Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 28

Extremely heated debate, a landmark in the history of junior athlete articles. I'm not specifically going to go into the details of my reasoning, as they are all there. Every time I tried to add another statement to prove his notability, there were several editors that always tried to disprove my claim. Of course, when I took a two day wikibreak it got deleted with an extremely weak closing statement from User:Black Kite, which reads in full:

Tragic, but clearly non-notable.

Yeah, a page with 76,471 bytes of discussion, ~½ voting keep. May it also be stated that this was not the only example of my apparently new claim of semi-notability; see the DRV of Natasha Collins for details. Editorofthewiki 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. AfD is not a vote. The size of the discussion and the number of votes do not mean anything. A junior hockey player dying of natural causes is not notable when he was not notable as a living person. The debate was closed correctly. --Smashville^BONK! 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. No more notable now than he was in December 2007 when the article was quite uncontroversially deleted. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure what process issues are being asked to be reviewed here. Seems to be a complaint that multiple other editors had the cheek to disagree with your claims of notability, that deletions proceed in your absence (even though at that point it had exceeded the normal 5 days) and that you think the closing statement was weak. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• You are aware that the discussions are not votes, right? Endorse deletion, nothing has changed since the AfD was closed, correctly. Corvus cornix_talk 22:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - It is a tragedy that he died but in principle this is the same as when a junior player's career comes to an end, perhaps as a result of a serious injury. The question is whether the person would be notable without the death and the answer is that he would not be. On the broader issue this is the reason why we don't create pages on hyped junior athletes, footballers (soccer) etc who have potential but not attainments. BlueValour (talk) 03:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note despite a recent DRV where the lack of dicussion with the deleting admin was highlighted, involving the same nominator here, I notice no such discussion appaers to have occurred, or in this case even a notification to the deleting admin. I've notified the deleting admin. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse my own closure. I don't believe it was a weak closing statement, as I don't think it was a controversial decision. Keep !votes with valid rationales were few and far between, with most being "He's notable" and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unfortunately, this person still doesn't meet WP:BIO. Black Kite 07:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. FWIW, the article is a redirect to a section within the team page, which seems to be appropriate. He's not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Horologium (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Perfectly reasonable close. Eusebeus (talk) 17:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Question. Would anyone care if I put it in my userspace? I feel that this death will have more of a long-term impact, and I want to keep it in there and edit it if more sources crop up over time. If nothing shows up after a year or so, I'd probably delete it.-Wafulz (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ra Ra Riot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

A new version of this oft-deleted article has been created in userspace at User:Acatauro/Ra Ra Riot. Rather than risking a G4, I am bringing it here to see what people think about whether the group meets WP:BAND, whether it gets sent to AFD for that, or whatever. I realize that it's not salted but given the deletion history it's virtually salted so I'd prefer to bring it here to minimize drama. If the consensus here is that the band still comes up short, then so be it for now, and no one ends up having to be the admin defending his/her deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Sourcing seems fine in the new version. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Looks pretty good to me, meets WP:MUSIC for the international touring, which is sourced. One editorial comment, though, not related to DRV - can you provide some sourcing for the original drummer's death? It stands out a bit as being the only unsourced paragraph. --Stormie (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've asked the author on that...why is always the drummer anyway... just an observation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the editorial comment, I added sourcing of the drummer's passing. If I had to guess, I would say the 'oft-deletedness' of the article only stems from a misunderstanding by the various people who were creating it about how you allow articles to stay on Wikipedia and what they need to contain. But hopefully I've provided the sources to show that Ra Ra Riot is a band that is notable for their work, meeting WP:MUSIC, even after the death overshadowed most other previous attempts to write an entry on this encyclopedia. Thanks again for your help. Acatauro (talk) 11:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Nice work Acatauro, I would definitely move this to main space and keep it, based on what you've done with it. --Stormie (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• move to namespace/allow recreation with new version looks good to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This organization is referenced by 4 articles and needs a stub See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arabic Network for Human Rights Information for further details. Erxnmedia (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• 'Speedy close' the article is not deleted, there's nothing for DRV to do here. -- Kesh (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - sorry, but it was deleted. What happened was that it was recreated by the original author, after a speedy deletion, so we still need to decide on the disposition of the article. BlueValour (talk) 03:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, in that case: List at AfD. I'm half tempted to say Speedy Delete as spam, but it doesn't seem too overtly spamtastic. Notability is suspect, but it would take more in-depth research to determine, which is outside the scope of DRV. A standard AfD seems the best course to decide this one, and give the author time to find verifiable sources to show notability here. -- Kesh (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• List at AfD. On a good day, membership of a notable organisation could be taken to be a slender indication of importance. The deleted page has been recreated by the author. Being pragmatic, I am not sure that re-deleting is going to help because that could get us into a deletion/recreation cycle. The page is devoid of the needed secondary sources to meet WP:N (the quoted 4 links are purely internal links). Better, I think, to get its fate decided at AfD which will open a five day window for sources to be found. BlueValour (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, and personally I don't even see a need to list at AfD. The group is quoted in over a hundred media reports; it will take some digging to find good third-party sources specifically about the group, but I don't think the notability is seriously in doubt. <eleland/talkedits> 08:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Close article currently exists. Editorofthewiki 20:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - it exists because it was recreated following deletion; that is not a reason for a speedy close; we still need to take a view on its disposition. BlueValour (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This category was deleted 5 times for different reasons, once because of Wikipedia:CSD#C3, once because there were no users of the user box, and three times because it was a recreation of deleted material. Accompanying user boxes were also deleted. There was a debate that took place here when a user, User:Noor Aalam started creating the userboxes on his own userpage and an administrator, User:Sandstein, started deleting them. It seems that there was no conclusive result of the debate but users repeatedly deleted these user boxes until the debate was ended inconclusively, despite a good faith effort by User:Noor Aalam to revise the boxes. A user box was even created later protesting the deletions. I believe deleting these user boxes without comprehensive debate was a violation of ideals of free speech not to mention wikipedia's policies. There are comparable user boxes that have survived deletion review here and to delete this one and not those is inconsistent. Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't understand the connection between the debate on "userboxes" at ANI. And this category. Note that the debate on userboxes wasn't even about userboxes but about wiki code that looks like userboxes. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The code was acting as a user box (I think that's the definition of a user box). I'm not sure what the contents of the category was because it was deleted, but it's on the same general topic as the userboxes so I thought we could debate them here and sort it out.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as the wiki mark up issue, I believe it is a complete novelty to take a WP:Edit to WP:DRV. This is a content dispute. If you don't like an edit, revert it, discuss it on the talk page, etc. If there's an ongoing dispute among various parties, it belongs in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, not here. -- Kendrick7^talk

• Full disclosure: Cdog asked me to come here.
• This is simply a case of systemic bias being allowed to run roughshod over WP:POLICY. Frankly, I've said what I needed to say at the incredibly frustrating ANI discussion. There is no objective evidence that voicing support for Hezbollah (or at least for Hezbollah's resistance to aggression from outside) is any more controversial or "likely to give widespread offense" than voicing support for George W. Bush, Avigdor Lieberman or any of a host of other. Or take User:UBX/Iraq Camp, which proudly proclaims the Wikipedian's participation in a brutal and disastrous war of aggression which has been, conservatively speaking, 10 times more devastating than the Bosnian War. That Hezbollah has been assigned the moniker of "terrorist organization" by a few Western governments is entirely irrelevant; international condemnation of the Iraq War, the attack on Lebanon, or the occupation of Palestine has been far more strident, and come from a much larger segment of opinion.
• Does DRV have a place here? Well, I don't know. No actual "deletion" took place; a clique of admins (most of whom are identifiably aligned with the Israeli right) took it upon themselves to simply blank anything that looked like a "pro-Hezbollah" userbox and threaten anyone who put it back with blocks. Honestly, I don't expect to win this fight. Just close the DRV and move on. Hezbollah is doing just fine without us. <eleland/talkedits> 02:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't the deletion of this category in line with changing userboxes to code? In otherwords, if users want to post personal stuff on there user space they should go ahead but shouldn't expect to use "main space resources" to do it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• I don't thing the userbox should be deleted. It wouldn't change the world after all. Let have freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't affect Wikipedia in upper layers.RFG17 (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: My issue is basically this.

The following user boxes were proposed:

This user supports the political wing of Hezbollah.

This user supports armed resistance against Israeli aggression.

This user supports Hezbollah.

It's debatable whether these user boxes give widespread offense. Although Hezbollah (or a part of it) has been designated as a terrorist organization by six countries, there are many notable exceptions, and many countries openly support Hezbollah. In any respect, it's clearly debatable and the last debate was inconclusive. There also seem to be several comparable user boxes that survived deletion review, notably:

This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation.

which survived deletion review here. And

This user recognizes the Palestinian Right of Return.‡

the deletion of which was overturned here. The Hezbollah user boxes do not appear to be libelous or explicitly inciting (from what I can see), and although they may contribute to wikipedia being used as a soapbox, we should at least be consistent with our application.

This user is a Zionist.

• General comment on all of the userboxes shown above and their associated categories. This is all crap. I am offended by all of it. There is no collaborative purpose for these, and they do offend. They should all be eliminated with fiery salt and salty fire. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• General comment I am responding to notification by Cdog. I personally disapprove of almost all userboxes, the exceptions being language proficiency (for finding non-English speakers to assist in translation) and maybe "I'm a boy"/"I'm a girl" (to save people writing the (s)he thing when in doubt). The rest of them should all go in the trash, and I don't buy the argument that it's good to know someone's biases up-front, if you have a bias, try that "log out" button or stay away from "edit this page". That said, userboxes seem to be with us, and I would support the existence of the Hezbollah userbox only in the form where it supports the peaceful aims of Hezbollah, namely social works such as health and education, and political advocacy which disavows violence to achieve political ends. Franamax (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting position. The original userbox ("supports Hezbollah") could have been interpreted in that way. The later userboxes ("supports resistance against Israeli aggression", etc) could not have; but they were written explicitly to support defensive warfare. The last one I had before I was forced to remove it even had a caveat "legitimate means," but that was apparently not relevant. <eleland/talkedits> 03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I remember some of the AN(/I) thread, do you have a link? The original box could have been interpreted many ways, thus not acceptable in my view. The futher versions just wander into the swamp - what is defensive warfare, what are legitimate means? Some groups think suicide bombing is legitimate, some think cluster-bombing villages is legitimate. I happen to live in a country where landmines are considered illegitimate in any circumstance, other countries disagree. Some countries declare themselves in legitimate defensive wars with no declared endpoint and no specifically identified agressors. Some countries declare the Geneva conventions "quaint" and some just ignore them. But the central fact is that Wikipedia is not the place for expressing any of these viewpoints, it is the place to neutrally observe these viewpoints. And my personal viewpoint is that the only allowable expression on Wikipedia is that which advocates peaceful means. Included in which is avoiding the labelling of acts of others as agression - right or not, that's a POV, and POV is what we all have to leave behind when we log in. Franamax (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Whoa, let's back it up a second here. You say that if someone has a bias, to log out and/or not edit the articles. News flash, bud: Everyone has a bias, whether they think they do or not. There are no completely neutral people; if you want only totally unbiased people to edit Wikipedia, then there will be no Wikipedia. Rogue 9 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• no political categories, period. I haven't decided yet what my position is on the userboxes. I was asked by Cdog to come here, but I don't think he targeted one particular side of the debate? —Random832 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Full disclosure. I tried to ask everyone from the last debate to give their opinions. I also asked a number of members from Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship of which I am a member to weigh in. I also asked an administrator from Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, User:BD2412 for some advice about how to appeal the deletion but he has not yet gotten back to me, which reminds me I have to tell him this debate is going on.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And just to respond, no political categories? Do you think I should have to disavow myself as an American on my user page? It's a political affiliation. I don't think enforcing such a rule would be wise. It would merely result in a mass exodus of indignant wikipedians. It would be far better, in my opinion, to acknowledge our different affiliations and political beliefs in an atmosphere of mutual respect where we can discuss them in a marketplace of ideas. At least that was something similar to the reasoning behind my country's First Amendment which, although it does not govern this debate (see Wikipedia:Free speech), at least allows it to take place (wikipedia is based in Florida). --Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental inquiry is whether this benefits the construction of the encyclopedia. bd2412 T 04:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, "American" is a nationality, not a political party. Also, I didn't say there shouldn't be userboxes, I was using "Category" in the wikipedia sense of something that puts something at the bottom of the page and makes a list of all pages that have it on it. —Random832 15:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For all the people who are saying that there should be no political user boxes period, I refer you again to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics. Unless you are willing to delete every one of those user boxes, I don't think that argument holds much water. It is disingenuous to target one unpopular point of view for deletion, gang up on its adherants, censor them in particular, and then say you think no one should have political views when you KNOW there is no chance that more popular user boxes will be deleted and you yourself take no part in having them deleted. I challange everyone who still thinks that political user boxes should be erased because they are devisive to try erasing

This user supports President George W. Bush.

(and all the other user boxes on that page for that matter) and see how well you do. As for how this user box promotes wikipedia's goals of making a better encyclopedia? Wikipedia's NPOV policy demands that we adhere to notions of basic fairness. If your going to allow some devisive and insulting user boxes because there happen to be enough political supporters to ensure they aren't erased and you erase the minority view points because its 1 against 100, you simply invite a tyranny of the majority and you alienate potential contributors (especially minority contributors who may in fact be more passionate about expanding wikipedia in unexplored directions). I would even find erasing all political user boxes preferable to erasing just some (which would make wikipedia a much les friendly place to contribute to by the way). But since that's never going to happen we should not erase some simply because they are unpopular. To do so would be unjustly discriminatory. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You are falling into the trap of All or nothing (yes, it's not policy or guidelines, but it is a well-recognized essay that clearly makes my point; What about X, from the same essay, is a variation on the theme, and equally applicable). Some userboxes are clearly unacceptable. A userbox supporting the holocaust, the Armenian genocide, or the Hutu/Tutsi genocide in Rwanda and Burundi would be unequivocally unacceptable, yet each of those sentiments are political statements too. Users need to understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox (that is a policy) and support for groups whose stated aims include the eradication of another nation are not acceptable. Until Hezbollah renounces that policy, they don't deserve support on Wikipedia. None of the other userboxes you have dragged into this discussion share that important distinction. Horologium (talk) 01:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am not in favor of "all" and I am not in favor of "nothing". Some political speech can legitimately be restricted because it crosses a boundary from advocacy to threat. But even that deserves a strict analysis in order to ensure the greater good of freedom of expression is preserved. I don't see these user boxes rising to that level. I personally don't support Hezbollah's goals, but I can understand that they might feel justified in expressing a desire to eradicate a political entity (which they don't recognize as a nation), just like the British might have wanted to eradicate the government of those rebellious American colonies. However, I think you would acknowledge that expressions of political views on one's talk page is legitimate, seeing that you label yourself as an American and a retired NAVY vet with user boxes, and say that you "support a vigorous and engaged foreign policy." I could see the hezbolloah user box being blocked if Hezbollah was more definitively defined as a terrorist entity, but as I said in my intro, only six countries in the world label Hezbollah as a terrorist entity, and two of those actually recognize its political arm as legitimate. I think it would also be prudent to remain cautious of American-centric editing. Or any of the other five countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Netherlands, or the UK. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I understand WP:SOAP.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that {{American}} is a political position; it states that I am an American citizen, without any POV qualifiers. The same can be said for my Navy userbox (which, BTW, is not a template); there are no qualifiers attached which characterize my time in the Navy, which is open to people (American citizens and otherwise) of any political persuasion. I had strong political disagreements with coworkers over the years. Oddly enough, you failed to mention the one userbox on my page that is explicitly political.

The last snippet you note is not from a userbox, but from the text in one of the sections of the userpage. While a userbox does not exist to pigeonhole users into that particular ideology, I would not use one even if it were to be created, but that's just me. FWIW, I don't recall ever advocating removing text from people's userpages.

Your statement about Hezbollah being labeled as a terrorist group is a red herring; the article on the group notes that at least four other nations (Argentina, France, Germany, and Italy) specifically call out the group's terrorist activities (with citations), and the European Parliament has called for identifying it as a terrorist organization. Not all countries which maintain lists include all terrorist organizations. Kach is not identified as a terrorist group by Britain, nor is Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and the Provisional IRA is not identified as a terrorist group by the United States; this does not mean that they are not terrorist groups. Hezbollah was specifically excluded from the Russian Federation list because it is not considered to be a threat to Russia, not because it's not a terrorist organization. Russia, however, is the only nation that lists the Taliban as a terrorist group, despite the widespread perception of that group as terroristic in their aims since the fall of their regime in 2002. I suspect that a Taliban support box would be removed, despite the fact that it is not universally declared to be a terrorist group. Horologium (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Politics consists of the social relations involving authority or power. The US exerts power within a system of nation states. One individual's open expression of affiliation with a nation state is at least in part a decision to align oneself to that entity's position and viewpoint. That's why it means something when you wave an American flag or burn one. It's a political statement. We also don't just allow any foreigner to become a U.S. citizen. I included your US Navy user box as an example of a political user box in the sense that the US Navy is a projection of the political position of the United States. And though I've never been in the Navy, I would assume that there are some oaths of loyalty to the United States as a political entity that every member must take. That's why politicians make such a big deal out of their military service (it shows their loyalty to this country and its political makeup). As far as the subnational groups you mentioned, I supposed that in order to maintain consistency, if someone on wikipedia really wanted to express support for those groups, which do in fact have political goals they should be able to express their support for those groups. Just because you disagree with their political views is not a sufficient reason to censor someone. In the United States at least, the government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation as determined by Brandenburg v. Ohio. On the other hand, I agree that Wikipedia doesn't have to allow all speech that would be allowed in the U.S. and hypothetically, there might be some good reasons for not doing so. I mostly object to what I perceive as the uneven application of wikipedia policy (minority opinions being erased while majority opinions are protected).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are two separate issues here, the userbox and the category. I most strongly oppose any attempt to construct such a category, as it is any clearly divisive as any of the other political categories, which were all purged in the last six months. (There is no Zionist, Democrat, Communist, Fascist, etc. categories; only the userboxes remain, for the most part appropriately ensconced in userspace.) The userbox is a different story, but Hezbollah is a terrorist group (since they insist on using the same name for both the political and the armed factions), I oppose recreating the userbox (and the last version is a rather extreme violation of WP:POINT). I see no difference between the Hezbollah userbox and a box supporting those who bomb abortion clinics, or Timothy McVeigh, or Al Qaeda, or PKK, or any other terrorist organization. Terrorism is terrorism, period. Horologium (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• I find all of this arguing rather silly... I mean, why do we waste so much time with a. arguing over userboxes? Let me present several points. First, the Hezbollah userbox is toned down. It’s not stating, “I support the Hezbollah and I want it to kill all Israeli.” It’s just saying, “This user supports Hezbollah.” Second, if you want to, have it so it’s not obvious the first time you look at a page. Third, the people who will really find out are the people who enjoy spending their time reading people’s userpages and stealing userboxes. As far as I’m concerned, productive users don’t spend half of their time reading people’s userpages or personalizing their own; they are busy editing. Even if they do read an occasional userpage to find out information (like, “Where does this guy get his opinions?”) and take offense, a good Wikipedia user should have the mindset “That’s what I’m here for. To get rid of the crazies and keep information clean.” --Heero Kirashami (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

i was solicited to participate in this debate on my user page. i'm offended by hezbollah. it would be a bit strong to say i'm "offended" by the user boxes, but i'm just not sure what to do about them. if these user boxes are acceptable then what is NOT acceptable? "i support the suicide bombing of israeli civilians"? how about "i support using nuclear weapons against Iran"? but if this user box is NOT acceptable we have the reverse problem of what IS acceptable? i think you've either got to have a policy to ban ALL user boxes that can be potentially offensive (which will i'm sure lead to personal vendettas being run through userbox deletions) or to ban none at all. there are no clear answers here (though i would certainly side with any proposal to delete all userboxes because they are unproductive and can only serve to cause problems like this one.) SJMNY (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of the category and the userbox it was populated with. We should not have any political categories; they are offensive and divisive to the community. Comparable templates and categories should be nominated for deletion. --Coredesat 05:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletions - There is extensive precedent to delete all support/oppose categories, of which none exist currently. If allowed, this would be the only support/oppose category allowed on Wikipedia, which I would be strongly opposed to. As for the userboxes (is this DRV just for the category or for the userboxes as well?) I also endorse those deletions. As said above, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and such userboxes are divisive and have no place on Wikipedia. VegaDark (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't really know the status of the category, but I assume that they incorporate the userboxes which I think should be allowed to be used. Maybe the category just needs to be renamed? --Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• General Comment. Technically userboxes airing political views should not be appropriate for Wikipedia, as they don't really contribute much useful to encyclopedia. However, if some users are warned about one group of userboxes based on some POV, while others are not, it's not quite fair. All political userboxes such like "I hate Hezbollah" or "I support recognition of XYZ genocide" or "I support separatism" or "I support territorial integrity" etc. of similar content, should either be all banned or all kept, but not selectively so. Atabek (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletions. With reference to supporting the political arm of Hezbollah... It's rather disingenuous to say you support an arm but disassociate yourself from the body it's attached to. If an organization condones, supports, or commits violence in support of its aims (political in nature), then that organization's "political arm" is as responsible for and integral to that violence as any other part. And "who started it" is irrelevant.
    If one wishes to state they support a (political) solution based on dialog and diplomacy, there are far better ways to phrase support for self-determination, for pride in cultural heritage than to state one supports a path accentuating polarization and accepting violence to attain noble ends. A noble purpose is not only an outcome or destination, it is the choices we make to get there.
    Whether the userbox/category is personally offensive to me or someone else is immaterial. Whether violence is "justified" or not is also immaterial. I think it's quite simple. Assuming the mission of WP is to promote knowledge and understanding, then user boxes which directly or indirectly support armed conflict or which support organizations condoning/supporting/committing armed conflict--whether or not justifiable--are not acceptable. Informed of this discussion by Cdogsimmons. —PētersV (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree that by extension of this argument that a userbox should not mention USA, Canada, Britain, France, Denmark, Spain, Russia, Serbia, Netherlands, etc., etc., since these entities all have been or are engaged in the promulgation of armed conflict? This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to be point-y ;) Franamax (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave that very question some thought as well, I knew it would surface--what does it really mean if my suggestion is applied across the board, that is, what does it imply if Wikipedia considers itself a true pacifist? Is "I support (the political arm of) Hezbollah" any different from "I'm proud to be an American (and a Republican)"?

• If Wikipedia is a true pacifist, then express support for any entity with any police, military, or paramilitary force is off limits. That's unlikely to be achieved. Being a total and complete pacifist is far more complicated than being, say, a complete vegetarian.
• If Wikipedia is a humanistic meeting place and melting pot (and it is), then we as editors are obligated to strive to reflect and share the positive cultural, religious, and moral values of our backgrounds. Sadly, we do not live in a world free of armed conflict. But even in war there are rules that potential combatants have agreed to. Hezbollah has agreed to no such rules. They have paid off the families of suicide bombers, sanctioned the deaths of innocent women and children, and supported indiscriminate violence in pursuit of their political agenda.
  • We are born to our circumstance of ethnic and cultural heritage (nation as people) and to our homeland (nation as state). Expressions of allegiance to that circumstance are not implicit endorsements of, say, yesterday's military incursion by our nation-state of residence or of crimes against humanity by members of our nation-people against members of another nation-people. Should we disagree with the policies of our nation-state, we can choose to move or we can choose to work to change its policies, hopefully through non-violent means. Should we find repugnant crimes against humanity by those of our ethnic and cultural heritage which others have taken to reflect upon us, then we can choose to denounce those crimes for what they are and dedicate ourselves to insuring they do not happen again.
  • We are not born into political or paramilitary organizations. We choose to support or not, to be members or not. We choose whether or not to endorse the aims and methods of such an organization. If we do endorse such an organization, we cannot divorce our endorsement of its aims from endorsement of its methods. Any endorsement is an endorsement in full. If there is an aim such an organization purports to endorse with which we agree, but we do not agree with the organization's methods, then our expression of support for that aim must be through expressing our support of that aim directly stated as such and/or for groups that seek to achieve that aim through non-violent means.
    "I support self-determination and statehood for XYZ" is not the same as "I support organization ABC whose political arm strives for self-determination and statehood for XYZ but I disassociate myself from ABC's use of violence to achieve that goal."

Does this help? —PētersV (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To the "There is no objective evidence that voicing support for Hezbollah (or at least for Hezbollah's resistance to aggression from outside) is any more controversial or "likely to give widespread offense" than voicing support for George W. Bush, Avigdor Lieberman or any of a host of other" near the outset of this whole thread: Who finds what offensive or controversial is completely immaterial. The sturm und drang of personal reactions has nothing to do with what content WP should condone if not endorse. Everyone can chose to find offense in something--therefore offense and attendant controversy are a useless barometer for anything.

• Keep these and a all associated userboxes and categories deleted Clearly unacceptable for wikipedia, clearly always have been as they advocate a very controversial political viewpoint. The existence of other controversial userboxes or categories or whatever the hell it is we are arguing about this time does not provide argument in favour of keeping these userboxes/cats but instead deleting the rest - feel free to go and tfd/mfd them. These cats/userboxes do not serve any constructive purpose for wikipedia and may be inflamatory depending on your background. Viridae^Talk 05:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Userbox issue is Moot due to WP:GUS. Anyone can have these on their User pages or in User space as there's nothing in policy addressing this. This was discussed recently as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Userbox content where no consenus was reached. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Nope, WP:GUS doesn't trump everything else on wikipedia such as WP:NOT#USER etc. The community can also reach consensus through deletion debates that individual things are inappropriate, just because a broader consensus hasn't yet been met is in no way a binding precedent on everyone, that's not the way things work around here. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is also not a democracy. As far as I am concerned, as there is never going to be true consensus on this matter, this is permissible. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure why you quote wikipedia is not a democracy, no one seems to be suggesting otherwise. In fact WP:NOT#Democracy states "Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion...", the fact that we don't garner a general consensus evenly applicable across all such boxes, isn't a bar to gaining a consensus on individual cases. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse delete — I'm not exactly sure how the category helps to further civil and harmonious interactions between editors. If one were to create a category to locate editors who are interested in improving Hezbollah's article, then it's totally fine to make Category:Wikipedians who are interested in Hezbollah; however, this category makes a statement that encourages segmentation and non-neutral point of view. The templates are standoffish and point-y, but if someone wants to put them on their user page, that's totally fine; however, they should be prepared for someone, someday to use that against them as evidence demonstrating that the editor is unable or unwilling to accept the consensus of the community. --slakr^\ talk / 06:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Cdogsimmons has engaged in extensive canvassing on this issue (by extensive, I mean over 150 talk page notices. Some of these notices were predicated on membership here (where membership is likely to indicate the way most might comment), while others were based on discussion here (I don't know whether those notices were neutral or geared toward one point of view). Closing administrator should take this into account. Ral315 (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this comment, AGF means we must take Cdog at his word that the canvassing was intended to be neutral and widespread. Franamax (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF isn't and never was a suicide pact. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can vouch unequivocally that my being solicited was based only on fostering participation, not with any expectation of result. —PētersV (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Ral315 (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Inflammatory and divisive. Guy (Help!) 06:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of the category, the category has less merit then Category:Queer Wikipedians, which was deleted and brought to Deletion review here, here and here and the deletion was endorsed all 3 times. In this case, we're talking about support of a terrorist orginization; in that case, the context was personal preferences. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of the category and also endorse my deletion of the userbox, obviously. Both are divisive and inflammatory, irrespective of one's views about Hezbollah. Wikipedia is not a place to exercise free speech - there are blogs and forums galore for that - but a place to build a neutral encyclopedia. For the same reasons, I would support the deletion of all political userboxes (including "I support Bush", "I am a Zionist", etc.) as a matter of general policy. Not as a matter of deletion policy, though: most (unlike the Hezbollah one) are not so divisive and inflammatory that they may be speedily deleted. Sandstein (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I would say one's view about Hezbollah is pretty determinative of whether you find this user box inflammatory. It doesn't say that at WP:NOT#SOAP so I don't know where you got that language. Wikipedia:User_box#Content_examples actually uses "This user supports" as an example of a proper way to construct a user box which doesn't mesh very well with a supposed ban on advocacy. To emphasize this, there is a specific category of political user boxes which has almost no chance of being deleted here. It's easy to see the rational for deletion of libelous, or just plain threatening material. But inflammatory? For one thing, I'd like you to show me the damage that's been caused by this user box's existence. As for your other comment, please see my response above, (the one with the George Bush user box). I'm not here to argue the politics of Hezbollah. I'm here to argue about basic fairness. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Let me also give you the opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. I invite you to nominate for deletion:

This user supports the Zionist movement.

This user supports President George W. Bush.

• • • • I notice that the support of zionism user box was already nominated for deletion in a discussion very similar to this one here. The result was a Keep.
• All political user categories are pretty clear and extreme examples of abuse of Wikipedia for advocacy. All of them should be deleted. Every single one. without exception. THis is a pretty basic matter. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and abuse of the facilities by any of its editors for advocacy in favor of (or against) any political cause brings the encyclopedia into disrepute and should stop or be stopped. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 07:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete any political category or userbox (no matter what the content is) once more than three or four editors find it objectionable.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all such political crap - I find it handy to be able to identify the POV someone's pushing at a glance. Relata refero (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would agree with "keep all (purely) ideological crap" but I would be more circumspect where "acceptable" methods for achieving said ideology are being implicitly included. —PētersV (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You're missing the point that supporting the Geneva Conventions is an ideology to begin with. If a group of people hire and equip a hitman to kill my family, I would want them held responsible and where there was no rule of law to do so, I'd strongly consider killing them myself in revenge, and while I'm sure there are plenty of moonbats who think that's immoral, I certainly wouldn't begrudge anyone else the POV that this was OK. But if the people "vote" for one of their members to hire and equip a "soldier" to kill my family and pool their money to do so via "taxes" then my seeking revenge is suddenly wrong, because those people are now just hapless "civilians." Unless, of course I get together a group of people, "elect" one of us to hire our own "soldiers" to seek revenge, in which case killing civilian is just unfortunate "collateral damage." Sounds like a scam an ideology to me! -- Kendrick7^talk 19:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • You're missing the point (to use concrete examples) that someone who votes for Bush neither implicitly nor explicitly endorses everything he does. "American pride" in a user box does not equate to "Pride in everything George Bush and the current administration do," more succinctly stated as "Proud to be a George Bush supporter 100%" or, as has been implied, "Proud to support an American administration killing Iraqis." "Proud to be a Hezbollah supporter" by contrast (see longer discussion elsewhere) is--and can be nothing except--an explicit choice to support indiscriminate violence for the attainment of certain political aims. —PētersV (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Please, someone who votes for Hezbollah doesn't necessarily endorse everything they do either; they are arguably the largest political party in Lebanon and their domestic policies have wide ranging support. Their use of their military wing seems perfectly discriminate to me by the way; I'm not sure where you are getting your information. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
          • When the Democrats, Republicans, Tories, and Union pour un Mouvement Populaire-ists all establish military wings accountable to no one we can talk about moral equivalency. Your implication is that the vast majority of Hezbollah supporters do not agree with its use of violence and that Hezbollah is judicious and restrained in its use of violence so as to spare women and children. Again, to my point elsewhere, if you support a noble goal espoused by Hezbollah, there's no impediment to stating in a user box what that goal is and that you support that goal. Stating support for a goal by stating support for an organization is stating support for its methods, plain and simple. —PētersV (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
          • P.S. Hezbollah's size and popularity are irrelevant. The failure in your logic is that you equate "support" to "vote." They are not the same.
              Stating support on Wikipedia is a completely different circumstance from those who have the opportunity to vote for or against Hezbollah (among a limited choice of possibilities) as to who best represents their interests. There (and only in that circumstance), a vote, as you describe, does not implicitly support everything Hezbollah does. (As in my Bush example.) And participants in the political process have the opportunity to join the "party" and work to move it toward a policy of non-violence.
              So, "I voted for Hezbollah and am working to change it to renounce violence" is fine. "I voted for Hezbollah and support the operations of its military wing" is not. "I support Hezbollah" is not. —PētersV (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I have no use for userboxes myself, but if people want them that's fine by me. -- Danny Yee (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Everyone has the right to express his own pov on his userpage. This is also usefull to see if his edits in some topics are neutral or not. --helohe (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (i.e. overturn deletion) per Relata refero above. --BozMo talk 12:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/Overturn/Whatever as per Cdogsimmons, who asked me to come here. We have plenty of other userboxes (for political causes) that have survived deletion; NB that mine is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, we're not talking about the main namespace. I doubt that these are any more or less offensive than such others. --Merovingian (T, C) 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• overturn I'd not object to (and would be mildly in favor) of deleting all userboxes related to political or ideological causes. But if we are going to have some we should allow all of them. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep if we are going to allow political userboxes All or nother seems to be the appropriate course of action. The NPOV that we aspire for in articles should be extended to this discussion. If we allow political userboxes, content neutrality should apply. Being offended by someone's political beliefs, whatever they are, is no excuse for censoring them. - Masonpatriot (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion of anything in mainspace that's used in user space and is not related to improving the encyclopedia (ie wikiproject stuff exempted). This includes the category above and any userboxes in main space. (Is it even called main space if it's a category?). Overturn the enforced removal of code from userspace. If a user has code in their user space that says that they support the political wing of Hezobollah then they should be allowed to keep that code with the caveat that WP:DICK and WP:SOAP applies to some other types of code that users might want to put in their user space. If we are going to remove code related to political opinions from users space we need to be consistent and remove it all and not remove things we disagree with. Disclosure: User:Cdogsimmons asked me if I was interested in this DRV. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Relata Refero's argument is actually quite convincing, but I am against all political and polemical material with regards to users' biases anywhere in Wikipedia. No political advocacy or divisive, inflammatory or offensive material please. EJF (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all such political crap per Relata Refero. It's useful to enforce a standard that such boxes should be written neutrally without attacking parts of the community qua the community (and Cdogsimmons's fourth example, with the question mark, is questionable under that standard), but it's more useful to allow these userboxes than to disallow them. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  However "useful" someone may find the abuse of Wikipedia for the purposes of political advocacy, does not the question of whether such abuse is tolerable take precedence? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I don't take the position that stating political opinions is automatically abuse. I do think that tolerability is a relevant issue, though, hence my comment about some userboxes being unacceptable. I guess I'm assuming that editors ought to be encouraged to have a thick skin, if having a thick skin benefits the encyclopedia more than the alternative. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep if we are going to allow political userboxes. Seems fair enough. Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak endorse the deletion of the category. While the category is clearly unnecessary and divisive per prior precedent, DRV is a poor place for the first full fledged deletion discussion. No opinion on the userbox. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• As somebody who deleted the userbox from somebody's userpage, I also endorse deletion. Today a userbox supporting Hezbollah, tomorrow a userbox supporting Al Qaeda. Jeffpw (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• So what? Certainly there are Al Qaeda supporters who edit wikipedia, and I'm sure they are wise not to be too public about it. But I don't see how a don't ask don't tell policy benefits the community. Isn't this just ignorance is bliss? Isn't that the wrong attitude for someone working on an encyclopedia? -- Kendrick7^talk 19:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Copied from above: The fundamental inquiry is whether this benefits the construction of the encyclopedia. I don't believe it does. Nobody is saying you can't support anything you want to. But Wikipedia isn't the place to billboard your beliefs. --Kbdank71 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse and Kbdank copied it so well. All those who argue WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS should expend their efforts to remove the other crap rather than defend categories not useful to the building of WP, and even they would have a hard time swallowing some other extremist categories one might conjecture: Category:Wikipedians who support lynching, Category:Wikipedians who think shooting undocumented workers for sport should be legalized, Category:Wikipedian Nazis, and my favorite Category:Wikipedians who think that Mormons believe that Satan and Jesus were brothers - is Mike Huckabee here? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

we cannot discriminate between political categories. That they may implicitly support violence is irrelevant, because, in a sense, most political & national categories implicitly support violence. The fundamental reason nations are founded is to provide for the common defense. DGG (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS so let's keep this, or other crap exists, so let's get rid of the crap? --Kbdank71 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not confuse "implicit" support of violence under perceptions of nation-state defense versus explicit support of violence to achieve a political end. —PētersV (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No one is discriminating based on whether we like them - get rid of them ALL! Those who make this out to be a discrimination ought to look at the sexuality categories that went - with many of the same people's approval - maybe they had an agenda? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You're being absurd. Your "examples" are worded in such a way that they are almost assuredly disruptive, which the categories under discussion are not. --Merovingian (T, C) 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it when someone uses outrageous examples to try and show an extreme, people attack that user for being absurd for using such extreme examples, and completely ignore the point that person was trying to make? --Kbdank71 20:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. I personally find Hezbollah abhorrent, vile, and contemptible in every conceivable way. They are the scum of the earth; murderers of civilians, users of the same as human shields, slaughterers of children, kidnappers, and terrorists of the worst sort. That said, I would rather know if another Wikipedian is a Hezbollah supporter so that I know what POV he's pushing, and I'm sure they feel the same about me and my support of Israel. The category and userboxes should stay. Rogue 9 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow me to play devil's advocate. An editor has such a user box so you can know exactly where they stand. Well isn't that convenient, that lets you slap an instant label on someone, associate them with an organization you find "abhorrent, vile, and contemptible in every conceivable way" consisting of "murderers of civilians, users of the same as human shields, slaughterers of children, kidnappers, and terrorists of the worst sort." Does this better prepare you or more readily predispose you to a non-combative, non-judgemental dialogue? If our mission is to create content based on reputably verified facts, consider that it might be better not to "know" so that we can address the article, not the person (conveniently packaged in a user box labeled "your opposition"). —PētersV (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Personally, I've never found it a challenge to figure out if someone is pushing a POV. —PētersV (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Rogue 9, even if the userbox is useful to identify the POV an individual editor, why is the category useful? How is a list of users who support Hezbollah useful or productive? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, how does this help to build an encyclopedia? Corvus cornix_talk 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see my comment above (the one with the George Bush user box).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, as long as we're going to be quoting policies at each other, I might as well throw in Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Outside Opinion - I think the question can be broken down:

1. - Do you think Wikipedia is better for having the biases of editors exposed for others to see (if they so choose to expose them)?
2. - Do you think that having the bias of an editor exposed aids, or hinders, civility and the making of the encyclopedia?

If your answer to #1 is yes, you probably should view the userbox as acceptable. If your answer to #2 is "aids", then likewise. The opposite side is that we have the scary possibility of people editing on contentious topics who openly proclaim allegiance to known terrorist groups... but is that really any better than having them hide their support and still mess up these articles? M1rth (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, this is an interesting question, but you're ignoring the total inconsistency regarding the "scary possibility." I was just reading the user page of someone who edits on Israel/Palestine. It proudly proclaimed his two years of residence in a religious Israeli settlement, where visitors combine advanced Talmudic studies with service in the Israeli army. Is this guy going to be censored? If not, then these questions are irrelevant, because they don't relate to the actual standards being applied. <eleland/talkedits> 04:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I really don't care what political, religious or socio-economic values you hold. They are (or should be) irrelevant to community-building on Wikipedia. I fully support the concept that only userboxes which support editing Wikipedia be allowed. Yes, I know a few of mine aren't entirely devoted to that, but I wouldn't mind losing them if it gets rid of the other cruft that's divisive here. And lets face it, announcing your political, religious or soci-economic preferences is divisive. There's a reason "no politics and no religion" is a rule at many a dinner table: it leads to arguments and poor digestion. As for those who want to allow these userboxes to let others "out" themselves, I say: it contributes to the disruption, by allowing people to declare, "I know you're biased, look at your userpage!" Rather than allowing discussions to follow their course, it prompts accusations of bias that may or may not be accurate. I say, nip it in the bud and kill off all those boxes. -- Kesh (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• I think it may be more useful to look at the issue in two parts:

1. Do I think all political user boxes should be deleted as disruptive?

2. Do I think a Hezbollah user box should be singled out for deletion above others?

My answers:

To 1. No. Weak Keep. Political user boxes may be divisive, but the policy forbidding divisive comments on one's own user page is unenforceable because it's totally subjective what is divisive. It is also in conflict with Wikipedia's policy that Wikipedia_is_not_censored. Getting rid of all comments that appear divisive to someone will leave wikipedia at the very least a bland experience. However, wikipedia is a private organization and I acknowledge it can make up lots of rules that I would consider stupid. I just think it would be a bad idea.

To 2. No. Strong Keep. To disallow the use of this user box would be uneven application of policy and intrinsically unjust. Users that quickly label Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and therefore not worthy of having political status should be aware that it is not universally recognized that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. I quote from wikipedia's page which is cited: "In much of the Arab world, Hezbollah is seen as a legitimate resistance organization that has defended its land against an Israeli occupying force and has consistently stood up to the Israeli army." Whether or not you agree is beside the point. People should have the same right to voice their allegiances. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Recognition and controversy and personal offense regarding Hezbollah do not factor into any of this. Until Hezbollah, a voluntary political association, not a sovereign state, divests itself of the use of indiscriminate violence in pursuit of its aims, stating support for it on Wikipedia is a statement supporting violence as a solution. I have already indicated the only circumstance/method under which expressing support for Hezbollah ("I voted for Hezbollah... and support non-violent solution...") is appropriate. Any general expression of support is an endorsement of its methods. Anyone supporting only the political aims of Hezbollah and not its methods could perhaps illuminate the rest of us--instead of stating they support Hezbollah they can state what (hopefully noble) aim they support. Anyone who insists they only want to state that they support Hezbollah therefore are insisting it is their methods (indiscriminate violence) they support. It's as simple as that. Let's not pretend we're quashing free speech and rights of association here. —PētersV (talk) 15:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia project. It is not a social experiment in political self-identification (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX) nor is it the place to form factions based on political differences (WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND). I have no issue with users expressing their political views on user pages; however, creating a category is another matter entirely, and I strongly believe that the userbox and category must be judged separately. A single user expressing his or her political views is mostly a personal issue; creating a list of users who support a specific political viewpoint (which is what this category is) is a distinctly political action. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and weak keep By the very nature, all political boxes are divisive, because that's what politics is about. The real objection is not divisive per se, which in practice we do accept, but inflammatory. Frankly, I think it is so intended--but I think that this means censoring and saying OK for political views we think acceptable, not OK for those we think are altogether reprehensible, which amounts to saying "userboxes must conform to the opinions of the community in general" We've dealt with that by in practice having two criteria: not explicitly advocating violence, and the other as not being negative in wording. This box is designed to avoid both of these, at least technically. I recognize it's an attempt to evade, knowing it will cause dissension here, which is why my keep is a weak keep. I still think we should not censor, and that WP is open to the supporters of objectionable things, if they edit objectively, & keep propaganda within limits. I'd object to a user page devoted to a long exposition of why one should vote for a particular candidate--and I think there may be existing userpages which are excessively propagandistic-- but not a userbox merely saying support. DGG (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Question isn't trying to "avoid both of these, at least technically" just wikilawyering? Isn't it just a set of WP:WEASEL words trying to slip in support for terrorist groups and the acts they commit?

Here's a secondary question - what about a userbox that said "This user supports the coming of the Fourth Reich but doesn't hate Jews"? Of course that wouldn't pass muster, and there's no logical way you can "support hezbollah" without supporting terrorist acts either. The question is whether having that support out in the open is a good or bad thing, and is complicated by the fact that those who support Hezbollah or other terrorist groups may well just put nothing up and make us have to realize what they're really saying anyways. On the whole, I lean towards the opinion that knowing someone's bias (and having them be honest about it) is the better course. At least you can then take their arguments in the context of their POV. M1rth (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

DGG, is your position the same for the category? I too support the existence of the userbox, but do you believe that a listing of Hezbollah supporters should be maintained? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of category - based on this it appears there aren't directly comparable categories. No objection to creating an organization userbox in user space, but I gather this discussion is purely about the category. Addhoc (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of category since the trend has been to delete politically based user categories. (See the succession of "deletes" recorded at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by political ideology.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Does that determine the issue on the user boxes? Or should that discussion be taken elsewhere? I think the category deletion argument has much more strength seeing as there is basic fairness in not allowing any political support categories. I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.--69.120.38.29 (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not even clear to me that the userboxes per se are the subject of consideration in this deletion review, which is why I didn't address them. I realize that they have been discussed above but we can deal with them in a different forum if it would be appropriate to do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all political categories. I'd like to say the same about all political userboxes - Dubya's grinning mug included - but that's for another discussion. -_- krimpet✽ 15:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Restore I'd normally be going for a delete, but if we have some on one side (i.e. Bush, Democracts, Israeli, etc.), we should have them all. I would support a deletion of them all, but it can't be a middle-ground of any sort. Jmlk17 23:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• We don't have any other political user categories. They have all been deleted over the course of the past year. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• It seems like this discussion is finishing up. From what I've seen, the category should stay deleted per Black Falcon's arguments and there is still some disagreement remaining over whether userboxes should be allowed. However, I note that there does seem to be a consensus that these userboxes should be allowed on individual user pages and should not be deleted by other users. I also note in closing that User:Sandstein has not responded to my challenge to delete similar user boxes, and no one who claimed all political user boxes should be deleted even attempted to delete the support for George Bush user box. Therefore, I think I have proved my point that these user boxes should be restored.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)