RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/Archive 2022

Our records of disappointing our parents. Newest at the top.

December 2022

Global warming | Result: Demoted to Gold

For more information, see: Talk:Climate change

Global warming (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Demote to gold

1. I like this article a lot. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 20:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
2. I like this one for gold/cover story. See also Help:Cover_stories for the RW methodology for rating something gold. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Well sourced, well-written and crucial to our mission. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Definitely relevant to our mission Edward the eight (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
5. 123goaway (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
6. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 16:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
7. LGTM. Andrew5 (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
8. Vee (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
9. The article gives an introduction to global warming, and covers extensively climate change denial and conspiracies related to climate change. This is the kind of article that all articles in RW strive to be like. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Status quo

123goaway (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

changed my mind 123goaway (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I will default here until a reason has been provided. Andrew5 (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC) LGM raises good points. Vee (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Has this article expanded a lot since I last commented on it? I remember saying that some aspects of this article is missing such as the one time a denier tried to use a Pentagon paper (which was originally supposed to showcase a worst-case scenario) to prove the scientists wrong that catastrophe hasn't occurred by 2020 or something. Also, I do think the issue of eco-fascism should be discussed. Finally, well, it's a nitpick but this gif should be updated to show how climate change is worsening every year but yeah. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This video goes up to 2021 --->

Is that good? LongStylus (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me unless something more recent can be found. Bongolian (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario, I'm not sure when you mean by "last commented on it". What are the issues that you think should still be addressed? Perhaps the relevant date is when it was demoted to silver, which was March 2021 by CorruptUser?[1] There does not seem to have been a vote on the demotion (RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/Archive 2021). Bongolian (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It was in a talk page but I think I reiterated points here. There's a LOT of denialist talking points and I think this article is missing out on a few. There's also the BIG deal about ecofascists going "the poors need to be exterminated because of their population growth" and I feel that's important to address to this page. I'll ask again, what has happened between silver demotion and now? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• The cover story abstract needs more text (Template:Cover abstract/Global warming). Shouldn't the page title be changed to "Climate change" from "Global warming", since this is generally the preferred term (e.g., NASA[2])? Bongolian (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I added that cover abstract just yesterday as a placeholder/stub. Changing the page name to "climate change" and redirecting "global warming" to it is a good idea. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. As a title “Climate change” admits a broader coverage of all processes involved. Global warming, on the other hand, though one of the driving forces behind climate change, is but one symptom of a larger problem. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 21:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• This publication might be useful. Andrew5 (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
• I’m not sure where this account from Skeptical Science could be used… but I think it provides an excellent overview of the pertinent issues while still being readable to the lay person. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 21:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
• It's 8-0 after some time; we should demote it to gold. Andrew5 (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
• Can someone demote it? It's 9-0 after 9 days. Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Conservapedia | Result: Status quo

Conservapedia (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Status quo

1. Far too many unformatted links, and I'm not gonna be the one to fix them. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Edward the eight (Talk)
3. No point since Conservapedia pages are largely inactive here. Bongolian (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Slowly losing its mission. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Articles connected with Conservapedia should be ignored, not given greater prominence. Spud (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Is anyone gonna take ownership of this AfD or should this be speedily closed? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedily close it, please. Spud (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Doing so right now. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Gamergate | Result: Status quo

Gamergate (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Demote to Gold

Amazing article Contains a lot of Pictures and links.It doesn't contain many Grammar mistakes and is my go to resource for gamergate. Edward the eight (Talk) 07:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you fix the grammmar mistakes before you nominate it then? Bongolian (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Bongolian... you should work on your spelling while you're at it! --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Muphry's law in action. Vee (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Skitt's Law actually. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Peh. Vee (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

1. For reasons me, BobJohnson, and LGM covered below. Vee (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

   …Did you vote on this after it was closed? Luigifan18 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Status quo

1. Gamergate is over and done with. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
2. It's not 2014 anymore and no one cares Cold turkey (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

   Are you two SURE this thing didn't leave any sort of legacy? Gamergate as a THING is over, yes, but surely it has some spillover consequences (such as contributing to alt-right viewpoints being weaponized and exploited on media) or had some wallpaper cracked to expose an ugly underbelly of video gaming? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

   Not to mention the traumatized victims, who are still suffering the consequences. Vee (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

   Oh sure, you simply cannot overstate the aftermath, that several targets' lives were turned upside-down and several individuals had to literally move or postpone conferences due to bomb threats over milquetoast observations. I don't doubt this could've contributed to a chilling effect for women and queer people who DO want to have this industry move forward without male cishet banshees piling on them. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

   Honestly relevancy seems like a piss poor reason to exclude, cover stories include far less relevant topics like the Lenski affair or Conservapedia:Conservapedian relativity (Conservapedia junk of little relevance in 2022), or Expelled: Leader's Guide (Ben Stein is no longer relevant at all. He currently hangs around Newsmax writing articles for the few who care about either. I didn't even know this until I Googled him just now). Gamergate directly connects to the alt-right and was IMHO a turning point (for the worse) for Internet troll culture, with Poole's departure from 4chan and the split-off of 8chan (largely for Gamergate purposes initially) directly related. Both in turn have links to the still-relevant QAnon as well as various radicalized terrorism events. Hell that recent Pelosi husband attacker claimed to be radicalized by Gamergate. Gamergate also probably helped spawn the presidency of Donald Trump (at the very least via the Steve Bannon / Milo Yiannopoulos / Breitbart combo). No one cares directly about Gamergate anymore but the effects still linger, like a virus that doesn't completely go away. BobJohnson (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

3. The article is well done and missional but needs substantial cleanup. Some link rot has probably seeped into it as well. This needs to be addressed before making it a cover story. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 00:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

   Anything specific about the cleanup you have in mind? Link rot, we can try to address it but I just want to see what "cleanup" entails in. Prose improvement, organization, image management, etc., it'll help. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

4. I don’t think that this should be on RationalWiki’s main page. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
5. The Duke of Windsor (Talk) 16:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Tulsa Race Massacre | Result: Demoted

Tulsa Race Massacre (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Upgrade to silver

1. It is properly illustrated, properly cited, and is a topic of relevance to the wiki's mission. It easily deserves silver. Vee (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Whoever wrote this article sure knew what their stuff! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
3. This one's ready for silver. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
4. I read through it and did some cleanup. Bongolian (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Horseshoe theory | Result: Promoted to no brainstar, also made significantly problematic

Horseshoe theory (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Promote to no brainstar

1. There are just so many problems with this article. First of all is that it has seven uses of "citation needed", which should be unacceptable for bronze let alone silver. Secondly, this article doesn't take a clear stance on whether the horseshoe theory is valid or just false balance, and it needs a general cleanup. Thirdly, the "Anecdata" section is a total mess; some sections just don't belong there, like "Islamists and the Western far-right" (both of these are right-wing groups, so horseshoe theory cannot apply), Anti-Semitic ethno-nationalists and Jewish ethno-nationalists (wow, two groups of ethno-nationalists are both ethno-nationalist), Palestinian nationalists vs the Israeli far-right (same problem, though this section does have a bit of obfuscation between "nationalist" as in thinking your country is the best and "nationalist" as in wanting your group to have a country), there's other problematic sections like "Identity politics on the left and right" (both groups having strong opinions on an issue, even if they are the opposite opinions, is apparently horseshoe theory) and "Immigrants and Nativists" (comparing their economic backgrounds rather than political views). Overall, this article just has a lot of problems and doesn't deserve a brainstar, and honestly, Third positionism and National Bolshevism do a much better job of covering the same topic. Plutocow (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Horseshoe theory is considered fringe by actual political scientists for a reason. Vee (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
3. The extreme lack of sources (I just discovered some) might qualify this article to be 'significantly problematic' as well. Andrew5 (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Plutocow generally got it right.-Flandres (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Bongolian (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
6. This article is absolutely repugnant. It makes extreme generalizations, commits a number of logical fallacies, and overall is extremely Anti-communist. Horseshoe theory is, as @Vee has corrected noted, not accepted among academia. It really only exists in radical centrist internet circles and as a small part of meme culture. Wisconcom (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• This article was demoted by 5-0 consensus to silver back in December (see RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/Horseshoe theory 2021.) None of them picked up the quality issues and the tags were added afterwards. Andrew5 (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Post close comment: article was demoted to significantly problematic. Wow, that was a fall from grace (Level 3 to 0). Andrew5 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Water | Result: demoted

Water (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Proposal

1. I believe I have suitably expanded on this article to at least merit a bronze ranking. The article is properly cited. I have added proper links as needed. I have expanded on the state of water in the universe, and as it relates to life in the cosmos as large. I have also expanded the introduction and rewrote the religion section. Vee (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
2. For future reference, you can unilaterally promote or demote articles to and from bronze; you don't need an AFDem. That said, bronze is fair. Plutocow (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

   I'll keep that in mind. Thanks. I also feel it'd be improper to unilaterally upgrade it to bronze considering I already made the afdem. Vee (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

3. Wonderful job on this article. Consider it done. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 21:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

   Thank you! Vee (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

World War II | Result: Demoted by 7-0 vote

World War II (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Demote to silver

1. I think this article is high enough quality to become silver. The article has 444 references and adequeately, in-depth explains World War II, almost as good as the Wikipedia article in fact. The article, besides being high quality, is also very missional, arguably hitting all 4 of our mission points, and definitely points #2 and #3. I think this article is good enough for a demotion. -- Andrew5 (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 07:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Partially returning the favor, and partially because this article is genuine quality. Vee (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
4. It's good enough for silver. Bongolian (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
5. More than good enough for silver. Spud (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
6. This one's ready. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 03:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
7. Well-researched, well-written, solid all-around. While WWII might not be missional in and of itself, this article is basically a history written through RW's lens. It delivers some very pointed blows at the Rommel myth, debunks other myths like the story of Polish cavalry attacking tanks, offers some segues into various history-related conspiracy theories, and has some key points about the rise in authoritarianism during the leadup to WWII. DietMondrian (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Drake equation | Result: Rapid 6-0 consensus to demote, demoted

Drake equation (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Demotion to silver

1. I believe the article should be demoted to silver. My reason being that I think the article is a lot better than it was before I started going WikiOgre on it. The reason I left a large chunk of the section explaining the Drake equation proper uncited is cause it honestly doesn't need it, and any of the references I added would just say the same thing more or less. This wiki allows for original research after all, and we are not an encyclopedia. Vee (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Yeah I’ll back silver. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Looks good to me. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
4. This article looks good to me. ConverginglyRational (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Satisfactory.Andrew5 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
6. Good enough for me. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• What is the proposal for, exactly? Andrew5 (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  Demotion to silver. Vee (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• How illustrated is illustrated enough for Silver? I'm not sure if the Drake Equation actually needs any more pictures than it already has, but just want to be pedantic. CorruptUser 14:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Given how the article deals in purely theoretical topics, I think the level of illustration it already has is more than sufficient. Vee (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Wow, that was quick. Clear consensus to demote. Andrew5 (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Marjorie Taylor Greene | Result: Seems to have consensus to demote

Marjorie Taylor Greene (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Demote to silver

1. I have read through the whole page and cleaned up references and whatnot. Bongolian (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
2. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
3. LGTM.Andrew5 (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• I'd like a little more substantial intro but idk I'm more used to this stuff from MarioWiki. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 07:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
• @Bongolian What's the proposal? Andrew5 (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • It's going from bronze to silver. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
• Demoted. I don't want to see this sit for months. We need more AFDEM proposals to make it more active...in any case no comments in a month. Andrew5 (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Whoops, I forgot to take care of it...until now.Andrew5 (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche | Result: Demoted to silver

Lyndon LaRouche (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Proposal

1. All citations checked, have read through everything for content, grammar and links. Seems thorough at least up until 2019, the year of LaRouche's death. Bongolian (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
2. Yes, make it silver. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 03:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
3. I removed some strikeout humor. It looks ready to be posted now. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Consensus exists to make this article a silver. Will take care of that in the upcoming minutes. Andrew5 (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Taking care now, had to get a quick snack. Andrew5 (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Roy Moore | Result: Not demoted

Roy Moore (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Demote to silver

1. Citations are fixed now. I also made some revisions. Bongolian (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Status quo

1. I don't think it warrants a demotion. I think it should stay where it is. Daemonspudguy (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
2. I appreciate Bongo's efforts, but without really knowing what's going on, because Cosmik left it bare and didn't reply to anything for 3 months, I feel really uncomfortable demoting it. Andrew5 (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Whaaaaaaat? Andrew5 (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'll just assume that's what Cosmik wants. No opinion at this time. Andrew5 (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Need some cleanup, particularly references that don't work. Bongolian (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• Not demoted, no edits in a month, and has been open since the start of summer (we are now in fall). Andrew5 (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Rape | Result: No consensus to demote in 5 months, not demoted

Rape (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

I'm not sure what this article needs to improve, but given its relevance to a lot of people, I feel like it's a topic that can be worthy of a silver at some point soon.

Demote

1. Thinking maybe. Could discuss with y'all. But only if you want to, baby. CorruptUser 02:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
2. I did a lot of cleanup and found archive snapshots for several dead reference links. It looks like the majority of this article was written ten years ago so the references need to be completely checked. Once that is done, I concur with demotion. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't

1. Improve first. Andrew5 (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
2. The good is that there's no bare cites. The bad is that I think this article is a bit low on cites. That's not too big of a deal for a Bronze article, but not good enough for when we go Silver (or above). -- Techpriest (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
3. Id like to see a demotion, but there’s a few too many unsourced bits. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Closing as unsuccessful. Andrew5 (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Lead | Result: Demoted to silver

Lead (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Demote to silver

1. Very comprehensive, lots of references, lots of pictures, overall really good article. Plutocow (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
2. Oh, right, sorry, forgot about this. Looks good now. Andrew5 (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
3. A well-made page.-April ^Chat? 04:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Some more references are needed; I'll get to work. Andrew5 (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• It's a bit of a short article, if well written, isn't it? CorruptUser 20:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • There are already silver articles of a similar length, like Joseph was Imhotep, Vampire, and War on Christmas. The requirements for silver are more about comprehensiveness than length anyway. Plutocow (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Same sex marriage | Result: No consensus, consensus to form did not emerge for over 4 months

Same-sex marriage (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Same-sex marriage is a common topic. It's not quite as relevant as it was in 2013, but there are still numerous countries where this is still banned. More importantly, after 7 years of it in the US, we are starting to see the results, which sadly do not include world-ending Earthquakes.

Demote to Fabulous Gold

1. I think this is worthy of front page CorruptUser 19:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Honestly I kind of agree. Andrew5 (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
3. yas queens! Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 15:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Status quo

It is a good candidate for demotion, but the brainstar guidelines (RationalWiki:Article rating#Gold/Cover-level stories) should be followed, specifically "The cover status has been discussed and agreed upon on its talk page. This last criterion is the most important." And, there needs to be a cover story nominee abstract written that can be reviewed by others (Help:Cover stories). The abstract can generally be revised from the lede of the page. Bongolian (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Article reads painfully heavy from an americentric/anti-religious right POV (like most of the site), but one that feels particularly dated given the block about the 14th amendment and the fact that the legal arguments described therein are not a problem there anymore since Obama made gay marriage A Thing That Isn't Going Away. The religious freedom paragraph is also tonally terrible (I get it, it feels good to tell shithead christian fundies to eat shit, and we do in many of our smaller articles, but this is not something that belongs on a Gold article; this is a part of bronze checks). Most of these can probably be solved with a good hedge clipper, but for now it's not Gold-worthy. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
2. wasnt gonna bother coming on either the yay or nay side, and im probably not going to defend views on the matter, just want say my piece. i am all same sex marriage. i remember when it went through parliament. i remember the debate in the commons (i seem to remember david lamy was particularly good in the debate). i remember when the 'ayes have it'. i remember being elated, like this really was (and it really was) a momentous moment in history, that this was journeys end for gay rights in the uk - that everything else around equality for lgbt folk after was both minor in significance and inevitably be corrected in our favour - just matter of time for specific issues to crop up just needing the relevant legislation to updated (just in the uk mind, and this was back when trans people were effectively invisible and no one knew anything of gender and identity or there was anything much to fight for that wasnt just a variation of a theme on the broad 'gay reights' already fought for and won). i feel personally invested in the topic is what i mean and im very much 'for' camp. the issue i have with the article is that it too is in the 'for' camp. much of the article reads to me like it is making the case for same sex rather than outlining the arguments made in its favour and those made in opposition. there is little reference to who is making what argument and often the various arguments described are very broadly put and sometimes poorly. arguments against same sex marriage suffer the most, seeming to lack any detail in their descriptions with little in the way of context or detail and barely any examination of what position is being taken, who is taking it or why. instead we mostly have very broad and simplified arguments made in opposition to a a degree that they dont quite capture or miss a great deal of just what it is people have argued just to be dismissed in a just as overly broad and simplified fashion. i do not feel i am enlightened by this, i do not it sheds light on why people have been or are so against marriage equality nor do i feel it informs me of good counters to such people. the pro section suffers much the same fate though instead being presented as being plainly ridiculous and hypocritical attempts to justify prejudice by bigoted people, the pro arguments are presented as incontrovertibly and objectively the morally and factually correct position, on the right side of history and on the side of all right thinking people. i have no idea after reading the article what lgbt people feel about it all, or what lgbt people hope to gain from same sex marriage or what we miss from its absence, what it means to our lives and our loved ones, what it means to for our relationships when we grow up knowing they will never be considered valid or be valued. all im really sure about from this article is if the breeders have it then gays should too and that the real injustice and hypocrisy is that we cant fuck our kids or purchase our significant others at a the pet shop. as is mentioned elsewhere its very us-uk centred, with the us even more heavily focused than the uk. i get no sense of world outside of these regions, and theres not really much of sense of what these regions actually look like either despite the huge slant. the bogeymen of the piece are broadly the 'religous right' and the 'socially conservative' - the american manifestations of these broad groups, so mostly the 'fundies'. allusions to the rest of world ring hollow when there is no mention of africa or asians views of homosexuality or homosexuals marrying beyond the offensively trite and vacuous canard 'the western christians invented homophobia' - stated in not as many words here there throughout, starting in that history section, one of the sections that refers to specific examples and not just broad opinions of vaguely defined 'somre people but are just wrong as examples in so many ways beyond factually to make a poor point poorly. else where reference is made vaguely to something to the uk (tories and pre-brexit eurosceptics) or digs at the republicans and fundies for vague examples from the us. where it does get into specifics and naming names it goes only for extreme positions like the fred phelps style fundies or references the us constitution, which for arguments around same sex marriage, or indeed and arguments around civil liberties, not only does not translate beyond us shores well, but makes much debate redundant, coming down to 'is it in the constitution?' answered with 'yes, fuck you its my right, ill do as please' or 'no, fuck you, you have no rights, ill do as i please'. another reference to a specific persons argument from the uk, justin welby of the c of e, one of the few times it does reference who is making a particular argument and a specific argument at that, fails to present that argument that would tell you it was more than something welby pulled out his arse and so monumentally dumb that he had immediately dial back. but it concerned the anglican churches in africa what was/are very real possible consequences the church supporting same sex marriage would mean for christians in africa. in the uk and the us there is no consequence for the heterosexuals if the gays can get hitched. its easy to laugh of the homophobic opposition in the west. we'd already won the big fights, and for many lgbt folk marriage equality was the end of a long road. people still struggling in other parts of the world just to be allowed to exist. trans people in the west still have a ways to go. its not as inevitable as seemed a few years back that we are near the end of the journey. to do this topic justice, this article needs to be framed in that context. it should not present the arguments so broadly and so simply. it should do more than just reduce opposition to dumb fuck talking points made by right wing religious nutjobs. it should be more than just an essay of why someone thinks we should allow same sex marriage. it should do more than just play to the crowd. it should present arguments accurately. fully with detail and context. for and against. it should tell us who making an argument, and it should not be telling why we think it is right or wrong, it should be telling us who is saying an argument is right or wrong and their reasoning for it. they should be referenced too, with specific real world examples and how they contrast with one another. its fine if the focus is heavy on the us or the uk even, but it needs the context of the wider world. it needs context of the wider struggle. since time has passed since uk and the us had this debate it should look at the effects and whats left to do. just what effect has it on a child growing up gay today, growing up seeing as future where your love is valued and worthwhile, you can fall in love and declare it the world, you can get married just like everyone else, instead of growing up seeing a future where your relationships are all disposable and meaningless, growing up and seeing themselves and their lovers as disposable as their relationships. i cant imagine growing up and not seeing anything but disposable love. has enough time passed that people have grown up seeing something more that we are able see differences from generations growing up with the possibility of marrying who they love? this article has nothing to say there. it has more to say about being able to fuck horses than it does about same sex marriage.

   sorry about the rant, kinda lost my train of thought. same sex marriage and the debates over it seem a life time ago, im not the only gay in the village and all but this topic this feels very personal to me ,from time of my life filled with so much more optimism. rambling bullshit though it is, im gonna have an opinion on this article. it aint gold. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

   someone might wanna do a collapse for all that noise. cant see the markup for that in box below AMassiveGay (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

   @AMassiveGay We can't collapse it as it would mess up the numbering. You can make a statement like ("See Goat"), move this to goat, and collapse it there. Andrew5 (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Looks like someone already made a cover abstract way back in 2010? See Template:Cover abstract/Same-sex marriage DietMondrian (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  @DietMondrian It was promoted to silver following a discussion in May 2012. Andrew5 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  OK, I'll have a more thorough look at it. Bongolian (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  A problem that I'm noticing is that this article was motivated in the pre-legalization era, and the text that was written then has not necessarily been updated. E.g., civil unions is not an issue in countries where marriage has been legalized, but that was a big issue back then. Bongolian (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've gone through the whole page except the Status section. It would be good if someone went through the Status section to make sure that it's current. There may still be a few places where the text is written as if gay marriage was not legal in many jurisdictions. Bongolian (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  is the status section really necessary? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  and if it 'is' necessary, should it be organised into region where same sex marriage is legal and regions where it isnt? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  It needs more referencing, especially in the US timeline, I'll say that. Andrew5 (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Are we going to demote it or not? It's been open for 3 months and the vote seems to be 3-1. Andrew5 (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• I just gave this article a much-needed cleaning. This article originally caught my attention because much of it was clearly not updated since Obergefell v. Hodges, and given that the fight for marriage equality is still ongoing in many parts of the world, that made the article really America-centric. The article is now in a much better state than it was back then, but there are still a few issues I would like to see addressed before I'm willing to demote it to gold:
  1. The intro needs a rewrite; it was clearly written when gay marriage was illegal throughout most of the Western world. Perhaps it could be reframed to show which parts of the world have it legalized, which parts are still fighting for that right, and a basic summary of the arguments for and against.
  2. Much of the article still feels written in the early 2010s. For example, it largely glosses over the subject of education in the "People will be forced to accept gays" section, when that is a hugely relevant issue nowadays, especially with things like the "don't say gay" bill in Florida. And this is more of a nitpick than anything else, but there's also little to no mention of how this issue relates to trans and nonbinary people.
  3. The "Arguments against same-sex marriage" could use a heavier cleanup. Many arguments are repeated in multiple sections, and the section could stand to be better organized in general. There's also some sections that focus on the arguments of a specific individual rather than talking about the general arguments, and overall talking about the arguments more generally could help reduce the West centric-ness of the article.
  4. I'm not entirely sure what to do with the "American legal arguments for same-sex marriage", which feels outdated after Obergefell and doesn't even cover the arguments used in the case. Given recent events surrounding the Supreme Court, gay marriage may not be as safe as we once thought, so such a section could still potentially be useful, but it may need to be split onto its own page. General constitutional arguments can potentially be added to the "Arguments for same-sex marriage" section, as a number of court decisions have legalized same-sex marriage in various countries and it is likely to happen again in the future.
  5. The "Same-sex marriage resistance" section seems like it could use expansion, given that it only mentions two countries, and the US section was basically just a Kim Davis section until I added some information on how marriage licenses were being abused in Alabama.
• I won't vote against, since I think with a little work, this can get to gold, but it's just not ready yet, at least until the aforementioned improvements are made. Plutocow (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Closing as no consensus, it can be renominated when improved. No consensus exists to demote after 4 months. Andrew5 (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Lost Cause of the South | Result: Demoted to silver

Lost Cause of the South (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs)

Demote

1. I've edited the whole page and added a section on textbooks promoting the Lost Cause. Bongolian (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Relevancy: checked (so many cranks...), not repetetive: checked, no bare links: checked. My only minor quibble is five "see wikipedia reference"s (ref. 8, 49, 50, 51, 60) that should preferably get a primary source. Reference 3 is a note, so that should be changed. Beyond that, I have no objections. Silver with potential long-term candidate for Gold perhaps? -- Techpriest (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

   Conversion of ref 3 done. Others will have to wait. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

   The 3 remaining WP citations are for establishing an ancestral connection to slave owners in a footnote. It's a bit complex to replace the citations I think. Bongolian (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

   It's fine, no need to fret over those citations. Like red links, you don't need to have zero, just a reasonable amount. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 07:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

3. Mention of slavery == Critical Race Theory, and if the radical left wants to promote CRT, the RATIONAL thing to do is demote it instead. (In seriousness, I think this article is a good counterweight to the mindset I am spoofing that would like to deny the role of race in American history. I especially like the direct quotes from the Confederates themselves, as well as how many other resources it points to so that readers can learn more, which I think is especially valuable when there's a movement to actively try to teach myths and hide the truth.) Vomitorium (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Goat

1. Article looks good but IMO the opening paragraph is a bit too short and I'd like a little more detailed summary, but IDK I hope my request isn't unreasonable. For instance, we can get common examples of "a number of interpretations of the American Civil War from an effectively pro-Southern perspective"; e.g. the coinage of "War of Northern Aggression" or the idea the South defended itself to preserve its culture, etc. We can also see a brief discussion on how popular the narrative was (of course the history section goes into detail, but we could definitely summarize if such rhetoric was common during Reconstruction or more common in Civil Rights Era, etc.) --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 06:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Single transferable vote | Result: Demoted as no objections

Single transferable vote (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Bronze

1. I've been working on this article for a while, and I think it's pretty decent now. I'd like to see if you think it's good enough for bronze. Vomitorium (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Bronze does not generally require a vote. Bongolian (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Not too sure about this, I did add one CN to it, and that could use expansion or be deleted. That's my only quibble, and as per Bongolian, bronze doesn't need a vote. Andrew5 (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew5 I did just elaborate on the point you tagged (Monotonicity and Spoilers) and added a citation. The reason it wasn't cited previously is because I thought it was trivial, although it might not be to someone unfamiliar with the types of properties that are typically cited as flaws of Instant Runoff Voting.

If bronze doesn't require a vote (sorry, I didn't know), I assume this should be archived when possible, although I'd not do that immediately so that you can read this reply. Vomitorium (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks better now. I am not going to demote it myself but if you want to, go for it. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Stalin apologetics | Result: No objections to demote in a month, demoted

Stalin apologetics (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs)

Demote to silver

1. I have read through the entire page, fixing up citations in particular. It looks good enough for silver to me now. Bongolian (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
2. I agree, although it could still do a little work. I plan to get down to removing the 3 wikipedia references later tonight, that’s the most pressing issue I see. Probably could use one or two more sources in a few areas, but I’d prioritize putting off the Wikipedia references first. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Banana argument | Result: Status quo

Banana argument (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Promote

1. Only 19 refs and large swaths of unsourced text. Arguable enough to even earn it a {{Needs sources}}, it needs more references to even sustain the bronze, and is nowhere near silver-level quality. -- Andrew5 (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Status quo

1. Improve, don't promote. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Agree. It gets annoying seeing people wanting to promote/demote pages without putting any effort into improving them first. Bongolian (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

   This article was promoted in haste, only because it was a top Google search. That's another reason I am vouching demotion, it was promoted without realizing the quality and never should've been promoted in the first place. Had it been nominated in 2021, it would have failed.Andrew5 (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Let me add on to my rationale for demotion. The article was promoted in October 2011, in this discussion. It was due to the fact that it had high search traffic, and decent quality. This is the revision as of the upgrade, and sources weren't as mandatory back then. However, standards have since changed, and while this article has, it's not enough to keep it a silver. Hypothetically if I were to put {{cn}} next to every unsourced statement, it'd have dozens. Put another way - if this article was nominated now, it would fail in a landslide. We have to be consistent here. -Andrew5 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez | Result: Demoted to silver

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Demote to silver

1. Article has 96 references, only one is from Wikipedia. Article is on the shorter side, but is reliably sourced and has no unsourced statements. Overall, a good candidate for demotion. Andrew5 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Sure, with a little bit of work it is worthy. Todo: archive the fragile social media links and expand some the reference descriptions. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
3. She's a double whammy. She's an unhealthy obsession for Wingnuts, but she herself is a nutjob. CorruptUser 16:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
4. I have edited the whole page now. It's OK as far as I'm concerned. Bongolian (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Status quo

#I oppose demotion until the citations are fixed. Bongolian (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Also I found bad grammar from a spot check ("Other actions she has taken was a sharp questioning of Michael Cohen before the Oversight Commission"). Also, there's a high frequency of dead links. Bongolian (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian human sacrifice | Result: Promoted

Ancient Egyptian human sacrifice (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Promote to bronze

1. Only 18 refs, and there is also a bare link to a YouTube video (reference 5). Ancient_Egyptian_human_sacrifice#Background_of_Abydos is also entirely unsourced, and this in general is barely, if even, a bronze and certainly not silver. Andrew5 (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
2. There is one section without citations, and one section with isolated citations (Subsidiary burials). Bongolian (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Jesus myth theory | Result: No consensus, so status quo prevails for now

Jesus myth theory (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

No brainstar

1. This page has an overreliance on Richard Carrier for sources, and as such is likely significantly problematic - a disqualifier for bronze. However, owing to how controversial this was, I would like to recieve community input instead of doing it myself even if this technically doesn't require a vote. Andrew5 (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
2. For the time being, I feel like this is the best course. The article needs a major cleanup, and I don't feel like it's appropriate to keep the brainstar while that happens. We can always reinstate it later, when we feel it deserves it. Friedman (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
3. -Flandres (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Status quo

1. A rought estimate of the page puts a little under half the sources as being from Carrier. This however does not invalidate the entire page. Status quo is just fine in my eyes. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

   From what I can tell, the article was awarded a bronze brainstar on October 17, 2011, by user @WaitingforGodot, without any discussion. Back then, the article was 78,088 bytes. Today, it's 318,902 bytes. That means that 75% of what makes up the article now was not there when WaitingForGodot gave it a brainstar more than 10 years ago. At the very least, I feel like that would support the idea of temporarily removing it. Preferably, the article would eventually get it back after cleanup efforts. Friedman (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

   Carrier is mentioned 280 times in the article (control F). Of which, 134 of them are in the references, which has 383, which is just under 35%. However, he has 86 mentions in the article itself, one in the external links, 43 in the further reading, 7 in the bibliography and 9 in the notes. This essentially means that there is a heavy reliance on Carrier, too heavy to have a brainstar. Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

2. I agree the article needs a clean up as the article has really exploded in material much of which I feel should be trimmed. There seems to a pattern forming here. The AFD failed so here we are with an reduce/eliminate the brainstar. I smell a gaming the system effort here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

   There is no gaming the system. Bronze level articles need to have appropriate references, and the extreme reliance on carrier, IMO, violates that. As Friedman said, This article is built on this source so much, if it is removed, it falls like a deck of cards. As such, I disagree with that it doesn’t correlate to the whole page. If consensus supports it, I think all but like one or two mentions of Carrier should be scrubbed and the article trimmed. It shouldn’t be dominating the page like it is now, and as such IMO fails bronze. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

   Go through the Keep part of Wiki:Articles_for_deletion/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ and one will see 4 (perhaps 5) other editors who had issues with that AfD.BruceGrubb (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

   Many of them opposed it because they suspected I was a troll, due to being so new. I believe I've spent enough time here, with sufficiently detailed edits, to show that isn't true. Regardless, that is a separate AfD. Friedman (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

   Just because an article is kept at AFD doesn’t mean it deserves its brainstar. We kept Tim Eyman (see RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Tim Eyman), which is a significantly problematic article needing updating, referencing, and expansion. We also kept a stub for a Turkish politicos which we weren’t even sure was missional after another AFD (though I can’t recall the name, and that did come down to no consensus). The general motto is to keep and improve over delete unless there is a reason why delete is more appropriate. Also, the link you sent wouldn’t work so I’ll paste it here -RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Jesus myth theory. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

3. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 14:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Goat

• I want to point out that RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/Cold War is failing despite being way less then half (going from 1/4 to 1/6) WP references, and WP is more reliable then Carrier (albeit that is for silver). Andrew5 (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  WP sucks as a source because it's not a secondary or primary source (it's tertiary; Wikipedia will always repeat what other people are reporting on). Not because of reliability. That's why Cold War is failing. -- Techpriest (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  • I 100% agree with you on that, it’s just that Carrier promotes fringe theories. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• "WP is more reliable then Carrier"? Please tell me you are kidding. Wikipedia itself states "Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. Because, as a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong." If Wikipedia doesn't consider itself realible why in the name of sanity would we considered it reliable. Of course this goes back to what you mean by "reliable".--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

  I would argue that Wikipedia is more reliable than Carrier. The problem with Carrier is that he tortuously misinterprets his primary sources. If you build an article on a variety of sources, then you would expect it to be more accurate than an article built overwhemingly on one bad source. Even if Wikipedia was only 50% accurate, I'd still give it to Wikipedia, percentage-wise. Friedman (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  @BruceGrubb Wikipedia admits it is not reliable, but it doesn't say it promotes fringe theories like Carrier does, it's even banned per WP:FRINGE. I'm not saying Wikipedia is reliable at all. However, Carrier is blatantly unreliable. As Friedman says, he misinterprts sources, and then it's built with excessive mentions of him. I've found in my time editing Wikipedia that on average, vandalism is reverted within 8 minutes. Unsourced info can be there for longer, but is generally removed within a day. As such, Wikipedia, in my estimation, is reliable 80% of the time. That is a pretty bad number, but anyone who promotes fringe theories IMO is at best in the 40s. Andrew5 (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  As the here piece on Wikipedia explained "reliable" has several meanings (brought out in the Carrier talk page) there is an issue now how uses the word "reliable"

  There is "reliable" as the Wikipedia:Reliable sources criteria which sets the standards for which references can even be used in an article (Carrier certainly meets this criteria as do his own comments about the process his book went through per Wikipedia:RSSELF)

  There is "reliable" Wikipedia:Verifiability) which while related to Reliable is actually slightly different (this is where the "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. (sic) policy is stated)

  There ie reliable as in accurate (Wikipedia:Inaccuracy)

  Finally what a particular profession considers reliable. (an article providing evidence promoting homeopathy appeared in The Lancet. Soon after a rebuttal article appears showing the original article's methodology was poor)--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  True, maybe Carrier isn’t as bad after all. But it shouldn’t be built mainly on one source to begin with. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  Carrier is an appropriate source for certain things, such as his own ideas. It doesn't mean those ideas are true. Friedman (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  Carrier should not be given any more weight then the others. If the others are given four paragraphs worth of information, so should him. Andrew5 (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• There are myriad other problems with this article aside from its overreliance on Carrier's views. 75% of the article was added after the brainstar was added, there's a massive section just for suppsosed refutations of Ehrman's book, and the article clearly comes down on supporting the Jesus myth theory, depaite numerous holes you could drive a truck through. Friedman (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• This is the clearest case of no consensus I've ever seen, and should probably be closed as such. Andrew5 (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Cold War | Result: Demoted to silver

Cold War (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Demote to silver

1. Somewhat relevant, detailed but crisp, well referenced and illustrated. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 04:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
2. While it could use a bit more cleanup, the fact that it's just a bit over 20 and that I have plans to improve it tomorrow 7 means I think it is ok for silverAndrew5 (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC) (updated 02:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC))
3. Regarding missionality, I think it works well as a summary/stepping stone for other articles, and what it may lack in depth it makes up for breadth. You've quite a smorgasbord of abuses committed by authoritarian regimes, big and small, plus a dash of conspiracy theory and pinch of woo. Also, it's a pretty good article in general, well-written and backed up by plenty of good references (especially after we've replaced about 75% of the Wikipedia citations with more direct sources). I have a couple of ideas for making it more missional (like discussing the Avrocar or working in a mention of Project Stargate and other remote viewing silliness), but as it stands right now, I'd be comfortable with giving it silver. DietMondrian (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
4. This whole wiki can eat my fucking ass. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 15:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

   Decline. Bongolian (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

   @Bongolian Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

   Well, you’re still putting effort into this wiki, so eventually you’ll still get shit on. Just like me.🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 20:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

5. Flipping vote based on complete removal of wikipedia references. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
6. Per wikipedia's own "Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. Because, as a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong." using wikipedia itself as a reference is just a facepalming bad idea. Even what Wikipedia considers "reliable" - quality of source and accuracy of source has a nuance its editors haven't fully grasped. Wikipedia is good for a "if you want to know more about this" link but not as a reference--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

   Wait, is this an opposite or support for demotion? Also, there are only 2 wikipedia references left, lower then even on some other silvers. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

   Well with the references reduced does it still qualify as Gold (rather than the proposed Silver)?--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

   Maybe. There are still ~20 3rd party references, 1 citation needed tag, and 2 better sources needed tag, but overall it has >300 references. That’s one of the things we might need wider community input on. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

   Make that ~20 3rd party/tertiary references. The citation needed and better sources needed tags are gone now (and it still has >300 references of course). DietMondrian (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Status quo

Overrelies on Wikipedia references. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC) This has been fixed since. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Agree. For demotion, citations of Wikipedia should be minimal and/or for tangential things. Bongolian (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
2. I particularly dislike this wiki's occasional practice of substituting Wikipedia links for citations and that should be phased out. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

   Even some of our silver level articles have these links. For instance, climate change, reference 84. Are we going to promote it to bronze over this? Of course not, that would be silly. And me and DietMoridian will continue to improve it. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

   I think it might be considered on a case-by-case basis, but I do think that excessive referencing of other encyclopedias (WP, Britannica, etc.) should be discouraged. I think WP may have a policy on this (so-called tertiary references). Bongolian (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

   WP does allow them - Wikipedia:No original research § Tertiary, just not Wikipedia itself. Andrew5 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

   There is still one "citation needed" and two "better source needed", the latter of which I put in for citations to History.com. History.com might be OK in these instances, but I still think it should be removed due to its general unreliability as a source. Bongolian (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

   At this point in voting, my support isn't needed, but I think it's better to get these 3 things fixed before silvering. Bongolian (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

   Well, the page is currently fully protected, but let's see if @DietMondrian wants to fix it. Also, I'd argue that the vote is 4-2, not 5-2 to post, as I would tend to see Duce's vote disregarded as it was clearly casted in bad faith. Now, I'm not sure if 4-2 is enough to post, it is a supermajority, so we'll see. Andrew5 (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

   Not that it matters, but it's a legitimate vote. Bongolian (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

   Both of those History.com references could probably be removed. The one in the section on the Soviet-Afghanistan War basically repeats the section's main argument that the detente ended with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which I think is reasonable to conclude given what's described of the American reaction to the war. The text could stand on its own without it. Similar deal with the one about the Loss of China. As for the "citation needed", I have yet to even start looking for a source to fix it. DietMondrian (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

   OK, good.^{— Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs}

   ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Went through a different plan: still removed the History.com reference in the section about the Soviet-Afghanistan war, but I managed to find a couple sources to fix the "citation needed" and replace the History.com reference in the part about the Loss of China. So those three things are fixed now. DietMondrian (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Goat

Excessive reliance on Wikipedia sources

• I think there's an excessive reliance on Wikipedia for sources. Bongolian (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Ctrl+Fing "See the Wikipedia article on" returns 71 hits, exactly a fourth of the total references. That isn't good. Plutocow (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
    • It appears to have been reduced to 62 out of 289, which is just more then a fifth actually. It's improving. Andrew5 (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Besides the problems with the references, I believe this article should also include information about the potential upcoming cold war between the U.S. and China. Plutocow (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Not a bad point, considering we just had Ted Cruz literally calling for a Cold War. Maybe he thinks the Chinese Dragon is cold-blooded? CorruptUser 22:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• The reliance on Wikipedia references might mean we can't find them. I suppose most sentences like this should just be removed. That should still leave >200 references, though. -Andrew5 (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'd also like it better if we just ditched the "see wikipedia article" all together. It always came off as bloating the number of sources. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd say to cap it off at 15-20. Andrew5 (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Now done to 51 out of 310...progress (just under 1/6). Andrew5 (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• It's now down to 32 out of 308 (references dropped a little), making it be just over 10% of all references. Also, some Wikipedia references actually have a big punch behind them, and removing them isn't so simple, so we're honestly at a reasonable level. However, before I support this nomination, this article does still need a little cleanup besides the references, including adding new references (as there are some unsourced statements), and general content cleanup. But it's getting close, and is almost ready for a silver. Andrew5 (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Now down to 23 out of 312, appear to mainly be in the breakup section. Andrew5 (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  Good. I will lean towards demotion and have a read through. Bongolian (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Look, I get it okay? Nothing was good enough and it was all a waste.Just don’t bother 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 10:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• I really encourage everyone to re-look this article. It is down to six Wikipedia references, nowhere near an excessive reliance and similar to other silvers. Considering that was the primary reason for opposing, I think it is suitable for posting. Andrew5 (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Other tertiary sources

• I'm plowing through it. There are still quite a few tertiary references (Encyclopaedia Britannica and Thoughtco.), which are really not much different than WP citations. There is also at least one reference written by an undergrad: this should be fixed (marked with "[better source needed]"). Bongolian (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Goody goody. Hunkering down for improvement is a big plus here. You can do it! --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I would say, with 7 from Britannica and 6 from ThoughtCo, it's relatively good now. Andrew5 (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Potentially too many images

• BTW I think the image count is a bit excessive. Need to trim down the images so it looks more presentable. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, I removed 9 images from the article, but a lot of them should be kept given the topic. Andrew5 (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  Discuss this shit on a talkpage before doing it. IMO the image count isn't excessive. Images should be proportional to their subject. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  I would argue there is. Forty images is a lot, and proportional to reaable prose size (excluding notes and refs), it is 98,562 bytes of prose. That means every 2464.05 characters, there is an image, on average. Some sections have duplicate and general unnecessary images. Compare this to Global warming, as an example. It has 20 images (albeit an unhealthy amount of YouTube videos, IMO), to 83,133 bytes of prose. That's one image to ever 4156.65 words, which is less excessive. (This also excludes the tumbleweed, factor that in makes it ~3959 words to an image). This ratio needs to be cut down. Also, we should not be ignoring suggestions left on a RW:DEMOTE entry, let alone one that is close to failing. It's 3-3 and was open for 2 months with a lot of discussion, making it a prime case for a "no consensus" close, which would mean that if it ever were to be renominated, a sysop would need to move this demotion entry, and create a new one, or it would have to be discussed on the talk page. There are a little too many images, and we should cut down on it, or we should significantly expand each section with an unproportional image instead. Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, fuck off, buddy. This shit is part of why I fucking stopped contributing. Fucking too many images, eat my ass. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 15:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  That level of rudeness is unnecessary. Also, the article wasn't even a bronze at the level you reverted it to. I understand it's a massive effort to get this to silver, that it was nominated prematurely and that you don't want to help out but that doesn't give you the right to destroy the article. Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  You made very clear it was better without all the unprofessional images I foolishly added. Maybe I can cut the Churchill image out of the version I reverted it to? 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 15:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  These images are the ones I would argue are the most problematic:

  1. Cold_War#Parade_of_sovereignties has an image that is a TV screenshot. If you want an image, I would recommend this image instead as it does a better job depicting it. I tried to upload it, but it wouldn't let me.
  2. We don't need 4 images of the falling of the Iron Curtain. 3 is enough.
  3. Cold_War#Downfall_of_the_Eastern_Bloc has a low quality image.

  Remember, we want the reader to read the article, not just be hooked on the images. The article needs to be long and informative, and it needs to have a lot of images, but the images shouldn't be what you spend more time looking at like what happens when I read it. Also, thank you for expanding the article into a bronze, Duce. I don't think anyone credited that to you yet. Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  I don't have any problem with the images in this article, and I don't find them distracting from the article's text. Quite the opposite, actually. Some minor tweazing and tweaking could be done but I don't think mass deletion is appropriate or warranted. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  The problem is that RationalWiki probably has too many images per text in general. A few days ago, 1916 Texas hurricane was the featured article, which has only 5 images and is smaller, but not 1/8 of the size. If you look at Wikipedia as a whole, they are actually extremely careful at not bloating it with articles. Uncyclopedia - even fewer. So, I'm not saying this is not typical, I'm simply saying we probably need to revisit our image guidelines as a whole at a later time. Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The images were fine without removal. We shouldn't be making a quantified assessment of images like Andrew5 seems desirous of doing. The main issue is not to make them a distraction and keep the formatting reasonable. One image per section is reasonable when there's sufficient text format-wise. Galleries are fine as a supplement. Removing the 3 images for individual causes is probably OK. There are two values to having images on pages: 1) It makes breaks up long stretches of text and makes it a more pleasant read. 2) It attracts additional readers due to, for example, Google's image search feature. Bongolian (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I just think there's too many images that clutter up the page (and how the page displays on various resolutions is worth consideration), and you don't have to outright remove them but relocate to a gallery. I'm sorry if hostility was provoked here but yeesh Duce calm down too, stop taking this so personally. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

You’ve always thought I sucked, huh? I put images in everything I do. It’s always cluttered and unprofessional. Well I can just fuck off, huh? It all sucks huh? 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 19:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Duce always takes it personally when he gets shit on. He’s so childish. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 19:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Knock it off Duce. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Fuck Duce for adding images and having the temerity to defend himself. Let’s add four navbars to each article instead of cluttering it with images. Let’s drag Ace to the mods just for asking a question on someone’s talk page. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 20:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Duce, I don’t think anyone here likes your very agreesive tone. As far as the images are concerned, I actually feel in a way images are bad if they break up long things of text too frequently. It makes it so you’re not reading enough. I’m all for images but not ones placed in every single section. That would be like if Wikipedia showed a picture showing Ida’s destruction in Louisiana, alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Reflist adjusting

• I know it would be non-encyclopediac format, but maybe we can add an addition column to the reflist or further shrink the size due to the shear number of references. Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  It was done, changed to 3 columns and 75% size. Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  Now back at 80% size. Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it ready to be demoted?

It does appear there is narrow consensus to demote, and it would probably be appropriate to do so, given how the article was cleaned up significantly and to prevent a major dispute, as I do feel it is ready and has the required consensus. Andrew5 (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)