Should profiles have "content warnings" or "trigger warnings?" [closed]

Question

Previously, the Black Sheep Project created a "content warning" sticker to be used on profiles that had information in the biography that might cause distress to the readers.  The sticker has been used sparingly and only about 50 profiles carry it.

With increasing frequency this year, "content warnings" have appeared on profiles:

WARNING! WARNING!
THE FOLLOWING PROFILE MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION, DEPICTIONS OF HISTORICAL EVENTS AND OTHER INFORMATION THAT MAYBE DISTURBING OR TRIGGERING FLASHBACKS IN POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER SUFFERERS, WHICH MAY BE UNCOMFORTABLE. IT CONTAINS, PHOTOGRAPHS, DOCUMENTS, DIRECT QUOTES, OR PHRASES OF THE TIME PERIOD AND /OR/ ARTICLES THEY ARE DERIVED FROM. THE WORDS AND PHRASES USED DO NOT REFLECT THE BELIEFS OF THE WIKITREE PROFILE MANAGER, CREATOR, OR PROJECT MANAGERS.

and on the profile of an enslaved person:

Content warning: isolation

No slaves from neighboring farms were allowed on the Ramblet farm, they would get whipped off as Mr. Ramblet didn't want anyone to put ideas in his slave's heads.^[1]

Content warning: physical hardship, neglect

The women had to split rails all day long, just like the men. Once she got so cold, her feet seemed to be frozen; when they warmed a little, they had swollen so, she could not wear her shoes. She had to wrap her feet in burlap, so she would be able to go into the field the next day.^[1]

"Content warnings" have been discussed this week inside the US Black Heritage Project Google Group and in the Leaders Google Group.  I'd like to open this G2G thread for the community to discuss the subject of content warnings.

Is there a need for a content warning sticker?  If there is, should there be any criteria for its use?  If not, why not?

Should "content warnings" (text, not the use of the sticker) be allowed?  Encouraged?  Avoided?  Disallowed?

And thanks for your participation in this discussion.

Edit to add:

Please upvote the answer(s) below that you argee with.  They are in order:

Yes: I agree with having a content warning sticker
No: I don't think we should have a content warning sticker
With conditions: I think the content warning sticker is OK but should only be used with certain criteria
Yes: I think that members can add text content warnings (aside from the use of the sticker)
No: I don't think that text content warnings should be used

Comments

pick one answer below to upvote, and please comment with your thoughts/ideas.

---

Thank you, SJ. Note that there may be some question about whether a Profile Sticker is appropriate. We might need to expand the purpose of Profile Stickers to use one in this way.
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Stickers

---

So would a Research Note Box be better to use then?

---

Hi Natalie. I don't think it exactly fits the agreed-upon purpose of RNBs either. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Research_Note_Boxes#Purpose

---

Note that the Black Sheep Project is being dissolved and is being moved, in parts, under the Notables project. I'm not sure the BSP created this warning ... if it did, there is no guidance for the sticker's use on any of the project pages. 

---

If the sticker never went through the G2G vetting process then it should probably be discontinued until it has gone through the approprite procedures and to possibly include rewriting of the help page if necessary.

---

edited to remove comment from now

Answer 1

No, I do not find the warning sticker to be necessary.

Explain in comments.

Comments

History is full of traumatic/stressing events. We should expect that some biographies may have some information that discusses these types of things. At the same time, he writer can take some care with how it is worded in order to not sensationalize the events. If there are to be warnings, they shouldn't be big and bold. Perhaps there needs to be a standard labeling like movies/television

---

If facts are stated and editorializing is disallowed, then this kid of warning, or a warning of any kind, would be unnecessary.  Besides, our main focus is genealogy, making connections, extending family, etc. Why would we need to be like Wikipedia that would usually, in the case of notables, have all the history anyway?

---

As WikiTree is a genealogy site, I think "gory details" that might offend or "trigger" some people should not be included in a WikiTree biography. It's more appropriate to add links to the sources that detail that info. If someone commited (or was the vicitim of) violent acts, those acts should be noted, but summarized.

---

The first part of Doug's comment above added to that of Pip would summarize my present view on this topic. With warning or labeling I foresee endless haggling over minutia in definitions complicated by the fact that we aim to be a global endeavor encompassing many different vantage points as to what might or might not be traumatic or stressing. Warnings/labels could also be used for political reasons which we have banned from WikiTree. Everything we work with is past tense and labeling cannot change a jot of it. We have mutually agreed standards in place for the written (and I assume visual) content of profiles and sensationalizing possibly disturbing content would, I believe, be handled through processes already in place.

---

If you're "profile surfing" and have the time to just randomly grab and read profiles, then I suppose you might be shocked if you came across one with certain types of information or details. But for the most part, people are seeking family or profiles related to a particular person - at which point they either will find it interesting or will mentally note a profile they'd prefer never to read again.

I don't know if we have any minors who utilize WikiTree, but I would think this might be the only decent reason to create a rating system where certain profiles need warnings (Warning- this profile is rated "R" by the ratings review board... no child under the age of 17 should read this information without a parent or guardian permission), but I wouldn't even begin to know how you'd enforce such a thing. And I doubt we'd want to.

---

Facts are not always pleasant. But they do represent true history. Wikitree should only be dealing in facts and so warnings are unnecessary. Sometimes it is good for me to learn about unpleasant facts as it opens my eyes to other people's experiences. Sensationalizing, editorializing about facts should not be allowed, so warnings should not be used either. The warnings are in fact a form of editorializing. And the big red all caps warning is almost enough to cause trauma all by itself it is so obnoxious and in-your-face. Where would the labelling stop? Does putting my counterfeiting ancestor in a profile need a sticker warning since he was definitely operating outside the law? How about my ancestor who was attacked on the streets of Denver? Does that level of violence need a sticker warning? Or how about his daughter and grandchildren being held up on a train? This is both outside the law and violent. Where does the line get drawn if you once start down this path of editorializing through sticker warnings?

---

You can always have a free space page with the ‘maybe upsetting’ info and a link on the profile, so people can read it or not.

---

I also think the existence of warnings could have an adverse effect: "since there is a warning, we can add graphic detail" instead of writing thoughtfully in order to have the facts available without sensationalizing / adding too much gory detail. (I apologize if this is not very well stated).

---

I do not find the warning to be warranted or necessary. If such a warning is needed, it should be in the title of the Black Sheep Project. That title has always struck me as kind of tongue in cheek or comedic, like the Black Sheep Squadron on T.V. years ago.  If the whole project is possibly upsetting to readers, the warning should be included in the project title.

---

I can't imagine why anyone would use such graphic detail in a biography that it would traumatize someone.  If a person was murdered or died a gruesome death that's all that needs to be said - further information can be links to newspapers, books, a free-space page or whatever.  Transcriptions of slave narratives seem to be what triggered this discussion, but it seems that a simple statement at the beginning of the transcript (or of any first-hand account pertinent to a biography that is graphic in nature) that says something like:  "This is the first-hand account of a formerly enslaved person and may contain graphic details."  should be more than sufficient.  No need for giant red letters or "WARNING" signs.

---

My thought is that if someone is going to be traumatized by what they might find on WikiTree profiles, they probably would be traumatized on a daily basis watching the news or reading a newspaper. Life can be rough and trying to shield everyone from every bit of ugliness is probably not healthy either. We don't allow members under the age of 13, right?  

Would we need to add a WARNING label on my ancestress, Hannah (Rogers) Harding? (Alert: there is fatal domestic abuse mentioned.)

I view her story as a lesson in how women were treated in her time, and how the community reacted. It's a history lesson, not current events.

---

Good points Bobby.  There is research that shows that trigger warnings don't work anyways.  

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/03/21/new-study-says-trigger-warnings-are-useless-does-mean-they-should-be-abandoned

In the realm of sodlier's PTSD it has been found that avoiding (sheltering) from triggers draws recovery out for years longer than those who confront their trauma issues.

---

I think that by labeling and warning our heritage as "disturbing" negates the whole purpose of researching our ancestors.  We research to put a face on our past, to learn the truth about what our ancestors went through, yes some is bad... but most is good.  We are all direct descendants of what our ancestors had to endure.  It is what we are made of.  It should not be hidden behind a warning sticker.

---

In my half decade of experience on WikiTree, the information about a profile which is most upsetting to people is not details of what may have happened to the person, but the discovery, after research, that the individual never in fact existed.  In fact, while I have included some unsavory facts on profiles, I think demonstrating someone's non-existence is the only information I have posted which has actually upset people.  When the non-existent person has been a part of one's understanding of one's own history for years, and then the facts show the person never existed, this is understandably upsetting, and people do get upset.  As a Project Coordinator of the Disproven Existence Project, documentation of why non-existent people did not exist is especially important to me, and people do indeed get upset.  But posting a content warning urging people to not read the documentation never occurred to me.  "Content warning:  George never existed, so if this upsets you, please continue believing he was your ancestor."

---

I agree with what Traci said above, 

"As WikiTree is a genealogy site, I think "gory details" that might offend or "trigger" some people should not be included in a WikiTree biography. It's more appropriate to add links to the sources that detail that info. If someone commited (or was the vicitim of) violent acts, those acts should be noted, but summarized."

On one profile for a murderer, it stated exactly how he killed a child in gory detail. I don't think this kind of thing should be on WikiTree. It would have been more than enough to say he killed the child. 

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jeffries-1707

We are a genealogy site, not a history website.

---

Genealogy is history.

---

Thank you, Leandra -- this borders on being off-topic, but since the genealogy vs. history issue has been used as part of the discussion, I feel it's important to weigh in.  As a trained historian, I would have no interest in genealogy if it were not a part of history;  I suppose the extreme "pure" genealogy would simply be a listing of genetic haplotypes, i.e. Genetic haplotype A married Genetic haplotype B, the daughter of haplotype C and D, and had three children, haplotypes E, F, and G.  The minute you go beyond that, you have brought in history and biography, the things that make genealogy useful, interesting and important.  Certainly if wikipedia already has a complete biography for someone there's no need to duplicate the effort, but in some cases our concern for genealogical truth may result in a better biography, and when we're dealing with lesser known people it may be the ONLY biography, and we should brook no criticism of those who seek to bring as much light as possible to those who wish to share a long dead person's life story.

One of the really major strengths of WikiTree is that our profiles don't have "notes" -- they have "biographies" and that puts us head and shoulders above ancestry, geni, and even family search.  I cringe when I hear that we are not about history.  The distinction is that we are about FAMILY history, which is what genealogy really is, and that includes both the individual's life story and the historical context in which he or she lived.  Otherwise, all you have is a name and a date.

---

Watching the daily news can be triggering to some people. History frequently was unpleasant. If one doesn't want to be triggered, don't read history. I've got family members who can't cope with a child born 180 years ago having an unknown father and they need to sanitise history, so it would be impossible to define a standard for sticker usage that suits everyone. I read some details of murders and think they are unnecessarily brutal; I wouldn't have worded it that way, but there are others that I think are relevant to a specific person/event.

---

Yes, Thank you, Leandra.

The professional genealogists I know and those I've had asteachers consider history part of genealogy. There is a reason the Institute for Genealogical and Historical Research has "Historical" in its name.

---

When I say we are a genealogy site, not a history site, I mean our profiles should not read like WikiPedia pages--more historical events than family history. We should be far heavier on the family history side of things on biographies. I feel too many profiles are too heavy on the historical events side of things and completely forget this person was a part of a family. The profile I mentioned above is a perfect example. There's literally nothing about his family life except where he was born. His profile is a history page, not a family history page.

---

Emma, I fully agree with you, and this is what I meant above with what I said that we don't need to have all the history that Wikipedia presents, particularly with notables. I understand fully what Jack meant about our common (my word) ancestors who would never have their history told unless we did it.

The profile you referenced is an example of what I was trying to get across. You said it perfectly: " There's literally nothing about his family life except where he was born. His profile is a history page, not a family history page."

---

There are many thousands of profiles here that have nothing but where someone was born. Some of them don't even have that. If it is acceptable to upload all of those profiles with no sourcing whatsoever, and then claiming it is start for someone else to build upon it in the name of collaborative genealogy, then the same principle applies to the bushranger.

I will agree there are some parts of the biography that don't need to be there. Personally I would state he was a brutal or a sadistic murderer and let people read the sources if they wish.

---

Emma I don't agree that the murder of the baby is there in gory detail, just states the fact. What bothers me about that story is that his victims don't seem to have profiles.

---

Reading the sources 'if they wish' is only possible if those sources are readily available. Trove newspaper archive used in the example above is fine but often they are not. If  Thomas Jeffries, the example given  had commited his latter  crimes at  his home in Dorset, the newspaper reports simply  wouldn't be freely available. I really don't think we should have to think about censoring quotations from contemporary reports or documents. I would  also not want to try and decide what might 'trigger' feelings of distress. Would the suicide, I wrote about warrant a warning? What about the death of children caused by falling into the fire, or the mother found guilty of infanticide? (both commonplace events).

 Emma  points out that there's no family history on this example. I agree, but people are always arguing that profiles are a just a starting point. Dorset gaol registers show that Jeffries had a wife and a child.He  was a baker 'from' Milborne St Andrew and convicted under the draconian poaching laws There's a man fitting the description baptised and married at Affpuddle, within 3 miles of Milborne St A. .(looks to be part of a large family) If these were added the objection of it not being family history would disapear.

---

No: I don't think that text content warnings should be used

---

This is a slippery slope.  We could start with a short list, but I can think of examples of warnings that themselves would be offensive to someone:  a man burned at the stake by Indians might trigger for the violence, but then be offensive to members of the tribe that did it.  Or the Acadians who were forced into slavery and starved, but the warning could be offensive to the descendants of the British people who did it.   Statues of historical figures are torn down because they owned slaves, and that triggers some people, are we going to have these warnings on every slave owner?  Where do you stop?  These days almost anything can trigger someone as evidenced by examples provided by other people as well.  It's unrealistic to think we could start with a short list and keep it small.

---

1) it looks a complete mess. 2) aaaarrrrgggghhhhh.

---

I do not believe that warning notices of any kind should be used. We cannot sanitise history whether it is of history of world events, or of our own or other's family history.

Sensationalization of events is different.

I suggest that reading this article in the September 2015  issue of The Atlantic may shed more light on this topic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

---

I agree with Cindy, this is an exceptionally slippery slope. Who would make such decisions on what was upsetting?

There are incidents that should be upsetting, if no one ever learns about them, how will society ever try to make sure they don't happen again.

I could tell a story about a young girl who lived with 3 brothers, a sister, her parents and a grandmother. One day some bullies made her family leave town, they took a train ride, when they arrived at their destination, the girl and one of her brothers were sent to work in a factory.

The rest of the family must have needed a shower, so they went to the shower room  and the girl and her brother never saw those family members again.

Is this what should be on the girl's profile? Or should it say Auschwitz survivor? It is upsetting and it should be.

In its many variations we all know the saying "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it"

---

The Atlantic article misrepresents and misunderstands "trigger warnings." They aren't for snowflakes who can't handle "the truth." They're meant to inform the Irag war vet that the hell he went through will be graphically described, so he should prepare himself to avoid his PTSD putting him back there, in his head. To inform the rape survivor to prepare herself for the graphic description ahead, so she doesn't get blindsided by it and start reliving her rape while sitting in the classroom.

As to the holocaust survivor example ... the plain statement that someone survived the Holocaust, or even that they survived while members of their family were killed in the gas chambers and their bodies burned in the ovens at Dachau, is not the sort of thing people are interested in advisories for. It's a straw man argument.

I actually upvoted one of the other options (the sticker is overkill, but if a PM sees the need for an advisory ... well, they are the PM!). I just wanted to address what I felt was a misrepresentation of what an advisory is and why people would use them.

---

That's a very interesting article about the American college students. I do think society has added to problems by sanitising history and anything that we find too conflicting or challenging is brushed under the mat. As a politically active person I find it very frustrating that the mistakes of the past are repeated because people choose to ignore history. There are some unpleasant truths in my family history that some people would rather never see the light of day. I would prefer that we learn from them and prevent recurrence in future generations. That to me is one of the best ways we can honour our ancestors. If we don't attempt that then our ancestors lived in vain.

---

Different things upset different people. But if you know content is liable to distress some people, why is it in the profile? Is the problem not the vulnerable reader but the insensitive editor?

---

" Different things upset different people". We cannot predict which topics or statements may upset someone. It depends totally on who the reader is.

My following comment is not meant to diminish people's feelings. My teenage granddaughter has to leave the room if the characters in a movie have a disagreement, she finds it distressing. Quite why this happens I don't know.

If factual information is presented on a profile, is accurate and correct, I see no reason for it to be excluded or warned about.

There are significant numbers of historical characters who were horrible, nasty etc any number of words could describe their behaviours.

Do we omit the historical records for Ivan the Terrible or Nicolae Ceausescu or Pol Pot because somebody doesn't want to know that they lived and actually did the things that are recorded history.

If any historical person, famous or not did something that is recorded, I don't see how that can be omitted or white washed.

We are all both genealogists and family historians.

There is however a big difference between saying John Doe was convicted of ...., and describing in minute detail exactly what he did step by step, to who etc etc. A description of that sort is inappropriate and should not be part of a profile.

---

But, M, Ivan the Terrible or Nicolae Ceausescu or Pol Pot’s crimes are cover in rather startling detail on other sites. Why replicate that here?

---

Pip, nowhere in Ms Ross' post does she state that she is in favour of covering Ivan the Terrible's crimes in startling detail. What she is saying is that we should be honest about saying a person was a murderer, or ordered torture, but not go into all the gory details about everything they did.

---

I agree absolutely! But what I see for some profiles is a push to make (particularly) notables as bad as they can be. And, as genealogy site, what we should be focusing on is family. So, when I see a profile with egregious sins given in detail, and little family connections included, it makes for an unbalance.

---

Leandra and Pip,

You're both right, I was trying to think of historical persons whose actions are well known, rather than describing a made up profile, and after about 8 hours working in the sun yesterday..........

We don't need to duplicate information that is covered more than adequately on other sites.

My own very personal opinion is that some of the over the top descriptions of notables or other less or not publicly known 'nasties' are inspired by websites that ask their members to like posts and the more outrageous the posts the more likes they get.

 After almost a year on WikiTree I think we are quite different.

Now going to work in the sun again.

---

Pip, Those types of profiles do indeed seem very out of place and to be trying for sensationalism. As others have said, you can always explain that someone was a very bad person without describing the gory details. Those are better left to Wikipedia and various history sites.

Answer 2

Yes, I think this is a good idea.

Explain in comments.

Comments

Would the sticker/template be customizable to allow for saying stuff like "graphic depictions of violence" or "rape" or etc? I would really want that -- as someone who is Very Online, content warnings have been a part of my daily life and culture since I was a kid. I even use them on my tweets, as do most people my age.

I feel like not having a sticker/template and not allowing text content warnings would be kind of terrible as well as possibly upsetting to some people (including myself!!!). However, I also can agree that the giant WARNING! WARNING! text content warning is a bit much. Really, in the case of these narratives for enslaved peoples profiles (I am part of the Black Heritage project and have been watching them transcribe the narratives for a while), I believe that there should be one content warning at the beginning of the narrative section so as to not disrupt the flow of everything - something easily placed between bio and transcription would work well.

That being said, as long as the sticker or template can be customized to say the content warning involved, I would vote for this one above multiple text content warnings as I find it more organized and eye catching.

---

+1 what Liz is saying

Answer 3

I believe that the sticker is a good idea but should only be used in certain circumstances.  

Please add any ideas for guidelines for profiles which would carry the sticker.

Comments

I think if guidelines are set and are specific, the sticker will not need to be used by most people on a daily basis, but it will be useful in certain situations if violence is portrayed in the biography.

A suggestion I have is to use the sticker in cases of:
murders, rapes, torture, etc.

Black Sheep project is "leaving the building," so the sticker could be repurposed for wide use.

---

There would need to be guidelines and perhaps some type of review. What one person thinks needs a warning may not be thought of the same way by others. Nat's list would be a good starting place. I also think authors should take care to avoid sensationalizing.

---

To add to Doug's comment - I like the idea of a review, and I think if we do have a review, it really does need to be done by people who heed content warnings and not by people who ignore and remove them. Ya?

---

Honestly, if I heed content warnings, I'm not going to volunteer to review what is under content warnings to check that the warning is warranted. I'd just steer clear.

---

'Black Sheep, is not a good description for people who are criminal.  It in my opinion often used for people who do not necessarily fit in with common wishes or expectations of the time or of their family.

I have personal knowledge of a family where several siblings were quite angry and upset, that one sibling decided to emigrate with his large family, because there was not enough work or income in their home country.

For many years this person was ostracised by the siblings, their concern was that the emigrant had escaped the duties of caring for their elderly parents. He was considered the Black Sheep of the family.

Answer 4

Yes, members should be allowed to add (text) content warnings to profiles.

Explain in comments.

Comments

Removing my comment.

---

Absolutely, yes.

I personally don't think there's anything about information in a profile that is so universally abhorrent that the entire thing needs a warning sticker. I'm open to being wrong if anyone wants to share a profile they think qualifies. I'd probably be open to a profile-wide warning if extremely violent images were associated with the profile?

I also firmly believe a small content warning for descriptions of violence, torture, cruel and unusual punishments does no harm. If you're about to quote something that could be upsetting to a descendant, give them the opportunity to come back when they're ready to find out what their great-grandfather had to endure.

I believe text content warnings should be specific, i.e. don't just say "content warning," say "content warning: rape" or "content warning: murder" or "content warning: forced isolation." Folks who don't need those warnings can move right along and keep reading. Folks who do need those warnings have the opportunity to take care of themselves.

For me, content warnings are about recognizing other people may be more sensitive than you are about certain content. People who provide content warnings aren't good or bad, we're just trying to think about how other people might react to certain content.

It's Ok if you're not sensitive to content. Read on!

It's Ok if you don't know when others will be sensitive to content; readers over time will let you know if they'd wished you'd included a content warning for something and you can proceed from there.

---

I agree with what Traci said above "As WikiTree is a genealogy site, I think "gory details" that might offend or "trigger" some people should not be included in a WikiTree biography. It's more appropriate to add links to the sources that detail that info. If someone commited (or was the vicitim of) violent acts, those acts should be noted, but summarized."

On one profile for a murderer, it stated exactly how he killed a child in gory detail. I don't think this kind of thing should be on WikiTree. However, there is text that is what I call hard truth, such as in the cases of slavery. it needs to be told and there's no way to summarize in some cases. I think this should be at the bottom of the profile with a one sentence general text warning right above it.

---

If biographies really do contain gruesome descriptions and if a simple warning text is sufficient to alert readers, then we should approve such a warning.

But, we should also in our biographies avoid graphic detail, gruesome descriptions, revolting language and the like. Putting upsetting content in a link, using sober language in the biography, should be encouraged.

Many others have said the same thing on this page, and I'll join them. We should allow members to use text warnings at their discretion. It sounds like this would be satisfactory for members who have always worked with warnings.

Answer 5

Text content warnings (aside from a warning sticker) should not be allowed.

Explain in comments.

Comments

There is too much room for sensationalizing if this is acceptable. The big red, WARNING WARNING is one example.

---

Is the big red warning warning that much different from the large

now found on Trove?

.

I think one "WARNING!" in red would be sufficient.  The repeated word is overkill.

---

I completely agree with Natalie.

Answer 6

My only concern is that any decision regarding content warnings in this context doesn't impact on other content warnings, in particular, the content warning relating to Australian First Peoples. It is a well-established cultural protocol, and expression of cultural respect, that there should be a content warning to alert Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to material which might contain images and names of Indigenous people who have died. Thanks!

Comments

Which is the point I attempted to make earlier, then removed as the response to it brought in religion.

---

Thanks for your comment Gillian and please accept my upvote.  I was not aware of this cultural norm to place content warnings.  Looking at the page: 

Project: Indigenous Australians

I see:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that
this page may contain names and images of people who have died.

I find this notice on the sup-project page to be completely acceptable and sounds reasonable in every way.  Although I don't see how it would be possible to have such disclaimers on profiles because by the time that the viewer arrives to the profile, it is too late to unsee a profile image and the name of a deceased person.  In that regard, if it is the cultural or religious belief of a person (or group of people) to not view images or the names of deceased people, then genealogy probably isn't the best hobby for them.  But having the disclaimer for those who wander to the page, if it is against their culture to view these things then I think that this warning is reasonable.

I'm not sure that so many folks have an issue with putting some kind of warning at the top of a bio.  It is the manner in which these warnings have been "cookie cutter" cut-and-pasted in a way that feels more political than helpful.  I don't think anyone would object to an opening paragraph on a bio that read something like:

== Biography ==
John Smith was a notorious murderer who was known to have killed over two dozen people in the early 18th century.  He was born on (date) in (city) and worked as a day laborer at (place).  He was never married and had no children and died on (date) in (place).  A movie (movie name) was produced in 1998 that fictionalized his crime spree).  His crimes are detailed in his bio below.

== Early life ==
John was born...

Unfortunately, part of the drive to use cut-and-paste content warnings have been included in a wider effort by some to re-educate other Wikitree members about the finer points of racism and privilege.  As these are politically driven motives, they don't belong on Wikitree.  I am glad to see that we are keeping genealogy, and not politics, as the primary focus of our efforts.

edit: typo

---

Thanks SJ. I really just wanted to flag this specific issue, so that it doesn't get caught up inadvertently in any decisions related to this current discussion. This is an example of how an Indigenous Australian content warning might currently appear on a profile, although of course it can be further discussed on a separate thread if necessary: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Djungunbuna-1

---

I like the wording on this one- https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Mannalargenna-1

---

Thanks for sharing Gillian.  Just from an execution standpoint, I'm at a loss as to how this example could be helpful.  The person is already on the page, can see any bio images and the name of the deceased person.  I would liken it to walking into a store, seeing row upon row of wine and whisky bottles and then finding a sign on the back wall saying, "Customers should be advised that we sell alcohol in this store."  Other than beinig on the sub-project page, I'm not sure that Wikitree can put (or should put) a warning on individual profiles before the person opens the profile page.  A genealogy site lists the names and images of deceased people.  I don't think that those who find this offensive our outside of their beliefs should visit genealogy sites.  There are some whose religious beliefs are such that they believe that it is a sin to have an image (photo, drawing, painting, or otherwise) of a person.  These folks would probably do best to stay away from Instragram.  I don't think it reasonable that the whole internet have disclaimers for them.

---

Thanks SJ and Melanie - really appreciate your feedback! I'm conscious that I don't want to derail the very important discussion which is the subject of your original post, SJ. It may be valuable to have a separate discussion of 'cultural content warnings' down the track, if needed.