Talk:Gwen Ifill/Archives/2019

Religion categories

(Comment moved here from an editor's Talk page for further discussion. -Xeno)

It is mentioned and sourced multiple times in the article that Ifill was a member of the Aferican-American Methodists church, also see WP:NONDEF: a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. in the Gwen Ifill article both these are reached. Good day. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I&a. You are correct that her church membership is "mentioned" in the article, and that's fine. What your edit did, however, was to use a religion category, which is reserved for people notable because of their religious beliefs. Ifill is not notable for her religion, nor are her religious beliefs even a significant contributor to her public notability. Now an article on her father, on the other hand, would likely qualify for religious category use. Please see WP:NONDEF:

*a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.
*if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;
*if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining.

Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic of the topic. In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list article is often the preferred alternative.

Sources do not commonly and consistently define her as "Gwen Ifill, the Methodist Political Commentator..." or "Ifill, the Methodist Journalist...". She is commonly and consistently defined as a journalist and political commentator, so those would be valid categories. Can reliable sources be found which mention her religious beliefs? Of course, but it is not a defining characteristic of her public notability. You aren't likely to find her attendance at a Methodist church mentioned in the lead sentence of this article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

That criticism applies to nearly all of the categories currently present: She is not popularly defined as being of Panamanian descent, as a Simmons alum, as being from Jamaica Queens, etc., and these categories would not show up in the lede sentence. They are only occasionally referenced in accounts of her, more so if the pov is affiliated with the categories. The situation is no different with her church affiliation. So why the differential treatment?

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Gwen Ifill 2015.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)