Forum:SH Archive/Sensitive issues on user pages

Forums &gt; Senate Hall &gt; 

I think that all user pages in Wookieepedia should not include any sensitive realworld issues like politics and religion. Recently this unmentioned rule has been broken several times by a few users like User:Quinlanfan who had confrontation with a Mormon user over religious issues. This includes templates that state a user's religion (eg. Christianity) and more recently several realworld POV topics on Exp.Fl.Cmndr. Mitth'raw'nuruodo's user page like abortion, creationism, Christianity, immigration, the United States and Islam. Though as a Christian I agree with some of his views, I feel that such stuff shouldn't be on Wookieepedia at all. Having users publish realworld sensitive issues including political and religious ones distracts us from being a Star Wars website. I suggest we remove all realworld political and religious issues except those in the Behind The Scenes sections of articles. What do you think? I am not to sure. MyNz 7:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the presence of such content on pages is okay; however, people should be smart enough to not start debates. It's pointless, and this isn't the place. However, religious information might be useful; Christians, for example, might be able to add some relevant BtS information that a Muslim might not. Muslims might see some interesting connection between a character and a figure from their religion that a Chrisitan might not be aware of. And, moreover, people from religions can clarify some BtS issues (i.e. a Christian or Jew can verify the BtS information in the Saul Karath article if someone is curious as to its validity). In other words, perhaps knwoing someone's religion/politics might lead to us having experts in these areas, able to keep Wookieepedia accurate, comprehensive, and non-POV. Cutch 16:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Down I dark path I fear this will take us, if specific types of discussion are banned for the reasons of "political correctness." I definitely see your point- and it's a good thing to bring up. First off, I thought that there weren't any religion templates- they should be custom userboxes. On EFCM's page (abbreviated for sake of my typing)- I can see where some of that might be seen as inflammatory and probably could be toned down. But if we make hard and fast rules about religion, politics, etc. to discuss- they had better be blasted well enforced across the board. If a "hate speech" charge is bad, "discrimination" can be even worse. Not that I'm saying you are, just making a point. As it is his user page, and not in our articles, I'm not sure how much we should do- but not much. Maybe we should have a disclaimer stating that the views expressed on Wookieepedians' user pages are the sole properties of the users and do not reflect the views of Wookieepedia or Wookieepedians at large. I would be comfortable making any new policy. I see it as pretty much pointless for that to be there, but it is his page. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 16:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Mith'raw'nuruodo's page is really opinionated. I strongly advocated it being deleted. This is not good at all. We're a Star Wars encyclopedia, not a blog to discuss major issues. We need a strict policy. Religious debates, political debates, etc. should be stopped, and any that escalate should result in bans (long if the arguments are harsh enough). That's just my view. I am a Christian, and don't hold it against you if you're not, unless you're a Satanist. Chack Jadson 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What the hell? Is there some sort of SW-related topic in amongst his/her page anywhere? I know that there's a rule about keeping discussions in the Consensus Track and Senate Hall SW-related; shouldn't there be a similar restriction on user pages? I mean, I know that people enjoy customising their page, but aren't those views a little off-track? A set of rules or guidelines or something should be set up not to restrict and suppress opinions, just make sure that those opinions are relevant and not potentially inflammatory. General Skywalker 23:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My stance
The purpose of talk pages and other discussion areas on a wiki is to discuss matters relevant to that wiki and its subject, matters that help users to improve the wiki. Like Wikipedia, we're not a soapbox. Except for matters relevant to the wiki itself, any personal opinions are irrelevant.

Having said that, I will continue to remove, as I have occasionally done in the past, any pointless or potentially controversial discussions that are serve no purpose for Wookieepedia as a Star Wars wiki.

Real-world issues in articles are a trickier issue. Subjects like SSD continuity debates, Fandalorian or Lucas bashing are inherently controversial and there's no need to ignore the controversy, as long as it's Star Wars related. NPOV remains a fundamental policy, and articles about controversial Star Wars subjects are allowed as long as users objectively document the controversy, not contribute their own beliefs.

Apart from those events of Star Wars culture, I think the amount of OOU information should be kept to a reasonable minimum. We have been doing so to date, in fact, and we have a reason for that. If you're looking for, say, Raven Software on a Star Wars wiki at all, you're more likely interested in the company's Star Wars games than in the list of shareholders or its recent court battle with Whatever Inc. Same applies to people, etc. Stub with Star Wars-related info plus link to Wikipedia. Most of the time, it works.

As for in-universe articles, if there is any controversy related to real-world things, it better be removed. I don't care about anyone's political beliefs, and neither do 99.9% visitors. I think that, if someone doesn't agree with parallels drawn in a BTS section between (say) Palpatine and George Bush, it's better to remove such controversial speculation at all. Comparing to historical figires is fine, but I'd like people not to overuse even that. Unless the author explicitly (and verifiably!) says that X was based on Y and you can prove it.

Considering userpages. I'm fine with users stating their beliefs on their userpages, no matter how controversial, as long as they are clearly marked as their beliefs. After all, those are pages about themselves. Users should keep in mind, however, that WP:NOT a hosting provider and that the universe doesn't revolve around them. Also, personal attacks are a big no-no - everywhere, even on user pages. You can say "I hate Lucas bashers/furries/Encyclop*dia Dramatica/Christians/liberals/whatever", but you can't say "I hate X because he is an Y".

That being said:
 * Quinlanfan and the other user should cease their religious dispute on Wookieepedia, as WP:NOT a battleground. I don't care if they will continue it elsewhere, and how.
 * Exp.Fl.Cmndr. Mitth'raw'nuruodo is treating Wookieepedia like a hosting provider for a long political essay, which simply does not belong on a wiki userpage &mdash; any wiki userpage, be it a wiki about Star Wars, Christianity, racism, or creative use of movie screenshots in political essays. It has nothing to do with controversy or political correctness, it simply does not belong here &mdash; it would be more fit for a personal website or a blog. Thus, I'm going to politely ask said user to remove the essay.
 * We need some userpage regulation, but whether we need a written policy or common sense will do is up to you. Personally, I prefer the common sense approach, as my experience shows that many Wookieepedians interpret policies a little too rigidly, like legislation, despite WP:IAR.

I'm done here. - Sikon 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto with all of Sikon's stance. 22:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Total agreement with Sikon, particularly the common sense part. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * More agreement here. (Sikon, did you mean to link to this Wikipedia page?) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Should we start creating a policy? Chack Jadson 00:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What a good idea! I like it very much and I think we should implement it. I think Quinlanfan has ceased his dispute with that Mormon user and I hope they do not bring it up again ever. Sensitive political and religious issues relating to Iraq, Iran, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, United States or to events like the Muhammad cartoon crisis should not be included here. If any user expouses hate views like Holocaust denial, racism, intolerance to other beliefs or views and extremism should be warned to remove such content and if they don't comply, they should be banned. Even if anything happens in politics or in the news, let it not affect us at all. MyNz 00:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I interpreted Sikon's statement as saying that the length of the diatribe was significant, along with its irrelevancy. I don't think he was intending to ban opinionated statements- on the contrary, he said it was fine for people to state their beliefs. I would argue long and hard against censorship aside from out WP:NPA page and I think that a more flexible policy is in order here, requiring the use of common sense and discretion. At any rate, banning is awfully strict for just placing opinionated material on the Wookiee, IMO. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 01:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As anybody who was on IRC yesterday knows, I disagree with a lot of what Exp.Fl.Cmndr. Mitth'raw'nuruodo (henceforth to be known as EFCM) has to say. There is a thin line between protecting freedom of speech and preventing people from being able to go around saying whatever they want regardless of how much offence it may cause to others. Since that is something even governments have trouble with, I certainly would like to keep out of it. I agree with Ataru that, except in extreme cases, opinions do not warrant a ban unless they violate WP:NPA. That certainly isn't the case here and EFCM's views, though opinionated, are not hateful. They are, however, irrelevant to this wiki and in violation of WP:NOT. Sikon's stance seems reasonable and the application of common sense is more appropriate in these cases than a rigid policy. Green Tentacle (Talk) 10:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I only see the need to remove the material from EFCM's page immediately. It violates WP:NOT and is just not the type of material that needs to be presented in Wookieepedia, ESPECIALLY when there is NO connection to Star Wars at all. This is not censorship, this is common sense. --  Riffsyphon  1024 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Common sense is subjective, and it is censorship. It's not violating WP:NPA, and our user page policy explicitly says "regular users are encouraged to create a userpage which gives some information about themselves." A user's personal beliefs qualifies as "information about themselves." -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe I should say something, since I am "the Mormon" in question. I frankly don't care whatever the policy is. I'll follow it. And Quinlanfan took it to email. \/  ladius  |\/|agnum  00:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Riffs and Sikon on this. It's not so much censoring EFCM's page as much as it is in violation of WP:NOT. Political and religious essays have no place on Wookieepedia (unless they involve Star Wars somehow, and even then, that's debateable...), especially inflammatory ones such as that one. Letting it stay there in its current format sets a bad precedent to others, and considering EFCM logged in earlier today and did not remove the material in question like both Sikon and I had asked, I'm debating whether to remove it myself and lock his page. You may cry "Censorship!", but if he's going to deliberately ignore the warnings of both an admin and a bureaucrat on the matter, it shows how little respect he has for others and the policies of this site.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is he even aware of this CT thread? I'm putting a link on his talk page, since we don't want to talk about him behind his back as it were. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering we have either no policy or contradictory policies, I don't see where we have the right to issue a "warning" at all. Frankly, I'm offended by people who want to silence this kind of speech. If anyone messed with his page, it would turn into a wheel war as I would revert them. -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Darth Culator, but would you be shocked if a user starts displaying pornogarphy on their user page or even Nazi or racist propaganda. We are not trying to silence freedom of speech which is currently under attack from everywhere whether the left, right, religious fruitcakes, governments of all sorts, etc. I think that all users should have a user page with information about themselves but they must not attack others. To me, personal beliefs are secondary to your work here. To date, EFCM has contributed nothing more other than quarrels with other people over templates and a blog-like user page. I don't like it if a user has a magnificent and beuatiful user page completer with infoboxes, templates and a long fanon-biography and yet has only contributed little to our actual articles. MyNz 04:09 Janaury 22 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. I'm curious: Of 43,000 articles we have, + additional Wookieepedia pages, user pages, forum pages, image pages and the like, why are we devoting this much time and effort to such an inconsequential topic? As I see it, this falls into a policy gray area. On the one hand, that sort of stuff is not what Wookieepedia exists to produce, but it's not expressly forbidden or discouraged. If anything, this page is more discourteous to the community than EFCM's insignificant user page. By making reference to stereotypes like "religious fruitcakes", this page becomes the very thing that some are trying to see removed. So, going back to logic: If consensus among the community cannot be reached about the issue in dispute, then it should be placed in a voting forum for the community at large to see, discuss, and decide. Personally, it's getting to the point where I really could care less about the page, except for the fact that it's clearly a point of contention. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 04:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ...except that he's violating WP:NOT. If he wants to post all that stuff on another website and link to it on his userpage here, I would have no objections. However, that long ass essay has NO relevance to Wookieepedia whatsoever, hence why he was told to take it down. Looking at our user page policy, I see the following: Wookieepedians who work exclusively on userpage content unrelated to Star Wars or Wookieepedia should, likewise, find somewhere else to host their webpages. I don't know about you, but from what I see most of that userpage is not Wookieepedia related. I also know that the same page says that userpages are for telling people a little bit about yourself...yes, that they are. However, going massively off topic while doing so is a violation of both WP:NOT and the user page policy. Since they are community policies, I would enforce both WP:NOT and the user page policy the same no matter if someone used their userpage to write exclusively about carnivourous snails that live on the moon eating tacos laced with blood, or hot topics such as abortion, religion, etc.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll largely agree with StarNeptune, with the very strict caveat that it's largely due to the overblown length of the content that merits the removal, not because the opinions should be stricken. Note: I wouldn't accept this content from any RFA candidate. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 05:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Guess what! User:Darth Culator deleted his own user page becuase he says it Doesn't belong here according to WP:NOT, according to StarNeptune. Look at what some freedom-lovers get up to. MyNz 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)