Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people

The following discussion comes from Categories for deletion, where it is currently listed as unresolved. It may be reviewed again in the future in the light of evolving standards and guidelines for categorization.

Detailed discussion
So right after we got rid of Category:Gay people, this popped up. I'm not going to restate the reasons as to why this should be deleted&mdash;see discussion below under both Category:Gay people and Category:African Americans. I will give one illustration of another reason why this category is so problematic...I noticed Marlon Brando was included. Not only have I never in my life heard anything about his homosexuality, but the article itself includes no such information (it doesn't even give a description of the one movie I know of in which he played a gay character). Despite the category author's attempt to limit the criteria for inclusion, it appears that this will just be another rumor dumping ground. But see especially the reasons given below. Postdlf 16:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you saying we should get rid of List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people? This category is almost identical to the list of "confirmed" gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. If someone is miscategorized, it's because someone incorrectly listed the person. Guanaco 18:51, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * No. Lists are definitely less problematic than categories. Lists can explain the rationale for inclusion (i.e., self-identification), while categories are unannotated and can't offer support or explanation for inclusion. Furthermore, lists don't function to brand the subject like a category does. Categories classify. We shouldn't be classifying people by their sexuality (or race), however proper it may be to list who has self-identified themselves a certain way.  Postdlf 19:31, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Categories link to the individual articles which do explain why they are categorized in a certain way. Most of the listings at List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people have no explanation beyond "American painter" or "actress, bisexual". This category is no worse than the list. Guanaco 19:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If the list is broken, then fix the list. The category is not needed. - UtherSRG 19:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The same argument could be used to delete all categories. Do you think we should do that? Guanaco 20:07, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Most categories are purely objective&mdash;it's rather clear who was or wasn't a U.S. Senator or whether something is a city in Ohio, and these are the most banal and uncontroversial ways of categorizing something or someone. Valid categories may have boundary issues as to who gets included, but when there are distinct policy concerns over such a category, as have been expressed on this page numerous times, then it is better not to have it and to include the information in article-form where it can be qualified and contextualized.  Postdlf 20:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that a list like this can be problematic, but I don't think that is necessarily reason to delete it. It is more a reason to keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.  I do think, however, that a category like this is more likely to be vandalized than, say, a category of baseball players.  This isn't due to an inherent property of the categories in question, but due to people's immaturity, which again isn't a good reason to delete the category - we shouldn't give in to the immature whims of vandals.  I also, as a gay person, don't think it is necessarily wrong or offensive, as stated below on this page, to classify people based on their sexuality.  There can be good reasons for doing so.  A category like this can be helpful to anyone researching gay history, social identity, gay and gender issues, queer studies, and so on.  The reason a category like Category: Straight people isn't necessary, and the reason the existence of a category like the one being discussed here doesn't warrant one, is because in our society heterosexuality is the presumed default.  Putting self-identified gay people (the category shouldn't be used to try to out people) in a category like this helps to identify them to those who are interested.  -Seth Mahoney 20:20, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

We classify people all the time, but whenever Wikipedia touches anything gay with a 10 foot stick it gets listed for deletion. There is no reason that we can't classify people by one category if we categorize them by any. Classifications only become non-neutral when they are false (I am of course discounting here the fact that, for example, we would use "Category:People who like pie" rather than "Category:People who are dumb enough to like pie"). Hyacinth 20:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%. For the record, I vote keep.  Another option is to keep this category but with no articles, only subcategories like Category:Gay activists, Category:Gay philosophers, Category:Gay historians, etc., and fill those categories with articles.  -Seth Mahoney 20:52, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * If their sexuality is a (significant?) part of their notoriety then I agree, but categorizing for categorizing's sake is not valid. Noting their sexuality in the article, and listing why in the full list suffices for the resst. And then those categories should go in Category:LGBT. - UtherSRG 22:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In case anyone is thinking that I'm some kind of jerk homophobe: I may be a jerk, but I'm an out bi man. - UtherSRG 23:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're a jerk homophobe just because we don't so much agree. I'm more ambivalent about this category than I let on, but ultimately I think we should keep it.  I also totally agree with what you said above, and there are many philosophers, filmmakers, writers, poets, and so on whose work is clearly and definately affected by their being gay.  The reason I propose the subcategory idea is because there are fields of study in, say, queer literature and gay history.  Hell, in some colleges you can major in queer studies, which covers all that and more.  Basically, the idea is that if we subcategorize rigorously it will be obvious that we aren't just categorizing for the sake of categorizing.  -Seth Mahoney 23:58, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete - hello? We just got rid of Category:Gay people for a reason. Are we now going to be categorising Category:Fat people? Or Category:Black people? Or Category:People who stand out. This is ridiculous. As said before, the list is sufficient - it shows a clearly defined list of people who identify as gay and are also famous, and those who are speculated as such. Not only is it offensive, but Category: Gay, lesbian and bisexual people is far too vague. -Erolos 23:19, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * "Fat people" has no standard definition. "Black people" has a different meaning in different places. And "people who stand out" is just POV nonsense. If the name of the category is the problem, it can easily be renamed. Guanaco 23:30, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No the name is not the problem. The category is the problem. Gay is POV nonsense, then. People's sexuality cannot always be defined, in case you didn't know. It's a completely POV and no-encyclopedia-relevence category.-Erolos 23:33, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * My sexuality is very easily defined, as are many of the people who would be categorized. Thanks. Hyacinth 23:45, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Good for you. Some people's sexuality isn't. Those who sexuality is defined - who are famous and have publicly announced or let it be known what sexuality they are - are clearly listed with those notes in the List. The category is irrelevent. -Erolos 23:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * All things on wikipedia are hard to prove, most are vague. They just aren't gay, so they don't get listed for deletion. Hyacinth 23:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Why does it make a difference if it is in a category or a list? They are both equally managable, they serve pretty much the same purpose, they have pretty much the same titles.  The only difference is that categories give the reader more access.  -Seth Mahoney 23:58, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There is a difference. The list stands alone and can have a rationalization for why the person is included in the list, right at their name. The category method puts the label at the top/bottom of the article, without any explanation. Any explanation would have to be in te article, but would not be able to be included in the category's page, which become the replacement for the list. - UtherSRG 01:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that a list gives editors (like me) an excuse to not bother rationalizing the inclusion in the main article itself. Categories (all categories) should be rationalized in the article, or we should expect that someone will come along and remove the category tag in question.  For example, if I add someone to Category:Painters the article should already have some mention of the new member's status as a painter, or I should add it.  Same with Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people.  Just wondering, is your main issue with people being added to the list who aren't clearly gay, lesbian, or bisexual?  -Seth Mahoney 01:59, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * After considering it for all the three seconds it took my edit to save, it seems to me that it is also better to have the article in a category than on a list, because that way it is more obvious to every reader of the article that it is included in a list, and thus the inclusion is more open for debate. Consider: scroll to the bottom of the page and look at the categories, or scroll through the sometimes several pages of "what links here" articles.  -Seth Mahoney 02:02, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Why should you force a person to care about the characteristic of a person that's not significant enough to warrant mention in the primary article itself? Aris Katsaris 03:11, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I never said anything about forcing anyone to do anything. What I said was that we shouldn't include people in Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people when it isn't listed in the article, or we should edit the article so that an explanation is included before categorization.  In other words, for the people it would be appropriate to include in this category, their sexuality does warrant mention in the article.  -Seth Mahoney 07:54, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * If a person's sexuality is not easily defined, the person won't be listed as "gay, lesbian or bisexual". It's very simple and NPOV. If we were to list and/or categorize Adolf Hitler as gay, that would be biased. He could, however, be in a "People of questioned sexual orientation" or similar category. You have not given any reason why the category is inherently POV except that "gay is POV nonsense". Guanaco 00:01, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) (3 edit conflicts)


 * This category is inherently POV because nobody has proposed creating a category of "Straight People", it therefore is used as a sort of "beacon" where gayness is signified as categorizing a person but straightness not so. It's also inherently POV because it groups bisexuals alongside gay people. It's also rude because it categorizes people by something belonging in their *personal sphere* and therefore it would be like having a "Presumably virgin people" or "People that have claimed participation in orgies" categories: it reduces Wikipedia to the kind of gossip that only tabloid rags care about. Categorizing a person by the career that made him famous is one thing, categorizing him by his personal life seems quite another. If there was a category about "Gay-rights activists" or something like that, meaning the ones who've made it part of their lives to strive for gay rights, that'd be a different thing: because then you'd be moving to the political sphere of the issue, not just the gossipy sphere.Aris Katsaris 03:11, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It is not a POV category, inherently or otherwise, because being gay, unlike being straight, places the gay person in a cultural minority, by default in a subculture. It is no more POV than a category of any other subculture would be.  Further, as far as it becoming a rumor mill goes, we've already covered that above.  -Seth Mahoney 07:54, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Subculture? You are being too modern-day Westerner about this. What about e.g. ancient Greeks who may have had relationships with both genders because it was what their culture suggested as the norm, and we have no way of knowing whether they were "gay" or "bisexual" by our current attitudes about these things -- aka as a natural inclination? And either way it was no "subculture" back then. Which ones would you be listing as "gay and bisexual"? Aris Katsaris 15:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not being too anything. You're presuming I'm being too modern-day Westerner.  I wouldn't argue for including, say, Socrates in the category, or many other historical figures, for two reasons: one, sexuality has been defined differently in different eras, and two: it can be difficult to find good, reliable information on individuals' sexual practices for most of recorded history.  What I am arguing for is inclusion of those people who identify or identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual in a specific category for those who are interested.  -Seth Mahoney 22:01, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

The basic objections are: Am I close or way off here? Hyacinth 00:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It is to hard to figure out if people are gay
 * Thus the list is hard to create and make accurate
 * It is not neutral to point out that people are gay
 * Because being called gay is insulting, and thus non-neutral
 * Because gay doesn't mean anything/Because no one really is gay


 * The distinctions of a list versus a category. Whether someones sexuality is a part of their notoriety, or just another facet of their being. - UtherSRG 01:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. Please reread the comments above (and below) on why categories are different than lists, particularly in the context of an individual's race or sexual orientation.  It is very different to describe a supposed trait of someone than to classify them by that trait.  Articles explain and describe.  Categories merely classify.  Postdlf 02:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * This cuts to the heart of it: lists are pseudo-articles, but categories are meta-text inserted into articles. I vote to merge and delete, for reasons noted in the other discussion. If a self-avowed heterosexual is revealed to have had one or more same-sex sexual experiences, do we add this category to their article despite their not being gay or bi? If we add the person to the list, we can explain in the list that they self-identified as heterosexual despite their apparent bisexuality. A category isn't equipped to do that; it can only flag a person up as belonging to that category or people. Disputes like this are why lists and categories need to remain separate sorting systems. -Sean Curtin 05:36, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Definitely delete --- there's no category called "Straight people", and therefore there should be no category called "Gay People" and definitely no category that says "Gay and bisexual" as if the categories belong together more than "Bisexual and straight" people do. Categories impose themselves upon the articles in a way that lists do not. If a list uses a trivial criterion then nobody minds because no one will care to read the list either way --- but a category *imposes* itself on the article in an intrusive rude way that says "This is one of the most important things you should know about the person in question". *NO*. The presence of such a category is offensive. DELETE. Aris Katsaris 02:58, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you think we should have a list of straight people? I believe "list of heterosexuals" or something similar was deleted on VfD a while back. Guanaco 03:43, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. The category is too broad to be meaningful, and it could attract attention to a person for the wrong reason. For instance Bjørn Lomborg happens to be gay but he is known for is environmental views, not for his sexual orientation. : Vincent 06:27, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Why should being gay be "the wrong reason"? What if, for example, someone is researching gay people with particular environmental views?  Its perfectly plausable, and something that including a category for gay people would facilitate.  And how is this category more broad than, say, Category:1949 books?  Or, say, Category:Culture?  -Seth Mahoney 07:49, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's the difference between causal and accidental co-incidence. To expand my example, Bjørn Lomborg's sexual orientation has nothing to do with his environmental views. BL's homosexuality is as relevant to the world as my brother-in-law's and my brother-in-law Claude is not famous. On the other hand, BL's environmental views are well known and influence the world more than do Claude's (or mine for that matter). Therefore BL is included in Wikipedia on the strength of his environmental, which matter to the world, and not on the strength of his gayness, which does not matter to the world any more than does Claude's, or than does my own heterosexuality. In Lomborg, there is only an accidental relationship between his sexual orientation and his environmental views, not a causal one.
 * On the other hand, you could have a category that links two apparently accidental attributes. For example, the British mathematician and computer theorist Alan Turing could be included in a category called "notable people persecuted for being gay" because he lost his government post and his security clearance when his sexual orientation became known. In contrast, Lomborg lives in a time and place that views sexual orientation as irrelevant to one's professional qualification, and Alan Turing did not. In this case Alan Turing's sexual orientation contributed to his fame because it is, justifiably, a cause celebre for gay activism. Vincent 08:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Right, but you still haven't answered my main question: why is looking up someone for being gay the wrong reason to look them up? It may not be obviously connected to the main reason for the person's celebrity, but who are we to judge the way people may or may not want to look up their information?  We are, on the other hand, people who should be facilitating every reasonable route we can, and it is perfectly reasonable to believe that someone will come along, click on Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people and browse the list, maybe learning something new in the process.  I have heard no real reason, other than a POV against categorizing people as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, for preventing this sort of browsing.  For the record, the BL article states that he is openly gay under a section titled "Trivia" - how is this fundamentally different from a link on the bottom of the page saying "Gay, lesbian or bisexual people" - its not justified, its just text included in the article, and people can still find the article on an environmentalist who happens to be gay through that text.  -Seth Mahoney 20:19, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * I did answer it: the category is too broad. Classfiying Lomborg within a Gay People category is wrong because 1) the Gay People category is too broad and 2) Lomborg is not famous for being gay. By your argument we should create a "Blond People" category. After all, Lomborg is a fine example of a blond man, and many many people are very attracted to blond hair. It would be interesting for them to read a list of people who are blond and to come to discover Lomborg on it, thus finding an example of a blond person who isn't dumb. Right? Vincent 04:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, you haven't answered it. You made a value judgement: "attracting attention to someone for being gay is the wrong reason to attract attention", with no explanation attached.  You then tried to justify that statement by saying that the Gay, etc. people category is too broad, but never explained why it is more broad than, say, Category:Culture.  You then further justified it by saying that Lomborg, for example, is not famous for being gay, though you don't seem to mind a brief mention that he is openly gay in his article, with no further explanation or justification in the article for its inclusion.  You also haven't voiced any objections to, say, Category:1932 books, though I'd wager none of the books in that category are famous for having been published in 1932.  You then suggested that by my reasoning we should create a category for all blond people (which I don't really have an opinion on one way or the other - if someone wants to do it, they're welcome to), explaining that many people are attracted to people with blond hair and might be interested in reading about blond people, but this has nothing to do with my reasoning, which is centered around the fact that, unlike blond people, gay people and gay culture are an object of study.  That someone can take classes on gay culture and gay identity, that someone can even major in the field, suggests (to me, at least) that such a category is useful for an encyclopedia.  -Seth Mahoney 21:57, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * (sigh) I did answer the objection and your problem is that you assume the word wrong implies a moral judgment when it simply means a factual evaluation. In an encyclopedia, we list people because knowledge of them matters to the world, therefore Lomborg can be listed as an environmental activist because his environmental views matter to the world, while he should not be listed as a gay person because his gayness is irrelevant to the world. In Scandinavia and Canada, the battle for gay rights has been won. Gays are accepted, they're normal everyday people, they're dull even, and their sex lives don't matter anymore outside their own bedrooms. On the other hand, Lomborg's gayness is relevant to him, so it can be mentioned in an article about HIM. So including him in a list on the basis of his sexual orientation is wrong, incorrect, and meaningless.


 * Now Books published in 1932 is in fact encyclopedic. The publishing date of a book is an important and defining characteristic of a literary work. Listing books in terms of date helps analyze their influence on one another. The category might be incomplete in which case it needs expanding, not deleting.


 * Lastly, blonds. Wot? Not a topic of study? I'm sure that many papers have been written on hair colour and that companies such as L'Oreal have sponsored numerous studies on blond hair and how people perceive blond hair. That still doesn't justify a blond category.


 * A last thought on "wrong". An encyclopedia seeks to turn raw data into meaningful information by establishing relevant relationships between facts. When the relationship is accidental (co-incidental, non-causal) it should be ignored. Vincent 05:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm happy with a category that is something to do with gay topics, but this one is too much of a mixed bag. Even then it should only be used on articles where that person is predominantly connect with gay issues, not just because they happen to be gay. If you add too many parenthetical categories to an article, they stop being useful. -- Solipsist 07:32, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful information people will want to have.  We only need list uncontroversial cases, as we do now. V V  22:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * How does the category perform this function better than the list? - UtherSRG 22:29, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You might as well ask why we have categories at all, when we can have lists. Categories serve a useful purpose in collecting related articles, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be used in this case. V V  22:33, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Useful information? In what way? If they are a gay/lesbian/bisexual activist, yes it is important. If they aren't, it is not important. Just like we would not make a category on eye colour and include a president. It really is as simple as this - either separate 'Category:Famous people who identify as homosexual', 'Category:Famous people who identify as heterosexual', 'Category:Famous people who identify as bisexual', 'Category:Famous people who do not define their sexuality' - as well as more specific sexualities - or you must admit that the category is POV, whereas the list actually gives annotations to explain the listings. -Erolos 12:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lists not only allow for explanations, they acknowledge different subsections with varying degrees of certainty or significance.  For a much narrower subset of cases than is currently included, you could use categories such as "Queer culture" or "Queer historical figures" -- people who were actively involved in queer activist culture in their era, rather than anyone who publicly acknowledged their sexuality.  +sj +  02:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In order to make a GLB People (and expanding to consider transgendered and intersex people, for which this will no doubt come up for as well) category of manageable size and reasonably accurate, a variety of subcategories would need to be created. Each of the following might need to be created for each letter in GLBTI:


 * People who publicly and primarily self-identify as GLBTI
 * People who incidentally self-identify as GLBTI
 * People who consider their sexuality unclassifiable
 * People who are suspected of being GLBTI but we aren't sure
 * People who are commonly thought to be GLBTI but who aren't
 * People who engage in same-sex sexual behavior but don't self-identify as GLBTI
 * People who are GLBTI activists, writers, filmmakers, etc. and GLBTI themselves
 * People who are GLBTI activists, writers, filmmakers, etc but not GLBTI themselves
 * People who are GLB but don't know it yet (har, har)
 * People who are still in the closet (har, har, har)
 * Etc.

Obviously there's a lot of overlap there. I think it'd be easier to manage these distinctions in list format, because then you can annotate each entry with whatever information is necessary from giving the wrong impression and thus unnecessarily causing offense and POV problems. Though it might be a little less machine-readable. And yeah, for people who only happen to be gay, it's a little odd to have the category link at the bottom of their bios. Anyone can check the "What links here" page. Backreferences to the lists might be useful for articles on subject that are primarily LBGTI-related. One way to do this is when someone is mentioned as being a "gay activist", those words could be linked to the appropriate list or category of lists. Another inobtrusive way is to add a "See also" link. This would put the backreference closer to the Categories box, which is good. (We don't want to obscure associations with LBGTI topics, as compared with other topics, just because the former are too complex to handle with categories.)

I disagree that the lack of a category or list of straight people is a good objection. Anyone who thinks there should be one for balance is invited to create one. Personally, I don't think that being straight, unto itself, is a very remarkable fact, and the list will be very unwieldy, but it's possible to do. Consider that we have the List of famous left-handed people, but no particular list of right-handed people. Big deal.

Whether or not someone is GLBTI, by most reasonable measures, is an ascertainable fact, at least as much as most other historical and personal facts are ascertainable. Having a list of GLBTI people, by whatever measure, is critical to debating GLBTI issues in the political realm, for discussing stereotypes and culture, and topical lists by field and whatnot are very useful for specialized research. Choosing a particular measure of GLBTI-ness and applying that to everyone might be considered to endorse a particular POV, but creating lists that incorporate multiple measures (including self-identification or non-identification) is sufficiently NPOV in my view.

As for glomming together gay, lesbian, and bisexual, well...they are very closely related topics, and most people interested in looking at a list of one are also interested in looking at a list of the others, possibly in a unified fashion. I think the primary consideration here is ease of use. I think that's a good enough justification for any small amount of offense which might be generated by making an association which most pro-GLB groups make all the time.

But that is not the issue under consideration here; we can talk about the existing lists under Category:LGBT somewhere else.

So for now I'll just vote to delete and merge into annotated list(s).


 * Delete. --Gary D 23:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Jeez, that was a lot to read through. I'm with Hyacinth and Seth Mahoney on this one. Lists are gradually being converted to categories; not least because they're more useful. I'm very much in favor of keeping it. Oh, and what Guanaco said&hellip; ;o) Keep &mdash; OwenBlacker 23:47, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. I find it to be a very pertinent category. Mike H 19:38, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:04, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Votes
Vote

Delete (11): Postdlf, UtherSRG, Erolos, Aris Katsaris, Gtrmp(Sean Curtin), Vfp15(Vincent), Solipsist, Sj, Beland, Gary D, Neutrality

Keep (9): Guanaco, Hyacinth, VV, Seth Mahoney, Owen Blacker, Mike H, Bearcat, Bodnotbod (no comment), Francis Schonken

Validity of this particular vote challenged by Francis

 * Exec. Summary:


 * Francis does not question Wikipedia votes in general, only this particular vote, because it is tainted in several ways, which are explained in this subsection

I suppose the argument above somewhere boils down to two arguments:


 * General discussion on how to make use of categories most efficiently


 * Maybe it would be better to stop using delicate subjects like GLB as the theatre of such battles. Surely Wikipedia has enough "rooms" that are more fit for treating the "how to improve use of categories" subject more efficiently, and more to the interest of everybody using categories. And there is work to be done: "categories" as such is as yet not a "stable" device, in the sense that in a Wikipedia/Printed Encyclopedia comparison it has few examples for attaching oneself to, if considering the more elaborate possibilities of WIKI techniques, that are so much more than a reflection of the possibilties of former printed examples. In spite of what some use as a reference in the discussion above (namely the instructions published by Wikipedia regarding the use of categories), I think the "GLB people category" discussion shows that there is still a lot to be said about how categories are to be used most efficiently: but please, if having no natural interest in GLB topics as such move over to other places where to discuss this.


 * Whether or not to allow people having knowledge about GLB topics to use the techniques provided by Wikipedia (categories, lists, etc...) most fittingly for organising the knowledge base contained in Wikipedia about these topics.


 * In other words: you don't let Microsoft organise the next Linux convention.

The fact that information should be "correct" and that Wikipedia instructions should be applied "correctly" is not considered by me as an "argument" in the discussion whether or not the category should exist. Correctness is just plain common sense, but the information resulting from that part of the discussion can in my eyes only be used to improve the "GLB people category", not to abolish it ("renaming" the category COULD be argued to be such improvement, but most "contra"'s seemingly only use the renaming argument in order to get rid of the category in another way, e.g. by making it totally ineffective). I can see no "incorrectness" w.r.t. present Wikipedia rules governing categories in having a "GLB people category", and assigning people like Duncan Grant to such category. Neither an exclusively "gay" nor a "bisexual" category would fit this person without discussion, GLB is perfect (and while he was no T, better than GLBT or any other larger category). If Wikipedia prescriptions re. categories are updated, or become more detailed, I'd be happy to oblige.

The vote above proves few things in my view: only that there are more straight people than GLB people (was proof needed?) and that the inconsistencies regarding the present use of categories in Wikipedia are fought over on the back of GLB people.


 * PS1: re-reading the whole topic (and the Category:Gay discussion below), I start to fear something worse. Some people just don't want to be reminded of some things, like e.g. that the Bayreuth Festival is linked to Nazism. The present article only mentions "The Festival was closed during World War II" which is not true, except if you want to exclude notions about Richard Wagner descendants serving tea to high Nazi officials during the war-year Bayreuth Festivals, and cleanse e.g. Richard Strauss from all Nazi involvement. Sorry for reminding, Wikipedia is about scholar-like NPOV. Not including information because somebody might not be "pleased" knowing his favourite author has a certain label, etc... does not help in an Encyclopedia-like undertaking. Why is Lytton Strachey not labelled as a GLB in Wikipedia? I simply can't swallow that: there is some vaguish sentence indicating that his "private life is described in a book"... I fear that people that make no secret of wanting to fight any gay-related category (not in a constructive way like how can we make use of categories better regarding GLB-related topics, but in a destructive way, stating that every new category in this sense will be put up for deletion), that there maybe will not be much of another choice than to put such people up for Wikipedia ban. If homosexuality has a negative connotation in your head, this has nothing to do with people that are glad to be gay. And whether "glad" or "disappointed", this has nothing to do with NPOV.


 * PS2: I intend to categorise Harold Nicolson as "GLB people", without further changing the article itself (which does not refer in any way to his GLB nature). I feel not needing to explain on that. Only that people reading the Orlando: A Biography article and clicking through to Harold Nicolson might be interested to have this information (even if they didn't read the Violet Trefusis article that gives a few details on Harold Nicolson's GLB nature, including a book reference - similar info can be found in the Vita Sackville-West article, clickable from the Harold Nicolson article).


 * PS3: Other way of looking at the votes:

I'm afraid the original vote above is of few value, as I already suggested above. There is another reason why this particular vote should not be deemed to be valid in my opinion, and that is that the discussion is supposed to be about whether or not the GLB category should be kept or deleted (that is the title of the discussion topic). The discussion above is for many of the discutants about whether or not categories can be used for GLB related topics in general. However, some people have voted delete because they rather want to do some minor or major adaptations to the "tree" of transgender related categories. Others because they don't want ANY persons categorised in GLB-like categories, not now, not ever (in fact the initiator of putting up for deletion belongs, according to his own words, to this group). In a way such initiative is misguiding: there should be a general discussion first whether or not categorizing can be used for GLB-kind topics. This might attract other people, that have an opinion on whether or not this should be possible IN GENERAL, but would not join in on a discussion of how the "category tree" is organised in detail. Anyway how that "category tree" is organised is for me a first responsibility of the WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality people, and is also best not hampered by trying to cut of branches individually as separate "categories for deletion". (No problem to have the whole put up for public scrutiny at regular intervals!)

My impression is that "GLB people" is chosen out of 12 LGBT categories, as this is the most commonly and successfully used in Wikipedia articles, and that giving in on this one is seen by some as only a first step to do away with LGBT and all other subcategories too. There MIGHT be a problem whether or not a category can be used if by definition not every Wikipedia article can be disambiguated to belong to this category or not. In my eyes there is none such problem, if a relevant group can be designated IN the category. But I've seen no discussion about that. And there are many more discussion points mentioned above that have to be sorted out, before I would allow the GLBT (sub)categories to be put out for somebody taking his opinion as the Wikipedia prescription. In other words: if putting away GLB category on such shallow grounds, the day after I start BLG category, without taking part in the deletion discussion over that article, and a month later GBL category, and by the time I ran out of every combination, I'm sure to have found something new. I MEAN: I rather avoid nastiness, I would do such thing only if we keep avoiding the fundamental discussions regarding when *exactly* categories can be used and when they can't.

(new proposed) Vote N 1

I think that the results of this vote N 1 are not useable either, because this was not the published topic of this discussion, and not all made clear what their stand on this point is:

People who think that categories can by definition not be used for designation of GLB people (under whatever category name):
 * NO CATEGORIES CAN BE USED: Postdlf, UtherSRG, Aris Katsaris, Gtrmp(Sean Curtin) (4)
 * AT LEAST SOME CATEGORIES CAN BE USED: Erolos, Vfp15(Vincent), Solipsist, Sj, Beland, Guanaco, Hyacinth, VV, Seth Mahoney, Owen Blacker, Mike H, Bearcat, Bodnotbod (no comment), Francis Schonken (14)

(new proposed) Vote N 2

Under the (presently not really confirmed) supposition that Vote N 1 would give the same result, if following a broader discussion, I suppose the next step would be to have a vote on name suggestions for categories in the GLBT department. Of course still under the same disclaimer that this was not the announced topic, so no validity to this vote either up till now:


 * A combination of categories in the sense of: People who publicly and primarily self-identify as GLBTI; People who incidentally self-identify as GLBTI; People who consider their sexuality unclassifiable; People who are suspected of being GLBTI but we aren't sure; People who are commonly thought to be GLBTI but who aren't; People who engage in same-sex sexual behavior but don't self-identify as GLBTI; People who are GLBTI activists, writers, filmmakers, etc. and GLBTI themselves; People who are GLBTI activists, writers, filmmakers, etc but not GLBTI themselves; People who are GLB but don't know it yet; People who are still in the closet; Etc... - UP TILL NOW: 1 vote (Beland)
 * A combination of categories in the sense of: Category:Famous people who identify as homosexual', 'Category:Famous people who identify as heterosexual', 'Category:Famous people who identify as bisexual', 'Category:Famous people who do not define their sexuality', etc... - UP TILL NOW: 1 vote (Erolos)
 * Categories in the sense of: "Queer culture" or "Queer historical figures" - UP TILL NOW: 1 vote (Sj)
 * Categories in the sense of: "notable people persecuted for being gay" - UP TILL NOW: 1 vote (Vincent)
 * Keep "GLB people" - UP TILL NOW: 9 votes (Guanaco, Hyacinth, VV, Seth Mahoney, Owen Blacker, Mike H, Bearcat, Bodnotbod, Francis Schonken)
 * Keep "GLB people", and add SUBcategories in the sense of: "Category:Gay activists", "Category:Gay philosophers", "Category:Gay historians" - Does anyone really sport this now, or was it just an intermediate suggestion?

(New, more polite version (sorry for the distress I may have caused) --Francis Schonken 07:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Why does wikipedia discriminate against minorities?
This makes no sense to me.

Why, when this category was voted for deletion does it remain? It might be a close margin, but there is still a majority vote. Putting this in 'unresolved' allows the Keep to win. Where is the sense in this? If it was won marginally by Keep I'd understand. It is not - it is won marginally by Delete. Therefore, whether or not it is unresolved, the category should be (temporarily) removed. Who gives Francis Schonken the right to decide that the votes were 'tainted'? Consensus was that it should be deleted.

I'm gay, and I find the inclusion of this category offensive. Reasons above constantly state the reasons why - the inclusion of an article in this category is not something that will always be explained. It serves only to tempt vandalism as is so much harder to reverse this vandalism than in a clearly defined list. At this moment the category includes Wanda, a place, and various normal heterosexual people, and doesn't include various other homosexual people.

If this category is to remain, in order for NPOV to be maintained, a Category:Straight people MUST be created and managed. If not, the GLB people category will always remain POV. As will other categories that single out minorities simply because for many people a 'normal' person exists - and is a straight white American male.

I've said before that it would be better to have clearly defined categories - Category:Famous people who identify as homosexual, Category:Famous people who identify as heterosexual, Category:Famous people who identify as bisexual, Category:Famous people who do not define their sexuality - at least there the explanation is somewhat done in the names of the categories. Category:GLB people is too vague and too assuming.

I can't fight this without other people recognising the inherent POV of this category and that is unnacceptable to have a vote where the result is utterly ignored, and will leave wikipedia permanently if nobody tries to recognise that the category must be modified if it continues to exist.

-Erolos

For people interested in this topic, I put a communication about it on User talk:Erolos --Francis Schonken 08:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)