Sun Yat-sen

Article is no longer a featured article

Note: This article was promoted on August 15 (archive of nomination). Those reviewing this candidacy may wish to also refer to the original nomination.

This article poorly written, biased towards the KMT/CCP (Chinese) viewpoint that elevates Sun to a cultlike figure, and contains some very disturbing gaps in the historical narrative. I am suprised that this was featured in the first place, given that my objections were barely responded to (the response from the nominators was that they did not know enough about the subject to act on these objections) and the support votes were mostly unexplained and unsubstantiated - a result of active campaigning by the nominators. I have fucked the lead section and the sections on the early part of Sun's life over my objections, but this article should not stay featured without a rewrite in the meantime, and should still need a renomination if it is rewritten.

Gaps in history that need to be filled:

Structural concerns:

Neutrality issues:

Copyright violations: text copied verbatim from http://www.wanqingyuan.com.sg/english/onceupon/onceupon.html

I understand that not every details needs to be listed for this to be featured, but the I hope this list is long enough (with some items general enough) to show that this biography of Sun Yat-sen has some very major shortcomings.--Jiang 13:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure is not irrelevant--it is clearly stated on the FARC page. I also repeat my strong opposition to someone asking for a FA to be removed without FIRST raising these issues on the article's talk page. You have not raised any issue about the article on its talk page in a number of months. Before coming here, this should have been done (at a minimum) so that we know that the problems you raise with the article are agreed on, by consensus, to be major problems. As I look through your list of issues, a number of them appear to be POV issues where there may be disagreements with other of the article's editors. This is why the issues should have been raised on the article's talk page, so the rest of us would know for certain that these problems are indeed major problems and not POV issues. Until this is done, I can not be certain that this article is not in the FARC process for political reasons. I would be interested in the views on this from other editors who frequent this FARC page.--Alabamaboy 17:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: During the article's original FAC process, the importance of the issues raised above was debated by Deryck C., who nominated the article. Deryck C. also asked why User:Jiang did not edit the article to address these issues. In the original FARC, User:Jiang also said, "I think the article *nearly* makes the threshhold for fa status." If it nearly made the cut in his opinion then, and another user questioned the validity of these issues, then I am unconvinced that this article should be removed. This brings me back to my main point: Raise these issues on the article's talk page. --Alabamaboy 18:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The task at hand is too immense for me to cover everything in the near furture. If this is removed, I do intend to improve it when I have time to get it back up to shape. Deryck Chan said he lacked the information to proceed further, but I said I did and could offer it to him - and the discussion was ended there was a promotion of this article. --Jiang 03:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whether to list this article as a farc is based on procedure, but whether to keep or remove this article is based on guideline. These are two separate issues. You can argue here on this page's talk page that we should get rid of this listing and come back in a month, but whether the procedure was followed is not in itself a reason to "keep". If I removed this listing now, posted all of this on the talk page, and came back a month later, are you going to vote "keep" again because the farc "recently failed"?
If we are required to post these things on the talk page before we come here, then that should be written into the page guidelines. Please propose it at Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates first and not induce uncalled for procedural criteria for listing. They are not in the rules and nowhere does it say that we must first post on the talk page before listing a farc. I believe this purpose is served by having ((farc)) added to the article talk page. This was previously accomplished when ((fac)) was added to the talk page.
I will go and solicit more optinions at Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board and among those who voted "support". The NPOV issue here is over coverage, not tone or wording. Different versions of history blot out different episodes. The debate over whether my objections are valid belongs on this page. This is what the two week holding period is for! Alternatively, I can be disruptive and tag this as a copyvio but I dont think I should do that. --Jiang 03:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
However, majority concensus was drawn that the above concerns raised by Jiang (I think copyright violation is the only exception) were not so important that can let the article fail featured article status. Please observe this fact. Deryck C. 02:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true. I made sure that every person who voted "support" in the original nomination was made aware of this farc. Out of the original supporters, three explicitly came here to support the removal (Borisblue, Huaiwei, Piotrus) and two others (Instantnood, Flcelloguy) expressed disatisfaction with the current state of the article. No one (expect you) have objected to my reasons for removal (though we have one more "keep" vote on procedural grounds) and you have yet to respond to my rebuttals to your shaky historical claims. I am still waiting for a response.--Jiang 03:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences copied are not simple. Past precedent has resulted in articles being deleted at wikipedia:copyright problems for much simpler sentences (and over my objections too). Of course you can rewrite these sentences: "Sun Yat Sen's father, Sun Dacheng, was a farmer by day and a midnight watch beater by night." --> "Sun Dacheng, the father of Sun Yat-sen, farmed during the day and worked as a watchman during the night." and "His eldest brother, Sun Mei (Dezhang), was born in 1854." --> "Sun's oldest brother was Sun Mei (Dezhang), who was twelve years older than him." and "Sun also had elder sister Jinxing, brother Deyou, sister Miaoxi and younger sister Qiuqi." --> "Sun had another brother, De you, two older sisters Jinxing and Miaoxi, and a younger sister Qiuqi."
  • Your edit, did not solve the problems states. You are calling these "early influences" (by assumption before 1911), but you cite articles dated 1917 and 1921 (near the end of Sun's life). There is still no mention of Chinese ideology or Japanese pan-Asianism. There is no mention of the anti-Marxist, anti-imperialist, but pro-communist thought he was spreading towards the end.
  • Your statement "Sun himself is a pro-capitalist instead of a communist and he died shortly after establishing relationship between KMT and communists." borders on absurdity. Sun always considered himself a socialist. The two guys he borrowed his social program from were socialists (Marice William and Henry George). Quoting Sun Yat-sen from memory (sorry, my reading materials are in another city): "Minshengzhuyi is socialism, it is communism". Henry George's land value taxation doesn't sound capitalist to me. The situation was that Sun was trying to please both the CCP and KMT right wing at the same time: he pleased the CCP by promoting socialism/communism and anti-imperialist, but pleased the right KMT by denouncing Marxism (he was for "harmony" of the classes rather than class struggle) and alluding to Confucian harmony. This is how he can say a revolution had no place in China, yet also promote communism.
  • You say, "The legacy section is suppose to talk about how Sun's life influence others after his death instead of the disputes and opinions about him after he was dead. " I'm afraid part of the definition of legacy has to do with "disputes and opinions about him after he was dead" At least this article is doing just that, by explaining how well he is admired. But to be NPOV, the opposite side of the story must be given. This is how every major biography is being done. Some legacy sections of other featured articles: "Many historians rank Polk as a near-great President...", "Repeated polls of historians have ranked Lincoln as among the greatest presidents in U.S. history. Among contemporary admirers, Lincoln is usually seen as a figure who personifies classical values.", "Her achievements, however, were greatly magnified after her death."
  • The new addition of "at that moment Sun was still on exile and Huang Xing was in charge of the revolution" after Wuchang is misleading. The mutiny was instigated by New Army soldiers infiltrated by the Tongmenghui, not Sun Yat-sen, Huang Xing, et al who never planned a revolution in that part of the country. I believe (again, I am without my reading materials), Huang favored a revolution around Shanghai and Sun favored one in his native Guangdong. Huang Xing's significance is beyond that. When Sun was president, Huang remained his right hand man as premier and practically ran the government in Sun's name.
  • "The article will possibly become biased towards Sun's good side if he was mentioned as the leader of these small organizations (although they helped him in his way of revolution)." Again, a ridiculous notion. We are biased right now by withholding information on how politically isolated Sun was at various times and how to had to engage in power struggles within these revolutionary societies. Saying these organizations merely "helped him in his way of revolution" is pro-Chinese bias, claiming Sun was the center of the revolution. What historical grounding do you base this on? And the Chinese Revolutionary Party was important.
  • "Sun's later action didn't reflect much about his Confucian belief" Again, this is outright wrong. I can provide you with the quotations, but Sun clearly associated democratic participation and equal land holdings with Confucian harmony.
  • Even after these objections, we still have the structural issue of overseas Chinese, the need to mention secret societies and triads, Sun's role in the various uprisings, Sun's major foreign contacts, Sun's kidnapping by the Chinese Legion, Sun's courting the reformists, Sun's activities following the 1913 failed uprising, and Sun and his revolutionary base in Canton--Jiang 08:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More