Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Marginalizing minority points of view

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. I will gladly userfy on request from the user. Xoloz 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Marginalizing minority points of view

Personal essay against consensus/majority viewpoints with all the usual gripes, not approprate for project namespace FeloniousMonk 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: deleting this page won't make the disagreement magically go away. Friday (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Which disagreement is that? Ed Poor writing this page won't make broad-based consensus preventing the insertion of POV into articles magically go away either. You leave the principle point here unaddressed, that this sort of personal essay is inappropriate for the project namespace. FeloniousMonk 21:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You betray your prejudices here. A 'consensus' to exclude minority POV from an article is by definition a violation of NPOV, and something you do more than anyone else I know. --Uncle Ed 14:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus. [1]

Reflecting on the wide-spread opinion across a number of topics that Ed's holds ideologically dear and edits it seems that what he calls "bias" are merely ideas he misunderstands or fails to distinguish between personal belief and documented fact. Ed's reasoning here belies his motivation in penning Wikipedia:Marginalizing minority points of view. His intentional and mean-spirited jabs at consensus at those articles are amplified by his rants about flaws in policies and attempts to "fix" them; again, against consensus. This reveals a contempt for the very system he has long sought to exploit on his own behalf. FeloniousMonk 23:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This principle is already covered in WP:NPOV#Undue weight. A page with this title is inherently POV in its orientation, because it implies that giving appropriate weight to minority views is marginalizing them. ... Kenosis 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Kenosis. Ed's take on things is rather peuliar and more appropriately belongs on his user page where he is free to tilt at imaginary windmills to his corazon's content. •Jim62sch• 22:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Useryfy maybe to Ed? It isn't appropriate in Wikipedia space, but is something that is reasonable to have in personal space. It might also then be possible for him to work on the essay and put it in a form that was less griping and more appropriate in Wiki space? Barring that delete JoshuaZ 22:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy, not dangerous but also not helpful. Though I somewhat sympathize with Ed's general point, as a number of articles walk a fine line between presenting a marginal viewpoint as marginal, and presenting it as false. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- this cruft gets deleted not because of personal bias, but because it violates WP policy against original research and undue weight. Particularly the 9/11 conspiracy theory junk. Morton devonshire 05:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually personal research doesn't apply to personal essays. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 05:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Morton was referring to the type of material discussed in the essay, saying that it was removed per policy reasons, not because of the biases and issues discussed in the essay. JoshuaZ 05:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy to Ed Poor's userspace. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 05:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikipedia Watch, or just delete. — Dunc|☺ 09:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Userify or Delete. Better fits as a completely personal essay than a public one. --Improv 14:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Mark as essay, which it is. Septentrionalis 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - yet another waste of time; Ed should settle down and just edit sensibly things he knows about; we have an NPOV policy which deals with minority views already William M. Connolley 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Kenosis, and WMC. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally... if you liked this one, you'll love Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Good_scientific_practice William M. Connolley 17:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.