Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yayay/Userboxes/Cleavage


 * 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, as providing no benefit to the encyclopedia.--Aervanath (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Yayay/Userboxes/Cleavage
I believe this to be offensive to our female editors. Why this is allowed in an encyclopedia, and why we need to know that you love cleavage is beyond me? --  Syn  ergy 22:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC) If this userboxe is deleted, I believe the following userboxes which I will not transclude here should also be deleted : User:Phunting/Userboxes/Pornography, User:Cadwaladr/Userboxes/Pornography, User:Allstarecho/gp, User:UBX/cleavage-support, User:UBX/body painting yayay (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional delete unless someone creates a "gender parity" userbox containing this image and it also gets kept. Durova Charge! 22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - playing devil's advocate, why do we need to know anything about anyone that has a bunch of userboxes on their talk page? Oli Filth(talk 23:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what that has to do with this specific MfD and the topic for discussion, but that wider issue probably isn't appropriate for this forum. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 03:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was in response to "why we need to know that you love cleavage is beyond me" from the OP. Surely, one can substitute anything into the sentence "why we need to know that you X is beyond me" (where X is any userbox content) as justification for deletion of userbox X.  My point was, it's not a valid argument!  Oli Filth(talk 07:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional delete unless someone creates a "size parity" userbox containing reasonably-sized boobs, small boobs, or well...no boobs at all. We're not all Wikipedia babes, you know! --Chealer (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I failed to see how this is offensive. Breast cleavage exists, some people likes to show it, and some people likes to look at it. Let's not hide that fact from public scrutiny. I believe this fall under WP:NOTCENSORED yayay (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unconditional delete This is totally inappropriate for userspace. WP:NOTCENSORED does not give a carte blanche for anything and everything potentially offensive. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 01:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing to imply from this userboxe is that breast fetishism exist. The issue of breast cleavage and breast fetishism are covered in Wikipedia article also implying that breast fetishism exist. Is the mere existence of breast fetishism so offensive it should be removed from Wikipedia? I don't believe so. If this is inapropriate for userspace, it should also be also inapropriate for articlespace. I see no request for deletion on the above mentioned article. YayaY (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid argument. I could make a userbox that says "this user is a paedophile" (obviously untrue, just to be clear). Just because the article on paedophilia exists, that doesn't make the userbox appropriate. But hey, I guess if that one gets deleted, then the article should be deleted as well? Peter Symonds ( talk ) 11:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I cannot really see the value of this userbox, and I believe it is likely to be widely offensive to a wide range of editors and readers.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 02:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to nominate them too. Wikipedia has precedents for deleting userboxes that demean human beings because of what they are, and for deleting userboxes that create an environment that interferes with collaborative editing.  Your fetishes are your own business; please keep them that way.  I prefer to be respected as more than a life support system for a pair of mammary glands.  Durova Charge! 03:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're hopefully right to feel that you deserve more respect than a pair of mammary glands, but your insinuation implies a false dichotomy. You can be both a great person and carry a great pair of mammary glands. You can think of it on the opposite side. You already know that Yayay, the box's owner, is a sex maniac. Does that mean Yayay is not a cocaine dealer, a child abuser, a murderer, or the Antichrist? Yayay may very well be all that.
 * Also, a user's userboxes are pretty much his "own business". --Chealer (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I queried the box's creator at user talk last month. Until this MFD opened he didn't reply.  Whatever else this person is really doesn't interest me; we don't have enough female editors on this site and boxes like this one are the kind of thing that keeps the ratio unbalanced.  If the stereotype pertained to race or religion instead of gender, would we tolerate it?  Unlikely.  Durova Charge! 04:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I did correct the issue you raised on my talk page. YayaY (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Which stereotype? The stereotype that men who care about breasts don't care about anything but women's physical appearance?--Chealer (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you wrote You're hopefully right to feel that you deserve more respect than a pair of mammary glands. Is there any doubt?  Durova Charge! 18:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know you, thus I don't even know the quality of your mammary glands. My point is that a person appreciated for its appearance can also be appreciated for saving the world (or be hated for corrupting it). People's interest in cleavage does not prevent these people to be interested by other features of women. --Chealer (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Chealer for demonstrating why this Userbox might create a somewhat unpleasant environment for female editors. When Wikipedia's most prolific contributor of featured content is subject to these kinds of comments for simply participating in an MfD, then we have a problem. The difficulty is that the atmosphere created by these sorts of Userboxes then gives license to the airing of all kinds of other inappropriate comments. Would this kind of commentary be tolerated in a professional setting?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 03:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, shorter and more to the point: Chealer, how about showing an interest in Durova's 250 featured content contributions? Her body is none of your business.--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 03:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're interpreting something I wrote the wrong way. Which comments on Durova do you interpret as something problematic? I have no interest in Durova's body, but I'm curious what made you think I did. --Chealer (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me expand on my reasoning a bit more here. (1) Of course many men, and a fair number of lesbians, like breasts. Is this a surprise? I might as well put up a userbox that says "I like to eat food" or "I am asleep sometimes". This is so obvious that it is sort of pointless to state it in a userbox. (2) Is your Userbox your business alone? Well sort of, except that this website is a collaborative and public space and people do not have unlimited license to place anything they want on their user pages or on the talk pages. I can recall numerous past examples of talk page and user page censorship, for a variety of reasons. (3) Is this Userbox likely to be offensive to some? I think that the answer is pretty obvious, and repeatedly WP chooses to err on the side of caution in creating a less permissive editing environment to encourage more people to edit WP. (4) Does this Userbox help to create a serious professional image? Again, this is doubtful. In spite of some confusion, WP is not really intended to be an MMPORG or a social netowrking site. These sorts of extreme forms of personal commentary are better suited to those forums than to WP.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 13:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We routinely delete userboxes that demean human beings due to race, religion, or ethnicity. By what rationale is gender an exception?  This is what is known as a 'hostile working environment'.  In a project that already has a marked lack of gender diversity, special pleading is indefensible.  Durova Charge! 02:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is where our opinion differs, I don't think this is demeaning to women. I love women. The same way that saying that I love tall persons is not demeaning to small persons. Also, the same say that saying that I'm an homosexual and that I love men is not demeaning to women in general. YayaY (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Occasionally in real life I've spoken to a man and watched him direct an off-topic reply to my chest. I doubted that experience was possible in text until this MFD opened.  Durova Charge! 02:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not object to this userbox if its source code was added directly to user pages using Userbox, but I do object to giving it a unique subpage. If there is no consensus to delete, then I'd rather see it kept as is without trying to make it politically correct. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an uncontroversial opinion (lots of people like cleavage, and nobody has a problem with that in the general case), stated in an uncontroversial way ("This user likes cleavage", plus an ordinary image of cleavage). In general, any user should be free to state their opinions in a neutral way, since it discloses their potential editing biases (in this case, not much). I don't buy the assertion that this makes Wikipedia hostile towards women - if it were naked breasts with some sexual context, then yes, it would be inappropriate - but this is just a cropped image of cleavage. Nothing wrong with that in userspace. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the principle that userspace "exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier" (WP:NOT). A userbox indicating that a user likes breast cleavage says nothing useful about the user and does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration among editors. (I know that the same be said of many other userboxes but, for what it's worth, I support deleting them too.) In fact, based on the comments above, it may even be offensive (I don't really perceive it as offensive, but...).
 * Keep. As I alluded to in my comment near the beginning, the argument that people keep making that this userbox is "not useful" or "does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration among editors" is fallacious, unless you also apply it to, for example, all the userboxes at Userboxes/Politics.  I know that's a bit of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but this isn't article-space, remember.  The "delete" arguments rely on a dichotomy that doesn't currently exist, as I don't believe the answer to "what is an appropriate userbox?" is defined anywhere (other than WP:UBX).  FWIW, I agree that this userbox serves no purpose.  Oli Filth(talk 19:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's an important distinction to be made between WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:NOTCENSORED. See illustrations.  Durova Charge! 21:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Inappropriate and potentially offensive, especially for the userspace. WP:NOT doesn't apply. – Juliancolton  | Talk 19:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conditional keep on the basis that cleavage is wikilinked to the appropriate page in a simialar fashion to the user box above. Itll encourgae people to edit the page and whats wrong with that. Sedd&sigma;n talk 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that's something I can agree with. This is an encyclopedia.  Syn  ergy 00:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It only tells us that "This User is Immature and objectifies women". I do not think we should be censoring that. WP is full of all sorts of things offensive to someone. That said, I would also support a "this user loves circumcised penises" ubx, even though the thought of circumcision makes me all queasy.  Lucifer  (Talk)  00:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete That type of userbox might be more appropriate for a Russ Meyer Wiki. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite innocuous indeed. As it refers to no specific person, it is hard to find it "demeaning" in general -- I would suggest that many women do, in fact, expose cleavage, and that it has been the norm for more than five centuries.  The arguments that we should censor at this point is astounding -- likely then Benny Hill and Monty Python should be banned from television, and forget "Sabado Gigante"!  Collect (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah. The last time a guy made that argument at a userbox MFD a lady joined shortly afterward and set up this userpage.  Here's how it looks today.  Both accounts were sitebanned as socks of the fellow who had been arguing to keep.  Durova Charge! 20:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This adds nothing to the encyclopedia (note encyclopedia, WP:NOTCENSORED has no meaning), and could quite potentially turn off some new female editors. The downsides of keeping this far outweigh whatever positives exist. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 03:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Has no place on an encyclopedia. Even if Britannica had editors with pin-ups on their wall, at least the world doesn't have access to their office. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - offensive and inappropriate, and serves no purpose in helping to build the encyclopaedia. Robofish (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -offensive, WP:NOTCENSORED is about necessary things in encyclopedia articles --Taranet (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.