Wikipedia talk:Hate is disruptive

There are a lot of essays and many are safely ignored. More essays make instructions WP:CREEP even more likely. Such essays may perfectly be personal. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

This line of logic doesn't really make sense to me. WP:CREEP is about instruction creep, not creep in the Wikipedia namespace. Also, you've made this comment right after a number of people signed this essay to endorse it. 〜⠀⠀ 06:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@SnowyMeadows: Take a look this (old) thread here: § Essays are a waste of time and energy. Over the years there were thousands talks on why essays are useless. The points are basically the same. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

More bits have been wasted on arguing that essays are useless than on the essays themselves. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

This stuff all feels like trying to smuggle political values into @ikipedia's bureaucracy when the behaviour they try to prevent is already dealt with by other policies like WP:FORUM, WP:CIVILITY, WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFIABILITY.

Exactly what statements can people say that are disruptive but are simultaneously not a personal attack, not a forum STYLE comment, and not a fringe idea. I think these cases are unlikely.

On the other side, hate is a vague and ill-defined concept and it seems perfectly construe truthful statements about groups as hateful. There are any number of things that may be true about a person that an individual may feel form part of their identity and having to deal with questions of hate on these topics feels like a tedious and pointless process since it becomes an exercise in discussing motive and ideology as opposed to just reading the sources. I guess we could a protected characteristic approach, where only certain aspects of an individual's identity are considered potentially helpful. But even then if people are going to write *anything* about these topics you get into WP:POV issues, where one side is defined as hateful.

All seems like a bad idea, unless you can demonstrate something that isn't caught by one of these policies. TALpedia 22:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Talpedia: As you suggest, this essay is an emergent property of the other policies you have cited. If there's ambiguity or room for interpretation, it's due to the complexity of human culture. As for your complaint about smuggling "political values" into Wikipedia, it's nigh impossible to keep "political values" out of nearly anything, and when that end is at odds with civility, it's arguably an undesirable goal. 〜⠀⠀ 12:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... I would say that we don't need this policy because most of this behaviour is covered by these other qualities which don't require us to define hate.

While keeping all politics out of topics will indeed be impossible, this is not to say that no effort should be made. For example, arguments along the lines of "in saying that you you are undermining the identity of a group of people and so committing genocide" are not the sort of one's I think wikipedia should consider, when you have things like "go find the best sources and suggest a change to the article see WP:FORUM and WP:BESTSOURCE. Why bother defining hate when the definitions could introduce bias and be misued when the people engaging in hate are also not talking about constructive changes to the article or citing the best literature? Talpedia 12:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply