Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination

 __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:  delete. Consensus is quite clear, both numerically and in terms of strength of argument, that these templates for display on Wikipedia user pages - which broadly speaking express opposition to same-sex marriage - violate the guideline on userbox content restrictions (WP:UBCR) because they are "inflammatory or divisive" and "propaganda [or] advocacy", as prohibited by that guideline. The "delete" opinions also make reference to other policies and guidelines relating to the discrimination of others on Wikimedia projects.

The "keep" side makes the argument that pro-same-sex-marriage userboxes would also need deleting for the same reasons, to which others reply that such userboxes are not similarly problematic because they do not express discriminatory intent. This question cannot be decided in the present discussion because such other userboxes have not been nominated for deletion here.  Sandstein  07:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

User:UBX/onemanonewoman

 * – (View MfD)

Userboxes states:
 * Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.
 * Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.

I honestly can't see how this could possibly be anything but inflamatory, divisive political/religious advocacy, and is pretty explicitly homophobic. That it hasn't been deleted yet says a lot about Wikipedia, none of it good. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 00:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, while we're at it, let's roll in (all from Category:Marriage user templates): All of which are quite similar. Should users be able to have userboxes that say that they explicitly discriminate against some group of Wikipedians? I can't see how that can possibly be within Wikipedia's culture. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 00:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There's also User:Toa_Nidhiki05/Userboxes/LGBT0, User:Jenglish02/UBX/Traditional Marriage... sure are a lot. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I won't want to mess with the nomination -- could you append it to include these two? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

* Delete per nom. Time for this one to go; we can address Rhododendrites' other two above (and any similar) later.  Mini  apolis  01:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Done as of the timestamp here: 01:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 01:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all - per nom (and past noms, and other noms, and the general spirit of avoiding a hostile, unwelcoming atmosphere for collaboration) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all No need to turn this into a timesink.  Mini  apolis  02:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all - imagine if it was anti-interracial marriage. Some things, just no. Lev!vich 01:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Expanding on my !vote rationale: delete all based on the application of our existing WP:UBX guideline to the particular userboxes included in this nomination (all of which are "This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman" or similar). As stated in the nom, these particular userboxes are prohibited by WP:UBX because they are and  The userbox suggests that marriage between gay people is not marriage, and this is discrimination based on sexual preference, a type of discrimination that I personally disagree with, but more importantly that the entire anglosphere has outlawed. That's evidence of the userbox being divisive, and in fact, even oppose !voters below seem to concede that this userbox is about a "hot-button" or "controversial" issue, which is further evidence of it being divisive. Those opposing raise a familiar "neutrality" argument, which I believe is actually WP:FALSEBALANCE, and which I will paraphrase thusly: if we allow people to fly gay pride flags, then we also have to allow people to fly swastika flags, or any other kind of flag, because we have to stay "neutral". Or the inverse: if we ban nazis, we also have to ban gay pride. I reject this argument: just as we can ban some flags (nazi flags) while allowing others (rainbow flags), we can ban some userboxes (divisive ones, or ones that advocate for a religious or political belief) while allowing other userboxes (those that advocate for human rights, for example). I disagree with the calls to procedurally close this and have an RFC instead; there's no reason we can't apply an existing guideline (WP:UBX) to a set of particular userboxes at MFD to decide if they should be deleted. That's what guidelines and MFD are for. For these userboxes, I think UBX compels us to delete all. There is also a practical reason for deleting these userboxes: they will hurt editor recruitment and retention by making certain types of editors (e.g. gay editors) feel unwelcome. Aside from whatever our WP:PAGs say, these userboxes add nothing of value to the encyclopedia, but risk doing harm (by alienating editors), and therefore they are bad for the porject and should be deleted. Lev!vich 17:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: all of the above per WP:UBCR:
 * "Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.", declaring that you believe other individuals families/relationships/marriages are illegitimate/unreal or shouldn't exist is both rude and offensive and a personal attack against someone's family structure.
 * "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.", declaring that you believe other individuals families/relationships/marriages are illegitimate/unreal or shouldn't exist is both arousing or intended to arouse angry feelings and tends to cause disagreement or hostility between people.
 * "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.", stating a divisive opinion against inclusive marriage is political propaganda, religious advocacy, and an opinion piece on current affairs and a political issue.
 * Userboxes are for letting others know about you, not stating what you think about other people and their families. All these divisive userboxes advocating against other's human rights and inclusive marriage need to be deleted.  // Timothy ::  talk  03:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * While I sympathize with not having these userboxes on Wikipedia, I disagree that there is a strong grounding in policy for it.


 * I'm not quite sure how one can personally attack a family structure; yes, people may feel offended (and they have good reason to be) but you are not personally attacking anyone; you are attacking an institution that some people are committed to and feel strongly about.


 * While I can't dispute that this is inflammatory and divisive, so is every single political userbox. That rule seems to apply based only on the preferences of the people who comprise the vast majority of Wikipedia, Western educated men (not everyone in Wikipedia is that, of course, and I haven't checked anyone's user page specifically) not on what the other side might find divisive. Huge amounts of the world view gay marriage as inflammatory and divisive; why not delete userboxes supporting gay marriage? The point is that this is an arbitrary and useless critereon that clearly was not intended for a blanket deletion of what would extend to quite literally anything.


 * Having an opinion, clearly, does not mean you are spouting propaganda simply because another editor disagrees with that opinion; by that logic one could call every userbox propaganda. And there is no evidence that it is religious advocacy, nor is there any mention of religion in the userboxes. "An opinion piece is an article... that mainly reflects the author's opinion about a subject." One sentence does not comprise an article. Zoozaz1 (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * My view is that most of the userboxes nominated in this MfD do not fall under any of the three criteria under WP:UBCR (save for two I expressly identified in my argument below). Let me use the userbox: "This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman" as an example to illustrate my view:
 * Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks. The statement in question, This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman displays one's personal belief towards the institution of marriage (grounded on either traditional or religious values), and absolutely nothing more than that. Full stop. Allegations of discrimination are your subjective interpretation of the objective belief of users displaying this userbox. It is perfectly reasonable, and indeed likely, that a person who opposes same-sex marriage, or believe marriage is between a man and a woman, would respect LGBTQ individuals. It follows that there is no "incivility" or "personal attacks" is on display here.
 * "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." Not everyone would like what I am about to say, but unfortunately, opposition to same-sex marriage is the prevailing view as of 2020, and especially so when you take into account worldwide views on the subject. It is also a view that is NOT contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16) or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 23), both of which only prescribed the right to marry for men and women without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion. It follows, from the sheer wording of those well recognized instruments on human rights, that opposition to same-sex marriage simply isn't comparable to opposition to interracial marriage, for example. It also follows that I cannot see how holding a view that is within the reasonable bounds of discourse AND is the prevailing view worldwide would somehow become "inflammatory or divisive".
 * Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising." The statement This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman is not promoting or advocating for any ideology. It is a mere statement of personal belief as to family values, and is NOT intended to promote opposition to same-sex marriage. If there were a userbox stating along the lines of "this user opposes same sex marriage and thinks you should to" then this is advocacy. But what we have here is not. --Dps04 (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete all per above. The lede of WP:USERBOX says "A userbox [...] is [...] a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly or indirectly help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles." Do these say something about the user? Yes, they most certainly do. Do they aid collaboration? Absolutely not; only collusion, perhaps; I would feel immediately hostile to any user with such a userbox, and might have to restrain the impulse to trawl through their edit history. Narky Blert (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all per above. The existence of other political userboxes has been used to justify keeping this one in the past, and I think we should investigate several that are in Category:Political user templates. The Moose  06:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably best to do that as a seperate nomination. Bundle too much and you end up having to have a bunch of seperate arguments; probably better to deal with implicit or explicit attacks on user groups (For example, I did try to check for racist userboxes. Didn't find any, happily, although I worry there might be some lurking about uncategorised.) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 08:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, I meant separate nominations. The Moose  16:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll jump to your talk page to plan that out. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 19:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all as already been said. I'd also like to add User:Java7837/userboxing/user_does_not_recognize if possible. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Added as of 08:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 08:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep most The criteria I would use when assessing how to delete these userboxes is "does this userbox directly insult or support discrimination against a group of people." Based off of the interpretation of "this userbox is divisive," which is the only thing mentioned in the content restriction, I could make a good argument that every single userbox should be deleted because it has the potential to divide a group of people. I would delete User:Skybon/Heterosexist, which very clearly and directly supports discrimination against gay people; the rest, while some saying they are opposed to gay marriage, does not say that they support discrimination against a group of people; it says they do not support a type of marriage, not that gay people cannot marry. The support of marriage between one man and one woman does not directly advocate discrimination. While these are fine distinctions, I think they are extremely important for allowing users to express themselves. With regards to interracial marriage userboxes, I would say that it is significantly more inflammatory for the vast majority of people and therefore should be deleted on those grounds. Zoozaz1 (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To say that marriage should be between "one man and one woman" is identical to saying that gay people should not be allowed to marry. User:Java7837/userboxing/user_does_not_recognize even says that the user "does not recognize same-sex relationships", so that's not even about marriage! --bonadea contributions talk 08:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all per TimothyBlue's reasoning. --bonadea contributions talk 16:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete All per nom. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose  Deletion of userboxes if you don’t notify all who transclude it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I really don't think we need to warn people who used the box. Let's assume the best case, that this was used innocently out of ignorance or thoughtlessness. Yes the box does promote discrimination and is inflammatory, but they might not have intended to do so, many may have assumed the box was acceptable simply because it existed. A warning might also stir up controversy where none existed and none is needed. I don't think it's necessary to warn the creators either, but if anything is done, I think a gently worded comment is all that would be appropriate.  // Timothy ::  talk  22:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The main template is fourteen years old. I suspect that the notification would mainly serve to put a final message on the userpages of long-gone users, some of which might use their real names, fossilising a note of their possibly decades-given-up views to anyone who looks. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 23:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of natural justice, and having a discussion without minimal notification of stakeholders. Editors transcluding the userboxes about to be deleted are stakeholders, and are a particularly biased group, likely to speak against deletion.  If they are long inactive, then notification may not make much sense.  An idea:  The proposal is to delete the userboxes, after which the translcusions will be cut, which will appear on their watchlists, but too late to contribute here.  So, now that we see a strong likelihood of deleted, remove the transclusions, now, relist for seven days, and if they are active and what to contribute here, we can hear them, before the close.  Otherwise,  if this goes to DRV, not notifitying the stakeholders is a very good reason to overturn due to the procedural failure.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This makes no sense at all to me. The discussion is advertised as it should be. The creators of these templates have also been notified. Feel free to post to other venues like WikiProjects, etc. if you wish. The idea here is to get community input, and you're suggesting pinging hundreds (sigh) of people who are passionately on the same side of the debate. This isn't like an article where you might consider pinging people who have made significant contributions to the encyclopedia article; it's people who want to show off a particular ideology using a little snippet of text someone else has created. There's nothing wrong with that in general, but it doesn't entitle you to be pinged en masse to a discussion over whether that ideology is appropriate for a userbox. They can absolutely participate, but no to canvassing them. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This MfD playing out without notifications to the editors who chose to transclude the template amounts to a judgement on these editors, which will be taken to imply that they may not re-create the same userbox, and yet they were not invited to the discussion. Hundreds of people passionate about this debate?  Because there are so many, you don't want to invite any of them?  MfD is  a backwater, advertising is minimal.  As a matter of natural justice, any editor who was not notified of this discussion cannot be punished for re-creating the userbox, whether in an identical form, or otherwise.  Notification of stakeholders is not canvassing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How about listing at CENT? Lev!vich 06:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think WP:CENT would be good, as I think this MfD is headed to change a precedent. Minimally, a post at WT:UP, because that's where the results will be documented.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have post a message at WT:CENT to see if listing at CENT would be appropriate in this instance. --Dps04 (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I think they should be deleted as well Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all Divisive, hateful bilge that has no business here. OrgoneBox (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all Wikipedia is no place for advocacy toward bigotry.      StarM 01:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom and Timothy. Armadillo  pteryx  04:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete ONLY the ones that may be construed as supporting sexual discrimination, but keep the rest per Zoozaz1. I know this is an incredibly unpopular position to take, looking at the way things are going, but I do want to give my two cents on this MfD. Same-sex marriage is a social issue, and a contentious one, much like abortion and euthanasia are. In a free society, different people would naturally have opposing views towards contentious social issues. Given Wikipedia has not completely outlawed any userboxes which broadly relate to discourse in politics and social issues (there is even a Wikipedia page listing such userboxes), it follows that a blanket ban against one side of the debate of a controversial issue flies in the face of Wikipedia's mission as a free and open encyclopedia. Of course, this does not mean I am in favour of an unrestricted freedom of speech, nor do I believe every userbox should be allowed under the auspices of "freedom of speech". Per WP:UBCR cited by others above, I completely agree with the notion that inflammatory and divisive userboxes, even those which are potentially so, should be deleted. On that basis, I would argue that User:Skybon/Heterosexist and User:Java7837/userboxing/user does not recognize implies rejection towards same-sex couples themselves and/or a refusal to recognize their rights under marriage. This would fit within my understanding of sexual discrimination and thereby potentially inflammatory and divisive. However, I can't see how one's personal belief or understanding of the institution of marriage would be construed as sexual discrimination, much less inflammatory and divisive. The sentence "This user believes a marriage consists only of one man and one woman." reflects nothing more than a personal belief and/or position towards family values and the institution of marriage, and it would be a stretch to say everyone who has that belief advocates for discrimination against same-sex couples. "This user opposes the legalization of Gay marriage." is a position that people in a free society should be able to take, and the sentence on its own, again, by no means incite hatred against people who hold the opposing view. I do not think it is fair to equate a mere belief of bisexual marriage (and without more) to "hateful bilge" or "bigotry", as has been done by some !votes above. I agree with Zoozaz1 that the dividing line is fine, but while divisiveness and discrimination definitely has no place in the encyclopedia, we should similarly caution ourselves against shutting down one side of the debate on what many perceive as a contentious social issue. So no, I will not be putting those userboxes in my userpage, but I do not think we should disallow the practice altogether. --Dps04 (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't it funny how some things are "contentious social issues" instead of discrimination, then they're "contentious social issues" and discrimination, and later jut discrimination? By using precisely the same logic, would you be ok with a userbox that said "This user believes a marriage consists of one man and one woman of the same race"? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 05:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * +1. The basis of my !vote to delete all is that I think the position expressed in all the userboxes is outside the Overton window. There are other userboxes outside the Overton window as well; those should also be deleted. Lev!vich 05:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , You may disagree with this, but I will say it is not fair to compare same-sex marriage with interracial marriage. The former is still very much hotly debated, and there is a substantial debate on a national scale as to its legalization. The latter is basically only held by very fringe groups, the likes of KKK and neo-nazis with the aim of spreading hatred. So no, "This user believes a marriage consists of one man and one woman of the same race" is not exactly comparable to what we have here. And to clarify, my position is that same-sex marriage is a contentious social issue, which could, but does not always, overlap with discrimination. --Dps04 (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your opinion, and it is certainly not my intention to badger you (just let me know if you feel that way and I am happy to apologize and refrain from further replying). But I think it is a bold statement to suggest (if I read you correctly) that opposition to same-sex marriage is outside of the Overton window. As I have explained below, it is a position (unfortunately, you could say) supported by a substantial minority if not majority of the worldwide population, and same-sex marriage, as of now, remains unrecognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (See Article 16). Now, that's does mean the position is correct. Just like you (I presume), I personally believe opposition to same-sex marriage is wrong. But at the same time, given the diverging worldwide views on this controversial issue, I think opposition to same-sex marriage far from an intolerable and shocking position to take. Also, I believe I have elucidated why I feel the userboxes as a whole (except for the ones I specifically mentioned) was neither divisive or inflammatory in my statements below (not repeating it here), and explained why I feel same-sex marriage is not comparable to interracial marriage in my reply to Rhododendrites directly above. --Dps04 (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries about badgering. Same-sex marriage isn't really an authority on the subject (not entirely up-to-date and has some OR problems), but more recent reports by, e.g., Pew, suggest that while opposition to same-sex marriage might not be outside the Overton window globally, it is in the anglosphere, and while we write for a global audience, it's still the English Wikipedia. In English-speaking countries, where most of our editors and readers are from, same-sex marriage is legally allowed, and opposing it is considered discrimination based on sexual preference (which is homophobia). Lev!vich 19:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect, I fundamentally disagree with the notion that the views of anglosphere countries are somehow superior than the views in the rest of the world just because we are editing the English Wikipedia (as you seem to imply in the comment directly above, apologies if you didn't intend such a meaning). Quite the contrary, WORLDVIEW advises editors to whenever possible, adopt a worldwide view especially with regards to controversial issues: Read about the perspectives and issues of concern to others. Attempt to represent these in your editing.. There is even a Wikiproejct dedicated to that aim: WP:CSB. --Dps04 (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:WORLDVIEW is WP:Systemic bias, an essay that, although I agree with it and would support its promotion to a guideline, doesn't currently represent consensus, unlike the UBX guideline. More importantly, the essay is about mainspace editing, not about what kind of stuff we should allow on userpages. Even still, it notes In mainspace, it's important to maintain that global viewpoint. But when it comes to what we allow on userpages, that's not a question about "the whole world", it's a question about "the Wikipedia community", which is an anglophone community, and so I believe the relevant Overton window is the one that applies in the anglosphere, and not the whole world, and I don't think anything in WP:Systemic bias contradicts that. Lev!vich 18:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, roughly a third of the editors here, and ~42% of readers, are outside English-speaking countries. --Yair rand (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you can reasonably equate "the Wikipedia community" with an anglophone community. I am not where User:Yair rand got his 42% figure from (so I suggest him to include the source to that), but I think we can all hopefully agree many users come from outside of the anglosphere. We have a fair share of contributors using the English wikipedia to learn English as a L2 (myself included), including users from India (which has not legalised same-sex marriage), China (which has not legalised same-sex marriage). I am from Hong Kong, and we haven't legalised same-sex marriage yet here. I accept that just because a view is held by a substantial minority or even majority of the population does not mean it is necessarily correct, but you would need a very strong rationale before you could even think of completely banning such a view. So far, I see the other side of the argument and understand their reasonable concerns, but what I fail to see is very strong rationale to support the idea that opposition to same sex marriage must be shut down completely and indiscriminately. I explained my take and rebuttals on common arguments we see here. --Dps04 (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of inciting "hatred against people who hold an opposite view", but of actual discrimination. If two people are a family and want to do the wedding thing for whatever reason, including the increased protection by law that comes from being married, that's not exactly a "point of view", and I fail to see how it could ever not be discrimination to legalise against some people being allowed do that. --bonadea contributions talk 08:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all per above. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all the userboxes in Category:Marriage user templates per advocacy (support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy), and also delete all userboxes in, and delete all userboxes about abortion, guns, gun control, religion, political affiliation, porn and get rid of big boobs. Before placing any of these userboxes on your userpage, please consider that many Wikipedians believe that the use of such userboxes runs contrary to the spirit of the guidance given at WP:USERPAGE, because they can be seen as being polemical. Please remember that the purpose of userboxes is to tell people about yourself as a Wikipedian (an editor of an encyclopedia), not as a human being in general. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What you are calling for vastly exceeds the scope of this MfD discussion. Such a fundamental change of precedent, in my opinion, requires community decision in the appropriate forums, and not a mere obscure MFD discussion. I call on the nominator to halt and procedurally close this nomination, and convene a community-wide discussion on the place of anti-same sex marriage / political userboxes before proceeding with this MfD. Alternatively, I echo SmokeyJoe's calls for this discussion to be brought to the attention of the wider community (through WP:CENT or other means) in light of its lasting impact on the userbox policy and beyond --Dps04 (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree it exceeds the scope, so changing to keep, because editors are allowed to have personal political/religious POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions. There has been no evidence presented here that editors that have these particular personal political/religious userboxes is negatively affecting their editing and discussions. Just because someone else's personal political/religious POV on marriage doesn't align with your own doesn't mean we should exclude this group from Wikipedia. So essentially by deleting all these userboxes, it will amount to if you want to share your personal political/religious POV on marriage via a userbox, then it's none at all, or same-sex marriage, because basically that's all that will be left in the marriage category. Well, of course there is always incest and polyamorous marriages, and a few others, but no man/woman. Of course any userbox in any category that specifically states they discriminate against anyone should be deleted. Isaidnoway <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 08:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have found some more anti same-sex marriage userboxes.
 * Added as of Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs - Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 12:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume those pages need tagging too, not just listing on this page? -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you fo the reminder. I have now tagged those pages and warned the creators on their talk pages. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral I can see both sides of the issue here. One one hand, we shouldn't allow bigotry on Wikipedia, and promote viewpoints that exclude a group of people for no reason despite their sexual orientation. However, this is also a global encyclopedia, and this viewpoint is quite common throughout the world. Gay marriage is illegal basically every independent country in Asia (except for Taiwan) and Africa (except for South Africa). Yes, opposing gay marriage is wrong, but it's also probably more common than supporting it worldwide. Personally, I think we could just delete all political userboxes, but that might require an RFC.ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can agree with this. I don't mind having all political userboxes deleted so that we can get away from the trouble once and for all, but this would require community-wide participation amd approval in an RfC. Or if the community believes all userboxes opposing same-sex marriage should be deleted, they can also decide so in an RFC. No way could all of this be handled in a MfD with limited reach. I call again for the nominator to procedurally close this discussion and start a community-wide discussion on our userbox policy and/or the future of political (including anti-same sex marriage) userboxes. This issue is very contentious, as we can see from the three previous nominations of this template (or similar templates) for deletion (and a DRV), all resulting in no consensus close. Really need to sort this out once and for all with community wide input--Dps04 (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that there's a fundamental difference between something that declares active prejudice against a minority and declarations of (non-extremist) political parties one belongs to, or support of a minority. "I am a Democrat" or "I support gay rights" will not make any but the most particularly-thin-skinned feel personally attacked. These clearly do. Further, the first two of the nominations you cite were 11 and 13 years ago and closed no consensus, the only other was six years ago and has two voters. Looking at the voting so far, it appears that, after a decade since the last half-decently-participated-in debate, the consensus is now for deletion. The only thing that withdrawing this would do is lump it in with a lot of things that have substantially less harm to the project. There probably are other harmful categories - I'm not sure Wikipedia needs abortion views being declared either way, for instance - but most of the others are relatively harmless. We don't have any transphobic or racist  userboxes, as far as I'm aware. But we do have a collection of homophobic ones. I think Wikipedia's better than that. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 19:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand your concerns and I respect your views. Still, I fail to appreciate how a statement reflecting personal views towards marriage, which (unfortunately, I guess you could say) is shared by a substantial minority if not majority of the worldwide population, and a view which is not specifically directed at anyone but merely reflective of one's belief of the institution of marriage and family values, would automatically be dismissed as "bigotry", "hateful", "reactionary impulse" or "homophobic". A common argument is the right to marry is a fundamental human right, and thus denying same-sex marriage is by definition discrimination. As much as I personally support this argument, we ought to respect the fact that people are entitled to hold a view different than ours. I hate to play the devil's advocate, but I have to do it here. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not prescribe same-sex marriage as a fundamental right. Article 16 reads: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. I am not saying the Declaration is authoritative. All I am saying is, as much as I hate to say it, same-sex marriage is still not, at this stage, a universally accepted fundamental right to the extent that all opposition is unthinkable and must be condemned and shut down by default (unlike, for example, issues like interracial marriage, nazism and slavery). I insist on my position: it is sad to see so many people opposing same-sex marriage even up till today, but it is more sad to see so many people okay with indiscriminately shutting down one side of the debate in what I perceive as one of the most important and controversial issue of our times --Dps04 (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying I think someone who holds that position should automtically be kicked off Wikipedia. But Userboxes is an official guideline, and these violate it. Moreso, they do so in the most disruptive way. At least something like "Impeach Obama" probably won't make Wikipedians feel personally attacked. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 03:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are equating userboxes, which don't align with your personal beliefs/POV to a personal attack, but you don't cite any evidence that a personal attack has occurred. Do you have any evidence that editors who display these userboxes are personally attacking other editors on talk pages or discussions with abusive, defamatory, or derogatory language based on sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs? Are they engaged in disruptive behavior when editing articles, talk pages or discussions, incapable of editing in a neutral manner, can't collaborate with other editors? WP:PA, which is policy, says Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions. If an editor is in compliance with our core policies and guidelines when editing articles and discussions, why shouldn't they be able to have a userbox displaying their personal political/religious beliefs, if it doesn't negatively affect their editing and discussions. I don't feel like I'm being personally attacked by an editor who displays a userbox that doesn't align with my personal beliefs on marriage or other political/religious issues.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 09:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I was clear what I meant by personal in that statement. You're strawmanning. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 16:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a distinct difference between feeling like you have been personally attacked and personally attacking someone. There is no specific person that that editor is attacking, and simply disagreeing or opposing something does not constitute a personal attack. This is equivalent to having a userbox saying "I am opposed to insert sports team here" taken down because a member of that team feels they were personally attacked. Zoozaz1 (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete all It's clear they exist as reactionary impulse against LGBTQ rights and the existence of those userboxes would likely make LGBTQ editors feel unwelcome or substandard if encountered on other user's pages.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 14:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note Doing more detailed digging, I've discovered that most of these userboxes are single-use by their creators to reflect their respective views. While this isn't uncommon among userboxes, it also lends more validation to the view that they're being used by mostly individual editors to express views which are not WP:CIVIL and may be perceived as WP:ASPERSIONS by editors in the affected categories these userboxes demean.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 15:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some evidence on editor behavior towards others? The world has many different opposing beliefs and customs... as long as the editor treats you with dignity and respect then you should do the same. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all as contributing to a hostile environment for marginalised editors. I think it's fine to have a userbox professing membership of a political party or religion, but not one expressing or advocating any specific form of bigotry. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all - These do not under any circumstance contribute to the encyclopedia, . – Davey 2010 Talk 20:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete We do not want to promote homophobia any more than any other kind of hatred. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 08:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all - per above. Makes contributors feel unwelcome --DannyS712 (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with ThePlatypusofDoom and Dps04 that we need a wider consensus on this. Techie3 (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all - A broader discussion of userboxes that state political positions may be warranted, but I can't see how expressions of opposition to specific minority rights could ever be beneficial to the encyclopedia.--Trystan (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep all. According to Legal status of same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage is recognized in only 28 countries. I am a full supporter of equal marriage while at the same time am a believer of personal opinions. If we are going by argument strength here then I would agree with User:Isaidnoway: "There has been no evidence presented here that editors that have these particular personal political/religious userboxes is negatively affecting their editing and discussions." What one country sees as bigotry another country sees as accepted practice. We are a global English encyclopedia and as such should reflect users not confined to countries with non accepted viewpoints. It would actually be propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment for us.... an encyclopedia which is worldwide (WP:WORLDVIEW) to have info-boxes promoting same-sex marriage while deleting info-boxes that oppose it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)
 * Wikipedia disagrees. In No personal attacks:
 * ...some types of comments are never acceptable:


 * Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
 * A person from a country that bans homosexuality would not get away with attacking homosexuality on Wikipedia, and the fact that parts of the world have prison or death as consequences would not be a protection to them. The idea that we should allow discrimination in order to cater to such things is definitely not the kind of Wikipedia most of us would want to edit. You may, if you like, suggest deleting pro-equal marriage userboxes after this closes, but they simply don't have equal harm. Who is discriminated against by a message of support? That's kind of like saying that you couldn't have a Holocaust Remembrance userbox without allowing Holocaust denial ones. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 03:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman, can be defined as a religious belief. Describing a group of editors who express their religious beliefs in a userbox as divisive, inflammatory, homophobic, disruptive, bigots, are personal attacks directed against another editor or a group of editors. Just like we shouldn't marginalize a group of editors based on sexual orientation, we also shouldn't marginalize a group of editors based on their religious beliefs. While I may have a good-faith difference of opinion about their religious beliefs, this user respects the beliefs and religions of others, because tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion have always been essential for collaboration among Wikipedians.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 09:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly, your equation of religious beliefs with homophobia, as if it's a central tenet of religion, is far more offensive to religion than deleting these services could ever be. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 18:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does agree. "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases" is what is prohibited; saying "This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman" is none of those. Zoozaz1  talk 19:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete All per nom. We should not be creating a hostile work/volunteer environment.--Jorm (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Queerphobia being legalized in some countries is no reason for it to be acceptable here. Isabelle 🔔 12:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep All - I see the folks here who want to delete these userboxes from Category:Marriage user templates have cherry-picked which one are offensive. Why the bias and who gets to pick? On this project I see stuff that offends me. All this time I didn’t know I have the right to be un-offended on the encyclopedia. So - Christian viewpoints on the project aren’t welcome after all these years – Who knew? I also didn't know you could call people who have Christian Faith bigots. Totally uncalled for. Some of you should be reported at WP:ANI. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  14:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I also didn't know you could call people who have Christian Faith bigots believing in a particular god means you can't be a bigot? Who knew. Denying that people have the same rights to marriage is an excellent example of bigotry, no matter what book you use to defend it.       <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">StarM</b> 16:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In the 19th Century, the Epistle to Philemon was used to justify slavery as part of Christianity. William Wilberforce cited his Christian faith as why he worked to stop the slave trade. Which was more Christlike?
 * I'd imagine many Christians, including myself, would be quite upset to learn that homophobia is an inherent part of the faith. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 16:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't homophobia... its an active political global issue. Some countries still have civil unions with laws that give the same benefits as marriage. Getting rid of info-boxes that go against your political views in general is only going to make Wikipedia more biased. Should we delete userboxes that support Trump? I'm pretty sure he has said plenty of offensive things with some comparing him to Adolf Hitler. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Then again... User talk:The Moose/Archives/2020 1 "Trump stuff. I'm inclined to either delete absolutely everything beyond the blandest statements or nothing. We're going to have Wiki War III here otherwise." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Because politics (where one should be neutral) and human rights are different issues. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 18:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Human rights also goes into freedom of speech, but we are going off topic. Political issues are always divided into groups of people who firmly believe that their side is right. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Either have userboxes for both sides of political issues or delete them alltogether. This is not about who is right or who is wrong, its about maintaining a neutral point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's literally what I was saying about the Trump stuff, but this isn't political. WP:NPA itself forbids attacks based on sexual orientation. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 18:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no reason we can't allow political userboxes while forbidding discriminatory userboxes. Lev!vich 19:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As others have already pointed out "This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman" is not discriminatory. Nobody is required to use these infoboxes, it can actualy inform other readers that this is a subject to avoid when engaging in discussion. I know the last thing I would want here is a heated discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely discriminatory. Believing "marriage is between one man and one woman" is believing marriage is not between one man and another man, or one woman and another woman, or one non-gender-binary person and another person. That's discriminatory. It's just as discriminatory as believing "marriage is between one man and one woman of the same race". BTW, believing that marriage is between one adult and another adult is also discriminatory; it's discriminatory against child marriage. But the difference is that it's OK to discriminate against child marriage, whereas it's not OK to discriminate against interracial or same-sex marriage. Lev!vich 20:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Its discriminatory to those who have grown up with those moral values. Its why people vote for Trump, support the 2nd amendment, oppose abortion, and illegal immigration. You don't have to agree and may think these things are also discriminatory against x, y, or z... but we have to give a balanced point of view with the political infoboxes we do have. For the record I am fine with deleting all of the political infoboxes. What good do they do other than provoke others? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

If preventing exposure to expression of certain political views is a priority, it must be even-handed. We can be principled in either direction, but we can't be biased in favor of whichever political views editors think are good and right at the moment, or else we will drive off people from swaths of political spectra, and fail in our goals. --Yair rand (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Topical: I put this similar userbox up for deletion about a week ago.--Jorm (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, some people are uncomfortable with seeing certain popular political opinions. Our options are to either prohibit userboxes which express objectionable political opinions (ie all political opinions), or to just continue having some people uncomfortable. Personally, I would recommend the former, but failing at that, the latter is an acceptable option. What is not an acceptable option is to just prohibit expression of views which are disliked by people participating in MfDs, thus specifically creating a situation where people of certain specific political-ideological groups are subjected to one-way uncomfortable political expression of others while shielding the other direction, and where an implicit message is broadcast about whether certain ideological groups are equally welcome on Wikipedia.
 * I agree with you and that is what I was saying before. Either we have political userboxes or we don't...this should be moved to WP:PUMP for a community wide discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a false-equivalency argument. If we allow a userbox that says "This user believes slavery is wrong", that does not mean we also have to allow a userbox that says "This user believes slavery is right". Lev!vich 21:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Slavery (unlike opposition to same sex marriage) isn't allowed in the majority of countries on the world, nor is it supported by billions of people. Zoozaz1  talk 21:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Slavery isn't a political issue though. I don't know a single country where there is a debate about outlawing slavery or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So let's create a long list of forms of discrimination ordered by the number of countries where it is still prevalent/controversial, and make sure Wikipedia protects that bottom half (we wouldn't want to discriminate against anyone's discrimination because "it's political"!). Or we could just decide that we want to create a welcoming atmosphere for everyone, including marginalized groups, and say that even if some forms of discrimination aren't yet illegal discrimination in every part of the world, it's still not appropriate here. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 21:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you're aware, whether or not certain types of government actions are discriminatory are a matter of heavy public dispute. Taking a stance against various political ideologies does not create a welcoming atmosphere for such people. If we prioritize avoiding discomfort from people's opinions, we can do that. Or not. But not only against some opinions. --Yair rand (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Or the alternative view... we risk being seen as biased towards one side and drive away another group of editors who x considers y bigots. Nobody wins with one side getting their way in politics unless the grounds are firmly established. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly not interested in the "you're discriminating against [me/whomever] for not letting [me/whomever] use this website to endorse discrimination" arguments (what's implied here and across many comments in this thread, whether intentional or not). This isn't a "both sides" issue when it comes to creating a welcoming atmosphere. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I actually dislike both of these arguments. Certainly, there are far more people in the world who would be more likely to say, "just because you allow expressions of opposition to same-sex marriage, doesn't mean you have to allow expressions of support" than the reverse, but I really don't want to say that being a small ideological minority is what makes or breaks the line on any political issue. Similarly, things shouldn't be contingent on the status of public debate. --Yair rand (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither slavery nor same-sex marriage is a political issue. Both are human rights issues, but both get painted as "political issues" by those whose agendas benefit from such messaging. In the US, for example, abolition of slavery was once as much a "political view" as same-sex marriage is today—a part of each presidential candidate's "platform" for several election cycles. We should not create a hostile environment for editors by allowing the promotion of views that suggest some people deserve fewer rights than others. Armadillo  pteryx  21:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Same sex marriage is a political issue per the article on Same-sex marriage with cited references - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Same-sex marriage says in the lead . Lev!vich 22:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I caught all of those which are placed to maintain a WP:NPOV in different countries. Its still labeled as a political issue though in countries where Same-sex marriage is not legal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the (four) citations in the footnote at the end of that sentence supports the claim for the term "politial issue" (one is a dead URL, though). I can appreciate that this language is currently used given that there is still debate about the subject, but that doesn't mean it is an accurate characterization. Knowledgekid said above: Slavery isn't a political issue though. I don't know a single country where there is a debate about outlawing slavery or not. I pointed out that the same debates about slavery have very much taken place, and that matter is now trivially seen as only a human rights issue—though we could surely dig up old RS calling it a political view. Or point to places where slavery is still currently practiced. Armadillo  pteryx  22:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, some people are concerned that Wikipedia offer a welcoming and inclusive environment. But not to bigots., slavery was normal throughout most of human history. It is anathema now because people fought, and often died, to make it so. Gay people are not the only ones whose marriage depends on a Supreme Court decision passed in their own lifetime. Sure, we live in a time when Federal judicial nominees are unwilling to stand up for Brown vs. Board of Education, but in the immortal words of Dr. King, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (Re first two sentences.) I can't tell whether this is being ironic. I assume you don't actually agree with trying to drive off editors who oppose same-sex marriage, right? --Yair rand (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If they define themselves by bigotry, sufficiently strongly to add a userbox, then absolutely. They go to Conservapedia. What would you do if anyone added a userbox saying that they believe marriage means two people of the same colour? This is exactly the same. And yes, I do mean exactly the same. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Independent of the userbox or similar, please. Should we welcome editors with that opinion or not? --Yair rand (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as they don't define themselves as such. If they define themselves by bigotry, sufficiently strongly to add a userbox, then absolutely. They can go to Conservapedia where they belong. What would you do if anyone added a userbox saying that they believe marriage means two people of the same colour? This is exactly the same. And yes, I do mean exactly the same. My recommendation for anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is not to get married to someoen of the same sex. There are no valid arguments to oppose it for anyone else. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No... driving away editors because you disagree with their views is not a workable solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not anyone's job to gatekeep who is allowed on wikipedia; we define people by their actions, not attributes like opinions, race, or sexuality. If they add unsourced, unreliable, non-neutral content as they may (or may not) be prone to, by all means they shouldn't be here. But dismissing someone out of hand people you disagree with before they even do anything is against the heart of what wikipedia, a freely accessible and editable encylopedia, is. Zoozaz1  talk 22:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you just said. I simply disagree with the means. Of course we should work hard to make gay marriage acceptable and bend the universe torwards justice, and we do that by providing reliably sourced, neutral content that lets people see for themselves the illogicality of discrimination. We don't do that by banning those we disagree with. Censorship is not a way to fight discrimination; engagement, discussion, and neutrality is. Did abolitionists convince people by censoring pro-slavery positions? No, of course not. They convinced people through the basic truth of human dignity. And yes, it is an undisputable fact that the world is often hostile to gay people; it is not, however, our job to right great wrongs. Our NPA policy does enough to provide that welcoming environment without needing to censor people's opinions. "Fighting" is not in abrubtly ending debate and casting off those you disagree with; it is the debate itself. Zoozaz1  talk 22:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem with that. Separate it from gay marriage, thinkg Loving vs. Virginia. What we have here is a userbox that tells married gay people - a group that includes my best friend and, separately, one of my best man's children - that your marriage is not valid. Place that statement in the context of institutional discrimination against gay people.
 * Again, move it out of the context of equal marriage. Would we support a userbox advocatign "black lives matrter"? Yes, of course. Would we support one advocatign "all lives matter"? That would be deeply problematic. But how about one that says "black lives don't matter"? That is what we are saying here. "one man one woman" is exactly equivalent to "black lives don't matter". Guy (help! - typo?) 22:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can understand why someone may interpret it that way. But there is a difference between saying that "I disagree with an instution that you support" versus "Your life doesn't matter." Those are two clearly distinct things. There are plenty of people who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds while respecting gay people. And I agree; it is horrible and bigoted and justifiably offensive. But I reiterate, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs; society as a whole has righted the illegality of and opposition to interracial marriage, and that is and should be reflected on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, society has not yet rectified the illegality of and opposition to gay marriage, and it is not Wikipedia's place to do that. Zoozaz1  talk 22:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The suggestion we would permit a BLM user box is disturbing. The suggestion we would not allow other opinions to be expressed is quite simply shocking. That sort of commentary seems almost calculated to confirm the worst suspicions of those who see deep rooted left leaning bias in the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * plenty of people who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds while respecting gay people &rarr; "plenty of people who [think their own religion should determine the law] while respecting gay people [as long as they don't want to be equal]" &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , ""User supports gay marriage" is righting great wrongs. "User oppposes gay marriage" is wronging great rights. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be unacceptable for pro-BLM statements to be treated differently than anti-BLM statements. There is not one set of rules for one side's viewpoints and another for others. --Yair rand (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete ALL in Category:Marriage user templates or Keep ALL - picking sides IS politics and rejecting a particular view. Wikipedia isn't supposed to care (much) about an editor's POV, only how they edit.  Delete only one side and now you're caring about what the editor thinks and believes.  Ravensfire  (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Conditional Delete All userboxes expressing opinions on this subject, including support for SSM. Wikipedia MUST NOT take sides in great cultural/political debates. Otherwise Keep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * One is a discriminatory statement and one isn't. It's rather a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. If you feel that deleting these should require that the other ones be deleted, feel free to suggest that after these are deleted. But the arguments are much less strong for non-discriminatory userboxes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 05:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The discrimination is in condemning one point of view and by default endorsing the other. You are absolutely entitled to YOUR opinion that these boxes advocate a position of discrimination. But again, Wikipedia must not take sides in cultural/political debates, which is what you are asking us to do. The WP:PAG quoted near the top of this page applies equally to both sides of this debate. Either delete them all or allow them all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts on the hypothetical above: "This users believes marriage is between one man and one woman of the same race"? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 06:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you asking for my opinion on the question of SSM? If so, I would be happy to discuss that off-wiki. This discussion has already veered deep into WP:NOTFORUM territory. If you are asking whether I think Wikipedia should take sides in a hot button cultural/political debate, my answer is categorically, no. I believe every box in the category should be deleted per Ravensfire. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You may have missed that the sentence modifies this box by a few words, "of the same race". I'm not asking for whether you support/oppose same-sex marriage (or interracial marriage). I'm asking if you would likewise treat userboxes as a "both sides" issue such that allowing e.g. "this user supports interracial marriage" would be equally unacceptable. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 06:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did miss that. My answer is the same. I support Wikipedia policy and guidelines that prohibit the use of user boxers that promote or advocate for any issue or cause that is controversial or likely to cause offense. Such a box would certainly fall under that heading. I also note that some are openly equating opposition to SSM with support for slavery, which is as shocking as it is offensive. This entire MfD is extremely dangerous because it is asking the community to take sides in the culture wars and there appear to be quite a few who are ready and willing based on many of the comments here. This should be procedurally closed and moved to the Village Pump for an exhaustive community discussion about where we want to draw lines and whether or not the community wants to formally take sides in one of the most heated topics of debate in the world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete all It's a matter of debate or difference of opinion only as long as we continue to give it legitimacy as such. And it's well past time. World is too big to be fixed easily but, fortunately in this case, Wikipedia is not. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So, to be clear, you are advocating that Wikipedia abandon its longstanding policy of neutrality and take sides in a highly contentious cultural issue? -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Blind and absolute neutrality is for the article space. Yes, I am suggesting that we can as a community take a stand outside of the article space and should when it is not that complicated a choice. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
 * Starting to think this thread can be reduced to a debate over whether same-sex marriage is or is not in the Overton Window. If it's inside, then it's set apart from otherwise similar questions about e.g. interracial marriage. I'm thinking it might be better to frame it this way to avoid absurd arguments like how "you're discriminating my discrimination" or "it's just your opinion that telling someone you don't think they should be allowed to get married is discrimination" as opposed to "it's discrimination that's still ok to enough people so we shouldn't disallow it". &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 06:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to reviewing admin(s) This discussion has devolved into a giant WP:NOTFORUM train wreck. This needs to be addressed broadly by the community in an open discussion over where to draw lines and what forms of advocacy are and are not permissible. If this discussion is closed with deletion of user boxes representing one side of one of the most divisive social/political debates in the world today, it could seriously damage the project's credibility as being affirmatively neutral in how we handle these contentious topics. I strongly advise that this MfD be procedurally closed as questions well outside the competence of an MfD have been raised. The matter can then be addressed in a full on discussion at the Village Pump. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I really can't see how someone can claim that opposing homophobia would be the action that puts Wikipedia in disrepute. It's also offtopic. These are clearly forbidden by Userbox policy for multiple reasons. Anyone could open a debate on other userboxes they feel are also forbidden by userbox policy, but they aren't. Instead, they're trying to derail this nomination, that brings together various userboxes that are particularly inflammatory and divisive - forbidden by the Userbox policy - and state that because it doesn't bring up less inflammatory, non-personal-attack userboxes, that the debate that's going against them should be thrown out. Let them nominate whatever set of userboxes they'd like to nominate. THIS debate is whether these ones are forbidden on Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 08:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This nomination derailed when you piled more userboxes in and nobody was informed about it. Again... this is not about homophobia... political things are divisive by nature and can amount to propaganda, advocacy, and recruitment. Deleting these infoboxes is going to set off a chain reaction on the political userbox debate. You may have not realized it... but you threw a lit match into a tinderbox - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I have got out of this, they want to censor religious beliefs outright. On the project you can’t make a statement in defense of the belief in traditional marriage, under the guise that it’s bigotry to have faith in what the Bible says. They don’t like it, and they will not tolerate it. Therefore banning statements of personal belief is acceptable to them. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  17:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha.. I think that's a pretty accurate reading, actually, but some things should be said. First, all bigotry is a "personal belief"; I'm not sure what variety of bigotry you're imagining that is not a personal belief. Second, just because bigotry is written in a bible doesn't make it not bigotry, or acceptable bigotry. Third, you say "the Bible" but which one? There are hundreds of bibles in hundreds of languages, they don't even all contain the same books. Which brings me to: Fourth, "This user believes women should cover their faces" is a religious belief, written in a holy book, practiced by millions. Is that an acceptable userbox? How about "This user believes women should not edit Wikipedia", based on a religious belief (followed by millions) that women should not perform work beyond domestic duties? How about "This user believes women should not be admitted to university" or "This user believes women should not be scientists" or "This user believes people should live with people of their own race" or "This user believes hospitals are heresy" or "This user believes Jews killed Jesus" and on and on and on. You're abso-fucking-lutely nuts if you think that Wikipedia should have some kind of exemption for userboxes that display religious beliefs, and you're damn right I want to censor religious beliefs expressed in userboxes, as I imagine many of our colleagues do. Lev!vich 17:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So you are confessing to striving to be the thought police to others on Wikipedia, and you are the regulator. Thanks for your honesty. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  17:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not thought police, userbox police. (See also WP:NOTTHOUGHTPOLICE.) Lev!vich 17:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Um... it says "Wikipedia is not a thought police. It is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Everyone has the right to privacy, and their personal life or opinions should not matter. No one should be discriminated based on their presumed or stated views either." We have users here accusing others of supporting Homophobia based on their stated views. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That could be because opposing SSM is homophobic by definition. Nevertheless, people's personal life or opinions should not matter, as the essay says, which means to me that there's no point to having a userbox announcing those personal opinions (especially when they are, as these are, prohibited by the UBX guideline). Lev!vich 18:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all I'm surprised to see some users that are good standing with the community so proudly support homophobia above. To the "both sides" argument: Here's the thing; supporting segregation, whether by race or by sexual orientation, is the antithesis to community. Supporting the opposite: giving the same rights to all, despite differences, isn't. Userboxes that support denying basic human rights do not belong in an environment that is open to all. It is exactly the same as proudly displaying a box celebrating Jim Crow Laws, or the Confederate flag. Valeince (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody here is supporting segregation or homophobia. This has turned into a larger discussion on if political userboxes are too divisive for Wikipedia in general. We can not give undue weight to one political side because that side thinks they are right for whatever reasons. We are not a place for the promotion of one side of the political spectrum. Either userboxes that express ditor's political beliefs or don't have any at all. You do not need to accuse others here of supporting homophobia per WP:NPA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think "It's not homophobia if it's a political belief" is any defense. From WP:NPA:
 * Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 17:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This debate is going in circles regarding the issue being political or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Because you or one of about three others keep responding to every comment to claim it's political. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 17:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The debate is no longer about whether some userboxes should be deleted, but rather whether we allow opposition to same-sex marriage to even exist on the encyclopedia. That is why I insist such a fundamental issue really deserves a community discussion in the form of an RfC. The only reason I didn't add this MfD discussion to WP:CENT (despite my message at WT:CENT) is because I still feel this entire issue is better discussed in a community-wide and better advertised forum instead of what we have here. --Dps04 (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Userboxes have a certain amount of "Wikipedia-approved" to them. They also encourage broadcasting your opinions to all. While someone may be able to have views against same-sex marriage and be a productive Wikipedian, it is certainly not in Wikipedia's interest to actively encourage them to spread them. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 20:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The key in that phrase is Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases. Simply saying that I think that marriage is between one man and one woman is not an abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrase. Zoozaz1  talk 18:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Lets simplify the issue a bit, shall we. I think every user in good standing can agree with the statement that, just because something is classified as a "human right", it does mean such a right must necessarily be absolute. In other words, it does not follow that a human right may never be restricted under any circumstances. For example, "Freedom of speech" is a universally recognized fundamental human right, yet there are restrictions to this fundamental right as explicitly allowed and documented in the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (Article 19(3): you cannot use freedom of speech to defame others, and national security is a legitimate reason to restrict freedom of speech).


 * Therefore, the necessary point of dispute is whether the "right to marry" is a human right that is absolute, in the sense that any restrictions to such a right must be banned, and any support for the imposition of any kinds of restrictions towards the right to marry will be automatically labelled as "homophoic", "bigotry", and "hateful" (and thereby disallowed under WP:UBCR). I personally believe the right to marry should be absolute, but unfortunately I also recognize much of the rest of the world hold a different view than mine, and with much regret, I do not believe the idea of an "aboslute right to marry" is, as of 2020, the prevailing worldwide view to such an extent that any opposition is outside of the Overton window, or otherwise so extreme a view to hold to the extent that it would be automatically labelled as inflammatory or divisive under the userbox policy, unlike other well settled issues like interracial marriage, slavery and the like. The sheer wording of the Universal declaration of Human Rights Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. does not support the notion that the right to marry should be absolute in respect of same-sex couples. Not saying the declaration is right in this regard (I certainty think the declaration should be refined in many areas), but this does lay support to the argument from the opposing side that the right to marry is not absolute as many users above automatically assumed.


 * Disclaimer: I am in no way opposed to same-sex marriage. What I am doing here is stating the legal interpretation with regards to the right to marry. --Dps04 (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * FYI I have opened a discussion at the Village Pump regarding issues raised here. That discussion may be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do believe that's the first time I've seen an admin so blatantly canvass for an ongoing XfD. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, this behavior is coming from an admin is astounding. I get you don't like people being labeled as bigots but maybe if people didn't show support of bigoted ideals, then people won't think they do. And this is absolutely canvassing because you didn't list this in a neutral way, you just listed all your complaints and issues with this. You are letting your biases effect your editing too much here.Valeince (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have responded at the VP. I believe that I have made my views clear on the narrow subject covered by this MfD and see no point in repeating myself endlessly. So I am moving on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Unless you are going to remove the ones that endorse same sex marriage as well to avoid any sense of hypocrisy, I think a bit of tolerance and respect for those who hold traditional views wouldn't go amiss.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to be clear here... we are talking about an editor's belief. That being said:
 * I do not support Donald Trump:
 * Am I going to remove signs in front of Trump supporter houses saying they support Donald Trump? No
 * Am I going to be repulsed by people who support Donald Trump? No
 * Am I going to respect that others have a different opinion than mine? Yes
 * Everyone is entitled to their political opinion. I am so sick of seeing the violence going on in the United States with this "US vs THEM" mentality. If Same sex marriage is legal where you live then let them have their opinions as it isn't going to matter anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Homophobia. is. not. a. political. stance. I am so sick of this "us vs them' mentality and leads to people thinking because you support rights for all, you are discriminating against other's homophobia. It doesn't work like that. Valeince (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You can support Homosexual rights but equally be opposed to same sex marriage. Ask Christopher Biggins.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No you can't. Homosexual rights are 100% linked to the right to marriage. If this random person you linked to, doesn't think so, then good for him, but he's not a supporter of homosexual rights. Valeince (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually he's a homosexual himself....  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, a person can support some gay rights and still oppose gay marriage. People used to say things like: "I'm not racist I just don't believe in interracial marriage" and "Well, this black person opposes interracial marriage, too, therefore it's not racist." Lev!vich 19:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I find it helpful to know what people's biases and viewpoints are, even if they offend me. FWIW I've strongly supported gay marriage since the mid 80's Hobit (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all: these userboxes are homophobic, some very explicitly so. Equating a view against same-sex marriage with a view in favor of same-sex marriage is simply wrong. A view that endorses denying people civil rights isn't allowed within the umbrella of "freedom of speech". One's rights end when the other one's rights begin. People don't have the rights to oppose other people having rights. El Millo (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) Comment Since we are now at the point of the discussion where we tell others "some of my best friends are gay and they agree with me", it might be worth reading the Same-sex marriage article on wikipedia, which states: Social science research indicates that the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage stigmatizes and invites public discrimination against them, with research also repudiating the notion that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon restricting marriage to heterosexuals. Telling other people on the community that you are against them having equal rights is both disrespectful and stigmatizing. It's punching down. It would be the same as having a userbox saying "I believe you are only a woman/man if were born as one." These userboxes (the ones marked for deletion, that is) exist only to be combative and make LGBTQ people feel unwelcome. Isabelle 🔔 20:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ALL of these political userboxes exist only to be combative. Like it or not... you aren't going to be friends with everyone because each person has their own sets of views. You may feel that you are making others feel welcome while at the same time driving other editors away. We should make ALL editors feel welcome regardless of their beliefs as long as it does not interfere with their editing or gets in the way of cooperation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete all, and expressly oppose the idea that deleting these userboxes but not those supporting gay marriage is "picking sides". We have picked a side, which is that LGBTQ Wikipedians are welcome here. These userboxes run the spectrum from opposition of gay marriage to "not recognizing same-sex relationships" (whatever that means) to expression of bigotry towards a particular sexuality ("heterosexist"). All of them serve to convey the message that a user thinks various other users are less-than due to their sexualities, which is unacceptable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * One can welcome LGTBQ Wikipedians without banning different opinions on the narrower and debated matter of marriage. And I will also note that I do support deleting the heterosexist userbox. Zoozaz1  talk 20:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * One may think they are doing so, but the proud display of a "different opinion" that LGBTQ people don't deserve the same rights as our straight counterparts is one that will make me feel unwelcome regardless of whatever else an editor may try to say to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that it can make people feel unwelcome; where I disagree is in the necessity of censoring it to make them feel welcome. A far better solution is having a welcoming community that respects diversity (including that of thought) where those with differing opinions can express them (until it becomes a clear personal attack.) Zoozaz1  talk 20:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Zoozazl, Wikipedia is not censored, but it does not provide a platform for all forms of human expression. If people would like to discuss their personal thoughts on same sex marriage, there are multitudes of venues outside of Wikipedia for that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am nonetheless uncomfortable with a small group of select editors determining the boundaries of speech on the platform. Zoozaz1  talk 20:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good thing this is a discussion open to the entire en-wiki community, then. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase; I am uncomfortable with any group of editors determining the boundary of speech on the platform before society itself has conclusively decided. Zoozaz1  talk 21:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Discomfort or no, that ship has fully sailed. There are plenty of "free speech" platforms out there where you can say whatever you like (in fact I write Wikipedia articles about them sometimes). Wikipedia is not one of them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you; Wikipedia should not have absolute freedom of speech (userboxes against interracial marriage or Nazism should not be allowed). Wikipedia should not, though, determine the answers to actively debated political questions. That is not Wikipedia's place but the place of society; once society decides, then we can follow. But as an neutral encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not decide what is correct or incorrect, or moral and immoral, until society has and should not be taking a stance on controversial political issues. Zoozaz1  talk 21:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems you are applying the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS rationale here but, as far as I understand it, that pertains to the article space, not the userspace and the rest of the community. El Millo (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This entire discussion is a bit policy-light. Userboxes don't have a whole lot of policy governing them. I just think it is good practice for an encyclopedia to abide by the principle of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and neutrality both in the article space and outside of it. I'm stating my opinion similar to others who are stating that we should pick a side on this topic. Zoozaz1  talk 22:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In some places (including within the United States), interracial marriage remains quite taboo. In many places (including the United States), it's perfectly legal to express Nazi views. And yet anti-interracial marriage or Nazi userboxes are disallowed on Wikipedia, and rightfully so. We can't even get all members of society to agree the earth is a sphere, so I think waiting around until "society decides" (and managing to define who "society" is and at what threshold something is a "decision") is going to be a tough sell. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * LGBTQ users are of course most welcome here, this goes without question. The question though, is whether users who respect LGBTQ individuals in good standing, yet disagree with the idea of same-sex marriage (due to their beliefs on family / religious values) welcome here? I understand your opinion, but I have to disagree with the assertion that all the userboxes nominated in the MfD convey the message that a user thinks various other users are less-than due to their sexualities. There are two userboxes or so which I believe fall into this category and should be deleted (as I indicated in my first message above), but that's about it. --Dps04 (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So long as those users don't feel the need to advertise to the editors they are collaborating with that they believe they don't deserve rights, I have no issue with it. But a not-unsubstantial number of people, including members of the LGBTQ community, have said the userboxes make them feel uncomfortable, which to me is reason enough to delete them. It's a userbox; is it really worth fighting to retain a userbox at the expense of an entire swath of our editing community? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not the deletion of a userbox which bothers me, but rather the wide-reaching implications this MfD would potentially have on the future of the encyclopedia. If this MfD is passed, I take it to mean that there will be a de facto blanket ban on any form of opposition to same-sex marriage being expressed in userboxes (or possibly otherwise) anywhere on Wikipedia (because if not this would defeat the purpose of this MfD). This wouldn't affect me personally as I am not an opponent of same-sex marriage anyway, but if you are worried that retaining the userboxes may drive away entire swath of our editing community, I similarly am worried that forbidding opponents of same-sex marriage to voice their view (at the same time allowing supporters to voice theirs) would similarly drive away users from our community. As to the argument that opposition to same-sex marriage is automatically bigotry, I expressed my understanding of the current status of the right to marry above (with reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and am not repeating here. In any event, thanks for contributing to the discussion and please be assured while I dont necessarily agree with your view, I do see your point and understand your concern. --Dps04 (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of things that people aren't allowed to say via infoboxes, and this is a reasonable addition to the list. I'm sure there was the concern people might leave the project in protest due to the previous decisions, but they were made anyway because they were the right thing to do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you welcome LGBT Wikipedians while telling them that their marriages are invalid? Before answering, consider, as noted above, how your argument changes when the spouses are of opposite genders but different skin colour. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The same way we welcome Americans offended by anti-American userboxes, or Iranians offended by anti-Iranian users boxes, or even Republicans offended by anti-Trump userboxes; by simultaneously recognizing the value of a free society and open debate while explicity including and welcoming everyone in that free society (provided, of course, that the view is not both odious and rejected by what amounts to the entirety of that society). Zoozaz1  talk 22:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Where are these anti-American and anti-Iranian userboxes you're referring to? Not to veer too far off-topic, but surely we don't have userboxes for people who wish to express hatred for an entire nationality of people? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not great with my searching skills, but we have anti-Israeli userboxes; when I say anti-American I don't mean anti-American people but anti-American government, and the same with Iran. I'm sure there is at least one template against American imperialism. Zoozaz1  talk 22:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an enormous difference between expressing your distaste for a government, and for expressing your distaste for a group of people. Saying a group of people doesn't deserve the same rights as another group because of their sexuality is much closer to the latter than the former, and so an anti-American government userbox is really not comparable at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * With that, I disagree with you; saying an institution, marriage (yes, based on your identity, but the opposition is directed at gay marriage, not gay people), you belong to is immoral is quite similar to saying a state, an instution you belong to, is immoral. That being said, I agree with you on the heterosexist userbox that that is closer to hating a people and should be deleted. Zoozaz1  talk 22:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * By that logic, people who are opposed to interracial marriage should be able to have userboxes too, since they're opposed to the "institution" of interracial marriage and not the people involved. But you've already said you agree that that should be disallowed. You can wordsmith all you want to say people are opposed to gay marriage, or women's suffrage, or the employment of [pick a protected class]. But in the end, it is opposition to that group of people having the same rights as anyone else. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, we did get off-topic. My main argument is that we shouldn't ban userboxes, for the sake of a free platform, unless they are clearly rejected by what amounts to the entirety of society. Zoozaz1  talk 23:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The "entirety of society" includes large numbers of neo-Nazis, so that doesn't make sense. FWIW, an anti-Zionist userbox is also unacceptable (though opposing Zionism is not in any way the same as repudiating the rights of the state of Israel to exist). Vaguely waving at all the openly-admitted homophobes is a fallacious argument: everyone knows that racism is bad, and there's an enormous literature on closet racism and the way that people act racist without saying the quiet part out loud. You're basically saying that we can support homophobia because it's a more acceptable form of bigotry than racism. That does not really seem to be a good argument for a userbox advocating bigotry. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What? You don't belong to the institution of marriage. Marriage is a right, and these people are in favor of denying people rights based on their identity, which is discrimination and, in this particular case, homophobia. The comparison between this and being opposed to Trump is ludicrous. El Millo (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete all per GorillaWarfare and per WP:NOTAFORUM & WP:NOTSOAPBOX.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to point out the implications the deletion of these userboxes would have on members of the community. Many editors have said that userboxes like these can make LGBTQ+ editors feel unwelcome and alienated, but let's also not forget that number of editors in good standing who share a similar viewpoint is not neglibable, and I worry we could just as easily alienate them. I think we need to look beyond these particular userboxes and discuss what is allowed for political expressions on userpages as a whole. Afterall we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to push a particular political/social viewpoint. funplussmart (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why there is now a discussion at the WP:PUMP as deleting these userboxes is going to have an impact on members of the community. It is soapboxing to push an active political view on your userpage no matter how strongly you believe in it. This discussion has turned into an off topic moral discussion regarding if same sex marriage in general. I want to point out WP:UBCR where it says "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." and "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising." I also want to repeat that we are a global encyclopedia not just for the United Kingdom, the EU and the United States of America. In countries where same-sex marriage is illegal the issue remains divisive and userboxes supporting same-sex marriage can be seen as advocacy. These are two things that hit the same areas where userboxes are limited. As such.... we seriously need to evaluate our political userboxes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete all per WP:UBCR. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech – it is perfectly acceptable to prohibit users from displaying discriminatory material on their user pages. – Teratix ₵ 05:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete; it's 2020. There was maybe–maybe– a marginal case for keeping them during the great userboxen war of 2006. These days? I agree with in that it's like railing against "miscegenation". Sceptre (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all these userboxes discriminate against a group of wikipedia editors and serve no encyclopdic purpose. Vexations (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Removing this userbox is not equivalent to discrimination against people who object to same sex marriage.  If anyone has a userbox that says "this user believes that people who oppose same sex marriage should not themselves be allowed to marry", or similar, delete those too. But having a userbox that supports same sex marriage - without targetting those who don't - is not equivalent to having one that opposes it.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment if such userboxes (including the marriage equality ones) are kept, then it would give me the indication that someone is declaring POV / COI when it comes to editing the related marriage equality articles. Angus W🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, but by that logic (supporting something creates a COI), a Catholic would have COI for Catholic articles and you'd have a COI for dogs. Lev!vich 16:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is a declaration of POV or COI, but it is something to pay attention to if the user ever edits articles on that subject. El Millo (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're right, it might be POV awareness rather than COI unless they said they are a leader in the organization. Angus W🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep all none of these userboxes are inflammatory or divisive or attacking other people. It appears that the nominator and many voters do not agree with the opinions in the userboxes, but they are personal statements not Wikipedia statements. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Obvious delete. I'd write a rationale beyond linking to WP:UBCR, but really says it quite eloquently: "" Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is a political statement. It belongs on Wikipedia no less and no more than any other political statement. This nomination reeks of WP:RGW.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all — WP:UBCR is pretty clear; those user boxes are divisive, and clearly inflammatory. Doesn't belong on user pages on Wikipedia... maybe on a personal blog. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 06:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.