User:Largoplazo/Note on LGBT rights in African countries

For the record, I left the following note on the Talk page for IP user User talk:75.34.102.34 after that user restored to a number of articles on LGBT rights in African countries a section I had deleted from each because it was tangential and seemed to have been added to those articles to make a point. The sections were originally added earlier in 2012 by presumably one person, but from several different IP addresses. Since there's no way to know if an IP user will ever see a message posted on that IP's talk page, and since others are free to alter or remove what I wrote there, I'm posting this here as well so that I have a fixed point of reference to which I can refer in the edit summaries when I remove the sections again.

Hello. I see you restored the section I deleted from a number of articles on LGBT rights in a number of African nations. I explained the reason for the deletion in the edit summary I left with each of my edits. You restored the section in each without leaving any explanation for your action.

It is important for articles on Wikipedia to stay on-topic and not veer off into related, but separate, topics. For example, it wouldn't be appropriate to repeat the contents of Geneva Conventions under articles about every country that has signed onto them. Likewise, it isn't appropriate to copy many boilerplate paragraphs about a set of international agreements on LGBT rights to articles on LGBT rights in specific countries. The fact that one of these countries is a signatory to such-and-such agreement is on-topic, but the details are a tangent to the article. May I recommend, if articles on those agreements don't already exist, that you write them, and then reference them from the individual country articles?

Another problem with the material you added is that you appear to be making a point, advocating for a political cause of concern to you (and me, by the way). This is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Even if the sections were replaced by references to other articles about the international agreements, it would be important to be very careful to include the information without looking like you are making the point, "This country is supposed to be following this agreement, but it isn't." On the other hand, if you can find, for any one of the countries, reliable source material that covers the discrepancy between what has been agreed to and the actual situation, then that discrepancy, as reported, can be a relevant topic within the article for that country. It's a matter of the difference between making an argument yourself (not permitted) and noting that an argument exists at large (permitted).

Please let me know what you think about all this. Regards, —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The articles in question:

—Largo Plazo

To the anonymous editor or editors: as someone who has tried to engage with you before (albeit only through edit summaries on LGBT rights in Kenya), I want to voice my support for everything Largo Plazo has written above. Your edits to these articles imply that you wish to control their content unilaterally; however, Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited resource and disputes over content need to be discussed. Please refer to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for further information. I hope that you will discuss your proposed changes to the articles here, or on their respective talk pages, so that we can ensure that they are made in accordance with the project's goals and policies. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Not having received a reply, I again removed these sections a couple of hours ago, taking the opportunity to reference this article on the edit summary for each. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The user is now mischaracterizing the reversions as vandalism. I have undone this and placed an appropriate warning on the IP account's user talk page. Both the edit summaries and warning message refer the user to this page. IP user, please let's discuss the matter here instead of reverting back and forth. We are trying to be cooperative and are willing to work with you to find a solution to the disagreement, but we can't do this if you won't talk to us or if you take the attitude that we are vandalizing the articles. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The two of you are engaged in tag team edit warring and will be reported if you do it even one more time. As for the articles, they have been stable for months until the mass deletions were done by you. In your crusade to delete relevant (not by any means generic) material, you have violated WP:BRD repeatedly. Aside from those serious violations of WP policy by both of you, the information at issue is not synthesis, is not self-research, and is not advocacy. The material presents the current state of applicable international law, conventions, or treaties as interpreted by international organizations (not as interpreted by me). Only those laws, conventions, and treaties that apply to the country in question are included in the article, which gainsays your unfortunate "boilerplate" knee-jerk accusation. The country in question is clearly violating those laws, conventions, and treaties. There is no room for debate about that. The conclusion is inescapeable. The material is comprehensively cited. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the material. Regards. 70.253.79.10 (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finally responding here. Please note, however, that at Wikipedia we aren't in the business of making conclusions, no matter how "inescapable" they may seem to you; we can only report what others have concluded, based on coverage of said conclusions in reliable sources. This is pretty much what the WP:SYNTHESIS policy is about. I realize that the IP ranges you have been using have now been blocked. We'd be happy to continue to discuss this matter with you after the expiry of your block, or alternatively you could create an account and we could continue the discussion immediately. Until then it is likely that the community will take the view that you are editing against consensus and/or against policy, and your changes may be reverted. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If it happens to be relevant to say, "Guinea's policies violate section such-and-such of such-and-such agreement to which it's a party", one can say that without adding sixteen paragraphs describing the agreement itself, just as every reference on Wikipedia to the United States Constitution isn't followed by the full text of the Constitution.

Even without the massive duplication of text, there remains WP:SYNTHESIS, as Psychonaut pointed out and as I had previously alluded to.

Also, as I said earlier, this doesn't mean that there isn't a very good place on Wikipedia for the material you've introduced.

There was a series of articles on Boy Scouting in every country in Europe, one per country. It included an article on Boy Scouting in the Vatican. The article basically said that as far as we know, there has never been any Scouting in the Vatican, and then speculated that if there were any eligible boys living in the Vatican, they would probably join a troop in Italy. Despite the protests of the protector of the article who fought vehemently to keep it, several others agreed with me that the content of the article was not about the article's topic, and the article was deleted. This is much the same situation: pointing out provisions that aren't being applied to the treatment of LGBT people in a country isn't really a discussion of the treatment that they do receive in that country.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Also LGBT rights in the Central African Republic (which i removed): Lihaas (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)