Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jorfer/Userboxes/Pro-Life


 * 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 debate was Keep. The keep arguments below outweigh the deletes, and this is not a policy vio. With the extremely small actual use of this subpage, there is almost no exposure, if all 4 of the uses were subst'd I can't see the the argument below would apply to forcing those users to change their pages. — xaosflux  Talk  04:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jorfer/Userboxes/Pro-Life
Definitely a divisively worded userbox which violates WP:USERBOX. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is not an example of anything which is designed as more than a bumper sticker.  If the user promotes this on other user's pages, or in any way uses it to promote dissension, then yell. That is not the case at all.  It is temperately worded, and small.  On the other hand, the complainant's user page is vociferously anti-religion, which is at least as objectionable to many.  Lastly, WP ought not be used as a censor on such minutiae.  Collect (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This seems like just a basic statement of the user's opinion, and we do allow users to have opinions. We even allow users to express their opinions; e.g., by displaying a userbox. There's nothing wrong with having opinions — this opinion, disagreement with this opinion, opinions that have no bearing on this opinion — and nothing wrong with a neutral assertion of one's opinion, provided this freedom to express one's opinion is not actively used to disrupt Wikipedia. This userbox is not being actively used to disrupt Wikipedia, and hence it's fine. I choose not to express an opinion myself on whether the present nomination passes or fails this same criterion. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:Userboxes, lines 2 and 3. This appears decidedly divisive enough to me, as well as using hyperbole in it both in image and in textual representation. Something like "This person supports the pro-life movement" would be appropriate; this is not. --Izno (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * delete or reword. "A fetus' right to live" is a contentious statement, when there are other, more neutral ways it could be expressed.  129.89.68.62 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not sure how this could be seen as remotely offensive. It's an expression of personal belief. BradV  00:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Expressed in positive and straightforward terms.  Could be refactored but deletion seems unnecessary.  The keep is weak because "This user is pro-life" is a simpler way of providing the same info with less chance of offense, but still a keep because as a non-attacking expression of opinion there is no doubt that it could be kept if expressed as a stand alone sentence on a userpage.  Eluchil404 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ought WP then insist the other political userboxes be "toned down"? A cursory glance shows dozens which might cause offense to those who disagree. I hope not. Collect (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yes, they should be toned down to avoid the WP:BATTLEGROUND. Expressing a political opinion in a userbox is fine, even useful. However, expressing it in a way that is inflammatory rather than expository is problematic. There are less inflammatory ways to state political positions than to run for the most outrageous characterization. We need to draw the line somewhere and I am of the opinion that this particular userbox is a bit over that line. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be taking this wording very personally, yet your own words on your own user page are likely equally infalmmatory to others. Ought we not just say "WP is not censored" on this? Collect (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't really address the point. Actually, I'm not taking the wording "personally" at all. I'm all ears if you have some recommendations for how to make my user page less "infalmmatory". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize profusely for the typo. As to who would be offended by what, that is not a valid point of discussion here.  My initial commnets stand.   Collect (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your initial comments were implying that offense is irrelevant. This is clearly wrong because there are plenty of MfD discussions of userboxes that have been deleted because they were divisive. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not find WP:THISISHOWITISALWAYSDONE anywhere. That a userbox was or was not deleted in the past does not affect any positions taken on this userbox.  As for taking umbrage at positions, there are several hundred current userboxes I find someone could take offense at.  My comment stands. The earth still moves. Collect (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's found for you. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * keep this is a non inflammatory user box. It is non divisive in itself.  It is useful to have boxes that indicate an editors opinions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are many userboxes that express political points of view. This particular one is no more inflammatory than most of the others. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Not inflammatory. Also see WP:UBM Charon X /talk 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The wording is positive rather than negative, so I can't see how this is an attack or disparaging. This is hardly different from wording like "this user thinks a foetus is a person". I personally disagree with the sentiment, but not with the expression of such. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as divisive and inflammatory, IMO; and I would say any similar pro-choice userbox should be deleted as well. We don't need userboxes like these; they are of no use in building the encyclopaedia, and only promote prejudice and factionalism. Terraxos (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but tone down to something more neutral. No, it isn't neutral right now.  Yes it's divisive right now.  No, that doesn't mean we delete it right now.  It means we clean it up.  This could be useful for finding people to help with articles in Category:Pro-life movement (assuming the people using this tag can remain neutral and simultaneously have opinions, which doesn't seem impossible to me).  -- Thin  boy  00  @961, i.e. 22:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment seems fairly dispositive of the issue. Also see earlier discussions on deleting what are clearly not vitriol-filled userboxes.  And with a poll attracting 61% for allowing broad latitude in userboxes,  . I suspect that the days of mass-deletions are over. Especially with Jimbo weighing in. Collect (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2008 (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.