Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

« Archives, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194

Actresses categorization

Although it could be insignificant at first sight, the distinction between Category:Actors and Category:Actresses (the latter being a soft redirect currently) could be very useful and handy in Wikipedia, particularly in terms of navigation and accessibility (browsing the entire Category:Actors could be particularly inconvenient, when one needs a narrow subject for research purposes, for example Category:Norwegian actresses). The WP:Cat gender statement "separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed" does not give any reason for that. It's a case where the gender-neutral language seems to be unneccessary, if not troublesome in terms of WP:PRECISION. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language suggests gender-neutral language only "where this can be done with clarity and precision", which is not the case. Linguistically, this is especially so when the person bears a unisex name, like Robin Tunney when it's unclear whether it's he or she. The articles about actresses consistently refer to each as "actress", not "actor" and we already have long-standing categories of women by occupation, that have male counterparts: Category:Priestesses, Category:Abbesses, Category:Nuns. Considering all that, I propose this motion to drop the restriction on actresses in WP:CATGRS so that we could restore Category:Actresses and foster all relevant subcats, like Category:Actresses by country. Brandmeister^talk 01:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a gender issue. Traditionally people who are actors who are women have been called actresses, but they have pointed out that no, they are just as much an actor as any male actor. Apteva (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yet the word "actress" is not an anachronism in English and is obviously neutral as it's neither an offensive word nor a word to avoid. As far as I know it's simply grammatically incorrect to call for instance Jessica Biel an "actor" instead of "actress". Brandmeister^talk 09:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not grammatically incorrect (at least not in standard UK English); the distinction was common in the past, but has now become a lot less clear-cut.

Women did not appear on stage in public in England until after the Restoration of 1660, following which the terms actor and actress were both used to describe female performers. Later, actor was often restricted to men, with actress as the usual term for women. Although actress remains in general use, actor is increasingly preferred for performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term. [OED 3rd ed., 2010; note to "actress, n", sense 2a] Andrew Gray (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should not prefer some unclear trends over encyclopedic purposes and having double standards (like Category:Priestesses but not Category:Actresses) is odd. There is still Academy Award for Best Actress, as well as a dedicated Category:Film awards for lead actress (not actor). Many dictionaries themselves still have the entry "actress". Brandmeister^talk

Brandmeister, none of your four points holds any logical water. On priestesses, that's a bogus WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS position, one of the main arguments to avoid XfDs; the fact that other categories may need similar clean-up is no reason not to start with this one. On Oscars, half the point of this entire debate is that Hollywood and its institutions are deeply, shamelessly sexist; blindly doing exactly as they do is not an option per WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BIAS. Of course a subcateory of our former actresses category also uses the word "actress"; that proves nothing other than that WP:CFD tends to prefer consistency over sense sometimes (and it's also named after sexist awards that all or almost all have "Actress" in their names). Finally, of course dictionaries still have the word "actress"; just because the term is loaded and declining in usage doesn't mean it never existed. I don't think I could make an argument as confused and illogical as the ones you've presented unless I drank about 3/4 gal of Scotch. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 05:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Since this is on WP:CENT, I've tagged it as an RFC. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• I wouldn't categorize female actors separately from male ones, just as we don't categorize female singers separately from male ones. The fact that a different word happens to exist doesn't mean we have to use it in our categorization system. I would only categorize by sex in professions where being of one sex rather than the other is somehow exceptional for that profession. Victor Yus (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Victor, and add that Cat:Priestess is a good example of this, because no matter what the religion, the priesthood is almost always dominated by, if not exclusively restricted to, one gender. Diana was served by women, and Jupiter by men. Exceptions to this approach have historically been rare. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Screen Actors Guild, the very union which represents Hollywood actors, gives out the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role. If they want to call themselves female actors, why should we object? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we do categorize singers like that. Category:Female singers by nationality, Category:Male singers by nationality. --Brian the Editor (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I just had to add at this point that we have seperate categories such as Category:American female singers. I even at one point made a nomination to get rid of such categories (but retain categories such as Category:American sopranos and Category:American tenors that while geneder specific, are also by voice type) the move was defeated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• We have enough problems fighting over what sexuality or religion someone is for categorization purposes. I don't think the benefits will outweigh the inevitable conflicts that will arise when it comes time to decide on an article about an actor of ambiguous gender. Gigs (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

  We have gendered categories for politicians, writers, singers, golfers, comedians, and many other occupations. In the rare cases of people of ambiguous gender, I have seen no evidence that categorising them in the existing gendered categories has caused any particular problem. So why should it be a particular problem with actors? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• To all but the older editors like myself, "actress" is a quaint anachronism like "aviatrix", still maintained by certain fogies like the folks who broadcast the awards shows! --Orange Mike | Talk 02:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Terms like poetess, authoress and comedienne were used when I was young and they have all fallen by the wayside and things did not fall apart when this happened. As others have mentioned above those in the profession have moved to gender neutral language. As to dictionaries these, especially the Merriam-Webster definition here [1] whose 1st example of usage in a sentence is "my sister went to drama school to become an actor". Other dictionaries here [2], here [3] and here [4] all of which use gender neutral definitions. This writing style guide [5] gives us another reliable source for us of the word actor for both genders. Documentaries like The Celluloid Closet and programs on The Biography Channel and TruTV identify men and women as actors. Although many acting awards retain the term actress the associations that present them have moved away from it as can be seen in the In Memorium segment of this last February's Academy Awards [6]. Our MoS has long had this section Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language and it applies to this discussion as it always has. MarnetteD | Talk 22:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a clarification - Gender-neutral language is an Essay, and not a part of the MOS. Apteva (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

But Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality is an editing guideline and it specifically says "As another example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest." Apteva (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That guideline sets out a series of general principles for deciding when gendered categories should be created. The first principle is "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic". In the case of gender, it says "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic".
The specific guidance against categorising actors by gender contradicts those general principles, and should be removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of those terms have, indeed, fallen by the wayside and I'm not averse to combining both categories into one. Still, a distinguishment between the two is still noted (the Academy Awards are a prime example), and a separate actresses category wouldn't be bad. Perhaps there could be "actor" and "actress" subcategories of one larger one, though I'm not sure what you'd name that larger cat. dci | TALK 02:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you not look at the link I provided that showed that the Academy Awards listed men and women as Actors, including Jane Russell and Elizabeth Taylor, in the years In Memorium section? They may not have changed the name of the acting award - yet - but they have certainly acknowledged the gender neutral use of the term "Actor". MarnetteD | Talk 15:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Marnette continues to confuse or conflate two separate issues: a) the terminology used to describe women in the acting profession; b) the question of whether acting is a gendered profession.

The Academy Awards may or may not choose at some point to follow the example other awards and label their gendered awards as "male actors" and "female actors", but I see no evidence that any of the major acting awards have considered abandoning the gendered split in their awards ceremonies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that there are two different issues raised here. The more important issue is whether we should categorize actors by gender. Victor Yus, WhatamIdoing, and Apteva address this issue above, and while they give cogent arguments against gender categorization, I think that gender categorization would be useful and appropriate for the reasons noted by Brandmeister, Brian the Editor, and DCI2026. The less important question is whether we should revive usage of the word "actress": since "female actor" accomplishes the same goal without the perceived baggage of the traditional term, we should just go with "female actor" and "male actor" as subcats of "actor". Any "actors of ambiguous gender" can be handled by recourse to the sources (see, e.g. Jaye Davidson, Divine (performer), RuPaul, etc.) or in the unsolvable case left in the parent category.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• "Female actors" sounds fine to me, if there's going to be categories by gender (I'm not that big a believer in categories in the first place, so I'm also good with not having any distinction). I've heard elsewhere that the term "actress" is older usage in mainstream film and theater, and "actor" (for either gender) is preferred. "Actress" these days may be associated mostly with porn, not that I would know. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose (i.e., continue to keep male and female actors merged into Category:Actors). We really need to avoid genderization of categories except where absolutely necessary, for the same reason we don't have Category:Gay black liberal actors with a disability. This obsession with labeling people by something that can be discriminated against isn't particularly helpful. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Quite. When there is a reason for someone to need to find actors that happen to be female, there should be linked data tool-oriented methods to do so (e.g. DBpedia) - using categories for this kind of extremely basic metadata is not only crude in terms of sophistication but has the many unwanted side-effects of the kind discussed above. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
    • This is not DBpedia, and we don't have those tools, because Wikipedia:Category intersection has never been implemented. So we still have static intersections categories, include many other categories for the intersection of gender and occupation ... and we have a set of long-term stable criteria for deciding when we create categories for such intersections. It is not, and never has been policy or guideline to follow SMcCandlish's desire to "avoid genderization of categories except where absolutely necessary". The guidance is that "a gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic", and the case of acting it is a central aspect of the topic. This is illustrated by long-standing existence of dozens of categories of industry awards restricted only to women, some of which I have grouped together under Category:Actresses by award. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
      • And how many of those have no male counterpart? Probably zero or close to it. You're missing the fact that Hollywood's obsession with divvying up everyone by sex and compartmentalizing them for evaluation and review purposes is as arbitrary as Negro baseball leagues were. It simply does not follow that one industry's latent (and often very overt, actually) sexism means we need to have a categorization system that follows suit. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Like it or not actor/actress are not unisex roles, an actress plays women, an actor plays men. The cat is as specific/inflexible as category:Spanish male tennis players. As for English, try "the actress Marilyn Monroe" in Google Books, then try "the actor Marilyn Monroe". The current category labelling is not massively helpful, particularly with non-West-European names where looking at category:Thai actors won't be remotely clear to most readers, though List of Thai actors + List of Thai actresses fills the task. (Though I don't think this actor Marilyn Monroe issue is as silly as category:German conductors (music), to distinguish from German conductors (electrical), while we're mentioning unhelpful cat names..) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  There are at multiple productions which focus on males playing female roles and females playing male roles, for example Tootsie and Victor Victoria/Victor/Victoria (musical). In Shakespearean times there were no female actors and males played the female roles. It is certainly plausible that someone somewhere has put on a wig and played Marilyn Monroe, and that someone has cut their hair and played Cary Grant. Why does anyone care what someone's gender is? We have categories of golfers and female golfers and male and female tennis players, because there is a specific golf tour that prohibits males from participation and tennis tournaments prohibit females from playing in the mens tournament and males from playing in the females tournament (though Billie Jean King trounced an aging Bobbie Riggs). Wimbledon now pays identical purses for male and female winners. Anyone can play in the PGA, it just so happens that only one or two females have tried, and none have "made the cut" (Ms 59, Annika Sorenstam, came close). Apteva (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  Even aside from historical cases, there are innumerable modern examples of women straightforwardly playing male roles and vice versa (i.e. not productions about this, but productions that just happen to have this), from Peter Pan to The Year of Living Dangerously to Orlando to whatever Bond film it was with the male-to-female transsexual in the "babes by the pool" scene. The assumption that "men play men and women play women" is demonstrably false, and the "thus we have to separately categorize them" so-called logic that follows on this incorrect assumption is necessarily fallacious on its face. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose reinstating the actress categories. I don't care much one way or another about whether the word actress is maintained in the relevant articles, but I see no real argument for why the two genders have to be sorted into two different categories. (If you want to maintain the word "actress", why not Category:Actors and actresses?) Victor Yus sums up my views. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

  Exactly. A large percentage of the respondents on this issue are fixating on the fact that "the word actress is not obsolete in English", as someone put it, when this really doesn't have much to do with anything. No one's telling anyone they have to use the phrase "female actor" in an article; there's simply no real reason to fork the category by gender. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see this discussion at CfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I have asked for that nomination to be withdrawn until this RFC has closed, per WP:MULTI's principle of keeping discussions centralised. Sadly, Lugnuts has declined my request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• First off, I think the a lot of people are missing the real issue. I would say that actress is still used, but would be willing to go with "female actor". We have the article Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress among others which shows people still use the term and I was able to find lots of hits, including some from British newspapers in the last two-years with the google search "Actress picked for Lois Lane". However, it is also clear that actor will be used in gender neutral ways as well, so I am fine with either term. In general the roles people are given (although there are exceptions) corespond with their gender. I think it would work to divide out the actors by nationality categories into male and female sub-sections. There is such a high overlap between singers and actors, I really do not see how we justify dividing singers by gender and not dividing actors by gender, so I think we should divide actors by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Should either be merged into Category:Actors or moved to Category:Female actors. Personally I don't see the point of us categorizing every possible human topic by gender, but oh well. Kaldari (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Just incase anyone still had a doubt, actress redirects to, yes you've guessed it - actor. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Split We split categories in fields where it is noteworthy to split. In the case of other celebrity fields like modeling or sports, it is so routine to segregate or talk about men separately from women that it would be absurd to not categorize them apart. Since female and male actors are so commonly spoken of separately (e.g. in awards ceremonies), it makes sense to follow that convention while categorizing them. And, as pointed out in the original proposal, this would be a convenient and reasonable scheme for navigation. I can easily imagine the value of sorting through female vocalists just like I could see the value in sorting through females who are actors/actresses. For my money, "actress" is in no way an anachronism and I find "actor" when applied to women jarring. This is purely anecdotal and I don't have any data on how common "actor" as a generic term is versus "actors" for males and "actresses" for females. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• Split since we do this for singers, we should do it for actors as well. Actors roles are more determined by gender than those of singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think a split by gender is justified in this case. Splitting singers is justified because there are distinct differences between male and female voices, and songs are often written for either a male or female singer. But there's no inherent distinction between male and female actors; yes, some awards differentiate by gender, but others don't. The distinguishing features for actors are what they perform in (stage, film, television, etc) and their nationality, but not their gender. Robofish (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I always favor precision in language (as explained by Brandmeister). Dropping actress would be an instance of gender neutrality causing obfuscation, rather than clarity. Another editor comments that "aviatrix" is a quaint anachronism. Well, "aviator" is not frequently used any longer, either, but, in cases where it were used, aviatrix would also be appropriate. To retain actor and actress serves a useful linguistic purpose. Dropping the word actress would be an inappropriate application of gender neutrality. It would apply gender neutrality simply for the sake of gender neutrality, and not because it provides any benefit. Hackercraft (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This would be a retrograde change and harms more than it helps. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  That's WP:JUSTAVOTE. Please explain why you think it would be a retrograde step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Split. Acting is a rigidly gendered profession, in which men and women work in the same settings but have roles defined by their gender. Unless a casting director is trying to make a counterfactual point, women don't get to play Hamlet and men don't get to play Ophelia. This gendered split is acknowledged at all the major awards in the profession, which have separate awards for men and women.
  The relevant guidance at WP:CATGRS stresses the principle that "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic", and that is clearly the case here. We have gendered categories for singers Category:Female singers and Category:Male singers) for similar reasons, and in both cases there are specific exemptions in the UK's Sex Discrimination laws to permit differentiation by gender. (I presume that the same applies in other jurisdictions such as the USA, or women would be suing Hollywood for not being cast in the lucrative and more plentiful male roles).
  Note that the guidance also says that "separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed", but offers no reason for this breach of the general principle. The general principle that we make a decision on whether "gender has a specific relation to the topic" works fine in every other area of human endeavour, and we should apply it here too.
  The overwhelming majority of contemporary dramatic performances (whether for stage or screen) are cast according so that characters are portrayed by actors of the same gender. By far the largest exception to that is in some art forms or cultures where there is a convention that some or all of the parts are played by actors of the opposite gender (as in pantomime, with its tradition of cross-dressing, or when women were excluded from medieval theatre). In those cases, the gender of the actor is still a defining factor in casting: women don't get cast as pantomime dames, because that is a male role.
  There are some rare and notable exceptions to this, but they are notable precisely because of their rarity. The overwhelming convention of theatre is rigidly gendered, either by actors playing characters of their own gender, or by them playing opposite-gender chraacters who are customarily portrayed in that way.
  Look at the careers of some leading contemporary actresses. Of the top of my head, I took Judy Dench, Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Julia Roberts ... and in those 5 articles have found not one single example of these women playing a male part. These care not porn stars; these are women who act with their clothes except for a few sex scenes, so what's between their legs is irrelevant. The clear fact is that being female overwhelmingly restricts them to female roles.
  Note that the question of terminology should be separated from the decision on whether to categorise by gender. Concerns expressed by some editors that the word" "actress" is outdated do need to be considered; it seems that "actress" is falling out favour, but is still widely used. However, there are several other ways to title gendered categories for actors, so a rejection of the term "actress" does not prevent us from having gendered categories under a different title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Some women who act prefer to be called actors, some directors would not think of casting a woman as Hamlet or a man as Juliet, yet in an all girls school only women play both roles and in an all boys school only men play both roles. Historically, originally only men were allowed to be actors, and the word actor came to mean a male actor, just as postman, fireman, chief came to mean a man, even though other than chief women have broken through to many male dominated occupations, and we create categories of women by occupation to chronicle not just nuns and concubines, but every occupation that has had a recent influx of women. An actress category would have been appropriate in the 17th century, but not in the 21st century. If a second category is to be created, it should be "male actors", not actresses, and leave actresses in the actor category, or if that seems too bizarre, two categories, male actors and female actors, but I categorically oppose relegating women to being second class citizens. It is women who are important in the world, not men. Apteva (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  Are you /seriously/ saying you think having it be split into "male actors" and "actors"? Because that's how I read what you said. Are you insane, or just trolling? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  I am saying that it would be better to split actors into male and female than to create actresses. If that sounds absurd, then that makes creating actresses as a category even more absurd. Apteva (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  So is this saying you support spliting but to category:Male actors and Category:Female actors per the precedent of Category:Male singers and Category:Female singers? This whole discussion has been muddied by people obsessing about terminology when the most basic issue is whether to split at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  No, I oppose splitting and think that if anyone inadvertently or on purpose creates a subcategory of actress, such as List of actresses of Kuwait, that it be made a category of actor, not a category of actresses. Apteva (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  Apteva, what do you mean? Why should a subcategory of actress not be a sub-category of Category:Actresses? An actress is "a female actor" (source=Shorter Oxford English Dictionary), so if we have categories of female actors, why treat them any differently to the other occupations under Category:Women by occupation?

  It appears to me that like many other participants in this discussion, you are confusing the decision of whether to have gendered categories for actors with the question of what titles to use.

  1. If we create gendered categories for women actors, then we can decide whether to call them "actresses", "female actors", or "women in acting" (like Category:Women in politics), or something else ... but the titling decision is secondary to the decision on whether to have categories.
  2. If we have categories for women actors/actresses/female actors, then they all belong under Category:Actresses (or whatever we call it), as well as relevant actor categories. See for example how Category:Indian women in politics is a subcat of Category:Women in politics,Category:Indian politicians and Category:Indian women by occupation. See also Category:Women writers and its subcats.
  3. Separately from deciding whether to create categories for "female actors"/"actresses", we can also decide whether to create Category:Male actors etc. But whether we have gendered categories for male and/or female actors, Category:Actors remains a common category for actors of whatever gender, just as we do with all other occupation categories.

  Your comment above at 00:02 13 November suggests most of your concerns relate to the word "actress". I have no particular view either way on that term, but I respect that it arises strong feelings in some editors, so I would not oppose using something "female actor". So, if we used "Female actor", would you object to the existence of Category:Female actors and subcats? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have yet to see anyone offer any explanation of why we should not seperate actors by gender when we seperate singers by gender. Until someone presents some sort of argument for this I will find it very hard to believe we should have one system for actors and a different one for singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose to splitting men and women. That's discriminating, that is, pointing differences where there aren't. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

  Wikipedia's job is to report the world as it is reported in reliable sources. As editors, our job is neither to oppose discrimination nor to support, but to report the facts and interpretations in reliable sources.
  If men and women shared roles in the theatre, there would be no point in categorising them separately, but the careers of actors are entirely gendered. Look at the roles played by the 5 women I listed above: Judy Dench, Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Julia Roberts. I can't find a single male role played by any one of them. Why does NaBUru38 describe this as "pointing differences where there aren't"???
  What on earth is going on here? Why do editors such as NaBUru38 appear determined to deny that acting is a gendered profession? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

THIS ISN'T ABOUT GENDER!!! It is about the position, the job, the performer. Gee.....is there a female version of performer? No.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yet another editor who conflates the question of whether to categorise actors by gender with the subsidiary issue of what name we use for any such category.

There is no female version of "politician", "golfer", or "writer". But we have Category:Women in politics, Category:Female golfers and Category:Women writers because gender has a specific relation to that topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose using "actress" to refer to female actors. Using this kind of diminutive suffix contributes to the sexist and non-neutral impression that female actors shouldn't be taken as seriously as the male ones, and the acting industry itself has moved away from this sort of language in the names of its awards. I don't have a strong opinion about whether or not to break the acting categories into subcategories by gender, but if they are split in this way it should be done in an equal manner ("male actors" and "female actors", not "actors" and "female actors"). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The arguments about actress being "sexist" ignore actual usage. Here https://www.google.com/#q=Actress&hl=en&tbo=u&source=univ&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=giatUMLWGqqV0QGP2ICQCg&ved=0CHMQqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=db0dad5452b41f3b&bpcl=38897761&biw=1024&bih=623 is a link to a google news search I just did, that shows that news headlines still will refer to a person as an "actress". It is clearly the term people actually usage, and no griping that it is somehow "sexist" changes the fact that it is the term people overwhelmingly use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Split this is a very common way to categorise people, so there is no reason to not do it for actors also. The roles are very clearly split by gender. I am not oppose to the use of the term actress, but female actors would be satisfactory alongside the male actors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Split into separate categories. There is a very significant difference between genders in acting. (No opinion on the naming.) — Wolfgang42 (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Split. Sheesh. The fact that you can come up with specific examples of situations where women play male roles and vice versa doesn't mean that acting isn't predominantly gendered. Those are unusual cases; most people in the acting profession play roles specifically meant for their gender. And has been pointed out, awards are even given based on gender. I feel that this discussion has been dominated by people trying to argue something that is manifestly not true in the hopes of driving everyone else to exhaustion trying to prove something that would be common sense outside of Wikipedia. I really hope we don't end up with someone counting the !votes and saying that since X percent think acting is gendered and Y percent think it's not, Wikipedia can't take a position on that so we must do nothing.

And I also agree with using the word "actress". Wikipedia is not for remaking society (which is not a WP:ISNOT but perhaps should be). The term is used and the fact that you would rather it wasn't isn't a reason to treat it like it's not. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but in the actual business of entertainment it is actor period. This is an attempt to simply place Wikipedia in a position of deciding such when it should be going by the most common use and that is indeed actor not actress.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do a little research before commenting. In the actual business of film-acting, the highest award a woman can get is the Academy Award for Best Actress. Most other awards also separate actors by gender, such as the Screen Actors Guild, which issues separate awards to "male actors" and "female actors". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone put into the guideline that "actresses" was not needed six years ago.[7] Why would it be more useful today than it was in 2006? Anyone who gets out onto a stage is an actor. Why call some of them actors and some of them actresses in a category? As a category, why not just leave them all as actors? They all put on a costume and recite lines in front of an audience. Why is gender important? It is not like female heads of state where there are only a few, and making a category is useful, it is more like tall actors and short actors, with half in each category. Not a useful distinction. I just do not see the point of putting Robin Wright into one category and Robin Williams into another. Apteva (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, because with rare exceptions men play men and women play women. Gender is very defining in acting, I'd say more so than any other profession. There plainly is a distinction. To disacknolwedge that is foolish.oknazevad (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So you admit this is about defining what gender role you wish to assign to women in theatre, film and television. Your opinion is far superior to the people in those positions, who hire and produce. I suggest doing some research and forgetting ones own opinion on this. I have said my piece and cast my vote. But if this changes more than just a category changes.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

@Amadscientist, how about you try a little basic research yourself?

Take for example the five most recent winners of the Academy Award for Best Actress: Marion Cotillard, Kate Winslet, Sandra Bullock, Meryl Streep, and Natalie Portman. Between them, they have played hundreds of roles, and I don't see a single male role in their lists of parts.

Oknazevad's point is not about wikipedia editors trying to assign roles. It is about the reality of how those responsible for assigning roles in this occupation do their job, and the evidence is that gender is a defining factor. Surely even a mad scientist can pay some attention to the evidence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Split. When was the last time that males had equal chances at female roles or females had equal chances at male roles? Shakespeare, when males had 100% chance of both and females had 0% chance of both? Unlike height, which can change over time and which has no clear boundaries, whether you have XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes is permanent and just almost always unambiguous. Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Split. Of all professions acting is more than any other defined by the performer's gender. To act otherwise (pardon the pun) is stupid. Whether or not to use the term "actress" is far less important; I'd be fine with "fenale actor" as its perfectly descriptive. Actress is still used commonly, though, and it's persistence is likely a result of the defining nature of gender in acting. But that just re-emphasizes the fact that not having separate categories is a bit of foolishness that doesn't reflect reality. Wikipedia shouldn't advocate changes. oknazevad (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Split per BrownHairedGirl (I was actually leaning the other way before I read her response). With the general grumble that Wikipedia should have been paying its developers to overhaul the antiquated category system to have a decent, usable display comparable to a well-designed template and allow seamless integration of subcategories, to the point where this vote would have no real effect because you could view things either way anyway. Wnt (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Split per BrownHairedGirl. Also echo Wnt's grumble about wikimedia needing a better category system. PaleAqua (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The use of the term actress is not just offensive it is meant to seperate by gender in a way meant to descriminate. Historicly the reason the term is just actor is because for many years women were not allowed on the stage and when they finally were the distinction was meant to notify the audience at a time when some would still not want to watch a woman perform. Yes, men have and still do perform female roles and women play male roles. Parts that were written for a male have been altered to allow a female performer to step into the role. There are a number of exapmles. Sigorney Weaver in Alien portrays a character that was written as a male lead. In theatre there have been a number of male roles going to females, like the character of Dr. Scott in The Rocky Horror Show. This is less about gender and more about professionalism. The term is "actor" not actress. As a male seamstress I can tell you there is no such thing as Seamster. Should we have a category for male seamstress (probably don't have either category but that is still a good point I believe) There are other examples but to me this is stepping back Wikipedia and not improving it.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Part of this argument conflates the question of whether to categorise actors by gender with the question of what terminology to use for the gendered categories. We can call it Category:Actresses, Category:Women in acting, Category:Women actors, Category:Female actors or whatever ... but the first question is whether to have such a category.
    Amadscientist's reference to Sigourney Weaver is yet another example of cherry-picking, or the or the fallacy of incomplete evidence, a practice repeatedly used by those opposed to categorising actors by gender. A brief scrutiny of Sigourney Weaver's career shows that Wikipedia lists ~56 film roles which she has played: AFAICS, every one those roles is female, apart from the male role she played in the four Alien films. All of her 10 television roles are female characters.
    As I noted above, the 5 most recent winners of the Academy Award for Best Actress have between them played hundreds of roles, and I see not one male part in those long lists. The roles played by those actors are not limited by their nationality, yet we do categorise them by nationality ... but even though they are determined by gender, some editors go extraordinary lengths to deny this easily demonstrable fact. What is going on here? Why are some editors so adamantly opposed to categorisation by gender that they repeatedly deny reality? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

    • the male role she played in the four Alien films Say what now? — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

      Those male roles amount to less than 8% of her career, and Weaver is exceptional in having played that many male roles. Most leading actresses play no male roles at all.

      So what's your point? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

      My point is that you appear to think that Ellen Ripley was a "male role". I didn't know that we had a representative from the 1950s. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

      So I misread Amadscientist's comment, and didn't do my own research. But it makes no difference to the overall pattern that female actors overwhelmingly portray characters written as female, which is why gender is a defining charcteristic of an actor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

    • What you call cherry picking is what I call a simple example of only one reason. I gave others and there is more. However I concede that, while the profession itself referres to actors without gender, the Acadamy Awards themselves do refer to "actress". What is going on here Hairgirl is that we are at a period of change on this particular subject and while you may feel you have tyhe correct usage, others feel there is no real reason for an encyclopedia to use, what many feel is an outdated termonology. Most of what you and others give as example is the role itself, but as I have said it isn't about gender. This is about a profession. I strongly urge editors to remember that we set the rules here and if we decide to use the term actress then that is what consensus determines. However, if we decide to use the term male or female actor, that as well is acceptable. Reality? Huh....is that anything like "truth"? Just who's reality or truth are we to go by?--Amadscientist (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Cherry-picking is taking one outlier example to bolster a point, rather than looking at the broader patterns. That's what you did, and it's just one example of the denial-of-reality which I was commenting on.
        I don't know what to make of your statement that "it isn't about gender. This is about a profession". Of course it's about a profession (nobody disputes that); but the issue under discussion here is whether gender is a defining attribute of those in that profession. If it is defining, then we should categorise by it; if not, we shouldn't. You say that "it isn't about gender" ... so how do you explain that 5 most recent winners of the Academy Award for Best Actress have only played roles in their own gender? I look fwd to your answer on that.
        And no, I do not "feel that I have the correct usage". I explicitly said that there are several possible alternatives for naming such a category, and I would welcome a separate discussion on which terminology to use. So far as I can see, the situation is that "actress" is the historical term for women in acting and has some degree of continuing usage, but is being replaced in some usages (maybe many/most usages) by terms such as "female actor". It would be interesting to discuss how to handle this, and see how the balance of evidence shapes up, but at this point I have no preference either way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
        • PS Amadascientist says: "the profession itself referres to actors without gender, the Acadamy Awards themselves do refer to actress". This statement portrays the Academy awards as some sort of exception in using a gender divide in its awards system, whereas the reality is that a gender divide in acting awards is routine in this profession. See for example the 199 awards listed in Category:Awards for actresses ... and note that the Screen Actors Guild (a trade union composed of actors) issues separate awards to "male actors" and "female actors". The gender divide in awards is not something imposed from outside the profession; it is how the profession views itself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
          • To Amadascientist: There is such thing as seamster :) Brandmeister^talk 10:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
            • LOL! I stand corrected. Gotta stop using that analogy now. Dang. Anyway, I have no objection to a female actor category. Yes...there are female actors. But the term actress is no longer the most common usage. I took a quick poll at a number of places to see what the current thought is. Actor was was waht every single person in the profession that answered came up with. Several acknowledged that actress is an older term and is no longer in mainstream use. As I said, the Acadamy Awards began in 1929 and yet the award itself is male and oddly enough the staue given for the SAG awards is called "The Actor" also a male figure. Again the use of the term actress was used to differentiate the male from the female performer in a manner that was a put down and a lower status. My main objection is policy based. Actor is the true common usage. If you want to have a category for "female" actor.....that goes right along with what I am saying.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
              • Actually a google search shows that actress is still by far the most common usage. However your position does show this is a very difficult discussion to disect. The majority is for splitting the category, and even among those who say they are opposed, some such as Amadscientist are willing to allow the category to split, and only have an issue with the terminology used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
                • Johnpacklamber, We don't care if it's the most common. WP:COMMONNAME is moderated by WP:COMMONSENSE and many other considerations, and doesn't directly apply to categories anyway. BrownHairedGirl, Pointing out that various females play male roles sometimes and vice versa is not a fallacy, it's a simple deflation of the puffed up argument that there's something especially different about female vs. male actors, which there is not and has not been since the end of the Elizabethan era. No one has suggested, BrownHairedGirl, that women don't usually play female roles and vice-versa for men; you're arguing against a position that does not exist in the debate, and thus the fallacy is yours on this issue. What several of us have been doing is pointing out that the argument which several here (not you, I think) have put forth is that "because" women "always" play female roles, and men male roles, actors and actresses are "ergo" different and "must" be separately categorized. Aside from the fact everything in scare quotes is a false assumption on its face, pointing out women playing male roles, or the other way around, proves the second of the four to be counterfactual. You appear to be defending arguments you are not even making, and doing so by incorrectly calling a very basic logic tool – use of example to disprove an overgeneralization – "fallacious". — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 05:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
                  • Oh dear. Please read up on the difference between the generic concept of a fallacy and the more specific concept of cherry-picking, or the or the fallacy of incomplete evidence. The latter is what I was referring to.
                    Your argument seems to be that because there is not a 100% correlation between the gender of the role and the gender of the actor, then we can ignore gender entirely. A little basic research would show that percentage of correlation is in the high 90s, and that for many actors and actresses it is 100%. That make gender a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a male or female actor.
                    That does not, of course, mean that they must be categorised separately (which is a straw man of your invention); what it means is that per our basic principles of categorisation, gender is an attribute by which they can be categorised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand

If this issue is the need or desire to have female actors be searchable separate from male actors, then why don't you take the simple route with this? Make one category be titled Male actors and the other Female actors, problem solved. Then you don't have to worry about possibly offensive terminology like actress and it also keeps the whole thing neutral, as you're referring to both groups by gender, rather than just one. Silverseren^C 10:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Because then we couldn't argue about it!

Seriously though, that's the best solution I've seen so far. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 08:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well.....there ya go. Works for me anyway!--Amadscientist (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, you're all missing the point that to the majority of people participating in this debate, the gender-fork is what is objectionable, not the specific terminology. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 05:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well I tried to do that with Category:American actresses, but it just got deleted instead. So I think that is less of a solution than you think. I am half tempted to create Category:American female actors and force people to try to rename or delete it, but I do not think I am quite that daring. Since we do have Category:American male actors it would make sense, but I still wonder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • • That would be a clear WP:POINT violation. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 05:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I won't do this, but I will speak to keep the category existing and with its name if someone else decideds to do it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Since Category:Actresses by nationality and all its other sub-cats were kept, I have recreated Category:American actresses. Maybe I should have gone with Category:American female actors but I didn't. I would support a rename request at CfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There is now an attempt to speedy delete that category, which seems to me totally unjustified in light of what is going on here. I have contested the speedy deletion, but I am not sure my actions will be enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It should be speedied, per WP:CSD#G4. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 05:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - Categories have not been created for the purpose of extracting information from Wikipedia but for the purpose of organizing it. Categories have not been created for the purpose of research but for content management (on Wikipedia). The Category Actor is used in Infoboxes and Wikiprojects and tells us generally what an article about a person engaged in acting should have. What is the point of creating a new category then? Is there something about female actors that makes them require a seperate category? Do they have different notability requirements? Is there a systemic bias against creation of articles about them? For the purpose of content extraction or presentation we have Lists and lets stick to them. Let's say we create a new category, then who will do all the work for updating all templates and Wikiprojects? And all for what? I am sure after all the excitement the category would get deleted? And BTW? Why do we have to include gender debates in everything? -Wikishagnik (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject notes in articles

<!-- please do not add an infobox, per [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes]]-->

<!-- Before adding an infobox, please consult [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes]] and seek consensus on this article's talk page. -->

I have recently been involved in a civil conversation about a Wikiproject note that was removed by a bot and then subsequently re-added by the project members. As seen here at the bot request there was a disagreement about this action. The conversation then was continued at WP:CM#Infoboxes (yet again). were the manner in which the note was removed evolved into a conversation about the notes meaning and placement. I believe a wider conversation on the matter should take place now. Below are our guides on the matter and what I think we should discuss.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes
• WP:Advice pages
• WP:Bold

1. Is the information provided in the note or link provided inline with our current policies and/or guides on the subject?
2. Should a project be adding notes linking back to an "advise pages" showing a debate on a disputed matter?

The issues may be much bigger then just the note on the pages - However I believe the viability of the note its self is what we should talk about at this time.

have informed all involved about this postMoxy (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Interested parties should note the related RFC from 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that link - I was triyng to find it - one of the best example of non consensus here on Wikipedia. Also sorry if I did not notify you - I am not perfect :-(Moxy (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"Non consensus"? You got to be kidding, right? The discussion involved a substantial amount of editors (see [8]), including those "who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles". Toccata quarta (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What consensus do you see? The whole page demonstrates the division on the topic - that lead to a conversation about a special template because of this. At some point the project should try and give fruitful advise that is inline with our policies on the matter. But back to the matter at hand - Do you honestly believe that leaving a note that links to an "advice page" that is the opposite of our what our guideline and fundamental principles on the matter says - (pls take the time to read them as they are the consensus of the community). I am sure everyone has better things to do then deal with the projects ownership problems time and time again. Moxy (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No...not really. Thats what collaboration is about. The projects have no control over any article and the local consensus of their own manual of style is not policy or relevant to the article itself. The projects have the right to decide what they wish to accept in those guides that they create for themselves but cannot use them to force their will on the article. I regularly remove these types of notes. They are little more than an attempt to push their local consensus on the article and editors not involved with their collaboartion. Simply put...be bold and add an ifo box if you want. Create a discussion and work it out on the article talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

While talk page discussion is the correct approach, you can see at Talk:Cosima Wagner#Infobox the unfortunate result of trying to hold a reasonable discussion with people associated with that project, on such a case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

1. There is no policy about these "project" notes? Is that correct? 2. If there is no policy about them they seem fine for a few reasons: they are worded politely, and they inform other editors about what likely issues they face (with other editors) in editing the article -- that seems more humane than springing it on them afterward. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy that there has never been a clear consensus on the topic. I see 2 separate issues here:

1. the use of these notes - Although there is nothing against using these notes the use of notes in general on articles should be used in moderation. IMO, throwing these notices that X project demands that a certain thing be done or not done, IMO, points to my second point of undo article ownership.
2. WikiProjects showing what I would consider undo article ownership over articles - WikiProjects are supposed to be a group of editors working towards a common goal, not forcing the community to do things their way, often in contrast to the MOS and other guidelines. The above 2 examples being prime examples. WikiProjects should not and cannot tell another editor, or project (because in many cases these articles are tagged and worked on by more than one project) how things must be done. If they don't like infoboxes then that's all well and good but they cannot and should not be saying and leaving notes that they cannot be used on said article. Kumioko (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it highly appropriate for wikiprojects to leave hidden notes in articles... they alert new editors to old consensus discussions in a quiet and non-confrontational manner. Removing a hidden note simply pisses off those who added it. That said, consensus can change... and there is nothing wrong with asking for a re-examination of a previous concensus (and if a previous consensus is contrary to current official policy or guidance, it should be re-examined).

So... my advice... don't remove hidden notations without discussion... raise your concerns about it on the talk page (or at the project talk page) and ask people to either reaffirm the previous consensus or modify it. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is, that once the discussion is brought to the articles talk page consensus is frequently gained by numerous members of the "project" voting to do whatever the WikiProject wants. I have fallen victim to that myself and as such have avoided working on articles dealing with the 2 projects mentioned above, as well as others. Some of these projects do not react well to non members and tend to be rather abrasive in discussions demanding their way or the highway. I do agree that removing the notes by an individual editor should be avoided but I think we need to remove them all, based on this discussion, from the articles and get away from this article ownership issue altogether. Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

To expand further look at the Ludwig van Beethoven article. Multiple heated debates have taken place about this issue and that article. The problem is that Composers has this big note that says per consensus on their project, however this article falls under 6 projects including: WikiProject Composers, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Deaf, WikiProject Austria, WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Vienna. So this note, IMO, tells these other projects that their opinions do not matter and infers article ownership on behalf of WikiProject Composers. That is the absolute wrong answer and shows why these WikiProject specific article notes should be and need to be abolished. Kumioko (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the note is not pointing to "old consensus discussions in a quiet and non-confrontational manner", but is attempting to bypass consensus (reached at the above cited RfC) that matters should be decided on article talk pages, and instead point to a one-sided WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in what is clearly a confrontational manner. There are around 500 such hidden comments; too many to be discussed individually, as you suggest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have recently been working on some music articles, having never been there before. In two out of two cases thus far where I have come across these messages (one of each example above), they had been posted into articles where there there had been no debate whatsoever on the talk page as to whether an infobox would be desireable. These messages were clearly intended to mislead visitors into believing a consensus existed when it did not. The message refers to project opinion on biography (which actually states it is wiki policy to decide the matter on the article itself), but one of the two wasnt even a biography article.Sandpiper (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you even looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines#Biographical infoboxes? The English there is really clear:

"current consensus among project participants holds that biographical infoboxes are often counterproductive on biographies of classical musicians, including conductors and instrumentalists, because they often oversimplify issues and cause needless debates over content; and that they should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page. This position is in line with that reached by the participants at the Composers Project and the Opera Project."

You might also like to note that discussions on this topic have taken place outside of WikiProject Classical music—see Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 7#Classical artists and Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 7#Classical artists (continued). Toccata quarta (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the text at the top of that page? It says:

This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style

and it and the "consensus among project participants" are no more binding than an essay written by an individual editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. It also says "WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.", which Toccata seems to have missed.—Chowbok ☠ 23:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The page I saw linked this project page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes where it says "Most members of this project think that Infoboxes are seldom useful additions to articles for many reasons, including:

1. They often give trivia undue emphasis and prominence at the head of the article
2. They tend to become redundant (by duplicating the lead)
3. They can, conversely, become over-complex and thus vague, confused, or misleading, often compounding errors found elsewhere in the article, e.g. by confusing style and genre, setting forth haphazard lists of individual works, or highlighting the subject's trivial secondary or non-musical occupations.

We think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and we prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page. Particular care should be taken with Featured Articles as these have been carefully crafted according to clear consensus on their talkpages. (See the Request for Comment about this subject here and earlier debates here.)"

However either one is simply a polemic making a case against using them and stating that the matter has been settled, when it has not.Sandpiper (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes thats all well and good however, it still forces onen WikiProject's standard on other editors and projects that may not agree. So personally if I were going to work on an article and disagreed, thinking perhaps that an Infobox is a good way to "summarize key information in the article, so that the reader isn't required to read the entire thing, while trying to dig out whatever informaiton they need" I would probably just pick another article or topic to work on rather than fight with some entrenched editor or project over their enforcement of something that in itself violates 2 out of the 5 pillars. So this type of rule, prevents more articles from being improved and at the same time deters editors from participating and causes extra drama and potentially blocks, 3RR violations, etc. Kumioko (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• One point with hidden comments. They can adversely affect the 'standard' white space in the article. This is distracting for readers when they are use to our normal layout. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

So after the talk above - I think its clear the spammed message should be removed - are we in agreement on this point?Moxy (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Aye. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

While, your opinion is clear above, there are others who disagree, so this discussion does not show agreement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I not sure I understand - we have 2 sides to a problem - one is based on policy the other on some local talk. At no point has there been even one policy quoted for the I like it side vs all the policy I have shown above. If one side cant provided any evidence then there point is mute - especially if its the opposite of our current policy Moxy (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked about policy and the response was that no policy addressed these notes. Why would it be here at the policy forum, if there was already a policy?Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what your asking here. The question posed above is should a hidden message (like the one below) that is the opposite of our guides (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes - WP:Advice pages -WP:Bold). Should the message below be allowed to remain in hundreds of articles - yes - no?

<!-- Before adding an infobox, please consult [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes]] and seek consensus on this article's talk page. -->

.Moxy (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Those guidelines you link neither require nor prohibit for any article, anything with respect to these notes or with respect to info boxes. As has been noted above it is a service to others to make known what other editors interested in the individual articles think. They should not be forced to be surprised thereby because no one will tell them. No policy requires such absurd silence . Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The links are clear - "bold" says editors should edit then see what happens (the opposite of the note). The MOS tells us the a talk must take place on each page. WP:Advice is clear on the fact projects dont have this power of ownership. Not sure you understand whats going on here at all - the note(s) on 500+ pages is telling our editors they must ask this project permission to edit the pages that the project believes they own - there is no discussion on the talk pages ...just a spammed note . Would you add a note to Millennium Park saying editors must ask you permission before editing that page? What's absurd is this projects ownership problems.Moxy (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

When someone edits an article, it is only polite to tell them the issues they will face with other editors. They can then go in with thier eyes wide open, discuss it with them and come to some agreement, or go to dispute resolution, but there is no reason to just wait to spring the issue on them, because we want to pretend the issue does not exsist. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your missing the point all together - why in the world would we allow a project to spread there conflict to 100's of articles they have not even edited. As an editor that actually deals with this problem over and over again I cant express how many editors we have lost because of this. Moxy (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

They did edit the page of the article to tell others about the issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL - thats the problem to begin with talking ownership of articles they have note even edited let alone the ones they have - nice circular argument that brings us back to the beginning. We are here looking for progress not stating the obvious - we have been dealing with this for years and are looking for a solution to a long standing problem - perhaps a proper essay on the proplem we can likn to not a page that then links to many many debates .Moxy (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comment said they did not edit it, not mine. What this posting appears to be looking for is abject agreement (not progress) and a new policy to use in a content dispute. "Bold" is not a command to edit without discussion and nothing is preventing people from talking on talk pages. It is sad if editors leave over an infobox (not particularly understandable but sad), nonetheless editing disputes will happen to people and they will have to deal with disappointment some time. But sure, an essay is fine, a new policy adopted in the way policies are adopted is fine, a dispute resolution is fine. What is not fine is pretending that guidelines are policy, that guidelines are claimed to say things they do not say, or cover things they do not cover, or not telling people about issues that exsist. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I will move on as I see the misguided notes are being removed anywas by others that understand the problem at hand.Moxy (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Are they? On a significant scale? Without them being restored later? Is there agreement to re-run the bot, to remove them all? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have quite a bunch of said articles on my watchlist and haven't seen any removals. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how a discussion by involved editors on an article's talk page can be construed as "the Project claiming ownership". As for guidelines in general: all WikiProjects have them, and they serve a useful purpose by presenting consistent advice for the presentation of a specific topic. If I come to edit an article outside my usual field, I try to figure out how things are done there by visiting the talk page and the main projects listed there. That's how I learned, i. a., how a cast list is written and how ships are italicised. I thought that's how collaborative projects work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Since no-one has claimed that "a discussion by involved editors on an article's talk page is 'the Project claiming ownership'", your comment appears to be a straw man. We're discussing the application of hidden comments to articles,. where there has been no discussion on the talk page. Projects are entitled to wrote guidelines but not - as has been made clear at the related RfC - to impose them on editors; that is not how collaborative projects work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Is labelling individuals by caste a violation of privacy, per WP:BLP, and if so should we make this explicit?

Having got into yet another of the interminable arguments over caste at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Caste identification, where the discussion got bogged down as usual in repetitive stonewalling and an abject refusal by those advocating labelling living individuals by caste to discuss the matter with regard to WP:BLP policy, I have come to the conclusion that in may well be necessary to clarify what is clearly the general intent of such policy, and to make it explicit. Though the exact wording will clearly need further consideration, I intend to argue that since caste membership of individuals is frequently appallingly badly sourced, is of little or no encyclopaedic interest in almost all cases, has potential for serious negative repercussions if wrongly reported, and is something that a significant proportion of those so labelled reject as invalid, it is a gross violation of the privacy of living individuals to label them by caste membership unless (a) they explicitly self-identify as a member of the caste, and (b) it is of direct relevance to their notability in regard to Wikipedia. To put it in simpler terms, it is none of our ******* business as an encyclopaedia which caste someone supposedly 'belongs' to, and it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to give this relic of colonial/pre-colonial times more credence than it deserves, by conferring 'legitimacy' on as contentious and disputed a concept. Compiling 'lists of caste X', and telling the world that 'person Y is a member of caste Z' is simply unacceptable - it violates individual privacy, violates the neutrality of Wikipedia, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the objectives of the encyclopaedia - it is time that we made the intent of BLP policy explicit, and put an end to such inappropriate labelling. I would obviously like to see input from others at this time - and would ask that we try to keep this discussion as much as possible directly on the above topic: the question of how caste should be treated with regard to BLP policy, and the extent that such policy needs clarification or amendment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Very well said Andy. Yes, this is the worst sort of thing I have seen on Wikipedia. Social caste systems as a policy, guideline or rule is outrageously unencyclopedic and leads to insults, bigoty and worse. I have been watching this so called community consensus and am amazed at the treatment people undergo by some editors to keep this crap as if it is encyclopedic. This is aimed a specific set of people and it disgusts me. Why don't we just tell everyone that if they can't prove their background they are worthless. Or Better yet, if you can prove your caste you are special. I know...lets stick to the American caste sytem...the UK caste system or hey.....lets dig up everyone dead ancestor and belittle them. Better yet...if you have a BLP article, lets call you a f****** peasant and step all over your name and family. This is a dead subject and only creates bigotry and resentment. If we don't try to honor the caste system we don't have to worry about attempt to "raise one's caste level beyond what is accurate".....what ever the heck that even means.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The Indian caste system is solely of historic interest, and due to the fact that it is illegal today I would go back at least 50 years and not identify the caste of anyone alive in the last 50 years or in the future. But going back a hundred years it is fine to identify that so and so was of such and such caste, because the caste system did exist then. Apteva (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • @Amadscientist, actually, the current consensus is broadly per Andy's opening statement. See, for example, User:Sitush/Common#Castelists (I am probably the single most active cleaner in this area). However, the fact that this is a project-based consensus tends to bog me down in numerous fights and I would welcome an explicit mention in WP:BLP. As Andy points out, there will have to be some exceptional situations.

      @Apteva, that the caste system is illegal today is not terribly useful. For example, the 2011 census of India specifically asked people for their caste details. There is a legal contradiction: the constitution of India says one thing and every government has done something different from that. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

    • (ec) I think we should take the same nuanced approach as we normally use with religion and the like with WP:BLPCAT. There may well be times when mentioning an individual's caste is appropriate, such as if, for example, they are notable for being the first person in a high caste to call for reform/abolition of the caste system. In that case, since reliable sources would frequently discuss it, we would follow their lead, just like the article about Richard Dawkins would be remiss in failing to mention his atheism, and the one about Jimmy Swaggart his evangelical beliefs. However, in most cases, where the caste really has nothing to do with the person's notability, it's just random crap slapped in there, and I see no reason whatsoever to retain it. So if the article is about an actor, politician, artist, what have you, whose caste is not really a part of their notability, leave it out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The problem with WP:BLPCAT is that (a) it only applies to categories, lists infoboxes etc - allowing for violations of privacy, POV-pushing etc etc in article body text, and (b) it isn't consistent - it treats religion (which requires self-identification) differently from ethnicity (which doesn't). 'Caste' is as much a religious/political/economic concept as an 'ethnic' one (arguably more so - as far as I'm aware, 'caste' is never treated as an analog of 'ethnicity' in the relevant academic fields), and it is entirely unclear which parts of WP:BLPCAT, if any, are directly applicable, though the consensus seems to be that it is 'somehow'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
        • (EC reply to Andy, please leave indented here) Sorry if I was unclear. I was using BLPCAT as an analogy, not saying it really covers it today. The general principle we use there, especially on potentially contentious matters like religion, is that unless the individual's religious beliefs (or, in the Dawkins example, lack thereof) are very well known and publicized, and have significant relevance to their notability, we leave them out of the article as essentially irrelevant. I see no reason not to apply that same standard to caste. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Unfortunately, that isn't what BLPCAT says - it doesn't actually explicitly cover material in the body of an article, only applying to infoboxes, lists, categories etc - though more general policies certainly do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
            • BLPCAT explains its rationale: categories don't carry disclaimers or modifiers. In other words. we require self-identification before putting someone in a category of Jews, because it is impossible for a category to explain that someone has one Jewish ancestor or that he is culturally but not religiously Jewish or whatever. The category just says they are Jewish or they're not. I don't think this rationale readily extends to article text where we can explain as much as we want.

It is true that BLPCAT only lists religious beliefs and sexual orientation. and we should probably modify it to add caste (and maybe ethnicity--why isn't ethnicity in there already?) Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• • • Sitush: Oh....a project based consensus. Cool. Then it cannot overide the consensus of the general community and means absolutely nothing more than a project guide. So....why are we leveling community sanctions over a project guide? Castes are simply the social stigma placed on a lower class by those that have a superior caste within that system. Antiquated does not begin to describe it and religion is not how I would base such worthless ifo. Being the first to what....rise above a social stigma? The first to cross a line that has no legality in the US as is the basis for BLP policy and guidelines? Yeah.....Andy has hit the nail on the head here.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
      • You don't like me, I know, but we both agree with Andy and I have no idea why (it seems) you are having a go at me in this context. You do seem to misunderstand the origins of the modern caste problems but that does not affect any outcome. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Amadscientist hasn't actually written anything about you at all here. Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) I would be highly suspicious of us taking a far far stricter stance than reliable sources do in forbidding mention of any person's caste unless it's connected to notability. Newspapers often mention it, scientific studies are conducted on it, and it certainly shows up in all manner of WP:SPS. Yes, I understand that WP:BLP puts us stricter than many other source-types...but I don't think that a move to completely remove all mentions of caste for living people is correct either. The notion that caste is strictly historical is laughable; that's the official Indian government position, but a 30 second search of any major caste name will show you hundreds of references in reliable sources and hundreds of thousands in unreliable ones. And to respond to AndyTheGrump, the reason I believe it is more closely related to ethnicity is that it is strongly determined by descent and marriage. Yes, castes shift all of the time (and particularly the relationships between castes shift even more), but one cannot simply "decide" to be of a different caste, as one can of a religion or political persuasion. One can "opt out", as many have--that is, taking the stance that caste has no more legitimacy and denying it as being part of one's identity. But one can't "opt in". Qwyrxian (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

(post EC) Seraphimblade, you're wrong. We don't omit religion when it isn't related to notability; we only omit it from the explicitly listed places. There is no requirement in BLP to specifically include information only related to people's notability--by that logic, we would almost never include family info, schooling, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• One can "opt out", as many have--that is, taking the stance that caste has no more legitimacy and denying it as being part of one's identity. Can one, if Wikipedia doesn't recognise this, and applies the label anyway? I think that you need to rethink what you are saying. In any case, you are taking the 'legitimacy' of caste as the 'default' here - which might be taken as being at odds with WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Caste system is of no historical context unless it refers to nobility of THAT time and has no such context today in US law...which is the issue here. Not about a king of 200 hundred years ago, but of the family today, that, as I said is being constantly bashed for "attempting to raise their caste". Really? OK.....in a historical context that is one thing, in a BLP context...that boarders on shoving a person back into that "caste" with which they are attempting to rise above. Wikipedia should not be in a position to make assumptions on the life of an entire family name based on the caste system of another country that I don't even know if it even exists today. This is just wrong on many levels.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but US law isn't remotely what is at issue here. We are discussing 'caste' in the context of Wikipedia BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Talk about US-centric ... And it is clear that you do not understand the caste system, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Sitush, you would be surprised what I understand. Andy, while you may not be discussing US law in particular my point is that US law in context to BLP policy is exactly what the policy states:

        Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies..

      • Amadscientist (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
      • To Sitush, This is the English Wikipedia so, in that manner and per BLP policy...if you wanna throw around "US-centric" go for it. But please explain how the caste system is applicable to BLP articles per our BLP policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, I would be surprised ;) The entire point of this thread is because caste is not explicitly covered by WP:BLP and is continually claimed not to be within scope. I disagree with those claims but, hey, they are there. FWIW, the significance of the caste issue in India is widely accepted to be little more than a century old: it was the Brits wot did it. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Can we please stay on topic. This isn't about who knows most about caste, it isn't about US law, it is about the relevance of WP:BLP policy to assigning caste to living individuals. If people wan't to argue about other things, please do it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Regardless of the Brit wot did it, we still do not actually recognise the system within US law. But I still would like a demonstration of how the caste system is covered by our policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Qwryxian, people have sort-of "opted-in" to castes, usually by "making one up". Think of the numerous claims to Rajput status, the Mali's legal relationship to Saini, the hypergamy of Nairs etc. Think of the sanskritisation process and the preceding chaos of British classifications. Not to forget the growth in the number of officially-recognised communities, jostling for social position (1100-ish in the early 1900s, > 4600 now). - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

At this point, given Amadscientist's disruptive behaviour, I am going to withdraw from the discussion - though I may well raise the issue of disruption at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am attempting to discuss this. While clearly you are not wishing this to be in regards to US law you want it to be in regards to BLP policy. That is a part of the policy. Now I have been speaking in rather broad terms but I have as yet to see any specifics given yet. You need no bow out of the discussion Andy. But labeling my contributions as disruptive is not accurate. Just exactly what topic are your asking to stay on? Why is my involvement disruptive?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to identity, I've always been in favor of writing what people say about themselves, and staying away from what they don't say about themselves. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting stuff. what aboutWP:WELLKNOWN " even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.". So does the Indian census of this exist in online format? Of course I'm only assuming that this would/could relate to public officials in India. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• The link you give is about events/allegations/incidents; not identity. We're here talking about something similar to "X is gay", not "X laundered money". A person's identity is not an event, it's not an incident. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What if an Indian publication made a persons caste ,presumably against their wishes, public? This is an incident that would describe someones identity. "outing" them if you will. For arguements sake, what if an american newspaper printed an article saying George Bush was a gay money launderer? Which is similair to your "x" argument PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Incident is not what the newspaper writes; it's what the BLP-subject does. Therefore, neither "X is gay" nor "X is of caste Z" is an incident. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Are there actually any reliable sources for caste membership? Mangoe (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Plenty of academic sources for specific people and, of course, self-identification. I'm less happy about using newspaper comments but, again, they do exist. Finally, there are numerous caste associations and state-level caste political parties, membership of which almost certainly amounts to self-identification. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Sort of like membership in the US "League of Women Voters" automatically makes one a woman? Collect (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No, unless the US LoWV restricts membership to women. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? You people wanted to bring it here where everything is compared to something in America and then inferred upon? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not in America, in the Anglosphere. Because this is the English wikipedia and there's a BLP policy. That's why we need to find parallels and see how the cases at hand compare. That's the proper way of handling this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah sure! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Dharmadhyaksha, this is the Village Pump, the most central discussion forum of the entire project. It's a outright falsehood to state that its purpose is the comparing of things to America. Seb az86556, India has the second-largest number of English speakers of any country in the world. Uncle G (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (It is not culturally part of the Anglosphere, that was my point Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC))

As with other classifications of individuals, I'm of the opinion that we should create a presumption against inclusion, but with the understanding that when multiple reliable sources have devoted substantive coverage to the classification that it may be included. Passing references in reliable sources would not be enough, it would need to actually discuss the classification and make it clear why it matters to the person's bio. Monty₈₄₅ 15:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes! The central forum thing, where majority of non-Indian editors would take decisions related to Indian articles without informing relevant editors. Please note that your central forum's centre is somewhere in Atlantic with a radius that hardly goes beyond Europe. WP:India wasn't made aware of this discussion. And so was WP:Pakistan, WP:Srilanka, WP:Bangladesh and WP:Nepal. (Wait a minute, that's not new at all. Its a usual practice.) But it was surely thought to be important enough to inform the Foundation about it so that they open their mouths on topics they don't know about. (Wait a minute, that's also not new at all.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The topic of this section is BLP policy, and we do know about it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• … like blood types in Japanese culture, which is the reason that editors put blood types into articles like Rina Ikoma and List of Yakitate!! Japan characters. Uncle G (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If blood types are OK, is it also fine to add astrological signs to articles about Western celebrities, since many people in these cultures believe that they are predictive of personalities? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I was thinking along similar lines. ☺ The English Wikipedia once had a blood type field in living person infoboxes. See Template talk:Infobox adult female/Archive 1#Blood. Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, another approach

If I delete a statement that 'living person X is a member of caste Y' (not sourced to self-identification) from a Wikipedia article that gives no indication that this caste membership is of relevance to their notability, and cite existing WP:BLP policy re the right to privacy and 'do no harm', and WP:NPOV policy regarding neutrality over a contentious issue, am I likely to be sanctioned, and on what grounds? As yet nobody has provided any arguments here as to why we should infringe individual privacy, and why we should violate WP:NPOV just to label individuals with an arbitrary category that has no encyclopaedic significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has several components. The body of an article is one of those components. The English language is deployed fully in the body of an article. This is a different situation from the situation we encounter in other components of this encyclopedia. It can be argued that categorization by certain attributes of identity is objectionable or untenable in for instance an Infobox or a Category or a Navigation template. But I don't think we have to exercise the same degree of caution and restraint when writing in full prose in the body of an article. WP:BLP policy requires especially good quality sources. But I think information in the body of an article should not be constrained beyond normal sensibilities. I do not think this would extend to blocking from inclusion an area of information such as that related to caste, based on the outcome of a discussion such as this. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, I am well aware of your refusal to exercise "caution and restraint" in BLPs when it suits your purposes. This discussion however relates to what policy permits, not what Wikilawyering tendentious ethnotagging POV-pushing obsessives like you get away with through relentless bullshitting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not get personal. Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

'Getting personal' is exactly what this discussion is about - the the endless violations of privacy that Wikipedia imposes on the subjects of our articles, for no better reason than the obsessions of the taggers. As long as this unencyclopaedic and NPOV-breaching behaviour continues, the so-called 'civility' guidelines of Wikipedia will remain the gross hypocrisy they clearly are: fill articles with poorly sourced and irrelevant personal 'details' (i.e. unverifiable opinions found at best by Google-mining - almost invariably taken out of context) about people we consider 'notable', but don't be rude to each other... A double standard of the worst possible kind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That does get to the heart of the matter. Traits like caste—and also religion when the subject doesn't practice the religion—are usually not important or notable to the subject of the article. They are endlessly important to some Wikipedia editors, though, which does make it personal. I'm willing to bet that real encyclopedias don't list the caste of the subject unless it's directly related to the reason for their notability. First Light (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It might be more useful to ask when including caste is a good idea. I think it fair to say that to the majority of readers it would only be when the caste is significant to the subject in it's own right. I,E, the same rules we might use for hair colour or polydactyly. Rich Farmbrough, 03:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

• Why is caste being considered anything different from say place of birth/residence? Mentioning place of birth/residence also "violates individual privacy, violates the neutrality of Wikipedia, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the objectives of the encyclopaedia". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• 1. Birthplace is nearly always neutral and rarely controversial, unlike caste 2. Birthplace is standard information in nearly all encyclopedia bios (look up a bio in Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta), unlike caste 3. Nearly all public figures acknowledge or even embrace their birthplace in interviews and talks, unlike caste. Conclusion: birthplace ≠ caste. First Light (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to India! Birthplaces can be controversial. And we don't necessarily have to do what other encyclopedias do. (Isn't that the basic reason for having Wikipedia?) Also, if you say people might object to inclusion of caste on their articles, could be very sure that people living in Mumbai do not object to a "Category:People from Bihar" on their articles? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

First Light—you state "Traits like caste…are usually not important...to the subject of the article."[9] How do you know that? Couldn't a reader find something to be "important" that one or a few editors may not find important? I can of course understand omitting poorly sourced material. But what about the case in which several good quality sources mention the applicability of an attribute of identity such as caste to an individual who is the subject of a biography? Should we just make a decision that such material is "not important"? Can we know what will be important to a reader? Don't readers use encyclopedias for reasons that we can't anticipate? Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but didn't we just have a huge discussion on this subject here? Wasn't that discussion going on for a week before this one was started? Why weren't people who were discussing it there informed that the discussion has been forked? Sreejiraj (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(Thats how Wikipedia mostly works Sreejiraj. Its mostly Western and other editors are not considered worth notice. I won't be surprised be there is another forking going on at WP:ANI or someone's talk page too.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Bus stop: if you refuse to make any judgments about what is or is not important, it leads you down a very slippery slope. Take an individual like Theodore Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt, Nicholas II of Russia or Winston Churchill, just to pick a few notable individuals who are the subject of multiple, well-researched and well-sourced biographies. The biographies of any one of these individuals would describe literally thousands of the subject's attributes and experiences, and describe numerous incidents in which they were involved. Your argument would suggest that the Wikipedia article about each of these individuals needs to include every fact, no matter how minor or incidental, that appears in any one of their reliable biographies, with the result that the Wikipedia article would be as long as, or longer than, any of the books used as source material. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

R'n'B—Seemingly similar material should be included at one article and excluded at another article. Anything, or at least many things, should be open to consideration for inclusion but as a practical matter much material as might be found in a full length biography will not appear in any one Wikipedia article. Editorial decision-making determines what actually gets included in any one article. Should editorial decision-making be made at individual articles or should editorial decision-making be made at the level of policy? Bus stop (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway here are my some of my inputs on this discussion.. Andy, I think I see where you are coming from (probably why many Westerners have problems understanding the 'caste' issue.) In India, there are two words, both of which are translated into 'caste' in English, but mean very different things. The first word is 'jati'. Jati is from the Sanskrit word 'Jat', means birth or origin. Jati, therefore, simply means your origin, or as used commonly, it can be translated into 'tribe'. For example, Ezhava is a Jati. It denotes the people of the Ezham (country) - probably referring to the old Tamil kingdom (Ezham) of Cheras. Then there are Nair, Nambudiri etc., which are all Jatis. A jati, in other words, is very similar to the concept of 'Jewish'. Except in the big cities, Indians tend to be largely (95%?) endogamous, preferring to marry within the tribe (due to various factors including compatibility of social customs, morals etc.) Jati is not a modern concept, anymore than 'tribe' is. It is reminiscent of people's history. In case of Ezhavas, for example, it reminds them that they were part of the Ezham in the old days. However, there is no shame attached to belonging to any particular tribe by most people in it. There is yet another concept, which is also converted into 'caste', which in India is called Varna (literally, colour). This is a five-fold division of the society (actually the Jatis) into Brahman (self-appointed intellectuals), Kshatriya (protectors or warriors), Vaishya (economically productive people - tradesmen, cultivators), Shudra (slaves) and Avarna (literally 'those without a Varna.) Different Jatis (tribes) are put into one or the other Varna by Brahmins, who probably created the Varna system. So, in the above example, the Ezhavas are avarna (without varna), the Nambudiris are Brahmins and the Nairs are Shudras. Not surprisingly, except for the Brahmin Jatis (and to some extent the Kshatriya and Vaishya), most other Jatis don't like this classification system. And 95% of people whose Jatis have been tagged 'shudra' may not like to call themselves shoodra. In this sense, Sitush's concern is not misplaced. As far as this concept of varna is concerned, AndyTheGrump opinion that "it is a contested religious and political concept" is valid. It is indeed contested. And so is his contention that "it is an individual's choice as to whether to recognise the validity of the caste system at all." As such, perhaps, it may not be appropriate to call someone a 'slave' (shudra) varna (caste) in his biography without being prejudicial. However, we can still include his Jati, which is actually just the name of his or her tribe -- like Maratha, Rajput, Ezhava, Vokkaliga Rajput etc.. These are all tribe-names, Jatis, and not Varna, and are not to be confused with the 'caste system', by which, most Westerners mean the 'Varna' system. These can be left out, if you insist. However, it may be noted that even here, there is a political movement Reappropriation that is going on to reclaim these words as non-pejorative, and make them a rallying and unifying identity. See Shudra:_The_Rising, for example. In short, I suggest that Jati or tribe, which is an ethnic identity, may be ascribed without self-identification and Varna or caste need not be.

I'll agree that they are retrograde and the result of mutual suspicion and possibly hatred that prevented people from marrying others who looked/spoke/acted/lived differently from themselves. But it's also a fact that the such tribal affiliations are extremely important in today's India -- most political parties are based on them (even if overtly they are based on ideologies etc..) Or to put it more mildly, most political parties cater to such identities. If you apply for any government job or admission into any government-owned educational institution, you have to specify which tribe you belong to.. and based on that, you get special treatments, or you fail to get special treatment. And it's seriously not got anything to do with any colonial power. What happened was that people simply distrusted each other, and as newer and newer groups of people immigrated into each other's territories, they just wouldn't mingle genetically (marry each other.) Some did mingle - for example, the Ezhava identity is more of a shared past identity (from having been the subjects in a Kingdom) rather than a genetic one, but they too now don't marry much outside the group. And over time, from a cultural identity, it's morphed into a genetic one. No one is trying to legitimize these things - but the fact is, they are there whether we like it or not. People think in those tribal ways, they look at which candidate in the election belongs to their tribe and sometimes vote for him.. They want to know which of the big film stars belong to their community, and sometimes quietly feel proud about it. In other words, it's as important as race is in the US.. In fact, India has rules that give special benefits to offsprings of mixed marriages, but still these communal groupings have survived. They do get dissolved in the big cities, but even now, on a guesstimate, I'd say 90-93% of the total marriages happening in India would be endogamic with respect to these tribal identities. Now, the question is, does Wikipedia have a policy against such identities and does it actively try to dissuade people from searching or identifying with them? I don't think so. I think Wikipedia just needs to reflect the ground realities, instead of patching over stuff. I mean, I know that the government of India frequently rubs out portions of Indian history that it deems inimical to "communal harmony" and school kids are taught a very sanitized version of history. Many kids grow up and read real history books and go 'oh, shuck, no one told me that was what happened.' The question is, does Wikipedia have a stand on this? Is Wikipedia a missionary? Does Wikipedia Judge? If it does, what is the pedestal from which it judges? Does it judge from the pedestal of Western, Christian values? Is that the right attitude for a collaborative website to take? What will happen if Indian editors of the Wikipedia delete all mention of homosexuality, and say "Oh, it's not something that should be encouraged.. it's the decadence of a civilization in decline?" How would you feel if your culture was judged according to our cultural norms?

I request people outside India, such as AndyTheGrump, Sitush and Dougweller to read the following widely-quoted and exhaustively documented (to the point of being often quoted on hundreds of websites) judgements of the Indian Supreme Court and High Courts and hopefully accept that caste is hereditary and membership in caste is involuntary (the Court says so) and that the Courts find it difficult to accept that someone can change his or her caste. Therefore, if caste is hereditary and membership involuntary, it is an objective fact and not a subjective fact like religion (which can be changed and membership of which is not involuntary.) If it is an objective fact, why should there be a requirement of self-declaration? In case of religion, self-declaration is insisted on because the individual is free to change his religion. However, when the individual has no choice ("membership is involuntary", what is the point of saying he has not said that he belongs to the caste?

The First quote the Supreme Court upholding a Kerala High Court judgment saying that a wife cannot opt to change her caste of her birth to match that of her husband. --

Valsamma was a Syrian Catholic woman (forward caste) who married a Latin Catholic man (backward class) and the question arose whether by virtue of her marriage she was entitled to appointment to a post of lecturer that was reserved for Latin Catholics (Backward Class Fishermen). The full bench of the Kerala High Court held that though Valsamma was � married according to the Canon law, being a Syrian Christian by birth, she could not by marriage with a Latin Catholic become a member of that class nor could she claim the status of backward class by marriage.

— Mrs. Valsamma Paul vs Cochin University And Others on 4 January, 1996

Here is the link to the actual judgment

Second quote is from a High Court judgment --

It is not necessary for our present purpose to trace the origin and growth of the caste system amongst the Hindus. It would be enough to state that whatever may have been the origin of Hindu castes and tribes in ancient times, gradually status came to be based on birth alone... The history of social reform for the last century and more has shown how difficult it is to break or even to relax the rigour of the inflexible and exclusive character of the caste system.

Thus, membership of a caste is involuntary. Historically persons carrying on one particular occupation may belong to one particular social class forming a particular caste. A person born in a family belonging to a particular caste which is associated with a particular occupation may not continue the occupation. But still he remains and continues to be a member of a social class forming the said caste. The reason is that the label remains. For the purposes of marriage and all other social functions up to his or her death, the caste continues to be relevant. When a woman born in a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe marries to a person belonging to a forward caste, her caste by birth does not change by virtue of the marriage.

A woman who is born into a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe, on marriage with a person belonging to a forward caste, is not automatically transplanted into the caste of husband by virtue of her marriage and, therefore, she cannot be said to belong to her husband’s caste.

— Rajendra Shrivastava vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 2010

Further, another Supreme Court Judgment, part of which was quoted in the above judgment by the Bombay High Court states --

"The above material makes it amply clear that a caste is nothing but a social class - a socially homogeneous class. It is also an occupational grouping, with this difference that its membership is hereditary. One is born into it. Its membership is involuntary. Even if one ceases to follow that occupation, still he remains and continues a member of that group. To repeat, it is a socially and occupation-ally homogenous class. Endogamy is its main characteristic.... This is the stark reality notwithstanding all our protestations and abhorrence and all attempts at weeding out this phenomenon. We are not saying it ought to be encouraged. It should not be. It must be eradicated. That is the ideal - the goal. But any programme towards betterment of these sections-classes of society and any programme designed to eradicate this evil must recognise this ground reality and attune its programme accordingly. Merely burying our heads in the sand -Ostrich-like - wouldn't help. One cannot fight his enemy without recognizing him. The U.S. Supreme Court has said repeatedly, if race be the basis of discrimination - past and present - race must also form the basis of redressal programmes though in our constitutional scheme,."

— Full Judgment - Supreme Court of India - Indra Sawhney And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 August, 1991

If someone dissociates himself or herself from his or her ethnic background, we should mention that, and say that although this person was born in a Jewish family or Ezhava family, he dissociated himself or herself etc.. A good example is Mark_Zuckerberg. The fact that he was born into a Jewish family is mentioned in his biography, along with the words "although he has since described himself as an atheist." If you leave out Jewish from the article, it is a less complete article. If you mention that he was born into a Jewish family, his atheism is not going to lose its lustre, nor is he going to sue you for it. Here, we are talking about people who have not even dissociated themselves from their ethnic groups, and we should mention their ethnic background just like we do for Larry_Page and countless others. Sreejiraj (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

'Caste' isn't 'ethnicity' - that is pure fiction. And once again, you refuse to address the core issue: the violation of privacy of individuals, based on what is frequently poor sourcing, imposed by 'contributors' with no better objective than to shove people into the very arbitrary and 'abhorrent' categories that the Indian courts have made their opposition to so evident. There is no justification whatsoever in Wikipedia labelling individuals in this way, except in the few cases where it is of direct significance to their notability. Wikipedia isn't here to preserve the relics of the Raj. If you wish to do that, find another platform. Or explain here why you think that such labelling with 'abhorrent' categories is of such overwhelming significance that Wikipedia must violate individual's privacy in order to tell the world which arbitrary historical relic they are lumbered with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The caste that a person associated themselves, like religion, political party, sexual orientation, and so on, can only be reliably sourced by one person - that person themselves. And in nearly all these cases, even if the person has said they are a member of X, unless that has a significant impact on understanding other content in the article, its probably best to leave it out. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

First, I'll reply to -MASEM, and then refute or respond to the rather patronizing (oh, poor Indians, they don't know what's good for them, so let's teach them a thing or two about Western values) opening statement by AndyTheGrump.

MASEM's doesn't require much refutation, because the person simply doesn't seem to have read the comment that lies on top of his own -- there is no subjectivity involved in determining caste. The Supreme Court of India, as evidenced by the excerpts given above, has upheld the following principles--

1)Caste is hereditary

2)Membership in caste is involuntary and You continue to be a member of the caste whether or not you do a particular occupation or not

3)A person cannot change his caste

As already explained, most Westerners have a very basic (and very textbook oriented) understanding of caste. It is a bit like Indians trying to tell Americans that race is not important, and should not be mentioned in an article on someone like, Will Smith, since he's a musician/actor and that's what he's known for. So your point that caste "can only be reliably sourced by one person" has absolutely no basis in law at all. Such a statement is explicitly nullified in the above judgment by the Supreme Court.

Now, I'll take up the individual points in Andy's opening remark and refute them (or at least address them) one by one. Please note that this effort is a bit of a double work for me since Andy had more or less lost his audience with his rather crude interventions in the previous, and ongoing debate, on the subject among India-oriented editors here. As such, he seems to have started this new thread to try to win the battle again.

Now, to the specifics --

"since caste membership of individuals is frequently appallingly badly sourced," -- questionable assumption. But even assuming it's true - how is that a justification for deleting the mention of this topic here? Just because some people (or even a majority) source their information improperly, does it mean that it should affect the entries of those who source it fairly? Doesn't sound like a scientific (not to say fair) argument to me.

"is of little or no encyclopaedic interest in almost all cases" - as already explained, it is of extreme importance to people a substantial chunk of the (Indian) people who are curious about the person. Possibly, not everyone of them, or even the majority of them, but certainly a lot of them, as evidenced by the fact that many people take pains to maintain lists of people belonging to their caste. In my own town, for example, (and I know this to be true for most towns in Kerala) at least half the population are members of caste associations, and contribute a fixed amount of money every month to such. So, caste is of importance to a substantial chunk of people from India, and given that a large chunk of people who read about most Indian 'notables' are likely to be from India, caste is relevant and of interest to the readers of the article. You should not try to impose your value system and tastes and interests on them.

"has potential for serious negative repercussions if wrongly reported," I am yet to hear of a single law suit being filed for wrongly reporting a person's caste.

"is something that a significant proportion of those so labelled reject as invalid" -- this would seem to imply that only some people are "so labelled". If you read the Supreme Court judgments quoted above, you will see that everyone, including Christians and Muslims, in India has a caste, and is labeled with it in government documents based on their birth alone. This legally ascribed community identity (caste) cannot be negated or disowned under the Indian law, or for that matter, under popular perception in India.

"is a gross violation of the privacy of living individuals to label them by caste membership" -- As explained above, the 'Jati' component of caste is non-pejorative. Jati only means 'origin' in sanskrit. It denotes your tribe. Now, the British did create long tables of Jatis and ascribe 'varnas' (Caste proper) to each Jati (not directly to individuals, mind you). The varnas may be construed as pejorative and insulting, after all the system was mostly maintained, if not devised, by the Brahmins, and unsurprisingly, is frequently faulted for favoring their interests. But Jati is different from Varna. Jati is no more an invasion of privacy than disclosing someone's birthday or place of birth is. It's an objective reality.

"unless (a) they explicitly self-identify as a member of the caste, and (b) it is of direct relevance to their notability in regard to Wikipedia." -- as mentioned earlier, 1) Jati is hereditary and depends only on the Jati of the parents 2) Jati cannot be changed by the individual and therefore, Jati is an objective fact. This is unlike religion and sexuality, which 1)is not hereditary 2)is a matter of individual choice and can be changed by him/her. As regards the question of notability, I think the matter has been adequately address by other members above.

"caste someone supposedly 'belongs' to," -- there is nothing supposedly about which Jati someone belongs to, as you can see even by a cursory reading of the above Supreme Court judgments. In fact, you'd not have had to go through the judgment if you'd been living in India. Since you are not, and don't seem to be familiar with the intricacies of social life here, I've quoted the judgment.

"by conferring 'legitimacy' on as contentious and disputed a concept" - it has already been conferred "legitimacy", if that means legal recognition and enforcement (see points above) and only the varna portion is disputed. The varna portion is not identified in individual biographies, only the non-pejorative jati portion is.

"Compiling 'lists of caste X', and telling the world that 'person Y is a member of caste Z' is simply unacceptable - it violates individual privacy, violates the neutrality of Wikipedia, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the objectives of the encyclopaedia" - this is merely a repetition of the points above and has suitably been dealt with higher up. Sreejiraj (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You sir, are a liar. You have grossly misrepresented what the source you cite actually says. I invite everyone here to read Indra Sawhney And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 August, 1991 [10]. The court ruling makes quite clear that (a) it is dealing with an issue of social class, (b) that 'caste' is a concept from Hinduism, and is explicitly rejected by many followers of other faiths, and (c) that the social classes (not castes) it refers to are defined by their economic, educational, and political position within society - and that the ruling was made in relation to measures taken with the objective of negating some of the worst socially-constructed inequalities in Indian society - to claim that this document 'confers legitimacy' on the caste system is beneath contempt. And cut out the crap about Westerners not understanding the caste system - I understand it quite well enough to recognise you as one who promotes it - no doubt for your own political, economic, religious or social ends. Find some other forum for your lies... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

OK -- Andy may be intemperate - but the official legal position of India, per its constitution and statutes, is to deprecate use of "caste" in all matters. To aver otherwise is errant. To ask Wikipedia to confer legitimacy on the customs of the past and inflict them on living people is abhorrent to an extreme extent. You may add any expletives necessary to drive this point home. Collect (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't see your point.

My point is this -- that the Supreme Court of India recognizes that

* 1) membership in caste is hereditary, and * 2) membership in case is involuntary

To prove the above two things, the ruling is sufficient.

You have again mis-represented my argument by saying that I said that the ruling 'confers legitimacy' on the caste system. Whether or not the ruling confers legitimacy, the fact is

When you apply to a government job, you have to specify your caste and if it was illegitimate, would the government require you to declare your caste? Based on which particular caste you belong to, you are put in one of three categories of applicants. When you apply to contest polls in India, you need to declare your caste. Based on which caste you belong to, you may be prevented from contesting in certain constituencies. In other words, caste is fully built into the legal system in India. If it was illegitimate, it would not be. In addition, the Supreme Court ruling does very well what I sought it to do, which is to disprove your contention that caste is a matter of belief, people can change their caste etc.. I hope you agree that you were mistaken. Thank You. Sreejiraj (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The court case row, which is largely WP:TLDR and repetitive, is a classic example of why we generally try to avoid primary sources of legal origin. In the context of this discussion, it makes no odds what some court in India says anyway because there are thousands of secondary sources available for the purposes of definition and, of course, it is Wikipedia's rules that count, not India's. We had this generalised Indian law vs WP policy argument a little over a year ago with regard to maps of India. Nothing has changed. - Sitush (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I am starting to enjoy this. First, let's take your first argument -- "it makes no odds what some court in India says anyway because there are thousands of secondary sources available for the purposes of definition." Two issues here - it's not "some court in India." It's the Supreme Court of India. Second, you will always find people who say that Caste is not hereditary, people can change caste etc.. But the Supreme Court of a country is unlikely to say something without deliberating on it for months, and hearing arguments from very learned, sophisticated, intelligent (and possibly very well-paid) advocates. So, when the Supreme Court of India says "caste is hereditary" and "membership in caste is not voluntary", you can assume that it has applied its mind to the matter thoroughly, and the matter has been discussed threadbare in a courtroom filled with legal luminaries. Such a statement, therefore, carries more weight that some claim in some quaint book or website. Anyway, if it pleases you, here's the definition from Encyclopedia Brittanica - "The term is derived from the Sanskrit jāta, “born” or “brought into existence,” and indicates a form of existence determined by birth ... a sharp distinction should be made between jati as a limited regional endogamous group of families and varna as a universal all-Indian model of social class." I hope that makes it clear that Jati is by birth and not by choice. If you were to ask any Indian what is your latest caste, they would laugh in your face.

Now let's take your second claim -- " it is Wikipedia's rules that count, not India's." I couldn't agree more. The question here is 'which rules'? But as you would also agree, different things have different rules that apply to them. For example, something like religion -- which an individual is free to change as he pleases -- will have a different yardstick for attribution compared to something like ethnic origin, which, unfortunately, an individual may distance himself from, but can never really get rid off. If a Jewish person says he doesn't believe in the Jewish ethnic identity, that would not make him non-Jewish in the eyes of most people. Wikipedia will continue to term him as Jewish. So you see that different rules apply to different categories. Now the important question is -- is Jati more like religion or more like ethnic origin? In other words, if you describe someone as belonging to X jati or tribe, is there a chance that by the time the article is published, he might have changed his jati? Does the individual have a freedom to change his Jati? He has, only to the extent that a Jewish person has to disown his ethnic roots. He can say he would like to dissociate himself from his Jati, but to everyone who knows about his origins, his identity will forever be linked to that of his Jati or tribe. Legally, there is no provision in India to change your Jati, while the law in India allows you to change your religion, or have no religion at all. See the case of that 'forward caste' Christian woman who wanted to change her Jati to 'lower caste' Christian. So we come to the main question that underlies this whole controversy -- is Jati closer to ethnic origin or to religion. If it is closer to ethnic origin, then the Wikipedia rules concerning ethnic origin will apply, and if to religion, that those that apply to religion will apply. This whole controversy has arisen because people like you have a muddled notion about what Jati indicates. You think it's like religion, while it actually is closer to ethnic origin. If you truly want to understand the difference between Jati and Varna, imagine that Jatis are like the individual stars in the constellation of Orion (the hunter). What you have a problem with (caste system or varna) is the claim that there actually is a hunter. And you are right too, there is no hunter, it's just an illusion. But does that mean that the individual stars (Jatis) in the constellation don't exist? Their existence is not dependent on whether or not Varna system (caste system proper) is valid or not. They exist. They (Jatis) have an independent existence, and they possibly predate the Varna system and possibly trace their origins to tribes and clans of the old. They are not pejorative in themselves. It is only when you try to impose Varna system on Jatis, as the British did, that trouble arises. Sreejiraj (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The difference between the stars in the constellation of Orion and "Jatis" is that the former are real and the latter are made up. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me Sitush, i wasnt here when the map issue happend and it really is scattered and too long to read now. But i was under impression that the map was not changed because this map is the one that other countries' governments recognize, regardless of what GOI says. In the matter of caste, there is no such conflict between other countries' laws. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the primary point was that the law of India does not apply to Wikipedia. Which is one of my points here. WP:BLP applies, but not the GoI. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that privacy should be respected but is caste a private thing? It is decided at birth and cannot be changed.--sarvajna (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No, caste is not 'decided at birth' - it is imposed by those factions within the relevant society that wish to perpetuate it. Wikipedia is not here to assist them with their objectives. Find another forum to push your politics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you show a single case where an Indian has changed his or her caste?Sreejiraj (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Are we seriously having an argument about putting arguably perjorative terms into BLPs for no encyclopedic reason? That's like claiming that because identifying then-current or former American slaves as such during the time of slavery was important to their biography that every articl on an American black person should detail not only whether they're descended from former slaves, but use the old mulatto/octaroon/etc. terminology. This is a stupid and rather offensive fight. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Does saying a person is "African American" or saying that someone belongs to the Serbian ethnic group amount to saying he or she is "descended from slaves"?? If they do, then it's already too late, isn't it? Our pages are full of such references? If they don't, how does saying a person belongs to the Maurya caste (which ruled nearly all of South Asia for at least two generations, but is now a "low caste") become offensive? Or for that matter, Valmiki caste. The caste is now considered untouchable, but was so well enlightened that the most popular Hindu epic, the Ramayana, was compiled by one of their members. Or the Pulaya caste, which was considered untouchable by brahmins, but had their own Kingdoms a few hundred years ago? Or the Shakya caste, to which the Buddha belonged, and is now a "low caste" according to the Brahmins. Just because Brahmins considered them untouchble doesn't mean that the Pulayas, the Mauryas, the Shakyas and the Valmikis should feel ashamed of their heritage.. Why are you making them feel so? Ups and downs happen in all communities' histories. That hardly means that Wikipedia editors can presume that the members of the caste feel ashamed of identifying with their tribe. By that logic then, we have to stop mentioning that a rich or famous person's parents were poor or not so well off, and presume that he or she would feel ashamed of identifying himself or herself with his or her parents? Sreejiraj (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What Wikipedia presumes is that individuals have a right to privacy. On what grounds do you suggest that it is legitimate to violate this right to privacy? So far you have provided none whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)It's not that stating the caste is necessarily offensive, it is that Wikipedian editors love to categorize and classify all topics into nice neat boxes, and thus will find any trivial - and likely unreliable - reference to say "Person X is Y" where Y is a quality like religious faith or sexual preference that only the person can accurately say. We've had problems in the past with editors trying to find any straw to classify people as LBGT, or as Jewish, or so-on, and this can lead to massive BLP problems even if the statement is not meant as a slur against said person. Hence why these points are typically only included if the person themselves (or in the case of dead persons, reliable historical records) have stated this. Though the caste system is not entirely a self-determined quality for a person (eg they are borne into a caste), some people choose to ignore and/or even hide this, and based on what I'm reading here, it's a historical aspect that has little relevance to understand a person of Indian descent, unless their membership in the caste is critical to their notability. Ergo, we should treat caste member like religion (even though its not 100% the same), in that it's not worth mentioning for the average person even if that information can be discovered. It just leads to a lot of BLP problems in the future. (Andy's privacy issue is also a strong point) --MASEM (t) 16:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you MASEM for what seems to be the most cerebral reaction coming from the "other side" :-) Anyway, let me try to pen down my thoughts about your points -- "some people choose to ignore and/or even hide this" -- I cannot deny that some people try to dissociate themselves from their caste identity. But there have been only a handful of such people (at least known cases). There are thousands of 'notable' Indians who are or who potentially are BLP material for Wikipedia. Out of these thousands of people, the only ones who have renounced their caste are Amitabh Bachchan and Sree Narayana Guru. It would amuse you to know that the association that the Guru started is the largest caste association in Kerala today, belonging to the Ezhava community, to which Guru was born to. About 75% of the houses owned by Ezhavas, who were considered untouchable by the Brahmins, religiously flourish the yellow caste-association flag in front of their house for a week around the Guru's birthday, which is observed as a state holiday in Kerala. (How would you explain this if Ezhavas were actually ashamed of being known as descendants of untouchables?) Anyway, back to the point -- out of thousands of people, only two notables have dissociated from their castes. Most people don't talk about it because it appears petty or immodest to say "Yeah, I come from such and such community.. We did all this in the old days, we were rulers etc.." They certainly would NOT speak on the record about this, because it's considered immodest. But that doesn't mean that they are trying to hide the fact, or would resent being identified as a member of a particular tribe. For example, how many Jewish people can you quote as saying, on the record, "Oh, yeah, I'm as Jewish as they come"? Does that mean that those who don't say that are trying to hide their Jewish origins? In addition, the extremely few number of cases where people would like to break out of the caste identity (like Guru, when he became enlightened), do not justify a blanket ban on identifying in all cases. There would always be people who try to disown or hide or live down their ethnic origins. Such people would be found in all communities. That is because they feel that ethnic groups are a thing of past and divide the society. If Wikipedia takes a stand that that is indeed so, then I would have no such problems. But there cannot be two sets of rules -- one for ethnic groups inside India and one for those outside. I mean, we've had it with white man's burden and the British talking down to us and telling us what is good for us. If Wikipedia is a fair place, then the same rules should apply to all communities, whether they are in India or outside. If you can amend the policy so that in case of all ethnicity, self-identification is required, I'd have no problems at all. But there should not be discrimination against Indian ethnic groups simply because they are Indian. You've also mentioned that fact that it may not be relevant -- it is as relevant as any ethnic identity outside India is. Each Jati has its own quirks, culture, politics, inheritance formats and even ideology. A person growing up in an Ezhava household will grow up in a very different family situation compared to one growing up in a Tamil Brahmin family even if both are situation in the same town. It is, therefore, as relevant as any other ethnic identity. The fact that we are talking about Indians and your knowledge about day to day Indian life is limited should not be reason enough to deny the same privileges extended to Western ethnic groups to Indian ethnic groups. Sreejiraj (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That is plain wrong, and you know it because we've already dealt with it. For example, in southern India people tend not to talk about their caste at all, while Bachchan and Nayarana Guru did not "hide" their caste - they disassociated themselves from caste, just as Ambedkar turned to Buddhism. There are numerous notable examples but, of course, you'll struggle to find them on Wikipedia because we respect their position and do not record the caste in the first place. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I cannot say that you are right or wrong unless you tell me something more than "there are lots of cases, but I won't tell you which all".. Secondly, Ambedkar turned away from Brahmanical Hinduism to Buddhism. It doesn't mean that he disowned his Mahar caste. Jatis are not dependent on Religion. A good example is Nadar_(caste). They have Nadar caste associations and all.. and Hindu Nadars, Christian Nadars and every other faith comes to them. In fact, less than half of them are, to my memory, Hindu. Even after adopting a religion, the ethnic grouping and affinity remains. The same is true for Jat_people. A big chunk, nearly half, broke away from Hinduism about 400 years or so ago, and formed the Sikh religion. Even today, they describe themselves as Jat Sikhs. In other words, these are ethnic identities, not religious identities. What you are saying is like Mohammad Ali became a Moslem, therefore he is no longer African American. Sreejiraj (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think anything is potentially material for inclusion in the body of an article. We demand good quality sourcing and of course we require consensus. Disputes can reach resolution through Requests for comment and Requests for Third opinion. By the way, I don't think that being "descended from former slaves" is necessarily "perjorative" and I don't believe anyone argued that caste be included in "every" article in which it could be included. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That appears to be precisely what Sreejiraj is arguing, given his utter refusal to acknowledge that either the right to privacy nor encyclopaedic relevance are factors here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The genesis of this argument was when I tried to add certain celebrities to a list of members born into a caste. I was told that WIKIPEDIA'S POLICY ON Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality required self-identification for castes. However, when I looked at it, it said self identification is required only for religion and not for ethnic origins and groups. Sitush, whose work at maintaining caste-related pages is admirable, said caste is covered by the religion clause, but I argued that caste is more similar to ethnic origin. This was followed by a post by Qwyrxian in which he rightly said, "after looking at policy more carefully, I realize that I and others have made fundamental mistakes regarding policy and that I think we need to seriously consider relaxing our current rules. .. people generally looked to WP:BLPCAT to draw a parallel, and argued that caste is equivalent to ethnicity, and thus require for living people evidence that the caste is connected to the person's notability along with evidence that the person self-identifies as being in that caste. Unfortunately, this parallel is fundamentally flawed, because WP:BLPCAT only places restrictions on religion and sexual preference, not on ethnicity." I still think Qwyrxian was bang on. And I want the Wikipedia policy on Ethnicity to apply to Jatis and not its policy on religion. Sreejiraj (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was policy, IIRC. I'd like to see that diff because my memory is that I referred you to the consensus obtained via a listed RfC and summarised at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. Sure, some people in the linked discussions did refer to BLPCAT but many others mentioned other things, all of which have been repeated in this present discussion. We're just going round in circles here. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In any case,Qwyrxian is clearly incorrect - caste is not 'ethnicity': It is a concept deeply rooted in religion (largely, but not exclusively confined to Hinduism), and is an issue of social class - with all the economic and political baggage that entails. And yet again, Sreejiraj, you have failed to address the issues regarding the rights of individuals to privacy regarding what is clearly a contentious and potentially negative characterisation. And once again you have refused to address the issues of encyclopaedic relevance. If you refuse to address these issues directly, and instead continue with your repetitive stonewalling, I suspect that others will reach the same conclusion that I already have - that your relentless POV-pushing makes you unsuited to edit any article where 'caste' is an issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Caste is not dependent on religion. Let me repeat for you some examples -- A good example is Nadar_(caste). They have Nadar caste associations and all.. and Hindu Nadars, Christian Nadars and every other faith comes to them. In fact, less than half of them are, to my memory, Hindu. Even after adopting a religion, the ethnic grouping and affinity remains. The same is true for Jat_people. A big chunk, nearly half, broke away from Hinduism about 400 years or so ago, and formed the Sikh religion. Even today, they describe themselves as Jat Sikhs. In other words, these are ethnic identities, not religious identities. What you are saying is like Mohammad Ali became a Moslem, therefore he is no longer African American. Sreejiraj (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't just classify caste as an ethnic division (but more on this in a second). It is an amalgam of religion, ethnicity, social and economic status, and more. Because that identity includes facets that only the person themselves can categorize themselves in, that person (or if deceased, reliable historical records) is the only one that can state what caste they are in.

And in consideration of ethnicity, while it can be a "matter of fact" in some cases (eg, if both your parents were Irish, you would be Irish), there again are cases where a person will either hide or chose not to reveal it, or stress it a different way. Imagine a person born to a parents that are, oh, African and Caucasian, and resides in the US. Is that person an African-American? We can't say for sure; the person may want to spin it (a politician may want to be quiet about his Africian background, a political activist may emphasize that). Given what's been said about the caste system here, this is even more a factor for Indian people. So while one could argue the caste is just an ethnic classification and can be stated matter-of-factly, it is still a living person's choice of how much they want to let that be known, and thus we're back at only letting self-asserted member even be considered. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

These are questions best brought up at individual articles when disputes arise. We don't need to write policy to cover specific differences of opinion that we can't even anticipate. We have Talk pages. We have various other ways of resolving disputes. "Religion" is often thought of as one of several components of "ethnicity". "Social status" and "economic status" often correlate to some degree with any other attribute of identity that you can think of. In my opinion it is futile to try to find exact correspondences between one attribute of identity and another. All that you can do is find approximations. What we need to look at are sources. What are sources saying about a person? And in what context are sources associating an identity with a person? And finally—do editors agree on the applicability of a particular attribute of identity to the subject of a biography? Actually there is one more consideration—if it is accepted, in what words will it be presented to the reader? These are questions that can and should be worked out on article Talk pages with recourse to WP:RFCs, WP:3s, and other dispute resolution processes. Overarching policy is not the way to address questions that are going to come up in permutations that we can't anticipate. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Except, that if we had 100s of sources about a living person that claim X is a member of a certain religion, or a certain ethnicity, or sexual preference or whatever, and none of the sources make it explicit that this detail came from X personally (eg no evidence of self-classification), then we would not include that despite the sources. That's a fundamental BLP issue. The person may never have said that and others assumed (which gets repeated, poorly, around articles), the person may have wanted to hide/dissociate themselves with that information and someone got too snoopy and found out, or it could be a small piece of slander that gets blown up due to repetition. (we released deleted a list of apparently sentenced pedophiles on the basis that still provoked a bad image for the people on there and could suffer from misinformation). Given that caste membership is on the same level of personalable information like religion and the like, we need to take the same approach, and only include it on BLPs if it is clearly some self-stated by the person, and if it is really pertinent to the article. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

An Infobox, Category, List, or Navigation template can be thought of an a "on-off" switch. A person is included in such a component of an article or a person excluded from such a component of an article. The body of an article is not so clear. We can say whatever is appropriately reflective of a consensus reading of reliable sources. This can be tailored to each article. WP:BLP does not say that we can't describe attributes of identity that might be applicable to given individuals. It doesn't dictate language to us. Responsible editors can and always do find language that most are amenable to. This is possible because language allows for all shades of expression. What are sources saying? We are weighing in with our sources and arriving at language. This is what we are doing all the time. Collaborative writing on WP:BLPs is all about bringing sources and presenting persuasive arguments to your fellow editors. We do this with "religion", "ethnicity", "sexual preference", and we should do this with "caste". It is all about finding the right language, or no language at all if that is what is decided upon. A certain amount of weight should be given to "self-identification" as concerns questions relating to material for possible inclusion in the body of an article but this does not have to be absolute. Unlike "Infoboxes, Categories, Lists, or Navigation templates" there is room for expressing shades of association with the attribute in question when writing in full sentences. Some of the compromises in language that editors come up with is ridiculous looking but that is preferable to a stark question of inclusion or exclusion based on whether the person said they were a member of whatever group in question. Furthermore people often don't always enunciate statements of membership. Writing an article and approaching these sorts of questions should be heavily source dependent. And that is always going to vary from article to article. Bus stop (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, please stop inventing bogus concepts like 'attributes of identity' - there is no such thing as an 'attribute of identity' that doesn't include self-identification - anything else isn't 'identity' it as a characterisation imposed by others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If a person doesn't bother to self-identify their religion, sexual preference, or whatever, that likely means that in the context of a WP, that information if it could be determined will be trivial and unimportant to understanding the rest of the article on that person (much less the BLP issues with putting that non-self-identified information anywhere in the BLP Article). Ergo, we should absolutely avoid any such classification of a person (religion, ethenic group, caste, whatever) if that living person does not specifically self-identify with that, even if a million other sources all agree that that person is identified that way. That is the essence of BLP - the privacy of the person comes before the completeness of Wikipedia (and hence why its a mandate from the Foundation). --MASEM (t) 00:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Aside from those engaged in vandalism, I don't think the average well-meaning editor is going to go around recklessly placing people in cubbyholes of identity that are utterly unsupported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

[11] - par for the course for many India-related articles, I'm sad to say. Not to mention Jewish-related, and almost every other 'cubbyhole' you can think of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not true for all Wikipedians, but the majority love to categorize and sort and the like , which is a good thing in general, but the example above from Andy, the above discussion on blood types of Japanese people, etc. are examples of what trend to do by instict (perhaps). It can be difficult to ween ppl off that approach, and particularly true when we are talking BLP. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Judging from this discussion, it is clear that India is struggling to eliminate the caste system, and the Supreme Court is not helping. Their rulings are correct, but make the false assumption that there is a caste system, as it was effectively eliminated in 1950. Due to the extreme prejudice implied in labeling someone by a lower class and the inappropriate glorification implied in labeling someone by an upper class (by all BLP standards), I would reiterate, that caste is simply of historical interest and has no place in an article about anyone living after 1950. Do we allow anyone to be called the N word? Why would we allow anyone to be identified by their caste? It simply is not something that meets WP guidelines. Let India do whatever it does. Our job is to report it impartially, but ascribing derogatives/superlatives in this manner is not appropriate. Apteva (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• And I repeat, Apteva, that your comments primarily demonstrate a lack of clue. I hope that you were not relying on the articles that you linked because they are due a fairly big overhaul in the next few months- plans are afoot. There is a caste system in India today, it is alive, well and reported on daily; it exists in official reservation schemes and therefore in education and employment; it exists as a very real mindset and it causes physical violence and discrimination etc. You cannot just brush all of this under the carpet because western sensitivities object to the thing. We are not censored. - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sitush on the fact that 'caste', as in Jati, did not die in 1950.

I also agree with MASEM's following statement -- "And in consideration of ethnicity, while it can be a "matter of fact" in some cases (eg, if both your parents were Irish, you would be Irish), there again are cases where a person will either hide or chose not to reveal it, or stress it a different way." My question to MASEM and to you guys is -- does this mean that we require a person to self-identify as Irish before we say that he was born in that community? If we don't, why would we need this for Indian groups? Do you think Indian groups are something to be ashamed of? Does Wikipedia have a list of "groups that don't make their members self-ashamed & groups that make their members self-ashamed (and thereby require self-identification) ? Sreejiraj (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sreejiraj, no more brightly colored text please. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sreejiraj, please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you continue to refuse to answer the repeated questions I have asked you regarding the topic of this thread - the relationship between the right to privacy as laid down in core WP:BLP policy, and the adding of non-self-identified and non-relevant 'caste' assertions to articles relating to living individuals - I shall be asking that you be blocked from editing any caste-related material on Wikipedia, on the grounds laid out in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am arguing that identifying someone's ethnicity does not violate his privacy. At least, Wikipedia policy doesn't seem to think so. Please see my question about whether their ethnicity is something that Indians should be ashamed about, when all over the globe, people seem to have no issues with it.

PS: Thank you for not banning me. Sreejiraj (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am in no position to ban you. I shall however be reporting your continued stonewalling, misrepresentation of sources, intentional off-topic waffle and abject refusal to address the topic of this thread at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I know next to nothing about caste. What I do know is that our article about Dalits says, "discrimination and prejudice against Dalits in South Asia remains." I also know that that article says that non-Hindu Dalits are ineligible for concessions otherwise available to scheduled castes. Those two things being the case, I find comments about how caste is mostly unrelated to religion and not something to be ashamed of to be disingenuous at best. I cannot see how a famous Indian person's caste is ordinarily something that warrants mention, particularly since for a not-insignificant number of people it apparently is something to be ashamed of. Perhaps this is simply me revealing my Western ignorance, but it also seems to me that the sorts of people who are disadvantaged by (the remnants of?) the caste system are not very likely to contribute to this discussion. AgnosticAphid talk 13:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd like to pre-emptively say that my use of the word "ashamed" was a poor choice of words. I would hope, generally, that the disadvantaged can be proud and not ashamed of their heritage, and like I said I am ignorant on this topic. It wouldve been preferable to say, "for a not-insignificant number of people it may be something they are not proud of." But I stand by the substance of my comment. AgnosticAphid talk 13:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• If that is what the article says then it is wrong. Non-Hindu communities in India do come under the various reservation schemes and some, such as the St Thomas Christians, are often considered to be a caste. This list for Goa shows plenty of non-Hindu groups, and there are a further 34 states & also other classifications in the reservation system. One reason for your confusion may well be the term "Scheduled Castes" which, in fact, is does not necessarily comprise castes at all. There are also, by the way, instances of dalit millionaires and brahmin paupers etc: the situation is very complex. . - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

AgnosticAphid You are right in the sense that caste in the sense of Varna (higher, middle, lower, slave system) is not followed in non-Hindu religions. But caste in the sense of ethnic origin, is followed. Ambedkar's own group, Mahar has largely converted to Buddhism. But they still haven't given up their Mahar name and identity. Buddhism is extremely anti-caste. You can understand this apparent contradiction only if you learn to distinguish between the ethnic part of caste (jati) and the hierarchical part of caste (Varna -- Brahmin, Kshatirya, Vaishya and Shoodra). If you scroll up, there's a Supreme Court ruling which I shall quote for your benefit (to prove that castes are not related to, or exclusive to, Hindu religion, but are more of an ethnic identity. Varna is certainly related to Hindu religion.) Here it is --

"Valsamma was a Syrian Catholic woman (forward caste) who married a Latin Catholic man (backward class) and the question arose whether by virtue of her marriage she was entitled to appointment to a post of lecturer that was reserved for Latin Catholics (Backward Class Fishermen). The full bench of the Kerala High Court held that though Valsamma was � married according to the Canon law, being a Syrian Christian by birth, she could not by marriage with a Latin Catholic become a member of that class nor could she claim the status of backward class by marriage.

— Mrs. Valsamma Paul vs Cochin University And Others on 4 January, 1996

Sreejiraj (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sreejiraj, I've been wrapping the text you're quoting with {{quote}} to make it more distinct from your comments. You've posted a huge amount of text to this page; if you're going to do that, please make every attempt to make it easier for people to read, otherwise you're going to get people thinking you're making walls of text. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

While India is a modern democracy, India may not embrace and celebrate some of the favorite philosophies popularized, promoted, and cheered over in the so-called West, or at least in large swaths of the West. (There are as well pockets of disregard for notions of social stratification in large urban centers in India.) From a US-centric point of view it is easy to argue that "self-identification" is all that should matter when considering notions of identity. But even in the US (and Britain) it can be difficult to be "classless and free". My suggestion is that we simply focus on and abide by our sources in each individual case, at each individual biography. Caste may not correspond exactly to Western notions of for instance religion. It may be the wrong approach to require "self-identification" as a prerequisite for allusions to caste in the body of a biographical article. Sreejiraj looks like he is writing a novel, but his posts suggest the pervasiveness of notions of unshakable rootedness that may exist in ways that many Americans and British people may not be able to easily relate to. Our aim is not to replicate fashionable American philosophies. When multiple good quality sources speak about caste in relation to an individual I don't think it becomes Wikipedia's responsibility to weed out philosophies that clash with our own popular philosophies, of self determination, etc. Bus stop (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So you are advocating the abandonment of Wikipedia policies in regard to the right to individual privacy on the basis that they shouldn't apply to India? O.k. I suggest you contact the lawyers at the Wikimedia foundation and ask them whether this grossly discriminatory proposal is compatible with (a) the law, and (b) the charitable aims of the foundation. And by the way, your claim that "the pervasiveness of notions of unshakable rootedness" are any way relevant to this discussion are based on an entirely false understanding of the topic. Even a cursory study of the subject will show that 'caste' has been a contested, fluid and evolving subject within Indian society, and that far from being 'unshakable' it is shaken daily - not that it would make any difference if it weren't. Wikipedia cannot have one rule for Indians and another for 'Westerners'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Read this [12]. Then ask yourself if it had read 'Jewish community' instead of 'minority community' you would considered it to have been legitimate to use phrases like 'unshakable rootedness' to explain what was occurring? 'Caste' still exists in India - and because of it, so does caste-related violence, and much else besides. That is no reason for Wikipedia to take sides in the debate over its legitimacy - which is precisely what you are advocating. Have you no sense of shame? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, Wikipedia policy only respects individual privacy on a very narrow list of things: birth date, locational/identificational marks (I made that term up; I mean things like address, government ID numbers, etc.), and information about non-public people (like the names of non-notable children of notable people). BLP further restricts the use of certain means of conveying information when those means are not sufficient to explain controversial subjects in sufficient detail; this is the restriction embedded in WP:BLPCAT. But Wikipedia does not restrict mention of a person's ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, sexual preference, or any of these other things, in well-written, well-sourced prose in the body of the article. You are proposing to add some new "right to privacy", which would exist only for caste. I find the notion of us sitting here and declaring discussion one particular system of (admittedly abusively discriminatory) social stratification to be forbidden to be a very colonialist attitude. You are literally proposing a rule that does not exist for any other identifying characteristic on Wikipedia biographical articles. And just to respond to your last point: removing caste in cases where reliable sources refer to is is absolutely taking a side. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What? Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia allows a characterisation of living people by religion or sexual preferences without reliable sources which actually indicate that the person self-identifies with them? And you are an admin? I suggest you think about what you have just written... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am an admin, and after checking WP:BLP to make sure I haven't gone mad, I will stand by what wrote. There is no policy, nor common agreement, nor regular preference, to require self-identification of religion or sexual preference. We would, of course, require a BLP-compliant source (i.e., high quality, not a gossip rag)--but we do not require explicit self-identification. If I had a source that said "Person X regularly attends Church Y" and I trusted that source, I would consider that acceptable for inclusion--neither I nor policy would require a "Person X said 'I attend Church X'". Furthermore, don't forget you're trying to make caste even more strict: requiring a tie to notability. So, if I am going to play the game like you, I should say, "Are you ready to withdraw your position, given it's not supported in policy or practice"? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No I am not going to withdraw anything. I wrote that "it is a gross violation of the privacy of living individuals to label them by caste membership unless (a) they explicitly self-identify as a member of the caste, and (b) it is of direct relevance to their notability in regard to Wikipedia". I stand by that, for the reasons I have already given. As for your assertions regarding religion (which is of direct relevance here) and sexual preference/orientation (which isn't), you are simply wrong - we regularly reject material relating to these subjects on WP:BLP grounds if they aren't self-asserted, and aren't relevant to notability. It is worth noting here that we are dealing with a topic where the very meaningfulness of the categories is contested - it isn't just an issue of potentially assigning individuals to the 'wrong caste', it is an issue of assigning them to a place within a hierarchical structure which they may not recognise as legitimate. This is the core issue here. By accepting the right of third parties to 'assign' caste we are taking sides in the dispute. This is a violation of WP:NPOV, and regardless of how we deal with other categorisations, in this case, which needs to be looked at on its own merits, there are strong grounds for respecting the rights of individuals to privacy as set out in core WP:BLP policy, and for rejecting the arbitrary third-party assignment of caste as a violation of the very principles of neutrality by which Wikipeda operates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"it is an issue of assigning them to a place within a hierarchical structure which they may not recognise as legitimate." - If this is the issue, then the issue is bad nonsense. What the subjects recognise or not as legitimate is entirely irrelevant. What sources state is relevant. As always, there should be very strong and very reliable sourcing, and perhaps a good reason, to include contentious BLP statements in biographies, but what the subjects themselves think is entirely irrelevant. Notice that we take sides in the dispute also by rejecting the right of third parties to assign caste, so if this is a violation of NPOV, it is in both cases. There is only one way out of POV, and it is: being compliant with what sources say, regardless of the subject self-identification. --Cyclopia^talk 12:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is probably the clearest thing you have said in a long time -- {{it is an issue of assigning them to a place within a hierarchical structure which they may not recognise as legitimate}} and I must congratulate Qwyrxian for getting you to articulate what you seemed to have been stumbling on for so long. The statement is very significant, because that is the crux of the "pro-choice" argument. Let's examine it in greater detail. There are two points here -- one is that people may not recognize their caste as legitimate and the second is that their caste is part of a hierarchical structure. In fact, the first part of this sentence is dependent on the second part. In other words, the alleged fact that caste is a hierarchical structure is the reason why individuals allegedly do not recognize it as legitimate. (If this understanding is wrong, please do correct.) Now, therefore, the whole controversy can be solved if it is proved that caste is not a hierarchical structure. It seems almost impossible a notion to prove that. I mean, caste is almost a synonym for hierarchy, at least to someone who's only read books about the phenomenon. The 'theory' of caste says it's all about hierarchy and social organization. But often theory may not correspond to practice. And the same can be said for caste as well. In theory, there are only four castes, plus an 'outcaste' division. The four castes are called Varna and the 'outcaste' is called 'avarna' (without a varna. 'a' in Indian languages and sanskrit denotes the absence of something. For exampe, ashareeri means without shareer or body, asukh means without sukh or wellness.) These four castes (Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra) and the outcaste (avarna) are all that should be there in the hierarchical system. But look around Wikipedia caste articles.. do you see only these five groups? Do the lists talk of these groups? No. I repeat, no theoretical text on caste, including the Manusmriti and the Bhramasutras, talk of any other castes except these four (plus the outcaste or avarna). So what are the other groups that also pass for 'castes' -- Nair, Ezhava, Rajput, Jat_people, Iyer, Iyengar, Maratha etc? They are not mentioned in any text as belonging to any part of the hierarchy. The theory of caste system does not have any place for these groups. Theoretically, the caste system only has place for individuals, not groups. But, as always, practice does not follow theory all the time. In practice, it was very difficult to recruit people to be a 'trader class', a 'slave caste' or an 'outcaste'. No one would want to join something like this. In practice too, no one did. What happened was that the pre-existing ethnic groups, which trace their origin from tribes as well as from occupational classifications, were forced into the above five-fold system. Who forced ethnic groups into the caste system? This was done by dominant ethnic groups. How did these become dominant? Most probably by inter-tribal war, invasions and also through sheer hardwork and intelligence. Anyway, some ethnic groups became more powerful than the others. The powerful groups ascribed to themselves the top classes (Brahmin & Kshatriya) and depending on how the other ethnic groups were doing, they were placed into the 'lower castes' (varnas such as Shudra and 'Avarna'). Just like History is always written by the winners, the caste-books were always written by the winners. At various times, when and where an ethnic group became more powerful, they raised themselves in the caste hierarchy. A good example is Maurya (mostly called Mori in modern days), the ethnic group of Ashoka. They are considered Shudra (slave) in the Bihar state, where they are most numerous, but in Rajasthan some of they are also found among the powerful Rajputs and are known as Mori Rajputs. Rajputs are rulers -- a tribe of kings. Or take the case of Scindia. Scindias were the ruling family of Gwalior, a fairly largish state in the 19th century. Technically, they are Maratha - a non thread-wearing people. If you don't wear the sacred thread, then your Jati belongs to either Shudra or Avarna caste. Yet, would anyone tell the ruler the country that he was not a Kshatriya (ruling caste)? Another example is Nair of Kerala, who were shudra to start off with, but became so powerful that they started calling themselves Kshatriya. This led to ideological tussle with Brahmins who considered themselves the final arbiter when it came to deciding which tribe belonged to which caste. This whole "put ethnic groups (jatis) into castes (varnas)" effort got a lot of support from the British, who were probably fascinated by these things, and soon charts started getting published identifying which ethnic group (jati) belonged to which caste (varna). Someone whose Jati was put in the slave (shudra) caste or 'outcaste' division could react in three ways -- first was to accept the classification and be ashamed of saying or identifying that they belonged to that ethnic group (jati) that has been classified as a low caste. The second way was to dispute the classification (but without questioning the need for and legitimacy of such a classificatory system) and the third option was to entirely reject such as classificatory system (caste system) altogether.

In the above example, Nairs took the second option -- of not challenging the legitimacy of the caste system, but only their place in it. The Ezhavas, who were largely Buddhists and Jains, most probably rejected the entire hierarchical or (Varna) caste system. Not surprisingly, they were classified as avarna (outcastes) by Brahmins and are still called avarnas in popular language, newspapers etc.. The word Avarna is used in newspapers and though it must have carried a certain stigma with it when it was coined, in the present day, it carries no such prejudice (at least, if it did, it has escaped the newspaper editors.) Btw, when I say, Ezhavas did this or Nairs did this, it doesn't mean that each individual did this, without exception. It is only an indicator of the dominant ideology (as expressed by the leaders of their ethnic groups and organizations working for their upliftment - such as the SNDP organization, and Sree Narayana Guru in case of Ezhavas. Most of you here (perhaps most people who only have a literary knowledge of the subject) fail to appreciate this two-step nature of what is commonly known as India's caste system. The first step is the individual's allegiance or identification to his ethnic group (Jati) (like Nair, Ezhava, Jat etc.) and the second element is the placement of that ethnic group (Jati) in the caste system proper (Varna-Sampradaya). I personally belong to a group (Jati) that is considered "outcaste". But I, like nearly everyone in my ethnic group, don't accept the hierarchical caste system (Varna system). As such, I don't feel ashamed of my ethnic identity (Ezhava). Most Ezhavas don't feel ashamed that they are Ezhava. Like I said earlier, 70-75% of all Ezhava households proudly display their caste association flag for about a week every year. The only other community that does anything like that are the Saint_Thomas_Christians, considered a 'forward caste' by the law. In other words, what you are asking me to do -- by saying that Ezhavas are more likely than not to feel ashamed of saying they are Ezhavas -- is giving legitimacy to the placement of Ezhava into the list of "outcastes". This is what I object to. You cannot say that because people who were in power ascribed the status of "outcastes" to my ethnic group, I should, in effect, leave my ethnic group, or feel ashamed of it. I feel nothing of the sort. And 99% of Ezhavas feel no shame in saying they are Ezhava. They simply don't accept the hierarchical system. Organizationally, the Ezhavas are the most powerful group among the Hindus in Kerala today, and it is possible that they are so on economic grounds as well (though arguably, there could be subjective bias in these statements.) In short, don't make me feel ashamed of my ethnic identity when I don't have to. I don't give a damn what caste my Jati has been put in to. In fact, I don't care if you call me avarna either. These terms -- shoodra and avarna -- have been used as identities to unify the 'lower castes' across India. See Shudra:_The_Rising. But I would still say that most people have not reached that level of maturity that they would unflinchingly call themselves slaves (Shudras) and take pride in it. As for Jati, for most Jatis, most members don't feel any shame in acknowledging that they are from that ethnic group. There may be some Jatis where they still do -- especially if the Jati's 'downtroddenness' is not just historical, but continues to be even today. In such Jatis, there may be individuals who feel hesitant to identify with even their ethnic identity (forget Varna or caste identity) (Btw, this is true of all ethnic divisions, including Jewish, African American, Irish, Welsh, Scots etc..). But even the poorest and most backward castes in India are finding a new voice, a new assertiveness in identifying themselves by their Jati, and as I said, even by their Varna or caste. See Mayawati. My final advice -- don't presume that people feel ashamed of their ethnic identities. Criticize the caste system (varna system) for all you want, but don't assume that people take these varna statuses seriously. If Wikipedia says we don't want to promote ethnic divisions and identities - that is a different matter. I can understand that, and be ok with that. But all that I hear you guys say is "Unlike Westerners, Indians have reason to be ashamed of their ethnic identities, because the ethnic identities have been placed in a hierarchical system by the Brahmins and the British.." At best, that's just plain wrong, and at worst, that's racist and smacks of a white man's superiority complex. Sreejiraj (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we see examples of Wikipedia articles which contain this so-called issue? I'd like to see the relationship between sources and that which is supported by sources. This request is addressed to everyone participating in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article-space search for 'India caste' gets 7,144 hits - take your pick. [13] Tell us what you think of the sourcing when you're done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing to remedy a problem. Can you point to an article that at present contains the "problem" that you are trying to remedy? Bus stop (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

To pick one at random, see Chettiar - and see how many of the individuals that are claimed to be members of the named castes actually have a source cited which states this. Incidentally, you'll note a recurring theme as you look into this - assignment to caste on the base of family name. Curiously though this particular article both notes that "Chettiar title is used mainly by Vaishya sub-castes of South India. But it is also used by the non-vaishya communities such as the Kummara (shudra)" - which seems to me to be a statement (unsourced, needless to say) that some people named 'Chettiar' aren't members of the caste anyway. And then there is the (policy violating) disclaimer further down: "The information is taken from reference web sites and material, this website doesn't take responsibility for any individual to use this info. The individual needs to verify the authenticity of information before using". AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump So your problem is improper sourcing, and you no longer believe that Indians are, or are bound to be, or are liable to be, or are more likely than not to be, ashamed of their ethnic groups? I'd call that progress. Sreejiraj (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And you no longer believe that strawberry plantations on moon are an impediment to Papua New Guinea's economy, am I right? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that - so your issue is with sourcing, not that assigning a person to a Jati violates their privacy because it amounts to "assigning them to a place within a hierarchical structure which they may not recognise as legitimate." So we are no longer worried about whether Indians consider their Jati as legitimate, but we are only worried about whether the sourcing is sound or not?Sreejiraj (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My issue is with both - can't you read? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The header only mentions that it violates the privacy. Be that as it may, can you show some examples where people have claimed that their privacy has been violated because Wikipedia mentioned their Jati? If not, apart from the case of Amitabh Bachchan who wanted to be dissociated from the Kayastha caste, can you show a case where someone living now claimed that his or her privacy was violated because any publication published his or her caste?Sreejiraj (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Another factor for consideration: The WMF's position regarding biographies of living people

I see that the WMF resolution on Biographies of Living Persons of April 2009 has recently been posted below, in relation to another topic. It is clearly of equal relevance to the debate here:

Wikimedia Foundation resolution

Further information: Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people

On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about living persons. It noted that there are problems with some BLPs being overly promotional in tone, being vandalized, and containing errors and smears. The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; that new technical mechanisms be investigated for assessing edits that affect living people; and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with patience, kindness, and respect.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The other factor - the triviality of the information

I appreciate what Qwyrxian noted above - that no policy or guideline explicitly requires self-identification to include information, though I would argue that per the privacy issues of the Foundation's edict that we shouldn't be going to great lengths to try to source something that the person in question has not readily made available. But lets assume that reliable sourcing exists to discuss a person's religion, ethnicity, etc.

The other part of the question that's been here is: why does inclusion of that information matter? The fact that person X is of a certain religion when no other part of their notability or background is affected by that, is effectively trivia. As Uncle G pointed out, at one point we had blood type in infoboxes on Japanese people, but that has absolutely no bearing for the bulk of articles on living persons. I get back to the fact that WPians love to categorize, and if we have a infobox that has fields that are otherwise left empty, there is a natural trend to fill in the spaces with any sources that can confirm that - not necessarily a bad thing to have but something that should be used carefully in light of BLP. I would rather see us leave information out that normally requires self-identification when that information has otherwise no use besides filling an infobox. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me give an example. V._S._Achuthanandan is the former chief minister and the current opposition leader of Kerala assembly. According to a feature in the well-respected Mathrubhumi daily, when 'VS' was a student, 'upper caste' children used to taunt him as to why a low caste Ezhava like him wants to study, and whether he intended to become a minister by studying. He, according to the biographical article, went and told his father, and his father bought him a whip-belt that he could wear. Next day, he lashed the upper caste boys who dared make fun of him. He soon joined the Communist Party of India, whose support base was overwhelmingly drawn from the Ezhava and other backward castes like Pulaya and Paraya. He led a great uprising against the high-caste Hindu royal government that ruled southern Kerala at the time, called Punnapra Vayalar. The Communist Party won power in the first election held in Kerala after independence, largely due to Ezhava and backward caste votes. The party promptly went about abolishing the feudal system, seizing excess land from typically upper caste hindu landlords and redistributed it to lower caste people, mostly to Pulayas and Parayas, who were essentially subsisting on that land after paying a share to the land lords. So, the question is -- did the fact that he was an Ezhava have anything to do with VS's political life and philosophy? You bet it did. Should that have been the case in a fair and just society? Absolutely not. That doesn't take away from the fact that caste matters in almost everything, including, often, though not always, whether one becomes a businessman, or a employee of a private company, or a door-to-door salesman. Most Pulayas and Parayas are still poor, and their children grow up poor, and are still stigmatized. Does caste matter? It does to them. They usually find defensive/offensive ideologies in their teens to get over the allegations of inferiority thrown on them as they grow up. It's not a trivial matter. It matters a great deal, except in cities like Bombay, Delhi and Chennai, where people don't even know which caste you belong to. But these cities probably have about 5% of the total population of India.Sreejiraj (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And that's a fine example of where that information is not trivial and would be included; that's not the issue. Yes, there is the subtle issue that the person's caste does have some influence on their life - same with religion, sexual orientation, etc. But unless that aspect is actually documented on how caste (etc) influenced their life, its otherwise trivial. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

@Sreejiraj - Sure V._S._Achuthanandan's caste may be relevant to his notability, but there are lots of cases where caste isn't clearly relevant a subject's notability. I'm not sure anyone here is arguing against caste categorization when there is a clear, direct and obvious link to someone's notability. That said, the onus should really be on the categorizer to demonstrate the "relevance to notability". NickCT (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's an aside - but the fact is that if searched the internet for a self-declaration from VS that he considers himself an Ezhava, you'd find none..

It's slippery territory here, trying to determine whether one's ethnic origin was notable with regard to one's achievements. Does the fact that Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Rupert Murdoch, Sergei Brin, Larry Ellison (on one side) are all Jewish have anything to do with their business acumen? Most people on this page would shudder at such a suggestion, but there would be many people, outside of this page, who would say that Jewish people tend to be more successful at business than others in the US. The same thing can be said of India's entrepreneurs -- a lot of the top guys come from a group called Agarwals (in the larger sense including castes and groups like Mittal, Bansal etc.). Do we have the right to decide this matter for ourselves? Or should we just supply the information and leave people to put two and two together (or decide there is no two and two to be put together here.) I think we should simply give the information, and if someone wants to interpret it, or consider it trivial, I am sure our inclusion of the information is not going to change their opinion.Sreejiraj (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No it's not a slippery slope. We go with what sources say. In your first example, it appears clear that sources document VS's problems with his caste as a youth that influenced his future life. But it is original research for use to say that, for example, Zuckerberg's Jewish background is the reason why he's wealthy without a source. Yes, traditionally, those of the Jewish faith tend to have good business senses, but on WP we can't make that connection without a source; assuming no source directly ties Zuckerberg's Jewish background with his business success, there would be no need for us to mention if he is Jewish. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You've misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that Zuckerberg is known as a successful businessman. In a bio of his, would we ever mention that he is from a Jewish background? Or would we consider it trivial with regard to his notablity? (I am talking about the mere mention that he hails from such a background, and certainly not to an overt statement that this contributed to his success, which would be taking a stance on this issue.)Sreejiraj (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

We would consider it trivial in regards to his notability - the implication that because he's Jewish makes him a good businessperson is clearly OR. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

re "the implication that because he's Jewish makes him a good businessperson is clearly OR" - Clearly. Sreejiraj seems to be missing an obvious point here. NickCT (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Given Sreejiraj's cavalier attitude to 'information', I think we can assume that the answer has to be that whatever we do, and whether it is 'trivia or not, we shouldn't let Sreejiraj within a mile of it - Rupert Murdoch isn't Jewish... AndyTheGrump (talk)

I want you to think about this more clearly. Because what you are saying is this -- each and every piece of information in a biography must be demonstrably relevant to the achievement that made that person notable. I mean, is the fact that Zuckerberg was born on May 14 (and not 15 May) directly relevant to his notability? Or the fact that he was born in "White Plains" ? Would he not have become so great if he was born in the neighboring town? Or this statement "He was a fencing star and captain of the fencing team" -- is that really relevant to his notability as an internet entrepreneur? What about this line -- "In college, he was known for reciting lines from epic poems such as The Iliad." The fact is, a lot of stuff is put in there even though they may not have an established relevance to his achievement, because either they are interesting (even if trivial), or someone may be interested to know about these peripheral aspects of the person's existence. That's how we write biographies. Otherwise it will look like a CV -- only those things that are strictly relevant to the person's achievements are mentioned. Sreejiraj (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Facts like birth date, achievements in life, etc. are not things that a living person change. They've happened and are matter of public record. Some of it may be trivial but that's not use attempt to understand the person's psyche. Things like religion, sexual orientation, caste, etc, are things that can be implied from knowing the person's actions (a person that weekly attends a Catholic mass is likely Catholic, for example), but only that person themselves is the authority on it, and we should not be second guessing on those. Thus those elements would normally be trivial and avoided for sake of the person's privacy. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's stick to the topic at hand. You said mention only stuff that's relevant to the person's notability. Relevance is the question here, not sourcing. My question, again, is if that is so, why is Zuckerberg being born on May 14 (and not on May 15) considered relevant to his achievement as an Internet entrepreneur? Sourcing was not your objection, your objection was relevance.Sreejiraj (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"why does inclusion of that information matter?" - This is reader-dependent. What is trivial useless cruft for one can be the exact information someone else wants or needs. Of course in some instances it will be clear that it is overall relevant for the biography, but in general we should follow what sources think is important to mention or not, instead of putting our POV into the judgement. --Cyclopia^talk 15:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And this is where remembering that the BLP is to protect the person's privacy - if the information is not self-offered, and otherwise doesn't impact the article at all, we should opt to avoid inclusion. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

These sorts of identity are not generally trivial. A biography is concerned with the psychic makeup of a person. In the body of an article this sort of information can be welcome. Sourcing should be our primary concern—adhering only to that which is eminently supported by the source. The reader is coming to the article for reasons that we cannot anticipate. We have to be responsible and only report that which can be traced to a source that provides full support for what we claim in our article. We should not be making judgements that fundamental attributes of identity are deemed by us to be "trivial". Religion is hardly trivial. Sexual orientation, especially if an alternative to the usual, is unlikely to be trivial. Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"A biography is concerned with the psychic makeup of a person"? And where, other than from the person him/herself can you get information about their "psychic makeup"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

re "Sexual orientation, especially if an alternative to the usual, is unlikely to be trivial" - Really? Bradley Manning is gay. Seems obvious that his "gayness" isn't related to the fact that he was the source of a famous leak. His sexual orientation is thus trivial. NickCT (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Who will decide whether this is so? I can argue that his sexual orientation may have had something to do with his feeling of alienation in the army and this alienation led him to leak the transcripts? I mean, who are you to decide what is relevant or not? New research may prove that something that was considered irrelevant turned out to be relevant. Unfortunately, researchers do also depend on the Wikipedia to get their information. The might not be aware that people like you have already made their decisions for them.. Sreejiraj (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Bus stop's statement that: "Religion is hardly trivial"... The problem is that for some people, their religion actually is trivial. We can not assume that a person's religion actually is a "fundamental attribute of identity" in all cases (in many cases, sure... but not in all cases). Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you don't have a source for that, it is OR. That's the problem that's happening, is that we are implicitly creating implications when when include these personal facets when they have no other relevance on the article. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that if we include any piece of information in a bio, the reader is going to assume that the person became notable because of that fact? In other words, if someone reads that Mark "was known for reciting lines from epic poems such as The Iliad," that person will automatically assume that reciting the poems made Mark a successful entrepreneur? I mean, seriously, you are the only one around who has a brain? Our readers are dumb?Sreejiraj (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"the reader is going to assume that the person became notable because of that fact" - No. THat's not what were' saying at all. We're not say that mentioning Mark is Jewish will make readers link his notability to his being Jewish. We're saying his being Jewish is trivial and potentially debatable, and should not be included in his Bio.

"Who will decide whether this is so? " - It's subjective. Sometimes it's obvious. Harvey Milk was a famous gay American politician. The fact that he was openly gay is notable, because it was widely noted, and he was pretty much the first major council person to be openly gay. Definately relevant to his notability. Stephen Breyer is a jewish supreme court judge. If he weren't Jewish, he'd still more or less be equally notable as a supreme court judge. Definately not relevant to notability.

Relevance and triviality depends on the reader. If I am a gay person in the U.S., and I read that a sitting judge of the Supreme Court is gay, it might not seem trivial to me. It may see trivial to you, because you don't probably have the reading/anticipation/framework of mind as the gay person. As far we know, that single piece of information may be what strikes the gay person as most memorable out of the entire article. He might think "Wow, an openly gay Judge of the Supreme Court, I love my country. It's so fair and open." It's the same for VS Achuthanandan and he being an Ezhava.Sreejiraj (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"New research may prove that something that was considered irrelevant turned out to be relevant." - Of course. But that's true of so much on WP. Stuff which isn't notable, becomes notable after research.

"The might not be aware that people like you have already made their decisions for them." - That's sorta a silly argument. We make decisions about what to mention and what not to mention all the time. NickCT (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying we should not have statements like "He was a fencing star and captain of the fencing team" in Zuckerberg's bio? It will look rather sparse if we actually apply what you are saying, won't it? I mean, Zuckerberg's CV will have more color on it. Sreejiraj (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

{ec}"Implicitly creating implications"? That's nonsense. We're not responsible for what our readers can deduce from the information. About the privacy etc. implications of BLP, see Qwryxian comments above. --Cyclopia^talk 16:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, yes we are - that's the point of the BLP edict from the Foundation. If information that we put into an article creates a misleading picture, even if all the information individually can be sourced, we are doing a disservice to the Foundation and that person. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

To some degree, this is a WEIGHT issue... Not every factoid about a person's life needs to be in an article... On the other hand, including a few factoids helps to make the article interesting to our readers. Whether factoid X should be mentioned (or not) is something of a judgment call... the first thing we have to assess in making that judgement is whether mentioning factoid X would give the factoid UNDUE weight. With factoids that "label" people and put them in categories, this is more likely. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There are a limited number of types of "identities" being discussed here. They are generally not considered "factoids". "Self-identification" is just one possible means by which we might determine that an "identity" might be applicable to the person being written about. We are unable to anticipate what will be of interest to a reader. Potential "identities" should generally be considered worthy of inclusion; religion, sexual orientation, and ethnicity should not be dismissed as "trivial". The concerns of a reader will assign a level of importance to these factors, but we do not know what a future reader's concerns will be. Our concern should be the quality of the sourcing. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Why should potential "identities" generally be considered worthy of inclusion? Why can't attributes such as religion, sexual orientation and ethnicity be dismissed as "trivial"? Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP info must be connected to notability

Anyone who wants to push the line that says that we must only include information in a BLP which is directly linked to their notability is welcome to start a WP:CENT-level WP:RFC on the matter. Since that isn't policy and has never been policy, it's a non-starter here. I'm willing to accept that consensus may eventually find against the inclusion of specific contentious BLP topics without self-identification. I accept that I'm not always on the side of consensus (though when I'm not, I'll still support that consensus in my editing behavior as best as I can). I'm not, however, going to let Masem or AndytheGrump invent a new policy based on their own interpretation of a WMF suggestion. That suggestion would probably indicate that every "Early Life" or "Personal Life" section should be removed from every BLP. For almost all BLPs, we should remove any indication of marital status, since being married to person X is usually only relevant for "celebrities"; for Professor Jane Doe, whether or not she's married clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with her research on particle physics. The same goes (usually) for whether and where they attended school (elementary through university), where the live or have lived, any job not directly tied to the career that made them notable, etc. And I think we can all predict how the community would react to suggestion to cut so much out of all BLPs. So let's please drop this "must be connected to notability" line--that applies only to religion and sexual preference, and only to infoboxes, categories, and inclusion on lists. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

re "Since that isn't policy and has never been policy" - See WP:BLPCAT - "are relevant to their public life or notability". I think it is in policy, the problem is that the scope and meaning is just ambiguous, and hence, subject to these protracted discussions.

I agree with you though, in the sense that what really needs to be concentrated on here is a potential revision/rewrite of policy to make the "must be connected to notability" line more concrete. An RfC is probably the right way to go. NickCT (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Qwyrxian, to the extent that it must be remebered that when we do write a biography, we actually have to write a biography, both fully and fairly, and not bowlderized swiss cheese of "facts we do not mention" or "list of things we do not discuss." Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Biographies should not merely be c.v.s, and I think that's all we'd be left with if we tried to limit information in this manner. Qwyrxian is right in the kinds of information that would be excluded, information that is mainly mundane and found in any standard biography, yet has nothing to do with a person's achievements.

Then there's the issue of just what it means to ask "why" someone is notable. Subjects are notable if they've received significant coverage in reliable sources; this may or may not because they've actually achieved something concrete or done something objectively worthwhile.

I've long thought that one of the most harmful elements of present Wikipedia culture is wiki-legislating: the pushing of such high-level abstract rules, which naturally bring with them far-reaching consequences, as an attempt at precluding the need to discuss difficult individual issues that sometimes arise. Well-meaning editors can go hogwild with this mindset, jumping around to look for what other content they can strike just to some lauded rule that may have one constructive application for every twenty destructive applications. I'm always reminded of Emerson's quote about "foolish consistency." postdlf (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

re "difficult individual issues that sometimes arise" - In this case though, we're discussing a general issue that always arises and causes these endless debates and consternation. NickCT (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If the differences of opinion that we are discussing here should arise at individual articles we should be discussing and resolving them at individual Talk pages, and we should be initiating WP:RFCs, and WP:3s. We should not be attempting to write overarching policy to answer questions that in fact vary from article to article. Each biography is different and the sources that have bearing are different. Bus stop (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, please read the WMF resolution above again - that is the standard which Wikipedia must abide by, regardless of policies (or of your interpretation of policies). If you wish to argue otherwise, I suggest you take it up with the foundation. Unless and until they change their position, "taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account" is non-optional. Caste is a contentious and divisive issue, and treating it as just another biographical 'fact' is a misjudgement on multiple levels. And incidentally, since 'religion' and 'caste' are clearly interlinked concepts, your assertion that the "infoboxes, categories", etc restrictions don't apply to caste is at least questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

@Bus stop "Each biography is different and the sources that have bearing are different." - Sure. But the idea we're discussing is a general one that potentially applies to many different biographies. General principles that have broad consequences are usually discussed in the context of policy changes. Not on individual talk pages. You'd obviously prefer if we didn't have a clear centralized policy because you're actively engaged in the kind of bad behavior this policy would discourage. NickCT (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in including a person's religion, etc. if that fact is noted in several different reliable sources that discuss the person - if the various authors of those sources include it, then its reasonable for us. The problem becomes when people are stretching and looking for sources because they absolutely must id the religious or political party or whatever a person is. If it not immediately obvious by the best sources on the person (from which we are deriving their notability from), it probably isn't a fact we should be including. A case in point: You can find the true ID of the "Star Wars Kid" with some deep internet searching (That person has an article on WP because he's become notable in another way), but that person has clearly stated they've put that part of their past behind them. Because most top level sources about the adult person don't discuss that fact, we should (and we don't) do it either. --MASEM (t) 00:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

@User:Masem - re "If it not immediately obvious by the best sources on the person (from which we are deriving their notability from), it probably isn't a fact we should be including." - Yes! Yes! Yes! And this is exactly the point. If it's not obvious. Don't add.

NickCT—you say "In this case though, we're discussing a general issue that always arises and causes these endless debates and consternation." Big, overarching policy, in this instance, cannot determine if we should allude to religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and caste in our articles. In some cases we should allude to these identity factors, and in others we should not. These are questions best resolved on article Talk pages, and with recourse to Requests for comment, Requests for third opinions, and other dispute resolution processes. Policy is not an unalloyed good. These are disputes that depend for their proper outcome on the specifics of the debate. I don't think big overarching "policy" is the solution to all problems/disputes. Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

re "These are questions best resolved on article Talk pages, and with recourse to Requests for comment" - Well listen bus. I'm pretty convinced of two things. 1) Caste/ethnicity/religion debates occur on talk pages all over WP, and the debates are always lengthy, silly, and distractions from other work that could be done on WP. 2) There is a very common theme to all these debates, which is a confusion over how to act when these categorizations are not obvious.

No I entirely take your point re "In some cases we should allude to these identity factors". In some cases we should. But the point that gets made over, and over, and over, and over in these debates by a huge number of editors is, "If it's not obvious, and possibly not relevant, don't talk about it". We really should embed this idea in policy. NickCT (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

AndytheGrump, we don't have to follow the WMF suggestion...or, rather, we can interpret the suggestion by local consensus. For example, I believe that the WMF statement on images says that we should have a mandatory image filter, and that we should be a lot more strict about inclusion of sexual images in our articles; I especially think that said statement should require that about 90% of the sexually explicit images on Commons should be removed. But both here on en.wiki and on Commons, those notions were rejected by community consensus. Similarly, when Jimbo Wales acted as Founder and WMF member a few years ago to remove a large number of images that concerned him, the revolt was swift, decisive, and his decision was overruled. We don't have to follow what the WMF says, at least not the way you're claiming. Now, if the WMF wants to start coming in and saying, "No, really, you do have to follow this more explicitly, or we're going to start bringing down the banhammer", then maybe we'll have to change. For example, the WMF mandated the creation of WP:BLP, and wrote it into policy. The WMF statement has not been written into en.WP policy. Again, if and when it is, then we'll start abiding by it. But, of course, even if it was, we'd still have the same argument, because I think you're wrong in saying mentioning well-sourced caste claims is a violation of policy. For example, back on the earlier WT:INB discussion, I pointed out how when a journalist interviews someone, unless they do an explicit "quoted interview format", much of what the subject says will not be put in quotation marks. That is, the journalist interviews Person X, who says, "I am a Yadav, descendant of kings, whose ancestors were the Moon herself". Now, the journalist might put that in as a quotation, in which case your policy would say we could put it in...or they might just put "Person X is a Yadav" or "from a Yadav family", which, suddenly, since it's not quoted, we now can't include. That's pretty poor reading comprehension skills on our part. So, again, as an editor and an admin, my "job" here is to follow policy as best as I can. Policy does not require that we remove all information from BLPs that is not directly linked to the person's notability. In each individual case, of course, editors could argue WP:NPOV/WP:DUE; I do it myself, when I argue that BLPs should not contain, for instance, lists of the person's hobbies. But if you're so certain you're right, well, then, I strongly recommend you start removing schooling, residence, and all other personal info from BLPs...and see how short that WP:ROPE is. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian - re "removing schooling, residence, and all other personal info" - I think we may be missing an important point here. Things like "schooling" and "residence" are fundamentally different from things like "caste" and "religion". Schooling is sorta an objective thing. Someone either did or did not attend classes at Yale. There is rarely much ambiguity there, and if there's an RS saying "Such and such a person went to Yale", there's seldom debate about whether that person went to Yale. Things like caste/religion/ethnicity are inherently subjective and often open to debate. There's no exact definition for what an "African-American" or a "Catholic" is, and there's no ultimate authority for determining who belongs in these categories. Often times these categorizations are obvious, but on occasion they're not (as evidenced by silly debates like the one above). My point, and I think the one AndyTheGrump is trying to make, is that when caste/religion/ethnicity attributions aren't obvious, we shouldn't talk about them. Who are we to decide which "caste" people belong in? NickCT (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The WMF resolutions are not suggestions - they are requirements that every wikiproject on their servers are expected to follow. In in the case of NFC (the only other major resolution), it requires we create an exemption doctrine policy for non-free media that requires providing rationales for use and means of removing such media when it fails basic tenents (eg replacable by free media for one); for en.wiki we have our NFC policy, while other wikis have taken this as "no non-free media whatsoever". Similarly, the BLP resolution is not a suggestion, it is a requirement that in covering articles on living persons, we put their privacy and dignity first and foremost above all other policies , even if this means we are removing information that is otherwise well sourced. Again, I point to the somewhat recent example of a "List of convicted pedophiles" which, while well sourced and passed WP:V, was determined as a major BLP violation simply because being listed like that can be damaging to a person. In this specific case in dealing with religion, caste, etc, we need to consider if the information has been readily offered by the person or otherwise readily available. Assuming the person is truly notable, I would not be surprised that if these facets of a person are important, they will be found in sources that are used to justify the person's notability. It is when we find one or two facets about a person that never have been mentioned in the mainstream sources and may be buried in less-reliable or local sources; just because we could use this source to say the person is of a certain religion, thus "filling out" a biography about the person, the BLP resolution directs us to consider if this really is something the person wants known or has chosen to move beyond that. It's difficult to write any hard rule towards this but we need to use common sense - when we come to aspects of a person that is based on how only they could classify themselves (such as religion), we should avoid adding such when this detail is not readily sourced. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, can you clarify please whether you are suggesting that my position regarding WMF resolution - e.g. regarding caste, "that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account" within BLPs may be a legitimate reason to exclude such material when not directly relevant - may be a valid interpretation of the resolution, but you are advocating that in this case we should disregard the WMF? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

NickCT—you say "Things like caste/religion/ethnicity are inherently subjective and often open to debate". Are you referring to sources contradicting one another on these points? Or are you referring to Wikipedia editors debating among themselves? Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Both cases I've seen exist. I've seen conflicting sources, and I've seen editors based on weak reliable sources try to debate these issues. Not common but sufficiently often enough that caution must be taken. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

re "Both cases I've seen exist......weak reliable sources" - Exactly. NickCT (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Is labelling individuals by caste a violation of privacy?
2. If so, should we add this?
3. If not, should it be added to policy?

In answer to the two questions in the subject heading, and the obvious third, yes to 1, no to 2. It is in the opinion of many already covered, and as such there is no need to add anything about caste. 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive, and only one exists based on the answer to 1. Apteva (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As with so many things on Wikipedia, the answer to #1 is... sometimes, sometimes not. Labeling individuals by caste can be a violation of privacy, but it isn't always a violation of privacy. The hard thing is to determine whether doing so will be a violation of privacy in a specific case. Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've given my answers to most of these issues in the section before the last. So neither I, nor many others here (I guess), are interested in going round in circles. But I suggest that more weightage be given to commenters from India -- the culture to which this relates -- and to indologists or to people who've lived there (outside of the cities.) Because, by Blueboar's argument, to say that B._K._S._Iyengar is an Iyengar would be to violate his privacy.. I mean, for God's sake, you are talking about a country in which people attach the name of their Jati to their name and use it as their surname... however crazy it may sound to you.. Sreejiraj (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Race and racism are universal concepts. They're not unique to India. NickCT (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any "racism"[14] in the sentence: "B.K.S. Iyengar was born into a poor Iyengar family [6] (a priestly Brahmin caste)[7] at Bellur, Kolar District,[8] Karnataka, India,"[15] found in the B. K. S. Iyengar article, which is the example provided by Sreejiraj? Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a cabal

And what we can do about it. Wer900 • talk 19:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I for one gave up trying to fight the cabal. I was in discussions about contentious material and found they stalked my edits, AfD'd articles I created, filed a failed SPI and failed ANIs on me, etc, etc. They will probably never give up. It is just in their nature to bully and power trip on other editors. I left wp for a while because of this. If it starts happening again I may just leave for good.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I tried to propose a better system for Wikipedia governance in order to make it run more effectively and increase editor retention, similar to the one here but with more emphasis and detail on the governance structure itself. As expected, the cabal defeated it with their usual WP:NOTBURO barrage. Here, I'm trying to make the existence of the Cabal known so that we can finally move on and give Wikipedia a clear sense of direction and order, and get back to working on an encyclopedia with the community built on those foundations. The era of self-proclaimed elites on Wikipedia needs to end. Wer900 • talk 21:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you give us a link for this self-proclamation of elitism? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Canoe1967. I used to flush the toilet but then decided to leave it. You may wish to view my flushes in the page history as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)\

I'm really sorry for all of the bullsh*t that you have had to go through in your time on the encyclopedia. I had been threatened with a topic ban for discussing Wikipedia governance in the past (Thank God that didn't come to pass) but the way that you were blocked and mistreated by Caballist editors who see no need to add value in any way but merely participate in disputes for the fun of being able to make a new policy and control thousands of loyal contributors. Wer900 • talk 00:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

See This proposal of mine which was rejected by the Cabal (or those who fall for their lies), this rejected proposal on the update, and yet another rejection. This comes after a decade of rejection of sound governance in favor of the failed "collective anarchy," (aka continued rule by the Cabal) as shown in this previous discussion on a governance system with authority. Wikipedia is broken and failing because its Cabal fails to take action towards governance representative of the community in favor of its own ineffectual ways. The mere thought of a toothless advisory council or any dissent whatsoever from the Cabal is met with an immediate acronymed beating-down of the idea per self-contradictory interpretations of WP:NOTBURO or WP:NOTDEM mentioned in my essay. Wer900 • talk 23:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many valid thoughts there. The self-inflicted straw-man title will unfortunately prevent the ideas from being heard. North8000 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how references to the "cabal" could be changed? I actually find it quite accurate to refer to the group of editors who spend nearly all of their time in endless discussions, policymaking, and acronymed overlong discussions rather than contributing anything of value to the encyclopedia, yet still being entitled to make the rules, as a self-selected cabal. (Actually, it would be better to describe this group as a coalition of cabals, as they do occasionally disagree.) Wer900 • talk 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You placed the page in project space but say "I" several times and write very personal opinions. You should either place it in user space or remove "I" and accept that others can edit it. Some of the current content seems too personal for a project space essay. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I moved the page as requested to userspace. Wer900 • talk 00:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So no actual evidence that this "self-proclaimed elite" actually exists - just a lot of whining about dodgy-looking proposals for to impose some sort of one-party-pseudo-state system to run Wikipedia being rejected for the bureaucratic nonsense they clearly are? [16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a "one-party pseudo-state." You just added the one-party part as a strawman, when in fact that would be at least somewhat more accurate in describing the angry users of the Cabal, united by their desire to do nothing good for content and drag out disputes unnecessarily for their own good. If you actually read my "There is a cabal" essay, you will find out why the "bureaucratic" and "collective anarchy" arguments are bullshit. The real "bureaucracy" is the endless fumbling in the dark and repetitious discussion that creates twisted policies hampering our ability to build the encyclopedia, the system that fails to effectively coordinate the workings of the encyclopedia so that we can more efficiently produce articles at a prolific rate. There is no such thing as anarchy or a society without governance; the Cabal wants you to think that, while they themselves are providing (very poor, self-proclaimed, and self-serving) governance.

Every time a proposal for effective governance is rejected, not on the grounds of whether the proposal is bad but because of the old Cabal lie of it being too "bureaucratic" or "far away from the community," the proclamation of a self-selected elite is made, as this self-selected elite tries to maintain its power by stifling opposition (in the form of sound governance). Wer900 • talk 01:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a very good imitation of delusional bullshit to me. 'The cabal wants you to think that' - so anyone who disagrees with you is a victim of mind-control? Nope. I notice you don't name names, either - who exactly are this cabal? And what are their objectives? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on calling me, in veiled language, a conspiracy theorist. I'm not saying that everyone who disagrees with me is a victim of mind control, but honestly I see no reason why some sort of governance and coordination on this project is harmful; anyone who thinks so somehow still believes the lies about collective anarchy actually working. As for naming names, I certainly would if Wikidashboard allowed me to access the names of all the editors of WP:AN/I and other dispute/policy pages and their percent contribution to the page, but I keep getting a "server busy" error. (Note, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I don't ascribe this to the Cabal as well.)

Perhaps if you reviewed the essay that I just wrote, you would have a better understanding of the bullshit arguments they put out to oppose their dominance. Wer900 • talk 01:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

To add to this, many of the larger and more successful WikiProjects do possess internal structures of coordination and direction, which is proof that the editing community would like to see more of that. On a Wikipedia-wide scale, we would see dramatic improvement should such coordination come about. Wer900 • talk 01:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

O.k. Put this in your pipe and smoke it: if I had to sum up the apparent ideology behind your latest essay in one word, I'd have little hesitation in describing it as 'Fascist'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Tell me how exactly my essay describes authoritarian nationalism in any way. All I'm proposing is a body elected by editors to coordinate the implementation of policy and community projects. Wer900 • talk 02:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Presumably because you're using scare tactics (wooooooo evil scary cabal wooowooo) to push for an authoritarian governance system. Reyk _YO! 02:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, tell me how democratically electing a group of editors to coordinate the effective implementation of policy and of initiatives in the interest of the community is "authoritarian." That is my proposal. Is it authoritarian to suggest effective governance that is not self-serving and self-selected? Wer900 • talk 02:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Create an imaginary enemy - a "self-selected shadow elite" - insist that the "ignorant hordes" are battering at the doors. Throw in a few potshots at Marx and anarchism (WTF?). Insist that the imaginary Cabal is feeding us lies (how exactly?) Demand that the 'common people' unite behind you to defeat them, and insist that only a strong government can keep the imaginary enemies at bay. Throw in a vacuous slogan or two: "Change is necessary, and now!". Not authoritarian? Well no - I've already found a more precise description. Of course, that is just my opinion. But no doubt my opinion is the result of Cabal mind-control - or an I part of the Cabal myself? I'll never know... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Rename to 'There are cabals'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wer900, have you considered discussing your ideas at Wikipediocracy? They're so much more friendly than us, and I'm sure they'd love to have you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I was in the cabal once, but I forgot to renew my membership. They're such sticklers for that, I swear. I wish they'd quit leaving dead cats on my talk page.

In all seriousness, though, while I think the idea of what you're saying makes some sense, and is something I've said myself (Wikipedia's governance model may need to change in some ways, in order to accommodate its far larger size), the way in which you plan to do it makes no sense. For example, you plan to reduce the number of admins. Have a look at the admin backlogs sometime, with our current number, and then imagine cutting the number of people clearing them by 2/3. Yet you call that "more manageable". I'm unsure how. (As a side note to that, RfA is actually one of the closest things we have to democracy currently.)

The way you present your ideas also makes little sense. You make nebulous assertions that "good things will happen", but never really show us the mechanism by which they actually will. Rather, you simply rail against the current system. Well, we know it's flawed, but we also know it's built something pretty amazing. Demonstrate to us that yours would be a significant improvement. And lay off the conspiracy theorism, while you're at it. Even if, let us say, you are exactly right, and there are a bunch of people making a coordinated effort to control things here, going on about it just makes you look silly. And if you somehow think the admin corps is a monolithic, unmovable block of unified opinion, I don't know what group of admins you've been watching, but it's not the ones here!

In short, if that's too long: Presenting ideas for change good; actually bothering to support them with details of why you think they would work, not just how, better; leaving out the spooky conspiracy stuff; probably also wise if you want to be taken seriously by anyone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As a personal opinion, the page is ok (although unhelpful in its current form as it consists mainly of suggestions without precise information). However, if anyone wanted to make a serious proposal that "there is a cabal" they would need to identify a few precise examples of what they mean. For example, we read "This is the group that only types messages like 'Delete per WP:N'", however, I doubt if there really is an editor who only does that (with a few exceptions that may or may not be misguided, and which would not be causing undue trouble). Further, actual examples would be needed to evaluate if the "Delete per WP:N" messages were wildly inappropriate, or just not as detailed as we would like. I would agree with anyone saying there is too much tolerance for nonsense and POV pushing, and perhaps those editors who frequent WP:ANI and similar are too fond of "second chances", and too prepared to endlessly debate whether a POV pusher might one day do something useful, so should continue editing. The problem is that without an active dictator, the only way to move forward is to get a "consensus" from those prepared to battle it out. IMHO some cases would be better resolved by tossing a coin—the wrong outcome may occur, but at least it would be an outcome that (under my imagined regime) everyone would have to follow for a few months. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• To me the majority of this conversation appears to be an attempt to create a group to modify the way the current process operates. Jeepday (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ha, you beat me to it, Jeepday: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."[17] First Light (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed. The only difference that would exist between the so-called cabal and the OP's 'government' would be that the OP presumes the 'govermnent' would operate according to their wishes. Resolute 15:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• This idea is like a bad penny that keeps coming back with a new paranoid twist. I've been an admin for three and a half years and an oversighter for more than two years, but I still don't get invited to the secret cabal meetings. Who do I have to blow to get in the door here? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Akmost forgot, there is an organization created just for people who think like this that would love to have new members. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Well, if you want in that badly, there's actually a secret list of people you can...erm, I mean, uh, what are you talking about? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Glad to see all you strawman-creators back again, thinking I'm a conspiracy theorist. You especially, Beeblebrox. Few have ever seriously considered proposals for governance, and merely go off attacking superficial aspects of presentation or blindly cite WP:NOTBURO, rather than trying to credibly contribute to governance discussions. My point is that the existing model has failed except for a few individuals who spend all their time yelling in WP space rather than contributing to articles.

      I've been asked to identify specific Cabal members for this by AndyTheGrump. I'd put him in; 32.31% of edits in project space and 30.57% under talk space, with only 21.66% under article space. As another example, take User:Baseball Bugs, with 37.57% of edits in Wikipedia space, 21.91% of edits in user talk space, 14.41% of edits in talk space, yet only 20.14% of edits in article space. This is indicative of editors who no longer give much weight to contributing to the encyclopedia, but are only here for the discussions, disputes, and power. (On a side note, Baseball Bugs has made 12.3% of his edits to WP:AN/I according to WikiDashboard, and looking at page contributors through history shows that he is the biggest editor of the page. And he's not even an administrator.)

      When I use Cabal, I do not use it to denote a specific group with central organization but an assortment of editors with similar motivations and behaviors - much like Islamic extremists may have similar ideological motivations but are not necessarily bound by any universal central authority. So please, lay off on the conspiracy theories. They're an inaccurate strawman whose purpose is to avoid real discussion on Wikipedia governance. Wer900 • talk 05:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

      • So I'm part of this mind-control Cabal, am I? Whooooooooooooo hooooooooooo! (Can anyone tell me where the Cabal meet-ups occur? I don't seem to have been invited yet - obviously an oversight. And what is the dress code? Suit and tie? Jeans and Tee-shirt? Or do we drop our human guise entirely, and come in our natural reptilian form?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

But that's what cabal means. See Wiktionary:cabal. So change your word if it isn't what you mean. Art LaPella (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a nice knock-down argument for you! — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a couple points, but I'll start with one—I don't understand the personal affront at the implication you are a conspiracy theorist. You are alleging a conspiracy. You should be embracing the label, not denying it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump has 3796 edits to article space. You have 1243. Is it only percentages that count, and if so, why?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Just change the workd 'cabal' to mindset. It will create less rejection and will more accurately describe the problem. I recognize the behaviors described in the essay (and have committed some of them at times), but they don't originate on a centralized, coordinated effort to maintain a privilege; they rather come with an overall agreement with the goals of the main guidelines. The current corpus of policy has its benefits, and it's hard to combat the troubles coming from them the inertia they also generate, and assess to what extent they're problematic. Diego (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

My second point—which I will preface by mentioning that I have read the essay—I'll guess that you accept that there are disputes on Wikipedia, and disputes should not be ignored, but addressed. Let me know if I'm assuming incorrectly. Imagine that someone, skilled in dispute resolution, decides to contribute to Wikipedia. That person is good at dispute resolution, has no trouble finding enough to keep him or her busy, and spends the majority of Wikipedia editing time on DR issues. If I understand User:Wer900/There is a cabal/members, then that editor is a member of the Cabal, and if I understand the hierarchy in your essay, this editor is valued less than a vandal. Has I missed something?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• [note that this is not a response to Sphilbrick] Wikipedia is doing well right now in many respects; there is a significant number of high-quality articles, and a multitude of valuable contributors. But, like any community, we here face our own challenges. Dipping numbers of non-user participation, dipping numbers of created articles, and dipping numbers of high-quality new articles ought to cause some concern. According to numerous recently-published articles in the mainstream media, Wikipedia has entered a slow, gradual phase of "decline". Communities facing problems like the ones outlined in the articles ought to be open, not suddenly closed and irritable, to editors suggesting changes. However drastic the impact of Wer900's proposed community alterations, his goal is something that we ought to consider carefully. We need not spurn it instantaneously, or just because it attacks the status quo. Perhaps such changes would not be detrimental, but instead immensely helpful to tomorrow's enduring Wikipedia. dci | TALK 00:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think I should clarify my points. The use of "cabal" was merely my poor word choice - I am not alleging any overarching conspiracy that threatens to take down the encyclopedia and gain lulz in the process, but rather the collective action of many editors who contribute little to content, become unnecessarily embroiled in particularly inflammatory disputes, and quickly brush away close considerations for reforms to Wikipedia governance that will ensure greater coordination of project initiatives and more effective implementation of policy (with, in rare cases, the ability to make policies on a limited basis and for a limited time). This is brushed off as unnecessary bureaucracy, fascism, authoritarianism, even [insert subject of Godwin's Law here]. Again, the harm that I ascribed to the "Cabal" is not originating from one central authority but rather from individual editors and small groups thereof whose independent action combines to cause said harm. Therefore, I cannot be called a conspiracy theorist as I was referred to in the present discussion. Wer900 • talk 01:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    • How about we call you full of it instead? You have offered precisely no evidence whatsoever that your 'reforms' would do anything other than add more bureaucracy - and in the process you have insulted pretty well everyone. You have no support for your authoritarian proposals, and you sure as hell aren't going to gain any by making wild accusations about people who disagree with you, even if you try to worm your way out of it afterwards by describing it as 'poor word choice'. Frankly, if your choice of words are usually that poor, I have to wonder whether you should be editing Wikipedia at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• I wish there WAS a cabal - Now I am not an admin (or probably ever will be after this) but I have always found the idea of a cabal to be a bit paranoid. It's fun to joke around with, ie. "Rouge Admins", but seriously, what? Is there a secret handshake? Are there special robes with hoods? Blood ceremonies? The idea is ridiculous. There is a big difference between a "gang-up" (which has happened to me on occasion) and a cabal. Just my (very humble and respectful) opinion, but this kind of thinking is a waste of time. Rather than worry about powerful entities pulling the strings, it would be better to just try to create really good content. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal re MOS and WP:Article titles

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#COMMONSTYLE proposal. Given the amount of discussion about the MOS recently, I think this proposal deserves some attention by the wider community. Blueboar (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Feel free to add an RfC tag and/or list at centralized discussions if you think that will be useful. Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC is now open at WT:TITLE#RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for removal of adminship process

• Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new process to allow for removal of adminship through community discussion. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 17:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a new user-right group

• Wikipedia:Moderators/Proposal

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator user-rights, as an option for administrators to request instead of requesting removal of the entire sysop user-right package. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 17:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I would support this. I don't have any desire to be an admin, but I would love to be able to, say, protect pages that are in the middle of a whirlwind edit war. Or be able to close discussions without the taint of it being a non-admin close. There seems to be some sort of serious stigma about that. I would think that with my experience and responsibilities that I could be trusted to do some of the simpler admin duties, so yes, access to a truncated version of the tools would be nice I think. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support in principle But we need to understand what this really is. A person who is really good at tough decisions and handling tough situations (e.g. closes) actually has that capability at a higher level than an average admin. The person that you are describing should have all of the tools and would be wise enough to not get into technical tool work that they are not good at. North8000 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of articles written by banned or blocked users

Is there a sound rationale for deleting articles written by sockpuppets who have later been blocked or banned? - see G5 If the content of an article is unrelated to the reason for blocking the user, then surely the article itself may be of value and should be acceptable provided it conforms with all the usual requirements. Paul venter (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleting such articles is not mandatory, so if they are really useful it is a judgment call to keep them. Also, in that case, other editors are likely to join in working on them sooner or later, which will make them immune to G5. But in most cases, articles created by banned users are at least to some extent problematic (tendentious, "walled garden" areas of borderline notability, etc.) The idea is that the banned user should not be enabled to dictate his agenda on the community. Other editors should not be obliged to go through all the normal channels of dispute resolution, deletion processes and so on to get potentially problematic content removed, and nobody should be forced to spend his time trying to improve such an article to clean it up. If and when the usefulness of the content is in doubt, removal should be quick and unbureaucratic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Should the article, created by a sock, be deleted even if it meets the notability criteria and would stand a AfD if ever done? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It might meet the notability criteria but still have serious problems in other areas (tendentiousness, poor sourcing, poor overall quality, etc.) In such cases it may still be appropriate to delete, unless somebody volunteers to adopt the article and clean it up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I think the approach we use for edits can easily be applied. That is, articles by banned users can be deleted without much process, but if the deletion is reversed (or contended), the editor who restores or champions the article adopts it, and hence the responsibility for it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
      • That sounds a lot like WP:OWN. Articles aren't the property of a single person - whether they're a banned user, or whether they're an editor who champions a particular article. Articles are entities in their own right, and deserve their own place in the relevant deletion process, irrespective of who created them. Bluap (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Agree with Bluap. All of this discussion is quite nonsense: what matters for an article's existence is notability and appropriateness of the topic. Who does the article is irrelevant, except perhaps for very serious WP:DENY issues (ask ArbCom about them, I've been bitten once by such stuff). --Cyclopia^talk 13:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
          • I have to agree as well... no one OWNs an article... if there are problems with an article FIX them. We should only delete an article if the topic of the article is not notable. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
            • There are two independent reasons why we delete articles created in violation of a ban. First, and most importantly, many banned editors create articles with serous problems. A lack of notability will be obvious, but a pov article that carefully selects biased sources may not be. Likewise, copyright violations aren't always easy to find if a the source material isn't on google. Depending on why the banned editor was banned, it may be necessary to assume the worst and delete. Second, by allowing a banned editor's contributions to remain, we are encouraging them to continue to sock. If we keep blocking socks, but keep the contributions, then a ban is a joke. To be clear though, G5 only applies to content created in violation of a block or ban. G5 does not apply retroactively to past contributions, which if problematic, should usually be dealt with through normal deletion process. Monty₈₄₅ 02:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I've 'rescued' articles that have been speedied because they were created by banned users. Simply by requesting the contents from an admin. It's possible that they'll want to slap a autoconfirmed protect on the page just in case, but that's no big deal. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Deleting banned users' useful contribs is silly; there is no excuse whatsoever for eliminating articles created by someone just because their actions elsewhere on the site were inappropriate. From what I've observed, most "incidents" of this nature are instigated by users who themselves are disruptive; serious, well-intentioned editors rarely try to expunge banned users' work. dci | TALK 01:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I understand speedy deletion if the article itself has some fault (i.e copyvio or unbiased or horribly written like maybe non-English or way too bad to clean). But if that is not the reason, i see no reason for speedy deletion and treating the article as any different than the ones PRODed or AfDed.

  We have some admins present in this discussion. Could any one take a look at the articles Shivshakti Sachdev (version that was deleted on 24 July 2012) and Pooja Joshi (version that was deleted on 23 July 2012) and point out if any of these faults were present in it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Both articles were created by the sock as totally uncited BLPs. You certainly improved them with your edits. At the time they were deleted, they were not eligible for deletion under any other CSD criteria, nor would they have been subject to deletion by BLPPROD. Probably would have survived AfD due to notability of the subjects, but the references in the articles would have been insufficient. Certainly not a model BLPs, definately needed better citation. Honestly I'm not sure if there is much precedent as to what substantial edits by others in the G5 criteria really means or whether you added enough to qualify. If you want to pursue the matter, and have not already done so, you should first ask the deleting admins to reconsider the deletions in light of your contributions. Monty₈₄₅ 04:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing through. I had asked the deleting admins to look into the matter. But as they were inactive then i had also requested review from another admin where another page-stalker admin had also commented. Discussion is here. It concluded to "no substantial edits" and some technicalities of "no clean version", attribution to sock, etc. The substantiality issue really needs to be address. Its not fair to expect from someone to report the sock, (which is huge task) delete the content added by the sock on numerous articles that isnt worth staying and also expand the articles that otherwise meet notability within the short timespan before some admin gets to brooming. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• The question over G5 comes from time to time, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_91#WP:G5_Discussion for one of the VPP discussions about a year ago. That time I said "There are two reasons why I think G5 is a reasonable criterion. The immediate and pragmatic reason is that we no longer can assume good faith with banned editors. In most cases, they have violated the community's trust so many times or so egregiously that their edits (made in violation of their ban) can no longer be trusted. Reviewing an edit or new article to determine whether it is good or bad is not as easy as it may first seem. The article may contain subtle misinformation or POV pushing (e.g. deceptively cited to an obscure or advanced source). Given that the editor was banned for misconduct, this is actually rather likely. Requiring other editors to review such articles before deleting is a waste of time. Also, a ban is a ban, and they are meant for cases of serious misconduct. A banned editor should not be able to wedge himself back in by first making a good article, then making a slightly controversial article, then a clearly unbalanced article, and so on.". In continue to stand by that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have always disagreed with the automatic deletion of articles created by banned users. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to punish people. If the articles have POV problems or copyvio issues, that's one thing. But if you are deleting a notable, properly written article, then I consider that to be outright vandalism and I think such actions should be treated as that. Silverseren^C 10:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • How do you know whether an article is notable and properly written? Some users are notorious for writing non-obvious hoax articles, and then when they are banned for this returning with legions of sockpuppets to create more. Painstakingly checking all their contributions is time-consuming, during which time potentially false or misleading information remains published. It may be better to proactively delete these contributions; they can always be restored after checking by an administrator, or at the request of a regular editor who wishes to do the checking. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • In those cases the correct response is to put together a review project, such as I have participated in several times. There can of course be specific cases where someone has cranked out too much bad stuff to make review reasonable, but I think those cases should be handled by a public discussion first which establish consensus for the mass deletion. The default response should be review. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
      • If such a workflow is to be adopted as a replacement for CSD G5, then I hope it will be as easy to launch one as it currently is to CSD-tag an article with automated tools such as Twinkle. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
        • It would not be a replacement, as G5 only covers articles created in violation of their ban or block (bolding in original). This discussion is about pre-bad/block articles, which should require explicit community authorization to apply mass deletion techniques. The argument here, in essence, is that we have people who want to remove this text. I'm not adverse to saying, "OK, a lot of the time we should just nuke everything," but I think we shouldn't give blanket authorization to do so. It would only be a matter of time before ad editor, probably an admin, took up Twinkle against someone who was banned after a long career of annoying him and put up for deletion everything the banned user every wrote, even though a lot of it may have seen extensive editing after the fact. The drama creation would be off the scale. It's not the end of the world to force this stuff through AFD, and if we came up with a procedure to short-circuit that where there was no substantial opposition to deleting a user's contributions en masse, I don't think that would be a great burden either. But I can guarantee that a blanket invitation to delete everything a banned user wrote is going to be abused. Mangoe (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Like all CSD, G5 is permission, not a mandate. We don't have to go purging all the contribs of banned users just because of G5, and I don't think most reasonable admins would do that. But as has been argued successfully many times at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, to ban someone and still allow them to continue to waste the precious time and resources of our contributors in sifting the wheat from the chaff amounts to rendering their ban meaningless. If they create thousands of articles, who is going to go through and see which ones are keepable and which are problematic? We should at least have the option to delete with very little discretion in such a case. Dcoetzee 01:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

For trans people does notability imply outing in Wikipedia?

In the Lynette Nusbacher talk page, the BLP notice board and the AFD discussion for the Lynette Nusbacher page it is clear that many people believe that if a transsexual person is sufficiently notable to appear in Wikipedia, and if that notability extends across pre-transition and post-transition segments of that person's life, it is de rigeur to note that person's previous name. Noting a trans person's previous name is in most cases outing that person as trans, and doing so in a WP article is potentially emphasising that person's transness in public. Do we mention LGB people's LGBness so explicitly except where two notable people are or were partners? (Genuine question - practice seems to vary.)

Media guidelines for writing about trans people generally emphasise that previous names ought generally not to be mentioned.

Apart from the personal distress that might cause the subject (which may or may not be the concern of WP), casting doubt upon the gender integrity of the subject, and potentially endangering the subject in certain countries, which raise issues of WP:HARM; it seems worth discussing whether it is the role of an encyclopaedia biographical article, especially about a living person, to out LGBT people, trans people in particular. NetNus (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless the gender change is the reason the person is notable (which I suppose is possible although rare), the rules here are clear: a) Does the inclusion of the information conform with the letter and spirit of WP:UNDUE; and b) Does the information come from multiple, reliable sources? If the answers to both of those are yes then the information should be included in the biography. Wikipedia is not 'media', it is not a newspaper or a magazine. It's an open, collaborative encyclopedia. Anyone is free to add any information to any article, assuming it is done within guidelines and policies. You can't keep the gender change information off a bio anymore than you can keep a paragraph about corruption, or a crime investigation, or whatever other event or aspect of the person's life is under scrutiny. Wikipedia is not censored, nor is its purpose to portray notable people in the light they prefer to be portrayed. It presents information in a clear, concise, and neutral way. All of it. This does not mean I'm not sympathetic to your problem here, but there are larger issues here at play than accommodating a single person. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely with what the Frog said, and couldn't have put it better myself. BLP policy doesn't preclude making public information that the subject would rather prefer remain off Wikipedia. In a situation where there are genuine verifiability or undue weight issues, it's important to take many factors into account, but with respect, I think this is a very straightforward case. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AFAICT, there's two main principles in WP policy, NetNus. Firstly, we don't publish original research (so we don't out anybody). Secondly, we should write biographical material conservatively.

The Lynette Nusbacher case is probably headed for either deletion of the article or to-hell-with-writing-things-conservatively, either of which is the wrong outcome IMO. If it's deleted, it will just make way on Google for risible sources of information such as The Sun and the neo-Nazi Metapedia. If it is kept, this will unfortunately probably be accompanied with a seal of "couldn't care less", so that's not much better. It's a pity that Wikipedia sometimes gives us whatever results from antagonism, rather than thought out solutions.

I think you will appreciate that very obvious problems arise in writing an article about someone whose name has changed without commenting on why, even if those problems might not be impossible to overcome. I'll also repeat my view that WP should not be a place where we are too eager to deny that human diversity is something contributed to by real people, not just unnamed theoretical people in the articles set aside for people who already know about that stuff. Formerip (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Tough cases make bad law, they say; but my query isn't about cases nor is it an attempt to open yet another discussion of the same issue. It's to discuss the principle and the policy. NetNus (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, the principle and the policy is that anything that is sourced, neutral, true, and relevant will be included in BLP articles. This holds true across the board, with no exceptions as far as I can tell. I think this is a good thing. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It is vital to address:

a) Does the inclusion of the information conform with the letter and spirit of WP:UNDUE;

No, absolutely not. The information on this subject was given undue weight using synthesis of material that itself was from tiny mention in a tertiary source.

and

b) Does the information come from multiple, reliable sources? If the answers to both of those are yes then the information should be included in the biography.

Again, no. The tertiary source was the only source used with no secondary sourcing and discussed the detail of a gender change, name change and "living as a man" from one simple mention in a history dictionary.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If the author tries to claim the works written under the previous name, then the author has outed him/herself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the idea suggested by NetNus's query is well known here: we don't identify people as gay/lesbian unless they identify themselves as gay/lesbian. Trans is typically packed with G/L in the term LGBT -- and the straightforward conclusion is that we shouldn't identify someone as trans unless they identify themselves as trans. The name change issue is not a sufficient reason to override this basic principle, that when it comes to sexuality we require self-identification as a minimum condition for inclusion of relevant material. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, there's no valid source that confirms a sex change operation or whatever. Only that the author used to go by a (presumably) male name, and now goes by a female name. That's all the article needs to say about it, and the readers can draw their own conclusions. What I don't get is, this was settled a couple of weeks ago, or so it seemed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that memorialized in a policy or guideline somewhere? Also, what about non living biographies, such as James Buchanan? Monty₈₄₅ 04:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are asking about "self indentification" that falls under Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going to add one last thing to this discussion unless a need arises for me to reply, and that is the WMF resolution on Biographies of Living Persons:

Wikimedia Foundation resolution

Further information: Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people

On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about living persons. It noted that there are problems with some BLPs being overly promotional in tone, being vandalized, and containing errors and smears. The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; that new technical mechanisms be investigated for assessing edits that affect living people; and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with patience, kindness, and respect.

--Amadscientist (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That would not apply to the author in question, as they outed themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Elaborate please.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

By claiming authorship of books written under a previous name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 06:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If this is true...could you explain how a talkpage admission is relevant to the article. Wikipdia and its talkpages are not reliable sources. If this was done elsewhere, please demonstrate the reliablility of the source and how it is anything more than admitting to having a previous name.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Supposedly the author confirmed via some process (OTRS, whatever that is) that they are in fact who they say they are. While random talk page comments might not be reliable, wikipedia treats these OTRS things as gospel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And private. It also did no such thing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Private" or not, in the previous discussion a week or two ago, it was stated that the user NetNus was indeed the subject of the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah....and how does that support your claim that they outed themselves. All they did was admit they are they subject of the article and it wasn't an OTRS ticket that did that.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying this Lynette does NOT claim authorship of the works of this Aryeh or whatever the spelling is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I always find it interesting whan editors can't support their own claims and resort to "are you saying...". If you can't say whatever it is you wish to say, please do not resort to this kind of tactic. Demonstrate your claims or stop altogether, please.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

When this came up the previous time, it was demonstrated that (1) the editor NetNus is the article's subject; and (2) the two names are of the same person. I don't see how it could be any plainer than that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What on earth does this have to do with your claim? The editor NetNus has admitted to being the subject. AND.....????? As I stated on the article talkpage, OTRS and the edit summary left by the Admin who deleted some talkpage discussion had nothing to do with that fact. What is it you think you are saying here Baseball_Bugs?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That Aryeh and Lynette are the same person.[18] That doesn't necessarily imply a sex change. It could be a pen name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is not a reliable source for claims on the article, but how does this support your claim that the WMF resolution does "not apply to the author in question"? This has no relevance to the discussion. You are simply not able to justify your claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

NetNus was established as being Lynette, and acknowledged the previous name [Aryeh] in that link I posted above. So there is no issue about the names. The issue is about claiming, without evidence, that the author had a sex change. I don't know that anyone has established that as fact. And a couple of weeks ago, the article was fine. It stated the previous name and said nothing about any alleged sex change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot seperate what is, and what is not a relaible source for these assumptions for inclusion in the article then you have nothing to stand on. You seem to feel that admitting to being the subject on Wikipedia is enough to make GIANT leaps in the article. It is not.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What "giant leaps"? Aryeh and Lynette are the same person. That's established beyond any doubt. The medical allegations? Not established. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agwee with the wascawwy wabbit. This has nothing to do with NetNus's admissions, since they're not verifiable. Our best, most in depth, source for the article is the Jewish Chronicle piece about Aryeh, calling him male [19] The books the subject has written have Aryeh on the cover page. It would be ridiculous to have an article without explaining why we're saying this Aryeh person is also the same as this Lynette person; otherwise every helpful reader will be constantly wanting to correct the obvious typo. Lynette's Sandhurst resume [20] - clearly a reliable source - says Lynette wrote the books that themselves say they were written by Aryeh. That's not enough to say "had a sex change", but we can't avoid having to say "was known as Aryeh". --GRuban (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to respond separately to the "outing" assertion. I tend to interpret this as a more or less public statement claiming a particular status. I do not think that leaving information about which allows others to put the pieces together is such a statement. Nusbacher was outed by the Sun, but I don't think they outed themselves simply by changing names on a webpage. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with FreeRangeFrog, Evanh2008, Baseball Bugs, FormerIP and others who hold that Wikipedia does not 'out' people because the information must have been previously published. Wikipedia biographies are supposed to be written conservatively, but relevant and well-cited information should always be expected. If that information is about a gender change, so be it. Binksternet (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Used a male name then and a female name now" is not the same thing as "had a gender change". We have evidence for the same person switching between the male and female names. We don't have a source for the gender change. Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (video games) has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Notability (video games) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not correct, it was tagged into the notability guideline category, but the page is still an essay, and I've corrected that. (It certainly hasn't gone through a review yet for being a guideline.) --MASEM (t) 02:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have also made this edit - Change to a "Wikiproject banner" for notability (explains more) and reworded to make clear its an essay - with a link to WP:Advice pages that has an explanation of what the page really is and that links to WP:PROPOSAL if they wish to go that route.Moxy (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal:Create a capability and process to expunge a block from someone's record when all agree that it was an error

Proposal:Create a capability and process to expunge a block from someone's record when all agree that it was an error.

I always wondered about this in general and now know of a case. Such a block can have an immense impact on someone who cares and has a clean record. I learned that neither exists. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the technical and policy implications of this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Urgently required. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - If technically possible - we all make errors (even admins when blocking) and these errors should not have a negative impact on the end user. Moxy (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Note: The purely technical capability exists, in the form of WP:Revision deletion#Log redaction, however the current policy states that:

Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the move and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper [emphasis original]

Would you be willing to share the details of the case? A block record alone, if clearly mistaken, should not have "an immense impact on someone" as blocks are not brands or scarlet letters; the context should be evident, and if not, a note can be added to the log stating that the block was in error. Intelligentsium 04:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note Redaction using revision deletion will not expunge the log entry, it will gray out and strike through the log entry so that non-admins cannot see who did the action, how long it was for, or what reason was given. A line will still appear in the user's log, it just won't say what happened. MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Block log entries can also be oversighted. Of course, this would mean changing the OS policy. --Rschen7754 06:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support the modification of oversight policy to allow the eradication of block log entries created in error. It's not fair that a bad decision made by an admin should irreversibly stain a user's record, even if the blocking admin is subsequently subject to censure. I would add that it should be possible for an admin to request such eradication of a log entry they caused themselves. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Answering Intelligentsium, I'd rather keep it general. Hopefully that the proposal is just to have a general result (that the capability exist, and that there be a process for deciding to apply it) and that my question included the premise that all parties (including the blocking admin) agree is reassurance that I'm not looking for an out-of-context answer to take into a particular situation.

Answering Rschen7754 & Intelligentsium, as step 1 at Village Pump technical I asked if the ability technically exists and someone answered "no". So now I'd like to know who is right. (????)North8000 (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing the log entry partially (revision deletion) and completely (oversight) are both possible, but their implementation would go very much against the grain of what those tools are for. Personally, I'd rather not start down the (possibly) slippery slope of adding exceptions to those policies. Instead, when you unblock, just add a note in the unblock saying that the block was unnecessary/improper/whatever. If its expired already, do a quick block-and-unblock with a note that the original block was unnecessary/improper/whatever. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Any editor genuinely disturbed enough by the presence of a block log entry agreed to have been invalid, and determined enough to make a case for a change in policy, is not likely to be satisfied by a solution that creates another "corrective" entry in their block log. Leaky Caldron 14:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "What the tools are for" is doing what's right. What's right is that someone who's done nothing wrong should have an empty block log. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support: If it is discovered and agreed that a block was made per incurium then it seems only fair that the person should be entitled to have that wiped from their record. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This capability is would be too easily misused. I would rather see people explain their block log as having an erroneous entry than have it wiped. Binksternet (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the past block may be used to justify another block without giving the editor a chance to explain that the previous block was in error. Monty₈₄₅ 15:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• The current proposal is too generic. Even if it reached a consensus, we would then need to conduct a second RFC to actually implement a specific policy for dealing with it. There are two main questions, and both can be addressed in one initial RFC. Question 1: should 1a) RevDel policy allow for the redaction of block log entries; 1b) Oversight policy allow for the redaction of block log entries; 1c) no redaction. Question 2: If there is consensus in favor of 1a or 1b, what standard should be used for redaction/what process is necessary? Monty₈₄₅ 15:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - see the discussion on my talkpage before Christmas. If someone wants an example case, I accidentally blocked an innocent user who provided some information at an SPI using SPI helper script. It's also possible to do similar with the checkuser tools - you tick a box for all the accounts you want blocked, and it is possible to tick the wrong box). In case folks think it doesn't happen often, User:Courcelles has two blocks from admins with bad aim, and User:Dougweller has one, and that's just from a couple of conversations. It happens more than you think.

The proposal I would support has four elements -

1. Full suppression is carried out by an Oversighter. Revdel is not used
2. The block resulted from a factual error(admin has blocked the wrong user or did not intend to block any user) not from an error of judgement on the part of the admin (admin intended to block the user, but block is not supported by policy/consensus).
3. The admin who made the block is the one requesting suppression

The user in such a case should be unblocked immediately upon the error being discovered and advised that suppression will be requested.

I think if the community also desires a process whereby it can declare a block to be invalid and request it to be removed from the record, it needs to be thought through and set out in more detail. I also think that there should never be a circumstance in which a blocked editor can request an Oversighter to suppress their block record. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Elen....why would you exclude cases where the blocking Admin says that it was an intended block, but later decided that it was an erroneous decision?

I was thinking that the mechanism in your last post should be included eventually, but didn't want to complicate my proposal with it at this time.North8000 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: This seems to be a solution looking for a problem. I have never observed that a user has been unfairly judged simply because of a mistaken block, though I recognize of course that they occur. A block log is not a mark that condemns a user to ostracism for his/her wikilife, and I am sure there are cases where a block may be overturned, but later the original reasons for the block are later substantiated; in this case having the original block record would be helpful.

Moreover, I am somewhat disturbed by the sentiment expressed above basically to the effect that a block is some sort of conviction or prison sentence, and the log thereof a yellow passport that will cause a user to be spurned from every mairie in the countryside. Intelligentsium 17:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Intellegentsium's point. Also, we don't need to revisit such issues with more arguments and more "ivotes": ('it was mistaken -- no, it was not -- you're an idiot -- no you're a fool, etc.') . Moreover, a history of mistaken blocks by an adminsitrator should not be expunged. Perhaps annotations for incidental mistakes would be fine (I can't imagine a long or contentious discussion about whether to do that, but can't that already be done?)Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment/question I think that an erroneous block on ones block log does have an impact, even if it not the the extent of the over-the-top straw man descriptions of the impact (mentioned above.) For example, a "clean block log" is a widely-used term. Can an editor who has had only an admitted-eroneous block be said to simply have a "clean block log"? The answer is no. Some contortions would be needed like "technically not, but the one block was an error" which people are going to doubt, or if it is said that they do, people will look and say "well no" North8000 (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support both for blocks that were clearly errors (slips of the finger, wrong editor, wrong button, etc.) and also for blocks that a consensus of a hypothetical block-evaluating jury would consider to be bad blocks (violations of WP:INVOLVED; blocks from an admin desysopped for misuse of tools; blocks which normal, sane people would have thought were bad blocks if it had happened to them ... etc. etc.) Injustice damages people, and when it comes to block logs, injustice creates further injustices right down the line. Block #1 is a lousy block, block #2 was only done because there had already been a block allegedly for something similar, block #3 would have been kinda OK, possibly, but not really without warning and if blocks #1 and #2 had been properly recognised as wrongful; appearance at AN/I has a pile-on of drama-whores yelling "But see how many times he's been blocked already!" ... so EnthusiAdmin applies an indef on the basis of the "consensus" of the pile-on of people who haven't had the wit to analyse the previous blocks, and so on, and so son, and so on ... Pesky (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support As proposer. Comments elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - the capability for suppression of blocks from the blocklog already exists; what's needed is agreement on when and how to use it. This could be used for completely mistaken blocks (oops! wrong user! type thing) at least. In addition, it's possible to annotate blocklogs where a disputed block remains - see Wikipedia:Blocks#Recording_in_the_block_log. Rd232 ^talk 18:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. It is a relatively complicated work around to add a note that the block was unnecessary, and is much simpler handled by using an undo. As to the wording, all is undefined, imprecise, and superfluous. If we decide to allow it we can work out the details. There are basically two scenarios that I see someone tries to block Foobar, and accidentally blocks Footar. That can be reversed uncontroversially. The second is by editor error, this does not get reversed. For example, if someone loses count of their 3RRs (ignoring that 2 is prohibited, just not as strongly as 3 or 4), and gets blocked. That never gets expunged, even if they go on to become a Steward. What other types of mistakes are there? Apteva (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But if an incorrect block is applied, it is actually less work to note that the block was unnecessary in the unblock log entry than to unblock, then suppress the block log; obviously the mistakenly-blocked user will not be expected to wait out the block! This also addresses your point that there be an undo - this is already handled by the unblock function.

As I see it there are two issues here: The first is, should a mistaken log entry be removable? If you edit the wrong page or perform an accidental revert, you can reverse it, but the edit remains in the history. Same goes for all other logs (move, delete, etc., with the exceptions set out in the suppression and oversight policy), whether the action was justified or not. The same arguments can be made about practically any mistaken action that happens to create a log entry, but I find it extremely unlikely that consensus will emerge to enable the editing of all logs. Logs are logs because they by definition record everything save egregious abuse.

The second and bigger issue is the perception that having a block on record, even if mistaken, in some way ipso facto "tarnishes" a user's reputation. This is why users are willing to have this discussion about block log but not delete/move/revert. My opposition stems not so much from the proposal itself as from this second issue. I firmly believe that this issue should be addressed, but this is completely the wrong way to address it, because it validates the claim that blocks are punitive and represent a stain upon a user's reputation which must be expunged to preserve his or her "good name". Blocks are not convictions.

The example cited by That Pesky Commoner above is unfortunate; not only does it not refer to any specific example of where such a thing has occurred or whether or not such a thing is a common occurrence among accidentally blocked users, but more concerning, it also assumes incompetence on the parts of the users involved. It assumes that users (and administrators) will not be circumspect or thoughtful enough to investigate the context behind the block. I am reminded of the old saying, Let people rise to your expectations (or something wittier, I forget); if you prepare for incompetence, then most likely you will encounter it. And even if that case occurs, where a user has a history of blocks, including one accidental or invalid block, that one fewer block is unlikely to change the circumstances.

The potential for abuse and the decrease in transparency in case an admin has a history of making bad blocks are also valid issues that other users have addressed better than I could. Intelligentsium 01:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Incorrect blocks in block logs are valuable - not because of what they say about the blocked user, but because they may in some cases help expose a pattern of carelessness or ineptitude by the blocking admin. I believe the correct solution is the ability to edit or append clarifications to block log summaries when they contain false information, not to pretend it never happened. Dcoetzee 00:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Create a sortable "List of expunged blocks". We need to preserve the record, but it doesn't have to be atomised across individual block logs. Such a list would be much more likely to expose a pattern of admin incompetence than the current situation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support based on Dougweller's reasoning. By the way, I have no personal stake in the matter, given no blocks, but overall it certainly creates bad feelings for users. The process of agreeing on what is to be expunged needs to be based on WP:CON I think. History2007 (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose If people are being stupid and misinterpreting a log file, that is the people's fault, not the log's fault. If you hide the log file, the people will still be stupid and draw their unwarranted conclusions from other sources. Kilopi (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Per Elen. The "oopsy" block, where you didn't mean to block or accidentally blocked the wrong user, is uncontroversial. I think, if there is strong enough consensus here for Elen's formulation, we can go straight to the relevant policy pages and make the changes. As for blocks that were intended but later repudiated by the community or the blocking admin, we need to assess the extent of the problem and define precisely what kind of block can and can't be expunged, and what kind of record to keep. So, for now, I support immediately changing policy to allow suppression (oversight) of unambiguous oopsy blocks when that is requested by the blocking admin, and the creation of a sortable "List of expunged blocks." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dcoetzee. Expunging blocks might provide some relief to the blocked user, but it would also shield admins from scrutiny (this is regards to blocks rescinded by the community; oversight of unintentional blocks per Elen seems fair). Hot Stop (Talk) 05:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If bad blocks are removed from the victim's block log but added to a publicly-viewable "List of expunged blocks" (either attached to the blocking admin's account or a sortable - by admin, date and victim - list of all expunged blocks) this will improve our scrutiny of admins. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

An alternative would be to establish a practice where any admin that makes a block which is subsequently overturned by consensus (or deemed a bad block by consensus after it has expired) is blocked for one second with a summary linking the discussion in question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support expunging blocks: An undo could reverse several forms of unneeded block. Even a genius can make a mistake (Albert Einstein once mistakenly wrote "x' " where ex-double-prime "x' ' " was needed, or I could be mistaken), and there is no intelligence requirement for admins, so the community needs all the undo-admin help it can get. Other nitpick shades of undo can be discussed in other venues, such as line-hiding of borderline blocks, but a simple undo, or "erased block" rewrite of a block entry should be allowed as soon as possible. As a long-term editor with several improperly placed blocks, I can confirm that they are shouted, by many people, as evidence that "your next block will be indef" or the ever-snarky, "it can only end badly for you". I support the unblock, and any similar functions, to reduce the shoot-from-the-hip, knee-jerk, short-sighted actions of [wp:SNOW]]bunny admins. Also see: wp:MELT about the need to wait and re-think some decisions. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. We all make mistakes on Wikipedia. Most of the time, this is on an article or a project page. In such cases, either we fix our own mistakes, or someone else does so. Except for extremely serious cases (such as a major privacy violation or massive copyright infringement), we do not mess with the history. The same should apply for admin actions. We need to be very careful to try to avoid admin mistakes. But when it happens, we should just correct it, and move on. In the case of an incorrect block, it is definitely good form for the admin to state unambiguously (e.g. on the blocked users' talk page) that it was an error. But I don't support messing with the logs. If it comes up (XYZ was blocked before), simply explain what happened, and point them to the blocking admin or someone who knows about the error. Another serious problem with this is who has to agree to the expungement. If it's just the admin, then it is a way for them to (at least partly) cover their tracks. If it's more people, then consensus becomes a problem. Superm401 - Talk 21:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: WP:Perennial proposals#Prohibit removal of warnings is, I feel, relevant to this discussion. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I agree that the official block log should have mistaken blocks removed. Not blocks that are simply overturned because someone else think enough time has elapsed, or the blocked editor is valuable, only blocks where a consensus of admins would agree that the block should not have been issued. I agree with Dcoetzee that I do not want the complete history to disappear, as it could help identify problematic admins, but I believe this is easily resolved, with either a complete history available in another place, or perhaps the incorrect block would be noted on the admins record, which preserves Dcoetzee's goal. yes, I fully understand that one ought to review a block log with care, but in the heat of a contentious situation, it would be unfortunate if an admin glanced at a block log, saw six entries, and didn't read closely enough to see that it was three blocks followed by three unblocks, each noting that the block was a misunderstanding. Why not make the block log informative, rather than a mystery to be analyzed?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Define all

The Proposal states "when all agree that it was an error", who is All?

• If All is everyone on Wikipedia, then the proposal fails with the first Oppose vote above.
• If All is just the Admin who made the block, then the proposal needs a huge rework for clarity.
• If All is everyone involved, then you need to define how to identify All and where to track their agreement.

JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 19:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This is where I, personally, like the idea of a kinda jury of longish-term editors with a fair number of contributions (including at least 30% in article space) to review blocks. A consensus of a jury of "reasonable editors" (avoiding the possible sexism of "reasonable men" ;P) with perhaps 20 members should be sufficient. We do have to face the probability that the blocking admin themselves may never agree with that. Admins are human, and therefore like the rest of us not perfect. Pesky (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel like the jury idea is one doomed to fail, amidst various cries of cronyism, cabalism, policy creep, and needless additional bureaucracy... not to mention the people that don't get picked to be on the jury and subsequently get pissy about it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A jury is exactly what we don't want - it opens Pandora's box of other problems, as stated by EVula above, in addition to reinforcing the "court" mentality that pervades this thread. Sinking twenty users' time into this would be a terrible idea (time which could be used to edit articles). I thought the point of this was to be non-contentious; if you invite twenty users to have a discussion then naturally the discussion will drag on ad infinitum.

And just consider the negative impact that even one contentious expurgation would have; I daresay it would far outweigh the questionable positive impact that every noncontentious expurgation could have. Intelligentsium 01:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

In my proposal I used "all" as a simplification. It really translates to "If the admin who made the block agrees". And I deliberately avoided discussing (kicked the can down the road on) the possibility of a process to do this when the initial blocking admin does not agree. North8000 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not just use WP:CON anyway. History2007 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Community consensus is sufficient, and I don't agree with the blocking admin being able to veto expunging. How does that make sense? Consensus rules. For Elen's minimalist proposal, in the case of truly uncontroversial oopsies, it makes sense, but for cases where the community agrees the blocking admin exercised poor judgment, we shouldn't have to wait on that admin's approval for expunging. Too many cowboy admins here never admit they were wrong. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

More full views over at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Summary, but the cabalism / picking thingie could be addressed in some way like this:

(copied across) to avoid the cabalism thingie, how about having "block-log-cleaning-juries" drawn from a pool of suitable editors? Editors could opt-in or opt-out of the pool, and a panel of 20 (or whatever number) could be drawn from a list of editors who have chosen to be available to look at whichever particular block log is under discussion. It could work something a bit like opting-in for RfC's, to get a long-list for each case, and picking the working party from the long-list could be randomised.

Sometimes the solutions to perceived (and / or actual) challenges aren't hard to think up. I think, on the whole, it's better to be solution-focussed than problem-focussed.

I think that this situation is one which a panel of fair-right-minded editors would be likely to agree is the kind of block (Rodhullandemu's block of Malleus) which should be removed from the block log.

We need to learn lessons from Real Life, and one of those most needed (particularly in today's increasingly litigious societies) is the very human tendency for some people to indulge themselves with barratry. We do need to be very aware of the injustices caused by pile-on responses from those who may have an axe to grind, when we're looking at consensus, for example. Pesky (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - a block made in error is an important part of the blocking admin's record some of the time; we need to allow each user to make decisions about how much of a stain it is on the admin's record - for example, if we ever have a community desysop process, if the admin runs for ArbCom, etc. We should definitely make sure that the blocked user's log make it clear that the block was in error - but not hide it. Additionally, some times even a wrong block is important to show that the user should be aware of some thing - for example, there was a case where a new user did a fourth revert of a 3RR violation while logged out. While I (and several other users who commented there) had no doubt that the user logged out by accident, and the indef block for sockpuppetry was wrong, the user knows that if (s)he does this again, an indef block may be the result. And should it happen, admins need to be able to see the previous block to make the decision. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is where having a separate record for bad blocks would solve that problem. The full record of the block is still there for any purpose for which it is needed, but it doesn't get used by the inadequate in a "But he's been blocked X-number of times already! He must be really bad ... he should have learned his lesson by now!" argument. Again, being solution-focussed rather than problem-focussed is necessary, and fairly simple. Pesky (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Where would you put the record of people blocking lay preachers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.118.46.205 (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I would support some sort of "badf block" marker - provided that it doesn't prevent anyone from seeing the block details (blocking admin, blocked account, and block reason). Unfortunately, that's currently not possible. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any major technical issues with having something like that made possible. (and the comment about lay preachers ...(Theo-retically possible es.) ..d'uh? What was that about, and to whom was it addressed? And why is it relevant?) Pesky (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

My premature summary, overreaching interpretation and suggested next step / revised proposal

One person pointed out an ambiguity in my proposal (the undefined "all") which I then clarified, but that's now messy. I did a very fast count and it looks like a lot more support than oppose....not that means anything beyond maybe thinking about a refined proposal. More importantly, the reason cited by almost all of the "opposes" was that a record should be kept and visible, even of bad blocks. Finally, one or more editors pointed out the narrowness of my proposal as it only includes cases where the blocking admin admitted that it was an error. This "narrowness" was deliberate (to keep this from dying from complexity) but we should note that leaving it out does not weigh in against it. So I have a revised proposal which the above would indicate probable 90% or 100% support for. Lets let it sit a few hours without any "supports/opposes" in case anybody sees any error or ambiguities which we can fix. OK, it's been about about 9 hours. North8000 (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal When the the administrator who made a block subsequently determines that the block was in error, let's create the ability and expectation that that administrator can and will mark the block as being in error in a way that makes it very clear. This can be via a mark on that block itself, or the ability to create an additional log entry (without creating an additional block) This ability to mark the log shall only be used by an admin to mark their own block as being in error. The "expectation" will be created by some new wording in Wikipedia:Blocking policy. The idea of a system for the community to do this without agreement by the blocker is acknowledged and can be discussed later but (for simplicity) is not included in this proposal.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. North8000 (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - When acting as admin on other projects (not Wikipedia) I've even made mistakes of blocking the wrong person simply by pressing the wrong user information and imposing the block. I've always undone such blocks immediately and usually even apologized on the user's talk page with usually a note of praise of what that user has accomplished as well to try and smooth things over. Still, having the ability to mark in the logs itself that the block was in error would be useful. I've also stepped into wheel warring disputes as well where it was later determined by the community at large that the blocks were done in error and bad faith. While the ability to note a small text explanation is already in the MediaWiki software, what seems to be missing is the ability to retroactively mark a specific block as being done in error. Perhaps simply allowing an admin to make an "administrative" entry on behalf of that user in the block log that could be a standard summary field of any kind for any reason but would otherwise not have any impact upon the user? I could see this being used in other log entries too as a more generic tool. --Robert Horning (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support: this is obviously a good starting point for further work on less unambiguous areas. Pesky (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I like the idea of creating an "whoops!" entry in the block log without having to re-block. An elegant solution. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I can support the blocking admin marking a block as erroneous in the log. This is purely a case of adding information; I do not support removing information from any block logs. However, a block "being in error" should mean, "At the time of the block, there was not justification for blocking." It does not mean "Since block expiration, or since unblocking, the editor has edited productively." It is the goal that editors will return to productivity after the block is done. That does not mean it was mistaken. In other words, 'user forgiven' is not the same as 'mistaken block'. Superm401 - Talk 18:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Per Superm401. Intelligentsium 02:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as reasonable in the case of a bad block. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

About fair use

Hi,

I don't come often to en.wp, so sorry to intrude with a question maybe already answered a thousand times over. But I was wondering about your policy on fair use. I understand that en.wp allows the use of non-free images, provided no free image can be used to illustrate a particular article. Okay. But I was wondering if every effort is really made each time to found a free image. I read Wikipedia:Non-free content, it says "Film and television screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question.", but several screenshots are used to illustrate characters in a show (for example File:ArthurMitchellDexter.jpg), where a photo of the actor could be considered sufficient to provide adequate illustration for the character they portray (for example File:John Lithgow 8 by David Shankbone.jpg could be used instead).

Any comment on this ? Esprit Fugace (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been argued by those wanting to keep live actor character images that an actor-in-character shot is irreplacable by a photo of the actor themselves as the character is not just only the visual look of the actor but their costume, poise, expression, and several other hard-to-describe details that the actor photo will not capture. This is generally accepted if we are talking about a notable character with their own page, but doesn't extend to a character in a list or using the character photo elsewhere (like the actor's page) barring unique situations. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Case in point, how can any of our free images of Johnny Depp adequately capture the look and style of the Captain Jack Sparrow character? Resolute 15:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is the case of a actor being a strange outfit and/or makeup to make him hard to recognize as the actor (a picture of Michael Dorn would do the article on Worf injustice if the only way to show what the character looks like). But the situation (it is not one I agree with but know is consensus) is that for the case above, of John Lithgow as Arthut from 3rd Rock, it is clearly the same person but the "show" picture has implicit details about the character due to expression and poise that can't be explains by the free picture of Lithgow and text. That's the case that I have questioned in the past but found that consensus favors that inclusion. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Then, let's try File:Dexter Morgan.jpg as an illustration for Dexter Morgan. Does he represent accurately the character described by Jeff Lindsay in his books ? For characters belonging to a franchise, I find the argument not very compelling. The Jake Sparrow case isn't convincing, as the costume is so significant cosplayers could be used as illustration (along with a photo of the actor, I should find it enough illustration). In some cases, I think the argument a bit disingenuous. Esprit Fugace (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In regards to cosplay - photos taken of such are questionable if they are free or technically derivative works of the copyrighted characters and the answer is not straight forward. And further, I can already see arguments "But this is not an accurate representation of the character because X is not playing the character!". I know I disagree with this use of non-free images, but consensus is generally acceptable for this use.

In the case of a book-cum-TV series, where there was no previous illustration of the character in the book, the use of the TV series character is fine. The counter example is something like Sherlock Holmes or Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) - we aren't using the actors that played these in movies and TV, but the original illustrations tied with the work. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

See commons:Commons:Casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay for Commons' guidelines and the Foundation's recommendations on costumes and cosplay. This is a grey area and remains unresolved - I for one have deep disagreements with some past keeps of cosplay material on Commons.Dcoetzee 01:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought I understood, but you got me confused again. If cosplayers are a gray area and barely acceptable (which I perfectly understand), how is a screenshot, which is clearly copyrighted material, any better ? Esprit Fugace (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We are allowed to use non-free, but its use is meant to be exceptional as outlined at WP:NFCC. So there's no problem using a non-free screenshot to illustrate the character if there is no equivalent free replacement. The argument here is that while some characters look exactly like the actors playing them that we could use a free image of the actor instead, that is not an equivalent replacement since the photo of the actor out of character doesn't capture implicit details about the character that can only be shown via a character screenshot. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And to be clear, since cosplay photos are questionable, they would be non-free as well. In terms of "value" to WP, a screenshot and a cosplay photo are equal weight in terms of non-free, so we might as well use the more accurate screenshot over that of a cosplayer. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility and equality as core policies

I propose that we add a commitment to accessibility and equality to the Five pillars. Please join discussion at Wikipedia talk:Five pillars#Accessibility and equality. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Is This Notable

Please see the discussion on my talk page about Nordic Woman. Do you think the article now meets the notablity guidelines? Oddbodz (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a policy question. Please talk about Nordic Woman at Talk:Nordic Woman (or if you are proposing deletion, use the Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion process). To clarify, it's the topic (the actual album in this case) that's notable, or not notable. Improving the article doesn't change that (though it's true it may change perception of it). Superm401 - Talk 23:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say yes. 10/18 of the contributing artists are blue links. You may wish to add it to the discography in their articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't mention it on the talk page because I wanted a seccond opinion and i doubt it would have been found by anyone any tim soon if I put it there. This was the most appropriate place I could find, therefore, to get one. Oddbodz (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

As someone who participates in the article deletion process and is familiar with the notability guidelines, at first glance that's a keeper. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That makes 3 of us then - I just wanted to get a second opinion rather than telling the author it was fine, only for him to have it deleted at a later date. Oddbodz (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. In future cases, I recommend linking from the article talk page to the discussion elsewhere, so people watching the article don't miss it. I've done that here. Superm401 - Talk 21:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk Block

Someone who continually violate WP:Bite should be blocked from editing talk pages for a period of time. Of course, all the blocks would have to conform to WP:Blocking Policy. People would be blocked to prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia, and to deter the continuation of present, disruptive behaviour. Biting new users on their talk page is not necessary for Wikipedia to continue, and thus should be subject to blocking. — Rosscoolguy^CVU | My Talk 15:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The question that needs to be answered is under what circumstances would somebody be permitted to continue editing articles and doing other activities on Wikipedia, but not be permitted to communicate on talk pages? Communication is utterly necessary when doing collaborative writing projects, so it would seem to me that a user who is being disruptive on talk pages and being a bit too rough with new users should be warned.... and for repeated misbehavior simply blocked from Wikipedia altogether if even only for a brief period of time to cool off. A valid probationary action on the part of ArbCom might be to socially prohibit such behavior (warn that such actions will result in a permanent block on a case by case basis and not through technical means).

Note that in this case stern warnings to such misbehaving users is likely going to be more effective, and blocking is one of several actions that can be taken in this situation. I agree that consistent violations of WP:BITE do warrant a block after warnings and other measures are ineffective. Then again, that isn't really a change in policy either and something which should currently be happening. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Prohibited (sic) links

• dgmlive.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

How should we link to pages on websites who claim to prohibit links to their pages, as discussed at Talk:Discipline Global Mobile#Linking to DGM Live!? My view is that such ToS are ridiculous, and can be ignored, because anyone clicking on a web link sends a request to the host server for a page, and it is up to (the owner of) that server to decide how to respond. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't hurt to run any proposed policy by Legal first, since their ToS claim is a contractual (legal) claim. But I would be quite surprised if they said anything other than "go ahead". – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy for legal to comment; but it's extremely doubtful they'd agree to such a prohibition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is what I thought I said: I expect they'd say "go ahead" with formalizing a policy to allow such links. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I was agreeing with you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC).

As I already told Andy, talk page consensus determines whether a particular link be included. Nobody has claimed that there is a prohibition at Wikipedia of deep linking. The heading of this section is misleading.

The previous discussion, which should be read before commenting here, has discussions of recent legal cases by persons informed about internet law. I told Andy to look at RF's talk page; his linking to DGM confused things. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

An individual article's talk page discussion, while important, doesn't decide policy issues. Who's confused? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you confused the issue by linking to DGM rather than to RF, which you apparently have not read or have already forgotten. The Robert Fripp page has a link to a discussion at the appropriate guideline's talk page, which has informed discussion. Continuing to issue emotive ejaculations does not improve policy.

You may wish to suggest an RfC to suggest that WP shall practice deep linking whenever physically possible, if that is legal in the USA, regardless of the Terms of Service or polite requests by the page providers, and that editors should never write a polite request asking for permission to deep link before linking. Individual editors have no responsibility to strive for consensus before enforcing this policy on individual pages, which must accept the policy in every case.

Is that the policy you want? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I ask you again; who is confused? We need no RfC to allow deep linking; it's common practice on and off Wikipedia. You are not enforcing a policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you have repeatedly asked "who is confused?", I shall answer: You have trouble with logic in this discussion. You are confused.

A common practice need not be universal and it need not be policy. Your stating that deep linking is a common practice here does not imply that it must be followed.

In this case, the editors writing the articles have decided to comply with ToS, and provide readers with the exact titles needed to search at DGM, meeting the needs of our readers and respecting DGM's ToS.

These articles are extremely carefully referenced, so perhaps the histrionics can stop.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're alleging that I have confused myself by linking to Talk:Discipline Global Mobile#Linking to DGM Live!; and accusing me of histrionics? You have removed information from valid citations; with no prior discussion on the talk pages of the article concerned, and with no policy backing. That is unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Time for a nap. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That ToS is ridiculous and should be ignored. If a URL exists, works, and is of service to our readers, then it should be linked. If the site takes technical measures to interfere with direct linking, then the affected URLs should be considered {{deadlink}}s - certainly not replaced with the homepage as appears to have been done on DGM. Kilopi (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that URLs in references have been redacted in a number of articles; for example in New standard tuning the "4th January 2010" diary reference has been changed from http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?entry=16478 to http://www.dgmlive.com/ in this edit This is completely unacceptable. In the article Discipline Global Mobile the comment:

<!-- DGM's Terms of Service prohibit linking to internal pages, e.g. this diary's entry, without explicit permission. -->

has been inserted in refs. This too is unacceptable. Affected articles may include:

• Robert Fripp - confirmed
• Soundscapes by Robert Fripp
• King Crimson discography
• King Crimson
• London, Jazz Café, England – December 4, 1997
• Trey Gunn
• Discipline Global Mobile - confirmed
• Guitar Craft - confirmed
• P. J. Crook - confirmed (now includes three adjacent links, each with unique link text, all to the DGM home page)
• New standard tuning - confirmed
• Regular tuning - confirmed
• Grooveshark - confirmed

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, the discussion linked had a consensus that it was up to the talk page to achieve discussion, because our policy does not demand deepest-linking. Your "unacceptable" has no basis in policy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You have cited no such consensus; nor is there discussion on each of the talk pages of the articles listed above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, and repeated twice here, the link on the talk page of Robert Fripp leads to a discussion with informed editors familiar with internet/copyright law. Please read the linked discussion before replying. I never said there was a discussion on the talk page of each article. I wrote most of these articles, or at least referenced them, and so I am familiar with the editing discussions. Most editors appreciated my writing well referenced articles, when the articles had previously had almost no references. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There is indeed "a discussion with informed editors familiar with internet/copyright law" - and they tell you unambiguously that the DGM ToS does not apply to us. There is no support there for your bowdlerising of valid references. Such damage is not appreciated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, for somebody who just added "brothers" to the article on RF, you have a lot of nerve taking this tone with me, who has written much of that set of articles.

Take it to the talk pages of articles and establish consensus. We have no policy requiring deepest linking, I repeat.

I will revert you if you add the links without first establishing consensus on the talk page.

I have requested and received images from Steve Ball, because I treated him with respect. Wikipedia could easily receive images from Fripp and DGM if we treat them with respect. This discussion, like the last, damage our ability to get images from DGM or the Fripp family. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You refer to this edit; are you saying that Peter Giles and Michael Giles are not brothers? Or that it is somehow against policy to inform our readers tat they are? In what way does that edit devalue the points I have made here? Also, appeasing article subjects; especially corporate subjects, does not justify removing detail from references. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I see that as unacceptable as well. Referencing an article that way places the burden of verifiability on the reader, rather than on the author. That's not how a work of reference is supposed to work. That some websites have idiotic policies governing how people link to their content is not Wikipedia's problem, it's their problem. Whatever information is supported by references made this way should be modified with alternative sources, or removed altogether. Copyright or not, policies or not, as of now those articles are supporting their claims with the equivalent of hey, this information can be verified somewhere in this website, I promise! Good luck! That's so terribly half baked I have trouble believing anyone thought it was a good idea. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  hey, this information can be verified somewhere in this website, I promise! Good luck!

  On the contrary, in all cases, I provided the exact title of the diary entry, which is easy to find via search facility at DGM. This is at least a stable method of referencing. One can also use Google." Did you have trouble trying to verify anything?

  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, WP:PAYWALL seems to cover this - if we consider a deep-link restriction to be a kind of paywall. Interesting. Maybe the best thing to do here would be to provide the actual full URL for precision, regardless of it being directly accessible or not. Most deep link bounce controls check for a referrer, so if I click on the link here on Wikipedia it will bounce me, but if I copy and paste it into my browser address bar maybe it won't. But you have to include the URL. The burden is on you, the article author, not the reader. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The links work; they are not being bounced, there is no need to remove the references. As suggested above, if they fail to work at some point in the future, they should be marked with {{deadlink}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that references linking to a site's main address are insufficient; if found, they should be tagged with {{full}} or {{page needed}}. As for terminology: there is no such thing as "deepest linking". I understand "deep linking" to mean links to items, particularly media files, which are not accessible through the site's own navigation system. The example given in the article deep linking is IMO not well chosen. Deep linking can also refer to URLs behind paywalls, and I consider citing those URLs as good practice, as it allows those with access to read the cited material. It is up to the web server to prevent access if they want to, and AFAIK they do a good job at that. Lastly, why should Wikipedia restrict itself from using URLs which show up in Google searches? Seems unreasonable and bizarre to me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikiwashing?

If a BLP contacts me about fixing his article and has good connections to the media is it out of line for me to suggest he have an article published containing the information he wishes to add to his article? I don't mean false information but just things like birthdate, education, awards, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Our lord Jimbo did precisely this to get his birthdate included in his article several years ago. I would not find it out of line to provide this suggestion to the person. --Izno (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Be sure to use a WP:RS. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 18:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Thank you for prompt replies. I haven't recieved such a request yet but it may happen eventually. I have been in contact with some BLPs about their articles. Mostly stubs that need birth dates, images, etc. Some may not wish their age known so they may want to leave that out of any interviews.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to make an off-topic request here: Can we please not refer to persons as BLPs? The B stands for "biography"; a person is not a biography. I would not like to see this usage catch on. --Trovatore (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how many use the term that way. When I worked at a ski hill we use to 'talk to the chair' meaning the operator of the chair. It could be argued that BLP can also mean Biographed Living Person. I will refrain from it from now on it avoid uneeded issues about it. Has it been brought up at BLPN before?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Categorization by name of place by year established

This is a discussion of categories like Category:1865 establishments in Pakistan and Category:1911 establishments in Turkey. Both are higly problematic names. The first is just plain egregious. The idea of a seperate Muslim state carved out of India was not proposed until 1930. The name Pakistan was not put forward until 1933. In 1865 there was a concept of a place called India. Most of it was British India, a territory of the British Empire. There were also hundreds of "Princely States" of various sizes from Hyderabad State down, and under various levels of British Protection. Beyond this there was also Portuguese India, mainly Goa, and French India. Last I checked the one thing in the category mentioned was located in Lahore, which was a city clearly in British India, part of the province of Punjab, which transcended the modern international bouandary. As it is from 1947 until 1970 we clearly categoize those things established in East Pakistan in Category:1947 establishments in Pakistan etc. We also have Category:1960 establishments in West Germany, East Germany by year establishments categorizes, also Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Soviet Union, Mandatory Palestine, the Thirteen Colonies and probably a few more refering to now defunct categories. We have x year in Dahomey and a few similarly named categories as well. It seems to me the best course would be to categorize everything by where it was in the year it was established. This solves a lot of problems and avoids potential conflicts. Since these categories are clearly refering to the year involved it gives us a staight forward way to categorize things, and it makes it so we do not have to change categorize when boundaries change. It also allows for categorizing things such as sub-national entities that transcended modern boundaries. Thus we would categorize things established in 1910 in Lemburg (now Lvov) as being established in Austria-Hungary, since they were, and not in Ukraine, which makes no sense since a-there was no such place and b-the plurality of Lemburg's population was Polish. We have clearly recognized that we cannot retroactively call things "Israel" before that country was formed. This should be applied across the board. In the case of India, most of the stuff established in what is now Pakistan and Bangaldesh before 1947 is already in the India category. In the case of "Turkey" to the extent that that name was used before 1923 it was used as a synonym for the Ottoman Empire. However it would jus be too confusing to retroactively use Turkey for the Ottoman Empire, and we have clearly decided to use Ottoman Empire as the article on the place, so we should use Ottoman Empire to refer to the place during those times. This also avoids classifying as establishments in Romania things formed by ethnic Hungarian in the Kingdom of Hungary in 1917 or before, that now are located in Romania. This will avoid anarchronism and inaccuracy. It also makes it so we do not have to recategorize things when international boundaries change. I also think we should move toward having a set earliest year we categorize establishments by country. The extreme is Category:993 establishments in the Czech Republic which not only incorreclty calls the place a Republic, implies modern understandings of place nearly a century before they came to be, but also contains the only article anywhere in the Category:993 establishments tree. For Category:Educational institutions established in 1800 that is the first year we have the category, and for Populated places we only do by year back to 1500. I think we should agree to some year before which we do not do the establishments by country. I am thinking 1800 might be a good year, since much before that placing things in countries gets progressively trickier. However I think a fixed year would work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I just remembered a related issue. With the currently used method of placing these categories into parent categories we take a category like Category:1911 establishments in Estonia and place a set of links on the category. This makes it so the category liks to th article Estonia. However in 1911 the thing we really should be linking to is Estonia Governorate, which covered only about half the area of modern Estonia. One option would be to try to use different names in the categories, but that would probably just create confusion, especially in a case like Category:1910 establishments in Romania. With Category:1910 establishments in Russia it might be worth using "The Russian Empire" as the name, but there is a strong argument that at the time "Russia" would have worked. It migth not be that big a deal. I guess we could still add manually on [[:Category:1910 establishments in Russia" a header that says "This is for things established in 1910 in the Russian Empire" but I am not sure how to do that and deal with the current header being placed there. I am not even sure if I am explaining this so people understand the problem. The problem is that currently there is something linking to Russia which is the article on the modern nation state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Uw-spamublock

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Template:Uw-spamublock. -- Trevj (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48 -- Trevj (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if this should have been notified via WP:VP/PR instead. -- Trevj (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)