Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Some of the issues surrounding the purpose of WikiProject tags were usefully explored, and consensus was that a WikiProject tag identified that an article was within the interest of a group of editors rather than categorizing the article as belonging to a topic field; removing such tags without consensus of the involved WikiProject(s) was seen as unhelpful. Legitimate concerns were raised about potential association discomfort for people connected with the subject of a BLP article, and sensible suggestions were put forward for wording or presenting WikiProject tags in such a manner to clarify to all readers the purpose of WikiProject tags. An appropriate venue for further discussion on this matter would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilkTork (talk • contribs) 19:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scope[edit]

The aim of this request for comment is to consider how we should balance the "do no harm" principle, enshrined in our policy for living persons, and the need to respect the subject, with the current widespread practice of wikiprojects of tagging articles as being "within the scope of" interested wikiprojects.

This RfC was triggered by a dispute over the appropriateness of a "Wikiproject:LGBT" tag added to the biography of Johnny Weir, a skater, who has refused to comment on his sexuality. Some editors believed the tag appropriate as he was of interest to editors of that wikiproject, others felt that the tag tended to imply something about the nature of his sexuality that was inappropriate, and thus violated the spirit of the policy on living people.

However, this discussion is intended not to focus on that article, nor on WP:LGBT, but on the wider issues, which will have relevance to many wikiprojects and articles.

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed issues}

  1. WP:BLP
  2. Wikipedia:WikiProject

Views[edit]

View By Scott MacDonald[edit]

The general principle here is "do no harm": the subjects of our biographies do not choose to be written about and, while exercising our right to create neutral verifiable articles about them, we must do everything we can to prevent adverse or unwelcome commentary or inference or portrayals of those individuals beyond neutral verifiable content.

The contents of a talk page may not be as visible as the article itself, but they are only one click away from a use who searches google for that subject. They will inevitable be viewed by people not familiar with wikipedia. Admittedly, for our project to function there needs to be a large degree of community freedom to discuss issues concerning the subject to decide what is appropriate to include in the article. Often this will result in material on the talk page that is less than neutral or verifiable. However, the need for such discussion must be balanced against any possible harm, and inappropriate commentary, or posts that do not directly relate to improving the article should be removed. BLP applies to talk pages, if in a somewhat different form.

The practice of wikiproject tagging may have some utility to our project, but it is limited. Many wikiprojects simply tag articles which have only a passing relevance to the project, and in any case tag thousands of articles - far more than their members are ever going to work on as part of their collaborative work. At times it does seem that project members are engaged in marking out the furthest limits of their "turf" with little thought to the utility of doing so. (I have described this as being like dogs pissing on lampposts as they pass to stake a claim to territory.) Further, even if an article is not tagged by the wikiproject, this does not prevent the article being listed on the Wikiproject's pages or discussed there. In short, the activity of tagging is of only marginal (at best) utility to the project. Refraining from tagging the odd BLP, where the tag might be controversial, is not of significant loss to the project at all. The loss will be even less when the subject is only of minor interest to the wikiproect.

Can such tags be harmful? Well, any harm will be fairly low here. However, it is not unreasonable to think that a reader or subject seeing a biography tagged as being within the scope of a wikiproject might draw an inference about the person's identity. If Wikiproject Philadelphia tags Philadelphians, then someone might easily conclude that Wikiproject anti-Semitism tags anti-Semites, or wikiproject paedophilia tags paedophiles. (Naturally, if the person is notable for being a campaigner against anti-Semitism, the alternative reason for the tagging will be more obvious.) That our inhouse intention is not to to equate wikiproject tagging with categorising the individual, does not remove the fact that the reader is likely to conclude otherwise, and draw an inference, and that this inference may make a statement about the individual that is misleading, unverified, non-neutral and possibly distressing or harmful.

The harm is, perhaps, slightly greater where the connection between the wikiproject and the subject is less central. If a BLP is tagged as "wikiproject Nazism", when the subject is notable as an author of German history it is less likely that a reader will conclude he must be a Nazi, than if the subject is notable for sports writing and the connection to Nazism is tenuous (his father was accused of it). A LGBT tag on an noted critic of homosexuality is less likely to create an inference about the subject's sexuality, than one on a skater (who happens to be the subject of newspaper speculation).

My basic conclusion is:

possible harm to the subject (moderate to low) > utility to the project (low to extremely low) = err on the side of "do no harm".

Thus where there is any danger of a tag being misunderstood, being controversial, or suggesting an unverified fact, the tag should be avoided. This is particularly so where the connection between the subject and the wikiproject is less obvious or notable.

This does not preclude the wikiproject listing the article on its page, or members of the wikiproject involving themselves in the article.

In short avoid harm where the cost to the project of avoiding harm is low.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting the mass removal, not even a rule against tags,- just that removal should be no big deal, wherever issues arise.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this view
  1. Support. Sounds quite reasonable to me, provided implemented sensibly. Re FT2's comments: we are not talking here about some sort of mass removal of project tags by bots or anything of the sort (at least that is not how I read the above proposal). Every case is different and does need to be evaluated individually. However, as a general principle, I certainly very much agree with the idea that "where there is any danger of a tag being misunderstood, being controversial, or suggesting an unverified fact, the tag should be avoided." We should remember that Wikiprojects and wikiproject tags exist primarily for convenience of wikipedia editors. They do serve a useful function in facilitating article rating, etc. However, most Wikipedia users are NOT editors, and certainly not experienced editors. Quite a few of them will look at the article's talk page. They will have no idea about the meaning and the purpose of wikiprojects, and can very easily misunderstand and misinterpret the meaning of a project tag. So in BLP cases Wikiproject tags on sensitive BLP subjects (such as, say, Nazism, LGBT, terrorism, etc) should be applied conservatively, and only where there is a clear and significant reason to do so, in view of significant harm that a misinterpretation of the presence of a tag can cause. I think that changing the wording on the tag to something like "This article is of interest to WikiProject:X" only partially addresses the problem and in many cases the mere presence of a tag could be too prejudicial no matter what the disclaimer on the tag says. Nsk92 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Agree with Nsk92 that a mass bot run to remove tags would not be at all appropriate, this is guidance. ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support the general principle that it should be uncontroversial to remove such tags where they damage BLP considerations or Wikipedia as a project. I don't think anyone's talking about bot-reverting a specific project tag; that shouldn't be necessary unless some WikiProject is itself ridiculously problematic, a situation that hasn't arisen here. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Scott's statement fully. No, bot-removal is not necessary, but these tags are not part of the encyclopedia and must take second place to preserving the dignity of living biography subjects. *** Crotalus *** 19:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I doubt we are talking about many such contentious tags, and suspect that in some cases this will lead to slowburn editwars as some editors tag a particular individual as "of interest" to Wikiproject Mafia, and others promptly remove it. But to pretend that tagging someone for Wikiproject Mafia doesn't imply they have a connection to organised crime is disingenuous (of course as long as it is sourced, a Mafia tag could be a negative, positive or neutral connection, mafiosi, mafia fighting judge or mafia themed thriller writer). Needless to say - no bots for this please. ϢereSpielChequers 19:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support absolutely. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Suppport There is a benefit of tagging articles like this but it isn't enormous and has to be balanced against the potential confusion that can result. Better to be cautious. Adambro (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. support, adding to this that I don't see much use in wikiproject tagging in the first place. I have never understood what good project tags do that couldn't just as well be done through a simple list of links maintained in the project's own space. Project tags are a useless waste of screen space most of the time; whenever there is even the slightest suspicion that they might be doing more harm than that, we should go without them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. AlexiusHoratius 23:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, per my various commentary at other locations on-Wiki. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Applying an LGBT label is controversial, and Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy. Accordingly, no such tag should be applied (even on the talk page) unless its suitability is verified. "Suitability" means that the subject has self-declared their association (not that the subject is of interest). Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I agree with everything that Doc says here, that doesn't mean, of course, that I endorse his full gamut of prior actions. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support-If the template addition is resisted on a BLP we should err on the side of caution. Off2riorob (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support--This seems obvious and mere commonsense.Jarhed (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. oncamera(t) 02:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Debresser (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by FT2[edit]

WikiProject tags are administrative in nature; they help editors know what projects may have some kind of interest in a page. They aren't the same as categories (which as mainspace tend to imply "is an example of"), and only someone looking at the editorial discussion will see them. A certain flexibility in "courtesy removal" does not cause great harm and doesn't impede any discussion so we can be a bit more open to gracefully removing them without compromising WP:NOT#CENSORED.

Mass removal á la witch-hunt is unfortunately one outcome if this is allowed to be made too formal and rigid; I'd therefore prefer not to formalize any decision but to simply agree that in borderline cases and where the specific tag on the specific talk page might be especially provocative, confusing, or contentious, we can afford a bit of gentle leeway to perhaps not tag it.

What would also be helpful is to word WikiProject tags slightly differently: "This article is of interest to WikiProject:X" rather than "This article is within the scope of WikiProject:X". The former doesn't strongly imply a view on the subject where the latter somewhat implies possession or "an example of". Possessive word-forms also lead to divisiveness and disputes ("do they own it or don't they?"). "Of interest to" doesn't so much have that effect and is probably less divisive in borderline or contentious cases.

FT2 (Talk | email) 17:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this view
  1. I think the "of interest to" wording is an interesting and useful suggestion. LadyofShalott 17:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, as far as it goes. I still want to say that the mass tagging is questionable and the tagging of tangential articles pretty pointless, where that's happened, the loss by removal is non-existent.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I can support this wording change, though I feel the explanation= parameter that is found on many templates is a more useful tool for accomplishing this same thing. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Moni3 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support the wording change. Cyclopiatalk 18:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Certainly the ability to rephrase the current wording or provide alternate wording is a desirable feature. I think the current wording is fine in most cases, even though it is a potentially a big problem in a few of them. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I agree with using "of interest to WikiProject ..." instead of "within the scope of WikiProject ...". The advantage of making this change vis-a-vis the use of the "explanation" parameter is that not everyone who tags pages for WikiProjects knows about or will use the "explanation" parameter. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support the wording change. Mish (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC) (moved from bottom and removed indent as it was altering the numbers) Qualification of support: Support in a way that does not single out one or any group of projects, but applies to all projects across the board. This might help deal with wider issues of project ownership of certain articles that can be controversial. Mish (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support for the change in wording to "of interest to" on all project banners and banner shells such as {{WPBS}}. I agree that "within the scope of" not only implies "ownership", but may imply to the reader a categorization of the article's subject, which is neither the purpose nor the intent of project banners. Regarding borderline cases, I would also agree that it may be best to not tag in the most contentious situations, however, a discussion needs to take place to determine where tagging is (for whatever reason) "provocative, confusing, or contentious". I would suggest that any such discussions must be allowed to take place without the threat of administrative sanction against editors who discuss such matters in good faith. Wine Guy~Talk 20:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support view. No hard rule that tags should be removed nor that tags must be added. Adambro (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Clarifying the purpose and intent of WikiProject banners attacks the source of the problem rather than merely attempt to cover the symptoms, which is what a selective enforcement of rules aimed at one particular project would accomplish. Shereth 21:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I like FT2's suggested wording, and I agree that tags may not always be appropriate for borderline cases. However, in those situations the tag's addition - or removal - should be based on consensus, which generally requires a discussion. Karanacs (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support the wording change. --GRuban (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. actually yes - given as most wikiprojects are semi-active or less anyway, I use the templates as navigation tools more than anything else, or material which may be related some way, for example a bird, fungus or plant which is found in Australia generally ends up with a WP:Australia template - not because the wikiproject as a whole knows or cares about it, but it helps in following recent changes or article ratings etc. To me it was always meant to be informal really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support the wording change (only). Wnt (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. —Crazytales (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Rami R 10:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support the wording change, and the graceful removal of tags if necessary on a case-by-case basis.--BelovedFreak 12:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strongly endorse. If we can tweak the wording on the project tags, either globally, for projects on controversial subjects like sexuality, or simply on a case-by-case basis in specific instances where people think it is making a contentious weakly sourced / unsourced assertion about a living person, it would be better to simply say that the editors of project X consider this to be an article of interest and leave it at that. I think this sidesteps the entire problem without sacrificing any of the utility of project tags. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, and agree with Wine Guy's last sentence. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 19:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. A good potential solution, I think. The WordsmithCommunicate 14:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Reasonable. The "of interest to" wording is a good idea. Jonathunder (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Optigan13 (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, as long as it applies to all project tags. Rivertorch (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Good idea. Debresser (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Agree. (Additionally, the "of interest to" would be a great addition. --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 10:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by User:JoshuaZ[edit]

We don't need to have any such restriction. Tags don't show up as categories. They only show up on talk pages. Wikipedia does not need to assume that readers are idiots who can't understand what a talk page tag means. This is all the more the case given that in order to even see a tag one already needs to know enough about Wikipedia procedures to find and read a talk page. While FT2's suggested wording above might help slightly, serious concern of this sort only makes sense if we assume that people reading talk pages are both stupid and ignorant. This is classic rule-creep when there are more serious issues that need to be dealt with. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view
  1. Agree. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. Using "stupid user X could think this or that" as your reasoning, you could effectively remove almost everything from any page. The tags do not harm anyone, they don't even claim anything about the subject itself - except that the subject is interesting to group X. Regards SoWhy 18:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Moni3 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. In my opinion the point is not so much for us "assume that readers are idiots" or not. The point is that we cannot be held responsible for what our readers assume or imply, whatever it is: this requires reading our reader's minds. We can be held responsible -and we are- only for what is actually written. --Cyclopiatalk 19:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While also explicitly endorsing the wording change proposed by FT2 above.  Sandstein  19:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree - dictated restrictions on what can and cannot be of interest to members of LGBT project is unwelcome. Mish (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Karanacs (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes - I am still amazed at how this has blown up really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Ash (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Agree with the spirit of this - this is my interpretation of what project tags are for - helpful maintenence tags and nothing to do with labelling the subject of the article. However, it's clear from this whole debate that some editors don't agree with this, so it's fair to assume that not some readers (without necessarily being stupid or ignorant) might see a tag and jump to the wrong conclusion.--BelovedFreak 13:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yep. Hobit (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Agree that we don't need it. However, in deference to editors who think otherwise, and the remote possibility (or viewed another way, the occasional incidents) that readers of an article venture to the talk page, where they mistake a project tag for an assertion about the person in question, I see no harm in devising a solution that makes it clear that we are making no such claim. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. NVO (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Agree - the tags are useful navigation aids to editors, and we should not be assuming that our readers are idiots. DuncanHill (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. The WordsmithCommunicate 14:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Agree The tags are neutral. It says "people who have an interest in writing on this topic may be interested in writing this article." That something is susceptible to misinterpretation by somebody who is thoughtless, brainless, or otherwise deluded is not a reason to remove it, or we might as well delete the whole Wikipedia and call it a day. RayTalk 19:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Wouldn't necessarily say stupid and ignorant, but something along those lines. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I don't quite agree that concern about this issue assumes that readers are "both stupid and ignorant", but I do believe that we shouldn't try to account for every possible assumption and thought. Shall we prohibit the placement of {{WikiProject Terrorism}} on biographies of terrorism and counter-terrorism theorists because someone might think that the tag identifies them as terrorists? Or, should we perhaps restrict the placement of national WikiProject banners on biographies because someone could assume (after all, we can't control what people assume) that the person has a connection with that country's government? Of course not. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Yes. No matter how carefully Wikipedia is crafted, some people will misinterpret the function of some of its tools. We can minimize that but we cannot eliminate it, and trying too hard would be detrimental to the structure that enables editors to find and keep abreast of topics they want to edit. Rivertorch (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Gigs (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I agree. Talk pages are not exempt from the BLP policy, but this is not a breach of it. It's a completely different matter to placing possibly harmful categories on the article. WFCforLife (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Not my phrasing, but I agree in essence. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by User:Moni3[edit]

Scott Mac Doc seems to be treating the issue of BLP and the function of a talk page WikiProject tag as two exclusive factors that cannot co-exist. I find this logically spurious for the following reasons. I use WP:LGBT specifically because there is simply no way to pretend that another project's talk page tag could warrant this much discussion.

  • A WikiProject tag, such as WP:LGBT, denotes that the subject is within the scope of that WikiProject, that its members have an interest in tracking the article, ensuring that information within it remains factual and accurate.
  • A WikiProject tag is not the same issue as information in the article. The WP:LGBT tag can be amended to explicitly state that the presence of the tag does not imply that the figure in question has declared his/her sexuality, but that there is significant reliably sourced press coverage and discussion about the figure's sexuality, or that the figure has significant interaction with LGBT political processes or the LGBT community. It can be removed from the banner shell to stand alone with this statement.
  • Members of a WikiProject, such as LGBT, have experience in handling issues involving public and political figures who have been either wrongly or justifiably accused of being gay or bisexual as political or professional leverage. Gay and lesbian editors, even if not members of WP:LGBT, have an interest in ensuring that edits are not made to articles that seek to use sexuality to twist the truth about a public figure. All editors should have this in mind, but LGBT editors do specifically.
  • It is not within the rights or privileges for Wikipedians who are not interested in a topic area, nor members of a specific WikiProject, to decide which project tags are placed on article talk pages. This intones that the members of the WikiProject have compromised judgement, their work on Wikipedia must be approved by someone with better judgment, which then may logically relate to article work fully within their scope and the entirety of their edits. When in contrast, the opposite is true: editors with a personal history of recognizing the seriousness of accusations and discussion about a person's sexuality should be directly involved in maintaining the accuracy of the article. --Moni3 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this view
  1. I support this view. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Well put. Regards SoWhy 18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Cyclopiatalk 19:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is so obvious. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 19:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse for reasons already stated. Mish (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I Support this view, although I would suggest that LGBT is not the only area where the project tag vs. BLP issue could be viewed as contentious. As has been mentioned elsewhere, there are various projects with religious, political, philosophical etc. connotations which could, in some BLPs, be "contentious". Wine Guy~Talk 21:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support this - I find it amusing that editors who not only not edit in the subject area, but conduct little in the way of content contribution are trying to dictate to content contributors. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Exactly. Wikiprojects have long been given autonomy in deciding what is in their scope. Just as a project should not be forced by non-members to accept a tag on an article they feel is completely outside their scope, neither should they be forced by non-members to change their scope. Karanacs (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. It's ridiculous for someone to say "no, this article is not of interest to you". --GRuban (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. There are other potential wikiproject tags that could kick up a storm with their potential use on certain articles. (I have in mind a certain BLP and a certain religion project that would kick up an argument quite like the one we have seen were the project to tag the page.) While I do see have some project tagging could be problematic, the threat of blocking if people even discuss it in good faith on the talk page is quite inappropriate. LadyofShalott 00:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Agree - particularly as this debate has shown that not all members of that project have come down on the same side on this issue. The LGBT project is not, as a group, driven to defy policy or wider consensus and I would assume the same of other projects that this debate may apply to.--BelovedFreak 13:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Agree. Hobit (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC), GRuban says it well. Hobit (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes. This is all very basic common-sense stuff. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support very nicely put. DuncanHill (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. The WordsmithCommunicate 14:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Optigan13 (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Well said. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Agree completely. This should all be a given. Unfortunately, it isn't. Rivertorch (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I whole-heartedly agree; well said. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by SatyrTN[edit]

WikiProjects are extremely useful tools for many editors, allowing them to organize, watchlist, and edit articles that relate to a subject they are interested in. A WikiProject banner is the main method for fostering this creative collaboration, recruiting new members, and organizing articles within the project's scope. Some WikiProjects remain small and unused, some go on binges tagging as many articles as they can, and some fall in the middle - like all tools, it's not the tool itself, but how it is used.

WikiProjects may be centered around topics that are distasteful to some readers and editors (or even the subject of the article) - examples include WP:ISLAM, WP:FASCISM, WP:Abortion, and WP:SOCIALISM. A WikiProject banner on a talk page might offend some readers and editors, but Wikipedia is not censored. Of course, when dealing with Biographies of Living People, care should be taken (in the article itself and on the talk page) to do no harm. However, adding a banner for a WikiProject to the talk page of a living person is merely a tool. It is a one line (or in some cases a full block) at the top of a talk page. The possibility of doing harm from that one line is minimal.

Talk pages are where editors discuss editing the article - talk pages are extremely useful places to discuss wording, reach consensus on particular sources, and weigh the merits of references and content. WikiProject banners are part of that process, and while not immune to BLP, are tools for editors to use.

To quote another contributor to this discussion, "We are responsible for what readers read. What they assume we cannot, and never know." Content in the article must be written with WP:BLP in mind, and statements on a talk page must likewise be watched. However, the presence of a WikiProject banner is not a statement - having Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora on Talk:Barack Obama does not imply that Obama was born in Africa - a charge he has denied many times. Having WP:Abortion on Talk:Randall Terry does not imply he has had an abortion. The project banners simply indicate that the article is "of interest" to a particular WikiProject. This is stated specifically in many banners - for example, the WP:FASCISM banner states "This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject. Disallowing WikiProject banners from BLP articles simply because "some people might assume" does not assume good faith in our readers and severely limits the abilities and creativity of WikiProject editors.

Finally, Wikipedia has no mechanism for weighing the merits of adding a WikiProject banner to an article *except* on the talk page of that article. Discussing such an action on the WikiProject page skews in favor, since only members of the WikiProject are participating. Without addressing the situation on the talk page of the specific article, there is no way to determine the appropriateness of the banner.

The particular issue that brought this issue here led to one admin closing an RfC prematurely, archiving a bunch of discussion, and leaving the threat of blocking on Talk:Johnny Weir, which is still there. This activity means that there is nowhere to discuss the appropriateness of the WikiProject banner, that editors involved now feel topic-banned, and that editing of the particular article has all but stopped. By invoking BLP in this way, the article has suffered. The rebuttal was that the subject of the article refused to talk about his sexuality many times - just as Obama has denied being born in Africa. In both cases, the subject's denials are part of the reason the WikiProjects are interested in those articles. To extend a similar state of affairs - "don't talk about this WikiProject on this subject's talk page" - to all BLP articles for all "contentious or offensive" WikiProjects would mean that numerous articles would likewise suffer.

In summary:

  • Harm to a particular individual by discussing a WikiProject banner on that article's talk page = minimal to none;
  • Banning WikiProject banners, or banning discussion regarding WikiProject banners = moderate to low.

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view
  1. SoWhy 18:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Moni3 (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cyclopiatalk 19:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Karanacs (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - perhaps it was too easy for us to assume this was obvious and such project pages where some may misinterpret the purpose need to spell it out in a few words of plain English. Based on the ANI discussion, there seems to be a wide assumption that anyone who becomes a member of a WikiProject must have the obvious real-life connection so that Gays join LGBT and Jews join JUDAISM. It appears that difference between topic projects and social groups also needs to be spelt out. Ash (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —Crazytales (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. LadyofShalott 00:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mish (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I would just note that Obama is a bad example, because the African diaspora is made up of people of African descent who are not in Africa (a group that includes Obama). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree on the whole with this, although I like the idea of User:FT2's sensitivity in perhaps removing tags on a case-by-case basis if consensus goes that way - after a reasonable discussion is allowed of course.--BelovedFreak 13:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yes. There is too much here for me to endorse fully, but the observation that BLP is about what we present to the reader, not about how we arrive at that decision, is apropos. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Agree, a clear statement of what should be obvious. DuncanHill (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Although I'd add that template tweaks, as well as using Template:Round in circles and Template:FAQ once some reasonable consensus has been formed on the material and banner will help to not have to frequently revisit it as new editors come to the talk page and bring up the same question, causing it to be rehashed on a regular basis. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I wish had read this particular "View" before posting lengthier endorsements of a few others, as the gist of my position is captured here quite well. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Generally agree, although I'm not sure about AGF as it applies to our readers. Rivertorch (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Off2riorob[edit]

There is a associated attachment to templates added to the talkpage of living people and that the addition of a template where this is nothing but speculation, the possible harm to the living person is small but the benefit to the article from the template will also be small. It should be a condition of adding the template that the living subject has self identified as a lesbian gay or bisexual person, not just to be speculated as such, there are plenty of editors to look after the article without a template that does whatever anyone says associate the subject with that group. Adding this condition to articles about living people will affect few articles but will raise the focus of the template to the level that when added to clearly indicate that this is a self declared lesbian or gay or bisexual not just that they may look like a gay person or there has been speculation in the press or someone thinks they could be but the subject has denied it. I would like to see this clause met prior to the addition of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual template on BLP's. This template in the case of living people is only to be added to people that have self declared as lesbian or gay or bisexual or political activists or supporters in the lesbian, gay or bisexual field. . This simple condition will save all of the disputes regarding this template and articles about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view
  1. Seems reasonable. Wikipedia deals in verifiable fact, and allowing "speculation" (based largely on someone's appearance) to trigger templating sits badly with that. Putting LGBT sticking bumper stickers on someone who says his sexuality is nobody's business is unseemly at best.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With regard to this specific dispute, yes, this approach would solve it. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per Scott MacDonald. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Cyclopia[edit]

This is not much about the tags themselves, but about actions like the one which led to the RfC.

WP:BLP is a policy which applies firmly to all pages, not only article pages. In many cases, it can take precedence over other policies and guidelines. As such, it is particularly important to be sure of its suitability. There are many cases in which its application is not straightforward. No editor can single-handedly decide what is a BLP violation or what is not, if reasonably challenged by other editors. In case of a disagreement, disputes have to be resolved by consensus.

There is therefore a crucial need, on a community-driven project like WP, for discussions between editors in good faith to take place freely, extensively and without being subject to any chilling effect. WP:BLP is a ground to remove blatantly defamatory, libelous etc. edits in any namespace, but WP:BLP cannot be a ground to unilaterally remove entire discussions between editors that are deciding and establishing consensus in good faith. Appropriate measures (noindexing, separate subpages, courtesy blanking etc.) can be used to mitigate any concern of sort, but discussions between editors must be allowed to take place without threats or premature blanking of any sort, unless in extremly exceptional circumstances.

Users who endorse this view
  1. While I think there may be very limited circumstances where disucssions should not be allowed, I agree with the basic gist. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have clarified the wording -indeed, if discussions are at risk of serious harm, privacy breaking etc. there could be grounds, but are quite exceptional cases.--Cyclopiatalk 20:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Regardless of my sharing Scott MacDonald's concerns - as many do - unilaterally quashing an existing discussion of that length will never actually work to reduce drama. As it stands, as of the time of the discussion, the article talk page was the correct venue because other venues (e.g., the WikiProject talk page) would have been prejudicial. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SoWhy 20:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seen enough chilling recently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Karanacs (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I agree with this view. With the possible exception of Jimbo Wales and some other functionaries, no editor or admin should unilaterally stifle discussion by good faith editors working toward consensus, a core policy of this project. Any "extremely exceptional circumstances" likely fall into the category of issues requiring oversight; in those cases the WP:RFO process should, of course, be followed immediately. Wine Guy~Talk 22:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I agree with this. Additionally, I'd like to say that I wish it there were clearer guidance for one user to unilaterally move a discussion that has verged into policy to someplace off the Talk page. I proposed moving the discussion three days before the edit above (and considered doing so) [1] but I didn't feel like there was any guideline about where to put it. Wnt (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I agree, having seen enough chilling effects at the hands of my parents and school. —Crazytales (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. LadyofShalott 00:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mish (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -- Banjeboi 03:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Rami R 10:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Although I agree that the talkpage of that particular article may not have been the best place for the discussion - for BLP concerns, possible undue weight being given to the individual's sexuality in what has been shown to be a controversial case - the discussion should have been moved somewhere and allowed to continue rather than removed altogether. Since the issues seem to be about project tagging in general and apply to many more articles than just this one, the discussion could then have focussed away from that particular individual. And while agree that "BLP trumps everything else", WP:BLP still requires interpretation by editors every time it's used.--BelovedFreak 13:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Agree. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 20:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yes, absolutely. BLP is about the end state of our content, not about our discussions about how to write the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. The WordsmithCommunicate 14:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Incredibly sad that this needed to be said. RayTalk 19:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Optigan13 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --GRuban (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Agree totally. No editor (with or without tools) should be able to thwart a good-faith discussion based on their own interpretation of BLP. Rivertorch (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. If the discussion itself was harmful to a living person, it could have considered for oversight. It wasn't, therefore it wasn't. WFCforLife (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by User:MishMich[edit]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of why articles may be tagged as part of LGBT studies project. Articles are tagged not because they are about LGBT people, but about events, people, history, writing, etc. that is relevant to LGBT studies. People who are not LGBT may be included if they have written or spoken or are in some way notable in terms of LGBT studies and LGBT issues. People who express antipathetic views towards LGBT issues would be relevant, as would be people about whom there has been speculation in notable and verifiable sources. In both cases, this says nothing about individuals' sexual orientation. What is said in the article itself is a different matter, and is subject to BLP policies. In contexts like this, there have been phobic comments made by some individuals in the media, and this is a topic very relevant to LGBT studies - it would be bizarre if expressions of a homophobic nature directed at an individual were excluded from the scope of the only project that deals with the mechanics of homophobia. Homophobia can be directed against LGBT people, but also non-LGBT people who are perceived as LGBT - and when this happens, it is that which places them as being of interest to LGBT studies, says nothing about their sexual orientation, so has no BLP implications as long as what is written conforms to relevant policies (verifiable, notable, accurate). Mish (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view
  1. Cyclopiatalk 20:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. That is true of almost any project. The WP:WPAFRICA tag on Talk:Barack Obama for example. Regards SoWhy 20:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Indeed so. I don't see that WP:BLP enters into this debate at all: the inclusion of a biography in the LGBT project is no statement at all about the sexuality of the subject of the biography. I do detect there is an undercurrent from some editors regarding the LGBT wikiproject in particular as problematic, and I hope that this one wikiproject is not forced to put a statement explicitly saying the above which is not required for other projects. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Karanacs (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. couldn't have said it better myself —Crazytales (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. LadyofShalott 00:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- Banjeboi 03:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Endorse, and second Sam Blacketer's comment as well. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --BelovedFreak 13:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Thank you, needed saying. DuncanHill (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yes. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 14:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Optigan13 (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --GRuban (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yes! Very well put. Rivertorch (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --Darkwind (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Gavia immer[edit]

This is a follow-on to my endorsement of Cyclopia's view above. At the moment, we conduct content RFCs on the talk page of the article in question, and RFCs on the content of a talk page itself come up rarely enough that we don't have a general procedure. Likewise, ad-hoc discussions have sometimes been conducted at subpages of WP:CENT or WP:AN, and a major stumbling block is that interested parties may not have notification that the discussion is live. Contrast that with user conduct RFCs, where we would never conduct them anywhere that wasn't perfectly neutral, or countenance any attempt to keep them out of sight, and so we have a neutral place just for filing user conduct RFCs and a standard procedure for notification.

My thought upon reading Cyclopia's view above was that we need a similar procedure to host content (and related) RFCs somewhere neutral, if and only if holding the discussion in the usual place would harm either the subject or the project. For most content RFCs it would not be needed. For those that do need it, there should be a set, neutral procedure to implement them, similar to the procedure for conduct RFCs - requiring notification and so forth, and in particular requiring a notice on the talk page where the discussion would normally have taken place. In this way, we would be able to hold open discussions (a requirement of collaboration) without potential damage to the subject (a requirement of BLP and common decency).

Users who endorse this view
  1. Agree. A noindexed subpage of the talkpage could do the job, if NOINDEX is allowed on them. --Cyclopiatalk 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think this is a fair process. Karanacs (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This sounds like a good process. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agreed (see my endorsement above to Cyclopia's section) Wnt (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --BelovedFreak 13:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by User:Otto4711[edit]

While I understand that it is not the intent of this RfC to focus on WP:LGBT, I feel compelled to ask what other project tags would engender this level of resistance to its placement? What other project tag carries with it not only the assumption that its placement means that readers will automatically believe that a living person tagged with it is a member of the interested group, but also the assumption that being thought of as a member of that group when one is not is inherently harmful? What other project would be expected to include a disclaimer in its tag that its placement doesn't necessarily mean that the subject is a group member? This entire process reeks of the rankest homophobia. The editors whose prejudices led to this RfD should be deeply ashamed and should spend some time thinking about their own anti-LGBT issues. I oppose any change to any project tag that furthers the bigoted assumptions I've laid out here. If someone chooses to believe that Johnny Weir or any other living person is queer because of the LGBT tag, that's on them, not the project. Otto4711 (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view
  1. Hear, hear. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think it's subconscious, but we should put a stop to it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree that WP should not have to bow to the prejudices of any group of people - whether those prejudices are deliberate or subconscious. I feel it is not coincidental that it is this project - and not others like WP:FASCISM - whose tags seem more often to be interpreted as a judgement rather than a way to mark a shared interest. On the other hand, I would support clarifications of project tags provided they apply to all projects equally, with no one project singled out. Karanacs (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Note that I am not trying to accuse the editors involved in this dispute of homophobia, but rather that the argument is based on the potential homophobia of readers. Karanacs (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Homophobia: "a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality". Placing a requirement solely on WP:LGBT is exactly that. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Banjeboi 03:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support entirely. Peregrine Fisher makes a good point above that subconcious prejudices may be involved, but it is clear to me that prejudicial feelings and attitudes are significant motivational factors for some of the editors responsible for the fracas. DuncanHill (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I find it hard to believe that there are editors who sincerely believe that equating a Wikiproject:LGBT tag to a personal attack is unbiased or fair; and whilst I acknowledge that there are times where political correctness is taken overboard, this is not one of them. I am reminded of people who begin every sentence with "I'm not a racist, but... ". —what a crazy random happenstance 08:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users who partially endorse this view
  1. Assuming good faith and not being (very) psychic, I am disinclined to attribute homophobic motives to any editor involved in this discussion. (I also think that doing so tends to inflame matters unnecessarily.) Nevertheless, I was dismayed to read some of the spurious allegations and inappropriate generalizations made toward both WikiProject LGBT Studies editors and "gay activist" editors, and I have been similarly dismayed at the facility with which certain editors want to apply special, often punitive standards toward topics within the sphere of (or of interest to) the Project. I agree 100% with Otto's last sentence that the project cannot be responsible for the careless reader's misinterpretation of a neutral tag, and I am empathetic to much of the rest of his view. Rivertorch (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC) (I am not now and have never been a member of WikiProject LGBT Studies, but this episode has almost persuaded me to join)[reply]

View by User:Bastique[edit]

Insinuations of homophobia underscoring the motives of people involved in this discussion do not belong in this discussion and poison the waters. Bastique demandez 21:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view
  1. I've noticed that this has long been a tactic of certain members in the LGBT WikiProject and that is why I do not associate myself with improving any articles in its purview, despite the fact that I am an editor of a GLBT magazine and I could bring a lot to the table (as it is my job). Quite frankly, using homophobia as a synonym of "he disagrees with me and I don't know how to handle it" makes a mockery of true instances of homophobia and the victims it impacts. Mike H. Fierce! 21:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hear, hear! — Gavia immer (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Of course. I am less familiar with this situation but have seen it in other areas, insinuations of anti-Semitism being the most immediately familiar example. Adambro (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Accusations or insinuations about the motives of editors on either side of the discussion are a breach of AGF and are never helpful. Shereth 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree. A bit of civility and good faith on both sides would help. --Cyclopiatalk 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sticking to the facts is prudent, yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Absolutely. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. AlexiusHoratius 23:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. LadyofShalott 00:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Wildly unacceptable, yes. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Difference of opinion are inevitable in a project this size, but no matter the other disagreements this type of comment is wholly unacceptable because it completely shuts down positive consensus building discussions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Wine Guy~Talk 01:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I have considered withdrawing from these discussions due to repeated accusations that I'm homophobic. Thanks to Bastique and Mike Halterman for their reassurance.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weighty claims should not be weilded to score points, nor ignorantly to reject legitimate but divergent views. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --BelovedFreak 13:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Hans Adler 07:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Agree. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. As a member of the wikiproject. The WordsmithCommunicate 14:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Such accusations are totally inappropriate and unhelpful. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. There is a level of rhetoric involved here that does not solve any problems. I think this applies to multiple editors, not ones simply using homophobia as an accusation. The entire discussion needs to be toned down. It is getting more personality driven and the actual problems are being lost amid accusations and a complete lack of respect for differing ideas and experiences. --Moni3 (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. The extremes on both ends aren't helpful where cries of Homophobia and BLP are used to squash legitimate concern. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weakly and with no prejudice against any views further up the page, I endorse this view. There are things that should be left unsaid here even if one believes them, because saying them can only create more heat, not light. Rivertorch (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Gigs (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Better to AGF, unless there is glaring evidence to the contrary. While some comments might lead one to think something, as Rivertorch says, it may be best left unsaid. This is a call that can be made in ways that can weaken its wider credibility. Although I appreciate that an editor may appear to be on a crusade against certain types of article, within the scope of this request alone that is not apparent (although in a wider context, it may be the case?). I have come across at least one editor who at first appeared to me to be acting from what might be described as homophobia, but as I got to know their approach and understand them more, it became apparent to me that their primary inetntion was to improve the encyclopedia. I found that working with them meant certain articles were improved, and became much stronger when reduced to well sourced content. The process of editing here can engage latent OCD (it has done for me in the past, anyway). I would prefer to think that a diligent editor has become a bit too obsessive about one area of the encyclopedia, rather than anything specifically negative about their attitude to material with LGBT themes. Having said that, though, the negative attention this project seems to draw from some individuals with 'issues' did lead me to take a break of several months because I found it so sould destroying. Mish (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by User:Shereth[edit]

Any solution to this problem that is specific to the LGBT WikiProject fails to address the core issue at hand (that some editors may be confused as to the intent and purpose of WikiProject tags), unfairly singles out the WikiProject for special restrictions on the use of their project tag in contravention to the collaborative editing spirit at Wikipedia, and thus is unacceptable. Shereth 22:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view
  1. Absolutely. I think we can agree that any principle should apply to any wikiproject where its taging of a BLP might possibly imply something controversial, or untrue. That will need to be taken case by case basis. But I imagine one can say taging Barack Obama with WP:ISLAM would be insensitive and controversial without implying anything pejorative about Islam or the wikiproject. --Scott Mac (Doc) 22:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree, Adambro has made it clear that this is not just an issue relating to this group of people. Mike H. Fierce! 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Karanacs (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes. The discussion is about any wikiproect tagging of a talk page and whose decision it is to do so (or not). Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Although this RfC might have been prompted by issues regarding the LGBT WikiProject, it clearly is potentially relevant to other often controversial subjects so an adequate solution needs to consider other situations. Adambro (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, it is a bad idea to make this about one WikiProject when other subjects potentially have the same problem. Note however, that this is not solely about our editors possibly misconstruing a tag, but about readers (including editors) possibly misconstruing it. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mish (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --BelovedFreak 13:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agreed, absolutely. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Was clear to me from Scott Mac's well worded opening, but just to reassert that it isn't limited to one project. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Agree, and I believe that this principle seriously undermines the original proposal of this RfC. Virtually any tag can be "misunderstood" by or "controversial" to someone:
    {{WikiProject Armenia}} and {{WikiProject Azerbaijan}} at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh, because it might suggest to someone that the territory belongs either to Armenia or Azerbaijan;
    {{WikiProject Terrorism}} at Talk:Rita Katz, because someone might choose not to read even the first sentence of the article and assume that she is a terrorist, rather than a terrorism theorist;
    {{WikiProject Zimbabwe}} at Talk:Leonard Zhakata, because someone might assume that he is associated with the repressive regime of Robert Mugabe;
    and so on. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Agree. Should be obvious. Rivertorch (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by User:Geni[edit]

Yet further evidence that such tags need their own namespace. Such a namespace would make it easy to make it perfectly clear what such tags mean while at the same time making it possible to see at a glance if there have been any real comments left on the talk page. If such tags were in their own namespace it would be possible through edits to the interface to make the purpose of such tags clear to any non Wikipedians who stumble over them. It should also make it possible to add a wider range of complementary features without flooding the talk page.©Geni 22:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view
  1. Technical solution to an ongoing and existing problem. Sounds great! Bastique demandez 22:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is namespace creep in my opinion —Crazytales (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interesting idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Worth exploring anyway.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Definitely worth exploring better ways to make maintenance processes less obvious to the reader especially if there is the possibility that maintenance items will interfere with the reader's impression of the content. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 09:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sounds interesting. --BelovedFreak 13:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Good idea. These tags really aren't of any interest to non-Wikipedians and as Geni says this solution could be used for a range of other new features. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not sure if I'm sold, but it seems worth looking into. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by User:Wine Guy[edit]

In addition (or as an alternative) to the wording adjustments suggested in the View by FT2, I believe that it would be appropriate to add to all project banner templates a required parameter:

  • |BLP = yes
  • |BLP = no

When answered yes (which should be required on all BLPs) this would add:

The presence of this banner indicates only that a group of Wikipedia editors have expressed an interest in improving this article.

Exact wording is, of course, open to discussion. I believe that it would be possible for a bot to implement this change to the templates, although the assistance of an editor familiar with the intricacies of template syntax would be necessary.

This addition should resolve perceived "BLP policy vs. project banner" conflicts in most if not all cases. Wine Guy~Talk 22:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's been brought to my attention that this was perhaps not very clearly presented. A clarification of my suggestion may be found on the discussion page. Wine Guy~Talk 07:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this view
  1. I actually thought some banners already did this. It's a good idea regardless of what else happens with this RfC. ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yeah I'm open to this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seems a good idea, but why not having the addition on all banners? I don't see the point for the switch. --Cyclopiatalk 12:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Looks like the best solution to me. In addition, I wonder if there is some template wizardry that makes this possible even without the parameter. I.e., every project template examines an article's categories to find out if it is a BLP, and if it is, this text is displayed. Hans Adler 07:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. but like Cyclopia I don't see the need for the switch. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Views by Wnt[edit]

I'm glad to see that a separate RFC page has finally been started for this discussion, as I first suggested; but I wanted the discussion on the ———— page to be moved here, not deleted.

The most crucial issue in the broader discussion is that certain editors and admins have confused verifiable sourcing with verifiable fact. If a major newspaper speculates whether someone is gay, then we on Wikipedia should have the right to summarize it. Especially, if some sources say that someone is gay, but others say that he doesn't take a position on the issue, then editors should not be threatened with being blocked for reporting the range of sourced opinion, without needing to decide for themselves (or with admin help) whether the sum total of news is conclusive.

But to quote Scott Mac, "Respect for our subjects is absolute, unless we are talking about verifiable facts... There is to be no more comment on this individuals sexuality on this page, unless there are verifiable facts to discuss..."

Now if we are serious about taking that point of view — that not the source but the fact must be verified — then we should be fair about it and apply the policy to any living person. The example I used in the deleted discussion regards the living persons of the 27th Army who put down the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. It is not a verifiable fact that 10,000 or 7,000 or 5,000 people were killed by these living people, as certain countries have alleged. The Chinese government said that 23 people died, yet here we are accusing them of being mass murderers, something far more serious than any gay speculation. So if we only include the verifiable facts about living people, then we need to redo that article to make it consistent with the facts as the People's Party presents them. We need to delete all that other speculation and threaten to ban anyone who mentions that some foreign government says 7,000 people were killed.

There are advantages to that kind of BLP policy - it does make some people happy. In the present case it might or might not make one person happy; applied to the Tiananmen Square articles it might make a billion people able to more reliably access Wikipedia, which might make quite a few people happy. Probably it is in strong concordance with the unspoken principles of every country to accept that the Chinese government decides what's true in China. But it's not the BLP policy we had before.

Followup: I've since encountered another case of this distinction at Sarah Palin. Certain editors removed all mention of the major controversy from 2008 about women being forced to pay for rape forensic tests, arguing that there is no definitive proof that Palin knew about the practice. But the New York Times and many others wrote extensively about it, making the deduction that Palin's hand-picked sheriff wouldn't have fought to oppose a state law mandating that towns pay for the tests all by himself without discussing it with her. I say that when many notable sources name Palin, write whole articles all about Palin in regard to a particular issue, you ought to be allowed to mention that issue. But admittedly I am in a tiny minority, because votes do not come from reasonable policy, but from the number of reversions one makes.
Users who endorse this view

View by JzG[edit]

This is, to my mind, akin to the issue with contentious categories: the tag does not include any kind of rationale, inclusion is binary, lacks nuance and places the article in a specific set. In this case the project is not "WikiProject sexuality" but "WikiProject LGBT studies", so placing the article directly in one of two mutually exclusive sets (LGBT / straight) rather than in some encompassing set which does not imply membership of either.

Whether we like it or not, what appears on the talk page forms part of the public perception of the article. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view
  1. Direct and elegant. I couldn't have put it better. Seems to me that this could easily be compared to those incessant edit wars and arguments over ethnic category tagging; we needn't look down on any of the groups involved to recognize that these things can be controversial. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yup. Perhaps a "WP:Sexuality" would avoid much of this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just commenting that the tag does have the ability to add a rationale, so the above statement is not entirely accurate. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And in practice this is used -- or even noticed -- what portion of the time? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On the potential for using "WP:Sexuality", please see the talk page thread 'WikiProject Sexology and sexuality'. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by עוד מישהו Od Mishehu[edit]

In my opinion, the best solution is:

  1. Make sure that the banner itself is worded well; possibly also add the BLP flag suggested by Wine Guy.
  2. Any WikiProject may add their banner to the talk page of any article which is in their area of interest. This includes BLP articles.
  3. Any BLP can, once such a banner was added, opt out - reuqest to have the banner removed. Once (s)he does this, the banner may not be re-added during the person's life time without his/her permission.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view
  1. Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Qualified support. If this means the subject of the biography, then that does make sense. Note that this is not about the article itself, only the discussion page, and we do not normally remove things from the article simply because the individual concerned doesn't like it. People are free to contact the encyclopedia if they have concerns about their biography. This would set a precedent, and would need to be implemented for any BLP/project tag, and operate on the same basis as a complaint about article content - by the individual concerned contacting the encyclopedia in writing (i.e., not by somebody claiming to be the BLP subject - or anybody else - coming onto the discussion and saying 'I don't like it'. Mish (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Headbomb (additional considerations)[edit]

I would like to remind people that the use of project banners is essential for things like Article Alerts (example), Cleanup listings (example) and Walls of Recognized Content (example) as well as several other automated process. Their use go well-beyond telling people that an article falls into the scope of a project. Removing a banner should only be done when the article does not fall into the scope of the project, otherwise you risk losing the input of those most able to comment on whatever issue is brought when you most need it. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view
  1. I would add one more use to that list: they give readers and editors someone to contact for advice or subject-specific expertise, or when posting to the talk page is not enough (e.g., a general issue that affects multiple articles, no one is actively watching the talk page). Although this issue has been touched on above, it has generally been approached from the perspective of WikiProject members (and their ability and willingness to contribute to articles within the scope of their project) rather than from the perspective of someone who has a question about an article that no one is watching. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, including Black Falcon comment - it makes very clear that banners are not mere "pissing on lampposts", as someone has depicted the process. --Cyclopiatalk 18:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support.Mish (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LadyofShalott 06:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This one is largely a technical note, but accurate. I think it's better for those who are in favor of removing the project templates to consider this when talking about the utility. Optigan13 (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Indeed. Several users seem to be unaware of the functional utility of project tags, or have chosen to disregard it. Wine Guy~Talk 00:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Exactly, ding ding, we have a winner. -- Banjeboi 15:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Townlake[edit]

WikiProject talk-page banners represent territorial / colonial flags. They serve a valuable purpose, but should all be amended to remove the images they contain.

I don't think the LGBT linkage would be seen as that big a deal, but for the fact it's accompanied by a big colorful symbol with political overtones. Ditto, for example, the Porn project's XXX talk-page stamp. Townlake (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view

View by Benjiboi[edit]

Given the acrimony by those who not only boldly shut down discussion of a Wikiproject tag but also threatened to block anyone who would restart a similar discussion, it seems this page has become the only place to discuss the test case of sorts that started this all. The biography of Johnny Weir, who the originator of this page incorrectly attributes as refusing to comment on his sexuality, is most certainly in the scope of the LGBT project. Similar to accusing those who oppose the tag as homophobic is the equally unhelpful accusations as to the motives of those who support using the project tag appropriately. The article is usually a clear case of probably or not. In this case the subject of the article has repeatedly discussed his sexuality, when asked, and in context of his notability. These are among the first questions the LGBT project looks towards when reviewing the use of the tag. When numerous national and international media over a four-year period discuss a public person's sexuality it could remain simply tabloid content but even the article editors have agreed that at least a minimal sentence or two was needed and appropriate. In fact once the hysteria was removed a very helpful suggestion that content on Weir's public image could help alleviate many of these issues was suggested. All of which center around his non-conformatity and ongoing news media coverage of his eccentricities including posing for photoshoot in women's high heels and favoring dress and mannerisms traditionally associated with being gay. Had the subject not been the subject of many articles, interviews and national media coverage on this aspect there would be little need for discussion. We would insist on reliable sources. I think ultimately we included the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. There are many borderline cases but this really isn't one of them. Above someone asserted that removing a Wikiproject tag just shouldn't be a big deal. Well it is. It's disruptive as has been noted and takes away energy from more constructive work. What we should be saying is adding a Wikiproject tag is no big deal. It really isn't. If you feel it's wrong ask on the talkpage and at the Wikiproject. Edit-warring to remove it sure seems like a bad idea. -- Banjeboi 15:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view
  1. Sure, this has been a bit of a Wikipedia short-circuit, where the article and its talk page almost completely misses the notability of the article subject due to some odd Wikipedia conventions. I've collapsed the block threat as stale and superseded by this discussion - if the admin. in question persists that becomes a behavioral/tool abuse problem on his part. Weir's clearly gay in terms of the social construct of his public identity (and so described by the predominance of reliable sources, as well as self-identification), and seems to be culture jamming over the media's inability to deal with it. He's jammed Wikipedia for sure, but the major sources less so. To the extent it is not merely restating verifiability, BLP is an exception to the rule that Wikipedia reflects the sources. If it becomes the exception that swallows the rule we cease to be an encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikiproject_tags_on_biographies_of_living_people&oldid=1138661180"