RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/Archive 2024

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

May 2024[edit]

Fascism | Result: Status quo[edit]

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

Silver[edit]

  1. So this Topic is Pretty important it describes fascism very well. I have removed all bare HTTP links I could find Reichtangle (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. I think the article is well-referenced with high quality writing, as well as a topic that's obviously very relevant to RW's mission. I fully support this article's promotion to silver. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 04:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  3. Terrikotaarmy (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Status quo[edit]

  1. Contains sections without citations. Carthage (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    I've inserted some markers for places where the page would benefit from citations ({{More sources}} and {{cn}}). Bongolian (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    Added sources to sections that were lacking ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. Attention needed to provide citations for some claims, or else remove them. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. Just holding a vote here so that this doesn't get a majority until the citation issues are fixed. If that happens, I'll remove my objection. Plutocow (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

George Orwell | Result: Demoted to Silver[edit]

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

Proposal[edit]

  1. Requested by KarmaPolicecosmikdebris talk stalk 23:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. My reasoning; the Bronze was awarded for an article which effectively no longer exists [I'd guess I reused about 10% of the main text and perhaps at best 50% of the ref links]. It is only fair that it gets re-rated. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  3. ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  4. Bongolian (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  5. Terrikotaarmy (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
    I am a little confused - are the three votes in this section a vote for it to become silver or to become non-starred? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Status quo[edit]

  1. The article is in very good shape but needs some cleanup. Most references are bare naked URLs and must be properly formatted. Inline wikipedia references should be enclosed using the wpa tag. And it could use some more images. Then, I think it might be ready for silver. I have no objection to maintaining the bronze assignment. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, me sucks at little things like that. I tried to do 'right' WP links in the 'See Also' bit but kinda crapped it up and then ran out of time. I couldn't really find any images for this page which would actually add anything to the article, though was personally tempted to put in Orwell's pic c1925 in which he's sporting a 'Hitler' 'tashe. I personally feel it's a solid Bronze right now. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  3. There were a few typos I noticed. Carthage (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'm currently halfway between migrating PCs, this is the old one and my spellchecker plugin recently stopped working. Though you got a 'false positive' with 'libellous'; it's correct in British English [which is used for the whole article]. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    There's been considerable cleanup of the page since the nomination, including of references. It's worth a reevaluation on this basis.Bongolian (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Yep; the goat's complaints have been satisfied, mainly down to the work of Rairyu75. Barring better refs [ie archive.is screengrabs of stuff behind paywalls] and/or some major new Orwell biog I think this page is now 'as good as it is gonna get'. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. The content of the article is indeed good enough for silver, but some references are still bare links. That's my only complaint. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. The article is definitely silver-quality, but the matter of reference cleanup is one that's considerably too important to be ignored. I'd be more than happy to throw my vote in for this page's demotion when that matter is resolved, though! Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 08:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


April 2024[edit]

Coffee | Result: Silver[edit]

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

Promote to silver[edit]

  1. This is a thorough review of coffee within the scope of RW's mission. Bongolian (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Most definitely within the mission and silver criteria. Justarandomliberal (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. Carthage (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 05:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Status quo[edit]

  1. I wonder if there would be some way to strike a balance in tone between the current version and the Fun version. The Fun one is bit too chaotic and this one a bit too dry (for my tastes anyway, I understand that many others don't feel the same as I do, and that's okay). The references at a quick glance are fantastic, a good mix of academic papers, historical sources and mainstream news articles, but it needs that bit of silliness to make it more digestible if it's going in the shop front. For me it's on the higher end of Bronze, just a smidgen short of Silver. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 09:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    So, you've never tasted the exquisite flavour of Dry Coffee??? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Rather short article, no? And how essential is coffee to our mission, beyond keeping us up at night? CorruptUser 07:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not confident enough to comment on essentiality, but something can be concise and still be exhaustive, yes? Carthage (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. @Bongolian and @Cosmikdebris I have been toying with the idea of making a "Bar Sign" that could be stuck in the Saloon Bar, a dynamic counter that would display the number of articles nominated for deletion and demotion. I only caught this one because I have the day off work and I have my tent pitched up in Recent changes, but perhaps we could get more community feedback if the patrons of the Saloon Bar were invited here. Whaddaya all think? Or maybe we can add the "Useful Links" template that's on top of Recent changes to the top of the Saloon Bar? I know not everyone likes to edit but asking them to read and offer feedback would be no skin off their back, surely? - Rairyu75 (Talk) 09:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    Something to get more attention might be good. Bongolian (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    @Rairyu75, here you have how to make such counters. You could try making it look better in the Saloon Bar. It's not a bad idea to sneak it in. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Carnivore diet | Result: Demoted to Silver[edit]

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

Promote to silver[edit]

  1. I finished cleanup of the page. It's well-sourced, with a reasonable number of images. Tip o' the hat to @Johns for doing a lot of work on the diet pages, including this one. Bongolian (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  2. Well-written and referenced. Justarandomliberal (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. The fact that it's concise is a big mark in its favour as far as I'm concerned. Let's silver it! - Rairyu75 (Talk) 00:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Status quo[edit]

  1. Well cited, but kinda short. CorruptUser 07:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Nudity | Result: Silver[edit]

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

Promote to silver[edit]

  1. Trying to demote again. The November attempt did not pass, mainly because the primary author, WriterArtistDC, did not want demotion because of not being finished with the project. WriterArtistDC would seem to have abandoned the article. The major changes that I've made since then are:
    • The addition of the sex section (Nudity#Do ya think I'm sexy?)
    • The addition an important section on German nudism (Nudity#Naturism in Germany). It's important because German nudism was the progenitor of modern nudism, and because it includes discussion of the alternative medicine (particularly homeopathy) aspects of nudity in Germany and discussion of the eugenic/fascistic elements of German nudism. The alt-med and eugenic aspects appear to be not discussed at all on Wikipedia (NaturismWikipedia and FreikörperkulturWikipedia) and the fascistic elements only get discussed on the German nudist page (Freikörperkultur). Bongolian (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Yes!!! I fully and enthusiastically support demotion to silver now. Spud (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. --Goatspeed. Watch meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 22:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. Article seems quite okay to me. Justarandomliberal (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. It's missional, well-cited, etc etc. I don't think it'd be controversial for this to be a gold article at some point. So yeah, I support nudity. CorruptUser 06:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Status quo[edit]

  1. I would like to preface this no vote with a clarification of intentions: I am NOT trying to insult anyone who likes this article, nor the editors who very clearly put a lot of work into it. My disagreement comes not form a place of contrarianism and malice, but rather a desire to offer honest feedback on this piece in particular and also the need to voice my opinion on the topic of RationalWiki articles in general. So if at any time during this wall of text you feel like I have insulted you, please forgive me; it was not what I set out to do.

For me this article does not meet the criteria of (what I personally envision) a silver article due to the following qualities:

  • Length of article and density of the information presented: I'm not so lacking in self awareness that I don't see the irony in me, of all people, complaining about verbosity. As you can see from the length of this no vote, I'm pretty verbose. I would never say in two words what I could say in ten. Perhaps @Spud recalls that my first ever interaction with the mob was a giant wall of text. So perhaps you might think this very hypocritical of me, but I'll go ahead and say it anyway: This article is really long and dense. EYE-WATERINGLY so. When I saw that this was nominated for silver I was thinking "Well, this must be a good read so!" It's soooooooo long. The act of wading through it was like a slog through a bog:
The technology for making clothes evolved slowly, having originated for other purposes. Animal skins and woven mats used for sleeping became decorative when draped on the body, but might not cover the genitals.[20] Complex, fitted clothing needed to survive in cold climates required the invention of fine stone knives for cutting animal skins into specific shapes, and the eyed needle for sewing. Evidence has been found that this was done by Cro-Magnons in Europe around 35,000 years ago.[21]

Okay? Cool? I didn't really want to read about that when I clicked on an article about nudity, but fine...

Between private and public spaces, there are activities where complete or partial nudity may be the norm. Places for these activities often limit access based upon age, gender, or other social characteristics, but generally include others who are not known, so behavior depends upon shared norms rather than prior relationships. Many of these spaces are facilities for athletics or hygiene; changing rooms, sports locker rooms and showers, steam rooms and saunas. However, communal nudity has served purely social functions as well.

Yeah, thanks Captain Obvious, I really...

Pudor published Nackende Menschen: Jauchzen der Zukunft in 1893[97] and Nackt-Kultur in 1906[98] (the title translates as "Naked Culture", but is often mistranslated as "The Cult of the Nude"). From 1912 onward, Pudor exclusively published his own antisemitic writings, starting with his Deutschland für die Deutschen! Vorarbeiten zu Gesetzen gegen die jüdische Ansiedlung in Deutschland ("Germany for the Germans! Preparatory work on laws against Jewish settlement in Germany") in 1912.[99]

Okay, okay, I get it! Jeez. It was at this point that I was seriously considering not finishing the article, but I don't vote on articles I haven't read, so I soldiered on. And I don't think reading our articles should feel like a chore to people. If this is going in the shop front, it should be digestible. This article (for me, at least) outstays it's welcome.

  • It's incredibly dry and academic: I was waiting for a joke. Just ONE, just a single, fleeting of moment of happiness while reading this thing. It didn't arrive until three quarters of the way through:
In 1942, Surén was expelled from the Nazi Party for public masturbation.[111]:161

That's f@cking funny as shit! "Good stuff" I thought "we're picking up now. More giggles along the way." Alas, the drought continued.

In film, simulated nudity appeared as early as 1897 in Georges Méliès' Après le Bal.[123] The first erotic film with nudity appeared in 1899 with Albert Kirchner's Le Coucher de la Mariée.[124] Is Your Daughter Safe? (1927) was the first exploitation film with nudity,[125] and nude photographer Albert Arthur Allen directed the forerunner of the "nudie-cutie" film with his 1927 Forbidden Daughters.[126] By 1934, the Hays Code effectively eliminated nudity in films produced by Hollywood studios until 1968, but non-Hollywood films with nudity continued to be produced. Dziga Vertov's groundbreaking 1929 film Man with a Movie Camera featured the first film showing naturism (non-erotic).[127]

I feel like if our readers wanted stuff like this, they could go and get it over at Wikipedia. Or the "International Journal of Film Studies" (I made that up) where the humourless scholars of avant-garde early 20th century French cinema DROP THEIR MONOCLES IN SHOCK the moment someone briefly flashes a smile. I fell in love with this place when I saw this:

It's as if Inigo Montoya woke up in Coruscant.

The moment I realised there existed a place where I could learn something interesting AND have a good time. A place that din't take itself too seriously. This article on nudity is run of the mill. It lacks chaos. Nonsense. The type of qualities the connoisseur of an internet shit post looks for. We reel them in with our jokes and BAM, you learned something by accident, motherf@cka. You're welcome. Why would anyone who likes our website like this article? Who is this aimed at?

So, in summary, for this article to be a silver for me it needs to a) shorter and more digestible and b) funnier. A lot funnier. When I read "Although there is no consensus on a definition of behavioral modernity, four sets of behaviors are included; abstract thinking, planning in depth, innovativeness, and symbolic representation." I was like, wait, did I write this? This is the kind of boring, overly long crap that I inflict on the mainspace, and nothing I have ever written is even close to being bronze, never mind silver. I see my style of overly formal writing in this article and it turns me off big time.

Arrivederci. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 19:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The Rutland Dirty Weekend Book
There was another nugget on German nudist misdeeds that I left out. At one point, Koch got into trouble for teaching a roomful of naked girls behind closed doors. It wasn't clear what exactly was alleged, and he was never indicted on anything. Perhaps you were looking for The Rutland Dirty Weekend Book in this article? Seriously, though if you think there are non-missional bits that could be removed or shortened, then have at it. Bongolian (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@Bongolian I serve the will of the mob. If others think it's good like this, then let it be so. Yeehaw! - Rairyu75 (Talk) 03:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The casual reader does not need to read the whole page, that's what the table of contents is for. Regarding your statement, "I feel like if our readers wanted stuff like this, they could go and get it over at Wikipedia." That's amusing because the person who wrote most of the article as it is now, the dry stuff, also wrote the the bulk of the two Wikipedia pages! Bongolian (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Silver-level articles are also meant to be expansive. If you don't like the tone of vital context, don't unilaterally delete it! Add goat. Carthage (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

March 2024[edit]

Cannabis | Result: Demoted to silver[edit]

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

Promote to silver[edit]

  1. Thorough, well-referenced, sufficient images. Bongolian (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  2. I'm in favor of this demotion proposal. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 04:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  3. Sure. Justarandomliberal (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Agreed. Spud (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Demote!CorruptUser 07:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Status quo[edit]

Goat[edit]

Ben Carson | Result: Silver[edit]

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

Promote to silver[edit]

  1. This article is very well-written, with nearly 80 sources to back up its various quotes and claims, is well-loaded with all the appropriate categories, and uses its images in an appropriate (and humorous) manner. Although not as lengthy as the average silver-rank article, it is incredibly relevant to RationalWiki's mission and is overall more than good enough to qualify for the status, as I see it. Postuhenin (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. OK now. I spent a fair amount of work cleaning the article up. Bongolian (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  3. It's clean, well written, and referenced. Why not? Justarandomliberal (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. I'd say he earned that silver CorruptUser 07:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Status quo[edit]

  1. If the references were cleaned up, I would say yes, but... —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, needs reference cleanup. Bongolian (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC) The article contained at least three multiple dead links, so that showed that it was insufficiently critically-reviewed before nomination. Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Cosmikdebris, should be fixed now. Bongolian (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

February 2024[edit]

The BMJ | Result: Silver (6 for, 0 against)[edit]

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

Promote to silver[edit]

  1. The article is thorough, with lots of information not in the main WP BMJ article. I've cleaned citations and whatever else needed work. Two additional images added. Bongolian (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. Checks out. Carthage (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. Looks like a well-researched, well-written article with a lot of sources and just the right amount of humor! Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 03:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. Ag --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 23:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  5. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  6. I like it. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Status quo[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. Maybe. As a note, though, I'd like a more substantial criticism of the trans article(s) at some point (if desirable). It's kind of biting around the edges at the moment, which is fine but could possibly be improved. Although, Block's citation choice at least was at times pretty bad, so. Another note for the future: needs mention of the BMJ's role in promoting the COVID lab leak theory. But that's a quite controversial issue and I would want to bring the goods (proofs against it), possibly on a separate page dedicated to that whole topic before bringing it to this article. Chillpilled (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024[edit]

Nazi analogies | Result: Ag[edit]

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

Proposal[edit]

  1. Proposing to demote to Silver. It's thoroughly cited, with sufficient images. I tried to address @AMassiveGay's complaint (Talk:Nazi analogies#evil nazi things) about the Nazi analogies#Evil Nazi things section by mostly rewriting it with quotes and citations for all entries that are still present. Bongolian (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 01:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
  5. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my latest prototypes 01:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Status quo[edit]

Goat[edit]

Joshua Wong | Result: Draftspace[edit]

Draftspace[edit]

  1. A more appropriate handling of the topic is needed; current incarnation was likely written by a drive-by COI pinkie. --Goatspeed. Watch meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my latest prototypes 23:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. The only reason I didn't do this myself is because I'm already trying to kill two other articles.GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Status quo[edit]

Goat[edit]

Racism | Result: Promoted to no brainstar[edit]

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

Promotion to no brainstar[edit]

  1. The text of this article includes several questionable propositions (including citing just-so stories without critical examination, and uncritical promotion of Jared Diamond's work despite the numerous issues that have been raised up by academic reviews of his corpus of material), entire paragraphs without citations, and definitional issues that have been raised on the talk page. The article also glosses over the effects of neocolonialism (to say that "only Africa" is affected by neocolonialism is... questionable to say the least.) Entire areas of the globe also remain not just subject to neocolonialism, but classical colonial domination (Puerto Rico has been characterized as a colonial client-state of the American imperial heartland by numerous academic and even governmental reviews, for instance.) Carthage (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
    RationalWiki has confusingly reversed the meanings of promotion/demotion for the purposes of article ratings (I've been confused by this myself), so you're actually proposing a promotion in RW-speak. Also, we generally don't require a vote for bronzing/debronzing, only for silver and gold. Bongolian (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
    This article is contentious and of prime importance to the mission, so I thought I should get a consensus first. Carthage (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Status quo[edit]

Goat[edit]