Wikipedia talk:Don't attack the nominator/Archive 1

Inappropriateness of an opposing view on the same page

It’s not standard practice to have opposing essays on the same page. Typically opposing essays have there own space, as citing an essay with multiple and conflicting viewpoints isn’t helpful in outside citations and conversations. It’s my opinion that opposing opinions should be located elsewhere. Locating them here robs this essay of a focused point of view, which is the whole point of an essay, and essentially undermines the original intent and purpose of the essay as originally crafted, thereby shutting out the message and silencing the voice and opinion represented in the original essay. Essays are not debate pages, and they are not pages where opposing viewpoints are meant to be presented together in dialogue with each other. Essays are meant to present a particular viewpoint as a stand alone opinion piece. Adding an opposing essay/ opinion here is a passive aggressive attempt at undermining this essay and not allowing that opinion to exist on its own merits. This is essentially a hostile takeover of this essay, and a way of discrediting, silencing and suppressing a minority opinion. Please note, that this is not censorship as opposing views can easily be contained in their own essays which can be linked in the see also section on this page. Additionally, WP:OWN doesn't apply here either as fundamentally changing the purpose and focus of an essay is essentially destroying the essay to the point that's its no longer a representation of the viewpoint it was originally meant to represent. 4meter4 (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:ESSAY in its entirety. Note that the advice "To be on the safe side, discuss any edits not covered by REFACTOR and MINOR before making them." only applies to essays in user space, which this is not. Your removal of complementary material is simply not justified, and believing that you have the unilateral right to determine what goes into a project space essay is the epitome of WP:OWN. See further on your talk page. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I've gone through and restored the inappropriately removed content, changed the section name to be more conciliatory, improved the AGF language throughout, and deleted one section as entirely inappropriate and unsalvageable. The first section still seems quite redundant to me, and I think we can condense the six points down to perhaps four. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sigh, I wish you would have talked about it here before restoring the material. This essay has a particular POV, because that is what essay’s are. Expressing a different POV should be done in a different essay. NPOV does not apply to essays. This is an article on opinion A not opposing opinion B. You are wanting to turn it into an article on opinion B in order to discredit opinion A. That’s not what essay pages are for. I fundamentally think you have a problem with the foundational opinion of this essay, which really makes me question your motive in editing here. If the essay is not going to reflect the opinion it’s supposed to represent than what are we doing here? What’s the purpose of this page? As I stated above, essays are not debate pages. Ultimately I don’t see the addition of the material you have added as serving the purpose of this essay and the ideas behind it. You are wanting to critique the essay, which should be done in its own separate article.4meter4 (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

On a side note, I do want to thank you for some constructive edits and feedback you made to the original essay itself. I can agree with the removal of the one criteria.4meter4 (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

In re-reading your addition, I think I over-reacted. I’m ok with it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)