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 debate was Keep per SNOW. There is no real or clear reason to delete. I've looked over the relevant policy for this discussion and have concluded that this does not specifically violate it.

  1. There is no specification to who it is directed to other than "God" (which is actually in all caps, and is not localized on one specific "god"). So we cannot assume it is name calling.
  2. It is not a personal attack (including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs) or even derogatory to another editor, its just an opinion.
  3. It is not profane, nor is it Taunting or baiting.
  4. And last but not least, it is not disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Conclusion: only editors who have a biased opinion on wikipedia will be offended. These editors should look the other way, and simply ignore it. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeff dean/Userboxes/Atheist[edit]

I know this is just a userbox... but I think using the words "myth" and "superstition" to refer to god goes beyond a statement of belief and becomes an insult, which, according to WP:CIV, is incivil. (I used "Twinkle" to submit this, so don't get mad at me if it messes up :P)  Moo  Chat  19:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially PERNOM. Do you have anything else to contribute to the discussion (other than "amen", which is wholly unnecessary and may be as offensive to atheist users as this userbox seems to be to the nominator)? Celarnor Talk to me 06:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this simply demonstrates a misunderstanding of the words "myth" and "superstition". You're probably thinking that their definition is "Things that aren't true", which, as even Wikipedia will tell you, is not the case; and frankly, as someone who studies comparative religion, I find the implication that "myth" and "superstition" are negative deeply insulting. Celarnor Talk to me 06:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's exactly what religions are; religion encompasses all belief systems regardless of their depth, lessons, or moral truths to be found within them. Mythological systems are advanced, depth-filled systems with numerous parables and life lessons to be had. The Greo-Roman system and Judeo-Islamo-Christian system are great examples of these; it isn't negative in any way whatsoever, and you do offense to those truth-filled systems by saying that they're negative. Superstitions are a somewhat lesser category, but they're still well within the purview of religion, in particular rural implementations of mixed religious systems and again, they shouldn't be taken as a negative term else you do a disservice to both those who hold them now and persons who have held them in the past. You just have to think beyond the narrow-minded viewpoint that they're negative terms, when they're not. Celarnor Talk to me 06:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All userboxes are governed by the civility policy.
Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.
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.
This userbox could be considered to violate several of these provisions as it could constitute promotion of a religious viewpoint, might be considered uncivil, and is definitely divisive. However, the exact same arguments could be made against dozens of userboxes, especially those in the User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics categories. There is definitely a precedent for allowing individuals to state their views on these issues and a large number of Wikipedians appear to have chosen so to do. I think that is perfectly OK and I do not take offence if another's opinions run counter to my own. On the other hand, there is clearly a line that should not be crossed. "Kill all foo people" or even "I hate foo people" or "Foo people are dumb" are clearly out of line. Still, I don't think this box crosses that line; it's close to the line, but I don't think it crosses it. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is, admittedly, a matter of opinion as to the civility. I don't see it as name-calling, though. Since the box does not address or accuse anyone in particular, any insult is an implied one and the negation of the opposite view is implicit in any statement of belief. The statement "I am a fooian" contains the implicit statement "I am not an afooian" which in turn indicates "I believe afooianism is wrong/incorrect." I admit, the wording of this box makes a stronger implication of such than if it simply said "This user does not believe in god," but it is still implied and as long as it remains implicit rather than explicit, I don't see it as insulting or uncivil per se. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christianity is full of myths. Not as many as the Greco-Roman system (the writers of Christian canon were much more conservative about what to include, the later Catholics especially so; Greek writers were much more liberal and inclusive). The resurrection is a myth. The flood is a myth. The destruction of Soddom and Gomorrah is a myth. That doesn't make them untrue. A myth is nothing more than a story which holds some kind of ethical or moral truth or lesson. Whether or not you take it as a LITERAL truth (i.e, whether you actually believe that people were turned were turned into salt or whether you take the story as an ethical guide about what is right and wrong) is up to an individual. But whether you believe in the literal text or not, it is still a myth. Celarnor Talk to me 19:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you find it condescending to theists? I could see where you're coming from regarding individual "This user is not a Buddhist", et cetera templates, but it doesn't specifically singles out Jehova/Elohim/Yahweh and refers to deific entities as 'God' in general, and is a statement to the effect that the user doesn't subscribe to a particular mythological system or hold the minor beliefs (superstitions) associated with one. Celarnor Talk to me 06:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Webster definition describes a primitive, somewhat bastardized form of religion, which is essentially exactly what superstitions are. While some superstitions arise from a cultural rather than a religious background, for the most part, they are based on misunderstandings or loose interpretations of tenets of an existing religious system or survival mechanisms (i.e, the existing fear of Friday the 13th is academically considered to be grounded in the presence of 13 people at the Last Supper and the fact that Jesus was crucified the next day, a Friday), or a developing one (i.e, the superstitions surrounding 666; when writing Revelations, John of Patmos was writing in code to persecuted Christians about Nero; it was a defense mechanism for a not yet fully-developed religion). Prayer isn't a good example of superstition, although individual, unritualized praryer probably started as one at some point during the development of Christianity as a sort of last-ditch effort to stay alive.
No one with any theological grouding at all would be so stupid as to put prayer in that category; the belief that a given deific entity can hear your requests and appropriately respond in rooted deep in theological (Aquianas for Christians is an especially good example, the Iguvine tables are good examples of this for the Greco-Roman system) discourse and ritual. Also, it's a bad idea to place any deity under 'Legendary Creatures'. To do so would be to minimize the idea of that god; the word "creature" inherently implies sub-omnipotent status, which is something generally attributed to deities. Celarnor Talk to me 14:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that anyone is going to add those categories, only that that userbox implies that they should. I shouldn't have suggested "legendary creatures" for God, "Category:Fictional deities" perhaps?. Also, following your argument, no one with any theological grounding should be so stupid as to use myth and superstition as synonyms of religion.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Myth and superstition aren't synonymous with religion, but they're related topics as well as being subsets, after a fashion. Myths and superstitions are forms and practices of religion; while they're aren't religion per se, they're part and parcel of it. Christianity has it's central myths (i.e, the flood, Soddom and Gommorah, etc). It also has its superstitions (the number of the beast, Friday the 13th, etc). You can't separate the two, because they're a part of any religion. What I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with the statements because, contrary to what you seem to think, 'myth' and 'superstition' shouldn't be taken as negative or insults; they're extremely important parts of religious systems and to do so is to minimize religion, and frankly, as something that is so integral to so many people's lives, that's not a very nice thing to do. In a way, they're synonomous with religion when combined (that is, major mythology + minor superstitions = religious system). You just have to get over the "Myth = untrue in any sense" and "Superstition = something stupid that ignorant people do" ideas that you seem to have. Celarnor Talk to me 16:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Fictional deities is for deities in fiction, with fiction being literature; that is, the gods of the Cthulu mythos, which isn't a real mythological system but one invented for the books of H.P Lovecraft. I understand what you're saying, but again, that's really only something someone grossly ignorant would do. Celarnor Talk to me 18:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any ideas about anything, and I'm not looking for a philosophy/theology lesson, I'm just presenting facts and if you don't like Merriam-Webster's definition pick another one, we are not going to start annalizing what superstition means. It's simple: the userbox could offend people that believe in a God, plus it erradiates some pointless negative energy as it does not state a position but rather an "anti-position". As it is, I think this users are using the userbox in good faith and they should not be banned from using this userbox or any of the others. We seem to be on the same page so I really don't understand why you are being so defensive. By the way, you are wrong about Category:Fictional deities, it's not a category for Lovecraft characters but for every fictional deities, in fact God IS on this category, as is LeChuck and Aslan, so actually Wikipedia seems to agree with the userbox.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 19:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, I think a theology lesson is exactly what some of the people here need, as they seem to take offense with myth and superstition seemingly based on a belief that they are somehow "bad" or "untrue", and an introduction to mythology is a wonderful remedy for that. While superstitions are inherently irrational, being founded on mistaken interpretations of scripture. I'm not incorrect about Fictional Deities; I was using Lovecraft as an example of what would be found in there. I meant to put "such as" somewhere in that sentence, but I didn't for some reason. I'm sure there's a category somewhere for Elders in the Cthulu mythos, though, as an aside. Regarding the Narnian reference, while Aslan certainly represents God in the Narnian universe, I've never seen any evidence of anyone celebrating a religion based solely on Lewis' writing. You're grasping at straws with that. And I don't know who LeChuck is; he seems to be a video game character of some kind, so I doubt actual people worship him. But no, Jehova/Yahweh/Elohim, Allah, Shiva, et cetera are not on that list because they're actual deities, not fictional ones. Celarnor Talk to me 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why is this offensive? it does not bad-mouth any group. Atheism and atheists do not bother me at all. So don't think I am nominating this just because I am offended.  Moo  Chat  21:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm offended because I think there is a double standard. Your example at the bottom about the Allah UBX is interesting, so I guess I see that you are not trying to implement a double-standard here. But I still think it exists. This MfD is just a reminder to me of why, for a long time, I told people that I was agnostic even though it was a lie. You tell people they are agnostic, and they nod and it's like, whatever. You tell people you are an atheist, and suddenly the room goes quiet. "So what do you think, um, happens after you die?" What the hell do you think, I just told you I was an atheist. ha ha ha ha.....
I'll try not to be so persnickety, but I do hope this MfD is closed very soon. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't even matter what the definition of a myth is, because this idea that this is a negative userbox, while other ones endorsing religion are positive, is deeply flawed. The nominator says that this affirms that another's beliefs are false, rather than affirming one's own beliefs are true. But this is a cheat. If one literally believes in a monotheistic Christian God, then by definition one must also disbelieve in other gods. I mean, that's sort of the definition of monotheism... So when somebody said, "I am Saved! because I am Christian!", not only are they implying that, "My friend Jaysweet the atheist is wrong," but they are also saying "My friend Jaysweet is not Saved! like me", and therefore "My friend Jaysweet is in imminent danger because he disagrees with me." Wait, so which UBX is offensive again now??
This userbox, at least, only implies that other people are wrong, but it makes no implication as to what the consequence of this error will be. Many many other userboxes that we tolerate imply not only that other people are wrong, but they also implicitly threaten other people with all sorts of horrible things just because they disagree.
Ugh, will someone close this freaking debate before I totally lose it? I am seriously enraged and offended that this MfD page even exists. Heh, and since these days we are apparently deleting pages because they offend people, perhaps I should create Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jeff dean/Userboxes/Atheist? hehehe.... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People have actually done that kind of thing before. :P Celarnor Talk to me 20:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but as a counter-example, I present Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:America Needs Jesus/world, which to me seems even more inflammatory than the Allah thing. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That could be perceived as objectionable... but it doesn't go as far as this user box does... If it said something like "America doesn't need atheism" then I would agree.
What if I made one that says "This user knows America doesn't need Jesus?". I still haven't seen anything that demonstrates to me how this is insulting. All I've seen have been "I find it offensive" based on mistaken, negative understandings of myths and superstition. Celarnor Talk to me 22:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may not find it insulting, but i would think for most people having their beliefs reduced to a "superstition" should be insulting. I don't think "America doesn't need Jesus" would be insulting because it's just someone's opinion.  Moo  Chat  01:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute... so I'm allowed to say "America doesn't need Jesus," but I'm not allowed to say "I don't believe in the myth of Jesus Christ"?! heh, so like, I can think whatever I want as long as I acknowledge the divinity of Christ and my eventual destination in Hell for thinking what I do.
I'm trying not to be as persnickety as I was yesterday, but why has this not been snowballed yet?!? --Jaysweet (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even like complaining something about that. It is more akin to complaining that someone called you a water-drinking mammal. If you were to be ignorant about it, you could probably figure out a way to read an insult into that, but the words aren't negative. If you choose to take them as negative, that's your problem. Celarnor Talk to me 06:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taraborn, the proper term is "African-American." Even if the person in question doesn't live in America.  ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol now that can be offencive. All native Africans are black, and most have never been in America :-p XD--TrueWikimedian (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2008 (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.
More