Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User dislikes semitic one god religions

A nomination to delete these userboxes was mistakenly placed at templates for discussion. Since userboxes are supposed to be discussed at MFD, I am opening this nomination instead and copying the contents of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 31#Template:User dislikes semitic one god religions here. This is a procedural nomination on my part; see below for the original nominator's rationale for deletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:{{Tfdlinks|User dislikes semitic one god religions}}

:{{Tfdlinks|User dislikes monotheistic religions}}

:{{Tfdlinks|User dislikes institutional religions}}

Delete all three as WP:SPA created templates that are blatant examples of inappropriate and divisive soapboxing.{{-}}See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 30#Category:Wikipedians dislike monotheistic religions Jubilee♫clipman 00:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and per my rationale in the CFD. Divisive; WP is not a battleground. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:UBX#Content restrictions: "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." - htonl (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong delete SPA and divisive, although I thought userboxen went to MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• :Ah. I never knew that. Thanks. Will remember for next time. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 16:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• ::They do go to MFD. Since this just opened today, I'm going to close this and create a page for it there. --RL0919 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The comments above were copied from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 31#Template:User dislikes semitic one god religions. --RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment in the form of a rhetorical question: So what type of userbox would be appropriate to indicate that this editor isn't a fan of Abrahamic religions? I realize that we prefer positive statements in userboxes (i.e. "This user is an atheist" rather than "this doesn't believe in silly superstitions"), but what possible positive statement could be used to express this POV? Maybe this:

::This editor may or may not like or dislike or have heard of monism, polytheism, the scientific method, pantheism, atheism, voodoo, and Marxism, but cannot make any comment about his feelings towards Abrahamic religions due to Wikipedia treating him like a 5 year old who might hurt other people's feelings if he states what he believes. However, if this user does edit an article relating to Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, you'd better keep a close eye on his edits.

:As I've said before, I'd rather have someone stating their POVs on their user page in the form of a userbox than edit related articles with an undisclosed bias. Maybe the userboxes could be toned down a little (use some happier colors than red and black, perhaps), and I realize that the POV of the creator of these is pretty apparent, even without the userboxes. However, as a matter of principle, I think they should stay (My formal !Vote is below). Buddy431 (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:*Would a comparison with the following help? Template:User Religion Is Harmful, User:WebHamster/religion, User:WebHamster/belief. These state similar things but more positively and acceptably, IMO. The nomed boxes are practically CSDs, in fact, but I felt it better to bring them to the attention of the community --Jubilee♫clipman 06:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:* If you're going to say "formal !Vote" then you might as well just say "vote". "!vote" is supposed to remind people of how we decide these things, which is not by counting bold words and bullet points. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:::My choice of words was quite intentional, and I'm glad that someone picked up on it. Let's be honest here; often times the results of these things is more or less a bold word tally, even if we use terms like "not vote" and "wikipedia is not a democracy" (not calling for change, mind you. The current system works pretty well, all considered). Buddy431 (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: see my above comment. Buddy431 (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• I don't actually see that these templates overstep the mark as regards freedom of expression on userboxes. They don't disparage a subject, they simply point out a distaste for it. As frequently pointed out, we allow people to express their dislike for rap music in user boxes, and in rather stronger terms than that put out here. This isn't any more divisive just because the subject is religion. That said, it's problematic that these templates comprise almost all of the author's edits to the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Divisive and obnoxious. Its removal is a good idea. Warrah (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: Pure self-aggrandizing by a single purpose account ... Happy Editing! — {{#if:71.166.147.78|{{User|71.166.147.78}}|71.166.147.78 (talk)}} _{12:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)}
• Delete. This userbox does not nothing to assist collaboration between editor. The most positive explanation for this category is as pointless WP:SOAPBOXing, the worst is as an attempt to turn the place into a WP:BATTLEGROUND.
  Wikipedia is an NPOV encyclopedia and not a social networking site. Editors have many other places to go if they want to voice their opinions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

::I strongly disagree with this viewpoint. Our editors do have opinions, and it may color how they edit the encyclopedia. As such, it is helpful for the opinions to be stated in user space. I'll grant that these userboxes, coming from an account that has done nothing else, are clearly an attempt to soapbox, rather than build a better encyclopedia. If one of these were on the page of an established editor (especially one who edits articles on religion), I'd see it as an acceptable, if over the top, statement of POV relating to how they edit the encyclopedia. Buddy431 (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Only used by creator, as an attack. User has nothing else on userpage. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Soapboxing at best; inflammatory at worst. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete all Blatantly inappropriate. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 20:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This example is less clear-cut than others, as the bar for a page to be classed as an "attack page" under WP:ATP, and consequent deletion under WP:CSD#G10, specifically requires that it be personal -- i.e. it serves solely to disparage individuals as individuals -- which in this case it does not; it refers generically to religions in a negative light. Of course, in times now past, this would have been speedied as T1 ("Divisive or inflammatory"), but in fact I realise these templates nominated here represent something of a more generalised grey area which probably ought to be discussed elsewhere. Should there perhaps be a policy which extends G10 slightly to include "discriminatory" templates of some kind, or would that be opening a Pandora's box? I honestly don't know. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Can anyone say, "WP:SNOW?" — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Since he was using the userboxes on his userpage, I tagged the userpage with {{tl|db-attack}} since the only things on the userpage are the userboxes. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 02:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• My comment: The believers of semitic one god religions (Christians, Moslems...) have rights (see: :Category:Wikipedians by religion) to express their beliefs in semitic one god religions whose doctrines not only dislike the people who are not their believers, but also stigmatize, demonize and persecute the people who are not their believers, while the unbelievers of semitic one god religions have no right to simply express their opinion, feeling an attitude of dislike. The suggestion of deleting the templates is so ridiculous and despotic. Is the suggestion equitable, fair, just and persuasive? -Sanskit (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::It looks like they're going to get deleted. I would advise creating a single new userbox (rather than three), and tone it down considerably. Just say: This user is not a fan of Abrahamic religions. Do not strike through multiple words, and do not include a long laundry list of aspects of abrahamic religions that you don't like. That ought to pass muster here. Additionally, I strongly recommend that you contribute to Wikipedia in other ways, so that people don't think you're just here to stir up a fight. Buddy431 (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Not only not a fan, but with attitudes of dislike and opposition. However, do not agree to kill all Christians and Moslems as the creeds of Christians and Moslems advocating doing to their unbelievers. -Sanskit (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - this isn't what Wikipedia is for. Airplaneman ✈ 04:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete i get the point that some other userboxes have similar comments, but to my ear this crosses a line, and makes me feel extremely uncomfortable. i would prefer that fellow users not parade their biases as strengths, but since we do this, at least keep it civil. this feels uncivil to me. a box saying "this user is critical of monotheistic religions" would be acceptable, though exactly why i see a difference i cant say at this time. perhaps the lines through various names, including the word "semitic"Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::Please first check what Christians or Moslems believe in, the creeds of their so called holy books are extremely uncomfortable or not. They in accordance with their faith not only dislike, but also discriminate, stigmatize, demonize and persecute us, who are not believers of their religions. -Sanskit (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::And what does this have to do with building an NPOV encyclopedia? i have studied many of the worlds holy books (and am religious myself, though its hard to define), and while it is obviously true that there are passages in many of them, including the bible/quran, which use violent language, which can (and have) been used to justify violence and cruelty, this can be easily documented in the articles on them. this is not a forum for discussing the pros and cons of religions, and its definitely not a forum for anyone to demonize entire religions, regardless of how much anyone may feel they deserve it. and, to belabor an obvious point, religions dont persecute, people (and religious organizations) do. some people have taken the most amazingly arcane religious beliefs, and used them for pure good in the world, ignoring the parts that dont sit with them. religion can be seen as a vessel, to be used as ones conscience dictates. and nonabrahamic religions are NOT immune from interpretations leading to cruelty. Zen buddhist temples in japan sided with the Emperor during WW2. My main point is simply, if you are sincere in wanting to contribute to WP, you would be wise to note that these templates have an emotional flavor of intolerance and anger, which can make working here just that more difficult. I would strongly encourage you to fight in the real world against any religious injustice you encounter or are concerned about, but this is not the place to do so (except by excellent, NPOV editing which contributes to human understanding).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::First, I have to say it seems you call white black. It's clearly recorded in the so called holy book, Bible and Koran, that the Abrahamic god, the Abrahamic religions and the creeds of Abrahamic religions advocate persecuting their unbelievers. Do you need me to list those creeds? It's not the falseness and crime of people, it's just the falseness and crime of the ideas, faiths, gods and religions of those people who believe Abrahamic religions and persecute their unbelievers. As to Zen Buddhist, does Zen Buddhism have creeds advocating persecuting other people or unbelievers of their religion? If yes, then it's also an evil religion. If not, then such actions have nothing to do with the religion. -Sanskit (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I can not understand why my words need to be deleted. Does it mean that the creeds of Bible and Koran, the holy book called by Christians and Moslems respectively, cannnot be shown in light of day? see: User talk:Sanskit#My comment. Are the creeds of Bible and Koran actually threats to others or could be interpreted as threats? Every rational man with basic intelligence will understand that they are actually threats. It's so simple. If not, so how we interpret them and how we interpret every word and every thing? If I create a religion with creeds advocating killing all human beings (except the believes of this religion), would you think oppositions against this religion are personal attacks? I never attack any individual. I just want to fight against evil religion and evil creeds of evil religions. I don't think any people believing in Christianity, Islam, Nazism or Communism are evil themselves. In my view, the evil is not those people, but the faith and ideas of those people, the creeds of those beliefs, which are against human beings, disturb human beings, bring segregation and hatred among human beings, and bring conflicts, wars and balefulness to human beings. Without those Abrahamic religions or the beliefs originated from Abrahamic religions, human will better recognize each other, better trust each other and live better with each other. Disruptive comments? Are my comments disruptive, or the creeds of Bible and Koran disruptive? I would absolutely disagree to create a religion with faith that only the believers of this religion have privilege to go to heaven while others have to fall into hell. In my view, such religions are evil religions. Abrahamic religions are such kinds of religions, right? I cannot imagine a man or woman with conscience would support and believe in the Semitic one god religions. -Sanskit (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

: See what wikipedia is not, we are here to write a free npov encyclopedia, not to provide a platform for free expresion, not to provide a way for you to have your view point published etc. If you want to let the world know about your view on this there are 1000s of free web host out there who will let you sign up and publish it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::I've left a note on Sanskit's talk page Buddy432 (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Vote violating human rights, freedom, justice, equitablenes,... is not a right way. I think vote is not a proper and right way for the dicisions on such matters. Democracy should not override and violate equitableness, fairness, justice and the right and freedom of good people. -Sanskit (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is not a democracy, and there is no "voting" going on here ... see WP:Consensus for how things are done here. — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::OK. Thanks. -Sanskit (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::: The project is about building an NPOV encyclopedia. If anyone wants to exercise freedom of speech, then I'm sure they are more than welcome to sign up to one of the many free web host providers and go at it, the wikimedia foundation or the editors here aren't stopping you. Freedom of Speech != Freedom to have anyone publish anything you want anytime you want. See also Wikipedia:Free speech --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Forgot ... see also: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Comment - One minor point that is often overlooked: Articles 18 and 19 (and all the others, for that matter) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are contextualised by Articles 27 through 30. We are all part of "the community", though we are also all individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.90.29 (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep users expressing their biases is useful to the project. If this user has a strong bias against these religions, then declaring so on their User page makes others aware... so if this user starts editing articles on those topics, or expressing opinions on Talk pages or elsewhere, we can take their bias into account. Their opinion is strongly stated, but its not expressed in hateful terms. So I see no value in deleting it. --SJK (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - SJK's reasoning is noble, but still a circumvention of policy. Based on the above commentary by the userbox creator/user, there is a definite WP:COI and tendency towards WP:BATTLEGROUND - clear-and-present danger warning signs in my book.--WaltCip (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2010 (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.