Wikipedia talk:Non-merit attacks

Comment
I've proposed the policy. Let's just generate some discussion.  Cool Blue  talk to me 01:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better an adaption of WP:NPA, but I agree with it :) I'm tired of people making remarks about others based on their religion and where they live. We need to make stricter policies against attacking other editors. --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's sort of what I was trying to do. Make an adaption of WP:NPA to be specific to the situation at hand. Too many valuable users are leaving because of at least one of these reasons. If we can prevent it, or prevent further disruption, I think we could prevent losing a lot of these valuable users. Whether it belongs here or at WP:NPA, if passed, is another issue.  Cool Blue  talk to me 01:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This appears to be just a special case of WP:NPA (certainly "non-merit" attacks as described here are "personal" attacks). I wouldn't support adopting a redundant policy. Dcoetzee 02:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA already lists: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. Is there something in this proposal not already covered by WP:NPA? --  Jreferee  (Talk) 03:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is completely redundant with no personal attacks and thus represents only instruction creep. Wily D 05:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds great, but I do have some problems with the following:

Thank you! Tcrow777 talk  02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sexual orientation
 * Gender identity (if it means being trans-sexual)
 * Um, did you just suggest that we should be able to harass those two groups? If so, that's already covered as a no go, and it's not very civil to suggest that we should be able to. Darth  Griz98  03:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That aside, I do feel that it is redundant of WP:NPA. Darth  Griz98  03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Support
Uncontroversial in every way. AFAIK it is already covered by other policies. If this was meant to serve as a summary of policy, the way WP:ENC summarizes WP:NOT, then it works. Shalom Hello 09:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointless
All this proposal does is let us pat ourselves on the back for having a policy saying you can't insult people for politically incorrect reasons. Everything it says is totally covered by existing policy and practice already, so there is no reason to add another document to the stack of policy. --tjstrf talk 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)