Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Categorizing articles about people/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality/Archive 9

< Wikipedia talk:Categorizing articles about people | Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality/Archive 9)
Latest comment: 10 years ago by SMcCandlish in topic Proposal to clearly mark all categories as non-diffusing
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 13

Updates to the policy to be more aligned with current consensus at CFD

Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments2 people in discussion

I made three edits to this policy to align it better with current consensus at CFD, per multiple discussions and deletions/merging of gendered/ethnic/LGBT categories that have happened over the past year or so. [1], [2], [3]. @Liz: has reverted all of these, though hasn't explained why. I think these edits make the policy more clear AND give better examples - the extant examples are actually bad ones. I'm especially puzzled that Liz reverted my edit to suggest use of a template. I welcome other editors to view these edits and give your POV on whether they should be made or not, or how they can be improved.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

To explain further, the most significant edit was this one: [4]. In it, I attempted to clarify the "final rung" rule which is a source of much confusion, and I also provided a better example - the example of "Gay german politicians" is a bad one, since per our rules, such a category actually COULD exist, so I changed it to an example where we wouldn't want to create an LGBT subcat of Category:German opera directors based on final rung rule. As such, I was able to compress the section and make it a little tighter, giving one good example instead of two bad ones (Category:African-American poets is another very bad example, because it exists, and is a valid cat since Category:American poets can be diffused!) I changed this text based on the consensus of the past two years at CFD, and seeing which categories are deleted and which are kept. Last rung rule is regularly invoked, not only by myself, and the understanding of last rung is as I've written it here - that the parent can't be diffused. The previous language said as much, it just wasn't as explicitly stated. The main sentence in question is:
"If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory."
which I changed to:
"If the parent category is not otherwise able to be fully diffused into more specific categories, then do not create an E/G/R/S non-diffusing subcategory."
The previous language was, IMHO, a bit too vague, since if we take an example, like Category:Hungarian Democratic Forum politicians, this CAN be divided, but only into _one_ more specific grouping, namely Category:Hungarian Democratic Forum MEPs, and as such we should NOT be creating Category:LGBT Hungarian Democratic Forum politicians as a subcat, I believe that would violate final rung rule. The key is the ability to fully diffuse the parent - if you can't do it, then the chances that the child acts as a ghetto to the parent increase dramatically.
The next edit was this one, where I simply gave a top-line summary of final rung rule and linked to the section in question, as well as noting that non-diffusing EGRS subcategories can indeed be diffusing - this is not under debate, but I felt it was in need of explanation since non-diffusing cats are so confusing. No-one is arguing that Category:American women writers should be non-diffusing on Category:Women writers, even if it's non-diffusing on Category:American writers.
Finally, this edit, the most bizarre revert of all, was simply linking to a template that is already linked to from the categorization guidelines on non-diffusing categories (see Wikipedia:Categorization#Non-diffusing_subcategories). I have no idea why this was reverted. Also pinging @Bearcat: for his inputs.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec) @Obi-Wan Kenobi, I think there was some good stuff in what you did, but it was wrapped up in other not so good stuff. It would be much better to break down you desired changes into components rather than bundling them all together.
AFAICS, your changes:
  1. Tweaked and expanded the "final rung" section.
  2. Add more about non-diffusing subcats
I have several disagreements with this.
  1. Your enthusisam for non-diffusing categories is great in theory, but in practice the idea is broken. It sounds great to say "label the category as non-diffusing", but categorisation through mechanisms such as WP:HOTCAT happens without seeing the notice. The default practice on 99.9% of categories is to diffuse, and non-diffusing categories are such a rare exception that editors cannot be expected to check in every case for the extremely rare application of the rule. So I would like to see non-diffusion deprecated rather than encouraged.
  2. The "final rung" terminology is confusing, and should be avoided. You introduced it to the guideline last year, and I can see what you are trying to do, but it is an unhelpfully ambiguous label. Standard categorisation practice is to place articles in the most specific available category, which is in effect a "final rung".
    It would be much better to revert to the old terminology of "ghettoisation".
Stepping back from those details, I think that this guideline is in a mess. Its core concepts have been remarkably durable since it was written, but as it has grown over the years it has become verbose and disjointed, like an ill-planned essay. Crucial concepts are hidden away in the middle of a section, or repeated in difft ways in difft places, and the central simplicity of the underlying ideas is lost.
Rather than piecemeal tinkering, I think that it would be much better to begin a complete rewrite. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
BHG, thanks for your comments, but I must admit they puzzle me. re: non-diffusing categories, do you think labelling them as non-diffusing is a problem? Or just not worth the time? It's really just a suggestion, and I'm not suggesting we have a bot go and tag every cat - it's more like "Do it if you see it". Finally, saying you'd like to see non-diffusing deprecated rather than encouraged, I hope you remember the American novelists mess, where non-diffusion was !voted en-masse by an overwhelming consensus. How would you suggest undoing that? The opposite of non-diffusion is ghettoization.
As for final rung, final rung is different than ghettoization, and I didn't introduce this language into the guideline AFAIK, I think it was Bearcat. Ghettoization can happen, or not, with final-rung categories (it's just, ghettoization seems much more likely with so-called final-rung categories) They are different things. Please read my edits above so you can see how final rung is defined in practice - final rung is about the location of a EGRS category within a broader structure, and about what sort of sibling categories it has. Final rung is only tangentially related with diffusion of an article to the most specific category.
I agree it needs a rewrite, but in the spirit of incremental change I don't think that's a reason to revert these edits.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Obi, my concern about diffusion is practical. Treating any category as non-diffusing is unworkable because it is such a breach of a central principle. No amount of tagging alters the fundamental folly. The solution to is simple: if populating that category by removing an article from the parent cats would amount to inappropriate diffusion, then we simply shouldn't have the category.
The problem with "final rung" as a label is that the term is conventionally used for a linear structure, like a ladder. The category system is described in WP:CAT#Category_tree_organization as "overlapping "trees", formed by creating links between inter-related categories (in mathematics or computer science this structure is called a lattice or a partially ordered set)". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
BHG, I'm happy for a better label for "final rung" so please suggest one. In "trees", we have the terminology of "leaf nodes", and could say that EGRS cats should never be leaf nodes without sufficient siblings to fully diffuse the parent. Is that better?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Secondly, if non-diffusion is inappropriate, that means we should make all gendered categories diffusing, or delete all gendered categories. I think we're far from consensus for such a dramatic move. Remember, it was diffusing Category:American women novelists that caused the uproar a year ago. I seriously doubt we could get consensus to flip that around, and to say "Ok, Category:American women novelists is now diffusing". several hundred editors voted the opposite. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
If the concern is that Category:American novelists should not be diffused to Category:American women novelists, then we shouldn't have Category:American women novelists. (In that particular case, I supported keeping the category because I thought that on balance there were enough other diffusion paths; but the consensus was an outcome much worse than either keeping or merging). In other words, it's a concern which should be resolved by the decision on whether to keep or delete the category, rather than than by hoping/expecting/asking editors to treat the category in a particular way.
As the terminology, "leaf nodes" makes sense to me, but it's alien (or even incomprehensible) to people not used to the sort of mathematical models where that terminology originates. I prefer to simply say that a gendered category should not be created where populating it in the normal way (by removing any parent cats) would cause an article to be removed from any other category where it should otherwise remain. Another way of phrasing it would be to say that a gendered category should only be created if all of its ungendered parents are designed to be container categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. That's close to what I believe "final rung" means. The way I think of it is this: Category:American women novelists is non-diffusing, so if you put someone in that, you shouldn't remove them from Category:American novelists. However, you can diffuse American novelists by century, so you can move Hemingway to Category:20th century American novelists - that's the consensus solution we used to empty out the parent by consensus. You can see it as two steps, or as one. However, you're still talking about these being non-diffusing categories - non-diffusing doesn't mean the entries MUST be in the parent, it could also mean, and most often does, than the entries are in diffusing siblings - sometimes multiple. However, an entry should never ONLY be in a non-diffusing child like "women x" - that's what non-diffusing means.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
So the American novelists are a bad example, because they needed no special treatment. Category:American women novelists is no more or less non-diffusing than any other gendered category.
That seems to reinforce my view that the simplest way of phrasing this is to say that, as I suggested above, that a gendered category should only be created if all of its ungendered parents are designed to be container categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thanks - but im afraid that would set a much higher bar. For example, take Category:American activists, which currently has a few divisions by state, and a great many other diffusing cats. Even if it cant be, or isnt, fully diffused today, this shouldnt be a bar to create and populate Category:American women activists. Additionally, the parents arent always true containers - even Category:American novelists has a few articles like lists, etc. what about the formulation "An EGRS category should only be created if it has sufficient sibling categories in all neutral parents to diffuse the parent in a significant fashion" - this avoids the rewuirement for full diffusion, but still requires the potential for significant diffusion. Also i dont understand what you're saying about American women novelists being less non-diffusing. A cat is non-diffusing, or its not. There arent really shades imo.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
My point about American women novelists is that it is populated in exactly the same way as any other gendered category: don't take articles from any ungendered category where they would otherwise remain. That's the ghettoisation principle at work.
I take your point about "true container" categories, but that niggle aside, the principle stands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Then I'm confused. Do we agree or disagree? The reason I think we can still say these are non-diffusing is the following. If someone were to add an author to Category:American women novelists and nothing else, that would be wrong. If one were to add the same author to Category:20th-century American novelists and nothing else, that would be fine - not ideal, but not ghettoizing. the EGRS cats should never be the ONLY cats one is added to - you always must be in a neutral parent or, more likely, sibling (or 1st cousin, depending on the tree structure).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the problem is that you approach it from perspective of diffusion/non-diffusion. There's no need for that if the categories are correctly structured, because then editors can simply take the natural approach of adding any article to the most specific relevant category they are aware. of
If an article is about an American women novelist, then put it in Category:American women novelists. Ideally, the editor doing that will also place her in other relevant categories, but they may not be aware for example of the by-century categories or one of the sub-cats of Category:American novelists by genre. Other editors will hopefully then spot that it should also be in and Category:20th-century American novelists, Category:American romantic fiction novelists, etc. But it doesn't matter which category editors start with; unless they have a v thorough knowledge of the categ tree, they will probably miss some. Placing the writer solely in Category:20th-century American novelists hides her from ppl looking for in other categories, just as any partial categorisation hides an article.
It seems to me that you are confusing the language, by taking the term "ghettoisation" (which refers to an article belonging only in a ghetto), and applying it to incomplete categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. So, you don't see a difference, in your mind, between an author _only_ being in Category:20th-century American novelists and ONLY being in Category:American women novelists? I do - in one case, she is not ghettoized - eg she is not relegated to a category with only women. In the other, she is. That is where diffusion/non-diffusion comes into play. A placement in any diffusing category is fine - it may be incomplete, but it's not bad - whereas a placement ONLY in a non-diffusing category is breaking the rule here. Of course, more complete categorization is always better, but the whole brouhaha with the CategoryGate was that women weren't being treated equally. I would suggest that incomplete categorization, where someone is ONLY in EGRS categories, is the same as ghettoization. It doesn't matter how you get there - e.g. were you in the parent, then removed and put in the EGRS cat, or were you just placed ONLY in the EGRS cat. The end result is equivalent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Any incomplete categorisation ghettoises an article, by excluding it from the set of peers in which it would otherwise be found. So as long as the non-gendered categories exist, that is simply a WP:SOFIXIT problem.
The problem with the way that category worked before was that it caused structural ghettoisation, by requiring (through the subcat) the removal of the article from its peers. If you start conflating that structural ghettoisation with an incomplete article, then we are moving away from designing a category structure into berating editors for not "finishing" an article.
You appear to think that by sticking a "non-diffusing" tag on a category somehow avoids this. But when so much categorisation is done either by typing a categ name or using HotCat, the notice might as well not exist. The solution is to make the notice unnecessary, through design of the category tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're making progress. You say: Any incomplete categorisation ghettoises an article. I disagree. But, maybe it's a question of terminology. When I use the term "ghettoize", I mean very specifically, the absence of an article that is in an EGRS category from a neutral equivalent. More formally, I've defined ghettoization as the following:

  1. Membership in a gendered or ethnic or sexuality or religion or category X and
  2. Non membership in an ancestor or "blood relative" category (e.g. sibling, cousin) of X that is non-gendered, non-ethnic, non-sexuality-based, and non-religious. (what is relevant here is membership by the article in the neutral equivalent category - whether the gendered category is already a member is not enough)
  3. If multiple categorizations are applied (e.g. gender, ethnicity, sexuality), as you go up the tree, the article must also be a member of each extant iteration that removes a facet while retaining the same noun. (e.g. Category:African-American women in politics members should also be in at least three other categories: Category:African-American politicians, Category:American women in politics, and Category:American politicians, or diffusing categories of any of these parents)
  4. The above rules do not apply for any characteristic which has been fully diffused by gender - e.g. if all men and women are fully split, there is no need for membership in a super-cat (ghettoization can still exist in such trees, for example if "Jewish sportsmen" are separated from "American sportsmen", you need to avoid ghettoization there.

I don't use, and I haven't seen, "ghettoize" used to describe an article which is simply under-categorized - which the vast majority of articles are. Ghettoization is a very particular form of under-categorization and I don't think we should expand it to mean simply "undercategorized". Secondly, I do NOT think, nor did I ever claim anywhere, that putting a non-diffusing tag on a category solves a problem. To me, it is simply a way of clearly marking, for all to see, that the category is considered to be non-diffusing, but I consider it optional. Finally, you seem to be arguing that, if one sets up the category tree correctly, it doesn't matter anyway. I agree that the cat tree needs to be set up correctly, and we just need to find the way to describe that. The way I would word it is as follows: "If the parent category is not otherwise able to be almost entirely diffused into more specific categories, then do not create an E/G/R/S non-diffusing subcategory." Your version was "If the parent is not a container" - I think we're very close, but I prefer my version slightly as categories like Category:American women in politics aren't really containers, but they are valid EGRS cats - even though there are articles which legitimately remain in the parent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Obi, I have to strongly resist that view of ghettoisation, which I think causes huge confusion. You are looking at where an article is categorised, which is a function of editorial effort. I am looking at where it can be categorised.
Let's call them editorial ghettoisation and structural ghettoisation. They have close parallels in human ghettoisation. Minorities may cluster in a particular area in search of cheap accommodation, cultural familiarity or solidarity, access to cultural facilities (food, religion, etc), common defence etc; that can be a form of voluntary ghettoisation, akin to editorial ghettoisation. OTOH, humans have often been forcibly ghettoised, as used to be the case with many Jewish ghettos in Europe, where Jewish people were banned from living outside the ghetto.
This guideline should focus solely on forcible ghettoisation, which in this case is an issue of category structure. It's not about where the article #is categorised, but where it can be.
So our starting point should be to assume that an article is fully-categorised according to all the other rules of categorisation, including not being in both a category and its parent. The test then is whether removing the gendered category would require replacement with another category: except for gender divided categs (such as actors), that should never apply.
Or to look at it another way: if an article is fully categorised in all applicable non-gendered categories, then adding a gendered category and applying the subcat should not require removing any ungendered categ. If it would, the gendered category shouldn't exist.
That's the core of it: a gendered category must always be an extra.
I think that we are mostly looking at this the same way, but with very different terminology. The exception is the concept of non-diffusing categories, which I see as a bad idea in any circumstances because they are unmaintainable. If we focus on the concept of gender as an addition while still applying the subcat rule, then the non-diffusion stuff can be removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
You must have missed category-gate, where there was outrage because women were placed in Category:American women novelists but not in Category:American novelists - even if some of those same women were already in diffusing sub-cats, such as Category:American historical novelists. That is why i developed that concept of "editorial ghettoization", and ghettoization is regularly used here to mean exactly that - an editor, whether by choice or by omission, did not put a woman or a minority in the "majority" categories as well. I see your point about "structural" ghettoization, and I agree that the final-rung rule is more or less targeted at preventing this, BUT, I still think you're wrong about non-diffusing categories, and I still think we should PROPERLY call these categories for E/G/R/S non-diffusing - non-diffusing doesn't mean that you put them in the parent and child, it just means that placement in the child should never REMOVE them from the parent - if they are henceforth removed from the parent for ANOTHER reason, that is fine. That is the solution we came up with at Category:American novelists, by consensus and in spite of much grumbling, which was to empty the parent category, so that Category:American novelists was no longer some badge-of-honor that all good writers had to have. So, a gendered category must always be an extra., that I fully agree with. I'm just using the term non-diffusing category to describe that. And while I agree that we need to ensure the structure is there, to fully diffuse the parent, in practice this doesn't always work, the parent isn't always FULLY diffusable, there may be a few stragglers, so again in the interests of completeness I think the rule should be: 1) EGRS categories are always non-diffusing (unless the whole tree is gender-split) (avoid editorial ghettoization) and 2) EGRS categories should always have neutral parents that can be almost entirely diffused (avoid structural ghettoization). I think you need both rules together to work in concert.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Make Category:LGBT people non-diffusing?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Higher on this page I see a few discussions relating to the diffusing nature of LGBT categories, e.g. #Privileging words over thoughts and deeds: attraction vs identity vs behaviour in sexual orientation, #Help, please with LGBT Categories.

As this also came up at the BLP noticeboard, further extending to non-BLP examples I proposed to have the discussion at Category talk:LGBT people#Make non-diffusing? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Bold page move

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I reverted a bold page move. Since the page may be expanded soon to cover disabled people, let's propose here other names for this page and then open up a move discussion. For one, I think we should not call this 'categorization of people', since I believe the precepts on this page apply nonetheless to things like 'African-American literature' and 'Gay villages' etc - so these rules extend beyond people. Secondly, I think 'sensitive' is not the best way to describe these categories. I'd rather just have the page describe what it's about, et Categorization by ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or medical condition. It's a bit wordy, but at least it says what it does on the can.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, could you please revert your other changes to various pages from the rename en attendant the results here? Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Categorization/Representation vs. ghettoization" All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC).

Request for Guidance

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I'm in the process of cleaning up after a maverick editor, and one of the things that has come up is the use of "descent" categories - that is, categories of the form "Category:American people of Italian descent". I haven't been able to find a clear rule for using this category, by which I mean a statement of the form "a person is of (say) Italian descent if they have one or more grandparents who were Italian". There's a similar problem with Italian Americans, I suppose. As another editor has remarked (above), this kind of issue can get a bit pointy, so I recognise that any definitive rule is probably impossible, so I wanted to mention the general principle that I've been trying to apply, and check that it seems reasonable:

  • I generally take "Italian descent" to mean "at least one Italian grandparent", but with a sort of proviso that a more distant relationship (e.g. one great-great-grandparent) can also yield "Italian descent" if the person particularly uses the term or something similar in describing themselves. When using this sort of categorisation I usually require mention of the specific descent to appear in the person's article, or, if their parents or grandparents have articles here, in those. Where there's no evidence I don't include a category.
  • For cases like Italian American I try to treat people on the basis of the particular community with which they most closely identify within their home country. So someone who was born and brought up in that community may or may not be Italian American, depending on how they self-identify. This gives the slightly odd result that of two siblings, one might be Italian American (say), while the other might not be, with the defining difference being their self-presentation. Under this approach it's possible for people to be (say) Italian American without being "of Italian descent" - they had some great-great-grandparents who were Italian, but they and their whole social community are based in America.

Does this approach seem reasonable to experts in Wiki-categories? Or, if not, what should I be doing differently? I look forward to your guidance. RomanSpa (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we should have a broad discussion around descent categories. No clear consensus has formed around their use, how many generations one can go back, and even which are appropriate -eg is it for any arbitrary combination of country + nationality of ancestors or must it be a grouping that is discussed in the literature. For example I suppose there are Icelandic people of Lithuanian descent, but is this a group that sociologists or Icelandic scholars look at and study? If not, - and we have tons of such singleton cats - we should probably delete the cat entirely. The 'of descent' cats seem to be generally applied regardless of self-identity, and thus, for now, don't really fall under the scope of this guideline.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Change proposals to WP:COP#N relating to WP:DEFINING

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:COP#N is that part of the Wikipedia:Categorization of people guideline that talks about categorizing biographies along lines of notability and definingness.

Several changes to this part of the WP:COP guideline have been proposed. Input welcome!

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Proposed language change to WP:COP#N

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding another group of people to this guideline

Latest comment: 10 years ago24 comments8 people in discussion
Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
There is a clear consensus to add a section for people with disabilities to this guideline, which was already done in this edit. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What do you think about adding a section for people with disabilities to this guideline - e.g. Category:Blind people and Category:Deaf people. I think in cases where we have (disability) + (job), they should be treated similarly here - these are the cases where you can create such an intersection, and such an intersection should be non-diffusing - if someone is a Category:Blind academics they should also be in the more general parent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at WikiProject Disability about this issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Does nobody here have an opinion about this, or are people with disabilities discriminated against even on WP, by being ignored? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I get the feeling there isn't a lot of motivation to edit this guideline - it's a bit of a mess, and people may be loathe to tweak it further. Perhaps you and I should work on some language and just put it in, if someone resists then we'll start a discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I just came here from the (WIP) style guide page. I would like to offer the opinion that this page seems to be ready for bold edits. I'm only hesitant to make any changes myself because I haven't yet read it thoroughly enough. Muffinator (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • proposed addition

Disability, medical, or psychological conditions

There are several guidelines that apply to categorization of people with disabilities, or those with medical or psychological conditions.

  1. People with these conditions should not be added to subcategories of Category:People with disabilities or Category:People by medical or psychological condition unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual. For example, there may be people who have a speech impediment, but if reliable sources don't regularly describe the person as having that characteristic, they should not be added to the category.
  2. Categories which intersect a job, role, or activity with a disability or medical/psychological condition should only be created if the intersection of those characteristics is relevant to the topic and discussed as a group in reliable sources. Thus, we have Category:Deaf musicians and Category:Amputee sportspeople and Category:Actors with dwarfism since these intersections are relevant to the topic and discussed in reliable sources, but we should not create Category:Biologists with cerebral palsy, since the intersection of Category:Biologists + Category:People with cerebral palsy is not closely relevant to the job of biologist nor is it a grouping that reliable sources discuss in depth.
  3. The final rung rule described below also applies to disability- or medical/psychological-based intersection categories; such categories should not be the final rung in a category tree, and should not be created if articles can't be otherwise diffused into sibling categories. For example, even if reliable sources regularly discussed Category:Deaf flight attendants, this category should not be created since it would be a final rung category underneath Category:Flight attendants, which isn't otherwise able to be diffused.
  4. All such intersections between disability or medical/psychological conditions and other characteristics like jobs should be treated as non-diffusing categories, meaning that adding Category:Blind musicians should not remove the article from Category:Musicians or any of its diffusing subcategories. All such intersection categories should be considered as "extra" categories, and people should still be placed in all other categories for which they would qualify if they didn't have this condition. A person in Category:Actors with dwarfism is first and foremost an actor, and should be categorized alongside other actors who don't have dwarfism.

Comments on guideline

I'd suggest Wikipedia:Categorization of people/sensitive categories. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
No, the phrase "sensitive categories" is so vague and unspecific that it is practically meaningless. Guidelines by their nature must be as exact and specific as possible. The current title and its acronym/shortcut "WP:EGRS" is very well established and widely used, such a large change of the title would be massively disruptive. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It works for me. Just want to propose a small tweak - change "narcicistic personality disorder" to something more mundane. The only time I've ever heard that term was in a police drama tv show where it was the serial killer's diagnosis! Something like "paraplegic biologists" would work without the "what the xxxxx is that!?!?" factor diluting the point of the example. BTW, you dropped a stray signature into the middle of the draft text. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, fixed, take another look plz... thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Excellent! I think it's ready to submit to an RFC. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • User:DrKiernan and myself have been discussing this guideline on Category talk:People with disabilities in regards to the category Category:Royalty and nobility with disabilities. He is reluctant to include royalty and nobility who had mental health issues to the category, but if we are to go by the guideline of "defining", then I think it is appropriate as the mental health issues of several notable figures, such as Ivan the Terrible (who killed his heir in a fit of insanity and thus changed the course of history) and Charles VI of France, whose mental instability seriously affected his reign, are extremely relevant to their historical legacy and to academic study. I argue that the mental illness of royalty and nobility is a defining aspect of their role and legacy in history, and are thus an integral part of any historical study of their reign. Furthermore, the adding of these historical figures to the category is in my opinion, relevant to the field of Disability studies. While I am willing to concede to his point on that Diana, Princess of Wales should not be included due to the lack of a formal diagnosis of clinical depression (considering that she lived in the modern era), I am still of the opinion that other indisputably mentally ill members of royalty and nobility should be included in the category. I am willing to cut those whose mental illness is disputed by historians, or are living people for whom their mental condition is not defining from the category, but I think that the remainder should stay. Asarelah (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware that I have discussed this guideline. I have no particular opinion upon it, other than being broadly supportive. DrKiernan (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: "Death from (medical or psychological condition)" categories?
e.g. Category:Deaths by type of illness
How would the proposed guidance affect such categories?
Most of these conditions would not be WP:DEFINING, so if this becomes guideline there's gonna be havoc in the Category:Deaths by type of illness tree. The question is: would that be a good idea (my preference leans in this direction), or do we want to prevent this (in other words, inscribe an exception in the proposed guideline addition)?
I suppose only the following "Death from (disease)" categories would still be possible under the proposed guidance:
  • physical chronic conditions that were defining for the person and ultimately led to death (think e.g. morbid obesity); Similarly: physical genetic disorders that are defining and are known to have an effect on life expectancy, and also were the actual cause of death for the person;
  • physical condition related to occupational hazard, when the occupation is defining (think e.g. Marie Curie); or resulting from other significant life choices (e.g. malnutrition following from an extreme diet or hunger strike etc);
  • psychological conditions ultimately leading to suicide (or drug/medication OD). While the link "condition"-"suicide/OD" is difficult to establish this would often be very close sailing to WP:OR. Currently not problematic, while the "condition" and "suicide/OD" categories can be applied separately: e.g., Virginia Woolf: (condition category:) People with bipolar disorder — (suicide categories:) Suicides by drowning / Suicides in England / Female suicides. Similar: Amy Winehouse: (condition category:) People with bipolar disorder — (OD-related category:) Alcohol-related deaths in England.
  • defining neurodegenerative conditions like Alzheimer's disease. But, from my part, with great reserve, see Alzheimer's disease#Prognosis:
    • The actual cause of death might be a minor infection, so the categorization can easily be wrong one way or another.
    • people with a neurodegenerative condition which was defining for a large part of their life but not the cause of death might not get the condition reflected in the categories of their biographical article.
Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
We should not include deaths here. There has never been a good consensus around whether "deaths by X" should always be included, or only if it's defining. In practice, it's broadly used in my experience. The same applies for where someone is buried. None of these are part of "identity" that someone had when they were alive, as in most cases they don't know why they died (in some cases they do, but it's maybe having the disease in that case that becomes defining, not dying from it.)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this, I've been busy. Anyway, I would argue that a historical individual who clearly suffered severe mental illness (such as Ivan the Terrible or George III) should be included in this category. And that living people should not be included unless the self-identify as disabled due to their mental health issues, as per the self-identification criteria for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Asarelah (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree.
Added "...or OD..." to 3rd case (death by psychological condition) above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Added neurodegenerative conditions --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey on proposed addition #Disability, medical, or psychological conditions

Note I have "upgraded" this discussion to a formal WP:RFC. Posts above this point were made before I added the RFC template. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Closure

A bot removed the RfC template, so time to close this I suppose. I thought of taking this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure but with an unanimous survey result I see no problem to proceed and introduce in the guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 09 June 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago45 comments17 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved to "Sensitive categories". No prejudice against a new RM discussing either the addition of "disability" to the title, or to simply "Identity", but neither of these counter-proposals gained a consensus either. Jenks24 (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality → Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people/Sensitive categories – Per Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Comments on guideline:

Version with lead section adapted to the new proposed page name --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support as nominator. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose no, this isn't just about people, these guidelines would also apply to things like 'Gay literature' (kept) and 'women-owned businesses' (not kept). Sensitive is not a good word here. I had started a section above to brainstorm collaboratively new titles, but instead you jump right to an RM. I think criminality is a very different set of issues and we should not add it here, by the way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Category:Women business executives? Whatsoever, the current content of the page says nothing on why 'Gay literature' would be a good idea and why 'women-owned businesses' wouldn't.
    Which is only logical, Keep people categories separate.
    Also, currently (I'm sure, unintended) it works in a sort of evasion scheme so that the basic people-related guidelines and policies wouldn't apply to the most sensitive people categories.
    "Sensitive categories" is the term used in WT:COP for nearly 10 years (since categories existed). I don't think that suddenly people have started failing to understand that. Anyhow, I proposed a clear definition for the lede under the new name, see above Version with lead section adapted to the new proposed page name
    Re. criminality, it isn't unrelated when accepting WP:BLPCAT. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Francis, you'd have to get consensus to include criminality as part of this guideline. I would oppose any such addition, for one since it links criminality with being gay or being from a religion. It just looks bad. Sensitive is a broader term, and applies beyond the specific cases outlined here. The current category does discuss this - for example, it says "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." - this applies beyond just categorization of individuals.
WP:BLPCAT is consensus, it contains language about Category:criminals in the same section as the language about religion/LGBT. Referring to policy on these topics from this page is nothing exceptional. BTW, WP:BLPCAT doesn't name criminality, religion nor sexuality in its title (nor in the page title, nor in the section title above it), where is the problem? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • rename to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, and disability to clearly delineate the now expanded scope, in line with the previous names of this article. I would also support or Wikipedia:Categorization of people/Identity if consensus leads that way. I don't like "sensitive categories", however.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to renaming this in principle if we can come to an agreement on a suitable generic name, but I don't think the proposed name is the right one. It's not an issue of "sensitivity", as there are lots of topics that present "sensitive" issues when it comes to categorization (religion, criminality, political ideology for a person whose notability isn't specifically tied to politics, etc.) but aren't covered by this guideline — rather, the scope of this guideline is generally limited to "identity politics" issues such as sexuality or gender. So I might support a new name aiming more in the direction of "identity categorization" — but I can't and won't support the new name that's been proposed for discussion at the present time. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your insights. @bearcat and others interested in this, may I invite you to have a closer look to the version I proposed to go along with the name change as a whole, not only for the updated lede with a definition of what for the guideline is understood by sensitive categories and for the introductory paragraph for the section that treats Sensitive categories by type, but also for specific additions: criminals are mentioned referring to WP:BLPCAT; the section on People with disabilities, medical, or psychological conditions could be inserted per the RfC proposal above, so soon ".../Identity categorization" would become a shoe that doesn't really fit. I'd appreciate to hear your thoughts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Firstly - We do not categorize people, we categorize articles, they may or may not be about people. Secondly - If a medical or psychological condition is not causing disability it would also not be defining, so "non-disabling" medical/psychological conditions are by definition out of scope. Thus it is acceptable to "summarize" the phrase "disability or medical or psychological condition" by the single word "disability". It also follows that the "identity categories" shoe would still fit. BTW, just to establish my "credentials" (for what it's worth) - I'm coming to this discussion specifically from a disability perspective, I'm one of the founders of the Disability Wikiproject and I have a physical disability. I'm also a communication science student, which has given me further insight into various aspects surrounding issues such as this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Re. 1: Categorization of people has afaik never been perceived as an oxymoron before. Since people categories usually only contain the article titles of biographical articles, and the article title of a biographical article is almost always the name of a person (WP:NCP), Wikipedia categorizes the names of people. Since in the Wikipedia system the name of a biographical article is unambiguous, we categorize people.
        • Re. 2: Dwarfism? I don't see "disability" as a descriptor of the condition in the Wikipedia article. The proposal above mentions Category:Actors with dwarfism as an example of what falls under it.
        Similar would be Klinefelter syndrome. Generalizing that under disability would seem offending to me. Asperger syndrome might be one in the subset op the psychological conditions that might better not be generalized as a disability.
        I'm not sure, even for the people for whom this is defining, if this would also resort under their identity. e.g. Category:Classical pianists who played with one arm: defining, not necessarily part of identity in my appreciation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not disabled so I don't speak from experience but I'm pretty sure that forms an important part of their identity - see the advocacy and work of deaf people for example. There's no perfect word any case, which is why I proposed listing them all to the extent possible.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, that reasoning makes no sense. Because some groups of deaf people are quite vocal, that doesn't mean the all deaf people are. And even less that all other people under disability, medical and psychological conditions were. I'm quite sure that most people in Category:Deaths from abdominal aortic aneurysm didn't identify with their physical condition, nor were vocal about it.
Taking it all together:
  • Oppose. I support in principle finding an umbrella concept to tie these personal characteristics together, but "sensitive" is absolutely the wrong word. It says nothing about why, e.g., these categories should be non-diffusing. We should be moving away from a functional scope for this guideline based on categories that Wikipedians handle badly and toward a stronger philosophical underpinning. In human rights law there is the concept of personal characteristics that are either immutable or changeable only at unacceptable cost to personal identity. I don't know that we will do better than either enumerating the specific characteristics (as we do now) or calling it simply "Categorization/Personal characteristics".--Trystan (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Ooh, that's a nice one - Personal characteristics. Not bad. Worth considering.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • My chief objection to "Sensitive categories" is that it is purely POV; we would be explicitly defining the guideline around whether or not Wikipedians feel sensitive about a category. There would be no objective standard to even try to be neutral about when considering what should be included in the guideline (e.g., age, disability) or how to interpret it. It also could come across as a bit patronizing to dismiss someone raising an issue about how core personal characteristic categories are handled as being "sensitive".
Without any philosophical basis to treat these categories differently, there is no basis to avoid ghettoization of articles. Our categorization principles say not to have a category in both parent and child categories. The reasons we want to depart from that practice with matters of core personal identity have nothing to do with sensitivity.
I raised the human rights quote partly simply for comparison, and partly to show that there isn't likely to be a simple magic bullet phrase that conveys exactly the scope we want. Whatever name we choose, the guideline itself will need to clarify the scope.--Trystan (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a philosophical basis, of course, you can find it here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity.
Categories are sensitive when they tend to turn up at WP:CfD in contentious elaborate debates. That has been the take of WP:COP for nearly 10 years now, basically from when categories existed and started to set off problems in certain fields. See lede section of the WP:COP guideline. Arguably, to that has been added in recent years: categories that turn up in external press in a negative daylight (see for example Kevin Morris article mentioned in one of the templates above on this page). Defining sensitive categories thus is Wikipedia's POV, a.k.a. putting NPOV in practice to the best of our abilities.
I only observed that the POV Trystan proposed to introduce appears to me less compatible to the NPOV approach (and its philosophical basis). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I sympathize with the proposal. But wouldn't it be better (and wouldn't it even be a prior step) to change the guideline itself in such a way that there would be no need to mention specific minority groups in the guideline? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Something in this vein? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm thinking about way more generic guidelines, just based on observable characteristics of persons (which contains e.g. ethnic and gender) versus unobservable characteristics of persons (which contains e.g. religion and sexual orientation). The only two rules in the current guideline that specifically address E/G/R/S categorization, and nothing else, are:
        1. the prohibition of race as a criterion for categorization, which is surely okay to keep,
        2. and the final rung rule, but I guess this rule can be changed into something more generic as well.
      Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
      • WP:EGRS refers to WP:BLPCAT for religion and sexuality categorizations (and for none of the others currently in the guideline). Other categorizations currently treated in WP:EGRS can be both observable and subject to BLPCAT (so that a link to the policy from this page is understood or might need to be explicited at some point) So, what's the difference? — which would indicate that the division proposed by Marcocapelle (observable/unobservable) maybe isn't all that straightforward.
      Also, what is observable/unobservable status for e.g. the T in LGBT (which may include both transvestites and transsexuals). Same for intersexuals. We'd go in a muddle there I'm afraid. The categories touching to both a bit of the sexuality and the gender categorizations are among the most sensitive ones, it would be difficult to treat them from either observable or unobservable angle alone
      Also ethnic subdivisions (as covered by the current WP:EGRS) are often unobservable I suppose, again a muddle if forcing all this in "observable".
      I'd avoid the chicken-and-egg discussion about name and content. I've proven they can't be done both in a single go. In the mean while the Disability, medical, or psychological conditions RfC was concluded and that content was added to the guideline per unanimous outcome of the RfC (see above — note that also these categorizations are thoroughly impractical for an observable/unobservable distinction). That new content makes the current page name incomplete. Yes also the intro would benefit from a rewrite taking account of this newly added content, but then that intro can not very well be ad rem if we don't take account of what the eventual page name would be. So, lets proceed with the name change keeping in mind possible future expansions of the content (as already detailed in this RM discussion). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator and carolmoordc. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment another editor moved the page before conclusion of this RM discussion [5] - without wanting to make a pre-emptive conclusion of this WP:RM I moved to the more likely outcome, pending conclusion. [6] --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to "Wikipedia:Categorization of people/Sensitive categories"; too vague, can include almost anyone. Best to be specific. I only support the long-standing title of "Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexuality" or "Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, and disability." Flyer22 (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is absolutely no reason to add an ambiguous 'sensitive' to the end of this category, as it can apply to almost anything, even to things which do not need it. If there is a need to have more 'categories' listed, then we can discuss that, but this opens the door to all sorts of nasty things, such as politics, or job occupation, and a bunch of other things. I do not support the move and wish for it to be moved back; indeed, it should never have been moved without this first closing. Tutelary (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "sensitive categories" as the phrase carries too much "baggage" as in "intellectual baggage that keeps one from thinking clearly". Bus stop (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

There is no WP:Consensus to move the title of this page to any new name. And yet Muffinator (talk · contribs) recently moved the page to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, and disability, as seen here. And then Francis Schonken moved the page to the ridiculous title Wikipedia:Categorization of people/Sensitive categories, as seen here, even though people are generally opposed to that title above. Then Timrollpickering WP:Move protected the page on this ridiculous title, as seen here. All of this is ridiculous, with the exception of Muffinator's title change at least being reasonable. Wikipedia:Requested moves has a requirement that potentially controversial moves should be discussed through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process; it states, "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested." BD2412, will you move this page back to where it belongs until, or if, there is a new WP:Consensus for a title change? Flyer22 (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer that Timrollpickering do that, to avoid the appearance of edit-warring at the admin level. I would hope that we can all agree that a page (in any namespace) should remain at its longstanding title while discussion proceeds with respect to a move of that page. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. When I saw that Timrollpickering didn't move it back, but even reversed me here to match his WP:Move protection (though I did mess up on that move with the "Wikipedia" bit), I decided to call on you, since you are pretty much an expert regarding page moves and WP:Disambiguation matters. Your reversing the edit wouldn't be WP:Wheel warring. But, anyway, you know what they say: Administrators always protect the wrong version. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Where a title dispute is involved, the "right" version will always be the stable title prior to the dispute beginning, until such time as the dispute has been resolved. I would hope that all administrators would be aware of this, and proceed accordingly. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Francis has also gone ahead and edited the lead to make it match the new title. In the interest of giving this RM a chance to be closed fairly, I would strongly support the article being moved back and the accompanying edits being (hopefully self-)reverted.--Trystan (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Just by way of clarification, the page isn't currently at Wikipedia:Categorization of people/Sensitive categories, it's at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categorization of people/Sensitive categories, with the double namespace. The entry at WP:RM and associated pages is updated automatically, so it appears as a request to move it from Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categorization of people/Sensitive categories → Wikipedia:Categorization of people/Sensitive categories. There are several double redirects, but I would not suggest that they be fixed until the page is appropriately moved back to its original name pending the outcome of the RM.--Trystan (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for for the double Wikipedia at the start of the current page name:

By a mistake I made the page name now starts with "Wikipedia:Wikipedia:...".

The page was move protected by Timrollpickering so whoever responds to this needs to be clear with this admin when wanting to gratify my request to undo the double "Wikipedia:"

Most important is that this is a guideline not deserving a crooked page name. What the least crooked name is will only become clear when the WP:RM above is concluded. In the mean while everyone agrees I suppose that having the page name start with "Wikipedia:Wikipedia:" looks at least quite unprofessional.

Sorry again for the inconvenience. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Rather, you should not have moved the page period since the page is undergoing a move discussion and multiple users (including myself) opposed the radical move without the requested move being ended. Administrator, while you're at it, move the name back to WP:STATUSQUO until the requested move has its consensus assessed. Tutelary (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Move back until requested move is ended The reasoning of 'it's a likely outcome' I think is not a good reason to be moving this page UNTIl the requested move is complete. Tutelary (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done I moved the main page to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality and this talk page to Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality: in essence I have restored the page names as they were at the start of today, and also as they were when the above WP:RM was initiated. Of the triple redirects that these moves have given rise to, I have fixed up some so that are normal single redirs, others have been left alone. I have fixed up all the double redirects; by doing this, the remaining triple redirects have become double redirects. Most are WP:ALPHABETSOUP. I have not moved any subpages. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "sensitive categories" is more of a commentary than the more neutral way of simply listing the categories. I added "disability" to the title because the content of the page now includes disability as one of the main 5 (previously 4) categories. Support "Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, and disability" as the ultimate page title. Muffinator (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize for making a preemptive page move. In my defense, there was no tag on the main page pointing to this discussion, so I was unaware of it. Muffinator (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment I move protected the page because it was expereiencing multiple moves during an ongoing RM and also the talk page was getting left behind - my move was to undo that, not "reverse" another move. Once everything was together and locked I was about to determine the status quo ante but this took longer than expected and real world connections intervened. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

deghettoization algorithm

Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

There is a discussion at the Gender bias task force page around the deghettoization algorithm I created and placed there for use by project members, it was suggested it could be moved elsewhere, and I think here is as good a place as any. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force/Categorization to see the algorithm. Does anyone have any opposition to adding that algorithm to this page? If needed we could place it on a subpage here and let people edit it until they're satisfied.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

To repeat some of my (and sometimes others) various objections and concerns:
  • "Alogrithm" is a mathematical word and "process" or "Procedure" more appropriate
  • "Deghettoization" remains a loaded word because a) tends to trivialize real life ghettoization and b) not clear if it means removing categories with these subgroups or adding more people to those subgroups or adding people to larger groups as well as subgroups or some combination thereof.
A more neutral and explanative phrase is needed like proper." Proper procedures for categorization of individuals is nice and generic and non-confusing. To me, the phrase is becoming an incredibly annoying hobby horse.
The algorithm has been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force/Categorization. It's now just called "instructions". As mentioned to Carol previously, I'm very open to replacement words for deghettoization. Also, to be fair, this algorithm isn't really just about deghettoization - it's more "How to fully and completely categorize a person".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Others at that Wikiproject who have a greater understanding of the topic have expressed opposition to that and a variety of other concerns. It seems to me like something you have to develop on your own talk page with non-jargon language, making its purpose and the need for it more clear. Also get more input from informed editors before you try to promote to other wikiprojects. Have you asked if Wikiproject Judaism is concerned that Category writers/ethnicity/Jewish is a ghetto as evidently you think Category writers/gender/women is? Similarly other narrower wikiprojects? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
hi Carol, the sequence of steps applies to any biography, so would apply to Jewish writers equally. I think we just have to wait for other editors here to weigh in on the series of steps @Sionk: who I know used them, any inputs on same? Also pinging @Bearcat: and @BrownHairedGirl: and @Johnpacklambert: and @Xezbeth: and @Silverseren: for input into the series of steps linked above to 'properly' categorize a biography.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I can only say again, I understand what Obi-Wan is explaining and I know why the "de-ghettoization" procedure was encouraged following last year's press furore. I spent a long time 'doing' de-ghettoization, though it was like pushing sand uphill because most other enthusiastic categorisers carried on as before. It makes god sense to call is something other than "de-ghettoization", because that obviously is confusing people/getting their backs up. Sionk (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
thanks. Would you mind responding to the particulars of the sequence/algorithm described above? Do you think it reflects the guidance here and do you think following it will result in proper categorization of biographies? Do you have suggestions for improving it (besides changing that problematic word...) thanks--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I'd suggest some sort of explanation about *why* this is required i.e. something about the 2013 press furore. Generally we're encouraged to place articles in categories that are as exact as possible, so it is counter-intuitive to many editors to tell them not to do this in certain circumstances. People will (and often do) argue that because Category:African-American poets is a sub-category of Category:American poets we don't need to have them in both. Sionk (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Even more complex is that poets should actually be in the by-century categories as well as the state-categories, and technically not in the parent Category:American poets should be empty - it will one day when someone gets around to it. I can try to provide some exposition around explaining why, yes it's a good idea. Do you think otherwise that following the steps will result in correct categorization? Should I make the example simpler - or add a simple example to go along with the complex one?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

essay

I tagged Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender bias task force/Categorization#How to categorize without bias as an essay, while it seems not to take into account basic bias-avoiding techniques like WP:EGRS#Special subcategories. The new essay suggests that additional intersection categories should be created without hindrance from prior existing guidance. Same for WP:COP, WP:OVERCAT — also: not checking whether all the categories being proposed for the "bisexual, African-American woman, who is a journalist, poet, and writer" example make actual sense, e.g. categorizing someone as an LGBT poet would imply that at least some poems by this author have a LGBT theme. For real life examples like Ida Gerhardt and Paul van Ostaijen I fear that such categorizations wouldn't work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Slightly odd. The 'essay' is not an explanation or instruction to create new categories. I don't see that anywhere at all! Sionk (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

... - the whole tree is lopsided. We don't have Category:Bisexual journalists or Category:African-American women journalists or Category:African-American women writers from Chicago or Category:LGBT poets from the United States. This is the odd nature of the current tree, as created by many different editors with many different viewpoints - it is highly heterogeneous and not consistent - ...

...fails to mention consistency with WP:EGRS#Special subcategories. When consistency is exclusively looked at from characteristics of the tree (lopsided, odd, heterogenous, more or less calling its creators clueless,...) the so-called inconsistency problem can only be solved by adding categories as proposed and explained.
This is an indirect invitation to create categories without taking some of the essentials of WP:EGRS, WP:COP and WP:OVERCAT into account.
Note that essays should never contain direct instructions unless supported by a consensus of editors — generally an essay is about advice and opinions (see {{essay}} template). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
As you say, there is no direct instruction. You are simply inferring an indirect instruction. But I agree it is probably misleading to say the current category tree is "not consistent". Instead it would be better to say the categories are created "consistent with WP:EGRS#Special subcategories". Sionk (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
As said, {{essay}} is an appropriate qualification.
That being said, WP:EGRS#Special subcategories was drawn in by me as an informed guess by prior history. The same informed guess that makes me look with little surprise to the recently listed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 4#Category:Dutch-language LGBT writers - inviting to participate in that ungoing CfD discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
As long as it is an archive subpage of Gender Gap Task Force it is a proposed essay since there were many questions and objections about it in the task force, especially the mass deletion of categories from a number of articles related to women. Even if someone wants to make it an essay elsewhere, I think it still should be labeled as a proposed system of categorization. It really hasn't been accepted throughout en.Wikipedia, has it? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Technically a single person offering advice and opinions in Wikipedia namespace can be labeled {{essay}} (see content of that template). Lacking support or gathering disapproval from multiple editors there are a few options:
  • WP:USERFY when it is worth reading
  • WP:MFD when there is little or no interest in keeping it
  • tag {{historical}} when it has been a broad initiative supported over a longer period of time (not really the case here imho)
Tagging as "proposed essay" is a bit of an oxymoron. There is no way to differentiate between "accepted" and "proposed" essays, while an essay is always "proposed" (compare guidelines that run through a propose → accept or reject cycle). Rejecting an essay is according to one of the methods mentioned above, not by adding the redundant "proposed".
I have read this essay and found it interesting while it allowed its creator User:Obiwankenobi to explain himself more comprehensively than in a series of replies in a discussion (which, BTW, made the weak points in his reasonings stand out). Then I quoted from it above, and have commented upon it (I could further elaborate how it misses its goal to counter bias and would also lead to overcategorization but the general thrust is clear I suppose), so for me it no longer has to be kept. WP:MFD might be the road to go, and when that would result in a keep, userfy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I had a closer look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Categorization. Apparently this has been going on for a longer period of time. Leaves {{historical}} open as an option. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • comment I will reword to make sure it doesn't suggest creating new categories; that's not the point. It was only to illustrate that the category tree is lopsided; this is partially due to sourcing requirements, but sometimes this is due to certain categories not yet having been created. I think the algorithm is still robust, however, so would like recommendations on other changes needed before we can add it to the guideline.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Actors/Actresses

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I'm currently involved in an AfD about a female Malaysian actor and was investigating how many other articles we had about Malaysian actors. I noticed that Category:Malaysian actors had a sub-category, Category:Malaysian actresses, where female actors were listed. It seems to be quite offensive to treat actresses as a sub-category of actors, don't you think? Many women in the acting business describe themselves (and are described) as "actors".

So I wondered whether this was simply an isolated anomaly of a patriarchal country. I looked at Category:British actors and exactly the same situation occurs - largely male actors listed as "actors", while women are subcategorised.

Has this situation been discussed before? Is it simply a case of moving all the people listed in "Actors" to either "Male actors" or "Actresses"? Sionk (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In both cases you cite there are also subcategories for male actors. Anyone in the top level categoy should be moved down where their gender is known.
The issue has come up a few times in CFDs but annoyingly for finding them they tend to be about national categories instead of the global one - broadly the view has been that there is no consensus within the industry itself about whether "actress" should or shouldn't be used (in part most of the relevant industry awards use the term) and so the term has been used with the curious exception of porn. This in turn has resulted in categories called "male actors" which some consider pointlessly excessive because they see "actor" as still implying male and possibly because of this they are not using or are unaware of the subcategories. It would have helped immensely if acting had found a new catch-all term like "fire-fighter" or "flight attendant" and so forth. Instead we have a term that some see as a catch-all and others as implying male.
There's the more general problem of whether or not the acting categories should be gender divided which has been quite fierce at times. It's gone back and forth a few times but the current consensus seems to be for division. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll move a few to the 'correct' sub-category when I have a chance. Sionk (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
In the section directly above I question why we don't place men and women in both their gendered category and also the parent non-gendered cat. I think all gendered categories should be non-diffusive and would prevent such issues. SFB 17:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem being that the parent categories have other categories which are diffusing of the parent. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Sionk, I just checked the British category, since you mentioned it — and, of course, it's also worth remembering that in the British context, people should almost always be diffused out of "British X" categories on the English vs. Scottish vs. Welsh vs. Northern Irish consideration. And, in fact, some of the people in Category:British actors were already in one or more of those more specific categories anyway — meaning that even independently of the gender issue, their presence in that category was still duplicate categorization. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's a questionable task, considering not every Brit identifies themselves (or is identified as) English, Scottish or Welsh. But I'll leave that for another time and place! Sionk (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to clearly mark all categories as non-diffusing

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

The current guideline states that these types of categories are Non-diffusing by default with the parent category that lacks the ERGS-type attribute (e.g. Category:American historians non-diffuse parent of Category:American women historians, or Category:African-American female track and field athletes non-diffusive subcategory of Category:African-American track and field athletes and Category:American female track and field athletes, but not Category:African-American sportswomen).

In the sports area (and perhaps others) this is definitively not the case. For example, Category:German tennis players contains none of the people in the male and female categories, which it should do.

I propose we make mandatory the labelling of all categories of this type with {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} (and recommend to tag the parent with {{Non-diffusing parent category}}). This means the ghetto situation cannot develop by accident as the standardised non-diffuse arrangement will be openly publicised. SFB 19:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have suggested this in the past (e.g. emphasizing labeling the categories accordingly), you can see a long discussion above where it was pointed out that most people categorize without looking at those labels, so while they are useful, they don't solve the problem. Also, parent categories are NOT necessarily non-diffusing parent categories. There is also another problem here - when you talk about sports categories, like actor/actress categories, these are fully split by gender, meaning the rules are somewhat different - in those cases, things are not bubbled up to the parent. Ah, I just saw you created {{Non-diffusing parent category}} - I think that's more trouble than it's worth - e.g. labeling the parent category. ugh. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I created that because non-diffusion is a relationship – it's as much a property of the parent as it is the child. Only noting that relationship on one of the pair doesn't really make much sense, and often leads people to the conclusion that non-diffusion is an attribute of a category, rather than a quality of a relationship that category has with another. I appreciate some might find that hard work.
Turning back to sports – what would be the negative for readers in also listing both male and female sportspeople in their parent national category? From the positives, I can see it making our many, many small sports intersections more navigable (e.g. Category:Jamaican tennis players. SFB 22:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The thing is that most of the parent categories in question are fully diffused on other points of distinction independent of the gender; for example, Category:Canadian writers is fully diffused by the type of writing that a person did (novelists, poets, essayists, etc.) and by the province or territory that the writer came from. So it can't be marked as non-diffusing just because the gendered writer categories are non-diffusing of the parent — because there are other categories that are diffusing of the same parent.
In most cases, in fact, deeming a subcategory to be non-diffusing of its parent completely vitiates the value of even having the subcategory in the first place. That was the original idea behind the "ghettoization" rule, in fact — a gendered subcategory could only be implemented if the parent category was fully diffusable on other grounds independently of gender, precisely so that the gendered category wasn't taking anybody out of the other categories they would actually be sitting in and thus strictly speaking it would technically be irrelevant whether the gendered category was "diffusing" the parent or not.
In reality, if you have to deem a category "non-diffusing" of its parent in order to justify it, then 99 times out of 100 what you really have is a category that we don't need in the first place (or which needs to be structured differently.) In reality, we never had this problem of having to deem gendered categories non-diffusing until the Category:American women novelists brouhaha last year — because the rule used to be that a gendered category could only exist if the category tree was structured in such a way that the gendered category wasn't even causing the problem that necessitates deeming it "non-diffusing" in the first place. You could have Category:American women writers sitting alongside the ungendered Category:American novelists or Category:American poets or whatever — but Category:American writers was supposed to be fully diffused by type of writing, and thus empty of individual writers (not that it ever actually is, but all of the articles that are sitting directly in the parent can be diffused by state or type of writing iffen somebody would actually do it). So the subcategory for women writers didn't have to be "non-diffusing", because it wasn't causing a diffusion-related problem. The problem only started to arise when somebody decided to intersect the gendered category with the type-of-writing categories — which is exactly what the gendered-category rules used to militate against, precisely so that gendered categories couldn't even cause the problems that started flowing from that project. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bearcat: The above culture for gendered categories that you describe (the "final rung rule") means categorisation in that respect is driven purely by the desire not to exclude or ghettoise. This basis is fundamentally flawed as it is contrary to the central purpose of categorisation (that is, to group items by similar characteristics for navigational benefit). I don't think the presence of other subcategories is relevant when deciding whether gender is appropriate for navigation. I understand the reasons why that culture has arisen, but I believe non-diffusion as the solution is not only more logical, but it is more in tune with the purpose of categorisation, and still mitigates all the issues of ghettoisation. SFB 17:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think this whole proposal is built around a flawed understanding of how sports work. In many sports, to talk about a non-gendered expression of the sport is to disconnect from reality. The same applies to dance, acting and singing. In singing we have sub-categories within the by gender categories such as Category:American altos. On the other hand, scrapping the last-rung rule ignores its other usefulness. It helps mitigate against overly small categories. Category:American women judges is an inherently more useful category than if we broke the judges down between federal and state and in various other ways that judges are categorized. Having seen articles on singers that are already in over 50 categories, any proposal that would increase the number of articles these people could be put in needs to be considered with some caution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The idea and logic of WP:SMALLCAT would still apply in any case. I don't think the last rung rule has any relevance in that respect. SFB 20:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm all for whatever will produce fewer cases of "Category:Women [whatevers]" and "Category:African American [whatevers]" in isolation and also reduce the urge to go there. Either don't divvy up subjects (especially people) to that level at all, or do it universally (i.e. divide "actors" into male and female categories), but favor simplicity over forking. I'm generally strongly opposed to redundant categorization, period, wherein (relevant to this discussion) someone might be listed in Botswanan actors and Botswanan male actors, or whatever. We have subcategories for a reason. Divided categories should carry their articles with them, as it were, not "copy" them over, conceptually speaking, except where multiple subcategories both apply. The problem of doing it the other way (most often motivated by in-page searching in a category) is that there's no clear rationale for ever stopping, really. Mark Twain may as well be listed under Category:Mammals, and every intervening category up to the human writer ones he's in, if we're going to take that approach. Thankfully, we generally don't even try this. So, don't do more of that, and get rid of what of it we're stuck with now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Categorizing_articles_about_people/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality/Archive_9&oldid=1170282371"