Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
"WP:PROPOSE" redirects here. For proposing article deletion, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion requests.
The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. Before submitting:

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for 7 days.

Guideline status for WP:CLOSE

[edit]

Should WP:Closing discussions be made a guideline? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (WP:CLOSE)

[edit]
  • Support as proposer: WP:Close is an information page that well-documents current community practice with the level-of-detail one'd expect from a guideline, with the exception of the "Closing procedure" section mostly of uncontroversial technical details, but it's not unheard of for guideline pages to include such sections either (e.g. Wikipedia:Signatures#Dealing with unsigned comments). Despite the widespread practice of consensus being the counted supermajority when arguments are of equal weight, this determination is only documented in essays and this information page (If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, [...]). An experienced editor in a discussion I closed a few months ago pointed this out to me and thus argued my close should've said "no consensus" instead as a small number of participants !voted oppose. The increased visibility of this page as a guideline would reduce the amount of editors (including newcomers) who aren't caught up on our closing standards.
    It is my opinion that the practices documented in this information reflect the current community standard, and the situation I mentioned above marks a need for such practices to be included in guidelines. Aaron Liu (talk) (timestamp omitted deliberately to improve the permanent discussion link)
    To address concerns of Creep/excessive rulemaking: Creep-avoidance's purpose is to keep Wikipedia policy and guideline pages easy to understand, but currently we have absolutely no guidelines on how consensus is determined from a discussion, save overall concurrence. Wikipedia:Consensus#In talk pages is worthy of mention as it does list some qualities to weigh for arguments, but it doesn't mention critical things like how arguments of equal weight are compared numerically and when discussions should be closed.(Other than WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, which misleadingly lives on Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators—it is outdated to imply these standards only apply to deletion. It should live on a dedicated page to increase visibility and reduce the overlapping maintenance work needed, and WP:Close is pretty much what it says.)
    As opposed to WP:Snow and the much more redundant WP:Poll, I think this is something newcomers need to read like the other major guidelines. I don't see these things mentioned anywhere else, and I feel like things so normative should be mentioned in our PaG, accessibly, as Creep intends. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Aaron Liu. I've long found this a useful guide and personally never had it questioned as only an info page, but I can see the issue of it not being an official guideline as an issue, especially given it's the guidelines that closers follow. It might be worth considering some other pages in this area for review and promoting; Wikipedia:Non-admin closure (widely accepted essay, referenced in hatnote at WP:INVOLVED as guidance on involvement for non-administrator actions - also not a guideline but quasi-advertised as such. Likewise we have Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, as a subpage of RM no less, which again is nothing more than an essay, even if widely used as guidance. I think it might be time to start making the effort to categorise certain pages more accurately, reflecting their status quo as defacto guidelines. CNC (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m less supportive of NAC as that seems overly prescriptive. Maybe it’s key points can be brought into CLOSE. Dw31415 (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We also have Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which is "nothing more than an essay", even though there are editors who think that this optional process is mandatory in all cases. (Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions; if they did, they'd see that it's explicitly described as optional.) Wikipedia:Five pillars isn't marked as a policy or guideline, because Wikipedia:Not every page needs a tag. There is no requirement for good advice to be marked as a guideline or policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not wrong, "enforced BRD" is referenced in WP:STANDARDSET, whereas BRD is only an essay intended as advise. Given it describes an optional strategy rather than any fixed rules, the categorisation doesn't seem off to me at all. Realistically it's evolved into an infopage as documents the cycle in-depth, rather than pov-led like essays often are.
    I'm aware not everything needs a tag, but if there are sets of best practices supported by consensus, then promoting to guideline satus is logical for sake of clarity. Five pillars is otherwise a higher-level summary page, so acts more like an infopage than policy or guidelines. There doesn't appear to any independently crafted policies or guidelines, only references to them. Thus, it's categorised correctly as a page that either isn't confirmed to have widespread consensus, or doesn't require it. CNC (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Awilley: could you get the link in WP:STANDARDSET changed to User:Awilley/Consensus Required vs Enforced BRD or some other page? There is no reason to send people to WP:BRD itself, as it's largely irrelevant except as a metaphor. (Also, while you're there, do you know how to fix the includeonly mess that broke all the ==Section headings== on that page?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Good suggestion, also the notes on that page that are linked need anchors, or ideally resolve the duplicate lists of restrictions. There is one at the base page and the other transcluded to subpages; one with useful links, notes, and a set of other restrictions; and the other without. Hopefully an arb can bring some sanity to that. CNC (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I can't. The Enforced BRD sanction in my userspace is historical and part of the point of STANDARDSET is that it eliminated custom sanctions like the ones in my userspace. ~Awilley (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    (Pedantic note: it didn't eliminate custom sanctions. It made them so only a rough consensus of uninvolved admin at AE could do them.) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Contentious topics documents a procedure defined by the arbitration committee, and thus only the committee can modify the page. isaacl (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. What's the procedure for getting the committee to stop linking to a page that says it is "one of many optional strategies" (emphasis in the original)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because that part of guidance with an official stamp of approval was sorely lacking as an explanation of how consensus is actually evaluated. I think it would benefit from inclusion of some fragments of WP:NAC and WP:SUPERVOTE, which are de facto standards anyway. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 18:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I support better documenting the de facto approach to consensus. I do find this sentence weird: The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus. I understand it’s the de facto approach, but should there be an effort to revise consensus, rather than having a separate guideline that sorta says, “we didn’t mean that page, we mean this page”? Dw31415 (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dw31415, do you mean to revise the Wikipedia:Consensus policy page?
    AIUI our notion of Wikipedia:Rough consensus is derived from the Internet Engineering Task Force. "Rough consensus and running code" is the goal for their decision-making process. The first half means that it's unnecessary to have unanimity, to have agreement on the details, or to have a formal vote. In the case of decisions made under RFC 7282, it literally means that support sounds louder than opposition. They are looking for an absence of significant opposition, rather than strong support. The second half means that the group should defer to the people doing the work instead of someone pontificating about theory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why we should expect people to know the IETF's protocol.
    That said, I think WP:C already appropriately summarizes consensus as Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Detailed, further explanation is what WP:Close provides. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that knowing where some of our concepts came from can help editors understand what ours are supposed to mean. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not sure about the best solution and don’t want to distract too much from the main question. I just think there’s an odd smell about this (as a guideline) saying we don’t use policy (consensus) we use an essay (rough consensus). If no one else sees a problem with it I’ll defer. Dw31415 (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (until harmonized with RFCEND): After some reflection, I oppose based on my understanding that it will make it harder for involved editors to close RfC's with an obvious outcome.Comment: As an example, I tried to close an RfC as an involved editor because the outcome was obvious. The nominator (whom I respect tremendously) wrote that the RfC did not need closure citing the page under discussion. I was relying on RFCEND. I'm concerned that elevating this page to guideline will then give it more weight than RFCEND. My concern would be addressed by changing this page from formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable to RFCEND's involved editors should be able to close most discussions. Thanks for considering! Dw31415 (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your kind words. The exact same wording is present at WP:RFCEND: If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. In fact, that's where I imported the sentence at WP:Close from. This is in line with RfCEnd's Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance, uninvolved closers being one kind of outside assistance.
    I unfortunately couldn't find where RfCEnd says involved editors should be able to close most discussions. If it does, that should be removed as it directly contradicts WP:Involved: editors closing such discussions should not have been involved in the discussion itself or related disputes. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Reasons and ways to end RfCs: "if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an involved editor may summarize the discussion".
    See also the FAQ on the talk page:
    Can the person who started the RFC, or another involved editor, write a summary of the discussion?
    Yes. In particular, when a proposal is soundly rejected, proponents are encouraged to accept defeat with grace. However, if the outcome could plausibly be disputed, then involved editors (on all sides of a dispute) are encouraged to let someone else write a summary.
    The RFC process is looking for a good, shared understanding rather than bureaucratic niceties. If the outcome is clear rejection, then having the OP post something like "Everybody hates my idea. Sorry for wasting your time" is a valid summary, and it is not improved by having an uninvolved editor get involved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I misunderstood what "most discussions" meant; sorry Dw3. The sentence you mentioned needs some work, though. It's a 2021 addition that contradicts the bolded sentence I mentioned on what to do when the consensus is obvious, though I do see ways to make it not contradictory. I'll elaborate on WT:RFC and invite you two. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, I don't think this is a problem with WP:Close as WP:RfCEnd says the same thing. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there’s some ambiguity of whether CLOSE applies to RfC’s. Does it? Does RFCEND take priority with respect to RfC’s? Dw31415 (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Both do, and as Whatam mentioned the two pages should (as in the goal) have little overlap and no contradictions. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed my "oppose" to a "comment" with the expectation that elevating this doesn't impact the ability to change it or impact the discussion around involved closure. Dw31415 (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had been asked from memory if that page is a guideline, I'd have said yes. It would be fine if it were. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we should mark this as a guideline right now. Compare it to something like WP:NAC which is much closer to being a guideline in form and covers a topic the proposal doesn't: who should close discussions. The proposal is also redundant with many of our existing P&Gs, and WhatamIdoing points some out in the discussion section below. Redundancy adds a maintenance burden---there are many discussions where editor time was spent resolving a policy conflict because two pages drifted apart and no one noticed. Redundant P&Gs also harm editor recruitment and retention when newcomers need to navigate 14 15 policies, see the sources at Criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive rule-making for more on this. WP:CLOSE is a good informational page, but I don't think it's a good idea to make it a guideline.
    Marking this as a guideline won't make newcomers better understand our unique governance system or stop wikilawyers from coming up with a tortured reason to challenge a close. Those are non-starters for me. Frankly, if an editor is starting to interpret P&Gs about closing discussions, they are already so deep into "wikilaw" that they should be evaluating essays by their quality and level of community acceptance, not the banner at the top. Essays like WP:SNOW, WP:NAC, and WP:POLL have incredibly broad consensus and 10x as many links as WP:CLOSE, but they lack a guideline banner because they're not good guidelines. Level of consensus is only part of it. — Wug·a·po·des 08:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP. The current text is quite debatable, starting with the first sentence (Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.) WP:BOLD is actually more fundamental because nothing gets written until someone boldly decides to make a start. Insofar as the proposed change would make any difference, it would be to make it more difficult to change this debatable text.
    And formal closing seems quite abnormal and exceptional. The typical talk page discussion consists of someone saying something and no-one responding. And even when there are responses, you rarely get a formal close. Consider the talk page for the page in question, for example. If you look at that or its archive, you'll find about 30 discussions, including a formal RfC, and not a single one has a formal close that I can see. It's a farce.
    Andrew🐉(talk) 17:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    BOLD is actually more fundamental

    WP:Bold is WP:EditConsensus. The very next next sentence after the one you quoted summarizes Bold: Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change to a page content, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it.
    The sentence you quoted is the first sentence of WP:Consensus, so I don't think WP:Close would elevate Consensus over Bold here. I definitely could remove it from WP:Close but I unfortunately can't figure out how to do so without making the lede read weird. I'd welcome any suggestions on how to do so!

    formal closing seems quite abnormal and exceptional

    The page does mention that! Besides the second paragraph saying closes are only advised to happen when discourse [is] lengthy and the results hard to determine, half of § When to close discussions is dedicated to explaining what you said here.
    I think we agree on what the page should say, just not whether it says them. I believe making sure the page says these and would be seen is our chance to clarify that these are in fact the community norms. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we don't agree. I've looked through this material and it's trash. Let's look at that first sentence again. It's a copy of the first sentence of WP:CON which is a different policy. Why does the page start by talking about consensus rather than talking about closing? These are not the same thing.
    If you look at the first draft of this page, it doesn't say anything about consensus. It is all about closing instead -- terminating a discussion so that no further comments may be made. And this is done mainly to stop disruption and time-wasting.
    Another editor then comes along then then rewrites the page. He's the one who is focussed on determining consensus rather than the process of closing. The page is then confused from that point.
    The page waffles indecisively about how discussions may be left open for years or not closed at all. It repeatedly says that there are no policies for this. It seems to understand that there are different discussion processes such as RfC but it doesn't catalog these and explain their closure rules.
    For example, consider a process page such as WP:ERRORS, which is quite busy and which I attend often. This is quite sui generis in that discussions are resolved rapidly as time is of the essence. They are typically actioned by admins as the main page is protected. After the action is taken, the discussion is typically then blanked. It's not hatted or archived, it's just deleted from the page. Any discussions left open at the end of the day are typically cleared en masse and there is an admin button to do this. There's often not much in the way of consensus or appeal and it doesn't much resemble processes used elsewhere. I don't much like the process but so it goes.
    Other forums such as Arbcom, AE, DYK, ITN or the reference desk have their own old Spanish customs which have evolved over the years. There are lots of discussions at these but they have their own mechanisms and rules for closing them. This page displays no understanding of this and so, as a general guideline, is useless.
    Andrew🐉(talk) 23:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing has two parts: terminating the discussion (with e.g. {{atop}}) and summarizing it (i.e. determining its consensus). (Other forms of terminating are not closure.) I have not seen the former happen without the latter.
    I only see "there are no policies" mentioned once, and of course that would be removed if the page becomes a guideline.

    The page waffles indecisively about how discussions may be left open for years or not closed at all

    That would be a problem. Could you specify where you see that?

    it doesn't catalog these and explain their closure rules

    I feel like the closure guidelines included on this page are generally applicable. WP:Close's ways of assessing consensus are used on all the pages you've mentioned.
    I think it would be both unwieldy and unnecessary for a page to document the closing procedures of every process page on Wikipedia; I don't see the problem in having the reader just read the relevant process page. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If this were to become a guideline about closing, closing would still be described better and in more detail in PAG outside of this page. This alone means that the page should not be promoted to a guideline, and that its nature really is that of an information page. The page's content does not match what would be needed for a comprehensive guideline about closing and lacks unique substantive normative content relative to existing PAG. The actual PAG-grade norms about closing (and highly-specific at that) already exist and they are at:
    • WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS (guideline) -- basically, this section is pretty much the "closing discussions" guideline; it is applied universally -- outside of the deletion process by analogy. The last paragraph significantly references WP:IAR ("shockingly", a local consensus can suspend a guideline)
    • WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR (policies) through WP:SNOW (titanium-clad interpretation of policy) -- the other closest thing to a substantive guideline about closing discussions. A guideline about closing has to explain WP:SNOW in the prose.
    • Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Closing discussions (guideline) -- general informational material about closing discussions already existing in the form of a guideline + one important provision, effectively stating: do not demand an uninvolved close unless the consensus is unclear, the issue is contentious, or the decision has wiki-wide implications, i.e., involved closes are not a priori bad.
    • WP:INVOLVED (policy) -- "involved status" does not matter with respect to closes where the issue is non-contentious and straightforward (that is the correct interpretation).
    • Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrators' abilities (policy) -- It is administrators who are, in general, responsible (normally, by convention) to close discussions.
    • Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions (guideline) -- Even though administrators are, in general, responsible for closing discussions, there are times when it is also appropriate for non-admins to close discussions. This is then significantly elaborated upon. This is another "lost fragment" of the existing one and true "closing guideline", also applied universally, of course -- outside of the deletion process by analogy
    If we were to assemble these genuine norms about closing disussions, we would get an actual standalone, comprehensive Wikipedia guideline about that. But the page nominated for promotion is not that page.—Alalch E. — Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The goal is for this to be that page. I'll go through the sections you mentioned:
    • RoughConsensus is covered far more clearly at § How to determine the outcome except for the last paragraph, which I agree we should add to the "Policy" subsection.
    • I'm not sure what NotBuro says about closes; I only see it discussing the role of rules. I think Snow is adequately summarized in the "When further contributions are unlikely to be helpful" bullet point.
    • I think the TPG section is well-summarized at § Closure procedure.
    • Explained in footnote [5], which is used where how closers should be uninvolved is mentioned. I think this is the right level of prominence.
    • Ooh, this is really good! I think I can consolidate this and WP:Close's explanation of closure qualifications in the Closure procedure section into a new "Who should close discussions" section. Would you support making this a guideline when that is done, or are there other additions you think are necessary?
    Aaron Liu (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. My view (pretty similar to Wugapodes) is that this page serves its current purpose pretty well but isn't written with the precision we'd expect from a guideline in this area. WP:NHC in particular is something that is really useful in its current "tips and tricks on determining consensus" role but would lead to more wikilawyering rather than less if people started treating it as authoritative and parsing its every word (example). More generally, although I never used to feel this way, I've come to think that leaving things vague in this area (as illustrated by the one sentence at WP:DETCON) has really been a very wise choice, and I'd encourage people not to knock down Chesterton's fence here unless they're sure the benefits outweigh the costs. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity for onlookers, I think the intended diff was Special:Diff/1077853382. I could amend the sentence referenced to add "or different interpretations of the same policy".
    Could you elaborate on the benefits of leaving things vague?Aaron Liu (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're interested in closing, I'd encourage you to reflect on that question yourself for a bit longer. Then come back and share your own thoughts on what this metaphorical fence is for. — Wug·a·po·des 10:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done a dozen closes (and a successful close challenge for someone else's). I do see that there is nice leeway for different closers to weigh arguments differently, but I've never seen that to such an extent that it contradicts WP:Close's guidance. (or did I misinterpret as "it would be bad to have a new guideline on closing" your concerns that were simply on specific sections instead?) Aaron Liu (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Information pages shouldn't be turned into guidelines at all, because they serve different purposes. And the information page is not great currently, and turning it into a guideline makes it harder to fix the problems. instruction creep and generally ill-thought out. Much of it is more a weapon for wikilawyers than actually useful. Polygnotus (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (WP:CLOSE)

[edit]

Wikipedia:Consensus#In talk pages and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy appear to cover some of the same territory, so I'm not convinced this is necessary. Also: When the other editor pointed out that your close might have been imperfect, am I correct in assuming that said editor was on the "losing" side of that discussion, and thus motivated to find any possible rule that might extend the dispute instead of having it resolved the "wrong" way? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, I don't see why not make clear a series of practices are standard. Your assumption is correct but I don't see why that lessens the argument for clarity, and said editor is someone I usually wouldn't assume obstructionist motivations. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Why not?" is a fair view. I don't oppose this proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Meta comment: A WP:PROPOSAL is supposed to be made on the talk page of the proposed guideline. I don't think we need to take any action right now, but if this discussion gets long (RFCs on Village pump pages frequently need to be WP:SPLIT to keep the overall page size under control), maybe it could be moved there instead of to a subpage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, doing the RfC on the talk page was the original plan but I forgot that was what WP:Proposal prescribes and followed the last guidelinification I knew (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 219#Superscript and subscript typography guideline). Aaron Liu (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be a guideline on closing discussions, but it might be worth fine-tuning it a bit and getting everything in one place first. Right now it's not as concise as it probably could be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to hear feedback on that! We could discuss more specific areas of improvement at Wikipedia talk:Closing discussions#Guideline. I'm personally not that great at concision and don't see much myself. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that concision (fewest words) is less important than being focused (all the necessary points, without wandering off on tangents). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I did assume the latter is what Thebig meant. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Also we should review Wikipedia:RFCEND for conflict / overlap. Dw31415 (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I compared and corrected those two a few years ago, but it's probably time for another review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've finally looked over both; I don't believe there is overlap, other than If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. which I don't see a problem with. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aaron, I boldly added a link to the RfC close template. Feel free to revert if it should get more review. I would like there were more consistency in using the RfC closure template or to have it deprecated. Dw31415 (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for improving! Dw31415 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This part of RFCEND strikes me as out of touch with current practice but maybe I’m looking at a controversial subset. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance. I guess that’s not immediately relevant to this discussion. I support the proposal to make it a guideline. Dw31415 (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through a handful of consecutive RFCs from November-ish. About two-thirds got a closing statement. However, almost half of those didn't need a closing statement (e.g., Andrew Huberman, Advance UK, Scientology) because the responses were so lopsided. That said, sometimes editors want a closing statement for social/behavioral reasons rather than because they don't know what the result is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It helps prevent the (factually incorrect) wikilawyering over "well that discussion was never closed so there's not a true consensus". Katzrockso (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever seen that particular claim before, but I'd expect that to be solved by educating the editor about Wikipedia's processes. If that happens a lot (more than a couple of newbies a year), then I'd like to have a few examples (drop some on my talk page? It's kind of off-topic for this discussion), then we should address that error somewhere. Maybe Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Concerning discussions would be the place for that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's the best line on the whole page IMO. Levivich (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it's a good thing so just added an oppose !vote because of a concern about elevating "don't close" over "close most". Dw31415 (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to propose moving “If the matter under discussion is not contentious” to a L3 section under closing procedure and include the same involved closure language from RfC end. The current bullet is a bit odd (it’s a stand alone bullet and it’s a bit redundant to the following paragraph). Any thoughts on whether I should boldly edit or make a sandbox version? Dw31415 (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you let this discussion wrap up, and then boldly make the change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dumb question: Is the page harder to change after it’s a guideline? Dw31415 (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, not usually. It's just awkward to have something change while people are voting. Someone who dislikes the outcome might claim that the change in the middle of the discussion invalidates all the votes they disagree with. So I suggest avoiding changes, even as minor as rearranging. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should we deprecate WP:RfA?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No previous discussion. And the premise is false, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vacant0 was closed just a week ago Cambalachero (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This process has seen rare usgae, even its counterpart WP:RfB is not even used. Should we deprecate it? ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we have an essay or something on "Jew tagging"? continuation of archived discussion

[edit]

Doug Weller talk 15:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)See archived discussion.[1][reply]

Well, in theory at least anyone can write an essay, though with a topic like this I'd not recommend anyone trying unless they are very familiar with both relevant policy, and with long-running debates over the issue. Any volunteers? I'd offer, but I have my doubts that some in the community would accept my position on this.
Given that some have found reasons to object to the phrase, it would probably be better to avoid actually using 'Jew tagging' in the title. And maybe it might be better to try to broaden the scope out a little: Wikipedia:Ethnic and religious tagging? The problem isn't confined to content on Jewish individuals only, though some of the worst examples can be found there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about writing one, but Real Life caught up with me and I haven't had the time to devote to doing a good job with it. I like Andy's suggestion for a title and focus, since it's a broader problem and shouldn't single out a particular religion or ethnicity, any more than it's permitted in articles, but I don't think we should completely expunge the term or minimize the observable fact that it's the most troublesome example. I've noticed a recent uptick in malicious tagging, and a relative decline in what I would term benign Judeophilic descriptors. If I start one I'll link here so others can participate.
I would welcome examples of similar phenomena with other religions or ethnicities to cite - I've seen some tagging of Muslims, for example, in India-related topics.
There's also a parallel issue of nested nationalities, such as English/British, that has caused strife, especially if the subject is perceived as a different ethnicity. I'm not prepared to work that out. Acroterion (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend to propose omitting the term 'Jew tagging' entirely, just not using it as a title: sorry if that wasn't clear. And I'd think that any essay on the topic should clearly include a link to Edward Kosner's Wikipedia-focussed article with that title [2] in Commentary , as a useful outsider's perspective. An essay clearly needs to distinguish between relevant and proportional discussion of a subject's ethnicity and/or faith and the context-free, reductionist/stereotyping bald-assertion-sentence 'X is Jewish' tagging that Kosner and so many others object to, and I think that Kosner's piece expresses it better than most of us could. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Jewish version of this tagging does have it's own specific issue. The tagging is done by either those who feel the Jewish identity is being hidden, and those who want to (((tag))) Jewish people. This is opposite to the issue found in most articles, where people attempt to exclude individuals from a given ethnicity. Of course the solution is always to follow the sources, but that regularly differs from the POV of editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but if you really think that with the exception of Jewish subjects, 'exclusion' is the only issue, I don't think you've been looking very hard. And no, 'following the sources' isn't necessarily sufficient. It is entirely possible to engage in the most egregious tagging while using an impeccable source. Which is one of the reasons why it can be difficult to deal with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How is including a factual detail that "impeccable sources" say "the most egregious tagging"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Often, it isn't the 'what' but the 'how' that matters. As an example, I once got into a dispute with arch Jew-tagger User:Bus stop (now CBANNED) because he wanted an article to merely say 'X is Jewish' in a biography, rather than actually going into any detail regarding the subject's attitude to his faith and ethnicity, which was in my opinion much more enlightening for the biography. Bus stop seemed to see Wikipedia as a Jew-tagger's database, refused to countenance any content that might suggest that the Jewishness of any individual was anything but objective fact, even if the individual concerned was equivocal (which isn't that rare), and routinely resorted to the most ridiculous arguments in order to justify his obsession. In my opinion, any article that has the sentence 'X is Jewish' in it, without further context, needs looking at as potential tagging. You just don't see that in biographies elsewhere. It is reductionist, if not outright stereotyping, and reduces a human being to a mere label. At best it is bad writing. At worst, it is obnoxious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a more general issue with "tagging" (possibly better described as "labelling"), in that often an effort to get a specific word into prose is the end in itself rather than expanding the context or even writing the same thing in a less provocative style. CMD (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Something must be stated in sources in order to qualify for inclusion, but it's up to editors to determine what is or is not relevant and represents the most neutral presentation of facts. You don't need to mention someone's ethnicity any more than their weight or hair color unless it's directly relevant to the rest of the article - for example, the weight of a professional wrestler might be listed, as might the ethnicity of a prominent rabbi - but not for a botanist. Would you include "Caucasian" or "Anglo-Saxon" for every generic white person? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not only rabbis who can have their Jewish identity be relevant to their life and biography. There are indeed many people whose biographies mention their ethnicity as a relevant biographical fact. Some of them are even botanists. Andre🚐 06:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And wrestlers aren't the only people whose weight is relevant. I just used obvious examples. If you have reliable sources that clearly link someone's Jewish identity to their prominence as a botanist, go for it - but the fact that they're a botanist who happens to be Jewish isn't enough. Keep in mind biographers can be biased too. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
People can be notable for multiple things. Connecting their Jewishness to their primary thing isn't the standard. It's whether multiple reliable sources have something to say about that biographical fact. For example, Aaron Aaronsohn or Otto Warburg (botanist). They were botanists and also other things. A notable wrestler could also be noted for being a Jewish philanthropist. Etc. Andre🚐 18:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I ever said it had to be their primary occupation, but again both their other activities and the relationship between that and their heritage need to qualify as notable. Enough to discuss rather than just "tag". Again, I was keeping examples deliberately simple to make a point. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in the previous discussion, you can just write the essay yourself? Essays are cheap. But I would focus mostly on "how to recognize it" and "here are the relevant policies" (eg. MOS:ETHNICITY, WP:DUE), plus maybe some convenience links to previous discussions or external coverage of the problem. I don't think trying to get consensus out of the gate is a productive use of time for an essay - just write it, see what people say, tweak it if there are minor problems or quibbles, and if there are larger disputes or irreconcilable problems, someone else can just write a competing essay. --Aquillion (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see way more Jews online offended that we are "erasing Jewish history" by removing that people are Jewish, honestly. See, for example, [3] [4], or objecting to our sort of compromise phrasing of "raised in a Jewish family" as also antisemitic. We can never win.
You're already not supposed to add it if it is not in a reliable source. I don't know what else we're supposed to do, hide that people are Jewish even if reliable sources say they are? Is that not ridiculously antisemitic? And sure, people often break that rule. But that goes for every guideline we have. Perfect enforcement does not exist here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is that not ridiculously antisemitic? I hope you don't mean that the way it reads.
This isn't about hiding anything. If someone's ethnicity or religion is a significant feature of their life, it should be mentioned, as long as it's backed by sources, in conformance with the MoS. What we're discussing here is the frequent tendency to substitute ethnicity for nationality in the lede, of qualifying nationality with ethnicity, or guessing about it with no sources or no relevance to the facts of a subject's life. I'd estimate that 75-80% of such edits are malicious. Frequent targets are people who've conducted themselves in a manner that draws criticism or negative attention, whereupon they get tagged as plainly as possible. This rarely happens when someone's Presbyterian.
An essay would be helpful in explaining all this to well-intentioned editors who wish to celebrate someone's ethnicity, and are disappointed or upset that it's not appreciated. It also helps cut off debate with the malicious who are cloaking themselves with the same ostensible motive.
And please, read Kosner's piece linked above on the subject. Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think systematic efforts to erase Jewish history in the sense where we would hide cited information would be very antisemitic. If that's not what is being suggested, then no.
Kosner's article is him personally objecting to the fact he is labeled as being born to a Jewish family, and speculating that this was added by antisemites. Judaism is not just a religion. Where was it mentioned that we're just talking about the lead? The discussion, or Kosner's article, say nothing of the sort. The case at issue in Kosner's had nothing to do with substituting "ethnicity for nationality in the lede, of qualifying nationality with ethnicity, or guessing about it with no sources or no relevance to the facts of a subject's life".
The issue wrt Kosner was a sentence in the body of the article cited to a scholarly article from the Oxford University Press's Studies in Contemporary Jewry, from a Jewish author, solely about Jews and journalism, which names Kosner as a prominent Jewish journalist, added to the article by a seemingly well-respected editor without nefarious intentions [5]. And the article did not even say "x is Jewish", but that he was born to a Jewish family. If that is problematic Jew tagging then how is, by comparison, discussing anyone's ethnicity or background ever acceptable regardless of sourcing? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, erasing Jewish history would be worse than the problem we're discussing. I mention the lede because 90% of the time this is where it pops up, peoples' attention spans being what they are. Often it's in very short articles that are nothing but lede. Kosner offers a different perspective, the out-of-context or gratuitous insertion of ethnicity. Acroterion (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if this is out of context or gratuitous then what mention of ethnicity or religion isn't? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One that treats the subject like a complex human being, not a series of entries in a database. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And by that you mean what? If we're going to be making guidelines we need specificity about what behaviors are and aren't okay. What makes the portrayal of one as Jewish "complex"? In an ideal world every article would be perfect, but none are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing an essay, here, not 'guidelines'. As for what makes the portrayal of someone as Jewish "complex", mostly the fact that it is. Because people are complicated, whether they are Jewish or not. Ultimately what we are discussing here is good writing vs bad writing, and the need for biographical content aimed at portraying human beings in all their complexity. Or at minimum, to avoid reductionist labelling. Possibly it is too much to expect this in Wikipedia, but that's no reason not to aspire to it. It requires editorial judgement, which isn't something you can create rules on. Fortunately, at least some of us (probably most, if they bother to put in the effort) have at least a little of this. That's one of the things that distinguishes us from the chatbots. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I completely agree that ethnic identification is relatively complex, and no less so or not much less than Jews for the Scots-Irish or Basques or Cajuns or black Americans, especially in the age of 23andme, by the very same token, describing someone as Jewish is not reductionism. That descriptor contains multitudes. Andre🚐 03:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Depends how you do it. Would you consider a paragraph in a biography consisting in its entirety of 'X is Jewish' as appropriate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. But every once in a while, I do read a biography that doesn't at all mention whether a person is Jewish, or mentions it very minimally, despite probably that it should. I've also occasionally seen people removing it. That Jewish identity might be a large or a small aspect of that person's overall identity or their biographical outline. I'm just saying it's possible that the pendulum may have swung compared to where it was last. Andre🚐 03:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia contributors, even good-faith ones, can disagree over content. Which is why we try to encourage discussing things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AndreJustAndre Very few articles say, for example, that "x is Presbyterian" when discussing a scientist or whomever and including many other detailsabout their life. Why mention Jewishness for those who happen to be Jewish?
We also don't normally mention left-handedness or eye color. David10244 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, it's not really true. Consider Joseph Lister, Ian Barbour, more at List of Christians in science and technology. Second of all, Jewishness is not strictly a religion, but an ethnicity and a culture as well. So it's more analogous to saying a scientist is Italian-American. Andre🚐 20:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We too often say a scientist is Italian-American, “Chinese-American” etc. while others are just “American”. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it depends on the relevance of that identity to their notability. Enrico Fermi is an FA and he is an Italian-American scientist, and I think should be. We say John von Neumann is Hungarian and American in the first sentence. But " a wealthy, non-observant Jewish family." in the first paragraph of the background bio. Andre🚐 20:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, everything is complicated, and we should strive to portray that. This goes for literally every topic we can cover. So what? PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with PARAKANYAA. I left my thoughts in detail on the previous thread, so I won't repeat myself too much. But I think PARAKANYAA raises several strong points, that I may or may not have touched on last time this came up. While in the past there may have been issues with people trying to identify Jewishness in an article for poor reasons, there are a lot of people nowadays who are more concerned with the erasure of Jewish identity or history, so it's a bit of a delicate balancing act, which is why I don't think a special guideline is a good idea. I can't stop anyone from writing an essay in their userspace or wherever, but in my view this is probably unhelpful at best. As PARAKANYAA points out, Jewishness is not only a group of religious groups, but an ethnicity (and a cuisine, a literature, an art, a music, etc. several of each, actually) The Kosner diff as noted is not necessarily bad faith and is well-sourced, so it comes down to the subject's personal preference? A related problem is subjects that don't like their bad photos. But the point is well taken that we already have a guideline, and that guidelines are routinely disregarded. So it's hard to see how this would help, except to give admins a clearer excuse to block people, which I don't think is a good idea either in this case. Because it is hard to know if someone is "Jew tagging" out of pride or philosemitism, or bigotry. Good faith would suggest we assume the former, and politely correct people who don't follow MOS:ETHNICITY adequately rather than blocking them for a proscribed activity. Andre🚐 02:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anyone proposing a specific guideline here. In fact I can't really think how one would even write such a thing. Essays advise. They don't mandate, and what we (or at least some of us) are advising is a little more care about reductionist labels, and a little more consideration for the complexities of real people. That, and being prepared to deal with those who resort to reductionist labelling to push their PoVs of one sort or another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Nobody is proposing a guideline, so that is a straw man that I am conjuring. However, it is also the case that Doug suggested in the prior thread perhaps this would help admins block more easily, so that is what I am alluding to. It's also the case that advisory essays can sometimes obtain a high level of community consensus. I don't think this one would, and inherently, the writing of thoughts isn't a harmful or discourageable activity, but there are also other things to do that could be more helpful. For example, as I offered last time, there are plenty of redlinked people that it wouldn't be inappropriate to call Jewish prominently. Andre🚐 03:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, there are no doubt many missing biographies, including those for people who's Jewishness is an entirely appropriate topic. I can't see how that is particularly relevant to the issue here though, which is what a fair number of us perceive as inappropriate tagging-style content in existing articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is free to spend or not their volunteer hours where they see fit and what interests them. I'm just pointing out that you could say as a community Wikipedia sometimes allocates more time to the litigation of teh drama than content creation. I noticed you mentioned tagging by Bus stop, a user that has been CBANned for over 4 years. Do you have any more recent diffs that show inappropriate Jew tagging? Or examples of articles where you think the old tagging has managed to stick around? Because my experience is that any such tagging is generally promptly dealt with, and there are also false positives in that area. Andre🚐 03:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, everyone is free to spend their volunteer hours where they see fit, and I see no particular reason to spend mine looking for diffs to support my position when you have provided none to support yours. We clearly see things differently as far as this issue is concerned, and it seems its not just me who still sees 'tagging' (not just in regard to Jewishness) as a problem. And please drop the 'litigation and dramah' hyperbole, since we have already established that we aren't advocating rules to litigate over. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than diffs, how about a little searching exercise? Enter "is Jewish." (with the double quotes and period) into an article-space search. You have already agreed with me that a paragraph consisting solely of 'X is Jewish' is inappropriate. Here's the first three I found, in a couple of minutes. [6][7][8]. There are also many more with the same phrase just slapped, context-free, into a paragraph on other things. Given that I've got better things to do with my time than go through all 3912 results the search throws up to find them all, I'll leave that to you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree those articles and "paragraphs" aren't good, but they're all very short and borderline non-notable. For Judith Seidman, looks like the user who added that line was indeffed as a sock later but it at least has a reliable source[9] which is a dead link but at least provides some context: [10] Joel Sherman it was added in November by a temp account without a source: [11] So potentially revertable. The third has a directory entry in the big book of Jewish sports legends. Frankly, all three could potentially be merged to a list or AFD'd. Anyway, I am sure that there are many articles where they do say that the person is Jewish, but it's not really a given that all of those the appropriate remedy is to remove the line, rather than to expand the context. Andre🚐 04:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why being 'borderline non-notable' has any bearing on the appropriateness or otherwise of tagging. And if anything, an article being short makes it more noticeable. As for removal or expansion, as I illustrated with my User:Bus stop example, I'm quite prepared to support either, depending on what the source material available has to say - and in that specific case was arguing for more content. I may not always do so, but please don't make out that I'm advocating erasure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well then I think we agree. These, and the other articles like them, are pretty bad articles, and those lines in those bad articles are also bad. They could potentially in some cases be fixed by expansion. If the eventual Jew-tagging essay says that, then I think it will be hard to criticize it from the angle I am currently taking. Andre🚐 04:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just ran across some in the last few days, although I'm not going to attempt to find where it was. IMHO the purpose of an essay should be to help clarify when it IS or ISN'T appropriate to mention someone's religion, ethnicity, sexuality, etc as well as discuss the best phrasing. It should be expansive to cover various possible scenarios but with subsections for topics where it comes up frequently, such as said Jew tagging. Questions for editors to ask themselves would be things like "Would there be any reason to mention this person's ethnicity if they WEREN'T Jewish", and "Can I explain why it's is relevant to their notability?" If the only thing you can say (supported by sources) is a one sentence statement confirming that is their ethnicity it probably isn't appropriate to include. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The second question, yes. The first question, in my view, not so much. For example, there are people for whom Jewish ethnicity is relevant to their notability, but if they weren't Jewish, it wouldn't be. Andre🚐 06:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the answer to those questions has to always be the same, but that they're things to keep in mind. Sometimes the fact that they aren't Jewish might be specifically relevant, like someone who converted and whose faith is directly relevant to their notability. They're a religious Jew, but not ethnic, which means their faith has different cultural context, and that's probably something that ought to be discussed (and I hope would be covered by sources). Similarly for someone who's raised Jewish but converted to something else (again, if related to notability). If they only have Jewish DNA but the family has been non-observant for multiple generations then not so much.

It might be better to think of it as the first question helping to support the second one. "Their ethnicity isn't related to their notability, but I still think it should be included anyway" > "Would I still want to mention their non-notable ethnicity if it was something different?" The idea is to help people consider their bias and motivations to determine whether inclusion truly aligns with WP:NPOV. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is whether reliable sources have something meaningful to say about that aspect of their biography. Andre🚐 18:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You may not mean this but I don't think we should suggest that that journalist is a "self-hating Jew" (a term found in another journo's article, Ben Hecht) or "internalized antisemite". He just views it, and himself, as he sees it, which may be differently from any of us. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, every baseball player whose ancestors were Jewish was described in Wikipedia as a "Jewish-American baseball player", while those whose ancestors were not Jewish were described as an "American baseball player". (Black American players were separately tagged.). This is, of course, offensive. The euphemism "from a Jewish family" can be deployed to tag Jews whose families have not identified as Jewish for generations. It is a particular irony that Wikipedia continues to employ the Nüremberg laws to define who is a Jew. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is that happening in 2025-2026 though? Andre🚐 04:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't, it is presumably those objecting to the earlier gratuitous Jew-tagging (along with other ethno-tagging etc) who deserve thanks for cleaning things up. And it seems there are those of the opinion that there is still work to do: hence the proposal for an essay. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I've been around for a while but there are some significant gaps in my contribution history. And I really wasn't tuned into this problem or editing in these areas in some of the older timeframes when it may have been happening. But a lot has changed on Wikipedia since then. I've been editing pretty regularly since returning in 2022. And I've definitely noticed that emphasis on reliable sourcing, BLP policy, due and undue weight, and other stuff like that is significantly greater than say, 2004-7ish. Plus the evolution of the contentious topics regimes that deal with a lot of political things. So that might have something to do with why so-called Jew or ethnicity tagging is less troublesome or dealt with more easily. I think there is also a shorter leash for tendentious and problematic editors. Which is for the good, in my view. That's why I challenged the idea that it is a current problem. I am aware of some concrete situations where a Jewish background was removed or omitted and I thought it should be there. But I'm not talking about celebrity actors or ball players, I'm talking about long-dead historical personages. At any rate, I wonder what MarkBernstein makes of the idea that the fix for it might be to expand, not remove, the mention of Jewish heritage. It is also possible that if a Jew-tagging essay is created, perhaps a counter-essay would be needed. I think Wikipedia, at least in its present-day incarnation, has a skew toward post-national, citizen of the world-type philosophy. That often means that mention of heritage or cultural context can not seem very relevant or important. I think in the last discussion, someone said they didn't believe it was ever relevant to a biography to say. Anyway, I just want people to consider both sides of this and check whether some perceptions of how prevalent this problem is or how it is handled might be outdated. Andre🚐 05:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Undenting a little, we're talking about an essay, not the sixth pillar, and people are free to ignore it. I am of the opinion that there is a recurring problem with editors, often, but not always, malicious, focusing on reductive descriptions of race/ethnicity/religion in biographies, in circumstances where that emphasis is dubious. We ought to have a somewhat standardized essay or guideline to point them to, so at least the persuadable can read it and understand why it's frowned upon in both practice and the manual of style, and the underlying reasons why putting people into ethnic boxes can be pernicious. It will not fit all circumstances. Perhaps I've seen too many ethnonationalist warriors or just plain bigots. In any case, I will start an essay in the next few days. I'm fighting a mild cold and am not feeling excessively smart at the moment, so when I'm feeling less fuzzy I'll give it a try and link it. Acroterion (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are two problems with “ethnicity/natonal labeling”… a) adding the label because the subject is “one of us”, and b) adding the label because the subject is “one of them”. Both are taking the wrong approach. The flaw is that the label is being added because the ethnicity/national identity is in some way important to the editor who added it, not because the ethnicity/nationality is important to the subject. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it boils down to editors who are primarily motivated to draw a line between "are they one of us" and "are they one of them." So in my mind it's a behavioral issue as much as anything else, and part of the theme I propose is examination of one's motives. Acroterion (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re the “one of us” aspect of this… It is very difficult to convince those who care deeply about their own identities (and consider it “defining”) that the identity may not be all that important (defining) for someone else. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And there are also cases where the ethnic or national or religious identity is deeply important and private and personal to the subject, and a constant thread throughout their lives. This is I think a blind spot that Wikipedians may have in thinking that this is less likely to be the case. Andre🚐 15:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a very public biography is likely not treating it as personal and private. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That depends if the subject is still alive. And if they have had a biography written about published about their life. Andre🚐 15:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If they have a biography on Wikipedia, the X-most visited site in the world, they have a very public biography written about them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that many Wikipedia biographies are not as complete as a 300 page book that a biographer researched and wrote about them over years. Andre🚐 16:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why should something being 'private and personal' to the subject of a biography be a reason to include it? Aren't we supposed to build biographies around what secondary sources have to say on the subject, rather than trying to read the subject's mind and decide for them what we think they might want included? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying to try to read the subject's mind. I'm referring to a situation where a subject's private life might not be known during their heyday, and comes to light later due to a biography being published at the end of their life or after their death. For example, I recently watched the HBO documentary about Mel Brooks, Mel Brooks: The 99 Year Old Man!. Not that Mel Brooks' connection to Jewishness is a secret or under-publicized. The article does mention it, mostly under the section called "Religious beliefs." But if you watch the doc, which is a roundup of Brooks' career, it talks more about his relationship to his Jewish identity and what that meant early in his career and as time went on, why he had an obsession with satirizing Hitler, etc. But you certainly might not have known as much about it in the 70s or in the 90s. Andre🚐 16:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia bases articles on published works. It does not base them on hypothetical content that might possibly be published later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. But there are many articles where the published works have been published already. WP:10YEARSTEST tells us to take a long view. Andre🚐 16:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If currently published works state that a subject's ethnicity/race/religion is an important aspect of their lives, we should include that with sources and with context.
If currently published works do not state that then we should not include it, with or without context.
If currently published sources are unclear about whether it is important to them, discuss the matter on the talk page and get consensus prior to inclusion.
I don't understand what the difficulty with this is? Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's no disagreement or difficulty with that. Andre🚐 17:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The key is to ask: do sources indicate that the identity is a defining characteristic for the subject? Do sources indicate that the identity is important to understanding the subject, or am I assuming that it is important - because it is important to me? If the latter, don’t include the identity. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but many cases are not clear-cut. In the case of the French techno artist Gesaffelstein, real name Mike Levy, we mention he was born to Jewish parents. According to Hey Alma[12], "Though Gesaffelstein is a fairly private figure and hasn’t shared how he identifies, there are a few clues that he finds meaning in his Jewish ancestry. The name of his first album is “Aleph,” ... Canadian DJ A-Trak, ... referred to himself and Gesaffelstein as “Sephardic boys” and “Techno altjews” on Instagram." This source is cited in the article, but nothing about this is mentioned. Probably because it is personal and private to the artist and somewhat speculative. But one can imagine that if a biography is written in 30 years, it might have access to private correspondence. Looking at the page history, in this very month, there is a big edit war back and forth about this very thing. Andre🚐 16:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to imagine what you like. Meanwhile, since Wikipedia doesn't (or shouldn't) base content on the precognition of contributors, you'll have to do what the rest of us do, and argue on the relevant talk page that sources currently support your proposed text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the number of issues brought up here indicates that this is something well worth having an essay or guideline about so we can all get on the same page, both literally and metaphorically. I think it would be good to set out when it is legitimate to refer to a person's Jewish religion or descent and when it becomes gratuitous. The guideline should give advice on how to distinguish deliberate bad faith Jew Tagging from everyday good faith mistakes. The guideline should also be clear that Jew Tagging can apply to people who are not actually Jewish but who are merely thought to be by deranged antisemites. I don't think that the guideline would need to be generalised beyond Judaism. As far as I am aware, there is no similar phenomenon affecting other religions but it would be just as egregious if there were and that might even merit a separate guideline if it were to become a comparable problem. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sartre's commentaries are relevant to some of the bad-faith issues noted in this discussion: Anti-Semite and Jew. Acroterion (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically at the top of the list of philosophy essays I'd like all Wikipedians who work on politics to read. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But as David Nirenberg points out on p.475 of Anti-Judaism, even Sartre, in passionately defending a Jewish return to France, still engages in idealism and universalism in defining Jews in terms of antisemitic gaze rather than Jewish historical and cultural continuity. Sartre's worldview is that in a perfect world, the Jewish identity would disappear and be subsumed into a universal French identity. That's not realistic and not necessarily desirable either.[13] Andre🚐 19:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sartre felt that way about religion in general. However, that's a meta-discussion, we're only concerned with his views on anti-Semitism. Acroterion (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that Wikipedians might as a general rule, sympathize more with the postmodern, post-religious or post-ethnic viewpoint, that particularities or differences are less relevant than commonalities, a materialistic worldview that is just one view of things and may not be applicable to all biographies or other articles or situations. For a modern day American celebrity with limited information about any Jewish or other ethnic identity, yes. But let's make sure that we don't apply that also to cases where it shouldn't apply. Medieval individuals often lived a daily reality of different, such as residing in a ghetto or being forced to wear certain clothing or have certain special taxes and other restrictions. Andre🚐 19:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, forms of "jew-tagging" was an issue in medieval European history, the hat, the yellow badge. We are post WW II, and the vivid example there, of making a racial list. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely do not agree that writing about whether someone is Jewish in their biography is equivalent to making them wear a yellow star. That is exactly the type of thing I hope is NOT written in an essay. Respecting and tolerating other cultures doesn't mean erasing or hiding them. We can embrace our differences. Andre🚐 23:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it depends how you write about it. I've seen (and reverted) numerous examples over the years of biographies of individuals where some negative event or another (criminal charges etc) is followed by a rapid tagging of the three-word reductionist variety. Not quite a yellow star, but the motivation seems much the same: marking as 'one of them'. AKA antisemitism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, it's not lost on me that making lists of Jews sounds worrisome, but Wikipedia has lists of every type of person, place, and thing, not just Jews. I don't doubt that there are antisemites who tag and list Jews just like the "triple parentheses" on social media. But as I'm sure you are aware, that has been reclaimed by some people. There are also many biographies about notable non-criminal, famous and successful Jewish people that fail to mention or even minimize their Jewishness, even though the subject probably wouldn't mind and might even prefer that, but more importantly the biography (the real ones, not the Wikipedia article) does include that fact prominently. As Thryduulf says, this should be simple, right? If it's an important, well-attested, reasonably comprehensive descriptor or identification that is relevant, it should be included. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to think of an article about a Jewish person who isn't known primarily for something related to being Jewish like rabbinics or academia, that gives more than a few sentences to their Jewish identity. Mel Brooks' Jewish identity could probably be an entire article. Andre🚐 04:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to respect differences, you would surely acknowledge that the Commentary essay linked above does not take such a sanguine view. Not everyone is going to see everything the way you do in every editing situation, especially something personal or private to them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of recent examples I've run across: Margo Kaplan and Ron Castan, both people who have done something or have views that cause people to insist on pinning "Jewish" on them for, oh, no reason, it's just a fact that's very important to those editors. Magnus Hirschfeld is a perennial target. I'm working on an essay offline until I get something succinct together that doesn't look like a set of disconnected thoughts. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me or is it becoming more common? I feel like I've run into a bunch of such incidents just in the past few weeks (since I got back from a wiki hiatus), and in about two cases the users in question immediately lapsed into vicious antisemitism on their talk pages when challenged. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It ebbs and flows. I think it's at a higher level since the new year. I've seen relatively little of the Judeophilic type, more of stubborn insistence and the occasional virulent anti-Semite. Since edit filters started to catch triple parentheses this is the best they can do. Acroterion (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and written a userspace essay: User:Acroterion/Jew-tagging. It solely reflects my own opinions and experience, and should not be confused with a guideline or a policy statement, or a Wikipedia-space essay. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being thoughtful and balanced. Andre🚐 01:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I was influenced by the discussion above, including your thoughts. Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is evident, and I am grateful for that, not the least because it justifies the time I spend engaging on these issues. I feel much better about it knowing that my thoughts were taken into account, which I can tell, and that the essay urges civility, thoughtfulness, tact, understanding, and conscious engagement knowing that there can be reasonable editors reasonably disagreeing. If I had to add anything, I would add that there is nothing wrong with someone spending their volunteer editing hours editing on their own culture or heritage if that is the topic that they know about and are interested in, which necessitates some amount of distance and conscious effort at neutrality as well. Andre🚐 02:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That was what I had in mind, well done, and thanks again. Andre🚐 04:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. I think the question of erasure might possibly be clarified. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions are welcome. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bookmarked for future reference. If this had existed last week, I would have pointed a certain editor to it. Which reminds me, categorization may also be a means of Jew-tagging, i.e., categorizing someone as "Jewish whatever" when the article only mentions Jewish ancestry without any discussion of the subject's religion or cultural identity. Donald Albury 17:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to have a more general consensus before we make a shortcut from WP space. Acroterion (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

General Background Color

[edit]
Faint Brown
Sepia
Cosmic Latte
I put this here. mdm.bla 22:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparent that you've made several advancements in the past couple of years regarding your site's appearance, specifically in the ability to manage content organization.

Wikipedia has always conveyed with its bare appearance that it was set up in someone's spare time, even though the content elements have become very sophisticated. A slightly fancier presentation appears long overdue. It will also help people read longer.

Please add a readily available option to make the background of your pages a faint beige. It adds a touch of class and generally makes text easier to read, given that it provides a tiny bit less contrast, as black on white glows fairly quickly. And you already have the option for dark mode (which takes contrast to its own level).

Three variations of this color have come out of discussion. They are best assessed at scale, behind actual content. One is more brown, and two are more peachy. The peachy ones come from popular situations, but I think that the brown one is easier to read from.

The faint brown tint is: 

#EEEDDC.

The peachy tints are: 

#F8F1E3 is Sepia, from the Wikipedia app (on a smaller screen).
#FFF8E7 is known as Cosmic Latte, which has a Wikipedia article.

Other ideas were mentioned, built on this one; for example, applying this to every Wikimedia project. It's likely that this one simpler idea stands best on its own, for straight-forward implementation, and any others can be considered separately.

Thanks for your time and consideration. ~2026-90420-1 (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Imho it needs to be either #ffffdd or #ffffec because these were canonically used for faint beige on desktop (see Wikipedia:Software updates#July 29th, 2003). sapphaline (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The main ongoing objective, besides looking classy, is to help people read Wikipedia articles longer. The shades of brown seem to enable this best. #FFFFDD is comparatively yellow, which doesn't seem to especially satisfy either objective. And #FFFFEC is somewhat faint yellowish green, which accomplishes both a little better, but not as well the more brown. In the idea lab, it was mentioned that #FFFFEC appears too subtly different from white. ~2026-90420-1 (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! What do you mean by "came out of discussion" and "were mentioned"? If there was a previous on-wiki discussion on the topic, or if you are organizing off-wiki about this, it is ideal to be transparent about it. Regarding the beige color, it is already implemented as an option on the mobile app, so that tint could probably be a good start to extend the implementation! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The TA appears to be referring to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#General Background Color, which they posted last week. Belbury (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh neat, thanks a lot for the link! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in the proposal: Three variations of this color have come out of discussion. They are best assessed at scale, behind actual content. One is more brown, and two are more peachy. The peachy ones come from popular situations, but I think that the brown one is easier to read from. #F8F1E3 is Sepia, from the Wikipedia app (on a smaller screen). It's one of the peachy tints. ~2026-90420-1 (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a simple tool for comparing the colours :
HTML Hex Color Visualiser Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link to the color tool. Please note that, for some reason, it appears to show the colors in a specific order -- in this case, #F8F1E3 Sepia, #FFF8E7 Cosmic Latte, and then #EEEDDC. And it might still be most helpful to test the colors as backgrounds to text, to see which seems most readable for long periods. --- As mentioned in the Idea Lab, I do that in Word, using its Design > Page Color > More Colors > RGB setting. ~2026-90420-1 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tested reading them long term, but to the right of this discussion I've put a screenshot with each color for reference. Personally, I use my own background colors (normally I look at project pages in #F0FFF0 "Honeydew"), but I am most partial to Sepia of these three options. mdm.bla 22:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No replies for two days.
That's why I recommended opening an RfC, for an active discussion and a prompt resolution. Can't TAs open one ? Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I would like to add my opinion: I much prefer the normal background color, but I'm sure we could just make a skin for this. In fact, I'll try and make one. Thanks! SeaDragon1 (talk, contributions) 17:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is proposed as a readily available option, like Dark Mode. How many people know what a "skin" is or how to use it? ~2026-90420-1 (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Done see User:SeaDragon1/sepia.css. SeaDragon1 (talk, contributions) 13:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the early 2000s, Wikipedia used an alternate background color for special pages. We should revive this idea for non-mainspace pages. 3df (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. As stated at the end of the proposal: "Other ideas were mentioned, built on this one; for example, applying this to every Wikimedia project. It's likely that this one simpler idea stands best on its own, for straight-forward implementation, and any others can be considered separately." ~2026-90420-1 (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in the Idea Lab, where this proposal was refined, I have not done this previously, so I don't know the details of the procedure. And I haven't seen anything that explains them. What happens next? Cdr. Erwin Smith recommended an RfC (Request for Comments) a week ago, likely to choose the best color for the objectives of the proposal. How does that occur? Thank you. ~2026-90420-1 (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of Articles for creation

[edit]

Should we rename "Articles for creation" to "Pages for creation"? WP:AFC/C does not only apply to articles but to othe rpages in namespaces as well. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AfCs are for articles, but the fact that WP:CFC is a subpage of WP:AfC is interesting. SeaDragon1 (talk, contributions) 19:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It might be more relevant to rename it "Articles for approval".
AFC exists because back in the day, we took away the ability of IPs to create pages, except for talk pages. So they'd post "I want to write about Alice Expert", or create a talk page, and someone had to help them create the article. It's really quite a different thing now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. SeaDragon1 (talk, contributions) 14:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... they're still not allowed to create Articles directly. Primefac (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNREGISTERED and WP:ACPERM. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they were, many years ago, and when we took that away, Legal said we had to create an alternative route that allowed as many people to edit as possible, including creating pages. AFC was the alternative route. Pre-creation of the Draft: space (which is m:where articles go to die), IPs would post their content to a page such as Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-06-30, and a registered editor would copy/paste it to the mainspace for them. Sometimes people created articles in the Wikipedia_talk: namespace. Eventually, we created the original ArticleWizard and moved to a category-based system (around 2008?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
IPs could create articles directly until 2017. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The disruption caused by renaming would be much greater than the benefit of having a more accurate/precise WikiProject title. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - meretricious. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not really worth changing. Anyone who is making anything other than an article probably doesn't need AfC anyway. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Request for community consensus – CentralNotice for Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026

[edit]

Hello everyone,

I am the Project Lead of the international team for Wiki Loves Ramadan, and the local organizer of Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026 on English Wikipedia.

I am writing to request community consensus to run a CentralNotice banner globally for Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026.

This year, the campaign includes:

For English Wikipedia, the banner should clearly reflect the writing competition and link directly to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026, in addition to linking to the relevant Commons competition pages for participating countries where applicable.

For reference, the detailed CentralNotice plan (including banner structure and implementation notes) is available at: m:Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026/CentralNotice.

Before proceeding further with the CentralNotice process, I am seeking consensus from the English Wikipedia community. Feedback on banner wording, linking structure, targeting, and overall scope is very welcome. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A central notice banner will go a long way to promote the project, Wiki Love Ramadan on English Wikipedia. Tesleemah (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ZI Jony Please make the central notices compatible with dark mode if you plan to run it on the English Wikipedia. The current designs appear to be very much incompatible with dark mode. Sohom (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta, our technical team already updated that code, hopefully CN admins will update at thier earliest convenience. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 18:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest a different name until I saw meta:Wiki Loves X campaigns, which endorses the current name. My only suggestions are:
  1. Comply with Wiki Loves X campaigns.
  2. Cover any variations among different branches of Islam and among different regions.
  3. Use the Arabic terms with English translations and transliterations.
I don't see any issues. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chatul, thanks for thinking about a different title, and it does make sense to check how the campaign is positioned first.
Just to ground this in how the project is framed: Wiki Loves Ramadan exists as part of the Wiki Loves X family of campaigns and explicitly carries that name on Meta-Wiki, so sticking with it aligns with Wikimedia branding.
The campaign’s mission is to empower communities to contribute high-quality, freely accessible knowledge about Ramadan and the wider Islamic world, highlighting diverse traditions and practices for broader understanding and heritage preservation. Its vision is to build a comprehensive, multilingual repository of knowledge that celebrates both the diversity and shared aspects of Muslim heritage globally.
In terms of areas of focus, contributions are encouraged across:
  • core Islamic topics - beliefs, practices, branches of Islam and regional traditions,
  • the many facets of Ramadan - fasting traditions, prayers, Eid celebrations, and how it’s observed in different cultures,
  • religious structures, landmarks, figures, and broader cultural expressions like art and cuisine.
Given that, your points about complying with Wiki Loves X campaigns, ensuring coverage of different branches of Islam and regional variations, and using Arabic terms with English translation/transliteration all sit well with the campaign’s goals. I don’t see any blockers either. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not a Muslim, Love the project. Topic: Ramadan in the Far North/Arctic Circle. All I know is that Canadian towns have different customs. ~2026-14035-61 (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not give my consensus. Wikipedia should not be a religious Bleeding Kansas over banners about religious holidays. This site is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a chapel. ~2026-11404-95 (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify what i mean by "Bleeding Kansas", i am referring to when the Kansas territory turned into a battlefield over slavery. In this instance, the banners would end up turning Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an encyclopedia, into a battlefield for religious missionaries. ~2026-11404-95 (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) The only people who are turning this into a battlefield seem to be those predisposed to distrust Islam (i.e., Islamophobes). It has been explained multiple times at the talk page of the project that a) Wiki Loves X is the standard format for projects of this type, and b) anyone is welcome to work to create a Wiki Loves Christmas, Wiki Loves Diwali, Wiki Loves Passover, or even Wiki Loves Festivus. That one project has been launched does not mean other projects are precluded. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a Moslem. I've had issues with abusive and aggressive missionaries, but none of them have been Islamic. I see nothing in this proposal that is objectionable or in conflict with the umbrella Wiki Loves X campaigns. In the US at least, Moslems are more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm okay with Wiki Loves X campaigns in general, may I suggest that ones focused on a particular religion not run as central notice banners, due to the possibility of it being seen as proselytism? Not saying that they shouldn't exist at all of course, just that it might be more sensitive to not have these particular ones as banners. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. I am not religious and have no issue with Islam as a whole, but I feel that promoting any particular religion or religious holiday globally is non-neutral and should be avoided for the same reason we don't allow religious promotion in public schools. Articles, discussions, and the project itself are of course perfectly fine since they support information and education without Wikipedia itself appearing to endorse anything in particular. Particularly considering that holidays among various religions overlap, and this would appear to prioritize one above others. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be no intention in this campaign of proselytizing or endorsing any religion or religious holiday over the others. For what it's worth, I also personally fail to see how this campaign is fundamentally different from (say) Wiki Loves Onam which promotes a Hindu festival in Kerala that has been running for the last 3 years without any accusations of proselytization or endorsement of hinduism and appears to already have the silent consensus of the community. If we were to treat this campaign differently due to concerns over the optics of bias and block it, that would actually risk introducing actual bias into the process. Sohom (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to imply that it's intended, only that it might be interpreted that way.
Does Onam run a CentralNotice? That's the only thing I object to, not the existence of the campaign. If they do I haven't seen it, and my opinion applies to all religions equally - none should be singled out either by promotion OR suppression. If you were to compile a list of every holiday in every extant religion I'm fairly confident you'd have conflicts on every single day of the year. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As a side-note, a hatnote in meta:Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026 linking to meta:Wiki Loves X campaigns would be helpful. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose banner per @Chaotic Enby and @BD2412. I agree that this could be interpreted as endorsing one religion over all others. It also puts Wikipedia at risk of actually prioritizing one religion over all others - if there were WikiLoves projects for Hanukkah or Lent that made the same banner request but community consensus was against it, that could set a very bad precedent. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, whatever decision we make here, we should be consistent and apply that result to other future religion-related Wiki loves X campaigns, because it would be weird if the community denied a banner for Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026, but in the future, approved one for hypothetical Wiki Loves Christmas, Wiki Loves Diwali, Wiki Loves Passover, or even Wiki Loves Festivus (to use Chris Woodrich's examples above). Some1 (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with that. Remind us when such a banner is requested, we'll help vote it down. Wehwalt (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If I see it, I'll also say so. There is also no limiting principle to such a thing. If we allow this, how would we be able to deny a banner for the Church of Cannabis, or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? BD2412 T 02:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be happier if we could get a general binding consensus, instead of doing it as a case-by-case basis (which may introduce systemic bias regarding who does/doesn't vote in specific cases). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed again. My position applies to any banners associated with any religion, and I think an official proposal to clarify that it applies universally is a good idea to prevent exactly what I'm concerned about. Perhaps there should also be a broader standard relating to banners for any contentious topics, or ones that might be. The individual campaigns are volunteer run so as long as they comply with guidelines I'm not concerned about their subject matter, but the appearance of an official endorsement needs to be considered for banners.

    I'm not familiar with the technical side of things, but perhaps these campaigns that might be disallowed from central banners under such proposals could be allowed to add something just to specific articles they agree are directly relevant? That allows the possibility of multiple running at once. It would need to be limited to ones that are clear such as "Holiday within X religion", not "Holy site significant to multiple religions".

    I don't have much experience with pump - should additional aspects like this be broken down in new sections, or are spurs expected to split off within the initial proposal? It seems to be a somewhat looser format than many areas. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a looser format indeed, but (at least at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and here) it can absolutely be helpful to break down the discussion into separate clear proposals for people to discuss, while Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) is more of a completely open discussion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia loved the Jewish Museum in the past, but I don't remember seeing a banner for it. Andre🚐 02:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional agree This is, of course, a marvellous idea. However, there is the obvious rider, that this initiative must be balanced by extending the same courtesy to the many other areas that deserve the same consideration. Otherwise Wikipedia would be guilty of crass discrimination. The "Wiki loves Ramadan" initiative needs to be followed by other initiatives such as "Wiki loves Lent", "Wiki loves the Heart Sutra", "Wiki loves Passover", "Wiki loves the elephant goddess Vināyakī"... in fact we are just getting started, there are so many seriously overlooked areas: "Wiki loves black men", "Wiki loves elderly white men", "Wiki loves young brown men", "Wiki loves white boys", "Wiki loves young British working class girls", "Wiki loves cis white men"... Our time will be entirely taken up with all the things Wiki needs to love, and with posturing about how virtuous we are for being so virtuous. I guess there won't be time left for writing an encyclopaedia, but if Wikipedia keeps indulging this sort of stuff, there won't be an encyclopaedia. If Wikipedia is to survive the challenges of AI, it needs to focus on what it would take for Wikipedia to become a gold standard for epistemological reliability or truth so it can be a trusted resource as a core training ground for AI. That's a big ask, but if we can't take up that challenge, then there is no future for Wikipedia, and we may as well let it implode into sectarian ideological dementia. — Epipelagic (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the underlying goal for campaigns of increasing and improving the quality of articles on underrepresented topics is admirable - but splashing a banner across the whole site to point it out is probably less so. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see the potential for future misuse here, by projects whose main goal is simply to display their banner on Wikipedia for several weeks. To prevent that, there should be a clear time limit (around five days), and any future requests should need to demonstrate clear community interest in the project in previous years.Ponor (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom-in for fossil ranges

[edit]

Palaeotherium
Temporal range: Middle Eocene – Early Oligocene 43.5–32.5 Ma
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Perissodactyla
Family: †Palaeotheriidae
Genus: †Palaeotherium
Cuvier, 1804
Type species
†Palaeotherium magnum
Cuvier, 1804
Other species
  • †P. medium Cuvier, 1804
  • †P. crassum Cuvier, 1805
  • †P. curtum Cuvier, 1812
  • †P. duvali Pomel, 1853
  • †P. castrense Noulet, 1863
  • †P. siderolithicum Pictet & Humbert, 1869
  • †P. eocaenum Gervais, 1875
  • †P. lautricense Stehlin, 1904
  • †P. muehlbergi Stehlin, 1904
  • †P. renevieri Stehlin, 1904
  • †P. ruetimeyeri Stehlin, 1904
  • †P. pomeli Franzen, 1968
  • †P. crusafonti Casanovas-Cladellas, 1975
  • †P. llamaquiquense Casanovas-Cladellas & Santafé Llopis, 1991
  • †P. giganteum Cuesta, 1993

For subspecies suggested, see below.

Synonyms
Genus synonymy
  • Paleotherium Cuvier, 1804
  • Paloeotherium Cuvier, 1804
  • Palaetherium Rafinesque, 1814
  • Paloetherium Rafinesque, 1814
  • Salaeotherium Roulin, 1829
  • Palacotherium von Meyer, 1838
Synonyms of P. magnum
  • Palaeotherium girondicum Blainville, 1846
  • Palaeotherium aniciense Gervais, 1848–1852
  • Palaeotherium subgracile Aymard, 1853
  • Palaeotherium magnum parisiense Gervais, 1859
  • Palaeotherium stehlini Depéret, 1917
  • Palaeotherium franzeni Casanovas-Cladellas & Santafé Llopis, 1980
Synonyms of P. medium
  • Palaeotherium brivatense Bravard, 1843
  • Palaeotherium suevicum Fraas, 1869
  • Palaeotherium möschi Stehlin, 1904
  • Palaeotherium euzetense Depéret, 1917
Synonyms of P. crassum
  • Palaeotherium indeterminatum Cuvier, 1822
Synonyms of P. curtum
  • Palaeotherium latum Cuvier, 1822
  • Palaeotherium buseri Stehlin, 1904
Synonyms of P. duvali
  • Palaeotherium heimi Stehlin, 1904
  • Palaeotherium kleini Dietrich, 1922
Synonyms of P. castrense
Synonyms of P. siderolithicum
  • Plagiolophus siderolithicus Pictet & Humbert, 1869
Synonyms of P. eocaenum
  • Paloplotherium depereti Stehlin, 1902
Synonyms of P. muehlbergi
  • Palaeotherium velaunum Blainville, 1848
Dubious species
  • Palaeotherium gracile von Meyer, 1839
  • Palaeotherium parvulum de Serres, 1844
  • Palaeotherium commune Blainville, 1846
  • Palaeotherium primaevum Aymard, 1853
  • Palaeotherium gervaisii Aymard, 1853

Hi folks! A proposal for providing zoomed-in fossil ranges focusing on a single period, with {{Period fossil range}}, was discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology, which received broad support for being used in specific cases. It would show up in addition to the main range generated by {{Geological range}} (for example in taxoboxes or formation infoboxes). Some editors suggested querying broader input outside of the WikiProject, so I am asking here if anyone has feedback about it!

Here is an example to the right, suggested by User:IJReid! Beyond this one, all 12 possible bars can be found at {{Period fossil range/rangebar}}. Courtesy ping to people in the earlier thread: @The Morrison Man @Hemiauchenia @African Mud Turtle @LittleLazyLass @IJReid @Jens Lallensack Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like a useful inclusion for us at our WikiProject, but there is always the worry that by including additional "technical" details we could oversaturate the infobox with details that are in some way against the interest of informing those who aren't as knowledgable about the geologic time scale. Input on its appearance and intuitive use would be appreciated; does it make sense in the example infobox on the right here how the timescale bars are related among other things. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 03:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your reasonable concern about oversaturation, but the infobox on the right seems way shorter than the chemboxes that we currently have at pages like Calcium. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 17:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of completion I have modified it to include the entire contents, originally it was abbreviated to focus just on the upper region. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(partial-contents permalink) I see; thank you for that! That does change things a bit: still shorter with lists collapsed than Calcium, but still long. We probably should have a mandatory maximum infobox size but thinking about it, that's a discussion for Wikipedia at large, not Wikipedia's taxonomy infoboxes in specific. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Palaeotherium is a bit extreme in having such a long list of species and synonyms. Many fossil genera have only one species and few if any synonyms, and thus have very short taxoboxes. Giving a "see text" notice as with Dimetrodon is also an option when it simply becomes too much, or collapsing the list as at Titanosauria. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Horodyskia
The holotype fossil of Horodyskia
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia?
Genus: †Horodyskia

Primates
Temporal range: 65.9–0 Ma
Early Paleocene to Present
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Clade: Pan-Primates
Order: Primates
I've been playing around with this template in my sandbox and I really like the idea. Is there a plan to add graphical support for the Precambrian? I see that the template documentation says that Periods before the Cambrian are not formally subdivided into epochs or ages, and this template will not work on them, however, I feel like it could be possible to add this support, maybe on a different scale? As an example, I added an infobox excerpted from Horodyskia with the template added twice. The first bar is using the parameter Proterozoic (an eon) and the second bar is using the template Mesoproterozoic (an era). The bar appears to display correctly in both cases (the runoff is expected as the Mesoproterozoic ends midway through Horodyskia's range), just without the graphics. mdm.bla 18:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, now that I think about it, that could also be a great addition! I'll try to see if I can set this up for the Proterozoic as a demo. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, not sure of the reason behind this, but the {{All time 250px}} template is wider than the Phanerozoic one (which is 220px). Should they be uniformized, or should I make a separate 250px wide template for Precambrian subdivisions? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They can probably just be uniformized. Template:All time 250px also appears to display as a larger font than Template:Phanerozoic 220px. mdm.bla 18:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Added a slight fix so the bars wouldn't have runoff, and are instead displayed as open on that side if there would have been some. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first example, the meaning is not intuitively accessible from the display. I spent awhile thinking the longer green bar was intended for the upper line of geological periods, as its green bar is very small. Would it work if the second bar is below the zoom in? CMD (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That could work! Although I'm not sure of the effect of having the more detailed/technical bar first. Alternatively, we could have the green bar on the bottom side of the second bar, or even just space them up by a few more pixels? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe having it on the bottom of the second bar is what they were suggesting. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 14:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How would that work when there are more than two bars?
    Either some sort of highlight (surrounding circle?) when a bar is narrower than (some amount) to make it more prominent or (probably more difficult to implement) a link between the bars would be clearer imo. c.f. File:Vatican_Europe_Location.svg. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I understand, there shouldn't be more than 2 bars per infobox if/when this is added to mainspace. mdm.bla 14:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's also what I'm having in mind. The only case where nested bars could be possible is the one to the right (as both the Proterozoic and its eras have bars), but in that case we should just pick the most precise one that fully covers the range (in this case, the Proterozoic as a whole, as the Mesoproterozoic one sees half the range be cut off).
    A link between the bars could also be possible, I'll have to look into it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, theoretically you could have era-level bars for the Phanerozoic as well (see example for Primates with the parameter Cenozoic), but at that point you might as well just also create Template:Era fossil range. mdm.bla 15:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, it makes sense for the Cenozoic as its periods are already quite short and you're likely to see ranges overlapping (especially between Neogene and Quaternary), but in that case, you wouldn't want another period-level range below it. Also, given the already broadened scope, I'm open to renaming the template something like {{Detailed fossil range}}. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeotherium
Temporal range: Middle Eocene – Early Oligocene 43.5–32.5 Ma
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Perissodactyla
Family: †Palaeotheriidae
Genus: †Palaeotherium
Cuvier, 1804

Make Wikipedia:No Nazis a policy?

[edit]

Inspired by Athanelar's comment at @ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Homophobic hatred by ~2026-13552-25:

Consensus is king and PAGs should be descriptive, not prescriptive. If the community norm is (as it should be and seems to be) to promptly block those who display unabashed bigotry, then the only thing stopping NONAZIS, NORACISTS, NOQUEERPHOBIA etc from being a policy/guideline rather than an essay is that nobody's taken the effort to write up the proposal and run the RfC.

I thought I'd start a discussion here. What are your thoughts on potentially turning Wikipedia:No Nazis or Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive into a Wikipedia policy? (Note: This is not an RfC.) Some1 (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC) Added Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. Some1 (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That inevitably brings us back to the intractable problem of asking which items under List of political ideologies and Category:Prejudice and discrimination by type count as ban-worthy bigotry. See the past kerfuffle at Wikipedia talk:No Nazis. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive -- I remember some editors wanting that essay to be a policy/guideline. Some1 (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer this one, both because it mitigates the issue a little bit and because it avoids the uneducated use of "Nazi" that makes it harder to discuss. But ultimately because you can conclude that we just need to enforce WP:DISRUPTIVE when someone is being disruptive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Turning NONAZIS into policy was snowball opposed last year, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 216#Upgrade WP:NONAZIS to policy. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As @Snow Rise already said in the original discussion. I don't think rehashing it is going to improve the outcome. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Apparently I did not see or remember that discussion (even though I made like 5 edits around that time, ctrl+F my username in that archive page). Too late for me to change the section header now, I suppose, but perhaps the focus could be on Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive instead. Some1 (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the point of making it policy? It is an explanatory essay on disruptive editing, rather than a new policy proposal. I think what Tamzin says here is apt, that WP:HID is a straightforward application of existing policy, not new pseudo-policy. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Under this essay, bigoted editors are not sanctioned for their ideologies; they are sanctioned for their behavior. That says it all. And the initial debate was over the EXTENT of the sanctions - no one suggested we should just let it slide, but supporters argue the indef was justified because of the editor's beliefs rather than the actual disruption caused. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Their comment was before you started this, however - just above yours - and said it's been discussed numerous times. I don't think utilizing a different essay on the same overall issue will change anything. The underlying problem is that you cannot expect a community like this to actually agree on what is or is not morally acceptable. I'm sure there are plenty of editors who agree with the statement that original TA made, but just know better than to base their editing on it. Basing sanctions on whether or not their edits are disruptive as a result seems like the only practical option. There are plenty of moral statements that I would support in general, but recognize would be disruptive on Wikipedia and still !vote against someone who used them in such a way. I would not do so in terms of blocking them for having the opinion. That's the reason the block is being questioned in the first place - it IS disruptive, but only a first offense, and a very minor one at that. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not just that, it was opposed by the author of the essay: I wrote this essay as guidance, not policy. [...] The only benefits I see to this proposal are minor, and of questionable (at best) utility to this project. And the drawbacks range from measurable (in the form of increased drama-board activity) all the way up to cataclysmic (if a group of senior editors/admins ever embark upon a nazi hunt). Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly pointless, per Tamzin's comment linked above. It adds nothing to existing policy beyond labels to argue over. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I do think that NONAZIS or Hate is Disruptive should be a policy. It's pretty remarkable to me that hateful positions aren't against policy. But, unfortunately, the community has time and time again maintained a position of postmodernism and defiance of norms of internet media moderation. Andre🚐 04:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Define hate and what is or is not hateful in a way that's internationally consistent, relevant, and likely to be agreed on by most editors.
    Wikipedia isn't standard "Internet media", and there are plenty of sites that explicitly ENDORSE hate just like there are ones that ban it. Said policies are based on both the culture and personal beliefs of whoever runs it, not a consensus among thousands of users around the world. If this was a small wiki for a language spoken in a single nation you might have better luck - but not here. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy doesn't have to define hate. It just has to empower admins to use that to block. Admins know what hate is. Admins know that if some editor comes on and makes edits or comments that denigrate a specific group or protected class, that is hateful. So long as the policy defines it that way, it would give admins another easy way to block hateful contributors. Some people argue, well, as long as they make good edits, who cares if they write antisemitic or anti-trans stuff or whatever it may be? Well, that is a matter of opinion. Just like we don't allow sockpuppets, because of the moral hazard and the cost of deception, hate is indeed corrosive to the atmosphere. It creates a hostile editing environment. In my opinion having a policy that explicitly allowed warnings and blocks for hateful speech, similar to personal attacks, would create a more inclusive environment for editors who happen to be in a minority or a protected class. The absence of this is the absence of something that is standard in the vast majority of workplaces, public fora, and so on in the Western world. Andre🚐 05:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Does writing antisemitic or anti-trans content not count as disruptive editing, which is already covered by policy? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure I can come up with an example of hateful civil POV pushing that is hateful but not obviously prima facie disruptive, but let's leave that exercise to the reader, n'est-ce pas? Andre🚐 05:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, I just don't really see how HID or NONAZIS will actually solve the fundamental issue of civil POV pushing. I worry that NONAZIS especially would make civil POV pushing harder to detect. HID probably wouldn't (at least not to the same degree), but its mostly just an explanatory essay on why hate is disruptive editing, and doesn't really seek to propose anything new. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy doesn't have to define hate. It just has to empower admins to use that to block.
    It absolutely has to if you're proposing granting additional authority. Anything else would leave "hate" up to their personal interpretation, and I shouldn't have to explain why that's a problem. If someone has managed to squeeze in a comment that's somehow hateful without constituting disruption, PAs, or anything else that's already actionable (I'd welcome examples) then a warning that they're on thin ice and should take care not to put a single whisker over the line would likely suffice. In my experience (and other editors have already concurred) bigots are not prone to subtlety, and even if they did manage it once said warning would probably be enough to set them off and justify sanctions under policies that already exist. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate this comment. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you're being at least somewhat facetious, but this type of hate isn't the type I meant. I meant hate to a specific group or class of people. Hating comments because they are wrongheaded is fine. That is argument. Hate is about discriminating against someone's identity or religion or gender etc. Andre🚐 05:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The next step in the facetiousness would be to say "I hate the group of people who write that comment", but that would actually be rude toward you, and that fact might prove your point in this respect. But to address the overall issue, there will always be disagreement over what a "hateful" position is. If admins are actively looking for "is this hate" as opposed to "is this disruptive" (which still includes things like white supremacy), then you'll find admins with different definitions of hate than your own. I guarantee you that for any major country's foreign policy, there's a non-zero number of admins who would consider supporting it to be a form of hate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This type of hate isn't the type I meant.
    Exactly. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Andre uses "hate" to mean racism, sexism, queerphobia, etc. Thebiguglyalien uses "hate", probably maliciously, to mean a personal dislike of a thing. Do you really want to argue that an unintended alternative definition invalidates a word? If so, I would like to see that energy towards "notability", "neutral point of view", and "fringe". LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Even then, the lines on those words are not clearly defined and what one person thinks is racist, sexist, ect. could seem to not be that way to another person. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 14:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not arguing against reasonable disagreement. I am arguing we begin with being against the idea of discrimination. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 14:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We are against discrimination. We are also against thought crimes. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 14:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We are, but not in the way you think. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these are thought crimes. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 19:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm arguing that we have argue over the definition if it's to be used to justify administrative sanctions. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This issue has been brought up before. We cannot be the thought police, and there's another issue here. You would either have to:
  • Define hate in a way that fits the majority of editors opinions, which would be nearly impossible, and block based on that.
OR:
  • Leave it to admin discretion what is and isn't acceptable, which lets them choose what type of speech they will tolerate by their own opinions. This is obviously not a good idea.
(Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 13:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I disagree with every single line of this comment, and I consider myself apolitical, or rather, nonpartisan. It reminds me of an old post that suggested dividing every social network into a "left-wing Facebook" and a "right-wing Facebook," each with its own rules about what opinions are acceptable and what is "hateful." For the record, having a critical or negative stance on controversial topics is legitimate. The opposite is censorship and "moral" tyranny.
And, generally speaking, every pro or con position on any topic refers generically to a "class of people," since it's impossible to engage in "ad personam" discussions when discussing ideologies of any kind. What pre-legitimizes one position and pre-delegitimizes the other if not the ideological convictions of the editor in question? Sira Aspera (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, having a critical or negative stance on controversial topics is legitimate. it isn't when the 'controversial topic' is whether being trans makes someone a child predator... Athanelar (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. We are not, cannot be and should never attempt to be, thought police. Everybody should be welcome to edit here if they can do so constructively, regardless of what beliefs they do or do not hold. People who cannot edit constructively should not be allowed to contribute, regardless of whether the reason for that is financial, ideological, a language barrier, immaturity, intellectual disability, a desire to vandalise, or anything else. Pick any ideology you personally find distasteful and chances are there is at least one person who genuinely subscribes to that belief who is productively and competently contributing, entirely uncontroversially, to the encyclopaedia right now. The more extreme the ideology the more likely it is they are contributing to topic areas unrelated to that ideology, but even in related topic areas as long as they are able to edit in accordance with NPOV and our standards of behaviour nobody will know even if they do contribute to directly-related subject. Thryduulf (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as you try to make it a policy that we can ostracize an editor for their political or ideological elements, you open the door to apply that to any one else, and that's just not a smart idea. It doesn't matter if the editor considers themselves a Nazi or similar as long as all of their mainspace editors follow policies and guidelines, and they follow all expected behavior aspects on talk pages particularly in how they talk to other editors.
Now, of course, if someone comes anew to WP and their editors are very disruptive in mainspace/aggressive and impolite in talk page, and indicate they follow such extreme ideologies, that's a good reason to go ahead and block if they don't change their ways after a warning. But that applies to anyone, not just someone that claims they are a Nazi or equivalent. Masem (t) 05:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about the indef block on User:~2026-13552-25 then? The TA wasn't exactly disruptive in article space / mainspace. The admin cited WP:NOTHERE as the reason for the block, but it seems like it would fall more under Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. Some1 (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And they follow all expected behavior aspects on talk pages particularly in how they talk to other editors.
As always, that includes edit summaries, which get brought up at ANI all the time. I haven't seen anyone there try to claim it's acceptable behavior - just questioning whether an indef is appropriate for their very first edit, particularly since it's not in a live article. WP:HID > WP: DISRUPTIVE, rather than assuming WP:NOTHERE from three whole words. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is exactly why nobody's bothered to write the proposal and run the RfC, by the way; there's no way to do it in a way that's satisfactory. I worry that our policy on hate will forever float in the grey area.
Admins will block people for being hateful, people will say "NONAZIS is an essay!" Someone will try to get it promoted, and people will say "you can'r define ir so you can't block people for it!" Athanelar (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would greatly appreciate if you could present diffs of this scenario happening. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 14:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally what happened in the ANI thread linked at the top of this thread.
Despite a perennial inability of ANI complainants to accept the fact, WP:NONAZIS is an essay, which the community has consistently declined to adopt as policy. In other words, having social views which depart from the norms of our typical editor is not in itself grounds for sanction Emphasis mine. Athanelar (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very biased view of what happened there. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Biased how? Athanelar (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, this one's my bad. I got WP:Hotheaded here. You are correct in saying that, and it was rude of me to call that biased. Won't happen again. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 19:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to summarize it for those who didn't click on the link:
  • User:~2026-13552-25 made 2 edits in a span of a minute or two. Neither of the edits to the article space is bad, per se.
  • They were brought to ANI because their very first edit, to Political positions of Javier Milei, included the edit summary: MOS:QUOTE (Milei is right).
  • If readers click on the diff[14], they might assume that the TA meant "Milei is right" about:

    Milei argued there was an "LGBT agenda", saying, "In its most extreme version, gender ideology simply and plainly constitutes child abuse. They're pedophiles."

  • Their last edit was made around ~08:48, and they were blocked at 20:10 by an admin for "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia".
  • As for the editors' reactions, you (not you specifically) can read them in the ANI thread linked in the initial comment. Some1 (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Athanelar, I think something constructive that we could do is provide a clear, wikilawyer-resistant statement somewhere that says that admins are allowed to cite "mere essays" as explanations for blocks. Then we can shift the conversation from "You can't do that to me!" to this:
  • A: That's just an essay, so you can't block people over it.
  • B: I can and will. See WP:BLOCKESSAY, which explicitly authorizes admins to block people for "violating" an essay.
Off hand, I think that this would fit into either WP:EXPLAINBLOCK (perhaps in the paragraph beginning "Administrators must supply a clear and specific reason why a user was blocked") or WP:NOTBURO (perhaps adding something like "For example, admins are not required to cite an official policy when blocking someone; they are allowed to instead cite essays and other informal explanations, such as WP:NOTHERE and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, if the admin believes those pages provide a relevant explanation of the reason for the block"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that a lot of essays don't have community consensus, or are even opposed by a majority of editors. Admins are supposed to enforce consensus, and letting them block over any essay could lead to some enforcing their personal opinions of what the community norms should be, and consequently make it much harder for newer editors to navigate what is or isn't acceptable behavior ("What if there are two contradicting essays? Am I at risk of being blocked either way?") Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns with this are similar to Chaotic Enby's - am I allowed to block per WP:MANDY and/or per WP:NOTMANDY? What about WP:IARUNCOMMON?
I also thought about the possibility of an admin writing an essay saying that $thing is mandatory/prohibited and blocking people for (not) doing that, even if almost no other editors even know the essay exists - e.g. Could I write an essay saying that people leaving a user talk page message on a Sunday must include a cute picture with the message and use this policy as a justification for blocking people who do not comply? Hopefully your answer is "no", but where is the objective line between a brand new essay that contradicts consensus and something like WP:IDONTLIKEIT that has very widespread consensus? Where and how can new editors find which side of this line any given essay sits? Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it presents the the same problem, it's just gone from "admins can define hate how they want" to "admins can choose which essays on hate to enforce". Isn't there something I read about that defines admin powers? I have a hard time accepting that a standard consensus (even if one could be passed) would be sufficient to extend their authority to that degree. In practice it would be nearly free rein - and it would essentially elevate all essays to guidelines, including a huge number that were never intended to be (see NONAZIS' creator's statement below) as well as those written to intentionally make someone's particular ideology enforceable. I've ran (and still do to some extent) other platforms where it was my way or the highway because i was cultivating a specific community for a specific purpose - but that's not what Wikipedia is, and a lot of this discussion seems to violate the general spirit of site (and foundation). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a slight, but important, distinction concerning blocking somebody for violating an essay (please don't) and blocking somebody for violating one of the many PAGs or pillars (WP:CIVIL, WP:CV, WP:BLP, what have you) while pointing to an essay as the explanation as to why you, as an admin, believe this particular behavior is in violation of a PAG, and why you chose to block rather than warn. And I'm pretty sure that the second is what WAID is suggesting, given the scare quotes? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 12:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Very good distinction, thanks a lot! I didn't catch this nuance, but such a clarification should make it explicitly clear, as it could otherwise be read as allowing admins to block based on any essay. While I do of course agree with WP:NOTBURO, admins have a lot of power, and having a clear framework on how to apply it does help for purposes of accountability. For example, we could require admins to cite the relevant PAG or pillar alongside the explanatory essay (as many essays aren't directly tied to one), to avoid cases such as the ones described by Thryduulf and ChompyTheGoat.
In general, as anyone can write an essay, I see them more as a "shorthand for detailed reasoning" than as anything binding, and disagreement with the essay's interpretation of policy should still be open to a resolution at WP:AARV, just like disagreement with any other admin interpretation of policy. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As an addition: we can and already do block users based on essays (WP:NOTHERE probably being the most famous one), although these are again used as shorthand for explaining aspects of policies/guidelines, and have broad acceptance for their use. Thinking about it a bit more, citing the relevant PAG or pillar in the case of explanatory essays explicitly marked as such may be silly (my worry being mostly over essays not directly based on one of those), although a blanket allowance of all essays wouldn't be the best way to go at it. Again, they're shorthand for explanations, and making blanket rules such as "all explanations are allowed" or "no explanations are allowed" won't bring us very far. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't someone propose NOT HERE as policy? (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 12:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons this has been shot down before. If someone is being disruptive then there are other adequate policies that will cover that. — Czello (music) 14:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia really "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" if some of those editors are discriminated on? Is it not taking sides already to be pro-knowledge? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 14:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC) (edited 14:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC))[reply]
Being pro-knowledge on an encycopedia is not really taking a side so much as it is a requirement to be on the encyclopedia, because if you are anti-knowledge you probably aren't on the encyclopedia. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 14:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who argues to delete something that is verifiable is anti-knowledge. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to drag WP:NOTEVERYTHING into this. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing there aren't reasons to delete verifiable information (I've argued for it plenty of times myself), I'm just pointing out that even something like being "pro-knowledge" isn't black-and-white. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia only summarizes existing information. The sources still exist and anyone is free to educate themselves in more detail. Choosing what to include or not isn't a book burning. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's just plain and simple not true. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 15:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then please explain, objectively, in plain and simple language why excising knowledge from the encyclopaedia is not, by definition, anti-knowledge. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because "anti knowledge" implies an ideology, even philosophy. "This particular information doesn't belong in this one location" doesn't even approach that. Removing something that doesn't belong there is no different than not adding it in the first place. I'm not anti-car for saying cars don't belong on sidewalks, or calling for them to be removed if they ended up there. The fact that it's verifiable doesn't make removing it worse than removing vandalism or typos, it just means the decision requires more critical thinking. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because removing information that is true is not always a bad thing. I could go to an article about bears and write that there are a lot of pencils in the world. True? Yes. Should it be removed? No. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is my point. In building an encyclopedia, we editors take the side of building an encyclopedia. Why, then, are other editors in this discussion complaining that that encyclopedia takes sides? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 15:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because this entire thing is frankly ridiculous. Wikipedia is not for thought crimes. It's a slope with no clear set of rules or definitions and allowing admins to choose what they find offensive instead of having a guideline (that would frankly be near-impossible to craft to everyone's satisfaction) is the worst possible outcome. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 15:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, NONAZIS guides us by listing the beliefs of Nazis:
  • "that white people are more intelligent than non-whites",
  • "that white people are morally and ethically superior to non-whites",
  • "that Jews present an existential threat",
  • "that the Holocaust never happened, was greatly exaggerated, or that historians have inflated the death toll",
  • "that Adolf Hitler was a great leader for the German people, despite (or even because of) Nazi Germany's innumerable atrocities",
  • "that there exists a Jewish or "elite" cabal as purported in any of a variety of implausible conspiracy theories, such as QAnon, the New World Order, the white genocide, or the Great Replacement",
  • and more.
It also has a section called "Don't use claims of racism as a coup de grâce". Please read the essay in hand. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 17:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is one editor's opinion. Essays aren't guidelines for a reason. Even if we adopted that it would ONLY apply to white supremacy - does that mean other forms of hatred are more acceptable? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting tired of fucking linking and reading guidelines and policies only to be given back these uneducated posts. Yes, the page edited by 273 editors is "one editor's opinion". Yes, "racism is bad" definitely means "transphobia is good" and not "we are still working on it". No, NONAZIS does not say "compiled by multiple people". Zero truths and three lies. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 17:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Being aggressive isn't helping your case here. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Any comments on the actual substance? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Four, actually, if you care to read them. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you missed the recent WP:BOOMERANG case over WP: INCIVILITY? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You two suck. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 18:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a no. Adding WP:PAs doesn't help your case. What it does do is illustrate exactly why this is entirely too contentious to ever pass. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ICA and WP:NPA. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 18:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did miss that, actually. Could you link that to me on my talk page? (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 18:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The user did not say that the policy meant that transphobia is good. But if you're still working on it, maybe finish working on it first before suggesting it to become official wikipedia policy. We don't implement policies before they're done. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re: “We don’t implement policies before they’re done”… Given that we are constantly tinkering with and changing our policies, I would say our policies are NEVER “done”. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. However, it seems to me that we really shouldn't implement a policy that is so not done that it cannot handle a large of the issues it aims to target, and could in fact create a good many issues. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 19:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Phlogiston, it appears you've been editing here for almost three months now. Have you found WP:NAVPOPS yet? It has this very cool feature that lets you hover over another editor's name, and shows you how long they've been editing Wikipedia. For example, if you used it in this thread, you would have discovered that you're talking to a person who has been editing Wikipedia, including its policies and guidelines, for twenty (20) years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware. I am also aware that this does not mean compliance is required, and I am acting well within what is allowed. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 12:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did in fact know of the account's age, to clarify. I am also aware that the account being vastly older than mine only means that they have more experience, not that they are more correct. For example, an editor whos account is years older than mine has just told me that I 'suck' twice. Does this make them correct because they are older and have more edits, so suddenly this is acceptable conduct? I would say probably not. I am also not entirely inexperienced, as I am a pending changes reviewer and am familiar with policy there. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 12:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, an older account doesn't necessarily make someone more correct, and dismissing a newer user's suggestion only based on their age can come across as WP:BITEy. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it felt weird and I feel like there's a policy about this but I can't quite remember the name. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 12:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is as far as I know the closest thing we have to one (Wikipedia:No personal attacks doesn't mention account age as a kind of ad hominem, although its list is not exhaustive). I did write the explanatory essay WP:NOELDERS some time ago, but it is only an essay rather than anything binding. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, a few people. How many editors are active to some degree on all of English Wikipedia? You think you'll get consensus from all of them on that - and additional proposals on every other form of hate that anyone thinks should be banned? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I feel warm. Is it 451 degrees in here right now? (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Banning constructive editors over personal beliefs feels a lot more "anti-knowledge" than prudent trimming, TBH. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 18:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I did read the essay. If you read my comment, you can see I said a guideline to everyone's satisfaction, not just a guideline. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposition. For reasons already expressed by other editors, and because it's a proposal that introduces a multitude of problems without solving any of them, and without even demonstrating that there is a problem that needs to be solved, especially considering that Wikipedia, in independent sources, is already considered politically biased to the left. Making this won't improve matters. And this doesn't even begin to address the fact that the standard for what is "hate speech," "unacceptable," "offensive," or anything else is fluid. Today, it matches OP's. Tomorrow, the same politicians might decide that their opinions also fall under these labels. Who knows, maybe in five years it will be "unacceptable" to say you don't want dogs on the beach because we have a different animal rights policy, or to support an omnivorous diet out of sensitivity toward vegans. Sira Aspera (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure While I do feel that Wikipedia stating that it is aware of how the Paradox of tolerance affects its neutrality goals is a good thing, the NONAZIS essay describes application of existing policy. It doesn't really contribute much language that would be impactful upon policy since it's already WP:NOTHERE behaviour to be spouting off racist nonsense or what have you. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The origin of the debate here is an ANI thread in which a TA was banned for stating in an edit summary that Javier Milei was 'right' to describe the adherents of 'gender ideology' (read: trans people and their supporters) as 'pedophiles'. They were indeffed as an admin action for this which led numerous editors to raise their concerns that the block was hasty or excessive, with some specifically pointing out that NONAZIS, NOQUEERPHOBIA etc are merely essays and not enforceable policy. Athanelar (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that WP:TEND covers that specific issue as does WP:NOTHERE on the basis of being an egregious violation of WP:CIV that is a personal attack against a broad demographic of Wikipedia editors. As such, I don't know if I participated in that discussion, I think I didn't, I'd say the admin was operating within existing policy and doesn't need WP:NONAZIS to be policy in order to keep off someone who would make such inappropriate statements. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The main concern is that it was literally the user's very first edit - followed by a single revert that appeared appropriate - and going straight to indef seemed over the top. Since it's a TA it's entirely possible there were indeed NOTHERE, but it's a poor precedent to set for newbies who might have potential to be constructive with some guidance (and firm lines regarding repeat behavior). Especially since it was a three word edit summary and they didn't add anything hateful to the live article. Some kind of action is certainly warranted, but a lot of people think it should have been reined in a touch given those considerations. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also re precedent of thought policing. We need to separate the extent of the actual behavior from the belief behind it. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any elevation of NONAZIS—we are already on the proverbial slippery slope; an editor was last week almost community banned for the cardinal sin of daring to believe that AI might in the future be superior to Wikipedians. WP:HID simply describes the application of existing policy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, that editor has a long history of disruptive behavior (as opposed to literally their first ever edit) and had previously explicitly stated that they would repeat it given half a chance. They only agreed to stop after having their arm twisted, and the general concern was that they would indeed repeat the behavior - not just over the beliefs themselves. If they'd only posted on their user page and not made ongoing problematic edits the subject wouldn't even have come up. But that is why the current standards for disruption SHOULD be sufficient if they're applied correctly. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Creating a situation where editors can be site-banned because of their beliefs? is not a good idea. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Existing guidelines such as WP:NOTHERE adequately cover this type of situation. No need for rule creep.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia is supposed to be WP: IMPARTIAL. And people are supposed to be here to work towards an impartial encyclopedia. People who aren't can be removed by our normal behavioral policies. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please tell us how WP:IMPARTIAL as written relates here. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 18:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC) (edited 18:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC))[reply]
    How facts are selected, presented and organized is subjected to community consensus and should be impartial per WP: IMPARTIAL. Community consensus is dependent on community membership, if community membership is not impartial, consensus cannot be impartial, and in turn content cannot be impartial. This should not be construed as tolerance however. We are not, and should not be tolerant to POV pushing or WP: ADVOCACY style behaviors. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is partial towards reliable sources:
    • We need sources. (WP:V, WP:NOR)
    • We need them to be reliable. (WP:RS)
    • We especially need them on contentious stuff about people. (WP:BLP)
    • And medical articles too. (WP:MEDRS)
    • Reliable sources are not required to be impartial. (WP:RSBIAS)
    • We follow the proportion of reliable sources. (WP:NPOV)
    • We treat uncontested facts from reliable sources as facts. (WP:YESPOV § "Avoid stating facts as opinions")
    • We only present accepted ideas. (WP:FALSEBALANCE)
    • We do not present fringe ideas as accepted. (WP:FRINGE).
    These point to the fact that Wikipedia is not required to be unbiased. Wikipedia editors need to be when writing articles (WP:NPOV).
    Stepping back, IMPARTIAL is content, not conduct. How we write articles is not how we expect editors to act. We disallow personal attacks even though we write about the lot of them that happens in real life. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 19:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is Impartial on to what sources are reliable. It applies to how and what we determine are reliable sources and that is a behavioral constraint. Not just a content constraint. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We really are not. Also, everything then is behavioral, even most – if not all – content policies. That fact just makes that definition of "behavioral" useless. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 06:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just demonstrates a problem with WP: RSP, or more accurately that the consensus model doesn't achieve the standards set out in our core content policies. And yes, not applying our content policies is a behavioral issue. Editors who regularly insert content that doesn't meet WP: V get blocked even though Verifiability is a content policy. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would honestly reccomend stepping away from this discussion after doing a WP:PA. It's clearly got you agitated, and I recommend you take a few hours to breathe and remember that this is just the internet, and this is not life or death. I promise whatever happens will be okay. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 19:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it is kind of ironic to tell someone 'you guys suck' and then talk about how personal attacks are banned. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 19:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a few hours: you two still suck. I will just voluntarily not further interact with you two. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 06:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that helped; but telling people they 'suck' is still not how we are supposed to act here. Please read WP:CIVIL, if you haven't already. Not that you have to, but I feel it really would benefit you. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 12:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Readily definable and identifiable, clearly actionable. This would align policy with our practice. This is not idle conversation but actively relevant. Everyone has the right to read Wikipedia and everyone has a right to edit Wikipedia. There are a few hate-based ideologies which are directly contrary to those things. Wikipedia is tolerant of everything except intolerance of the right of others to participate. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For anyone saying that Wikipedia ought not have a "no Nazis" policy because Wikipedia prohibiting users for an ideology is unprecedented - this is an error, because there already is an ideology for which we have consensus to block or ban users on recognition. Wikimedia projects do not permit users to have pedophilia ideology. It is not uncommon for people with this ideology to treat the condition as a mental disorder, be in mental health counseling, and be non-active in pedophilia, and yet despite this community's apologetic existence, Wikipedia practice is still to purge any persons known to identify in this way. In 2025 we had a registered Wikimedia editor with an edit history travel across the country to attend WikiConference North America to make a choice whether to use the gun they brought out in front of the crowd, as described in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2025-10-20/In_the_media. This person identified as a "non-offending pedophile", and was protesting English Wikipedia's practice of not tolerating their identity. They were just one person and we have other such cases. I think everyone would be better off, included the excluded users, if we openly and directly said that we do not allow people with certain ideologies in Wikipedia's community spaces, so that no one has lack of clarity in what ideologies are welcome here, and who can develop peer-to-peer collaborative relationships here.
Based on our precedent of disallowing non-offending self-identified pedophilia people who merely express identity and do not otherwise disrupt Wikipedia except with the presence of their identity, I would like to add Nazis to that group. If someone merely says, "I share parts of this ideology", then it is a major disruption to other editors' ability to participate in the projects. I think we should be careful about excluding ideologies, but when we list the ideologies that we do not allow, Nazism and pedophilia ideologies are both intolerably disruptive just by being known to be allowed to exist in our community.
Having a "no nazis" rule would not take new social or technical infrastructure. We could put that rule right in the box with the no pedophilia rule.
To the good people of any ideology who try to avoid self identifying a taboo ideology and who causally edit Wikipedia articles constructively on topics unrelated to their ideology, I am sorry, but Wikipedia operates at scale and some demographics are so disruptive in society that for the social machine to function, we discriminate against the class based on known ideology. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Child protection was added for legal reasons and is enforced by the WMF. If we're going to add more on our own perogative, which pages in Category:Prejudice and discrimination by type and its subcategories describe immediately blockable sentiments? You can say just Nazis, but because the essay is written with a poor understanding of history and politics, it encompasses all white supremacist ideologies, including ones that pre-date Nazism. You could then say just white supremacists, but that wouldn't ban transphobes and misogynists, among others. You could say all types of discrimination based on identity, and you'd think that would include Linguistic discrimination, but telling people who don't speak English to leave is embedded into the project. So that brings us back to the original question. Maybe we can narrow it down to the identities named at Template:Uw-derogatory (nationality, race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or other factors)? I just had to drop three of them a few days ago on people who were attacking each others' intelligence on the basis of them being American and European, respectively. Should I have reported them all straight to ANI instead for immediate indefs? These are hard questions that would be answered differently by different admins, and each answer someone deemed wrong would be challenged at WP:XRV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, I sure do hate them [other factors]. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Child protection, that rule exists specifically because there's potential for real world danger to underage users if it was allowed - not to mention an absolute mountain of possible legal trouble. When I used to work on search results for Big G there were exactly two things we were required to report (which went straight to LE), and that was one of them. Not just overt CP but anything remotely adjacent.

And again, if you move to classify Nazis in the same way, you either need to do so for all other forms of bigotry, or try to justify why the rest are less serious. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If someone merely says, "I share parts of this ideology", then it is a major disruption to other editors' ability to participate in the projects. What of people for whom ideological blocks, absent actual behavioral problems, are a disruption to their ability to participate in the projects? Anomie⚔ 23:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:MjolnirPants (who wrote the damn thing) in the last proposal. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this is written as an essay and not a policy. Although I would agree with much of the essay, not 100%. On Wikipedia others whose opinion we disagree with, should be able to edit. What counts is what they actually do, rather than what they believe. Being hostile to other editors is a reason for action to prevent, eg by revert, warn, block etc. We don't need hostility because of a disagreement with someone. On AN/I there is a fair bit of that shown, and perhaps we should be more generous with warnings for incivility and expressions of intolerance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for all of the reasons which the community has historically declined to adopt this essay as policy, including in last year's widely attended RfC. The desire to create additional bulwarks to protect the project and our community members from exposure to objectionable beliefs is an eminently understandable motivation, but this is just not the way to go about it. While NONAZI's is chock full of observations that I would describe as common sense, the general thrust/operational idea that most people seem to want to integrate into policy--that we should purge from the community and the pool of editorial talent anyone who makes the mistake of admitting to a belief that a significant number of community members would view as ignorant, bigoted, offensive, or hateful--is simply completely infeasible for a project of this sort. Far from expediting and facilitating control of problematic behaviour, it would undermine the existing scheme for responding to such conduct and provide fertile grounds for a vast expansion disruption and misdirection of volunteer effort by introducing essentially inexhaustable ideological debate about the values of editors. Even where the majority of editors could agree to label a spade for a spade (and I think the proponents of this idea vastly overestimate the proportion of cases that would fall under that category), the result would still be a huge uptick in volunteer time wasted, other loss of community resources, and huge amounts of needless rancor.
    The reason this project uses the WP:disruption model for dealing with problem editors, including those of the bigoted variety, is in many respects a parallel example of why we use a WP:Verifiability model instead of a WP:truth model for content: it's by no means because we do not, as individuals, care about the truth, but rather because basing our approach in such a nebulous and idiosyncratic principle is impractical. Using a more objective standards like WP:V and WP:WEIGHT is a way to side-step infinitely recursive debates about our personal beliefs of the reality of a situation as it relates to content.
    Similarly, I believe that the average Wikipedian, and certainly the average veteran editor, tends to be strongly aligned against movements predicated in bigoted rhetoric--and not just because of personal values but because these movements tend to be heavily reliant on the kind of misinformation that runs counter to the objectives of the project, and which is in itself typically found obnoxious to the type of people our movement attracts. But in the same way a "truth" model for content is untenable, the model suggested by NONAZIs is untenable for responding to problems resulting from objectionable beliefs, because it paves the way for intractable quagmires regarding the "truth" of what constitutes hate, bigotry, ignorance, or small-mindedness, and the borders therebetween. That's why the more objective standards of a WP:DISRUPTION model, already adequately implemented in existing policy, is not only the most efficient means for dealing with objectionable rhetoric and conduct, but arguably the only feasible one for this project, given it's scope and nature, and the intentionally pluralistic make-up of its volunteer base. SnowRise let's rap 20:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    See this is a much lengthier version of where I'm coming from above. I see NONAZIS as descriptive of an application of policy. I would like to see Wikipedia formally adopt the Paradox of Tolerance within our governance model but, informally, we already have and I'm uncertain this essay would actually accomplish that. And note, while I did not draft the essay I was literally the first editor to endorse it. It's not like I disagree with its content. I just, you know, have come to recognize what is and how it is best used. I will say that I don't really have a problem with admins who use NONAZIS as a block rationale, despite this, because it's a nice, abbreviated, way of saying "blocked for disruptive editing on the basis of hateful conduct." Like I said: NONAZIS describes how we should apply policy in a specific use case. I would expect that the same would apply to a Stalinist who says "libs get the wall" on Wikipedia too and yet there is no WP:NOSTALINISTS policy. Simonm223 (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree--although at the same time I understand why most admins seem to avoid doing that, presumably because they believe it will invite criticism. But the main utility I see in NONAZIs is in how it contextualizes why various racist and phobic belief systems will tend to put those who believe in them at cross purposes to legitimate editorial objectives under our policies. Indeed, I'd say the vast majority of times WP:NONAZIS is linked in a discussion, it is appropriate as a diagnostic term. The problem situations tend to arise mostly at ANI, I think, where parties hoping to secure a sanction against a user (often with very good cause) can be more prone to attempting to use it in a more prescriptive manner than is appropriate, given the context and its role as an essay. SnowRise let's rap 22:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to make some kind of ruling on how often the same issue can be raised? I know situations change and it wouldn't be appropriate to say something is decided permanently, but just rehashing the same arguments over and over is also a waste of editor time. This is my first time dealing with one and I'm already sick of it. Maybe something along the lines of how requested edits are done, where the editor needs to explain why they think reopening it is justified? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In theory, sure, we can make all sorts of rules. In practice, we don't usually do moratoria like that, so the disruption of people re-proposing the thing would have to be pretty severe for enough people to back a moratorium. At this point for this particular discussion someone could try to WP:SNOW-close it as being extremely unlikely to pass and a waste of time having people arguing over it. But that might be reverted. Anomie⚔ 22:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well, there isn't a formal process to addressing that situation per se, but the way it tends to play out is that if a given editor misreads the room and tries to revive a discussion one-too-many times within an unreasonably short period of time, they start to get warnings from their fellow editors, with the prospect of a TBAN not unheard of in the most exceptional cases of inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK. But precisely because of the concern that you point to (the community not wanting to chill discussion or run the risk of being inflexible on revisiting issues), historically there has been a high level of reticence to be too aggressive about shutting down redundant discussions.
In any event, I don't think there is anything needing doing in the instant case: from what I have seen above, the OP seems to have been unaware of, or did not recall the last proposal. To be fair to them, when I pointed out at the ANI thread that this had already been discussed repeatedly in recent years, I intentionally omitted mentioning last year's RfC, because I couldn't recall with any precision how long it had been. Given that string of discussions and now two formal WP:PROPOSALs within a year that each got WP:SNOWBALLed down, I expect the next time the permalinks will come out fast. Beyond that, I don't think anything needs doing. Much as I am opposed to the proposed change, I do think it's reasonable to expect this to be a perennial topic of discussion. SnowRise let's rap 23:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That might be cool to watch if it was in a horror movie. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 13:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: One: We already have policies to deal with those problems. Two: A problem with Nazism (or with any sufficiently known hateful ideology) is that discussions will likely fall into Godwin's law terrain if Nazism becomes a blocking reason just by itself. Three: Nazism is an archetypical example, but there are loads of local hateful ideologies all around the world. And worse, not all anti-ideologies and Anti-national sentiments are necessarily hateful (sometimes it's just a feud over a territory or a historical event), so there would be overlap. And four: hate is wrong... in theory. In practice, some people like to dismiss critics as "hateful" in order to ignore valid criticism, or even to completely shield themselves from criticism that way. See Appeal to motive and cancel culture. As with Nazism, if we make a "hate is a good reason to block" policy, we'll have loads of people pointing fingers that this or that is "hateful". Cambalachero (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that anti-national sentiments are hateful and bigoted by definition, regardless of the cause or whether it's understandable. Conversely, hate against an ideology is not directed against an innate characteristic, so while you can argue it's still a form of "hate", I don't see it as the same type of hate that's directed toward people for things like race or gender. My point? The fact that we have these different thoughts on the subject demonstrates the problems with enforcing something like this, and it's not merely a hypothetical disagreement like much of the discussion above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cancel culture is a conservative fantasy born from spending too much time on Twitter dot Com. I don't think this needs to be a policy but let's avoid whataboutism. Simonm223 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cancel culture is a new word for an old human behavior. It is essentially the same as boycotting something, or shunning an individual for behavior not in line with the group. There are many examples of people boycotting individuals or organizations they disagree with, on both sides, and it is often referred to as canceling them. The Wikipedia page has a few examples of people criticizing it, but online campaigns against individuals and organizations online are very real phenomena. Calling it a "conservative fantasy" is a bit odd. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence of this claim? (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 12:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Essays are not written in a way that makes them useful as policies, and this is reasonable. The only way to get a policy out of them is to write it from scratch, but then I believe it won't actually have much that is not already covered adequately by existing policies. Zerotalk 05:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=1342037423"