Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AtikaAtikawa/Userboxes/Anti-israeli apartheid

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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:AtikaAtikawa/Userboxes/Anti-israeli apartheid
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 00:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Considering the current circumstances, this userbox praises the violence against Israelis (especially those that had nothing to do with the conflict). This nomination is from a user who supports Palestinians rights who also believes that Israel can defend itself from Hamas. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The userbox does not call for that nor does it even imply it. In fact the documentation of the userbox clarifies its meaning. It simply states that the Israeli apartheid is the main promoter for this violence. — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa  02:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are Israeli users you know and they do not take that sort of stuff very kindly. Do you know what happened when the Arabic Wikipedia put up a solidarity banner last year? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how content here should please everyone, especially on user pages, I'd even argue that this sounds like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. After all, there are many Anti-"something" userboxes which obviously make partisans of the "something" not very happy.
 * I'd love to know if there is some standard I broke when it comes to making userboxes, I am aware that Userboxes/Politics by country/Palestine says at its top that "Before placing any of these userboxes on your userpage, please consider that many Wikipedians believe that the use of such userboxes runs contrary to the spirit of the guidance given at WP:USERPAGE, because they can be seen as being polemical", but it also says that "There is no requirement that you follow this recommendation, which has no official status" [edited] — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa  03:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unironically good faithed question: What happened when the Arabic Wikipedia put up a solidarity banner last year? — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa  03:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - I usually don't like to get involved in userbox disputes, especially political userbox disputes (but most of the userbox disputes at MFD are political), and I haven't agreed with anti-Israeli viewpoints until about two months ago, but this userbox not only is a reasonable statement of a viewpoint, but also acknowledges the tragic nature of escalation of violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete pro-terrorism userbox that propagandistically endorses Hamas' and other extremist groups' violence. Relativises real and large-scale atrocities and other crimes, terrorist acts and other acts against Israelis by presenting them as natural, just, and needed. You can excuse every evil in the world using this "logic".
 * —Alalch E. 09:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Alalch E. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 19:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per the user creating it not being ECR. However, I wouldn't go all the way as to call it "endorsing Hamas" as the userbox is very non-specific on what it means by "political violence", and the documentation page claims that It should not imply in any way that this user actively supports Palestinian political violence. On the other hand, I understand how the recent context might make it be interpreted like this. I don't think the ongoing war can be summed up as something as simple as Israel can defend itself from Hamas like the nominator does (in this case, why couldn't one also say that Palestinians can defend themselves from Israel?), but I also don't think that is even relevant. While politically charged userboxen (including pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli ones) are allowed, the point is moot as this one was created under violation of WP:ARBECR. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 20:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a law of nature for anyone to massacre anyone, and we are talking about massacres here. October 7 is also Palestinian political violence, the most pronounced recent episode thereof. If you open the you will see "On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched an attack, breaching the Gaza–Israel barrier ... Hamas fighters proceeded to massacre hundreds of civilians at a music festival and in kibbutz Be'eri ...". Humans have agency. Equating human behavior to a manifestation natural order means subjecting human behavior to some "highest order", to a "how things must be". In nature there are laws, there is order, and then it is postulated that in human affairs there is also order, and in the case of Palestine and Israel, this order is a dictum, an imperative to react against the apartheid ... by enacting massacres: the "naturally" imposed, necessary and unavoidable "reaction", just like Newton's laws of motion (linked from the userbox). That's what the userbox says, it goes beyond excusing massacres, it endorses massacres as an imperative of human behavior, which means that it is a moral imperative under the highest law, and this is exactly Hamas propaganda, it is exactly the ideology of October 7 and many other mass atrocities. The perpetrators may be culpable under a more mundane understanding of morality, but they are agents of the natural order of things, and they are the ones who sacrifice themselves to move history along to a natural order of human affairs. Under the same inhuman "logic", Israel cites the "moral imperative to destroy Hamas" to negate the existential threat, and the cycle of violence continues, which is the tragedy that User:Robert McClenon recognizes, but he didn't notice how the ideology imbued in and advertised via this infobox is the fuel of the tragedy.—Alalch E. 20:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You do make a very good point. The cycle of violence is saddening, and this userbox, while claiming it does not actively support one half of it, still excuses it as a natural law. As sad as it is, with both sides seeing their violence as a legitimate reaction, this kind of discourse only excuses the tragic cycle and keeps it going. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Creator has been blocked for violating ARBPIA sanctions. Air on White (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This userbox is trying to say that Israel's actions lead to similar actions against them. The same can be said about the Palestinians though when it comes to Israel. If this is kept then it should be reworded. If not then I wouldn't be opposed to a userbox that understands both sides are hindering their own progress. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Documentation may violate contentious topic sanctions. Haruka  Amaranth  13:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: the term apartheid is incendiary. However, userboxes that criticize actual practices, e.g., inequitable allocation of funds, are legitimate. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is fine in the context of user boxes, where there is some latitude to express political opinions. If this is about this specific user and ARBPIA sanctions, then this would be a matter of WP:AE, not deletion discussion. MarioGom (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is not as the user above me said fine [...] to express political opinions. This clearly express that is is fine to kill Israelis. How is this even debatable here and how isn't User:AtikaAtikawa permanently blocked from this site? Gonnym (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because the userbox says nothing about killing Israelis. Levivich (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The userbox would be fine if it were in any extended confirmed editor's userspace. So if someone wants to take it, keep, otherwise delete but allow recreation when the editor hits XC. There's nothing wrong with expressing support for people's right to defend themselves. Israel has the right to defend itself from Hamas, and Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from Israel. Levivich (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There a difference between expressing support for people's right to defend themselves against Israel and calling for the destruction of Israel. The phrase "From the river to the sea" is a call for genocide, not for self defense. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What it means depends on who you ask. Levivich (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:UBCR: "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive". Are you denying that it is contentious? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Couldn't say it better than Alalch E. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia has no obligation to protect plausibly-deniable, couched nodding at violence and terrorism. Obviously we wouldn't accept a userbox that says "you get what's coming to you" with the title "Anti-Palestinian Islamism". Zanahary (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.