Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Junglecat/marriage


 * 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 No consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Junglecat/marriage
Previous MfD overturned at Deletion review/Log/2009 January 21. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 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)
 * Appeal to authority much? Why does Obama's statement carry the slightest weight in this discussion? Otto4711 (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it demonstrates that this is a mainstream political statement and not divisive not intended as an attack. And I sumit that Obama's political positions are not considered particularly offensive.  Collect (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask the thousands of same-sex couples in California who may have their marriages dissolved by the tyranny of the majority whether or not being opposed to same-sex marriage is divisive. Ask Pete Knight's gay son how divisive the opinion is. "Mainstream" does not equal "non-divisive". Otto4711 (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not used divisive language here -- but it appears that you feel that MfD is a debating forum on the issues. It is not. And I suggest that your posts may in fact be a great reason for the userbox to be Kept, to be sure. Collect (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not debating the issue of SSM here. I am discussing whether expressing an opinion on SSM in a userbox is in line with the stated goals and policies of Wikipedia. Nor did I say that you personally used divisive language so I hope your next herring is of another color. Anyone who reads my comments and thinks they contain an argument in favor of this box has a serious reading comprehension issue. Otto4711 (talk) 21:57, 30 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)
 * Wikipedia does not exist to coddle your religious biases. And given that there are millions of Christians who support the notion of marriage equality, your claim to hold THE Christian position is demonstrably false. Otto4711 (talk) 06:25, 29 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); Wikipedia 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)
 * No, but that isn't what the userbox says; it is denying the existence of gay marriage in any and all legal jurisdictions. Ironholds (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly what many nations do, including the UK. That's what "non-recognition" means. Opera hat (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * People who are legally married in Spain or Massachusetts or wherever remain legally married regardless of where you, the observer, happen to be. If a Spanish couple travels to the UK their legal Spanish marriage does not dissolve in the jurisdiction in which it was solemnized. Thus this userbox does in fact state a belief that is squarely counter to reality. Otto4711 (talk) 13:39, 30 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 contribs 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 Wikipedia: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.  &mdash;  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.  &mdash;  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 Wikipedia: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.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 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)
 * It's not just saying that gay marriage is wrong, it's equally saying that polygamy is wrong - which seems to be rather a neglected aspect of these discussions. Opera hat (talk) 00:30, 28 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. Charon X /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(Talk) 20:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: use of userspace for POV advocacy. These userboxes are divisive and serve no useful purpose. Terraxos (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as a gay man I can see nothing offensive per se with this userbox. It expresses an opinion I disagree with for a number of reasons but I see no reason to delete it on that basis. If I did, I would think I was pushing my POV. A world where everyone agreed with me would be great, but it's never going to happen. Redfarmer (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is just a neutral statement of a particular opinion. We allow neutral statements of opinion. Hence, we should allow this, regardless of the side issue that it's surrounded by a little rectangle. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A ttally noninflammatory polite way or wording an opinion. DGG (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Speedy Keep We either delete every single userbox that expresses a personal opinion or we keep them.  Black Kite has opined for a delete saying "...you know what? I really couldn't give a **** about your beliefs as long as they don't colour your editing."  That is, actually, a reason I think these userboxes should be kept.  I think it does contribute to a positive editing environment when we are able to recognize that we, as humans, all have bias and POV and are then kind enough to self-identify our biases.  If we are going to allow user space to be a platform where opinion is acceptable then we are going to have people exposed to opinions that they may not agree with (or even find abhorrent).  That is the price of such freedom of expression and I do not find the argument to delete based upon one being made to feel uncomfortable to be compelling.  One has no right not to be offended, realize it is just an opinion and continue with the business of building an encyclopedia. L0b0t (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * L0b0t, self-identifying biases does not result in a collegial, collaborative work environment. More often than not, it simply ignites a pissing match. Once you make it about your IRL opinions instead of your edits, the whole system of collaborative editing based on good faith falls apart. AGF means assume the other guy is there to edit productively, not just to push a political gripe. I feel like a lot of people are missing the point. It's not about picking a FACTION to support, it's about refusing to acknowledge the concept of FACTIONS on a collaborative, neutral encyclopedia project. Bullzeye contribs 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We either delete every single userbox that expresses a personal opinion or we keep them. See WP:ALLORNOTHING for an explanation as to why your reasoning is less than valid. That aside for the moment, I happen to agree with it in large measure, however, in that any userbox which does not serve the stated goal of userboxes, to encourage collaborative editing, should be deleted. This userbox does not serve the stated purpose of userboxes and so should be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep – Many users here have expressed that they don’t have a real issue with the userbox, even though they really don’t care for what it says. I tip my hat to these contributors who said this- that is honest integrity. And let me echo that the userbox is just an opinion, and it is not inflammatory. If it was not a userbox, but it was just a sentence on my userpage, would someone be allowed to remove that phrase expressing my belief from my page? If so, let’s consider this – Let’s just say for the sake of argument that I am against abortion. Let’s just pretend that I as a user believe that abortion is murder of the unborn and that I find it offensive. Can I go around and remove things such as userboxes and words from others userpages that refer to pro-choice in abortion? After all, if something is offensive, and I have the right to be non-offended on Wikipedia as per the deletes here are claiming, I should be allowed to remove stuff I don’t like. And if this is the case, should userpages (and user categories) that have stuff not related to building the project be deleted? Be careful of what you ask for. I have been around long enough to know that if you begin to censor user beliefs, especially when users were allowed to build a userpage in good taste, you will literally kick a beehive and aggravate a huge amount of contributors. You cannot have your cake and eat it too – For example, the gay userboxes and text on user pages referring to gay lifestyle need to go as well, so that possibly you will not offend someone who is straight (notice I said possibly, and this is just one example). This marriage userbox was on my page and other user pages for quite a while. And now, only a handful of the editors here are now taking offense to anyone who does not believe in gay marriage, they want to delete the userbox under the guise of it prevents collaboration, is not myspace, bla, bla… Hogwash! The worst POV pushers never put a userbox pertaining to that POV on their page. They are not that honest. They ramrod their POV with their edits only. Well, that’s my $0.02. Someone may need to initiate some MfD’s pending the outcome of this one. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  00:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So...because some people are dishonest about the biases that prevent them from editing in an NPOV fashion users should be allowed to express their biases in userboxes that do not serve the stated purpose of userboxes? Otto4711 (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - being qualified with 'this user believes' makes it very clear that this is an opinion. Tose that are inflamed by others having this opinion should examine their motives.  This whole user box is harmless and not offensive to most people. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I would like to see your data that supports the assertion that the userbox is "not offensive to most people" and second, what percentage of people have to be offended before you consider that important? Otto4711 (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - the stated purpose of userboxes is to allow for collaboration between users to create, maintain or improve Wikipedia articles. Since articles must comply with WP:NPOV, there is absolutely no collaborative value in userboxes that express one's opinion on same-sex marriage, either for or against. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so if a user feels compelled to announce his opposition or support of same-sex marriage, they are free to find one of any number of websites upon which to do it or start their own website or blog. Not to get all waxy, but if userboxes that identify Wikipedians by sexual orientation are disallowed there is no reasonable justification for this box. And to slap another coat of wax on the discussion, does anyone believe for a second that a userbox which states "This user believes that marriages should consist of two people of the same race" or "This user believes that people of different religions should not intermarry" or "This user believes that Republicans and Democrats should not marry each other" would be seen as mere neutral and non-offensive statements of opinion? I daresay that at least some of the editors defending this biased and divisive userbox would trip all over themselves demanding the deletion of any of those userboxes and suggest that those who claim this is not offensive, to quote another participant, "examine their motives." Otto4711 (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But the userbox is about stating an opinion on the definition of marriage. Some people believe it can only be between a man and a woman by definition, some people believe it can be definied more broadly to include two people of the same sex, and some people believe that one can be married to more than one other person. There are even cases where marriages have legally consisted of a single person. Though the examples you give in your "second coat of wax" may be equally offensive to the statement given in this userbox, they are not addressing the same issue and are therefore not relevant. Opera hat (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How exactly does knowing the opinion of a user of the definition of marriage aid the project through the stated purpose of userboxes, which is to encourage collaborative editing? My counter-examples are exactly on point because they are other examples of opinions on how the definition of marriage should be restricted, one of which was just as legal in the United States as the federal restriction on same-sex marriage is until 1967. How you can say that there is no relevance to these examples is stupefyingly bizarre and you know as well as I do that none of them would stand at MfD. Don't like those examples? How about "This user believes that marriage consists of one Christian man and one Christian woman" or "This user believes marriage consists of one able-bodied man and one able-bodied woman"? More examples of opinion userboxes that would never stand at MfD but some great exception must be made so that an anti-gay message can be broadcast? "It's just an opinion" is ridiculous. Robert Mugabe has an opinion on homsexuals too. Would you support a userbox that reads "This user agrees with Robert Mugabe about homosexuality"? Otto4711 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Userboxes that identify wikipedians by sexual orientation are allowed - or, at least, there are numerous examples of them that haven't been deleted. And even if they weren't, how would that make a difference to the acceptability or otherwise of statements of belief such as this one? Opera hat (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some sexuality userboxes were deleted recently and I recall participating in a DRV that upheld the deletion. Whether something has changed since then or the existing sexuality userboxes simply haven't been MfDed I have no idea. The rest of my comment and my opinion stand. Otto4711 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is plain fact that there exist marriages that are not between one man and one woman. To have a userbox that essentially states that the user does not recognize the validity of a legal marriage is needlessly divisive and quite plausibly offensive. Per Userboxes, we are not to have divisive or inflammatory userboxes. In fact, under Userboxes, "believes" (which this userbox uses) is the first example.  Pagra shtak  21:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Keep. Although I would prefer to purge polemics from personal pages, we have no consensus to do so. Allowing controversial statements in User space is the truce that ended the Userbox War. If we violate the truce, we may reignite the war, which would be many times more divisive and disruptive to the goal of encyclopedia building. If we want to get rid of such statements, we need to build consensus against them as a group, not attack them one by one. (Note that in WP:Userbox, the "divisive and inflammatory" phrase links to and comes from CSD#T1, which now applies only to Template space. That was not the original intent, but it is part of the truce.) - Unconventional (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly there is consensus against inflammatory content, in user space or anywhere else. WP:CIVIL. These boxes violate the consensus against incivility and should be removed. Otto4711 (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Otto4711 has taken it upon himself to filibuster this MfD with his multiple comments, he can perhaps provide evidence of the "consensus" he claims that this userbox is inflammatory content, and that the userbox is incivility based. We would like to see your evidence of the consensus you claim.  JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  04:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 13 million voters in California demonstrated that a position either for or against SSM is divisive. Tens of millions of voters in dozens of states who passed state-level DOMAs over the past few years demonstrate it. The rhetoric, especially from those who oppose SSM and who compare it to incest and bestiality demonstrates the inflammatory nature of the content. This very debate demonstrates it. Any claim that expressing an opinion on this subject does not have inflammatory effects is naive at best and patently disingenuous at worst. Now let me ask you some questions. How does this userbox fulfill the stated purpose of userboxes, which is to facilitate collaborative editing? Why do you believe that, given the consensus that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, your proclamation of your opinion meets policy? Why do you believe that, given that WIkipedia is not your personal web host, that you should be allowed to post irrelevant content to your user page in direct violation of policy? There are plenty of free blog sites out there where you can post anything you want about your opinion on same-sex marriage or any other topic that strikes your fancy. Go post your personal drama on one of them and leave Wikipedia for the purpose for which it is intended. Otto4711 (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And this isn't a WP:SOAPBOX ? 16x9 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Otto, the burden of proof is on you as the person who wants the box deleted not on the user of the box. Also, replying to every comment that you disagree with is annoying, boorish, and makes this debate difficult to follow.  Please just say your peace, state your case and back off.  At this point everyone here is aware of your position on this matter and you do not need to keep repeating yourself.  L0b0t (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * JungleCat specifically asked Otto for a response ("We would like to see your evidence..."), so I don't think it's fair to criticize him for replying.  Pagra shtak  15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In that one instance yes, he is in the clear. I, however, was referring to the seven comments he made before adding his delete vote and then the four comments after he made his AfD position known. L0b0t (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. He has shown his bias, and proves my point about the edits of the user are the key measuring stick. Notice that on the Userboxes page we have this section giving the link to Userboxes/Life. Have the deletes seen some of the userboxes there? Here’s a good one: User:TAnthony/Userbox Homo+. Plenty more where that come from. Those links have been there for a long time under a general community consensus (and consider the number of contributors who display those boxes). The consensus he claims to have to remove this marriage box and about its content being inflammatory is false. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I never claimed to be unbiased regarding people displaying their prejudices in the manner that this userbox displays yours. I speak out against this very prejudice when I encounter it IRL and I will continue to speak out against it here. Being biased against prejudices like yours is nothing to be ashamed of. Dispelling ignorance should be one of the project's goals. Don't like having your prejudices challenged? Too bad. By the way, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how your display of prejudice on your user page aids in the collaborative development of Wikipedia. Because frankly, if I went looking for someone to collaborate with and found that userbox on their page, my responses would range from "I have no interest in working with that person" to "what a jackass" in rapid succession. Otto4711 (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, your opinion about what a user’s impression will be when they come across my page looking for someone to collaborate with is just that – your opinion. Others that said they are in a gay relationship have said that they don’t have a problem with the box (believe me, I do respect them as they admit everyone thinks different, that is good integrity). It is obvious in real life that there are people who do not share the same views on gay marriage as you do. So someone was looking to collaborate with someone to edit something (let’s say fooian marriage) – They most likely will want users who think like they do so they can… so they can what? They can push that POV? In the spirit of WP:NPOV, shouldn’t those same users consider the general public’s view on matters like fooian marriage, and even ask just a few other users who don’t share that view for input? (Remember, NPOV!) If they don’t, it proves my point. They are POV pushing. Am I correct? If someone came to me asking for my input on “Fooian Marriage”, and I really had the time (for the record, I’m really busy in real life as of lately) I would be glad to help out where I can. BTW, your injecting comments all over this place is making this MfD harder to follow. I’m not the only one who has mentioned something to you on this   .Just curious, when this MfD is over, will you be taking action to delete some userboxes such as the abortion ones? Or do you only care about the gay marriage ones?  JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. If I were looking to collaborate with another editor on any topic, whether related to homosexuality or not, prejudice as outlined by your userbox would elicit the stated reaction. And yes, that is only my opinion and I never suggested otherwise so why you think saying it's my opinion is meaningful I have no idea. What I may or may not do regarding other userboxes is not relevant to this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX, but also there's a big difference between a statement about one's own experience (as Tanthony's box that you link to is) and a box expressing your disapproving judgement about someone else's lifestyle (as yours is). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, see Black Kite’s reply to PatPeter’s question here. As per my input above, are we going to go through and delete the pro-choice abortion boxes to prevent the pro-life users from being offended? Don’t mean to sound waxy, but this is all about the right to be non-offended here at Wiki, right? Where do you draw the line? I have seen much offensive stuff on userpages (text only BTW). Also check out this section of discussion from another somewhat related MfD here. It may not be as “waxy” as you think. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  19:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So Junglecat, were you planning on actually answering any of my questions? Otto4711 (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which one? Besides, my input is expressed, don't feel the need to filibuster. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  19:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd settle for your answering any of them since your responses so far have been unremarkable. I would suggest that labeling another editors contributions as filibustering is skating on the edge of civility. And yes, to answer you question to David, I would suggest deleting all userboxes on either side of the abortion question along with any other userbox that does not further the goal of userboxes, fostering collaborative editing. It has nothing to do with being "offended" (so easy to sniff away the concerns of other users with mushy talk about being "offended" or not "offended" instead of addressing the substantive policy issues that have been raised); it's about whether this userbox contributes to the encyclopedia. It doesn't. Otto4711 (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, you should be mass nominating every single userbox that is not about admin status and languages spoken. To just go after boxes that offend you and leave other boxes that express (possibly) offensive opinions is to push your POV onto the rest of us.  Mass nominate all the boxes that express an opinion or keep all of them.  L0b0t (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ALLORNOTHING. An argument to be avoided. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is an essay and should not be confused with policy or guideline. I would posit that to dismiss my argument with a link to an essay, an essay that specifically recommends against doing that right in the introduction, is to miss the whole point of this XfD. L0b0t (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And again, it's easy to dismiss the issue with sniffy pronouncements about "offensiveness". Apparently not so easy to address the multiple policy and guideline issues raised in the course of this discussion. And sorry, the fact that some other box may or may not be nominated is not my responsibility. Attempting to denigrate my argument by claiming that I should be nominating other boxes is an utter and abject failure to address my arguments or for that matter to grasp the point. And whether ALLORNOTHING is an essay or not, it's still a piss-poor non-responsive "response". Otto4711 (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per my remarks above, adding that in many countries and American states, same-sex marriage is a reality, the denial of which is both illogical and offensive. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Much ado about nothing inflammatory. The userbox is civil and does not specifically disparage any group.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 13:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It specifically disparages people in same-sex marriages and people who wish to enter into such marriages. Otto4711 (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I see no such disparagement in its words. Sometimes I think people see disparagement where none is intended, and that saddens me.  Collect (talk) 12:20, 2 February 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.