Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedian citizens of the world

< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedian citizens of the world)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 01:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedian citizens of the world

edit

In the VFD discussion on Wikipedia:Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state it has been noted that that article was created as a riposte to this one, which is just as objectionable. I agree: it's an organisation of Wikipedians by POV which can cause no end of problems. There is no such legal concept as a 'citizen of the world' at present. David | Talk 09:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit

Speedy Keep Although this is not my POV, what applies on the article namespace does not apply on the Wikipedia namespace. Also vote to keep Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state. Cognition 09:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I dunno, I'm not on the list, but I guess I'm basically a citizen of the world too. :-) It's a specific concept or state of mind, not so much a POV, rather more of a specific NPOV-ish stance. It appears to be a common feeling among expatriate-type-people. Anyway, the list is in the wikipedia namespace, where this sort of list might reside. It might be a bit dusty though! So if this list gets deleted, then I wouldn't support doing so for the reasons given by nominator above at least. Kim Bruning 10:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Nationalism is a POV, anti-nationalism is a POV. I'm an anti-nationalist. Transnationalism seems to touch on this to some extent. Zora 10:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - one reserves the right to declare that he or she does not recognise being part of a nationality, and to associate themselves as such. -- Natalinasmpf 10:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed they do, but it is a POV, isn't it? David | Talk 11:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it is not. A person can think whatever he or she likes and not have not have that declaration labelled as POV. The thought itself can be POV, but the declaration isn't. -- Natalinasmpf 12:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would not that line of argument allow any classification scheme - eg Wikipedia:Wikipedians who have declared they are anti-semitic? That's an NPOV declaration of a POV stance. David | Talk 13:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Except being anti-semetic is particularly exclusive. "Citizen of the world" is the opposite, and being inclusive. The idea behind anti-nationalism is to refuse judging others by something as "belonging" to some intangible political boundary thought up by power-mongerers. -- Natalinasmpf 15:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, I suspect anti-Semites are perfectly willing to allow anyone, including Semitic peoples to be anti-Semitic, so the statement that "Citizen of the world" is more inclusive than other labels is a holier than thou kind of statement. --Habap 16:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • So a statement declaring my belief exists is NPOV only when I'm saying something nice? Or did I miss something? But who cares if it is POV or not, it's taking up disk space. And the time we're spending here voting we could be adding Digimon stubs. brenneman(t)(c) 15:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have to agree with the above that, if one allows a group that self-identifies as rejecting powermongers (and I do), one should also allow a group for those who embrace powermongers. This latter group is numerous; though I am not one, there are non-frivilous arguments in support of that position. Xoloz 06:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is in the same vein as the other vfd debate that it has been linked to but I'm still going to say weak delete: it's not as POV as the other one, but it is still POV. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Natalinasmpf. -- Jehoshaphat 12:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with Natalinasmpf. -- Oldak Quill 13:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Natalinasmpf. -- Tkorrovi 13:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Wikipedia Micronation official citizens, and declare independence. Radiant_>|< 13:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Privileging legal status (i.e. nationality), at the expense of other nodes of self-identification, is itself a highly contentious POV. Anyway, world citizen is as inclusive and NPOV a POV as you can hope to find. Besides, who says we can't have organizations of Wikipedians by POV? There's a group for Muslim Wikipedians, if I'm not mistaken. QuartierLatin 1968 14:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a related VFD to the one for Wikipedia:Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state. Kaibabsquirrel 14:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with QuartierLatin1968. - ulayiti 15:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shouldn't we all be writing articles or something? brenneman(t)(c) 15:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This article is very important to every Wikipedian. I don't see any reason to delete it. -- Ed Telerionus 15:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep If people want it, it seems to do no harm. --Habap 16:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep How is it POV? If they sign it themselves, then it is an accurate reflection of how they wish to be seen. ~~~~ 19:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete everything in "Category:Wikipedians by country". Otherwise you're pushing a POV. Sarge Baldy 19:34, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, where I live is pretty clearly NPOV. What I think about where I live is not. Which, again, is hardly the point. brenneman(t)(c) 01:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you seem unaccepting of is the idea that people might choose to identify with a place they do not live, or choose not to identify with where they do. In fact, this happens quite often. Consider, for example, the many Mexican immigrants who choose not to associate with the United States, or Americans who choose to live overseas and yet continue to consider themselves Americans. To say that people can only associate with the country they are legally tied to, the country they are born in, or the country they currently live in is POV because it is to say that people do not have the right to refuse an association with a political entity. Since these lists are voluntary, it should more than anything be at the discretion of the user what that user wishes to describe her or himself as, and would be POV to force onto others ones own concept of nationality. Sarge Baldy 03:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Agree with Kaibabsquirrel --Bletch 20:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as unfortunately there is no world state yet. Therefore the term is either meaningless or an association of those who support the POV that there should be a world state. I don't believe a POV should be confused with a religious belief. One can have POV Rastafarian or Muslim beliefs but being a Rasta or a Muslim is not itself a POV belief, and not all Rastas or Muslims believe the same thing, SqueakBox 23:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, and that's precisely why this article should be kept. A religious belief is a POV as much as any other belief. However, the fact that someone is a Muslim is not POV - it's a fact. The same thing goes for 'world citizens': declaring that you hold a certain belief is not POV, it's merely a statement of a fact (which may of course be incorrect, but only in the case you knowingly lie about it). There not being any world state is irrelevant, as having one is not a requirement for an ideology saying that there should be one (but rather on the contrary). Internationalism is an ideology just like any other one (including any religion), and I don't see why religions should be treated any differently. ulayiti 20:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kim Bruning and Sarge Baldy. StopTheFiling 23:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep As I said before, I fear the day that "Neo-Fascist Wikipedians" becomes a group, because my internal ACLU Devil's advocate would demand we accept all real groups or none. Still, this is a tempest in a teapot for now. Xoloz 04:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although if it's kept I should add myself. Not a benefit to the community. We need a general policy, though.-- Visviva 04:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme Keep. utcursch | talk 09:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see how this relates to Wikipedia as a community. Friday 19:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It relates strongly indeed. It is simple as me and you here. Nobody knows exactly which citizenship we got; we may have 5 in total between you and me! We may be speaking 10 languages in total as well! But we surely are wikipedians. And Wikipedians can be people who like to spend 2 hours daily in a bathroom or only 15 minutes there. I am just a Wikipedian citizen of the world who likes to spend 30 minutes. Wikipedia is a free space for everybody, no matter from where she/he comes from as long as we abide by wikipedia rules and there's no reason to apply censorship against people who decide to identify themselves with a community of citizens of the world within this platform. I don't have a pet and if i did I'd have been in Wikipedia:Wikipedians by pet. I am not NEW neither OLD to be part of Wikipedia:Wikipedians New Europe or Wikipedia:Wikipedians Old Europe. --Svest 00:56, May 21, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
  • Keep. Almafeta 07:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep --Pgreenfinch 19:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I heard some arguments above that declaring you're a citizen of the world is a POV!!! The real POV is that everybody on this earth is labelled a citizen of a coutry at birth. The only human (why not say animal, mammal or homosapien?!) being recorded to have expressed why? before being 3 years old was a girl aged 2 and some. Who decides the citizenship?
The concept of being a citizen of the world is not something new, it's been around for more than a few centuries and surely much older in late civilizations before any concept of modern state was thought about!!! It's definitely not a creation of some of wikipedia's POV's pushers as we might believe.
We declare we are blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos... Are they POV's? Never. Following the reasoning of David, there's no such legal concept as a 'Latino' at present neither in the future unless there'd be a Latinoland in the UN and in the Soccer WorldCup competitions. Morever, Some people are named Citizen of the World by the United Nations [1] and many others for their humanitarian efforts [2]. If so, that should be encyclopedic and we should have a UNCA Citizen of the World Award. Therefore, this page we put on VFD should remain for the same reasons.
And I believe we all know about Bobby Fischer's story. Bobby_Fischer#Disappearance_and_aftermath... After being held in jail in Japan for several months he was rescued by an Icelandic team including his friend Saemi Rokk (famous Icelandic policeman and a rock and roll dancer). As of 2005 Fischer lives in Iceland and has an Icelandic citizenship. So, is he American, Icelandic or a COW?
When I’m reporting, I am a Citizen of the World. -- CNN's Bob Franken.
When I'm bothering you here, I am a Citizen of the World. -- Svest 00:56, May 21, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;, It's me, the citizen of the world

Comments

edit
  • This discussion seems to revolve around the neutrality/lack thereof of this article. While we seem to have some, um, interesting views on that, isn't the bar for inclusion in this namespace "Of benefit to the community?" My intention with creating this section is for it to be used to discuss that as opposed to the POV status of this article. brenneman(t)(c) 01:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed the question is the benefit to the community. In my view it's not a benefit to the community to allow people who share a particular POV (and however much I may agree with that POV myself) to form an 'association'. It simply invites them to try to put their POV on articles. It is acceptable to have 'noticeboards' for people interested in a topic to be alerted to disputes etc., because the noticeboard can be used by those with any POV. Note that my dislike for this sort of classification does not extent to Meta where Wikipedians can and do gather by POV. David | Talk 10:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure why it should be any more acceptable on Meta than here, but otherwise I fully agree with that sentiment. It would be a Good Thing if we had a general policy for groups with shared topical interests, and against groups of the present sort. Political groups will form regardless, but they should not be given the sanction of Wikipedia namespace. -- Visviva 12:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I look at pages like this, and I do not see how Wikipedia benefits. This page is a mere "Sign here if you have this particular POV"; there is nothing this page that talks about a course of action or how to otherwise improve Wikipedia, unlike the more conventional Wikiprojects page. I'd favor a policy deleteing pages like this unless they provided a charter of some sort that stated why the project is necessary. I'm fuzzy on the details, but such a charter would have to be more than having a signup page. --Bletch 12:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Squeakbox's comment, who said anything about a world state? Why are we not allowed to believe in the world just because there's no State authorizing us to do so? Per Bletch and David's comments, I do agree in part, I'm not sure what tangible benefits a group like this gives Wikipedia, except that people might meet fellow Wikipedians here with shared interests and agree to collaborate on some kind of project. How often that happens in fact, I don't know; but for the time being, what's the harm? Look, we are all Wikipedians; by virtue of being here we're committed to collaborating on an encyclopedia from a NPOV. I might hook up with a couple fellow 'world citizens' here and decide there need to be more pages on, I dunno, world literacy. Whatever we do collaborate on together is still going to be subject to the same scrutiny as if we had contributed separately. I don't see what people are panicked about. QuartierLatin 1968 17:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While on the surface this seems trivial, it is worth noting that (Keep/Delete) tally for the "nice" POV article is at my count 16-7 while the "unpalatable" one is running at 3-14. I know this is not a vote, but that is disturbing to me. brenneman(t)(c) 00:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the "unpalatable" one is fictional. While I love my country, I would never classify myself on the "unpalatable" one. It was probably created to demostrate balance, when in fact, it is only nonsense. I find the holier than thou tone of the "nice" people "unpalatable". --Habap 13:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The "unpalatable" one was not added in an attempt to make balance, it was a sincere creation that makes perfect sense if one follows the politics of the LaRouche Movement. --Bletch 16:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How so? (genuinely curious) SqueakBox 16:56, July 14, 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedian_citizens_of_the_world&oldid=1140156417"