The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Keep. IronGargoyle 00:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a procedural nomination, and I would like to see as many comments as people can offer. A recent discussion on WT:CSD established a new criterion for speedy deletion, CSD U4, to delete any templates or userboxes that promote a political or religious agenda. (I restated its intent in my own words.) The pro-Zionist userbox was tagged as a "test case" for this scenario.

There are really two questions for you to consider.

1. Should the userbox be deleted? Keep in mind that previous debates regarding userboxes with political content have cut both ways.
2. Is this a valid speedy deletion criterion in general? Keep in mind that a speedy deletion criterion should be virtually uncontestable in its application; otherwise, a formal debate is called for.

I abstain from expressing a formal opinion. YechielMan 14:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What's a "procedural nomination"? Looks like a breaching experiment. Wouldn't this be better discussed as two seperate issues rather than tested in this way?--Sandy Donald 14:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, actually it's disruptive to list something for deletion if you don't want to delete it. But it's okay in this case, obviously a lot of people do' want to delete trash like this. I'd just like to ask YechielMan to avoid making this kind of disruptive nomination in future. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only disruptive person here is you. Stop your personal crusade and spend some time to edit articles. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My two cents: we should just focus on whether this template should be deleted. If it should, the debate about making it a speedy criterion can take place at WT:CSD: if it should not be deleted, then obviously the speedy criterion is no good. Mangojuice^talk 14:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Part of the justification given for the recent U4 (which has already been removed from the WP:CSD page as premature) was that something really "polemic" would be disallowed on a user page whether or not it was in a template. This fails that test. I don't want to see someone posting an essay in support of Zionism as their user page but someone saying among loads of other things they say on their userpage that they support Zionism is okay. Mangojuice^talk 14:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I've said before, let people express their religious views in a neutral manner. If this causes other editors to dislike the person and become disruptive, then educate/block the people causing trouble, not the person who isn't. I don't see why we should censor somebody's neutral statement of belief because someone else could cause problems over it. -N 15:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are we even discussing this? It's trash and it's against several Wikipedia policies. Delete it. --Tony Sidaway 15:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tony Sidaway is right. This is a non-issue and it needs to be gone, post-haste. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Along with every other political userbox. If we let one in we have to let them all. In contrast, should I be allowed to create(if there isn't already) a "This user supports the Nazi Party" userbox? These are all silly. Wikidan829 15:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Nazi party is banned in half the world. -N 16:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is sodomy. I'm glad Wikipedia stays neutral and don't just follow 'half the world'.--Sandy Donald 16:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comparing the Jews to the Nazis is a straw man argument and an association fallacy. -N 16:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This "straw man" was created by you and you alone. Mine was just an example of how we shouldn't allow any political userboxes. My choice of Nazism (as an extreme political organization in contrast to the more acceptable "Zionism") was merely a coincidence, and was not intended to contrast the two groups. Wikidan829 16:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep common sense, no deletion of longstanding userboxes. For those who don't like userboxes, Get over it. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with every other political userbox, however probably best to substitute prior to deletion. Addhoc 16:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting every political userbox is a sweeping measure that would cause considerable uproar. For the sake of stability, just get over it. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argue the case. Telling people to 'get over it' isn't generally helpful.--Sandy Donald 16:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentThe equivalent Palestinian Return UBX is currently having a deletion review which looks like being reversed. (The same is happenning to other UBXs.) The statuses of the Zionist and Palestinian Return boxes should be kept in synch and discussed as one issue. The consensus on the reviews seems to be that they are definitely not suitable for speedy deletion. So I think the answer to your point 2 is definitely "no". I think there is some value in knowing where people are coming from, but there are people who claim to be NPOV on this sort of debate who are not anyway.--Peter cohen 17:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what's it worth I agree they should be kept in sync. Not sure about your other comment though. Addhoc 17:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Palestinian Return UBX has now been undeleted, so that makes my vote a keep. I'm not sure how I would vote if both were up together. --Peter cohen 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tony Sidaway. Polemics are divisive and should be removed from the project. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia would not be Wikipedia without WikiZionists. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Polemic.--Flamgirlant 19:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sidaway. Editors' personal opinions about Zionism are irrelevant to the project.Proabivouac 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Userfy to the userspace of a real user. There is no U4 currently, indeed, there is no consensus for it. Do we really want to restart the userbox wars after coming to a sensible compromise? —Ashley Y 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The discussion did not establish a new criterion--Tony proposed a new criterion, and it most certainly has not achieved consensus, and, from the discussion there, it does not seem it ever will. When they do, if they do, it will be time to consider acting on it. This proposal in one form or another has now been suggested at almost every imaginable forum, and has so far been uniformly rejected. A few--a very few--WPedians want to suppress such templates, including apparently saying that one is a Republican. A clear declaration of one's orientation can possibly help clarify discussion by removing the possibility of hidden COI. I don't use these, but I don't try to dictate to other WPdians about this. DGG 21:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep doesn't insult any group for an editor to say he/she is a zionist. This userbox does not violate any policy, unless we also delete userboxes that say this user is a democrat as well.--Sefringle^Talk 23:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's funny how, on the other hand, Sefringle was apparently insulted by an editor declaring that s/he supports the Palestinian Right of Return and nominated a userbox to that effect for deletion simply because of what it 'implied'. On the deletion review page, Sefringle now argues "templates insulting to countries and entire populations should ... be deleted per WP:CSD#T1." Sefringle also nominated User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN because "It implies that the UN is bad." This all highlights just how subjective and politicized these UBX wars are. It's time to put a stop to them and make the German userbox solution into policy. --DieWeisseRose 03:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 23:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy to notepad.exe -- Y not? 23:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is clearly no consensus on this general proposal and it is likely to be divisive. I do not like these boxes and agree with DGG. "I don't use these, but I don't try to dictate to other WPdians about this". There seems to be too many attempts to dictate to other WPdians on matters regarding user pages that are not really important, and where such action creates conflict where none existed before. Let us just agree to disagree about these things. --Bduke 23:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep (1) What is a "political or religious agenda"? If I state on my user page the fact that I'm an African-American, is that a political agenda? Does such a statement of fact become a political agenda if I add a picture of Malcolm X to my user page? What if it's a picture of Clarence Thomas? (2) Many people seem unaware of the fact that whenever a "controversial" userbox is deleted, it doesn't go away. It returns (or remains), just not in a convenient template. So what exactly is the point of deleting a "controversial" userbox? (3) I can't imagine a situation in which a userbox should ever be speedily deleted without discussion. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- This userbox doesn't use any language that might be considered remotely polemic. In addition, NPA generally covers true polemic statements, we don't need to take away everyone's sense of identity. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 06:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox for expressing divisive and possibly inflammatory political statements. This applies regardless of where the userbox resides on Wikipedia, therefore it belongs in /dev/null. MER-C 09:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. By expressed definition, Userspace has more freedom than the mainspace to express opinion, and given that thousands of Palestinians are currently trying to flee INTO Israel, I hardly think it is polemic.Prester John 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, polemical statement that has no place in userspace per WP:USER and Wikipedia not being a soapbox. --Coredesat 19:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for everyone who claims this should be deleted based on it being polemic. How is this polemic? I'm having a really hard time seeing how this simple statement can be defined by a word meaning "An aggressive debate, attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another" (Source: Wiktionary). I agree, polemic statements are usually personal attacks, and therefore violate policy, but this does not seem to fit any more than the article on Zionism itself. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 20:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As the "This user supports the Islamic Resistance" userbox was deleted, the deletion of the other side of the coin only makes sense. The Behnam 23:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment, This is hardly the "other" side of the coin. Israel unlike Hizbollah is not banned by all of the civilised world (especially in the country where wikipedias servers are held, and where criminal and civil law applies) as a terrorist organisation. Prester John 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inclined to care what you feel makes Zionism more acceptable than the Islamic Resistance (to Zionism), but these opinion boxes add nothing but strife to the project. The userbox opinion that supports the Islamic Resistance (with Hizbollah as the Islamic Resistance) was suppressed; I see no good reason that this Zionistic box shouldn't also be suppressed. People have their reasons for considering Hizbollah the Islamic Resistance and supporting it in this role just as they have their reasons for thinking Zionism is super cool, but in the end these boxes have only negative effects upon the project. Try MySpace or a blog if you feel like sharing your favorite views. And there should be no double standard if this is about free speech or whatnot. The Behnam 23:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All or nothing and what about "x" are not very strong deletion arguments. Is there anything that pertains to this specific item? -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 00:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I think they should both be kept. —Ashley Y 00:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I already touched upon, the fact that this box has only a negative effect upon the project is enough to merit deletion. As far as the Islamic Resistance goes, I simply noticed a similar case and felt it an appropriate precedent. Has there been any good case for it to be kept? So far I have seen denial of any problems (approx. "this box has no negative effect on the project") and an irrelevant plead to lack of censorship (doesn't really apply to user space). While I probably wouldn't care if this box was completely neutral and harmless (like my "This user is half-Iranian" userbox), I'm not convinced that such is true of this userbox. It is better for the project that it be deleted. The Behnam 06:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Wikipedia is not censored, and supporting Zionism in and of itself is not "polemic". JRG 01:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this userbox as non-polemic. The proposed CSD criterion might be useful for user main pages, but as the many debates like this show, a speedy decision cannot often be made about user subpages. — The Storm Surfer 03:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox -- This is a waste of donors' money. I don't see how do such kind of userboxes contribute to encyclopedia-building. From Wikipedia:User_page#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F: "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage." This is not a censorship issue. I don't support or oppose Zionism, but this is basically a personal opinion unrelated to Wikipedia, and Wikimedia servers are not free hosting services. See also: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_23#Userbox. utcursch | talk 05:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read through WP:JOU. This whole issue was hashed out a year ago, and we ended up with WP:UBM as a result. —Ashley Y 05:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be annoying, but the portion of WP:NOT you refer to is specifically for articles (note the second sentence). Of course it should probably be widened, but that's another matter. -- Visviva 08:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC) (WP:SOAPBOX has recently been revised -- Visviva 08:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep - it is useful to know which religeous or political views a user might have. In this case it is meerly stating where they stand, and not getting into any arguments or offensive language about anything. Some of the delete comments above are more offensive than this user box. GB 08:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is so useful about knowing the political views of other users? Last I checked this is an encyclopedia with a neutrality policy, not some sort of social networking site for getting to know each other. Again, if this was harmless I'd let it be but it seems to have stirred up some controversy. The Behnam 08:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of knowing user views of religion, or politics is to tell their biases, or possibly their interests in article categories. If you find that only one side of a POV is being added by users with one POV, then it could be good to get other point of views included in the article. GB 03:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this kind of pre-identification tends to poison the atmosphere of dialog. It's hard enough to get people to stop labeling one another and join the conversation with an open mind; when parties have pre-labeled themselves in this way an open dialog is virtually impossible. How many times have I seen a variation on "How can you claim to be unbiased when you have a userbox that says 'XYZ'?" (answer: too many). -- Visviva 08:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all forms of political organizing on Wikipedia. -- Visviva 08:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Someone had to re-ignite this didn't they? Userspace does not have to be NPOV, and the box has a perfectly legal standpoint. There is nothing wrong with making your views known, and I'm sure no one in the real world cares what a bunch of people on Wikipedia think about the world and politics. See also precedents. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Would you delete this userbox if it said that this user supports Democracy? Or how about if it said "This user opposes terrorism"? Don't censor a perfectly valid, nondivisive view. —METS501 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I would support deletion in those cases as well. Especially the latter. -- Visviva 08:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're just overall intolerant to any views no matter what they are? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm intolerant of anything that interferes with the business of resolving issues through consensus, or which distracts from our basic purpose in being here. Dispute resolution is tricky enough without adding bumper-sticker politics to the mix. -- Visviva 03:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Against the Wikipedia is not a soapbox JohnnyAB 23:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not part of either proposed criterion CSD:U4, and not particularly divisive, so it wouldn't meet T1 even with the proposed extension. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Userbox does not strike me as being inherently disruptive, as it does not seem to implicitly or explicitly criticize those with opposing opinions. It also may be useful in perhaps making it easier for editors to alert someone about a possible conflict of interest if they make an edit which might be seen as supporting their express opinion in the userbox. A userbox which goes further, however, and includes information that could be fairly reasonably seen as being critical of those who disagree with them, would be another matter entirely, and probably would get my support for deletion. John Carter 14:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with all political and religious userboxes - I think these types of boxes only serve to create divisions in the community; politics and religion are personal matters, not online matters. Also, on further searching, the anti-Zionist box was deleted, so fair is fair, otherwise we are not maintaining NPOV if one can select one and not the other. MSJapan 22:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. There is an unfortunate tendency for the "good" POV boxes/pages to be kept and the "bad" ones deleted... which is ultimately far more corrosive to the community than a blanket policy of toleration or deletion would be. -- Visviva 03:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with all political and religious userboxes as per MSJapan and others ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is an affirmation of identity userbox. As such, each of us having separate identity might lead to divisiveness, but from diversity also springs strength. I believe the real question to be asked is: Is the presence of this userbox likely to increase disputes on Wikipedia in any way? I'd say no. People are people and will either agree or disagree regardless of userboxes. Userboxes are there to affirm one's identity, nothing else. They are not the source of disputes (unless someone can cite a specific case).--Ramdrake 12:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep As much as I admire Tony Sidaway's and others' desire to ensure the separation of Church/politics and WP, most editors don't see it that way. I don't see a reason to spark a mutiny; we already have enough trouble making everyone abide by the crucial policies, e.g. the non-free content criteria, and there's no reason to start battles over these less important things. nadav (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This userbox does not insult or criticise others' beliefs, nor is it disruptive in any way. selfworm^Talk) 17:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I agree with User:Selfworm. This Userbox is meant to show that a person supports the Zionist movement, and does not mean that they hate Fascists/Nazis (although I do hate them) by having this Userbox. --Some Guy421 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia is not censored. Political userboxes, for the most part, are non-divisive. Each should be decided on by using a case-by-case basis, and none meet the criteria for speedy deletion.  hmwith  talk 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.