Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jeff dean/Userboxes/Atheist

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

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

[edit] User:Jeff dean/Userboxes/Atheist

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

• Delete Amen per nom. Fine. This does violate WP:CIVIL in my POV. I'm conservative and not that religious, but this is still somewhat offensive to me. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 19:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is essentially PERNOM. Do you have anything else to contribute to the discussion (other than "amen", which is wholly unnecessary and may be as offensive to atheist users as this userbox seems to be to the nominator)? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Wikipedia is not censored. This nomination reminds me of the Mohammed images hysteria.--Svetovid (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTCENSORED shouldn't necessarily apply to userboxes IMO, since they're not encyclopedic content; they're part of the community's resources, and it is certainly acceptable (and supported by extensive precent) to delete them if they are excessively divisive and inflammatory. However, I don't think there's such an issue in this case. Walton^One 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing uncivil about it. I also see no references to the Christian God. --Carnildo (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I'm not really happy with this userbox personally, but we do allow controversial religious and political userboxes (in userspace) provided that they aren't inflammatory and don't attack editors or groups of editors. This one comes close to the line, being somewhat objectionable, but I don't think it actually promotes hate and I see no reason to delete it. Walton^One 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • But what good does this userbox do anyone? To me, it seems like its main purpose is to name-call religions that believe in a god.  Moo  Chat  21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, this simply demonstrates a misunderstanding of the words "myth" and "superstition". You're probably thinking that their definition is "Things that aren't true", which, as even Wikipedia will tell you, is not the case; and frankly, as someone who studies comparative religion, I find the implication that "myth" and "superstition" are negative deeply insulting. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Atheism ought to be treated equally to Theism on Wikipedia. Although I imagine that many Wikipedia editors may disagree with this user on the subject of God, I don't think anybody ought to be insulted on God's behalf. Wikipedia ought to be religiously neutral. --GHcool (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • ...So this userbox is "religiously neutral"? The userbox is more than a simple disagreement with the existence of God, it is insulting to those who do not believe in a god... I don't see any userboxes that refer to atheism similar to this one.  Moo  Chat  00:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia ought to be religiously neutral meaning that Wikipedia ought not to endorse or ban expressions of atheism, nor should it endorse or ban expressions of theism. Atheism is not a personal attack on theists, but a philosophical viewpoint independent of theists. If the userboxes said "This user hates theists," then I would agree with Moomoomoo. Moomoomoo is more than welcome to create a userbox that says something to the effect of "I believe in God," and no atheist would should be able to use the argument that the userbox is offensive to atheists. --GHcool (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, but this is different. This doesn't just say "This user is an atheist." That would be perfectly fine. But to call someone else's religion a "myth" or a "superstition" is another story...  Moo  Chat  01:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• But that's exactly what religions are; religion encompasses all belief systems regardless of their depth, lessons, or moral truths to be found within them. Mythological systems are advanced, depth-filled systems with numerous parables and life lessons to be had. The Greo-Roman system and Judeo-Islamo-Christian system are great examples of these; it isn't negative in any way whatsoever, and you do offense to those truth-filled systems by saying that they're negative. Superstitions are a somewhat lesser category, but they're still well within the purview of religion, in particular rural implementations of mixed religious systems and again, they shouldn't be taken as a negative term else you do a disservice to both those who hold them now and persons who have held them in the past. You just have to think beyond the narrow-minded viewpoint that they're negative terms, when they're not. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. WP:UBX states that:

All userboxes are governed by the civility policy.

Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.

Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.

Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.

This userbox could be considered to violate several of these provisions as it could constitute promotion of a religious viewpoint, might be considered uncivil, and is definitely divisive. However, the exact same arguments could be made against dozens of userboxes, especially those in the User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics categories. There is definitely a precedent for allowing individuals to state their views on these issues and a large number of Wikipedians appear to have chosen so to do. I think that is perfectly OK and I do not take offence if another's opinions run counter to my own. On the other hand, there is clearly a line that should not be crossed. "Kill all foo people" or even "I hate foo people" or "Foo people are dumb" are clearly out of line. Still, I don't think this box crosses that line; it's close to the line, but I don't think it crosses it. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Again... correct me if I'm wrong... this goes beyond stating one's views and name-calls theists. It's perfectly okay to state one's views. I don't see any religious userboxes other than this one that are incivil like this one.  Moo  Chat  01:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is, admittedly, a matter of opinion as to the civility. I don't see it as name-calling, though. Since the box does not address or accuse anyone in particular, any insult is an implied one and the negation of the opposite view is implicit in any statement of belief. The statement "I am a fooian" contains the implicit statement "I am not an afooian" which in turn indicates "I believe afooianism is wrong/incorrect." I admit, the wording of this box makes a stronger implication of such than if it simply said "This user does not believe in god," but it is still implied and as long as it remains implicit rather than explicit, I don't see it as insulting or uncivil per se. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Where is this "name-calling of theists" I hear so much about?! The UBX implies that the User believes God is a myth, but it does not directly say anything bad about people who believe in the myth. Conversely, if a Userbox says that the person believes the Bible to be literally true, while they are not saying anything directly bad about me, they are implying indirectly that me and most of my friends are going to burn in a pit of fire for all eternity. If we are going to fret about the indirect implications of userboxes, then let me ask you which is more slanderous: "You believe stuff that isn't true" vs. "You are going to PAY for believing stuff that isn't true"? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Christianity is full of myths. Not as many as the Greco-Roman system (the writers of Christian canon were much more conservative about what to include, the later Catholics especially so; Greek writers were much more liberal and inclusive). The resurrection is a myth. The flood is a myth. The destruction of Soddom and Gomorrah is a myth. That doesn't make them untrue. A myth is nothing more than a story which holds some kind of ethical or moral truth or lesson. Whether or not you take it as a LITERAL truth (i.e, whether you actually believe that people were turned were turned into salt or whether you take the story as an ethical guide about what is right and wrong) is up to an individual. But whether you believe in the literal text or not, it is still a myth. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete If this were worded positively, say "I do believe in verifiable scientific research" and had a picture of a Darwin fish, then it would be acceptable. This ubx is condescending to theists. For example, if it had the same wording with a red slash through the word "Allah" or "Buddha" or "Islam" or "Catholicism" instead of "God", it would single out a specific belief of God and would be deemed divisive among theists; this ubx is divisive among theists and atheists. What is the difference? --12 Noon ^2¢ 03:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you find it condescending to theists? I could see where you're coming from regarding individual "This user is not a Buddhist", et cetera templates, but it doesn't specifically singles out Jehova/Elohim/Yahweh and refers to deific entities as 'God' in general, and is a statement to the effect that the user doesn't subscribe to a particular mythological system or hold the minor beliefs (superstitions) associated with one. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong and speedy keep. Myth and superstition are not denotatively negative terms; in fact, the only people who really think so are those on the extreme end of the religious end. For the most part, myths themselves are respected parts of everyday lives of people through history and generally good mechanisms for passing on moral ideals held by a given community. Likewise, superstition, denotatively, refers to beliefs not grounded in empiric evidence; again, this isn't. The Judeo-Islamo-Christian mythology is still a mythological system just as much as the Greco-Roman system was, and Judeo-Islamic-Christian superstitions are just as much superstitions as their pagan counterparts. Statements of fact are not uncivil. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy and Strong Keep. If the userbox said something like 'Atheists are stupid', this debate wouldn't exist. But since it makes religion look bad, everyone's up in arms. *sigh*. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Although I agree that the userbox should be kept, I'm going to have to disagree with you on your latter point; we have had plenty of MfDs on controversial religious userboxes. If anything, I'd say there are probably more atheists/agnostics than religious people on Wikipedia, and the community is skewed accordingly. A box which said "Atheists are stupid" would most likely be speedied, or SNOWed at MfD. (Apologies for going somewhat off-topic here.) Walton^One 10:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • I don't follow the demographic make-up of Wikipedia so I can't comment, but I think we have our share of theists - we have plenty of MfDs on religious boxes but they usually fail. Since we're not censored his vote is moot in any case, no admin could in good conscience delete the userbox within current policy. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I've seen this userbox around and I've always considered it to be a little immature and offensive. Superstition is essentially an irrational belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation. Monotheistic belief systems are almost always based on serious studies made by serious people, calling every single theologian (from Plato to Pope Benedict XVI) ignorant and implying that maybe God should be under Category:Legendary creatures and Prayer under Category:Superstitions seems a bit offensive. But then again, each to their own sense of humour.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 11:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Webster definition describes a primitive, somewhat bastardized form of religion, which is essentially exactly what superstitions are. While some superstitions arise from a cultural rather than a religious background, for the most part, they are based on misunderstandings or loose interpretations of tenets of an existing religious system or survival mechanisms (i.e, the existing fear of Friday the 13th is academically considered to be grounded in the presence of 13 people at the Last Supper and the fact that Jesus was crucified the next day, a Friday), or a developing one (i.e, the superstitions surrounding 666; when writing Revelations, John of Patmos was writing in code to persecuted Christians about Nero; it was a defense mechanism for a not yet fully-developed religion). Prayer isn't a good example of superstition, although individual, unritualized praryer probably started as one at some point during the development of Christianity as a sort of last-ditch effort to stay alive.

No one with any theological grouding at all would be so stupid as to put prayer in that category; the belief that a given deific entity can hear your requests and appropriately respond in rooted deep in theological (Aquianas for Christians is an especially good example, the Iguvine tables are good examples of this for the Greco-Roman system) discourse and ritual. Also, it's a bad idea to place any deity under 'Legendary Creatures'. To do so would be to minimize the idea of that god; the word "creature" inherently implies sub-omnipotent status, which is something generally attributed to deities. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that anyone is going to add those categories, only that that userbox implies that they should. I shouldn't have suggested "legendary creatures" for God, "Category:Fictional deities" perhaps?. Also, following your argument, no one with any theological grounding should be so stupid as to use myth and superstition as synonyms of religion.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Myth and superstition aren't synonymous with religion, but they're related topics as well as being subsets, after a fashion. Myths and superstitions are forms and practices of religion; while they're aren't religion per se, they're part and parcel of it. Christianity has it's central myths (i.e, the flood, Soddom and Gommorah, etc). It also has its superstitions (the number of the beast, Friday the 13th, etc). You can't separate the two, because they're a part of any religion. What I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with the statements because, contrary to what you seem to think, 'myth' and 'superstition' shouldn't be taken as negative or insults; they're extremely important parts of religious systems and to do so is to minimize religion, and frankly, as something that is so integral to so many people's lives, that's not a very nice thing to do. In a way, they're synonomous with religion when combined (that is, major mythology + minor superstitions = religious system). You just have to get over the "Myth = untrue in any sense" and "Superstition = something stupid that ignorant people do" ideas that you seem to have. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Fictional deities is for deities in fiction, with fiction being literature; that is, the gods of the Cthulu mythos, which isn't a real mythological system but one invented for the books of H.P Lovecraft. I understand what you're saying, but again, that's really only something someone grossly ignorant would do. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any ideas about anything, and I'm not looking for a philosophy/theology lesson, I'm just presenting facts and if you don't like Merriam-Webster's definition pick another one, we are not going to start annalizing what superstition means. It's simple: the userbox could offend people that believe in a God, plus it erradiates some pointless negative energy as it does not state a position but rather an "anti-position". As it is, I think this users are using the userbox in good faith and they should not be banned from using this userbox or any of the others. We seem to be on the same page so I really don't understand why you are being so defensive. By the way, you are wrong about Category:Fictional deities, it's not a category for Lovecraft characters but for every fictional deities, in fact God IS on this category, as is LeChuck and Aslan, so actually Wikipedia seems to agree with the userbox.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, I think a theology lesson is exactly what some of the people here need, as they seem to take offense with myth and superstition seemingly based on a belief that they are somehow "bad" or "untrue", and an introduction to mythology is a wonderful remedy for that. While superstitions are inherently irrational, being founded on mistaken interpretations of scripture. I'm not incorrect about Fictional Deities; I was using Lovecraft as an example of what would be found in there. I meant to put "such as" somewhere in that sentence, but I didn't for some reason. I'm sure there's a category somewhere for Elders in the Cthulu mythos, though, as an aside. Regarding the Narnian reference, while Aslan certainly represents God in the Narnian universe, I've never seen any evidence of anyone celebrating a religion based solely on Lewis' writing. You're grasping at straws with that. And I don't know who LeChuck is; he seems to be a video game character of some kind, so I doubt actual people worship him. But no, Jehova/Yahweh/Elohim, Allah, Shiva, et cetera are not on that list because they're actual deities, not fictional ones. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Were it not for the god strikout image, we would not even know it was reffering to atheism.

• Keep. We've generally kept userboxes for other religious viewpoints, if they weren't polemic or inflammatory. There's nothing wrong with keeping this one. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep and Warn nominator for intolerance When people talk about having a personal relationship with Jesus, and how great that is, there is an implicit denigration of everyone who "doesn't". That sort of thing is just normal and tolerated in our society. But when atheists dare to act like maybe they are the enlightened ones, suddenly its discrimination? Give me a break. I am seriously offended, disillusioned, and enraged that this is even under debate. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  Example of a Userbox that is in the freaking UBX gallery that is way more offensive than this one: User:Danbarnesdavies/Userboxes/Religion/User Christian. It took me ten seconds to find that. I'm sure there are much more blatant ones if I look. I am so enraged that this is even under debate. So when Christians think they have a monopoly on truth, that's just their beliefs; but when atheists think they have a monopoly on truth, it's prejudice?! Actually, yeah, that kinda sounds like the world I have to live in every single day. How freaking depressing. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Question Why is this offensive? it does not bad-mouth any group. Atheism and atheists do not bother me at all. So don't think I am nominating this just because I am offended.  Moo  Chat  21:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm offended because I think there is a double standard. Your example at the bottom about the Allah UBX is interesting, so I guess I see that you are not trying to implement a double-standard here. But I still think it exists. This MfD is just a reminder to me of why, for a long time, I told people that I was agnostic even though it was a lie. You tell people they are agnostic, and they nod and it's like, whatever. You tell people you are an atheist, and suddenly the room goes quiet. "So what do you think, um, happens after you die?" What the hell do you think, I just told you I was an atheist. ha ha ha ha.....

I'll try not to be so persnickety, but I do hope this MfD is closed very soon. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment It doesn't even matter what the definition of a myth is, because this idea that this is a negative userbox, while other ones endorsing religion are positive, is deeply flawed. The nominator says that this affirms that another's beliefs are false, rather than affirming one's own beliefs are true. But this is a cheat. If one literally believes in a monotheistic Christian God, then by definition one must also disbelieve in other gods. I mean, that's sort of the definition of monotheism... So when somebody said, "I am Saved! because I am Christian!", not only are they implying that, "My friend Jaysweet the atheist is wrong," but they are also saying "My friend Jaysweet is not Saved! like me", and therefore "My friend Jaysweet is in imminent danger because he disagrees with me." Wait, so which UBX is offensive again now??

This userbox, at least, only implies that other people are wrong, but it makes no implication as to what the consequence of this error will be. Many many other userboxes that we tolerate imply not only that other people are wrong, but they also implicitly threaten other people with all sorts of horrible things just because they disagree.

Ugh, will someone close this freaking debate before I totally lose it? I am seriously enraged and offended that this MfD page even exists. Heh, and since these days we are apparently deleting pages because they offend people, perhaps I should create Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jeff dean/Userboxes/Atheist? hehehe.... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

People have actually done that kind of thing before. :P Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I seem to have found This MFD, which deals with a userbox which to me seems much less inflammatory than this (they decided to reword it). Also, this very userbox was a significant concern in This failed RFA. Just thought i would point out some relevant discussion.  Moo  Chat  21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but as a counter-example, I present Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:America Needs Jesus/world, which to me seems even more inflammatory than the Allah thing. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That could be perceived as objectionable... but it doesn't go as far as this user box does... If it said something like "America doesn't need atheism" then I would agree.

What if I made one that says "This user knows America doesn't need Jesus?". I still haven't seen anything that demonstrates to me how this is insulting. All I've seen have been "I find it offensive" based on mistaken, negative understandings of myths and superstition. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You may not find it insulting, but i would think for most people having their beliefs reduced to a "superstition" should be insulting. I don't think "America doesn't need Jesus" would be insulting because it's just someone's opinion.  Moo  Chat  01:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute... so I'm allowed to say "America doesn't need Jesus," but I'm not allowed to say "I don't believe in the myth of Jesus Christ"?! heh, so like, I can think whatever I want as long as I acknowledge the divinity of Christ and my eventual destination in Hell for thinking what I do.

I'm trying not to be as persnickety as I was yesterday, but why has this not been snowballed yet?!? --Jaysweet (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I dislike religion-based userboxes in general, as they only ever seem to provoke hostility - how many of the userboxes recently sent to MFD have been religious-based? - but since consensus is to allow them, we should keep this one. I certainly see nothing wrong with this one in particular: it doesn't even state that God is a superstition, simply that the user doesn't believe in myths or superstitions, and leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions. Nothing inflammatory about that, IMO. Terraxos (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep unless we are going to delete all userboxes expressing a religious point of view. I too find User:Danbarnesdavies/Userboxes/Religion/User Christian more disturbing. --Bduke (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I strongly disagree with this user's beliefs, however I respect his right to free speech (or what free speech has been previously allowed within Wikipedia). Monobi (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Calling someone's belief "myth" or "superstition" is hardly insulting. There are plenty of religions which are referred to as cults, which is even more insulting. These are subjective terms whose interpretation as "insulting" is dependent upon at whom they are directed. If you are secure in your beliefs, it doesn't matter what someone else calls them. This is like complaining that someone called you "stinky fish face", this nomination is immature and unnecessary. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not even like complaining something about that. It is more akin to complaining that someone called you a water-drinking mammal. If you were to be ignorant about it, you could probably figure out a way to read an insult into that, but the words aren't negative. If you choose to take them as negative, that's your problem. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, Sorry, I completely fail to see where the offensive side is. It's not against a particular religion, it's not being overly provocative about it. You can make anything offensive if you read too much between the lines. (If not offensive, then contradictory. For example, if you really want to lose your sanity, try to fully comprehend our policies! =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Super strong and speedy keep. This is exactly like saying that calling a black guy "black" or someone who has schizophrenia "schizophrenic" is offensive. --Taraborn (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Taraborn, the proper term is "African-American." Even if the person in question doesn't live in America.  ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol now that can be offencive. All native Africans are black, and most have never been in America :-p XD--TrueWikimedian (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Tweaked wording to conform more to content examples on WP:USERBOX, see diff. This should make it more acceptable. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Is it necessary? No? The only possible effect this will have is to breed ill-will between people and create an unpleasant atmosphere. No positives, only negatives. Damn. I hate it when people soapbox on Wikipedia. -- Naerii 20:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep it simply shows the user doesn't believe in religion, it does not attack any single entity or religion. Athiests are welcome on Wikipedia just as much as religious people are. Since when were the words 'myth' and 'superstition' considered an offensive insult?--Otterathome (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong and speedy keep i guess we could change "God" to "all deities" but i think even that is to drastic, the fact of the matter is that the word God is a generic term already and does not single out a specific religion. besides all religions fit in to the myth and superstition definitions quite well since none are actually based on any evidence at all, they can hardly be labled as fact. The fact of the matter is that NPOV doesn't apply here since this is a user box meant for a user specific page, which in turn is designed to let other wikipedias know about the users believes etc. how could a user accurately describe him/herself without POV. (1NosferatuZodd1 (talk) 07:02, 27 April 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.