Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Katangais/Userboxes/Ian Smith (2nd nomination)

 __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.

The result of the discussion was:  no consensus.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 16:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Katangais/Userboxes/Ian Smith

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Beside being rather obscure and not widely used, this userbox can be considered very inflammatory and divisive. Stating that you support Ian Smith, the head of the racist regime in former Rhodesia, is not much different from stating that you support apartheid in South Africa (the closest ally of the Smith's regime, by the way), or the Ku Klux Klan and the Neo-Confederate "enthusiasts" in the US, for instance. —Sundostund (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Historical. Not offensive except to someone digging looking for offence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but the argument that its historical can hardly be acceptable for this userbox. By using that logic, it would be possible to allow almost all kinds of userboxes supporting historical racist regimes. And where the end would be, with the userbox stating support for Adolf Hitler? Would that be acceptable? I don't think so. —Sundostund (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can compare the two as Hitler started World War II in Europe, and oversaw The Holocaust. As noted in the previous MfD we have had polarizing politicians here in the US such as Donald Trump and Barack Obama. What makes Ian Smith any different other than being a controversial figure? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, in some aspects, Smith is worse than Hitler, however strange it may sound. Without any doubt, Hitler had the support of the wast majority of people in his country (at least in some periods of his rule), while Smith's unique "accomplishment" (comparable only to the apartheid regime in South Africa) is that he presided over the regime which simply barred about 80% of his country's population (its native African people) to even vote against him (with separate voting rolls for blacks and whites), and gave all the decision-making to the minority white electorate. Trump and Obama both won open, fair and highly contested elections, so they can't be even on the same page as Smith, when it comes to being polarizing and controversial. —Sundostund (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * “Rather obscure” is a really bad reason for deletion. It does NOT say “… support Ian Smith”, but is couched past tense and implies lack of current support.
 * If a Wikipedian reported their membership in the NAZI Youth, that would be acceptable as a statement of their personal history without violating NONAZIS. Many people supported the late Ian Smith, and an admission of that is not automatically forbidden. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * “Rather obscure” is a valid reason for deletion, IMHO. After certain amount of time, there is no reason to keep countless userboxes that hardly anybody actually identify with, and therefore use. Regardless of the wording, current or past support, I find it unacceptable to have an userbox which clearly endorses the leader of a racist regime, his premiership or him personally.
 * So far, I never encountered a Wikipedian proud of their membership in the Hitler Youth, and I hope I never will. I would find an userbox related to their "happy memories" in that organization as highly unacceptable, and would certainly support its deletion. There must not be allowed to picture the Nazi regime in a positive or nostalgic way, including the one you mentioned.
 * —Sundostund (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NORACISTS, or at best “substantially divisive” per WP:UBX. Seems like an unnecessary “both sides” userbox nobody is going to use and not an actual attempt at disruption. Dronebogus (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Sufficiently divisive. As the first, last, and only Prime Minister of Rhodesia, he's synonymous with the former white ethnostate. From his article: Smith, who has been described as personifying white Rhodesia, remains a highly controversial figure.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 03:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as the userbox isn't specific or clear which things about him were supported. Are we talking about events before or after Rhosedia's Declaration of Independence? Ian Smith's time in office is recent enough for those around to remember good or bad things about him. I also want to note that the nominator's rationale is similar to the last "Keep" Mfd regarding this userbox. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I'm very surprised it closed as keep the first time, the userbox originally read "Ian Smith did nothing wrong" which is much worse than what it says today.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 05:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh gaw. Dronebogus (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The older version was much more offensive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Without resorting to whataboutism, I feel it’s necessary as the creator of this infobox to discuss the context in which I made it- it was part of a group of three expressing support for all three past and present Zimbabwean heads of state: Smith, Mugabe, and Mnangagwa. All three are controversial. All three have been accused of human rights abuses, and in the case of the latter two, participation in ethnic cleansing (in the case of the former, heading up an ethnostate). My impression is that it is infoboxes expressing support for controversial politicians is OK, as long as it’s not outright inflammatory in the sense that it attacks or disparages specific groups. If the mere presence of controversy is considered divisive and/or inflammatory enough that an infobox must be deleted, I invite the users here to also nominate my Mugabe and Mnangagwa userboxes for deletion ASAP and will take this precedent in mind when creating userboxes in the future. However, nominating this userbox for deletion on the (subjective) grounds that Smith represented a peculiar or unique type of evil is problematic, for the reasons already discussed above.


 * Not that this really ought to matter, but I’m not white or some far right racist ideologue, and in fact hail from a country with a very recent colonial past (Malaysia). I like looking at different perspectives of Zimbabwean history because I find it interesting, not because I’ve got a horse in this race. I resent the sly implication in some of the comments above that this userbox was created for no other apparent reason than to push white supremacy. -- Katan gais (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have nominated this userbox since I consider it to be particularly inflammatory and unacceptable, in the same way as I would think of an userbox stating support/nostalgia for apartheid. Thankfully, I didn't encounter something like that on Wikipedia, so far... I support the idea of nominating userboxes about Mugabe and Mnangagwa for deletion as well, and I will certainly vote for their removal, if it comes to their nomination. —Sundostund (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * RE: that Smith represented a peculiar or unique type of evil - Respectfully, there's good reason why you won't find a lot of public pro-Rhodesia userboxes using the search feature at Wikipedia:Userboxes, and it's not unreasonable to consider this to be one, even if it wasn't created to reflect your beliefs. I was never under the illusion that you had any bad intentions when creating it, and I certainly hope that I didn't imply that my !vote against your userbox is in any way a condemnation of you as an editor. The problem - to me at least - is not just the mere presence of controversy, or even that I find Smith reprehensible, it is that he is uniquely synonymous with the white ethnostate in a way that other leaders aren't. I view this as comparable to a userbox expressing support for the presidency of Jefferson Davis; it's a situation where the person and the state they led cannot be easily separated.  Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 20:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The point isn’t that the box is inherently offensive, or that the creator does or does not intend it as such, but that the box has an unnecessarily high likelihood of causing division. Dronebogus (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the weakest rationale I’ve seen for deletion so far. If an unnecessarily high likelihood of promoting division is grounds for deleting this box, I suggest you nominate every userbox expressing support for Donald Trump for deletion as well. Katan gais  (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, that rationale isn't weak at all. An unnecessarily high likelihood of promoting division sounds like a very valid reason to consider whether or not we keep a political userbox, especially the one as inflammatory as this... Also, I can very easily imagine Wikipedia without userboxes expressing support for Donald Trump, and I am not disturbed by that thought in the least. —Sundostund (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. If potential divisiveness really is enough to warrant a deletion, I guess I’ll see how this turns out and use it to inform how I create userboxes in the future. I regret that this one came to be perceived as inflammatory. Katan gais  (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope this doesn't come off harshly, but I can't help but notice that you started your !vote with "Without resorting to whataboutism" but your frequent suggestions that if this one isn't kept, then your Mugabe userbox and your Mnangagwa userbox and any userboxes about Trump etc ought to be deleted too is very much whataboutism. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 19:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Bringing up these other userboxes is an attempt to frame this discussion in context. I’m not using whatsboutism as an outright argument for keep, merely emphasizing the context in which this discussion is taking place. That distinction is important because it will set precedents for many other userboxes which may be deleted on similar grounds in the future. Note that the original discussion took place because a user was going around nominating every single userbox for right-wing politicians in developing nations for deletion. Katan gais  (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, preventing someone from expressing their support for a controversial figure doesn't make that support magically disappear. it's not like the userbox is directly racist, it doesn't read as "I fully agree with every controversial decision Ian Smith made and he did nothing wrong." — Mcguy15  (talk, contribs) 17:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NORACISTS. This userbox is a definite violation of WP:UBCR. Some people might feel intimidated by this. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment 'Some people might feel intimidated' by statements of support for any historical figure. Leroy Patterson IV (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - I do not like polemical userboxes, I don't know what purpose they serve on Wikipedia and I wouldn't use one. But it is not our duty, nor indeed our right to decide which opinions users may or may not express. If you feel the statement is divisive or inflammatory, the same can be said of any opinion, or any historical regime under which people suffered. The user in question may express his opinions at his leisure. Leroy Patterson IV (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, we do reserve the right to delete userboxes expressing divisive or inflammatory opinions, but we do so on a case by case basis. Some inflammatory polemical userboxes are deleted very quickly, others are kept very quickly, and then you have cases like this where it's borderline and hard to find a very strong consensus either way. Not all historical regimes, figures, or ideologies are equal; no one would agree to keep a userbox expressing support for a certain regime, but this doesn't open the door to a slippery slope in which userboxes relating to any and all historical regimes under which people suffered are to be deleted. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 20:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Leroy Patterson IV is a sockpuppet. Dronebogus (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought it was suspicious that a rather new account was !voting in an MfD. Thanks for striking their !vote. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 01:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per McGuy. Userboxes like these are useful in informing other editors as to the ideological and sociological characteristics that may accompany the bearer's perspective in editing Wikipedia. That it can be used as a dogwhistle is not in and of itself a reason to delete. --WaltCip- (talk)  14:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.