Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Thelema/1

Thelema

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Procedural close. Content dispute with no associated stability/coverage issues. Geometry guy 19:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put forward that the Thelema article be reassessed for its GA status. Under Wikipedia's own criteria the Thelema article is unlikely to be factually accurate for a very long time due to the subjective nature of Thelema and the contradictions it presents. Also some of the sub section articles are poorly written and just create more confusion. I have put forward the motion that a clean up is needed, but this has been met with resistance. A neutral second opinion is needed. Thanks.--Redblossom (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I propose that this nomination be declined. The article is supported by reliable sources. The problem that Redblossom has with the article is entirely subjective. He or she simply has a narrower view of Thelema than that of the broader Thelemic population. One of the guidelines on Wikipedia is to present a broad rather than sectarian view of a topic. In addition, while this user opposes some of the cited views presented in the article, s/he has not bothered to provide any reliable sources support his or her views, or proposed the addition of material documenting these views. If the user is simply unable to support their position with reliable sources which allow the addition of his/her views to the article, then this action is simply an abuse of Wikipedia processes. Will in China (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree: this is primarily a content dispute, and a GAR will not help to resolve it. The issue seems to be a misunderstanding of the meaning of "factually accurate": it does not mean that the article tells The Truth^TM, but that it reports and attributes accurately what reliable sources say. I would urge Will in China to assume good faith, and try to reach compromise. For instance, although it he is correct that articles should present a broad view of a topic, different viewpoints should be given due weight: thus if one particular variant of Thelema is more significant, then that viewpoint needs to be given more weight.

Regarding GA issues, I noticed some sections containing points of opinion and analysis which are not cited, and have tagged them with comments in my edit summaries. These need to be cleaned up. If this is done, then I will close this GAR, unless disinterested editors believe that a GAR would be worthwhile here. Geometry guy 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, due to the nature of Thelema, it is the broad view which is actually more common, while various "orthodox" views are held by small but vocal elements of the population. Some of the assertions that Redblossom has been making are to me quite dubious...that is, I've not seen the positions s/he takes in any of the literature. That's why I've requested sources. Unless the positions are documented somewhere, how could they be added? Will in China (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. I hope you can clean up that remaining section. Geometry guy 19:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Geometry guy's assessment. Content disputes are better ~~fought~~ negotiated out on the article talk page. Unless there is a serious coverage issue, which I don't believe is what's being claimed, this doesn't really fall into GAR's turf. I believe it's already been mentioned on the article talk page, but disagreements regarding content are often a function of the article prose - all major viewpoints should be represented, and if there are differences of opinion in reliable sources, these differences should be reported as such, with appropriate weight, in the article. EyeSerene^talk 16:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]