Wikipedia:Featured article review/Manuel I Komnenos/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 18:16, 25 January 2008.

---

Manuel I Komnenos

previous FAR

The nominated article fails to satisfy the following criteria:

1. "(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge."

The article omits fundamental modern academic references and authors on the subject, most notably G. Ostrogorsky, R. Jenkins, A. Cameron, A. Laiou, W. Treadgold, T. Gregory, C. Mango's "Byzantium: The Empire of the New Rome" etc.

Attempts by other readers to replace historic but antiquated sources such as Gibbon and Paparrigopoulos by more modern sources have been inexplicably resisted. It is undeniable that Gibbon and Paparrigopoulos are extremely important for History: the former was one of the first historians to base his work on primary sources and the latter was a pioneer in the study of the history of the Greek Nation from Antiquity down to the 19th century. However, they wrote in the 18th and the 19th century respectively and, obviously there has been a huge amount of work done on the subject since then. In particular, many of the prejudices that strongly manifest themselves in their work have been overcome during the last several decades (Gibbon's anti-religious and anti-"oriental" fervor has famously compromised his interpretation of Byzantium and Paparrigopoulos's narrative is often driven by his Greek patriotism.)

This does not mean that the work of either of them or the other older authors quoted in the article is worthless but rather that their contributions that have stood the test of test are included in works by modern authors. It is odd to base a Wikipedia article on 18th and 19th century authors rather than on modern scholarship which anyways mentions those conclusions of the older authors that haven't been discredited.

2. "(d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias."

As mentioned above, the article relies disproportionately on classical references to the expense of modern scholarship that has in the meantime superseded older works. As a result, the prejudices of the older works about Byzantium feature prominently in the article although they are now largely discredited. That would not be a problem if these views were juxtaposed with modern scientific opinion. This is not done in the article in its current form. On the contrary, the old prejudices are given as facts and characteristically, a typical Gibbon citation is enclosed in a box! Today citations such as those are given only in reference to Gibbon himself to illustrate his prejudiced view of Byzantium and not in reference to specific aspects of Byzantine history, especially since their factual content is anyways limited.

Again, attempts to edit the article (by at least removing the box mentioned above) so that presents views fairly and without bias have failed.

3. "(e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day."

There have recently been "edit wars" related, among other things, to the points made above.

In my opinion, if the above three points are addressed, the Feature Article status can be maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12gh34 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns would be taken more seriously if you did not use multiple accounts. Please choose one of them and stick to it. DrKiernan (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My responses to the 3 points above:

1. The article uses a series of reliable sources (more than 50), so the argument about Gibbon and Paparrigopoulos does not stand. From the 87 citations of the article, only 7 rely on Gibbon or Paparrigopoulos. So, even if we accept that there are better sources, the article remains as a whole adequately referenced and cited according to criterion 1 (c). To the contrary, the changes that the nominator here tried to introduce tended to undermine criterion 1 (c), since he insisted on removing the citations he did not like and add his own without mentioning particular pages, something repeatedly condemned in WP:FAC. When he proposed a compromise to keep both his sources and mine, I accepted, but I insisted on one term: his sources should be in accord to the article's FA status; therefore, pages should be included. Unfortunately, the nominator failed to do that. And a final note: Yes, G. Ostrogorsky, R. Jenkins, A. Cameron, W. Treadgold, T. Gregory, C. Mango may not be here, but why the nominator conceals the fact that the article uses modern sources, such as Magdalino, Birkenmeier, Angold etc., namely the standard sources for the Komnenian period? Even from this point of view, the article is in accord with criterion 1 (c). And I would also ask the nominator to be a bit more careful and accurate, when he speaks about the sources. For instance, he says that Laiou is missing, but he fails to mention that works edited by Laiou are there (e.g. "Jeffreys, Elizabeth; Jeffreys Michael (2001). "The "Wild Beast from the West": Immediate Literary Reactions in Byzantium to the Second Crusade", The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World edited by Angeliki E. Laiou and Roy Parviz Mottahedeh").
2. The argument for violation of criterion 1(d) is based on the mere fact of the existence of the Gibbon box! Even if we accept that the box is POV, this is obviously not enough, in order to support such a claim by the nominator, who fails to provide further reasons supporting his weak POV argument. An article should be examined again as a whole and a box out of the main text is definitely not enough in order to stigmatize a FA article as POV. Now let's speak about the box itself: The box constitutes part of a whole section, so it cannot be examined separated from it. The second paragraph of the section analyzes Manuel's contradictions: his pros and cons. And to this direction works also Gibbon's box, which I strongly believe that it is not POV. Gibbon's style is vivid, exciting and adds a lot to the section and to the article as a whole. And when he says that "The most singular feature in the character of Manuel is the contrast and vicissitude of labour and sloth, of hardiness and effeminacy", he makes a very interesting remark. We should we lose that? Wouldn't the article be poorer without such exciting and witty comments by prominent scholars? Probably, the nominator wishes just an hymnology of Manuel. I am also an admirer of this emperor, but, when you admire somebody, you should have the guts to point out his possible wrong-doings and any negative assessments. That is what I did since my first FA (Pericles), and that is what I did re-writing Manuel. The nominator accused me once of trying to discredit Byzantium and Manuel! How wrong and unfair he is! Yes, this is an unfair comment about the editor who strove to keep FA three article of this period: Byzantine empire, Manuel, and Treaty of Devol. To close, I believe that the argument according to which because of the box the whole article is POV does not stand, and IMO the article gets poorer without this box, without Gibbon and his comments. Of course, if the reviewers here have a different opinion, and support the removal of the box and the complete eradication of Gibbon, I'll respect that and I'll follow their advice, but I'll still believe that they are wrong.
3. It is strange the person who participates in an edit war to uses this edit war as an argument to disqualify a FA article! In any case, the nominator never brought his arguments in the article's talk page, and, instead of doing that, he now prefers to initiate a FAR. I let the reviewers judge his stance (and mine as well, of course!).

And a final remark: I would like to point out that 11 months ago this article was again in FAR and FARC, and, at the end, FA status has been confirmed, and my efforts have been lauded. Todor: "It is certainly much better now. Yannismarou, you've, expectedly, done a tremendous job". Bigdaddy1204: "I commend Yannismarou for his excellent progress on improving Manuel I Komnenos. I am much impressed by the changes that have been made. I also entirely approve of the new images that have been introduced. Good work!" qp10qp: "Excellent restoration work by Yannismarou". Nothing has changed since these comments were written. Therefore, I am open to any improvements (as I also stated above), but allow me to regard this nomination as a bad joke.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Move to close I think this nomination was premature. Any issues on very specific sources should have been brought up on the talk page or with the primary editors before bringing the issue here. The nomination seems to have been started by a sockpuppeteer[1][2][3][4][5] who failed to respond to requests for further discussion and clarification[6][7], and then brought the issue here as part of his dispute. Apart from the nominator's own edits the article is stable. The essence of the dispute has been raised on the talk page, and further discussion should be re-directed there: Talk:Manuel I Komnenos#Gibbon. DrKiernan (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I see that the account nominating was single purpose. Sorry for not noticing. I will close this; it doesn't seem substantially different from the version closed less than a year ago and FARs shouldn't proceed with sockpuppet noms. Marskell (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.