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

Question for Gavia immer

Question because this still bugs me. How does a project tag that says this person is not an abcabc but is of interest to the WikiProject due to xyz. "damage" BLP considerations? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved here from project page. –xeno^talk 19:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, firstly that isn't the wording that we currently use (although it is certainly an improvement). However, there may still be situations where it reflects badly on the subject, or may be reasonably read as such. My view is that we should err on the side of removal in such cases. Removing one or two here or there does no real harm.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my view is simply that if an editor feels in good faith that such a tag reflects badly on the project, they should be able to remove it, in good faith, without being called a vandal or a prejudiced person. That doesn't mean that the removal should be immune to discussion, only that it should be presumed to be an action done in good faith, not in bad faith. As Scott MacDonald says above, the specific tag that was edit warred over stated that a living person was "within the scope" of a project with specific groups of people in their stated scope - if the living person in question says that they don't wish to identify this way, there is a BLP issue, at least with the current tag. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

comment for WereSpielChequers

Following your reasoning, Wikiproject Mafia couldn't tag Mario Puzo, for example? --Cyclopia^talk 20:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My own response would be "yes they could" given he's very notable for Mafia novels - it should be obvious why he's tagged as such.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Cyclopia's point is that WSC for some reason thinks that WP Mafia can only tag mafiosi, not others related to the mafia for some reason. Regards SoWhy 20:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. By the way, why we're moving all questions here? --Cyclopia^talk 20:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I'm with Scott on this one. I have no problem with non-contentious tagging of people related to the mafia. The test in my view is is it contentious and unsourced? So an article that mentions a politician who lead the drive to tighten legislation against the mafia would be legit, or someone convicted of Mafia links. But a person for whom there are rumours linking them with the mafia would not be legit. ϢereSpielChequers 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Supplemental view by Scott MacDonald

Placing a LGBT talkpage banner on an effeminate looking living subject who has stated "I don't feel the need to express my sexual being because it's not part of my sport and it's private." and "I like nice things, and beautiful things, so if that is the only way people are determining that I swing one way or the other, then to me, that's sad. You can't judge a book by it's cover, ever." is crass and insensitive.Source

Moved from project page - typically users are asked to restrain themselves to a single view, so as to not give themselves undue weight in the discussion. –xeno^talk 20:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not why Weir warrants a talk page banner, because he's swishy. The Washington Post just discussed Johnny Weir's sexuality. Not Perez Hilton or some trashy blog. His sexuality, whether he does not declare it, is clearly in the news and a matter of public discourse. --Moni3 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And that's a justification for mentining it in the article perhaps. It isn't for sticking a banner on his page.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. It's not justification for mentioning it in my opinion, although clearly others might disagree. It's a flag that WP:LGBT members should be watching to make sure someone doesn't make a cognitive leap to "Weir must be gay and hiding it". Again, talk page banners are merely tools for categorizing articles and keeping track of their progress. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Scott, I don't understand your comment at all. Why is it okay to mention this is in the article but not on the talk page, which only a small percentage of readers know how to find anyway? That seems totally backward. Karanacs (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is one of dozens of reliable sources all addressing Weir's sexuality, a subject he himself does discuss in context of his notability. We follow the sourcing and they are clearly talking about this aspect of this subject. The one Wikiproject that specializes in this area has little doubt a tag belongs and no one has suggested anything but "someone might think he's gay" as the reason to remove it. Guess what? Many folks in the public media already are assuming he is and asking him about it. This is a reason to bring in the LGBT Wikiproject to ensure content remains encyclopedic. -- Banjeboi 03:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of homophobia

I find Otto4711's accusations of homophobia deeply offensive and, indeed having a chilling effect.

I regard "the editors whose prejudices led to this RfD should be deeply ashamed and should spend some time thinking about their own anti-LGBT issues" as a personal attack that is worthy of a block.

We can discuss whether there are specific concerns with labelling people LGBT or indeed (as I would argue) this applies to several other wikiproject too. But we can't have that discussion where editors are in fear of being attacked as homophobes.

I think this offensive comment should be removed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. I will not remove it myself, but I urge Otto4711 very strongly to remove that comment. It cannot do anything but poison the debate. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Scott, I agree you shouldn't fear to be attacked as homophobe only for discussing LGBT people or project. But when you call a discussion "wikiproject bagging by gay activist editors" and then comparing LGBT tagging to dog pissing on lampposts, well, it is difficult not to be, say, misunderstood. I suggest you strike that poorly worded sentence first: then you may have the moral high ground. --Cyclopia^talk 21:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly chilling. But then again, you, Scott, were threatening to block people who wanted to discuss such issues on talk pages, so your actions probably lead (in)directly to Otto4711's comments. Currently some people on both sides are making threats, comments and accusations that are inappropriate in a civilized discussion and should stop. That includes Otto4711 accusing people of homophobia but it also includes you threatening to block people disagreeing with your views or people who think tagging a talk page is furthering some kind of agenda. You might not want to hear it but, as Cyclopia says, you are probably the last person with any moral right to complain about others creating a chilling effect... Regards SoWhy 21:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) This is rich, coming from the one who admits he deliberately set out to create a chilling effect by deleting previous discussions and your repeated threats to block anyone who dares to even try to discuss the issue on Weir's talk page. It's clear from comments like calling the WP:LGBT tag a "stupid, useless banner" that you are completely biased. You also continue to fail to grasp the difference between "labelling [sic] people LGBT" and labeling people as being of interest to the LGBT project. The tag denotes that the person is of interest. If you choose to take the connotation that the tagged person is gay, that's on you. Your connotation does not reflect reality. Otto4711 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Rubbish. I did not use personal attacks to chill matters. I did not comment adversely on any editor. I view ALL wikiproject banners as "stupid and useless" - that makes me biased against banners perhaps, but gives you no right to attack me for homophobia. Your personal attack is unacceptable and unjustifiable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Threatening to block people for even trying to discuss something strikes me as both an attack and chilling. It is an a shocking misuse of administrative power and your status as an admin should be called into question because of it. You're not the victim here so crawl down off the cross. Otto4711 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I second that. People without block powers have feelings too. A good administrator's priority should be to "Protect the weak, defenseless, helpless, and fight for the general welfare of all". You can't teach civility at knifepoint. Wnt (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I find it absolutely shameful and this kind of behavior really underscores why me and a few other GLBT editors I know don't go anywhere near that project. Mike H. Fierce! 21:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am not a member of WP:LGBT. Otto4711 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• You're not the first one I've noticed using such comments, and you're probably not the last. I have certain names I think of when I think of such tactics; I was commenting more on their behavior than yours. Mike H. Fierce! 21:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• The assumptions at work here--that the tag means they're gay and especially that calling someone gay if they aren't is inherently harmful--are nothing but homophobia. It means that the person making the assumption believes that being gay is bad. Believing that gay is bad = homophobia. Otto4711 (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• ALL editors should leave their moral attitudes at the door. We are a neutral encyclopedia and if we all edit correctly and neutrally, then our sexuality or our attitude to that of others is quite irrelevant. Further saying someone who isn't known to be gay should not be labelled as such is no more saying "gay is bad" than saying an objection to WP:Islam putting their tag on Barack Obama is islamophobia.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• THE LGBT PROJECT TAG IS NOT A GAY LABEL! Jesus! Why can't you get that? The tag means the subject of the article is of interest to the project! That's all! It does not mean that the subject of the article is gay! And I'm sorry, but when you yourself write that putting the WP:LGBT project tag on someone not known to be gay harms that person, what exactly do you mean by that? How can you believe that a non-gay person is harmed by being incorrectly called gay, in the absence of a belief that being gay is not as good as not being straight? How is Tom Cruise able to win multi-million dollar judgments against people who call him gay, absent the assumption that being called gay is detrimental? That's the moral attitude and editorial bias that's being shown here and the one that needs to be left at the door. Otto4711 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Whether the project tag might invite the reader to think we are implying something about the subject is precisely the point of this RfC and one on which in good faith we may have different views. You may think me profoundly wrong about mine - and that's OK. Is wrongly being called gay detrimental? Well, that's not something wikipedia cannot take a view on (WP:NPOV and all that). I suspect many of our BLP subjects would not object - others would be profoundly offended. In some cultures and contexts it would cause no harm whatsoever, in others it may be life-threateningly harmful. Is that a good thing? Again, not something a neutral encyclopedia takes a view on. But it is best if we don't imply things about people at all unless they are verified. Again, you don't think the tag can imply anything about the subject - and many people agree with you. I don't happen to.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I never said that readers may not draw inferences from the tag. What I'm saying is that a reader's inference that any person with the WP:LGBT tag must be gay is not our responsibility. Removing the tag on that basis is an endorsement of the position, which itself is a violation of NPOV. The tag's explicit message is that the subject is of interest to a particular project. Period. Saying that an article of interest to a project may not be tagged by the project is censorship. Demanding that a project modify its tag out of fear that someone might draw an incorrect inference is endorsing ignorance. Otto4711 (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think we know full well what happens when people assume. They make an ass out of "u" and me. The thought is not that gay is bad, it's that sadly in parts of Western society (especially American society), homosexuality has a negative stigma. Should it? I don't think so and I'm sure you agree. But it doesn't change other people's views on the matter, which makes it potentially dangerous for people who may feel that way, or feel slighted for being grouped in such an area. Mike H. Fierce! 21:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• You are correct that homosexuality carries a stigma, but since the WP:LGBT project tag does not mean that the person so tagged is gay, that's irrelevant for the purpose of the tag. Deleting the tag on the assumption that it means the subject is gay is a fundamental misreading of WP:BLP. The tag is not conveying information about a living person as fact ("Subject is gay.") It is conveying the opinion of WP:LGBT that the subject is of interest to the project. Removing the tag because of the mistaken belief that it means "Subject is gay" on the mistaken assumption that being thought of as gay is inherently harmful is homophobic. Otto4711 (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia in my BLP work, I have defended the interests of subjects regardless of their race, sexuality, political affiliation, gender, or criminal status. I have resisted BLPs being misused by the biases of Scientologists, Christians, atheists, neo-nazis, anti-fascists, Democrats republicans and whatever. There is no doubt that the discussion was being influenced by less than neutral editors with a pro-gay agenda, as I suspect is this one. It would be quite naive to think otherwise. I am as entitled to point that out as I am to point out any other POV-pushing. Being gay, and being sensitive about it, does not excuse one from WP:AGF or WP:NPA. Indeed, I wish all editors would leave their sexuality and whatever biases, prejudices or indeed persecution complexes at the door of Wikipedia in the interests of NPOV. I can see I was extremely naive in thinking that's what most people did.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason not to think you're telling the truth. I am only saying that many of your comments are at risk of being heavily misunderstood. I hate political correctness, really. I think that, if a random gay person does something stupid, I have the same right to express it and to criticize as with a non-gay person. However calling this person a "stupid gay" would for sure put myself in the wrong side, because it too much looks like I'm implying he's being stupid for being gay. Which is not exactly what you did, but please understand that many of the comments you make can be misunderstood in the same way. I am sympathetic with your point of view on this very issue, but it would cost you little and avoid much drama to just refactor/strike some comments here and there so that they may not be misunderstood and apologize. Then the other editors calling you homophobic should apologize as well. --Cyclopia^talk 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying that gay activism was colouring things is, I think, factual - as a number of my gay wikifriends have pointed out. I'm sorry if it was offensive, and I can see how people might think I was implying more than I said. But it is also true. The lamppost simile is a good one and equally applicable to all wikiproject tagging in my view. People take offence when they want to. If they failed to assume good faith, I'm not sure what I can do. Perhaps I should watch my words more so people can't read into them badfaith motives of their own imagination - but that too has a chilling effect. Next time this type of issue occurs, I will probably run a mile in order to avoid the personal attacks. So the Wikiproject has probably run off one critical friend. Same way I don't wade into Israeli articles because I just get accused of anti-semitism. Oh, well.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason why no one leaves their prejudices behind here is because the basic premise - that saying someone is gay is defamatory - is one with which many people disagree entirely, or else feel in varying degrees. Merely saying that discussion of homosexuality is "negative material" is Taliban thinking as far as I'm concerned, even if I recognize it is motivated by American civil cases. But note that what upsets people are the unjustifiable block threats. I agree that we needed the discussion to move. Also I agree that the Wikiproject tags are probably a bad mechanism in general (at the very least, WikiProjects should have to review and rate every article they tag), provided this is implemented impartially against all of them. Wnt (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

How is it, Scott, that you're not responsible for any offense the "dogs pissing on lampposts" comment may have made, yet you hold the view that the WP:LGBT banner is responsible for readers who equate it to the declared sexuality of the subject? I'm not going to declare your intentions homophobic, but I have seen an array of comments about this issue that are hostile and astoundingly narrow-minded and not just from you. The comments I've read say that LGBT editors' judgments are not as sound as non-LGBT editors. They silence discussion where it should take place. They attribute behavior to an entire project that may have been practiced by one person. They assume that LGBT editors do not care about the integrity of content and are out to insert their own versions of the truth. They call genuine concern and justifiable inclusion within the realm of a WikiProject "crass and insensitive". I get the concern for BLP, I really do, but your hard-nosed approach to this is not conducive to collaboration or cooperation. I think a fair amount of disrespect has been exhibited here, and no dialogue to solve this issue will be heard unless this rhetoric is toned down. --Moni3 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor who added the LGBT project tag refers to himself as a "homo-propagandist" so I don't think Scott is being insulting by referring to him as a "gay activist". In fact it is a term almost certainly used by the editor himself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• How the editor in question describes himself is irrelevant since WP:AGF cuts both ways. Otto4711 (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that accusations of homophobia are unhelpful. We assume good faith, I thought. As for pissing on lamposts, my experience of dogs is that this tends only to become an issue when one dog pisses on a lampost another dog has already laid claim to, and if the dog that believes it owns the territory sees itself as the alpha male. Then the alpha dog will usually try to see off the other dog when they cross each other in the street. On the other hand, bitches tend not to piss on lamposts, yet can be just as territorial. I am not sure this is a very helpful analogy to be honest, I know that adolescent males like to get their cocks out and have pissing contests, but I would hope most people here have grown out of that. Sometimes an article may be project tagged to deal with an unbalanced, non-neutral, POV where the existing project coverage would be unlikely to yield a NPOV (the serial-manufacture of Christian positions on homosexuality, for example). Not that this would apply in this situation. Mish (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle you have been warned about trying to out me several times. Your personal campaign to smear me in various ways is completely unacceptable. Please take your antagonism back to your other websites as you know it remains unacceptable on Wikipedia. Whoever you believe I am and whatever motives you wish to ascribe to me or anyone else is still irrelevant and still is uncivil. You know this please stop. -- Banjeboi 03:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Benjboi, pointing out that you were the editor who added the project tag and that you refer to yourself a "homo-propagandist" is neither uncivil nor antagonistic. I think the operative question here is whether or not you felt that Scott's reference to you as a "gay activist" was inaccurate, insulting, or homophobic - did you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

PLease do not act naive, you attribute that quote to me and also post it to ANI in a discussion where you attempt to out who you think I am. Please desist your novel and original "research", you've been warned now knock it off. -- Banjeboi 04:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we've done this dance enough times to know that it leads nowhere. You created not one but two autobiographies for your pseudonymous identities here on Wikipedia. This has been confirmed by information you posted about yourself on-wiki. It is a dead issue, and one of your own making. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I do not think it would be appropriate to mention your real name, but your pseudonyms are fair game here. As can be seen in the Statemaster copy of one of those you refer to yourself as "homo-propagandist". Did you want to answer ny question now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

DC, if you wish to demonstrate that another editor has a COI, then please use WP:COIN rather than repeating the accusations in different discussions without being prepared to follow through. Such repeated accusations appear to be a pattern that violates the WP:HOUNDING guidance. Ash (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So Ash, you demand that Delicious carbuncle play by the book when Benjiboi already hasn't with his now well-documented cases of using Wikipedia to further his image in real life? Do you realize how utterly rich that sounds? Mike H. Fierce! 21:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I made no demands. I fail to see how repeating these accusations in a talk page of an RfC discussion would be productive for DC compared to raising them using the recommended COIN process. The only value of rehashing this argument without following a dispute resolution process would be to create yet more drama. Ash (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I haven't made any accusations. Benjiboi added the tag to Talk:Johnny Weir - here's the diff. I posted a link to a copy of the now-deleted autobiography in which Benjiboi describes himself as a "homo-propagandist" - perhaps you can ask an admin to confirm that it matches the Wikipedia version and that Benjiboi wrote it. That Benjiboi is that person is not in dispute - that has been settled here long ago and I'm not about to reopen that discussion. You will note that my initial post here was to ask if Benjiboi was offended by Scott's remarks, since he seems to be the person (or one of the persons) Scott was referring to as a "gay activist". That question is still unanswered, yet other people seem to be angry at Scott based on the assumption that his remarks were offensive. I don't think it is "hounding" anyone to ask that question and I really don't think your remarks are at all helpful here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the point you made about the original tag, however you have re-introduced unnecessary information about another editor which they have objected to you reposting several times. If an editor is an active puppet master or has a conflict of interest then there are processes to deal with these situations. The claims you have made in this RfC talk page are off-topic and reposting similar claims in several forums that the editor has objected to must be considered a form of hounding. However I am not making any suggestions for your behaviour, if you wish to dig an even bigger hole for yourself to fall into, then please carry on. I have no intention of making further remarks if you consider them unhelpful. Ash (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire issue, and the need to have an RfC about it, is inextricably related to homophobia. Why is it any more controversial -- a BLP issue -- to say someone is of interest to the LGBT project, than it is to say that they are of interest to Wikipproject California or the business wikiproject? Precisely because being queer carries a stigma, whereas being somehow related to California, or business, carries little or no stigma. The term homophobia is unfortunate because it implies that an individual is personally afraid of and therefore antagonistic towards gay people. There is no reason to think that anyone here has a bigoted bone in their body. But whatever is in your heart when you do so, the effect of holding the LGBT project and its project tags to a higher standard than others is to reinforce society's bigoted attitudes about gay matters. If the project cannot use the same tools as everyone else to organize articles of interest to its editors, that means downplaying LGBT matters on Wikipedia in deference to society's homophobic mores. I think this is akin to what they call "institutional racism", without anyone meaning to do so, the effect is discriminatory. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I said it before and I'll say it again, throwing around discrimination and homophobia in a Wikipedia context just belittles true discrimination and true homophobia which I'm sure most of the people involved in this discussion have faced in their real lives at one time or another. Mike H. Fierce! 11:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because there's worse out there doesn't mean we shouldn't try to keep our act clean here. Wikipedia does matter, and we have to balance the role of an encyclopedia in reflecting society's often biased views, with some sense of responsibility not to perpetuate them. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have faced discrimination and homophobia both on Wikipedia and "in real life" and there's no difference. Bigotry is bigotry. That it may have worse consequences offline than online doesn't mean it isn't bigotry and doesn't mean it should be tolerated. Otto4711 (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have faced discrimination and homophobia both on Wikipedia and "in real life" and there's no difference. Nice. You tell that to a bruised-up bloody victim of a gay-bashing the next time you get into an argument about this issue over the computer. I am truly repulsed. Mike H. Fierce! 04:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What could that possibly have to do with this discussion? - Wikidemon (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you read it? Bigotry is bigotry. Homophobia is homophobia. Having hurt feelings about losing an argument on the Internet must clearly equal true hatred and violence. Trying to marry the two, like Otto seems to be doing (don't try to say you're not when you really are), to win some petty computer argument, is irresponsible and it sickens me greatly. Mike H. Fierce! 04:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While it might be ill-phrased, the relevance is that one group of editors on one side of the issue has claimed that disagreement with them must necessarily have the same root cause as gay-bashings. This is not, of course, correct - I trust you agree - but the intention of this smear is to imply that editors holding the view they disagree with must be prepared to demonstrate that it is not true in their particular case. As said elsewhere in this section, that cannot result in a collegial debate, but only an emotional one. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. No one has asserted that any action on Wikipedia is anywhere near getting gay-bashed. However, limiting one particular (gay) group in their activities simply for being gay - you have to agree that that is a homophobic policy/guideline. There's no other word for it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

a) No one has proposed that. What has been proposed is that Wikiproject banners be not applied where they might inadvertently be taken imply that someone holds an identity - and it where it is conceivable that the subject does not in fact hold that identity and might object to being identified as such. b) The LGBT wikiproject is a "gay group" - who said that? Are wikiprojects not open to people of any sexual orientation, and indeed people who hold any point of view on the morality of any particular sexuality? Your slip is perhaps telling.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

* Proposing that the gay wikiproject's banner not be applied because someone might think the subject is gay--because gay is not as good as straight--is bigotry. Small-minded people might interpret the gay WP banner to mean that the subject is gay when they aren't. Boo hoo. Last I heard educational resources weren't in the business of catering to the ignorance of potential users. Otto4711 (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I said nothing about gay bashing. I have never been gay bashed. I compared bigotry and homophobia online to bigotry and homophobia offline. Mike, your connecting online bigotry to gay bashing is entirely in your mind and has nothing to do with me or my arguments. If you're sick about it, take a pepto. Gavia, your inability to acknowledge the role of homophobia in a discussion about requiring the gay Wikiproject to alter its tag for fear that someone who isn't gay might be thought to be gay is discouraging. Reasonable people can certainly disagree whether a particular article falls within the scope of one project or another. Suggesting that an article can't be tagged by the project because the presence of the tag might lead to an inference that the subject is gay because being incorrectly identified as gay automatically hurts the person so tagged reveals a belief within the person making the suggestion that is nothing but homophobic. Otto4711 (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That isn't even worthy of a response.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• High dudgeon is quite the classic disguise for refusing to deal with one's internalized issues. Please, now tell us how some of your best friends are homosexuals. Otto4711 (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott is under no obligation to feed trolls. In fact, it's generally discouraged, which is why I feel a bit guilty about this very comment. Hans Adler 10:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the bad faith trolling accusation. Otto4711 (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What other Wikiprojects might provoke similar reactions? (an answer)

This question has been asked a number of times. I daresay that if a certain wikiproject were to tag the talk page of a certain BLP, we'd have a mess quite similar to the one that led us to this discussion. (Read that talk page and its archives if you doubt this.) I'm sure that is not the only example that could be quoted in response to the question. Point is, it is not restricted to the LGBT, but could have occurred with many wikiprojects whose subject matter can be contentious. Perhaps LGBT is the most prominent of them, however. LadyofShalott 00:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it could occur with various other projects. Examples would be:

• A religious project tag on someone "rumoured to have converted".
• A crime related project tag on someone "accused of"
• WP:ISLAM banner on Barak Obama (that would be offensive - and that's not saying "Islam is bad")
• A WP:Anti-semitism banner on someone who's not notable for his views of Jews, but has been accused by some partisan sources of being anti-Semitic.

Granted, a number of these wikiprojects concern uncontroversially negative traits - which LGBT does not. However, the fact is that many of our BLP subjects would object is we wrongly suggested to a reader that they were gay. (And let's remember we are an international popular encyclopedia - neither our readers not our subjects are necessarily politicly correct with liberal western views.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree this should and can be generalised. It is about wikiproject participation and template use, and hopefully we'll come to some conclusion about that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

When you say generalised, then would that be only for BLP, or project tagging generally? There are problems with many projects tagging controversial topics - Medicine, for example. At the moment, articles that may involve issues touching on culture and sexuality as well as medicine, yet such articles tend to be 'owned' by WikiProject Medicine in a way that enforces a medical POV dominating such articles, and subjecting editors to criteria laid down within that project, thus stifling critiques of practices that may be developed in other fields. Circumcision is one example, but there are other examples from different disciplines, some of which are also connected with LGBT studies, where the medical/psychology approach tends to stifle inclusion of POV's that do not acocord with the medical/psychology POV. If this move will ensure that this form of project 'ownership' is bought to an end, and no one project can dictate the standards editors from other projects have to comply with, then that would be welcome. Another example would be the Religion/Christianity and homosexuality articles, which were for some time treated as being owned by Christianity, and about Christian perspectives on homosexuality in a way that LGBT input was not welcome. The only means of reddressing this was to tag the articles as LGBT, as they touched on LGBT issues - something that was not welcome. Need to be clear whether 'general' means projects & BLP generally, or projects generally. Mish (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

comment on view by Scott MacDonald

Users who oppose this view:

1. Oppose. No one has suggested that we compromise BLP policies in any way. This view however suggest that a Wikiproject is not able to suss out which articles may or may not be within their projects' interests or more troubling, that anyone who feels a Wikiproject is controversial (a minority viewpoint that is) can be removed. This impedes a Wikiproject's purpose in improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Additionally Scott Mac (Doc) seems to have the facts concerning the present case woefully wrong. Johnny Weir has discussed his sexuality repeatedly and publicly on television, in newspapers and on his own website all in response to questions that tied his sexuality and his skating. Several national media outlets have also written extensively on the subject with several outing him. Weir has refused to give a binary I am, I'm not ___ answer but that is not unique for national/international sports figures and avoiding sexuality and social labels is increasingly common for younger generations. It's good to avoid harm and I have supported that same concept on other BLPs but we also, per NPOV, don't simply avoid content because it's uncomfortable. In this case we already had the content in his article and the LGBT Wikiproject is the exact Wikiproject that should be on the article's talkpage as they are most experienced and adept at dealing with sexuality and gender minority issues, especially on BLPs. Preventing a project tag only serves to impede their involvement which the article clearly needs. In almost every case of vandalism well-written, NPOV and sourced content almost always minimizes the fuss and nonsense. -- Banjeboi 02:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Em? "sexuality and gender minority issues" - you are assuming he's not heterosexual there? . Secondly how does not tagging an article "serves to impede their involvement which the article clearly needs. In almost every case of vandalism well-written, NPOV and sourced content almost always minimizes the fuss and nonsense." Surely any editor can help with that (from any wikiproject) without a tag? And there's nothing to stop the article being listed on a project's talk page. This is the big question for me - how does not taging a BLP like this impede you working on it? I simply have never heard a coherent answer to that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 03:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

First, is there some reason you're removing an opposed comment? RfC's traditionally have these or is this yet another way to game a consensus? Secondly, I stated LGBT Wikiproject is the exact Wikiproject that should be on the article's talkpage as they are most experienced and adept at dealing with sexuality and gender minority issues, Weir just had a press conference about the gender-test comments made against him. And we wouldn't be discussing his sexuality if heterosexuality wasn't the cultural norm, ergo anything that deviates from that is a minority. We are discussing a subject who has been asked about his alleged non-heterosexuality, not my OR but a fact. A Wikiproject tag serves only to incorporate an article into a Wikiproject's efforts of cleaning and maintaining content. If it's not tagged for the LGBT Wikiproject it simply isn't incorporated and less people are watching, cleaning up and maintaining. As teh LGBT Wikiproject has thousands of article its completely insincere to tell them to simply keep a running list of articles the majority won't allow you to tag. This is the only one BTW, that I'm aware. If you look at WT:LGBT the top of the page lists article alerts for dozens of articles in various stages of Wikipedia processes like deletion, FA review etc. this is among the systems that are governed by the ... wait for it ... Wikiproject tag. -- Banjeboi 03:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Scott, you're right that any editor can participate in working on the article, regardless of whether or not the banner is there. However, even though your comments seem to think differently, banner templates actually *do* help the WikiProject keep track of articles and they actually *do* help the articles. There are even a dozen bots that categorize articles needing help by relying on the project tags. Personally, I focus 99% of my article editing on LGBT tagged articles. Some of the editors in the LGBT project focus on moving articles through the FA process, some work on finding sources, some help categorization - and many of the project's editors do these things with a focus on our area of interest. So having the project banner is crucial to identifying articles to work on.

Secondly, you may not realize this, but saying "you don't need to add the banner - you can just put it on your project's talk page" borders on being offensive. Think about "separate but equal" and "you can just use the back door". Saying that WP:LGBT specifically (though this could apply to other WikiProjects) can be forced (by means other than reasoned consensus) to have to do things differently than any other WikiProject feels wrong to me. While I know you don't mean it that way, that's exactly how it sounds. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment on view by Wine Guy

Moved from the project page, as it is not standard to include "oppose" sections in an RFC. Scottaka UnitAnode 03:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

1. With much respect to Wine Guy. who has been refreshingly dispassionate during all this drama, I think this may be a form of technology creep or some similarly named concept. We have numerous ways to track BLPs and the WikiProject Biography template already does this. There may be a need to reference for all the various Wikiprojects that certain BLPs are unsourced or have some rather serious needs for more eyes but that's more of an Article alerts function to simply match the current tags and categories than to add a parameter to every project tag. This may already be occurring but if not asking at Technical village pump could likely sort out whatever solution that may need to be in place or more widely advertised. -- Banjeboi 02:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Having read your comment, I think perhaps my "view" was not very well presented. I probably talked too much about how to make my suggestion happen (the "technology" to which you are referring), and not enough on the basics of what my suggestion is. The main point of my suggestion is to add the following (or similar) wording to all wikiproject banners that appear on BLPs:

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

This wording explains to all but the most reading-comprehension-challenged readers why the banner is there, and that the banner does not place the subject of the article in any "category". Since this RfC is specific to BLP issues, I tried to suggest an easy way to put this wording on banners which appear on BLPs (the BLP = yes parameter). The more I think about it, there's probably no reason that the wording couldn't appear on all banners, on all articles — period. The bot action I mentioned was simply to assist in adding wording to the templates, not for tracking or alerts or anything else. Wine Guy~Talk 07:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the wording change, and I'd do it for all banners, regardless of the article where they appear. It applies perfectly to non-BLP articles as well. --Cyclopia^talk 14:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually most RfC's haveSupport, Oppose, Neutral and Discussion sections, but if the preferred method on this RfC is to remove dissenting opinions we should state that at the top of the RfC - Dissenting opinions are not welcome here, please use the talkpage. At least we would be transparent about the nature of these actions. -- Banjeboi 04:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they don't. I've looked through quite a few RFCs, and it's not standard practice to do so. This isn't a vote, and I think we're all pretty clear on where you stand on the issue anyway. I don't know where you've gotten the idea that "most RfC's have Support, Oppose, Neutral and Discussion sections." That's absolutely and unequivocally untrue. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well apparently Benjiboy was using the "Whatever The Hell I Think Is Fact, Is Fact" method to come up with that claim. Only very few RFCs have started having these weird oppose / support sections; it used to be that only support sections were on the RFC and everything else was discussed on the talk page. But go on believing what you want to Benjiboy, cause you know you're right... right? — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assumption of bad faith. I guess I should have stated most of the RFCs I've seen follow a similar format, regardless I'm sure common sense will lead the way here. -- Banjeboi 15:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A General Response

I feel that all the suggested courses of action are much too weak. Any article that is not well-sourced should be deleted immediately. If editors who find such articles are willing to search for references rather than delete the article, that would be preferred.

The idea that the creators of such articles should be contacted and, in essence, begged to improve their articles borders on the ridiculous. If the article has not been improved by its creator in three years, two years, one year, six months, six weeks, six days or six hours it will not be improved. The suggestion that efforts should be made to contact the creators of unsourced or poorly-sourced articles when the creators have been banned was optimism to an extreme level and possibly not well thought out. Is the ban to be lifted so that the creator of the article can improve an article when given a second, third, or tenth chance in the expectation that the behavior which caused the ban will not occur?

JimCubb (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are commenting on the wrong RFC ϢereSpielChequers 01:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Supplemental point about BLP implications

Further to my view expressed on the main page. If you look at more recent subjects of the Gay Icons page, you will find several articles that relate to living people who are gay icons, and who are not identified as LGBT. Kylie Minogue is one example. Her biography is tagged as coming within the scope of the LGBT studies project. This says nothing about Kylie Minogue, other than that she is gay icon, and is of interest to the project on that basis. In the case that gave rise to this debate, there is no substantive difference. If an individual is subjected to homophobic commentary in the media, or violence or abuse, then it is that which makes them relevant to the LGBT studies project, and says nothing about their sexual orientation. How are you to police this?

If a special case rule is to be implemented that singles out this and one or two other projects that happen to deal with issues like homophobia, where do you draw the line? What is to prevent this being applied in situations like Gloria Gaynor and Kylie Minogue, or Jason Donovan (who has issued clear denials against speculation on his sexuality). Another case in point is an Olympic athlete who is currently being pressurised through coercion from the IOC to undergo surgery to render her more feminine so that she can compete in future Olympic games. I understand that she will never issue any statement that would confirm the speculation about whether she is intersex or not. However, the speculation, attention, and treatment she is receiving by the IOC are all relevant to LGBT studies, because they raise questions about sex/gender and appearance and the processes that intersex people are subject to in order to try and normalise them in ways that ensure they conform to typical male and female embodiment. I am sure that were somebody to place such a project tag on her discussion page, there would be arguments about that, but that doesn't mean it should be excluded from the project - even if we do not know the confidential medical details about her life. This is an ongoing issue in the Olympics, and has affected athletes since the exclusion of some soviet athletes in the 1960's.

This is all relevant to LGBT studies, because it touches on expectations of what men and women should be like in a predominantly heterosexual society. If there isn't one already, then there should be an article on the approach to sex, gender and sexuality in sport and the Olympics, and this would cover all the athletes and sport-speople affected, come under the LGBT project, and detail the events surrounding these cases, including the example that gave rise to this discussion. That would not be saying anything about the medical situation or sexual orientation of these individuals, only covering the various committees and commentators' attitudes expressed in public statements. To have people covered in such an article, which is clearly within the remit of LGBT studies, yet not allow their biographies to be covered within that remit seems odd.

Much of the work of the LGBT studies project is mundane - monitoring articles and biographies for vandalism, which may be derogatory about the subject or LGBT issues in general, or about individuals who would not otherwise be in the encyclopedia (John Doe is a faggot, kind of thing). As a project, LGBT studies is quite good at cleaning this sort of vandalism up, probably better than some other projects, because it is more of a target. The article in question is going to draw this kind of negative attention regardless of whether the discussion page is tagged or not. Having it tagged means it is one of the articles that will be monitored, and so will ensure such vandalism is nipped in the bud promptly, and any unsourced additions that may have genuine BLP implications will be picked up on quickly. This is currently the case with the intersex page and the persistent insertions of Lady Gaga. So, I would suggest that having the LGBT project tag included is a way of ensuring the article is monitored, thus avoiding it degenerating, and in this way improves the encyclopedia. Mish (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, MishMich - that is an extremely well written summary of some things I've been trying to put together. Well done! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've still never heard a viable explanation as to why this particular wiki-project feels it can patrol for vandalism better than non-members can. Tarc (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism is one thing, sure, but what about POV pushing, unsourced content, and so on? Recent changes patrollers don't -- and can't be expected to -- catch every content problem. I do think a wikiproject can legitimately express an interest in watching a large number of articles. I don't think the intention in doing so is to belittle the efforts of other contributors, for what it's worth. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That is the thing though, that people from this project argue that the tag is needed so they can watch for vandalism and other such harmful editing to articles they perceive to be within the LGBT scope. Vandalism is a project-wide problem, especially BLPs. Tarc (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Would list pages be an amenable solution, here? I do see obvious value in being able to track pages for a variety of maintenance purposes, but at the same time I'm sensitive to the implications of slapping a huge banner down on every page we're interested in -- per JzG's view that expresses those concerns pretty aptly, in my opinion. Given sufficient templates and features like Special:Recentchangeslinked, I'd venture that a list might actually be more helpful to a wikiproject. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, a list page would be a solution, yes. But it begs the question of why one WikiProject is singled out to have a separate but equal system. Is WP:ISLAM going to have to resort to the same solution? WP:CRIME? WP:TERRORISM? Is this list going to be just for BLPs? Or is it going to extend to musical groups next? Literature and movies? How do we justify segregating one WikiProject from the rest? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It may beg the question for some, but since I don't see myself as having singled out any project I can't really speak to it. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Is every topic on this talk page going to resort to the playing of the Victim Card(tm) ? Tarc (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, vandalism is project wide. Vandalism with homophobic intent isn't. I could identify homophobic insertions, even subtle ones, quite quickly, not so (say) more subtle Islamophobic insertions. If insertions that are not substantiable are in fact eliminated speedily, and impartially, across the board, then sure, this should not be a problem. My point was simply that people in the LGBT project are more familiar with a range of homophobic insertions than other projects. That is not a controversial statement, so I am not sure why it would need to be made out to be so. Mish (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This also sidesteps the main point, that there are other valid reasons why BLPs of non-LGBT people would be tagged as part of the LGBT studies project - and it is unclear how one could justify that, and implement a rule that would be essentially arbitrary in implementation. It would be a rule along the lines 'some BLPs that involve issues pertinent to LGBT studies project should not be tagged by that project because some people do not like it'. Mish (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Victim Card(tm) here goes to Wikipedia. The Quebec Council of Gays and Lesbians is filing a protest against sports announcers making anti-gay gibes about Johnny Weir, but at the article you're not allowed to quote his reply to the sports announcers because it is a "end run" to allow a reference to the question of his sexuality. Wikipedia is losing credibility on any potentially political issue, because it's all policy sophistry and arbitrary censorship. Wnt (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sexology and sexuality

In reply to the thought (see view by JzG) that the issue may be solved by applying the tags of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality instead of WikiProject LGBT studies, I would like to make two points.

First, and putting aside for the moment the disagreement over whether the 'LGBT studies' tag actually implies anything about the subject's sexual orientation, the fact of having a sexual orientation (or having sex), even if that fact is documented in reliable sources, does not by itself place an article within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality.

Second, if we want to base our decisions on what assumptions readers may make in spite of the text of the article and the text of WikiProject tags, I must point out that identifying a person as being associated with WikiProject Sexuality could (just like almost anything else) result in mistaken assumptions as well. One could, for example, assume that the person is involved in the sex industry, that the person is known for his or her sexual activities, or that the person is otherwise publicly associated with the taboo (in many cultures) topics of sex and human sexuality.

I believe that this second point highlights the futility of attempting to preempt potential incorrect assumptions made by readers who simply fail to read the article or even the full text of the WikiProject tag. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Biasing introduction - Do no harm is not policy.

From WP:HARM: "During the development of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, one of the principles considered was, "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm.'" This principle was ultimately rejected".

Editors should stop misrepresenting "do no harm" as policy. It's not. Our policy is to consider harm. Gigs (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, not harming people is certainly my policy. I'd hope it is yours too. What's the point of considering it? Because you might decide to inflict it?--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As WP:HARM says, it was rejected as a policy because neutrality is more important than avoiding all possible harm. We're not here to write articles about how great everyone is, while ignoring all negative information. Gigs (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Accurately and neutrally reporting information which has been well-documented elsewhere, if not giving undue weight or publicity to otherwise non-prominent negative information, cannot be harmful. Harm is always to be avoided. I don't need a policy to say that, I just need a functioning moral compass. Primum non nocere and all that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure it can be harmful. We'll keep a record of a notable individuals' malfeasances until the end of time while other links rot and paper sources decompose. –xeno^talk 21:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Until the day that the seas boil and the servers crash?--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite. –xeno^talk 21:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Accurately and neutrally" reporting negative information about a person for even a short time violates the pure form of the principle of "do no harm". If nothing else, we become yet another venue which publicly provides that negative information. We should, of course, avoid causing harm when dealing with information that is private, trivial, or poorly-documented, but the pure form of "do no harm" is simply, utterly, and unquestionably incompatible with the requirement of reflecting a neutral point of view. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware that there was any negative information, nor that we are seeking to report anything negative. There was a question about somebody not being a proper man, and possibly gay. Nothing negative about that - plenty of people are not proper men or women, and some are gay, while most gay people are proper men and women. The suggestion that an individual was not a 'real' man, and gay, was refuted/denied. Nothing negative about that either. What is significant is that somebody seems to have thought that suggesting somebody wasn't a proper man, or gay, was negative - and did this in a way to impugn somebody's character. Recording that is not in itself negative, because we express no POV about the individual (whether they are a 'real' man, gay, straight whatever) - only the response and reason for it. That is precisely why the BLP is tagged - it is very significant, as what happened to this heterosexual man raises certain issues about sexual orientation and gender, and people's perceptions of what straight men should be like, what gay men are like, and how people who do not appear to be 'real' men can be treated. The only negativity in all this seems to reflect on those who made the speculations in a negative manner. So, the only purpose this serves appears to be to suppress information connected with a BLP that reflects negatively on those who did the speculating, not the subject of the BLP. This opens a door which would protect those who make negative statements about individuals, yet denies such individuals' own comments about such statements a place in their own biography. This actually makes a complete mockery of BLP policy, and the notion of 'do no harm'. It means that any bigot can say on public record whatever they want about any individual, but that individual's own comments about that are denied a place in this encyclopedia. Mish (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes! You have lucidly described much of what I've been thinking but have been unable to adequately express. A couple of additional points, if I may. The thing about a "functioning moral compass", as Scott MacDonald calls it, is that it functions differently from person to person. That subjectivity is, in part, why Wikipedia uses consensus to formulate and refine its policies, including BLP. I do not take issue with editors whose personal moral compass points a certain way, but I do expect them to assume good faith on the part of their fellow editors whose compasses point a different way. More to the point, one should be able to reasonably expect them not to use their own personal ideas of policy to bludgeon opposing editors into submission but rather to seek consensus that their interpretation of policy is correct. Second, the information that some editors have sought to suppress in the Weir article was reliably sourced to several major media outlets—not blogs, not gossip colums, not tabloids. Suppressing that information, whether out of concern over some nebulous risk of harm to the subject or for some other reason, amounts to something parallel to original research: imposing one's own personal view on the content of an article. Rivertorch (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry to get heavy, but when people start justifying actions on the basis of morals I start worrying. The oppression, imprisonment and execution of homosexuals in many countries today is based on apparently logical sound moral arguments and the "moral compass" of individual political and religious leaders. Wikipedia does not seem the place for such justifications. Ash (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What is a moral compass? I don't think I have one of those. Is it now policy that editors have to have one? Can I get one at the same camping shop I got my proper compass? My telescope has a Goto which requires me to align the mount to north, and the compass gets me more or less there - but for precision I have to align with Polaris. That is because the compass points to magnetic north, not true north. How would I know if my moral compass is pointing in the right direction? Is there an equivalent to polar alignment for my moral alignment? Once I am morally aligned, is there something equivalent to a GoTo system so I can be sure I have the correct view on any moral issues I need to think about? At the moment I know that eating people is morally wrong, but I appreciate that there have been (and still are) cultures that see eating bits of people as morally acceptable, either for magical or ceremonial or military reasons, or as a form of alternative medicine - if I have a moral compass, will this help me understand that eating people is wrong better, and appreciate the situations where it can be OK? How about polygamy and homosexuality? Some cultures feel killing people on the basis of their sexual orientation is morally acceptable, as is having more than one spouse - my morals suggest this is an error. If we all have this moral compass, does that mean I will come to see that polygamy is OK, and not have concerns about state-execution of homosexuals - or will it mean that those cultures than encourage such practices would change in alignment with this moral compass? Is this hypothetical moral compass something we should even be bringing into policy discussions on an international encyclopedia? The encyclopedia has an ethos, but this is distinct from any particular moral framework. The ethos is based on notability, verifiability and accuracy - not any particular individuals' moral compass or rhetoric, nor specific cultural morality.Mish (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is amoral? Yikes? I thought the general desire not to harm people was pretty much universal to most people excluding sociopaths (see Golden Rule, "Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others."(Isocrates) Even Google has corporate ethics, as has any self-respecting journalist. Wikipedia should be exempt? --Scott Mac (Doc) 11:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A forum having consensual accepted standards of behaviour, verifiability and style is not the same thing as justifying actions on the basis of a personal moral compass. Ash (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume some basic shared sense of right and wrong as a basis for interaction. I said nothing of "personal".--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that there is a non-personal shared "sense of right and wrong". I doubt you could provide a link to it. The statement is reminiscent of right-thinking which in a moral context is probably as problematic as "moral compass" for the same reasons. Ash (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You didn't use the word but you implied it strongly both in this statement—"not harming people is certainly my policy. I'd hope it is yours too [emphasis added]—and in speaking of moral compasses. I don't want to let myself wander down a tangent, but the universality of "the general desire not to harm people" that you allege is refuted not only by Mish's cannibals (see above) but by sundry other examples. Ethnic cleansing, anyone? Genocide? The Holocaust? While a strong majority of people are horrified by such occurrences, they're not the work of random sociopaths; they involve the active participation of many and the passive acceptance of still more, and lots of those people think what they're doing is absolutely justified. And what of war itself, which is almost never "clean" but routinely involves massacred civilians and atrocities inflicted on prisoners and, perhaps more importantly in the context of this discussion, constitutes in and of itself a general desire to harm people? Those are pretty stark examples, of course, and still not everyone sees them in black and white. Imagine, then, the myriad shades of gray seen by different people when it comes to less weighty things like, say, policy interpretations in online encyclopedias that anybody can edit.

In any event, the general intent of WP editors not to do harm is really not in question; we see it in evidence most every day. (I do, anyway.) What's in question is whether editors are allowed to hold differing opinions of what constitutes harm, vis-à-vis the BLP policy, and engage in rational discussion in an attempt to find common ground. If the answer to that is no—if your own internal sense of right and wrong takes such precedence over WP policy including WP:Consensus that you'll impugn opposing editors' motives and threaten them instead of trusting the community to make a reasonable decision—then there's really not much else to be said. Rivertorch (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that one editor (Scott) persists in misrepresenting the words of others here. Wikipedia is not about making moral points, that would fail NPOV. Morality is not an absolute. Non-harm is widespread, amongst witches as well as Christians ("Do what you will so long as you harm none"). That didn't stop Christians burning thousands of women in Europe. The point is not whether anybody wants to harm people, but whether including accurate, verfiable, details in the public domain in the encyclopedia is harm. Rather than misrepresenting a position as being sociopathic simply because it does not correspond to your moral perspective (Scott), please appreciate that personal morality and ethical principles are not the same: I stated that the encyclopedia has an ethos, but that is not the same as it taking particular moral positions in the way you (Scott) seem to believe it should. My morality differs from yours (Scott). That does not mean that I have no morality, simply a different morality. I see some things as very immoral - child abuse, for example (which is a pretty uncontroversial sentiment). Yet, my understanding of child abuse incorporates religious indoctrination (which I can imagine some would see as controversial). So, there is an example of where having what appears to be a similar moral framework can differ.

This is why I questioned your (Scott) idea of a moral compass - what is taken for granted as 'normative' by you (Scott) may not be so for everybody. What you (Scott) see as 'harm' may not appear harmful at all to others. Far more harm has been done to people alive and dead than the example raised, and is on public record - do we fail to cover that harm on the basis that it was harmful? No, we do not. Take that approach to its logical conclusion and do we not cover the violence inflicted on LGBT people alive or dead, because of the harm that was caused? Do we not cover the holocaust, because of the harm that was caused to those who suffered, and the remaining survivors? Do we not mention the O.J. Simpson trial because he was acquitted, thereby avoiding harm to him and others? Do we avoid covering the James Bulger murder, because of possible harm to his killers and family? In these situations, we do no harm, we record harm done - but you (Scott) seem to have difficulty differentiating between the two. Perhaps your (Scott) moral compass needs more accurate calibration? Mish (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh for pete's sake, no I don't presume everyone has identical morality wrt religious indoctrination etc Got any more strawmen you want burn? I merely stated that the desire to avoid harm ought to be a shared starting points. Without some shared starting points, debate is futile and pointless, and we might as well all take our outlook from our individual spaghetti monsters, and abandon any shared enterprise. We don't need a post-modern relativist philosophical analysis to find some shared moral values here from which to construct a basic ethic.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You (Scott) are either not listening, or deliberately ignoring what is said that troubles your line of argument: I will repeat it for you in simple terms. You cannot presume shared moral values, and the ethics of the encyclopedia do not require this. What is important is verifiability, accuracy, etc. That is the ethos you have to work within. Certainly, possible harm should be considered - but where there is no harm, then bringing it into the discussion is disruptive. Mish (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I just disagree. However, I'm not disagreeing that "where there is no harm then bringing it into the discussion is disruptive", although I'd say irrelevant rather than disruptive. In other cases, we assess and avoid harm.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing Weir's own input, such as interviews in LGBT and other sources, he seems to sidestep the issue of whether he is gay or not, seeing it as unimportant. Similarly, his attitude to the remarks deemed homophobic seems to be to shrug these off also, as part of showbusiness. So, I would correct some of my comments above. I categorised him as heterosexual, when he is ambivolent about his sexual orientation. I suggested that any harm had already been done, yet in his own eyes, no harm was done. The best that can be said is his sexual orientation has been questioned, but he has seen no reason to comment on what is a private matter. Despite this, it seems to be a matter of some interest to many in the gay community. My point about homophobic comments, and how people deal with them (regardless of actual sexual orientation), how people are perceived, and how LGBT studies covers more than gay people's issues, etc. are not affected by this. TBH, I am surprised nobody has LGBT studies project tagged Cliff Richard yet, given the amount of speculation on his sexual orientation over several decades, his relationshps, personal life, and his positive comments on civil partnerships (as a committed Christian). Mish (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy nuts and bolts

This discussion has wandered away from the point, but Rivertorch made a comment that gets to the issue: the sources are not gossip columns or tabloids. I think much of the debate here has resulted because someone is misinterpreting policy, and we should determine who. Specifically:

1. WP:BLP - "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the source doesn't believe its own story, why should we?"
2. WP:NOT - "Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person."
3. WP:BLP - "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

I can see that Scott Mac's actions have been consistent with a certain reading of the first two policies. If a major news outlet reports that two sportscasters made anti-gay comments about Johnny Weir, it isn't presenting the comments as true (#1), and when we add mention to the article we are "repeating" this gossip (#2). But as I read it, the major news outlet is presenting the fact of the comments and subsequent dispute as true, and we did not hear about them through the grapevine but in a news story written by people who watched the tape. Additionally, I see the incident as well-documented by reliable published sources (#3). This is where the comment about the tabloids comes in, because this is the basis for how I interpret the policy. I'm viewing it as addressing the reader who picks up the Nominal Enquirer and reads some column like:

Is Harry X gay? Readers have been deluging us with emails asking whether Harry X is gay after his so-feminine performance last night. We've repeatedly contacted Harry X but we still can't get past his secretary's phone tree...

(only filling more column space). Now in a situation like that you say the tabloid isn't a reliable published source and/or it's not actually stating a fact. This is not really very different from the one mention of sexuality in the Johnny Weir article, since he didn't answer the question — except that those were more reliable sources and they actually got a quote from him in response. The sexuality is not "presented as true" but the quote is, and for those two differences I see it as admissible. Now the way Scott Mac seems to be interpreting the policy with the sportscasters and other sexuality discussion seems to treat every news source as a tabloid, and focuses, to my view, impermissibly, on whether the collection of sources as a whole answers the question of Weir's sexuality. I see this as mandating WP:OR instead of forbidding it. The crowning irony that we get to is that he's opposed addition of Johnny Weir's own quotes. So I say that as long as any normal news outlet can be cited in which a person is mentioned in connection to an issue of relevance to the GLBT project (or any other), no one should be able to argue that policy dismisses the tag as irrelevant. Wnt (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Are RFC's useless? (moved from Talk:Johnny Weir)

Moved from the talk page - one of the reasons I opened this RFC was to avoid talking about LGBT tags on the talk page of a living individual. The talk page should only be talking about article content and not inadvertantly linking the individual to LGBT for the point of a fairly trivial inhouse discussion on tags. Please reopen this RFC if there is more to say.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Entire forests of virtual trees were killed for discussion here and at an RFC of whether a tiny Wikiproject tag could be included or not. And as best as I could figure it out from the mumble-throated closing summary, the RFC said it was up to the Wikiproject. So just for laughs I tried reverting the last moralistic deletion of the tag, and lo and behold, nothing's changed. So I have to ask: Does the RFC process have any use whatsoever? And I should probably follow up by asking whether talk page debating has any use, when you could be out sitting on articles and reverting edits without comment. Wnt (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If this group of editors is willing to support this article, then they have a right to announce their willingness on this page just like any other group of editors. From the guide: "WikiProjects have sole and absolute authority to define their scopes: A group of editors cannot be forced to support any article that they do not wish to support, or prohibited from supporting any article that they wish to support."

WikiProject LGBT supports many articles about people who are not LGBT (such as sexologists, early anti-discrimination activist Emma Goldman, Janet Jackson, William Shakespeare, James Dean).

It might be helpful if the tag included | explanation= parameter. Many inexperienced editors do not know that a WikiProject tag only means "we are willing to help". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'd like to add the WP:LGBT banner to this article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There were plenty of objections the last time this was discussed. You can be willing to help improve the article without trying to tag it to advertise a special interest group, can't you? Dr.frog (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors cannot prohibit a WikiProject from supporting an article: It is not actually a decision determined by the editors at the article. It is a decision that is wholly determined by the editors who are volunteering to help out (or not). You cannot force a WikiProject to support an article, and you cannot prohibit them from supporting an article.

Not tagging an article that a project is supporting has implications for the project's records and statistics as well as for the WP:1.0 selection process. The banners are not just (or even primarily) a matter of 'advertising a special interest group'.

If editors here don't want project banners to be particularly visible, then they could choose the other banner shell for all of the projects that support it, which is {{WPB}}. Template:WPB is considered particularly appropriate for articles that are supported by as many projects as this one is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This attempt to add the disputed LGBT project tag after such a small amount of time when there was such a lot of heated circular discussion so recently is a bit much, like at ANI, not right now, come back in six months. Off2riorob (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the WikiProject guidelines trump the editors of a particular article. Seems to me they don't - but that's just my opinion. The RfC was more about whether or not discussing a project tag had BLP implications. Some of the previous concerns were addressed in that RfC - for instance, the project banners now read "of interest to", belaying some concerns that having a project tag might label the person.

To be clear, I believe this article is "of interest to" WP:LGBT for several reasons. Weir is using and/or challenging the stereotype of flamboyant gay male skater. He is also using and/or challenging the mainstream idea of masculinity in sports while denying a "normal" hetero label. This article from NPR speaks exactly to that, in fact. The LGBT project is interested based as much on society's reaction to him as on his non-heterosexualness - not that he's gay, but that he's refused to take the label "straight". Off2riorob, I haven't heard objections from others - can you clarify why you think the project shouldn't be involved? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Weir is challenging the role of gay male skater, what rubbish. All editors are welcome to be involved, as far as you haven't heard objections from others goes, don't take silence for support, there has if you say been minor adjustments to the templates, but nothing to alter the recent previous discussion. As I said, we only recently had a large discussion about this and sttempting to go there again after such a short period of time and when there has been little change at all is tiresome, what benefit to the article do you see adding the template will bring, none at all, it seems all the editors innvolved know where it is, to be honest the discussion about this is so recent that I find your coming back again tiresome, I have had this discussion a plenty, come back if there is a major change. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, challenging sexuality and gender. And there has been a major change. And you didn't answer my question. Why do you object to including this article in the WikiProject? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What does "including the article in the wikiproject mean"? I fear you are asking loaded questions using circumlocutions. You asked earlier "can you clarify why you think the project shouldn't be involved?". The reply is - no one has even suggested they shouldn't be - of course they can be. Absolutely any editor may involve themselves here. I fear what you are really saying is: "I want to put back the tag about the wikiproject that many editors objected to, because ...." Well, let me ask you why. Given many editors objected (and the reasons were given at length in the RfC and elsewhere) - why is it utterly essential that it goes back? Why is it worth the fuss of reopening the discussion? Why can't any editor, in any any wikiproject, edit without it? How does it benefit this particular article? Why can't the LGBT wikiproject make a note of it on their project space, if they fear they'll forget about it otherwise (and, I mean, is that a real fear?)? Basically, can we all move along and debate content rather than controversial banners? Or do you have an ideological point to make?--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have some confusion about why this matters, so let me start the explanation here: Placing a project banner is not like a dog marking its territory by peeing on a tree. The purpose is not to tell other people that the project owns the article.

"Making a note of it in their project space" is the point of project banners. The tag includes the project's categories. It is not possible for a project to put this article correctly "in their project space" without putting, at minimum, two visible project-related categories on this page.

The categories are used by the WP:1.0 team to decide which articles will go into the release versions. This is processed by a bot, which means that if the category is excluded, then the article will not be correctly assessed. The 1.0 bot is not capable of looking at the text on a project page to see whether a special deal was made so that a couple of editors who are squeamish about sexuality could keep the letters "LGBT studies" off the talk page of "their" article.

WikiProjects, which range from very tiny to absolutely enormous, are not treated identically. Excluding articles affects how the project is ranked and therefore how the articles within the project's scope are weighted for the final cutoffs.

The bottom line is this: Excluding this tag produces tangible harm to the processes used by the 1.0 team. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Many editors, Scott? Two or three, as far as I can tell - and many of their objections have been addressed in the RFC. You're right, however, that I mis-spoke. I meant "Can you clarify why you don't want the project banner on this talk page?" I haven't heard any reason not to add the project tag. The benefits of doing so are: Ease of monitoring, Assessment by bot, Review by bot, and Standard WikiProject procedures. All of these fully help better the article. Now, can you tell me how *not* including the banner on the talk page betters the article? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the RfC, which were endorsed by many editors, and have not been addressed. Given the many eyes on this article, I can't see how a tag will make any difference at all. I'm sure you can do all those things without a tag, and do them with a lot less effort than that required to flog this horse any further.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Scott: Can you clarify your remarks?

How exactly is the 1.0 bot, which relies on these banners, supposed to "do all those things" if the banner is not here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what the bot does, but I'm sure the quality of the article won't suffer much without it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of rolling my eyes at this whole discussion. If half the time wasted on this long-winded discussion over a silly banner had been spent actually improving the article instead, it would be feature quality by now! Dr.frog (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. How is Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Article alerts, whose content is controlled by a bot that relies exclusively on these banners supposed to be updated if the banner is not here?

(Project members watch article alerts to find out about discussions and other significant article developments that they may be able to help with.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: somebody moved this conversation back at this point, so we now have a duplication of the above. Wnt (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hidden categories? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)