Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism

Atheism articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 2 2 4 8 FL 1 1 GA 4 10 7 1 22 B 8 23 37 56 8 132 C 2 31 40 90 31 194 Start 1 13 44 159 62 279 Stub 7 74 19 100 List 17 1 10 2 30 Category 2 265 267 Disambig 2 2 File 7 7 Project 6 6 Redirect 6 11 23 40 Template 1 28 29 Other 1 3 4 Assessed 11 90 151 412 334 123 1,121 Total 11 90 151 412 334 123 1,121 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 3,206 Ω = 4.37

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:49, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Request for input in discussion forum

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

_{Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011}

Secularism

I've listed this article here because I am hoping to get this up to the status of a Good Article but I need major helping doing so. The article is in really bad shape and needs some major work on it. I wish I can get some editors to work on it and maybe help me because I honestly dont think I can get to GA standards on my own. We can have a standard article for other wikipedia projects to translate from seeing how all of them are not up the standards that we have.

Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Templates for Footer navigation template etc do not meet color guidelines

Hi there. Just a note to let you know that the templates Template:Atheism and Template:Atheism and Irreligion Sidebar for your wikiproject do not meet the guidelines for contrast per WP:COLOR as they fail the test at http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html. Color blind and sight impaired people will not be able to read them readily. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

User-boxes and civility

Hi!

Would you consider removing "official" status from the pink unicorn user-box, please, for consistency with your mission-statement welcoming non-atheists?

Would you also consider kindly moving the collection of atheist user-boxes to a secondary page?
I recognize that such user-boxes are of great interest to many or most potential members of this project. However, I am unaware of similar user-boxes on other projects. The statistics project has no user-boxes mocking lottery-ticket buyers, and the mathematics/logic projects have no user-boxes mocking (unconscious) practitioners of paraconsistent logic, etc.

:-)

The problem is that featuring so many such user-boxes may collide with your welcoming non-atheists.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching the discussion surrounding the recent RfA comments and their fallout, and I agree (in part) that these user boxes need to be discussed. I'm glad that the most obnoxious one has just been removed from this page. I will also note that the guidelines for user boxes specifically encourage boxes to express what one supports, rather than what one opposes, and that's very good advice. I'd look favorably on some further, selective, pruning of the non-official ones listed here.

But I'm puzzled by the concern about the one showing the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It's not nasty or negative. I don't see any reason to delete it, and would oppose doing so. I'm guessing (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the thinking is that it appears to imply that beliefs held by some religions are like the IPU (in the sense of being like a "fairy tale"), but in fact the IPU (like similar constructs, such as Russell's teapot) really isn't an insult. Rather, it illustrates a philosophical concept, and, the way it is shown in the user box, really isn't adversarial at all, unless someone chooses to read something into the user box that isn't intrinsically there. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The invisible pink unicorn is designed to be humorous and self-congratulatory for atheists, at their superior thinking over superstitious/religious people. I believe that the other "unofficial" user-boxes may be more unwelcoming.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. If it's possible to read that much into the Invisible Pink Unicorn userbox, the same could be said for every userbox. For instance, displaying the statistics userbox indicates their superior thinking over non-statistics-oriented people. Or people from Sweden displaying the WPSweden userbox are indicating their superiority over the rest of the world. tedder (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Sweden project does not have a user-box mocking Norwegians or Danes; the statistics project does not have a userbox mocking lottery ticket buyers.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

How does the invisible pink unicorn infobox mock? I'm having trouble following your logic. tedder (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If you take the stance that God is an almighty, supreme, real entity, then comparing him to a non-existent and invisible mammal^(?) is indeed mockery. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, User:Seb. Nonetheless, hoisting the "pink unicorn" makes fun of religion, where a reference to

• Wisdom, J., 1944. “Gods,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 45: 185–206.

does not.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

They're userboxes & nothing more. If one dislikes them, then ignore them. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy bars uncivil userboxes; see Wikipedia:Userbox#Content_restrictions and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. In addition, this project needs to consider whether such userboxes are compatible with its statement welcoming non-atheists.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

TBH, I think you're over-reacting, concerning the userbox-in-question. But, if you wanna delete (again), so be it. It's not something that I'll loose sleep over. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that atheism defines itself—in part—as a rejection of religion (yes, I know all about weak/strong, positive/negative and all of that, no need to go into that here) and, thus, anything that illustrates atheism is inevitably going to illustrate something that is disrespectful towards that which persons of faith hold very dear.

That doesn't make it incivil, necessarily. So let me try to draw a distinction. A user box saying, explicitly, that this user thinks religion is (insert insulting adjective here) is incivil. A user box saying that this user contributes to articles about atheism is civil. A user box saying that this user contributes to articles about atheism, and illustrated with an image that is, explicitly, negative with respect to religion (the word "God" crossed out, or a crucifix crossed out, or a star of David crossed out, etc.) is, I think, incivil. A user box saying that this user contributes to articles about atheism, and illustrated with an image that is, primarily, positive about atheism, but as such, implicitly critical of religion, well, that's civil, even if some users find the implicit criticism negative.

The IPU in the user box is a whimsical image, in a soft pink, and it is free of anything in the way of hostile content. Someone unfamiliar with the content could probably think it appropriate for WikiProject Fairy Tales. It's not saying anything is (insert insulting adjective here). To read insulting intent into it is like reading such intent into an image of the star of David on the grounds that it might offend Palestinians, or a cross, on the grounds that it might offend some Jews. Or some atheists! Personally, I find user boxes trivial, but I just do not see the incivility in this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish there is more than one problem with the pink unicorn. The pink unicorn is not just "implicitly critical," it is explicitly critical and in a manner that mocks religious belief. As such it is in the category of a explicitly negative symbol which according to your reasoning, when present on a userbox for this Wikiproject is uncivil. Besides this, it is also not in any way a universal symbol for the attitude taken by atheists towards religion. Yes, all atheists reject religion, but they do not all do so in a way that compares religious beliefs to fairy tales. So not only is this box uncivil, but it also attaches a very particular atheist attitude to a userbox that is supposed to cover a Wikiproject about atheism as subject matter. To that effect it is also divisive. Some may be offended by it or not agree with its message, and refuse to use it. So it divides Wikiproject members into two camps. One box should exist and there should be consensus at the Wikiproject to use that one box, and it shouldn't be uncivil either. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ya'll (the deletionists) are over-reacting. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"The deletionists"? Overreacting? Can you please explain to me how the pink unicorn does not mock religious belief? I have no problem with a personal userbox that says, something like "I'm an atheist" and contains the pink unicorn. A little mockery is fine in personal self expression. But the atheism Wikiproject is not a Wikiproject for atheists, it is a Wikiproject for people interested in the topic, and as such should not have a userbox that some members and/or others in the Wikipedia community might take offense to. Members of this Wikiproject should not need to be associated with beliefs that mock religion. Do you disagree with that statement and if so why?Griswaldo (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is hard to parse and too wide. Howabout, "This project and its members while working on behalf of this project do not mock religion or irreligion" would be better. I prefer the simplier and positive "This project welcomes all persons wanting to improve Wikipedia's coverage of atheisim-related topics, regardless of their personal thoughts and beliefs".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion is irrelevant to me & so is its being or not being mocked. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Then why are you contributing to this conversation at all? Religion is irrelevant to my personal life too, but that doeesn't mean that I think that the beliefs held by those other than myself should be mocked in the userbox representing a Wikiproject. Seriously though, if you don't care then please just stay out of the conversation. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Great idea. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm really of two minds about the issue. On the one hand, I strongly agree with the idea that user boxes should be positive, not negative, and I also strongly agree that this WikiProject should be welcoming to all interested editors, not clubby or one-sided. Indeed, I've been uncomfortable with some of the more adversarial user boxes for a long time. As such, I welcome the better wording that Kiefer added to the page. For that matter, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not argue about decorations on user pages, and that could be a good argument to get rid of any user box that is divisive or uninviting, and just get on with editing. (And it has absolutely nothing to do with deletionism/inclusionism.)

On the other hand, I remain uncomfortable with the argument about the IPU specifically. I still think that simply showing the IPU in a user box is no more incivil (towards some persons of faith) than showing the star of David would be (towards some Palestinian persons), for example. If someone took Invisible Pink Unicorn to AfD on the grounds that the existence of the article, the fact that Wikipedia presents information about it, offends some persons, I'm confident that the outcome would be a snow "keep" per WP:NOTCENSORED. If an editor were to work on bringing that article up to Featured Article standards, and then stated on their user page that they had done so, it would be entirely appropriate and not incivil to do that. If they added a link to the page, still not incivil at all. If they added a small image (like the image in the user box) as well as that link, what would happen? I rather suspect that if the editor were to run for RfA, there would be one predictable oppose because of it, but there would also be a clear consensus against that oppose. Otherwise, there would be no valid reason to say that the editor was acting against policy. How, then, is the user box different? It isn't. Thus, although I'm generally very friendly to the idea of getting rid of silly user boxes from this page if those boxes make some editors feel less welcome, I think we need to be careful about starting down a road of letting people dictate removal of anything on the grounds of offensiveness, as opposed to incivility. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The atheism portal's featured image of a pink unicorn discusses its satirical meaning. While it is less offensive than some of the (now removed) unofficial user-boxes, the pink unicorn does suggest that the project need not truly welcome theists. (I have seen no evidence that theists have ever been mistreated at this project, because of their beliefs.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Related discussions

Aha. This seems to be coming out of the following discussions, some related to Keepscases's ongoing criticism of the Atheism userboxes: Keepscases userpage, ANI, Drmies RFA.

Can we at least centralize the WP:DRAMA and/or former horse-beating? It's taking place in at least four locations now, probably more. tedder (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Tedder, please let us focus on the user boxes, which is the issue relevant to this talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, here's my part of the discussion: Keep them all. There's nothing in them for anyone to be offended at who's not looking for an excuse to be offended. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove all userboxes except those specifically related to the Wikiproject

IMO all the userboxes should go. This is a Wikiproject focused on information about atheism and not a social group for atheists. Members of the wikiproject may or may not be atheists themselves. May I ask what userboxes that have nothing to do with Wikipedia content, but with personal self-expression have to do with a Wikiproject in the first place? The only user box that is worth retaining is the ones that say someone is a member of the Wikiproject (but not the one with the pink unicorn which again promotes self-expression of personal beliefs and not the subject matter under the purview of the project.) Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)\

Note: I do not mean "delete" them from Wikipedia, but simply, "remove" them from this Wikiproject. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

After looking at other Wikiprojects, none of which promote personal group identifications or personal beliefs, I was BOLD and took all the "related" userboxes out. I'd like to remove the pink unicorn as well, but think there needs to be more discussion first. The pink unicorn is not a particularly common symbol of atheism, and indeed it refers to a negative view of religious belief as opposed to a positive view of atheism.Griswaldo (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be... umm, umm, agnostic... as to whether this was a good move or not, but I suppose a case can be made that there isn't absolutely a need for user boxes to be listed on a WikiProject page at all. I note that some of the religion WikiProjects do not display user boxes. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't userboxes per se, but userboxes that say, "I believe such and such." When I looked through some other Wikiprojects, including religious ones, I did not find any of those. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some mathematicians have user-boxes that state "I believe in the axiom of choice" or "Keep your large cardinal numbers to yourself", but they don't appear on the WikiProject Mathematics page. Smiling,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and indeed that's the point. It doesn't look like any of these will be added back, so at least that is settled.Griswaldo (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually added a few uncontroversial ones back. Users are encouraged to disclose potential COI, and the only way most people do this is through userboxes. COI aren't going to be an issue with Wikiproject Math or Wikiproject Trains, but this is a much more polarizing topic. Swarm ^X 17:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Swarm, WP:COI is not simply about one's personal beliefs or group affiliations. If you are an atheist you don't necessarily have a COI in editing this topic. You might have a bias, but then again so might someone who is religious. Indeed, a Christian is just as likely to have a bias on this topic as an atheist, so by this logic we should link to various religious user boxes too, in order to encourage people to label themselves in case they are biased? You see how that is untenable? Besides that the Wikiproject page isn't here for that purpose anyway. Take a look at other Wikiprojects, specifically the ones for different religions. They do not have these kinds of user boxes. I don't want to edit war but these boxes that have to do with individual beliefs or affiliations really need to go. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)