- 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 speedy delete by Drmies ( G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) ( non-admin closure) — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No religion
Not an acceptable project space essay, per the relevant policy: "Essays ... that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." This essay seems to be advocating basically banning users with religious convictions from editing Wikipedia: " it could be expected if not assumed that when editing articles related to their affiliation that they would do so with bias", "If a person is uncertain about if flying horses exist or not, even if their faith dictates it does, then they can not be trusted with writing credible encyclopedia content", "the fact primarily religious writers sway articles in such a way that they appear to demonstrate a religious belief as more tangible than it actually is or, at the expense of the truth, tries to rework a religious script into appearing that it serves some other purpose than what it does in fact", "It could also be said that allowing a person with such a belief to impart knowledge is dangerous as they clearly have an unrealistic view of reality", etc. I hope I don't have to explain how that contradicts widespread consensus.
It's also generally denigrating to religion in general: "It is therefore likely that those members will try to promote their ideologies here on Wikipedia without consideration for evidence or facts, just as members of Gadaffi's[sic] political groups would have", "But what is the true difference between the WBC and all others who follow the exact same scripture? There is little difference...If the group simply went around waving signs saying "god hates faggots" then there would be a lot more agreement from the Christian community".
I would honestly prefer that we delete it entirely, but it should certainly at least be userfied; this has no place in project space. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 22:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sigh. I hope the nominator of this article knows what the meaning of WP:CENSOR is and its wider connotations. You have stated that "this essay seem to be advocating basically banning users with religious convictions." Hey, that means that I would be looking for myself to get banned as I have religious convictions, just not yours. This article in no way defames religious people but it does bring to light a number of problems which I have faced while editing Wikipedia. It is an essay with a humorous writing style designed to give people an idea as to why Wikipedia is not a place for you to assert non- WP:NPOV religious ideals. It revolves around the idea that those who express extremist ideologies may do harm to Wikipedia and it gives a rationale as to why. Olowe2011 Talk 22:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- $10 says you're wrong about what you think my religious convictions are, not that they're relevant one way or another. gentlemen's bet, payable in gentlemens Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 22:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I wonder what the nominator would make of Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism. It really does seem that this editors WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Olowe2011 Talk 22:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I quite like that essay, actually; I was the one who originally added the picture of the honey badger to it,
if memory serves. The difference between that essay and this one is that DGAF doesn't belittle others.
Writ Keeper
⚇
♔
22:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Oh gosh, it doesn't belittle anyone. Is any part of the article actually wrong? You don't seem to have argued that it is actually incorrect but right now you seem to be arguing on the basis of "even if its fact I don't like it so get rid of it." Fortunately, that doesn't work here. Olowe2011 Talk 22:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I hope I don't have to explain how that contradicts widespread consensus - WritKeeper - Actually do explain how it contradicts widespread consensus. Olowe2011 Talk 22:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Userfy. Doesn't belong in Project Space. Fundamentally a single user opinion essay. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete/Userfy - All kinds of divisive nonsense. And using WP:NORELIGION as a rationale for page moves like these without discussion? Nope. - NQ (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - What is nonsense about it? Olowe2011 Talk 22:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- The assertion that members of the CIA cannot edit articles without bias. -
NQ
(talk)
22:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - @ NQ: It doesn't say that so misquoting things won't help. It states it could be expected if not assumed that when editing articles related to their affiliation that they would do so with bias. This isn't true? Olowe2011 Talk 22:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was being sarcastic. Do you think this polemic against religion is going to foster a collaborative editing environment when used as a project space essay? - NQ (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment- @ NQ: It's not against religion at all. I could be religious however, the article is about facts. I believe that facts ultimately bring people together and enable better collaboration. So yes when people start to realize that people who believe in flying horses shouldn't be relied upon for sources of knowledge the world would be a better, more unified place. That includes Wikipedia. Olowe2011 Talk 23:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- A screed with shorthands such as WP:ITSDUMB, WP:ITSSTUPID and WP:BELIEVETHEELEPHANT where you state "it certainly is okay if not recommended to insult someone if they believe in something that is harming their brain"...."assuming that a person has a literal interpretation of religious scripture regarding elephants being gods they could foster inappropriate relationships with elephants.” .... "The fact that adherents to the belief in this deity consider the source of knowledge itself to be derived from an Elephant really shows the true extent of the damage that can be done by not insulting people with harmful beliefs." is not the way to put your point across. - NQ (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- The assertion that members of the CIA cannot edit articles without bias. -
NQ
(talk)
22:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Userfy - Unnecessarily divisive, certainly would never gain a significant enough minority support to justify keeping as is. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 23:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: But I am not opposed to userification of the content, and perhaps the primary author will consider that option as the discussion continues. It is obviously well known that religion is made-up bunkum in large part, but it is also still very important to many people, such as those who believe in leprechauns, for one very minor example. To those who don't believe in leprechauns, they find such beliefs absurd. I do not want Rainbow modified to assert pots of gold left by leprechauns are factual. I think almost every Wikipedia editor agrees that this is "not a place to assert dogmatic or theological principles as facts," to quote the opening of the essay. However, other parts of the essay are more of a personalized argument in favor of this core Western scientific principle, and userification could be beneficial to avoid watering it down. There are people who think Justin Bieber is married to a cucumber [1], I don't want that removed.-- Milowent • has spoken 23:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete/Userfy - Mostly per nom, but also: I am about as rabidly anti-religion as they come, and I think that this is pointlessly hostile and not something we should be including in the WP namespace.-- Jorm ( talk) 00:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - It's all filled with shit and quite honestly doesn't even belong here, If they wanna waffle on about religion & all that then there's plenty of forums etc. – Davey2010 Talk 00:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- G7 was requested and granted. Don't nobody talk about my big ears. Gotta go: dildo fell in my toaster. Drmies ( talk)
- Well, the Islamists, Jesus Freaks, and Bieber Cucumberists have won again.--
Milowent •
has
spoken
01:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- What the hell are you talking about? -- Jorm ( talk) 01:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the Islamists, Jesus Freaks, and Bieber Cucumberists have won again.--
Milowent •
has
spoken
01:10, 6 May 2016 (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 speedy delete by Drmies ( G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) ( non-admin closure) — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No religion
Not an acceptable project space essay, per the relevant policy: "Essays ... that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." This essay seems to be advocating basically banning users with religious convictions from editing Wikipedia: " it could be expected if not assumed that when editing articles related to their affiliation that they would do so with bias", "If a person is uncertain about if flying horses exist or not, even if their faith dictates it does, then they can not be trusted with writing credible encyclopedia content", "the fact primarily religious writers sway articles in such a way that they appear to demonstrate a religious belief as more tangible than it actually is or, at the expense of the truth, tries to rework a religious script into appearing that it serves some other purpose than what it does in fact", "It could also be said that allowing a person with such a belief to impart knowledge is dangerous as they clearly have an unrealistic view of reality", etc. I hope I don't have to explain how that contradicts widespread consensus.
It's also generally denigrating to religion in general: "It is therefore likely that those members will try to promote their ideologies here on Wikipedia without consideration for evidence or facts, just as members of Gadaffi's[sic] political groups would have", "But what is the true difference between the WBC and all others who follow the exact same scripture? There is little difference...If the group simply went around waving signs saying "god hates faggots" then there would be a lot more agreement from the Christian community".
I would honestly prefer that we delete it entirely, but it should certainly at least be userfied; this has no place in project space. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 22:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sigh. I hope the nominator of this article knows what the meaning of WP:CENSOR is and its wider connotations. You have stated that "this essay seem to be advocating basically banning users with religious convictions." Hey, that means that I would be looking for myself to get banned as I have religious convictions, just not yours. This article in no way defames religious people but it does bring to light a number of problems which I have faced while editing Wikipedia. It is an essay with a humorous writing style designed to give people an idea as to why Wikipedia is not a place for you to assert non- WP:NPOV religious ideals. It revolves around the idea that those who express extremist ideologies may do harm to Wikipedia and it gives a rationale as to why. Olowe2011 Talk 22:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- $10 says you're wrong about what you think my religious convictions are, not that they're relevant one way or another. gentlemen's bet, payable in gentlemens Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 22:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I wonder what the nominator would make of Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism. It really does seem that this editors WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Olowe2011 Talk 22:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I quite like that essay, actually; I was the one who originally added the picture of the honey badger to it,
if memory serves. The difference between that essay and this one is that DGAF doesn't belittle others.
Writ Keeper
⚇
♔
22:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Oh gosh, it doesn't belittle anyone. Is any part of the article actually wrong? You don't seem to have argued that it is actually incorrect but right now you seem to be arguing on the basis of "even if its fact I don't like it so get rid of it." Fortunately, that doesn't work here. Olowe2011 Talk 22:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I hope I don't have to explain how that contradicts widespread consensus - WritKeeper - Actually do explain how it contradicts widespread consensus. Olowe2011 Talk 22:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Userfy. Doesn't belong in Project Space. Fundamentally a single user opinion essay. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete/Userfy - All kinds of divisive nonsense. And using WP:NORELIGION as a rationale for page moves like these without discussion? Nope. - NQ (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - What is nonsense about it? Olowe2011 Talk 22:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- The assertion that members of the CIA cannot edit articles without bias. -
NQ
(talk)
22:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - @ NQ: It doesn't say that so misquoting things won't help. It states it could be expected if not assumed that when editing articles related to their affiliation that they would do so with bias. This isn't true? Olowe2011 Talk 22:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was being sarcastic. Do you think this polemic against religion is going to foster a collaborative editing environment when used as a project space essay? - NQ (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment- @ NQ: It's not against religion at all. I could be religious however, the article is about facts. I believe that facts ultimately bring people together and enable better collaboration. So yes when people start to realize that people who believe in flying horses shouldn't be relied upon for sources of knowledge the world would be a better, more unified place. That includes Wikipedia. Olowe2011 Talk 23:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- A screed with shorthands such as WP:ITSDUMB, WP:ITSSTUPID and WP:BELIEVETHEELEPHANT where you state "it certainly is okay if not recommended to insult someone if they believe in something that is harming their brain"...."assuming that a person has a literal interpretation of religious scripture regarding elephants being gods they could foster inappropriate relationships with elephants.” .... "The fact that adherents to the belief in this deity consider the source of knowledge itself to be derived from an Elephant really shows the true extent of the damage that can be done by not insulting people with harmful beliefs." is not the way to put your point across. - NQ (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- The assertion that members of the CIA cannot edit articles without bias. -
NQ
(talk)
22:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Userfy - Unnecessarily divisive, certainly would never gain a significant enough minority support to justify keeping as is. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 23:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: But I am not opposed to userification of the content, and perhaps the primary author will consider that option as the discussion continues. It is obviously well known that religion is made-up bunkum in large part, but it is also still very important to many people, such as those who believe in leprechauns, for one very minor example. To those who don't believe in leprechauns, they find such beliefs absurd. I do not want Rainbow modified to assert pots of gold left by leprechauns are factual. I think almost every Wikipedia editor agrees that this is "not a place to assert dogmatic or theological principles as facts," to quote the opening of the essay. However, other parts of the essay are more of a personalized argument in favor of this core Western scientific principle, and userification could be beneficial to avoid watering it down. There are people who think Justin Bieber is married to a cucumber [1], I don't want that removed.-- Milowent • has spoken 23:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete/Userfy - Mostly per nom, but also: I am about as rabidly anti-religion as they come, and I think that this is pointlessly hostile and not something we should be including in the WP namespace.-- Jorm ( talk) 00:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - It's all filled with shit and quite honestly doesn't even belong here, If they wanna waffle on about religion & all that then there's plenty of forums etc. – Davey2010 Talk 00:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- G7 was requested and granted. Don't nobody talk about my big ears. Gotta go: dildo fell in my toaster. Drmies ( talk)
- Well, the Islamists, Jesus Freaks, and Bieber Cucumberists have won again.--
Milowent •
has
spoken
01:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- What the hell are you talking about? -- Jorm ( talk) 01:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the Islamists, Jesus Freaks, and Bieber Cucumberists have won again.--
Milowent •
has
spoken
01:10, 6 May 2016 (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.