Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for discussing the summary of T1 and T2 debates. It also includes a selected archive of debates from Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion relating to the T1 and T2 criteria, as applied to userboxes.

T1 debate summary[edit]

See main project page

NPOV in userspace?[edit]

Can someone point out exactly where it says that NPOV does not apply to userspace? I was under the impression that "community policies ... apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere" (WP:UP). 18:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:UP#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space: "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community" might be the bit you are looking for. Stephen B Streater 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
So, exactly which part of that statement suggests that it does not apply? 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't think of it legalistically. We traditionally allow wide latitude, if you don't try to think of it as a rule, but just as the way things are done, it makes much more sense. "Where is it written that...?", is almost always the wrong question. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

POV cannot be banned on userpages, it's utterly impossible. Why? Simply because Userpages are not collaborative, they are automatically an unbalanced POV piece. Personal attacks and polemical material are still banned on userpages, but any statement made on your userpage is implied to be your opinion automatically. However, it is for this exact reason that they shouldn't be considered offensive to anyone until they reach a much higher degree than an article would. Anything on your userpage, since it is being directly stated by you, has the implied logical beginning "I believe that..." Example: (I believe that) My name is Beric Jones. (I believe that) I am a 22 year old law student in Virginia. (I believe that) Anyone who smokes pot will go to hell.

When you think about it that way, you'll notice that unless he is lying they are all true statements, he does believe those things. (The last one is polemical though and should still be removed.) --tjstrf 23:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You really consider your name, age, location and occupation to be matters of opinion on par with your religious and political beliefs? I'm not sure what to make of that... -GTBacchus(talk) 23:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Logically, yes, all 3 of those sentences are claims and matters of opinion. Which is why people being offended by the userboxes which state a simple opinion is so absurd when the userboxes even explicitly state that the view expressed is just an opinion, but I digress. More to the point, claiming userpages must be NPOV makes as much sense as claiming they must be well-sourced, notable, and verifiable. --tjstrf 00:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
What then do you consider a "fact"? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
All those statements are facts. The guy does believe those things. --tjstrf 06:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was actually hoping for an explanation of how "I believe I'm in Oregon" is a fact but "I'm in Oregon" is an opinion? Do there exist facts that don't begin with the words "I believe that..."? (I realize this is off-topic, you've just piqued my curiosity.) -GTBacchus(talk) 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The only difference between "I believe I'm in Oregon." and "I'm in Oregon." is that in the second one, "I believe" is implied rather than explicitly stated. I think you're misunderstanding the point of this though, which is that you, as the listener, can apply this to make yourself not be offended by the factually stated opinions of others by realizing that everything they say is their opinion. In the end, the statements of an individual should not be offensive under most circumstances because they are exactly that, the statements of an individual. It's a difference of perspective.
Whether objective facts, rather than merely facts in context, exist or not is an entirely different issue. I believe that they do. I also believe that they are not objectively determinable by humans. (I also believe I am mostly right about what they are, but since this is Wikipedia, not "tj's view of the universe", I don't try writing articles about them.)--tjstrf 13:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not misunderstanding the point so much as not very interested in it. I'm not going to be offended by anything anyone says in a userbox, for something close to the reasons you state, I think. I just thought you were saying something provocative about reality, and was kind of interested. Like I said, it's off-topic. I still don't understand why you're saying that "I'm in Oregon" is an opinion instead of a fact. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
What if you are on the border of Oregon. You believe you are in oregon but the fact may be that you do not, simply because it is your own opinion as to how to interpret your location. Some such "opinions" are beyond any doubt as to also be facts, while others may be questionable. If I say "I am a student at Uni X" that would clearly be such a case, but if I said "I am the best student at Uni X" then the "I believe" which is implied at the beginning would reduce people being offended because they wouldn't then challenge you asking for factual verification of the statement ("I am" is a statement, "I believe I am" is an opinion). I understand perfectly where Tjstrf is coming from, its abundantly clear and quite consise. Enigmatical 02:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is something interesting about the universe, but it doesn't have much application other than not being offended by people. Other than in the resolution of a few logical paradoxes, at least. Paradoxal statements that assert their own falsehood are not actually logical paradoxes according to this view, merely self-contradictory. --tjstrf 15:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't POV. To frame it thusly is to invite the retort, WP:NPOV. The relevant policy is the first: Wikipedia is an encylopedia; q.v. WP:NOT.Timothy Usher 23:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Repealing of CSD T1[edit]

For anyone still watching this, I'm moving for the repealing of criterion for speedy deletion T1. I invite your opinions and discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Removal_of_T1_redux. Dcoetzee 03:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)