Talk:Traditional Marriage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Process

Looking at these two revisions:

---

Revision as of 18:56, 3 January 2007 (edit) Coredesat (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Traditional Marriage [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) ← Older edit Current revision (08:53, 5 January 2007) (edit) (undo) Mangojuice (Talk | contribs) (I feel a protected redirect is more appropriate here.) Line 1: Line 1: - {{deletedpage}} + #REDIRECT[[Marriage]]

---

What process was followed between the time Coredesat deleted the page and the time Mangojuice changed it to a protected redirect? Was there some public or private discussion, perhaps? Thanks! Sdsds 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I just think it's better, so I did it per WP:BOLD. I think a redirect is better, and I couldn't think of a good argument why {{deletedpage}} would be preferable. I viewed it as an uncontroversial change. Mangojuice^talk 18:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I applaud your effort to be bold, though WP:BOLD might apply with less controversy to the actions of editors rather than the actions of sysadmins. When you took your action, were you familiar with the discussions that preceded the deletion of the page? Are you sure your action was in accordance with WP:NPOV? (Hint: by redirecting from one article to the other, did you intend to suggest that "traditional marriage" is a synonym for "marriage"? Would you see that as reflecting a particular POV?) Sdsds

I am aware of the context. In particular, the deleted article that was continually posted here was viewed by the community as a POV fork of the Marriage article, so a redirect is appropriate. Also, regardless of what was actually here when it was deleted, if someone were to search for an article under the title of "Traditional Marriage," the Marriage article is clearly the best fit, and covers the concept of marriage as a tradition. How to present the Marriage article is up to the editors of that article, and any links that now redirect there can be redirected elsewhere if another target is more appropriate. It doesn't suggest that "traditional marriage" and "marriage" are synonyms, only that the information on traditional marriage can be found in the marriage article; this kind of thing is quite common on Wikipedia. For instance, Stellar drift and Expanding Universe redirect to Big Bang, although those are really only topics within that article. Mangojuice^talk 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Perhaps you're right, and your action is "uncontroversial." Taken as it was with awareness of the context and controversy, it certainly qualifies as being 'bold'! Part of the controversy is that for many, "traditional marriage" does not mean "marriage as a tradition" nor does it refer to "the tradition of marriage." After all, there are many marriage traditions. They aren't referring to all of them!

<<Side Comment: They define a "traditional marriage" as the religious union of a two people who are cohabitating, monogamous, and of opposite sexes. Civil unions don't qualify. Open marriages don't qualify. People married but living apart don't qualify. What's more, people who hold this view of "traditional marriage" also tend to hold the view that other kinds of marriage have lesser validity. They are part of a political movement arising in reaction to the current progressive social trend that provides couples in non-traditional marriages with status similar to those in a "traditional marriage.">>

The marriage article is 43 kilobytes long, and the advocates of "traditional marriage" have a lot more they want to write about the topic. Maybe giving them an appropriate place to do that, e.g. an article on "The Traditional Marriage Movement", would help the overall quality of Wikipedia content improve more quickly. I remain naive about the process for acheiving that. Given that we all have the goal of improving Wikipedia's content, can we discuss how to do that for this subject, or should we all be bold, and take unilateral actions? Sdsds 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that an article on the traditional marriage movement would certainly be appropriate, as the topic is relegated to a relatively small space in the Marriage article. Once written, that may be an even better target for a redirect from here (and the other two I changed as well), so if that happens let me know. What you should be careful of, though, is to neutrally describe the movement and its views without writing the article as if those views are the right ones. (I think you realize this, but it never hurts to remind, because that kind of thing can be hard, writing-wise.) And as for being bold in this case, I think I wouldn't worry about seeking more approval of your article idea.. and WP:BOLD does a great job explaining when not to be bold. Mangojuice^talk 22:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see traditional marriage movement. Sdsds 10:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)