Wikipedia talk:Categorizing articles about people/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality/Archive 7

Relevance revisited
This would appear to be a massive change that would have an effect on millions of articles, and would counter the normalized way that articles have been categorized for several years on Wikipedia. Is there wider consensus than one editor to include this? I'm pretty sure there ought to be. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Too confusing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What's too confusing? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted All Hallow's undiscussed deletion of the Relevance criteria. It was added after plenty of time for discussion. At least 15 months (more like 20 months since the beginning of the discussion) have passed, and hundreds of WP:CFD, etc. decisions have been made using the criteria. The onus is on All Hallow's to convince a large proportion of the editors to remove the requirements. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Major policy changes should have the agreement of more than one person. No one discussed this policy change with you or reached consensus to add it. No one reverted your addition to the page in July 2009, nor did anyone revert my deletion of it in December 2010 (except for you, two months later). That obviously means there hasn't been any community input into this outside of two editors with opposing views on it. That's not enough to include it. I don't need a large proportion of editors to agree to remove it because a large proportion of editors didn't agree to add it in the first place. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This was not a "major policy change", it was an improved guideline that implements a specific policy, currently at WP:BLP: Categories regarding religious beliefs and 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 notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

There have been many CfD decisions based on this guideline and the overall policy. A quick Google finds most recently: American Christian sportspeople, Buddhist women, and Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive100. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note -- the policy and guideline have been fairly recently discussed and confirmed here: Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_81 Unless a new consensus has emerged, the guideline should remain.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC) All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As to the "normalized way that articles have been categorized for several years on Wikipedia", it's fairly obvious that many editors simply aren't aware of long-standing policies and guidelines. For a recent personal example, I looked up a person on a cooking show we were watching, and was horrified that a woman wearing a large cross and taking her children to mass was in "Jewish actors" and "American people of Latvian-Jewish descent". In the references of the article, it specifically mentioned that her husband is Catholic, her Catholic mother had tried out several religions (including Judaism), and her father was a Latvian raised Catholic (although he had a Jewish mother, but nobody in the family knew until she was a teenager). Jewishness is not a tainted familial gene passed down the generations! That answer is, as CarolMooreDC has advocated earlier, to remove these persons from such categories!
 * You're discussing the merit of this policy. I'm not. I'm saying that there's no consensus to include it in this article and it shouldn't be included until there is. I asked if anyone objected to the removal of this bit and no one did for two months, so I removed it. That's exactly the way it was added to the article in the first place. So we're at square one. "undiscussed deletion" is the same as "undiscussed addition". It's fair game and no one reverted it for two months. That's the exact same consensus it received in the first place. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BLPcat has nothing to do with this. It doesn't cover ethnicity, for one thing. If you want to copy what it says on BLPcat verbatim on this page, do so. But that's not what you did.
 * The discussion "Is an unsourced categorisation of a person as belonging to a particular ethnic group violation of WP:BLP policy?" refers to unsourced categorization. Nothing in what you added refers to sourcing.
 * I don't see what your example of has to do with anything. IF you think someone doesn't belong in a category, remove her from it.
 * This is not an "article". This is a guideline. It is not "fair game". You did not ask "if anyone objected to the removal of this bit", go back and look (above). You were bold, and you were reverted. This is a stable guideline, and those of us with over 1,000 watched pages simply don't check often enough. And we always discuss the merits.
 * The BLPcat mention is "relevant". The paragraph you deleted is not specific to Ethnicity.
 * The discussion was concerning relevance. It is mentioned 6 times in the cited passage. Did you actually read it? Please do not get off on a tangent.
 * And although I carefully didn't mention the BLP name, you went through my contributions and searched for it? Enough already!
 * Allright, I have copied in what it says in BLPcat word-for-word, verbatim. It does seem relevant here. However, if you want to extend BLPcat or WP:CEGRS to ethnicity, get consensus to do so. A proposal to extend BLPcat to ethnicity failed just this December. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please cite your sources. I've checked, and cannot find any such BLPcat discussion. Moreover, this guideline applies to everything: the living, the dead, and the undead. And its name starts with "Ethnicity". Finally, this is a discussion about the requirement of relevance!

PLEASE CEASE EDIT WARRING -- Wraith, you have not followed the process for making a change. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? You just did everything I did. You reverted as many times -   as I did. You did not follow the process for making a change. The word consensus means the agremeent of more than one person. More than one person did not agree to the changes in July 2009. Only one person participated in that discussion. That was you. You can't say you reached consensus when you reached it with yourself. Nor can you then be surprised when someone reverts you. I asked if anyone minded if I took out this part in December 2010. No one replied. Presumably, I have as much consensus as you did to remove it based on the same credentials. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stay on topic. You have changed from "relevance" to "ethnicity" to "process". The change from GRS to EGRS was made after much discussion, in many places, and something like 500 category decisions that summer. Ethnicity has always been an integral part of this guideline &mdash; it was formerly under "Race", and the decision was made to distinguish ethnicity from race. This was a stable guideline for over 18 months until you changed it. Everybody else uses it. It is consistent with every other guideline and policy. Yes, I'm the editor who wrote nearly all these ethnicity guidelines over the past 8 years. We have very strong consensus! Instead, you attack the editor?
 * Consensus to make the change should be reached here, not at some alleged elsewhere. I quote you: you added this into the article, saying "relevant - 14 days with no dissent on Talk". Well, I removed it after two days with no dissent on talk - and at least 12 subsequent days when there was no dissent to my removal. Therefore it was removed under the same standards by which it was added. And no, it's not consistent with anything else on Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, various proposals to add notability requirements to ethnicity in BLP all failed this December. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Wraith, you've not read the process for making changes to policy and guidelines. They are not made here on a somewhat obscure Talk page. This guideline reflects the decisions made at WP:VPP, WP:CFD, and elsewhere. Then we write them down, so there's one single place that we can point to for future discussions. There are thousands of WP:CFD (and WP:DRV) decisions that are reflected in this guideline. That's why I pointed to ACTUAL recent discussions (above), to demonstrate whether this is still the consensus practice for en.wikipedia -- and IT IS!!!
 * Please stick to the substance regarding Relevance.
 * I've noted before, Wraith, you are making proof by assertion arguments. Please link to the "ethnicity in BLP all failed" decisions. I've not been able to find them.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As All Hallow&#39;s Wraith said correctly "You can't say you reached consensus when you reached it with yourself. Nor can you then be surprised when someone reverts you." William Allen Simpson has a way of making changes to policies in this way. Therefore I agree that any change he has made to any policy or guideline in such a way, however long it has remained there unchallenged could be removed. More over, in view of the fact that many of his points of view have been shown in the past to be controversial or even radical, they probably should be removed. Only consensus can be used to rule upon Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But consensus is not WAS's strong point. Nor is WP:EDIT WAR, btw. Debresser (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Debresser, please stop your personal attacks. Reminder to all here: I've started arbitration and other actions in the past about the sockpuppet Debresser, but s/he seemed (at the time) to have ceased using other accounts and stopped the attacks. Up to the same old trash-talking again now.
 * Anybody see a personal attack or a sockpuppet here? Debresser (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In any case, let's see each one of you give an orderly exposition of the two points of view and their pros and cons. In their own right, not in how they were added or how long they have been on the page. Debresser (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The pros and cons of policy #4, the part I'm trying to remove? If I understand it correctly, actual implementation of this policy would mean the following: 99% of the people in Category:American people of Finnish descent wouldn't be listed there because the fact that they're of Finnish ancestry isn't relevant to anything they do professionally. The same would go for Category:American people of Swedish descent, and so on (I'm not talking about there being no references - if someone's Finnish ancestry is unsourced, it should be removed. I've personally removed more unsourced ethnicity categories than probably almost anybody else. But while they exist, they should be factual and not based on odd policies that shoot them in the foot).
 * A perfect example would be Jason Derülo, who's listed under Category:American people of Haitian descent. His parents are Haitian immigrants and he's obviously one of the more famous Americans of Haitian ancestry. Yet, under this caveat, he wouldn't be listed in the category because his music has nothing to do with his Haitian ancestry. But surely if we have an "American people of Haitian descent", Derülo should be in it? It makes no logical sense not to include him. He's also under "African American musicians". Under this caveat I'm trying to remove, he presumably wouldn't be listed under that category either unless his music was about being African-American, or was related to it in some way? Again, that doesn't make any sense.
 * Yes, William Allen Simpson keeps citing examples of people like Debi Mazar who shouldn't have been listed in their categories in the first place. But I don't see how that's related. Unsourced, poorly sourced, or incorrect categorization is handled by policies like WP:V, which is all we need. You could remove 70% of Americans of Finnish descent just because they're totally unsourced in the article per Wikipedia:Verifiability. That's good enough. We don't need an additional policy that makes no sense and comes up with illogical criteria. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I tend to be in agreement with All Hallow's Wraith's comments above.


 * Aspects of a person's identity should be noted (and categorization should follow suit) if they are reliably sourced—not because those attributes of their identity contribute to their notability. Attributes of a person's identity should be thought of as background information—the more the reader knows about an individual who is the subject of a biography—the more educated the reader is about that person. The purpose of a biography is to educate a reader about an individual who is notable for some reason. It is unreasonable to think that every attribute of a subject's identity should be notable in-and-of itself. Our concern for attributes of identity should be that they are reliably sourced—not that they contribute to the notability of the individual being written about. Obviously, more stringent sourcing requirements apply to biographies of living people. Bus stop (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Hallow's Wraith's argument. But I would like to point out that although Category:American people of Haitian descent does seem useful to me, Category:Louisiana jazz musicians of Haitian descent already seems a little too specific for my taste, and such categories have regularly been removed at Cfd. If there isn't as yet some general rule to prevent such categories, perhaps somebody could come up with an idea? Debresser (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that Category:Louisiana jazz musicians of Haitian descent shouldn't exist. But I think the part I'm trying to remove dictates which people are placed into categories, rather than which categories should exist in the first place. By the way, W.A. Simpson has now proposed these exact same rules over at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The requirement "Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity ..."  is not valid and is not followed.  For instance, in List of Jewish Nobel laureates the vast majority of persons in this ethnicity-based list are not notable for being Jewish, are their Jewishness is certainly not "an essential part of that activity".  So, that guideline may look good on paper, but it is ignored in the real world of WP categorization.  This guideline should be modified to conform to the consensus that has been established in the Categories.  In other words:  only 5 or 10 editors have scrutinized the wording of this guideline, yet 100s of editors have debated inclusion criteria in actual Categories.  The latter should trump the former. --Noleander (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ambiguous wording - I've read the guideline several times, and each time it becomes more ambiguous and confusing:   "Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity .."   I cannot even tell what it means.  For instance, in the category Category:African American musicians does that guideline mean the persons must be notable for being a musician? or being African-American?  Since this guideline is in the "Ethnicity" section, the distinction is critical.  Example:  if  Al Bell is a notable musician, who just happens to be African-American  (but his ethnicity in no way contributed to his notability or musical impact) would this guideline exclude him from the cateogry Category:African American musicians?   Regardless of the outcome of this larger debate, guideline #4's wording should be clarified so that ambiguity is resolved. --Noleander (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Current Wording - After skimming the debate above, I take it that this is basically a battle over ethnic categories. Having gotten into some squabbles on this subject, I can say that I firmly believe that WP is not the place to categorize notable people with irrelevant ethnic labels.  Some editors on WP take great sport in finding semi-notable individuals and labeling with "of Irish decent" or "African American" or "Jewish" when those labels have essentially nothing to do with what makes the subject in question notable.  This practice offers readers nothing, and only serves to satisfy those who enjoy applying racial classifications to people (i.e. like the Nazi's did, or the Belgians in Rwanda).  Often many of the classifications are semi-ambiguous which leads to pointless "is he really black" debates.  We should not, should not, should not be liberal in applying ethnic categories.  I'm standing in strong opposition to any wording that would make it easier to do so.  Noleander - re Al Bell.  Bell is notable for being involved in the "soul music" scene.  Soul music and African American's are fairly intertwined.  I'd think therefore that Bell's being African American could be considered "relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities".  re List of Jewish Nobel laureates - I think it should be deleted.  I think the fact it still exists is b/c policy isn't being applied well.  That's not the policy's fault.  It's CfD's fault. NickCT (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the simplest litmus test. Under the current wording, it appears that Jason Derülo should not be listed under Category:American people of Haitian descent. This does not appear to be related to his music. He's the son of Haitian immigrants. Let's say I'm a student doing a project on famous Americans of Haitian descent. Wouldn't it be immensely helpful to me if I was using Wikipedia for research to find him listed in that category? Why would we impede that? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not super familiar with Jason Derülo, but it's not clear to me that he should be in Category:American people of Haitian descent. If he's on the record as having said that it influenced his music, perhaps.  If he sang Haitian music or something it might be more relevant... but otherwise, why is it important enough to categorize him by?  It's not what makes him who he is.  Using the "Let's say I'm a student doing a project on famous Americans of Haitian descent" argument is a little specious b/c it could be applied to virtually anything.  I might as well say, "Let's say I'm a student doing a project on the relevance of opera to hip-hop.  Wouldn't it be immensely helpful if Jason was in Category:Hip hop artists with origins in classical opera.  As a side-note, I realize this is going to be a very subjective issue, and I appreciate that everyone might not agree w/ me here. NickCT (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The argument could be applied to anything accurate and logical. If Derülo's music style had origins in classical opera, and we had a category called "Hip hop artists with origins in classical opera", why wouldn't we categorize him as that? He's also listed under Category:People from Miami, Florida. Shouldn't we restrict people being listed in that category, too? Or Category:1989 births? My research project argument (famous people born in 1989 or famous Miami natives) applies equally here (or doesn't, if that's what you're saying). All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * re Category:People from Miami, Florida & Category:1989 births - The difference between those two categories and Category:American people of Haitian descent is that there is less potential ambiguity in the first two. Look, to be honest, I think it could fairly be said that Jason Derülo is "of Haitian descent", but will his kids be?  How 'bout his grandkids or great grandkids, b/c if they ever become notable enough to warrant a WP article, some editor is going want to smack the "of Haitian descent" label on them.  Trust me, I've been in these silly arguments before when some editor says "Well John Doe's great great granddad was from Zimbabwe, so therefore, it OK to say Doe is 'of Zimbabwean descent'".  Unfortunately, there is no reliable source that tells us what "of Haitian descent" means, and WP policy must be written to prevent the ambiguous application of the term.  On the other hand, it's self evident "1989 births" means, though perhaps a little less evident for "from Miami Florida".  Two quick additional points 1) To counter your Jason Derülo example, take a look at Andre Geim.  A group of editors tried to put Geim in a "Jewish Scientist" category on the basis that one of his grandparents was Jewish, even though Geim is on the record as essentially saying "I don't consider myself Jewish".  How would the proposed new wording prevent that kind of practice? 2) A standard I've always liked is "self-identification".  Since we shouldn't really be judging what "of Haitian descent" means, we should probably show deference to the subjects themselves (i.e. if Jason can be reliably sourced as saying "I am of Haitian descent", we take him at his word). NickCT (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nick, this particular person is a Strawman argument repeatedly raised by Wraith. Looking at the cited references, whenever an interviewer calls him African American, he corrects them, saying he has Haitian parents. Yes, it appears that's a strong part of his self-identity and is attributed as part of his notability. The fact that he was born in Miami should probably be removed.
 * Ok William Allen Simpson. Well, as I said earlier, I don't really know much about Jason Derülo.  It sounds like you're saying he has self-identified as "of Haitian descent", in which case it's probably ok to categorize him as such.  re "fact that he was born in Miami should probably be removed" - You mean the category "People from Miami"?  Why remove it?  Trying to get back to the point slightly, I'd favor a rewording of policy that called out "self-identification" as primal in categorizing by ethnicity/sexual orientation/religion. NickCT (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had time to follow the argument here, as we're pretty busy on a similar topic elsewhere, but Category:People from Miami, Florida should not include places that are not notable for that person. That's already covered in Category names:"*People are sometimes categorized by notable residence, in the form People from Foo (not 'Natives of Foo'), regardless of ethnicity, heritage, or nationality. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Residential categories should not be used to record people that have never resided in that place. Nationality is reflected by the occupation category (above), not country or county or city of residence.
 * The place of birth is rarely notable."emphasis in original
 * Good cite William. I actually find that policy a little ambiguous though.  I mean, applying that policy, if Jack Nicholson "resided" in Toronto for a year, could you categorize him as "People from Toronto"?  Is that fair....? NickCT (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that bullet arose because some folks were being included in places where they regularly performed (athletes in Chicago or musicians in NOLA), when they were merely there a few months of the year, even though those performances were very notable in and of themselves. Likewise, somebody owning a ranch in Montana for 8 years, but didn't do anything notable associated with the place, would not be listed there either. (You'll note that a certain ex-president's vacation home isn't included.) It's all about the intersection of notability and relevance.
 * re "It's all about the intersection of notability and relevance" - That should really be the bottom line for ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation, but is it true for place of residence as well? NickCT (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second here. Both of you seem to have said that it's okay to categorize Derülo as Haitian-American or of Haitian descent because he self-identifies as that. Okay, fair enough. But that's not what the policy says. In fact, the policy on this page doesn't even mention self-identification. It just mentions that it should be relevant to their notable activities. Presumably, somebody could repeatedly self-identify but wouldn't be listed unless this was part of their notability? William Allen Simpson, you just said "strong part of his self-identity and is attributed as part of his notability". The first part may be true, but how do you know the second is? Derülo is notable for his music, not for his ancestry. He hasn't mentioned Haiti in his songs as far as I know (and if he had a one-word mention of Haiti in a not-so-famous song somewhere, would that change that?). NickCT, I also don't understand your question on Andre Geim. The current wording doesn't mention self-identification. It just mentions notability. Presumably, Geim could be a practicing Jew, but couldn't be listed as a Jewish scientist unless his faith or cultural identity was relevant to his science (let's assume that it's not). What is the way to resolve your Geim query? Well, I think it worked out pretty well as is. It was resolved through discussion and conversation between a multitude of Wikipedia editors using common sense and basic policy. That's how these things should always be resolved. Not by sweeping policies that are too specific and overreaching, and potentially destructive. Geim's not being listed as Jewish would be supported by basic policies like WP:Verifiability. If he says he doesn't consider himself Jewish, it fails WP:V to list him as such (and probably WP:BLP too, and I don't mean BLPcat). If you guys want to put in criteria here on this page about self-identification, that would be one thing. But the current criteria doesn't mention that. It mentions relevance to notable activities, which is something entirely different and confusing. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PLEASE CEASE EDIT WARRING -- Wraith deleted the passage again, without any formal process or notification. Restored. Moreover, we have a related formal process for application of this EGRS language at WP:BLP. That process has not yet closed. As soon as that process has closed, I will formally initiate an RFC against Wraith. Thank you for your patience.
 * You can not revert the same amount of times as the other editor, me (as you have) and then warn them about edit warring. That doesn't make any sense. Second of all, the BLP discussion has nothing to do with this one. Whatever decision is reached there doesn't have any effect on what is written on this page. Third, we've had a discussion about this here for over a week. As I've said above, the majority of editors commenting here have a problem with all or part of the wording. That's more than you originally had - adding it into the article after no discussion with anybody. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, when you initiate that RFC against me, you should be sure to tell them in detail about everything I've done that violates this policy or principle or that. That includes adding policy to pages after reaching no consensus, reverting that policy back into the article and citing my original no-consensus, reporting people for 3rr when I've reverted the same amount of times as the person I've reported (and neither of us had broken 3rr or come close to it, as well), subsequently telling the other person, twice, to cease edit warring and posting a warning on their talk page to that effect, accusing people of being wikilawyers who've had hordes more edits to articles rather than policy pages than I have, canvassing over 50 people with massively loaded language and then complaining when people criticized me for it, citing the policy I personally created and added to the policy page as the basis for why it should be implemented elsewhere, and using the phrase "Bzzzt, thank you for playing" in a sentence. Your only problem in reporting all this about me is that these are things you've done, not me. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - The problematic requirement is "Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest. Moreover, inclusion is not transitive to any other activity. (For example: a notable LGBT activist is not automatically included in a corresponding LGBT musician category, unless also notable for one or more LGBT-related music compositions or performances.)".  That wording suffers from several problems:
 * Very difficult to understand what it is saying
 * Contrary to actual practice used in Categories today
 * Contrary to consensus of wider WP community (as established in hundreds of categories, by thousands of editors across WP)
 * Inserted into this guideline without sufficiently broad discussion.
 * I suggest that we step back and ask if that " notable activities" requirement is really appropriate. And, if it is, how can it be worded so that the average editor can understand it.  To start, I concur that the requirement be removed from this guideline while we scrutinize it and solicit input from a wider range of editors.   In particular, we need to assess the impact that the proposal would have: How many thousands of persons would be removed from categories if it were implemented?  Should we notify certain projects about this "notable activities" proposal before implementing it?  --Noleander (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "notable activities" requirement has all the problems Noleander lists above, and I endorse its removal. I'm undecided about whether some such requirement would be useful, but the removed version has several problems, and has not gathered widespread consensus. --Avenue (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I can shed some light on some of the situations that sentence was trying to clarify:
 * "a notable LGBT activist is not automatically included in a corresponding LGBT musician category, unless also notable for one or more LGBT-related music compositions or performances" was trying to preclude the idea that a person should be categorized as a guitarist on the basis that they happen to play guitar at home as a personal hobby, even if they've never recorded or performed in public as a musician.
 * "Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest." was trying to point out that it's not valid to claim, for example, that a politician who's openly gay should not be categorized as a "gay politician" because his political activities aren't exclusively focused on gay issues to the exclusion of any other interest at all, or that a lesbian writer should not be categorized as a lesbian writer because her novels aren't all only about lesbian characters. That's what was meant by not needing to be an exclusive interest: a lesbian writer who writes a novel about straight people is still a lesbian; a gay male politician who gets involved in environmental issues or deficit reduction or criminal justice reform instead of focusing all his energies solely on DADT or same-sex marriage is still gay; an openly bisexual musician who writes songs with no LGBT-themed lyrical content is still bisexual.
 * Notable activities was talking about the fact that, for example, we don't need a category for "LGBT economists", since there's no sourced evidence that the intersection of being LGBT and being an economist has any particular significance.
 * Whether that was all expressed exactly as it should be, I leave for other people to decide; I didn't write the section in the first place anyway. But that's what the point was. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Before someone decides to pull #4 again, it makes senses to me, is perfectly coherent and has been used as grounds to speedy delete several implausible categories recently. What Bearcat explains above is clear - there is no need or relevance for LGBT economists as a category, as one's sexuality and economics have no relevant intersection. There is no branch of gay economics that I know of which advocates investing money in a gayer fashion.
 * This rather interesting discussion concerning WP:EGRS, religion and BLP categories just went on and one editor points out that a certain Richard Feynman was of Jewish descent, though his parents weren't religious and by the time he was a teenager, "he was an atheist". Clear so far? Jewish background, had already decided on being an atheist before manhood. Good, so he then proceeded to become a Nobel Laureate and was contacted to feature in a book about Jewish Nobel Laureates, please read his reply here, it is most edifying.
 * To cap it all, and to refute arguments about but we've all been categorizing like this willy-nilly for so long that our actions MUST be right and the guidelines wrong, it is outrageous to find this person categorized as American Jew, Jewish Scientist, Jewish American Scientist, Jewish Inventor, he was not, and never will be, a Jew. Luckily someone forgot to create the category Jewish American Atheist Scientists. And he is on the list of Jewish Nobel Laureates when he shouldn't be, even with footnotes saying that he refused such categorization.
 * As the editor referred to above states "Still, if we are going to compile an 'ethnic' database, why should we care?"  Captain Screebo Parley! 15:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bearcat, what you are saying makes sense to me. However, from the way the text was written, it appears that it mandates exactly the opposite of what you're saying. If you're saying that someone who doesn't write exclusively about LGBT topics can be categorized as an LGBT writer, then it looks to me like this addition actually states that they can't be categorized as such unless they are known for being a writer about LGBT topics. As for the part about "we don't need a category for "LGBT economists", since ", I agree, however this entire section didn't seem to be talking about category creation, just about which people should be placed in which categories. I think the original intent may have been good, so perhaps the finer and workable points of it can be re-written and added to the article upon consensus (i.e. the points you mentioned). As for Richard Feynman, that should be an issue resolved on his page. Once again, it's an extreme example used to justify a policy that has little to do with it and would affect articles that are mostly dissimilar cases. I don't understand this idea wherein you see something on Wikipedia that you disagree with or dislike, and instead of going over to that page to air your views and try and resolve the situation, you go and try to create a policy about it that would mostly mandate change to articles that aren't in a similar situation. If you don't think Feynman should be listed as Jewish, go tussle with the editors of that page over it (if there are any there who disagree with you). That's what Wikipedia is all about! All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, AHW, but you appear to be being deliberately obtuse about this issue, let's reword the offending section so that it's clearer and acceptable to all, but please stop removing it. We are discussing both here: the validity of categories per se (such as LGBT writers or LGBT economists) and the relevance of placing people within them.
 * I think that the part about an essential part of that activity should probably go. There are probably many musicians who are gay or bisexual; for me, the guideline does not require them to write numerous songs about being so, it requires them to self-identify, talk openly about the subject and be notable for the fact.
 * Brian Molko, lead singer of Placebo, is openly bisexual and is rightly categorized in LGBT musicians from the UK, he doesn't have to write songs about it, he's open about it and his persona reflects this.
 * Other musicians might be quietly queer and even if it is known that they are gay, if they don't go round proclaiming so or turning up at LGBT Pride marches, then there is no notable intersection between their sexuality and their career.
 * So let's work on rewording it, I have actually been referencing this guideline, and specifically #4, recently to help me decide if fairly implausible categories can go up for deletion, or if people should be in a category or not (as I ran into a serial categorizer). It is noted on your talk page that this guideline had existed for 21 months before you removed it and just because two months go by doesn't mean that whatever change you made is irrevocably set in stone. As the editor goes on to point out, the guideline has been used on WP for a long time and I use it, so don't delete, discuss and let's find something less opaque, that is clearer to all involved.
 * Finally, your final comments are fairly dismissive, as if I should mind my own business and go make my case over at Richard Feynman, sorry but this is an example I came across the other day in a related discussion, the actual title being: Clarification_needed:_Assigning_religion_categories_to_BLPs_according_to_WP:EGRS, and I found it to be a good example of the misapplication and non-respect of this policy. It's not an extreme example, just one that I happened across, as for Jason Derülo, well if he proclaims his Haitian heritage to all and sundry he doesn't need to write even one song in which he references Haiti, it is a notable part of his identity so African-Americans of Haitian descent is fine.  Captain Screebo Parley! 12:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, let's reword and get a consensus to include that rewording. There has been so far no consensus of any kind to include any version of this in the article. Look, this edit was ended two months ago. Are we now really going to go through the motions of two editors reverting two other editors (or perhaps more if more join in)? I'm sorry, but there are two issues here: one, whether this should have been in the article in the first place. Two, whether some version of this should be in the article. I'm not ready to move on number two until it's clear number one is resolved. It appeared to have been resolved two months ago, so can we please accept that #4 never had any consensus to be here - unless you have evidence that one other person agreed with William Allen Simpson in July 2009 (not to mention that a majority of editors objected to some or all of it in March 2011, 8 to 4 - that's the only consensus I've seen here on anything). If we can move beyond that, then let's talk about the second part, which is whether there are guidelines here worth adopting. By the way, as for my talk page, if you read further you'll see the guy you were quoting wasn't sure by the end who was right. But in either case, that was before 8 people objected to this line in March 2011, to 4 who supported. Am I going to have to reach consensus to remove this every two months now? And a line that didn't have consensus in the first place? Aside from that, "just because two months go by doesn't mean that whatever change you made is irrevocably set in stone" contradicts "the guideline has been used on WP for a long time". Which is it? Does time passing make it into law? Or does a long time passing not matter? The guideline hasn't been in the article for about five months now, over all. Is that a "long time"? As for Jason Derulo, you're saying that if he considers himself Haitian-American or whatnot, he could be in the category? That's not what this policy says. The policy says it has to be relevant to his career as a musician. Just self-identifying himself won't get him anywhere. (Your Richard Feynman Example is primarily about self-identification. You're saying the guy didn't want to be categorized as Jewish or didn't consider himself as such. Okay, that's another self-id issue - a topic #4 doesn't even address!) All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey All Hallow's, calm down, you're getting all hot and bothered over this and working yourself into a lather. Er, it's late here so I will reply to you in a more detailed manner tomorrow or somewhen like that. Just like to say that this #4 has been in the article in the last five months as I have been using it to decide on categorization issues. Just like to make that clear.
 * Also, it would be extremely helpful if you separated your arguments into coherent blocks and adressed one issue at a time, as of now it appears to be one long rant where you mix completely different issues together and so it makes it difficult to follow clearly what your arguments are (or are not).
 * Concerning your talk page, I did read all of the conversation, I do not do cherry-picking and, IMHO, you just used the same technique as above, a torrent of arguments, one after the other, and just battered the poor guy into submission/confusion/bed. It's my opinion and it's humour, no personal offence intended.
 * I think this needs other eyes on it, I'm not sure if the BLPN is the right place, but as pointed out above, many AfD discussions have used it, there is an archived village pump discussion about it (which I haven't read yet), I agree the wording may appear unclear to some (or many as the case may be) but it is not Wikipedia's duty to go round outing people because they are gay or have Jewish ancestry if they do not identify or proclaim it. Example as per Jason Derulo: if people use their notability and career as a platform for their Haitianness then that's good enough for me. Wyclef Jean does not sing about Haiti, as far as I know, either with the Fugees or solo, but he is notably Haitian and uses his music career to voice his identification with his motherland. That's all folks!  Captain Screebo Parley! 22:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How has it been in the article for the last five months? It wasn't here from December 23 to February 27, and then from March 13 until about some of these days. That adds up to about five months. Hey, I have more than one argument or reasoning behind me, so I state them all. As for other eyes, well, we did have a fairly substantial discussion here in March. Like I said, if you or anyone else wants to introduce a new section into this article, let's do so and see if there is a group consensus on it. And what do AFDs have to do with this? As far as I can tell, this line is about which people should be in which categories, not which categories should exist or be deleted. I also don't understand your argument - "it is not Wikipedia's duty to go round outing people". This policy bit applies to categories only - so whatever so-called "outing" you're talking about would presumably still be going on in the text. The categories only reflect the text. (And once again, this policy blurb never mentions self-identification). I didn't use Wyclean Jean as an example because he was born in Haiti and tried running for president of Haiti. Derulo is a better example. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"Notability" is the wrong concept
What does "Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities" actually mean in practice? We have a defined meaning of notability, meaning sufficient coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to warrant an article (plus some SNGs). That can't be what it means here - so why use the word, and why link to the notability guideline? That's only serving to confuse matters. If we are to categorise a Harvard graduate as a Harvard graduate, must there have been multiple reliable sources dedicated to the fact that this person is a Harvard graduate? That would be plainly ridiculous - so what do we mean by "notable" here? Fences &amp;  Windows  01:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what it means here: multiple independent third-party reliable sources thought it was important enough to indicate was an important part of the person's academic career, making them notable! You certainly mustn't include an institution that somebody happened to attend, but had nothing to do with their career trajectory. (It's not ridiculous. Too bad you don't like it.)
 * WAS: Im sorry, but I cannot understand what you are saying. The guidelines should be crystal clear, but it is impossible to parse the phrase:  Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities.  For example, in the gender-based category Category:Female aviators, what exactly is the guideline requiring?  That the female-ness be notable?   Or simply that the woman be notable enough for a WP article?  Is there ever an instance where a female aviator with a WP article would be excluded from that Category based on this guideline?  Regardless of the answers to these questions (and I do want them answered) the point remains that the wording is ambiguous and confusing and needs to be clarified. --Noleander (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Noleander - Perhaps consider Amelia Earhart? She was clearly notable as being a female aviator.  Had she just been an aviator, or just been female, she wouldn't have been so notable.  On the other hand, imagine Jane Doe, a 747 pilot who happened to become notable after crashing a plane into the Hudson.  The fact that she happened to be female wouldn't intersect with her notable activity.  This seems like a clear distinction to me. NickCT (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear you. But the Category:Female aviators category, today, is currently used to list all female aviators that meet WP notability requirements.  Let's say about half are especially notable for being female aviators.  You're saying that the other 50% of those women should be eliminated from that category?   (again, I'm just guessing at the 50%).   If  that is the proposal, then that is a radical change to WP policy, and probably needs much broader discussion that this lowly Talk page.  Even groups such as Aviation or WikiProject Feminism should be involved.   A mere 10 or 15 editors cannot dictate such a momentous shift in policy.  --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ... also, on the clarity of the wording: In your preceding comment, you explained  your interpretation rather clearly, by use of example and key words like "happened" etc.  However, the current phrasing in the Guideline is NOT clear.  I think 3 different editors could read it 3 different ways.  --Noleander (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * re "probably needs much broader discussion that this lowly Talk page" - Certainly a valid point. This issue has simmered over an extremely long period of time on a wide array of talk pages (you're familiar with what going on at BLP at the moment).  A broader centralized discussion could be helpful.  On the other, I could well imagine a centralized discussion might become a pointless talk shop that fails to produce consensus.  In some cases, several bright editors focusing on something produce better results than "broader discussion"s.  Too many cooks can ruin the stew.
 * I see two "parties" arising from the debates I've participated in the past. There's a group of "liberal categorizers" (i.e. those who support applying categories to people liberally and with low standards for WP:V/WP:NOTABLE]) and "conservative categorizers" (i.e. those who are more cautious and apply higher WP:V/WP:NOTABLE standards).
 * re "the current phrasing in the Guideline is NOT clear" - I wouldn't disagree with you. Perhaps suggest a rewording?
 * re Category:Female aviators - Just as an experiment I scanned several listings to see if I thought they belonged. Ann Pellegreno, seems relevant b/c her notability is related to celebrating Amelia Earhart.  Cecilia R. Aragon, should probably be removed; her being female doesn't seem relevant to her notability. Betty Hicks, also should probably be removed; again, being female bares no relation to being an aviator. Raymonde de Laroche, seems relevant as she's noted as the first women to hold a pilot's license. NickCT (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * NickCT: yes, I see what you mean: a very high-level discussion on the topic would invariably get bogged down in a morass.  Perhaps you could refine that latest draft revision to WP:BLPCAT that I edited in your sandbox.. then  a few of us could come up with a rational, middle-ground proposal that may find acceptance? --Noleander (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "If I thought", "Probably", "Doesn't seem" - do you see how subjective and vague this idea is? Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you argue that a verified fact of a topic falling into a category is insufficient, and that sources must have given significant notice to that fact? But how significant is the key question. Surely not to the extent of the WP:GNG, which expects multiple independent reliable sources to have given the topic significant coverage. It's not that I don't like it (WP:VAGUEWAVEs to shortcuts are patronising and tedious), it's that it differs widely from actual practice and the purpose of categorisation, which is to navigate between related articles. Creating a stronger requirement than verification leads to chaos, as editors will subjectively battle over whether there's enough dedicated coverage of the category whereas WP:V is an objective criterion. Guidelines are supposed to reflect what we do in practice, not create stringent rules that only a select few camping out at this talk page agree on. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish I'd written that. A refreshing dose of rationality.  :-)  --Noleander (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I completely agree with this comment, 100%. It's my biggest problem with "notability" and what that entails or doesn't or could or should or maybe does a little. It's why I came here to remove number four in the first place. My alternate proposal would be along the lines of this. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, as to "stringent rules that only a select few camping out at this talk page agree on". Select is the right word. These rules were added by William Allen Simpson after no discussion or debate with anybody on this page. He proposed it in July 2009, nobody answered, and he added it to the article a few weeks later. I asked if anyone minded I remove them in December 2010. No one replied within a day or two, so I removed it. When Simpson came back two months later, he reverted it back into the article. If he had never come back, it would have never been re-added. So what we're debating on now is something that never had a right to be in the article in the first place - consensus by definition requires more than one person agree to it. That didn't happen. And it can't happen retroactively. That's why this should be removed immediately, until there's an actual agreement between more than one person to add it (and right now, we have five people expressing disatisfaction with at least part of #4 - Debresser, Bus stop, Noleander, Fences&Windows, and myself; it's supported by Simpson and NickCt. Yes, I presume Simpson could spend the next 24 hours canvassing an army over here, but sorry, I just don't count anyone he'll bring over here. I didn't canvass a single person to join this discussion and we still have a majority opinion that #4 should go (or at least be re-written or removed until it is re-written), which easily overrules the original no-consensus by one person). All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree 100% with F&W. In general, to ask for a categorization to have been a "significant" part of a subject's biography is not only vague and subjective, but simply wrong. Having lived in Boston for a year perhaps doesn't make a significant part of a subject life but this shouldn't make it impossible for us to put the article into "People who lived in Boston". People here are creating problems where there are none. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's a convincing counter-argument. If you lived in Boston briefly, then no, you shouldn't be added to the category Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts. Bull dog123  22:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The example said lived in, not from, Boston, but even then: If a person is born in Boston, MA, but moves away as a child, could that person not be legitimately described as being "from" Boston?  Is he (or she) "from" someplace else because he didn't live there his whole life?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But there is no category and likely never will be called "lived in Boston" .... unless I'm overlooking it... so how would that argument apply to categorization? But regarding being born somewhere and then moving... well, I think there should be restrictions on that. There's a fair amount of famous people who were born in a city/place by virture of their family simply "temporarily" living there - sometimes even just on vacation. I don't consider "People from X" to be accurate categorizations in those cases. This notability factor should be here to make people think before they act (read: add categories indiscriminately). Bull dog123  03:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So in your mind, Abraham Lincoln is not really "from" Kentucky, although Lincoln is the most famous person ever born in the state, since he only lived there as a young child. Do I understand you correctly?  Can you see why I think that mindless exclusion of people who didn't happen to live their entire lives in the same spot is silly?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What the hell? Mindless exclusion of people who didn't happen to live their entire lives in the same spot? Where did anyone say anything even remotely close to this extreme? Lincoln spent seven years of childhood living in rural Kentucky. There's an entire book devoted to Abraham Lincoln being from Kentucky. That alone talks at length about how being born in that area helped fashion him the politician he became - the whole "log cabin" stuff. It took me 10 seconds to find that book, and #4 was satisfied swiftly and immediately. I'm beginning to understand your arguments less and less. Bull dog123  10:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You said, on March 24th, that there should be restrictions on saying that people are "from" places, e.g., Kentucky, if they were born there, but the family moved away. In your words, "being born somewhere and then moving" is not sufficient to say that a person is "from" the place of their birth.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I, for one, support Simpson's initiatives on the whole, and I have never received a single message from him. It is obvious that he has contacted people on both sides of the issue, Cyclopia included. Feketekave (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The message he sent was hardly neutral: it begins with Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole.... I suspect he simply shot himself in the foot with a few targets (like me), but his intention was quite clearly to canvass in support of his position. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, I'm another who 100% supports WAS's initiatives and anyone can check WAS has not contacted me at all. To say there is "consensus to have #4 removed" is completely misleading. All we have is quibbles right now about the exact meaning and validity of #4 --- no concrete agreement that #4 should be entirely removed. Bull dog123  22:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but how can there be consensus to include a paragraph that no human being can understand?  If you ask 6 editors to explain #4, you'll get 6 different interpretations.  I suggest that proponents of #4 re-write it in a very understandable way that any editor can comprehend, then we can talk about it sensibly without stumbling over its meaning.  --Noleander (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it might need some fine-tuning but I don't think it's at all incomprehensible. I think the Amelia Earhart example is good - not all women who are aviators should be in the category women aviators... just like not all people who are "of Polish descent" and who work as "architects" should be in this winner of a category: Category:American architects of Polish descent. I think the language is pretty obvious, it's just confusing for some people who don't deal with list and categories very often. It's also not nearly as restrictive as some people on here are claiming. There's a pretty obvious divide between agenda-oriented WP:TRIVIA and notable biographical attributes. Bull dog123  03:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone tells you "I cannot understand #4" that is not something you can argue with: it is a simple statement of their perception. I'm telling you "I cannot understand #4".  I am a native speaker of English and an experienced editor, and I've done quite a bit of list/category work.  I'm simply asking a proponent of #4 to re-phase it in simpler terms.  The fact that no proponent of #4 has responded to my oft-repeated request is very telling. --Noleander (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm guilty of "not understanding what there is not to understand." Give me an example of a category/list where #4 wouldn't or couldn't be implemented. Categories and list intersections are kept and deleted based on whether they can be supported as "discriminate topics" - A.K.A relevant intersections. It's right there in WP:OCAT and, to an extent, in WP:NOT for lists - Dedicated group-subject subcategories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.. That's why Gay literature exists and why its corresponding list, List of LGBT writers, exists behind it (although this list needs some serious pruning and maintenance). This list exists to support authors who write about gay culture, gay characters, or being gay. In order to be a "discriminate topic," there needs to be something pertinent connecting the individual's attribute (gay, ethnically Italian, Jewish, whatever) to the professional output or activity for which they are notable (writing, designing airplanes, acting, whatever). If that connection is not there, those people should not be listed in that category and/or list. Not every writer who is gay necessarily writes about anything LGBT in their books. Such a writer should not be pigeonholed as a "gay writer." By the same logic, not every actor who has a Jewish background has ever had it become part of their notability as an actor. Some, okay, possibly have. If an actor is notable for being something else -- maybe that something else has a valid connection to their Judaism... but that does not somehow legitimize the Category:Jewish actors to be slapped on them when the whole reason "Jewish actors" (as a category) presumably exists is because it might be a cultural topic of importance. Now apply this to just about every other intersection you can think of: Polish-American architects, Female aviators, Republican writers, etc... It's pretty clear-cut to me. Lists and categories are not, and never have been, here just to "help college students find stuff better." That's for Category intersection. IMHO, removing #4 would open up a massive can of worms. It's getting harder and harder to "delete" improper categories and lists these days because "no consensus" is so easy to achieve. Bull dog123  03:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there something that's ambiguous about this example? Maybe we can remove it and say something a little clearer. Really, it's the equivalent of: People should be included by virtue of having high-quality sources calling them "Fooian Bars" not "a Foo" and "a Bar." e.g. I can find a slew of high-quality sources that call Jerry Seinfeld a "Jewish comedian" - this one even goes into detail about why his Judaism and comedy are connected. I can also find a slew of sources that call John F. Kennedy an "Irish-American U.S. president" (one here) - most of them talking about his and his father's connections to the Irish. However, I can't find any that refer to Chester A. Arthur as an "Irish American President" or even "Irish American politician." Arthur's father was born in Ireland. Rightfully, external sources recognize that this does not make Arthur an "Irish American" by extension (as his father was presumably a displaced Scotsman anyway). Yet, if we if completely ignored #4, Chester A. Arthur would be categorized as an "Irish-American politician" because he's a politician and this rather weak (albeit reliable) source refers to him as "Irish." Now this is a pretty tame example compared to the s**t that goes down on BLP articles every day, but it's one I use to show that these problems extent as far back as friggin' Chester A. Arthur. Notability is not the wrong concept - especially not for categorization. Everything we report on wikipedia has to be notable as opposed to trivial in some way. That's just WP:NOT 101. Bull dog123  10:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there something that's ambiguous about this example? Maybe we can remove it and say something a little clearer. Really, it's the equivalent of: People should be included by virtue of having high-quality sources calling them "Fooian Bars" not "a Foo" and "a Bar." e.g. I can find a slew of high-quality sources that call Jerry Seinfeld a "Jewish comedian" - this one even goes into detail about why his Judaism and comedy are connected. I can also find a slew of sources that call John F. Kennedy an "Irish-American U.S. president" (one here) - most of them talking about his and his father's connections to the Irish. However, I can't find any that refer to Chester A. Arthur as an "Irish American President" or even "Irish American politician." Arthur's father was born in Ireland. Rightfully, external sources recognize that this does not make Arthur an "Irish American" by extension (as his father was presumably a displaced Scotsman anyway). Yet, if we if completely ignored #4, Chester A. Arthur would be categorized as an "Irish-American politician" because he's a politician and this rather weak (albeit reliable) source refers to him as "Irish." Now this is a pretty tame example compared to the s**t that goes down on BLP articles every day, but it's one I use to show that these problems extent as far back as friggin' Chester A. Arthur. Notability is not the wrong concept - especially not for categorization. Everything we report on wikipedia has to be notable as opposed to trivial in some way. That's just WP:NOT 101. Bull dog123  10:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"removing #4 would open up a massive can of worms" #4 was added by a single editor after nothing that could be described as consensus in July 2009. As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing has changed in Wikipedia re categorization since July 2009, so I don't see what "can of worms" would be opened that this thing was keeping in check. Second, #4 is not about the creation and deletion of the categories themselves, so I don't see what that argument has to do with it. It's only about who should be categorized in a particular category. Third, no one has yet to show evidence that there was ever any consensus to add this to the article. One person proposing it and adding it can not by definition be consensus, which requires the input of more than one. In the past month, many more editors have opposed parts or all of it (8; myself Debresser, Bus stop, Noleander, Avenue, Fences&Windows, and Cyclopia, and Whatamidoing) than supported it (4; William Allen Simpson, NickCT, Bulldog123, and Feketekave). That's that famous 2 to 1 ratio. I find it impossible to understand how people can use phrases like there's not been a "formal process has been initiated to remove this". Where is the formal process to add it to the article in the first place? Surely a one-man consensus wasn't it? Anyway, I think the point is, if you want #4 or a version of it in the article, consensus should be reached to include it. If there's no consensus to add it, it probably shouldn't have been added in the first place. I don't believe a one-man addition to the article should be permanently binding. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The can of worms thing is not a fast process - it's a gradual build. Already, people are ignoring WP:OCAT and WP:BLPCAT because the language there is sometimes too ambiguous. Removing stuff like #4 makes determining whether someone is categorized properly or improperly even more nebulous. CfDs go through a formal process of removal even though, in most cases, they are added by one man -- so I'm not really convinced by this "one dude did it so it's easy to get rid of it" argument. Fact of the matter is... it's been here for a while and there's a reason for that. I also don't believe that we're getting a completely neutral swatch of participants in the 2 to 1 ratio on this talk page. The RfC that W.A.S opened recently is enough to convince me that, as of now, there is a pretty solid "no consensus"-slash-"keep" mentality concerning stuff like #4. What bothers me more is how after my attempts to try to find a compromise version, the opposers are still only calling for outright removal. Some type of "Notability" is not a vague qualifying factor... I wish people would at least admit that much. Bull dog123  14:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, one man asked if anyone objected that #4 be removed in December. No one did, so one man removed it. It stayed removed for two months and would have stayed removed even longer if William Simpson hadn't come back. That obviously means this isn't exactly a heftily visted page. CFDs aren't the same thing as article content or policy content. As for the issue of whether someone is categorized properly or not, that should (in my opinion) by decided by individual editors on the pages themselves. If you "lost" such an argument, isn't coming here and trying to win an an argument by creating a policy to help you just a back-door? Having a #4 type policy in here is something that would be decided by a few editors based on consensus, just as the issue of whether to have an individual category on an individual page. Since there's no overwhelming consensus across Wikipedia to remove such categories, why would there be a policy that said so? These policies should reflect the general population's practices. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How can you "lose" an argument regarding the notability of categories on Wikipedia? EIther the categories are notable or they're not. It's not up to an "editor's" opinion -- it's up to external coverage. We're editors, not creators. If someone were to "lose" such an argument then it's clear the "majority" on that page are, brace for it, wrong. Encyclopedias aren't built on one group of editors' "opinions on things." This is a common newbie misconception regarding WP:CONSENSUS - and it's not wise to further this misconception by avoiding stating it clearly - as clearly as #4 does. Wikipedia is not for everything. It's for notable things. Some things that are notable for a few individuals are not notable for everyone. Category:LGBT writers doesn't exist to house everyone that qualifies for both things separately. Notability is not negligible -- and without some mention of this somewhere, users can just jump on the "It's not anywhere in policy" bandwagon to further their agenda/POV/whatever. Not everyone shares your view of WP:V, AHW. It'd be nice if they did, but they don't. Can #4 be made a little less dense and a little leaner? Sure. I'd say it should, in fact. Should it be removed all together? Hell no. Bull dog123  19:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether a category is notable is presumably a matter of consensus by Wikipedia editors, that's how you can lose the argument (or win it). Categorization is simply not the same thing as verifiable article content - you're mixing the two up. Some fact is either verifiable or not, just as categories also are verifiable or not through reliable sources. How notable or relevant they are is of course a matter of opinion and not something that's set in stone. Chester Arthur being of Irish descent is a verifiable fact, or it isn't, and so is presumably the category about him being it. How relevant that category is is a whole different issue. Whether he should or should not be included in the category because it's relevant to his notability is a matter of opinion. As for #4, or presumably a new version of it, that should be included only if consensus is reached to include it. As far as I can tell, it would be a major change from the current method of categorization. Where is the consensus to add it? It didn't exist in July 2009 anymore than consensus to delete it existed in December 2010, when I deleted it. You and the other editors who've chimed in on this page lately should discuss it and reach consensus on the inclusion of #4 or a version of it. Right now, that consensus hasn't been reached. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether a category is notable is presumably a matter of consensus by Wikipedia editors, that's how you can lose the argument (or win it). If that's the way you're viewing it, you're succumbing to a bit of WP:OR there. A category is notable based on whether there is sufficient external coverage qualifying its inclusion in each bio. If an individual is never (or rarely) mentioned as a X-Y then we shouldn't be adding the category "X-Ys" -- even if they happen to be both X and Y independently. That's how one can determine notability without "consensus from editors." Now #4 can be reworded in a way to reflect that. I think it's okay now but if others don't then fine, we can change it. As for re-adding #4... I'm not seeing consensus to remove it all together (that seems to be specific to you, sort of/kind of Noleander, and maybe Debrasser) -- the rest call for a revision or clarification. So frankly I don't believe it should be removed until possible alternatives are presented. Bull dog123  00:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a consensus to add #4. Where is it? I don't buy into this idea where one guy throws something into an article and then it apparently takes a billion people to get it out. I'm not even sure why we're discussing consensus to remove #4, as if consensus to have it in there is a given. It's not. If lack of disagreement or reverting equals consensus to keep, then presumably my unchallenged deletion of #4 in December was consensus enough to delete it. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think User:All Hallow's Wraith has identified the proper way to examine the issue. Most editorial decisions begin with an individual editor deciding something is notable. If there is a conflict, then the issue is discussed and settled by group consensus. If there is no consensus, then it’s just that: no consensus. Greg L (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly an obvious and important purpose in only including notable members in categories about people based on their race, gender, religion, or sexuality. Attempting to make such categories exhaustive would be both trivial and impractical, so unless they only include individuals who are notable for such categories, then the categories would be hopelessly incomplete anyway. For example, there is little to no benefit in having a category of members of a particular religion listing every single article about a person with some (often subjective or tentative) affiliation with that religious group, where such affiliation is poorly attested and/or has nothing at all to do with the person's notability. There are also issues relevant to the rules for biographies of living people, where an individual's religious or sexual orientation may not notable in reliable sources and should not be made the subject of focus on Wikipedia based on what is often spurious and speculative original research.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please get consensus to include this in the article. No such consensus ever existed. You can't keep citing the fact that one single editor managed to sneak it in the article without anyone noticing as consensus because consensus requires the agreement of more than one person. If you think this criteria is so essential, easy-to-understand, relevant, and crucial, then you should propose it for inclusion and reach consensus to include it. If you can't reach consensus to do that, then surely it should never have been in the article in the first place? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is already clear that more than one person supports it. It is not clear why you want it removed. If this page had been on my watchlist at the time, I would have restored the content the first time it was deleted. The statement protects categories from becoming ridiculously unhelpful incomplete trivial subsets based on spurious or irrelevant information, as indicated above.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If this page had been on my watchlist in July 2009, I would have objected on the talk page and reverted it. But we can't do things retroactively. Yes, people wrote in to support the addition... in March 2011. But consensus can't be reached retroactively. People also wrote in to oppose all or parts of this in March 2011 (my tally was 8 oppose to 4 support, tallied in late March). As for why I want it removed, I explained that many times in the conversations above, throughout March. If you want to add it (or a different version of it), let's have the standard procedure of debate between a multitude of editors and reach a consensus... something that never happened in July 2009 (but did happen to an extent in March 2011). All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus can indeed of course be established after the event where wording has been added previously, and the Pharisaical objection to its inclusion merely on the supposed basis that there purportedly wasn't a formal (enough) discussion&mdash;which completely ignores the obvious merit of its inclusion&mdash;is tedious and entirely unhelpful. Though a couple of other editors have commented in favour of its removal, it is essentially primarily one editor, All Hallow's Wraith, objecting to its inclusion. Your objection effectively cripples the practicality of the guidelines categorising people, and there is no benefit to the criterion's removal. I don't have time for the banal objections to the statement's conclusion, so I'm just taking this page back off my watchlist.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All I will add is that perhaps the 'disputed' wording could be made specific religion and sexuality, but not ethnicity and gender, which would seem to cover what appears to be the fundamental source of All Hallow's Wraith's objection. I am no longer watching this page, so you can now squabble amongst yourselves.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wording problem
Hi, folks. As someone who doesn't frequent this page, I read the following and was confused: "While a race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic, the intersection of subcategories of Category:Race are never applied to subcategories of Category:People."

I understand all of the words here but not the whole sentence. "The intersection ... are never applied," in particular, is what doesn't make sense to me. (I assume "are" should be "is", as "intersection" is singular, but even so the meaning is jumbled.) Is there any way this sentence could be clarified?

-- Powers T 13:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was taken indirectly from a pair of WP:CFD decisions, where category intersections are often discussed. Do you have any suggestions for more non-technical language? Keeping in mind that we had/have a tool for determining intersections.


 * I would make suggestions if I knew what was trying to be said here. Powers T 19:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know what's trying to be said? Powers T 13:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am correct that it means we may have a category "Chinese Jazz musicians" but not "Chinese Americans"? Which is not to say we may not have a category "Americans of Chinese descent", btw. Debresser (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

From past discussion about this, I gather that it was meant to preclude broad brush racial categories like "Black people" or "Asian people" or "White Europeans", rather than "Chinese Americans" (which is more ethnic than racial anyway) — but I agree, and raised the issue at the time, that as written it can be interpreted as precluding some categories that are valid but still kind of dance closer than most to the edge of the distinction between "racial" and "ethnic", such as or. So it certainly needs to be reworded, but I'm not sure how best to do that. Bearcat (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Eskimo
This page gives a dubious example of Eskimo being rejected, and Inuit being preferred. I believe that's true in Canada, but not everywhere.

As I understand it, most Yupik-Americans object to being lumped in with Inuits, and that few of the Alaska Natives object to the multi-tribe group (Yupiks+Inupiats+Aleuts) being called Eskimos. Pretending Yupiks are just some unimportant subset of Inupiats, rather than a separate group in its own right, is an example of racial erasure that this page should not be perpetuating.

Can we find a better example for this page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently not, as the Eskimo article states: In Alaska, the term Eskimo is commonly used, because it includes both Yupik and Inupiat, while Inuit is not accepted as a collective term or even specifically used for Inupiat. No universal replacement term for Eskimo, inclusive of all Inuit and Yupik people, is accepted across the geographical area inhabited by the Inuit and Yupik peoples. In Canada and Greenland, the term Eskimo has fallen out of favour, as it is considered pejorative by the natives and has been replaced by the term Inuit.


 * As I understand it (and the consensus of the peoples' concerned appears to follow this) Eskimo is old-fashioned and pejorative and the preferred term is Inuit, if we accept that Canada and Greenland have the majority, even if in Alaska it is totally the other way around. Or we could just refer to the ethnic groups that live in godforsaken, freezing places eking out there existence by carving holes in the ice as the Chilly-Willies for example.  Captain Screebo Parley! 20:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * From the same article: The Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in Barrow, Alaska, officially adopted "Inuit" as a designation for all Eskimos, regardless of their local usages, in 1977. However, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, as it is known today, uses both "Inuit" and "Eskimo" in its official documents. So, clear as ditchwater, although I must say I was surprised by the tag as this is EN:WP and the term Inuit has been in PC usage for at least 10-15 years, I would say.  Captain Screebo Parley! 20:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It sounds pretty much like the Alaskan and Russian Yupiks were outvoted by the more numerous eastern Inuits in the Inuit Circumpolar Council, and have had the eastern people's name and language imposed on them, without any particular indication of consent by the Yupiks.
 * Based on the facts, I think this is a poor example. I think that having examples is helpful, though.  Can you think of a better one?
 * (We could turn it around, and use "Inuit for Yupiks", as that is clearly "a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders", but I think the facts are so poorly known that it would be an unhelpful example.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to point out that there appears to be no real consensus @ 100% amongst the peoples themselves, if they are one and the same, and that, as this is the English Wikipedia, the generally accepted term (which holds consensus) is Inuit. I could give you dictionary references if you like but I'm sure you're capable of going and searching by yourself, I think that this boils down to (my POV) colonial powers categorizing people and drawing lines in the sand that did (do) not have any relevance to the peoples concerned and I would go on to cite Yugoslavia, Libya, Egypt or even Texas and so on as examples where people of differing backgrounds, origins, traditions have been lumped together for convenience. (Go see Ethnic cleansing for a laugh, I gave up after a few paragraphs). Respectfully, one human being to the other, yours.  Captain Screebo Parley! 22:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Going back to what the page actually says ("[...] labels such as "AIDS victim" for an HIV+ person or "Eskimo" for an Inuit are not appropriate terms"), I see no suggestion there that Inuit is an appropriate term for a Yupik. Perhaps I'm missing something (I certainly know little about Inuit and Yupik issues), but I don't really see a problem here. --Avenue (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, WhatamIdoing does have a point. On reading this section I took it to mean that Eskimo was never correct, and considered pejorative, by all of the people that should be referred to collectively as Inuit. After some reading, like the Inuit article and this informative blog page, and having mulled the issue over, I think we should find another example as the issue is way too complex and nuanced for the average Joe to understand or even care about the distinctions involved.
 * If you actually read the Inuit article it says "In Alaska, the term Eskimo is commonly used, because it includes both Yupik and Inupiat, while Inuit is not accepted as a collective term or even specifically used for Inupiat (who technically are Inuit). (my emphasis).
 * So, if we read the General section point 1 it says never use "Eskimo" for "Inuit", (foolhardy user clicks link to Inuit page), which then informs them as above, that indeed Alaskan whatevers prefer Eskimo, even if one of their ethnicities is technically Inuit. Wow!
 * For the moment, the only alternative I can come up with would be "[...] labels such as "AIDS victim" for an HIV+ person or "Negro" for a Black, Black African or African-American person are not appropriate terms". Feedback?  Captain Screebo Parley! 16:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that that your Negro suggestion makes a better example. Both the HIV+ and the Inuit examples are reasonable mistakes for a layman to make. In contrast, Negro is sufficiently out of date that it might be difficult to assume good faith of someone using it.
 * You have convinced me that there is some danger of people reading too much into the examples. Perhaps a note cautioning against this would help, although this seems a bit clumsy. I do think that there is just as much danger of misinterpretation with the HIV+ example as the Inuit one. The point of the example is not that no one should ever be described as an AIDS victim; those who have died from AIDS certainly could be. Instead it means that many HIV positive people are not appropriately described this way, given that medical advances mean many people know they are HIV positive for a long time before they suffer from AIDS symptoms (if they ever do). Likewise most Inuit are best not described as Eskimo, but in some contexts Eskimo remains an appropriate term. Maybe the best idea is to simply soften the wording here: e.g. change it to say "are usually not appropriate terms". --Avenue (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have simply removed this example. We had one example already, and a second example was not really needed. Especially if it is dubious. 11:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

HIV+
And I've reworded the remaining HIV+ example (which had singular/plural grammatical problems). --Avenue (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw that you changed the text to "For example, "AIDS victim" is not an appropriate term for most HIV-positive people." I understand what you mean about the problem with singular and plural forms in one sentence. The only thing I don't understand, and which is not related, nor was it in the original wording, is the word "most". Would you please explain why you think it needed to be added, or remove it? Debresser (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the slow reply. I see you've removed the word "most". Adding this word served two purposes, in my view. First, it avoided implying that the term "AIDS victim" is always inappropriate. While the term is clearly inappropriate for many HIV-positive people, especially those without AIDS, it might well be appropriate for someone who is known primarily for having AIDS and who died from it (e.g. Paddy Chew). Second, it helped keep the example focused on what we should call HIV-positive individuals, rather than groups of such people. For instance, our Hope Garden article speaks (IMO appropriately) of "AIDS victims". --Avenue (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Victim" language is not uncommon for an disease after the person has died from it. It is rarely used in other contexts, e.g., a child with an incurable, rapidly progressive genetic disorder is sometimes considered a victim while alive.
 * This example has the additional complication that a person with HIV is not always a person with AIDS. So "AIDS victim" has two possible errors:  the "AIDS" part is factually wrong for a person with HIV but not yet AIDS, and the "victim" part is generally considered insensitive for a living person.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions
I have made some edits today which I consider minor and uncontroversial. But there are a few things I'd like to raise here and not make any edit before establishing consensus.

Self-identification
WP:BLPCAT says "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". This demand is completely absent from this guideline. Anybody know why, and have any suggestions on what to do about it? Debresser (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's already in BLPcat, does it need to be here? Presumably one can simply cite BLPcat for this purpose. BLPcat doesn't cover ethnicity and gender, so there's a difference that's inherent. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it should be in there - I'd propose the following language be added under General; "4. In cases where membership in a particular category may be ambiguous or debatable, the subject has publicly self-identified in a verifiable manner with the category in question." NickCT (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's in there, it still should also be in here. Just like the "relevance thing", which is in there, and is repeated here. We do want to be as complete as possible, no? Debresser (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with repeating the BLP cat criteria here for religion and sexual orientation. However, they should not include ethnicity and gender, since they don't do that on the BLP page (and proposals to do so over there did not pass). All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an important point. Thank you! Debresser (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ 22:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

EGRS without the E
This guideline is called "ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality", but its four sections are gender, race, religion and sexuality. Where is the ethnicity? Race (classification of humans) is not the same as ethnicity. Debresser (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed - ethnicity is the generally accepted term and for good reason. Discussion of race is most often in the US context, but does not sufficiently cover the more subtle but divisive distinctions elsewhere. I would use ethnicity throughout. There are difficulties because the same word can often be used to denote place of birth or nationality, and also ethnicity - eg Iranian - but use and context should deal with that. --AJHingston (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Ethnicity should be called out. NickCT (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then ethnicity should be a separate section, and perhaps with a mention that the same applies to race? Debresser (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the 2011 UK census, 'ethnic group' was used to include race. So people were asked to self-identify which group they belonged to, eg White Irish, or Arab, or anything they chose to write in, which sidestepped the whole question of whether race is even a valid let alone meaningful concept for a population with often very mixed ancestry. Which is, incidentally, an important reason why BLPs should not impute ethnic origin - birth parentage and ancestry is not usually verifiable. That is now normal practice in Britain and ethnic origin is always taken to include race. I would not have thought that race need be mentioned separately in the guidelines unless there is a need because of different understandings elsewhere, eg the US or Australia. --AJHingston (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The thing is that since race is here now in this guideline, I wouldn't want to remove it. People might think that it was removed because the guideline doesn't apply to it. So we should probably mention it. But a mere mention should be enough. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It shows how complicated the discussion of these things is. I don't think it would occur to anyone in the UK that dropping reference to race in favour of ethnicity meant that suddenly mention of race was suddenly OK. On the contrary, it would be seen as a tightening up. It's the problem of an international encyclopedia, and maybe these discussions need to make sure that there is a sufficient spread of cultural experience represented in the debate. I'm not suggesting that everyone should self declare their ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality though! --AJHingston (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Debresser (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Style
In all these four areas we have a bold warning saying "Categories should not be based on whichever unless the whichever has a specific relation to the topic." I suggest that this repetition is unnecessary, and propose to remove it and add this as the first of the general rules instead. Debresser (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Debresser (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Done
I have made some changes based on the above three suggestions and the commentaries of my fellow editors. If I have misunderstood something, please raise the point here, and we'll discuss and fix it. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize now that the addition of "Categories should not be based on ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality, unless these are related to the subject's notable activities, according to reliable sources. " was sort of a replacement of "'Categories should not be based on religion [or ethnicity/sexuality/etc.] unless the belief has a specific relation to the topic"? But these are not the same thing. The already existing part used the word "topic", which is not the same as "subject" of the article (and doesn't mention notable activities). I think the "categories should not be based/unless has relation to topic" line refers to the creation of categories like "Finnish-American flautists", i.e. being a flautist has no relation to being Finnish-American. That's a good rule, but the language used to replace that is more akin to "don't categorize Johnny Krakonen as an American of Finnish descent unless that has a relation to his being a flautist". I support the original line (though I think it should be clarified), but the new version is more akin to the #4 that used to be here. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. The difference is subtle, but it is there, as you say. Ok, then I'll use the wording of WP:BPLCAT, that should solve the confusion. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But BLPcat doesn't refer to ethnicity or gender... If we're just matching it to BLPcat, I don't object. But I think the word "topic" was originally meant to refer to something like "jazz music" or "renaissance art" rather than "subject" (of the article?), i.e. Picasso or Miles Davis. The sentence as it is now refers to subject rather than topic. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that these two are not in BLPCAT, but they were in here, in bold warnings. That is what #3 (Style) was about above. And I do think the wording now relates the topic. It say specifically "are relevant to the topic". Debresser (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But the wording on what you have now does not match the wording that used to be there. The wording now, as clarified by the example, explicitly states that people shouldn't be categorized by ethnicity/gender unless their profession is related to that. So, again, the son of Finnish immigrants can't be categorized under "Americans of Finnish descent" unless this is relevant to their profession? This doesn't match "Categories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic." That statement can be interpreted in a number of ways. The way I read it, it means that the category "American Flautists of Finnish descent" shouldn't be created unless Flautism has a relation to being of Finnish descent. It does not refer to specific categorization of people, but rather to the existence of categories themselves (outside of who gets categorized in them). Your wording changed that and made it specific to categorization of people themselves, as well as gave it an example to leave any ambigiuity out of it. But where is the consensus for this change? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all I restored the two specific warnings that were here before my edits, since you decided that it needs to be removed from the first general warning. You should have done that yourself. Now I'll see what you have to say. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. General rule #1 should address the existence of a category, while #2 addresses inclusion. Let's discuss a better wording here then. What about "Categories shouldn't be a cross-section of a topic and ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality, if these are not relevant to the topic". Debresser (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic, as recognized by reliable sources"? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More or less the same, apart from the inclusion of the reliable sources part, which I would prefer to be left out of this. But generally, fine with me, go ahead. Don't forget to remove the warnings from the consequent sections. Debresser (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You want me to do it? Wouldn't that kind of break 3rr? I'm scared. Since you've already broken it, you should just do it (kidding... sort of). I don't have particular love for the reliable sources part, so if you don't want to include it, don't. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. :) Debresser (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional question
This guideline seems more about how to categorize than about whom to categorize. The only two exceptions are general warning #2 and the lines "Categories regarding religious belief or 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). For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate."

Perhaps these should be delegated to the end of their respective sections, with a note that they address the issue of categorization? Debresser (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I did that with general warning #2, since the order doesn't really matter in any case. I hope this is fine with everybody. Will wait with the quoted line till somebody comments here. Debresser (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

People by national descent
Category:People by ethnic or national origin has many subcategories of the type "X people of Y descent" (where X is the subject's nationality, and Y the nationality of an ancestor). How far in the family tree should these categories go from the subject of the article? If, let's say, a French-born man was the son of a British man and a Spanish woman, it would make sense to use the categories "French people of British descent" and "...Spanish descent". But if we check the grandparents, we must consider 4 more people, and if we go even further, we have 2x people. And, at the same tme we increase the number of possible categories, we consider people whose relation with the subject is of less concern (most people do not even met their great-grandparents, specially historical people of centuries ago, when life expentancy was much shorter than now).

In short, I think that, unless the national descent was limited to the parents and nothing more, those categories are given to overcategorization with categories of little or no interest to the article's subject. Cambalachero (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it should be limited to parents and nothing more, as you are suggesting. I think information going further back—say to grandparents—is sometimes difficult to source reliably, and tends to be of lesser importance to readers. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ethnic National origins usually are important to people, and therefore relevant to the things they do in their lives, even after many many generations. Which American of, let's say, Dutch origin isn't aware of that fact even after hundreds of year, even to the extent of it influencing his work and actions? Debresser (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ethnicity and nationality are different things; the question here is only about nationality. People has only one ethnicity, but 2x national descents as we go deeper into the family tree. Cambalachero (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed that in my post above. Debresser (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse ethnicity and nationality, they are not the same thing. They may seem so when they coincide, such as being Dutch and living in Netherlands. But following with the example, consider the Dutch Jews. Jew ethnicity, Dutch nationality. One day, for whatever reason, a family of Dutch Jews leave the Netherlands and settle somewhere else. Generations pass. Will they consider themselves Jew or Dutch? Cambalachero (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not confusing anything (any more). I made the argument for nationality, since that is the subject of this section: people by national descent. Debresser (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Two points:
 * "Grandma lived in" is not the same thing as "Grandma was a national of". You could live in a different country every year of your life and be a national of none of them.
 * Despite Cambalachero's section heading, the category itself includes both ethnicity and nationality, making no distinction between them, so Debresser's original comment is pointful. If your great-grandparents moved to America from Holland, then you, your parents, and your grandparents were all American nationals (and citizens).  However, you might well consider yourself to be ethnically Dutch, and thus an appropriate candidate for the category Category:American people of Dutch descent.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * But then, how to avoid overcategorization? Should people be included in for or five of these categories? Cambalachero (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would let's say four of such categories be overcategorisation? If a person really has parents from all these countries. Agreed, some of them are likely to be less important for the person, but either we add a completely new criteria, like the self-identification of religion and sexuality, or we have no way of deciding which is more and which is less important. Sometimes, and this I have stated before, even a national or ethnic descent of ten generations is important and relevant to a person's notable activities. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What if let's say, José Rizal, had granparents who were half Chinese, Tagalog and Japanese. Would it be ok to put him under more than 3 categories; Filipino people of Spanish ancestry, Chinese Filipino, and Tagalog people? Bleubeatle (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

BLPCAT again
WP:BLPCAT says that "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless ... the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life". This is not echoed here. It would also seem that if this is true of cats then it should be true for any statement regarding beliefs or sexuality. Why just cats, why not here? Have I missed something? Span (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you missed it. It is explicitly mentioned in both the section dealing with religious beliefs as well as the section dealing with sexuality. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability in public life is there? Span (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have misunderstood you, sorry. What it says in the sections about religious belief and sexuality is about self-identification. That they should be relevant and sourced (the other two things in that paragraph of BLPCAT) is mentioned in general rules #1 and #4 here, which apply not only to religion and sexuality, but to all issues covered by this guideline. Debresser (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Guideline and categorizing reality are out of synch again
This guideline prominently uses Category:Gay German politicians as an example of the verboten, but this category actually exists and has for some time, under the name Category:LGBT politicians from Germany. So either it and categories like it need to be deleted (which seems like an unhelpful idea; Category:LGBT politicians would be too large to be useful for most readers, and geographic intersections like this are among the most-used categories), or the guideline needs to be rewritten to better explain what sorts of "ghettoizing" categories to avoid creating. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This argument misunderstands the guidance. That point is not about geographic intersections, it about ensuring that categories do not ghettoise people. The relevant sentence says "if you cannot create "Gay politicians from Germany" without ghettoizing people from Category:German politicians, then it may be more appropriate to eliminate the more specific category and simply retain Category:Gay politicians and Category:German politicians as two distinct categories ...".
 * As it happens, with the extra layers of categorisation now in place below Category:German politicians, it is becoming a container category and is tagged as such. When its contents are diffused, the ghettoisation problem will no longer apply. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Gender and sports
Please see Village pump (idea lab) for background.

We currently have the very odd situation where male sportspersons are categorized under ungendered categories alone, while female sportspersons are categorized under gendered categories alone. For example: Category:Brazilian footballers contains only men, while women are in Category:Brazilian women's footballers. This is inequitable and does not put our best face forward as we try to increase the participation of women in creating our encyclopedia.

Currently, our guidelines state that we should only categorize by gender where "gender has a specific relation to the topic" or where a gendered category "is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest". For sports that are segregated by gender (that is, the vast majority of them), I think it's clear that "gender has a specific relation to the topic". The problem is that our current categorization scheme treats male sportspersons as if gender is not relevant, while treating female sportspersons as if gender is relevant.

The counter argument is that it's the other provision that applies -- that the incidence of female sportspersons is "valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest" while that of male sportspersons is not. This argument could possibly hold water, except for the fact that it's not reflected in the way these persons are actually categorized. Our guideline, after providing the example of Category:Female heads of government, then goes on to make clear that such women appearing in that category should also be categorized normally (e.g., in Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom or what have you). But that's not what's happened with the sportsperson categories: the women are shunted off to their own categories and do not appear in the "non-gendered" categories as they would be if it were the second provision that was being applied.

I would like to propose that specific wording be added to this guideline:

"As most notable organized sporting activities are segregated by gender, sportsperson categories constitute a case where 'gender has a specific relation to the topic'. As such, sportsperson categories should be split by gender, except in such cases where men and women participate primarily in mixed-gender competition. Example: Category:Male golfers and Category:Female golfers should both be subcategories of Category:Golfers... but Category:Ice dancers should not have gendered subcategories."

What do you think?

-- Powers T 23:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Due to lack of objection in over a week, I have implemented this proposal. Powers T 12:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Self identification for Ethnic-group and Indian Caste
We have discussion (here: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics) on the usage of the images of eminent "Caste members" in the info-box montage. Many editors are stressing for self identification of the subject before categorizing him in a caste as in the case of religion. My doubts are:
 * 1) Do we need the subject to self-identify in the case of ethnic group?
 * 2) Is it correct to enforce self-identification in the case of Indian-caste? -- AshLey  Msg 16:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not under the current rules.
 * Why are you asking this question here? If there's a discussion going on elsewhere, that's great. A consensus should be reached and the results implemented. It doesn't need to go anywhere else. No big government Wikipedia is best. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)