RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/Archive 2025
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
January 2025[edit]
Technocracy | Result: Approved (6 to 1)[edit]
Proposal[edit]
- Well-referenced, well-written, missional, detailed without being too long and much different to what WP offers (if I don't say so myself), I think it's a decent example of what a RW main space should look like. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- So, it currently has no brainstar. You're proposing demotion to silver then? Bongolian (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- I fixed that. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- So, it currently has no brainstar. You're proposing demotion to silver then? Bongolian (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have any issue with the article's content and approve this proposal. I'm not quite sure that I like the massive use (overuse?) of single quotes instead of double quotes, though. At least the use is consistent. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Article is written in British English, and we use single quote marks as the primary. However, I know I have a tendency to over-quote things and so won't object if anyone does a quick tone-down. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- It's good. I wish it had more images though. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- I've quickly hunted Wikimedia and found poster-pics for the other three variants. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- I like it. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 23:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Antares (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- KaDaShOvA (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Status quo[edit]
- I've read through the whole article and I've done most of the cleanup work that it needed, but the lengthy Critique section is entirely missing citations. This should be fixed before the article gets demotion. Bongolian (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Main answer: there isn't that many and the ones which there were are not the sorts which are easily ref-able; the section is a synthesis of an article on the Boston Review (that I linked below) as well as The Trouble with Technocracy, https://Foreign Policy and Radicalxchange.org (which I didn't). As well as both mainstream sources (like Investopedia) which I felt would be an insult to the intelligence to cite.
- I will also point out there are other Silver articles where there's gobs of text with zero refs; for example libertarianism. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- What makes these references difficult to ref? ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 00:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Well for starters, I'd be reffing the same article over a dozen times. Secondly, some of the conclusions are a synthesis of two or more sources where I ended up weighing up their arguments. Thirdly (and most controversial) is that the 'Critique' section is veering closeish to being deemed as original research as I took my own knowledge of the subject-matter (including my studies of New Deal etc back at school) to provide a précis of the most common criticisms/problems. Lastly, the critique section is 'opinion' by everyone involved rather than actual evidence or facts and the points made don't suddenly stronger by a few refs.
- In this case, I feel perhaps the best way to solve this issue would be to add a few more well-written critique links to the 'external links' section at the bottom. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's important to note that RationalWiki allows for original research, so I do agree it isn't that big of a deal when combined with your other points about it being a mostly opiniated section. Though I've also seen sources being repeated before in many RW and WP articles, so I don't think the first point is much of a problem. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 01:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- I also explicitly say at the start of that section that below was subjective; though I suppose this Miranda Warning can be made more explicit. As for reffing - while you are right the idea mildly annoys the pedant within me because the arguments made shouldn't instantly become more credible because another essay said similar. I did toy with the idea with reffing the evidence behind the points but they are mainly so bloody obvious I thought they weren't needed to be reffed - like pointing out 'private companies are not democracies' and 'whatever system you have, someone somewhere will have to make subjective decisions'. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Apart from citing in text, if you want to clarify what the writing is derived from or how you've connected the dots in original research, you could add the citations inside one or more little notes you write to explain how the sources relate to the whole. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's not unreasonable to cite a single article multiple times (as has been done elsewhere) as can be done with the "name=" option in the ref command. I agree something like a footnote about the synthesis with an important citation or two would do the trick (citations can be embedded in the efn template, so I have changed the ref notes to efn for consistency if you decide to go that route). Bongolian (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've been a bit snowed under by RL for a bit. I'll see what I can do to improve [either directly or indirectly] the refs of the Critique section. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's not unreasonable to cite a single article multiple times (as has been done elsewhere) as can be done with the "name=" option in the ref command. I agree something like a footnote about the synthesis with an important citation or two would do the trick (citations can be embedded in the efn template, so I have changed the ref notes to efn for consistency if you decide to go that route). Bongolian (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Apart from citing in text, if you want to clarify what the writing is derived from or how you've connected the dots in original research, you could add the citations inside one or more little notes you write to explain how the sources relate to the whole. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- I also explicitly say at the start of that section that below was subjective; though I suppose this Miranda Warning can be made more explicit. As for reffing - while you are right the idea mildly annoys the pedant within me because the arguments made shouldn't instantly become more credible because another essay said similar. I did toy with the idea with reffing the evidence behind the points but they are mainly so bloody obvious I thought they weren't needed to be reffed - like pointing out 'private companies are not democracies' and 'whatever system you have, someone somewhere will have to make subjective decisions'. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's important to note that RationalWiki allows for original research, so I do agree it isn't that big of a deal when combined with your other points about it being a mostly opiniated section. Though I've also seen sources being repeated before in many RW and WP articles, so I don't think the first point is much of a problem. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 01:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- What makes these references difficult to ref? ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 00:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Goat[edit]
- Something got borked and this demotion proposal does not appear on the list of articles for demotion page (RationalWiki:Articles_for_demotion). Bongolian (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- I suspect the issue lies between my monitor and seat. I tried but it just didn't seem to work out right... KarmaPolice (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
2020 United States presidential election | Result: Silver won the election[edit]
Proposal[edit]
- This topic is a major historical event that is both highly missional for various reasons and highly relevant due to Trump's 2024 victory. Immigrants in cages, botching pandemic responses, election denialism, fake electors, storming the Capitol, the ghost of Hugo Chavez, all covered in detail and extensively cited. What else could you ask for?
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 15:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 15:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - Yes, make it so. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given how bad we've historically been at covering "live events", this page stands out to prove that it can be done. Let's promote it. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Status quo[edit]
Goat[edit]
Nick Fuentes | Result: Silver[edit]
Demote to silver[edit]
- I have read and edited the whole page. It is detailed with complete references, so I think it is ready for silver. Bongolian (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Missional and looks pretty good.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 15:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - Ready for demotion. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Status quo[edit]
Goat[edit]
Stormfront | Result: Status quo[edit]
Proposal[edit]
- The Issues have been fixed mostly. Aethieizt (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ironhearts (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Status quo[edit]
- The page has been barely edited since the last vote closed, so I don't see how the problems are "fixed". Plutocow (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Carthage (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 15:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Goat[edit]
Mormonism | Result: Promote to bronze[edit]
Promote to bronze or no star[edit]
- As it stands, this article contains too many unsourced statements, and some grammatical errors that, in my opinion, disqualify it for its current status. Carthage (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Despite someone going through the article and inserting way too many "citation needed" templates (holy crap, look at the missionary section), it's a no-brainer to promote this one back to bronze. It needs some work. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- References need cleanup: too many Wikipedia references and too many bare links. Bongolian (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't even think we need a vote for this. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 04:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Status quo[edit]
Goat[edit]
September 2025[edit]
Fascism | Result: Silver (5 in favor, none against)[edit]
Proposal[edit]
- I have gone through the whole page, fixing and adding citations. This was the sticking point in the previous AfD in 2024. The page should be good to go for silver or even gold I think. Bongolian (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's at least silver quality. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'll say "silver."-Flandres (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'd say silver too. The article is pretty well formatted, citations are good, uses its images to demonstrate is points as should be for a silver in RW:SILVER. Could probably use another historical example in the "definition" table, but that's about my only criticism after reading through it. PLMMJ (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- It qualifies for silver easily. The images are distributed unevenly and it probably needs some more writing clean up, but that's pretty much it.
– Regards, Avarice 03:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Status quo[edit]
Goat[edit]
- I personally think section 7 (variants/ideologies) is too thick for an overview page. I also think the part on 'fascist economics' is mainly material which should be in corporatism instead (which I plan to sort out at some point). KarmaPolice (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)