Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David.Mestel (talk | contribs) at 20:54, 27 January 2009 (keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Junglecat/marriage

Previous MfD overturned at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 21#Same sex marriage userboxes (closed). I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So how does that page constitute deleting this page? -PatPeter 02:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to delete this page, you also need to delete this page: Template:User Same Sex Married, otherwise you have a biased arguement, favoring one side over another. -PatPeter 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominate it for deletion as well, then. Black Kite 07:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep reflects position as stated by President Obama. Neutrally worded, and I opposed the deletion before (which was, IMHO, quite improperly handled). Collect (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. "This user believes $(something counter to reality)" is a declaration contrary to WP:NPOV, one of our cornerstones. Whether one is in favor of or opposed to gay marriage (and I'm in favor, but I think that's irrelevant here), there exist legally married people not fitting this description. If it were instead "This user believes that marriage should consist...", as the other one currently under discussion does, that would be one thing, but declaring that it does consist is just incorrect. An attitude of arguing strongly for an incorrect position is something we should be discouraging here. And it's inflammatory to boot: it insults those people who are married outside the conventions it describes, by claiming they don't exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix. But –" seems to indicate that you find his words objectionable as believing something you think is not so? Deleting this one will leave a horrid precedent as every neutrally worded opinion gets thrown out of WP. Collect (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did Obama come into this? The issue is that in some points of the world, marriage is allowed between two men, or between two women; the userbox states 'marriage is between a man and a woman' as a fact rather than as a belief. It is the same logic we apply on the Holocaust and Holocaust Denial talkpages (sorry to play the hitler card, but it is the only example I am familiar with); Misplaced Pages is meant to present a neutral point of view, which is made up of a synthesis of points of view; therefore all opinions should be included in some form. Like holocaust denial, however, denying the existence of homosexual marriage is not a POV, it is what is technically known as 'bullshit'. As such it doesn't constitute a point of view and shouldn't be included, just like we don't include the opinion that giant flaming skeletons were in some way involved in the Battle of Hastings. Yes, it is an opinion; it is also an opinion that flies in the face of reality.Ironholds (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"There exist legally married people not fitting this description" - it depends where you are. Here in the UK - and, I think, in most of the world - the legal position is that a marriage (as opposed to a civil partnership) can only be between one man and one woman, and ceremonies contracted abroad purporting to marry two people of the same sex are not recognised. "This user believes that marriage is defined by the law of the land" is hardly stating a belief "counter to reality". Opera hat (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per David Eppstein. Disagreeing with a persons way of life is fine, belittling it is not. Metaphorically putting your hands over your ears and singing a happy song on the subject of gay marriage is effectively the same as saying they do not exist, and belittles the long struggle that went into achieving marriage rights for homosexuals. Ironholds (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as a neutrally worded political opinion userbox. The fact that one user's beliefs offend another is not actionable, unless we want to go all the way and get rid of all such userboxes equally--a move I would endorse. Calling a political opinion "incorrect" is problematic, as there is no objectively agreed upon standard definiton; saying that hydrogen's atomic mass is greater than carbon's is objectively wrong. The definition of marriage is a different matter entirely--in David Eppstein's reality, the statement is incorrect. To those who choose to display such a userbox, it may be equally correct. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Default to Delete - Political or social statements on controversial issues do not belong in userboxes. This is pretty much the policy in a nutshell. Once you start allowing soapboxing about controversial issues--even mild, polite soapboxing--the result is an even bigger disruption, the likes of which we saw during the userbox wars. The only issue then is whether or not you support default to delete or default to keep; expressions of opinion in userboxes are not important enough to justify a default to keep. Bullzeye 07:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - as with 99% of userboxes on politics, religion or sexuality, anything that starts with "This user believes that..." should go. Pointless, irrelevant to editing the encyclopedia (unlike some userboxes), often needlessly divisive, and who cares anyway?? Black Kite 07:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete I had originally planned to vote the same as Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman but after reading the arguments expressed here, I concur with David Eppenstein that the absence of the 'should' makes this different as it is implying a legally marriage is invalid rather then simply a personal belief about what marriages should be. Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No matter how it's worded, bigotry is inflammatory. — Jake Wartenberg 12:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • How is this "bigotry"? Are we going to call a "bigot" anyone who disagrees with some opinions? Korodzik (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The box doesn't disagree with an "opinion", but with an entire lifestyle. That's bigotry. — Jake Wartenberg 19:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• very very weak delete - I never thought I would have to argue that the definition of is-is. In much of the United States / World gay marriages are invalid (politically) Because we know, or think we know, that the majority is wrong doesn't mean this view is bigotry or inflammatory. This box could mean, in the users view, to only relate to the religious aspect of marriage and not the political. But being a deletionist and understand that Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman seems to be a better userbox all around delete this one and keep the other. 16x9 (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as this fits the pattern "X is the privilege of Y people only", it is divisive and not compatible with the collegial editing environment we're meant to be striving for. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per my previous vote in the previous MfD. Skinny87 (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I can see nothing offensive in this userbox. It does not seem to directly attack or belittle anyone. It simply says "...believes a marriage consists of one man and one woman", not something like "...believes that gay marriage is wrong". Korodzik (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Wrong. It says "consists only of one man....". In other words, it does effectively say that "...believes that gay marriage is wrong". The "only" is the important word. Black Kite 18:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• (shamlessly copied from my comment above) Keep per WP:UBM. Let me explain a bit. This is an unpopular mindset, and a mindset I disagree with (If people are happy marrying each other, who am I to tell them "not allowed", just because they happen to have the same gender.) That said, I feel it is not offensive any way that would violate any relevant policies (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA etc.) and there are many opinions around about everything. Whether meat is murder or simply tasty, if nuclear power could save the environment or rather would destroy it, if one believes in "true love" or rather would "hit" whatever he can find. And people seem to forget that they are not entitled to their opinion to be the one, universally correct one. And not even the opinions of the majority of the people are not rarely "off" (A couple of hundred years ago everyone would have told you that the world is flat - some even claim that today). So there are only two ways to handle people showing their opinions - either allow them to do that, or don't. If you don't allow them, start packing all those "this user wants world-peace" boxes too - its an opinion and if the guy advocating "nuke them all" is not allowed to say his thing, how come your opinion gets special treatment. And believe me, that option causes LOTS of drama. I encourage you to read WP:UBM. Or you can accept that some opinions run against your world view and tolerate them. And if you see an user that states with an userbox genetic-engineered gerbils are the best thing since sliced bread... well, you'll know to take a closer look at his edits to Gerbils. CharonX/talk 17:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, that's the issue, isn't it? Certainly many people would check the edits of people displaying this userbox, especially if they were going anywhere near LGBT issues. And that's why it (and many, many other userboxes starting that "This user believes...") are unhelpful to a collaborative encyclopedia, because as soon as you display your POV - especially one like this - on your userpage, people immediately think "well, this user isn't capable of editing neutrally" even if you are. Black Kite 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Not an opinion I agree with, but one that is mainstream in many (most) societies, and therefore one which it is reasonable for people to express on their userpages. To dispense with the "factually inaccurate" argument that has been raised by some, it says "this user believes". That is because it is an opinion, just like it would be if I had a userbox saying "this user believes that capital punishment is murder", notwithstanding the fact that that's not legally true in, for example, the United States. To those who would like to get rid of all political-orientated userboxes, I have some sympathy with that position, but I certainly think that one MfD at a time is the wrong way to go: RfC and WT:UBX are your friends. David 20:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)