Misplaced Pages

:Miscellany for deletion/User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User onemanonewoman - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Homestarmy (talk | contribs) at 23:56, 13 February 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:56, 13 February 2007 by Homestarmy (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User onemanonewoman

I nominated this for speedy deletion, but was told to bring it here. Basically, this userbox promotes discrimination and is divisive. It is also very POV. I request its deletion Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete Not criteria for a speedy deletion but it definitely violates WP:NPOV and may create the wrong impression of wikipedia to new users and scare them away. Tellyaddict 16:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    NPOV doesn't apply to user pages. —Doug Bell  00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rather offensive to many people, and no good reason why it's of editorial importance what a specific Wikipedian believes. -Amarkov moo! 16:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages is not censored. —Doug Bell  00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    I knew someone would say that. Anyway, what the policy means is that articles will not be stripped of content that people find offensive. It doesn't apply nearly as much out of articlespace, and offensive messages on userpages simply should not be allowed. -Amarkov moo! 04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Just about any statement of position could be considered by someone to be offensive. Besides, where in policy or guidelines is your claim of higher sensitivity in user pages supported? —Doug Bell  04:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    The userbox doesn't say "This user thinks that gays should be 'be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'" (the inner quote's actually from Leviticus 20:13) It states a simple legal political and philosophical position. Articles aren't censored, neither are userpages. If you want to have a penis picture on your page, it's perfectly allowable. And believe me when I say that I've seen far worse on userpages that "This user opposes SSM". -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can anyone see userbox wars round the corner? Much as I don't agree, it is an entirely valid point of view to believe that only men and women should be allowed to marry and represents the law in most of the world. The userbox says nothing about other forms of partnerships for same sex couples. If this userbox were deleted then for consistency many others would need to go as well: especially those that support same-sex marriage. Religious views and beliefs about sexual preferences are bound to be controversial, but that does not mean they cannot genuinely be held. Starting another attempt at policing userboxes would be a disaster. WjBscribe 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not attempting to police them. The userbox specifically excludes SSM and is discrimatory and divisive - as I recall most SSM userboxes say stuff like "equality for all" not "only gays should get married". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    You know, you don't need to !vote twice. We get from your nomination that you want it to be deleted. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: stereotype, fails WP:NPOV. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    NPOV doesn't apply to user pages. —Doug Bell  00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
And if that point of view is divisive, or discrimatory, then it ought to be deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
And then our personal POV that same-sex marriage is a good thing will have triumphed over that of those who hold the contrary view. Funny, I didn't think that was how we did things here... WjBscribe 17:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not, and you're twisting what I'm saying. I'm saying that userboxes are tolerated by the community on the basis that they are not offensive, divisive, inflammatory or discrimatory. This userbox does not meet those requirements and should be deleted. I would just as well delete any userbox that said "This user believes that civil partnerships are between two romantically involved people of the same sex", which is discrimatory towards those people who are agitating for civil partnerships to be made open to heterosexual couples. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That argument is based off of personal preference and not on Misplaced Pages policy (especially GUS). On personal level, I would ask why we at wikipedia seem to favour the liberal viewpoint of everything over anything slightly religious. First userboxes about religion were blacklisted. This userbox expresses something that some people of certain religions believe in (and is endorse by, say, the Pope). For the record, I am against SSM. That doesn't mean that I find a userbox saying "This user supports SSM" inflammatory. Once you start saying no viewpoints on userpages, you might as well just disable them. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
What's divisive about them? Now if there was a userbox that said "This user hates feminists"... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
Ask a serving soldier whether they think advocating for pacifism is divisive or not. There are millions of people in America who consider feminism to be deeply offensive and divisive. I don't believe either of those things, by the way, but we either allow all legal viewpoints or none. Gwernol 18:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That would certainly lessen the offensiveness in it. But I have a feeling that the holders of this userbox would disagree with the removal of the word "only". Agne/ 18:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I see your concern, and understand it. But that doesn't have to happen necessarily. After all, the point is the same, while not being offensive to anybody. :-) I'd rather assume good faith from everyone, and believe no one wants to offend other users knowingly. Cheers Raystorm 19:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep On a personal level I disagree with the userbox. So what if a woman loves a woman or a man loves a man and wants to marry her/him? Its none of your business. On the level of a Wikipedian I cannot help but defend this box, since it is a valid expression of free speech and is not truely inflammatory (as a box saying "This users hopes that gay couples die horribly slow and painful deaths, so their eternal torment in hell be even more argonizing" might be - mind the hyperbole). If it were in templatespace I would !vote it to be moved into userspace (as it is not NPOV amongst other things). But as it is already in userspace I fail to see where the issue lies. Wikipedians use this userbox as a way to express their opinions, and Userspace is quite lenient in regard of what is accepted or tolerated (non NPOV content for example). For the curious, there have been long, long, long debates and conflicts about what is acceptable when where - escalating in the Userbox Wars, which have, for now come to end in the compromise that non NPOV userbox don't belong in templatespace, but are accepted in userspace (always provided they conform to the big policies like WP:USER and WP:NPA). CharonX/talk 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I disagree with this userbox, but that's not my sole reason of deletion. It goes against this and this. Cheers, — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 20:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'd like to hop on the simplified summary below: "If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes." Is stating that one holds extremely traditionalistic views on marriage permitted on a userpage? If not, then I imagine we are in a hot tub full of trouble. For the same arguments (it being divisive) a traditionalist could demand deletion of userbox advocating same sex marriage. Or a pro-military activist find pro-peace userboxes divisive. CharonX/talk 23:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Weak keep. Argh, Homophobia. Seriously though, we previously had many debates over similar userboxes, including the pedophilia, nazi, and Ku Klux Klan ones. Although I'm normally in favor of keeping userboxes that provide an uncontroversial point of view, I'm inclined to strongly oppose userboxes which take an anti-X stance. This can eventually lead to unproductive wars and harassment among editors with a different sexuality; note that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. I believe these userboxes have no place on userspace, nor Misplaced Pages in general. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Mentioning nazis, pedophilia and the KKK in the same breath as a box which (in direct, but inoffensive) words advocates the conservative view on marriage is a little strong, ne? Anyway, as I read this box it is not "this user opposes gay marriage" (even if it were, its a valid statement under free speech) It is formulated in a not-anti way - controversly a userbox saying "this user support same-sex marriage" could then be contstructed as "this user opposes the traditional definition of marriage". Which then would, under a objective point of view also be merited for deletion? CharonX/talk 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That's different, "traditional definition of marriage" are not a group of people. The way I see it, a userbox saying that marriage should be restricted to a man and a women is exactly the same as a one against same-sex marriage. Freedom of speech should never be offensive. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Same sex marriage is also not a group of people. It is a concept. And using you example above, a box saying that a user supports same sex marriage, could be then interpreted being against the traditional "only different sex marriage" which afaik a number of people still strongly support. How would you deal with a box that approves of polygamy? It is okay to say that you think everybody should be allowed to marry no matter of gender, it is okay to say everybody should be allowed to have severeal wifes or husbands, but it is not okay to say that you think only "man and woman" should be allowed to marry? That is somewhat counter intuitive. Just because a concept "feels" right and the other "feels" wrong does not mean the one that "feels" wrong does not have a right to exist or to be said. Because there will always be another person who feels the other way round, and would be entiteled to demand of removal of conecepts he "feels" are wrong - Freedom of speech does go both ways. CharonX/talk 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean, and I struck my above vote for now. Freedom of speech or not, Misplaced Pages shouldn't contain offensive material for certain groups of people. This includes racism, homophobia, nazism, etc. Although it doesn't seem to be very offensive against a certain group in this case. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless, serves only to divide the community. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Keep. As much as I disagree with the viewpoint expressed by this userbox, I do agree with CharonX and WJBscribe, among others: if this userbox is unacceptable, then so are this one and this one and this one, etc. —Mira 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Free speech works both ways. Johnny 0 00:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep NPOV does not apply to userspace userboxes. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  00:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Reasons to keep or delete need to be based on policy, not your personal agreement/disagreement with the statement. —Doug Bell  00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I do not agree with this userbox at all, and I believe in SSM. However, this userbox does represent a ligitimate religious belief of the user, and deleting it would be just as intolorant as deleting an LGBT support banner. --NavyHighlander 01:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per policy, in particular WP:GUS. Is this 2006 all over again? Mackensen (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I do not like this userbox, but that is not a reason to delete. In the "Great Userbox War" the compromise was to userfy this type of userbox, and that is where it is - in user space. Let it be. We do not want "Great Userbox War II". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bduke (talk • contribs) 02:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep - with as strong a keep message as possible. As mentioned above, if this userbox is to be deleted, then should all userboxes that are pro-life and pro-choice and anti-pro-life and anti-pro-choice and pro-war and anti-war anti-pro-war pro-anti-war and just anything else that could possibly, potentially, eventually, in some small or large or insignificant or significant way, manage to rub anyone the wrong way or offend, or for that matter, make someone aware of another's point of view (which is what the USERpage is supposed to be all about, isn't it?) Guess what folks, we (in the US at least) live in a society that is supposed to have free speech, unless it offend someone. Well, this level of censorship offends me - so now what? If there is something on someone's userpage I don't like, I just go on to the next. Kind of like changing the channel. Or turning the TV of if you don't like O'Reilly. or Gore. Or Bush. Or Clinton. Or Reagan. Or any of the other presidents that the US has had.
Even if this were a userbox that I don't like (and there are QUITE a few), I will still fight to keep it - userboxes are not supposed to have to subscribe to a neutral point-of-view. They are all about putting forth the user's point of view to better understand the built-in (even if not always spoken about) biases that we all have.
<begin rant>I don't think there has ever, EVER been an elected official with 100% "pro" vote. I don't think there has ever been a bill that passed with a 100% "yes" vote. I don't think there ever will. People, there will ALWAYS be something somewhere that someone doesn't like. If that person happens to be you, live with it. If that person is me, than I'll live with it.</rant>NDCompuGeek 03:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep − It's not a definition with which I agree, but if you get rid of this, then you will have to get rid of userboxes supporting same-sex marriage. I think you'll be opening up a big can of slithering, slimy worms. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - If this gets deleted, then my "This user supports same-sex marriage" userbox is next on the list. Jeffpw 11:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Keep It's ridiculous to try to stop people from expressing a political view when describing themselves, simply because you disagree with that view. And the suggestion above that "Free Speech shouldn't be offensive" is absurd. The very notion of free speech exists to protect offensive speech. Inoffensive speech doesn't need protecting because no one would ever think to suppress it. If this gets deleted, then ALL userboxes that express an opinion or belief should go. zadignose 12:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: A lot of the delete votes seem to be instances of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Isn't that wrong? --Quentin Smith 12:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yes. IDONTLIKE several userboxes, but I let them live so that people can express their opinion. Anything else would be censorship. Free speech works both ways. From The American President (film) "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest." A great quote that sums up free speech. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well I always understood the project here to be building an encyclopedia, not an exercise in individual expressions of free speech (i.e. Not a free webhost, not a soapbox etc.). Can't speak for the US but the European Convention on Human Rights certainly recognises a number of rights and that there is a tension between them, such as the right to free speech may directly interfere with someone else's right to a fair trial. (Article 10 freedom of expression provide for restrictions necessary in a democratic society). Not much to do with this debate, but nor do I see freedom of speech issues as much to do with this debate. --pgk 21:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If NPOV applys to Userspace, it looks like i'm up for a large ban, i've been displaying Christian Fundamentalist sentiment on my userpage for quite some time now with no remorse whatsoever or intention to remove the content, or any respect at all for this invisible Userspace NPOV policy. :D Homestarmy 23:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)