Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Categorizing articles about people/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some archives may be at different names, such as Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality/Archive 9 and Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people/Sensitive categories/Archive 8.

Update on Category:American people of African descent

As noted here, the "American people of African descent" category is being removed per the following discussion that Marcocapelle pointed to: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#Category:American people of African descent. And yet categories such as Category:American people of Irish descent and Category:American people of German descent are still being used to categorize people. There are a number of categories like that. Wikipedia should be consistent on this categorization matter or not even bother. Also take note that Category:People of African-American descent still currently exists for categorizing people. Pinging BrownHairedGirl, DexDor, Necrothesp, Dimadick, Hmains, Peterkingiron, Inter&anthro and John Pack Lambert, who all took part in that categories discussion started by Marcocapelle. A related discussion is the #RfC on categorizing biracial people discussion above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I don't see the problem here.
The principle agree at that CFD was that people may be categorised by country of descent, but not directly categorised by continent of descent.
That is to avoid the continental categories being used as a proxy for race.
Neither Ireland nor Germany are continents, so there is no contradiction and no inconsistency. Note that country-specific African categories such as Category:American people of Kenyan descent and Category:American people of Egyptian descent remain intact, and those are the direct comparators with the Irish and German categories.
It seems to me that Flyer22 has misunderstood the decision taken at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl Actually Germans lived all over Europe, so are you arguing, that are you limiting that category to people descended from those born in and after the German Empire was created in the mid-1800s? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
No, @Alanscottwalker, I am not making any such argument.
I simply pointing out that there was decision to categorise people by nationality descent, but not by continent descent.
The geographical extent of national descent obvious varies, and there obvious difficulties with categorising nationality and ethnicity in those parts of Europe where boundaries fluctuated and states came and went, but that fuzziness has long been accommodated within the various sub-continental categories.
The decision to containerise was taken to prevent the by-continent categories from being used a proxy for race. I don't see how the issues regarding German descent differ from those relating to some of the African Empires, such as Zulu.
The post by Flyer22 suggested that the decision at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#Category:American people of African descent has led to European descent being treated different to African. That is not the case, because WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_14#Category:American_people_of_European_descent --applied the same principle to Europe.
Your speculations about how we define "German descent" belong somewhere else. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl What speculations? Is your argument is that German is a nationality, or are you arguing that German is an ethnicity? --Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: As above, I have not taken a position either way on that. And I don't intend to enter into debate on that here, because it is not relevant to the issue which @Flyer22 Reborn raised, viz whether we are treating Europe differently to Africa. Answer: no, we are not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl: You argued, "people may be categorised by country of descent." What did you mean by that with respect to Germans? Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker, you trying to engage in a theological dispute of no practical value to the immediate issue, which is simply that we no longer categorise people directly by descent from a continent.
The point which you raise is is what a colleague of mine used to call "pub talk": an issue which could with much interest be debated in the pub once the meeting is over, but which does not directly impact the business of the meeting. Per WP:NOTFORUM, I am not playing here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, thanks for taking the time to comment. I considered that you might argue something like that. Still, editors on this site commonly use categories such as Category:American people of Irish descent and Category:American people of German descent to indicate "race" and ethnicity as well. I've seen it times over. Anyway, it seems that you all will be looking to get rid of Category:People of African-American descent next. No need to ping me since this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl: Pub talk? No. Look around. We are here on a page about categorization, you have laid down a claim on this page about categorization in response to an OP involving inter alia Germans, and even discussed Germany in your initial response. What did you mean when you said, "people may be categorised by country of descent" with respect to Germans? How is that categorization according to your statement suppose to work? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker, if and when you buy me a glass or several of nectar in a local hostelry, we can have a grand evening debating those questions. But right now, we're not in that pub ... and as above, we don't need to resolve that question here. WP:NOTFORUM.
@Flyer22, that "it seems" assumption comes close to putting words in my mouth. Please don't do that.
The long-standing guideline has been that we categorise by ethnicity but not by race. The distinction is not an easy one, because there is a lot of overlap, but I think that the principle is broadly right, even if only as the least-worst option. I have no desire to change it.
As to African-American descent, see the lede of African Americans: "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are an ethnic group of Americans" (emphasis added by me).
Since the stable consensus is is that this is an ethnic group, I would strongly oppose any attempt to delete the African-American category. (I may support the removal of irrelevant intersections between African-American ethnicity and occupation, but only by upmerger to another African-American category). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl: We are not in a pub, I think that's clear. You are on a page about categorization involving inter alia ethnicity -- so, is it that you don't want to explain your statement, because you do not know what you meant? Or perhaps looking at it now, you realize your statement makes little sense? Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Alan, I know perfectly well what I mean, and I know that it makes sense; I also know that I am getting a bit fed up with your pursuit of a tangent. As above, this is a narrow discussion about a particular issue. If you want to start a broader discussion about the distinction/overlap between nationality and ethnicity, please open a new discussion somewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Then explain what you mean. You said this statement here, in this discussion, so it is either relevant or is that evidence you do not know what you meant? You even called it a "principle". There is obviously nothing more central than a claimed principle of such categorization, here, on this page. What did you mean when you said, "people may be categorized by country of descent" with respect to Germans? Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Alan, the issue here is race or ethnicity. The issue you raise with regard to Germany is nationality or ethnicity. That is a different issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Your words were "people may be categorized by country of descent" - that's what you called a principle, you then said "decision to categorise people by nationality descent", so you are the one who raised nationality right here. Do you not know what you meant, or are you now claiming that your statements are irrelevant? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, I didn't put anything into your mouth, or rather I did not mean to. I was simply indicating that there is no difference in stating "American people of African descent" and "People of African-American descent." I fail to see why one would be used to categorize people and not the other. We can see here that Alanscottwalker simply replaced "American people of African descent" with "People of African-American descent." By "get rid of," I obviously meant "no longer use it to categorize people." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Flyer, the distinction is a fine one, and it may be mostly a terminological issue, but I think it is the best we can do to maintain the distinction between categorisation by race and by ethnicity.
It may be that you want to open up a broader discussion on the viability of the fine distinction in categorisation between race and ethnicity, but unless we open up that broader issue, then we do need to avoid categorisation by race. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
A fine distinction? What is the distinction with regard to using "People of African-American descent" instead of "American people of African descent" to categorize people? "People of African-American descent" is used the same exact way -- to indicate "race"/ethnicity -- and will continue to be used that same exact way unless it's deleted or containerized as well. If you are stating that using "American people of African descent" "People of African-American descent" for categorizing people is fine, then Marcocapelle should add it in place of all the articles where "American people of African descent" was removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Fler, I think I have made exceedingly clear that I am not stating that using "American people of African descent" for categorizing people is fine. So please do not claim that I am. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Eh? You just stated "the distinction is a fine one, and it may be mostly a terminological issue." So what are you talking about???? Again, what is the supposed fine distinction between "American people of African descent" and "People of African-American descent"? And with regard to claims, I stated "if." Stop stating that I'm putting words in your mouth. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
"If" I was stating something which I clearly and repeatedly had opposed = either putting words in my mouth or a pointless hypothetical. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, no, it was a way of asking you a question. I meant the "People of African-American descent" category. Exactly where did you repeatedly state that you were against using "People of African-American descent" for categorizing people? You were focused on the "American people of African descent" category, and argued that there is a fine distinction between "People of African-American descent" and "American people of African descent" when it comes categorizing people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, now I see what you are trying to state regarding "People of African-American descent" and "American people of African descent." Are you stating that the difference is that one uses the wording "African-American"? That "African-American descent" is specific and that "African descent" is broader? Still, like I asked Dodger67 below, who uses "descent" that broadly? See my comment below (the one addressed to everyone rather than to Dodger67). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Per request on my talk page I'm contributing to this discussion here. The reason why I supported containerization (not deletion!) of the category it that it is perfectly fine to keep these categories as container categories with subcategories for Gambian, Moroccan, Kenyan etc. descent, but having articles directly in them implies a mere racial use. By the way, most articles in this category were either in the African-American tree already, or in the American slaves category, or else their African descent was not sourced (or not even mentioned in the article). While I would also support deletion, or alternatively support more restricted use, of descent categories as a whole (including German) that would be for wholly different reasons. That should not be conflated. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Marcocapelle, like I stated above, editors on this site commonly use categories such as "American people of Irish descent" and "American people of German descent" to indicate "race" and ethnicity as well. And "People of African-American descent" is used the same exact way -- to indicate "race"/ethnicity -- and will continue to be used that same exact way unless it's deleted or containerized as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no way how one can suspect German descent based on skin color in the same way that African descent is suspected based on skin color. The two cases are incomparable. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Marcocapelle, considering that people automatically think of German people as white, even though German people can be black, I disagree with your assertion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems you are completely missing the point of the analogy. Category:American people of African descent leads to WP:OR because editors classify black people as of African when reliable sources about descent do not exist. Category:American people of German descent does not have the same effect because editors do not automatically classify white people as of German descent when reliable sources about descent are lacking. In the absence of sources, more precision (by country) leads to a better recognition that we do not know about a person's descent, while less precision (by continent) leads to more speculation about a person's descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Marcocapelle, I have not missed any point. Are you missing a point? These categories -- all of them -- are added all the time when there is absolutely no sourcing in the article to support them. And let me be clear that WP:OR does not mean "unsourced." The WP:OR page is clear about what WP:OR means. Information can be unsourced and still not be WP:OR. Regardless of what you or anyone else thinks about categories like "American people of German descent," they are used to indicate "race" all the time on this site. One may argue that they are more objective than a category like "American people of African descent," but both have been used by editors to indicate racial/ethnic background. Wentworth Miller's article stating that "his father is of African-American, Jamaican, German, and English ancestry; his mother is of Russian, Swedish, French, Dutch, Syrian, and Lebanese ancestry" is not focusing on nationality. It is focused on getting across Miller's "race"/ethnicity, and the corresponding categories are used in that way as well. This is the same thing that sites like Ancestry.com do. An editor can claim otherwise, but the truth is clear as day. As for "classify black people as of African when reliable sources about descent do not exist," see the Black people article. How are you defining "black people"? That article's "Black people" template does not have the African diaspora link right at the top of it for nothing. The real reasons that editors have objected to the "American people of African descent" category is that some editors don't like categorizing by "race"/ethnicity (as made clear on this talk page), the category was mainly being used to categorize biracial or multiracial people of African descent, and, in enough Wikipedia articles, there were no sources to support them being of African descent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Stating that ""his father is of African-American, Jamaican, German, and English ancestry; his mother is of Russian, Swedish, French, Dutch, Syrian, and Lebanese ancestry" is not focusing on nationality" is confusing. The categories are exactly intended to classify by the nationality of the ancestors. Or in exceptional cases, to classify by the ethnicity of the ancestors, e.g. Jewish. Putting "race/ethnicity" as if it is the same is even more confusing. Ethnicity is a social concept, race is a biological concept. If a person has one black grandparent and three white grandparents, he may or may not qualify as African American depending on how his own view about it and on the views of people writing about him. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Marcocapelle, it makes no sense in what way? See the Ethnicity article. It is officially titled "Ethnic group," and it currently gives the following definition: "An ethnic group or an ethnicity, is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities such as common ancestry, language, history, society, culture or nation." Now look at the Ancestry article, which is officially titled "Ancestor." Notice how sites like ancestry.com are focused on biology -- DNA. It's quite clear that stating "his father is of African-American, Jamaican, German, and English ancestry; his mother is of Russian, Swedish, French, Dutch, Syrian, and Lebanese ancestry" is not solely about nationality. That is not the focus of that inclusion. Just like with many other BLP articles, the editor added all of that to indicate that the subject is biracial or multiracial. It's why, right before that sentence, there is the following inclusion: "Miller said in 2003 that his father is black and his mother is white." I have used "race" and "ethnicity" with the slash in this discussion because, as I've stated before, the terms are often used interchangeably (as numerous sources note), and to indicate that I am covering both topics. As for your statement that "Ethnicity is a social concept, race is a biological concept," "race" is also a social concept. It is why, in the Race (human categorization) article, we state, "Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, that is, a symbolic identity created to establish some cultural meaning. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race is not an inherent physical or biological quality." It's why we state, "Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits. Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications." It's why I keep putting "race" in scare quotes. These days, scientists state that race, as it is usually biologically conceptualized in society, does not truly exist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. But I am lost how this leads you to think that we should permit classifying people by black skin when there is no trace of sources about African descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Marcocapelle, I never stated that I am for "classifying people by black skin when there is no trace of sources about African descent." See the #RfC on categorizing biracial people discussion above. I am clear there on how I feel about classifying biracial and multiracial people, who may or may not have brown skin. The Nationality article currently states, "Nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state." It also states, "In older texts, the word 'nationality' rather than 'ethnicity', often used to refer to an ethnic group." It's clear that the Miller ancestry material is not about nationality. It's clear that our African Americans article is not about nationality (it's not the focus anyway). Our African American categories, such as Category:African-American songwriters, are not about nationality either. "American" by itself would be about nationality. My point has been that we do categorize people by "race"/ethnicity. That is what the "American people of African descent" category was doing, except its focus was on American people with partial African ancestry. As the aforementioned RfC shows, we'd already discussed people being added to the category without reliable sources confirming their African ancestry and that it was a problem. You can see how the RfC closed. It was simple enough to remove people from the category if being of African descent was not sourced in their Wikipedia articles. Stating that we shouldn't have an "American people of African descent" category because people can be added to the category without sources? People can be added to any category without sources. The solution has always been to remove the unsourced category. That stated, it's clear that what is meant by "African descent" can vary among editors. Like I stated, I don't see "of African descent" usually referring to cases like Charlize Theron. Sources on African descent are usually about "race." Anyway, we'll see how Category:People of African-American descent is used in the future. "African-American descent" is always about "race"/ethnicity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Dimadick, people often view ethnicity and "race" as the same thing. There are many reliable sources out that there that note the way the terms are used interchangeably. And like I've stated, Category:People of African-American descent still exists. I take it you want that category containerized as well? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed there are Americans of African descent who are in no way "black" at all; Elon Musk, Dave Matthews, Charlize Theron, etc. The type of "all of Africa is just one place" attitude is aggravated by the (inherently racist, imho) habit of particularly American media to not differentiate between specific countries in Africa when reporting for example: "During the past year the Vice President went on many overseas trips visiting numerous countries; the UK, France, Russia, Germany, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Brazil, China, Japan, India, Pakistan and Africa". While WP does not "right great wrongs", we are required to be as accurate and specific as possible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Roger (Dodger67), who uses "descent" in that way? See my comment below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I am catching up on a day or two's worth of conversation here, and bringing a non-American (Australian) perspective.
  • "African" is not a race - if race exists, there are many of them in Africa, and there are definitely a lot of ethnic groups native to that continent, just as there are to Australia.
  • For me, African-American is an ethnic group, predominantly descended from slaves, and not descended from any one particular African population - national, ethnic or racial. They appear to remain a single ethnic group across the USA, separate from other American ethnic groups, and are different to descendants of more recent migrants from African countries.
  • "German" is out-of-scope to this discussion, but not to this page. It is a complex issue depending on ethnic and geographic boundaries that have moved over time, and partly on the perspective of the speaker. I have "German" ancestors who came in the mid-19th-century from villages in Prussia in what is presently Poland, Some of them were ethnically Germanic, but some were not Germanic, but Wendish, however when they reached Australia, they were all collectively "Germans". Those originating villages have changed populations at least twice in the last two hundred years due to intervening government policies of expansion and cleansing.
  • All ethnic and national descent categories should be supported by prose with references, and it's OK for someone to be a different group than one or both parents based on how they identify themselves. --Scott Davis Talk 14:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Certainly agree that African is not a race. Certainly agree everything needs sources. As I have said before on this page 1) races as a fact or concept finds no support in my understanding of the literature or life, and 2) Wikipedia does not categorize by race. But the suggestion made above is that person 'of African descent' is somehow a matter of race. But since people of African decent are not a race, than how is it a matter of race? And since migrations in modern history are a huge part of that history (forced or otherwise) it seems categorically rather an increase of knowledge when sources find it useful to at the least give that information, although we might want more and more information, we can only go as far as the RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I think User:ScottDavis has it right. The word anti-Semitic is a case in point. It never meant what it literally means, bigotry against all Semite. "African-American" has never suggested, for instance, Berber ancestry. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Is that a response to me? Your indenting suggests so, but it does not seem to respond to my question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem is the actual application of the category: if you can't properly source a person's ancestry to any specific African country, such as Nigeria or South Africa or Kenya or whatever, then the only other way left to apply the generic label "African" is blackness itself. The fact that there are also some white Africans isn't relevant: people like Elon Musk and Charlize Theron are properly sourceable to a specific African country, so they would not get categorized as generically "African" since they're already categorized as South African. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: I think you have fallen into the trap of assuming that racists are logical. In 2016, a Kenyan immigrant was elected to Australian parliament. The newspapers got excited about the "first person of African descent" in parliament, until they discovered several other current MPs were born or had parents born somewhere in Africa, including one immigrant from Egypt who clearly didn't fit their expectation of "looking African", but she was just as African as the very dark-skinned ex-Kenyan. If someone's place of origin (or that of their ancestors) has been traced and documented in reliable sources, it will be to a country or colony, not just a continent, in modern times. "African" might be all that was available for American slaves, and "Kanaka" might be all that is available for people who were blackbirded from unknown Pacific islands. but in those cases, there are likely better terms than "African" and "Pacific Islander" to describe their heritage. --Scott Davis Talk 22:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I think I am just unimpressed by that rationale, some people are stupid, some people are racist, some people edit Wikipedia and are stupid or racist, so we can't have a category because some people are too stupid to follow sources, or stupid and racist. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Above, I noted that I now see what is being argued regarding "African-American descent" vs. "African descent." Editors seem to be stating that "African-American descent" is specific and that "African descent" is broader. But when looking at sources on "African descent," they are not usually based on the descendants having been "born in Africa" or "raised in Africa." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

An idea

Since there's been an issue with enforcing the particulars of WP:CAT/R, I would like to know if editors would like to add an addendum of sorts. Instead of what the guideline currently states, I propose a change to the following:

Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be verified reliable published sources that, by consensus, support the information and show that the description is appropriate. For people dead over 50 years, one highly reliable source (such as an encyclopedia, or otherwise general reference text, that lists people belonging to such a religion) can be used to justify such an inclusion.

I'm entirely open to any different ideas (or wordsmithing) on how to fix this problem, but I think we at least need some type of change that states at something akin to this in the guideline, as there is cause for confusion otherwise. As currently, the text of WP:CAT/R seems to require multiple sources no matter how long the person has been dead. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Women Writers

Hi all, I thought I would ask on a wider forum. Could I please clarify why women who are writers from a particular country aren’t also included in their women from country abc? For example, Category:20th-century Australian women writers are also placed in Category:20th-century Australian writers, but they aren’t allowed to be added to Category:20th-century Australian women. As far as I’m aware, we don’t just define a woman be my her occupation, it seems to me we are pigeon-holing women by their occupation. We don’t seem to do this for men. Does anyone know the reasoning behind this decision? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Gender subcategories in Category:American psychologists

I noticed that BostonMensa has been removing women from Category:American psychologists and adding them to Category:American women psychologists‎. This will have the effect that only men will be remaining in Category:American psychologists, since there is no corresponding subcategory of men (in contrast to Category:American writers, which has subcategories for male and female).

Is this desirable? It goes against general guideline 5 in WP:EGRS, which suggests that gender-based categories should be non-diffusing: in other words, according to that guideline BostonMensa should not be removing women from Category:American psychologists. Biogeographist (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I came across this discussion when I noticed the removal of the American psychologists category on a page on my watchlist. Biogeographist, you are right; I looked over the policy you linked and gendered categories are non-diffusing. And of course, logically, it does not make sense that the American psychologists category would only have men. BostonMensa, could you clean up this error? - MapleSoy (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@MapleSoy: Thanks! Given that nobody had yet responded to any comments on this talk page this year, I was afraid that I was talking to an empty room here. Glad you found this discussion. Biogeographist (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The piece about the subject's sexual orientation being relevant to their public life

Hi, Bearcat. Although I watch this page, I just noticed that you made this and this addition to the guideline last year. I'm taking the time to focus on the content you added regarding the information being relevant to the subject's sexual orientation. Given the debates you mentioned, I question this having been added to the guideline without discussion/consensus. That there have been disagreements on this doesn't mean that we should take the side of "the only relevance needed is that they came out." Also, both WP:BLPCAT, a policy, and this guideline currently state "are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." The text you added mentions nothing regarding "relevancy per the sources." That stated, I personally don't have an issue with it being noted in an LGBT person's article that they are LGBT if they came out. After all, they will often be put in one or more LGBT categories, and, per WP:BLPCAT, this aspect should be sourced in the article before they are placed in such categories. But the "There have been debates" piece onward doesn't read like a guideline. And I question us still including the "And the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life" line if we have deemed it automatic that it's relevant to their public life. While being LGBT is unquestionably relevant to an LGBT person's personal life (out or not), it being relevant to their public life is debatable (no matter the person is well-known), which is why there have been debates on it.

It seems to me that the text stating that "such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" piece should be changed to "such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question. If, according to reliable published sources, the subject's declared sexual orientation is relevant to their notability, it may be best to include this with context." Something like that. I think that what you added should then be removed as unnecessary. I also think we should consider adding something like this proposed text to WP:BLPCAT as well for consistency. I propose this because of the "relevancy" debate and because people clearly are not going by the "relevant to their notability" aspect. There is also the WP:About self policy to consider. When a person comments on something personal about themself, we often go with that, not solely published sources in the traditional sense. I'll alert Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and the WP:BLP noticeboard for input. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Categorizing_articles_about_people/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality/Archive_1&oldid=987282899"