in the same way the several Sanskrit authors meant to describe — by the use of the term Yavana — the various foreigners they had known. It might have been applied to the Persians when they invaded India; after them to the Greeks, then to the Bactrians; and at last — also to the Pathans and the Moguls] [Page 13] "

Unless you want to talk about how the God-King Rama's progenitor (Sagara) defeated the Greeks and shaved their heads, I think you see the issue with the strict identification of Yavanas with Greeks only.

Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Narain is actually crystal-clear about the Indo-Greeks being described unambiguously as Yavanas (in Sanskrit):PHG 08:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"These Indo-Greeks were called Yavanas in ancient Indian litterature" p.9 + note 1 "The term had a precise meaning until well into the Christian era, when gradually its original meaning was lost and, like the word Mleccha, it degenerated into a general term for a foreigner"

— p.18, in Narain "The Indo-Greeks". PHG 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that other scholars dispute it's application. Also, Narain states that the Yavanas did not invade the gangetic, let alone Pataliputra. According to him, they merely joined a raid led by Indian kings, yet surprisingly, you don't seem to be embracing that theory...

• “"King of the Wheel" in Western texts.”

• Contention: Incorrectly translated. Actual: “He who turns the Wheel of Dharma”. Or more loosely emperor. Also, chakravartin not solely a buddhist title. The wheel of dharma was a hindu symbol that was adopted by buddhism on account of its descent and dharmic heritage.

Look at Narain: "It is probable that the wheel on some coins of Menander is connected with Buddhism", Narain, The Indo-Greeks, p.122 PHG 15:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, but the point is that it is still an inaccurate translation.

Devanampriya 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Size of Indo-Greek armies (see this section on Indo Greek Kingdom Page)

• Contention: Clearly original research. No reference for the statement “That this kind of military strength was needed to confront the Indo-Greeks is indicative of the Indo-Greeks' own military commitment.”

Accordingly, Why must it be presumed that this force was raised only in reaction to the indo greeks?

*Agree. This section is not that relevant. There is only one reference (Justin XLI:6) which is probably exaggerated (either 40 or 60 000 men, in different versions).Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• “Finally, the Indo-Greek seem to have combined forces with other "invaders" during their expansion into India, since they are often referred to in combination with others (especially the Kambojas), in the Indian accounts of their invasions.”

• Contention: Again, Indian mythological sources discussing “Yavanas” mention such a combination; however, the historicity and specific connection to the greeks remains debatable to say the least.

Narain is actually crystal-clear about the Indo-Greeks being described unambiguously as Yavanas (in Sanskrit): "These Indo-Greeks were called Yavanas in ancient Indian litterature" p.9 + note 1 "The term had a precise meaning until well into the Christian era, when gradually its original meaning was lost and, like the word Mleccha, it degenerated into a general term for a foreigner" p.18, in Narain "The Indo-Greeks". PHG 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• “The Indo-Greeks may have ruled as far as the area of Mathura until sometime in the 1st century BCE: the Maghera inscription, from a village near Mathura, records the dedication of a well "in the one hundred and sixteenth year of the reign of the Yavanas", which could be as late as 70 BCE.[94]”

• Contention: Clear speculation. Again, on the basis of the mention of the word yavana, this was instinctively taken by user to mean greek

• Response: Interpretation by R.C. Senior, 2006, p.xv. PHG 06:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

*PHG is right. There are several indications for Greek rule in Mathura (including several coin finds with long sequences of exclusively Greek kings found in the territory), and this one is quite unambigious. If the Greek era was used there, the area had very likely been under Greek rule. Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Again, indications, but no confirmation. We cannot take as fact or fait accomplit what cannot be confirmed. There are theories that the so-called maghera inscription may refer to the greeks (this has not been confirmed) and may be emblematic of their rule (also not confirmed), but they are no means a clear establishment of it.

Devanampriya 06:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

All we do on Wikipedia is present historical interpretations by reputable sources. Your doubts are no justification to suppress reputable historical interpretations. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

These don't seem like sufficiently fleshed out theories though. I wouldn't even bother talking about them as if they were solid fact. These are more like little "some people think" factoids that would be more at home in an appendix than making up the meat and potatoes of the article. Windy City Dude 01:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• “Some sort of Greek political organization is thought to have existed in the first half of the 4th century after the rule of the Satavahanas.[98] This is also suggested by the Puranas (the Matsya Purana, the Vayu Purana, the Brahmanda Purana, the Vishnu Purana, the Bhagavata Purana) which give a list of the dynasties who ruled following the decline of the Satavahanas: this list includes 8 Yavana kings, thought to be some dynasty of Greek descent, although they are not otherwise known.[99]

• Contention: Clear speculation. Again, on the basis of the mention of the word yavana, this was instinctively taken by user to mean greek. However, these were again speculations based on mentions in the indian mythological-historiographical texts (the puranas). As a point of note, the actual experts on the Satavahanas do not discuss any yavana as a successor state to the Satavahanas as seen in the actual Satavahana article.

• Response: this is from David Pingree, "The Yavanajataka of Sphujidhvaja", p4. Quotes in McEvilley, p385:

""The Yavanas appear to have had some sort of political organization within the state" in the 2nd century AD, and "another such organization existed in formerly Satavahana territory in the first half of the 4th century.""

— David Pingree, 1978, quoted in McEvilley, p.385

Also, details given in Rapson "Catalogue of the Indian coins in the British Museum. Andhras etc...", Rapson, p LXVIII: "These must, no doubt, belong to some dynasty of Greek descent, but it is impossible to determine which dynasty this could have been". The full list, with comments, is given in Rapson "Catalogue of the Indian coins in the British Museum. Andhras etc...", Rapson, p LXVIII: "7 other Andhras kings (called "Andhrabhrytias", or "Servant of the Andhras", probably the Chutus in the Western and Southern districts. 10 Abhira kings, who ruled in the area of Nasik. 7 Gardabhila kings, who ruled in the area of Ujjain. 18 Saka kings, probably the Western Satraps. 8 Yavana kings, thought to be some dynasty of Greek descent. 14 Tusara kings (also called Tuskaras), thought to be the Kushans (who are called "Turuska" in the Rajatarangini). 13 Murunda or Gurunda kings. 21 Huna kings (also called Maunas), probably the Indo-Hephthalites." PHG 06:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Rapson wrote in 1908, and based his conclusions on even earlier work by Cunningham. This should not be cited against more recent authors (especially Narain, who knew Rapson's work well, and does not consider it as refuting his own. So for all the other citations below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Rapson is still quoted by modern historians and numismats. He is a Classic.
  • And like other classics, he should be cited with respect, and with care. He cannot address arguments or evidence which did not yet exist when he wrote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• David Pingree wrote in 1978 (The Yavanajataka, Harvard University Press) PHG 17:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Do mainstream historians recount any such dynasty as succeeding the satavahanas? Again, ignoring the question.

• David Pingree wrote in 1978 (The Yavanajataka, Harvard University Press). Also, guess what, Narain, although in a highly diluted manner: "The Puranas speak of eight Yavana kings, but we do not know who they were and no details of their reigns are given." PHG 13:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the citation? Devanampriya 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• According to one theory however, the Southern Indian dynasty of the Chalukyas was named after "Seleukia" (the Seleucids),[100] their conflict with the Pallava of Kanchi being but a continuation of the conflict between ancient Seleukia and "Parthians", the proposed ancestors of Pallavas.[101]”

• Contention: The seleucid theory was discredited by user’s own admission on Chalukya page.

This seems dubious. OK to remove. Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much interest for this kind of stuff, but these kind of theories are indeed expressed by modern scholars: the Indian historian Burjor Avari in the 2007 India: the ancient past:

"There are two theories about the origins of the Pallavas. One is that they were the descendants of a group of Parthians from Iran; and the other as the descendants of north Indian brahman migrants. No one can be entirely certain, but whatever their origins, it cannot be denied that they became one of the great southern regional dynasties"

— Burjor Avari, India: the ancient past, p.186, 2007 PHG 18:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also Dr. Lewis Rice, S. R. Sharma and M. V. Krishna Rao Arthikaje, Mangalore. "History of Karnataka-Gangas of Talkad". 1998-2000 OurKarnataka.Com, Inc. Retrieved 2007-01-18., about which a Dr. Suryanath U. Kamath, says that it has not found general acceptance because the Pallavas were in constant conflict with the Kadambas, prior to the rise of Chalukyas.... (Kamath's opinion)

At least Burjor Avari it to me very reliable. I think it is rather interesting and worth mentionning although only as theory (as currently presented in the article). PHG 18:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• “At the beginning of the 2nd century CE, the Central India Satavahana king Gautamiputra Satakarni (r. 106–130 CE) was described as the "Destroyer of Sakas (Western Kshatrapas), Yavanas (Indo-Greeks) and Pahlavas (Indo-Parthians)" in his inscriptions, suggesting a continued presence of the Indo-Greeks until that time.”

• Contention: Again, speculation by user. Original research. No reference commenting on the actual association of yavanas with the indo greeks is provided.

Narain is actually crystal-clear about the Indo-Greeks being described unambiguously as Yavanas (in Sanskrit): "These Indo-Greeks were called Yavanas in ancient Indian litterature" p.9 + note 1 "The term had a precise meaning until well into the Christian era, when gradually its original meaning was lost and, like the word Mleccha, it degenerated into a general term for a foreigner" p.18, in Narain "The Indo-Greeks". PHG 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Response: From Rapson, "Indian coins in the British Museum". Following the Gautamiputra quote, Rapson writes: "The Kashtriyas are the native Indian princes, the Rajputs of Rajputana, Gujarat and Central India; and the Sakas, Yavanas, and Pahavas are respectively Scythian, Greeks and Persian invaders from the north, who established kingdoms in variousdistricts of Northern and Western India", p.xxxvii Rapson PHG 05:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Around 200 CE, the Manu Smriti describes the downfall of the Yavanas, as well as many others:

• Contention: The dating of the Manu smriti remains debated. It is often thought to predate the indo greeks by centuries if not millennia.

Then it is the objection that is dubious. Your suggestion "often thought to be centuries if not millenia" before the Indo-Greeks means that the text could be dated at least in the span 2200 BCE-300 CE, but also could be dated later. I refuse to take such a grotesque time span seriously. This seems to be a nationalistic semi-religious source of little historical value. The early dates are probably from the same type of nationalistic scholars who believe that Rama built the sand banks between India and Sri Lanka. Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sponsianus, like I said above, please do not reduce this debate to petty accusations. This is not a point of nationalism, it is fact. Please read up on the actual scholarly debate surrounding these texts. Accordingly, see the contention above regarding the yavanas. Devanampriya 06:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Brihat-Katha-Manjari text of the Sanskrit poet Kshmendra (11th and 12th centuries) (10/1/285–86) relates that around 400 CE the Gupta king Vikramaditya (Chandragupta II) had "unburdened the sacred earth of the Barbarians" like "the Shakas, Mlecchas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Tusharas, Parasikas, Hunas" etc… by annihilating these "sinners" completely.

• Contention: see above regarding use of the word yavana. Original research.

• Response: From Rapson, "Indian coins in the British Museum". Following the Gautamiputra quote, Rapson writes: "The Kashtriyas are the native Indian princes, the Rajputs of Rajputana, Gujarat and Central India; and the Sakas, Yavanas, and Pahavas are respectively Scythian, Greeks and Persian invaders from the north, who established kingdoms in variousdistricts of Northern and Western India", p.xxxvii Rapson PHG 05:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Narain is crystal-clear about the Indo-Greeks being described unambiguously as Yavanas (in Sanskrit): "These Indo-Greeks were called Yavanas in ancient Indian litterature" p.9 + note 1 "The term had a precise meaning until well into the Christian era, when gradually its original meaning was lost and, like the word Mleccha, it degenerated into a general term for a foreigner" p.18, in Narain "The Indo-Greeks". PHG 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

' Influence Of Indo Greek Coinage

• As late as the 13th century, the Sultan of Delhi Mohammad I (1295-1315), one of the first Muslim rulers of northern India, would use on his coins the title Sikander el-sani ("The second Alexander"), in a reference to his famous predecessor in the conquest of India [29] ." AD 52”

• Contention: Original Research. Discredited Sources if any actually used. This is also erroneous placement as it does not indicate numismatic influence, but rather, it is an example of political propaganda or conceit. Where is the actual numismatic influence (i.e style, weight, and other attributes)?

This was from Tarn I think, but I removed it about a year ago following your request... PHG 08:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• “The Kushans (1st-4th century) used the Greek language on their coinage until the first few years of the reign of Kanishka, whence they adopted the Bactrian language, written with the Greek script.”

• Contention: Kushans did not use the Greek language on their coins. They only adapted their language (bactrian) to the first script they came across (greek).

A Kushan coin in Greek: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΟΗΜΟ ΚΑΔΦΙΣΗΣ ("Basileus Ooimo Kadphisis"): "King Vima Kadphises", for Devanampriya's benefit.

• Response: the Kushan did use the Greek language on their coins until the time of Kanishka, and shifted to Bactrian early in his reign (See Whitehead, "Indo-Greek coins", Punjab Museum) PHG 05:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• PHG is right and Devanampriya's objection is quite surprising. There are plenty of Greek-language Kushana coins on the Wikipedia pages, as you all can see. One of the Kushana kings calls himself Basileos Soter Megas, which are the Greek words for The Great Saviour King.Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Accept: I apologize for the slip. The point is correct that the Kushans did use greek in the early periods (see kujula, vima, et al). I will delete this point after a suitable period of time has passed.Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done Obvious lack of knowledge on ancient Indian history I am afraid. This is the basics of the basics. PHG 19:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh can we please dispense with the sanctimonious triumphalism? It is extremely tiresome. Was it really necessary to be that inflammatory PHG? What does that kind of smarmy attitude contribute to this review?Windy City Dude 01:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry to say, but I would rather not spend my time arguing here with people who prove themselves to have not even basic knowledge of ancient Indian history. PHG 06:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your own opinion, but a minor oversight, which I apologized for, does not automatically discredit my understanding of Indian history. If it does, then your uncited statement on how the Yavanajataka was the first Indian treatise on astronomy would correspondingly implicate you as not having a basic understanding of Indian history--serious students know that Astronomy was first treated in the Vedanga Jyotisha centuries prior. I think Windy City Dude's point is to focus less on attempting to discredit individuals and more on discussing content, something which I support.

Regards,

Devanampriya 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• “The Guptas (4th-6th century), in turn imitating the Western Kshatrapas, also showed their rulers in profile, within a legend in corrupted Greek, in the coinage of their western territories.[114]”

• Contention: Not an example of influence. The Guptas conquered the Western Kshatrapas . Coins were stuck in Kshatrapas style in their former territories as a political statement of conquest. The guptas are famous for minting beautiful coins in their own unique style.

• Response: "Evidence of the conquest of Saurastra during the reign of Chandragupta II is to be seen in his rare silver coins which are more directly imitated from those of the Western Satraps... they retain some traces of the old inscriptions in Greek characters, while on the reverse, they substitute the Gupta type (a peacock) for the chaitya with crescent and star." in Rapson "A catalogue of Indian coins in the British Museum. The Andhras etc...", p.cli PHG 06:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Still ignoring the point. The article discussed "Examples of Influence". Simply because the restamps of Saka coins by the Guptas were ultimately derived from the greeks does not mean that all gupta coins (see those lovely suvarna standard coins of samudragupta) were influenced by the greeks. You phrasing makes that implication.

Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Silver coin of Chandragupta II, minted in his Western territories, in the style of the Western Satraps.
Obv: Bust of king, with corrupted Greek legend "OOIHU".("Evidence of the conquest of Saurastra during the reign of Chandragupta II is to be seen in his rare silver coins which are more directly imitated from those of the Western Satraps... they retain some traces of the old inscriptions in Greek characters, while on the reverse, they substitute the Gupta type (a peacock) for the chaitya with crescent and star." in Rapson "A catalogue of Indian coins in the British Museum. The Andhras etc...", p.cli)
Rev: Legend in Brahmi, "Chandragupta Vikramaditya, King of Kings, and a devotee of Vishnu" , around a peacock.
15mm, 2.1 grams. Mitchiner 4821-4823.

Of course not, read again, we are speaking only about "the coinage of their western territories" as per Rapson. PHG 19:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is not influence. That is a political statement. The satavahanas also restruck kshatrapa coins following their victories.

• “The latest use of the Greek script on coins corresponds to the rule of the Turkish Shahi of Kabul, around 850.”

• Contention: No reference

• Response: in Tarn, "The Indo-Greeks". Page reference coming. PHG 05:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but the point is, you never referenced this statement to begin with. Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what {{fact}} tags are for. PHG 08:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference?

Devanampriya 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Genetic contribution

• Contention: The value and validity of this section has been questioned on the discussion page.

• Response: Fully referenced from Kivisild et al. "Origins of Indian Casts and Tribes", as described in the article.PHG 05:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That still does not make it a valid section. 0-15% is a huge swathe. And the paper itself dismisses its findings? what is the validity then? Are we to conduct the same ethnographic study in the middle east or in greece itself (we can always examine the impact on greek bloodlines that 400 years of turkish rule had). Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to evaluate the quality of genetical research made by reputable scholars. We just state the facts and quote if you don't mind. PHG 08:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree. A genetic contribution section just seems superfluous and unnecessary. It's not even like it arrives at in interesting conclusion like the stories about Genghis Khan's contribution. Windy City Dude 01:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Devanampriya 02:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, the article talk page, and the talk page associated with this FAR, can be used for ironing out specifics. Please don't create sub-sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • My mistake, not Devanampriya's. I'd been trying to format the post for readability, and wasn't aware about the section header problem. Sorry, won't happen again. --Elonka 19:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Seriously? I wish we could use sub-headings. It's a serious pain trying to edit this page or discuss anything with each topic being so hard to find. Windy City Dude 01:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist asap. Virtually no effort is being made to clean up the article. The article is a total mess as it stands. Also the content issues that Devanampriya cites are too serious and too prolific to ignore. This is a pointless FAR and the article wont survive it. So delist and stop wasting people's time. Sarvagnya 19:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And btw, who created that map? It is nonsense. The Pandyas ruled the far south of Tamil Nadu, nowhere near the region of what is now Karnataka. Sarvagnya 19:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done Map corrected.PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarvagnya. Thank for the comment on the Pandyans: I moved them down south indeed. You may have to hit the "Refresh" button on your browser to see the modification. Please also note that the article has been modified extensively, and in particular lost 1/3rd of its size. Please do not hesitate to express other specifics you may have. Regards PHG 20:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We can get to specifics only when the article is even half readable. In its present form, the article is a whopping 112kb of rambling prose and images plastered anywhere and everywhere. The surfeit of images gives the articles an ugly look. Almost every section and subsection needs to be moved to its own article and only a condensed summary of those articles should be brought back. (I've said this before already). The article can easily be trimmed down to 70-80kb in a matter of a few days. If you promise not to revert me, I can pitch in with a fair bit of cleanup myself. On my part, I can promise not to make any great content changes to the article content or pov wise. Once that happens, reviewers will be able to get down to the specifics. And once we're down to the 'specifics'(ie., content issues), I feel this article still has an uphill battle. From the looks of it, this article seems to pass off a Greek ancestry for the Chalukyas, Satavahanas and others rather matter-of-factly. While I am fully aware of those theories, some of them are either discredited or are far from being 'mainstream consensus'. You might also want to get Dinesh's opinion on some of these theories - he's written FAs on some of these dynasties. But I really wonder if he'll be able to weigh in on the article in its present confused state. Just try pinging him though. Sarvagnya 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Done Four sub-articles were created, and now the body of the article is 41kb. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Sponsianus I have added my comments interlinear above.Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To Septentrionalis, on the modern scholars

Sep, you have a lot of interesting points about the views of scholars and I'll try to answer them. Tarn, Narain and Bopearachchi disagree on many points, in some cases because there is so much time between them. Tarn was the pioneer, he established his theses in the 30s, and he is, as Devanampriya often points out, biased towards speculations and grandelinquence. In many cases: some of his observations were reasonable and even stand today. Narain established his major works, which included a critical reading of Tarn, in the 50s. Narain is important because his more sceptical approach (and he was Indian and knew the Indian sources better) but Narain also made some serious mistakes and his chronology is today just as outdated as Tarn's.

(Later editions of Tarn's and Narain's books may have later dates, but this is the major time frame). Boperachchi's encyclopaedia is from 1991 and outscales any previous work in the studies of coins. Any source which is earlier is outdated regarding chronology, at least for the later kings where there are no sources.

However, Bopearachchi has less to say on the relationship between the kings than Tarn and Narain: his main expertise is in the field of numismatics. Like all encyclopaedias, there are flaws, and some of Bopearachchi's chronology have been contested by R.C. Senior and other modern numismatists. Very likely, Bopearachchi does not rigidly defend his chronology from 1991 in all detail today. PHG has nevertheless applied his system, barring better alternatives, and I have tried to add Senior's views as an alternative.

Then there are later works like Eric Seldeschlachts, which have not taken in the numismatic advances at all but rely on older sources for the original numismatic research, probably since the author is not a numismatist himself. That means there are modern works which still can give outdated views and that situation is very unsatisfying for Wikipedia who would like to present encyclopaedic knowledge.

My point is that for cultural references, interpretation of sources, the extension of the kingdom, Tarn and Narain can still be quoted, but only in those cases where their chronology is obviously outdated and distorted from a more modern view. And to decide when this is the case is indeed very close to crossing into original research. The flaws in this article reflect the confusion in the sources, and by and large PHG and others have made a great job. Sponsianus 18:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sponsianus presents a quite reasonable summary of the sources. The article should probably say this, or much of it.

However, I cannot agree with his evaluation of our article. It gives Tarn's narrative with Bopearchchi's dates, and no hint how extensively Narain and Bopearchchi disagree with him. We should follow them where they agree (and PHG has not always done that); where they disagree, we should do as WP:V requires, and say Tarn says X, Narain says Y, Bopearchchi says Z. Thus, the sequence of the kings is fairly certain (but we should indicate that the absolute chronology is arguable); on the other hand, Tarn attributed many events to Demetrius I which Narain gives to Demetrius II or Menander - and we should say so. Above all, we should admit how much of all these reconstructions is, and must be, conjecture; PHG does not appear to understand that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sponsianus! Septentrionalis, I totally agree with the WP:V approach. Until now, editors who have been complaining basically never tried to put in their own sources though (there are just a few mentions of Narain and Thapar, which I think I had to put in myself). I am all for a balanced presentation of numerous reputable sources: history is anything except monolithic. Regards PHG 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

New References

I added a lot of new refs and many direct quotes today, increasing the ref count to 125. Regards PHG 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Response:

Unfortunately, that is a little disingenous as the primary debate centered around the map, and users PHG and Aldux were unwilling to honor negotiations and compromises on the map (see Indo Greek Talk page). These included a desire to add other references (I have cited Narain and others many times), but our suggestions were ignored and the debate, sadly stonewalled and later stifled. User phg will presumably state that his map is "rigorously based" on three sources, but the truth is, it is only based on one (the erroneous westermans map).

1. The oxford map shows greek holdings essentially only in modern day pakistan

2. Narain specifically spoke out against inclusion of the gangetic plains, central india, or gujarat in indo greek territories and demonstrated this with his map in "The Indo Greeks". Specific references from his work can also be provided as evidence.

See map from Narain's "The coin types of the Indo-Greeks" above.PHG 14:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

PHG simply cites Narain and Oxford to, what I can only assume, confuse the reader and lend legitimacy to his preferred projection of Indo greek territory.

The limits of the "Narain map" are exactly those of the map on the first pages of "Coins of the Indo-Greeks" by Narain. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If 3 sources are to be represented, then why not have three maps? Why must there only be one, and that too, the most erroneous and extreme projection?

Because there is absolutely no reason why your point-of-view, with its objective of minimizing Indo-Greek territory as much as possible, should prevail with a single representation over the various scholarly views on the subject. It is completely standard to show territory and conquest areas in a single map, even for ancient empires where boarders might not be so accurately known. Wikipedia always favours a balanced presentation of reputable scholarly views on a given subject, which is precisely what this map is achieving. PHG 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To Sponsianus' points:

While Tarn is indeed outdated, Narain is not. His most recent work was published (or reedited if you will) in 2003. While you may disagree with some of his theories, he certainly did not embrace the rather odd reverie that Tarn had about Demetrius' "dream of recreating the Mauryan Empire" and his being a "claimant to the Mauryan throne" through a dubious, and most likely nonexisting, marriage connection. That's just silly, and Narain did not make such wildy speculative errors.

Sponsianus replies: PHG is right that reprints are just reprints. It is true that Narain was active for very long and wrote some articles in the 1990s. This does however not magically update his major works, which are a product of the mid-20th century.. There is no edition of Narain's "Indo-Greeks" which is adapted to Bopearachchi's, Senior's and others recent discoveries. Please correct me if I am wrong, and show me where to find such a book.

Narain's books include several speculations which are just as bad as Tarn's. One of them is the suggestion that Antimachus II was a sub-king first under Menander I and then under his queen Agathokleia, who moved him from the Swat valley to "distant northern Arachosia" (p 112). Narain is surprised that the many coins of Antimachus II "almost seem out of proportion for his position". In reality, it is Narain's own speculative invention that Antimachus II, who has the same title (Basileos=independent king) as Menander I, was a sub-king who could be moved about between different territories.Sponsianus 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, E.Seldeslacht's thesis was on how mythological sources and numismatics are potentially problematic foundations for serious historical research. The problem is the very same modern authors you have been citing are relying on many of these outdated and rather unscientific speculations to advance Tarn's old notions. That is the root of the problem in Indo Greek Studies. From the beginning, the contention has not been that Narain's views must be the only one. The contention has been that since so little can be confirmed, we must enunciate that and rely on what can be established archaeologically, rather than through original research or speculation.

I believe Sarvagnya and Septentrionalis touched on the same point above (I apologize if I am mistaken).

Regards, Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sponsianus replies: No, the problem is that Seldeschlachts (not Seldeschlacht) is unaware of recent numismatic literature. This is very easy to check out: his references include nothing of Bopearachchi after 1990, nothing at all of Senior, and nothing from the ONS journal, the foremost numismatical review. This means that Seldeschlachts is unaware of the modern chronology, so that he repeats the uncertainties of older authors. That is why Seldeschlachts makes a lot of unsupported claims about Demetrius II being the conqueror mentioned by Strabon, and dates other kings unknowingly of overstrikes and recent hoard finds. In discussing the Hathigumpha inscription, he does not mention Amyntas (A-mi-ta), which may well be because he has not read up on the later kings.

You must realise that modern scholarship has long left Tarn's and Narain's controversies behind and focus on systematic analysis of coins and other "hard facts". In Bopearachchi, Senior, Wilson etc, Tarn is very rarely mentioned. The Indian sources play only a minor part in establishing the chronology, though Seldeschlachts' analysis of them is of course mostly a good work. I am just saying that if Seldeschlachts is uncertain on Indo-Greek chronology, that is because he has not read any recent literature.Sponsianus 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Devanampriya wrote: "While Tarn is indeed outdated, Narain is not.": this is probably a misrepresentation. Reprints are just reprints. See Bopearachchi: PHG 16:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"The two classical books of W.W.Tarn The Greeks in Bactria and India (2nd edition, Cambridge, 1951), and of A.K.Narain The Indo-Greeks (Oxford 1957)"

— Bopearachchi, "Monnaies", p.15, 1991

We should be carefull not to diabolize Tarn, and oppose to him a supposedly neutral Narain. Here is an analysis by Olivier Guillaume in Analysis of Reasoning in Archaeology:PHG 13:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"In fact, underlying Tarn's and Narain's reconstructions there are two opposing pre-suppositions which explain many divergences between the two works. Briefly, Tarn is biased towards the Greeks and Narain towards the Indians."

— Olivier Guillaume, Analysis of Reasoning in Archaeology quoted in Narain The Indo-Greeks, p.496

Both should indeed be taken with a grain of salt, although it is surely no reason to dismiss either's account. PHG 13:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course Tarn's account is conjecture; so is Narain's; so is Bopearchchi's. With the actual ancient sources, this is unavoidable. Furthermore, even if Tarn's account were as refuted as Ptolemaic astronomy (and it is not; there is no equivalent of Tycho in this field, and cannot be until someone invents a time machine), we should include it, as we discuss the Ptolemaic system.

• Republications are not, I think, in question; Tarn revised his own work in 1951, and it was republished and updated again in 1985.

::Sponsianus replies: No update from 1985 could be credited to Tarn himself, who was long dead by then (he should have been 116 that year). Even in 1951, Tarn was 82. No, one must admit that Tarn's work belongs mainly in the 1930s. Sponsianus 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• I fail, in this context, to see a distinction between archaeological and numismatic evidence; most of the archaeological evidence, and almost all of it which deals with the sequence of political events (and thus with the quite limited differences between Tarn and Narain), consists of the coins.
• I do not see that the present text relies on "mythological" evidence at all, but then I'm not sure what Devanampriya means by it; certainly the Yavanas of the Mahabharata are not mentioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• I reluctantly agree that this article should be delisted until rewritten to state where it is following conjectures and whose. It is not now balanced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is not the time for voting yet, as we are still working on improving the article (the voting occurs in the next phase I think). Size and reference issues have been addressed, and now I am going to have to put Narain quotes by myself in the place of those who keep complaining without ever putting material by themselves. PHG 19:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a quantity of quotes from Narain. PHG 20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Including the footnote wherein you cited Narain in support of a position (that Menander took Palinputra for Demetrius I) with which he expressly disagrees in some detail. Really, this will not do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Let me disagree here. Narain did write: "There is certainly some truth in Apollodorus and Strabo when they attribute to Menander the advances made by the Greeks of Bactria beyond the Hypanis and even as far as the Ganges and Palibothra (...) That the Yavanas advanced even beyond in the east, to the Ganges-Jamuna valley, about the middle of the second century BC is supported by the cumulative evidence provided by Indian sources", Narain, "The Indo-Greeks" p.267. This was in support of "In the process of the invasion, the Greeks seem to have advanced as far as the capital Pataliputra". I think this is totally legitimate. As far as I know, Narain contends that the Indo-Greeks did not take Pataliputra, but he recognizes that they besieged the city. I will reinstate the quote. PHG 19:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Attaching that quote to a sentence which claims that Menander acted for Demetrius I is academic fraud. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Not to mention the one in which you quote Narain as calling Sagala Menander's capital on the basis of his paraphrase of someone else, when he himself sees the Milindapanha as clearly showing that it was not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ha, I see what you mean, it seems to be a paraphrase of Whitehead. I will therefore reinstate the reference as a paraphrase of Whitehead. Thanks PHG 19:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Whitehead wrote in 1914 before the question had been seriously discussed. Undue weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is just a single reference, and if Whitehead is considered relevant enough to be paraphrased by Narain, I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't mention that. Regards. PHG 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This is an article, not a book. We should treat Tarn, Narain, and Bopearchchi equally; not inflate our source count with citations from before they began to discuss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yavanas=Indo-Greeks

Narain is actually crystal-clear about the Indo-Greeks being described unambiguously as Yavanas (in Sanskrit):

"These Indo-Greeks were called Yavanas in ancient Indian litterature" p.9 + note 1 "The term had a precise meaning until well into the Christian era, when gradually its original meaning was lost and, like the word Mleccha, it degenerated into a general term for a foreigner"

— p.18, in Narain "The Indo-Greeks". PHG 08:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How long is it going to be necessary to put up with unfounded claims by User:Devanampriya? PHG 19:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Necessarily

Please don't mischaracterize this and others as unfounded claims. Your fellow contributors agreed with at least two of my contentions and user Sarvagnya appears to have seconded several of them--so your position is hardly sparkling clean at this stage. Politely speaking, I believe Elonka had a similar complaint about this tendency of yours.

Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that other scholars dispute its application (as seen in the reference I have provided). Also, Narain states that the Yavanas did not invade the gangetic, let alone Pataliputra. According to him, they merely joined a raid led by Indian kings, yet surprisingly, you don't seem to be embracing that theory...

Devanampriya 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As stated above:

Done. The most accessible for all that I could find: Bhasyacharya.N. "The Age of Patanjali". Theosophical Publishing House. Madras. India. 1915 [[18]]

Key Quotes: "That the Hindus apply the term Yavana to all foreigners, not only Greeks, who were living west of the Indus, is plain from the foregoing quotations and considerations: "

"We also come to the conclusion, that in the same way the several Sanskrit authors meant to describe — by the use of the term Yavana — the various foreigners they had known. It might have been applied to the Persians when they invaded India; after them to the Greeks, then to the Bactrians; and at last — also to the Pathans and the Moguls] [Page 13] "

Unless you want to talk about how the God-King Rama's progenitor (Sagara) defeated the Greeks and shaved their heads, I think you see the issue with the strict identification of Yavanas with Greeks only.

Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn’t it quite ironic that you, of all contributors, after continuously claiming Narain as the authority on the Indo-Greeks now conveniently throw away his understanding of the Yavanas as Indo-Greek, in favour of an obscure religious author who wrote a hundred years ago? Although the Yavana word came to mean foreigners generally after the 1st century CE, most modern authors I know, if not all of them, do equate Yona/Yavanas with the Greeks and Indo-Greeks, at least for the time-period being considered (4th century BCE-1st century CE). Another quote from a modern, reputable, Indian author: PHG 17:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"All Greeks in India were however known as Yavanas"

— Burjor Avari, "India, the ancient past", p.130, 2007 PHG 08:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, I said no such thing. All I am saying is that this is the problem with the study of the Indo Greeks. There obviously have been scholars who have pointed out problems with the usage of the word yavanas. Unless we want to also add "Sagara defeated the greeks and shaved their heads" in your preliminary background section, you see the problem with position.

Devanampriya 01:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Of course there are some philological issues with the definition of the word Yavana over time, and I am glad to acknowledge them, but for most scholars Indo-Greeks= Yavana/Yona for the time-period being considered (3rd century BCE-1st century CE). PHG 06:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Since a contributor (User:Pmanderson) has asked the question, here are the books I personnaly own and have read, which bear some relation to the Indo-Greeks, complete with a complimentary photograph of a part of my Indo-Greek library: :)

My "Indo-Greek" books (well, most of them).PHG 14:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bopearachchi, Osmund (1991). Monnaies Gréco-Bactriennes et Indo-Grecques, Catalogue Raisonné (in French). Bibliothèque Nationale de France. ISBN 2-7177-1825-7.
• Avari, Burjor (2007). India: The ancient past. Routledge. ISBN 0415356164.
• Faccenna, Domenico (1980). Butkara I (Swāt, Pakistan) 1956–1962, Volume III 1 (in English). Rome: IsMEO (Istituto Italiano Per Il Medio Ed Estremo Oriente).
• McEvilley, Thomas (2002). The Shape of Ancient Thought. Comparative studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies. Allworth Press and the School of Visual Arts. ISBN 1-58115-203-5.
• Puri, Baij Nath (2000). Buddhism in Central Asia. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 81-208-0372-8.
• Tarn, W. W. (1984). The Greeks in Bactria and India. Chicago: Ares. ISBN 0-89005-524-6.
• Narain, A.K. (2003). The Indo-Greeks (in English). B.R. Publishing Corporation. "revised and supplemented" from Oxford University Press edition of 1957.
• Narain, A.K. (1976). The coin types of the Indo-Greeks kings (in English). Chicago, USA: Ares Publishing. ISBN 0-89005-109-7.
• Cambon, Pierre (2007). Afghanistan, les trésors retrouvés (in French). Musée Guimet. ISBN 9782711852185.
• Keown, Damien (2003). A Dictionary of Buddhism. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860560-9.
• Bopearachchi, Osmund (2003). De l'Indus à l'Oxus, Archéologie de l'Asie Centrale (in French). Lattes: Association imago-musée de Lattes. ISBN 2-9516679-2-2.
• Boardman, John (1994). The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03680-2.
• Errington, Elizabeth; Joe Cribb; Maggie Claringbull; Ancient India and Iran Trust; Fitzwilliam Museum (1992). The Crossroads of Asia : transformation in image and symbol in the art of ancient Afghanistan and Pakistan. Cambridge: Ancient India and Iran Trust. ISBN 0-9518399-1-8.
• Bopearachchi, Osmund; Smithsonian Institution; National Numismatic Collection (U.S.) (1993). Indo-Greek, Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian coins in the Smithsonian Institution. Washington: National Numismatic Collection, Smithsonian Institution. OCLC 36240864.
• 東京国立博物館 (Tokyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan); 兵庫県立美術館 (Hyogo Kenritsu Bijutsukan) (2003). Alexander the Great : East-West cultural contacts from Greece to Japan. Tokyo: 東京国立博物館 (Tokyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan). OCLC 53886263.
• Lowenstein, Tom (2002). The vision of the Buddha : Buddhism, the path to spiritual enlightenment. London: Duncan Baird. ISBN 1-903296-91-9.
• Foltz, Richard (2000). Religions of the Silk Road : overland trade and cultural exchange from antiquity to the fifteenth century. New York: St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0-312-23338-8.
• Marshall, Sir John Hubert (2000). The Buddhist art of Gandhara : the story of the early school, its birth, growth, and decline. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. ISBN 81-215-0967-X.
• Mitchiner, John E.; Garga (1986). The Yuga Purana : critically edited, with an English translation and a detailed introduction. Calcutta, India: Asiatic Society. OCLC 15211914 ISBN 81-7236-124-6.
• Salomon, Richard. "The "Avaca" Inscription and the Origin of the Vikrama Era" Vol. 102.
• Banerjee, Gauranga Nath (1961). Hellenism in ancient India. Delhi: Munshi Ram Manohar Lal. OCLC 1837954 ISBN 0-8364-2910-9. (I don't have this one with me right now)
• Bussagli, Mario; Francine Tissot; Béatrice Arnal (1996). L'art du Gandhara (in French). Paris: Librairie générale française. ISBN 2-253-13055-9.
• Marshall, John (1956). Taxila. An illustrated account of archaeological excavations carried out at Taxila (3 volumes) (in English). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
• (2005) "Afghanistan, ancien carrefour entre l'est et l'ouest" (in French/English). Belgium: Brepols. ISBN 2503516815.
• Seldeslachts, E. (2003). The end of the road for the Indo-Greeks? (in English). (Also available online): Iranica Antica, Vol XXXIX, 2004.
• Senior, R.C. (2006). Indo-Scythian coins and history. Volume IV. (in English). Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.. ISBN 0-9709268-6-3.

PHG 07:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

More refs

I added today a bunch of quotes and references from Bopearachchi, and streamlined several portions of the article. PHG 17:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

These again fail to note the extent to which Bopearchchi disagrees with the history stated almost without question in the present text. For example, Bopearchchi dates Demetrius I 200-190 BC; he must therefore disagree that he invaded India in 180 BC, and is unlikely to agree that Menander (regnavit apud B. 155-130 BC) was his general. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can add this bit information if you wish (or you could as well). Am I supposed to add every possible little bit of information from Bopearachchi? Following you request I added: "Bopearachchi dates the reign of Demetrius slightly earlier to 200-190 BCE"

For Menander, here is what Bopearachchi says: "Numismats and historians are very divided on the chronology of his reign and on this territories. FOr A.Cunningham he would have reigned between 160 and 140 BCE, whether A. von Gutschmid suggests a very low date, from 125 to 95. According to E.J.Rapson, followed by Tarn, Menander would be contemporaneous with Eucratides, whether A.K.Narain considers him as his immediate successor. More recently A.D.H. Bivar proposed to see in him a successor of Apollodotus I and of Antiamachos Nicephoros, and considers him as a contemporary of Eucratides I. In the analysis we did of the numismatic and archeological data, we developped the hypothese of Bihar, and showed that Eucratides I and Menander were contemporary" I added this as reference to the article PHG 05:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

But the text of the article still says: while Menander led the invasion to the east [for Demetrius I] as though this were an uncontested position, if not a certainty. It is, of course, neither. Until all of this is cleaned up, and Tarn's position is attributed to him, and Narain's to Narain, and so on, this does not belong in FA. Doing so will take more time, and more space, than FAR can be reasonably expected to tolerate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

How about simply making it "According to Tarn..." then? PHG 18:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be a start; but that qualifier would be justified on almost every sentence in this section and most sentences in the article. What an FA would do is to indicate both that Narain and Bopearchchi disagree with him and what they believe. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, I am afraid it is untrue. This article relies on about 20 reputable authors overall. Indeed, there was very little on Narain, because nobody made the effort to quote him. I had to do it myself (about 10 references now). Everyone is welcome to add their own sources to the article. PHG 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Article body size 41Kb

After creating sub-articles such as History of the Indo-Greek Kingdom, Religions of the Indo-Greeks and Legacy of the Indo-Greeks, I also created Art of the Indo-Greeks to outsource more material. The body of the article now stands at 41 Kb PHG 07:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Map

In the map, I did one spelling correction Barigaza>Barygaza pointed out by Pamanderson, and suppressed the mention of Euthydemia, which is apparently a disputed emendation of a text by Ptolemy. PHG 08:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Update on reasons for nomination by User Blnguyen

•  Done(1c) has now been addressed (now 100 citations for 41kb)
•  Done(2b) has now been addressed (now 3 levels of heading)
•  Done(4) has now been addressed (the body of the article is now 41kb) PHG 11:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Map sources

The map from Narain's The coin types of the Indo-Greeks clearly shows Greek conquests and territory as far as (and including) Pataliputra. PHG 13:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A published map from Westermann Verlag showing the extent of Greek expansion in India. PHG (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, the current map is rigourously based on three major map sources: "Historical Atlas of Peninsular India" Oxford University Press (dark blue, continuous line), A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" (dark blue, dotted line), Westermans "Atlas der Welt Gesishte" (light blue, dotted line). I am showing Narain's map here, as it seems its existence has been challenged repeatedly, especially by user Devanampriya.PHG 11:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, please stop misrepresenting me. I never said that the The coin types of the Indo-Greeks map never existed (I own a copy). What i did say was that this map (which was from a book compiled in collaboration with another author--H.K.Deb), is in conflict with Narain's stated positions as treated in his authoritative book on the topic "The Indo Greeks". "The Indo Greeks" is a 585 page tome where he discusses territories and campaigns at great length (and there is a more restrictive map that is provided that is in line with his views of greek territories on the subcontinent). He does not believe the greeks conquered and ruled the gangetic plain and gujarat as seen in the excerpts I provided above. "The coin types" is hardly even a tenth of that and, as evidenced by the title, is a catalogue of Indo Greek coins with virtually no discussion of the indo greek history.

Again, you cannot say it is "rigourously based on three major maps sources" when 1. The Atlas der Welt Gesishte map was already described by its owner and submitter as flawed 2. The narain map you provided was based on his coin catalogue book and not his map from his actual detailed treatise on the indo greeks, which conflicts with that projection. 3. And the oxford map that is cited is in direct conflict with PHG's misdirection:

The joining of three maps on one map makes it needlessly confusing for readers who will just think that the map demonstrates a progression of conquest rather than three different perspectives. This is the central complaint with the map as it stands now

Devanampriya 01:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot rely on your own original research and personal analyis to reject maps published by reputable sources. On Wikipedia, what is important is to rely on published material by reputable sources. Individual POVs are irrelevant. These three maps are indeed published by reputable sources, although all three of them probably have their shortcomings:

• 1) The map of Narain's The coin types of the Indo-Greeks is perfectly valid, even if you dislike it. It was published by a reputable source, with Narain's agreement (it would be quite incredible that he would dismiss the opening map of his book really!). I don't know if the map was drawn by him or not, but I would suppose so, as I have never seen it from another author, neither is it credited to somebody else, which would be a minimum. Narain does say that the Greeks went to besiege Pataliputra, so I don't see a big discrepancy. The other map from Narain which you are mentionning is not really relevant to this discussion: it is just names thrown around, and has no territorial boundaries. It is unusable for our purposes.
• 2)The Atlas der Welt Gesishte map is, again, a map published by a reputable source. One of her shortcomings (shared by User:Sponsianus who supplied it) is that it attributes the conquests to Demetrius. But many modern author do attribute the conquests to Demetrius indeed (see Bopearachchi for example, quoted in the article). Its southern territorial extent is probably based on the existance of coin hoard east of Ujjain etc.. ("A distinctive series of Indo-Greek coins has been found at several places in central India: including at Dewas, some 22 miles to the east of Ujjain. These therefore add further definite support to the likelihood of an Indo-Greek presence in Malwa" Mitchener, "The Yuga Purana", p.64) and the analysis by the authors of the map of the archaeological finds in Vidisa and Bharhut.
• 3) The Oxford map is a minimalist territorial map which happens to fit your point of view, but which I am glad to include anyway.

Please remain open to the variety of sources. Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." (Wikipedia:NPOV). PHG 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarn vs Narain

We should be carefull not to diabolize Tarn, and oppose to him a supposedly neutral Narain. Here is an analysis by Olivier Guillaume in Analysis of Reasoning in Archaeology:

"In fact, underlying Tarn's and Narain's reconstructions there are two opposing pre-suppositions which explain many divergences between the two works. Briefly, Tarn is biased towards the Greeks and Narain towards the Indians."

— Olivier Guillaume, Analysis of Reasoning in Archaeology quoted in Narain The Indo-Greeks, p.496

Both should indeed be taken with a grain of salt, although it is surely no reason to dismiss either's account. I am personally weary of Narain's positions, since I read his light-handed dismissal of one of the greatest accounts of the 1st century, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, saying that "the account of the Periplus is just a sailor's story" (p.118), or his partisan mantra: "They (the Greeks) came, they saw, but India conquered" (p.499). PHG 13:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Narain came up with an extremely detailed reconstruction, and airily waved away all inconvenient evidence; so did Tarn before him. Evidence has been found since that would be inconvenient for both; but both narratives are still possible. We should deal with them equally. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with that. PHG 18:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

And until it is so, and it is not so now, this should not be an FA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• This article relies on about 20 reputable authors overall. Indeed, there was very little on Narain, because nobody made the effort to quote him. I had to do it myself (about 20 references now). Everyone is welcome to add their own sources to the article. I don't think it is right for a few POV-pushers to complain without ever adding anything to the article, and use the lack of representation of a source they favour to apply for a FA review. PHG 05:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

More stylistic issues

Being as how coinage was the Indo-Greeks' major contribution to Indian history, I can certainly see why we have pictures of Indo-Greek coinage all over the article. But they just don't seem especially germane where they are. I would just put in a small section (emphasis on SMALL) about them and put all the pictures of coinage in there. They're kind of cluttering up the article as is. As for the other pictures of architecture and art, I'd say we should keep them in the art section. Those hand-drawn little sketches aren't especially instructive or helpful either. I think we can cull them entirely. Of course, these are just issues to make the article better. But I would still say it's not FA material. Besides the organizational and aesthetic problems, the article is written in such a way that it doesn't draw clear lines between established scholarly consensus and various theories that happen to be floating around. It doesn't do a good job of giving the reader a good sense of the proportional reliability or importance of any theory. It's a big uphill battle to fix the article and unfortunately, I don't think any of the editors who have been arguing in the article's talk pages prior to FAR are unbiased enough to do it. Unless we can get an unbiased, knowledgeable editor who can broker a consensus, I don't think the article should be within 100 feet of any accolades. Windy City Dude 01:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• That's new. Most of the artifacts which are known from the Indo-Greeks are coins. This is specific to the subject-matter. It is only normal for an article on them to use coins extensively, as does any reputable book on the subject. I made a few drawings in order to represent some important (referenced) artifacts without raising copyright issues. We can definetely reduce them, in the main article at least. PHG 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've reduced the number of drawings to just two. PHG 08:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

References

I added a quantity of new quotes and references from Narain, Senior, J.Cribb, and Mc Dowall.PHG 08:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Although this FA review was raised following a questionable request by a user (User:Devanampriya) with an appalling history of incivility (top of this page), near-zero contributions to Wikipedia, and who proved he had but a very limited knowledge of ancient Indian history (Kushan coins above), I am glad that this review was an opportunity to:

• Dramatically reduce article size and create sub-articles.
• Introduce a lot more references with actual quotes (now 120 refs for 41kb of article material).
• Better balance the article between sources (although I am sure this will never be perfect!).
• Visually clean-up the article.
• Give better exposure to this arcane subject of the Indo-Greeks.

I believe this article has progressed greatly during the last 2-3 weeks. Thanks to all for your time and contributions. PHG 09:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yuga Purana

Devanampriya has been constantly criticizing the account of the Yuga Purana as a mythological fable unworthy of any mention. This is however unsupported, even by someone like Narain: "But the real story of the Indo-Greek invasion becomes clear only on the analysis of the material contained in the historical section of the Gargi Samhita, the Yuga Purana" Narain, p110, The Indo-Greeks. Also "The text of the Yuga Purana, as we have shown, gives an explicit clue to the period and nature of the invasion of Pataliputra in which the Indo-Greeks took part, for it says that the Pancalas and the Mathuras were the other powers who attacked Saketa and destroyed Pataliputra", Narain, p.112. Devanampriya's point of view on this issue is visibly purely personal and not supported by reputable sources. How long are we going to have to put up with Devanampriya's personal theories? PHG 15:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Enough.

I would try to fix this article; but that cannot be done while PHG continues to edit it, and quote the authorities in this manner. It is certainly POV: that is to say, it is written from Tarn's POV; I do not agree that this means that it is colonialist as some voices . It is misleading to the point of factual error. Strong and immediate delist and oppose any and all relisting unless PHG walks away from it for six months. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• (1a) Although I stand by the position that this is better written than most of what we promote, it does contain phrases like more than thirty Hellenic and Hellenistic kings. What is this supposed to mean? (The normal distinction here, that Hellenic is before Alexander and Hellenistic between Alexander and the Romans, is false, by anybody's chronology.) And whatever it means, we should probably say that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• (lb) It is not comprehensive; it omits the nature and condition of the sources; it omits a clear picture, and indeed, any but a few words, on Narain's and Bopearchchi's views.
• (1c) It is not accurate; it does not accurately represent the current body of published knowledge; instead it presents Tarn's conjectures, only, as statements of scholarly consensus.
• (1d) It is not neutral; for the same reasons.

Fixing this article will take a large amount of time. If PHG continues to edit it in this fashion, it will be impossible. I suggest boldly moving this to FARC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted attacks…

Hi Septentrionalis/Pmanderson. So much aggresivity on your part seems hard to understand and rather unwarranted. I, and other users, have demonstrated one-by-one that most of the claims brought against this article are unfounded. I will gladly correct, as always, any remaining issues.

• You asked me to give you the list of the books I own, which I did, complete with an authentifying photograph: you saw I probably have one of the best “Indo-Greek” libraries around, and I believe this article does indeed largely cover most of the theories on this subject. You asked me to better balance sources and provide more references: there are now 140 references/quotes from a variety of sources and Narain’s (disputable) opinions are amply represented, but you now admonish me for editing to bring these very references in (!!).
  
• I am proud that I have built this article (and many related ones) from scratch, and that it does provide one of the best available sources anywhere on the Indo-Greeks (as also recognized by other users). This article has already been approved by the Wikipedia community and deemed worthy of FA status (FAC) for nearly 2 years, and has improved ever since its nomination.
• On the other hand, User:Devanampriya, who requested this review, has been insulting the community by his incivility (top of this review), lack of knowledge (Kushans above), and extremist/nationalistic views (rejection of the Yuga Purana against of all scholarly sources, rejection of maps showing Indo-Greek conquests).
  

You’ll do as you want, but I am afraid you are not taking the right approach here. Your claim to rewrite this article to your own personal taste is both irrealistic and illegitimate: just contribute and collaborate with others, like the rest of us do on Wikipedia.PHG 17:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

PHG, please stop attacking other editors. It is more useful for you to be focusing on the article, instead of the individuals who are critiquing it. --Elonka 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Elonka, you have no lessons to give to anybody for making unwarranted personal attacks (here). On the contrary, it is a known fact that User:Devanampriya has been profoundly incivil with numerous Wikipedia editors who disagreed with him for the last two years. He clearly proved himself not to have the most basic knowledge of ancient Indian history (Discussion on the Kushan above). These are just facts, and it does not reflect very well on you to ally with such a user ([19], [20], [21])PHG 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; this is projection. Has PHG ever managed to edit cooperatively with anybody? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have never had any problems to cooperate with PHG during the time I've been on the Indo-Greek page. PHG even went so far as to translate parts of Bopearachchi for me when I asked him.Sponsianus 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Should you need to evaluate my skills as cooperating and creating great, referenced, content, you might just as well check some other of my FAs: Imperial Japanese Navy, or Boshin war.PHG 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• The present text of the article is an argument in favor of Tarn's interpretration; this is not neutrality and not acceptable.
• I have reviewed several of those 140 references, as this and this and this. Of those I have reviewed, an absolute majority have either been irrelevant to the point at issue, or citations out of context which represent an author as supporting a position he does not. I have no reason to believe the rest are any better.
• PHG, please let us know when you are done with this article so it can actually be reviewed. This review will, by the nature of the case, take longer than FAR can reasonably be expected to tolerate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• References: all references are exact, and I corrected the one case where a reference was arguably misattributed. In case 1 ([22]), you just replaced a reference by McEvilley with references by Tarn, Wheeler etc… Your additions are welcome, but you are not supposed to delete existing and proper references. In the case 2 ([23]) you just pointed out that Narain was actually paraphrasing Weatherford, which I immediately acknowledged. In case 3, you just added a reference ([24]), and I will now add a reference to the contrary (from Tarn). Your above claims against my references are thus baseless: please check other reference, I will gladly show you that they are exact as well.PHG 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see you have had rethought citing Tarn as though he disagreed with LSJ; had he done so, his reliability would be in question. Of course he does not; he chose one meaning of proerchomai, the one which suited his argument. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the exact quote then: "The word Proeltontes shows that a military expedition is meant" (Tarn, p.144)!! I have absolutely no interest in your own personal analyis whether Tarn is right or wrong. Please stop double-guessing secondary sources and trying to dismiss them with your own original research!! I can also see that you misread Proeltontes for Proerchomai from the original Strabo, so I suppose you original research is really, really wrong. PHG 18:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• The proper transliteration is proelthontes.
• That is Tarn's argument; it should be cited as such. It's not a bad argument, but it is not conclusive; and it has verifiably failed to win consensus. 18:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• I really don't known about consensus on this question. Do you have a reference for your claim? And should we erase you reference regarding Proerchomai, a different word altogether? PHG 19:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for confirming that you know no Greek. Proerchomai is a composite verb, with an irregular conjugation, like all the other derivatives of erchomai (LSJ gives the principal parts); proelthontes is its aorist participle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I never claimed I spoke Greek (I speak French, English and Japanese... 日本語で議論しようか？). But I known what secondary sources say, and Tarn was something of a Classicist: do you have any sources for your claim that Tarn "is not conclusive; and it has verifiably failed to win consensus"? PHG 19:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Narain expressly disputes the argument (1957, p.36), although he acknowledges other evidence of the expedition; other authors ignore it; and the Loeb Strabo translates "advance". The word unquestionably implying military action would be proelauno. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Fine, so let's give these references indeed (Tarn/Narain, and maybe Loeb Strabo, although this is getting very close to original research). This is still a far cry from your "it has verifiably failed to win consensus", but no big deal really. PHG 18:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • <sigh> I said not consensus, which is demonstrated. If I had meant has a consensus against it, I would have said so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(left) <sigh> again. This entire section is an example of quotation out of context. Show is from Tarn's footnote; his text says The language used imports a military expedition. (emphasis mine). It does indeed import ("imply" OED) a military expedition, although Narain denies this; it does not demonstrate it, and cannot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I have finally got around to having a proper read of the fabulous Indo-Greek article. Congratulations! It is truly great - a detailed yet clear, balanced and well-referenced account of an extremely difficult, shadowy and contentious period of history. Well-done! I have fixed a few typos and corrected a few spelling mistakes but also changed the "Notes" section to "Footnotes" and moved it above the "References" section so it is easier for readers to check. I highly recommend it for Featured-article status. John Hill 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• • A canvassed comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • As far as I know, sending a neutral message to a user who is knowledgeable in the field (Central Asia in this case) has nothing to do with canvassing: “it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions” (Wikipedia:Canvassing). If you complain about this, should I complain because User:Elonka coached User:Devanampriya to attack me ([25], [26], [27])? Let’s not have double standards please.PHG 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Let me see: Elonka requested that Devanampriya, having already posted to ANI, explain himself so that editors not knowledgeable in this obscure field could understand him, use diffs, and use short posts. I gather he didn't. I'm shocked, shocked to see such misconduct. ;> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

“Totally disputed” tag

Some users have been adding a “Totally disputed” tag at the top of the article, although it is unclear in what sense this article would be totally disputed. For those wishing to have this tag in, please justify. PHG 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research paragraph by Pmanderson

I am very surprised by an entire original research paragraph recently inserted by User:Pmanderson. Entitled “Nature and quality of the sources” it amounts to a personal essay and critique aimed at challenging the use of ancient sources made by modern scholars. It really has no place in a summary of the History of the Indo-Greeks, neither on Wikipedia in general. Here is the paragraph in question:

“Some narrative history has survived for most of the Hellenistic world, at least of the kings and the wars;[18] this is lacking for India. At least one such existed in antiquity: the Roman author, Pompeius Trogus, used it in his history of the world. This is also lost, but we have a much shorter abridgement or anthology by Justin. Justin tells the parts of Trogus' history he finds particularly interesting at some length; he connects them by short and simplified summaries of the rest of the material. In the process he has left 85% to 90% of Trogus out; and his summaries are held together by phrases like "meanwhile" (eodem tempore) and "thereafter" (deinde), which he uses very loosely. Where Justin covers periods for which there are other and better sources, he has occasionally made provable mistakes.[19] Justin does find the customs and growth of the Parthians, which were covered in Trogus' 41st book, quite interesting; in the process, he mentions four of the kings of Bactria and one Greek king of India, getting the names of two of them wrong.[20] In addition to these dozen sentences, we have a few passing mentions of India in the geographer Strabo, and there is half a story about Bactria (only) in one of the books of Polybius which has not come down to us intact.[21]” PHG 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I should like to believe that this description of a paragraph with four footnotes, mostly to Justin himself or the introduction to the 1994 translation of Justin, is mere inadvertence. This paragraph is in fact kinder than than, for example, Tarn's

[Justin] ultimately goes back or may go back to a good source and one has to weigh carefully what he says. But he has the same faults; he does not always summarize correctly, he has no interest in history as such and omits whole chapters of Trogus on the Further East which to us would be invaluable, for Trogus himself gave a comprehensive account; and accuracy to him is of small importance compared to the chance of drawing a moral lesson. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), POV (1d), MoS issues (2), and focus (4). Marskell 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, I don't think we've ever had a FAR section 125k long. Try and keep it brief in the FARC section and maybe use the discussion page for lengthy brainstorming. Marskell 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong and immediate delist Tendentious; notes are unreliable and deceptive. see above for examples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please see WP:FAR instructions; there is no immediate delist. The goal of FAR is improvements, and each review period is two to three weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think this can be made presentable in two to three weeks. I checked a sample of the footnotes, and more than half were simply wrong; Blnguyen has checked others. For example, when I surveyed the article (here) footnote 4, about Taxila as a capital, cited the following phrase: a new and orderly Taxila with a rectilinear street plan of established Hellenistic type. There are two problems with this:
    • Our article was claiming that Taxila was refounded as a capital. The source doesn't say that.
    • More seriously, on looking up what it actually did say and on what authority, I found that, where our article claimed this as 180 BC, Taxila's foundation as a Hellenistic city is of uncertain date, anywhere from 200 BC to 100 AD; it may even have been given a Hellenistic plan by the Kushans, who learned about such cities in Bactria.

  I've fixed this, and so far the fix has stuck; but all the notes will have to be checked before we can put this on the front page without embarassment. When they are, and the balance is straightened out, I would be happy to renominate it myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• All the references in this article are authentic, as well as the quotes, you can check them and I am ready to discuss them one by one in the FAR above. The example you are mentionning only points to a discrepancy between the text speaking about a Hellenistic capital, and the reference speaking about an Hellenistic city: when I added it, I just wanted to add a source about the city of Taxila being Hellenistic, and I even later deleted the mention of the "capital" (which was not put by me in the first place) as I had no specific references regarding that (I added refs about Sagala being a capital though). Your accusations are simply unjustified, and, again, I am ready to discuss any refs you are challenging, and correct if something was claimed wrongly. PHG 20:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - 'nuff said. Sarvagnya 05:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - Still many problems: Many single sentence paragraphs. Some paras have no source. Many analytical/conjecture/prediction type statements are not sourced and need to be sourced. Notes are not in the same format in a consistent manner. Also, aside from the unsourced stuff, a lot of the notes did not correspond to what teh article said when I checked it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• There are references now in essentially all paragraphs I think. A lot has been streamlined. As far as I am aware, all the references in this article are exact. Please point to specifics. You never explained what discrepancy you may have found between text and sources, despite my specific requests on your Talk Page or in this page. PHG 06:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please note there are now 179 references and quotes (for a 42k article body size), making it one of the most referenced articles around. PHG 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (strong). Great and highly referenced article on an arcane subject. All claims were either solved or responded to. PHG 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The modesty of this claim of the nominator and principal author is a shining example to us all. The most serious claims were responded to with promises to make the article more balanced; which would indeed, if fulfilled, be a large step to make this article FA; but they have not been. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe this article quite fairly represents current knowledge on the subject. More than 20 reputable sources are represented, with over 140 quotes and references. PHG 18:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Many of them irrelevant citations, of quotes that have been misunderstood or are being cited out of context. The text reasonably, but imperfectly, represents the views of 1938; in a 1938 Wikipedia, use of scholarship from before the First World War as though it were current would not be unreasonable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
        • You are mistaken. And please discuss on the FAR, not here. PHG 18:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (with minor changes) I have just reread all the comments on the Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indo-Greek Kingdom page and the many notes I found this morning on my Talk page and had a good think about it all.

This subject, as I noted in my earlier comments, deals with "an extremely difficult, shadowy and contentious period of history." I should have also noted that we lack good historical sources for much of the period and so, much (often too much) of the "history" has been reconstructed solely on interpretations of the numismatic data which is further compromised by the many uncertainties surrounding the provenance of the coin finds - and whether or not they are genuine.

On top of the fact that many, if not most, of the coin finds are not provenanced properly, there has been a long history of faking coins, sculptures and inscriptions in the region (something now reaching epidemic proportions). Many of the faked coins (and inscriptions) are of high quality and it is very difficult to determine if they are fakes.

I have a somewhat damaged old B&W photo which I took in 1981 of the gate to the Taxila Museum which says: "BEWARE: FAKE SCULPTURES AND COINS ARE SOLD IN PLENTY AROUND HERE." This sign highlights some of the difficulties numismatists face in these regions - and why they seem so often to go astray.

In my experience it would be just about impossible to get two scholars to completely agree on a reconstruction of any major part of the history of the Indo-Greek kingdom(s) - just look at the differing positions of Tarn, and Narain, to give only two examples.

PHG has certainly put a great deal of work into this article and, I thought, tried very hard to meet with the various criticisms made of his work. It seems to me that he has met with most of the criticisms quite well, amending his position when mistakes were pointed out. I also think he has done rather a good job of making some sense out of a very cloudy period of history. I especially like the excellent illustrations and disagree with the criticisms of the map - I think PHG has made it quite clear on the map that the various experts disagree - and shows several interpretations of the data (such as it is) very well.

An article on this subject is always going to be somewhat controversial. I think you would be hard-pressed to get a better article on the subject, or any which would attract less criticism, but maybe there should be an overall statement about the general lack of hard data and the hypothetical and controversial nature of the "historical" reconstructions. Perhaps, because of the uncertainties, the article should not attempt such a detailed reconstruction of the period - particularly some of the less certain datings. John Hill 22:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I made clear that they disagree. PHG simply repeated Tarn's version as fact. No dating here is certain to less than 5 years (Bopearchchi systematically rounds his estimates to the nearest multiple of 5); the only one for which we have any external evidence is uncertain by 20 years.

How old is the (competent) coin-faking? Most of the coins used in the discussion existed in 1950; many of them in 1900; and most of the more recent evidence was not found in markets, but in digs, like the several Guillame published; coins with uncertain provenance might be ignored in this subject anyway, because the find-spot is much of the data.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pmanderson. I am afraid you are disrupting the voting process by adding negative comments everytime someone is not following your opinion. I am not sure you are supposed to try to influence voters by making comments on their Talk Page either ([28]). Please make your comments in the FAR. Please try to be fair and follow the rules. PHG 18:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (with minor changes)

As I've said, if there's confusion in this article, it reflects only the confusion in the academic field. The article is a sterling work on a nearly impossible subject, though some of the criticism (length, some old quotes) is relevant. I've redone the history section today and hope that is an improvement. Sponsianus 21:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks. That's a definite improvement; I'll add the 180 BC date for Demetrius I, since it was consensus before Bopearchchi, and should therefore be mentioned. (While imbalance towards Bopearchchi's 1991 book is better than imbalance towards Tarn's 1938 book, I would prefer balance.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist for now for the very simple reason that - were this article up for FA today - it wouldn't pass. The {{disputed}} tag aside, FA requires an article to be stable (heck, even GA requires this) but the spate of recent significant edits suggests that it isn't. The feedback that *this* FA review has generated would - under normal circumstances - be part of a pre-FA peer review stage, so I suggest formally stepping back the state of this article to that stage as well.
  Of course, the FA review process can be re-initiated at any time, and I think that this article would deserve it. -- Fullstop 00:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  ps: Considering that the issue of who-is-being-cited-how-often-and-for-what is a bone of contention, this article *really* needs to re-think its referencing style. It should also begin quoting more inline instead of delegating to footnotes. That is NOT what footnotes are for! And direct quotations of historiographers have absolutely no business being in an encyclopedia. If this were being FA reviewed today, I'd quick-fail it solely for use (leave alone dependency, which is also true here) of such primary sources.

• The "Disputed" tag has been added by the same ones who are trying to have this article delisted. I am not even sure if it is fair to add a "Disputed" tag during a FAR. I suggest your evaluation of the article should make abstraction of that. Also this article used to be very highly stable (except for a dispute on the map): the recent edits and improvement have been made in an effort to respond to the people who brought this FAR forward. Regards. PHG 20:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist for the simple reason that the article's contents seems to be disputed, OR tags, sections lack citations and the existing citations are inconsistent and incomprehensible in some cases. Footnotes are what they should be, not paragraphs themselves. Whole commentaries and dialogues need to be removed/reworded. It will simply fail an FA review if put up today. Delist it, let the authors work on the article and sort out the issues. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 02:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Amar. The "Disputed" tags have been put up by the very people who are trying to have this article delisted. Please make abstraction of that in your evaluation. The numerous quotes from reputable historians have been added in order to objectivize the debate. Regards PHG 20:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi PHG, the very fact that the disputed tag is there in the article indicates one of the two things below:

• There is a majority opinion that the article is disputed.
• The authors who think that the contents are undisputed are not presenting facts that convince others to remove the disputed tag.

If it is the first case, then the article is certainly not an FA. If it is the second case, then the article's authors have significant work to do to present a case of why it is not disputed. They also have to address the utter lack of citations in sections like 1.2, 2.1.5, 2.3.3, 2.4 and also find a better way to handle the plenty of quotes in the article which are currently making the article difficult to read. All these issues do not gel well with what an FA should be. In either case, the only option I see is to delist. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 02:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I added references for, I think, all the paragraphs you mentionned. PHG 21:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per below comments.

  The Indo-Greek kings seem to have achieved a very high level of cultural syncretism - {{fact}} tagged. Certainly not acceptable in a featured article.

  Too many subsections and sub-sub-sections...especially in the History of the Indi-Greek kingdom section. This is having an adverse affect on the TOC.

  A very high density of one-line, two-lines paragraphs through out the article. They need to be rewritten/reorganised into bigger paragraphs.

  I see a lot of "not in citation given", "citation needed", "original research?" tags scattered all over the article. All of them need to be addressed.

  The entire section of "Legacy of the Indo-Greeks" has just 3 sentences. Can easily be merged into other sections, probably to the history section.

  A thorough copyedit is very much required after all the above issues are addresssed. The copyedit by expert copyeditors would help resolving MoS issues, and to handle the plenty of quotes mentioned in the article through out in a better way.

  I'll add more comments, if I find any. - KNM ^Talk 22:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

KNM, the cultural syncretism of the Indo-Greek is a basic observation which is understood in most sources dealing with the matter. The fact that the coins are bilingual (a first in world history) and mix Olympic and Indian deities should suffice. Your grammatic objections are better founded, but the complications under the history section are due to the fact that what we are dealing with are cautious reconstructions. It is impossible to write much without reservations. Best regards Sponsianus 09:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And my chief objection to the present text is that there aren't enough reservations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep

It had all qualities of a Featured Article in the first place. Nevertheless, I counted 17 changes (just counting {{Done}} tags) according to suggestions in this discussion. It is obvious that PHG is addressing one by one all suggestions, bringing the article to an even higher quality level. --FocalPoint 19:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you FocalPoint for your support! I think the article has become even better than before, more balanced, and much much more referenced. In any case, this is a fascinating subject, and this article clearly offers one of the best summary available anywhere on the Indo-Greeks. Regards PHG 20:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been filled with irrelevant and misleading notes, and quotations out of context, by an editor who does not understand the secondary sources and has not consulted the primary ones. I stand with Strong delist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks Pmanderson. All quotes and references are exact and quoted in good faith. We may sometime have small differences on how the quotes are understood and interpreted, but that's what discussions are for. Regards PHG 07:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• For the administrator

I have had real difficulty in understanding what is really the problem. I am reading through this review and I see:

• "...it's better written than several articles we just promoted..There are a few minor points which should be dealt with....Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)"...some minor points...become...reluctance two weeks later:
• "I reluctantly agree that this article should be delisted until rewritten to state where it is following conjectures and whose. It is not now balanced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)" and then...reluctance goes away...
• "delist and oppose any and all relisting unless PHG walks away from it for six months. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)"

Furthermore, I am writing my opinion and Septentrionalis presents a position (again) where he acknowledges the notes and quotations but he finds them "irrelevant and misleading ... out of context".
Following that, he complains that the author has not consulted the primary sources. If that is true, what is the problem? Wikipedia's authors are not supposed to interpret primary sources, as this is research.
I think that this is not a discussion on the article. It is a personal attack on the author.
I am led to believe that User:PHG has really upset Septentrionalis, so therefore what we see here is a personal attack rather than critisism on the article and its status.
--FocalPoint 22:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

PHG (in several passages above, and more on the article talk page) has failed to understand what the secondary sources are saying. They spend much of their time discussing the primary sources, under the (not unreasonable) assumption that their readers either know the primary sources or will consult them, and have the necessary linguistic skills to do so; Tarn, in particular, does quote them in Latin and Greek, often without translation. As a result, PHG has often quoted the secondary sources out of context, to "prove" what they never meant to say; in one case, he quoted Narain's summary of his opponent's argument as Narain's view: He has repeatedly attributed to the ancient geographer Strabo views that Strabo not only explicitly cites from another author, but disbelieves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Beyond this, there is a wider controversy as to which of three contending schools of thought on the reconstructed history is to be presented as fact:

• PHG has been presenting Tarn's 1938 view as factual.
• Sponsianus rewrote a portion of the article to present Bopearachchi's 1991 views as fact (with some modifications by Senior in 2004); but has left other parts expressing Tarn's views.
• Devanampriya would like more weight (since he has not actually written much, I'm not sure how much weight) to Narain's 1957 views, which he reprinted in 2003.
• I would like to state the views of all three, with prose attributions. Both PHG and Devanampriya have agreed to this in principle, but it would be a very large job, and little of it has been done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Pmanderson. Interesting to see how you go balistic everytime somebody says they would like to keep this article an FA. Besides your behaviour being quite unfair to the voting process, may I suggest you cool down a bit: Narain is probably now the single most referenced and quoted author in this article. Bopearachchi, which I also favour, is also referenced and quoted between 20 to 30 times. Tarn is rather marginally treated in comparison. All quotes and references are exact and quoted in good faith. We may sometime have small differences on how the quotes are understood and interpreted, but that's what discussions are for. Regards PHG 07:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist:
  • From the above, it seems that the references used in the Legacy of the Indo-Greeks sections were called out as not referencing the material it was appearing as, and hence you shortened down the section. In addition to casting doubts about the rest of the article, this section now is far too short (a second-level heading consisting of four sentences and an image).
  • The notes and references section is mashed together (extended amounts of notes and references), too heavy with explanatory notes, and the references that are in there are not consistently formatted.
  • The subsectioning within the History of the Indo-Greek kingdom section isn't very encyclopedic, especially the one-paragraph sub-sub-sections.

All in all, between the notes and the structural issues, this (in my opinion) does not meet the featured article criteria. I believe it should be delisted. Daniel 04:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Daniel.  Done: I expanded Legacy of the Indo-Greeks with a third paragraph on religious influences. The short Legacy of the Indo-Greeks section has been made so in response to requests for a much shorter article overall (it used to be circa 160k). All material and references are in the sub-article Legacy of the Indo-Greeks.
• I am not sure what you mean by "The notes and references section is mashed together".
•  Done I suppressed the subsectioning in History of the Indo-Greek kingdom. Regards. PHG 11:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist:
  • For the reasons noted by PMAnderson and others. It abuses sources and is not neutral POV.
    • Stylistically, it lacks flow and is still loaded up with too much extraneous information.

Windy City Dude 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist:

While the article should have been judged in a static form, even with the current edits, it miscites sources (i.e. the Oxford map does not cite "Demetrias in Patalene", but it is credited as doing so). The map continues to mislead as does the article. Accordingly, it is very difficult for casual readers to get an accurate and simple overview of the topic in this state. Regards,

Devanampriya 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Closing: I don't know why this became the longest FAR ever. The balance, unfortunately, is in favour of removal. Marskell (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 13:16, 20 November 2007.

---

X Window System

Review commentary

Notificiations: Wikipedia:WikiProject Free Software, Wikipedia:WikiProject Linux, User:SallyForth123, User:David Gerard

Certainly not a bad article, but it clearly shows the signs of having been promoted back in 2005, when the rules for FA where less strict. This article would need some work, mainly with referencing (2c), but also with prose (1a) to keep it at FA status:

• Large sections are completely unreferenced:
  • The X client-server model and network transparency
  • Design principles of X
  • User interfaces
  • Implementations
  • and many other section are incompletely referenced
• Most references are just links, sometimes with a date, but no publisher/author information whatsoever
• The images in the top right hand corner actually show three window managers without further explanation of their link to the X window system. Images in the introduction of an article should be understandable from that introduction.
• It has two citation needed tags
• Prose could use some work here and there:
  • "Instead it is a user application built as an additional layer on top of whatever the host operating system is."

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a question of referencing style, e.g. "Design principles of X", which is straight out of the book. If not being in whatever is this week's fashionable referencing style per FAC is a defeaturing reason, then go right ahead - David Gerard 16:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

David is right here; these 'unreferenced sections' are actually pretty much fully referenced out of several of the more general works listed as bullet points in the References section. This article was merely written before inline referencing became in vogue. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the non-free Windows screenshot has to go, because there is only one confusion that it can correct, and it is well explained in the text of that and previous sections. --AVRS 18:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Seeing adds a whole new level. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Would the nominator please make sure that relevant parties are notified as per FAR nomination instructions? Thanks. --RelHistBuff 05:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think I haven't? Oh well, here they are: [29][30][31][32] --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, if other editors agree that the referencing in this article is good enough, I have (obviously) no objections to this being kept as an FA into all of eternity. I was merely bringing it here to get some opinion on the subject. If that was inappropriate, my apologies :). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Pls notify; Will the nominator pls follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR and notify relevant WikiProjects and involved editors and leave a note at the top of this FAR of notifications done? (See other FARs for an example.) Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The nominator did do so, but the notice used external links rather than a normal wikilink (so it couldn't be read properly). I changed the formatting. --RelHistBuff 16:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c, 2c), and prose (1a). Marskell 21:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove Insufficient citations. Existing citations not formatted correctly. Jay32183 01:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Retain "Not formatted correctly" appears to mean that {{cite web}} was not used, or conceivably that the word "accessed" is not explicitly present. (When I finish this !vote, I will add a note to the section, in case any reader is genuinely confused.) This is deeply unimportant; cite templates are not mandatory, and are of value chiefly to those who cannot write their own footnotes.

In general, converting FA into a giant game of Gotcha does not contribute to the encyclopedia. None of the discussion here, such as it was, identified a single assertion which is both "challenged or likely to be challenged" and is not readily verifiable in the listed sources; and is therefore not actionable. Please continue to ignore footnote-counters, as our policy suggests. Reviewing articles is difficult and time-consuming, but substituting this sort of superficiality only tends to bring FA into disrepute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1a,1c,2c,3. The prose is not so bad but the article does need copyediting to make it easier to read (long sentences, clarification, etc.) and I don't think what is here right now is "engaging or even brilliant", you may also consider cutting down on lists. While citations are not required for every statement, they are needed for quotations and opinions, which is sometimes omitted in this article - for instance the quote of Bob Scheifler and Jim Gettys is not referenced. Even though the editors of this article seem to oppose the use of standard citation templates, the citation style should at least be consistent within the article itself and include some basic information on the sources (minimum of title/date/author). Sometimes there is an "accessdate", sometimes there is a "date", sometimes there are neither and the date formats are different for different links. Sometimes the external links are in footnotes, at other times the links are external links from within the text. Lastly, use of images is not always logical and image captions are not descriptive: "GNOME 2.20",etc in the intro are not descriptive nor do they assert relevance to a reader unfamiliar with the topic and these are not even referenced in the intro.--Sir Anon (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 13:08, 12 November 2007.

---

The Jackson 5

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Michael Jackson, Wikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Indiana, original nominator User:FuriousFreddy retired

Well, this article was promoted to feature article status back in August 2005. I suppose wikipedia had different standards at the time for FA's. But looking at it now. It's clear to me that it is no longer a FA. While it is well-written. There are hardly any references. In fact, there are only 10 inline citations for 42kb of prose. cowbellcity45   talk  01:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Would the nominator please make sure that relevant parties are notified as per FAR nomination instructions? Thanks. --RelHistBuff 05:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Who are the relevant parties? The wikiprojects? cowbellcity45   talk  15:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProjects are listed on the talk page, and the notification instructions are at the top of WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• The notifications still haven't been done, and I'm sure that will create a problem for Freddy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Insufficient inline citations. DrKiernan 10:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. Jay32183 01:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Freddy is no longer with us. Marskell 13:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 13:08, 12 November 2007.

---

Denis Law

Review commentary

Notified Football, Scotland and Biography wikiprojects. Also contacted User talk:Cantthinkofagoodname (original nom and by far main contributor) although seems to be inactive.

I believe this article made it to WP:FA over two years ago when perhaps the criteria weren't so strict. I can see problems with lack of citation, failures to comply with the manual of style, lack of images, poor and choppy prose and problems with POV. The Rambling Man 11:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think it fails 1a in that it is not that well written. I don't think it is very comprehensive. The early life section is very small as are his early clubs sections. It needs citations, especially for his early life. It fails criteria 3 in that it has no images. There are some little MOS fixes needed but i think Oldelpaso has fixed some of these including ndashes. It needs some work but i dont think it is beyond repair. Woodym555 16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), MoS issues (2), and images (3). Marskell 19:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh, if anyone is working on this, please correct all the ibids (see WP:FN). Prose needs attention, this is just offensive: As of July 2005, he is still married to Diana,... (Still ?) Without any context for this one-sentence para, it looks like trivia: On November 25, 2005, Law was at the bedside of former United team-mate George Best as he died of multiple organ failure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - 1a - written in informal manner like a newspaper or sport magazine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 19:40, 11 November 2007.

---

Nepal

Review commentary

previous FAR

Notified Nichalp, Tony1, El C, WikiProject Nepal, WikiProject Countries

Nepal was promoted to FA status on September 2005. I don't think it currently meets FA criteria per the following points:

• There are only 25 inline citations for 60kb of prose. There are entire paragraphs and even sections without references.
• Despite having a hefty "References" section, most inline citations are from web pages and encyclopedias. I don't think they represent the relevant body of published knowledge as demanded by FA criteria 1c.
• The article lacks consistently formatted inline citations.
• The article suffers from undue weight. Of the seven paragraphs in the lead, four are dedicated to the history of Nepal since 1990. There's a big "Recent developments" sections which deals with the period 2005-2007. There's a "Newar culture" section separated from the "Culture" section and bigger than it plus an "Other aspects of Nepali culture" section. There's a POV tag on the "Military and foreign affairs" section
• Prose needs to be improved. A few examples from the History section

• Neolithic tools found in the Kathmandu Valley indicate that people have been living in the Himalayan region for at least nine thousand years. It appears that people who were probably of Tibeto-Burman ethnicity lived in Nepal two and half thousand years ago
• By the early thirteenth century, leaders were emerging whose names ended with the Sanskrit suffix malla were emerging?
• By late fourteenth century, much of the country began to come under a unified rule. This unity was short-lived; in 1482 the kingdom was carved into three areas Began to come?
• However, the actual war never took place while conquering the Kathmandu Valley

To sum up, this article needs some serious improvement to keep its FA status. --Victor12 00:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per all the above. Some quotes from the article:

"Newar community has their own calendar, called as Nepal Sambat, which is probably the oldest calendar of indigenous people of Nepal. It is the only native Nepalese Calendar and one the three major Calendars referred by National Newspapers like Gorkhapatra, Kantipur and The Himalayan Times."

"Nepal is divided into 14 zones and 75 districts, grouped into 5 development regions. Each district is headed by a fixed chief district officer responsible for maintaining law and order and coordinating the work of field agencies of the various government ministries.8 out of ten worlds highest mountains are there in Nepal "

Prose needs lots of work and the POV and undue weight are the biggest issues. Rocket000 07:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In it's current state, the article can no longer be considered a feature article. I hope it can be fixed up quickly but i fear this won't happen in time and it might be off to FARC. There appears to be only two in-line cites in the history section, the Recent Developments section rambles on far too long, and the lead is longer than most articles on wikipedia! --Merbabu 13:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA crtiteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c and 2c), prose (1a), due weight (4). Marskell 14:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - not enough refs, undue weight, too many things just added on arbitrarily. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - one month after the FAR nomination, there hasn't been much work on the article. User:DaGizza restored the FA promoted version and made a few fixes, as a result, prose has improved but several problems remain as FA criteria has evolved since the article's original nomination in 2005. The main problem is still references, not only because they are too few but also because they are mainly citations of encyclopedias. Not a single one of the books mentioned in the "References" section has been used for inline citations. As for other problems, the lead suffers from recentism and prose should undergo copyediting to meet the well-written requirement at WP:FACR. Thus, in my opinion, the article should be delisted. --Victor12 02:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 07:09, 8 November 2007.

---

The Old Man and the Sea

Review commentary

User:DanielNuyu‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Books‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum‎ notified.

This was a nice article for the time at its promotion in early 2005. But as Wiki-standards climbed toward the heavens, this page slowly rotted into the earth. The article is no longer well-written (1a), was never well-cited (1c), and is not particularly neutral (1d) in that it contains a bizarre personal essay on symbolism of character. I would love to fix the Hemingway pages some day, but it's a massive task — consider the trainwreck that is Ernest Hemingway — and for a topic of his importance, I'd need several months to do the background reading and research, or be part of a team of contributors. In the mean time, unless a Lost Generation expert is handy, I'm afraid this article is hopeless. --JayHenry 05:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this is quite as bad as you suggest. Yes the OR on the symbolism of character needs substantial revision or citation support. Also there could easily be more referencing for such an importance 20thC work. However if this needs a de-listing from FA to achieve the necessary improvements then so be it. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), and neutrality (1d). Marskell 19:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 00:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Multiple issues here. Not comprehensive, OR, prose, unsourced statements, badly organised, listy, over linked, an insufficient lead, MOS, stubby trivial paras. Remove. Ceoil 21:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Remove - sorry - has been here for a while but still falls short - issues with (1a) prose needs good copyedit, and (1c) citations, but there is the big OR tag that has been there since September. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 10:28, 6 November 2007.

---

Stuttering

Review commentary

Messages left at CIngre, Slp1, Tdkehoe and WP Psychology.

Stuttering was promoted 2 1/2 years ago. On 28 December 2006, I posted a long list on the talk page of items that needed to be addressed, and other editors agreed. [33] Talk page commentary was recently added from Slp1 (talk · contribs) (speech and language pathologist?) that "There are MOS issues as above, but it is also not a good summary of the state of knowledge in the field. There is a good deal of original research, (even COI) included, and important aspects are missing." I believe the COI may refer to the information about commercial anti-stuttering devices, sections which have grown in the article. Since I posted the need for review almost a year ago, little has been done outside of my edits. I prune an External link farm about once a month. There is an old referencing system that I don't understand and don't know how to repair (we need a script to update this to one ref style). There are three reference styles and an excess amount of trivia in the article (Stuttering in the Media). There is partial compliance with WP:MEDMOS (because I've been trying to clean it up). There are broad patches of uncited text and citation needed tags. The article appears abandoned and needs updating and cleaning up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this up for review, I had been planning to do it, but oh the business of life! I have very major concerns about this article in all areas. The easy ones to fix are the prose, disorganization, MOS problems. Less easy would be the properciting of the material already in the article, some of which is excellent and accurate. A lot of it isn't, however. I also note that large chunks of the article are copyrighted text from [34], though since I believe the owner of that website was a major contributor to this article getting release may not be a problem. The therapies section in particular is very weak, and appears to be written in promotion of the use of technical aids, which is not especially surprising given that the text was written by a company selling technical aids. A cursory look at one of the studies quoted in that section suggests it is not being accurately reported. Other very prominent approaches, for example the Lidcombe program, are not mentioned at all.[35] This article has a long way to go, I fear.--Slp1 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying a Usenet FAQ was the main source for this article? Oh my gosh, I shouldn't have waited a year to put it up at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that it was from a Usenet, silly me! Yes, indeed, large chunks are from [36]. My point about COI remains the same, however, since the "The author of the Stuttering FAQ" is one Thomas David Kehoe of casafuturetech.--Slp1 02:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see there's a conflict of interest notification at Tdkehoe's talk page; is there text that should be immediately deleted? I'm a bit stunned at how this article became featured ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Anti-stuttering devices/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me that it was fairly decent little article when it was promoted [37], though a lack of citations of course and not up to today's FA standards. To be quite frank, a revert to that version would solve a lot of problems that I have, though it is probably too drastic a solution! I am at a loss about what to do in the short-term. In my opinion, the weakest (for various reasons) are the treatment sections, especially the childhood treatment part, which contains unsourced original research and commentary as well as other problems as noted above --Slp1 03:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just contemplating a revert, but there would be a lot of repair work involved because of the old, goofed-up citation method, and retrofitting of citations would still be needed. I almost feel like no info is better than bad info, and it might be better just to delete anything iffy. Are you an SLP? I've asked others to take a look, but I'm concerned you may be the only subject matter expert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, *sigh*, I am an SLP: rather easy to guess, I fear, though I have generally stayed away from related articles since WP is my hobby (Coals to Newcastle and so on)! The sections that I consider especially weak are Incidence and Causes (the latter was definitely stronger in its former incarnation). Onset and Characteristics are OK. The treatments sections are very poor, with rather obvious cherry picking of efficacy data. It is these sections that I find to be really "bad info", though some of the actual explanations about the approaches are alright. The rest is OK. If I was to do anything in the short-term it would to delete all the efficacy type stuff, but I am reluctant to do any deleting myself without getting other opinions, since I guess it could be said that I have a bit of a COI myself!--Slp1 12:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

- Referencing system. The Wikipedia help page for Links and references doesn't explain how to format a reference! If a standard referencing system is ever developed we should use it, but until then it's not worth the time to change to another, possibly non-standard referencing system.

See WP:FN; it's standard. The problem with the current referencing is that the numbers are random (not in order) and there are three different systems in use. They need to be standardized to something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also see cite templates and citation examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

- External articles. The article is 76 KB (roughly twenty to thirty pages). Wikipedia articles are supposed to be under 32 KB (roughly five to ten pages). The solution I suggested some time ago was to set up a stuttering Wikibook, and then put links from each section of the Wikipedia stuttering article to the stuttering Wikibook chapters. This was vetoed because external links aren't allowed in the body of the article. My current plan is to set up a series of Wikipedia articles on famous people who stutter, stuttering treatments for pre-school children, fluency shaping therapy, anti-stuttering medications, anti-stuttering devices, etc. I've completed the latter article and it's being peer-reviewed. Copying these articles over to Wikipedia should be easy.

The readable prose is 45KB, within WP:SIZE guidelines; size is not a problem. Wikibooks isn't the correct place to create daughter articles; see summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Now at 34KB after I moved some info out to daughter articles and removed some unsourced info to talk page. 50KB readable prose is the outside limit per WP:SIZE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

- Treatments. I wrote the adult and childhood treatments sections. I agree that these need to be longer. I believe in evidence-based practice but when you try to write briefly about evidence-based practice you just get a list such as "treatment A is 76% effective, treatment B is 14% effective" and these efficacy statistics can be more misleading than helpful (as was noted). To describe an evidence-based treatment you need to describe all the details. Was it 76% effective in the short-term, or the long-term? In the speech clinic, or outside in stressful conversations? Etc. If we had longer articles about each treatment, then in the main article we could just have short descriptions without efficacy claims.

See Summary style, but there are concerns about the accuracy and sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

- Lidcombe. I intentionally didn't use "brand names" in the treatments section so the Lidcombe program is refered to as "direct therapy" in the pre-school treatments section. In a seperate article we could use "brand names," as I did in the anti-stuttering devices article.

- COI. Someone put a COI tag on the anti-stuttering devices section and I asked to have the section peer reviewed. The reviewer(s) said that everything was based on published studies in scientific journals and removed the COI tag.

- "the childhood treatment part, which contains unsourced original research and commentary as well as other problems as noted above." Please be more specific.

- "The sections that I consider especially weak are Incidence and Causes (the latter was definitely stronger in its former incarnation)." Please be more specific.--TDKehoe 01:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Re treatment sections: Fluency shaping therapy and Stuttering modification therapy approaches are the most common approaches, but the DAF section is more detailed and positive. I don't believe the analysis is up to date and more importantly accurate... There is certainly more than one Stuttering modification efficacy study: I quickly found Long- and short-term results of children's and adolescents' therapy courses for stuttering. Laiho, Auli, and Klippi, Anu from International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. Vol 42(3), May-Jun 2007,) which reports a positive outcome. And how about the "Stuttering Treatment Research 1970–2005: I. Systematic Review Incorporating Trial Quality Assessment of Behavioral, Cognitive, and Related Approaches" Anne K. Bothe, Jason H. Davidow,Robin E. Bramlett, Roger J. Ingham American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 15(4):321-41, 2006 Nov whose meta analysis study doesn't include any studies of DAF (because the SpeechEasy studies didn't meet the quality standards for inclusion, including no control group)? They found "that response-contingent principles are the predominant feature of the most powerful treatment procedures for young children who stutter. The most powerful treatments for adults, with respect to both speech outcomes and social, emotional, or cognitive outcomes, appear to combine variants of prolonged speech, self-management, response contingencies, and other infrastructural variables". This conclusion is not reflected in the current article, which seems to imply that the best of all treatments is DAF. I note all this from the most cursory literature search: there are many other articles to find as well as up-to-date stuttering texts that would be useful as sources.

In the children's treatment section, there are several sections which are not referenced including the preschool and teenager sections. In the school-aged section there is analysis that suggests that clinician-delivered treatments were unsuccessful when in fact the article abstract says "The results suggest that all three treatments for children aged 9–14 who stutter were very successful in the long term for over 70% of the group" (though there was a effect towards home-based and EMG (not computers BTW)) approaches. The unsourced commentary I am talking about is "Parents should realize that school speech-language pathologists are trained to treat a wide variety of speech and language disorders. Many don't have training or experience with stuttering, and few specialize in stuttering. Many school districts are underfunded and school speech-language pathologists have caseloads of 40 or more children, seeing each child for perhaps twenty minutes twice a week, or even doing group therapy with several children who have different communication disorders. Parents whose child's speech isn't improving may want to consider additional treatments beyond their school's speech-language pathologist." These comments are also very US-centric as are the various "advice" remarks which I don't find appropriate for an encyclopedia in any case.

Incidence section contains an unsourced statement that "Studies in years past claimed that some countries had higher or lower rates of stuttering, or that some cultures had no stutterers at all. These studies are generally discounted now, although there are likely more adult stutterers in countries with less speech therapy." Needs sourcing as cursory search have other sources suggesting that different countries do have a different incidence (see [38]) for an example. And of course there is the whole issue of incidence vs prevalence.

Causes: starts with an unsourced paragraph that stuttering isn't caused by emotional strain. Then there is a paragraph on genetics and neurological differences and then back to stress again. What about learning theory, linguistic development challenges, or immaturity of neuromotor control, and maybe even the disproved left-right handedness and Wendell Johnson semantogenic theories? The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders has a nice summary at [39] and they put more evidence on genetic factors than the article currently does.

Hope that helps.--Slp1 04:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Slp, I'm not sure how much time you're willing to commit to this; without a person knowledgeable in the subject matter, I don't see a way to salvage the article's featured status. Would you be willing to begin removing to a section of the talk page anything that is poorly sourced, unsourced, and not likely to be accurate? I don't want to begin removing unsourced text, since I can't judge what is inaccurate, but if you remove patches to the talk page, they can be re-added if they are correctly sourced and rewritten. The bigger problem is that, with this strange referencing mechanism, it's hard to work on the article at all. I suppose I could begin to manually convert the references (<groan, oh my gosh>), but I'd have less work to do if you first removed the suspect patches of text. I'd be willing to put in the days necessary to repair the refs if the article is salvageable; without subject matter expert help, I don't see that it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a query at the Village Pump (technical); I believe someone used to run a script that could update the referencing mechanism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a script for converting ref/note templates, but AFAIK not for html-coded cites like these. Gimmetrow 16:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gimmetrow; sounds like I'll have to do it manually. I'll wait a few days to see if anything surfaces, and if not, put the article in use to convert. In the meantime, upon closer examination, there are also a lot of prose problems, mostly words to avoid, weasle words, peacock terms and generally unencyclopedic tone, in addition to a lack of comprehensiveness in sections per WP:MEDMOS. LOTS of work needed here. I chopped a ton of uncited trivia to Cultural references to stuttering; current readable prose is 35KB, well within WP:SIZE guidelines, but a lot of new content is needed for 1b, comprehensive per WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I could help a bit, but it looks like there's a lot more than the ref mechanism and lost cites to deal with. Gimmetrow 17:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid if more than one person worked on it, we'd just get in each other's way. I've come to the conclusion that doing the work is worth the effort even though the article is a wreck, because the article won't be fixed as long as other editors can't work on improvements because of the goofed-up referencing mechanism. I'm hoping Slp will weigh in on what text should be removed, and after that, I'll put the article {{inuse}} for a long time, and chug away at it. If I get stalled, I'll certainly knock on your door for help :-) Unless someone is willing to commit a month to restoring this article to featured status, the refs are the least of the problems, but they should still be fixed to make it easier for further improvements to happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I converted the refs and recovered the lost refs. In addition to everything else mentioned, the prose needs serious attention, the WP:LEAD needs to be rewritten to a stand-along compelling summary, and there is both overlinking of common terms and underlinking of technical terms. Still lots of work to be done, but at least the referencing mechanism is in place. There is a lot of text cited to non-reliable sources; I removed what I knew to be obviously wrong or poorly cited to the talk page, but there is more to be done. There's also a mix of British and American spelling that needs to be sorted out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I worked on the bottom part of the article and added ce tags, but stopped adding because the article is massively undercited and I didn't want to fact bomb any further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You've done a great job on the article citations. What a task! As requested, I will try to remove what I consider to be poorly/unsourced, unsourced, etc stuff to talkpage sometime today, but won't be able to help with very much rewriting in the short-term as unfortunately I am super-busy at present and on top of that have very limited internet access for the next few weeks. Sorry about that.Slp1 20:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, progress made, but article is still grossly deficient and that's probably all we can do, unless someone else pitches in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are OR and referencing (1c), neutrality (1d), and general cleanup (2). Marskell 19:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

comment: I am feeling badly about this article and would like to do what I can to save it from demotion. I now have regular Internet access, but will have very limited time for the next week to 10 days, so wouldn't be able to do very much till then. I would be particularly motivated to do my part if others could work on the Stuttering and Society sections which don't really require any particular specialist knowledge or resources. Any volunteers?--Slp1 22:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Usually, FARC can be extended for quite a while if someone is willing to do the work. I've got travel pending, so can't take on a lot of work for a while yet either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist All tags need clearing. DrKiernan 11:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove. Could be saved with a lot of work.
  • In the lead, I see three systems for marking "words as words". See MOS. Why is "cure" marked as such?
  • Copy-edit tag; fact tags.
  • "Classification" section woefully inadequate.
  • Choppy paragraphing in places.
  • The mean onset of stuttering is 30 months, or two and a half years old."—Do we need an equative here?
  • Poor writing in places: "With young stutterers, their dysfluency tends to be episodic ..."
  • "By age 14 , the"—space?
  • Ranges: en dashes, please.

Tony (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment- I would request some patience for making a decision about demotion. I have been, and am willing to continue to try my best to get this up to standard, with SandyGeorgia's help. But as you know, these things takes time! I think a week or two should do it, and in the meantime, feedback and suggestions (or even better practical editing help) would be gratefully received. The lead is certainly on the agenda, but will be last once the rest of it is written.--Slp1 00:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think it is better to Delist. I will continue to work on the article, but it would be better for me, and for the article, to work more slowly and without time pressure and consequent stress (ironically the latter are often seen as a possible cause of stuttering!). However, as above feedback, suggestions and help would be welcomed --Slp1 13:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Off it goes then. We can placed this in the "improved but not finished" category. Thanks for your work, Slp. Marskell 10:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 10:28, 6 November 2007.

---

Formula One

Review commentary

Notified WP:F1 and WP:MOTOR.

Article heavily unreferenced, which at FA level, it really should be. The article in total only contains 23 references, with many paragraphs left unsourced. Delist. Davnel03 09:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is referenced by more that 23 references, but only 23 are in-line citations. Other than that, a quick read over the article shows it to be comprehensive in it's coverage and pretty well written. Should some of the lesser known facts have in-line citations added, I believe the article would still meet the criteria of FA. Also isn't this FA Review not FA Removal Candiate? I thought the idea was to improve the article back to FA status at this stage rather than to suggest delisting. AlexJ 10:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, this is a FA Review. I've removed the delist part. Davnel03 16:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It needs work, certainly. More inline citation and probably some trimming of recent additions (I haven't checked, it's just that it's a perennial problem). 4u1e 12:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly did you inform WP:MOTOR? The359 10:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Here. Davnel03 22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 18:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 00:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As WP:V states that direct, inline citation is only required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged", could you please be a little more constructive and suggest which aspects of this article require citation? Pyrope 12:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Several section are heavily unsourced, most notably the "History", "Racing and strategy", "Future of Formula One" and "Distinction between Formula One and World Championship races". Davnel03 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
      • No Davnel, several sections are uncited, a very different thing. And anyway, as an active F1 contributor, wouldn't have been far more constructive to actually do something about this, rather than listing it here?? Pyrope 12:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Your point? Also, quote from Featured articles with citation problems:
• The following is a list of articles which do not feature inline citations, or which feature only a few. Featured article criteria have changed since 2005, and inline citations are now required for new featured articles; ideally, all older FAs will add inline citations where appropriate.
  • Formula One is actually on there. Davnel03 21:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • erm, yes. But the page also states that a "typical FA will have approximately 20" inline citations. This article already has 22 and the numbers grow near-daily. Pyrope 11:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • That list is not a proxy for FAR, and it is being misapplied here. Please read *all* of the appropriate disclaimers on the list; it only means that the article was passed under older requirements and may need to be checked, not that it's necessarily deficient. (I do happen to agree that this article is deficient in citations, in addition to other problems.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• While you're at it, please delink trivials such as "sport"; check throughout.
• Last para of lead, a stub, belongs further up. Lower down, there's another unintegrated stubby para.
• Read MOS on hyphens, which are needed here after the numbers: "1.5 litre supercharged or 4.5 litre naturally aspirated engines".
• Hyphen used as an interruptor: read MOS on em dashes.
• Italic g for gravity?
• Sentence case for titles. Tony (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Seeing as no one is dealing with these issues, I think the article should be delisted. Davnel03 12:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.