Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Believes in Allah

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 following a change in the wording of the userbox and clear consensus Seddon69 (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Believes in Allah

[edit]

Inflammatory and divisive userbox. While there would likely be little or no trouble with a simple "this user is a Muslim" userbox, this one ("He is the one and only God") is rather distasteful. Wikipedia is not a place for religious propoganda and advocacy of this variety. Addendum - since I've seen some thinly-veiled suggestions, allow me to state "for the record" that I am not of any one religious faith. As emotionally powerful as it is to twist these things around into an anti-whatever bias, it doesn't change the fact that "He is the one and only God" is as inflammatory as you're going to get.--Action Jackson IV (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC) (addendum --Action Jackson IV (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  • I'm not going to canvass this, but I changed the template page so that a notice appears above the template on pages that contain it, with a link to this discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:15, 30 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • As Equaz hinted, I think that would be canvassing, so I'm leaning towards a "no" on that. Do we notify every single editor of an article that goes to AfD? --Action Jackson IV (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we may notify such, provided that we do not selectively canvass for some position other than that implied by editing. Further, see below. I'd say that if a user has a userbox on their user page, it would be appropriate that they be notified that the template is about to be changed, since it will change their user page. However, because this group is, by definition, a group that might be "biased," it does raise problems. An admin actually resigned over being blocked for notifying all users who had placed their photos on a photos of Wikipedians page, he was blocked, and he left in anger, but what he had done was probably not canvassing of the prohibited form. Again, is this worth all the fuss that it is likely to create? I'll ask the nominator to withdraw it, that's the first step.--Abd (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination can't be withdrawn now even if the nominator wanted to. Once people have begun commenting, the nomination stays for at least the full 5 days til it's closed. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:55, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • Is this an "Islam-related deletion"? If not, why not? I think there is a list or category for this. Further, I suspect, if this is deleted, it could go to DRV. And it easily could go beyond that. It will be seen as provocative, as a direct assault on the very foundations of Islam. I don't have any problem with assuming good faith on the part of the nominator. However, I've done massive interfaith work, including extensive discussion with atheists, agnostics, and others of many different stripes. Some other Muslims will, unfortunately, have a problem with that assumption, and others will listen to them. With the "pictures of Muhammad" issues -- and I was not sufficiently exercised about that to follow what happened -- there were important interests of the project to be defended, as against loyalties on the part of some Muslims that are not actually central to the religion. But here, it is the right of the user to state the very core belief of Islam that is being questioned and considered divisive. I'd suggest that this AfD could turn out to be one of the most disruptive and damaging events in the history of the encyclopedia. It is possible that oversight should be involved sooner rather than later. This is an example of where debating the issue could, itself, turn out to be extraordinarily disruptive. Do we need this?--Abd (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it could indeed be disruptive, I'm holding off listing this MfD on Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam#Deletions, pending comment; however, on the face of it, this should be listed there.--Abd (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to debate this here. This could be speedy closed. It is done when WP:IAR requires it, and, I submit, this is exactly such a case.--Abd (talk) My only question is the least disruptive next step. I'll start with an administrator who has already commented. By the way, since it will quite possibly be asserted, the sky is falling.--Abd (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close is for non-controversial decisions. This one clearly is not. It's not going to be speedily closed just because someone thinks it's not worth arguing over. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:14, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)
This is an example of what so many old-time Wikipedians have deplored, an assertion that rules must be followed. It's not a question of "not worth arguing." It is a question of argument under these conditions having a potential to result in extraordinarily serious damage to the project. MfDs can be closed, actually, by any editor -- it does not have to be an administrator. Theoretically, I could close it myself, even though I've commented. Later, as I expect I'd be called on the carpet for it, COI and all that, I'd defend it as required by WP:IAR, and it is a good example of that. However, I'm simply making the suggestion here: any uninvolved editor can close this MfD, as User:Kim Bruning closed the MfD for WP:PRX on less-urgent grounds, though I recommend that an administrator do so, and protect it. And the remedy, properly, would be WP:DRV at that point, which, while still problematic, would present far less immediate risk to the project. If necessary, if some solution does not appear by tomorrow, I plan to take this to ArbComm as an emergency case, asking for an injunction pending review. There are issues of fact here, as well as the overall welfare of the project to consider. I have also written directly to Jimbo Wales. First time. Someone who knows him, ping him about this, please. I'd take this to AN/I, but I'm trying to confine the damage. For the same reason I have not done what would be routine: list this MfD on the list of Islam-related deletions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam#Deletions, where it would, legitimately, attract wider notice. Likewise, I am not notifying the editors who have used the userbox. Again, subject to the limitations at WP:CANVASS, any user could do so. I'm advising against accelerating disruption by doing these things, unless it becomes clearly necessary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 16:55, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, uh huh. Anyway, this won't be speedily closed, as there's no reason to. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:58, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • Clarification: by abstaining I am specifically not asserting the right to keep it based on the fact that it is in my namespace. However, someone else may wish to assert such a claim, based on WP:USER, on the understanding that they will move it to their namespace rather than have it deleted. —Ashley Y 06:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be far too complex to explain why, in this context, but, no, that would not do. "Muslim" can easily be a "sectarian" label, identifying a tribal or ethnic or sectarian religious identification; it is used that way in English. The credo involved here transcends that, and, in fact, this is the basis for much interfaith work, and there are Christians and Jews who could use that userbox. Whether they would or not is another question, but they do believe what it says. But there is more. When we gloss "God" as "Reality," which is totally legitimate in Islamic theology as well as in others, the affirmation is a fundamental philosophical one. The opposite view is not Atheism or Agnosticism, for most who use these terms for themselves still believe that there is a single reality, and thus truth which we can discover or approach, it is Nihilism in an extreme form.--Abd (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not quite sure how inflammatory it is since its the same one God in whom all Christians and Jews believe. It does not advocate conversion, or denigrate other religions. DGG (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way the box is worded, that isn't all that clear. Also, even Christian userboxes don't contain similar language, such as "my god is the god" etc. That does seem needlessly inflammatory, no matter which version of god they're talking about. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:20, 30 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • And what of polytheistic religions? Atheists? Those who believe there is no concrete "one and only" god or God to be worshipped, but that God exists as a certain Stewartesque grouping of principles and concepts (i.e., "God is Love", etc)? --Action Jackson IV (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to deal with this in detail. However, all the groups mentioned usually do believe in some unitary Reality, and that unitary reality has various names. It happens that the name in Arabic most commonly used (and used before Islam) is "Allah." So to say "Allah" is the One God, there is no other God than Him is to define the term. The problem here is that words have various meanings. AJ IV has asserted that the meaning of the userbox is offensive, by making that interpretation of it. The interpretation itself is offensive, any Muslim who was saying, by those words, what AJ IV asserts as the meaning, would be guilty of a highly offensive heresy according to Islamic law. It is about as offensive as this would be: "I believe in Allah." "Oh! So you believe Jesus was a liar! You are insulting all Christians!" No. We don't believe that! God forbid!--Abd (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to the original, less-strongly-worded version; otherwise I'd strongly suggest rewording as the current wording is quite borderline. CharonX/talk 15:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see a userbox explaining the user's religion, including the central doctrine of that religion. I don't see anything inflammatory about it, unless Muslim beliefs are inflammatory in and of themselves. One might caution the user to be careful about how they phrase things, but merely stating that they believe a religious doctrine commonly believed by their co-religionists is not inflammatory. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The central doctrine of Wikipedia should trump any and all other central doctrines - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are not a place to spread a One and Only God Doctrine - or even focus upon it, outside the context of a neutral examination of said doctrine within the confines of an article. The first trouble I had with the argument you make when I thought of it myself is that allowing it per "central doctrine" opens the door for even worse. First off, it's tricky at best to suggest there's a single, unifying "central dotrine" for any world religion - everybody interprets the teachings of their religion slightly differently in his or her own way. But, even if we accept the argument that "mass makes right" and take this as the central doctrine, what of a school of religious thought that holds, plain and simple, that anybody and everybody who does not follow it is "a stupid ass, a retarded n00b", etc etc? I'm aware this sounds like a slippery slope (and a rather juvenile one at that - sorry, but I have better things to do than be templated by someone who harps over naughty words and thoughts, missing the point of an argument in the process, so I'm keeping it immature and as nerdy as possible), but in this case the slippery slope is pretty much the elephant in the room. To me, it seems clear-cut: While Islamic teachings do have a more-than-slightly controversial, over-the-top element in their wordings (as does Christian doctrine - "thou shalt have no other Gods before Me" is a pretty pompous way of saying "make Me your first God"), there is absolutely no need for public userboxes on a free, global encyclopedia to capture this linguistic aggression. Editors matter and all that, but "he is the one and only God" is too much. --Action Jackson IV (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user is saved!
  • Keep. I'm not really seeing how this userbox is any more divisive or inflammatory than many of the other religious and political userboxes that exist at the moment. krimpet✽ 22:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urgent, Speedy Keep. Keep. The basic credo of Islam, in full form and translated, begins "There is no god but God, the One, without equal." From many Qur'anic passages it is clear that God has many names, and a common gloss on "Allah" is "al-ilah," that is, the god or object of worship, and the Qur'an says, "by whatever name you call upon him, it is good." Even the "him" is generic; it would be just as valid a translation to say "it." In other words, if there is a one and only god, Allah is a name -- and certainly not the only name -- of that god. Equivalent names are Truth and Reality. It's true that this is a POV, but it is not an offensive one. Indeed, it is an element of an encyclopedic project, the assumption that there is one reality, though it may be seen from different points of view. I'm sorry that the nominator thinks this offensive, but the userbox is a very simple statement of what it means to be a Muslim. Now, if the userbox said "my God is real, yours is not," it would indeed be a problem!--Abd (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC) I have changed my !vote to "Urgent, Speedy Keep" because this very discussion has the potential to become extraordinarily disruptive and damaging to the project, as I have explained in other comments. --Abd (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Revert to the original wording. The current wording is needlessly inflammatory by dismissing other beliefs as invalid. Further, I don't see how it's relevant to the user's editing on Wikipedia. -- Kesh (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly divisive and inflamatory to declare the god you belive in the only god. ViridaeTalk 01:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is simply a portion of Shahadah, one of the Five Pillars of Islam. There is nothing inflammatory about it.--Lenticel (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The problem with this is that it shows a lack of common courtesy that most editors just assume and show for each other. I'm sure all the Christians and Jews would love to state that their god is "the" god. But they don't, because they know Wikipedia isn't the place to preach, and it'll make other people feel uncomfortable. It's just common courtesy. I myself am agnostic and I really find this box offensive. I'm not going to counter it by making my own "There is probably NO god" userbox, because similarly I know that would make a lot of people uncomfortable. That's again just common courtesy. It would be nice if we didn't have to have discussions like this in order enforce things like that. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:28, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)
A very important distinction has been lost. The foundation message of Islam is that there is one God, and this is explicitly the "Christian" and "Jewish" God, the God of all humanity, known by many names. People have opinions about God, and those differ, and people even fight about them, and in this sense, and in this sense only, we might talk about the Christian God and the Muslim and Jewish God (they are practically identical concepts, theologically). In my own work, I use the word "Reality" as quite equivalent to "God." There is one reality. As I said above, this is POV. There are people who do believe that there is more than one reality. And believe me, you would want to be very careful about these people around an encyclopedia project, because they believe that their personal truth is just as important as your personal truth, and, since it is all relative, there being no single reality, they are totally free to do whatever they please to make their own truth dominant, finding common ground based on the underlying reality is meaningless to them. There is an entirely different phenomenon sometimes confused with this position of denial, which is the belief in many spirits, animism, or other polytheist systems; yet these systems, in their mature forms, likewise accept a single reality underlying it all. What is divisive here is the assumption that offense is intended, that to assert that there is one God is to attack "other Gods." But if there is only one God, there is no other God to attack. Likewise we could, by assuming bad faith, think that the user is claiming "my concept of God is true, yours is therefore not." I'll say that, if the user is a Muslim, he or she has a bit of a theological problem, if this is what is meant, for God is not our concepts. There are many concepts of God. Isn't that obvious? But there is one God. There is one Reality. The rest is details.--Abd (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one said offense was intended. There's no accusation being made here at all, as far as I've seen. And yes, I know they're all referring to the same god, but that's not the point. The point, again, is that it's common courtesy not to make a claim of which is "the" right thing to believe in. As I said, I'm agnostic. Whether this is the same exact concept as the Christian god or the Jewish god or any other god is of no consequence, to me personally or to the larger point. It still stands that most people don't post messages like this, out of common courtesy for other editors. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:16, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)
There are quite a number of evangelistic christian & other user boxes I've seen here and there--much stronger than this. They do not bother me. Saying what is on this box in exactly the same as saying one is a Muslim, no worse than saying "I believe in Jesus." If one believes in Jesus, one believes that he is God, and in fact the one true God. (&, for that matter, the same entity whom Muslims call Allah. The Muslim faith is explicit about the identity here & Christian accept this also.) If anyone wants to find the boxes, just go looking, but dont bother us about them. DGG (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't know which other boxes you're referring to, this one doesn't send the same message as "I believe in Jesus". It might technically mean the same thing, but one is polite and descriptive of one's own beliefs, while the other makes an arrogant declaration of "fact". I think this can be worded differently while still having the presumably intended meaning of only conveying the user's beliefs. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:30, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)
"Don't bother us about them"? That's a bit antagonistic right there, don't you think? For what it's worth WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. -- Kesh (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOT#CENSORED & What's in that userbox is part of the Muslim creed. It's not divisive. (IMHO) KoshVorlon....Straight outta Vorlon Space !!!! ' 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see my vote below, this one was made on unsufficient information) An userbox saying "this user is muslim" or "this user believes in Allah" would serve the same informative purpose and would be way more neutral. A separate userbox called "This user believes that Allah is the one and only God and that He is God." could be done with no problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. A change from the current wording to that would make this fine, IMO. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:29, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gosh, I certainly hope that they would believe that their God is the true God; who would knowingly worship a false one? As long as we're allowing boxes like this, there's nothing wrong with this one. They believe in Allah, the one true God? Great! Someone else believes in Jesus, the one true God - that's great too. Still others believe in many gods - the more the merrier. For those of you who believe in none, congrats to you for simplifying things. I, for one, am very happy for all involved. Antelantalk 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I certainly appreciate Antelan's tolerance, he is actually repeating an error of those who would delete this. The allegedly inflammatory statement is a definition, not an assertion of exclusivity. "I believe in Allah." Fine. What is that? People have all kinds of opinions. So, okay, I'll define it, and my definition happens to be orthodox. I believe in Allah, that is, the One God, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and the Tribes, the God of all Humanity, known by many names, being the Reality behind all appearances, and not being the property of any sect or particular religion, buyt rather being the goal of all or nearly all of them. Among its names are Truth and Justice, the First and the Last. People can and will fight about details, theological points, methods of approach, significance in daily life, and all the rest. If you believe in One Reality, as distinct from our various points of view, which are points of view, not the Reality, then whatever you call that Reality, I believe in the same Reality, and if I were to say that "My Reality is superior to your reality," I would be contracticting the credo: there is only one Reality. Even if I know very little about it, even though our names for it may be different, even though we may differ on what Reality requires of us, all those are details. If we share this fundamental trust ("belief" is a poor word, actually, but...), then it is possible for us to find common ground, and that is precisely what we do in finding consensus on NPOV in this project. If we do not share that, it can become extraordinarily difficult or impossible.--Abd (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting theological and philosophical argument, but my keep !vote is not about the theology. Far from it. Antelantalk 00:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. The discussion I've added is to explain why the arguments being used in this MfD may be considered highly offensive to Muslims. There are serious free speech arguments to Keep, and I'm an inclusionist (or, more accurately, a categorist. Categorize, don't delete!), but that is not why I realized that this MfD was highly dangerous. It's not like other debates we have seen, such as the debate over images of Muhammad, where there were legitimate encyclopedic issues involved. Here it is being asserted that the foundation credo of Islam is offensive, when there are inoffensive interpretations of it that are actually mainstream Islam.--Abd (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're on the same side of this issue, but I think that line of argumentation ("some arguments against keeping this userbox may offend Muslims") is unproductive. Neither the userbox nor the arguments against it are intended to offend anyone, so you need to assume good faith. Antelantalk 03:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, does not denigrate other users, does not advocate violence or disruptive behaviour of any sort, does not make any statement directed against anyone else. DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, along with any other religion userbox that doesn't say "this user is a [term for religious follower]" - likely to be inflammatory. Sceptre (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page transcluded to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam per commentary above.--Abd (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is not that inflammatory that it has to be deleted. Sure some will disagree with it, that is why it is in user space. Its use by people will demonstrate where they are coming from. At least it is in userspace where such POV pronouncements are allowed. Do we have a standard such as if 51% of wikipedia users think it is not inflammatory then it is not inflammatory? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is divisive perhaps, as shown by this MFD, but not inflammatory. As I see it, this userbox is no different from one saying 'this user is a Muslim'; it simply outlines the most basic article of faith of Islam, akin to a Christian userbox saying 'this user believes Jesus Christ died for our sins and was resurrected'. Personally, I dislike religion userboxes, for precisely this reason - they tend to provoke factionalism and angry reactions. But precedent is to allow them, and if we allow 'this user is a Muslim' (or Christian, or atheist, or whatever) we should allow this. Terraxos (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, that would be akin to "This user believes that Allah is the one and only God and that He is God". The current wording is more like "Allah is the one and only God and He is God". That's not a statement about the user beliefs, that's a POV statement (I was going to say "that's a statement of fact", but how do you stablish as a fact that there is only one god and that it happens to be your god? It's all about beliefs, so it's POV :P). --Enric Naval (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enric is correct about POV and NPOV. Now, are we going to require that user statements be NPOV? Article space is the only space that requires NPOV, and, in fact, POV expressions are necessary for discovering NPOV. Ask the question raised by this MfD generically. Are user statements though userboxes required to be NPOV? Can I have a userbox that says, "Esperanza is Alive!"? From a recent MfD, that statement would get some users upset. Who is going to police this new requirement, and how? As has been noted by quite a few, the statement is simply the core of Islam, actually the universalist part, the part that is most broadly inclusive and least sectarian (some interpret it as recognizing or expressing any belief in Reality as a single entity). If that is "offensive," we are in trouble. Big trouble. By the way, the userbox is, like most I've seen, customizable, so the message is actually up to each user.--Abd (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Man, your arguments are *all* fallacious.
  1. Religious userboxes have gone to xfD for less and saved from deletion for lack of consensus like Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotCatholic_(2nd_nomination). You are right however that userboxes are given a lot of space like Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User_onemanonewoman, but there are also mixed results Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Gordonfreedman/Shrooms. This all whole userbox bussiness has a RfC all for itself Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies/Userbox_content.
  2. The wikipedia is "policed" by its users, following wikipedia policies and consensus, and it seems to be working fine, thanks.
  3. Stating the core beliefs of the Islam is not offensive, but using a standard "This user believes in (belief)" userbox for this purpose is bordering on stealthy. The userbox already links to the Allah article where all of this is explained on length. It's standard on userboxes to link to stuff and let users figure it out by clicking on the link.
  4. The userbox is customizable, but we are discussing the default message given by the template, not any versions placed by users on their own page, which would deserve a separate xfD. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
atheos This user believes there is no God. God does not exist. No God.
atheos This user is an atheist.

I'd accept anything short of "This user believes there is no God, and if you don't agree you are being really foolish". I cant imagine pasting any variety of a religious or political userbox on my page, but it takes something deliberately offensive to offend me. DGG (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you meant:

atheos This user is an atheist, which means no God on latin. No God exists and none of the gods exist. No God.

--Enric Naval (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no , that is not what I mean!! I regard the comment above as harmless. (I also regard it as inelegant, but thats another matter). The point is: " "There is no God; Gods do not exist." is harmless. "There is no God. The view that there is a God is incorrect." is borderline, because it is worded negatively; But "There is no God; if you believe in one, you're wrong" is not harmless. Here's the difference--the first makes a positive statement about the user's view of the world, the second a negative, the third a negative statement directly about other people. Similarly, "the Republican party is correct" is acceptable. "The Democratic Party is wrong," is borderline. "People who support the Democrats are traitors" is not acceptable. There are two possible bases for distinctions: Accept all positive statements, of Accept all statements except negative ones about other people. DGG (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edit conflict, damn they used my argument already) Another userbox deleted per WP:NPOV Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Boxes/Politics/NATO_A_Terrorist_Organization, so statements in userboxes can actually be subjected to NPOV (at least on extreme cases, this one was really inflamatory! please notice that this should not be constructed at all as any statement of any relationship between muslims and terrorism. It just happened to be the first hit on google when searching en.wikipedia.org for userboxes being deleted. It could have been any other userbox). In the case of the userbox we are discussing, the lack of consensus should be a good indication of how this userbox is not neutral and is slightly ofensive for many editors, even if many other editors will find no problem with it. Even if it's not totally offensive, it's still worded on an apparently deceptive way, halfway statement about user belief, and halfway statement about muslim faith is, and this makes it hard to judge. There exist more simple userboxes that convey the same message. What's the reason for the user not being able to use {{User:UBX/muslim}}. The box already links to a complete explanation of what a muslim is. As I said above, userboxes usually just link to an article explaining the topic at lenght. This one is striding away from standard for no reason at all, and I heard no good reason on why we can't just prune the sentence after "which is God in Arabic". Look at any column of userboxes on any user page and you will see only short sentences linking to key topics for the longer explanations: This user is a student, This user is a profesional pilot, This user can be reached by email, etc. Can Does anyone know of any user that has felt the need to expand so much on the explanation of his belief instead of just linking to the main article for it? Isn't this like getting free space for statements about your faith instead of falling back to the encyclopedic content that is supposed to be the main content here? --Enric Naval (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This user is a student, which is a person that studies on a school. A school is a place for learning"
"This user is a professional pilot, which means that he drives machines that fly. A machine heavier that air that flies is a plane"
"This user drinks tea which is an infusion. A tea infusion is made by steeping processed leaves, buds, or twigs of the tea bush, Camellia sinensis, in hot water for several minutes. Tea tastes good."
See what I mean? The wording is just wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword, keeping just the first sentence. Failing that, delete. Per Enric Naval and others above. -- comment made by Avenue (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) who forgot to sign it --Enric Naval (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Personally, I'm atheist and find overly religious people somewhat irritating. That said, if someone genuinely holds this belief, I don't see how stating it on their user page is denigrating anyone else. Surely stating your adherence to any monotheistic religion is inherently saying "All other gods are false"? Stating it explicitly doesn't seem to me to cross any lines. After all, if someone's faith can be shaken or offended by reading a user box then perhaps they have bigger problems. I would also like to point out the hypocrisy involved in deleting this and keeping the Mohammed pictures. Orpheus (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate Orpheus's statement and his honorable position, however, to state a belief in a monotheistic religion is not implying or "inherently saying" that "all other gods are false," any more than saying that "all things are made of light" (i.e., free light or light trapped as matter) is saying that a belief that something is made of lead or gold is therefore "false." It's a complex issue, reduced to contentious simplicity by those who love sectarian fights. Once I was told by a student at a school where I was speaking about Islam that he did not believe in God, "There is no God." I asked him, "What God is it that you don't believe in?" I think he realized the problem, because he was silent. Then I said, "I probably don't believe in that God either." Orpheus goes on to say that if the userbox was prefaced by attribution (which would make it NPOV), it would be acceptable. I thought that userboxes were inherently attributed, no source is needed, we understand that they express an opinion or belief or characteristic of the user. So, in this sense, the userbox does say that.--Abd (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, you have read the WP:USERBOX guideline, right? Abd, you say "I thought that userboxes were inherently attributed, no source is needed" and your edit summary says "on unreal contradiction and on assumed attribution of userboxes." [1]. So, have I been discussing here for what you *think* that an userbox is instead of what an userbox actually *is*. Unreal contradiction, no. Assumed attribution, both you and Orpheus are assuming. Not to sound bitter, but, Abd, please read WP:USERBOX and base your next arguments on it, seriously, you don't know how an userbox has to be. I already told you on a comment above how your arguments on that comment were all fallacious. You don't know everything, just like I don't and nobody does, and go read the guideline (and forget that I didn't remember of WP:USERBOX or even bothered to check relevant consensus-supported policy until 5 minutes ago when seeing your comment and getting pissed off, so it's my fault too and I'm being a big hypocrite here :P). --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a further comment, I would suggest that as a sign of good faith (no pun intended) and in the spirit of consensus, explicitly adding "This user believes" or "In this user's opinion" would be a positive result of this MfD. I still don't think it should be *required* though.. Orpheus (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, "Content restrictions" says that userboxes can't contain incivility, be inflammatory or divisive, or "make propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious(...)". The "content examples" list "This user <verb phrase> <noun phrase>", and several combinations like "This user is <noun phrase>" or "This user is a member of <noun phrase>".
And, I fucking kid you not, "'Potentially divisive words Avoid verbs which may be used to suggest negative comparison, and would thus be potentially divisive, such as: believes, considers, favors, finds, knows, prefers, thinks and wishes.. So, the userbox *does* use a diviside word, and it uses it on a way that has caused this long debate when shorter useboxes "This user is a muslim" has caused no problem at all. Saying this userbox is not decisive is deliberately ignoring all this long winding debate and should be taken as proof of POV or simply blindness.
Also, the userbox wording does not follow any of the examples given on the guideline and no reason for this has been provided by any editor.
Also, check User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion and see yourself how this userbox is clearly incoherent with the 200+ userboxes there for no reason at all, and has managed to cause more controversie that all of them together
Also, check this userbox: User:S.dedalus/Richard Dawkins (God)
it has same meaning as discussed userbox, also uses a divisive verb, but is way better worded and manages not be divisive (at least, no fuss has been raised about it).
Also, an argument has been raised that it means the same as "This user is a muslim". Doh, then use that one instead because it does not divide people like this one does
This userbox is weird for no reason, has caused lots of division, and also violates WP:USERBOX big time. Basing ourselves on policy guideline, this should have been speedy deleted on the spot --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a Muslim, but I am not bothered by this userbox and seeing it does not make me feel pressured to convert. I am far more concerned about articles than what people have on their user pages. If that opinion does not cause them to mkae biased edits to articles, then it is irrelevant. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many people don't care about this userbox, but many others do. Let's keep to the WP:USERBOX guideline for the wording, since it's useful enough for what an userbox intends to do and does not cause these controversies. All userboxes worded as akwardly like this one ought to be revised. If someone wants to add this sort of wording to the WP:USERBOX list, I bid them luck on getting it accepted and not getting lynched for such a bad wording --Enric Naval (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be overly sensitive or politically correct. "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia There's probably userboxes or what have you on Wikipedia than even I might find offensive, but ultimately of all the things to become offended about, a userbox is way down on the list. It does not say anything like "and anyone who disagrees with me is damned" or something. If someone believes what the userbox espouses and they just want to have it in a small userbox, let 'em. Now if they start actively trying to convert people all over the project or editing articles with a religious bias, that's another story. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, man, I'm opposing the wording of the userbox, not the belief being talked about. It's such a bad wording that any belief you state will look wrong --Enric Naval (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'e been reworded though to just state that the user believes in Allah (see below note). Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enric, you have already !voted to delete above, making this your second !vote. Antelantalk 00:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I stroke that one --Enric Naval (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, the current wording is perfectly in like with other playful ones out there, and I'd hate for this overwhelming WP:GLOOM policy that anything that isn't straight out a dictionary is evil to get even more enshrined in the wiki. Human beings aren't like that. Human beings have opinions, feeling etc. And only through knowing these and not treating everyone like machines will we be able to write this great encyclopaedia. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userbox has been reworded
[edit]
  • Comment I'm going to be bold and pare back the wording of the userbox to just "This user believes in Allah". Do we still need this MfD?--Father Goose (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We would have been spared this whole MfD if someone had merely edited the text. It had already been edited by various users, it wasn't Ashley Y's userbox, she was simply hosting it. How many XfD's I have seen that could have been handled with a simple edit and probably no fuss? More than a few!--Abd (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the assumption was that the particular wording was there for a reason. That was at least my assumption. If I thought the keepers would react well to a reword then I would've done it myself. Which might beg the question of why they didn't reword it themselves once they saw that the wording was the problem. But that's moot now I suppose. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:42, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)
      • Because there were no keepers. The host of the userbox isn't a Muslim. The only people who might have really cared about it, personally, would be those actually using it, and, remember, Equazcion, you and others did not want to notify them as requested by Ashley Y. So they probably don't even know about the MfD. However, since I am a Muslim, and I do care about the principle, I've edited it myself. It now reads: "This user believes in One God." Which is closer to the meaning of the original as it stood with this MfD. And, of course, non-Muslims who likewise believe in One God are quite invited to use the userbox. "Allah" is the name used in Arabic for God, quite simply, and to use it in a way that implies anything else is offensive, the point that I made above. For my own personal use, I will change the text to "This user trusts in One Reality." --Abd (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keepers meaning those who voted keep. And I did add a notice to the template, as is normally done for templates, following the request to notify users. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:54, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)
          • Which has almost no effect in notifying users. I have a few userboxes on my home page. If the template is changed, and if I don't have the template watched -- which I don't, now that you mention it, I should -- I will not see the MfD notice, which was actually a bad, bad idea, as it defaces the user page. Those notices shouldn't be placed on templates that are in use. Rather, those who *use* the templates should be notified, through Talk pages. They have generally made an editorial decision to use it by placing it on their user page. Would they be biased? Probably, just as those who have edited an article, on average, will be biased toward keeping it. But that is not a canvassing bias, actually. It's been tested. An adminstrator notified I think it was 200 editors who had placed their photos on a photos of Wikipedians page. He was immediately blocked for canvassing. The consensus seems to be that the block was inappropriate, but this particular administrator, a respected one, essentially resigned in disgust, over the block. Folks, deletion debates are *inherently* disruptive, they *start* with a conflict. That they are not more disruptive than they are happens because most editors simply aren't paying enough attention to even notice them. Notify everyone who would be concerned, well, we would get rid of this whole process, and very quickly.
          • A hidden MfD notice will notify those who watch the template, and is what is should be used, in fact. If I had time I'd fix it.--Abd (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You can say what "shouldn't be" all you want. The fact is that this is the way templates nominated for deletion are handled -- a notice is added to the transcluded version. The TfD nomination template has this built-in. No one is explicitly notified except the original author and possibly prominent contributors. Posting a message to everyone who transcludes something that's up for deletion is the equivalent of notifying users who would definitely vote keep, so that is exactly what WP:CANVASS was created to avoid. If you think WP:CANVASS needs to be changed, you should raise your concerns at WT:CANVASS. And for template deletion notices: WT:TFD. It won't do any good here. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:33, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Keep, in whatever version desired by Ashley Y. Statement of faith. It would be fine even in this version, or does WP ban culturally common statments of religious faith on user pages? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, why not this previous wording [3] "This user believes in one God called Allah." --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is redundant. Or we could say, "This user believes in ilaanun waahidun, God." And, in fact, with the Arabic at the beginning, we have Allah already. Allah. This user believes in One God. Now, I'm a Muslim, of some repute outside. I prefer the language I put there. The users of the template, however, may have different opinions. I'd ask them. But Equazcion claims that this would be canvassing, which, to me, shows up the preposterousness of certain interpretations of that guideline. When the smoke clears here, perhaps the users of the template will be notified and we will find some consensus. It is not necessary, though. Someone who wants their own wording can use it that way, it is customizable, and there can be more than one template used, etc. --Abd (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the fine details of the translation of the name. As soon as the general wording is like this, I'll be happy. I didn't suggest that the wording had to exactly that, up to the very last word. The users should be notified, to decide if they still want that userbox after the wording change. Btw, I have been biten also by CANVASS interpretations, on this same nomination, because I posted a notice on the wikiproject againt censorship in wikipedia --Enric Naval (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep, Give me a break! Keep it in whatever version desired by Ashley Y. Also per user:Antelan and others. A man of honour (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the disputed wording was accidental
[edit]
Yes. I have, in fact, argued this above, or, more accurately, the part of this that is true. As often happens with MfDs, the original "problem" could have been fixed without debate, or with only small-scale debate, as is normal with editorial decisions. However, this has been a "tempest in a teapot" that could have had (might still have, possibly) major outside consequences. That could have been extraordinarily harmful. This MfD, in the nomination, could have been viewed (and could still be viewed) as an attack on the foundation credo of Islam, and, I'm afraid, this is a sounder interpretation than the opinion that the userbox was an attack on other religions or atheism, as reasonable at that might seem to some. And one thing this has pointed out to me is that we have no clear and rapid means of dealing with anticipable disruption that would not, in a case like this, create some of the very disruption that should be avoided. We *do* have that process, to some degree, for ordinary editorial decisions, which only escalate if solutions cannot be found with a local consensus, and it is laid out at WP:DR. Obviously, this is not the place to address this, I'm only mentioning it.--Abd (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This very page actually says that you should discuss userspace issues with the user first, before coming to MFD. Now, the fact is that people don't always do that (and sometimes they deliberately don't do that). If you know any way to enforce that requirement, the wiki would benefit from it – but history suggests that this is infeasible in practice. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If "the outside" were to view this debate as "an attack on the foundation credo if Islam", that would demonstrate to me nothing more than the fondness some people have for moral panics. I wouldn't avoid doing whatever it is we do to keep the encyclopedia on track on speculation of some outside overreaction. I would, however, take the bold action I did (rewording the template) so as to get things back on track for our own purposes. If we shudder in response to every group that might have a bone to pick with what we're doing, we might as well shut the project down now.--Father Goose (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In no way am I claiming that "the outside" should view it that way. I'm saying that people have died over less. Is it likely to happen? No. But it is possible? Yes. Quite simply, I don't think it worth the risk. There were ways to handle this without creating any risk at all, and Father Goose's edit was one of them. It was already clear that the userbox was not created by Ashley Y, she merely hosted it. Someone doesn't like Father Goose's text (or my text that replaced it), they can change it for their own use. The nominator *could*, in fact, have simply edited the template. Slightly offensive, but the edit summary could have said something innocuous like "avoid possible offensive implications." It was the claim here that the userbox text was actually and clearly offensive that was problematic.
As to the risk, think about it this way. Wikipedia is being promoted in Muslim countries, and there are people there committed to encouraging its use. God bless them. If publicity about this MfD were to come out in a certain way, some of those people might die. That's not a threat at all, it's a warning about the reality in the world out there. As I said, the flap over the pictures of Muhammad was nothing compared to what this MfD could do. It's likely to close without deletion, and so probably the bullet has been dodged.--Abd (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The userbox does not "identify as muslim." The current language identifies a belief in One God, and does not specify the religion of the user. This userbox can be used by non-Muslims. The former language really did the same, but with language that was more susceptible to interpreting it as an attack on other people's gods.--Abd (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Allah glyph is pretty much Muslim. That doesn't make it inflammatory, but it's not a culturally-generic userbox.--Father Goose (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is for someone who wants to express the point that it is the reality and not the name that counts. Allah is the name of God in Arabic (it is actually analogous to English, where we take the word "god" and make it specific by capitalizing it as God. Arabic has no capital letters, but uses the prefix al- as the definite article. Allah is pretty obviously derived from al-ilah, literally "the god," though the claim is also made that the word is purely a proper name for the only god, i.e., the Supreme Being, which is a distinction without a difference). Arab Christians also use the name "Allah." I'd recommend reading Allah, it is quite explicit that the word isn't "Muslim" only. That is a common misconception, and I specifically invite any user who would like to express a belief in the unity of God or Truth or whatever they want to call it use this userbox. Muslims who want to express specific affiliation with the religion of Islam have at least one other userbox which does that. Personally, the reality matters are great deal more to me than the names we call it. --Abd (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the English Wikipedia, "God" is the religion-independent One God; "Allah" and الله are generally going to mean (and be interpreted as) God within the context of Islamic religion -- even if it is the same diety. On the Arabic Wikipedia, الله might be taken to mean the One God of any of the Abrahamic religions.--Father Goose (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed back to say Allah, using the original wording by Ashley. The template even adds the user to the "muslim" category, ffs --Enric Naval (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about that. Actually, the word "muslim" is generic as well, but one doesn't ordinarily see non-Muslims using it. I had a friend who was a prominent Christian apologist very involved in debate with Muslims and he said to me, "Of course I'm a muslim, just don't tell anyone." He knew the Arabic meaning.... In any case, I'm going to set up my own version.... I like the "I believe in One God" version, which is, if course, why I made it that way. Ashley was not the author of this template, she merely rescued in from the great userbox shift, and the working beginning this AfD was added by a casual user.--Abd (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Given the plethora of userboxes with religious messages that exist on Wikipedia, it seems inappropriate to single out a single one for deletion. I believe doing so could be far more divisive then permitting it. The userbox simply articulates a standard Muslim message, which doesn't seem to be particularly different from userboxes articulating standard Christian and other messages that have been floating around. I don't see anything more problematic about it than any other religious message userbox. One could make an argument that we should get rid of all such userboxes uniformly. But to avoid divisiveness and a feeling that people are being singled out, such an argument should be made at the wholesale level, not at the retail level. --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfC dealing with deleting userboxes declaring political viewpoints
[edit]
Someone close this please
[edit]

I don't think anyone actually wants to delete this anymore now that the wording is changed, so if an admin could close this already that would really be great. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:40, 9 Apr 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ashley_Y/Userbox/Believes_in_Allah&oldid=1259683988"