Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Discriminatory userboxes


 * 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 discussion was Quick delete then refactor - The argument has been that this is not neutral since it carries with some editors a strong impression of being discriminated against. The argument by other editors that it is neutral has not taken into account this impression. Expressing an opinion on marriage as it pertains to homosexuality is not the same as expressing an opinion on marriage as it pertains to homosexuals. The same applies to the SanerWorldNoReligion template as it pertains either to religiousness or the religious. We're better off if these are explicitly separated; as it stands, it's too ambiguous. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Gay marriage userboxes

 * User:Junglecat/marriage, Template:User Marriage, User:UBX/onemanonewoman (all 3 share the same wording)
 * User:Wolfdog1/notoGLBTlifestyle (speedy deleted)
 * User:Tezkag72/Userboxes/Homophobe (speedy deleted)

Discrimination has no place on Wikipedia. The Wolfdog box was nominated four months ago, and was kept with a grand total of two comments. // roux   18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep Junglecat one Delete other two - These are pretty bad in my opinion and in no way contribute anything positive to this project. Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 18:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reviewing, the jungle cat is worded neutrally and not too bad. the otherones are a bit extreme though.  Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 19:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't see anything productive about these userboxes, in terms of the general atmosphere of compromise that Wikipedia strives for. Dayewalker (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Junglecat is a neutrally worded statement not any more objectionable than many allowed (and officially the position of President Obama in fact "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman." If Obama says it, why should we censor his words?  Delete the two which are actually "anti" messages.   WP is not an "opinion free zone" - we allow opinions, and the Junglecat is withing normal discourse in sentiment and wording.  Collect (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In wording, maybe. In sentiment, it's grossly offensive and discriminatory. // roux   19:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa. "In sentiment, it's grossly offensive and discriminatory". This is some dangeous stuff you handle there, Roux. Personally I agree with the "let them marry whoever they want, regardless of gender" philosophy. I disagree with those that oppose same-sex marriage, but I would not dream about trying to silence them, or trying to gag them. Would you delete a box that said "This user believes marriage to be between a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman"? Some opponents of same-sex marriage might, but as much as we are entitled to our express options they are entitled to express theirs. Charon X /talk 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - All three are no more than statements of beliefs. None of them are written in an inflammatory nature. I'll admit that I greatly disagree with the beliefs represented in these boxes, but unless their intent is to tell me I am wrong then they are welcome to express those beliefs. -- |  Uncle Milty  |  talk  |  19:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Substitute e.g. "I believe the black lifestyle is immoral" or "I am against black people". Are those okay? So why is it okay when it's against queers? // roux   19:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You built a nice Strawman there Roux, even if you did not intent to. Let me build one of my own. "I am against pedophiles" vs "I am against black people". Which one is ok, which one is not? The correct answer is both violate WP:NPA. But we are not here to dismantle strawmen. The question is whether the userbox is so bad that it should be purged from wikipedia. And I don't think it is. Charon X /talk 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with those beliefs also, and anyone professing those (or the original) beliefs should be aware that the profession of those beliefs can be a warning to others regarding the believer's shortcomings. "Here's your sign" in other words. Should they be allowed to profess them here? Sure. Either that, or we rid WP of all belief-based userboxes. -- |  Uncle Milty  |  talk  |  19:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Blatantly advocating discrimination is counter to a collegial environment, period. // roux   19:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the Junglecat box, Delete the other two. Junglecat's is neutrally worded and a simple statement that really isn't that divisive. The other two, however, are blatantly inflamatory and enforce a discriminatory viewpoint. There's no call for those two to remain on Wikipedia. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Junglecat's, Kill the other two with Fire - Wikipedia isn't the place to continue the asinine "culture war" that generally entails crap such as this. Junglecat's is neutrally worded and thus not prone to causing divisive strife; the other two are just flat-out antagonistic. -  Jéské   Couriano  ( v^_^v ) 20:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all three. All are divisive and opposed to the spirit of inclusive collegial editing central to Wikipedia*. The phrase "marriage consists only of one man and one woman" might seem like a simple neutral statement of belief to some, until you think about what it implies - to me it looks no different to saying "the front of the bus is for white folks". S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC) * Your individual Wikipedia experience may differ from that illustrated herein.
 * That is exactly it. It's not what the specific words say, it's the negative implied by them. // roux   20:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a bisexual man in a homosexual relationship, I don't like Junglecat's box at all. But, it's a common belief and neutrally stated so I can't, in good conscience, vote for its deletion anymore than I could one that states "This user believes all adults should marry as they wish." &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Junglecat, Delete other two - I truely find it despicable that some people cannot simply live and let live, although I will reluctantly accept that Junglecat's can remain as it is as carefuly worded as such a statement can be. The rest aim to make people feel uncomfortable an sub-human. The old "Jeden Raus" slogan seems directly comparable. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read SheffieldSteel's excellent analogy above; saying "marriage is only for straight people" is exactly the same as "the front of the bus is only for white people". There is no difference, and I am willing to bet that we would never allow the bus statement. // roux   20:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I read it before posting. I'd like to see it deleted, but that isn't much of a reason in and of itself. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all three per Sheffield Steel for the first and per utter common sense for the other two. Actually, if I'd seen either of the latter two, I'd have deleted them on the spot without thinking about it. Black Kite 20:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all three Leaning towards a weak keep for Junglecat, as it is carefully worded, and I suppose I have seen userboxes in similar vein. It's not as concerning as the other ones, but I think neutrality is the greatest asset you can bring to Wikipedia. Burninate the other two as per the excellent points raised above. -- .: Alex  :.  21:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete All Inasmuch as they have nothing to do with furthering the encyclopedia. There use is a complete mystery to me. What function do they serve? Are these questions really in need of answering? Do you really think I care what your view of marriage, homosexuality or alternative lifestyles are? Sorry, NO. Padillah (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep User:Junglecat/marriage; it's a neutrally-worded expression of the user's opinions, and we allow neutrally-worded expressions of a user's opinions. DeleteUser:Wolfdog1/notoGLBTlifestyle and User:Tezkag72/Userboxes/Homophobe; both are over the line, though Wolfdog1's could be rephrased neutrally. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep All or delete all of the opinion/preference based user-boxes. While I most strenuously disagree with the opinion espoused by the boxes, It is just that, an opinion and is nothing to get so worked up about.  If we are going to allow users to express their personal opinions through user-boxes then we are bound to encounter opinions that are disagreeable (even abhorrent) to some users.  This deletion request seems to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and should, accordingly, be disregarded. L0b0t (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all three. I do not approve of the sentiments expressed in the boxes, but generally I think that all user boxes that expresses personal beliefs and ideologies should be removed from Wikipedia. Unlike boxes that informs of the users qualifications they serve no purpose for the Wiki work, in fact I would think they do exactly the opposite as they only promote partisanship and conflicts. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Junglecat - I haven't seen the other two before they were deleted, so I can't comment on them. The Junglecat userbox is worded in a neutral way. Free speech does not go one-way. If we permit userboxes that support same-sex marriage, we need to permit userboxes that oppose it. Charon X /talk 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note It would appear that KillerChihuahua has already deleted the latter two boxes on his own. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, way to completely defeat the purpose there, Stimpy; clearly something of this magnitude couldn't have waited the whole five days...  Half  Shadow  22:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all these add nothing to cooperation in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither does your userbox that you would like to speak more languages :). But it does not have to add to wikipedia - this is userspace. If we want to get rid of all those useless knick-knacks and gew-gags, we might as well kill barnstars etc. - or even the entire userspace. But let us be honest here, the main outrage stems that it is an anti-gay userbox, and as much as I disagree with the sentiment it expresses, people are entitled to hold and express that sentiment (in a polite way). Charon X /talk 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken; I have been asked questions about and asked to translate articles based on my userboxes. I utterly fail to see how userboxes like these will engender anything but division. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Another Note &mdash; Aaaaaaand two more templates have been added to this MfD. Can we make this anymore complicated, please? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They have the same wording as the Junglecat one. Keep or Delete votes for the Junglecat one will apply to the new ones as well. Black Kite 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suddendly get the weirdest urges to include those "straight not narrow" userboxes in this deletion discussion. I mean calling the opponents of same sex marriage "narrow" is as insulting as defining marriage as "between one man and one woman"... Charon X /talk 22:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep/revive. I mean, of course I'd say it about mine. But it goes for the other two also. These are not attack userboxes. They are only representing some people's viewpoints (also the viewpoint of many religions). That is what userboxes are supposed to do. This is totally different than one that says "This user wants to kill gays." Come on? Tez kag 72 22:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all &mdash; per SHEFFIELDSTEED and others. Bigotry has no place here.  &mdash;  Jake   Wartenberg  22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then let us delete all "straight but not narrow" userboxes too - after all, is it not rather un-nice to call opponents of same-sex marriage "narrow" (even though I disagree with their views in this issue). Charon X /talk 23:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that they are the same at all. We don't allow racist userboxes, but we do allow anti-racist userboxes.  This is quite the same.  I don't want these deleted simply because they counteract my POV, but because the espouse discrimination against certain members of our community.  &mdash;  Jake   Wartenberg  23:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all These userboxes contribute nothing at all to the encyclopedia. Their only utility is to identify users with a pernicious and unecyclopedic POV that has no place on Wikipedia. 76.24.148.230 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedic value is not of major importance is userspace. POV is allowed in userspace. Yes, opponents of same-sex marriage are "wrong" (at least in my view), but does this give one the right to gag them? Charon X /talk 23:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Imagine a userbox that says "This user believes that only white people should have the right to vote". Would you allow that?  Because it's effectively the same thing. Black Kite 23:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Careful about the Strawman fallicy. How about "This user believes that people should be allowed to marry regardless of their gender and the gender of their partner". Charon X /talk 23:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree that it's a strawman, as both statements are clearly of the format "This user believes that X group of people should not be allowed to perform legal act Y". (Before we diverge too much, this would be better off continued on our talkpages, btw). Black Kite 23:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The two rude ones have been speedied. As for the other three, will we also be deleting things like User:Tal642/my userboxes/SanerWorldNoReligion?  Or does diversity only work one way? --B (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does actually we'd keep "White=Black" but I'd hope we'd delete "White>Black"; we'd keep "Equality for all" but I'd hope we'd delete aspirations to repeal the 13th Amendment and re-enslave African Americans. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, those are completely unrelated. To simplify it, "I oppose LGBT people" = delete, but "I oppose religious people" = not deleted.  The religion user box I linked is more inflammatory as it advocates either the extermination or forcible conversion of people of faith to atheism.  The point here is, this isn't about "divisive" or "discriminatory" user boxes, it's about getting rid of ones you don't agree with.  At least call it what it is.  The status quo for the majority of the world (and, specifically, for the majority of the English speaking world) is that marriage is between one man and one woman.  That isn't a judgment of the correctness of it and don't assume that you know my opinion - I am strongly opposed to a marriage amendment to the US constitution and have reservations about state actions for reasons I would be happy to discuss elsewhere.  But the fact remains, right now, today, marriage is legally between one man and one woman for most Wikipedians and stating as much in a user box is hardly bigoted or deletion worthy.  Calling for the extermination of religion, though, is. --B (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the userboxes don't discuss the legal status. They simply discuss the personal belief about marriages. Also while probably vote for the deletion of that religion box, it doesn't call for the extermination of forcible conversion of people, it simply professes a negative view of religion Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What about a userbox that says "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without homosexuality"? Would that be ok?  Of course not and this is silly - it's so clearly a double standard. --B (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Section redacted: User was under topic ban on LGBT issues. See User_talk:CadenS. Black Kite</b> 11:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an encyclopaedia and these boxes do not aid collaboration. Orderinchaos 03:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment redacted: User was under topic ban on LGBT issues. See User_talk:CadenS. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 11:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete All - No room for bigotry in an encyclopedia. Skinny87 (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Junglecat et al (marriage) ones. Endorse deletion of others. While I don't agree with any of these userboxes as the person who indirectly lead to this MfD there's a reason why I didn't try it myself and that's precisely because I knew the question would arise about other userboxes. Personally I feel just doing away with most userboxes about personal opinions would be the best option but since that's never going to happen we are left with deciding what opinion crosses the line. A number of the comments above mirror my thoughts. Generally speaking, any userbox which expresses a grossly negative or bigoted view of a group of people is not constructive and not something we should allow on wikipedia. The marriage one, while I don't agree with it does not. Ultimately it's a common personal opinion the same as the view that same sex marriages should be allowed. However the other userboxes clearly were expressing a negative/bigoted view of a group of people. I say the same for userboxes expressing a negative view of religion or religions and would probably support the deletion of such userboxes (but I'm not going to start the MfD anymore then I started this one). 12:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A "this user supports the legalisation of same-sex marriage" userbox exists and presumably will carry on doing so, so in the interests of fairness a "this user does not support the legalisation of same-sex marriage" one should too. Although I personally don't see the point of any userboxes at all and would gladly see them all abolished. Opera hat (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2009 (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.