- 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 no consensus. Parent userpage was deleted at a separate MfD, lessening the urgency here somewhat; however, there is no consensus below to delete the userbox. It is reasonable to argue, as a substantial number of commenters do, that the phrase "separation of mosque and state" is an acceptable method by which to refer to a particular set of political concerns relevant in discussion of the Muslim world. This argument does not have consensus support here, but it prevents the deletion argument of "soapboxing" from succeeding conclusively. Xoloz ( talk) 03:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
inflammatory, violates Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions. I realize this policy is rarely enforced but this is kind of crossing the line. P4k 05:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Soapbox for Muslim demotion. - Go od sh op ed 05:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Although I am happy for it to be deleted if all Seperation of Church and State userboxes such as User:UBX/separation this one are deleted. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 05:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- How provocative! P4k ( talk) 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep demoting Islam. Sarsaparilla 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Actually, given that the entire user page is up for deletion and it is the only page using the userbox in question, may I suggest the two discussions simply be merged? -- jonny-mt( t)( c) I'm on editor review! 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you think that's best, I don't know how mfd usually handles stuff like this.
P4k
06:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think the easiest way to do that is for you to withdraw your nomination and close the discussion early, noting that the userpage as a whole is up for discussion and providing a link. If the page is kept and you want to reopen, I think you should be able to given that no conclusive consensus was reached. -- jonny-mt( t)( c) I'm on editor review! 06:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know how to close an mfd. Consider my nomination withdrawn I guess.
P4k
- Note - I closed the debate per the withdrawal, but Xoloz reopened it on the grounds that such a closure is inappropriate given the mix of responses ( diff). As such, please note that the discussion is still active and thus should be continued. Apologies for the confusion. -- jonny-mt( t)( c) I'm on editor review! 04:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- (ec)I just noticed that GlassCobra suggested the separate discussions for the userboxes, but I still think the userpage issue should be settled before the userbox issue is examined to prevent the possibility of conflicting consensus. And for the record, it took every bit of self-restraint I possess not to run with that alliteration. -- jonny-mt( t)( c) I'm on editor review! 06:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge the Userboxes, as Separation of State and Religion 132.205.99.122 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep nomination withdrawn-- Thin boy 00 @156, i.e. 02:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)- Merge deletion debate with userpage deletion debate, or wait for userpage deletion, relisting if necessary, and then speedy as orphaned userspace. -- Thin boy 00 @158, i.e. 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep:Seperation of church and state is something very commonly talked about. Nothing inflammatory here. Whats next, I cant say "This user likes the article about Separation of church and state"? -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 04:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
*Keep. I edited this to make it sound more neutral ("This user believes in the separation of Mosque and state" to "This user is interested in the separation of Mosque and state.") Since the box had a potential to offend, I have hopefully removed that potential. Now the userbox format is: "This user is interested in _____". If it is the subject that offends someone, then the problem is not to do with the userbox itself.
Seraphim
Whipp
02:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Vote changed to delete. I disagree with the revert. This has the "potential to harm" (someone has said they feel it inflammatory and when in context of the entire page, it is inflammatory) and I support the principle that we "do no harm".
Seraphim
Whipp
17:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reverted because this makes no sense. As it was, the version was not soapboxing: it just said what he believed. What next, changing all the "This user is a conservative"-type userboxes into "This user is interested in conservativism"? And with that said, Keep. We don't need to aim for neutrality in userboxes, we only need to work against soapboxing and campaigning. These sorts of userboxes which let others know what one's potential biases are, are useful to other editors because they help us understand another editor's biases. Lewis Collard! ( it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 09:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep An odd choice of words (why not "religion and state") but acceptable I think. Charon X/ talk 13:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I still don't understand why userboxes generate such debate. If all the users involved simply wrote on their userpages, in plain text, "I believe in the separation of mosque and state", would anyone care? Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Islamic countries have a big problem with separation of church and state, and in those countries, the church is a mosque. This could be how the issue is referred to locally. - Nard 19:13, 8 December 2007 (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 debate was no consensus. Parent userpage was deleted at a separate MfD, lessening the urgency here somewhat; however, there is no consensus below to delete the userbox. It is reasonable to argue, as a substantial number of commenters do, that the phrase "separation of mosque and state" is an acceptable method by which to refer to a particular set of political concerns relevant in discussion of the Muslim world. This argument does not have consensus support here, but it prevents the deletion argument of "soapboxing" from succeeding conclusively. Xoloz ( talk) 03:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
inflammatory, violates Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions. I realize this policy is rarely enforced but this is kind of crossing the line. P4k 05:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Soapbox for Muslim demotion. - Go od sh op ed 05:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Although I am happy for it to be deleted if all Seperation of Church and State userboxes such as User:UBX/separation this one are deleted. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 05:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- How provocative! P4k ( talk) 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep demoting Islam. Sarsaparilla 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Actually, given that the entire user page is up for deletion and it is the only page using the userbox in question, may I suggest the two discussions simply be merged? -- jonny-mt( t)( c) I'm on editor review! 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you think that's best, I don't know how mfd usually handles stuff like this.
P4k
06:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think the easiest way to do that is for you to withdraw your nomination and close the discussion early, noting that the userpage as a whole is up for discussion and providing a link. If the page is kept and you want to reopen, I think you should be able to given that no conclusive consensus was reached. -- jonny-mt( t)( c) I'm on editor review! 06:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know how to close an mfd. Consider my nomination withdrawn I guess.
P4k
- Note - I closed the debate per the withdrawal, but Xoloz reopened it on the grounds that such a closure is inappropriate given the mix of responses ( diff). As such, please note that the discussion is still active and thus should be continued. Apologies for the confusion. -- jonny-mt( t)( c) I'm on editor review! 04:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- (ec)I just noticed that GlassCobra suggested the separate discussions for the userboxes, but I still think the userpage issue should be settled before the userbox issue is examined to prevent the possibility of conflicting consensus. And for the record, it took every bit of self-restraint I possess not to run with that alliteration. -- jonny-mt( t)( c) I'm on editor review! 06:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge the Userboxes, as Separation of State and Religion 132.205.99.122 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep nomination withdrawn-- Thin boy 00 @156, i.e. 02:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)- Merge deletion debate with userpage deletion debate, or wait for userpage deletion, relisting if necessary, and then speedy as orphaned userspace. -- Thin boy 00 @158, i.e. 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep:Seperation of church and state is something very commonly talked about. Nothing inflammatory here. Whats next, I cant say "This user likes the article about Separation of church and state"? -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 04:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
*Keep. I edited this to make it sound more neutral ("This user believes in the separation of Mosque and state" to "This user is interested in the separation of Mosque and state.") Since the box had a potential to offend, I have hopefully removed that potential. Now the userbox format is: "This user is interested in _____". If it is the subject that offends someone, then the problem is not to do with the userbox itself.
Seraphim
Whipp
02:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Vote changed to delete. I disagree with the revert. This has the "potential to harm" (someone has said they feel it inflammatory and when in context of the entire page, it is inflammatory) and I support the principle that we "do no harm".
Seraphim
Whipp
17:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reverted because this makes no sense. As it was, the version was not soapboxing: it just said what he believed. What next, changing all the "This user is a conservative"-type userboxes into "This user is interested in conservativism"? And with that said, Keep. We don't need to aim for neutrality in userboxes, we only need to work against soapboxing and campaigning. These sorts of userboxes which let others know what one's potential biases are, are useful to other editors because they help us understand another editor's biases. Lewis Collard! ( it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 09:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep An odd choice of words (why not "religion and state") but acceptable I think. Charon X/ talk 13:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I still don't understand why userboxes generate such debate. If all the users involved simply wrote on their userpages, in plain text, "I believe in the separation of mosque and state", would anyone care? Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Islamic countries have a big problem with separation of church and state, and in those countries, the church is a mosque. This could be how the issue is referred to locally. - Nard 19:13, 8 December 2007 (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.