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

215:. Sounds quite reasonable to me, provided implemented sensibly. Re FT2's comments: we are not talking here about some sort of mass removal of project tags by bots or anything of the sort (at least that is not how I read the above proposal). Every case is different and does need to be evaluated individually. However, as a general principle, I certainly very much agree with the idea that "where there is any danger of a tag being misunderstood, being controversial, or suggesting an unverified fact, the tag should be avoided." We should remember that Wikiprojects and wikiproject tags exist primarily for convenience of wikipedia editors. They do serve a useful function in facilitating article rating, etc. However, most Knowledge users are NOT editors, and certainly not experienced editors. Quite a few of them will look at the article's talk page. They will have no idea about the meaning and the purpose of wikiprojects, and can very easily misunderstand and misinterpret the meaning of a project tag. So in BLP cases Wikiproject tags on sensitive BLP subjects (such as, say, Nazism, LGBT, terrorism, etc) should be applied conservatively, and only where there is a clear and significant reason to do so, in view of significant harm that a misinterpretation of the presence of a tag can cause. I think that changing the wording on the tag to something like "This article is of interest to WikiProject:X" only partially addresses the problem and in many cases the mere presence of a tag could be too prejudicial no matter what the disclaimer on the tag says. 3126:

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).

4225:

be on a crusade against certain types of article, within the scope of this request alone that is not apparent (although in a wider context, it may be the case?). I have come across at least one editor who at first appeared to me to be acting from what might be described as homophobia, but as I got to know their approach and understand them more, it became apparent to me that their primary inetntion was to improve the encyclopedia. I found that working with them meant certain articles were improved, and became much stronger when reduced to well sourced content. The process of editing here can engage latent OCD (it has done for me in the past, anyway). I would prefer to think that a diligent editor has become a bit too obsessive about one area of the encyclopedia, rather than anything specifically negative about their attitude to material with LGBT themes. Having said that, though, the negative attention this project seems to draw from some individuals with 'issues' did lead me to take a break of several months because I found it so sould destroying.

2174:, 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. 2519:

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.

154:

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.

5450:, 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 5190:. If this means the subject of the biography, then that does make sense. Note that this is not about the article itself, only the discussion page, and we do not normally remove things from the article simply because the individual concerned doesn't like it. People are free to contact the encyclopedia if they have concerns about their biography. This would set a precedent, and would need to be implemented for any BLP/project tag, and operate on the same basis as a complaint about article content - by the individual concerned contacting the encyclopedia in writing (i.e., not by somebody claiming to be the BLP subject - or anybody else - coming onto the discussion and saying 'I don't like it'. 158:

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.

3787:

generalizations made toward both WikiProject LGBT Studies editors and "gay activist" editors, and I have been similarly dismayed at the facility with which certain editors want to apply special, often punitive standards toward topics within the sphere of (or of interest to) the Project. I agree 100% with Otto's last sentence that the project cannot be responsible for the careless reader's misinterpretation of a neutral tag, and I am empathetic to much of the rest of his view.

2294:- perhaps it was too easy for us to assume this was obvious and such project pages where some may misinterpret the purpose need to spell it out in a few words of plain English. Based on the ANI discussion, there seems to be a wide assumption that anyone who becomes a member of a WikiProject must have the obvious real-life connection so that Gays join LGBT and Jews join JUDAISM. It appears that difference between topic projects and social groups also needs to be spelt out. 150:

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.

5455:

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

4935:. If a major newspaper speculates whether someone is gay, then we on Knowledge 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. 3487:

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).

346:, adding to this that I don't see much use in wikiproject tagging in the first place. I have never understood what good project tags do that couldn't just as well be done through a simple list of links maintained in the project's own space. Project tags are a useless waste of screen space most of the time; whenever there is even the slightest suspicion that they might be doing more harm than that, we should go without them. 47:

consensus of the involved WikiProject(s) was seen as unhelpful. Legitimate concerns were raised about potential association discomfort for people connected with the subject of a BLP article, and sensible suggestions were put forward for wording or presenting WikiProject tags in such a manner to clarify to all readers the purpose of WikiProject tags. An appropriate venue for further discussion on this matter would be

1687:

must be approved by someone with better judgment, which then may logically relate to article work fully within their scope and the entirety of their edits. When in contrast, the opposite is true: editors with a personal history of recognizing the seriousness of accusations and discussion about a person's sexuality should be directly involved in maintaining the accuracy of the article. --

3483:, 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. 1213:

needs to know enough about Knowledge 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.

633:. 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. 162:

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).

5269:

been touched on above, it has generally been approached from the perspective of WikiProject members (and their ability and willingness to contribute to articles within the scope of their project) rather than from the perspective of someone who has a question about an article that no one is watching. --

4959:

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.

3833:

I've noticed that this has long been a tactic of certain members in the LGBT WikiProject and that is why I do not associate myself with improving any articles in its purview, despite the fact that I am an editor of a GLBT magazine and I could bring a lot to the table (as it is my job). Quite frankly,

2518:

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

2090:

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

1665:

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

1589:

on biographies of terrorism and counter-terrorism theorists because someone might think that the tag identifies them as terrorists? Or, should we perhaps restrict the placement of national WikiProject banners on biographies because someone could assume (after all, we can't control what people assume)

1046:

Strongly endorse. If we can tweak the wording on the project tags, either globally, for projects on controversial subjects like sexuality, or simply on a case-by-case basis in specific instances where people think it is making a contentious weakly sourced / unsourced assertion about a living person,

4980:

about the practice. But the New York Times and many others wrote extensively about it, making the deduction that Palin's hand-picked sheriff wouldn't have fought to oppose a state law mandating that towns pay for the tests all by himself without discussing it with her. I say that when many notable

4224:

Better to AGF, unless there is glaring evidence to the contrary. While some comments might lead one to think something, as Rivertorch says, it may be best left unsaid. This is a call that can be made in ways that can weaken its wider credibility. Although I appreciate that an editor may appear to

3665:

I agree that WP should not have to bow to the prejudices of any group of people - whether those prejudices are deliberate or subconscious. I feel it is not coincidental that it is this project - and not others like WP:FASCISM - whose tags seem more often to be interpreted as a judgement rather than

3611:

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

3486:

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

2653:

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

1686:

It is not within the rights or privileges for Wikipedians who are not interested in a topic area, nor members of a specific WikiProject, to decide which project tags are placed on article talk pages. This intones that the members of the WikiProject have compromised judgement, their work on Knowledge

149:

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

5499:

over the media's inability to deal with it. He's jammed Knowledge for sure, but the major sources less so. To the extent it is not merely restating verifiability, BLP is an exception to the rule that Knowledge reflects the sources. If it becomes the exception that swallows the rule we cease to be

5454:

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

5268:

I would add one more use to that list: they give readers and editors someone to contact for advice or subject-specific expertise, or when posting to the talk page is not enough (e.g., a general issue that affects multiple articles, no one is actively watching the talk page). Although this issue has

3474:

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

1902:

There are other potential wikiproject tags that could kick up a storm with their potential use on certain articles. (I have in mind a certain BLP and a certain religion project that would kick up an argument quite like the one we have seen were the project to tag the page.) While I do see have some

1484:

Agree that we don't need it. However, in deference to editors who think otherwise, and the remote possibility (or viewed another way, the occasional incidents) that readers of an article venture to the talk page, where they mistake a project tag for an assertion about the person in question, I see

145:

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

4958:

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

3786:

Assuming good faith and not being (very) psychic, I am disinclined to attribute homophobic motives to any editor involved in this discussion. (I also think that doing so tends to inflame matters unnecessarily.) Nevertheless, I was dismayed to read some of the spurious allegations and inappropriate

1829:

this view, although I would suggest that LGBT is not the only area where the project tag vs. BLP issue could be viewed as contentious. As has been mentioned elsewhere, there are various projects with religious, political, philosophical etc. connotations which could, in some BLPs, be "contentious".

911:

actually yes - given as most wikiprojects are semi-active or less anyway, I use the templates as navigation tools more than anything else, or material which may be related some way, for example a bird, fungus or plant which is found in Australia generally ends up with a WP:Australia template - not

5494:

Sure, this has been a bit of a Knowledge short-circuit, where the article and its talk page almost completely misses the notability of the article subject due to some odd Knowledge conventions. I've collapsed the block threat as stale and superseded by this discussion - if the admin. in question

4577:

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

4156:

There is a level of rhetoric involved here that does not solve any problems. I think this applies to multiple editors, not ones simply using homophobia as an accusation. The entire discussion needs to be toned down. It is getting more personality driven and the actual problems are being lost amid

3194:

enters into this debate at all: the inclusion of a biography in the LGBT project is no statement at all about the sexuality of the subject of the biography. I do detect there is an undercurrent from some editors regarding the LGBT wikiproject in particular as problematic, and I hope that this one

3125:

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

2629:

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

1601:

Yes. No matter how carefully Knowledge is crafted, some people will misinterpret the function of some of its tools. We can minimize that but we cannot eliminate it, and trying too hard would be detrimental to the structure that enables editors to find and keep abreast of topics they want to edit.

1453:

interpretation of what project tags are for - helpful maintenence tags and nothing to do with labelling the subject of the article. However, it's clear from this whole debate that some editors don't agree with this, so it's fair to assume that not some readers (without necessarily being stupid or

1212:

We don't need to have any such restriction. Tags don't show up as categories. They only show up on talk pages. Knowledge 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

153:

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

97:, 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 3765:

I find it hard to believe that there are editors who sincerely believe that equating a Wikiproject:LGBT tag to a personal attack is unbiased or fair; and whilst I acknowledge that there are times where political correctness is taken overboard, this is not one of them. I am reminded of people who

1548:

neutral. It says "people who have an interest in writing on this topic may be interested in writing this article." That something is susceptible to misinterpretation by somebody who is thoughtless, brainless, or otherwise deluded is not a reason to remove it, or we might as well delete the whole

161:

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

46:

Some of the issues surrounding the purpose of WikiProject tags were usefully explored, and consensus was that a WikiProject tag identified that an article was within the interest of a group of editors rather than categorizing the article as belonging to a topic field; removing such tags without

4962:

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 Knowledge, which might make quite a few people

2166:

Finally, Knowledge 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

287:

I doubt we are talking about many such contentious tags, and suspect that in some cases this will lead to slowburn editwars as some editors tag a particular individual as "of interest" to Wikiproject Mafia, and others promptly remove it. But to pretend that tagging someone for Wikiproject Mafia

5001:

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

2125:

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

1678:

Members of a WikiProject, such as LGBT, have experience in handling issues involving public and political figures who have been either wrongly or justifiably accused of being gay or bisexual as political or professional leverage. Gay and lesbian editors, even if not members of WP:LGBT, have an

601:

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

2698:

Regardless of my sharing Scott MacDonald's concerns - as many do - unilaterally quashing an existing discussion of that length will never actually work to reduce drama. As it stands, as of the time of the discussion, the article talk page was the correct venue because other venues (e.g., the

766:

I agree with using "of interest to WikiProject ..." instead of "within the scope of WikiProject ...". The advantage of making this change vis-a-vis the use of the "explanation" parameter is that not everyone who tags pages for WikiProjects knows about or will use the "explanation" parameter.

1674:

A WikiProject tag is not the same issue as information in the article. The WP:LGBT tag can be amended to explicitly state that the presence of the tag does not imply that the figure in question has declared his/her sexuality, but that there is significant reliably sourced press coverage and

609:

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,

252:

the general principle that it should be uncontroversial to remove such tags where they damage BLP considerations or Knowledge as a project. I don't think anyone's talking about bot-reverting a specific project tag; that shouldn't be necessary unless some WikiProject is itself ridiculously

3606:

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

4248:

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

157:

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

5445:

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

1873:

Exactly. Wikiprojects have long been given autonomy in deciding what is in their scope. Just as a project should not be forced by non-members to accept a tag on an article they feel is completely outside their scope, neither should they be forced by non-members to change their scope.

2947:

Although I agree that the talkpage of that particular article may not have been the best place for the discussion - for BLP concerns, possible undue weight being given to the individual's sexuality in what has been shown to be a controversial case - the discussion should have been

1255:

Agree. Using "stupid user X could think this or that" as your reasoning, you could effectively remove almost everything from any page. The tags do not harm anyone, they don't even claim anything about the subject itself - except that the subject is interesting to group X. Regards

288:

doesn't imply they have a connection to organised crime is disingenuous (of course as long as it is sourced, a Mafia tag could be a negative, positive or neutral connection, mafiosi, mafia fighting judge or mafia themed thriller writer). Needless to say - no bots for this please.

5463:. 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 2118:, 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 5029:

Direct and elegant. I couldn't have put it better. Seems to me that this could easily be compared to those incessant edit wars and arguments over ethnic category tagging; we needn't look down on any of the groups involved to recognize that these things can be controversial. –

4887:

Looks like the best solution to me. In addition, I wonder if there is some template wizardry that makes this possible even without the parameter. I.e., every project template examines an article's categories to find out if it is a BLP, and if it is, this text is displayed.

2543:

Seems reasonable. Knowledge deals in verifiable fact, and allowing "speculation" (based largely on someone's appearance) to trigger templating sits badly with that. Putting LGBT sticking bumper stickers on someone who says his sexuality is nobody's business is unseemly at

4981:

sources name Palin, write whole articles all about Palin in regard to a particular issue, you ought to be allowed to mention that issue. But admittedly I am in a tiny minority, because votes do not come from reasonable policy, but from the number of reversions one makes.

4356:

Yes, it is a bad idea to make this about one WikiProject when other subjects potentially have the same problem. Note however, that this is not solely about our editors possibly misconstruing a tag, but about readers (including editors) possibly misconstruing it.

2156:

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

4578:

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.©

176:

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.

2956:

altogether. Since the issues seem to be about project tagging in general and apply to many more articles than just this one, the discussion could then have focussed away from that particular individual. And while agree that "BLP trumps everything else",

791:) Qualification of support: Support in a way that does not single out one or any group of projects, but applies to all projects across the board. This might help deal with wider issues of project ownership of certain articles that can be controversial. 5495:

persists that becomes a behavioral/tool abuse problem on his part. Weir's clearly gay in terms of the social construct of his public identity (and so described by the predominance of reliable sources, as well as self-identification), and seems to be

5095: 4771: 820:

tag in the most contentious situations, however, a discussion needs to take place to determine where tagging is (for whatever reason) "provocative, confusing, or contentious". I would suggest that any such discussions must be allowed to take place

4271:

Absolutely. I think we can agree that any principle should apply to any wikiproject where its taging of a BLP might possibly imply something controversial, or untrue. That will need to be taken case by case basis. But I imagine one can say taging

4745:

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.

3751:. Peregrine Fisher makes a good point above that subconcious prejudices may be involved, but it is clear to me that prejudicial feelings and attitudes are significant motivational factors for some of the editors responsible for the fracas. 882:

I like FT2's suggested wording, and I agree that tags may not always be appropriate for borderline cases. However, in those situations the tag's addition - or removal - should be based on consensus, which generally requires a discussion.

865:

Clarifying the purpose and intent of WikiProject banners attacks the source of the problem rather than merely attempt to cover the symptoms, which is what a selective enforcement of rules aimed at one particular project would accomplish.

2455:

once some reasonable consensus has been formed on the material and banner will help to not have to frequently revisit it as new editors come to the talk page and bring up the same question, causing it to be rehashed on a regular basis.

1578:

I don't quite agree that concern about this issue assumes that readers are "both stupid and ignorant", but I do believe that we shouldn't try to account for every possible assumption and thought. Shall we prohibit the placement of

3616:

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.

1047:

it would be better to simply say that the editors of project X consider this to be an article of interest and leave it at that. I think this sidesteps the entire problem without sacrificing any of the utility of project tags. -

4196:

Weakly and with no prejudice against any views further up the page, I endorse this view. There are things that should be left unsaid here even if one believes them, because saying them can only create more heat, not light.

1944:

Agree - particularly as this debate has shown that not all members of that project have come down on the same side on this issue. The LGBT project is not, as a group, driven to defy policy or wider consensus and I would

4649:

Definitely worth exploring better ways to make maintenance processes less obvious to the reader especially if there is the possibility that maintenance items will interfere with the reader's impression of the content.

4341:

Although this RfC might have been prompted by issues regarding the LGBT WikiProject, it clearly is potentially relevant to other often controversial subjects so an adequate solution needs to consider other situations.

4008:

Difference of opinion are inevitable in a project this size, but no matter the other disagreements this type of comment is wholly unacceptable because it completely shuts down positive consensus building discussions.

1670:

A WikiProject tag, such as WP:LGBT, denotes that the subject is within the scope of that WikiProject, that its members have an interest in tracking the article, ensuring that information within it remains factual and

1675:

discussion about the figure's sexuality, or that the figure has significant interaction with LGBT political processes or the LGBT community. It can be removed from the banner shell to stand alone with this statement.

2091:

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.

5416:

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.

4940:"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..." 4963:

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.

2149:

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

2521:

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.

674:

Yes, as far as it goes. I still want to say that the mass tagging is questionable and the tagging of tangential articles pretty pointless, where that's happened, the loss by removal is non-existent.--

5141:

Any BLP can, once such a banner was added, opt out - reuqest to have the banner removed. Once (s)he does this, the banner may not be re-added during the person's life time without his/her permission.

4948:

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 27 Army who put down the

3674:) 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Note that I am not trying to accuse the editors involved in this dispute of homophobia, but rather that the argument is based on the potential homophobia of readers. 273:

Scott's statement fully. No, bot-removal is not necessary, but these tags are not part of the encyclopedia and must take second place to preserving the dignity of living biography subjects.

2637:

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

3607:

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

4920:

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.

5339:

This one is largely a technical note, but accurate. I think it's better for those who are in favor of removing the project templates to consider this when talking about the utility.

1853:

this - I find it amusing that editors who not only not edit in the subject area, but conduct little in the way of content contribution are trying to dictate to content contributors.

2129:

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

2416:

Yes. There is too much here for me to endorse fully, but the observation that BLP is about what we present to the reader, not about how we arrive at that decision, is apropos. -

4976:. Certain editors removed all mention of the major controversy from 2008 about women being forced to pay for rape forensic tests, arguing that there is no definitive proof that 3666:

a way to mark a shared interest. On the other hand, I would support clarifications of project tags provided they apply to all projects equally, with no one project singled out.

1629:

I agree. Talk pages are not exempt from the BLP policy, but this is not a breach of it. It's a completely different matter to placing possibly harmful categories on the article.

816:

a categorization of the article's subject, which is neither the purpose nor the intent of project banners. Regarding borderline cases, I would also agree that it may be best to

912:

because the wikiproject as a whole knows or cares about it, but it helps in following recent changes or article ratings etc. To me it was always meant to be informal really.

5467:

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.

602:

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

90:, 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. 5231: 3834:

using homophobia as a synonym of "he disagrees with me and I don't know how to handle it" makes a mockery of true instances of homophobia and the victims it impacts.

2827:

a discussion that has verged into policy to someplace off the Talk page. I proposed moving the discussion three days before the edit above (and considered doing so)

2170:

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

329:

There is a benefit of tagging articles like this but it isn't enormous and has to be balanced against the potential confusion that can result. Better to be cautious.

2630:

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

1306:

Support. In my opinion the point is not so much for us "assume that readers are idiots" or not. The point is that we cannot be held responsible for what our readers

4040:

I have considered withdrawing from these discussions due to repeated accusations that I'm homophobic. Thanks to Bastique and Mike Halterman for their reassurance.--

5413:

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

4462:

Agree, and I believe that this principle seriously undermines the original proposal of this RfC. Virtually any tag can be "misunderstood" by or "controversial" to

2677:

I have clarified the wording -indeed, if discussions are at risk of serious harm, privacy breaking etc. there could be grounds, but are quite exceptional cases.--

3863:

Of course. I am less familiar with this situation but have seen it in other areas, insinuations of anti-Semitism being the most immediately familiar example.

5215: 5242:

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.

5002:

article directly in one of two mutually exclusive sets (LGBT / straight) rather than in some encompassing set which does not imply membership of either.

2470:

I wish had read this particular "View" before posting lengthier endorsements of a few others, as the gist of my position is captured here quite well. --

5509: 5483: 5426: 5402: 5389: 5368: 5348: 5334: 5314: 5297: 5275: 5257: 5199: 5182: 5151: 5104: 5087: 5069: 5052: 5043: 5018: 4909: 4895: 4882: 4859: 4839: 4813: 4789: 4764: 4705: 4687: 4678:

Good idea. These tags really aren't of any interest to non-Wikipedians and as Geni says this solution could be used for a range of other new features.

4673: 4657: 4644: 4635: 4613: 4597: 4582: 4566: 4553: 4537: 4508:, because someone might choose not to read even the first sentence of the article and assume that she is a terrorist, rather than a terrorism theorist; 4457: 4443: 4425: 4409: 4394: 4381: 4369: 4351: 4333: 4309: 4296: 4284: 4260: 4234: 4219: 4206: 4191: 4180: 4166: 4151: 4137: 4124: 4111: 4093: 4082: 4066: 4053: 4044: 4035: 4016: 4003: 3980: 3960: 3941: 3927: 3907: 3888: 3872: 3858: 3841: 3822: 3796: 3774: 3760: 3743: 3728: 3708: 3683: 3660: 3646: 3626: 3595: 3579: 3565: 3543: 3529: 3510: 3460: 3446: 3433: 3419: 3405: 3394: 3381: 3363: 3346: 3330: 3315: 3295: 3275: 3259: 3237: 3224: 3204: 3185: 3159: 3135: 3114: 3101: 3087: 3069: 3055: 3044: 3031: 3016: 3004: 2990: 2972: 2942: 2923: 2908: 2888: 2875: 2855: 2839: 2818: 2774: 2761: 2741: 2728: 2711: 2691: 2672: 2605: 2591: 2578: 2561: 2548: 2532: 2507: 2494: 2476: 2465: 2442: 2425: 2411: 2391: 2372: 2352: 2339: 2319: 2303: 2286: 2273: 2255: 2241: 2228: 2205: 2076: 2063: 2049: 2038: 2025: 2013: 1996: 1982: 1960: 1939: 1919: 1897: 1883: 1868: 1845: 1820: 1806: 1788: 1769: 1756: 1743: 1725: 1696: 1651: 1638: 1624: 1611: 1596: 1573: 1559: 1536: 1524: 1507: 1494: 1479: 1465: 1444: 1429: 1409: 1392: 1372: 1359: 1345: 1328: 1301: 1283: 1269: 1250: 1222: 1198: 1155: 1142: 1128: 1114: 1101: 1087: 1074: 1056: 1041: 1027: 1011: 992: 977: 957: 941: 927: 906: 892: 877: 860: 843: 800: 774: 761: 740: 718: 704: 678: 669: 639: 590: 577: 561: 544: 523: 500: 483: 466: 449: 419: 393: 370: 353: 338: 321: 304: 279: 265: 244: 224: 200: 187: 70: 2094:

WikiProjects may be centered around topics that are distasteful to some readers and editors (or even the subject of the article) - examples include

3818:

Insinuations of homophobia underscoring the motives of people involved in this discussion do not belong in this discussion and poison the waters.

2400:'s sensitivity in perhaps removing tags on a case-by-case basis if consensus goes that way - after a reasonable discussion is allowed of course.-- 745:

Certainly the ability to rephrase the current wording or provide alternate wording is a desirable feature. I think the current wording is fine in

5283:, including Black Falcon comment - it makes very clear that banners are not mere "pissing on lampposts", as someone has depicted the process. -- 2134: 1903:

project tagging could be problematic, the threat of blocking if people even discuss it in good faith on the talk page is quite inappropriate.

2133:

in mind, and statements on a talk page must likewise be watched. However, the presence of a WikiProject banner is not a statement - having

180:

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

4770:

It's been brought to my attention that this was perhaps not very clearly presented. A clarification of my suggestion may be found on the

1314:, whatever it is: this requires reading our reader's minds. We can be held responsible -and we are- only for what is actually written. -- 5219: 4405: 3937: 3739: 3326: 2919: 2557: 2387: 1440: 988: 350: 317: 3074:

Agree totally. No editor (with or without tools) should be able to thwart a good-faith discussion based on their own interpretation of

48: 3877:

Accusations or insinuations about the motives of editors on either side of the discussion are a breach of AGF and are never helpful.

4949: 5223: 3691:: "a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality". Placing a requirement solely on WP:LGBT is exactly that. -- 194:

I am not suggesting the mass removal, not even a rule against tags,- just that removal should be no big deal, wherever issues arise

4740:

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

3092:

If the discussion itself was harmful to a living person, it could have considered for oversight. It wasn't, therefore it wasn't.

1173: 108:

to focus on that article, nor on WP:LGBT, but on the wider issues, which will have relevance to many wikiprojects and articles.

4482: 2995:

Yes, absolutely. BLP is about the end state of our content, not about our discussions about how to write the encyclopedia. -

1679:

interest in ensuring that edits are not made to articles that seek to use sexuality to twist the truth about a public figure.

457:. I agree with everything that Doc says here, that doesn't mean, of course, that I endorse his full gamut of prior actions. 5248: 4855: 4631: 4498: 4329: 3923: 3525: 3220: 2795:, a core policy of this project. Any "extremely exceptional circumstances" likely fall into the category of issues requiring 2757: 2663:

While I think there may be very limited circumstances where disucssions should not be allowed, I agree with the basic gist.

1864: 1583: 1388: 923: 510: 347: 66: 17: 4973: 5519:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

5176: 4514: 3702: 3559: 3253: 2823:

I agree with this. Additionally, I'd like to say that I wish it there were clearer guidance for one user to unilaterally

2199: 1719: 1244: 698: 5238:

telling people that an article falls into the scope of a project. Removing a banner should only be done when the article

4905: 4683: 4472: 4147: 2601: 1189: 573: 5227: 295: 274: 86:

The aim of this request for comment is to consider how we should balance the "do no harm" principle, enshrined in our

5353:

Indeed. Several users seem to be unaware of the functional utility of project tags, or have chosen to disregard it.

4801:

I actually thought some banners already did this. It's a good idea regardless of what else happens with this RfC. ++

3933: 2553: 2167:

situation on the talk page of the specific article, there is no way to determine the appropriateness of the banner.

313: 4171:

The extremes on both ends aren't helpful where cries of Homophobia and BLP are used to squash legitimate concern. -

3656: 3195:

wikiproject is not forced to put a statement explicitly saying the above which is not required for other projects.

93:

This RfC was triggered by a dispute over the appropriateness of a "Wikiproject:LGBT" tag added to the biography of

4448:

Was clear to me from Scott Mac's well worded opening, but just to reassert that it isn't limited to one project. -

5049: 4810: 4641: 4281: 4041: 3953: 2545: 2448: 2181:

Harm to a particular individual by discussing a WikiProject banner on that article's talk page = minimal to none;

675: 386: 241: 197: 184: 2523:. This simple condition will save all of the disputes regarding this template and articles about living people. 4293: 4049:

Weighty claims should not be weilded to score points, nor ignorantly to reject legitimate but divergent views.

3838: 771: 4280:

would be insensitive and controversial without implying anything pejorative about Islam or the wikiproject. --

5005:

Whether we like it or not, what appears on the talk page forms part of the public perception of the article.

4923:

The most crucial issue in the broader discussion is that certain editors and admins have confused verifiable

1515:- the tags are useful navigation aids to editors, and we should not be assuming that our readers are idiots. 1350:

Agree - dictated restrictions on what can and cannot be of interest to members of LGBT project is unwelcome.

5328: 4901: 4679: 4143: 3974: 3642: 3289: 3200: 2869: 2597: 2333: 1913: 1765: 663: 569: 4749:

This addition should resolve perceived "BLP policy vs. project banner" conflicts in most if not all cases.

5395: 4668: 4559: 4420: 4077: 3767: 3590: 3439: 3341: 3107: 2967: 2500: 2406: 2069: 1955: 1644: 1460: 1148: 1022: 290: 232:

Agree with Nsk92 that a mass bot run to remove tags would not be at all appropriate, this is guidance. ++

5082: 5038: 4700: 4489: 4438: 4400: 4364: 3853: 3734: 3652: 3321: 2914: 2706: 2573: 2382: 1435: 1097: 983: 756: 429: 260: 127: 4720:, I believe that it would be appropriate to add to all project banner templates a required parameter: 687:

parameter that is found on many templates is a more useful tool for accomplishing this same thing. --

5148: 5117: 4892: 4889: 4608: 4549: 4521: 4202: 4090: 4087: 4062: 3946: 3792: 3756: 3429: 3359: 3270: 3097: 3083: 2850: 2528: 2490: 2438: 2314: 2159:

Disallowing WikiProject banners from BLP articles simply because "some people might assume" does not

2059: 2009: 1634: 1607: 1520: 1181: 1124: 952: 479: 462: 379: 54: 4289:

I agree, Adambro has made it clear that this is not just an issue relating to this group of people.

1016:

Support the wording change, and the graceful removal of tags if necessary on a case-by-case basis.--

436:. "Suitability" means that the subject has self-declared their association (not that the subject is 5505: 5344: 4453: 4290: 4176: 3991: 3835: 3390: 3040: 3000: 2792: 2631: 2461: 2421: 2184:

Banning WikiProject banners, or banning discussion regarding WikiProject banners = moderate to low.

2107: 2034: 1992: 1569: 1490: 1138: 1110: 1052: 768: 586: 407: 4343: 3864: 852: 330: 5468: 5422: 5374: 5363: 5320: 5310: 5295: 5195: 5063: 4880: 4849: 4784: 4759: 4654: 4625: 4492:, because it might suggest to someone that the territory belongs either to Armenia or Azerbaijan; 4390: 4378: 4323: 4305: 4230: 4131: 4030: 4013: 3966: 3917: 3905: 3713: 3679: 3671: 3638: 3622: 3539: 3519: 3508: 3456: 3373: 3300: 3281: 3233: 3214: 3196: 3165: 3157: 3131: 3029: 3010: 2982: 2893: 2884: 2861: 2813: 2770: 2751: 2689: 2587: 2357: 2348: 2325: 2282: 2271: 2146: 2142: 2103: 2019: 1924: 1905: 1879: 1858: 1840: 1816: 1798: 1786: 1761: 1557: 1530: 1414: 1382: 1368: 1355: 1326: 1293: 1081: 1066: 962: 917: 888: 838: 796: 784: 738: 655: 521: 445: 62: 2381:

is made up of people of African descent who are not in Africa (a group that includes Obama). —

808:

for the change in wording to "of interest to" on all project banners and banner shells such as

432:. Accordingly, no such tag should be applied (even on the talk page) unless its suitability is 5271: 5211: 5172: 5100: 4663: 4533: 4415: 4347: 4255: 4187: 4120: 4072: 3883: 3868: 3698: 3585: 3555: 3496:

Agree. A noindexed subpage of the talkpage could do the job, if NOINDEX is allowed on them. --

3401: 3336: 3249: 3169: 3051: 2962: 2668: 2472: 2401: 2237: 2195: 2151: 2138: 2099: 2045: 1950: 1752: 1715: 1592: 1455: 1240: 1218: 1017: 872: 856: 694: 334: 5127:

Make sure that the banner itself is worded well; possibly also add the BLP flag suggested by

5076: 5032: 4826: 4694: 4432: 4360: 3849: 3468: 3415: 3065: 2930: 2702: 2569: 2378: 2171: 2111: 1893: 1093: 999: 902: 752: 496: 256: 5210:

I would like to remind people that the use of project banners is essential for things like

5496: 5145: 5114: 4604: 4545: 4277: 4249:

contravention to the collaborative editing spirit at Knowledge, and thus is unacceptable.

4198: 4162: 4058: 3805: 3788: 3752: 3425: 3355: 3266: 3179: 3093: 3079: 2846: 2737: 2722: 2638: 2524: 2486: 2434: 2310: 2251: 2222: 2095: 2055: 2005: 1978: 1970: 1737: 1692: 1630: 1603: 1516: 1475: 1279: 1263: 1164: 1120: 1037: 948: 823:

without the threat of administrative sanction against editors who discuss such matters in

714: 475: 458: 366: 220: 2141:

does not imply that Obama was born in Africa - a charge he has denied many times. Having

1485:

no harm in devising a solution that makes it clear that we are making no such claim. -

5501: 5340: 5253: 4505: 4449: 4215: 4172: 3986: 3476: 3386: 3036: 2996: 2784: 2457: 2417: 2119: 2030: 1988: 1620: 1565: 1486: 1336: 1134: 1106: 1048: 582: 557: 402: 5061:

have the ability to add a rationale, so the above statement is not entirely accurate.

2645:

is a ground to remove blatantly defamatory, libelous etc. edits in any namespace, but

5418: 5354: 5306: 5284: 5243: 5191: 5128: 5013: 5007: 4869: 4845: 4832: 4806: 4775: 4750: 4651: 4621: 4594: 4525: 4386: 4375: 4319: 4301: 4226: 4106: 4100: 4021: 4010: 3913: 3894: 3819: 3675: 3667: 3618: 3575: 3535: 3515: 3497: 3452: 3369: 3229: 3210: 3191: 3146: 3127: 3075: 3023: 2978: 2958: 2880: 2844:

I agree, having seen enough chilling effects at the hands of my parents and school. —

2835: 2804: 2800: 2788: 2766: 2747: 2678: 2646: 2642: 2626: 2613: 2583: 2482: 2344: 2299: 2278: 2260: 2160: 2130: 2115: 1946: 1875: 1854: 1831: 1812: 1794: 1775: 1551: 1503: 1405: 1378: 1364: 1351: 1315: 1289: 1062: 937: 913: 884: 829: 824: 809: 792: 780: 727: 603: 539: 533: 515: 474:-If the template addition is resisted on a BLP we should err on the side of caution. 441: 237: 122: 98: 87: 58: 4944:

Now if we are serious about taking that point of view — that not the source but the

5167: 4524:, because someone might assume that he is associated with the repressive regime of 4273: 4250: 4116: 3878: 3693: 3550: 3480: 3244: 2796: 2664: 2452: 2233: 2190: 2084: 1888:

It's ridiculous for someone to say "no, this article is not of interest to you". --

1748: 1710: 1590:

that the person has a connection with that country's government? Of course not. --

1235: 1214: 1206: 867: 689: 4157:

accusations and a complete lack of respect for differing ideas and experiences. --

2110:. A WikiProject banner on a talk page might offend some readers and editors, but 812:. I agree that "within the scope of" not only implies "ownership", but may imply 5447: 4820: 3801: 3411: 3061: 2935: 2780: 1889: 1564:

Wouldn't necessarily say stupid and ignorant, but something along those lines. -

1004: 898: 492: 433: 171:

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

94: 5074:

And in practice this is used -- or even noticed -- what portion of the time? –

4716:

In addition (or as an alternative) to the wording adjustments suggested in the

4318:

wikiproect tagging of a talk page and whose decision it is to do so (or not).

4158: 3174: 2733: 2717: 2247: 2217: 1974: 1966: 1732: 1688: 1659: 1471: 1275: 1258: 1033: 710: 653:

I think the "of interest to" wording is an interesting and useful suggestion.

362: 216: 617:

What would also be helpful is to word WikiProject tags slightly differently:

5094:

On the potential for using "WP:Sexuality", please see the talk page thread '

4579: 4211: 1616: 851:

view. No hard rule that tags should be removed nor that tags must be added.

553: 183:

In short avoid harm where the cost to the project of avoiding harm is low.--

610:

confusing, or contentious, we can afford a bit of gentle leeway to perhaps

1333:

While also explicitly endorsing the wording change proposed by FT2 above.

4802: 4735:

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

4050: 3571: 2831: 2566:

With regard to this specific dispute, yes, this approach would solve it.

2397: 2295: 2163:

and severely limits the abilities and creativity of WikiProject editors.

1499: 1401: 933: 636: 437: 233: 5138:

article which is in their area of interest. This includes BLP articles.

2830:

but I didn't feel like there was any guideline about where to put it.

2054:

Agree completely. This should all be a given. Unfortunately, it isn't.

749:

cases, even though it is a potentially a big problem in a few of them.

4593:

Technical solution to an ongoing and existing problem. Sounds great!

3802:

I am not now and have never been a member of WikiProject LGBT Studies

116:{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed issues} 3893:

Agree. A bit of civility and good faith on both sides would help. --

2619:

This is not much about the tags themselves, but about actions like

1683:

editors should have this in mind, but LGBT editors do specifically.

1163:(Additionally, the "of interest to" would be a great addition. --→ 789:

moved from bottom and removed indent as it was altering the numbers

2961:

still requires interpretation by editors every time it's used.--

2787:, no editor or admin should unilaterally stifle discussion by 4972:: I've since encountered another case of this distinction at 3651:

I think it's subconscious, but we should put a stop to it. -

1454:

ignorant) might see a tag and jump to the wrong conclusion.--

5234:) as well as several other automated process. Their use go 2377:

I would just note that Obama is a bad example, because the

1949:

the same of other projects that this debate may apply to.--

4142:

Such accusations are totally inappropriate and unhelpful.

2396:

Agree on the whole with this, although I like the idea of

5134:

Any WikiProject may add their banner to the talk page of

5048:

Yup. Perhaps a "WP:Sexuality" would avoid much of this.--

4692:

Not sure if I'm sold, but it seems worth looking into. –

3570:

Agreed (see my endorsement above to Cyclopia's section)

1377:

Yes - I am still amazed at how this has blown up really.

1092:

Reasonable. The "of interest to" wording is a good idea.

3766:

begin every sentence with "I'm not a racist, but... ". —

2654:

any sort, unless in extremly exceptional circumstances.

2447:

Although I'd add that template tweaks, as well as using

401:, per my various commentary at other locations on-Wiki. 4900:

but like Cyclopia I don't see the need for the switch.

3612:

some time thinking about their own anti-LGBT issues. I

3320:

Endorse, and second Sam Blacketer's comment as well. —

2828: 2779:

I agree with this view. With the possible exception of

2620: 4864:

Seems a good idea, but why not having the addition on

1973:) 01:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC), GRuban says it well. 683:

I can support this wording change, though I feel the

2803:

process should, of course, be followed immediately.

2699:

WikiProject talk page) would have been prejudicial.

1119:

Support, as long as it applies to all project tags.

170:

possible harm to the subject (moderate to low) : -->

39:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

1987:Yes. This is all very basic common-sense stuff. - 1061:Support, and agree with Wine Guy's last sentence. 253:problematic, a situation that hasn't arisen here. 4868:banners? I don't see the point for the switch. -- 428:controversial, and Knowledge is not a place for 2433:, a clear statement of what should be obvious. 146:individuals beyond neutral verifiable content. 2952:somewhere and allowed to continue rather than 2481:Generally agree, although I'm not sure about 1666:page tag could warrant this much discussion. 42:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 8: 5206:View by Headbomb (additional considerations) 3021:Incredibly sad that this needed to be said. 2649:cannot be a ground to unilaterally remove 1643:Not my phrasing, but I agree in essence. — 491:--This seems obvious and mere commonsense. 3164:That is true of almost any project. The 1449:Agree with the spirit of this - this is 4602:This is namespace creep in my opinion — 3912:Sticking to the facts is prudent, yes. 5373:Exactly, ding ding, we have a winner. 2135:Knowledge:WikiProject African diaspora 5123:In my opinion, the best solution is: 3781:Users who partially endorse this view 3264:couldn't have said it better myself — 2068:I whole-heartedly agree; well said. — 104:However, this discussion is intended 7: 3548:This sounds like a good process. -- 1811:Endorse for reasons already stated. 1079:A good potential solution, I think. 33:The following discussion is closed. 932:Support the wording change (only). 5096:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality 112:Applicable policies and guidelines 49:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Council 24: 4950:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 787:) 20:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC) ( 5515:The discussion above is closed. 5398:what a crazy random happenstance 4562:what a crazy random happenstance 4129:As a member of the wikiproject. 3770:what a crazy random happenstance 3534:I think this is a fair process. 3442:what a crazy random happenstance 3110:what a crazy random happenstance 2503:what a crazy random happenstance 2161:assume good faith in our readers 2114:. Of course, when dealing with 2072:what a crazy random happenstance 1647:what a crazy random happenstance 1151:what a crazy random happenstance 2746:Seen enough chilling recently. 2122:from that one line is minimal. 3804:, but this episode has almost 3475:been conducted at subpages of 2485:as it applies to our readers. 897:Support the wording change. -- 18:Knowledge:Requests for comment 1: 5057:Just commenting that the tag 5019:17:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 4896:07:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 4883:12:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4860:10:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4840:09:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4814:01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4790:07:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4765:22:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 4674:13:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4658:09:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4645:22:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 4636:22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 4614:23:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 4598:22:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 4583:22:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 4426:13:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4410:06:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4395:01:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4382:01:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4370:00:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4352:22:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 4334:22:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 4314:Yes. The discussion is about 4310:22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 4297:22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 4285:22:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 4261:22:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 4125:23:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 4112:17:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 4094:07:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 4083:13:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4067:08:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4054:01:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4045:01:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4036:01:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4017:01:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 4004:00:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 3981:00:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 3961:23:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3942:22:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3928:22:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3908:22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3889:22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3873:21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3859:21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3842:21:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3823:21:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3761:19:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 3744:06:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 3729:03:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 3709:22:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3684:22:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3661:21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3647:21:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3627:21:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3596:13:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 3580:23:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3566:22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3544:21:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3530:21:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3511:20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3364:19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 3347:13:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 3331:06:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 3316:03:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 3296:00:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 3276:23:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3260:22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3238:21:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3225:21:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3205:20:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3186:20:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3160:20:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3136:20:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3005:07:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 2991:20:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 2973:13:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 2943:10:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 2924:06:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 2909:03:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 2889:01:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 2876:00:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 2856:23:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2840:23:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2819:22:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2775:21:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2762:21:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2742:20:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2729:20:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2712:20:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2692:20:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2673:20:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2592:04:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 2579:19:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2562:19:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2549:19:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2533:19:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2443:19:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 2426:07:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 2412:13:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 2392:06:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 2373:02:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 2353:01:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 2340:00:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 2320:23:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2304:23:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2287:21:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2274:19:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2256:18:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2242:18:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2229:18:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2206:18:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 2014:19:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 1997:07:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 1983:01:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 1961:13:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 1940:02:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 1920:00:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 1898:21:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1884:21:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1869:21:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1846:21:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1821:20:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1807:19:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1789:19:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1770:18:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1757:18:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1744:18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1726:18:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1697:18:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1549:Knowledge and call it a day. 1525:19:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 1508:10:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 1495:07:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 1480:01:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 1466:13:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 1445:06:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 1430:02:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 1410:23:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1393:22:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1373:21:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1360:20:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1346:19:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1329:19:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1302:18:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1284:18:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1270:18:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1251:18:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1223:18:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 1075:19:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 1057:06:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 1042:01:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 1028:12:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 1012:10:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 993:06:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 978:02:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 958:23:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 942:22:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 928:22:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 907:21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 893:21:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 878:21:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 861:21:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 844:20:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 801:00:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 775:19:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 762:19:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 741:18:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 719:18:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 705:18:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 679:17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 670:17:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 640:17:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 545:17:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 524:02:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 501:00:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 484:12:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 467:08:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 450:03:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 420:00:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 394:23:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 371:22:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 354:21:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 339:20:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 322:19:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 305:19:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 280:19:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 266:19:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 245:19:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 225:18:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 201:18:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 188:16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 3190:Indeed so. I don't see that 2116:Biographies of Living People 779:Support the wording change. 5489:Users who endorse this view 5432:Users who endorse this view 5263:Users who endorse this view 5228:Walls of Recognized Content 5157:Users who endorse this view 5024:Users who endorse this view 4988:Users who endorse this view 4796:Users who endorse this view 4588:Users who endorse this view 4266:Users who endorse this view 3828:Users who endorse this view 3632:Users who endorse this view 3491:Users who endorse this view 3141:Users who endorse this view 2658:Users who endorse this view 2538:Users who endorse this view 2211:Users who endorse this view 1703:Users who endorse this view 1228:Users who endorse this view 648:Users who endorse this view 207:Users who endorse this view 5534: 5510:21:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC) 5484:15:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC) 5403:08:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 5390:15:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC) 4567:08:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 4544:Agree. Should be obvious. 3985:Wildly unacceptable, yes. 3775:08:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 3461:16:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC) 3447:08:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 3115:08:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 2508:08:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 2077:03:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC) 1652:08:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 1199:10:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC) 1156:08:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 71:19:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC) 5427:19:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 5369:00:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC) 5349:09:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 5335:06:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 5315:18:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 5298:18:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 5276:17:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 5258:16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 5200:18:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 5183:17:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 5152:08:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 5105:18:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 5088:06:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 5070:03:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 5053:19:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 5044:19:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 4910:18:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 4706:20:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 4688:18:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 4640:Worth exploring anyway.-- 4554:19:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 4538:06:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 4458:22:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 4444:19:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 4235:01:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 4220:20:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 4207:19:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 4192:06:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 4181:22:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 4167:20:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 4152:18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 4138:14:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 3934:Santa Claus of the Future 3797:19:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3434:19:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3420:16:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 3406:06:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 3395:21:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 3382:14:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 3102:23:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 3088:19:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3070:16:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 3056:06:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 3045:21:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 3032:19:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 3017:14:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 2606:18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 2554:Santa Claus of the Future 2495:19:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 2477:06:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 2466:21:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2449:Template:Round in circles 2112:Knowledge is not censored 2064:19:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 2050:05:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 2039:21:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2026:14:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 1639:23:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 1625:20:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 1612:19:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 1597:05:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 1574:21:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1560:19:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1537:14:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 1143:07:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 1129:18:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 1115:21:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1102:03:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1088:14:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 591:07:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 578:18:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 562:16:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 314:Santa Claus of the Future 165:My basic conclusion is: 88:policy for living persons 5517:Please do not modify it. 4938:But to quote Scott Mac, 1708:I support this view. -- 36:Please do not modify it. 4844:Yeah I'm open to this. 2791:editors working toward 424:Applying an LGBT label 141:View By Scott MacDonald 99:policy on living people 4662:Sounds interesting. -- 4483:WikiProject Azerbaijan 4430:Agreed, absolutely. – 2623:which led to the RfC. 4712:View by User:Wine Guy 4499:WikiProject Terrorism 4490:Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh 3814:View by User:Bastique 3602:View by User:Otto4711 3172:for example. Regards 3121:View by User:MishMich 2799:; in those cases the 2596:per Scott MacDonald. 1584:WikiProject Terrorism 128:Knowledge:WikiProject 5500:an encyclopedia. - 4522:Talk:Leonard Zhakata 4515:WikiProject Zimbabwe 4241:View by User:Shereth 3806:persuaded me to join 3424:Yes! Very well put. 1793:This is so obvious. 726:the wording change. 5457:Wall Street Journal 4473:WikiProject Armenia 629:within the scope of 5461:The New York Times 4620:Interesting idea. 3028: 2651:entire discussions 2514:View by Off2riorob 2147:Talk:Randall Terry 1730:Well put. Regards 1556: 1032:Seems reasonable. 5188:Qualified support 5180: 5098:'. Thank you, -- 5086: 5042: 5017: 4838: 4742: 4704: 4611: 4573:View by User:Geni 4442: 4110: 4000: 3809: 3706: 3563: 3380: 3354:, needed saying. 3273: 3257: 3170:Talk:Barack Obama 3022: 2989: 2853: 2317: 2203: 2139:Talk:Barack Obama 2004:very nicely put. 1805: 1723: 1550: 1344: 1300: 1248: 1197: 1073: 955: 702: 627:"This article is 619:"This article is 543: 416: 57:comment added by 5525: 5480: 5474: 5441:View by Benjiboi 5409:View by Townlake 5400: 5386: 5380: 5366: 5361: 5333: 5331: 5327: 5323: 5293: 5287: 5220:Cleanup listings 5181: 5170: 5079: 5075: 5068: 5035: 5031: 5011: 4929:with verifiable 4878: 4872: 4835: 4829: 4818: 4787: 4782: 4762: 4757: 4738: 4731: 4726: 4697: 4693: 4671: 4666: 4607: 4564: 4519: 4513: 4503: 4497: 4487: 4481: 4477: 4471: 4435: 4431: 4423: 4418: 4368: 4136: 4104: 4080: 4075: 4033: 4028: 4001: 3993: 3989: 3979: 3977: 3973: 3969: 3958: 3951: 3903: 3897: 3857: 3799: 3772: 3749:Support entirely 3725: 3719: 3707: 3696: 3653:Peregrine Fisher 3593: 3588: 3564: 3553: 3506: 3500: 3444: 3378: 3372: 3344: 3339: 3312: 3306: 3294: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3269: 3258: 3247: 3182: 3177: 3155: 3149: 3112: 3026: 3015: 2987: 2981: 2970: 2965: 2938: 2933: 2905: 2899: 2874: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2849: 2816: 2811: 2725: 2720: 2710: 2687: 2681: 2577: 2505: 2409: 2404: 2379:African diaspora 2369: 2363: 2338: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2313: 2269: 2263: 2225: 2220: 2204: 2193: 2172:Talk:Johnny Weir 2126:editors to use. 2074: 2024: 1958: 1953: 1936: 1930: 1918: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1843: 1838: 1803: 1797: 1784: 1778: 1740: 1735: 1724: 1713: 1649: 1588: 1582: 1554: 1535: 1463: 1458: 1426: 1420: 1343: 1341: 1334: 1324: 1318: 1298: 1292: 1266: 1261: 1249: 1238: 1194: 1186: 1178: 1171: 1169: 1153: 1086: 1071: 1065: 1025: 1020: 1007: 1002: 974: 968: 951: 841: 836: 760: 736: 730: 703: 692: 686: 668: 666: 662: 658: 537: 518: 513: 417: 409: 405: 391: 384: 302: 298: 293: 276:*** Crotalus *** 264: 73: 38: 5533: 5532: 5528: 5527: 5526: 5524: 5523: 5522: 5521: 5520: 5497:culture jamming 5478: 5472: 5443: 5411: 5396: 5384: 5378: 5364: 5355: 5329: 5325: 5321: 5319: 5291: 5290: 5285: 5251: 5208: 5166: 5121: 5077: 5062: 5050:Scott Mac (Doc) 5033: 4999: 4918: 4876: 4875: 4870: 4833: 4827: 4823: 4785: 4776: 4772:discussion page 4760: 4751: 4729: 4724: 4714: 4695: 4669: 4664: 4642:Scott Mac (Doc) 4575: 4560: 4517: 4511: 4501: 4495: 4485: 4479: 4475: 4469: 4433: 4421: 4416: 4408: 4358: 4282:Scott Mac (Doc) 4243: 4130: 4078: 4073: 4042:Scott Mac (Doc) 4031: 4022: 3992: 3987: 3975: 3971: 3967: 3965: 3954: 3947: 3901: 3900: 3895: 3847: 3816: 3768: 3742: 3723: 3717: 3692: 3604: 3591: 3586: 3549: 3504: 3503: 3498: 3472: 3440: 3374: 3342: 3337: 3329: 3310: 3304: 3290: 3286: 3282: 3280: 3243: 3180: 3175: 3153: 3152: 3147: 3123: 3108: 3024: 3009: 2983: 2968: 2963: 2936: 2931: 2922: 2903: 2897: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2860: 2814: 2805: 2783:and some other 2723: 2718: 2700: 2685: 2684: 2679: 2639:chilling effect 2617: 2567: 2546:Scott Mac (Doc) 2516: 2501: 2407: 2402: 2390: 2367: 2361: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2324: 2267: 2266: 2261: 2223: 2218: 2189: 2154:banner states " 2088: 2070: 2018: 1956: 1951: 1934: 1928: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1904: 1841: 1832: 1799: 1782: 1781: 1776: 1738: 1733: 1709: 1663: 1645: 1586: 1580: 1552: 1529: 1461: 1456: 1443: 1424: 1418: 1337: 1335: 1322: 1321: 1316: 1294: 1264: 1259: 1234: 1210: 1190: 1182: 1174: 1165: 1149: 1080: 1067: 1023: 1018: 1005: 1000: 991: 972: 966: 839: 830: 750: 734: 733: 728: 688: 684: 676:Scott Mac (Doc) 664: 660: 656: 654: 604:WP:NOT#CENSORED 599: 516: 511: 408: 403: 387: 380: 300: 296: 291: 254: 198:Scott Mac (Doc) 185:Scott Mac (Doc) 143: 138: 114: 84: 79: 52: 34: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5531: 5529: 5514: 5513: 5512: 5491: 5490: 5442: 5439: 5438: 5437: 5434: 5433: 5410: 5407: 5406: 5405: 5392: 5371: 5351: 5337: 5317: 5300: 5288: 5278: 5265: 5264: 5247: 5212:Article Alerts 5207: 5204: 5203: 5202: 5185: 5159: 5158: 5143: 5142: 5139: 5132: 5120: 5111: 5110: 5109: 5108: 5107: 5092: 5091: 5090: 5046: 5026: 5025: 4998: 4995: 4994: 4993: 4990: 4989: 4985: 4984: 4983: 4982: 4917: 4914: 4913: 4912: 4902:Vyvyan Basterd 4898: 4885: 4873: 4862: 4842: 4821: 4816: 4798: 4797: 4793: 4792: 4733: 4732: 4727: 4713: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4690: 4680:Vyvyan Basterd 4676: 4660: 4647: 4638: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4590: 4589: 4574: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4556: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4531:and so on. -- 4529: 4509: 4506:Talk:Rita Katz 4493: 4460: 4446: 4428: 4412: 4404: 4397: 4384: 4372: 4354: 4336: 4312: 4299: 4287: 4268: 4267: 4242: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4222: 4209: 4194: 4183: 4169: 4154: 4144:Vyvyan Basterd 4140: 4127: 4114: 4096: 4085: 4069: 4056: 4047: 4038: 4019: 4006: 3983: 3963: 3944: 3930: 3910: 3898: 3891: 3875: 3861: 3844: 3830: 3829: 3815: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3783: 3782: 3778: 3777: 3763: 3746: 3738: 3731: 3711: 3686: 3663: 3649: 3634: 3633: 3603: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3582: 3568: 3546: 3532: 3513: 3501: 3493: 3492: 3471: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3449: 3436: 3422: 3408: 3397: 3384: 3366: 3349: 3333: 3325: 3318: 3298: 3278: 3262: 3240: 3227: 3207: 3188: 3162: 3150: 3143: 3142: 3122: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3104: 3090: 3072: 3058: 3047: 3034: 3019: 3007: 2993: 2975: 2945: 2926: 2918: 2911: 2891: 2878: 2858: 2842: 2821: 2777: 2764: 2744: 2731: 2714: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2682: 2660: 2659: 2616: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2598:Vyvyan Basterd 2594: 2581: 2564: 2551: 2540: 2539: 2515: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2497: 2479: 2468: 2445: 2428: 2414: 2394: 2386: 2375: 2355: 2342: 2322: 2306: 2289: 2276: 2264: 2258: 2244: 2231: 2213: 2212: 2186: 2185: 2182: 2087: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2066: 2052: 2043:Well said. -- 2041: 2028: 2016: 1999: 1985: 1963: 1942: 1922: 1900: 1886: 1871: 1848: 1823: 1809: 1791: 1779: 1772: 1759: 1746: 1728: 1705: 1704: 1700: 1699: 1684: 1676: 1672: 1662: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1641: 1627: 1614: 1599: 1576: 1562: 1539: 1527: 1510: 1497: 1482: 1468: 1447: 1439: 1432: 1412: 1395: 1375: 1362: 1348: 1331: 1319: 1304: 1286: 1272: 1253: 1230: 1229: 1209: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1158: 1145: 1131: 1117: 1104: 1090: 1077: 1059: 1044: 1030: 1014: 995: 987: 980: 960: 944: 930: 909: 895: 880: 863: 846: 806:Strong support 803: 777: 769:Metropolitan90 764: 743: 731: 721: 707: 681: 672: 650: 649: 644: 631:WikiProject:X" 623:WikiProject:X" 621:of interest to 598: 595: 594: 593: 580: 570:Vyvyan Basterd 564: 547: 526: 503: 486: 469: 452: 422: 396: 373: 356: 341: 324: 307: 282: 268: 247: 227: 209: 208: 204: 203: 174: 173: 142: 139: 137: 134: 133: 132: 131: 130: 125: 113: 110: 83: 80: 78: 77: 76: 75: 74: 29: 28: 26: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5530: 5518: 5511: 5507: 5503: 5498: 5493: 5492: 5488: 5487: 5486: 5485: 5482: 5481: 5475: 5466: 5462: 5458: 5453: 5449: 5440: 5436: 5435: 5431: 5430: 5429: 5428: 5424: 5420: 5414: 5408: 5404: 5401: 5399: 5393: 5391: 5388: 5387: 5381: 5372: 5370: 5367: 5362: 5360: 5359: 5352: 5350: 5346: 5342: 5338: 5336: 5332: 5324: 5318: 5316: 5312: 5308: 5304: 5301: 5299: 5296: 5294: 5282: 5279: 5277: 5274: 5273: 5267: 5266: 5262: 5261: 5260: 5259: 5255: 5250: 5245: 5241: 5237: 5233: 5229: 5225: 5221: 5217: 5213: 5205: 5201: 5197: 5193: 5189: 5186: 5184: 5178: 5174: 5169: 5164: 5161: 5160: 5156: 5155: 5154: 5153: 5150: 5147: 5140: 5137: 5133: 5130: 5126: 5125: 5124: 5119: 5116: 5112: 5106: 5103: 5102: 5097: 5093: 5089: 5084: 5080: 5073: 5072: 5071: 5067: 5066: 5065:The Wordsmith 5060: 5056: 5055: 5054: 5051: 5047: 5045: 5040: 5036: 5028: 5027: 5023: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5015: 5010: 5009: 5003: 4996: 4992: 4991: 4987: 4986: 4979: 4975: 4971: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4965: 4964: 4960: 4957: 4956: 4951: 4947: 4942: 4941: 4936: 4934: 4933: 4928: 4927: 4921: 4915: 4911: 4907: 4903: 4899: 4897: 4894: 4891: 4886: 4884: 4881: 4879: 4867: 4863: 4861: 4857: 4854: 4851: 4847: 4843: 4841: 4836: 4830: 4824: 4817: 4815: 4812: 4808: 4804: 4800: 4799: 4795: 4794: 4791: 4788: 4783: 4781: 4780: 4773: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4763: 4758: 4756: 4755: 4747: 4743: 4741: 4736: 4728: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4719: 4711: 4707: 4702: 4698: 4691: 4689: 4685: 4681: 4677: 4675: 4672: 4667: 4661: 4659: 4656: 4653: 4648: 4646: 4643: 4639: 4637: 4633: 4630: 4627: 4623: 4619: 4615: 4612: 4610: 4606: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4596: 4592: 4591: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4581: 4572: 4568: 4565: 4563: 4557: 4555: 4551: 4547: 4543: 4539: 4536: 4535: 4530: 4527: 4526:Robert Mugabe 4523: 4516: 4510: 4507: 4500: 4494: 4491: 4484: 4474: 4468: 4467: 4465: 4461: 4459: 4455: 4451: 4447: 4445: 4440: 4436: 4429: 4427: 4424: 4419: 4413: 4411: 4407: 4402: 4401:Malik Shabazz 4398: 4396: 4392: 4388: 4385: 4383: 4380: 4377: 4373: 4371: 4366: 4362: 4355: 4353: 4349: 4345: 4340: 4337: 4335: 4331: 4328: 4325: 4321: 4317: 4313: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4300: 4298: 4295: 4292: 4288: 4286: 4283: 4279: 4275: 4270: 4269: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4259: 4258: 4254: 4253: 4247: 4240: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4223: 4221: 4217: 4213: 4210: 4208: 4204: 4200: 4195: 4193: 4190: 4189: 4184: 4182: 4178: 4174: 4170: 4168: 4164: 4160: 4155: 4153: 4149: 4145: 4141: 4139: 4135: 4134: 4133:The Wordsmith 4128: 4126: 4122: 4118: 4115: 4113: 4108: 4103: 4102: 4097: 4095: 4092: 4089: 4086: 4084: 4081: 4076: 4070: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4057: 4055: 4052: 4048: 4046: 4043: 4039: 4037: 4034: 4029: 4027: 4026: 4020: 4018: 4015: 4012: 4007: 4005: 4002: 3999: 3998: 3990: 3984: 3982: 3978: 3970: 3964: 3962: 3959: 3957: 3952: 3950: 3945: 3943: 3939: 3935: 3931: 3929: 3925: 3922: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3909: 3906: 3904: 3892: 3890: 3887: 3886: 3882: 3881: 3876: 3874: 3870: 3866: 3862: 3860: 3855: 3851: 3845: 3843: 3840: 3837: 3832: 3831: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3821: 3813: 3807: 3803: 3798: 3794: 3790: 3785: 3784: 3780: 3779: 3776: 3773: 3771: 3764: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3747: 3745: 3741: 3736: 3735:Malik Shabazz 3732: 3730: 3727: 3726: 3720: 3712: 3710: 3704: 3700: 3695: 3690: 3687: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3664: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3639:Sam Blacketer 3636: 3635: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3615: 3610: 3601: 3597: 3594: 3589: 3583: 3581: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3567: 3561: 3557: 3552: 3547: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3531: 3527: 3524: 3521: 3517: 3514: 3512: 3509: 3507: 3495: 3494: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3484: 3482: 3478: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3450: 3448: 3445: 3443: 3437: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3407: 3404: 3403: 3398: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3385: 3383: 3379: 3377: 3371: 3367: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3353: 3350: 3348: 3345: 3340: 3334: 3332: 3328: 3323: 3322:Malik Shabazz 3319: 3317: 3314: 3313: 3307: 3299: 3297: 3293: 3285: 3279: 3277: 3274: 3272: 3268: 3263: 3261: 3255: 3251: 3246: 3241: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3228: 3226: 3222: 3219: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3206: 3202: 3198: 3197:Sam Blacketer 3193: 3189: 3187: 3184: 3183: 3178: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3161: 3158: 3156: 3145: 3144: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3120: 3116: 3113: 3111: 3105: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3057: 3054: 3053: 3048: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3035: 3033: 3030: 3027: 3020: 3018: 3014: 3013: 3012:The Wordsmith 3008: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2992: 2988: 2986: 2980: 2976: 2974: 2971: 2966: 2960: 2955: 2951: 2946: 2944: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2934: 2927: 2925: 2921: 2916: 2915:Malik Shabazz 2912: 2910: 2907: 2906: 2900: 2892: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2879: 2877: 2873: 2865: 2859: 2857: 2854: 2852: 2848: 2843: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2826: 2822: 2820: 2817: 2812: 2810: 2809: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2785:functionaries 2782: 2778: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2765: 2763: 2759: 2756: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2732: 2730: 2727: 2726: 2721: 2715: 2713: 2708: 2704: 2697: 2693: 2690: 2688: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2661: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2635: 2633: 2628: 2624: 2622: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2582: 2580: 2575: 2571: 2565: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2552: 2550: 2547: 2542: 2541: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2513: 2509: 2506: 2504: 2498: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2478: 2475: 2474: 2469: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2429: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2413: 2410: 2405: 2399: 2395: 2393: 2389: 2384: 2383:Malik Shabazz 2380: 2376: 2374: 2371: 2370: 2364: 2356: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2343: 2341: 2337: 2329: 2323: 2321: 2318: 2316: 2312: 2307: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2290: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2277: 2275: 2272: 2270: 2259: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2232: 2230: 2227: 2226: 2221: 2215: 2214: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2201: 2197: 2192: 2183: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2175: 2173: 2168: 2164: 2162: 2158: 2153: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2127: 2123: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2092: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2075: 2073: 2067: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2051: 2048: 2047: 2042: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2029: 2027: 2023: 2022: 2021:The Wordsmith 2017: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 2000: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1962: 1959: 1954: 1948: 1943: 1941: 1938: 1937: 1931: 1923: 1921: 1917: 1909: 1901: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1872: 1870: 1866: 1863: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1849: 1847: 1844: 1839: 1837: 1836: 1828: 1824: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1808: 1804: 1802: 1796: 1792: 1790: 1787: 1785: 1773: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1762:Sam Blacketer 1760: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1747: 1745: 1742: 1741: 1736: 1729: 1727: 1721: 1717: 1712: 1707: 1706: 1702: 1701: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1685: 1682: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1650: 1648: 1642: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1615: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1600: 1598: 1595: 1594: 1585: 1577: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1561: 1558: 1555: 1547: 1543: 1540: 1538: 1534: 1533: 1532:The Wordsmith 1528: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1511: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1498: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1483: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1467: 1464: 1459: 1452: 1448: 1446: 1442: 1437: 1436:Malik Shabazz 1433: 1431: 1428: 1427: 1421: 1413: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1396: 1394: 1390: 1387: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1363: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1347: 1342: 1340: 1332: 1330: 1327: 1325: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1303: 1299: 1297: 1291: 1287: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1271: 1268: 1267: 1262: 1254: 1252: 1246: 1242: 1237: 1232: 1231: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1195: 1193: 1187: 1185: 1179: 1177: 1170: 1168: 1162: 1159: 1157: 1154: 1152: 1146: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1105: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1089: 1085: 1084: 1083:The Wordsmith 1078: 1076: 1072: 1070: 1064: 1060: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1045: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1029: 1026: 1021: 1015: 1013: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1003: 996: 994: 990: 985: 984:Malik Shabazz 981: 979: 976: 975: 969: 961: 959: 956: 954: 950: 945: 943: 939: 935: 931: 929: 925: 922: 919: 915: 910: 908: 904: 900: 896: 894: 890: 886: 881: 879: 876: 875: 871: 870: 864: 862: 858: 854: 850: 847: 845: 842: 837: 835: 834: 828: 826: 819: 815: 814:to the reader 811: 807: 804: 802: 798: 794: 790: 786: 782: 778: 776: 773: 770: 765: 763: 758: 754: 748: 744: 742: 739: 737: 725: 722: 720: 716: 712: 708: 706: 700: 696: 691: 682: 680: 677: 673: 671: 667: 659: 652: 651: 647: 646: 645: 642: 641: 638: 634: 632: 630: 624: 622: 615: 613: 607: 605: 596: 592: 588: 584: 581: 579: 575: 571: 568: 565: 563: 559: 555: 551: 548: 546: 541: 536: 535: 530: 527: 525: 522: 520: 519: 514: 507: 504: 502: 498: 494: 490: 487: 485: 481: 477: 473: 470: 468: 464: 460: 456: 453: 451: 447: 443: 439: 435: 431: 427: 423: 421: 418: 415: 414: 406: 400: 397: 395: 392: 390: 385: 383: 377: 374: 372: 368: 364: 360: 357: 355: 352: 349: 345: 342: 340: 336: 332: 328: 325: 323: 319: 315: 311: 308: 306: 303: 299: 294: 286: 283: 281: 278: 277: 272: 269: 267: 262: 258: 251: 248: 246: 243: 239: 235: 231: 228: 226: 222: 218: 214: 211: 210: 206: 205: 202: 199: 195: 192: 191: 190: 189: 186: 181: 178: 172: 168: 167: 166: 163: 159: 155: 151: 147: 140: 135: 129: 126: 124: 121: 120: 119: 118: 117: 111: 109: 107: 102: 100: 96: 91: 89: 81: 72: 68: 64: 60: 56: 50: 45: 44: 43: 40: 37: 31: 30: 27: 19: 5516: 5476: 5470: 5464: 5460: 5456: 5451: 5444: 5415: 5412: 5397: 5382: 5376: 5357: 5356: 5302: 5280: 5272:Black Falcon 5270: 5239: 5235: 5209: 5187: 5162: 5144: 5135: 5122: 5101:Black Falcon 5099: 5064: 5058: 5006: 5004: 5000: 4977: 4969: 4961: 4954: 4953: 4945: 4943: 4939: 4937: 4931: 4930: 4925: 4924: 4922: 4919: 4916:Views by Wnt 4865: 4852: 4778: 4777: 4753: 4752: 4748: 4744: 4739: 4737: 4734: 4717: 4715: 4628: 4603: 4576: 4561: 4534:Black Falcon 4532: 4463: 4338: 4326: 4315: 4274:Barack Obama 4256: 4251: 4245: 4244: 4188:Black Falcon 4186: 4132: 4099: 4024: 4023: 3996: 3995: 3955: 3948: 3932:Absolutely. 3920: 3884: 3879: 3846:Hear, hear! 3817: 3769: 3748: 3721: 3715: 3688: 3637:Hear, hear. 3613: 3608: 3605: 3522: 3485: 3473: 3441: 3402:Black Falcon 3400: 3375: 3351: 3308: 3302: 3265: 3242:Support. -- 3217: 3173: 3124: 3109: 3052:Black Falcon 3050: 3011: 2984: 2953: 2949: 2929: 2928: 2901: 2895: 2845: 2824: 2807: 2806: 2754: 2716: 2650: 2636: 2625: 2618: 2520: 2517: 2502: 2473:Black Falcon 2471: 2453:Template:FAQ 2430: 2365: 2359: 2309: 2291: 2216: 2187: 2177:In summary: 2176: 2169: 2165: 2157:WikiProject. 2155: 2128: 2124: 2108:WP:SOCIALISM 2093: 2089: 2071: 2046:Black Falcon 2044: 2020: 2001: 1932: 1926: 1861: 1850: 1834: 1833: 1826: 1800: 1731: 1680: 1664: 1646: 1593:Black Falcon 1591: 1545: 1541: 1531: 1512: 1450: 1422: 1416: 1397: 1385: 1338: 1311: 1307: 1295: 1257: 1211: 1207:User:JoshuaZ 1191: 1183: 1175: 1166: 1160: 1150: 1082: 1068: 998: 997: 970: 964: 947: 920: 873: 868: 848: 832: 831: 822: 817: 813: 805: 788: 746: 723: 685:explanation= 643: 635: 628: 626: 625:rather than 620: 618: 616: 611: 608: 600: 566: 549: 532: 528: 509: 505: 488: 471: 454: 425: 412: 411: 398: 388: 381: 375: 358: 343: 326: 312:absolutely. 309: 289: 284: 275: 270: 249: 229: 212: 193: 182: 179: 175: 169: 164: 160: 156: 152: 148: 144: 115: 105: 103: 92: 85: 41: 35: 32: 25: 5448:Johnny Weir 5236:well-beyond 5078:Luna Santin 5034:Luna Santin 4997:View by JzG 4974:Sarah Palin 4718:View by FT2 4696:Luna Santin 4434:Luna Santin 4361:Gavia immer 3850:Gavia immer 3469:Gavia immer 3166:WP:WPAFRICA 2781:Jimbo Wales 2703:Gavia immer 2570:Gavia immer 2143:WP:Abortion 2104:WP:Abortion 1133:Good idea. 1094:Jonathunder 753:Gavia immer 597:View by FT2 438:of interest 257:Gavia immer 95:Johnny Weir 53:—Preceding 5254:WP Physics 5149:Od Mishehu 5118:Od Mishehu 4978:Palin knew 4828:have a cup 4725:|BLP = yes 4605:Crazytales 4546:Rivertorch 4199:Rivertorch 4059:Eluchil404 3789:Rivertorch 3753:DuncanHill 3689:Homophobia 3609:inherently 3426:Rivertorch 3356:DuncanHill 3267:Crazytales 3094:WFCforLife 3080:Rivertorch 2847:Crazytales 2789:good faith 2525:Off2riorob 2487:Rivertorch 2435:DuncanHill 2311:Crazytales 2152:WP:FASCISM 2120:doing harm 2100:WP:FASCISM 2056:Rivertorch 2006:DuncanHill 1660:User:Moni3 1631:WFCforLife 1604:Rivertorch 1517:DuncanHill 1339:Sandstein 1233:Agree. -- 1167:James Kidd 1121:Rivertorch 949:Crazytales 825:good faith 476:Off2riorob 459:Eluchil404 5502:Wikidemon 5341:Optigan13 5146:עוד מישהו 5115:עוד מישהו 4952:. It is 4730:|BLP = no 4450:Optigan13 4173:Optigan13 3997:UnitAnode 3387:Optigan13 3352:Thank you 3037:Optigan13 2997:Wikidemon 2797:oversight 2793:consensus 2632:consensus 2458:Optigan13 2418:Wikidemon 2031:Optigan13 1989:Wikidemon 1671:accurate. 1566:Optigan13 1544:The tags 1487:Wikidemon 1135:Debresser 1107:Optigan13 1049:Wikidemon 583:Debresser 413:UnitAnode 348:Fut.Perf. 5419:Townlake 5358:Wine Guy 5249:κοντριβς 5244:Headbomb 5240:does not 5177:contribs 5129:Wine Guy 5113:View by 4970:Followup 4926:sourcing 4856:contribs 4846:Casliber 4779:Wine Guy 4754:Wine Guy 4652:FloNight 4632:contribs 4622:Casliber 4595:Bastique 4376:FloNight 4330:contribs 4320:Casliber 4302:Karanacs 4278:WP:ISLAM 4025:Wine Guy 4011:FloNight 3956:Horatius 3924:contribs 3914:Casliber 3820:Bastique 3703:contribs 3676:Karanacs 3668:Karanacs 3619:Otto4711 3560:contribs 3536:Karanacs 3526:contribs 3516:Casliber 3467:View by 3453:Darkwind 3370:Raystorm 3254:contribs 3230:Karanacs 3221:contribs 3211:Casliber 2979:Raystorm 2808:Wine Guy 2767:Karanacs 2758:contribs 2748:Casliber 2614:Cyclopia 2612:View by 2584:Johnuniq 2398:User:FT2 2279:Karanacs 2200:contribs 2096:WP:ISLAM 2083:View by 1876:Karanacs 1865:contribs 1855:Casliber 1835:Wine Guy 1795:Raystorm 1720:contribs 1658:View by 1389:contribs 1379:Casliber 1365:Karanacs 1290:Raystorm 1245:contribs 1205:View by 1063:Raystorm 924:contribs 914:Casliber 885:Karanacs 833:Wine Guy 810:{{WPBS}} 699:contribs 614:tag it. 442:Johnuniq 434:verified 430:advocacy 389:Horatius 327:Suppport 301:Chequers 67:contribs 59:SilkTork 55:unsigned 5330:Shalott 5303:Support 5281:Support 5232:example 5224:example 5216:example 5168:SatyrTN 5163:Support 4665:Beloved 4464:someone 4417:Beloved 4374:Agree. 4344:Adambro 4339:Support 4294:Fierce! 4291:Mike H. 4117:JoshuaZ 4098:Agree. 4074:Beloved 3976:Shalott 3949:Alexius 3865:Adambro 3839:Fierce! 3836:Mike H. 3694:SatyrTN 3587:Beloved 3551:SatyrTN 3477:WP:CENT 3338:Beloved 3291:Shalott 3245:SatyrTN 3168:tag on 2977:Agree. 2964:Beloved 2954:removed 2871:Shalott 2665:JoshuaZ 2621:the one 2544:best.-- 2403:Beloved 2335:Shalott 2292:Support 2234:JoshuaZ 2191:SatyrTN 2085:SatyrTN 2002:Support 1965:Agree. 1952:Beloved 1915:Shalott 1851:Support 1827:Support 1749:JoshuaZ 1711:SatyrTN 1457:Beloved 1398:Support 1288:Agree. 1236:SatyrTN 1215:JoshuaZ 1019:Beloved 853:Adambro 849:Support 724:Support 690:SatyrTN 665:Shalott 567:Support 550:Support 529:Support 506:Support 489:Support 472:Support 455:Support 399:Support 382:Alexius 376:Support 359:Support 344:support 331:Adambro 310:Support 285:Support 271:Support 250:Support 230:Support 213:Support 5465:adding 5226:) and 4822:Coffee 4609:(talk) 3614:oppose 3412:GRuban 3376:(¿Sí?) 3271:(talk) 3192:WP:BLP 3062:GRuban 2985:(¿Sí?) 2959:WP:BLP 2851:(talk) 2801:WP:RFO 2647:WP:BLP 2643:WP:BLP 2627:WP:BLP 2315:(talk) 2131:WP:BLP 2106:, and 1947:assume 1890:GRuban 1801:(¿Sí?) 1308:assume 1296:(¿Sí?) 1161:Agree. 1069:(¿Sí?) 953:(talk) 899:GRuban 772:(talk) 517:camera 493:Jarhed 123:WP:BLP 5452:could 5365:~Talk 5014:Help! 4893:Adler 4786:~Talk 4761:~Talk 4670:Freak 4422:Freak 4406:Stalk 4276:with 4159:Moni3 4107:Help! 4091:Adler 4079:Freak 4032:~Talk 3988:Scott 3740:Stalk 3592:Freak 3481:WP:AN 3368:Yes. 3343:Freak 3327:Stalk 3209:yes. 2969:Freak 2950:moved 2920:Stalk 2815:~Talk 2734:Moni3 2431:Agree 2408:Freak 2388:Stalk 2248:Moni3 1975:Hobit 1967:Hobit 1957:Freak 1842:~Talk 1689:Moni3 1542:Agree 1513:Agree 1472:Hobit 1470:Yep. 1462:Freak 1441:Stalk 1312:imply 1276:Moni3 1192:email 1176:contr 1034:Hobit 1024:Freak 989:Stalk 840:~Talk 711:Moni3 540:Help! 404:Scott 363:Cla68 297:Spiel 217:Nsk92 136:Views 82:Scope 16:< 5506:talk 5471:Banj 5459:and 5423:talk 5377:Banj 5345:talk 5322:Lady 5311:talk 5307:Mish 5286:Cycl 5196:talk 5192:Mish 5173:talk 5083:talk 5059:does 5039:talk 4946:fact 4932:fact 4906:talk 4890:Hans 4871:Cycl 4850:talk 4701:talk 4684:talk 4655:♥♥♥♥ 4626:talk 4580:Geni 4550:talk 4478:and 4454:talk 4439:talk 4391:talk 4387:Mish 4379:♥♥♥♥ 4365:talk 4348:talk 4324:talk 4306:talk 4252:Sher 4231:talk 4227:Mish 4216:talk 4212:Gigs 4203:talk 4177:talk 4163:talk 4148:talk 4121:talk 4088:Hans 4063:talk 4014:♥♥♥♥ 3994:aka 3968:Lady 3938:talk 3918:talk 3896:Cycl 3880:Sher 3869:talk 3854:talk 3793:talk 3757:talk 3716:Banj 3699:talk 3680:talk 3672:talk 3657:talk 3643:talk 3623:talk 3576:talk 3556:talk 3540:talk 3520:talk 3499:Cycl 3457:talk 3430:talk 3416:talk 3391:talk 3360:talk 3303:Banj 3283:Lady 3250:talk 3234:talk 3215:talk 3201:talk 3148:Cycl 3132:talk 3128:Mish 3098:talk 3084:talk 3066:talk 3041:talk 3001:talk 2932:Rami 2896:Banj 2885:talk 2881:Mish 2863:Lady 2836:talk 2825:move 2771:talk 2752:talk 2738:talk 2707:talk 2680:Cycl 2669:talk 2602:talk 2588:talk 2574:talk 2558:talk 2529:talk 2491:talk 2462:talk 2451:and 2439:talk 2422:talk 2360:Banj 2349:talk 2345:Mish 2327:Lady 2300:talk 2283:talk 2262:Cycl 2252:talk 2238:talk 2196:talk 2060:talk 2035:talk 2010:talk 1993:talk 1979:talk 1971:talk 1927:Banj 1907:Lady 1894:talk 1880:talk 1859:talk 1817:talk 1813:Mish 1777:Cycl 1766:talk 1753:talk 1716:talk 1693:talk 1635:talk 1621:talk 1617:Gigs 1608:talk 1570:talk 1521:talk 1504:talk 1491:talk 1476:talk 1417:Banj 1406:talk 1383:talk 1369:talk 1356:talk 1352:Mish 1317:Cycl 1280:talk 1241:talk 1219:talk 1184:talk 1139:talk 1125:talk 1111:talk 1098:talk 1053:talk 1038:talk 1001:Rami 965:Banj 938:talk 918:talk 903:talk 889:talk 869:Sher 857:talk 797:talk 793:Mish 785:talk 781:Mish 757:talk 747:most 729:Cycl 715:talk 695:talk 657:Lady 587:talk 574:talk 558:talk 554:Tarc 497:talk 480:talk 463:talk 446:talk 410:aka 367:talk 335:talk 318:talk 292:Ϣere 261:talk 221:talk 63:talk 5469:-- 5375:-- 5292:pia 5218:), 5165:-- 5136:any 5008:Guy 4955:not 4877:pia 4866:all 4837:// 4834:ark 4831:// 4825:// 4803:Lar 4520:at 4504:at 4488:at 4316:any 4257:eth 4246:Any 4185:-- 4101:Guy 4051:FT2 3902:pia 3885:eth 3714:-- 3572:Wnt 3505:pia 3479:or 3399:-- 3301:-- 3181:Why 3154:pia 3076:BLP 3049:-- 3025:Ray 2894:-- 2832:Wnt 2724:Why 2686:pia 2483:AGF 2358:-- 2296:Ash 2268:pia 2224:Why 2188:-- 2145:on 2137:on 1925:-- 1783:pia 1739:Why 1681:All 1553:Ray 1546:are 1500:NVO 1415:-- 1402:Ash 1323:pia 1310:or 1265:Why 963:-- 934:Wnt 874:eth 818:not 735:pia 637:FT2 612:not 606:. 534:Guy 440:). 234:Lar 196:.-- 106:not 101:. 69:) 5508:) 5479:oi 5425:) 5385:oi 5347:) 5326:of 5313:) 5256:} 5252:– 5198:) 5175:/ 4908:) 4858:) 4819:— 4805:: 4774:. 4686:) 4634:) 4552:) 4518:}} 4512:{{ 4502:}} 4496:{{ 4486:}} 4480:{{ 4476:}} 4470:{{ 4466:: 4456:) 4414:-- 4399:— 4393:) 4359:— 4350:) 4332:) 4308:) 4233:) 4218:) 4205:) 4179:) 4165:) 4150:) 4123:) 4071:-- 4065:) 3972:of 3940:) 3926:) 3871:) 3848:— 3795:) 3759:) 3733:— 3724:oi 3701:/ 3682:) 3659:) 3645:) 3625:) 3584:-- 3578:) 3558:/ 3542:) 3528:) 3459:) 3451:-- 3432:) 3418:) 3410:-- 3393:) 3362:) 3335:-- 3311:oi 3287:of 3252:/ 3236:) 3223:) 3203:) 3176:So 3134:) 3100:) 3086:) 3078:. 3068:) 3060:-- 3043:) 3003:) 2913:— 2904:oi 2887:) 2867:of 2838:) 2773:) 2760:) 2740:) 2719:So 2701:— 2671:) 2641:. 2634:. 2604:) 2590:) 2568:— 2560:) 2531:) 2493:) 2464:) 2441:) 2424:) 2368:oi 2351:) 2331:of 2302:) 2285:) 2254:) 2246:-- 2240:) 2219:So 2198:/ 2102:, 2098:, 2062:) 2037:) 2012:) 1995:) 1981:) 1935:oi 1911:of 1896:) 1882:) 1867:) 1825:I 1819:) 1774:-- 1768:) 1755:) 1734:So 1718:/ 1695:) 1637:) 1623:) 1610:) 1587:}} 1581:{{ 1572:) 1523:) 1506:) 1493:) 1478:) 1451:my 1434:— 1425:oi 1408:) 1400:- 1391:) 1371:) 1358:) 1282:) 1274:-- 1260:So 1243:/ 1221:) 1141:) 1127:) 1113:) 1100:) 1055:) 1040:) 982:— 973:oi 940:) 926:) 905:) 891:) 859:) 799:) 767:-- 751:— 717:) 709:-- 697:/ 661:of 589:) 576:) 560:) 552:. 531:. 512:on 508:. 499:) 482:) 465:) 448:) 426:is 378:. 369:) 361:. 337:) 320:) 255:— 236:: 223:) 65:• 51:. 5504:( 5477:b 5473:e 5421:( 5394:— 5383:b 5379:e 5343:( 5309:( 5305:. 5289:o 5246:{ 5230:( 5222:( 5214:( 5194:( 5179:) 5171:( 5131:. 5085:) 5081:( 5041:) 5037:( 5016:) 5012:( 4904:( 4874:o 4853:· 4848:( 4811:c 4809:/ 4807:t 4703:) 4699:( 4682:( 4629:· 4624:( 4558:— 4548:( 4528:; 4452:( 4441:) 4437:( 4403:/ 4389:( 4367:) 4363:( 4346:( 4327:· 4322:( 4304:( 4229:( 4214:( 4201:( 4175:( 4161:( 4146:( 4119:( 4109:) 4105:( 4061:( 3936:( 3921:· 3916:( 3899:o 3867:( 3856:) 3852:( 3808:) 3800:( 3791:( 3755:( 3737:/ 3722:b 3718:e 3705:) 3697:( 3678:( 3670:( 3655:( 3641:( 3621:( 3574:( 3562:) 3554:( 3538:( 3523:· 3518:( 3502:o 3455:( 3438:— 3428:( 3414:( 3389:( 3358:( 3324:/ 3309:b 3305:e 3256:) 3248:( 3232:( 3218:· 3213:( 3199:( 3151:o 3130:( 3106:— 3096:( 3082:( 3064:( 3039:( 2999:( 2937:R 2917:/ 2902:b 2898:e 2883:( 2834:( 2769:( 2755:· 2750:( 2736:( 2709:) 2705:( 2683:o 2667:( 2600:( 2586:( 2576:) 2572:( 2556:( 2527:( 2499:— 2489:( 2460:( 2456:- 2437:( 2420:( 2385:/ 2366:b 2362:e 2347:( 2308:— 2298:( 2281:( 2265:o 2250:( 2236:( 2202:) 2194:( 2058:( 2033:( 2008:( 1991:( 1977:( 1969:( 1933:b 1929:e 1892:( 1878:( 1862:· 1857:( 1815:( 1780:o 1764:( 1751:( 1722:) 1714:( 1691:( 1633:( 1619:( 1606:( 1568:( 1519:( 1502:( 1489:( 1474:( 1438:/ 1423:b 1419:e 1404:( 1386:· 1381:( 1367:( 1354:( 1320:o 1278:( 1247:) 1239:( 1217:( 1196:) 1188:/ 1180:/ 1172:( 1147:— 1137:( 1123:( 1109:( 1096:( 1051:( 1036:( 1006:R 986:/ 971:b 967:e 946:— 936:( 921:· 916:( 901:( 887:( 855:( 827:. 795:( 783:( 759:) 755:( 732:o 713:( 701:) 693:( 585:( 572:( 556:( 542:) 538:( 495:( 478:( 461:( 444:( 365:( 351:☼ 333:( 316:( 263:) 259:( 242:c 240:/ 238:t 219:( 61:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

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

Index