Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GHcool


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the page &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 19:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:GHcool
The user page of User:GHcool is being nominated for deletion per Wikipedia's policies against soapboxes, propaganda and advocacy, and opinion pieces. While user pages generally get a pass for expressing some degree of opinion, this page takes it rather overboard: it includes what is more or less a 7,000 word essay, or 18 pages in 12pt Times New Roman worth of material, of User:GHcool's opinions; it's probably longer than the average FA article. It is mostly a series of musings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, intertwined with User:GHcool's analayses of the views or positions of other users instead of using the appropriate talk pages. Moreover, the user page's clear intent is to persuade, as GHcool insists that his positions are "the reality," whereas alternative positions are simply "accusations" against Israel. The "Views on Israel" section is wholly inappropriate and stretches the policies of user pages beyond their breaking point. I would withdraw the nomination to delete the entire user page if GHcool removes the entire "Views" section. Timour Derevenko (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Users are allowed to use their user space to express their views about matters relating to the writing of an encyclopaedia, and Ghcool's page keeps close enough to comment on the application of WP:NPOV to matters relating to Israel and Palestine not to require deletion. It can also help readers if others declare their stance and their own point of view. If the page was purely an expression views on Israel-Palestine issues in the wider world rather than on Wikipedia then it would be deletable. If the page was a laundry list of grievances alleging rule-breaking by other users, then it would be deletable. But it avoids both traps; the length of the page is a red herring; there are no size restrictions on Wikipedia so long as the content itself is legitimate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The length was not a reason for deletion so much as the fact that the page is written in the format of a persuasive essay. Many things are discussed within the context of Wikipedia, but still boil down to blatant soapboxing rather than the discussion of editing disputes, as is the case here, for example. It is introduced in the context of an editing dispute, and then becomes GHCool's own philosophical musings on whether or not Palestinians have the right to call themselves "a people," comparing them to the Japanese, Romani, etc. and implying that they have no ethnic identity. Such a debate wouldn't even be appropriate for a talk page on the Palestinian people page, since it is entirely original research and provides no direction toward article improvement. Another such example has almost nothing to do with Wikipedia, outside of the fact that GHcool used Wikipedia to find out what apartheid means. One can discuss editing disputes on Wikipedia insofar that the debate has to do with improvements to the article, rather than expression of personal opinion. The section holistically reads like a persuasive political piece, which Wikipedia is not. -Timour Derevenko (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regrettably, Delete. I say 'regrettably' because this is pretty well-written advocacy, much of which I agree with, but it is advocacy nonetheless and violates WP:SOAP. Not all of what is written here is contentious, but some of it is (e.g. User:GHcool, a question which has no simple answer), and in the contentious areas the author is clearly trying to convince readers of his opinion. Allowing this to stay risks it being perceived as an objective statement of undisputed facts, which it is not, and risks parts like User:GHcool being mistaken for Wikipedia policy. Ultimately, though this page appears like a 'neutral' series of questions and answers, it is really a subtle form of soapboxing, and as such should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, also regrettably. The subject of the essays do not directly pertain to improving the encyclopedia or a particular article.  While his points may be persuasive and his cause may be noble, we're neither a webhost nor a place to publish original thought.  No prejudice against content; I would be interested in reading a book, would this user ever pen one. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * chop off the essay in the first part of the page there's a complilation of articles he edited, keep that. Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sam Blacketer. Israel-Palestine related articles are among the most controversial on Wikipedia, and this essay, as noted, is mainly set in the context of various editing disputes, and of refuting various allegations made by User:PalestineRemembered, among others. At times he veers off into irrelevant discussion, but this is a userpage, and we do allow reasonable latitude for users to express their opinions on their userpage. WaltonOne 14:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Example: User:GHcool - a reasonable statement of his position over a Wikipedia article naming controversy (viz. whether the article should be called Palestinians or Palestinian people). This isn't advocacy or soapboxing, it's a reasonable explanation of why the article should be called one thing and not another. As I said, other parts of the page veer into political advocacy, but deleting the whole essay is overkill IMO. WaltonOne 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Walton One and per Editors matter. Seems fair enough judging by the content I have seen on other userpages.--WaltCip (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the others who said keep. As Sam Blacketer wrote, the length of the page is a red herring.  Also, despite what Terraxos wrote, I am under no illusions that my user page is a neutral statement of the facts or of Wikipedia policy.  My user page represents my own views and opinions and I believe this is made clear enough.  If it is not clear enough that my user page represent my own subjective opinions, I am open to suggestions about how to make it clearer, but deleting the page wholesale is counterproductive.  In fact, I openly accept, respect, and welcome challenges to the opinions voiced on my user page and suggestions on how to improve it (including parts that can be trimmed or cut).  In the past, when users have made good challenges or suggestions, I altered and improved my user page.  I hope that my page inspires more dialogue like this.  Deleting the whole page will hurt Wikipedia much more than it would help.  --GHcool (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. i think users are allowed some latitude in what they post on their user page. I think this is a simple issue of free speech. Most importantly, I think this encylopedia is simply the sum result of what all editors of good faith say it is. that is the nature of a collaborative encyclopedia. GHcool is an extremely principled and articulate editor. he should be allowed to retain his user page as it may take shape. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a user page, and no one will be reading it as an encyclopedic source. Also, let's use timeless apple pie hypothetical example: if GHcool's discussion page said how much he loved apple pie no one would say it's soapboxing, although it would be considered soapboxing if he did it on the Apple pie discussion page. Why is he criticized for alleged soapboxing for doing the same with Israel? A user page is precisely the right place for the discussion of what kind of editor one considers oneself, and I, for one, am very glad that this discussion is on his user page and not on some discussion board. Screen stalker (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Because as of now, editors still matter. It makes me wonder why GHcool was singled out. I feel stupid voting on something that shouldn't have been put to a vote in the first place; but as a result, I read all the pertinent articles of Wikpedia's policies and guidelines and found them contradicting each other and many times contradicting itself in the same article. What we have is a hodgepodge of ideas (well meaning on the whole) by many editors; with many contradictions in them; but with no clear guidelines to be found, and the rules keep changing. What I find troubling is that the minute we won't be needed; the rules will drastically change; and editors will not anymore count. Fellow Wikipedians; enjoy it while we still count; soon after it had milked everything out of us and used us as guinea pigs; we will put out to pasture. Remember we're still needed; therefore editors matter; the minute we won't be needed; the rules will change. Itzse (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In what way do the policies of Wikipedia contradict one another? And WP:Editors matter is an essay; it is not actual policy, whereas soapboxing is, in fact, against Wikipedia policy. These types of user pages set a terrible precedent; what if, for example, someone responds to GHcool's user page by creating an extended rant about how "Israel is an apartheid state"? This genre of discussion is simply not appropriate for the user page; Wikipedia is not a personal space or a blog. Moreover, certain things on the page can even be deemed as libelous (e.g. calling Norman G. Finkelstein anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, and a psuedoscholar in a user page), which is explicitly against Wikipedian policy and can even merit blocks if it is inserted in a living person's biography. GHcool says that these are explicitly his opinions; yet such statements actually happen to be written under a heading titled "reality." Is that not an assertion of fact? -Timour Derevenko (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're judging an essay by its face value - you can't do that. If a consensus exists in support of an essay, as we have seen in plenty of other MFDs... it's only a matter of time before it becomes a guideline. Again, Wiki policy, particularly that of notability and verifiability, only apply to the mainspace.--WaltCip (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Timour Derevenko's argument is a form of begging the question. Please refrain from committing logical fallacies in the future.  Thank you.  --GHcool (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not brought up verifiability or notability as problems with his page; those were the least of my concerns, actually. As far as I am aware Wikipedia policies still apply to user pages, only some leeway can be given. Leeway doesn't mean that one "owns" his or her own user page (as Wiki policy states), nor does it mean the user page is able to function as an open blog or a personal website. Here is a policy that you should probably read. You also ignored some of the points I brought up in my previous post, notably the issue with his contentious statements about Norman Finkelstein (see WP:BLP). I also mentioned other things in my previous post, but I feel no need to repeat whatever statements that you felt no need to entertain. I don't completely dismiss the essay, but it does not seem to be a valid excuse since we are dealing with multiple issues (and, after checking, soapboxing and BLP are both explicitly mentioned within Wikipedia policy as applying to articles off the mainspace; BLP issues can even result in blocks depending on the severity, although this is a rather small situation).


 * As a side note (there was an edit conflict), proposing a question about how future situations would be handled is not "begging the question," since I did not imply a conclusion based on any specific assertion or presupposition; rather, I was troubled by the precedent that this would set. Perhaps we are looking at different statements? Please explain in what way I am "committing a logical fallacy"? The bulk of my argument has been policy-based; policy that you seemingly wish to not address. Perhaps that is the issue here. -Timour Derevenko (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Policies are set ground rules that have been established by reaching a consensus. That means that the consensus can change.--WaltCip (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - or, preferably remove the essay section. Yes, editors matter, but creating a polemic essay in userspace is a blatant violation of the userspace policy and it does not aid collaboration or foster a sense of community [it could potentially do the opposite]. Whether said essay is on the merits of Apple Pie or Israel, it matters not. Wikipedia is not a free webhost and should not be used to archive essays that do not relate to WP. >< Richard  Ω6  12  16:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep freedom of speech is a basic human right. Monobi (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are perfectly correct. However, Wikipedia is not the place to exercise said right. Wikipedia has policies against potentially divisive content or content which is non-WP related in userspace and it is for this reason that the pages should be deleted, not in an attempt to suppress free speech. >< Richard  Ω6  12  16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep What do you think userboxes are for? Stating your opinion. On his talk page, I saw that he got a barn star for maintaining a NPOV regarding the subject. If he wants to voice himself on his user page and not in the article, more power to him.
 * comment I may have been adhering to WP:IAR. I wasn't trying to but... Me   what do u want?  Your Hancock Please  14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep No Comments --SkyWalker (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not closed keep yet? Seriously... John Nevard (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The more an editor chooses to reveal about themself, the better for all to evaluate their other wikipedia contributions. -- Quartermaster (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.