The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we categorize people according to genetic and cultural heritage, faith, or sexual orientation? If so, what are our criteria for deciding an identity? I invite editors to share their views, in an unstructured discussion of these questions. Please be respectful of all others. I'd appreciate it if the community on all sides of this issue would discipline editors who engage in ad hominem "argument", or who are disrespectful.
The 15:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC) version of an ANI thread related to this topic can be found here. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 15:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
This will be significantly more limited than the above, particularly given the recent significant intermarriage of people of different ethnic groups, which makes determining such matters more questionable.
This is probably the most qualified of the three, as there can be questions regarding personal orientations independent of activity and or voluntary/involuntary/"forced" to some extent activity.
This is, basically, about Jews, whom some editors regularly and rather repetitively insist are a special case, although it might apply to others as well in some cases, like Category:Yazidi, another ethno-religious group which, from what I've read, doesn't take converts, so it probably stays more or less genetic homogenous.
Just a starting point, anyway. John Carter ( talk) 15:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The French Wikipedia's lack of several 'people' categories has a certain charm, but I doubt it would take off here. Instead, categorisation should depend entirely on one of two criteria:
This method can apply evenly both to living and dead people. It would result in the following examples:
Particularly in the last case, this may seem counter-intuitive when the observer can plainly see that both the person's parents are of a particular ethnic background, which would seem to make it obvious that he is also of that ethnic background. However, categorising people only by their own explicit self-identifications removes the 'original research' or 'assumed identity' components and creates a bright line test for whether a given category should be applied or not. In some cases this means 'obvious' categories will not be present on a particular person's article. I consider this to be an acceptable outcome. –
NULL ‹
talk›
‹
edits› 06:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Before getting into any major discussion here, all parties must be aware that WP already has clear guidelines about this subject at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality with long-standing debates and discussion going back to 2005 (at least) see Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality for present talk and past archived talk. In addition, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. If this discussion is meant to overturn those past accepted WP policies, or re-open talks about them it would be spinning wheels all over again. Gaining community consensus to rescind established and fixed policies is a near-impossibility at this stage of WP's evolution. IZAK ( talk) 22:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should go this way. Though I like NULL's list, I'd think this could cause increased amounts of vandalims on celebrity pages - someone, for example, might falsely categorize a certain politician as "homosexual". Though unlikely, as much vandalism comes from IPs and IPs probably will not be categorizing much, it could be a slight irritant to revert as an editor planning to rollback or undo a malicious categorization might wonder if it is indeed accurate and would have to check. In addition, I do not relish the prospect of similar categories which could pop up later on, under names such as "People claimed to be ___". And, who knows what other types of categorizations (not just the ones you mentioned above) might be created in the future, either? Some could indeed be quite offensive. dci | TALK 22:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This is something that the world in general thinks important about people, so it should be included if there is reliable information. If there is a dispute, we give the positions & the evidence. To help people find the information, we need lists and categories, as for everything else. As lists, and especially categories, unlike articles, have no subtlety, it would be necessary to exclude fringe positions, as I think we would otherwise, though perhaps we should have a category for major historical figures "suggested to be". As a librarian, I know that it is a very common school assignment to write a paper about some person to be selected by the student in a particular subject field with a particular ethnic (etc.) identification. Since the purpose of WP is educational, we should facilitate such work. This applies everywhere except in BLP, because except for that, the policy is NOT CENSORED--and NOT CENSORED is the solution for conflicts where emotion is involved. Thus the guideline for non BLPs should be even broader than the proposed. The rule for BLPs should be if it can be supported in the article considering DO NO HARM and NOT GOSSIP, & is not a fringe position, it should be in lists & categories. This is broader than the proposed guideline, but I think it has the same basic considerations--for example, it covers identically the useful test case of the drunk. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Categories are supposed to be used as a navigation aid, not for labeling people. As a navigation aid, I have the gut feeling they do a very poor job and are not used very much by the average reader. I know that I have pretty much never used category browsing to discover similar articles when browsing. I'm much more likely to use "See Also" or a navbox (in some cases).
And these are the larger categories that people probably hit the most. Once you get into the more specific intersections, it gets pretty bad.
Ultimately we are spending inordinate amounts of time debating something that doesn't even do the job it's supposed to do, aid readers in navigation. I think a policy of "If in doubt, throw it out" to get rid of as many of these categories as possible is the only reasonable one. Gigs ( talk) 13:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Nyttend ( talk) 21:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, WP should have those categories. I agree with user IZAK above: many, many detailed discussions have already been held on this topic, see Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, WP:BLPCAT, etc. If the community wants to adjust those guidelines, it is best done on the talk pages of those guidelines, and treated as an evolution of the existing guidelines. -- Noleander ( talk) 15:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
This isn't an area I wade into too often. But I'll offer some guidance that I think is helpful.
The more immutable/permanent the category, the better:
A good category is neither too large nor too small:
Categories are not created equally or consistently:
Cross categorization remains a poorly documented and controversial problem:
Just what I've experienced based on best practices, and which categories are more controversial and prone to error than others. Shooterwalker ( talk) 03:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
There are two issues here... 1) controversial categorization and 2) Over-categorization. The key to dealing with controversial categorization is simple: "Self-identification"... If there is any debate as to whether a person belongs in a given category - don't place him in it ... unless the person has self-identified as belonging to that category. Over-categorization is more difficult... categories are a very useful navigational tool. We want readers to be able to easily find articles on related topics, and categories are one of the better ways to do that. Unfortunately, having too many categories on an given page can defeat the purpose... the categories become a "wall of text" and navigation becomes too difficult. Ultimately it comes down to a judgement call. If you think an article has too many categories... go to the talk page and ask whether there are any that can be cut or reorganized in some way. Blueboar ( talk) 13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think these are valuable and relevant criteria for categorization. And I do not think we should be overly strict with these criteria, see below:
If somebody is ... (category of your choice), then a reliable source should be enough. I do not see the need for sourced self-identification as a ... (said category). I even don't think we should be overly scrupulous about the relevance to a persons notable activities of said category. I think that ... (said category) is in itself notable. Debresser ( talk) 20:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Clearly, such categorisation can sometimes be both helpful to the user and relevant to the subject's notability. But there has to be a good reason for using it and I view routine categorisation with great caution. In particular, we should follow the subject's self-identification even if editors think it is wrong, and not categorise without clear evidence of self-categorisation unless it is inherent in the notability itself or there are no grounds for believing that the subject would dispute/would have disputed the categorisation. That convoluted form of words recognises that however hard we try to set out clear rules cases differ.
1. There may be issues of privacy or confidentiality which by their very nature mean that the facts are different, or more complex, than third parties know. It is not necessarily that the subject is refusing to admit a self-evident 'truth', simply that others are wrong. There is rarely any obligation on anyone to disclose their birth parentage, for example. If a person is adopted, they can legitimately identify with their adoptive parents or keep private that their background differs. There are many other examples and the subject should not be required to justify a self-identification or the absence of one.
2. The category may be inherent in the notability. Many will recognise the saying is the pope a Catholic? as a by-word for a self-evident truth. We do not need to scratch around for a direct quote from the pope himself. But of course that is not quite the same as everyone knows that.....
3. Categories may not be exclusive. For example we are familiar with the situation where a person seems comfortable with being labelled gay and a woman discloses that she had a sexual affair with them (or whatever) and it is not denied. Unless the subject chooses to go into their past and present sexuality and wants to revise their self-categorisation we should stick with what they say. The truth is often complicated, whether it is ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation or anything else.
4. People change. Malcolm Muggeridge was famously, and prominently, an agnostic (or atheist) until he became a Catholic convert. And so on.
5. Categories are often subjective or ambiguous even if the categoriser does not think so. An example of the difficulties is that of nationality. For most Americans nationality=citizenship and is a simple matter of fact, though they may be very willing to admit ethnicity as another essential component of identity. For many Europeans and others national self-identity and citizenship are not the same thing and national identity may not be objectively established. Nor is citizenship necessarily singular. They may be uncomfortable with the idea of ethnicity, acknowledging the complexities of their origin and the dangers of categorizing people in that way. In the UK nationality and ethnic origin are officially whatever people say they are, if they are willing to give an answer at all.
6. There are objections to labelling people. Since the Paralympics are on, let me take the example of disability. Some people object strongly to being described by their disability/impairment, whatever term is favoured, even though they do not deny it. Others are proud to celebrate their disability, seeing it as an important part of their identity and resent any suggestion that it is something to conceal or be ashamed of, and they want to be associated with others who share their condition. No amount of posturing and disputation between Wikipedians will resolve this, which reflects personal and cultural experience and much else. The subject's position is valid even if not shared.
7. If it is contentious, best not to categorise. The dispute as to whether John Adams should be categorised as a Unitarian or a Congregationalist is not edifying. It will generally be best to cover the issues in the text if they are appropriate to the article where the nuances can be explained (and one or more of the above will probably apply). Categorisation denies such complexity or denies that others differ in their interpretation or understanding.
It would be better if we did not have categories for things such as this. But given their occasional usefulness, let us use them sparingly and not where they are problematic. -- AJHingston ( talk) 23:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The chief question asked is "Should we categorize people according to genetic and cultural heritage, faith, or sexual orientation?"
This has a very simple answer: yes.
The process of doing so is complicated, and there will be tough cases that will require head scratching and probably result in drama. The idea that we should make no mention of these matters seems to stem from some kind of assumption that these things are incidental, an idealistic vision of the world where, as Martin Luther King said, people are judged by the content of their character rather than by the colour of their skin, or some other similar characteristic. But what this fails to account for is that these things are significant to a person's sense of self-identity, self-understanding and self-narrative. The best Wikipedia articles will try to capture as much of that as a person shares.
Much as reasonable people everywhere like to think such characteristics ought not to matter, they do matter (when people respond to public figures coming out of the closet as gay with "it doesn't matter", one almost wishes to grab them by the shoulders, shake them and say "yeah, doesn't matter to you, pal, you haven't had to hide your sexual orientation for years and years"). And it's because they actually do matter to people that they are a useful navigational aid. They serve our audience in specific minority communities to be able to look up examples of people like them and see that they are three-dimensional people with flaws and complexities rather than just stereotypes.
With that said, I shall now exit stage left and dodge the hard question of how we categorise people. That the question of how to do it is hard to resolve shouldn't be a reason not to do it though. — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Classifying by sexuality is done far too often on WP. Sexuality is complex, often not displayed by the subject, and so often utterly irrelevant to a topic. Classifying someone as "gay" makes me ask why heterosexuals are not labelled thus; it is the most basic discrimination, and practised often as not by those who are gay. Tony (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
We have had (as User:Blueboar can attest) a hell of a time beating Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States into shape, and we still after several years of this are unsatisfied with the result. There seems to be hardly any possible categorization of persons that isn't fraught with fringe cases, and often enough the person whose affiliation or characteristic is the most ambiguous is the one people are most curious about (see the long articles on the religious beliefs of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln).
Clerics and other people with a professional connection to a religion can plainly be categorized, as can politicians and officials. After that, we get into problems; even nationality gets vague in areas such as middle Europe where the borders have moved over and over in the previous two centuries. I realize the last is used simply to get the scope of big categories under control, but it needs to be considered that even this is a bit of a problem.
We have made explicit decisions to eliminate some categories even if potentially verifiable; for example we have a standing policy (small p) of deleting categorization by caste or equivalent. I would also tend to agree with John Carter that there are certain groups which tend to come across here as "special" and whose categorization somehow gets to be more important than other potential categorizations at the same level.
It seems to me that there are two issues at play here. One is that there is no real immutability in the end: even so supposedly fixed a datum as date and place of birth is subject to change due to better information or to shifting political boundaries and names. But the more vexing problem is that a lot of the drive for this categorization is to claim various people for one's own group on the one hand, or to lay someone objectionable on the shoulder's of one's opponents on the other. These ownership issues are one of the most persistent sources of conflict in the English Wikipedia. It would make life a lot easier if we were to declare that nobody could be so owned. Mangoe ( talk) 14:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't. We should stick to the defining characteristics, which are those making particular person notable. No feeding nationalist trolls. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe that WP:BLPCAT is the right approach: this sort of categorization "should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified" with the ethnicity/gender/whatever in question, "and the subject's [categorization is] relevant to their public life or notability". I don't see a compelling reason to change this policy, and please note that it is a policy, so a guideline or opinion poll that does not change the policy should not take priority over it. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of questions here:
1. Are such categorisations legitimate? Together with the consensus on the page I think that they are, although I would also say that the categorisations of religion and nationality are actually really important to almost everyone apart from the the social set that editors of Wikipedia are drawn from. To ignore them, somewhat ironically, would show a raving cultural bias.
2. For dead people - do the reliable evidence rules need to be modified for categorisation? I would be averse to making special cases. Clearly we need to look to make sure that there is no undue weight, although I suspect that this is going to be less of the case.
3. For living people - are self identifications the only legitimate method of categorisation? Essentially no. We should be more careful due to the fact that belonging to a group could constitute negative information it should be treated more carefully and self identification should have the weight that it already has. However if someone is for example a practicing Catholic priest then even if he has not said that he's Catholic then to refuse a categorisation on the self identification rule would be fatuous. Similarly if someone self identifies as Catholic but has been excommunicated, then the excommunication should not be ignored - or mentioned in a totally different part of the text. In those cases special categories such as "Excommunicated Catholics" and "Catholics out of Communion with Rome" would be legitimate.
JASpencer ( talk) 19:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
"Should we categorize people according to genetic and cultural heritage, faith, or sexual orientation? If so, what are our criteria for deciding an identity? "
I think our default position should be the inclusion of information, and I think that extends to Categorization, by whatever attributes are reliably sourced. As to our criteria, I think that our criteria should approximate the criteria found to be useful by reliable sources. I don't think Wikipedia should strike out on its own path in a departure from practice as documentable in reliable sources. On the other hand if on a case-by-case-basis editors decide based on consensus to bypass precedent as indicated by reliable sources and omit Categorization by attributes, that decision should be respected and consequently upheld. When disagreements occur they should be aired-out by means of mechanisms such as Request for Comment and Third Opinion. Bus stop ( talk) 03:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
In general, each and every one of these things is unimportant. As an example, architects are architects, and the difference between a transgender Croatian Anabaptist architect and a lesbian British Muslim architect matters not one whit. Their achievements, and the things that make them worth talking about and describing, will have to do with their designs and buildings, not their personal characteristics. The only time that any of these things should be categorized or mentioned is when it is relevant to their notability and career.— Kww( talk) 13:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Fairly quickly:
All in all, I see these as being really useful with nearly no downside other than the inevitable debate about if a person is X. And there are legit arguments to have on almost everything. I don't have answers for how to make those decisions and I realize that can leave us spinning our wheels on category issues rather than making actual improvements. But I think that cost is worth it.
I believe that categories of people should be restricted for very specific purposes. They should highlight the essential characteristics of a person. The main one is the reason why they are relevant to have a Wikipedia article. That can be a profession (artist, businessman, politician), an official title (president of a country or organization), or activity. Since nationality is so relevant to us, we need to categorize by country, province and city.
Apart from that, some cultural traits may be relevant enough for a category. Jews, blacks, Asians and Latin Americans are an example in the United States, but that varies by region. But I'd hate to see "White / Caucasian football players" or "Christian politicians", because that's too generic.
About personal beliefs, ideologies and religion, they are relevant for categories only if the person is notable for that. Politicians and activists are, but not everybody is. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 16:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not think we want to classify every person based on such criteria. For example, we should not classify someone as a "Jew" only because his farther was ethnically a Jew, or classify someone as a gay only because he was a gay. If he was a notable Jewish activist, he should be classified as a Jewish activist. In general, we can and should categorize people in any way that is important for describing the person. If the cultural heritage, faith, or sexual orientation was important/notable for life or career of the person, he/she can be classified accordingly. But it does not really matter how they self-identified. It only matters how they are described in RS. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that any one-size-fits-all solution is possible here.
An attribute such as religion or ethnicity may be a defining characteristic of one person, but not of another who shares that attribute. For example, there are plenty of people who go to a particular church out of habit without being particularly religious, while others have religion as a central part of their lives.
Similarly, what defines someone as being of (e.g.) Scottish descent? It's fairly clear that a Scottish parent justifies the label, but what of someone in Argentina who had one Scottish great-great-grandparent, but no other Scottish ancestry? There's no clearcut line.
A further problem arises with intersection categories. For example, if two politicians may share the same religion (say Roman Catholicism), one may take a thoroughly secular approach to politics while the other may determinedly pursue their religious values in politics. The two may clash repeatedly over faith-related issues, but categorising them both as Roman Catholic politicians would be thoroughly misleading.
Wikipedia's basic approach to set categories has been that if a person verifiably has the characteristic being categorised, the then the article belong sin the category. That works fine for in many cases, where the issues are clearcut (such as the geographical location of a town), but religion and ethnicity are not so clearcut.
It's tempting to say that we should adopt a weighted approach, and categorise people in these ways only when the attribute is verifiably a defining characteristic of the individual concerned. However, that's so subjective that it will lead to POV disputes amongst editors, and unstable categories.
So I have no answer. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Categorizing people by ethnic heritage, sexual orientation or religion is perfectly acceptable in my view, but only if the person has clearly and currently self-identified as being in one of these groups (and it can be sourced as such). My main concern here is an adherence to existing site policy; in other words, we shouldn't be arbitrarily categorizing someone because of unsourced or poorly sourced gossip, as that could be at best true but at worst libel. By requiring a source, we would remove potential libel concerns and would improve the project. In addition, categorizing people in this manner is useful for research purposes - for instance, in helping to find prominent LGBT people. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 16:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
If they've self-identified or been reliably confirmed to fit into a category, then yes, even if they aren't particularly notable for being in said category. But if the decision is controversial, then wait until the controversy dies down and side with the most reliable argument. If we ensure verifiability and avoid potential conflicts, then I don't see a problem. Of course, with very broad groups, such as race or sexuality, we should categorize specifically, such as "Black actors" or "Bisexual musicians", not some impossibly large category (imagine a single category including all Wikipedia articles about white people). Alphateam7911 ( talk) 03:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
No one is normally given a genetic/heritage/faith/sexual orientation category unless they are not WASP/heterosexual. Barack Obama, who is half WASP, is categorized as African American. Tiger Woods, who is one quarter African American, is categorized as African American. The majority of the world is not WASP/heterosexual. Yet most of the "notable" people are WASP/heterosexual. Gender is appropriate in heads of state only because it is so unusual. It is not appropriate in the case of occupations even ones that used to be male dominated (or female prohibited) but are now open to women, such as actor or postman and fireman. As a top level category, only actor should be used, and actress is not a subcategory of actor, but an inappropriate category. Any subcategories that are created inadvertently or deliberately, such as actresses of Kuwait should appropriately be included under the actor category. However, I see that the category:Women by occupation is well populated. Concubine and nun, for example, and 63 other occupations, including female pornographic film actors, but not female actors. Gender is not something that someone is stuck with today, but something that you are sort of born with, but can be changed at will, though not easily. Gender is clearly something that is used to discriminate against, with women getting paid 80 cents on the dollar in many places, if they are even able to get hired. Only 10% of Wikipedia editors are women, and even fewer are womyn, or wimmin.
Religion is a valid category only if it is a clear element, such as someone who is actually a minister/member of that religion. Anyone can call themself a Baptist just by showing up at church one Sunday. To be a Jew, you can only become one by being born by a Jewish mother. There are people who are proud of their religious affiliation and would like to be categorized as that faith, and doing so despite it not being accurate is appropriate (someone who "converts" to Judaism, someone who although not a member of a religion, was either brought up in that religion or otherwise considers themself a practising member, though not an actual member). Being lesbian/gay/bi, etc., and not wishing to be outed as being one is another issue.
It is an interesting but esoteric category to give cultural heritage as a category. Is someone born in Argentina an Argentinian? Not necessarily. Apteva ( talk) 20:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I came here to see if I could close this discussion, but realized that I needed to say something about it instead.
I think that no such categorization should exist, and it's easy to demonstrate why with a parallel with this project: what would happen to the editor who decided to slap Category:User Gay Arbitrator on my user page or Category:User Jewish Arbitrator on Newyorkbrad's when, as far as I can tell, we both self-identify as such? I should expect that the edit would be reverted in minutes, and the brief inevitable AN/I thread would quickly end in that editor being blocked given how inflammatory and irrelevant (and, clearly, disruptive to make a point) that categorization was.
Why would we even consider doing this to the subjects (I hesitated about using victim in this context) of our biographies? — Coren (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Having taken part in a lot of race/ethnicity/religion debates, I really feel we need a policy that basically says "When trying to decide whether it's appropriate to categorize by race/religion/ethnicity err on the side of caution". In other words, don't categorize by race/religion/ethnicity unless certain conditions are met. Those conditions might include -
I've taken a stab at writing the policy described above. I'd love input, help or any comments anyone might have to offer.
These race/ethnicity/religion are a source of sooooooooooooooooo much consternation. We really need to make some effort to put clear guidelines on this subject. NickCT ( talk) 13:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we categorize people according to genetic and cultural heritage, faith, or sexual orientation? If so, what are our criteria for deciding an identity? I invite editors to share their views, in an unstructured discussion of these questions. Please be respectful of all others. I'd appreciate it if the community on all sides of this issue would discipline editors who engage in ad hominem "argument", or who are disrespectful.
The 15:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC) version of an ANI thread related to this topic can be found here. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 15:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
This will be significantly more limited than the above, particularly given the recent significant intermarriage of people of different ethnic groups, which makes determining such matters more questionable.
This is probably the most qualified of the three, as there can be questions regarding personal orientations independent of activity and or voluntary/involuntary/"forced" to some extent activity.
This is, basically, about Jews, whom some editors regularly and rather repetitively insist are a special case, although it might apply to others as well in some cases, like Category:Yazidi, another ethno-religious group which, from what I've read, doesn't take converts, so it probably stays more or less genetic homogenous.
Just a starting point, anyway. John Carter ( talk) 15:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The French Wikipedia's lack of several 'people' categories has a certain charm, but I doubt it would take off here. Instead, categorisation should depend entirely on one of two criteria:
This method can apply evenly both to living and dead people. It would result in the following examples:
Particularly in the last case, this may seem counter-intuitive when the observer can plainly see that both the person's parents are of a particular ethnic background, which would seem to make it obvious that he is also of that ethnic background. However, categorising people only by their own explicit self-identifications removes the 'original research' or 'assumed identity' components and creates a bright line test for whether a given category should be applied or not. In some cases this means 'obvious' categories will not be present on a particular person's article. I consider this to be an acceptable outcome. –
NULL ‹
talk›
‹
edits› 06:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Before getting into any major discussion here, all parties must be aware that WP already has clear guidelines about this subject at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality with long-standing debates and discussion going back to 2005 (at least) see Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality for present talk and past archived talk. In addition, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. If this discussion is meant to overturn those past accepted WP policies, or re-open talks about them it would be spinning wheels all over again. Gaining community consensus to rescind established and fixed policies is a near-impossibility at this stage of WP's evolution. IZAK ( talk) 22:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should go this way. Though I like NULL's list, I'd think this could cause increased amounts of vandalims on celebrity pages - someone, for example, might falsely categorize a certain politician as "homosexual". Though unlikely, as much vandalism comes from IPs and IPs probably will not be categorizing much, it could be a slight irritant to revert as an editor planning to rollback or undo a malicious categorization might wonder if it is indeed accurate and would have to check. In addition, I do not relish the prospect of similar categories which could pop up later on, under names such as "People claimed to be ___". And, who knows what other types of categorizations (not just the ones you mentioned above) might be created in the future, either? Some could indeed be quite offensive. dci | TALK 22:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This is something that the world in general thinks important about people, so it should be included if there is reliable information. If there is a dispute, we give the positions & the evidence. To help people find the information, we need lists and categories, as for everything else. As lists, and especially categories, unlike articles, have no subtlety, it would be necessary to exclude fringe positions, as I think we would otherwise, though perhaps we should have a category for major historical figures "suggested to be". As a librarian, I know that it is a very common school assignment to write a paper about some person to be selected by the student in a particular subject field with a particular ethnic (etc.) identification. Since the purpose of WP is educational, we should facilitate such work. This applies everywhere except in BLP, because except for that, the policy is NOT CENSORED--and NOT CENSORED is the solution for conflicts where emotion is involved. Thus the guideline for non BLPs should be even broader than the proposed. The rule for BLPs should be if it can be supported in the article considering DO NO HARM and NOT GOSSIP, & is not a fringe position, it should be in lists & categories. This is broader than the proposed guideline, but I think it has the same basic considerations--for example, it covers identically the useful test case of the drunk. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Categories are supposed to be used as a navigation aid, not for labeling people. As a navigation aid, I have the gut feeling they do a very poor job and are not used very much by the average reader. I know that I have pretty much never used category browsing to discover similar articles when browsing. I'm much more likely to use "See Also" or a navbox (in some cases).
And these are the larger categories that people probably hit the most. Once you get into the more specific intersections, it gets pretty bad.
Ultimately we are spending inordinate amounts of time debating something that doesn't even do the job it's supposed to do, aid readers in navigation. I think a policy of "If in doubt, throw it out" to get rid of as many of these categories as possible is the only reasonable one. Gigs ( talk) 13:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Nyttend ( talk) 21:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, WP should have those categories. I agree with user IZAK above: many, many detailed discussions have already been held on this topic, see Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, WP:BLPCAT, etc. If the community wants to adjust those guidelines, it is best done on the talk pages of those guidelines, and treated as an evolution of the existing guidelines. -- Noleander ( talk) 15:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
This isn't an area I wade into too often. But I'll offer some guidance that I think is helpful.
The more immutable/permanent the category, the better:
A good category is neither too large nor too small:
Categories are not created equally or consistently:
Cross categorization remains a poorly documented and controversial problem:
Just what I've experienced based on best practices, and which categories are more controversial and prone to error than others. Shooterwalker ( talk) 03:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
There are two issues here... 1) controversial categorization and 2) Over-categorization. The key to dealing with controversial categorization is simple: "Self-identification"... If there is any debate as to whether a person belongs in a given category - don't place him in it ... unless the person has self-identified as belonging to that category. Over-categorization is more difficult... categories are a very useful navigational tool. We want readers to be able to easily find articles on related topics, and categories are one of the better ways to do that. Unfortunately, having too many categories on an given page can defeat the purpose... the categories become a "wall of text" and navigation becomes too difficult. Ultimately it comes down to a judgement call. If you think an article has too many categories... go to the talk page and ask whether there are any that can be cut or reorganized in some way. Blueboar ( talk) 13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think these are valuable and relevant criteria for categorization. And I do not think we should be overly strict with these criteria, see below:
If somebody is ... (category of your choice), then a reliable source should be enough. I do not see the need for sourced self-identification as a ... (said category). I even don't think we should be overly scrupulous about the relevance to a persons notable activities of said category. I think that ... (said category) is in itself notable. Debresser ( talk) 20:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Clearly, such categorisation can sometimes be both helpful to the user and relevant to the subject's notability. But there has to be a good reason for using it and I view routine categorisation with great caution. In particular, we should follow the subject's self-identification even if editors think it is wrong, and not categorise without clear evidence of self-categorisation unless it is inherent in the notability itself or there are no grounds for believing that the subject would dispute/would have disputed the categorisation. That convoluted form of words recognises that however hard we try to set out clear rules cases differ.
1. There may be issues of privacy or confidentiality which by their very nature mean that the facts are different, or more complex, than third parties know. It is not necessarily that the subject is refusing to admit a self-evident 'truth', simply that others are wrong. There is rarely any obligation on anyone to disclose their birth parentage, for example. If a person is adopted, they can legitimately identify with their adoptive parents or keep private that their background differs. There are many other examples and the subject should not be required to justify a self-identification or the absence of one.
2. The category may be inherent in the notability. Many will recognise the saying is the pope a Catholic? as a by-word for a self-evident truth. We do not need to scratch around for a direct quote from the pope himself. But of course that is not quite the same as everyone knows that.....
3. Categories may not be exclusive. For example we are familiar with the situation where a person seems comfortable with being labelled gay and a woman discloses that she had a sexual affair with them (or whatever) and it is not denied. Unless the subject chooses to go into their past and present sexuality and wants to revise their self-categorisation we should stick with what they say. The truth is often complicated, whether it is ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation or anything else.
4. People change. Malcolm Muggeridge was famously, and prominently, an agnostic (or atheist) until he became a Catholic convert. And so on.
5. Categories are often subjective or ambiguous even if the categoriser does not think so. An example of the difficulties is that of nationality. For most Americans nationality=citizenship and is a simple matter of fact, though they may be very willing to admit ethnicity as another essential component of identity. For many Europeans and others national self-identity and citizenship are not the same thing and national identity may not be objectively established. Nor is citizenship necessarily singular. They may be uncomfortable with the idea of ethnicity, acknowledging the complexities of their origin and the dangers of categorizing people in that way. In the UK nationality and ethnic origin are officially whatever people say they are, if they are willing to give an answer at all.
6. There are objections to labelling people. Since the Paralympics are on, let me take the example of disability. Some people object strongly to being described by their disability/impairment, whatever term is favoured, even though they do not deny it. Others are proud to celebrate their disability, seeing it as an important part of their identity and resent any suggestion that it is something to conceal or be ashamed of, and they want to be associated with others who share their condition. No amount of posturing and disputation between Wikipedians will resolve this, which reflects personal and cultural experience and much else. The subject's position is valid even if not shared.
7. If it is contentious, best not to categorise. The dispute as to whether John Adams should be categorised as a Unitarian or a Congregationalist is not edifying. It will generally be best to cover the issues in the text if they are appropriate to the article where the nuances can be explained (and one or more of the above will probably apply). Categorisation denies such complexity or denies that others differ in their interpretation or understanding.
It would be better if we did not have categories for things such as this. But given their occasional usefulness, let us use them sparingly and not where they are problematic. -- AJHingston ( talk) 23:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The chief question asked is "Should we categorize people according to genetic and cultural heritage, faith, or sexual orientation?"
This has a very simple answer: yes.
The process of doing so is complicated, and there will be tough cases that will require head scratching and probably result in drama. The idea that we should make no mention of these matters seems to stem from some kind of assumption that these things are incidental, an idealistic vision of the world where, as Martin Luther King said, people are judged by the content of their character rather than by the colour of their skin, or some other similar characteristic. But what this fails to account for is that these things are significant to a person's sense of self-identity, self-understanding and self-narrative. The best Wikipedia articles will try to capture as much of that as a person shares.
Much as reasonable people everywhere like to think such characteristics ought not to matter, they do matter (when people respond to public figures coming out of the closet as gay with "it doesn't matter", one almost wishes to grab them by the shoulders, shake them and say "yeah, doesn't matter to you, pal, you haven't had to hide your sexual orientation for years and years"). And it's because they actually do matter to people that they are a useful navigational aid. They serve our audience in specific minority communities to be able to look up examples of people like them and see that they are three-dimensional people with flaws and complexities rather than just stereotypes.
With that said, I shall now exit stage left and dodge the hard question of how we categorise people. That the question of how to do it is hard to resolve shouldn't be a reason not to do it though. — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Classifying by sexuality is done far too often on WP. Sexuality is complex, often not displayed by the subject, and so often utterly irrelevant to a topic. Classifying someone as "gay" makes me ask why heterosexuals are not labelled thus; it is the most basic discrimination, and practised often as not by those who are gay. Tony (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
We have had (as User:Blueboar can attest) a hell of a time beating Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States into shape, and we still after several years of this are unsatisfied with the result. There seems to be hardly any possible categorization of persons that isn't fraught with fringe cases, and often enough the person whose affiliation or characteristic is the most ambiguous is the one people are most curious about (see the long articles on the religious beliefs of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln).
Clerics and other people with a professional connection to a religion can plainly be categorized, as can politicians and officials. After that, we get into problems; even nationality gets vague in areas such as middle Europe where the borders have moved over and over in the previous two centuries. I realize the last is used simply to get the scope of big categories under control, but it needs to be considered that even this is a bit of a problem.
We have made explicit decisions to eliminate some categories even if potentially verifiable; for example we have a standing policy (small p) of deleting categorization by caste or equivalent. I would also tend to agree with John Carter that there are certain groups which tend to come across here as "special" and whose categorization somehow gets to be more important than other potential categorizations at the same level.
It seems to me that there are two issues at play here. One is that there is no real immutability in the end: even so supposedly fixed a datum as date and place of birth is subject to change due to better information or to shifting political boundaries and names. But the more vexing problem is that a lot of the drive for this categorization is to claim various people for one's own group on the one hand, or to lay someone objectionable on the shoulder's of one's opponents on the other. These ownership issues are one of the most persistent sources of conflict in the English Wikipedia. It would make life a lot easier if we were to declare that nobody could be so owned. Mangoe ( talk) 14:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't. We should stick to the defining characteristics, which are those making particular person notable. No feeding nationalist trolls. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe that WP:BLPCAT is the right approach: this sort of categorization "should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified" with the ethnicity/gender/whatever in question, "and the subject's [categorization is] relevant to their public life or notability". I don't see a compelling reason to change this policy, and please note that it is a policy, so a guideline or opinion poll that does not change the policy should not take priority over it. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of questions here:
1. Are such categorisations legitimate? Together with the consensus on the page I think that they are, although I would also say that the categorisations of religion and nationality are actually really important to almost everyone apart from the the social set that editors of Wikipedia are drawn from. To ignore them, somewhat ironically, would show a raving cultural bias.
2. For dead people - do the reliable evidence rules need to be modified for categorisation? I would be averse to making special cases. Clearly we need to look to make sure that there is no undue weight, although I suspect that this is going to be less of the case.
3. For living people - are self identifications the only legitimate method of categorisation? Essentially no. We should be more careful due to the fact that belonging to a group could constitute negative information it should be treated more carefully and self identification should have the weight that it already has. However if someone is for example a practicing Catholic priest then even if he has not said that he's Catholic then to refuse a categorisation on the self identification rule would be fatuous. Similarly if someone self identifies as Catholic but has been excommunicated, then the excommunication should not be ignored - or mentioned in a totally different part of the text. In those cases special categories such as "Excommunicated Catholics" and "Catholics out of Communion with Rome" would be legitimate.
JASpencer ( talk) 19:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
"Should we categorize people according to genetic and cultural heritage, faith, or sexual orientation? If so, what are our criteria for deciding an identity? "
I think our default position should be the inclusion of information, and I think that extends to Categorization, by whatever attributes are reliably sourced. As to our criteria, I think that our criteria should approximate the criteria found to be useful by reliable sources. I don't think Wikipedia should strike out on its own path in a departure from practice as documentable in reliable sources. On the other hand if on a case-by-case-basis editors decide based on consensus to bypass precedent as indicated by reliable sources and omit Categorization by attributes, that decision should be respected and consequently upheld. When disagreements occur they should be aired-out by means of mechanisms such as Request for Comment and Third Opinion. Bus stop ( talk) 03:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
In general, each and every one of these things is unimportant. As an example, architects are architects, and the difference between a transgender Croatian Anabaptist architect and a lesbian British Muslim architect matters not one whit. Their achievements, and the things that make them worth talking about and describing, will have to do with their designs and buildings, not their personal characteristics. The only time that any of these things should be categorized or mentioned is when it is relevant to their notability and career.— Kww( talk) 13:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Fairly quickly:
All in all, I see these as being really useful with nearly no downside other than the inevitable debate about if a person is X. And there are legit arguments to have on almost everything. I don't have answers for how to make those decisions and I realize that can leave us spinning our wheels on category issues rather than making actual improvements. But I think that cost is worth it.
I believe that categories of people should be restricted for very specific purposes. They should highlight the essential characteristics of a person. The main one is the reason why they are relevant to have a Wikipedia article. That can be a profession (artist, businessman, politician), an official title (president of a country or organization), or activity. Since nationality is so relevant to us, we need to categorize by country, province and city.
Apart from that, some cultural traits may be relevant enough for a category. Jews, blacks, Asians and Latin Americans are an example in the United States, but that varies by region. But I'd hate to see "White / Caucasian football players" or "Christian politicians", because that's too generic.
About personal beliefs, ideologies and religion, they are relevant for categories only if the person is notable for that. Politicians and activists are, but not everybody is. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 16:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not think we want to classify every person based on such criteria. For example, we should not classify someone as a "Jew" only because his farther was ethnically a Jew, or classify someone as a gay only because he was a gay. If he was a notable Jewish activist, he should be classified as a Jewish activist. In general, we can and should categorize people in any way that is important for describing the person. If the cultural heritage, faith, or sexual orientation was important/notable for life or career of the person, he/she can be classified accordingly. But it does not really matter how they self-identified. It only matters how they are described in RS. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that any one-size-fits-all solution is possible here.
An attribute such as religion or ethnicity may be a defining characteristic of one person, but not of another who shares that attribute. For example, there are plenty of people who go to a particular church out of habit without being particularly religious, while others have religion as a central part of their lives.
Similarly, what defines someone as being of (e.g.) Scottish descent? It's fairly clear that a Scottish parent justifies the label, but what of someone in Argentina who had one Scottish great-great-grandparent, but no other Scottish ancestry? There's no clearcut line.
A further problem arises with intersection categories. For example, if two politicians may share the same religion (say Roman Catholicism), one may take a thoroughly secular approach to politics while the other may determinedly pursue their religious values in politics. The two may clash repeatedly over faith-related issues, but categorising them both as Roman Catholic politicians would be thoroughly misleading.
Wikipedia's basic approach to set categories has been that if a person verifiably has the characteristic being categorised, the then the article belong sin the category. That works fine for in many cases, where the issues are clearcut (such as the geographical location of a town), but religion and ethnicity are not so clearcut.
It's tempting to say that we should adopt a weighted approach, and categorise people in these ways only when the attribute is verifiably a defining characteristic of the individual concerned. However, that's so subjective that it will lead to POV disputes amongst editors, and unstable categories.
So I have no answer. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Categorizing people by ethnic heritage, sexual orientation or religion is perfectly acceptable in my view, but only if the person has clearly and currently self-identified as being in one of these groups (and it can be sourced as such). My main concern here is an adherence to existing site policy; in other words, we shouldn't be arbitrarily categorizing someone because of unsourced or poorly sourced gossip, as that could be at best true but at worst libel. By requiring a source, we would remove potential libel concerns and would improve the project. In addition, categorizing people in this manner is useful for research purposes - for instance, in helping to find prominent LGBT people. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 16:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
If they've self-identified or been reliably confirmed to fit into a category, then yes, even if they aren't particularly notable for being in said category. But if the decision is controversial, then wait until the controversy dies down and side with the most reliable argument. If we ensure verifiability and avoid potential conflicts, then I don't see a problem. Of course, with very broad groups, such as race or sexuality, we should categorize specifically, such as "Black actors" or "Bisexual musicians", not some impossibly large category (imagine a single category including all Wikipedia articles about white people). Alphateam7911 ( talk) 03:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
No one is normally given a genetic/heritage/faith/sexual orientation category unless they are not WASP/heterosexual. Barack Obama, who is half WASP, is categorized as African American. Tiger Woods, who is one quarter African American, is categorized as African American. The majority of the world is not WASP/heterosexual. Yet most of the "notable" people are WASP/heterosexual. Gender is appropriate in heads of state only because it is so unusual. It is not appropriate in the case of occupations even ones that used to be male dominated (or female prohibited) but are now open to women, such as actor or postman and fireman. As a top level category, only actor should be used, and actress is not a subcategory of actor, but an inappropriate category. Any subcategories that are created inadvertently or deliberately, such as actresses of Kuwait should appropriately be included under the actor category. However, I see that the category:Women by occupation is well populated. Concubine and nun, for example, and 63 other occupations, including female pornographic film actors, but not female actors. Gender is not something that someone is stuck with today, but something that you are sort of born with, but can be changed at will, though not easily. Gender is clearly something that is used to discriminate against, with women getting paid 80 cents on the dollar in many places, if they are even able to get hired. Only 10% of Wikipedia editors are women, and even fewer are womyn, or wimmin.
Religion is a valid category only if it is a clear element, such as someone who is actually a minister/member of that religion. Anyone can call themself a Baptist just by showing up at church one Sunday. To be a Jew, you can only become one by being born by a Jewish mother. There are people who are proud of their religious affiliation and would like to be categorized as that faith, and doing so despite it not being accurate is appropriate (someone who "converts" to Judaism, someone who although not a member of a religion, was either brought up in that religion or otherwise considers themself a practising member, though not an actual member). Being lesbian/gay/bi, etc., and not wishing to be outed as being one is another issue.
It is an interesting but esoteric category to give cultural heritage as a category. Is someone born in Argentina an Argentinian? Not necessarily. Apteva ( talk) 20:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I came here to see if I could close this discussion, but realized that I needed to say something about it instead.
I think that no such categorization should exist, and it's easy to demonstrate why with a parallel with this project: what would happen to the editor who decided to slap Category:User Gay Arbitrator on my user page or Category:User Jewish Arbitrator on Newyorkbrad's when, as far as I can tell, we both self-identify as such? I should expect that the edit would be reverted in minutes, and the brief inevitable AN/I thread would quickly end in that editor being blocked given how inflammatory and irrelevant (and, clearly, disruptive to make a point) that categorization was.
Why would we even consider doing this to the subjects (I hesitated about using victim in this context) of our biographies? — Coren (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Having taken part in a lot of race/ethnicity/religion debates, I really feel we need a policy that basically says "When trying to decide whether it's appropriate to categorize by race/religion/ethnicity err on the side of caution". In other words, don't categorize by race/religion/ethnicity unless certain conditions are met. Those conditions might include -
I've taken a stab at writing the policy described above. I'd love input, help or any comments anyone might have to offer.
These race/ethnicity/religion are a source of sooooooooooooooooo much consternation. We really need to make some effort to put clear guidelines on this subject. NickCT ( talk) 13:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)