Wikipedia talk:Divisiveness

message: This proposal appears not to be needed.  I would edit it, but that would imply that I found it useful.  --Dschor 18:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not needed

message: ...because its getting to be too much scrolling, apologies. Good job, WAS and other editors involved in writing this. Too many people are confusing WP with a MySpace account. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New comments section

message: ...WP:CIV this is essentially redundant. We could have a Wiki page for every term that relates to the interpersonal, but we shouldn't. That's my thought anyhow, Marskell 21:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think that personal attacks and incivility are related, someone making a personal attack is violating both policies, civility is broader than just personal attacks. You could say to a person, "You are biased," and that would be a personal attack; you would be discussing the editor, not the edits. But if you would say, "These edits are POV pushing," you might not be making a personal attack, but you are certainly being uncivil. -- 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Given... 

message: If we keep coming up with policies for everything that bunch our collective knickers, we will have a rule to counterman everything we do, and a rule justifying everything we do. Stop the inanity. Avriette 17:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagreement

message: Who gets to decide what is and isn't fanatical?  How can newbies tell? Subjective guidelines invite divisiveness even further. I oppose the guideline in its present form. --James S. 19:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem 

message: I added WP:CIVIL because I believe it goes hand in hand with WP:NPA. --  20:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  + [[WP:CIVIL]] 

message: I agree with the sentiment here, but it is too vague to be enforced as policy. --causa sui talk 06:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely that it should be a guideline but not a policy. WAS 4.250 15:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One more for the position of Guideline, or Essay, but certainly not policy. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, not policy material. Ian13/talk 15:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is definitely policy - it has not achieved any consensus, and was brought in as a (IMHO insufficient) justification for the 'divisive template' CSD which Jimbo imposed simply to justify the actions of Kelly Martin (et al) in deleting templates out-of-process. Cynical 17:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I also would like to express sentiment that this should be either a guideline or an essay, but certainly not policy. This is entirely too subjective to be read as policy - as a guideline, it offers a good deal of leeway.--Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 19:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should be a guideline, not a policy 

message: In regards to userboxes and other userspace material that is detrimental to Wikipedia, please consider my proposal, Wikipedia:Unacceptable userspace material, which is intended as a means to minimally quantify "bad" materials in userspace which the practice of including on userpages has a detrimental effect on Wikipedia, as opposed to making overbroad blanket restrictions. The goal is to maintain the liberal use of userspace while addressing concerns of divisiveness and objectionableness, avoiding template deletionism, and providing a defined standard on which compulsory userpage amendments can be based. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Define what is bad for WP 

message: Can we please stop writing new policies for every nook and cranny that we can think of?  Off-wiki talk, process in important, divisiveness, etc etc etc.
I fail to understand the point of this.  We already have guidelines, policies, and community practices against personal attacks, incivilty, and action against consensus.  The vast majority of the community follows them.  While those who consistantly do not are often those who wail assiduously about these self-same policies, simply writing it down in yet another way will do nothing.  "Stop, or I'll say stop again!"
brenneman{T}{L}  03:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless, redundant, instruction creep, etc 

message: In U.S. politics at least, people start talking about "divisiveness" when they don't want to argue a point, but instead want the "other side" to shut up. It's simply abusive argumentation, reducing the other side's position to mere wilfulness and denying any substance to their position. Saying "you are being divisive" is saying, "you don't really have a position; you're disagreeing simply for the sake of disagreeing. Shut up."
Similarly, in Wikipedia discussions, accusations of "disruption" and claims that particular beliefs are "tantamount to vandalism" frequently amount to the same: rather than responding to the substance of another's position, they are demands that the person shut up and comply. Such accusations are frequently themselves polarizing and harmful to the development of consensus, since they make the accused feel outcast.
The claim that another person's position is not being held in good faith -- that they are disagreeing merely for the sake of disagreeing -- is not one that should be encouraged or supported on Wikipedia. We need to assume good faith, particularly when we disagree. We need to take it as read that when real contributors (not mere vandals) do things that we regard as stupid and malformed, that they are actually trying to improve the project, even if we don't think their changes are improvement. We need to work these differences out by finding common ground and seeking consensus -- NOT by name-calling and dismissing the other person as merely divisive. --FOo 03:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with THIS guideline? (Hint: read it) WAS 4.250 10:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling people "divisive" is a nasty way of saying "shut up". Therefore, we shouldn't do it, and we don't need a guideline telling us how to. --FOo 11:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. - brenneman{T}{L}  12:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again. Read it. It says to talk more, not shut up. It says if people seem to feel something on your user page is divisive then EXPAND IT. That's the opposite of "shut up". WAS 4.250 12:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's one little "expand it" near the end of a whole lot of "don't be divisive!" which is code for "shut up and quit expressing your opinion, you freak." Your implication that I haven't read it, by the way, is unacceptably rude. --FOo 18:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am deeply sorry for being rude. Please accept my apology. I'm sorry. How can we improve this so it says as clearly as possible "We are not saying 'shut up'; we are saying 'expand the content in question'?  Thank you very much. WAS 4.250 21:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I just added an example to the proposal. Check it out and tell me what you think. If it doesn't both clarify and make you laugh, I didn't do a good enough job. WAS 4.250 07:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a guideline or a proposed guideline?  In either case, I tend to agree that it doesn't say much unless misused to state ban simple statements of political affiliation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This guideline considered harmful 

message: Even in the user space some respect would be nice. I think it is quite obvious that even in the user space something like "This user thinks that niggers stink" should be speedy deletable. The question is where are the boundaries. In my opinion anything that attacks others rather than endorses something or represents legitimate criticism should be speedy deleted. That in my eyes includes "This user does not tolerate Marxism" or even "fascism" as long as we allow to have political party user boxes given that there are marxist and fascist parties around and we cannot set up double standards for them. 
? 30px? ?	ROGNNTUDJUU! thinks that users who cross out flags show a lack of respect for those represented by them and therefore created this template.
 02:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Respect

message: Don't care about user boxes.  Do care that divisiveness is in the eye of the beholder, i.e., it's subjective. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: UBs