Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Userboxer/not retarded

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Delete, the possibility of offence is persuasive and WP:NOTCENSORED applies to aritcle space only. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 10:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Userboxer/not retarded

[edit]

This userbox is completely inappropriate, and offensive to those with learning disabilities. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedily. (IAR?) –xeno (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but waiting a few more days won't hurt. Agathoclea (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would have no problem with speedily. The term retarded, when used in this manner, is considered offensive in and of itself.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 21:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You seem to forget the "no matter what anyone says" part of the template. This is done in a clearly humorous vein, and is not apparently aimed at anyone at all, other than the user himself. WP is not so PC that every term must pass the gantlet of political correctness yet, is it? Collect (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not allowed for people to poke fun at themselves? (sigh). I find no reason to view this as hateful speech at all, nor (apparently) do the ones with ADHD who use this template view it as hate speech. And since the template is NOT used in any encyclopedia articles, that is a straw man issue at best. Collect (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete. There is no room for such hatred here and there is no way to make it to not be hatred based. This name should be salted after to prevent someone from ever using it again. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - need I say more? My rationale = all of the deletes above. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've looked at a couple dozen of the userpages that are transcluding this box, and I can't find any reason to believe that they are intending to insult the mentally retarded, or those with learning disabilities. In fact many of the people who have this userbox on their page also have userboxes indicating that they have Asperger's Syndrome or ADHD, which would lead me to believe that they're protesting against having been called retarded themselves, not intending to offend other people. Still, I can see the potential for misunderstanding and I am not wholly familiar with what the boundaries of what one can place on one's userpage are, so I am not going to vote 'keep' now. Soap Talk/Contributions 22:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if those same people (Asperger's and the rest) want a userbox that says "I am retarded", would you feel that such would be acceptable? The two ("am" and "am not") would seem to have the same exact effect and would be comparable in all ways. However, the perspective might persuade you to see that this is problematic? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be deliberately offensive, and not really comparable. I am not saying I'm going to cry if this userbox gets banned, but I think that it should be made clear that most of the users who have it on their page now are not purposely trying to be offensive. Soap Talk/Contributions 02:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This user obviously does not take WP or his/her colleagues seriously. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow keep. By and large I'm not a fan of userboxes and the like, but we have them. This one seems rather more harmless than some of the political ones. In fact, it is less disruptive of the atmosphere of Wikipedia than some of the discourse above ("hatred" - really?). As to the arguments above: "offensive to those with learning disabilities" - seems rather a stretch to me. "what if it said 'I am retarded'" - also not eo ipso problematic to me, and that's not what it says. "User does not take WP or colleagues seriously" - may or may not be true, but fortunately for many others in our community, we do not delete content from userspace based on whether we judge the author takes WP seriously. More broadly, I wish we'd all spend more mental energy communicating with others effectively and without offensive intent ourselves, and less time attempting to label others' discourse as offensive. Sorry for the soapbox. Martinp (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely inappropriate. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Juliancolton. I would agree with speedily deleting this, but under what criteria? →Dyl@n620 15:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A stretch of the G10 crieteria? Blatnat attack box?---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 03:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - really quite harmless, and I don't expect that retarded people would be offended by someone saying that they are not that way themselves. As long as it steers clear of saying something negative about a group of people it should be allowed. Graeme Bartlett (talk)
  • Delete has the potential for offence. Enough with these userboxes. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now we are finally getting to the meat of these userbox deletions: if it doesn't help build the encyclopedia and offends more than the delicate sorts, they go. We should apply this to the vast majority of "I believe..." userboxes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOT#CENSORED. Some things on wikipedia might offend some people. Some people need to grow up and learn to appreciate humour. It might be considered offensive to the mentally retarded, but it is clearly intended in a humorous context, and not to disparage the mentally retarded. Firestorm Talk 01:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, Wikipedia is not censored because it seeks to educate people in all things and does not deviate from this pursuit based on what some people might construe as offensive. This userbox does not fall within those parameters, obviously. Let's stop taking policy out of context, shall we? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I detest fluff userboxes with a passion, as can be seen on my own page, but I detest political correctness sprees for censorship even more; WP:NOTCENSORED rules the day here. Until the day comes when all fluff userboxes are wiped en masse, then they all should stay. No nit-picking. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you dislike it does not make it harmful. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather poor argument, Tarc. I don't personally dislike it, I just find it highly distasteful, not to mention potentially (and probably) offensive. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a rather good argument, actually. You find it "distasteful". You find it "potentially (and probably) offensive". Those are value judgments based on one's own personal opinions, rather than judgments based upon any Wikipedia policy. Refer again to WP:NOTCENSORED, and in particular the line "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so". Tarc (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, IAR overrules NOT#CENSORED. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said, your IAR rationale is fraudulent, as your reasons for doing so are personal, rather than for the betterment of the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply incorrect. Several other editors, including a handful of administrators, have agreed with my nomination, so it's clear I'm not alone in my belief. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you are not seriously equating those two statements. This one does not make a negative comment about people with mental retardation, whereas yours does. You also chose a particularly poor word for your example. seresin ( ¡? )  01:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Userboxer/not_retarded&oldid=1088283354"