Knowledge (XXG):Featured article review/Christmas/archive1

588:

maintain the quality of high-profile articles - the slew of vandalism that appears when an article is on the Main Page is rather depressing. But the older version is just sitting there in the history. All it needs is someone to go through, accept the good changes and reject the bad. (iii) Spinning out a over-long section to a new article is the essence of summary style. It is just unfortunate that a summary of the new article was not retained in this article, but there are already mentions of different customs in the rest of that section. I don't see how this article could possibly discuss the differing customs in 200 countries, let alone within countries. (iv) I don't see why an article should lose its featured status simply because it attracts "cruft", holiday or otherwise. Finally, at the end of the day, we can always revert to the

750:"Religious customs and celebrations" section. Obviously the article has large sections that lack sources. "Theories regarding the origion of the date of Christmas" should probably be merged with "The origions of Christmas", perhaps as a subsection. The same is probably true of "Dates of celebration". Some have cited bias in the article--apparently this was the case with the reference to Christmas being celebrated in Japan (a statement that was in the article when it was featured). If others could elaborate on other instances of bias in the article, these can be corrected. After I finish with the initial rewrite, I'll go back and tag the areas that need to cite sources and then hopefully find sources for them. 1681:

if someone interested in the article (often the person who nominated it as a FAC in the first place, or someone who contributed significantly to its content) is willing and able to deal with them. But the original nominator or authors may not be around to deal with objections, and it is rare some else to pick up the baton. I think the archive will show that it is more common than not for articles nominated here to be "removed", mainly because noone has any responsibility to deal with objections. This is one reason why the threshold to remove "featured" status has been "consensus" (that is, broad support for removal) rather than "no objections" (as on FAC). --

999:. Perhaps if you are so capable of finding problems in the article, you might also try to fix them. Really though, grammar and spelling are minor things. Right now this article needs to be edited so that it can at least be understood. And what do you think is POV about "Christmas customs and traditions transmitted through mass culture have been adopted by Christians and non-Christians alike"? This is a fact. Further, one can reach conclusions without being biased. Some of your other cited problems are not problems at all either. 615:(else we'd simply revert it to its state year ago), and all the edits since then haven't much improved it. It's not that the article's gone downhill especially (most FAs go downhill after being Featured anyway, since there's no longer much of an impetus to improve), it's just that Knowledge (XXG)'s standards have changed, and it hasn't changed with them. Personally, I strongly supported featuring the article on December 25th, and still think it would be an excellent idea—if the article 1243:

article already did not. Granted, perhaps we do need a source for the statement (which is made in the article, if not in as many words). It bothers me though that people point out "problems" like that particular image caption and not what I see as a much more pressing problem: the inconsistency and redundancy of the section on the origins of Christmas.

1556:. First: it can always be featured next year. Second: it can - and should - be so much better, especially if this should be main paged during XMAS. The style is bad: too many short paras, too many stub-sections, no pic in lead. Plus, few inline citations and for a bizzare reason, a reference section with several positions AND a 1851:

I guess I'm glad, because I really don't think the quality of this article is up to snuff. It's sure not going to change my vote though. The article continues to not be up to snuff. I've raised numerous objections with the article (and even fixed some of them), but it just doesn't seem like anyone

1773:

It seems to me that instead of just saying "Keep because XXXXXX", the people who are in favor of keeping the article should actually pay attention to the problems we're finding with the article and fix them. And as for Trodel ... I've celebrated Christmas all my life, but my support of this FARC has

1680:

You are essentially right - on FAC, a person nominating an article is under an obligation to make good-faith efforts to deal with objections. Here, the person nominating an article has no interest in maintaining its featured status. The only way that objections here (remove votes) are dealt with is

1642:

I apologize. In FAC objections were raised and the editors attempted to address the objections with an eye towards improving the article. Is the purpose of a Feature Article Removal Candidate vote to just demote the article or not? If so that seems counter-productive to creating a great encyclopedia.

1528:

My final two cents' worth: the ballooning of Xmas into an orgy of comsumption and commercial activity is treated in just one sentence—a good one, but it's woefully inadequate given the cultural and political implications of this trend at the expense of the religious/spiritual meaning of the occasion.

1712:

and, since August, have been the one closing FARCs and, where needed, demoting articles. Copying what I have said elswhere, like ALoan has said, 2 to 1 is not consensus. However, featured content does not always work by consensus. For instance, Raul can deny featured status to an article if it has

1646:

Or is the FARC a process like FAC that provides feedback to make sure the article is up to feature standards? If so, then that is not what has happened here. Since this article was listed, I have watched objections raised and addressed, and tried to address a few myself, but unlike the FAC process -

714:

mentions that "regional Christmas traditions are still rich and varied", but all of that has been wiped out of the article. What exactly is the lead section summarizing now, and how can the article be considered neutral? The original Featured version contained 23 paragraphs on Regional customs. This

96:

I've been watching this article over the past couple weeks. It has attracted massive amounts of "holidaycruft". Anyone who has ever seen Christmas represented on a TV show has tried to add something about that into this article. I've been reverting what I can, but this has been going on for the past

1721:

s. Indeed, this is a discussion, and not a strict vote, and we must hold our featured content to a higher standard. As an aside on the current didcussion, I will not comment on the progress of this current discussion and will withhold contemplating a decision until the two week limit has expired,

1666:

I see FARC as basically a process for "forcing" an article to go through FAC again. This article was featured a year ago, and in that time, its quality has dropped significantly, while the FAC standards have risen significantly. So, FARC is basically a way to see if others agree that the article's

1543:

Article has five footnotes, only four of which are linked to from the text. The floating fifth is a quote from Gandhi (mv to Wikiquoute?). References are given, but there is very little link between the text and which of these are referencing claims, and the references themselves don't inspire a

1136:

of edits. This article deteriorated, in large part, because it is a natural topic for "holidaycruft": everyone who sees a Christmas movie writes a sentence, and everyone who has a viewpoint on whether or not it's overcommercialized adds a paragraph. The noise accumulates until it drowns out the

619:

was good enough to merit appearing on the main page on that, or any other, day. Since it's not, I'd try working on it over the next year or so and see if you can get it FAd in time for next Christmas. :) I'll support its appearing on the main page then, if it's improved enormously from its current

451:

There are no guidelines for such an action, and I'm sure positive changes have been made since it became featured. I would suggest instead a change to the Featured Article policy, giving articles a "featured lifespan" after which they are no longer featured because they have changed too much. This

388:

1757:

I am interested in demoting this article for the specific numerous reasons listed by myself and others above, and also for the reason that I do not want low quality articles being shown on the main page as top quality. Nowhere has myself or others said that we wanted it demoted for the reason you

1347:

It's pretty normal for unwieldy sections to split off into a separate article as WP grows. I don't necessarily see the creation of a separate article as "degrading" the main one. The problem is when the split creates a POV ghetto, leaving readers of the main article oblivious to other significant

1143:

being a good example of a similarly vulnerable page.) What this article needs is concentrated attention by dedicated editors with serious attitudes toward scholarship. This is not, by and large, what getting on the Main Page gives you. Wide exposure works, sometimes, but this just isn't one of

876:

which is clearly lacking to the extent that we should put at least a few more months of hard work, research, reorganization, and copyediting into it before attempting to navigate the more rigorous FA process again. And while we're at it, we could try to get some other former FAs re-featured, like

875:

I agree. The entire concept of putting the article up on the main page around this time was just a funny game we were playing, an amusing bit of synchronity to get a few more readers interested in the article. All of that is infinitely less important than the actual quality of the article itself,

528:

Yes, but would it still be featured-worthy? The content has changed quite a lot since it became featured. I think that letting it remain Featured when it has changed so much is a misuse of the system. The only way I would be comfortable with the article being featured is if it were put up for FAC

1066:

on the Main Page on Christmas. I didn't agree with anyone else's. How much clearer do I have to be? The problem is the article has turned to crap since it was featured a year ago. Had I not mentioned anything, the article would have gone on the main page containing a copyvio and a section with 4

1268:

Yes, FA's can be improved, but this one has spent a year being destroyed, and over that year, FA standards have greatly increased. It needs to be put back through FAC to make sure that all the destruction has been undone, and that it meets current standards. Many of the current FA's wouldn't be

1242:

At first I agreed with you that the article's content is weak. Now I'm beginning to wonder about your standards. Just because you have to write from a NPOV does not meant that an article must be a disconnected recitation of facts. I, who added the cited caption, did not do say anything that the

629:

I could see someone wanting to keep the article if it was greatly improved from its current state, but as others have pointed out, it's almost unreadable right now. If I had not brought this FARC up, we would have been presenting to the world a copyvio and a section consisting of 4 words as our

749:

At its present state this article is not featured article-worthy. I've been trying to integrate the content that is new with the content when the article was featured. I've also rewritten some of the sections so that they are a bit more clear. I hope to begin editing again starting with the

1741:

Thanks for the explanation - but I am completely disenchanted with the process - because as I've reviewed some editors contributions - they suggest (though, of course I can't be sure) that there is a desire to see this article demoted because it is about Christmas, rather than any substantive

587:

would be a better place to start? (ii) I'm not sure it matters how many edits that an article has had ("major" or otherwise - a loaded term if ever there was one, given the differences of opinion on when an edit ceases to be "minor"); surely the content is the thing. It is obviously harder to

1397:

don't feature it on the main page. I'd been staying out of this discussion but I finally read the article and it really has become awful. The "Social impact of Christmas" section is particularly embarassing — it strongly violates NPOV, which makes the whole article violate NPOV, and it's

1333:

version became Featured. This version has no sections on regional customs. If you're worried about the article being too long, trim away some of the other stuff to add in a section on regional customs. Otherwise the article is showing a strong western bias, particularly toward the U.S. —

845:

Regardless of the improvements that are made, the article needs to be put back through FAC. We should be more concerned about it actually being Featured quality (according to current standards of what is "Featured"), and not about it being on the Main Page at the scheduled time. —

203:

While this would seem like the best solution, there were 600 major edits since it became Featured, so I wouldn't suggest it. If you could determine who the main contributors have been since last December, and ask them if it is alright to revert all of their changes, then maybe. —

1713:

just one objection among a sea of supports, if he feels the objection is substantive. I use a similar methodology when I close FARCs. Like Brian says, we are sortof forcing it through FAC again, and if there are reasoned, logical calls for removal, and any number of

104:

This has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with presenting our best content to the world. Maybe there should be a time limit for Featured Articles, so that they have to be reconsidered for FA status once they have been edited too many times... —

1512:- The article really just isn't well-written. And considering how well-known Christmas is, the number of references is frighteningly small. It's almost as if no one has done any real research, and instead, just written on what they think they know about it. -- 972:'As it is implied that John the Baptist could only have been conceived during that particular week; and as his conception is believed to be tied to that of Jesus, it is claimed that an approximate date of 25 December can be arrived at for the birth of Jesus.' 1529:

Along with the inadequacy of the treatment of regional customs, which could be fascinating if it shed light on the wider cultures in question, fixing this aspect needs thoughtful, cooperative effort that is almost certainly unachievable in two days.

1301:

It still has none of the sections on regional customs that it originally had (previously 23 paragraphs). I would say that it still has quite a lot of work to do, and that it should be resubmitted to FAC to make sure it meets today's FA standards. —

419:"Some scholars maintain that December 25 was only adopted in the 4th century as a Christian holiday after Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity to encourage a common religious festival for both Christians and pagans." - which scholars? 54:

Because of this holiday's popularity, the article attracts a lot of editors, in particular those adding random sentences in random spots which don't necessarily harm the article on their own, but collectively reduce its quality over time.

350:- Do you not think 4 days of fervent editing would get it approaching featured status. It might not be good enough now, and it might not be a "true" featured article on the 25th, but if we got it close, it'd still be a great mainpage. - 512:

This nomination has brought attention to the article and we should give it a day or two. If not improved, I would reluctantly have to agree with remove, but believe it can get in shape in time for main page posting on Dec 25th.

1774:

nothing to do with Christmas itself. I merely think this article isn't up to snuff. And I have been giving feedback about improving this article: get more quotes, add a bit more to the section on rampant consumerism, etc. --

407:

however, before I do I wish to comment on a few things: firstly, our content is very fluid. Articles still change after being FA, this is as it should be. However, as Brian has noted they do change and therefore FAC

1580:- I really hope someone is paying attention to this discussion, there are many valid objections with this article and very few have been addressed. The article is still heavily overlinked and is not cited well. -- 359:

The truth is that the article has changed so much from its original version that it wouldn't make sense to accept a new version as also being "Featured quality" without it going through an FAC process of its own. —

795:, and then locking that page? Anyone who wants to can still edit the main article, and changes to the new article can be proposed on talk. Then, once the featured period is over, we can go back to normal. 804:

What is considered "featured" has changed over the last year, and I know of several older featured articles which would not be featured material today. It may be the case with this article as well. —

583:, but much of the structure and content remains quite similar, as far as I can see. Merciless editing is really the point of a wiki. If the concern is that there have been major changes, then perhaps 425:"All extant evidence indicates that Christianity was generally adopted as the official religion decades after Constantine's death in most parts of the Roman Empire." in that case, can we have sources? 128:

This is going to stir up a whole lot of grief, what with the Main Page listing and all, but I find I have to agree with the nominator. Also, while reading through I discovered one gross copyvio—from

1171:

Strongly agree. The article is not ready for prime time, and mainpage exposure will a) degrade it further and b) send the wrong message about the level of quality WP considers to be "high."

241:). That is exactly what has been happening here, and the article in its current form is not worthy of the distinction given to articles which exemplify Knowledge (XXG)'s very best work" . -- 1873:: I am demoting this article, and locking this sub-page. There will be no further discussion about removing or not removing this article - if you feel it should be featured, take it to 1801: 817:

And, it is generally frowned upon (and in the case of Raul654, vehemently opposed) to have an article featured on the main page and be locked for more than 5 or 10 minutes at a time. —

237:. " Making large-scale changes to Featured articles, which are recognized as Knowledge (XXG)'s best articles for their completeness, accuracy, and neutrality, is often a bad idea." (-- 334:. The article seems rather Western-centric, and the copyvio worry is enough for me. A pity, though, because in most other respects, this could have very well been a featured article. 1121:

until after 25 Dec, then decide again. Sometimes featured articles do get transformed when they are on the mainpage, sometimes for the better. Let's not lose hope on this article. -

529:

again. We should not be so concerned about the Main Page date of December 25th. It is better that Featured Articles remain FAC-approved quality than to be an abuse of the process. —

775:

I've read the article version from when it was FAd. It might have been good enough to appear on the main page a year ago, but it wasn't good enough to appear on the main page now. -

701:

Nope. There are dozens of other major errors in this article. This article needs cleanup tags, not parading on the main page as though it were our best when it's in fact mediocre. -

1287:

Thanks to those that brought attention to this article needing some clean-up, but removal is premature - the article is shaping up nicely for a christmas main page feature.

1158:

Finally, if we put the article on the Main Page in the hope that elves will come along and fix it, then we are still presenting a bad article to the world. Maybe the elves

1046:: It's quite good enough to be a featured article and quite good enough to be on the main page - as per the long, lengthy and very recent discussion on the subject here, 136:

of all places. I paraphrased and trimmed it into something legitimate, but this makes me worry that there are other copyvios present I wasn't eidetic enough to notice.

830:

Beating the drum won't change anything if the current efforts of dedicated users are successful. But giving up and not making any changes to the article is one option.

1742:

arguments about its quality, and they have shown no interest in improving the article or in giving feedback about the edits that are being made to improve the article.

1193:

Is there something wrong with your preference setting Brian - or is this sort of minuscule obscure slash signing deliberate? You must have far better eyes than mine.

494:. Article is steadily improving and is acceptable. I am not persuaded by the arguments below - and while there is a deadline, the article doesn't reflect a rush job. 1647:

there doesn't seem to be any willingness to review the changes made to resolve objections and further comment on them to the benefit of the quality of the article.

1643:

It seems to me that the purpose of farc should be to get an article back up to feature status - or up to the current standard (if the FA standard has been raised).

1151:

need more sentences like "Christmas can be a time steeped in a sense of belonging for those who celebrate it while those who do not may feel left out." Yes, that

21: 1269:

featured material today, and if someone tried to nominate them for Main Page, they probably would go through the same FARC process this one is going through. —

428:

Systemic bias: there is nothing on how countries such as Japan celebrate Christmas. This is significant because they have their own unique take on the event. -

256:, needs a very competent editor to reintroduce old text and trim much of the new text, and remove any other copyvios. Not up to standard at the present time.-- 1406:

the sort of article we should be presenting to our readers under a banner calling it "one of the best articles produced by the Knowledge (XXG) community". --

69:

Since it became featured, it has been edited over 1100 times. Of those edits, about 600 were neither vandalism, reversions, nor minor edits. So, about

1667:

Featured-status is at best questionable, and therefore should be unfeatured and put back through the more structured, well-understood FAC process. —

1608:

This is not a vote, this is a discussion attempting to reach consensus. You haven't added anything to that discussion with your one word answer. --

1029: 281:

This is not a vote, this is a discussion attempting to reach consensus. You haven't added anything to that discussion with your one word answer. --

595:

version, and I don't think we need to ask editors for permission to do that if the old version is clearly much better than the current version. --

1883: 1728: 1047: 1859: 1781: 1615: 1587: 443: 288: 584: 17: 91:: "Further information: Christmas worldwide". Do we really want this to be presented to the world as what we consider "Featured quality"? 1132:

All right, so this is the season for hope, but I can't quite summon up the Wikifaith to believe that Main Page exposure would bring the

1425: 919:, but I have high hopes it can be saved beforehand. Summarise that section, add more images, then perhaps we can discuss re-entry. -- 27: 1566:. Unless this is fixed in a few hours, I say we should improve it and feature next year. Then we can be truly proud of our work.-- 1398:

weasel-worded and utterly unsourced, which calls the entire article's verifiability into question. When these are the most common

762:

Any diminution in quality should be fixed (and indeed can be fixed if desired by a simple revert). It still has the feel of a FA,

1348:

facets of the topic. This seems to be the Brian's concern, and I agree that the issue does need editorial attention. (copied to

1093:

as I am not inferring bad faith merely pointing out that you were a participant in that discussion and your suggestion to put

1888: 1733: 966:'Christmas customs and traditions transmitted through mass culture have been adopted by Christians and non-Christians alike' 981: 576:

recently, and given my votes below I doubt anyone will agree with me anyway, but: (i) Yes, it has been edited a lot since

413: 1227: 542:

That is the purpose of this vote - to decide if it is - and we should take into considerations the ongoing changes.

1891: 1863: 1831: 1785: 1752: 1736: 1703: 1688: 1660: 1619: 1603: 1591: 1572: 1548: 1533: 1523: 1504: 1486: 1465: 1451: 1436: 1381: 1356: 1324: 1296: 1263: 1247: 1231: 1201: 1175: 1166: 1125: 1105: 1057: 1038: 1003: 987: 923: 901: 888: 840: 799: 779: 766: 754: 741: 705: 696: 674: 652: 624: 602: 552: 523: 504: 486: 474: 446: 432: 383: 354: 342: 325: 306: 292: 276: 260: 248: 229: 198: 182: 152: 140: 87:: in the Featured version, it was a detailed breakdown of the customs in different continents. Now, it consists of 1399: 1722:

and I have not decided on whether or not to make a vote myself. All FYI on how the process has worked to date. --

693: 671: 607:

Um, I think you miss the gist of most of these complaints. The issue is that the article wasn't good enough even

80:

For a quick comparison, look at the tables of contents for the Featured-quality version and the current version.

1162:

come and make it all better, but until they do, this article just isn't worth the placement we'd be giving it.

1878: 1723: 1172: 471: 1219:

I believe Giano's referring to your superimposed signature, and the requisite eyesight needed to make it out.

944:'This practice has led to much adjudication, as some say it amounts to the government endorsing a religion.' 1320: 1292: 225:

article, there should be an entry for Christmas, but the article is almost unreadable in it's current form.

178: 1416: 1462: 1560: 1497: 792: 238: 1544:

lot of faith. Suggest a massive rewrite with a couple of the popular histories of Christmas at hand.

1407: 429: 1839: 1813: 1761: 1747: 1698: 1670: 1655: 1496:

not ready yet. Needs to be improved in the areas mentioned by voters above. Some parts are good. --

1481: 1446: 1337: 1305: 1272: 1260: 1209: 1183: 1094: 1070: 849: 835: 820: 807: 718: 682: 679:

The article contained a copyvio and a section with 4 words. You consider this featured material? —

633: 569: 547: 532: 518: 499: 455: 392: 363: 339: 207: 163: 108: 1155:

an image caption. The sections beginning with "Economics of Christmas" are, simply put, dreadful.

482:. Like most featured articles from that long ago, no longer demonstrates Knowledge (XXG)'s best. - 1378: 1316: 1288: 1244: 1122: 1016: 1000: 751: 380: 273: 1717:

votes that do not actually respond to the objections raised, I am more likely to discount those

149: 1824:

Um - is this relevant to this FARC? Are your objections are now less strong are a result? --

1570: 1139: 920: 320: 245: 1631: 1473: 1028: 665: 195: 1874: 1709: 1635: 573: 47: 1828: 1685: 1224: 1198: 1102: 1054: 599: 257: 648:(and fix and re-apply for featured status and find a true featured article for Dec 25) -- 442:: If the old version was so good and the current version sucks why not just revert it? — 1743: 1694: 1651: 1519: 1477: 1442: 1349: 831: 543: 514: 495: 335: 1371: 1353: 881: 649: 376: 351: 269: 1441:

I have removed this section - are there other specific areas which need improvment.

1567: 1163: 1049:

in which the nominator was a full participant even if he did not get his own way.

898: 885: 796: 776: 738: 702: 621: 483: 315: 242: 137: 129: 791:

How about moving the old version (which everyone seems to think is preferable) to

99:

I really doubt that the original supporters of the FAC would support this version.

1315:

Of course then some will object that the article is too long (it is 39kb as is).

1259:

Give it a chance first. FAs always can be improved. Needs some cleanup though. --

452:

will be basically fixed next month, however, when "stable versions" goes live. —

389:

will be basically fixed next month, however, when "stable versions" goes live. —

1600: 1545: 1390: 1020: 897:

than rushing through to repair it before the 25th (or even 7 January, ha ha!).

589: 577: 192: 416:

would be very handy to have! However, the reasons I would like it removed are:

1825: 1682: 1530: 1220: 1194: 1098: 1050: 984: 596: 303: 1854: 1776: 1610: 1582: 1514: 1063: 763: 565: 283: 226: 38: 692:

It doesn't contain it anymore, so it's still featured article quality. --

66:

the version that was promoted as featured-quality to the current version.

375:

I think we couuld just revert to the Featured revision in this case.

28:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured article removal candidates/Christmas/archive1

1639: 877: 893:

I second that emotion. Better we took our time and did the article

160:

This is exactly why we need some sort of "stable article" system. —

1472:

This section has been removed until it is sourced and reflects the

1033: 939:'for which there are different traditional menus in many country.' 592: 580: 1807: 1329:

The article used to have a large section on regional customs.

980: 1806:

Raul has changed the Main Page article for December 25th to

176:- so do we revert it all the way back to the old version? — 1370:

this article so it won't litter the mainpage. Bah, humbug!

950:'a family newsletter telling activities of family members' 995:

Tony, you seem to have lexical difficulties with the word

564:. Entirely predictable I am sure given the "debate" over 75:

edits were made to this article since it became featured

1091: 63: 1097:

on the main page on 25th December was not successful.

1137:signal. (I've seen this happen many times before, 1090:Thank you for withdrawing your claim of bad faith. 933:

the poverty of writing, here are a few random gems:

62:The article became featured on December 24, 2004. 1461:The social impact section is particularly bad... 470:-- lack of sourcing, major objectivity problems. 1389:and, if this FARC discussion lasts until after 8: 710:It's even worse now than it was before! The 1634:. I have only recently helped review a few 974:(great punctuation and sentence structure). 422:Merge tag up the top needs to be dealt with 1062:I agreed with Raul's rationale for having 83:In particular, look at the section titled 585:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article review 18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article review 1650:Is there something that I am missing? 1568:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 715:version contains a few sentences.. — 7: 1206:I didn't follow that... at all... — 946:(lexical and grammatical problems) 35: 961:'the many customs of gift timing' 85:Regional customs and celebrations 1027: 979: 611:to be featured on the main page 1630:I am a little confused on this 414:Knowledge (XXG):Stable versions 412:have a lifespan. This is where 956:'gives gifts at two occasions' 174:Comment (somewhat facetiously) 1: 1864:20:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1852:else is paying attention. -- 1832:19:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 1786:13:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 1753:12:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 1737:08:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 1704:23:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1689:23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1661:22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1620:21:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 1604:03:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 1592:20:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1573:01:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1549:00:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 1534:23:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1524:21:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1505:20:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1487:22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1466:19:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1452:22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1437:17:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1400:criticisms of Knowledge (XXG) 1382:15:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1357:14:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1325:13:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1297:05:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1264:05:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1248:21:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 1232:16:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1202:22:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 1176:20:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 1167:19:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 1126:17:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 1106:16:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 1058:16:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 1039:10:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 1004:08:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 988:04:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 924:23:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 902:09:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 889:05:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 841:20:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 800:19:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 780:19:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 767:19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 755:19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 742:18:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 706:18:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 697:18:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 675:18:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 653:14:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 625:16:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 603:14:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 553:14:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 524:13:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 505:22:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 487:13:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 475:12:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 447:11:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 433:11:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 384:11:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 355:10:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 343:08:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 326:08:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 307:07:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 293:21:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 277:06:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 261:04:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 249:02:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 230:01:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 199:01:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 183:01:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 153:01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 141:00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 1067:words. Quite good enough? — 968:(let's be careful about POV) 48:no longer a featured article 1892:07:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1708:Hello. I am the creator of 1907: 314:-- needs a lot of work. 1693:Thx! That makes sense. 444:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 239:Knowledge (XXG):Be bold 1638:, so if I am being a 630:"highest quality". — 148:per nom and Anville. 1879:Jeffrey O. Gustafson 1836:Probably, and no. — 1724:Jeffrey O. Gustafson 694:Mistress Selina Kyle 672:Mistress Selina Kyle 1095:Omnipotence paradox 570:Omnipotence paradox 134:Guide to the Bible, 1845:• 2005-12-23 20:05 1819:• 2005-12-23 19:09 1767:• 2005-12-23 15:40 1676:• 2005-12-22 22:36 1343:• 2005-12-22 13:50 1311:• 2005-12-22 13:29 1278:• 2005-12-22 13:34 1215:• 2005-12-22 13:31 1189:• 2005-12-21 20:50 1076:• 2005-12-21 16:32 1017:negative publicity 855:• 2005-12-20 20:59 826:• 2005-12-20 20:40 813:• 2005-12-20 20:37 793:Christmas/Featured 724:• 2005-12-20 18:50 688:• 2005-12-20 18:23 639:• 2005-12-20 16:25 538:• 2005-12-20 14:16 461:• 2005-12-20 12:51 398:• 2005-12-20 12:51 369:• 2005-12-20 12:49 213:• 2005-12-20 01:52 169:• 2005-12-20 01:38 114:• 2005-12-19 22:16 1846: 1820: 1800::New article for 1768: 1677: 1433: 1422: 1402:already, this is 1344: 1323: 1312: 1295: 1279: 1216: 1190: 1140:Calvin and Hobbes 1077: 1015:to avoid further 952:(good one, folks) 856: 827: 814: 725: 689: 640: 539: 462: 399: 370: 214: 170: 115: 26:(Redirected from 1898: 1842: 1837: 1816: 1811: 1764: 1759: 1750: 1701: 1673: 1668: 1658: 1565: 1559: 1502: 1484: 1449: 1434: 1427: 1423: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1340: 1335: 1319: 1308: 1303: 1291: 1275: 1270: 1212: 1207: 1186: 1181: 1073: 1068: 1036: 1032: 1031: 1024: 983: 973: 967: 962: 957: 951: 945: 940: 931:If anyone doubts 852: 847: 838: 823: 818: 810: 805: 721: 716: 685: 680: 669: 660: 636: 631: 550: 535: 530: 521: 502: 458: 453: 395: 390: 366: 361: 323: 318: 210: 205: 181: 179:Ambush Commander 166: 161: 111: 106: 31: 1906: 1905: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1862: 1844: 1840: 1818: 1814: 1784: 1766: 1762: 1758:claim of us. — 1748: 1699: 1675: 1671: 1656: 1618: 1590: 1563: 1557: 1522: 1498: 1482: 1447: 1426: 1417: 1412: 1408: 1342: 1338: 1310: 1306: 1277: 1273: 1230: 1214: 1210: 1188: 1184: 1075: 1071: 1034: 1026: 1022: 971: 965: 960: 955: 949: 943: 938: 854: 850: 836: 825: 821: 812: 808: 723: 719: 687: 683: 663: 658: 638: 634: 548: 537: 533: 519: 500: 460: 456: 430:Ta bu shi da yu 397: 393: 381:The kettle's on 368: 364: 321: 316: 291: 212: 208: 177: 168: 164: 121: 113: 109: 58:Consider this: 42: 33: 32: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 1904: 1902: 1869: 1867: 1866: 1858: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1838: 1812: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1780: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1760: 1678: 1669: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1614: 1594: 1586: 1575: 1551: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1518: 1507: 1490: 1489: 1469: 1468: 1463:24.126.232.208 1456: 1455: 1454: 1384: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1350:Talk:Christmas 1345: 1336: 1304: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1271: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1223: 1208: 1182: 1178: 1156: 1145: 1129: 1128: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1069: 1041: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 976: 975: 969: 963: 958: 953: 947: 941: 935: 934: 927: 926: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 891: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 848: 819: 815: 806: 785: 784: 783: 782: 770: 769: 757: 744: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 717: 708: 681: 655: 643: 642: 641: 632: 627: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 531: 507: 489: 477: 465: 464: 463: 454: 437: 436: 435: 426: 423: 420: 402: 401: 400: 391: 373: 372: 371: 362: 345: 328: 309: 302:as per nixie. 297: 296: 295: 287: 263: 251: 232: 217: 216: 215: 206: 201: 171: 162: 155: 143: 120: 117: 107: 102: 101: 94: 93: 92: 78: 67: 52: 51: 41: 36: 34: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1903: 1894: 1893: 1890: 1886: 1885: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1856: 1850: 1843: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1830: 1827: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1817: 1809: 1804: 1803: 1799: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1778: 1772: 1765: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1751: 1745: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1735: 1731: 1730: 1725: 1720: 1716: 1711: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1702: 1696: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1687: 1684: 1679: 1674: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1659: 1653: 1648: 1644: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1628: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1612: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1602: 1598: 1595: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1584: 1579: 1576: 1574: 1571: 1569: 1562: 1555: 1552: 1550: 1547: 1542: 1539: 1535: 1532: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1516: 1511: 1508: 1506: 1503: 1501: 1495: 1492: 1491: 1488: 1485: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1470: 1467: 1464: 1460: 1457: 1453: 1450: 1444: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1435: 1432: 1431: 1424: 1421: 1415: 1405: 1401: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1387:Strong remove 1385: 1383: 1380: 1376: 1374: 1369: 1366: 1358: 1355: 1351: 1346: 1341: 1332: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1313: 1309: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1283: 1276: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1262: 1258: 1255: 1254: 1249: 1246: 1245:Theshibboleth 1241: 1233: 1229: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1217: 1213: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1191: 1187: 1180:Well said. — 1179: 1177: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1141: 1135: 1131: 1130: 1127: 1124: 1123:Mailer Diablo 1120: 1117: 1116: 1107: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1074: 1065: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1045: 1042: 1040: 1037: 1030: 1025: 1018: 1014: 1011: 1010: 1005: 1002: 1001:Theshibboleth 998: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 986: 982: 970: 964: 959: 954: 948: 942: 937: 936: 932: 929: 928: 925: 922: 918: 915: 914: 903: 900: 896: 892: 890: 887: 883: 882:Julius Caesar 879: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 853: 844: 843: 842: 839: 833: 829: 828: 824: 816: 811: 803: 802: 801: 798: 794: 790: 787: 786: 781: 778: 774: 773: 772: 771: 768: 765: 761: 758: 756: 753: 752:Theshibboleth 748: 745: 743: 740: 736: 733: 722: 713: 709: 707: 704: 700: 699: 698: 695: 691: 690: 686: 678: 677: 676: 673: 667: 661: 656: 654: 651: 647: 644: 637: 628: 626: 623: 618: 614: 610: 606: 605: 604: 601: 598: 594: 591: 586: 582: 579: 575: 571: 567: 563: 560: 554: 551: 545: 541: 540: 536: 527: 526: 525: 522: 516: 511: 510:Withhold vote 508: 506: 503: 497: 493: 490: 488: 485: 481: 478: 476: 473: 469: 466: 459: 450: 449: 448: 445: 441: 438: 434: 431: 427: 424: 421: 418: 417: 415: 411: 406: 403: 396: 387: 386: 385: 382: 378: 374: 367: 358: 357: 356: 353: 349: 346: 344: 341: 337: 333: 329: 327: 324: 319: 313: 310: 308: 305: 301: 298: 294: 290: 286: 285: 280: 279: 278: 275: 271: 267: 264: 262: 259: 255: 252: 250: 247: 244: 240: 236: 233: 231: 228: 224: 221: 218: 211: 202: 200: 197: 194: 190: 186: 185: 184: 180: 175: 172: 167: 159: 156: 154: 151: 147: 144: 142: 139: 135: 131: 127: 123: 122: 118: 116: 112: 100: 95: 90: 86: 82: 81: 79: 76: 74: 68: 65: 61: 60: 59: 56: 50: 49: 44: 43: 40: 37: 29: 23: 19: 1882: 1870: 1868: 1853: 1805: 1797: 1796: 1775: 1727: 1718: 1714: 1649: 1645: 1629: 1627:Objections: 1626: 1609: 1596: 1581: 1577: 1561:unreferenced 1553: 1540: 1513: 1509: 1499: 1493: 1458: 1429: 1428: 1419: 1403: 1394: 1386: 1372: 1367: 1330: 1284: 1256: 1159: 1152: 1148: 1144:those times. 1138: 1133: 1118: 1043: 1012: 996: 978:It's tripe. 977: 930: 921:Natalinasmpf 917:Weak removal 916: 894: 788: 759: 746: 734: 712:lead section 711: 657: 645: 616: 612: 608: 561: 509: 491: 479: 467: 439: 409: 404: 347: 331: 311: 299: 282: 265: 253: 234: 222: 219: 188: 173: 157: 145: 133: 130:Isaac Asimov 125: 103: 98: 88: 84: 72: 70: 57: 53: 45: 1802:December 25 1500:a.n.o.n.y.m 1391:December 25 1285:Strong Keep 1261:Terence Ong 1257:Strong Keep 659:Strong Keep 590:24 December 578:24 December 193:User:Fennec 97:12 months. 46:Article is 1889:<*: --> 1734:<*: --> 1476:standard. 1134:right sort 330:Reluctant 196:(はさばくのきつね) 124:Reluctant 119:Discussion 89:four words 1855:Cyde Weys 1777:Cyde Weys 1611:Cyde Weys 1583:Cyde Weys 1515:Cyde Weys 1459:Remove... 1379:Dialogue? 1064:Christmas 737:per nom. 566:Christmas 336:Johnleemk 284:Cyde Weys 39:Christmas 22:Christmas 1884:Shazaam! 1729:Shazaam! 1375:Ganymead 1373:*Exeunt* 1354:Dystopos 1321:Paliurus 1293:Paliurus 650:Dystopos 620:state. - 377:Filiocht 352:Hahnchen 317:=Nichalp 312:"Remove' 158:Comment: 20:‎ | 1632:WP:FARC 1578:Comment 1474:WP:NPOV 1420:sleeper 1164:Anville 899:Anville 886:Silence 797:Firebug 789:Comment 777:Silence 747:Comment 739:Rampart 703:Silence 666:HUMBUG! 622:Silence 484:Silence 440:Comment 348:Comment 322:«Talk»= 243:Wikiacc 138:Anville 126:remove. 64:Compare 1875:WP:FAC 1829:(Talk) 1744:Trödel 1710:WP:FFA 1695:Trödel 1686:(Talk) 1652:Trödel 1640:newbie 1636:WP:FAC 1601:Tarret 1554:Remove 1546:Jkelly 1541:Remove 1510:Remove 1494:Remove 1478:Trödel 1443:Trödel 1395:please 1368:Remove 1147:We do 1013:Remove 997:random 884:. :f - 878:Mozart 832:Trödel 735:Remove 646:Remove 617:itself 600:(Talk) 574:WP:TFA 544:Trödel 515:Trödel 496:Trödel 480:Remove 468:Remove 405:Remove 332:remove 300:Remove 254:Remove 246:(talk) 235:Remove 220:Remove 191:. :) - 146:Remove 1877:. -- 1826:ALoan 1683:ALoan 1411:sleep 1352:). -- 1221:GeeJo 1195:Giano 1099:Giano 1051:Giano 895:right 597:ALoan 258:nixie 73:major 16:< 1871:Note 1860:vote 1841:0918 1815:0918 1810:. — 1798:NOTE 1782:vote 1763:0918 1749:talk 1719:keep 1715:keep 1700:talk 1672:0918 1657:talk 1616:vote 1597:Keep 1588:vote 1531:Tony 1520:talk 1483:talk 1448:talk 1430:cell 1409:keep 1339:0918 1331:That 1317:Abeo 1307:0918 1289:Abeo 1274:0918 1211:0918 1199:talk 1185:0918 1160:will 1119:Keep 1103:talk 1072:0918 1055:talk 1044:Keep 985:Tony 880:and 851:0918 837:talk 822:0918 809:0918 764:jguk 760:Keep 720:0918 684:0918 635:0918 609:then 593:2004 581:2005 568:and 562:Keep 549:talk 534:0918 520:talk 501:talk 492:Keep 457:0918 410:does 394:0918 365:0918 340:Talk 304:Tony 289:vote 274:talk 268:. — 266:Keep 227:Drn8 223:This 209:0918 189:bold 165:0918 150:Ambi 110:0918 71:600 1808:Ido 1413:ing 1404:not 1228:(c) 1225:(t) 1173:BYT 1149:not 1019:. 613:now 572:on 472:BYT 270:Dan 187:Be 132:'s 1887:- 1881:- 1732:- 1726:- 1599:- 1564:}} 1558:{{ 1393:, 1377:| 1197:| 1153:is 1101:| 1053:| 1023:ᓛᖁ 670:-- 662:- 379:| 338:| 272:| 1746: 1697: 1654: 1480: 1445: 1035:ᑐ 1021:‣ 834: 668:" 664:" 546: 517: 498: 77:. 30:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Featured article review/Christmas/archive1 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index