Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Robert Walpole

Robert Walpole

Article is no longer a featured article.

"Angered by his political attacks, the Tories sought to ruin and discredit him along with the Duke of Marlborough. In 1712, they alleged that he had been guilty of corruption as Secretary at War; these charges, however, stemmed from political hatred rather than fact. Walpole was impeached by the House of Commons and found guilty by the overwhelmingly Tory House of Lords; he was then imprisoned in the Tower of London for six months and expelled from Parliament. The move, however, backfired against the Tories, as Walpole was perceived by the public as the victim of an unjust trial. His own constituency even re-elected him in 1713, despite his earlier expulsion from the House of Commons. Walpole developed an intense hatred for Robert Harley (by then Earl of Oxford and Mortimer) and Henry St John (by then Viscount Bolingbroke), the Tories who had engineered his impeachment." (from article: Robert Walpole)

I believe this article violates 2d in this paragraph and several others. Moreover, there's quite a lot of material that needs to be cited (e.g. "William Pulteney (a capable Whig statesman who felt snubbed when Walpole failed to include him in the Cabinet)"], among other less-than-objective statements about Walpole's opposition. If I had the time and knowledge to verify or edit all of this to make it appropriate, I would, but as it is I'll just have to point out its failings. It's a good article in that it contains a lot of information, but it does smack of poorly-supported POV. Fearwig 20:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove nomination Have these issues been taken to the talk page before nominating here? Joelito (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look on the talk page. (Yes.) If you think it needs to be there longer (than 4/29), feel free to remove the nomination. But I think it's warranted, especially given the scarcity of activity on the Walpole talk page. Fearwig 03:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid nomination. Here's the entry on the article talk page, under the heading 'Corruption charges', that the nominator is referring to:

Is the author who wrote so unconvincingly of Walpole's innocence in the corruption scandal going to support that with some kind of reference, or are we supposed to take it as a given? This is a horribly biased article, in tone. I can scarcely believe it's "featured" with unprofessional language like that. It comes off as hero worship, not history. It would be wise to cite some secondary sources with that information and to flesh it out with a balancing opinion, especially as Tory-Whig factional tensions are as tight among modern historians as they were among 18th-Century politicians. Fearwig 04:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC

IMV, this counts as part of normal discussion on a talk page, and does not represent . Contrast this with the nominator's text above, in which he clearly, plainly states that the article violates 2d, and mentions other 'failings'. That paragraph is what was required on 20 April on the talk page, not the more loosely conceived and (forgive me) intemperate language that did appear. Tony 04:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More than fair. I agree that the original language was... ill-conceived. But I think that it is as good to have this discussion brought to light via the removal nomination as to wait (perhaps to no end) for someone to respond to the same statements in the talk page. If there is a problem with the article, there is a problem with the article. Whether or not it was expressly made clear in the original statement that I think it is unfit for "featured article" status (which I really did, though without pointing to the POV problem as "2d") it is a very biased article with no reason to be held up as an example to other editors. I appreciate the purpose of this process, but there is a point at which it becomes more bureaucratic than useful. Fearwig 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

remove article is not npov Zzzzz 18:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not NPOV. Frankly, I've been rather surprised by its continuing in its present state, and I never knew it was an FA. The authors probably fell for the propaganda that dominates the easy sources on Walpole. The standard view is still dominated by Macaulay's Whig History, and there was nothing NPOV in his history. Being a student of the Tories, I'm no fan of Walpole's, which is one reason why I haven't worked on the article. Geogre 03:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove: I thought it was Lord Emmsworth. Now that I'm sure of it, I will go ahead and move for removal. He's gone dormant, so the talk page business is kind of off point in this case. We can put any number of forms there: he's not here. Again, he did good work in his way, and it's so common for an 18th c. historian to see the Macaulay version of history that it's not even worth rising from one's chair. Virtually any book you could look at before 1980 had the same "Walpole the Wise developed all things good and modern, while the pettifogging Tories were each individually insane, immoral, or in pay to Satan." You just couldn't find neutral sources, or sources that weren't so reliant on those biased sources that they could get NPOV. The matter is very slowly getting redressed, and no doubt Emmsworth used very respectable books. Geogre 11:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, agree with Geogre, who as always is quite perceptive about these things. Regarding the talk page business, this problem has been brought up on the talk page with no response and frankly I don't anticipate one, as Lord Emsworth has not been contributing for the past couple months. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]