Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état/archive1

Ling's oppose

"I'm afraid I am not as willing as others to sweep dirt under the rug. Under no circumstances will I be supporting this nom, as it is an egregious case of disdain and disrespect for WP:5P."

I admit that I still haven't managed to give this FAC as much time as I would like. But Ling, such a declaration of "under no circumstances" does seem a little drastic, and perhaps melodramatic. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. :-)
• I teach college students. If they copy/paste, then I give 'em an F. How could I do otherwise here? FA noms are supposed to be held up to "professional standards", and my freshmen/sophomores etc. are teen-aged second-language learners in Taiwan whose lack of grammatical proficiency leads them to write sentences like "Today I was go to the town of [town's name]". Should I hold them to a higher standard than I do FAC nominees?
• I understand the instinct to hold hands and sing Kumbayah here. Really, I do. We all have to get along together. There's been too much vitriol etc., too many cliques, etc., as we can all see in various dispute resolution forums. So who will end up looking bad when this is over? It is perhaps more likely to be me (as per your comments) than others. But that's OK. I've made a conscious decision that I'm willing to take the rap in order to stand up for WP:5P. It's simply a value judgment. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Heya, Ling. My problem's with the "under no circumstances." I teach college students, too, as you know. And sometimes one or two of them do the equivalent of copying and pasting. But if and when they recognize that that's not the way to go, and start checking things out for themselves, they have as much chance of getting a good grade as the others. No need to write anyone off! That's not dropping any standards. Anyhow, just my 2c. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how this violates the 5P. Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 19:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So even if the sourcing concerns are all completely addressed (which they should be in the next few days, since I will also evaluate all the sources), you still won't support this nomination? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)

1. I've already pointed out substantial omissions. Substantial ones.

   Reiterate them to us, please. Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 22:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   Contradictory sources, missing details, NPOV and sourcing issues. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

2. I've also already shown conclusively that the facts weren't checked. The fact checking didn't take place. It never happened. By extension, we come to the concern: "Are there any other surprises here?"

   And the fact checking has taken place... Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 22:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   Well, it's still going on actually... Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

3. WP:5P obviously includes WP:V.

   And how does this violate WP:V?

   See Sandy's explanation on the FAC page. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Moral hazard. Get away with cutting corners and shoddy workmanship once; why do otherwise in the future? And that bodes extremely poorly for Wikipedia. If we have a culture of slapdash-gimme-the-gold-star editors/editing, then we end up with even FA being as shitty as Wikipedia's detractors say the whole encyclopedia is.

   How is this a moral hazard? Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 22:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   Failing to factcheck French sources wasn't intentional in any way. I did have that on my to-do list with FHB and M'ba, but I failed to tell this to EoTW before he had submitted this FAC. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Simple fairness; see the argument about my freshmen above.

   How does that at all relate to the article? Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 22:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

6. Could say more but my wife is calling me... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 22:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Renata's earlier oppose

Now that you all have the sources, I'm going to bring forward Renata's oppose from before the restart:

• Neutral leaning oppose - nice article, but should be expanded. The article completely skips a month between Jan 21 and Feb 17. What was opposition doing then? how did they won over the military? who planned the coup? Other questions that need answering: why students protested? why public did not support the coup? why M'ba quarreled with Aubame? was all military for the coup? Ref is needed in the lead that Gabon was politically stable (ref given later alludes that it was economically stable in West Africa). Shouldn't it have military conflict infobox? Renata (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • The article completely skips a month between Jan 21 and Feb 17. What was opposition doing then?
      • Who knows. It "announced its refusal to participate in elections that they did not consider fair." Not much more can be known about what they were doing, as the sources don't tell me. :) --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
        • What bothers me is that we have opposition refusing to run in the election then a month later military coup. Yet it says opposition was not involved. A key element is missing. Where's the connection? Why and how did the military get involved? The entire "planning & plotting" stage of the coup is missed. Renata (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Where does it say the opposition was not involved? Here's the plotting and planning: "On 17 February, Gabonese chief of staff, Albert Bernard (later Omar) Bongo, informed President M'ba of an abnormally high number of troops outside Libreville. M'ba, however, did not think much of these activities." There wasn'tt much. A bunch of guys from the opposition came into the presidential palace and arrested a bunch of guys there. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 15:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
            • It's not planning & plotting, it's execution. Plotting is things like: why did they decide to rebel? how did they gather forces? how did they acquire guns? how did they choose the date? how did they won support/ neutrality from other groups? what they were planning to do when in power? In this particular case, it is not so much what they did, but why, that matters . Renata (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
              • That M'ba was becoming a dictator. That has been alluded to quite often in the article. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 03:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • how did they won over the military?
      • They didn't. The miliatary, like the rest of Gabon, couldn't give a damn about a change in leadership. Not much changed other than that, as explained in the article. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
        • If the military did not give a damn, why did they organize the coup then? I see reasons for Aubame to organize the coup, but not for the military. Renata (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Some members of the military organized the coup as being a member of the opposition. Others couldn't give a damn and stayed in their barracks. Aubame probably did not organize the coup, as you see in the "Aftermath" section. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 15:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Military were members of opposition. That's a start. Any other reasons? Somehow "we don't think elections are fair" is not enough of a reason, especially for the military -- they are not running for anything. Renata (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Yes it is. This is Africa. When someone dosn't like something, they organize a coup. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 03:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
                • You don't want to address the concerns and improve the article, fine. My opinion stands: it is still missing a vital piece of info. Renata (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • There is no way I can help that the sources are lacking the info. Gabon is one of the most poorly covered nations on earth, and I was lucky I could dig this much up. This article, as hard as it may seem, is comprehensive. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 03:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
                    • I know about scanty sources. I deal with them daily. If you cannot find something does not mean it does not exist and the article is comprehensive. I have access to New York Times historical database. I collected 21 articles published in 1964 about the coup. If you want I could email them to you. I have no idea if they have any new info - I have not read them. Renata (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • who planned the coup?
      • "150 members of the Gabonese military, gendarmerie and police, headed by Lieutenant Jacques Mombo and Valére Essone" --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • was all military for the coup?
      • "members of the Gabonese military, gendarmerie and police" --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, it says 150 of them. I would think there were more soldiers and policemen in Gabon than that. Renata (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
          • The amount of soldiers and policemen in Gabon was small. As the article says later, the others mostly stayed in their barracks. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 16:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

None of these queries were resolved (I haven't checked if they have subsequently been addressed in the article): perhaps the new sources reveal responses. Since the translations were done by an online translator (wholly inadequate), how do you all plan to address translation concerns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Will look into it. Regarding the translations, as I mentioned before, I used online translators, dictionaries and the good people of #wikipedia-fr to obtain an accurate translation of the fr.wiki article. I discussed the translation of virtually every sentence with at least one French speaker. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still trying to get my hand on Matthews, which I think will help. Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 23:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing rationale

I will type up a closing rationale after I finish processing FAC tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The perseverance and the effort expended by Editorofthewiki, Nishkid64 and Ling.Nut towards improving the article is commendable.

Although much productive work has been underway in the last ten days and I had hoped that keeping the FAC open might be the best course forward, the issues were mounting and Support was decreasing. I now believe the best way forward for this article will be a new FAC once concerns have been addressed (and possibly reviewed in a Peer review, inviting previous Opposers). The FAC has been running for almost six weeks and was already restarted, almost three weeks ago; thus, another restart if issues could be addressed was out of the question.

Issues raised were serious (WP:WIAFA 1b, 1c and possibly 1d) and included:

• Sources. The original sources initially weren't consulted, most of them were in French, and Editorofthewiki stated that he doesn't read French. Text wasn't always supported by the sources, and additional sources surfaced that hadn't yet been consulted. Considering that editors now have access to the new and original sources, proper research to write a comprehensive article of featured caliber can now be conducted. Of greater concern is that a number of supporters didn't understand that Wikis aren't reliable sources, and an article translated from another Wiki without consulting the original sources does not meet WP:V.
• Translation. Several translation issues were raised; writing a featured article without being able to read most of the original source material is a greater challenge. The article was initially translated from the French wiki, using Google translator. I speak fluent Spanish, and ran several samples through Google translator and found that the results weren't usable for a quality article; they might provide an adequate start to fill in a redlinked stub or perhaps to raise a stub to a start-class article if I (as a fluent speaker) also consulted the sources to correct the errors introduced by Google translator, which are substantial.
• POV. Some of the discrepancies identified by Ling.Nut in his userspace analysis of the sources indicate the possibility that some POV may have crept in, either from the original article, from the translation or from the incomplete sources. It will take some time to analyze all of these issues, re-consulting the original and new sources.
• Comprehensive. Questions about the comprehensiveness of the article were raised early on; they continued to emerge as new and original sources were examined. Having access to all of the sources should be helpful in doing the level of research required in a featured article.

Of the initial Support declarations the candidacy had before concerns were raised, two were struck, one was switched to weak, one was from a significant contributor, and one was from a contributor who argued against WP:V policy on reliable sources. As additional concerns surfaced, it appeared less and less likely that the candidate would succeed during the FAC.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It really is. Ed and Nishkid have done some great work, and Ling's fixed a lot. —§unday {Q} 11:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)