Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/Userboxes/Beliefs/No Evol

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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  Keep. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

User:UBX/Userboxes/Beliefs/No Evol


For a project like Wikipedia, this seems pretty clearly polemic to me. I believe there was a previously established consensus that polemic userboxes are not allowed here. Attempts to moderate the template's language and attempts to dissuade editors from using this template have been flatly rejected. A deletion discussion should clarify whether this type of userbox is appropriate here. MZMcBride (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This MfD is the result of my reaction to the nominator removing the userbox from my user page. While I did suggest that he take it to MfD, a better solution would probably be an RfC related to polemic userboxes in general, seeing as this is hardly the only one. Until there is consensus that all such userboxes are not appropriate, deleting one is not the right course of action. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 18:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been a number of past discussions related to userboxes here. Discussions of a group of templates have a tendency to get muddied when one or two templates don't exactly follow the pattern of the others. An individual nomination and discussion of this particular userbox seems fine to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What was the result of those past discussions? Also, why is it that nobody bothers to go after liberal userboxes? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Mixed, I think. Some discussions have resulted in keep, others in delete. And since those discussions (some of which are five or six years old now), some userboxes have been re-created, others have been deleted, still others have been moved, etc. From my reading of past discussions, statements involving abortion or Holocaust denial or pedophilia fall into a clearly unacceptable category. Statements involving sports and politicians generally are more accepted. Statements involving politics are mixed. This particular userbox seems to fall into a grey area. In other discussions, some editors have suggested that being able to track these types of users (e.g., users who label the theory of evolution a hypothesis) via the template tracking capability is a net-positive to Wikipedia. The theory being that keeping an eye out for, or flagging, certain editors is actually useful. Regarding liberal userboxes, I'm not sure what you mean. If you think there are other userboxes that need deletion (or discussion), feel free to nominate them individually. Though you may want to try simple editing first. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not seeking to nominate any userboxes for deletion. I merely wish to express my personal beliefs on my user page without them being censored, a right which many other editors are enjoying. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 20:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The criteria that would make me think not to keep it would be if this userbox violated WP:ATTACK or contained unnecessary profanity. Since this userbox does neither, I vote to keep. Steel1943  (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It frustrates me that anybody could possibly think that re-labelling the theory of evolution as a hypothesis will somehow invalidate the natural facts and truths that it describes, and that denial of said facts and truths could somehow be described as a "belief" instead of what it actually is. That certainly frustrates me. I tried to correct the language in the userbox, but was reverted for being "dogmatic", something I can categorically say is more offensive than correctly referring to a theory as a theory. However, if people wish to display their ignorance and stupidity on their userpage, so be it. I'm not offended by them doing so. I am sad that people are so ignorant of science that they think that not believing in its observations will stop those observations from being true. Thankfully that's not the case. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Science is supposed to be testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable. Nobody has ever observed or repeated evolution, and much of the evidence seems to falsify it rather than supporting it (i.e. the fossil record, which shows many gaps that interfere with evolution's claims). Evolution is not science, it is merely a man-made idea. It seems contradictory that you claim that it describes facts and truths, but you only call it a "theory". If it is true, why is it a theory? Finally, whether or not you agree with the userbox using the word hypothesis instead of theory, the wording should be decided by those displaying the userbox, seeing as it displays their beliefs, not your beliefs. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Guys, this really isn't the place to debate evolution - can we limit our discussion to the infobox itself please? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Nobody has ever observed or repeated evolution, and much of the evidence seems to falsify it rather than supporting it" - Yeah, sometimes I make stuff up, too. Regardless, I still vote keep, since people should be allowed to express their opinions, I don't know why anyone would be particularly offended by it. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you ever observed or repeated evolution? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep and snow close - Let's strictly talk about the content, and not the validity of the theory. WP:POLEMIC says that "statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive". Stating that one rejects evolution is not vilifying anyone, it is one's personal view. It does not vilify those who support evolution just as an Atheist saying they support evolution does not attack those who reject it. If the userbox said something like, "This user does not accept the hypothesis of evolution and thinks all who support it are destined for hell" then WP:POLEMIC may apply, but come on, this does nothing of the kind. Go   Phightins  !  19:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody cited WP:POLEMIC. The userbox was called polemic. I think calling the theory of evolution a hypothesis next to a caricature depicting Charles Darwin as an ape is pretty clearly polemic. Particularly for an educational project. That said, I agree with you that it seems very unlikely that this debate will result in a delete. At least, as others have noted, this userbox can be used to mark editors who hold extreme views and they can be judged accordingly. I'll go ahead and close this debate momentarily. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2013 (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.