Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Editor510/godrubbish


 * 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 'Delete. The arguments that the box may be divisive and inflammatory are persuasive. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Editor510/godrubbish
This userbox clearly violates the Wikipedia guidelines in being very divisive and negative. Jchthys cont. 16:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Opinions are the stuff that userboxes are made on. Would it belong in an article? No. But that is not the criterion for userboxes that I know of. Collect (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, here's a quote from WP policy (Userboxes): Jchthys cont. 16:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Opinions may be the stuff the userboxes are made of, but any opinion can be presented either neutrally or in an inflammatory and divisive manner.  The latter userboxes clearly violate WP:USERBOX, do not benefit the project or build relations between editors in any way, and should be removed.  There are mighty plenty more neutral userboxes conveying the same idea this one does.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:52, March 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - opinion is fine, deliberately being divisive is not. // roux   17:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Atheist (or anti-monotheist) userboxes are fine, but inflammatory userboxes are not. This is the latter. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Update: For clarity, I support deleting all three userboxes noted by Jchthys, not only the original one. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, there are two similar userboxes, User:Editor510/creationismrubbish and User:Editor510/godcreationismrubbish, that are similar. If the first is deleted, so should these. Jchthys cont. 18:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll need to nominate them separately from this MfD.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:07, March 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually no, they can be added to this MFD as a group thing. Makes much more sense than doing it separately. // roux   19:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessarily offensive, the rejection of God can be done in a less inflammatory way. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * for User:Editor510/creationismrubbish, it is not quite as offensive, talking about an idea rather than a deity, but it could be expressed in a much less divisive way. So I would recommend delete for this too.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that "rubbish" is simply not acceptable for an idea that some people hold (and not just quite a few). There are no "atheism is rubbish" or "evolutionism is rubbish" userboxes: I would have nominated them if I found any. There may be a couple more userboxes that cross the line: I'll nominate them if I reach a personal decision. — Jchthys cont. 13:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all three. Much more than a general expression of opinion.  Inflammatory. Easy to have userboxes which express your opinions without using words like 'rubbish'. Taroaldo (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Similar userboxes already exist that express this opinion in a non-offensive manner. - Mgm|(talk) 12:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this any different than userboxes expressing someones religion? There is a whole page of them: User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion. I am not saying this should be kept (there are multiple boxes for people who are athiest), but I don't see the problem with someone saying that "God" is trash.  TJ   Spyke   22:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Referring to something/someone as trash or rubbish in such a context is an attack and therefore has no place in Wikipedia. If someone wishes to express a particular outlook or philosophy, it can be clearly expressed in another way. Taroaldo (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Too close to WP:NPA — Ched ~ (yes?) 09:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep People are atheists. Get used to it. Stop hiding behind the bible and denying it, some people have a right NOT to believe. You are being divisive, not me. How dare you challenge my right to be agnostic! Go and delete it, I don't care, I'll never win. But don't you dare darken my door with your rubbish again!-- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  18:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PS

I said rubbish on purpose. Freak you lot.


 * Comment I think the above comment says it all regarding the editor's intent in attacking others on Wikipedia. Taroaldo (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Editor510, you seriously need to re-consider your attitude.  I can't talk for others who participated here, but I, a life-long atheist, voted to delete this userbox not because I somehow mysteriously got converted into "faith" while posting, but because these three particular userboxes are genuinly offensive and divisive.  You want everyone to know you are an agnostic?  Put something like this on your page.  There is no need to insult other people's beliefs, no matter how backward they seem to you, by calling them "rubbish".  We are here to work on an encyclopedia, not to showcase what we do and do not like.  'Nuff said.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:23, March 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep What is and is not inflammatory is in the eyes of the beholder, and I think anyone who is offended by this little doodad may be overly sensitive. Is declaring something to be "rubbish" a very nasty thing in British English? WIth my background, it seems more amusing than offensive. This does not seem to be a personal attack on people who believe in God. It does seem to be a personal attack on God, and I think most believers and non-believers can agree that God, regardless of the nature or presence of his/her/its existence, is not a Wikipedia editor and is therefore not subject to the beneficial protection of WP:NPA. Flying Jazz (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All due respect, that misses the point completely. Taroaldo (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of my post struck the main point spot on in my view. After that sentence, I freely admit, I began to wander away from opinion into consequential logic and common sense, which, I agree, is rarely the point in these sorts of discussions. Flying Jazz (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "What is and is not inflammatory is in the eyes of the beholder...." Yes, this is true, but if you extend that statement ad infinitum you can excuse any action or behaviour and WP:NPA becomes pointless. Comments such as the ones in the user boxes in question are highly offensive to many, whether the comments are directed at God, Muhammad, or Buddha and their believers or at Flying Jazz and his/her beliefs. It is an attack and Wikipedians should object in any such case, regardless of whether they share the belief or not. Taroaldo (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I do not think the definition of what is inflammatory or what is a personal attack can be extended ad infinitum. I view a personal attack as an attack on a person or a sufficiently specific group of people. A userbox saying "Flying Jazz is similar to a load of rubbish" or "Believers in God are similar to a load of rubbish" would be a personal attack and inflammatory in my view because people are the subject of the sentence. Also, a userbox naming a specific deity or prophet would be inflammatory in my view because a particular subgroup of believers would be implied by the name of the deity or prophet. However, the statement "God is similar to a load of rubbish" does not cross the line for me because I don't view believers in God as a sufficiently specific group of people to find personal offense by the statement. People are not being attacked; an idea is being strongly negated. I would similarly defend the statement "Socialism is similar to a load of rubbish" or "Capitalism is similar to a load of rubbish" in a userbox. My view is that it is not an attack and Wikipedians should not object in this particular case, regardless of whether they share the belief or not. Flying Jazz (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. But would you agree with this:
 * 1) I advocate that "Subject A" is a load of rubbish
 * 2) Many people consider "Subject A" to be a core part of their lives
 * 3) And so by advocating that "Subject A" is a load of rubbish, I am,in fact, attacking the group because I advocate that a core part of their lives is nothing more than "rubbish". (Rubbish being defined as |worthless material that is to be disposed of.) Taroaldo (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If #1 and #2 are accepted as premises then I don't view #3 as an inevitable conclusion of fact, so no. I don't agree. I think your particular 1-2-3 line of reasoning would result in removing anything from a userbox or userpage that is called a load of rubbish if it is considered by many people to be a core part of their lives. Even ideas that are near the core of many people are still only ideas, and I believe that editors should be free in userboxes and userpages to negate any idea in any way they choose--including using strong language instead of neutered language. Unless the idea is closely tied to a sufficiently specific group with a "group identity," strongly negating a core belief of a group is not the same as attacking the group. I don't think believers in God are a sufficiently specific group with a group identity for us to confuse an attack on God with an attack on them. Flying Jazz (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In your opinion it's not an attack on the group. The prevailing opinion within the group might not concur. The receiver's perception of being attacked is invalidated because the attacker rejects the notion that his/her action was an attack? We shall agree to disagree on this, I think. Taroaldo (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only do I think it is not an attack, I am confident that the majority of believers in God would not regard the statement "This user believes that God is similar to a load of rubbish" as an attack. Flying Jazz (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote from No personal attacks: "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." Now "rubbish" is an epithet directed against many contributor's religious views.
 * No epithet in the userbox is directed against another contributor because--as most believers and non-believers would agree and as I mentioned above--God does not contribute to Wikipedia. The use of the word "rubbish" indicates what the editor who chooses to use this userbox believes and what the editor intends to say. A strong and tersely worded lack-of-belief is a personal opinion, and my view is that only an overly sensitive person would regard it as an epithet directed against them. Flying Jazz (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So if I had a userbox, "The idea that women should have equal pay in the workplace is similar to a load of rubbish"—I'm not saying I agree with that statement—the userbox is not divisive? —  Jch  thys  00:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think a userbox saying "This user thinks the idea that women should have equal pay in the workplace is similar to a load of rubbish" would be divisive. Why? Because the idea is explicitly tied to a specific group of people, women in the workplace, and because that group has a "group identity" in my view. On the other hand, this userbox saying "This user thinks God is similar to a load of rubbish" is not attacking any person or group of people. Even if one imagines that there is a statement hidden in there against believers in God then that statement is not an attack in my view because the group is not specific and has no "group identity." Flying Jazz (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Because the idea is explicitly tied to a specific group of people, women in the workplace"—how about people who believe that God exists?—"and because that group has a 'group identity' in my view"—how about theists? Of course the userbox is being divisive, belittling the beliefs of theists—in fact, calling them "rubbish". —  Jch  thys  01:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your post had question marks. Maybe you meant them as rhetorical questions, but in every case, the answer is no. The statement "This user thinks that God is similar to a load of rubbish" attacks only God. The statement: "This user thinks that believers in God are similar to a load of rubbish" would attack the people. The statement: "This user thinks that belief in God is similar to a load of rubbish" would attack the belief of those people. You are imagining words and ideas that are not in the userbox. You are looking for and finding divisiveness and belittling in what is only a strongly worded personal statement. Please reconsider the entire deletion request. Flying Jazz (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about the one attacking creationism? Also, if one says that God is "rubbish", that implies that theists put faith in "rubbish", thus attacking their ideas. —  Jch  thys  02:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your view seems to be that strongly opposing an idea implies an attack on the people who have that idea. In the entire current version of WP:NPA, the word "idea" does not appear once. Personal attacks are about epithets directed against a person or a group of people. They aren't about ideas or following a train of implications that arise from ideas. I think your view is misguided. I think it's OK for Wikipedia editors to express strong opinions about ideas in the userspace without being concerned about having them deleted by a committee. This isn't in an article. It's just some person expressing an idea without attacking anyone. Flying Jazz (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember the women's rights example? That was an attack on just an idea. —  Jch  thys  11:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Userbox advocates against divisive userboxes. That is why the women's rights example would be removed. The women's rights example would be divisive because a specific group of people were directly addressed as the subject of the idea. This userbox does no such thing. The current version of WP:NPA does not contain the word "divisive" once. A userbox that says "This user thinks capitalism (or socialism or fascism or atheism or evolution or creationism) is similar to a load of rubbish" would be acceptable to me because it challenges an idea, without even addressing the people who believe in that idea. A person or a group cannot be attacked when they are not being addressed and they are not even being mentioned or written about in any way. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete these userboxes are overly inflammatory and divisive, and an equivalent message can be phrased in a neutral way: "this user is an atheist", "this user is an antitheist", "this user dislikes creationism" etc. Hut 8.5 20:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This argument is overly silly. Who cares about a silly userbox? The word rubbish was to make you laugh, not to insult you .--Angeljon121 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Did I fall asleep and wake up in late 2006? We already had this discussion and it lasted for goddamn months, we really don't need it again. I consider these, these, these and these users to be a pack of crazies, but I don't object to their letting me know the fact. –  iride scent  02:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Users who are inclined to display userboxes with hostile tones such as this one should be allowed to. Such boxes help other editors and encyclopedia readers to quickly assess the user's maturity level and social intelligence. (and in response to Angeljon121 - without the big tags saying "sarcasm", do you think this sarcastic statement would be understood as humor? same goes for the userbox.) -- Versa geek  02:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The user boxes are not inflammatory. Editor510 is expressing an opinion. The user box specifically says that he thinks that god is similar to a load of rubbish. thinks is the key word. He believes it, and he has a right to think it. User pages are for the personal use of the user in question. He is not attacking God or anybody else. He thinks God is similar to a load of rubbish. That is not an attack. That is a thought. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone can think whatever they want, no matter how benign or how extreme it is. The moment you make your thought public, by adding it to a website for instance, it ceases to be your private thought.  I'm sure if you use your imagination you could come up with a few really neat examples. Taroaldo (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikilawyering that it's an opinion so it isn't inflammatory and divisive doesn't cut it. wodup 03:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - If you want to express your opinion, a statement like "This user does not believe in God" gets that message across just fine without belittling the beliefs of others. –Megaboz (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - userbox, violates NOT#MYSPACE or some such. Wily D  14:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - User is free to have boxes that express his opinion, but not to put other people's beleifs down.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - As an atheist myself (or rather, an apatheist) I understand that the user who created these userboxes probably has some strong views which may well be well-meaning, and simply misinterpreted as being divisive. I don't think that these boxes necessarily put people down any more than being a Christian or Muslim means that people are implying that they think that I am going to hell. It's a matter of being blatant - if you are in the middle of a contentious dispute with an editor that is, say, highly religious, this userbox is hardly going to do anything but inflame the situation. I regularly discuss differences in opinion that are founded on religion and faith with a good few of my colleagues and friends, but it doesn't mean that I have to say 'your views are rubbish', because that is the complete wrong way to go about things, and seeks simply to make discussion and collaboration hard to achieve. It is perfectly acceptable to say 'I disagree with your views', but not 'your views are utter rubbish', or even worse, 'your deity is a load of rubbish'. Specifically in Islam I can imagine that someone could very well be incredibly offended by the notion that Allah could be compared to something so derogatory. It's about respect - this userbox has none, and will only end up being divisive. Userboxes are there to express an opinion, yes, but only when that view is presented in such a way that it doesn't present more problems than it solves, like this one does. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  19:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I asked Jimbo Wales about this userbox here, and his response was: ‘I think it should clearly be deleted. I don’t even know why we have to have a vote about such things. It looks like the sort of thing that should be speedied—it isn’t even close to borderline.’ Personally, I think that userboxes that deal with one’s personal views apart from those relating to Wikipedia are useless—but this one is plain inflammatory. —  Jch  thys  19:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would just as soon delete a userbox saying ‘This user thinks that atheists are going to hell’, but not one saying ‘This person believes that evolutionism is wrong, and creationism is right.’ It’s all about the way in which views are stated. As I said above, such userboxes as the latter are useless, but not inflammatory—the former is both. —  Jch  thys  19:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - While I understand why people are concerned about this userbox, it isn't attacking any specific group - it's quite literally attacking God. God is being compared to a load of rubbish, not the belief in God, or anyone's views about God or lack thereof. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I sincerely doubt the author is literally attacking God—why would an atheist, since he doesn't believe that God exists? Second, even if it were attacking God directly, many (maybe most) theists would find that more offensive than attacking the idea. —  Jch  thys  03:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind me quoting it in full here. It says "This user thinks that God is similar to a load of rubbish". I'm not questioning what the creator's intention was, but regardless of what you say above it is "literally attacking God". If saying that God is comparable to rubbish is an attack (note that it doesn't say "God is a load of rubbish"). I don't know why an atheist might attack God, but any answer you or I could give would be speculation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as it's a pointy disruption. It's one matter to be a proud atheist and proclaim it in a positive way. It's an entirely different matter to be disrespectful to others. Majoreditor (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete—I nominated the userbox, but I suppose I have the right to vote as well. —  Jch  thys  15:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the userbox, let users subst it into his/her user page if it's that important to them, but there's no need to expend project resources to provide a platform for divisiveness. I'm atheist, btw, I just think this is silly. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 19:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per iridescent. There are a lot of userboxes that can be insulting to certain people but that's not the point. The userbox does not attack people, it attacks a certain idea and uses words some might think as inappropriate to do so. But if the users were to write that on their userpage, it would not be an attack and as such, using an userbox to do it does not change this fact.  So Why  20:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If this is what's considered offensive on Wikipedia, I am fucking ashamed. This is waste of time. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:07, 15 March 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.