Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Researcher99 (talk | contribs) at 02:18, 20 July 2005 (This call was Suspiciously made & Why not just Build the Article?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This call was Suspiciously made

Before voting, readers are asked to please read the chronology,

Nereocystis acted recklessly aggressive - 2 Examples of Proof.

That comprehensive post also includes a relevant subsection titled,

Suspicious "Spatfield" called for "Vote for Deletion" of Anti-polygamy article.

(For just one quick proof of why "Spatfield" is suspect, see here.)

Also, before voting, please read the subsections at the bottom of this page here too.

Through it all, please also keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not a majoritarian democracy. Just because more anti-polygamists are willing to cast their votes to delete because of biased anti-polygamy POV, that does not mean that their votes really address the issue or properly serve Misplaced Pages.

Researcher 02:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Anti-polygamy

I find this article to be POV and it's very premise is non-sensical to me, Anti-polygamy does not sound like a good title for a "debate" on polygamy. Furthermore, no other pages currently link to it. spatfield July 9, 2005 16:48 (UTC)

An older version of Polygamy has a link to anti-polygamy. I deleted the link for the reasons mentioned here. Nereocystis 17:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; I would have said merge with polygamy, except that the article really says nothing at all so there wouldn't be any point. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 18:02 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Dcarrano. Fernando Rizo 9 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with above. --Scimitar 9 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
• Delete. Well said, Dcarrano. --Idont Havaname 20:26, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a redirect to polygamy probably wouldn't hurt --Tothebarricades 23:05, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - (im copying Idont Havaname in congratulating Dcarrano on his well-putness) -mysekurity 05:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything appropriate to polygamy (if not redundant) and redirect. Essentially pro-monogamists would be anti-polygamy but I do not think there is a difference, like the apparent difference between non-monogamous and anti-monogamous (but that's another can of worms I am not qualified to handle) - Skysmith 12:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. "Anti-polygamy" doesn't add anything to "anti-" and "polygamy", except an article restricted to one side of a debate. Peter Grey 14:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Kept. According to Misplaced Pages, this article does not even qualify for being up for a Deletion vote. If one does not know the issue, they are (as the above Misplaced Pages link calls most of the voters here) voting on something which, "involves a topic of which {they} are ignorant". As explained in the segment below, the anti-polygamy article is open to both sides of the debate for true NPOV. It frees up the neutral anthropological polygamy article from the repeatad anti-polygamy agenda and POV. Actually, it is the vast amounts of one-sided POV anti-polygamy arguments that get added to the polygamy article frequently which do not actually inform the user about polygamy, they are the edits which do not actually apply to the the polygamy page, yet would more appropriately apply in a two-sided agenda/debate anti-polygamy article. Instead of this profoundly hasty call for voting for deletion from a visibly hostile POV, voters should be, as Misplaced Pages explains, "If you can improve the article instead, do so." Voters here have not even attempted that Misplaced Pages-directed option based on their own biased POV. There is no fair basis for calling or voting for this page to be deleted. Doing so is only biased POV. This anti-polygamy article should be left alone, and any informed Wikipedians should follow Misplaced Pages's guidelines to simply build upon it instead of seeking to destroy it. Researcher 14:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I suggest allowing another week for the vote. Today, I placed a comment about this VfD on the polygamy page. I don't expect many more votes, but there are likely to be a few. I don't expect a change in the result, either, but I do want to allow a fair vote. I don't want Researcher99 to feel any more oppressed than he already feels. Nereocystis 17:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

To my great frustaration, Nereocystis is caught here lying yet again. What they have just said here is simply not true, and they know it. Nereocystis is totally out to oppress as shown in this post they made on 19:12, 18 July 2005 and I pointed out their extreme aggressiveness this very day in my subsequent post 19:42, 18 July 2005. Not only was Nereocystis caught lying in those other posts, but they are clearly lying here too about their supposed concern for the oppression they are doing against me and their supposed desire for anything "fair." It is my hope that people will not further assist Nereocystis's hostile anti-polygamy POV and agenda. The current dispute with that anti-polygamist should not be exploited to hastily delete the anti-polygamy article. That article was offered as an NPOV solution to end the abuse and solve that other dispute. (See the other section here about that.) So deleting the article interferes with a possible resolution of that dispute. If the anti-polygamy article does get deleted because of such false exploitation, there will be nothing "fair" about that whatsoever. Despite their little game of suggesting an "extention" of the vote another week, and the admission of expecting no more votes to change the current vote-tally to "Kept," the revealed lie in the linked-posts also reveals how aggressive they plan to be to exploit that deletion in furthering their abuse. So, Nereocystis knows there is nothing really "fair" about deleting this article at all and that they have no desire to stop oppressing me or stop preventing all my obviously-valid edits. To say otherwise is clearly just another lie. It is my hope that the abuse will come to an end and that valid posts can once again be made to the polygamy and anti-polygamy articles in Misplaced Pages. Researcher 20:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this article was created out of spite and frustration (edit wars and reverts notwithstanding), and is contrary to the Misplaced Pages mission. StopTheFiling 20:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the polygamy article. I agree with Researcher99 that this topic should be covered, but we cannot have an "anti-x" article for every "x" article. Perhaps later if the anti-polygamy section were to grow significantly it would merit its own place on Misplaced Pages, but for now I think that this is practically a stub. Explodicle 01:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

For NPOV, the difference between neutral term vs. non-neutral POV agenda/debate MUST be Separated

When I started the anti-polygamy article, I did so with the full invitation for anti-polygamists to add their views there as well. That was the point, actually. So, I had only started the anti-polygamy article, but fully expected others, including anti-polygamists, to bring their views there too. If anti-polygamists thought it was too POV there, they were welcome to build upon the article (not delete or destroy) and to simultaneously await any pro-polygamous response too. Instead, however, anti-polygamists who are afraid of their agenda being so exposed in such an open debate of their itemized presented arguments and tactics like that have responded by trying to hide and undermine that altogether. This very "vote for deletion" page is a pure example of that, anti-polygamists trying to prevent their agenda from being so exposed because they are not confident enough that their views and exposed tactics will be able to "win" their debate. Instead, they want to hide behind the seeming "authoritativeness" of directly infesting the neutral anthropological polygamy article with their POV and mis-information.

It is, of course, fully expected that anti-polygamists would oppress a minority by wanting to prevent Misplaced Pages readers from learning about the tactics and debate about anti-polygamy. Like I just said, they want the "freedom" to misrepresent polygamy as if authoritative rather than have their debates exposed for what they are.

Again, it must be understood that Polygamy is a neutral term but anti-polygamists continue to infest the Polygamy article with their POV. Nereocystis has repeatedly been outed as a hostile anti-polygamist on the Polygamy TALK pages. (Anti-polygamists have further tried to hide those "outings" by "archiving" all the evidence about the "outings." As well, an ANON editor deliberately tried to hide the evidence I had recently presented about what anti-polygamists did to my original version of the anti-polygamy article, by removing the specific segment of evidence from the TALK altogether!]) Therefore the outed anti-polygamist Nereocystis is here attempting to appeal to a hostile anti-polygamy POV majority in order to prevent the real issues from being exposed.

Anti-polygamy is obviously a non-neutral agenda. To obtain true NPOV in Misplaced Pages, polygamy should not be infested with the obvious POV of anti-polygamists as has been happening.

Instead, for true NPOV throughout the issue, anti-polygamists can have a place at the anti-polygamy article to itemize their agenda points and views by putting them in the more appropriate anti-polygamy article. Then pro-polygamists can also list their refutations of those items. That way, both articles are truly NPOV.

In that way, the neutral anthropoligical polygamy article can teach Misplaced Pages readers what polygamy really is about without the distraction of the agenda of anti-polygamy POV. If the Misplaced Pages readers want to also see the anti-polygamy view and debate, then they can go to the anti-polygamy article and get that information too. (When I created the anti-polygamy article, I created an immediate explanation and link to it on the anti-polygamy article.) Wikipredia readers should not be distracted with the agenda of the anti-polygamy POV and propaganda, unless they seek it directly.

What I have created with all this also allows true NPOV on the anti-polygamy article too. As already explained, anti-polygamists can place their reasons for their agenda and pro-polygamists can respond. Balance, NPOV. In the same way, pro-polygamists can point out the tactics of anti-polygamists and anti-polygamists can respond. True NPOV.

Polygamy is the neutral anthropological term. Anti-polygamy is the non-neutral agenda and debate. True NPOV accross the board.

In addition to the NPOV issue, the polygamy article itself is already too long. Whenever one makes an edit to the full polygamy article, they get the red-font "too long" message. The reason that the polygamy article is too long is because it is too infested with anti-polygamy agenda. So, by moving the agenda and debate to its own anti-polygamy article, the length can be kept within Guidelines.

Lastly, the POV of those wanting to delete or prevent this solution is easily observable as hostile anti-polygamy POV itself. To refuse to allow the anti-polygamy article, as the needed solution to the anti-polygamists destroying the polygamy article, is the same thing as a KKK majority refusing fairness and NPOV to African Americans on a Misplaced Pages article about African Americans. It is the same thing as contining to allow KKK editors to imply all the worst ideas against African Americans as if authoritative rather than allow their POV agenda and debate be openly exposed for review of all Misplaced Pages readers.

So, for true NPOV, article-length, and true fairness to an oppressed minority, a legitimate encyclopedia must separate the neutral anthropological term of polygamy from the non-neutral agenda and debate of anti-polygamy. Anything less than that is bigoted POV and has no place in a legitimate Misplaced Pages.

Researcher 13:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Why not just Build the Article?

Rather than vote to destroy the article, why not just follow the Misplaced Pages policy of building upon the current anti-polygamy article instead? It was created as a work-in-progress and yet it is being called for deletion before it even had a chance to grow. Researcher 02:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)