Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/X is harmful userboxes

 __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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

X is harmful userboxes

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Needlessly inflammatory userboxes inconsistent with the purposes of a collaborative project, per WP:UBCR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nom that these are needlessly inflammatory; we really shouldn't have userboxes that label people's core belief systems as harmful to society.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Violates WP:UBCR as substantially divisive. ― Tartan357  Talk 01:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as the userboxen do not attack the adherents of the mentioned ideologies, they criticize the ideologies themselves. Criticism of political ideologies is acceptable, likewise with criticism of religion. Also note that the User:BillCJ/UBX/atheism Is Harmful is criticizing state atheism as opposed to atheism. —  csc -1 04:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Do they really accomplish anything towards the purpose of an encyclopedic project, even with the broad allowances of user space? Religion is a notoriously controversial topic, we don't need to have editors making controversial statements about it on their users pages. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's more politics than religion; see antidisestablishmentarianism. But that doesn't change your point too much.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Like most political userboxen, they don't, but I don't see why these should be treated differently than everything at Userboxes/Politics that expresses opposition to some ideology just because it's about religion instead of politics. I'll also note that state atheism is a political ideology, not a religion. —  csc -1 19:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between X saying what political ideology they self-identify to (issues about this not being social media aside) and X saying "this religion/ideology is harmful" (at least, for most ideologies - of course, some are actually candidates for a NONAZIS block, but I don't think we have userboxes for these, do we? At least, I hope people are not that stupid). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it a bit more, we don't need this sort of thing in a collaborative project. Delete. —  csc -1 20:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: wikilawyering about whether these attack anyone/ anything because they're not this/ they're that does not address how they help editors work together(clue: they don't). ——  Serial  08:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Please remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project that welcomes editors of all religious and non-religious backgrounds. It is perfectly fine to place a userbox with your own religious belief on your userpage, perhaps it might even help if another user who disagrees with you on an article talkpage sees that you share something in common, for example.  But there is no reason to create userboxes that insult other peoples' religous beliefs.  If the intent really was about "state atheism", one could just as easily create a userbox saying "This user supports freedom of religion" to express the same sentiment. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete these do not meaningfully assist collaboration. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 12:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Needlessly decisive, do not help form a collaborative editing environment. It is perfectly possible for people to express their religious views in a respectful manner without resorting to insulting people they disagree with and calling their views "Harmful". 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep the atheism one, but delete the religion one. As a Christian, I don't believe that atheism is good for society, at all. However, religion is a help and necessity for all people. I understand why people don't want these, but I think my point should be taken into account. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Our personal opinions are irrelevant. How can you justify such a double standard other than with your personal opinions? The opposite view (organised religion is bad for society) is equally possible and is also held, I presume, by some persons (including those who use this infobox). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep the atheism one, but delete the religion one. To clarify... the userbox was modified to mention State atheism, and not atheists as a whole. The argument is that historically countries like the USSR went after those who were religious. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Knowledgekid87 Because religious persecution has obviously never occurred in religious states??? These are completely unhelpful in establishing a collaborative editing environment - we shouldn't be attacking anyone's religious or ideological views in userboxes and calling their opinions "Harmful to society". 86.23.109.101 (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There were many things wrong with the former USSR, horrific human rights violations throughout its history that should be remembered as a lesson for future generations, and I have much respect for the cardinal who became Pope John Paul II and many other clergy members who stood up against Communism. I am also grateful beyond belief that my ancestors fled the Czar's pogroms against Jews, only a few years before the Revolution.  However, there are many better ways to express that view, as I mentioned above one could express support for freedom of religion, which of course includes rights for atheists, agnostics, and those unaffiliated with any religious organization.  One could express support for equality, for human rights in general, etc.  I understand what you are saying, but there are ways to express what you say without denigrating atheists, who are equally welcome to edit Wikipedia. Hyperion35 (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's not get started with all the wrongs committed in the name of God all throughout history, whether that be by Christians, Muslims, or whichever others. If you're arguing that there's a legitimate reason to keep the atheism one, you're also arguing there's a legitimate reason to keep the religion one. Yet neither is conducive to a collaborative project, and you like Morriswa are arguing a double standard based on what you like and what you don't (personal opinion). The nomination is bundled for a very good reason. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nominator note: I just noticed Category:Anti-religion user templates... This will need another round after this one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep the state atheism one. I may be biased because I am a Christian, but the state atheism userbox does not mean the user is against atheism in general, but against forced atheism.  Freedom of religion (or lack of religion) is a basic human right, and state atheism is as much a danger to human rights as the suppression of freedom of speech.  State atheism is arguably more of a political issue than a religious issue, so if you want to delete this specific userbox then you might want to consider these as well.  I'm too lazy to check if there are any state religion templates, but I would support keeping these as well because they are practically the same type of issue. -  ZLEA  T \ C 17:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing that it appears no one has notified the creators of the templates, I guess I'll do it myself (I know one has been inactive for over 3 years, but at least we should try to reach them).  -  ZLEA  T \ C 17:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is much better if instead of being "against" something, you are "for" its opposite (which in this case is freedom of religion, something I assume the near-unanimity of people here agree with and is far more inclusive than simply pin-pointing state atheism amongst all other forms of forced religion)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment We have guidelines on userboxes, please see WP:UBCR. One thing that it offers for guidance that I think is relevant here is Express what you do like, rather than what you don't like. Express what you comprehend, rather than what you don't comprehend. Express what you do, rather than what you don't. Express who you are, rather than who you aren't.  The reason for this guidance is that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, you will have to work with people in different countries, different ethnicities, different religions, different backgrounds.  As equals.  I do understand that for many Christians in Western nations, they may not be used to meeting and dealing with people who are not Christian.  Consider Wikipedia a useful learning experience.  Hyperion35 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Under that guideline a multitude of political issue userboxes would be prime candidates for deletion:
 * Template:User Anti-fascist
 * Template:User no antifa
 * User:UBX/Anti-dictator
 * User:Alethiophile/Pro life 0
 * User:Alethiophile/Pro life 1
 * User:Alethiophile/Pro life 2 (maybe?)
 * Template:User personally against abortion (maybe?)
 * User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/ChoiceLife
 * User:Andrew Kelly/LIFE
 * User:ChristTrekker/Pro life 5
 * User:Yozzer66/userboxes/Pro Life
 * User:Toa Nidhiki05/Userboxes/AR0
 * User:Toa Nidhiki05/Userboxes/AR
 * User:Bluedenim/against bullfight
 * User:Life in General/Userboxes/Anti-Imperialist
 * User:Serouj/UserBox/Against Imperialism
 * User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Anti-imperialist
 * Template:State death penalty
 * And so many more. If you think that guideline should be enforced, then why not start a mass deletion discussion for all "I don't like this" political userboxes? - ZLEA  T \ C 17:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "why not start a mess deletion discussion"? The above two userboxes were mentioned at an ANI thread (hence the nomination). See also . This will require at least one further discussion, and there are same boxes in that category which are so similar to the nominated ones that I would have added them to the nomination if there hadn't already been as significant participation as there was when I noticed... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah this is going to open up a huge discussion. I would go as far as to bring it to the WP:PUMP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Some of those userboxes perhaps should be deleted, if you wish to nominate them for MfD be my guest.  I would advise against a mass nomination, however, just to avoid the confusion of multiple "Support X and Y, Oppose W and Z" votes.  We have an existing set of guidelines, and userboxes need to follow WP:UBCR, those that fail should be deleted, those that pass may be kept.  It is my opinion that both of the userboxes in this specific MfD violate WP:UBCR and should be deleted.  If another userbox is nominated for MfD that I believe violates WP:UBCR I would likely vote to delete it as well. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, most of those are quite different, since they express opposition to an ideology whereas these are disparaging ideologies in an inflammatory way. —  csc -1 16:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How is "This user believes that state atheism is harmful for society." any less disparaging than "This user is not pro-life, and cannot understand why anyone would be."? - ZLEA  T \ C 20:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He did say "most of these", not "all". Of course the comment below by XOReaster is also helpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to that userbox. —  csc -1 20:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Both are basically obnoxious bumper stickers. There are plenty of places online to slather oneself in such labels, but this is a large-scale editing project where we all have to bump elbows. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest, if someone cannot work with someone else because they have different views, then they are putting their own conflict of interest before improving Wikipedia and probably don't belong here. In order for people to collaborate, all parties involved must be willing and ready to collaborate with people who have differing views to their own.  As such, these "obnoxious bumper stickers" can be used as a way to weed out people with un-collaborative attitudes. -  ZLEA  T \ C 22:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody is having difficulties working with others simply "because they have different views". Deliberately antagonizing other editors for ideological reasons is not an emotionally mature act, and we don't need to foster that kind of behavior. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We could always add "emotional maturity" as a complementary requirement to CIR. It occurs to me that this might also reduce ANI by at least a third. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep People are entitled to their own personal opinions. I partially agree with ZLEA on this one: if it bothers you that people express their opinions on their own userpages, then you don't have the mental maturity necessary to participate on Wikipedia and you don't belong here. If you can't bring yourself to work with others and ignore what they believe, you shouldn't participate. I like my userboxes and I like being transparent about my beliefs. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is always far too much Wikidrama ongoing (as the ever popular ANI will show you) and we don't need more reasons for it. Being transparent about one's beliefs might be okay (although I'm strictly of the opinion that this isn't a social media website so these are not really relevant to that purpose unless it is one's area of expertise or so, but nvm). Denigrating other people's beliefs (what these "x is harmful" boxes do) isn't. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, if you can't get over the fact that there are people who disagree with some of your beliefs and ultimately think they're bad for business, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia in the first place. It's a pretty fallacious way of thinking to point the finger at people for having their beliefs instead of at the people who are too sensitive to accept that others have their beliefs. That type of person who can't help but get upset over another editor's opinion will likely also be too sensitive to properly conduct themselves when faced with, say, an editing dispute. You're correct in asserting that Wikipedia is not a social media site, but Wikipedia (as an encyclopedia) has ultimately decided that people get to express their opinions through certain mediums, and it's been long established that userpages and userboxes are two of those mediums. Ultimately, this just sounds like cancel culture and a case of "don't say that, you might offend people." Pretty dangerous precedent, when you put some thought into the concept and realize that expressing a preference for anything from gun rights to the OSU Buckeyes involves some sort of "denigration." MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And again, as I said above, see WP:UBCR, we already have guidelines here and you are failing to distinguish the issue at hand. You are welcome to create and use userboxes that state your beliefs.  But the guidelines also say Express what you do like, rather than what you don't like. Express what you comprehend, rather than what you don't comprehend. Express what you do, rather than what you don't. Express who you are, rather than who you aren't.  Wikipedia is a broad project that welcomes all users, which is why the project also asks that you take a little bit of effort, yes, to avoid offending and insulting other editors in the hope that we can all work together. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete both. They are exactly equally as bad as eachother. Both are indefensible. It is shocking to see people arguing to keep one but not the other, based solely on their personal views. Wikipedians should know better than that! Both boxes serve merely to wind people up and cause bad feeling. Both boxes have lasted more than a decade too long. The anti-atheism one seems particularly weaselly as it is litterally called "atheism Is Harmful" but tries to hide this behind saying "state atheism". People are free to state their own religion or their lack of it so long as they are not using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote it. They are not free to dunk on other people's religions or lack of them. We all have to try to get along. We are trying to write an encyclopaedia here. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2021 (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.