This has been a problem I've seen brought up for many years. One of the things about FA is that they give certain people a wonderful defense. Two, Bishonen and Giano, have been going off of theirs for a very long time. When the pages are properly put to FAR, they throw a fit. One of the reason why there are so many horrible FAs is exactly what this individual matter can exemplify.

This current FAR is a latest example. Last time, they tried to destroy Mattisse for pointing out that the Emperor lacks clothes. Now, they just say "everything is good".

Just look, every paragraph has major problems:

Original research: "with the baseless suggestion sometimes made that he had been studying architecture in France (stated as fact in the Dictionary of National Biography)"

Essay: "Downes' example of one sugar baker's house in Liverpool, estimated to bring in £40,000 a year in trade from Barbados, throws a new light on Vanbrugh's social background, one rather different from the picture of a backstreet Chester sweetshop as painted by Leigh Hunt in 1840 and reflected in many later accounts."

Pure high school paper bs: "Vanbrugh is remembered throughout Britain, by inns, street names, a university college (York) and schools named in his honour, but one only has to wander through London, or the English country-side dotted with their innumerable country houses, to see the ever present influence of his architecture."

Horribly unencyclopedic exaggerations: "With the completion of Castle Howard English baroque came into fashion overnight."

Wonderfully vague: "Vanbrugh's reputation still suffers from accusations of extravagance, impracticability and a bombastic imposition of his own will on his clients."

Unfounded generalizations: "As was common in the 18th century, personal comfort was sacrificed to perspective. Windows were to adorn the facades, as well as light the interior."

Inability to cite direct quotes properly (along with horrible unencyclopedic POV): "Unsurprisingly under these circumstances, Vanbrugh's management of the Queen's Theatre in Haymarket showed "numerous signs of confusion, inefficiency, missed opportunities, and bad judgment" (Milhous)"

Most of the sources (when used, which is almost never) are old and outdated, obscure, or not really credible.

Hell, there are five major sources that should be included just to have real scholarship: 1. Gerald Berkowitz Sir John Vanbrugh and the End of Restoration Comedy (1981) 2. Susan Owen A companion to Restoration drama (2001) 3. Arthur Huseboe Sir John Vanbrugh (1976) 4. Deborah Fisk Cambridge Companion to English Restoration Theatre (2000) 5. Bernard Harris Sir John Vanbrugh (1967)


Does anyone have the balls to call them on it? No. Mattisse was partly destroyed by them over her mentioning the obvious. Even when Sandy Georgia was emailed about some of the majorly obvious OR and pure bs in the Legacy section, she didn't correct her claim asking for specifics. It is obvious that people want to have FA standards no longer apply to a select privileged few.

Another winning entry: "The Duchess blamed Vanbrugh entirely for the growing extravagance of the palace, and its general design: that her husband and government had approved them, she discounted. (In fairness to her, it must be mentioned that the Duke of Marlborough had contributed £60,000 to the initial cost, which, supplemented by Parliament, should have built a monumental house.)"

"In fairness to her"? How can someone honestly thinks such narratological opining is even appropriate in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry?

Bishonen and Giano are just two editors among the elite that use their FAs as a get out of jail free card, when lower-down folk in the system would normally have been banned years ago. It doesn't surprise me that their FAs don't meet the appropriate standards - many FAs don't, but because whoever writes them is either a good pal of the delegates, or someone who happened to nominate a lot of articles to FA, nobody notices or checks.

LOL, yes. It sounds as if Winston Churchill had written it.

If "nobody notices or checks", them how do you account for the fact that John Vanbrugh is undergoing a review of its FA status?

Ed17 was either stupid or had balls. However, you can see him being crushed (but not as badly as Mattisse was, but Mattisse definitely responded in the wrong way and Ed17 isn't that stupid).

This has been in the article since October 2004, added by Giano himself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...t&oldid=6580459

They had different standards back then, which is to say they had practically no standards, whereas now they merely have poor standards. Giano did, at least, remove this paragraph from an earlier version:

So hey, at least there's that, I guess!

Ahahahahahahahahaha.

Sigh.

My side hurts. : (

Did I write that passage? I don't recognise it and it certainly does not sound like me, but then I don't remember removing it either. Anyway, nice to see you are still with us Ottava - hope the "little" problem is getting better - you have my sympathies.

Giacomo

Giacomo! Cite some of those damn quotes already! You know damn well that I would have jumped into that FAR and added cites if given the chance. I'm tired of all those chicken shits not willing to put any pressure on you to get off your lazy butt and do it! DO IT! It would take all of thirty minutes!

Hello Ottava,

I just followed your diff, in an attempt to find me writing "The joyous courage with which, having persuaded thirty people in the fashionable world to aid him in finding the money, and William Congreve to aid him in finding the plays, he began to build in perfect unconsciousness of the danger before him...." I don't see it. I don't say I did not write it, I say i cannot remember writing it, neither am I able to find a diff. You want to take me on with historic quotes do feel free; I cannot be bothered to re-check references I put down five years ago, but hey great news, nothing is stopping you researching them, the reference books are listed. It's as easy for a great intelctual such as yourself as it is for me. Anyway, the diff?

Giacomo

I didn't post the diff. I don't know who is responsible for the current language or the rest. I only know that your name came up at FAR and everyone ran like cowardly dogs.

And Giacomo, I have many of the reference books but, as you know, I can't fix things even though I want to.

You implied that I write rubbish! You cleverly say what I add and what I don't, yet your diffs fail to support you. I had sympathy for you being banned - now I see why. You lie and you misconstrue. Insread of whining and crying here about Bishonen and I perhaps you need to examine your own behaviour. I am still there and that clearly bugs you - it astounds me too and sooner of later I won't be, but in the meantime ask yourself why. It's not because I have numerous powerful friends as you imply because I don't - it's because all I say is to the best of my knowledge the truth. I don't remember edits from last year let alone 5 years ago - what sort of person needs to go digging five years to try and discredit someone? Perhaps you need to ask yourself some of these questions.

Giacomo

I reread all of my statements and I don't see where I target any of your writing. What I do say is along this line:

"When the pages are properly put to FAR, they throw a fit. One of the reason why there are so many horrible FAs is exactly what this individual matter can exemplify."

It is your -page-, but you never kept a handle on it. Then, when people do want to correct it you get too defensive and the pages aren't fixed. There is no claim that each specific problematic passage is yours, nor do I really care. But you want to have it connected to you and it needs fixing.

But yeah, the above statement by you is exactly why this particular page will probably not get fixed. Go! Fix the page!


P.S. Somey provided a diff where someone added something, but no one else attributed any particular line to anyone. Giano, you were quoting Somey above and attributing it to me.

You want it fixing Ottava - fix it or get somebody else to, don't pretend that you cannot! Howver, don't come whining to me because you have placed yourself outside of the pale and can't . My sympathy for you has evaporated. Anyway, a FA is a fleeting honour, as are all Wikipedia's honours, anyone who accepts anything from the hierachy of that project gives others the opportunity to take it away in an attempt to make them sing the official Wikipedia Song - That's why my "rollback" happily went the other day - it's better to have nothing, then you have nothing to lose. Take a tip from me, if you want to beat the Wikipedia system, don't play along with it.

Giacomo

I'm not going to sock and I'm trying to get people to fix it.

Your name is attached to it. You should think about your reputation. Look at some of the statements in there. Some of them are patently ridiculous. You want that to be your legacy? You can do far better than that.

Ottava, there is little there to concern me; it seems to concern you more. I'm sure my reputation will survive an attack by you and a few gormless Wikipedians who probably know even less on the subject than you. You need to get over yourself and find a new project, you obviously take Wikipedia far too seriously. You played their game and you lost. Now, I am not going to stay here arguing with you.

Giacomo

Know less on the subject than me? That would be most people in the world. Giacomo, I know these writers. The last time one of the Restoration pages came up I listed many major, reliable sources that were ignored and that it didn't reflect the criticism. I already listed five important sources. At least two would be essential to having real coverage.

You can look at my pages. Compare Samuel Johnson to the page. There is a clear different between the two, and one is currently academic quality and the other is not.

Giano, that wasn't you; that disgraceful example of writing which has no place in a so-called "encyclopaedia" was brought to you by (drumroll) Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Oh god, add that to my list of reasons why I despise Britannica.

That's probably for the best. After all, the post that started this argument stated (clearly?) that you at least managed to remove the aforementioned lugubriously overwritten material, not that you wrote it yourself... you've got to read these things more carefully. No wonder there's so much needless bickering on WP!

Uhhhhh. Head hurt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ed_Article_page WP:POINT violation at Featured Article page

So childish.

"Personally, I'm minded to block Giano for the first edit summary, which is abusive and not calculated to help us keep editors to help build the project. However, not minded to deal with the shitstorm which would follow, which is the usual way Giano gets away with it."

He had his rollback rights removed for it, I believe. Or was that previous use?

By the way, Giano spent four days sending me emails claiming he was a better writer than me and I kept demanding him to prove it by fixing his page. He hasn't bothered to do so.

Rollback is a curious bauble. It's completely useless, but it gives administrators a sense of power and authority over lesser mortals ... maybe that's its real purpose?

Not really. It just allows you to make faster reverts for vandalism. It is only supposed to be used in Recent Changes patrolling and other instances where you have to mass revert. People tend to instead have it because they want it as a bauble, but Giano clearly does not do vandalism patrolling so he should never had had it to begin with.

No, just more server-side efficient reverts for vandalism. Twinkle is much more user-friendly, and it doesn't need a papal decree before you're allowed to use it.

Realy Ottava, is that true? As I recall it, it was numerous emails from you telling me that you were not a mere youth, but a grown man who was greatly admired by your professors and my prose, spelling and grammar was awful, which it probably is. That seems to be a current theme at the moment on Wikipedia - how will I survive such accusations?

Giacomo

If you want, I can post them so everyone can see your whining, crying, threatening, and dodging the fact that you still refuse to prove that you are worth anything.

Simply put, your writing is absolutely terrible and when this is pointed out you don't even bother to fix it. That is pathetic. There is no other word for it.

Fix your page already and stop your whining.

During Jimbo's last flagged revision poll there was some talk that the proper folks of Wikipedia who were to be trusted with editing were going to be only those with at least rollback rights. I scurried off and got the damned thing even though I totally despise it. It also puts me in constant danger of accidentally violating my topic ban just by looking at articles covered by the ban. I wish you could have rollback rights without having to have rollback button. Completely useless tool for completely useless editors.

BTW, I can think of at least one specific instance where an admin used the issue of rollback rights to brow beat and try and humiliate an editor he was in dispute with but for certain reasons, I'm not gonna go into it.

Oh Ottava, and I loved you so much, what happened, how can you say these cruel things to me - I'm distraught. You were my hero, but you are wasted here; you should be on the stage - as you said you were termed the "King of Content." Oh the ingrates, but at least you have the consolation of the admiration and respect of your numerous professors. For that, I am happy - now we must watch wikipedia crumble without you - Oh the horror!

Giacomo

Wikipedia isn't without me, you know. My work published after my demise.

Yep, most fitting - written in a graveyard. One of Wikipedia's living dead; people like you keep castles in Transylvania solvent.

Giacomo

That's Ottava there on the left, there, swinging the bit of lumber at an Undead Poets Society meeting. I think he gets shot in the forehead, right at the end of the film. "That's another one for the fire." Bummer.

"Brains!!"
"Why do you want brains?"
"It helps the pain!"
"What pain?"
"The pain of being .... banned..."

O.M.F.G. That is hilarious.

You'd think a FAC director would be able to recognize that a page with such ridiculous original research, utterly bs claims as pointed out in the early posts here, and other such problems is shameful and shouldn't be kept as an FA even if there are worse problems after the FAR.

How can she be trusted to even know what a FA is when there are absolutely bogus statements like this in it: "with the baseless suggestion sometimes made that he had been studying architecture in France (stated as fact in the Dictionary of National Biography)."

Basically, what Giano or Bishonen did was say that the Dictionary of National Biography was wrong because they -wish- it was. Did they publish on the matter? No. Do they have any legitimate expertise? No. They aren't like William M Connolly who could make the (ridiculous) statement "I saw it for myself so it must be true!"

Sandy knows that those problems exist.

She knows that this ridiculous statement was in the original and is still there: "but one only has to wander through London, or the English country-side dotted with their innumerable country houses, to see the influence of his architecture".

Hell, the page should be delisted solely on that statement. It is a perfect representative of what not to do when trying to write something encyclopedic.

Shameful.

There is scant evidence to support the notion that Wikipedians are shamable.

SandyGeorgia's a Bish/Giano supporter. Hang the vaunted FAR standards! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=369180011

Bish's been unhealthy since April or so. And it's her article, so no choice but to close the FAR as a "Keep", is there?

"and jarred conservative opinions on the subject." Right there in the introduction: 'to jar' used in the sense of disagree or clash, is not a transitive verb.

Some of Ottava's criticisms are reasonable. (It pains me to say that).

Here's a winner , that lovely bit of OR at the end ("but one only has to wander through London, or the English country-side dotted with their innumerable country houses, to see the influence of his architecture") is so unbelievably made up that they had to fake the reference: as seen here with a source not even really talking about Vanbrugh and actually provides people who did influence the architecture that wasn't him.

His importance was almost nil when it came to buildings. Disgusting.

Oh, and Sandy, a non FAR delegate is trying to help her buddy Bishonen out by claiming it is now closed. Not only are they defending a page with shitty writing, blatantly OR, and blatantly wrong claims, but they are trying to get around the process to do so.

Where are the blocks?

Had you been there to indict them, you'd have been blocked.

The reason there are no blocks is because you are not there to blow the whistle.

SandyGeorgia has been put in her place. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=369248525 (She didn't like it that she can't close FARs, poor soul.)

Repairing the damage http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=369251381 She realized she overstepped as one of the "overheated editors", the primary one, IMO.

I think that's just good writing, of the sort most people in WP don't attempt, because they don't know their subjects well enough to write anything but close paraphrases of their sources.

Sources attesting to Vanbrugh's influence as an architect are easy to find: here for example, or here, or here. Care to reconsider?

A real encyclopedia doesn't use the word "one" nor would it say "one only has to wander". That is something found in elementary school book reports or bad debate speeches.

On Vanbrugh's architecture reputation (from the source I posted above):

p. 61 "Perhaps its most interesting aspect is Price's effort to resurrect the reputation of John Vanbrugh"

p. 65 "the resurrection of this formerly disdained baroque architect is now complete" and "Vanbrugh's apotheosis is symbolic of Soane's eclectic viewpoint."


These were fringe views put forth by nut jobs trying to get attention. That doesn't mean he had actual influence. It means that he had admirers like Giano who wanted to fudge details later on. He was mostly despised for 250 years. You don't see that in the article! And the books you cite are very crappy sources.



As a note, I can't edit my previous post to say that Sandy was indeed not closing the FAR. That was a mistake propagated by Bishonen, so I am sorry for attacking her over it.

The first source I cited is Cambridge University Press, not generally regarded as crappy; the second is Simon and Schuster (likewise). The third is a partnership between the Association of Gardens Trusts and the University of York.

What it does say on the cited page of the Mallgrave book is that Vanbrugh and Hawksmoor, "collectively and apart", "define the first great line of British architectural development in the eighteenth century, an approach clearly eclectic in its methods."

You apparently don't understand sources.

Your "Cambridge" source was a generic summary by someone without an expertise in the topic at hand with an off hand attribution. As you can see from my sources, the claim about Vanbrugh being a great architect defies hundreds of years of opinion and is a fringe notion established recently by a handful of people.

The other source was just as unreliable. Your ignorance of sourcing is pitiful, almost as bad as the essayish language within the article that is far from being encyclopedic.

Wonderful life, ain't it?

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Vanbrugh "brought the English Baroque style to its culmination"; their bio of him ends with the words, "He was much liked; in the words of Alexander Pope and Jonathan Swift, he was 'a man of wit and honour'".

Okay, perhaps his style fell out of favour for a while (the Encyclopaedia Britannica article mentions that his style was often called "heavy", but sees fit to defend this "heaviness" as being "in the service of the dramatic").

Given the vagaries of fashion, falling out of favour happens to anyone and anything. Remember flared trousers?

The Encyclopedia Britannica also mentions that "The increased use of stone and marble began with Sir John Vanbrugh ..."; and there is a word, Vanbrughian, referring to the style he inspired, which seems to have been applied to a considerable number of buildings in Britain.

The EB is done by people without expertise in a specific part of a topic (only some sort of publication in the generalized field, loosely established) with a bare use of references and mostly relying on personal memory. They have heavy amounts of original research and statements that make you go "wtf?"

Now, your reading: "style to its culmination" does not mean he was notable or influential. It just means he was the last in a type.

Then you quote a rather ridiculous claim: "The increased use of stone and marble began with Sir John Vanbrugh ..."

Or, maybe it began with the Romans? How about the Greeks? They both used lots of stone and marble. See how ridiculous and poorly worded that sentence is? Even the British Medieval time period used stone and marble, so he wasn't even special within British history.

The EB sucks. If it didn't people wouldn't bother trying to make their own encyclopedia.