- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. This is turning into a wp:NOTFORUM violation about the legitimacy of creationism and not the validity of the userbox. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus ( talk) 15:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
User:Affused with holy water/Userbox/Evol vs Creation
Badly designed userbox promoting pseudoscience with inflammatory scare quotes and Darwin caricature Dronebogus ( talk) 12:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Believing in creation rather than evolution isn't pseudoscience. As for the caricature, what's the objection to it? Heresy? It is a well-known image widely reproduced by both supporters of Darwin and his detractors. It is also rather well-drawn, and not unflattering, in my opinion.
- If people want to abolish userboxes altogether, fine. Picking out userboxes that project widely-held beliefs one personally disagrees with isn't.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 12:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- “Believing in creation rather than evolution isn’t pseudoscience”. Um… no.
It is pseudoscience.
Dronebogus (
talk) 12:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- 'Creation science' is pseudoscience. Belief in a creator isn't.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 14:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- And what about "
Evolution" is a false theory
"? — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 12:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)- To be fair, the science regarding evolution is also evolving. Science in general can only explain so much before it diverges into a gray area of our current knowledge. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Rather than getting into arguments about the ability of science to provide definitive proofs regarding theories (a tricky subject that most scientists tend to avoid as not conducive to doing anything useful) I'll instead suggest that 'being wrong' doesn't appear much of a justification for deleting userboxes. We are all human (at least, I assume so, though this is the internet...) and both science and religion seem to agree that 'to err is human', or words to that effect. If you want to eliminate the possibility of error in userboxes, you will need to eliminate them entirely. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- And what about "
- 'Creation science' is pseudoscience. Belief in a creator isn't.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 14:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- “Believing in creation rather than evolution isn’t pseudoscience”. Um… no.
It is pseudoscience.
Dronebogus (
talk) 12:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, I'm guessing "evolution" is in quotes because the user who uses this box doesn't believe in it. I don't agree, but I respect the viewpoint as long as it doesn't get in the way of editing or pose a distraction. Can you cite any policy or guideline that is relevant here or offer some kind of evidence of disruption? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Violation of Wikipedia policy per WP:SOAPBOX, and violates the guidelines Wikipedia:User pages and Wikipedia:Userboxes. Promotion of creationism is also contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 16:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely keep more or less per AndyTheGrump. Well within the discretionary range for what users can have in their userspace. We get it, you disagree with them. Can you just leave it at that?-- 🌈WaltCip-( talk) 18:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Moreover, branding religious beliefs as a
pseudoscience is very much not in keeping with our civility policy, and probably runs afoul of the UCoC as well.--
🌈WaltCip-(
talk) 18:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- That is absolutely not true.
Dronebogus (
talk) 04:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @
Dronebogus: Out of curiousity, can you explain how? -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 15:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Because some of them are, or at least are patently untrue i.e. young earth creationism
Dronebogus (
talk) 21:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- You do realise that Last Thursdayism is unfalsifiable, and as such, science is in no position to assert that it is 'patently untrue'? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Because some of them are, or at least are patently untrue i.e. young earth creationism
Dronebogus (
talk) 21:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @
Dronebogus: Out of curiousity, can you explain how? -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 15:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- That is absolutely not true.
Dronebogus (
talk) 04:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Moreover, branding religious beliefs as a
pseudoscience is very much not in keeping with our civility policy, and probably runs afoul of the UCoC as well.--
🌈WaltCip-(
talk) 18:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing more than a pure promotion of pseudoscience. — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs) 21:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- There are those out there who don't believe in science. How is this any different than religions not recognizing the beliefs of other religions? People have a right to express what they believe in here, and the box does not strike me as being promotional. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 15:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- People do not own their userpages, and there's certainly no "right" to put anything on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a
WP:SOAPBOX or a
WP:WEBHOST. Also, while people are certainly entitled to their own beliefs, a lack of belief in science as a whole would suggest a lack of
WP:COMPETENCE to edit Wikipedia, as the ability to accurately assess current research on a topic is required for most contributions.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 16:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Creationism is a widespread ideological and religious belief, and believing in it has no inherent reflection upon competence. Competence is dictated by one's actions rather than their beliefs. Moreover, we historically allow latitude for people to have userboxes, essays, w/e in userspace, even if it does not perfectly comply with our policies. This to me reads as selective enforcement. 🌈WaltCip-( talk) 16:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- People do not own their userpages, and there's certainly no "right" to put anything on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a
WP:SOAPBOX or a
WP:WEBHOST. Also, while people are certainly entitled to their own beliefs, a lack of belief in science as a whole would suggest a lack of
WP:COMPETENCE to edit Wikipedia, as the ability to accurately assess current research on a topic is required for most contributions.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 16:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- There are those out there who don't believe in science. How is this any different than religions not recognizing the beliefs of other religions? People have a right to express what they believe in here, and the box does not strike me as being promotional. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 15:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep While we have userboxes at all. It's a statement of the user's belief, not promotion of pseudoscience. Llwyld ( talk) 03:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment If it's kept could something be done about the colours? At the moment they are migraine inducing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 22:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Wikipedia should provide no platform to propagate pseudoscientific beliefs, while downplaying well-established scientific consensus. Pseudoscience and conspiracy theories have done enough damage already, and we don't need to become its
vectors. —
CX Zoom[he/him] (
let's talk • {
C•
X}) 13:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think 'God did it' is generally considered a conspiracy theory. Who was he/she/it supposed to be conspiring with? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- So creationists are a disease, is that what you are getting at? Is this the hill you're going to plant your flag on? WP:CIV doesn't apply if it's directed at religious faith? 🌈WaltCip-( talk) 14:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Just as a reminder: Any editor with x religious template can be topic banned if their own personal beliefs get in the way of a neutral point of view. Keeping this template around makes no statement of what Wikipedia does or does not support. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Many Userboxes have many problems, but at least fix visual accessibility problems. I turned the red background white to all the text to be read. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Walt Unnecessarily ( talk) 15:07, 9 November 2022 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. This is turning into a wp:NOTFORUM violation about the legitimacy of creationism and not the validity of the userbox. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus ( talk) 15:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
User:Affused with holy water/Userbox/Evol vs Creation
Badly designed userbox promoting pseudoscience with inflammatory scare quotes and Darwin caricature Dronebogus ( talk) 12:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Believing in creation rather than evolution isn't pseudoscience. As for the caricature, what's the objection to it? Heresy? It is a well-known image widely reproduced by both supporters of Darwin and his detractors. It is also rather well-drawn, and not unflattering, in my opinion.
- If people want to abolish userboxes altogether, fine. Picking out userboxes that project widely-held beliefs one personally disagrees with isn't.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 12:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- “Believing in creation rather than evolution isn’t pseudoscience”. Um… no.
It is pseudoscience.
Dronebogus (
talk) 12:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- 'Creation science' is pseudoscience. Belief in a creator isn't.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 14:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- And what about "
Evolution" is a false theory
"? — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 12:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)- To be fair, the science regarding evolution is also evolving. Science in general can only explain so much before it diverges into a gray area of our current knowledge. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Rather than getting into arguments about the ability of science to provide definitive proofs regarding theories (a tricky subject that most scientists tend to avoid as not conducive to doing anything useful) I'll instead suggest that 'being wrong' doesn't appear much of a justification for deleting userboxes. We are all human (at least, I assume so, though this is the internet...) and both science and religion seem to agree that 'to err is human', or words to that effect. If you want to eliminate the possibility of error in userboxes, you will need to eliminate them entirely. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- And what about "
- 'Creation science' is pseudoscience. Belief in a creator isn't.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 14:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- “Believing in creation rather than evolution isn’t pseudoscience”. Um… no.
It is pseudoscience.
Dronebogus (
talk) 12:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, I'm guessing "evolution" is in quotes because the user who uses this box doesn't believe in it. I don't agree, but I respect the viewpoint as long as it doesn't get in the way of editing or pose a distraction. Can you cite any policy or guideline that is relevant here or offer some kind of evidence of disruption? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Violation of Wikipedia policy per WP:SOAPBOX, and violates the guidelines Wikipedia:User pages and Wikipedia:Userboxes. Promotion of creationism is also contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 16:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely keep more or less per AndyTheGrump. Well within the discretionary range for what users can have in their userspace. We get it, you disagree with them. Can you just leave it at that?-- 🌈WaltCip-( talk) 18:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Moreover, branding religious beliefs as a
pseudoscience is very much not in keeping with our civility policy, and probably runs afoul of the UCoC as well.--
🌈WaltCip-(
talk) 18:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- That is absolutely not true.
Dronebogus (
talk) 04:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @
Dronebogus: Out of curiousity, can you explain how? -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 15:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Because some of them are, or at least are patently untrue i.e. young earth creationism
Dronebogus (
talk) 21:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- You do realise that Last Thursdayism is unfalsifiable, and as such, science is in no position to assert that it is 'patently untrue'? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Because some of them are, or at least are patently untrue i.e. young earth creationism
Dronebogus (
talk) 21:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @
Dronebogus: Out of curiousity, can you explain how? -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 15:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- That is absolutely not true.
Dronebogus (
talk) 04:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Moreover, branding religious beliefs as a
pseudoscience is very much not in keeping with our civility policy, and probably runs afoul of the UCoC as well.--
🌈WaltCip-(
talk) 18:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing more than a pure promotion of pseudoscience. — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs) 21:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- There are those out there who don't believe in science. How is this any different than religions not recognizing the beliefs of other religions? People have a right to express what they believe in here, and the box does not strike me as being promotional. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 15:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- People do not own their userpages, and there's certainly no "right" to put anything on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a
WP:SOAPBOX or a
WP:WEBHOST. Also, while people are certainly entitled to their own beliefs, a lack of belief in science as a whole would suggest a lack of
WP:COMPETENCE to edit Wikipedia, as the ability to accurately assess current research on a topic is required for most contributions.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 16:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Creationism is a widespread ideological and religious belief, and believing in it has no inherent reflection upon competence. Competence is dictated by one's actions rather than their beliefs. Moreover, we historically allow latitude for people to have userboxes, essays, w/e in userspace, even if it does not perfectly comply with our policies. This to me reads as selective enforcement. 🌈WaltCip-( talk) 16:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- People do not own their userpages, and there's certainly no "right" to put anything on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a
WP:SOAPBOX or a
WP:WEBHOST. Also, while people are certainly entitled to their own beliefs, a lack of belief in science as a whole would suggest a lack of
WP:COMPETENCE to edit Wikipedia, as the ability to accurately assess current research on a topic is required for most contributions.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 16:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- There are those out there who don't believe in science. How is this any different than religions not recognizing the beliefs of other religions? People have a right to express what they believe in here, and the box does not strike me as being promotional. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 15:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep While we have userboxes at all. It's a statement of the user's belief, not promotion of pseudoscience. Llwyld ( talk) 03:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment If it's kept could something be done about the colours? At the moment they are migraine inducing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 22:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Wikipedia should provide no platform to propagate pseudoscientific beliefs, while downplaying well-established scientific consensus. Pseudoscience and conspiracy theories have done enough damage already, and we don't need to become its
vectors. —
CX Zoom[he/him] (
let's talk • {
C•
X}) 13:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think 'God did it' is generally considered a conspiracy theory. Who was he/she/it supposed to be conspiring with? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- So creationists are a disease, is that what you are getting at? Is this the hill you're going to plant your flag on? WP:CIV doesn't apply if it's directed at religious faith? 🌈WaltCip-( talk) 14:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Just as a reminder: Any editor with x religious template can be topic banned if their own personal beliefs get in the way of a neutral point of view. Keeping this template around makes no statement of what Wikipedia does or does not support. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Many Userboxes have many problems, but at least fix visual accessibility problems. I turned the red background white to all the text to be read. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Walt Unnecessarily ( talk) 15:07, 9 November 2022 (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.