This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I propose that this be expanded to cover religion as well. It seems to me that there has recently been a proliferation of Occupation by religion categories where the religion has little or no relevence. See my recent nomination of Actors by religion as an example of this. I see such categorization as mostly divisive. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we replace the word "race" with "ethnicity" - in the page name, and in the content of the page. I presume the reasons are obvious? - jc37 10:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand how a writer who writes about "LGBT" themes can be classified as a gay/lesbian/bisexual author. But what about people who write normal literature but just happen to not be heterosexual? If I were to write a novel, it would totally not be LGBT literature even if I'm bi myself (See this userbox!) :p And I wouldn't categorize Wendy Carlos as a "transsexual musician" because her music isn't transsexual (what an absurd idea) and because she herself would rather nobody gave a shit. I understand there's a lot of "LGBT" people who seek validation by pointing out famous people who are yadda yadda but that isn't grounds for categorizing people in a totally insensitive way that makes no sense whatsoever. - ∅ ( ∅), 04:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You know, the example on the front page of "gay literature" is a real category so "LGBT writers" is an okay intersection makes no sense. "Gay literature" is not all written by gay people (see, e.g., Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Catch Trap); and not all LGBT writers write "gay literature". We need to change the example, at least. -- lquilter 05:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Almost a year later and nobody has worked on this problem. Here's the original language:
Here's my proposed re-write:
-- lquilter 18:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
We've had a little disagreement at Billie Piper over whether she should be included in Category:Bisexual English actors or not. She's never used the word "bisexual" in describing herself, and her known relationship history is exclusively with males; however, she once told an interviewer "I fancy women big time... I check them out more than I check men out. Maybe I would want to sleep with a woman." Does this justify identifying her as bisexual?
I know that sexuality consists of sexual behavior, sexual orientation and sexual identity. As far as I can tell, this statement by Piper classifies her as bisexual by orientation, but she hasn't shown any evidence of bisexual behavior or identity (i.e., she's never dated a woman or identified herself using the term "bisexual"). Is there a guideline or precedent for ambiguous cases like this? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
(undent) I generally agree with this statement. However, I see an area where this could become problematic: in the case of historical LGBT figures. Mary Anne Yates was an English actor who lived from 1728 to 1787 and engaged in sexual relationships with men and with women. She is categorized under Category:Bisexual English actors. However, Yates never made a public statement of bisexuality. The reason for this is that the term was not in use until around 1900, and did not become popularly known until 1950. Does the fact that a certain society did not give a name to a human behavior mean that that behavior did not exist? No. Should we remove Mary Anne Yates from Category:Bisexual English actors on the grounds that she made no public statement of bisexuality? I don't think so. I think that in the case of historical figures, it is more accurate to take their behavior into account, rather than obscuring them on the grounds that they did not use terms that did not exist in their society. I think that documentation of historical LGBT figures is important and that they should not be obscured on a technicality.
The contrast to this is how we choose to categorize contemporary pornographic actors who perform sexually with same-sex partners. I think that a different set of requirements apply here. I believe that someone who profits financially from sexual performances should be categorized based on public statements of sexual identification, or possibly publicised romantic relationships in the absence of statements. I don't think that performing in pornography with someone of the same sex is a substitute for a statement of sexual identification: see Gay-for-pay. Financially-motivated sexual behavior in contemporary persons should not be used as the litmus for categorization.
Can we strike a balance? I would like to see behaviorally-based categorization for historical figures who lived in a society which had not created language to describe them. I would like to see categorization based on verbal statements or possibly publicised romantic relationships for contemporary figures who are financially compensated for sexual performance. Thoughts? Joie de Vivre 19:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone is going through the list of bisexual people and removing any entry where the person does not explicitly identify with the label "bisexual", even though they may be entirely open about their attraction and activity. Is that correct? The editor is very intolerant of any other view and keeps reverting. PerfectPolly ( talk) 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a through rewrite of the guideline. At the current stage it is highly adapted to contemporary US political debate, which creates innumerable problems when applied to socities divided along different lines. IMHO, racial/ethnic/religious categorization of individuals should be minimized, and substituted with 'by country' categories. -- Soman 08:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I think both options create deliniation problems when it comes to relating to historical characters (see for example similar discussion on 'Ancient Pakistan'). Neither state border nor ethnic border are static, are there are a lot of potential POV disputes over how to categorize historical figures. My general suggestion would be to use common sense to the degree that is possible (for example an artist born and dead on Ukrainian SSR would be possible to categorize in a category like 'Artists from Ukraine' whereas one should not fall to the temptation to categorize an artist living in 10th century al-Andalus as an 'artist from Spain'). When it is not feasible to utilize categories of existing nation states, separate categories should be formed for historical countries. In cases were it is not possible to identify a clear equivalent of a 'country', a broader regional categorization could be used, also included as a 'by country' subcat.
That said, there are categories were language is more important (or equally important). Writers is an obvious case. But the stress here is that the categorization is based on the languages used by the writer in his/her works, not an ethnic marker. -- Soman 14:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Certainly there are many cases which are not so easy, but many times they remain even when using ethnic-based categories. One example is Saladin, who both Kurdish and Arab nationalist will claim as their own. One option, although it would require a lot of work, would be to include a rather extensive listing in guideline of how to deal with a variety of nationalities. Certainly POV issues would emerge in such a process, but someone a collective consensus could be worked out. For example I consider than '..from India' categories would include individuals from colonial India and the modern state of India, even though they lived in territories presently in Bangladesh or Pakistan (...and I'm aware that could be controversial). I think '..from Soviet Union' categories could exist parallel to '..from Russia/Ukraine/etc.' categories, leading to extensive double categorization. And so forth a guideline on who to deal with different historical identities could be carved out.
Another component to this as a de facto separation, to the limit that it is practical, between modern and historical individuals. This does exist already today, Kings of ancient Greece are not included in 'Greek politicians'. The point would be that nationalist identities are a rather modern concept, and identifactions of ancient or historical characters are often based on ideological post-constructs rather than real facts. -- Soman 16:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I am doing maintenance on Category:Men.
Comments are welcome.
-- Kevinkor2 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
To: Wikipedia talk:Translation; Hans555 ( talk · contribs)
Cc: Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality
From: Kevinkor2 ( talk · contribs)
Hi everyone,
Since the middle of May, I have been removing articles about individual people from Category:Men. So far, I haven't had opposition to this.
What do other wikipedias contain in their equivalent Category:Men?
-- Kevinkor2 12:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
These sorts of categories are only used in ways that focus on left-wing bug-bears. They contain a systemic bias to the left that undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. The also breach neutrality by not treating everyone equally. They should all be abolished. Æthelwold 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you folks think about the current state of this cat (i.e. full of unsubcategorized people extracted from list of Iranian women) ? Kappa 11:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I propose that this be expanded to cover religion as well. It seems to me that there has recently been a proliferation of Occupation by religion categories where the religion has little or no relevence. See my recent nomination of Actors by religion as an example of this. I see such categorization as mostly divisive. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we replace the word "race" with "ethnicity" - in the page name, and in the content of the page. I presume the reasons are obvious? - jc37 10:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand how a writer who writes about "LGBT" themes can be classified as a gay/lesbian/bisexual author. But what about people who write normal literature but just happen to not be heterosexual? If I were to write a novel, it would totally not be LGBT literature even if I'm bi myself (See this userbox!) :p And I wouldn't categorize Wendy Carlos as a "transsexual musician" because her music isn't transsexual (what an absurd idea) and because she herself would rather nobody gave a shit. I understand there's a lot of "LGBT" people who seek validation by pointing out famous people who are yadda yadda but that isn't grounds for categorizing people in a totally insensitive way that makes no sense whatsoever. - ∅ ( ∅), 04:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You know, the example on the front page of "gay literature" is a real category so "LGBT writers" is an okay intersection makes no sense. "Gay literature" is not all written by gay people (see, e.g., Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Catch Trap); and not all LGBT writers write "gay literature". We need to change the example, at least. -- lquilter 05:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Almost a year later and nobody has worked on this problem. Here's the original language:
Here's my proposed re-write:
-- lquilter 18:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
We've had a little disagreement at Billie Piper over whether she should be included in Category:Bisexual English actors or not. She's never used the word "bisexual" in describing herself, and her known relationship history is exclusively with males; however, she once told an interviewer "I fancy women big time... I check them out more than I check men out. Maybe I would want to sleep with a woman." Does this justify identifying her as bisexual?
I know that sexuality consists of sexual behavior, sexual orientation and sexual identity. As far as I can tell, this statement by Piper classifies her as bisexual by orientation, but she hasn't shown any evidence of bisexual behavior or identity (i.e., she's never dated a woman or identified herself using the term "bisexual"). Is there a guideline or precedent for ambiguous cases like this? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
(undent) I generally agree with this statement. However, I see an area where this could become problematic: in the case of historical LGBT figures. Mary Anne Yates was an English actor who lived from 1728 to 1787 and engaged in sexual relationships with men and with women. She is categorized under Category:Bisexual English actors. However, Yates never made a public statement of bisexuality. The reason for this is that the term was not in use until around 1900, and did not become popularly known until 1950. Does the fact that a certain society did not give a name to a human behavior mean that that behavior did not exist? No. Should we remove Mary Anne Yates from Category:Bisexual English actors on the grounds that she made no public statement of bisexuality? I don't think so. I think that in the case of historical figures, it is more accurate to take their behavior into account, rather than obscuring them on the grounds that they did not use terms that did not exist in their society. I think that documentation of historical LGBT figures is important and that they should not be obscured on a technicality.
The contrast to this is how we choose to categorize contemporary pornographic actors who perform sexually with same-sex partners. I think that a different set of requirements apply here. I believe that someone who profits financially from sexual performances should be categorized based on public statements of sexual identification, or possibly publicised romantic relationships in the absence of statements. I don't think that performing in pornography with someone of the same sex is a substitute for a statement of sexual identification: see Gay-for-pay. Financially-motivated sexual behavior in contemporary persons should not be used as the litmus for categorization.
Can we strike a balance? I would like to see behaviorally-based categorization for historical figures who lived in a society which had not created language to describe them. I would like to see categorization based on verbal statements or possibly publicised romantic relationships for contemporary figures who are financially compensated for sexual performance. Thoughts? Joie de Vivre 19:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone is going through the list of bisexual people and removing any entry where the person does not explicitly identify with the label "bisexual", even though they may be entirely open about their attraction and activity. Is that correct? The editor is very intolerant of any other view and keeps reverting. PerfectPolly ( talk) 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a through rewrite of the guideline. At the current stage it is highly adapted to contemporary US political debate, which creates innumerable problems when applied to socities divided along different lines. IMHO, racial/ethnic/religious categorization of individuals should be minimized, and substituted with 'by country' categories. -- Soman 08:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I think both options create deliniation problems when it comes to relating to historical characters (see for example similar discussion on 'Ancient Pakistan'). Neither state border nor ethnic border are static, are there are a lot of potential POV disputes over how to categorize historical figures. My general suggestion would be to use common sense to the degree that is possible (for example an artist born and dead on Ukrainian SSR would be possible to categorize in a category like 'Artists from Ukraine' whereas one should not fall to the temptation to categorize an artist living in 10th century al-Andalus as an 'artist from Spain'). When it is not feasible to utilize categories of existing nation states, separate categories should be formed for historical countries. In cases were it is not possible to identify a clear equivalent of a 'country', a broader regional categorization could be used, also included as a 'by country' subcat.
That said, there are categories were language is more important (or equally important). Writers is an obvious case. But the stress here is that the categorization is based on the languages used by the writer in his/her works, not an ethnic marker. -- Soman 14:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Certainly there are many cases which are not so easy, but many times they remain even when using ethnic-based categories. One example is Saladin, who both Kurdish and Arab nationalist will claim as their own. One option, although it would require a lot of work, would be to include a rather extensive listing in guideline of how to deal with a variety of nationalities. Certainly POV issues would emerge in such a process, but someone a collective consensus could be worked out. For example I consider than '..from India' categories would include individuals from colonial India and the modern state of India, even though they lived in territories presently in Bangladesh or Pakistan (...and I'm aware that could be controversial). I think '..from Soviet Union' categories could exist parallel to '..from Russia/Ukraine/etc.' categories, leading to extensive double categorization. And so forth a guideline on who to deal with different historical identities could be carved out.
Another component to this as a de facto separation, to the limit that it is practical, between modern and historical individuals. This does exist already today, Kings of ancient Greece are not included in 'Greek politicians'. The point would be that nationalist identities are a rather modern concept, and identifactions of ancient or historical characters are often based on ideological post-constructs rather than real facts. -- Soman 16:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I am doing maintenance on Category:Men.
Comments are welcome.
-- Kevinkor2 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
To: Wikipedia talk:Translation; Hans555 ( talk · contribs)
Cc: Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality
From: Kevinkor2 ( talk · contribs)
Hi everyone,
Since the middle of May, I have been removing articles about individual people from Category:Men. So far, I haven't had opposition to this.
What do other wikipedias contain in their equivalent Category:Men?
-- Kevinkor2 12:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
These sorts of categories are only used in ways that focus on left-wing bug-bears. They contain a systemic bias to the left that undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. The also breach neutrality by not treating everyone equally. They should all be abolished. Æthelwold 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you folks think about the current state of this cat (i.e. full of unsubcategorized people extracted from list of Iranian women) ? Kappa 11:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)