Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Sensitive issues on user pages

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 Jedi Order (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)
        • May the Dark Lord bless you and keep you! Jwebb13HoloNetSith Emblem 03:11, 27 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)
          • Watch your language. And it is a userpage. It does not have to be Star Wars related--and in the case of the userboxes and profile thing, it is Star Wars related. You don't have to agree with the opinions on the page, but--yet again--it is a userpage, the point of which is to explain something(s) about the user.

Era-old Expansionary Fleet Commander Mitth'raw'nuruodo Discuss 13:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

            • Sorry about the change of type below this; now see what another wookieepedian was getting at when he requested that the signature code be changed. Vandalism was not intended. Some code has been put in to try to change the font back, but so far it isn't working. If you can get the proper font back, can you change the code? Era-old Expansionary Fleet Commander Mitth'raw'nuruodo Discuss 13:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My stanceEdit

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 — 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 — 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. —Xwing328(Talk) 22:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Total agreement with Sikon, particularly the common sense part. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • More agreement here. (Sikon, did you mean to link to this Wikipedia page?) —Silly Dan (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Ditto. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 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 Jedi Order (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. -- Riffsyphon1024 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. StarNeptuneTalk 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. —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 Jedi Order (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. StarNeptuneTalk 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 Jedi Order (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)
            • Under this absurdly narrow view of WP:NOT, we'll be deleting yours soon too. It's clearly offensive to people who don't like Anakin Solo or are too poor to purchase as much SW stuff as you have. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 05:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Appreciate the solidarity, but you don't have to delete your userpage. It seems that a lot of the people here are being rather hypocritical. What exactly is the point of even having userpages if not to express something about the user? The topics on the page, while covering controversial topics, are neither inflammatory nor offensive in either intent or diction. What is being seen here is simply those who disagree trying to remove something contrary to their views, straight and simple. Don't try to dress it up as hate typing--it isn't. You have to face some things that you don't agree with, whether here on Wookieepedia or any other place. Era-old Expansionary Fleet Commander Mitth'raw'nuruodo Discuss 14:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The most important thing is that we have reliable standards. Is the problem that it's off-topic? Or is it that's it's too much off-topic material? If so, how much, objectively, is too much? Is it that it's controversial? Or is it that it's too much controversial material? If so, how much, objectively, is too much? What, even, is "controversial" objectively? There are no hard standards here, and that's the problem. We shut this guy down for being too controversial, some guy with similar views lodges a complaint with some guy's slightly shorter screed against the Republican Party, he complains about somebody else's paragraph on religion, that guy says that if a paragraph's not okay, everything political or religious has to go, someone else points out contentious fandom issues, somebody's offended by someone's userpage statement making fun of noobs, a bunch of people complain about uneven enforcement, and pretty soon it's name, rank, and number. Shut this guy down for being too off-topic, and he cries foul about non-controversial off-topicness, that gets shut down, there's no standard, eventually we get to the same point where any is too much and no one's happy. Either make a hard-and-fast standard that says x lines of non-SW/Wookiee is allowable, or don't do anything at all. Anything else is subjective. Havac 05:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You make a good point, Havac. One that I agree with also, but at this rate, we should have a policy or not do anything. Sigh. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 05:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. My two cents about the situation: Are we actually concerned about this minor thing that much? I'm fine with it being reduced to userboxes, but if we were really going to enforce this as strictly as some of us want us to, then we would consider "I like Star Wars" breaking NPOV, because some users might not like Star Wars for whatever reason, but still like the idea of encyclopedizing it. This is really dumb, how we're bickering about it and having people delete their pages when they could be doing other things. Either we have a policy or we don't. MyNz: "This user supports Israel" is breaking your own "neutral point of view", by the way.\/ladius |\/|agnum 21:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I have removed my pro-Israel template because this was getting out of hand. Hope that this improves the situation or would it be better I withdraw from Wookieepedia for a while and concentrate on other stuff. MyNz 23:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


  • If you missed this above, here's the answer again: It seems that a lot of the people here are being rather hypocritical. What exactly is the point of even having userpages if not to express something about the user? The topics on the page, while covering controversial topics, are neither inflammatory nor offensive in either intent or diction. What is being seen here is simply those who disagree trying to remove something contrary to their views, straight and simple. Don't try to dress it up as hate typing--it isn't. You have to face some things that you don't agree with, whether here on Wookieepedia or any other place.

Furthermore, how is an entire userpage supposed to be filled up with: what Star Wars books, movies, toys, etc. are owned; stances on in universe topics (the New Jedi Order and the Clone War books are a load of trash); and opinions on out of universe issues, anyway? Those can be covered in a few sentences, and the userboxes can explain the rest.

Personally against abortion--consider it the murder of unborn people. However, realize that others have an opposing view, and recognize that they have the right to express that view, bad though it is. Tolerance of dissenting opinions goes both ways. As long as the Islam section is respectful--and it is (figuring that was the reason that this thread was started--ethnic profiling the starter of the thread is from Malaysia, thus it is highly probable that the wookieepedian is Muslim)--it is just another point of view that you'll have to face, whether here or in another place. Era-old Expansionary Fleet Commander Mitth'raw'nuruodo Discuss 14:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Stating that the religion should be abolished is considered respectful? -- SM-716 talk? 18:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • P.S. On a BBC Have Your Say forum about the conflict in Iraq, several Muslims mentioned their view that Christians were a threat to the Islamic world. Their opinions--though flawed--were not censored, nor should they have been. Polite disagreement is very useful. Era-old Expansionary Fleet Commander Mitth'raw'nuruodo Discuss 14:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You may notice that this is not a BBC Have Your Say forum. -- SM-716 talk? 18:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, MyNz is Christian, as it says on his user page. Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        • There definitely is a Christian userbox on the page (the one that was shot down, not only on religion grounds but one wookieepedian was of the opinion that the color scheme was ugly). However, the Islam section seems to be the point of contention. Additionally, there are many nominal Christians (who might or might not actually be Christian) who seem to shrink back at any mention of Christianity (an odd reaction for a Christian), so simply having a particular userbox is..... simply having a particular userbox. Era-old Expansionary Fleet Commander Mitth'raw'nuruodo Discuss 15:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        • SUSPICION SEEMS TO HAVE PANNED OUT: THE CHRISTIAN USERBOX, ALONG WITH THE PRO-ISRAEL ONE, WERE PUT ON TODAY. LOOK AT THE HISTORY SECTION. Era-old Expansionary Fleet Commander Mitth'raw'nuruodo Discuss 15:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
          • In response to that, I have been a Christian all my life and have been a longtime supporter of Israel as well partly because of church. Its true I am Malaysian but there are lots of non-Muslims in Malaysia and I am one of them. If you read the Wikipedia entry on Malaysia, you would see that there are many people of non-Islamic beliefs like Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and Sikhs.

Be aware that not all Malaysians are Muslims. I only put the Christian template because I had a deep feeling that other Christians would misunderstand me and see me as anti-Christian or a tool of the world. Once there was a Christian userbox proposal and I and several other Chrisitans were among those who objected to it because we thought it my damage relations or come in the way of our work here.

I personally oppose abortion, homosexuality and all forms of sin mentioned in the Bible. I am a Pentecostal Christian which means I am part of what some call the "Charismatic Churches". I am a Creationist and also believe that Israel has a right to exist. I hope that should clear up this situation. MyNz 19:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • A warning was put on the page: if people are easily offended by views contrary to their own, then don't read any further. Era-old Expansionary Fleet Commander Mitth'raw'nuruodo Discuss 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • In response to that, I am here to inform you that one of our bureaucrats (that is a high ranking administrator) Sikon has removed your whole "commentary". Contact him on his user page to contest his action. MyNz 19:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Administrators Make a DecisionEdit

  • Can an administrator(s) make a decision whether or not the non-userbox/profile part of the page should be removed, specific parts, etc.? If this takes more than a few days, could you drop a message on the discuss page? Until then, the page stays. Era-old Expansionary Fleet Commander Mitth'raw'nuruodo Discuss 14:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am an administrator. And some other people who supported the decision are: Riffsyphon1024, StarNeptune and Xwing328. Check Wookieepedia:Administrators for a complete list. - Sikon 15:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • So, are you making an order to remove the page below "This could figuratively burn some bridges, but here goes...."? And Darth Culator is also an administrator. Your opinions were read, but you still haven't decreed--and especially not with consensus--whether the thing should be removed in its entirety (or the Islam part). Era-old Expansionary Fleet Commander Mitth'raw'nuruodo Discuss 15:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        • And interestingly, both you and mynz have plenty of non-Star Wars related stuff on your respective userpages--albeit not nearly as much as the one with which you have so much anger (and that is what it is). Era-old Expansionary Fleet Commander Mitth'raw'nuruodo Discuss 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
          • But there is a difference between yours (EFCM) and ours and the difference is that we keep our beliefs personal and confidential all the time. Well part of the reason why it takes so long for the admins to make a decision is because the bureaucrats can't always be present all the the time. For a long time since I have come to Wookieepedia, I have kept my beliefs away from my work here since I feared conflict with other non-Christian users. MyNz 19:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • EFCM, I don't find this offensive because I'm Muslim, Mormon, Latino, or any of the people you seem to have a problem with. I find your essay offensive because I'm a human being. This is not solutions. You're advocating forced conversion. I think it might even constitue genocide, but I'm not sure on that. It's been removed. Don't restore it. -- SFH 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with SFH. As one example, describing an entire religion as a "threat", or suggesting forced religious conversion is offensive, whether you suggest it using ethnic/religious slurs or polite bureaucratic language. (You were also constantly adressing "freepers": I assume you meant to ask a lot of these questions to the readers of the "Free Republic" blog, so why are you asking us?) —Silly Dan (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
      • And this is what happens when that sort of content is boldly placed out for all to see. People react. They get offended for some reason or other. They make it their job to see it removed. The actual content gets twisted, maligned (how ironic!) and taken out of context. In the end, all that's accomplished is a lot of people annoyed, the eventual removal of said content, and the placement of new, strict policies to make sure it never happens again. When that last part happens, just remember, I told you so. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 03:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)