Wikipedia talk:Categorizing articles about people/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality/Archive 10

Possibilities for the next RM
Given the outcome of the above RM, I would suggest that, while there may come day when we can agree on an umbrella term for the areas covered in this guideline, we are not there yet. I think it therefore makes sense for us to do a more conservative RM simply to add Disability to the guideline name at this time. What are people's thoughts on shaking up the order of the title when we do that to make for a more memorable mnemonic, and less alphabet soup? I was thinking "gender, race, ethnicity, disability, and sexuality" (GREDS).--Trystan (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Like I stated in the previous move discussion, "I only support the long-standing title of "Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexuality" or "Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, and disability." I'll stick with that statement. So I can be fine with "disability" being added on, but I see no need to change up the order, especially since all of the other categories tend to be more contentious than the topic of disability. Flyer22 (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see the piling on of temporary mnemonics (and/or shortcuts) as part of the problem, not part of a solution. That's why I would go to a generic title straight away.
 * Indeed I would choose a title that allows treatement of other categories with similar issues (e.g. "categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation" as they are named at WP:BLPCAT) if and when consensus of editors chooses to do so in the future, but then without needing further title rewrites, and keeping the list of shortcuts in the guideline template manageable and fixed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There should not be any more "temporary mnemonics (and/or shortcuts)" regarding this page. The "Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality" page, whether its title or body, should not be continually added on to when it comes to a perceived "sensitive" category. That's like continually adding on to a policy or guideline's title simply to cover something else. If other categories are needed on this page, and I don't see that they are, an "Other" section (or something similar) can simply suffice. The title does not have to be interpreted so strictly that it can't include a related topic not covered by the title. Take WP:Meatpuppet, for example, which does not have its own page; it's not the same thing as a WP:Sockpuppet, but the WP:Sockpuppet page is where it redirects to because it's a closely related matter that is best discussed on that page. I'm not convinced that the disability category should have been added to this page. This page worked well for years without that category, and the new category, to me knowledge, has yet to prove it's an improvement; perhaps because it's still very new and time is needed to gauge whether or not that addition is beneficial to Wikipedia. This page already covers what it needs to, and I can't see any need to extend it beyond disability. Editors can also propose a different page entirely if there is some "sensitive" category they want covered, instead of trying to piggypack a category on to this page. This page should be as specific as it can be regarding what it covers. Not vague, or generic as you call it, to cover almost any perceived sensitive category. Other editors have already discussed with you above about the problem with such a generic take. I don't think a rehash of those points are needed in this new section. Flyer22 (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * comment The suggestion that Francis added somewhere that these are "sensitive" categories because of controversy is missing an important part of the reason for this particular grouping - and why disability was added. The overriding gist of all of this guideline is (a) Only create such categories carefully, when there is sourcing and the group itself is identifiable and (b) Do not create such categories when they are likely to ghettoize (hence the final rung rule) and (c) Ensure that if such categories exist, people are nonetheless placed in neutral equivalents (e.g. deghettoize). All of these categories should be non-diffusing categories on their neutral parent equivalents, and as such we could shorten it to "Non-diffusing personal categories" or "Non-diffusing personal characteristics" to emphasize that fact in the title, because that non-diffusing nature is what separates these categories from nationality, "from" categories, "year of birth", etc. But I completely disagree that we should add crime or other "poor reputation" categories to this guideline, that should be covered elsewhere - none of these categories are or should be considered to be disparaging in any way, and adding such categories which potentially disparage would only muddy the waters (and those categories do not generally share the "non-diffusing" aspect that these ones all have in common).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * comment Why is an umbrella term needed? Instead of: Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, why not have Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, Wikipedia:Categorization/Religion, Wikipedia:Categorization/Sexuality, and Wikipedia:Categorization/Disability? Bus stop (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I suppose because it's easier/quicker to address all those matters on one page. I'm usually in favor of consolidation, which is why a fragmented discussion (a discussion spread across multiple talk pages) often irks me and I lean toward WP:TALKCENT or WP:CENTRAL. Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * But what is it that we are consolidating? Categories should all be dealt with in one place if they are all the same kind of thing, but if that is the case, what sort of thing are they? We've seen a number of answers proposed (sensitive categories, aspects of personal identity, non-diffusing personal personal characteristics), but none with consensus behind it. If there is no consensus on a a broad scope statement for what sort of thing this guideline addresses or should address, it would make the most sense to me to split into its individual components.--Trystan (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need for a split in this case. My mindset is "split only when necessary." Not in the case of a page that has worked fine as it is for years. In this regard, I also advise editors not to create a WP:Spinout article unless necessary (and that guideline states similarly). Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What is the argument for having an umbrella term? I understand that it “has worked fine as it is for years.” Of course it has worked fine. But that isn’t because there is an umbrella term. It has worked because we have written policies and guidelines addressing WP:Categorization by these various attributes. We would continue to do the same if these dissimilar qualities, attributes, and conditions each had their own separate headings. When a dispute arose, we would refer disputants not to a broad heading—an "umbrella" term—but to a targeted heading. Rather than a catchall umbrella term we would be linking disputants to the language in policy most relevant to the particular issue at hand. What is the purpose for an umbrella term when we have perfectly understandable specific terms for the areas of interest: Ethnicity, Gender, Religion, Sexuality, and Disability? Bus stop (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Like I stated, unless I think that a split is necessary or is especially beneficial, then I won't agree with a split. It's "easier/quicker to address all th[e]se matters on one page" and doing so has not proved problematic. Any other categorization of people matters can be handled at Categorization of people, where some others already are...without a page similar to Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality devoted to them. Flyer22 (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course it has “not proved problematic.” Nor would it be “problematic” to address these qualities separately. So, why lump these dissimilar qualities under one heading? Is there an advantage to grouping them all together? Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, why are you linking to my comments when those comments are right above? It's not like I've changed them, except for in cases where the original post was tweaked before you replied. As for your question of "advantage," I've already responded with my opinion -- "it's easier/quicker to address all th[e]se matters on one page." And like I essentially noted above (my "13:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)" post), and like Muffinator seemimgly hinted at below (his "23:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)" post), these categories are clearly the more controversial categories, which is clearly why they've all been lumped together. In my opinion, it's best to address them all on one page, just like we do at Wikipedia:Categorization of people; it's just that the Wikipedia: Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality page is here to significantly expand on those listings. If there was a need for a split in this case, such as all of these listings can't be adequately covered on one page, then I'd agree with a split. But there is no need for a split. For this case, I've pretty much stated, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.", and I stand by that. There are no other arguments that I have for keeping these listings on one page. You see no advantage to keeping them on one page. I see no advantage in splitting them into multiple pages. Flyer22 (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Flyer22—there is no commonality linking Ethnicity, Gender, Religion, Sexuality, and Disability. You are artificially creating a commonality by saying “these categories are clearly the more controversial categories”. Any Category can be controversial. These Categories are not always controversial. Our approach should be rational as befits an encyclopedia. I think that points to separate pages for unrelated attributes by which people can be Categorized. Bus stop (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't include" disability." And "more controversial categories" clearly is not the same thing as "possibly controversial" or "not always controversial." And I certainly don't agree that any category can be controversial; we have many examples of non-controversial categories on Wikipedia; the vast majority of categories on Wikipedia are not controversial. Either way, I've already stated my opinion on this matter, and that opinion won't be changing. Flyer22 (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Flyer22—I am simply asking you to articulate a rationale for lumping together unrelated qualities on one page. Bus stop (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And that's the thing -- you don't find my reasoning rational; I do. I don't find your argument for splitting the Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality page into multiple pages a beneficial or necessary action; you do (you find it beneficial at least). I really don't see what more I have to discuss with you on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Flyer22—you earlier said “if it ain't broke, don't fix it”. Do you think that qualifies as a rationale for grouping together on one page several unrelated attributes by which subjects can be Categorized? Bus stop (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, since you keep trying to continue a discussion that is clearly over (at least over between you and me), I'll end it with: "I stand by all of what I stated above." Flyer22 (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Flyer22—rational and rationale are two different words. Bus stop (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And if I didn't know that, I wouldn't have immediately fixed my wording here. See how I had the wrong word used in a sentence? What I can take from our discussion above is that you do not find my argument rational and therefore consider that I have not given a rationale for my opposition to a split. Do take your need to get WP:The Last Word elsewhere, especially if you are going to be attempting to insult my intelligence. Take it elsewhere either way, since this discussion (the one between you and me) is done. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Flyer22—why should Ethnicity, Gender, Religion, Sexuality, and Disability be discussed together on one page, under one umbrella term? Your only argument thus far has been that "these categories are clearly the more controversial categories, which is clearly why they've all been lumped together.". I consider that a weak argument and here is why: we are perfectly capable of being mindful of any such "controversy" concerning Categorizing by those attributes even if policy language is spread over separate pages. These are unrelated attributes. They have nothing to do with one another. Any commonality between those 5 entities is being artificially created. There is no independent basis for the linking of these qualities, and in countless instances there is no "controversy" whatsoever. The present lumping together is a quirk and a blemish on our attempt to provide policy guidance especially to new editors. Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be clear to you by now that I don't care that you consider my argument weak, or that you misinterpret my argument (such as by stating that "[my] only argument thus far has been"), just as it should have long been clear to you by now that the discussion between the two of us is over. But go ahead and get WP:The Last Word; I actually don't want it, but I felt that I should respond to you this last time. And, for the record, covering these categories on one page (similar to how they are covered on the one page Wikipedia:Categorization of people) has not proved "a blemish on our attempt to provide policy guidance especially to new editors," except in your own opinion. If it did prove a blemish, then perhaps I would consider your proposal for splitting...but I don't. And none of these matters, except for WP:BLPCAT, are policies anyway. Furthermore, ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality (notice that I didn't include "disability") aren't as unrelated as you are making them out to be, but I don't have the patience to explain that to you; something tells me you wouldn't listen anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Flyer22—you are saying “Furthermore, ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality (notice that I didn't include 'disability') aren't as unrelated as you are making them out to be”. Can you please tell me how these aspects of identity are related? If you are simply going to say that they are all aspects of identity, I am going to find that only partially convincing. If there is more to it, I am interested in hearing your perspective. Bus stop (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As disability has been added to the content of the page, it only makes sense to add it to the title as well. Support "Ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, and disability".
 * If any explanation is necessary for why these five categories are associated, it can be added to the content of the page without superseding and ambiguating the title.
 * I don't think it's necessary to rearrange the categories; GREDS may be easier to pronounce but there isn't much of an argument to be made about memorability. The current EGRSD order is by commonality: Everyone has an ethnicity, almost everyone has a gender, about 80-90% of the word is religious depending on whom you ask, sexuality usually refers only to those under the LGBTQ umbrella thus matches disability at an approximate 10%. Muffinator (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose Categorization/Identities and views, or even maybe just Categorization/Identities. Ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality and disability all broadly fall under the umbrella of social identity. These are self- and socially-defined characteristics: they aren't things we can definitively prove, unlike an occupation, place of birth, or citizenship.
 * The expansion with disability drives home that just tacking on more words is not a sufficient way forward. To add to disability, we should also include political and social stances on this page – for example, "feminist", "environmentalist", "liberal" etc. If we categorised by social class, or physical features such as height or eye colour, then the same concept we are developing here would apply in those circumstances. The new naming of identities would allow us to better conceptualise the issue at heart here. SFB 18:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I also note a key misunderstanding of identity in the discussion above – an identity is not the same as "what a person self-identifies as". It also includes how people are defined by society. In terms of disability and conditions, it is largely society that defines who is disabled and who has a condition. The same is true of race, gender, religion and sexuality. If society (and/or the relevant identity group) does not accept that the person has that identity, then they do not have it. SFB 19:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support Categorization/Social identities. "Identities" alone is vague. Muffinator (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Social identities would be fine with me too.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll also back that variation. It defines the scope as personal and naturally expands into all the given areas we are addressing here. SFB 22:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose Aspects of identity. If consensus is not to unbundle the five characteristics (Ethnicity, Gender, Religion, Sexuality, and Disability) then my choice would be for an “umbrella” term of WP:Aspects of identity. “Aspects” is a more general term in this usage than “personal” and “social”, and is thus more encompassing of the variety of issues to be addressed. But my preference, as I’ve argued above, is to separate each of these aspects from one another by giving each one a separate page. I think doing so would encourage an expansion of dialogue. Bus stop (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the word "aspects" adding to this formation? I think we are addressing identity itself, not aspects (specific features) of it. For me, aspects of identity is more like the implications of identity. Also, do you think "social" excludes any forms of identity we're discussing? SFB 20:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi SFB—yes, we are “addressing identity itself”. Ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, and disability are aspects of one’s total identity, aren’t they? I object to “social” because these attributes can be applicable even in the absence of other people. Bus stop (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Identity is comparative. Without the social aspect (other people to differentiate from) it doesn't really exist beyond identifying as human (or another form perhaps, as Romulus and Remus). SFB 20:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is so obvious then it doesn't need to be stated. You are arguing for Categorization/Social identities, are you not? I am arguing for Categorization/Aspects of identity. You just stated that "Without the social aspect (other people to differentiate from) it doesn't really exist beyond identifying as human (or another form perhaps, as Romulus and Remus)." If we already know that identity does not exist except insofar as we can differentiate some people from other people, then why elevate the term "social" into the title? When we speak of "aspects of identity" it is understood that these "aspects" only exist insofar as they serve to differentiate some people from other people. I think I am proposing a simpler title because I am leaving out the obvious. Bus stop (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment/Question Note that currently WP:IDENTITY redirects to a section of MoS — would it be a good idea that the scope of (extended) EGRS and that of MoS#Identity coincide (I mean what the latter describes for article content, the former does for categorization)? A further note: usually such identity related guidelines only write out guidance on (potentially) problematic areas, I mean the vast majority of identity-related topics are not touched upon in these guidelines, while, yeah, not problematic and so not needing guidelines that then would only be rulecruft. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Some ideas: How to avoid discriminatory categorization (or) Categorization/avoidance of discrimination (or) Categories susceptible to a perception of discrimination (or) Categorization/non-discrimination (possible shortcut WP:CND), or anything else in this vein? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd feel like taking Categorization/non-discrimination (possible shortcut WP:CND) to a next RM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal
Also in regards to the "ghettoization" issue, an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality/disability subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree.

Replace with

Also in regards to the "ghettoization" issue, an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality/disability subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree, unless the parent is (or will become) purely a container category. 

Thus it would be perfectly permissible to split Olympic skiers into Female Olympic skiers and Male Olympic skiers, but not to ghettoize one or the other gender.

Just a thought. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC).


 * I find this solution tends to ghettoise trans people, who often do not fit the binary well. Sounding like a broken record here, but this is why retaining a non-diffusing approach to these categories is by far the most useful solution (point 5 of the General section). That way we get the best of both worlds. The only thing lost by this method is an empty parent category which would otherwise serve less purpose. You could even build a bot which ensured contents of categories labelled with Non-diffusing subcategory were present in the relevant parent to prevent ghettoisation and semi-automate categorisation to the parent. SFB 21:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Trans people should not be ghettoized, since according to WP:IDENT (?) they would be categorized primarily as they self-identify.
 * Certainly I could build such a bot&hellip; I just couldn't run it!
 * "Remember, it was diffusing Category:American women novelists that caused the uproar a year ago." The net result was that male American novelists were, according to the strange standards of those who caused the stir "also ghettoised", and apparently we no longer have and "American novelists" on Wikipedia.  Anyone left in the root category, in this case, no-one, but let us consider someone who denies that they are gendered in a binary way, maybe Genesis P-Orridge, would be the "non-ghettoized" people according to the original definition.  You may argue that the being called an "American novelist" without a gender assignment is ghettoizing.  Well one solution is to create "American novelists of other genders or none", but regardless the form of words I used would not allow someone to be "left behind" since it specifically says unless the parent is (or will become) purely a container category.
 * To sum, up, I can hypothesise a few things that you might imagine would happen to articles about trans people, but not necessarily which ones you thing would be "ghettoizing".
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC).


 * I was thinking more in terms of sport specifically. Trans sportspeople are largely unable to compete in their self-identified section of the sport. Andreas Krieger never competed as a male shot putter – moreover though he self-identifies as male, he doesn't necessarily identify as a male who does shot put. Keelin Godsey drives home this distinction, as he identifies as male yet competes in the women's division. I suppose the question is: is it OK to categorise trans-sportspeople by the gender division in which they compete? If not, they will be ghettoised in the way I mention above. SFB 07:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think that it absolutely OK to include them in the gender division in which they compete (Krieger is categorised in "Female shot putters"). If they change division I would think that it absolutely OK to include them in both.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC).

✅ All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC).

Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality under discussion
I placed a discussion tag Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, as the opening sentence of that section (" is apparently used as an excuse to circumvent WP:BLPCAT, part of the WP:BLP policy.

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Status discussed
Editors use this page as an excuse, Hence, this is not a guideline (as in generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow), it is a questionable essay at most. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to conform to WP:BLPCAT policy;
 * To exempt several sensitive categories from the WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION guideline (where that guideline does not make such distinctions)
 * Francis, frankly you are being a bit impatient here. Guidelines must be changed according to consensus. If your edits - which are wide-reaching - are Not discussed and do not gain consensus, it is normal that they all be reverted and discussed individually. This is indeed a guideline and while you may be right that there is a disconnect between this and BLPCAT what is ultimately more important is consensus as lived - eg how do people use these categories? The changes you have suggested would lead us to depopulate thousands of articles from categories like 'American women novelists' since being 'woman' + 'novelist' is not at all defining for many many writers these days, the same would apply for 'African American x' or 'LGBT y'. So before changing the inclusion criteria of categories to exclude thousands of bios we should discuss here whether that is the right thing to do.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, my edits were not wide-reaching. They only are if not accepting such guidelines and policies as WP:COP, WP:OVERCAT, WP:BLP, WP:NOT and NPOV tutorial. I didn't change a word to cross-section categorization issues currently explained on the page (really, they're not at odds with policy and related guidelines except when not accepting these). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were wide reaching, even if you don't interpret them that way. Francis, the bottom line is, we need to have a serious discussion about WHEN someone can be added to a gender+x or lgbt+x or ethnicity+x category. As I see it now, there is absolutely NO dispute that someone can be added to a gender+x and ethnicity+x category provided reliable sources agree that person X is a woman or is african-American. There is *some* dispute as to when, exactly, someone who is gay can be tagged as such. There also seems to be agreement that religion+x categories should only be added if the religion of the person in question was a significant part of their public life and work. Thus, just of those 4, we have different treatment in both the guidelines as written and the practice of hundreds or thousands of editors over many years. Your changes would undo much of that lived consensus, and force a much higher standard for inclusion in (characteristic) + (job) categories. From WP:DEFINING, we see that "Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic." - so while DEFINING is sometimes applied to categorization of an individual in an individual and accepted category, DEFINING is also used to determine whether the category should exist at all. This is a tension in the guideline and it is in need of being resolved, but pointing to a bunch of blue links and trying to steamroll a change here isn't the way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, there was nothing wide-reaching to them. Guidelines and policies as WP:COP, WP:OVERCAT, WP:BLP, WP:NOT and NPOV tutorial apply. Making connections with the policies and guidelines that apply is nothing controversial. Except, as said, for those * unknowingly * wanting to subvert policy and guideline that have consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Francis, now you're making accusations in bad faith. You may have a very clear point of view that there is disconnect with these various policies and you may have a very clear view that you have the right way to fix it, but that doesn't make consensus, no matter how much you hammer on about it. A bit of civility would go a long way here - propose WHY your changes are better, and engage with the critiques I have leveled against them. I am not against change at all, I just think your changes would result in us having to empty a great many categories of many of their contents if we took your words seriously.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As said before, deviation from policy as proposed is probably with the best of intentions so I added "* unknowingly *" to what I said above. I truly apologize for the ruffled feathers I may have caused.

The changes I propose are precisely intended so that editors don't * unknowingly * cause BLP issues, overcategorization, and what not. I hope that I don't have to defend that these policies and guidelines are there for a reason and that they have consensus. If you don't think that is the case, then you go there and not here. Here there's no discussion that WP:COP, WP:OVERCAT, WP:BLP, WP:NOT and NPOV tutorial wouldn't apply in general, nor that what they say about categorization wouldn't apply to sensitive categories. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Francis, I think the first thing you need to think about is what WP:POLICY says to do when two advice pages appear to conflict. The solution is "resolve the conflict", not "make everything match a page that is called 'policy' at the top".  It is entirely possible that the resolution here involves changing the BLP policy, not the EGRS guideline.  Narrow guidelines are often more nuanced and closer to the actual state of community practice than broad policies.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:POLCON would be the more precise part of WP:POLICY you're referring to. Its first paragraph reads:"If policy and/or guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so that all of the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure during that resolution process, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence."


 * (my bolding) - Obviously, that's what I do regarding WP:BLP and WP:NOT here. Additionally, I pointed to the talk page where currently the WP:BLP/WP:EGRS harmonization is discussed, see above: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. So, indeed lets keep that discussion in one place, that is: not here, but there
 * For WP:COP, WP:OVERCAT and NPOV tutorial I see no conflict with WP:EGRS... until I point to them as related guidance from the WP:EGRS page. Here's the second paragraph from WP:POLCON:"More commonly, advice pages do not directly conflict, but provide multiple options. For example, (...). Editors must use their best judgment to decide which advice is most appropriate and relevant to the specific situation at hand."


 * My idea is that at least WP:COP and WP:OVERCAT should be linked, so that Editors can use their best judgment to decide which advice is most appropriate and relevant to the specific situation at hand. Failing that, this is no better than a one-sided essay.
 * Apart from procedural remarks (which I think I had covered) I'd be happy to see your thoughts on the content of the matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My point, Francis, is that following POLCON is exactly what you're not doing. The "temporary measure" is not an excuse to edit all the conflicting advice pages to match whichever policy you prefer.  The "temporary measure" is about which of two conflicting guidelines you should apply to an article.  What you need here on the guidelines and policies pages is a WP:CENTralized discussion of the differences between what the pages say and what the established practice of the community is, and a question about which page(s) need to be changed, and how they should be changed.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Francis Schonken - It would help if we could see actual examples of where this guideline has in fact been used to subvert BLPCAT. You keep claiming it but have yet to bring anything specific to the discussion. Point out in detail the exact parts of this guideline that conflict with the policy so that we can concentrate on actually fixing them instead of all this "meta-waffling" around the issue. This is supposed to be a how-to manual, not a philosophical dissertation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, above I linked to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. It contains: "There is conflicting guidance and conflicting practice: WP:EGRS states: "Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question (see WP:BLPCAT)." while WP:BLPCAT states that "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." However, actual practice seems to disregard the second portion, and people are "gay-tagged" even if being gay isn't that relevant to their public life or notability."


 * (bolding added) Again, I think this was all done with the best intentions, but imho it begs to be sorted out one way or another.
 * Note, again, I would have this discussion (possible EGRS/BLP conflict) in one place, and that is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, as specifically asked by . --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This guideline does not actually tell editors to ignore the "second part" - it simply fails to mention that part at all. Adding it in is a simple edit that could have been done days ago without any drama at all - per SOFIXIT. Instead you went on a "rampage" of editing and moving and whatever that totally obscured the actual issue in a huge heap of waffling. BTW "gay-tagging" is not the only such issue, "jew/atheist/muslim-tagging" is just as big a problem, or even more so. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. This guideline does not actually tell editors to ignore the "second part": I never contended it would, see first sentence of this subsection: "Editors use this page as an excuse,
 * Not to conform to WP:BLPCAT policy; (etc)"


 * (bolding added)
 * Re. Adding it in is a simple edit that could have been done days ago without any drama at all - per SOFIXIT.. I did. Of course. Several days before starting this subsection. Here, reverted back out here, here and here (the last revert by ) - notwithstanding my pleas ..., don't remove improvements anyone would agree with don't destroy acceptable changes
 * So, then it became clear nobody wanted the suggestion that EGRS was subject to WP:BLPCAT on the EGRS page, not even on the topic of sexuality for living people. Made me wonder whether this is in fact a guideline or an essay... from then on we're here, in this section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually you did not simply add the "missing phrase" you added several large chunks of yadda yadda blah blah waffle waffle - most of it with the clarity of sludge. The simplicity and clarity of meaning of the actual phrase used in BLPCAT was not visible at all in what you attempted to add. If you had in fact added just that "second part" phrase, as written in BLPCAT, we could have avoided the waste of this discussion and used the time and energy for far more productive editing.  Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment If these sorts of categories (rather than lists, which show sources) are to continue, we have to assume that an individual is notable for his or her bearing of the trait being categorized. If that's so, they should all be removed from higher categories (diffused) - like governors of various states are diffused from "people of the state", "politicians of the state" etc.. When looked at from that perspective, you'll likely find that these categories really aren't meant to be (which is what this page generally says). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Defining
Francis has attempted to add language suggesting that articles should only be added to intersection categories if they pass the defining test. I disagree, this is not how such categories are used now. Instead, we should state, provided each individual characteristic is defining, then articles can be placed in any intersection category. For example, American women novelists is not solely populated with novelists for whom it is defining that they are women. Rather, it is all those who are women, and for whom being a novelist is defining. If we start to require defining for each intersection, then these categories will need to be purged massively. The only exception I'm aware of is for religion - someone who is known to be catholic and happens to write is not necessarily put in catholic writers unless that intersection is defining. The same does not apply for intersections of LGBT, gender, ethnicity + job - for all of these, as long as the characteristic in question is defining, we don't require the intersection itself to pass the defining test. Otherwise we would be purging thousands of biographies from various ethnicity categories, as well as gender ones. I'd also suggest to Bobo that you should not re-add material to a guideline that was contested without seeking consensus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Gender is defining. "Man", "Woman", "Trans-man" etc is typically opening sentence of lead.  Your argument makes no sense.  Obi, I'd also suggest you stop removing content you have no consensus to remove.  You've already reverted two different editors.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * guidelines should be changed by consensus. If you are bold and change a guideline and someone reverts, the path is discussion. Francis knows this, and you should too. Please read WP:BRD for details. I agree gender itself is usually defining, but the intersection of gender + job may not be - in other words, if we were to look at the bulk of reliable sources about Ernest Hemingway they wouldn't introduce him as a 'male novelist.' Thus my argument is that we should apply the defining test to jobs, but not to the intersection of job + ethnicity or gender or sexuality, since otherwise it would require us to demonstrate that 'gay' + 'job A' and 'gay' + 'job b' are both independently defining for an individual, rather than simply demonstrating that 'gay', job A, and job B are defining individually. The defining test is too stringent to attempt to apply to such intersection categories, which should instead be filled up with all examples that meet the criteria. If we did apply the defining test to such intersections many thousands of women would be immediately removed from women-categories. Many of these categories are populated en-masse - for example, groups of women are added en-masse to women + (job) categories - if we had to demonstrate and decide that "well, in the case of writer X, she is known as a woman novelist, but she's not known as a woman poet (yet is known as a poet tout court) - therefore she should be removed from the women poets category" - it's nonsensical and does not in any way reflect the way these categories are used today.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and off he went forum shopping: 15:37, 13 July 2014 --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for providing that link, which I should have done. Your edit here reminded me of an edit I'd been planning to make to the defining guideline for a while to clear up actual use. It's a separate conversation than this one (the scope of my proposed change is much broader than EGRS), but it's related so I should have linked it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic

 * There is clear desire in the community to (a) categorise by these characteristics and (b) have inter-section categories which (in most cases) are fully populated with people that meet the given combination of those individual defining aspects (regardless of whether that combination itself is defining for the given person). I propose we make all such categories non-diffusing to resolve this issue.
 * That's already the guidance; see #5. I agree with inter-section categories which (in most cases) are fully populated with people that meet the given combination of those individual defining aspects with the exception of religion or other political views. Not all actresses who happen to be feminist should be added to as one example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence my qualification that the person must meet those definitive characteristics individually (i.e. if you wouldn't put in "Feminists", don't put in "feminist artists" because being a feminist is not a defining attribute). SFB 19:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. In any case, do you agree that the non-diffusing is already in the guideline? or does that language need to be stronger. You should perhaps start a separate discussion on that, actually (re: non-diffusing).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should have read this fully before contributing! Lesson learnt. Apologies for drawing this thread off-topic. New section added. SFB 19:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Defining
This is the proposed addition, containing Afaik WP:DEFINING applies to all categories, by consensus. Especially for EGRS categories, for obvious reasons. For the recently added D categories it is stated explicitly in the guideline addition. There should be no need to repeat the obvious for all five of the EGRSD categories individually. One general remark should suffise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing the wikilink to WP:CATDEF: Makes more sense imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Any more objections? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first of Obi-Wan's comments, this guideline is unnecessary and also confusing. The current categorization system is working just fine. I agree with what Obi-Wan said, "Instead, we should state, provided each individual characteristic is defining, then articles can be placed in any intersection category. For example, American women novelists is not solely populated with novelists for whom it is defining that they are women. Rather, it is all those who are women, and for whom being a novelist is defining", as well as "The defining test is too stringent to attempt to apply to such intersection categories, which should instead be filled up with all examples that meet the criteria". All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "The current categorization system is working just fine": I admire the optimism, but that's not what is really going on I suppose, e.g. m:Grants:IEG/Understanding the English Wikipedia Category System (etc.)
 * There are issues w.r.t. categories/categorization that need to be handled somewhat more efficiently. The question is how. Going in denial is not part of an answer and even less of a solution imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The quality of the arguments for Francis's version seem superior. The argument that gender is not defining is false.  Gender is defining. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't just personally say something "seem[s] superior" and reach consensus by yourself as one person. That's not how consensus works. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think the addition is helpful as currently framed; it just restates a general principle without providing any additional guidance on how to apply it in the difficult case of EGRSD intersections.
 * The Tacitus example doesn't really work. Christian writers contains both people who wrote on the subject of Christianity and Christians who are writers. It's the latter sense in which it would fall under EGRS, but the former sense in which Tacitus would be considered for candidacy. Is there an example of someone for whom it is defining that they are a writer and defining that they are a Christian but not defining that they are a Christian writer? I think most categories are going to work along the lines of what Obi-Wan states above, that if they meet the tests for definingness individually, they qualify for the intersection. Wording along that line would be more helpful.--Trystan (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it a good idea to make clear in the WP:EGRS guideline that the general WP:CATDEF principle applies.
 * Re. "...difficult case of EGRSD intersections" — I don't think EGRSD intersections generate particular issues for the application of the WP:CATDEF principle. That is: if not making a vague and complicated exception that it somehow should apply less to these categories. In other words, restating the principle in this guideline without example should suffise imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "WP:CATDEF" is confusing, too. We need less of that there and not more of it here. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what could be perceived as confusing regarding the WP:CATDEF principle, "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, here: "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio."


 * ? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why was his being Italian defining? Baroque artists spanned Europe. Too many needless arguments would stem from this very ambiguous word "defining" that someone snuck in to the other guideline page. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It all revolves around "reliable sources ... " imho. So, "Why"-questions (like "Why was his being Italian defining?") are not for Wikipedia editors, send the question to the publishers of those reliable sources.
 * That being said & clarified, "...A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having..." appears a useful approach to categorization. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And the debate over whether reliable sources say something is a defining characteristic or not would be an unnecessary and often unresolvable one. What qualifies for "commonly" and "consistently"? How often? That's my problem with it (and btw, something being stated consistently doesn't necessarily make it "defining", but I'll leave it there with the explanation). All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no mathematical formula, is there? If you think there is, I'd be glad to see your proposal on how to differentiate between categories that should be applied to articles, and those that shouldn't. It seems like your main objection is that some level of editor discretion is needed to apply the rules. I'm fine with the idea that editor discretion is needed anyhow. Of course concepts like "commonly and consistently" would need to interpreted (that's true for about every word that is written down). The question is, would another expression be clearer, lead to less interpretation issues? Then I think "commonly and consistently" a fair choice of words, I don't see less ambiguous and/or more effective words that could replace this expression (feel free to propose if you think otherwise). Regarding "reliable sources": since the content of the entire Wikipedia encyclopedia is to be built on reliable sources, no surprise that e.g. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources has many active debates. That doesn't diminish the practical value for the application of this key concept of Wikipedia's content in categorization surroundings. On "...define the subject as having...", similar: it's not because it needs interpretation and editor discretion on how to apply that it would be useless (again, by all means, if you'd have a clearer way to handle this, I'd be happy to consider your proposal). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't finding reliable sources or deciding which source is reliable, the issue is terms like "commonly" and "consistently", which aren't usually debated by Wikipedia editors. "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources define the subject as having" sounds much better. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To me, seems like "commonly and consistently" is just not as problematic as you'd like to portray it. Can you indicate instances or examples where the interpretation of these terms has led to ambiguity in categorization issues?
 * Re. "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources define the subject as having" — doesn't specify the difference between article content, and the qualifications picked from a whole article for categorization. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, you should have included the "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" part in your addition. At least that's a start to a definition, whereas otherwise "defining" is just totally vague. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I linked to WP:CATDEF (containing exactly that) in my last proposal above (which I repeat here):
 * ...being understood that there is no use in repeating here the exact same formulation that is in another guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're going to re-insert it, you should definitely include the "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" part. Otherwise it's completely vague. Just linking is too vague. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I used selective transclusion in order to realize that . I had bad experience with quoting one guideline in another (without transclusion) which may lead to the quote starting to live its own life, when separated from a possible update of the main guideline page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 16 September 2014

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the suggested title, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 19:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality → Categorization/non-discrimination – See WT:EGRS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Nominator support per the reasons I gave above --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per my and others' reasons noted in the and  sections above for opposing such a broad categorization. Flyer22 (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as unhelpful. WP:categorization says: "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics."  The proposed name does not help.  The current title is more helpful in contexts such as Category:Wikipedia categorization. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  14:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Discrimination is the basis of categorisation, so this is unclear. Furthermore, the scope of the page is not simply issues of prejudice within the category structure. I'm willing to support a move with practically any of the other above suggestions around "identity" (which is clearly the topic at hand here). SFB 23:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - while the inclusive nature of the name is good, compared to a list, it is the wrong term. Also the issue that sparked this whole thing off, has been more or less quietly resolved, without revoking the allegedly heinous crime of categorising American women novelists as American women novelists suggesting that, while the issue is worth keeping an eye on (and indeed historically we have not allowed gendered subcategories) it is not a significant problem, except in PR terms.  So to suggest that good faith acts of categorization are "discrimination" in a pejorative sense does not seem helpful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC).


 * Oppose per above, the discussion seems centered around "Idenity" stemming from the Chelsea/Bradley naming dispute. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Comment, the current title seems to me to be more descriptive of content. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  10:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I made mistakes by forum shopping; I hope you realize what you're doing. --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stable examples
Re. "I agree about having stable examples, but I'm sure that the vast majority of scholars would agree that Sappho was romantically/sexually interested in women, even if not exclusively" — May seem so from where we're standing now: as it happens Sappho was also very popular before the 19th/20th turn of the century. Hard to find any scholar who would think Sappho a Sapphist in those days. See e.g. introduction p. 6 of this book --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:Due weight applies here. And, again, I'm certain that the vast majority of scholars would agree that Sappho was romantically/sexually interested in women, even if not exclusively. I would not even qualify that with "modern scholars," in the same way that I would not when talking about the vast majority of scholars concerning the Flat Earth belief. As many at this site know, human sexuality is one of my areas of expertise. And the topic of Sappho is not excluded from that, despite my not having done much for the Sappho Wikipedia article. I'm not interested in debating this Sappho matter, however; if I were, I would have brought the matter to the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Radclyffe Hall now, less complex history. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Men/Women vs. Male/Female
I am unfamiliar with categorization policy in this area, although I did read the project page and searched the talk archives, and I was hoping that someone could tell me what the deal with gender categorization using "Men or Women" instead of "Male or Female" is. For example, there are categories called Category:Men sociologists and Category:Women sociologists. Why are the categories not called "Male sociologists" and "Female sociologists"? To me, it seems like very awkward phrasing, especially for the "Men" categories. I am not sure why they should be different, but my brain seems to hate the "Men" thing more. I do not think that precedent for it always being done this way should apply, if it was done incorrectly to begin with. In addition, if we could program a bot to change the categories, I do not think that the amount of work to change it is insurmountable. However, I cannot make that claim with certainty, as I am not a bot programmer or operator.

I also question the need for splitting the sociologist category this way, or even creating a "Women sociologists" category on its own, as I do not see how gender could possibly be relevant in this case. I recall that some people wanted to create categories like "Early women sociologists", but I do not know if that went anywhere. If I remember correctly, there was a question of how to determine who counted as an early person. -- Kjkolb (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a perennial issue - it comes up frequently. See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_27 for a recent discussion. Current consensus seems to be that these should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Attempts at making them all the same have failed again and again. As for "men", you'll just have to get over it - see "Where women are concerned, the majority of men sociologists still engage in the put-down" Radical Sociologists and the Movement: Experiences, Lessons, and Legacies edited by Martin Oppenheimer, Martin J. Murray, Rhonda F. Levine or "in this study we examine one form of collaboration among women and men sociologists: coauthorship of published articles. We find that being female and writing about gender increase the propensity to produce joint-authored rather than..." Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research edited by Mary Margaret Fonow, Judith A. Cook.
 * was kept, per a recent discussion Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_29. if you want to nominate it and the male category again, be my guest, and see where consensus lies.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Obi-Wan is correct, there's no uniform consensus that applies across the board about whether to use "male/female" or "men/women"; it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis in each individual situation. There are certainly some situations where "male/female" is more natural, but there are others where "men/women" better fits real-world usage. (When the gender of sportspeople is pointed out in real world sources, for example, the words "sportsmen" or "sportswomen" predominate over "male/female sportspeople".) You're welcome to nominate the categories for renaming if you wish, but if you're looking for a policy which mandates your preferred wording you're not going to find one. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Obi-Wan Kenobi and Bearcat for your replies. I was simply wondering what the current consensus is or if there is a policy that deals with the issue, and together you answered my questions, fully. I currently have no desire to try to change categories on a case-by-case basis or to gather support for a policy that covers this issue. -- Kjkolb (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * hi Bearcat and Obi-Wan Kenobi et al. So, when starting a new category of Female or Women X (profession), I should choose what I think is best? Or do I need up front research (which I'd rather not do) about real world usage? Given the gender gap issues, I think this (and most) professions are notable. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

American farmers vs. American women farmers
In January, I began sorting by state. I've also created and  and have begun sorting and filling each category. However, User:Montanabw has insisted that all members of both of the categories mentioned previously must belong to, even though they are all members of already, while I contend that it is sufficient that those who fall into women farmers and African-American farmers do not need to be placed in the parent category. Rather than continuing to edit war, I would appreciate into put from editors here.--TM 13:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no parallel category for American men/male farmers, so removing women from the main list to a "women's category is "ghettoization". The regulars here know this was an issue for the women writers category and has been applied to others as well.  Frankly, I see no reason to forcably diffuse all the farmers into the "by state" categories; particularly where most have fewer than 5 listings.  I see no reason that the "American farmers" category cannot remain non-diffusing and have people sorted by state - if I am looking for an American farmer named Foo, but can't get it to come up in a search because I cannot remember the spelling or the precise name (i.e. was it Foo, Fu, Foobar or Fubar?), I find it absurd to have to open and skim 48 separate categories to find Farmer foo.  I'm a fan of non-diffusing categories.  I think that this is a case where it is appropriate and easier than creating a "male farmers" category.   Montanabw (talk)  18:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Follow up: I believe WP:Cat gender explains all of this.   Montanabw (talk)  04:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Question on tagging a category without citing it
This is a policy question and this the the best place that I could figure to put this. If you might indulge me, is anyone able to explain when a person can have a category tag without reference? I've seen this in various places, but as an example, the article on Ira Levin has him tagged as a Jewish-American author and an American Jew, however there is no mention nor citation to this. I am not challenging the late Mr. Levin's background, but is this just a matter that people did not think it was necessary? Kurtto (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Category tagging can't really be referenced, it is generally drawn from information in the article itself. That said, if someone adds or removes the category, it can be challenged and discussed at talk, with citations requested and appropriate verification added to the article itself.  Generally though, per WP:POPE one does reasonably guess someone named "Ira Levin" is Jewish.   Montanabw (talk)  03:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Montanabw, WP:POPE is precisely the guideline that I was looking for. Kurtto (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox of individuals that have no religion.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Issues with LGBT, LGBT people, and Queer categories
Current situation: Last year there was discussion about the scope of the Category:LGBT people. It was primarily between two users.

The current wording describing the category is as follows: LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender/Transsexual. Queer, pansexual and Radical Faeries are included in the LGBT concept.

This category groups articles on people,
 * who have come out to the general public as homosexual, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, Queer, pansexual or Radical Faerie, or, for historical figures, who are recognised thus by consensus of scholars in reliable sources,
 * and for whom, apart from the previous, LGBT is or was a significant part of their public life or notability.

Sexual or gender-related indetermination (e.g., asexuality, Klinefelter,...) is in itself not sufficient justification for inclusion in this category or its subcategories. Other subdivisions of Category:People by gender or Category:People by status might be more suitable in this case.

The content of each biography contained in this category or its subcategories should clarify how being LGBT is a significant part of the public life or notability of its subject, according to reliable published sources.

The problem: I recognize that having a clearly defined category for a contentious label is important, especially for BLPs. The category is clearly defined but with arbitrary boundaries that don't match common definitions. Of particular concern to me is the exclusion of asexual and intersex from this category's scope while terms like pansexual and radical faeries which are, respectively, rarely and never included in the definition of LGBT. Most sources include more than just gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender. They generally include asexual and intersex (see PFLAG, University of Michigan, UCLA, Berkeley, U of Wisconsin; GLAAD notes that it's an umbrella term, but does not specify beyond the literal acronym).

The problem seems to be deciding on what labels fall under the LGBT umbrella. If the intent is to be literal and narrow in scope, we should do so and only include identities that sources typically put in this category (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and pansexual come to mind). However, I think the intent of the category is to be a large umbrella for all gender and sexual minorities judging by its parent and sub categories.

Note that this definition does not match the apparent definition used in its parent category, Category:LGBT. This internal inconsistency needs to be addressed as well.

Category trees: To show the scope of the issue and extensity of the categories.

Proposed remedies: There are two solutions I see to this problem.

First, we could just allow the definition of Category:LGBT people match that of Category:LGBT and widen its scope. However there would still be issues with clearly defined categories. Because of this, I'm less in favor of this idea and prefer a second option.

The second option would be a wider change. I propose moving Category:Queer to be a parent cat of LGBT per definitions at PFLAG, U of Michigan, UC Berkeley, U of Wisconsin, and the definitions given on the article Queer. I will note that "queer" is still not preferred by some, as is noted by GLAAD, however this seems to be a minority opinion among sources. (Note, I would be happy to find more sources to support this position if desired. I felt this was sufficient to show the general definition of the term though).

In doing so, I propose we make LGBT more narrow and limit it to the identities sources often use. (The exact scope can be determined in discussion). This would apply to Category:Queer people and Category:LGBT people as well.

Making "queer" the parent category would allow identities often not explicitly included in LGBT to be under the same umbrella. To complement a more narrow, literal definition of LGBT, we could create a sub category like Category:Gender minority or Category:Queer gender identities that would include gender identities such as third gender, Two-spirit, radical faeries, and genderqueer (which includes many other identities). Pairing this with LGBT would cover all the possibilities. We could do the same for sexual identities like polysexuality and demisexuality. I will say upfront that I do not intend to include fetishes and kinks (e.g., furries or bdsm) as part of this category as they're not includes by sources.

I understand that the second option is a rather major reorganization of the categories and needs extensive discussion. I am not sure if an RfC would be appropriate or even a discussion on VP, but thought this was the best place to at least start. Though I think the current situation is a problem and I would like to see this remedied in some way or another, I am not strongly wedded to this particular proposal. I am very open to suggestions and compromise here. Cheers. For transparency, I have posted neutral notices of this discussion on the four linked category pages and on WT:LGBT.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that queer remains a controversial term; while it's certainly used by some people as an umbrella term for all sexual and gender identities that fall outside of the umbrella of conventional cisgender heterosexuality, and is certainly some people's own identity label of choice, it is not accepted by many LGBT people due to its past pejorative connotations. So we simply can't use it as the all-encompassing umbrella term for all sexual or gender variant people, because it's not a neutral terminology.
 * "Radical faeries", by the way, isn't a sexual identity label that supplants identifying as gay or bisexual or pansexual or whatever — it's a subculture within the gay male community, with which some people identify in the same manner as "bears" or "twinks" or other affiliative subgroups within gay male identity. It's a group that some people belong to, but it's not an identity label in the sense that terms such as "gay", "bisexual" or "lesbian" are. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To the best of my understanding, sources say it's generally accepted. Not sure "most" is accurate. If that's the case, NPOV suggests that it would be the neutral term. As for radical faeries, yes, you are right that it's not an identity label... not sure where that particular one would belong.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While the sources you offered certainly confirm that the "umbrella term for all people of sexual or gender difference" usage of queer exists, none of them confirms that it's generally accepted as the normative or standard term for what it refers to. It's a usage that exists among some of the people it covers, but is rejected by many of the people who are technically covered by it. It's a usage that we can only apply to people who can be explicitly sourced as using it for themselves, and cannot apply to anybody who cannot be sourced as specifically identifying with that exact word itself. And I'm saying this as somebody who likes the word, and wishes it would become the norm — but it just isn't accepted widely enough to be used as the normative term. Bearcat (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * any ideas on how to fix the categorization problem them? Shall we widen LGBT to be the umbrella term?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the premise that pansexuals/omnisexuals/metasexuals/"just sexuals" aren't normally included within the overall "LGBT+" everchanging banner (the definition of which is not the sole province of GLAAD or any other particular group, and I say that having worked closely for several years with a former activism director of GLAAD, whom I respect a lot). And it really does change, sometimes a lot; the inclusion of "B" at all was a huge debate that has happened within my adult lifetime, and has still not met with full acceptance even within the GLBT... (or however you like to spell it) Welstanschauung. At least as late as the early 2000s, friends of mine were printing up "This is offensive to bisexuals" sticker to stick on things at the SF Pride march, the Folsom Street Fair, etc., that only mentioned GLT, and I'd be somewhat surprised if they're not still doing so in 2015.  Radical faeries are obviously within the "queer" gambit, but they are not a sexual orientation, being a spiritual affinity group, and do not need to be specifically mentioned as part of the categorization scheme, any more than another religious+sexuality group.  I do agree that self-defined asexuals are being included of late (not without controversy), as are people who self-identify as intergender/intersex/agender/mixed gender/etc. But "intersex" also has a medical definition that doesn't necessarily always relate, and which may require detailed medical exams to even identify. I.e., GLAAD or whoever has no more right to assign an overinclusive GLBT+ label to a medically intersex person who self-identifies as male, or as female, as some religious group would have to define a transwoman with the label "male". Not everyone whose parts are unusual wants an "ally" in the GLBTTAwhatever scene, and association with it may be seen as harmful by some of them.  It must be clear that these categories should not include living persons who do not self-ID as belonging to them.  I know from direct experience with some of them that some self-identifying non-sexuals or "asexuals" (another word with an even more unrelated meaning in biology) strongly resist any association with TLGB.  And not all transgender people appreciate this conglomerating association, either. I know a transwoman who considers herself a heterosexual woman who was born with some parts external that should have been internal, and does not think of herself as "queer" at all, but is simply quietly living as a normal woman.  Plenty of cross-dressers do not consider themselves part of the BLTGetc. community, either. Short version: Not everyone is riding a rainbow float, and WP needs to stop trying to force them onboard.  PS: I say that as a SF Pride safety monitor; I have no soapbox, but I do have concerns about the shouting that is so often done from them by would-be allies who don't really know what they're talking about and who want to forcibly categorize everyone a certain way that suits one particular socio-political activism viewpoint. It's good that groups like GLAAD exist to raise awareness against discrimination, but their fans do not get to tell other people who and what they are. Categorization can be, and we need to be extra mindful of that at WP:CATEGRS. Remember that in some cultures people can be imprisoned or executed for homosexuality or suspicions relating to it. Not even just in the places you are imagining, either.  Did you know that crossdressers were rounded up and imprisoned in Athens just a few years ago?  Etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Our personal opinions political issues aside, the current categorizaiton scheme is broken. We need to fix it somehow. I offered two ideas and am open to others.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with "queer" may be that it's only a "reclaimed" word to an extent, as a self-label, and is still used as a slur sometimes by others, though less so over time. Not sure how people will feel about that. Even if "LGBT" isn't ideal either. One likely solution is to stop lumping together LGBT.  Organizations like GLAAD do so because the discrimination issues are related, but that doesn't mean they're identical matters otherwise.  One's gender self-identity and one's sexual orientation are not necessarily closely related. If transgender were separated from the orientation cluster, that would probably help.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Are "African American" categories supported by sources and policy?
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Mariah Carey. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons Category
Could someone please sort out Commons:Category:Penannular_brooches, specifically the subcategory "Females with penannualar brooches"? Apart from the silliness of categorizing objects by the gender of the user, men also wear them, for instance in highland dress. HLHJ (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You'd have to list that for discussion on Commons, through the process that pertains to discussion or deletion of image categories on Commons. This policy document only pertains to categorization of biographical articles about people on en:, and has no bearing on the validity or invalidity of Commons categories for images. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"Haitian" versus "African-American" ?
There is a BLP article (stub) that currently has the following two categories:


 * Category:African-American male rappers
 * Category:American rappers of Haitian descent

While there is no dispute on the 2nd category (his mother moved here from Haiti) my question is about the 1st category which was recently changed by another editor from American male rappers. While the person is black in appearance I am not sure if it is appropriate to say black people of "Haitian descent" are automatically "African-American".

Help? Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 07:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a tricky one, which I'll preface with the caveat that I'm a Canadian. In the Canadian context, where our "black" population is very predominantly Caribbean, it is considered objectively incorrect to describe a person of Caribbean heritage as "African-Canadian" — the distinction between "African-Canadian" and "Caribbean-Canadian" carries a lot of weight in Canadian culture, such that Black Canadian is still the standard umbrella term up here even while "Black American" has been deprecated as not standard anymore south of the 49th parallel. In the United States, however, I don't believe anything like the same distinction is observed — "African American" seems, as far as I can tell, to be accepted as the standard term for all "black" Americans regardless of the African vs. Caribbean distinction. So I agree that the "African-American" category isn't ideal — but it is appropriate and necesssary to keep the rapper in question filed in a "black" category context, and per US cultural terminology I'm not sure what other alternative is available. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Mention of bipolar disorder in biography articles
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Sexuality
I hope that I'm posting this in the right place. Why do we categorize LGBT people but not straight people? Wiki stance is that "inclusion should be made when a person's sexuality is part of their public life". Why doesn't this then apply to heterosexual people who use their sexuality in public ways (a womanizer category for example)? As things currently stand, Wikipedia contributes to the idea that LGBT isn't default or norm and that is, both, not particularly scholarly and actually quite damaging to many people. How would I propose that we do away with categorization by sexuality? 89.243.22.112 (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For the same reason that we have, for example, a category for, but not a corresponding one for — it's not useful or maintainable to categorize people by membership in the majority group, if that category would have to contain 75 or 80 or 90 per cent of all the articles that exist at all. People are, fairly or unfairly, defined by being a member of a racial or sexual minority group in a different way than the majoritarian equivalent — "LGBT literature", for example, is a real thing that real sources actually analyze and real readers actually look for, so there is value and use to having an  tree to help our readers identify writers involved in it. We do still, unfortunately, live in a society where all people are officially equal under law, but in actual practice less privileged groups (LGBTs, racial minorities and even women) do still have to deal with being significantly less than fully equal in actual social practice — LGBTs and African Americans (and women) do, as a rule, generally still have to work quite a lot harder in their chosen fields to reach the same level of achievement as a straight white man who's doing the same things.
 * And for that reason, it is "scholarly" to include categories for minority groupings: these are groupings that actually have context for them. "LGBT literature" is the subject of critical and scholarly analysis as a distinct genre of literature, while "heterosexual literature" is not. Academic studies do exist about LGBTness in relation to careers in politics, in sports, in entertainment; similar studies do not exist about the impact of heterosexuality on those same careers. And on, and so forth.
 * And as well, it's not "damaging" to categorize people as LGBT if they themselves are out as such. It would certainly be damaging for us to categorize people as LGBT on the basis of rumours, or to directly engage in outing people who are in the closet — but if a person is themselves already out as LGBT, then there's nothing inherently "damaging" about us simply reflecting their own self-identification.
 * And for those reasons, entirely doing away with all categorization by sexuality simply isn't going to happen. LGBT people ourselves were directly involved in creating Wikipedia's rules about where categorization as LGBT is warranted and where it isn't, we were directly involved in creating the rule that Wikipedia cannot be used to out closeted figures, and on and so forth. Trust me, you have exactly zero chance of coming up with some magical new insight that wasn't already taken into account during the process of developing the policy as it stands. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)