Talk:Marriage in the eyes of god

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moved from VfD as there seems to be a lack of consensus on whether this should be a redirect or not. Listed on VfD on September 19 2003

  • Marriage in the eyes of god, the text was: Marriage is a holy act that must be held to that of the traditions of the Christian faith. Same sex marriages mustn't be allowed to exist, as they are a perversion of what God has inteneded for humanity. 03:24, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge with marriage. Angela 07:42, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge content, delete article. Fuzheado 08:24, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Agreed. -- Jake 08:43, 2003 Sep 19 (UTC)
        • Likewise -- there's nothing here that can't be covered under Marriage as an explanation of one point of view on that topic. No need for a seperate page on it. --Morven 09:10, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Kill it. Inherently POV. -- Schnee 10:29, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Content to Christian view of marriage. Redirect to Religious aspects of marriage. Keep redirect. Martin 10:37, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I say delete, as the content is removed. This title is not really suitable for any articles in an encyclopedia. --wshun 21:36, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • The content's actually not that bad; perhaps there is a place for the controversy over the tension between the state's concept of marriage and religions. It should be at a different title, and focus on more than just Christianity, though. Evercat 14:02, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep the redirect because the person who created it obviously didn't realise that we had an articles on the Religious aspects of marriage. Had the redirect existed, we would have avoided the creation of a duplicate article. Keeping the redirect will help us out if the situation reoccurs. Martin 14:49, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge content, delete entry. The mere title is POV since it assumes Christianity ("in the eyes of god" implies monotheism - there are many other gods out there... perhaps) Trevor Mendham 09:24, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't think the title of the redirect is POV: king redirects to monarch, but that redirect doesn't imply that all monarchs are male. Martin 12:37, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes; the history can then be kept. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:49, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Lack of consensus, but a substantial majority... what to do. Fuzheado

Discuss. Start by telling me why you want to delete this redirect. Attempt to reach consensus.
We haven't fussed about redirects being "POV" - that's why we have redirects like Chemical Ali and Butcher of Kurdistan. In any case, having a redirect from Marriage in the eyes of god to Religious aspects of marriage doesn't imply that there are only monotheistic aspects to marriage, just as the redirect from distributed denial of service to denial of service doesn't imply that all DOS attacks are DDOS attacks. Martin 08:42, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Chemical Ali and Butcher of Kurdistan are proper nouns, and pretty encyclopedic, like Stonewall Jackson or Alexander the Great. Problem is Marriage in the eyes of god is a phrase, and not even that historically significant a phrase, like "Weapons of Mass Destruction" or "White Man's Burden". So I worry with precedents like these, every catchphrase used in a sermon, speech, tirade, rally, protest, advertisement, song, poem, tract, report, book, etc. will be put in the 'pedia. Fuzheado 08:56, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Amen to that. User:Wetman

Sure, it's not a historically significant phrase (171 google hits): that's why it's an orphaned redirect, not an article. I see that you are concerned that it will lead to the creation of more redirects, but why would that be a problem? m:Wiki is not paper. Martin 09:56, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Wiki is not paper, but it also is not a dumping ground for POV phrases. Just because they're redirects, should we lower our standards? Fuzheado
Redirecting from a common phrase does not lower our standards; rather, it attracts Google hits. There's also nothing wrong with using a phrase (or slogan) which conveys a POV as a redirect to a neutral article like religious views of marriage. --Uncle Ed 15:26, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I bow to your superior knowledge on this, but I worry what this means for entries like "Bush is an idiot" or half the ones on VfD. Fuzheado 15:51, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't see that having a redirect from A to B expresses any POV except "We don't have an article on A, but maybe you'd find the article on B useful instead?". As a result, I don't see that keeping the redirect at A will lower our standard of neutrality.

As you've no doubt read at Wikipedia:Redirect#How_do_I_delete_a_redirect? and wikipedia talk:deletion policy/redirect, there are disadvantages to deleting redirects, besides the ones I've already mentioned. Martin 15:33, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)