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.
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed issues}
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:
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)
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)
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)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)
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.
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:
-- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 18:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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).
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)
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)
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. Sher eth 22:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
In my opinion, the best solution is:
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
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 { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed issues}
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:
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)
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)
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)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)
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.
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:
-- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 18:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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).
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)
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)
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. Sher eth 22:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
In my opinion, the best solution is:
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
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 { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)