Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Willy turner/Userboxes/christian homophobia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 delete per WP:CSD#T1 and following concerns. Really serves nothing more than fostering a feeling of hate. It may well be appropriate for a userbox to say user X opposes homophobia... But Only brand X of homophobia? Homophobia isn't a defining trait of christianity. Divisive. See also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Willy turner/Userboxes/Islamic misogeny and Wikipedia:Deletion review#User:Willy turner/Userboxes/Islamic misogeny. Thanks/wangi 21:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Willy turner/Userboxes/christian homophobia

Inflammatory and divisive. Suggests homophobia to be Christian, and Christianity to be homophobic. Inappropriate text on pictured sign. Does nothing to advance the project.Proabivouac 01:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete only because of the picture. I don't really care otherwise. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  01:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep nothing inflamatory about this userbox. It does not suggest homophobia is Christian. It suggests that the user who has this template is against homophobia by the religous extremist Christian right.--sefringle^Talk 03:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- sefringle^Talk 04:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Sefringle.--James, La gloria è a dio 04:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I do not see anything inflammatory or divisive about this. The meaning of it would have to be stretched a long way to be interpreted in such a way that is divisive, as well—arf! 08:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If the userbox said "This user opposes Christians because they are homophobic" the issue would be problematic, but "This user opposes Christian Homophobia" is something different. I assume that everyone knows e.g. the Hole See's standpoint on Homosexuality (while this is only an example of the diverse factions within Christianity), and I believe it is perfectly accepte to state that one does not agree with that standpoint. CharonX/talk 12:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If I say "This user opposes religious intolerance", that in no way means that I think religion is inherently intolerant... -Amarkov moo! 03:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - while I believe that all non-Babel userboxes are evil, this one is definitely not inflammatory or divisive, for reasons explained above. --Haemo 07:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Double standards? Looking at the discussion above this one "we are only wikipedians on Wikipedia. Anything that might be considered offensive by a member of a religious group has no place on Wikipedia." --MichaelLinnear 07:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment *cough*Evolution*cough*Pork*cough*Beef*cough* OtherReligions*cough*Catholicism *cough*Stupidity*cough* Sorry, really got something stuck in my throat there. Anyway, what I wanted to say that if we decided that "free speech" is less imporatant than keeping wikipedia free of stuff that might be considered offensive by a (hardline) member of a religious group, we might as well delete the userspace and be done with it. No matter the issue, you will always be able to find someone, somewhere who feels offended by it. (Coming up the next: The foundation of a religion that declares displaying pictures of outer space an abomination upon the powers that be) CharonX/talk 10:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. For one thing, the image is offensive. For another, the use of religious or political userboxes can be divisive, is inflammatory when it expresses opposition to something, and adds nothing to building an encyclopaedia. ElinorD (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's just a userbox, and I don't see how anyone other than those who hold the view in the picture could find it offensive, the wording is right. Darrenhusted 12:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep It's not offensive. It's a really controversial, real-life issue in the church. Not every controversial userbox is offensive, in my opinion. It should stay, especially since it's in userspace. However, if it said "This user supports Christian Homophobia," then it would be offensive.  hmwith  talk 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In light of the speedy result of an identically phrased MfD for User:Willy turner/Userboxes/Islamic misogeny [sic.], I am left wondering if this means that Christianity is less popular than Islam, that gays are more popular than women, or both.Proabivouac 00:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a totally different crowd viewing this Afd. This is on the Christian debates, while the other was on the Islam debates. I'm sure most people here had no idea that the Islamic mosogeny userbox was deleted and vies versa.--Sefringle^Talk 00:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

See the deletion review here--Sefringle^Talk 00:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete if we keep this, I guess the Islamic homophobia user box will probably be recreated, which is divisive. Addhoc 12:05, 18 June 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.