Wikipedia talk:Harassment/draft

Merge with WP:Sexual harassment ?

Lets only have on draft I'd say. I I'd prefer it lives in WP:Sexual harassment because it's a better formatted url, but I'm not picky so long as one redirects to the other.

Unless someone disagrees on merging, I'll start the merging process later today. --ScWizard (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be pretty strong consensus on the RFC for an anti-discrimination policy as part of the harassment policy, as oppose to a separate sexual harassment policy. However, I don't see anything wrong with having both. Some editors who feel they are being sexually harassed may appreciate in-depth advice on how to handle it and who to turn to in a separate document dedicated to that issue. CorporateM (Talk) 20:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Groups listed

In this edit the list of identities listed was limited. If we're not going to leave it open, we need to make sure all the bases are covered. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently we have: race, nationality, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, religion, culture, age, and disability. Using the EEOC list, making the following recommendations:

Recommend changing culture to ethnicity. Culture is extremely board is can encompass things like incest. I suspect this is meant to mean ethnic cultures, so just say ethnicity.
Recommend changing nationality to national origin.
Recommend changing race to race/color.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir:

- Definitely agree with "culture" ==> ethnicity, although with "nationality" included maybe we don't need it at all.
- The EEOC is a US govt agency, so its wording may not fit well with Wikipedia's multinational approach, e.g. "national origin" likely seems like an artifact of the 13th (?) amendment to many outside the US.
- My experience is parts of Europe is that what they mean by "nationality" is what Americans mean by "ethnicity".
- "Race" is a cultural construct - we all know what it means but it has little biological meaning in the human context. "Race" should be used here, but "color" just seems silly to me. You are not talking about what happens if somebody gets a sunburn or jaundice.
- "Internationalization" of the language here will be important, and not as simple as folks might think. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just using EEOC as a starting point. As for race vs. color, it's meant to address colorism, but I'd be fine if just race was included (though CorporateM removed it for some reason). Yes, I agree with that we need to make sure it's not culture-specific. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "national origin" is supposed to mean, other than "nationality". I would envisage this covering persistent abuse targeting a person on the basis of their current nationality (American, British, German, or whatever) for instance asserting collective responsibility or guilt by association because of alleged genocide, war-mongering etc. of the nation concerned. If this is also meant to cover, say, harassment of German-Americans based on the crimes of the Nazis or the current German government, perhaps we need both.

I don't know what "culture" is supposed to mean, but without some explanation I don't think it belongs here. I have no objection to adding "ethnicity" but would put that with race and expect it to mean something similar (mainly used because the whole concept of race is controversial). Is "culture" meant to include groups like Kurds, Lancastrians and East Frisians? I would not like to see the inclusion of "culture" under any name being used against people who, say, repeatedly speak out against genital mutilation, killing apostates, or other "traditions". The same goes for religion, I suppose. If we include religion, we should really include lack of religion. I would expect atheists to be likely targets of disrimination and harassment. We might also need to consider that one person's religion is another person's criminal organization or tax evasion scheme.

I would also suggest "social origin", which is included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

--Boson (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we can do without national origin and culture. But I like the "social origin" part. Would include caste-like groups (e.g., Burakumin or castes in India). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the premise that the list needs to be comprehensive (it can never be), but would support something like "culture" or "background". Something like "belonging to a group of people" would be great, but that would technically forbid us from harassing trolls and spammers I suppose. There are a good number of opposes and I'm starting to grow concerned it will be closed as "no consensus". If we had more female voters, I think the outcome would be a clear support, but... CorporateM (Talk) 02:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're not going to keep it open-ended, we need to be at least thorough. As for closure, there's lots of time still... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "and other _____" could work. CorporateM (Talk) 03:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... and similar groups" might work if this were considered a quasi-legal context, leaving it to whoever judges a case to determine if the type of discrimination in a particular case shared the relevant characterisics with the list (while the examples would limit their discretion). I suppose "identity-based" is one of the central ideas, including accident of birth but also fundamental life choices. For the record, CorporateM, I support your proposal, with or without some more tweaking, if necessary after its implementation. --Boson (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft intent

I am trying to figure out if this draft is meant to totally replace the existing policy or be added to it. Otr500 (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this draft as being an addition to the current policy, to specifically cover harassment based on discrimination. However, as I understand it, no consensus has yet been determined as to whether such an addition should be made to the existing page, or as to whether sexual harassment should be kept separate. I can imagine a section headed something like "Aggravated harassment" or "Discriminatory harassment", but the second paragraph should probably be in a different section, because it also applies to other forms of harassment. I believe the current lede is the most important part of the harassment policy. The discussion on what constitutes identity-based discrimination probably also applies to the other two policies, so the three policies need to be discussed together. I would, personally prefer to have the draft text on discrimination (and other explanatory text) etc. in a separate guideline pointed to by the three existing policies. Currently, we have a definition here about sexual and other special forms of discrimination, but we also have different definitions (that may need to be kept synchronized),

WP:Incivility has

"personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities"
WP:NPA has:
"Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors."

WP:NPA also has the provision:

"Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."

which, no doubt, should also either apply here or (preferably, in my opinion) be deleted there.:--Boson (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"On Wikipedia"

I removed "on Wikipedia" from both versions as I felt it was redundant. --Rubbish computer 00:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revert or readd this if you think it doesn't help. --Rubbish computer 00:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]