|
Results and statistics for the '''[[Victorian Football League]] season of [[1898]]'''.
===[[Biblical inconsistencies]]===
Copy of a list I've seen all over the Internet. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 00:22, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
*Wow, great rewrite, CheeseDreams. Yes, keep this version. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 20:16, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
::No, Mpolo did the re-write, probably after I invited him to. [[User:CheeseDreams|CheeseDreams]] 22:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:# '''Keep'''[[User:CheeseDreams|CheeseDreams]] 00:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', but send to cleanup to add desc.s...or maybe RFE? I don't know, but not a delete, unless there's another Wikipedia article on this somewhere (please leave a note on my talk page if somebody finds that this is a copy). -[[User:Frazzydee|[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee]]|[[User talk:Frazzydee|✍]]]] 00:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', needs cleanup, not deletion. [[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 00:39, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' Cut and paste email forward. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 00:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' An article discussing the issue generally - fine, some examples, fine, a list of passages? No. Put it this way, would I be likely to get away with putting up a list of "alleged discrepancies", showing how they are in fact consistent? The issue is inherently POV - such a list exists in order to bolster one POV. [[User:Zoney|'''zoney''']] <font size=+1 style="color:green;">♣</font> [[User talk:Zoney|'''talk''']] 01:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
** How is the list point of view? There's no editorialising at all, it's just a simple list with no commentry. Surely this is the best possible example of NPOV: just present the facts, let the reader decide if they are really inconsistencies or not. [[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 01:49, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
***Mere presentation of facts is not necessarily NPOV. See the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Fairness and sympathetic tone|NPOV page - Fairness and sympathetic tone]], ''Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization''. In this case, the stance is not even "implied".). My example above was that one could pick a whole series of facts to emphasise the consistency of the Bible. This list has been selectively picked to emphasise a POV, namely that the Bible is inconsistent. [[User:Zoney|'''zoney''']] <font size=+1 style="color:green;">♣</font> [[User talk:Zoney|'''talk''']] 02:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
**** There's a subtle difference, it's not saying that the bible is inconsistent, it's saying it contains inconsistencies. That's the title of the article, of course you're going to pick facts that demonstrate it. What facts is it supposed to select? You'd expect an article on [[John Kerry]] to contain facts about John Kerry, and not about [[James Knox Polk]] too! I think the article is pretty crap as it stands, but that's grounds for cleanup, not deletion, like I originally said. You're also welcome to create a [[Biblical consistencies]] article to counter-balance, which I would also vote to keep. [[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 04:23, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
::::I don't think a biblical consistencies article would be terribly coherent, though it would be interesting to read. [[User:CheeseDreams|CheeseDreams]] 08:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
**The new version is exceptionally well written. I propose that this VfD debate is no longer valid, unless someone wants to list the new article for deletion. I would note that I consider that it would have been better to begin the new article at a new ___location, and allow the old article and its history to be deleted. [[User:Zoney|'''zoney''']] <font size=+1 style="color:green;">♣</font> [[User talk:Zoney|'''talk''']] 18:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Delete: As Gamaliel says. Also, it's simply pathetically POV, childish, and uninformative. It is no more encyclopedic than [[Bible proof that hanging is good]] or [[Bible justification for slavery]] or whatever else: Bible proof-texts aren't articles, and neither are trash lists of "inconsistencies" in the Bible. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 01:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* <s>'''Delete.''' Non-encyclopedic. Personal research. Undocumented opinion pairing quotes from a fairy-tale. If somebody wants to make a good encyclopedic page out of [[Biblical inconsistencies]], this ain't it. An encyclopedic page on [[Biblical inconsistencies]] would pick maybe three big and interesting ones--like maybe [[God's mistakes]] or [[Who saved God from sin?]] or [[Cain's wife]]. This list scores points for the Christians. Nobody but a first-grade mentality would think that the first three on that list are inconsistencies anyway. This ''is'' after all just a fairy tale; fairy tales don't have inconsistencies; fairy tales have hooks for the mind. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 01:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)</s>
** '''Keep.''' Wow! I am impressed with the new page! I suggest everyone reconsider their vote after looking at the new page. I also liked my witty comment above that I had to <s>strike out</s> to change my vote. :((( But this is a real Wikipedia page now, and none of my witty remarks above apply. :((( The new page needs a lot of work however. (; But there is a solid architectural design here to work from now, in my opinion! My congratulations to the turn-around artists! ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 17:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
<s>*'''delete''' Appears to have been taken from [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml here]</s>
*Keep if and only if completely rewritten to remove pre-existing material; otherwise delete. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 03:04, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. POV title and content. And most of the items listed are obviously not inconsistencies. [[User:Eric119|Eric119]] 04:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Text dump, not an article. If someone wants to write a real article about this topic, he can do so without this crud appearing in page history. [[User:Jni|jni]] 07:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Needs complete rewrite and focusing, but probably worth covering. Title needs NPOVing as well. The information here at least provides a basis for what those holding this point of view consider to be inconsistency. With that huge caveat, '''keep'''. [[User:Mpolo|Mpolo]] 08:13, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
::I think the article needs to be broken up into sub articles - for example, [[Creation according to Genesis]] already exists to discuss the inconsistencies (or not) there. Likewise, parts of it can be used in a "John vs. the synoptic Gospels" article. Other parts in "The Gospels vs. Paul" etc. These are major academic talking points, and should be included. [[User:CheeseDreams|CheeseDreams]] 08:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::I have just done a major rewrite, moving the article to [[Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible]]. Some more details may need to be added, and some subarticles to discuss particular points, but I have hopefully improved the situation... [[User:Mpolo|Mpolo]] 10:49, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
:::* This is a '''much better''' version. I think this one should be kept. (Though, as it appears to be a wholly separate article, I think it beyond the scope of this VfD.) [[User:Eric119|Eric119]] 16:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::* Great rewrite, sir. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 21:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*'''Replace'''. The article should be started from scratch. It is an interesting angle of study. But, for all we know, someone holds the copyright to this list, and it really should include opinions from all sides. So instead: cite some inconsistent verses, followed by discusion of whether they really are inconcistent. Also, talk about the roots behind this whole thing--why is it important to show that the Bible does or does not have inconsistencies? To many people it is important, and a good article will explain why. [[User:Quintessent|Q]]
:[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml This link] suggest a probable owner of the copyright [[User:Geni|Geni]] 09:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*I'm undecided if this is a topic worth an article but the current contents are usueless. [[User:Jeltz|Jeltz]] 10:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
**'''Keep''' the rewritten version. [[User:Jeltz|Jeltz]] 15:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*<b>Keep</b> the rewritten version (and the redirect). - [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 12:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' the rewrite with the new title. A valid topic for an article IMHO as it is the subject of much debate. Whether or not the current content is useful or not is irrelevant. That can be dealt with. [[User:Livajo|[[User:Livajo|力伟]]|[[User talk:Livajo|☺]]]] 13:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*'''Definite Keep.''' With the new title. Plus inconsistencies in the bible is a very serious ongoing argument, and if I voted to keep the Star Wars v. Star Trek article, I really can't vote any other way here, especially for an topic more serious and with a much longer history. - [[User:Lifefeed|Lifefeed]] 13:58, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
*'''Abstain'''. I don't think the new title changes anything. I'm not sure if it'd help to allow rebuttals and through exploration of the topics raised -- that could be huge. It may be interesting to create argument maps, but I suspect that those really would fall out of scope of Wikipedia's mission. I'm too close to the issue to feel that I can vote in good conscience anyhow. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 15:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
''[[Victorian Football League season 1897|Season 1897]] – '''Season 1898''' – [[Victorian Football League season 1899|Season 1899]]''
*<b>delete</b> not in any way encyclopedic. --[[User:Aaaaaaa|Aaaaaaa]] 17:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
**Note that this person may very well be a sock, as this is the user's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Aaaaaaa only contribution]. [[User:Livajo|[[User:Livajo|力伟]]|[[User talk:Livajo|☺]]]] 19:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*** Good eye! Who could it be? Surely it must be someone who voted "delete." :)) Would someone who already voted "keep" also vote "delete"? :(( Alternatively, it may be an "anonymous" reader who suddenly had a change of heart about registering because she or he wanted the vote to count. A mystery in any case. I will go post a Welcome message! :)))))) ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 20:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' in present form. Nice article. [[User:Dpbsmith|[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]]]] 21:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' in its current form. Agree with Lifefeed. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 21:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' new version. Needs some work, but well on its way and better than a lot of articles out there. 21:11, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
*Keep new version. [[User:Siroxo| ]]—[[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>siro</font>]][[User talk:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>''χ''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Siroxo|<font color=#627562>o</font>]] 21:15, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
''See [[List of Australian Football League premiers]] for a complete list.''
*'''Keep''' this. [[User:Radman1|[[en:RaD Man|'''RaD Man''']] ([[User_talk:Radman1|''talk'']])]] 23:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==[[Grand Final]]==
[[Fitzroy Football Club|Fitzroy]] defeated [[Essendon Football Club|Essendon]] 5.8 (38) to 3.5 (23). (For an explanation of scoring see [[Australian rules football]]).
==Ladder==
All teams played 14 games during the home and away season, for a total of 56. A sectional round of 3 games per team was then played, for a total of 12. An additional 2 games were played during the finals series.
===Home and away ladder===
{| border style="border-collapse:collapse" cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0
|
!align=center|Team
!align=center|Won
!align=center|Lost
!align=center|Draw
!align=center|Points
|-
!1
|[[Essendon Football Club|Essendon]]
|align=center|11
|align=center|3
|align=center|0
|align=center|44
|-
!2
|[[Collingwood Football Club|Collingwood]]
|align=center|10
|align=center|4
|align=center|0
|align=center|40
|-
!3
|[[Fitzroy Football Club|Fitzroy]]
|align=center|10
|align=center|4
|align=center|0
|align=center|40
|-
!4
|[[Geelong Football Club|Geelong]]
|align=center|9
|align=center|5
|align=center|0
|align=center|36
|-
|colspan=6|
|-
!5
|[[South Melbourne Football Club|South Melbourne]]
|align=center|7
|align=center|7
|align=center|0
|align=center|28
|-
!6
|[[Melbourne Football Club|Melbourne]]
|align=center|5
|align=center|8
|align=center|1
|align=center|22
|-
!7
|[[Carlton Football Club|Carlton]]
|align=center|3
|align=center|10
|align=center|1
|align=center|14
|-
!8
|[[St Kilda Football Club|St Kilda]]
|align=center|0
|align=center|14
|align=center|0
|align=center|0
|-
|}
===Section A ladder===
{| border style="border-collapse:collapse" cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0
|
!align=center|Team
!align=center|Won
!align=center|Lost
!align=center|Draw
!align=center|Points
|-
!1
|[[Fitzroy Football Club|Fitzroy]]
|align=center|3
|align=center|0
|align=center|0
|align=center|12
|-
!2
|[[Essendon Football Club|Essendon]]
|align=center|2
|align=center|1
|align=center|0
|align=center|8
|-
!3
|[[South Melbourne Football Club|South Melbourne]]
|align=center|1
|align=center|2
|align=center|0
|align=center|4
|-
!4
|[[Carlton Football Club|Carlton]]
|align=center|0
|align=center|3
|align=center|0
|align=center|0
|-
|}
===Section B ladder===
{| border style="border-collapse:collapse" cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0
|
!align=center|Team
!align=center|Won
!align=center|Lost
!align=center|Draw
!align=center|Points
|-
!1
|[[Collingwood Football Club|Collingwood]]
|align=center|3
|align=center|0
|align=center|0
|align=center|12
|-
!2
|[[Geelong Football Club|Geelong]]
|align=center|2
|align=center|1
|align=center|0
|align=center|8
|-
!3
|[[Melbourne Football Club|Melbourne]]
|align=center|1
|align=center|2
|align=center|0
|align=center|4
|-
!4
|[[St Kilda Football Club|St Kilda]]
|align=center|0
|align=center|3
|align=center|0
|align=center|0
|-
|}
[[Category:Australian Football League seasons|1898]] [[Category:1898 in sports]]
| 