Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Queerly Bohemian/Userboxes/FreedomFighters

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

User:Queerly Bohemian/Userboxes/FreedomFighters

User:Queerly Bohemian/Userboxes/FreedomFighters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is a userbox that is used by some editors in here that says this user supports PKK, YPG and other terrorist Kurdish groups. According to Wikipedia the PKK has been designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States, 28 European countries, and Japan. These terror people have killed thousands of innocent people, we can't have editors who support terrorists and feel proud about it.---SharabSalam (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin note - because a few users are disruptively blanking the template while it's being discussed, it is now protected for the duration of this discussion. If I am needed to implement the result of the discussion, please ping me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with User:SharabSalam, further this violates TOS, specifically illegal activities. Please don't argue "Freedom of speech" since we actually don't have that here. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a legitimate expression of personal opinion presumably reflective of one's interests on Wikipedia. Yes, some governments consider YPG, et al. a proscribed organisation; others, however, do not and we are on a slippery slope if we attempt to dictate such things. That's not to say that we support
  freespeech, and if the userbox said "This user supports blowing people up" it would be well within the remit of WP:POLEMIC. But this is effectively a regurgitaion of the old "one man's Wikipedian's terrorist is another man's Wikipedian's freedom fighter", etc. ——SN54129 18:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What if someone said "I am a supporter of ISIS and all freedom fighters" free speech? The PKK is designated as a terrorist group by 28 European states, the U.S., Japan and Turkey. Those "fReEdOm" people have killed many innocent people including children and women.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam:, you need to dial it down immediately. Comparing anything to ISIS is unacceptable without solid evidence, from reliable sources; your own opinions about the group (or mine, for that matter) count for nothing here. And if you're unable to separate your opinions about them from how Wikipedia discusses them, then this is a topic you are likely to be removed from. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PKK has been designated as a terrorist group by 28 European countries and the U.S.. Well if not ISIS then what about Hezbulloh, Hamas or the Islamic Jihad, can I call them freedom fighters? Also I know innocent people who have been killed by the PKK. This is a terrorist group that should not be tolerated.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, or at most modify. Designation as a terrorist group can mean a lot, or very little. Organizations previously designated terrorist groups include the African National Congress, now the ruling party in South Africa, and whose leader later won a Nobel Peace prize. Designations are made based on political considerations. What matters is whether
  reliable sources describe something as a terrorist organization; if they do, then we have a reasonable basis to prohibit supporting them on Wikipedia. Furthermore; of the three organizations listed in the box, two are considerably more mainstream; I see no reason at all to prohibit advertising support for them. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Vanamonde93 the U.S., 28 European countries and Japan has designated the group as a terrorist group. The U.S. president has said that they are probably bigger terrorist threat than ISIS.[1]--SharabSalam (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  reliable sources say about them. Go find such sources backing your argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Sources do call them terrorists,[2] you can do a simple google search and you find a lot of sources saying that also the UN and the EU says that the PKK is a terrorist group.[3]--SharabSalam (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what I wrote? I don't care what the US government, or any other, says about the PKK. I care about what

reliable sources say about them User: Vanamonde93 US Government = reliable sources. PKK is shown in Wikipedia (per reliable sources ) to be a terrorist organization. There are a ton of sources right here. it is what it is. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 19:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

No, government statements are primary sources; they are reliable as sources for the government's position, nothing more. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Let's see, per

WP:PRIMARY

, primary sources are described as:

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event    <- This doesn't fit

are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.    <- This doesn't fit either

They offer an insider's view of an event,    <- This doesn't fit

a period of history,    <- ...and this doesn't fit

a work of art, a political decision, and so on.    <- and this doesn't fit

None of those fit the sources I just mentioned, no one was close to the event, written by people involved, nor did they offer an insider's view of anything. They fail the definition of primary, so they can't be primary sources. Bear in mind, some of the sources I mentioned are from magazines, which are not part of the government. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's wikilawyering, and I'm not going to get into the weeds with you. Call them unreliable secondary sources, if it makes you happier; but the fact remains that they are less reliable than independent secondary sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @

  an entire article full of times he has made false or misleading statements? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @NorthBySouthBaranof: well... he didnt lie there. I dont know whether this is a violation of BLP or not but whatever. The UN and the EU has designated the PKK as a terrorist group. The bottom line is that these people have killed many innocent people and someone here is calling them freedom fighters and advocating for terrorism.-SharabSalam (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @SharabSalam: You're not doing yourself any favors here. Stop the hyperbole, and listen to what people are trying to tell you. The two sources you provided don't back your claims up in the slightest; one appears to be a Turkish government publication, and the other is only saying what we already knew; that certain governments consider this group a terrorist organization. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The group is a terrorist group considered like that by many respectful organisations like the UN [4][1.pdf]. The group has killed many innocent people. Adding the userbox which says that these terrorists are freedom fighters is extremely offensive to the people who have relatives or friends who were killed by the PKK. Also the source is not a "Turkish government publication", it is published by Hoover Institution, an American publication.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You do realise that the first of those links is summarizing the statement made by the Turkish delegate to the UN, not by the UN itself? The provenance of the second isn't clear; and I'll need to see some evidence that the magazine in question is a Hoover Institute publication. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if the PKK template is allowed then could I create one for the Houthis or for Hezbullah?--SharabSalam (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not matter what they are labelled as by who, highly controversial userboxes like this cause more harm than good. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Remove PKK. @
  YPG, right? I don't see a problem with a user advocating their support for those two decently regarded organizations, but I completely understand why we shouldn't let users publicly declare their support for designated terrorist groups on the site. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Also, in case people need a good comparison, the PKK is almost exactly like the

  Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present) for information; you'll notice that PKK enacts attacks like this while does stuff like this). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  MJL, They are PKK-linked (per RSs down) and they are controversial because they are accused of war crimes.

  "PYD Political relations with the PKK-linked PYD or any other related institution were avoided". [5] (page 147)

  "as the role of the PYD increased, the Kurdish experience in Syria became a model for PKK-linked organizations" [6] (page 299)

  War crimes by the PYG-led autonomous in Syria report by amnesty--SharabSalam (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @SharabSalam: You and I both know that I can find reports of Turkey doing the same exact behavior (it was also trivial to find Amnesty International accusing the United States of war crimes). I also know that United States foreign policy is that the two organizations are seperate (despite evidence to contrary that two have some pretty obvious ties). Personal beliefs aside, shouldn't it be acceptable for a person to vocalize their support for those two groups when that is the exact position taken by many governments? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The Turkish government says that these groups are terrorists. Also the PKK is considered as a terror group by the UN, EU, 28 European nations, Japan and the US. Antifa-supporting userbox was also removed because Antifa is accused of terrorism so why this userbox shouldn't be removed?. Also why in Nableezy's userpage it was not allowed to name the resistance movement that he supports?.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @SharabSalam: You make a good point that it is a decisive either way and necessarily a form of indicating support for violent actions (per my comment here). Therefore, we should probably just delete. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem. I am sorry, I didn't see your userpage. I was going to change it and say sorry but I got edit conflict and then I reloaded the editor and I found that it has been changed. I went to the history and thanked you. I used to use "they" all the time. My English language is not very good and I sometimes just use he because I feel that my comment became confusing when using they.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @SharabSalam: No worries! I figured it was an accident. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Start of a slippery slope, as per other comments, above. Supporting the UK or US governments could be viewed as supporting terrorism in some people's eyes.... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The UN and the EU consider the PKK as a terrorist group. This is a militia that is widely and overseas considered as a terrorist group.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment we had a similar userbox for antifa[7] that was eventually removed on the ground of
  WP:POLEMIC and other policies, also this user(Queerly Bohemian) was using that antifa userbox. Also a reminder to MJL that they voted Delete there.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and you can log off so as not to see the userbox. MarnetteD|Talk 21:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Lets not support terrorist groups? Kind of like we don't support Nazis or communists. PackMecEng (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of users here who support both Nazis and communists. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and that is not great. Though as long as they are not advertising such things and not causing problems that is fine. That is not he case here obviously. PackMecEng (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PackMecEng: - do you genuinely think that all communists are a terrorist group? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Do you think all people from X group are bad? PackMecEng (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Require modification for retention - so let's start with a general statement: I don't believe that we should allow userboxes advocating for organisations considered by a majority of sources to be a terroristic organisation, notwithstanding that there is no coherently unified definition for terror, terrorist, or terroristic. So I oppose any completely broad permission, as otherwise we're going to have this again and again. Nosebagbear (talk)

So, then we have to consider is the PKK prohibited if the above reasoning is accepted. Being Wikipedia, we might as well look at "PKK's designation as a terrorist group" section. Is also a good summary on organisations in general and includes the PKK. The majority of sources available do include the PKK as a terrorist group, though a look there and online show the large majority generally include some degree of support of their goals and repudiate Trump's statement that they're worse than ISIS. It's their methods that are problematic. Nosebagbear (talk)

PYD and YPG do not have a majority consensus that they are terror organisations so are fine. As food for thought (for those not already backing Keep) - would we be okay, or against, with a userbox saying something along the lines of "This user does not believe the PKK is a terrorist organisation". Nosebagbear (talk)

In terms of execution, this could either require alteration of the base userbox, or indicate its deletion but with a specific statement of what would be an acceptable userbox. We're not in ANI (where this was proposed), but while I'm here I specifically rebut the suggestion for a siteban for the user. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources that repudiate Trump's statement is this op-ed. It makes very weak points like the PKK is not worse than ISIS because it is not targeting the West. It claims that the PKK has killed civilians unintentionally while ISIS intentionally kills civilians (that's not true the PKK has made many suicide attacks in Turkey either targeting non combat military personal or civilians, the PKK also use females (like Zeynep Kinaci) in suicide attacks [8][9][10]). However, the op-ed says that the PKK is a terrorist group and doesnt dispute that. I dont see how different is saying that "This user believes that ISIS is not a terrorist group" from saying that "This user believes that PKK is not a terrorist group".--SharabSalam (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam: - you're trying to use an op-ed piece that is not one of the primary sources the Keep !votes depend on, and simultaneously both damming it as a source and trying to use it as a source. It's an op-ed, so discount it entirely, and as with any argument you're obliged to give the strongest possible reading, in this case, tackling the best sources linked or findable. In terms of the latter point - my food for thought point is that it's quite possible "This user believes that ISIS is not a terrorist group" would also be permissable as a userbox (though a good indication of a user I'd want to avoid both for their reasoning and their opinions). Nosebagbear (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nosebagbear: I do agree with your basic frame of reference; that an organisation considered a terrorist group by independent reliable sources, especially scholars, should not be advertised on Wikipedia. My issue is that nobody seems to want to provide evidence of this; everyone who is arguing to delete is basing this on personal opinion or government declarations (which, as I pointed out, aren't useful in this circumstance; who is considered a terrorist is often a matter of political expediency). Vanamonde (Talk) 00:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is The userbox makes no reference to terrorism (which is a loaded term; one entity's "terrorists" are another entity's "freedom fighters"). Miniapolis 23:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really the case here. PackMecEng (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  After researching all three groups I stand by my !vote, although Guy's suggestion to modify the ubx expressing general support for the Kurds is a good one. Miniapolis 16:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Terms of Service violation, no brainer. Also, an extreme violation of
  WP:POLEMIC. These organisations have bombed, often indiscriminately, and killed thousands of men, women and children, causing untold mental and physical pain to their innocent victims. I recognise that the Kurds feel they have had their homeland taken from them or deprived of it, but this in no way justifies doing a much much greater evil of a terrorist campaign slaughtering the innocent. We do not allow Nazi or pro-paedophilia userboxes, why should terrorism be any different, they all cause human suffering.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The userbox states that it supports all freedom fighters, which would include tiny fringe crackpot terrorist organisations that represent 1% or less of their community’s opinion. Basically, the userbox is saying all armed and political violence is good, just so long as there is a perception of fighting for freedom. By extension it is tecnically actually saying, unintentionally, Turkey is right to seek freedom from the Kurds by fighting them physically and politically because all freedom fighting is good after all, according to this userbox. If the following is deleted from the user box then I could be happy with the userbox being kept: ‘PKK’ and ‘freedom fighters the world over’.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• A further thought is the userbox supports (because it says it supports “freedom fighters the world over”) both sides of a terrorist conflict e.g. the
  WP:FRINGE and offensive to all right thinking people, especially those who have lost loved ones to terrorism.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This violates terms of use criterion 4 given that the US Government (where Wikipedia's servers are located) has designated the PKK to be a terrorist organisation. As noted, above, the PKK has been widely designated a terrorist group by the governments of a large number of liberal democracies (I'd add Australia to the mix here) from across the political spectrum, so there should be no doubt over their status. As such, advocating on behalf of this group, especially in this way, is clearly promoting a terrorist organisation. The infobox's statement that the user supports unspecified other groups similar to this is also massively unacceptable as this could be used as cover to signal support for other terrorist groups, potentially including ISIS. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I suspect you'd really struggle to make that case, as US law is so extremely permissable when it comes to free speech that something along these lines. What is not in doubt is their right to say the latter - you can't reword it to indicate support for something other than what is strictly stated. This is particularly the case when there are non-problematic organisations in it - ejusdem generis requires the other cases to be interpreted with in line with those that overlap all examples given. I also am inclined to agree with Wugapodes - if we vote to Keep (or vote to modify, to a version you still aren't satisfied with) in disputable cases like this, then WMF Legal are the place to go to. TOS violations (that don't violate policy) should only be acted on by us in clear-cut cases. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Nosebagbear. I think there's an important question of how this information relates to encyclopedia building; however we already allow wide latitude on that point for userboxes so I lean keep, I'm not persuaded by arguments related to the terms of service. The TOS is not a community policy and is not the responsibility of the community to enforce; few of us are lawyers and TOS paranoia, like copyright paranoia, is detrimental to the project. Let the WMF deal with preventing the government from shutting down Wikipedia rather than starting an inquisition. Wug·a·po·des​ 07:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and sadly its an otherstuffy reason. If you have user boxers that support anything another person might view as terrorists or murders then weither delete them all or do not apply a (to my mind) double standard.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The deference between freedom of speech and NOTCENSORED, is that NOTCENSORED applies where the objectionable content is legitimately related to building an encyclopedia, and freedom of speech, which we don't have, applies to everything else, and all the many things that are not purpose of Wikipedia. This doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than making divisive statements not related to the project. The PKK is a terrorist group. They traffic drugs, use suicide bombers, recruit child soldiers. For anyone who doesn't know that, lucky for you, we live in the 21st century and you have a wealth of information at your finger tips.

As to the "terrorist vs freedom fighter" 1) eww, and 2) cliches aren't arguments. GMG^talk 16:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with GMG rationale. --mikeu ^talk 16:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lugnuts and SN54129. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 19:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  bludgeoning| this discussion. Please stop repeating ad nauseam that "28 European states, the U.S., Japan and Turkey" have designated the PKK as a terrorist group. We've got it. Other countries have not, and plenty of governments that have, have done so for obvious political reasons. Claims by Trump or Erdogan are hardly reliable sources. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC).[reply
  ]

Just noting Bish that the PKK was designated a terrorist organization by the US in 1997 under the administration of Bill Clinton. Regardless of how poorly SharabSalam may have represented the argument rhetorically, their designation isn't really a new partisan issue. GMG^talk 23:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: And as I pointed out above, folks designated terrorists by the US included, at one point, the ANC under Nelson Mandela, and the PLO under Yasser Arafat; those individuals both subsequently won Nobel peace prizes. The designations are a political project. What matters is what reliable sources say about these groups; and those advocating to delete this have repeatedly ignored my requests for such sources supporting the claim that the PKK is a terrorist group. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I was specifically addressing the seeming allegation that this was a "Trump thing". It's not. If you don't know anything about the PKK then...I dunno...go read stuff. Here's Human Right's Watch. That's a thing to read. Here's a thing to read. Here's a thing to read.

It's not my job to google for you. GMG^talk 00:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I lean delete only because the box includes three separate groups with different histories. I would support a simple expression of solidarity with ethnic Kurds and their right to self-determination. Guy (help!) 23:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Guy for supporting three different all controversial groups. By the way, I disagree with User:Literaturegeek specifically in that it doesn't say that they support all freedom fighters around the world, just freedom fighters, so there isn't a matter of supporting both sides, but this is an excessively controversial userbox. The length of this discussion and the amount of bludgeoning illustrates that this userbox does more harm than good. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagreeing is cool, it is what makes the Wikipedia world go around. The user box says freedom fighters “the world over” which means everywhere in the world or, in my view, ‘all’. Two opposing paramilitary groups can both be fighting for freedom for their own people or communities e.g. Protestant British paramilitaries versus Irish Catholic paramilitaries, in fact it is not uncommon.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I don't care if it's a "terrorist" organization or not. I don't think Wikipedia user pages should be used to advertise support for any organization, or political party, or corporation, or non-profit, or anything like that, because
  WP:POLEMIC and so forth. Yes, there are many other userpages that advertise support for organizations of all kinds–feel free to ping me to those MFDs. – Levivich 04:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Levivich: What about userboxes in support of the Wikimedia Foundation? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per Guy--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- This was not a neutral notification. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t think there is any disagreement at all, academic or otherwise, that healthcare professionals treat the end results of paramilitary activity, thus I felt and feel the message was neutral, going by the spirit of

  WP:NPOV. I simply pointed this out (that healthcare professionals treat these patients) to readers of that notice board in case someone thought: ‘what has terrorism got to do with medical care?’. You don’t explain why you feel it was not neutral....--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You titled it "Terrorist deletion discussion". The page under discussion is titled "FreedomFighters". By framing the notice with two mentions of terrorism in that way, you've, hopefully inadvertently, implied that anyone voting keep would be for terrorism. So, I disagree. Nor does your argument hold any water. Medical professionals treat victims of everything, and people of all and no professions affect and are affected by terrorism. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, fair point. I changed it, but in my defence FreedomFighters is equally as biased, the only people who refer to these illegal paramilitary groups as ‘freedom fighters’ is their supporters. The neutral term is paramilitary groups. It could be argued that this deletion discussion is biased (which would counteract my choice of the word terrorist) because it is called FreedomFighters but I guess that is the name of the userbox so it is what it is. Thank you for drawing my attention to this issue. I hope my changes resolve this issue.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - @Vanamonde93: designation as a terrorist group may have legal implications (important to TOS), but isn't necessarily important to the community. Rather, the act of supporting a group that uses political violence, particularly against civilians, is far more relevant - as this userbox does. I don't think that's conducive to a collegial atmosphere. And yes, that includes the actions of the PLO - I don't rate the Nobel Peace Prize to be honest. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a note, but it's not clear that the TOU argument holds water, regardless of whether it's on my "side" or not. It's not at all clear that a user box could be reasonably construed as providing material support for terrorism (operative term being "material support") and there certainly isn't any precedent that I'm aware of for this interpretation. Besides that, the Foundation likely doesn't care as it's essentially already been decided that they are not liable under Section 230. GMG^talk 16:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh PYD and SDF are quite okay; scholarly consensus about Kürdistan İşçi Partisi seems to be that it is a terrorist group. I will argue for a keep, if the latter is removed and a delete, if all political user-boxes are outright banned. ∯WBG^converse 18:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC
• Keep We allow userboxes supporting a wide variety of groups, organizations, and nations, a numberr of which use violence in various ways that others disapprove of, including the US government. I would only support deleting this if there was consensus to remove all user boxes supporting any organization. It doesn't matter who does or does not designate this (or any other group) as a terrorist organization. If individual editors support such an organization, that can and perhaps should be taken into account when assesing those editors edits on related topics. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @DESiegel:Wait so because it is not all terrorist user boxes and because you think they are the same as the US government this one should not be deleted? What an odd argument to make. Though I personally would be okay with getting rid of all user boxes that support terrorism, if you know others perhaps we could nominate those as well. PackMecEng (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  PackMecEng, I don't really think we can or should try to distinguish what constitutes "supporting terrorism" so that user boxes supporting some organizations can be banned, but not others. I say delete none of them, or delete all of them, including governments, nations, the Red Cross, the Friends Service Committee, various religious organizations, and the World Bridge Federation. Either we permit userboxes supporting organizations, or we don't, but we do not get into the business of deciding what organizations are too controversial or too violent ot too whatever. Any organization has some opposed to it, and many that are widely thought well of routinely employ violence of some degree. Judging which ones are justified does more harm than the boxes, left unchallenged, ever could, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @DESiegel:No, we let RS dictate what organizations are terrorists. Which is the case here. So going by that, yes they are a terrorist organization. Are you saying we should not go by what RS say about an org? All or nothing is not really realistic with such a broad net. PackMecEng (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  But sources conflict, PackMecEng. Which source would you folow? In an articel we can show the positions of sources with due weight. I do not think that any source is sufficient to say that an organization must be banned from expressions of support on Wikipedia when others are not, and i doubt you can find any organization not supported by some sources. We follow sources when describing an organization in an article, and if the clear majority of sources say that an organization is a terrorist one, we so describe it. But we do not and should not follow sources to the extend of specifying what groups our editors may express support for and which they may not express support for. While there is no absolute right to free speech on Wikipedia of the sort that a citizen may assert against a government (say that enshrined in the US First Amendment and similar rules in other countries), and we could ban all personal expressions of political views, I think it is both morally wrong and counter-productive to try to permit expressions of support for some groups and ban them for others. If this user box is deleted, we should seriously consider banning all political userboxes at least. I can certainly find sources that describe the Baltimore (MD) Police Department, say, as a terrorist organization that inflicts violence on civilians to maintain its power. I really don't think debating which organizations are, and which are not, acceptable for editors here to express support for is a good idea, nor does it help to build an encyclopedia. I see no policy-based reason for deletion here that would not equally apply to most "I support X organization" boxes. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Other than the "do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good" issue, at the risk of breaking my own rule against using cliches as if they were actual arguments, are you really comparing an organization that puts guns in the hand of children and praises mothers for blowing themselves up to the Red Cross? If you step up and say that you support ISIS userboxes and Third Reich userboxes, I'll at least grant you the benefit of granting you being consistent in your argument. GMG^talk 02:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No, GreenMeansGo, I don't equate the PKK with the RedCross, but my point is that soem will (specifically some have accuesed vaccination drives of beign attempts at genocide), and my other point is that if we ban userboxes for some organizations we should ban them for all organizations, and especially all political orgizations, however worthy or seemly harmless. I do support an "I support the Nazi Party" user box, a "Black lives matter" user box, an "I suporrt the John Birch society" userbox, an "I ssupport ISIS" user box, and an "I suport the Furgeson Police" userbox, as long as we permit any "I support X" user box. And I speak as one who lost relatices (not close ones, but still) to the Holocausst. I am not convinced that singlign out soem groups as "terrorists" and banning expressions of support for them, but not for other political and governmetal orginizations that do use violence is in any degree "the good". I have seen the US governmetn label as terrorist organizations that I thought worth my support, as well as ones I thoght heinous. Personally I have no userboxes except the original babel boxes for language skils, and I wouldn't mind if we returned to that. But if we are going to allow personal views and support for soem organizations, we should not be in the buisness of drawing lines. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment BTW the person behind this userbox has been inactive for 4 years. CoolSkittle (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Outrage alone is not a valid rationale to delete a userbox.--WaltCip (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:UP#NOT. I don't really care about the official designation as a terrorist group: the debate about terrorists vs. freedom fighters itself is divisive and harmful and does not belong to userspace. --Pudeo (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- Per SN, MPolis and Lnuts, among others. In absence of a definitive terrorist-list which Wikipedia shouldn't maintain, it comes down to local consensus on case by case basis. Being designated a terrorist organisation by the United States and its allies doesn't meet the bar for "obviously a terrorist organisation" as those are completely political lists, which have in the past listed freedom fighters as terrorists and vice versa. People are allowed to be wrong in their user-space. Believing that a terrorist is a freedom fighter, accepting that premise (AGF), would be a mistaken belief but not nefarious. The world is filled with well-meaning people with mistaken beliefs and acts. As long as we allow userboxes that advertise support or affiliation for things that other well-meaning people could disagree with, like USA, or vaccination, or the Green New Deal, we have to allow support for organisations, regarding which as freedom-fighters, isn't a clear case of despicable. I am sure we would agree to delete userboxes supporting pedophilia or Genocide or ISIS or Al-qaeda, or those that explicitly say they support terrorism/terrorist organisations, or acts that can only be described as terrorism. This is not one of those. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You are aware that the PKK have a history of targeting civilians and suicide bombing? Your comment appears to be comparing the PKK with vaccination policy and Green New Deal, in terms of similarity re. use of userboxes?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The US UK France and many other countries have also engaged in practices that have been described as targeting civilians. The only consistent policy if we permit "support" infoboxes at all is support all of them. The distinction has to be if the infobox explictly advocates violence, not just that the organization does. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.