Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
This page has been mentioned by a media organization:


The article states: "sportsperson categories should be split by gender, except in such cases where men and women participate primarily in mixed-gender competition. Example: Category:Male golfers and Category:Female golfers should both be subcategories of Category:Golfers, but Category:Ice dancers should not have gendered subcategories." But when you click on Category:Ice dancers it is sub-categorized by both gender and nationality. Should these categories be deleted or should we change the policy? Timmyshin (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that ice dancers were always a bad example of the rule — men and women don't compete in it as standalone competitors directly against each other, but in pairs which have to contain one male and one female member each. (There might exist non-competitive examples of two men or two women ice dancing together, but that would never fly in any of the competitions that ice dancers can actually attain notability from.) So gender is not actually irrelevant to ice dancing, because it has a direct impact on the formation of the teams. Better examples would be things like snooker or poker, where AFAIK there aren't separate gendered competition circuits and both men and women just compete on their own directly against each other. So yes, ice dancers should be removed from this document as an example, rather than the categories being deleted as violating it. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree with you on ice dancers. The reason I'm checking this article is I'm creating a bunch of subcategories under Category:Women short story writers by nationality, but now I'm thinking I may be creating too many WP:SMALLCAT especially since story-writing has very little to do with gender (and there are probably more women writers than men so under-representation isn't an issue). This article confirms that subcategorization by gender isn't encouraged except "where gender has a specific relation to the topic", but I'm discovering gender-specific categories have been created for many things under Category:Women by occupation and nationality. It's obvious the guideline isn't being followed, and I think it's time to either delete a huge chunk of subcategories, or completely get rid of the guideline. Timmyshin (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
In the case of writers, those nationality subcats have already been taken to CFD and debated, but consensus ended up on the keep side and actually forced us to revise this document — the policy used to be that we could have Category:American women writers undifferentiated by type of writing, sitting alongside Category:Women novelists and Category:Women short story writers categories undifferentiated by nationality — but we weren't supposed to intersect them to create Category:American women novelists, specifically so that we weren't ghettoizing women and leaving Category:American novelists as a male-only grouping. But consensus forced us to significantly revise how those are structured, in part because it was resulting in the high-level categories becoming too large to be navigable or useful anymore. So those are allowed to exist per the use of nationality as a way to keep a very large category diffused. Gender does have an impact on writing in general; while it's true that it doesn't have unique impacts on short story writing or novel writing separately from the impact it has on writing in general, those categories are still allowed to exist because general writers categories almost always need diffusion on size grounds for type of writing and/or nationality. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The criteria for creating such gendered categories isn't whether or not gender has an impact on the subject, it is whether or not the gendered category "is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic" worthy of a full-fledged Wikipedia article. Categories like Category:Belizean male short story writers certainly don't meet that criteria. Also, just because other people aren't following the guideline isn't a good reason to disregard it. Kaldari (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


I hope that I'm posting this in the right place. Why do we categorize LGBT people but not straight people? Wiki stance is that "inclusion should be made when a person's sexuality is part of their public life". Why doesn't this then apply to heterosexual people who use their sexuality in public ways (a womanizer category for example)? As things currently stand, Wikipedia contributes to the idea that LGBT isn't default or norm and that is, both, not particularly scholarly and actually quite damaging to many people. How would I propose that we do away with categorization by sexuality? (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

For the same reason that we have, for example, a category for Category:African-American people, but not a corresponding one for Category:White American people — it's not useful or maintainable to categorize people by membership in the majority group, if that category would have to contain 75 or 80 or 90 per cent of all the articles that exist at all. People are, fairly or unfairly, defined by being a member of a racial or sexual minority group in a different way than the majoritarian equivalent — "LGBT literature", for example, is a real thing that real sources actually analyze and real readers actually look for, so there is value and use to having an Category:LGBT writers tree to help our readers identify writers involved in it. We do still, unfortunately, live in a society where all people are officially equal under law, but in actual practice less privileged groups (LGBTs, racial minorities and even women) do still have to deal with being significantly less than fully equal in actual social practice — LGBTs and African Americans (and women) do, as a rule, generally still have to work quite a lot harder in their chosen fields to reach the same level of achievement as a straight white man who's doing the same things.
And for that reason, it is "scholarly" to include categories for minority groupings: these are groupings that actually have context for them. "LGBT literature" is the subject of critical and scholarly analysis as a distinct genre of literature, while "heterosexual literature" is not. Academic studies do exist about LGBTness in relation to careers in politics, in sports, in entertainment; similar studies do not exist about the impact of heterosexuality on those same careers. And on, and so forth.
And as well, it's not "damaging" to categorize people as LGBT if they themselves are out as such. It would certainly be damaging for us to categorize people as LGBT on the basis of rumours, or to directly engage in outing people who are in the closet — but if a person is themselves already out as LGBT, then there's nothing inherently "damaging" about us simply reflecting their own self-identification.
And for those reasons, entirely doing away with all categorization by sexuality simply isn't going to happen. LGBT people ourselves were directly involved in creating Wikipedia's rules about where categorization as LGBT is warranted and where it isn't, we were directly involved in creating the rule that Wikipedia cannot be used to out closeted figures, and on and so forth. Trust me, you have exactly zero chance of coming up with some magical new insight that wasn't already taken into account during the process of developing the policy as it stands. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Queer category and Zoophilia[edit]

I note that the Queer category contains pages on Zoophilia. Queer does not include abuse/rape/pedophilia so should not include zoophilia, which is effectively rape of an animal since an animal cannot consent. Therefore I will remove the Zoophilia pages from this category if nobody objects with a valid reason in the next three days. -- (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC) This is User:Bethgranter but my login is broken.

 Done nothing in the article supports inclusion in the category. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Bold move reverted[edit]

I reverted Koavf's bold move of this page because, as seen at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality/Archive 9 and Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality/Archive 10, renaming this page has been debated times before. And that includes the proposal to rename it to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, and disability. I suggest that Koavf start a WP:Requested moves discussion. The title should perhaps match the change that was made to the page in 2014. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not opposed in principle to moving the page if it's covering additional areas of identity-categorization that aren't reflected in the title. However, I wonder if instead of adding even more points of categorization to its name, thereby making the title even longer, we wouldn't be better off aiming for a shorter and more generically inclusive title, such as "identity categories" or something else that could remain stable going forward, instead of continually adding more words every time somebody expands the document to cover some new area of human diversity that isn't already reflected in the title. It's reaching the point, rather like the ever-expanding alphabet soup of LGBTQIQ2THJGJKLGHJHFHJ+++, where what's needed is one standard umbrella term that can include everybody without having to have yet another new term added to it every 4.3 seconds.
Also while we're at it, the document could use some updating to reflect the current state of consensus as of 2017. For example, while some parts of it have been updated to reflect the new consensus about making categories like Category:American women novelists non-diffusing, other parts of it do still reflect the former consensus that categories of that type shouldn't exist at all. And in the "special subcategories" section, there's one example (Category:African-American economists) of a category that's cited as a thing that shouldn't exist because it's not a WP:DEFINING intersection, but is bluelinked and therefore obviously does exist — so we need to either replace it with a new example so that the document isn't undermining itself, or pursue having that category deleted if anybody feels strongly enough that it's still in violation of current principles (which I have to admit that I don't.) Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but, unlike the continual LGBT matter, we don't continually have people adding yet a new term onto the title of this page. Other than "disability," I don't see what else would need to be added to the title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Just because you don't foresee any further possibilities doesn't mean some won't come along anyway. Half the letters in the most extended versions of the LGBTQ alphabet soup represent things that people didn't foresee either. (For example, as recently as just a few years ago nobody actually foresaw an organized asexuality movement either emerging at all, or attaching itself to LGBTQdom the way it has. And neither did people foresee labels like demisexual emerging as things that people would start to organize identity around, either.) Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
But what other word could be added to this title other than "disability"? "Sexuality" covers all the sexual matters. And the other terms cover all the other matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
"Categorization by personal attributes" or "Categorization by personal characteristics" might be good page titles. They encapsulate the range of identities, behaviors and physical attributes mentioned on the page. Trankuility (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Does the policy re categories regarding sexuality enjoy consensus on the site as a whole?[edit]

Soon after retired sportsman/current commentator Colin Jackson came out as gay, the categories LGBT sportspeople from Wales and LGBT track and field athletes were added. Gregor B and I both argued for removal of the categories, on the grounds that while the first condition (publicly self-identified) was met, the second (relevant to their public life or notability) was not.

Consensus in discussion there was very much for retaining the categories, with arguments either totally ignoring the second clause, or based on the assertion that publicly announcing his sexuality meant that it was relevant to his public life.

To some extent, the quality of the arguments in that example are irrelevant: when this policy is tested on real articles, it does not have effective consensus. Review needed? Kevin McE (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)