Wikipedia talk:Categorizing articles about people/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

RfC about WP:COPHERITAGE

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus cannot be evaluated: Alternative proposals, unclear changes to the proposed wording while under discussion, canvassing, and allegations of forum shopping mean it is not possible to confidently evaluate the community's consensus regarding the proposal.

Editors are advised to workshop future proposals at WP:VPIL before starting RFCs, warned not to engage in bludgeoning behaviour, and encouraged to use this format for the next RFC. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose amending the following phrase from the guideline: “historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage” to “historical persons may be identified by notable association with zero or more heritages”. — Biruitorul ^Talk 17:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• • I support and second Biruitorul in this, after being confronted with a user's claim that people who have had a combination of Bulgarian ethnicity, Gagauz ethnicity, and Romanian citizenship should be randomly removed from some of them "because COPHERITAGE only allows one category". This wording seems to be the most hamfisted way of getting people to only use categories that are backed by reliable sources -- "you can only have one". And who decides which one, without endless controversy? We're not told. Dahn (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Also, I can't help but imagine the moment when one of our biographical subjects kicks the proverbial bucket, and a specialized teams of wikipedia undertakers proceeds to silently remove all but one of the ethnic categories, per the orthodox reading of that inept portion of the guideline. Dahn (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    • For example, will Barack Obama’s permitted heritage be English, French, German, Irish, Kenyan, Luo, Scottish, Welsh or Swiss? And why? — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

      African-American. WP:OCEGRS people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career
      William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

      • Again, note the circularity of this argument: one shouldn't question the guideline on ethnicities, because the guideline only only permits one ethnicity, or defines only one as significant. Who wrote the guideline that we are questioning? Why, it was William Allen Simpson himself. Dahn (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. While I'd have initially imagined this was only a case of a Western-centric convention as ethnicity is less important in the West, apparently this is not even the case per examples given above. I cannot think of a practical use of this rule or of the justification that could've originated it. Cases must be approached individually in complicated matters such as identity or ethnicity; this convention incites the opposite. Super Ψ Dro 18:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Things should be done on a case by case basis. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 18:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support We shouldn't deny/suppress somebodies identity. ShaveKongo (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment the current language is problematic, but I'm not sure this is the correct solution. In situations where a country is notably divided among ethnic groups, the current language allows specifying that ethnicity (Flemish v. Walloon in Belgium, White v. Black in the 19th century American south, anyone in the Austro-Hungarian empire, etc.) Outside of that situation, I don't think we need any "ethnic heritage" categories. For Woodrow Wilson, we don't need categories for "English", "Scotch-Irish", and "Scottish" descent - the policy should support removing all of them. Walt Yoder (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Walt Yoder: How would one decide which ones are more important than the others, without creating a POV mess? Dahn (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Disagree, they should all be kept. I value ethnicity categories, and I'm sure there's plenty of others that do too.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom, seems like a silly policy.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) I am somewhat confused about what exactly is under consideration here; the phrase is confusingly ambiguous, which I suppose is reason enough to remove it. However, given how it is juxtaposed with the requirement that living persons identify with a particular heritage, I think it was meant to say that we may identify historical persons with a heritage they may not have necessarily recognized if the historiography prominently does so (e.g., we could include Copernicus in Category:Polish people of German descent). I agree that the restriction to one is weird. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
  • That’s certainly an issue, yes. The other is that, on a strict reading, the deceased may only be identified with one heritage category. So for example Regis Philbin, who proudly identified as being of both Irish and Italian heritage, is (per the current guideline) only allowed in one of those categories. Which is, of course, absurd. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. It's weird that someone like Regis Philbin (pointed out by Biruitorul's comment above) was able to be recognized as ethnically Irish and Italian while he was alive, but according to this rule, can't now that he's dead... or at least, that a "historical" person in the same position as Philbin could only have one heritage category at a time. I am chuckling at imagining a Pheasant Island solution, cycling through all of the relevant categories, so he gets to be in the Irish-heritage category half the year, and the Italian-heritage one the other half... but it would be better to include all appropriate categories at the same time. -sche (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment There is a good reason to restrict the number of ethnic categories for people, living or dead. We want to avoid cases such as this, from many years ago, when editors were synthesizing all kinds of wierd ethnic categories. I maintain that we should use only ethnic categories that are supported by independant reliable sources. - Donald Albury 10:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Donald Albury: The cases you mention (how frequent are they?) are simply not relevant. For instance, we do not have a category for "Jewish Mexicans", which would have made it tempting to include all people in Canada who are of combined Mexican and Jewish descent; what we have now is Category:Mexican people of Jewish descent and (within it) Category:Mexican Jews, which are pretty clearly reserved for people who hold Mexican nationality and are Jews. So no, there is absolutely no "good reason to restrict the number of ethnic categories": that is simply the absurd approach to a very simple problem. Please also note that this is indeed a discussion about the use of multiple ethnic categories as validated by reliable sources, and the cases in which those reliable sources validate multiple ethnic categories (the claim that they should be "independent" is a bit weird, mind you: who better than Regis Philbin to talk about Philbin's own ethnic background?). For that situation, the current guideline, with its ridiculous approach, suggests that we should feel validated to strip all but one ethnic category. Dahn (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

    The point is that editors will synthesize an ethnic category by arbitarily combining two elements in the background of the subject of an article. We should not allow that, but insist, as Wikipedia:Verifiability requires, that membership in ethnic categories be supported by reliable sources. I see no point in setting a number on ethnic categories, as long as they are verifiable from reliable sources. Donald Albury 12:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

    @Donald Albury: Again, you do understand that this refers to ethnicities as mentioned in reliable sources, that just happen to be more than one. Dahn (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  • More to the point: can anyone here underscore what exactly is the problem with having, say, 15 ethnic categories for people who have/have had 15 ethnic identities, with each one of those identities validated by one or several legitimate sources? There are indeed such cases (not many), and I for one don't see who is harmed by the categories just being there. We are not talking about frivolous claims (such as Nikola Tesla being called a Romanian in unquotable sources, or Obama being "denounced" as an Indonesian in even more unquotable ones) -- so dwelling on those irrelevant claims to support this irrelevant portion of the guideline is not really helping. Dahn (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

    Fifteen ethnic identifies? It doesn't work that way. I had a Swedish great-grandmother. That does not make me Swedish. I had a Scottish great-grandfather. That does not make me Scottish. That may have made my grandfather Scots-Swedish, but not me. It is one thing to list elements of a person's heritage. It is something else to identify them as a member of an ethnic group. Again, I hold that categorizing someone as a member of an ethnic group requires at least one reliable source saying they are part of that ethnic group. Donald Albury 12:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

    @Donald Albury: A public person, worthy of an article, whose ethnic heritage is mentioned in reliable third-party sources and/or by her/himself, can have 15 ethnic identities at the same time, and these can be mentioned -- if they're worthy enough of being mentioned by the sources and/or by her/himself, they're surely worthy enough of mention on wikipedia. Why is this even a controversial point? Also, the "descent" terminology is good enough to cover both full ethnic identification and descent of a murkier kind, and has been long used in this manner without any particular controversy -- if you dispute that, please enlighten us as to what objective standard we can use to define it otherwise. Plainly: where does X descent stop and X ethnicity begin. Now, mind you, when you do answer: as per my original point, 15 identities is an extreme example, I would suppose the average is at two or three. But the point is that even in extreme examples, the full categorizing works, whereas the arbitrary restrictions will still be stupid. Dahn (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

    That's just one way of looking at it, others see themselves as the sum of their individual parts. For example, my grandfather is of one ethnicity, and I'm mostly of another, but still have a valid claim in my opinion (and opinion of many others) that I still am part of that ethnicity, and identify with that culture. And many nationality laws around the world agree. Ortizesp (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Echoing Dahn’s comments, Donald Albury, I would encourage us to continue focusing on the main point, which is that the deceased do have multiple heritages, that it’s arbitrary and bizarre to restrict to a single one, and that we don’t do it anyway. Take, for another example, Dorothy Parker. German-Jewish father, Scottish mother, amply attested by multiple independent sources. (Not cited in the article, but they do exist.) Why be forced to pick one? The article as it stands does not do that, it includes both her father’s and her mother’s identities, but why should we arbitrarily exclude one of these? It makes no sense. — Biruitorul ^Talk 11:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • How far back can we go then? 10 generations? 50? Doug Weller talk 16:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
    • @Doug Weller: Do sources ever go that far? If the answer is "no, not really", then why is this even a question? Dahn (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

      Genealogies, biographies, histories, etc. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

      @Doug Weller: The usage of (1) genealogies per se (as in, works that take the effort to connect any two individuals through their ancestors, is actually already restricted under WP:DIRECTORY; such generic genealogies would simply not be allowed as sources. Any heritage that is significant enough to be mentioned in (2) biographies and histories is actually relevant for both mention and categorization, precisely because it was mentioned in such sources (see also WP:PAPER). Of course, a restriction is evident when the source emits a hypothesis (such as in arguing that Mihai Eminescu may have been Bulgarian or Armenian -- with this precise wording); in that case, we would not include a hypothesis as a category, since that would imply being more sure than the source is. The same goes for reliable sources that explicitly contradict each other ("X says that Y's ancestors were Scottish, but I argue they were in fact Irish"). There is in fact no controversy to be had here. LE: Also note when the subject of an entry makes a self-aggrandizing or inept claim that is then debunked by scholarship -- we do not have Constantin Sion as a Tatar, an we do not have Rachel Dolezal as an actual African-American. Dahn (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

      @Dahn Even so, are you saying even 50 generations back is relevant to ethnic identity and categories? Doug Weller talk 17:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

      @Doug Weller: I am categorically saying the exact opposite of that: namely, that 50 generations back is not something which quotable sources will ever detail; in all cases, RSes will simply not cover that far back, though they may go 4 generations back or so (most likely 2). Because, again: plain genealogical sources will not be usable, under the long-existing WP:DIRECTORY. So the very hypothesis that we should and will allow 50 generations back is entirely unrealistic. Dahn (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

      In fact, historical personages are even less likely to pose us with that "problem", since genealogies for most of the are quite hypothetical, an will be presented as such in historical RSes. There is for instance no need to list Ioan Caragea as a Pecheneg, since that is only a hypothetical genealogy; and no need to identify this guy with any non-Greek ethnicity that may have seeped into the Kantakuzene bloodline, since virtually no one actually believes that he was an actual Kantakuzene. Dahn (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

      So we will never find reliable sources for more than 4 generations back? Doug Weller talk 19:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

      @Doug Weller: Again: you may find sources, and they may even be reliable in their field, but they would not be usable, since the type of info they contain will not be included in our article, and will therefore not be the basis for its categories. As you glance at WP:DIRECTORY, you will note: "4. Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." This means that most purely genealogical sources will be excluded from our coverage, leaving us with historical and biographical sources that mention only the very basic facts of the subject's genealogy. Dahn (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

      The problem that arises here is, of course, that "the very basic facts" as defined by the relevant historical/biographical sources (not by us) will in fact stretch more than one generation back, and may uncover more than one ethnicity. As a very random example, Mark Twain's biographical sources mention his Cornish and Scots-Irish descent, without expressing any interests in his ancestors at King's Arthur Court. The current guideline would prevent us from using as categories facts that are actually covered by Twain's biographers; stripping this section of the guideline will not provide us with a license to research Twain's 12th-century ancestors, since his biographers do not. Dahn (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

      See also African heritage of presidents of the United States: aside from Obama, we don’t categorize US Presidents as having African ancestry, rumors notwithstanding. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

      Doug Weller is perhaps aiming at achieving a limit of generations we can look back to to establish a standard. I do not believe we should establish a static rule, individual analysis of each case is always better. As Dahn states, we should stick to what reliable sources say. This is the easiest and most intuitive solution. Also, 50 generations is not a number we can work with as an example. 52 generations was 1,300 years ago. It would be easier to list all the ethnicities today that we could say existed back in 700 AD than those that did not. Reliable sources won't go to a time period so ridiculously far back. Super Ψ Dro 22:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

      @Super DromaeosaurusSorry, that was hyperbole. It's just that I don't think that more than 4 should be avoided. But 10 might be reasonable in a few cases. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

      @Doug Weller: Any biography of Mark Twain will likely stop way short of 10; a genealogical study of his family could in theory go back to the medieval era, but it would be unusable as a source. The issue is actually neatly folded for us, just that it's under a different policy, making the care exercised by this guideline we're discussing very very redundant. Moreover: Never in my contributions here have a stumbled upon any biography of a historical figure that would go back even 7 generations. Dahn (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

      6 is 64 ancestors. Extremely unlikely you'd get them all of different ethnicity. But would you accept however many different ethnicities there were? Doug Weller talk 07:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

      @Doug Weller: Assuming X's 64 ancestors each have a different ethnicity, with a total of 64 separate ethnicities, and all these facts are brought up in a biography of X, yes, we would have 64 categories; the situation is so extremely unlikely that it would probably be in itself a claim to notoriety by X, and we would have categories precisely to reflect that astoundingly exotic fact. Why not? Dahn (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

      Why not indeed? Doug Weller talk 08:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

      @Doug Weller: Please note that the mention of n ethnicities in a standard, individual, biographical source, which we can use (rather than an extensive study of family genealogy, which we generally can't use in a bio article) is pretty much an argument and rule of thumb about the notability of those ethnicities as they relate to the individual, and, I argue, such notability is/should be enough to also warrant inclusiuon in categories (per what we already do, de facto). Do you accept that argument? Dahn (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

      yes. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

      By the way, Harry Belafonte, who died yesterday, is in 5 heritage categories. Technically, the guideline requires us to remove 4 of these. Which do we eliminate, and why? — Biruitorul ^Talk 11:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Disagree with most of the above posts. Categorization by ethnic is only allowed if it's a defining characteristic. For most people, the right number of ethnic categories is zero. I could see a case where two defining ethnicities but I expect it to be extremely rare. (t · c) buidhe 08:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  • So it cannot be questioned whether it is allowed because it is not allowed. Sounds like circular reasoning. Also: how does one define a defining characteristic, without resorting to a popular vote or an editorial decision by, well, you? And how is something detailed in reliable sources (again: that is the situation being discussed here) not the same as a defining characteristic? would sources even mention the detail if it weren't a defining characteristic? Dahn (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

    See Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

    • Seems to validate the precise criterion of it having been mentioned in RSes, and doesn't place any limit on the number -- the very notion that you could limit it in this way seems to have come out of nowehere other than a small conclave's attempt to limit categorization (without even realizing, or caring about, the entailed paradoxes). Dahn (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

    "Mentioning" and "mentioning in detail" are two different things. Discussing something in detail indicates notability, the other does not. FOARP (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose removing "notable association" - So every single article about a person gets race-categorised even if no source considers their race notable (EDIT: or defining)? No. This is a totally US-POV proposal, that falls apart when we try to apply it outside the US where people are super-focused on "heritage" since it is simply not a thing that most people talk about or consider outside the US. I'm iffy about race by itself being used but, if we're going to have it, it has to be a defining/notable characteristic. No opposition to multiple race-characterisations since we know that people are capable of considering themselves and others as "definitively" more than one race, but it still needs to be a defining characteristic. Looking above it's almost like people want to apply a "one drop rule" that goes back potentially hundreds of years, which in a UK context would produce ludicrous outcomes like Boris Johnson being categorised as Turkish. FOARP (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  @FOARP: Please understand that this is about sources actually mentioning a person's multiple ethnic heritage, and cases where the current (inept) guideline imposes on us to choose just one; it is also not about race, but about ethnicity (including multiple ethnicity within the same race). The current guideline prevents us from categorizing someone from Bulgaria who has an Italian parent and a Lebanese parent as both Bulgarian Italian and Bulgarian Lebanese, and makes us pick one of the two, even where the individual made it clear that s/he identifies as both. As for the claim that this will/would result in adding countless categories: (a) no, it would not, since the sources do not go that deep, as a rule; (b) please make at least a basic effort to support this claim by mentioning at least one example where this would have been the case. Dahn (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  As for your Johnson example: there is absolutely no reason why he would not be included in the aptly named Category:British people of Turkish descent, with multiple sources, and himself, mentioning his Turkish descent -- which covers people of Turkish ethnicity but not only. Why is this so ghastly and incomprehensible? (Incidentally, there is absolutely no US-centric view here: the proponent and I, who seconded the proposal, are Romanian. The issue we came across, as already mentioned, has to do with the absurd claim that we cannot list people from Romania with multiple ethnic identities and documented descent in more than one such category.) Dahn (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Nevertheless, there’s a fair point embedded in FOARP’s remark: how about changing “notable association with a single heritage” to “notable association with at least one heritage”? — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Fair point. Dahn (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

*::::Biruitorul - I would support with that amendment. The association must be a notable one, not simply something mentioned in passing or a distant association discovered by some genealogist. FOARP (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• @FOARP: Please see above. We are actually barred from using bare genealogies as references, so that much of your concern is addressed by simply enforcing that rule. The problem with your Johnson example is that his Turkish descent is indeed mentioned by multiple sources, and by himself, and not just in passing. Dahn (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  But your proposal is to remove not just the "single" requirement but also the "notable association" requirement from the guideline. Go ahead and amend the proposal along the lines proposed and I'm fine to support. The bar to bare genealogies is included in this rule. FOARP (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Proposal amended. — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  I literally wrote in my !vote that I have no objection to multiple race-categorisations so long as they are all notable (EDIT: and defining). What I object to is removing the notability/defining requirement. As to my objection to applying a "one drop rule", this is because it will lead to very large numbers of categorisations being added, in the example of Boris Johnson, since the relation is so tenuous (several generations removed), this will open the door to a very large number of categorisations being added, even for groups that the person in question was actually unfriendly towards and didn't identify with (in the case of BoJo, he literally led a referendum campaign where Turkish immigrants were used as a scare-story).

  Categories are increasingly being used to say things about the subject that no-one would put in the article, and this surely cannot be proper. FOARP (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  An easy distinction between what is trivial and what can be used for descent categorization is actually done by the sources themselves: if mentioned in an average biography, it is noteworthy. Dahn (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Simply mentioning it in passing in a biography, possibly in a very long list, is not enough. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  @FOARP: Why not? And what would be enough? Incidentally: no, biographies do not include very long lists (I've explained why above); care to produce a counterexample, where they have? Dahn (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"Why not?" - because the result would be over-categorisation. We've discussed Jimmy Carter's categorisation as being of English descent based on 400 year old ancestry (a clear example of the application of the "One Drop Rule") which was not important to Carter's life and career in any way at all. People should not be categorised by Trivia. FOARP (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Flip to Support as amended - No objection to multiple heritages being mentioned where notable. Makes sense for people of multiple notable heritages. Notability necessary to control over-categorisation. FOARP (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC) (flipped back - the proposers of this amendment apparently want to use it to add categorisation even when the category is not a defining one and would take passing of the motion as an endorsement of that. This would clearly lead to over-categorisation). FOARP (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural Oppose WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This has been recently discussed at WP:CFD, where the nominator's views have not prevailed. Heritage (and descent) has been routinely discussed dozens of times in the past few years, and hundreds of times since 2003. This is not the appropriate forum to overturn these decisions.
  • Also, Oppose — WP:COP-HERITAGE descent must be both WP:NOTABLE and WP:CATDEFINING.
  • The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable. Each person has at most two heritage categories, one for each parent. Thus far, there are no given examples where WP:NONDEFINING reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having two different heritages.
    1. Boris Johnson should not be categorized under American descent. He was born a American citizen of American and British parents. He was a dual citizen. He traveled to his own homeland in the UK. Heritage categories (such as descent or diaspora) should not also contain any individual migrant, emigrant, nor immigrant; we never categorize any citizens as "American people of American descent" or "British people of British descent", as that would apply to every citizen (neither notable nor defining).
    2. Boris Johnson should not be categorized under Turkish descent. No matter that he has personally acknowledged a distant Turkish relative (great-great grandparent). There are no reliable sources that commonly and consistently describe him as a prime minister of Turkish descent.
  • WP:OCEGRS people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Other than repeating us the same guideline we are questioning here, would you like to explain why ethnic background mentioned by the sources is not enough to support categorization (in other words: why we would endorse your POV over sources), and also why wikipedia editors should be exercizing an editorial decision in choosing only one of multiple ethnicities for categorizing bios? To the point, that is. Dahn (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• I'm also not sure where the appropriate forum for discussing this would be, if not here. Especially since William Allen Simpson has proceeded to mass-nominate intersectional categories at CfD, and simultaneously delete descent categories from random articles, without anyone being able to dedicate that same energy to this single purpose. Centralizing the discussion makes sense, even though I can see why he doesn't really appreciate this. Dahn (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff, Jc37, Joseph2302, LaundryPizza03, Laurel Lodged, Marcocapelle, Nederlandse Leeuw, Peterkingiron, Place Clichy, and Sionk: WP:FORUMSHOPPING to overturn recent discussion. This would change to "at least one" (from zero or one), a major shift for descent and diaspora categories contrary to 18 years of documented guidelines. Most biographies should have zero descent categories, as nationality and occupation are sufficient. Some may have one, but there has never been a documented need for two or more, and certainly never "at least one". It could explode the number of such categories.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Why ^this looks like the very definition of forum shopping, and it also suggests that all the attempts to change the category tree by a wave of CfD nominations are taken by a select group (I won't say "clique") of editors. May I add that, contrary to William Allen Simpson's claims of shopping, this section of the guideline was never the subject of another discussion, but simply encountered as a problem during a CfD discussion that is marginally about this issue -- and it was certainly not "defeated" there (besides it not being discussed as the topic of the CfD, the CfD nom isn't even closed). Dahn (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Egregiously false. This was thoroughly discussed circa 2005-2007 at (then named) Categories for Deletion, and (then named) Naming Conventions, and (then named) Gender, Race, and Sexuality, and reviewed at Village Pump Policy.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me and the rest of wikipedia for not having followed discussions you carried with an (inevitably much smaller) group of editors 20-odd years ago, back when content was a fraction of what it is (and therefore the paradoxes of your strange approach were not even immediately apparent), and which we have casually ignored for the following 15-odd years. Dahn (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Ignorance is no excuse, and does not mitigate your lies. Actually, in those days we regularly had a dozen or more participants. Among other things, I'm a fairly well-known international standards rapporteur, and was happy to contribute my experience in drafting policy and guidelines. Over the years, I've also (re-)named Categories for Discussion, and Templates for Discussion, and Ethnicity, Gender, Religion, and Sexuality (so I'm reasonably certain about the older titles where our discussion took place). 'Nuff said.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, ignorance of an obscure section of a guideline, especially one created by editors who never stopped to consider the implications beyond their pet peeves (and their claimed expertise, that is actually of no relevance here), is a very good excuse on wikipedia. Please take a moment to consider the notion that you should not be as invested in this solution just because you came up with it in the first place, that it may have proven useless, that something better may actually supplant it with no added cost to anyone. For instance, please take a moment to assess the notion that the current guideline creates a plethora of paradoxes in regions such as Eastern Europe (which seem to never have been considered when writing the current version of the guideline), or revisit your unwillingness to realize that following sources in this case (just as in any other) would in fact cover all bases and would not actually result in overcategorization by any objective standard, or spare us the entrenchment on not realizing that "we should only have a single category" is an editorial decision, which implies an editorial voice (and is therefore inherently POV). Move on already. Dahn (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

As for the "documented need", see the ample and detailed examples above, where this section of the guideline is not just counterproductive, but also casually ignored by anyone but this group of editors. Dahn (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing these overcategorization errors to our attention. I'm actively fixing them, as are other editors.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

And I am actively asking readers to look into whether this is the correct approach to things. Dahn (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per William Allen Simpson, WP:OCEGRS, WP:COP-HERITAGE, WP:NONDEFINING, WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH, WP:CROSSCAT, WP:ETHNICRACECAT etc. and multiple recent precedents confirming all this. Introducing a new guideline saying at least one heritage means forcing users to look for heritage anywhere, even it's completely unimportant for their career. The fact that many other users are not observing the more strict current guideline is not a reason to sanction violation of the guideline. There is already an extreme tendency towards WP:OVERCAT by descent, ethnicity etc., with most of such overly specific categories being created very recently in 2020 and 2021. (Personal speculation: I think this has to do with much of humanity sitting at home during the pandemic, being bored and contemplating who they are, and as a result going on a spree of creating and adding needlessly specific descent, ethnic etc. categories that the rest of us are now having to delete because they violate long-standing policies and guidelines). Other inappropriate categories are older, have in fact been deleted before but recreated anyway (in violation of WP:G4), or otherwise not been addressed yet. Frequently they mix up language family, nationality, ethnicity or other things. (See for example CfD "Category:Chilean people of Germanic descent", completely inappropriate per all policies I listed above). The proposal to require all historical persons (to be identified) with at least one heritage is only making this situation worse.

Alternative (see below under "Alt proposal") The only place where I might agree with the nom is that the word "single" in the current guideline may be somewhat arbitrary, although its aim to control WP:OVERCAT is a good one. In further discussion, I might be persuaded by good arguments to change it to at most two heritages by virtue of the fact that people have, you know, two parents. If parent Foo comes from country A and parent Bar comes from country B, they get together before/after moving to country C where they get child Foobar who acquires Cian nationality, it's reasonable to categorise child Foobar as Cian people from Aian descent and Cian people from Bian descent. This reflects common patterns of human migration that might sometimes be worth noting. (That is, WP:RS provide WP:SIGCOV for it; not just the casual mention in a tabloid that The 20-year-old Aian–Bian singer made her debut with the 2018 single "Blahblahblah"; we need something like an interview in which Foobar gets to explain what being of Aian–Bian heritage means for her career as a Cian singer). But that's as far as I'm willing to go. at least one heritage is an unreasonable requirement. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, whatever we do, let's have an editorial limitation that depends on our editorial whims, rather than follow the sources. I also don't see what is added here by mentioning umbrella categories such as "Chilean people of Germanic descent", since these are not the object of the discussion here; I for one tend to agree that these should be deleted, but I cannot fathom why they are relevant to where we are discussing the inclusion of X Chilean, with a German grandparent, into "Chilean people of German descent". It looks like we're simply shifting the topic around to where we make it less apparent why the current guideline is ridiculous. Dahn (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• "The proposal to require all historical persons (to be identified) with at least one heritage". Except nobody is proposing that. What is being proposed here is that, where sources do go into that level of detail, our categories can actually follow them and include X bio in any number of "descent" categories that the sources themselves mention. Dahn (talk)

  What is being being proposed here is (...) (to) include X bio in any number of "descent" categories. No, the proposal says historical persons may be identified by notable association with at least one heritage, which means zero is not an option. You could rephrase that sentence as historical persons may not be identified by notable association with fewer than one heritage. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Nederlandse Leeuw: I just amended the proposal. Do you have any further objections? — Biruitorul ^Talk 09:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  at least one heritage, or none? That's an odd sudden rephrasing of your proposal, and doesn't address the fact that I said at most two heritages is as far as I'm willing to go. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  PS: WP:COP-HERITAGE states The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable. This supports my idea that only the two parents are relevant, because going back any further generation is WP:NONDEFINING. It's not just me; at most two heritages is as far as WP:COP-HERITAGE is willing to go. If you want to enable more than two, you'll have to amend more than just the second sentence. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  You are entitled to your opinion, but a single editor does not get to dictate the outcome. If you look through the discussion, you will see that plenty of editors supported lifting the restriction on “one”, without setting an upper bound. — Biruitorul ^Talk 09:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I myself suggest revising that particular section of the guideline as well -- not because I'm enthusiastic about having categories designed around grandparents, but because this editorial decision seems quite whimsical. Either way, do note: a parent may have multiple ethnicities (including identifying him/herself as having multiple ethnicities); these ethnicities may transfer to the child in a significant way, including significance as defined under the current guideline -- such as him claiming "I am the same ethnicity as half of my mother" (our current article on Czesław Miłosz fails to clarify that the man openly boasted his Lithuanian and Polish origins, even though the former were more diffuse, and that he had relatives serving as officials of the Lithuanian republic, while "being" Polish). So it's not just that "if we censor the grandparents' ethnicity we only get two" -- no, you could just as well get three or four. Dahn (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, you can't get three or four. I added a PS below explaining why. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm just saying a proposal needs to be in line with all other policies and guidelines that are currently in force, or we'll end up with problems as soon as a new proposal is adopted. As I also said, I am open to lifting the restriction of one and replacing it with an upper bound of two per the other stipulation in WP:COP-HERITAGE about grandparents.

  While we're at it, I'll properly rephrase my alternative proposal to take this into account: historical persons may be identified by notable association with the heritage of one or both parents. This logically follows from the fact that The heritage of grandparents is never defining.. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  PS: To be clear: if parents themselves have two heritages, that has no effect on the subject. E.g. if Foo has parents from country D and E, and Bar has parents from country F and G, we should not categorise Foobar by Dian, Eian, Fian and Gian descent. Because D, E, F and G are grandparent heritages of Foobar, which are WP:NONDEFINING per WP:COP-HERITAGE. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  If the parents themselves can have more than one heritage, then you're imposing to pick just one, but simply moving the same random standard one generation above. Let's say X has one father who identifies as both French and English, for having a French father and an English mother (respectively X's paternal grandfather and grandmother) -- which one would we allow for categorization, and which one would we remove? It's precisely this sloppy approach to the topic that has resulted in the absurdity we're facing. Dahn (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  We ask the question: "What was the nationality of X's father?" We do not take the nationality of X's grandparents into account. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  How about Alexandre Dumas, of whose Haitian grandmother a big deal has been made for 200 years, or Alexander Pushkin, who was himself proud of his African great-grandfather? — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Biruitorul I already answered that question below: "Why one-quarter Haitian? His father was born in Haiti, so that's half-Haitian. Properly categorised as such." Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Jc37 I think you are making some good points below. I was wondering if my Alt proposal historical persons may be identified by notable association with the heritage of one or both parents. would be in line with established policy? Given that grandparent heritage is considered nondefining, but all people have two parents, it seems reasonable to allow a maximum of two instead of one or none at all. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you'd like to propose that in a thread separate to this trainwreck, I'd be happy to discuss that, and see what we could collaboratively discover. - jc37 12:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  There is no train wreck, there is broad consensus for change. But sure, let’s open another discussion, why not waste another two weeks? We have endless time. — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Has it struck anyone so far that the current guideline, and any proposals to limit descent categories based on other such whims, prevent us from categorizing Alexander Pushkin as a man of African descent, since it is "non-defining", when he himself made a big fuss about his African descent? Dahn (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Or Alexandre Dumas, derided in his day and celebrated in ours for being one-quarter Haitian. Non-defining, it would seem. — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

    Why one-quarter Haitian? His father was born in Haiti, so that's half-Haitian. Properly categorised as such. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

    Because “Haitian” is functionally a synonym for “Black” in this case — among other things, there was no independent Haiti when his father was born.

    Anyway, how about Pushkin? — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

    If someone self-identifies with an ethnic identity, and is recognized as such by reliable sources, then they should be categorized by that identity. Descent categories are for the identities of the parents. Anyway, race (or a proxy thereof) is never a good characteristic for a category. Place Clichy (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

    Pushkin did identify as African, and there are academic articles, even whole books, about this aspect of his biography. You then contradict yourself by saying it should be limited to the parents, and that we should only categorize by “descent”, never by race. Any particular reason for these whimsical choices? — Biruitorul ^Talk 05:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

    No contradiction there at all. Let's just try and rephrase the explanation: for a descent category to be useful to a specific biographical article, the said heritage needs to meet all the following criteria: (A) Not be a reference to race (B) Not describe the individual themselves (C) Be defining for a parent, not a grand-parent or further. In the case of Pushkin, (B) is met, (A) could possibly be met if, instead of African, you used Cameroonian (Pushkin's great-grandfather'a actual origin according to available sources) but (C) can definitely not be met. Is that sad? Not at all. Not every information is good for a category, or absolutely needs one. This valuable information is much better served by a detailed description in a full paragraph in Alexander Pushkin's article, developing the history of the Gannibal family in Russia and Pushkin's self-identification. A category cannot provide that. Also worth noting is this and this discussions clearly advise against using African/Asian/European descent except for categorization of the various national descent categories. Place Clichy (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't need to say that I oppose this. Simply, there's a lot of policy that this proposal would go counter to, and while consensus can change, this local consensus isn't going to. It seems pretty obvious that the proposer isn't happy about some CfD (this one, perhaps?), and this is their response. I'd point to relevant policy, and note that it's a result of continuing practice even to today, but I think others have expressed that well enough above. I'd suggest a speedy close, but sure, if ya wanna vent, have at it. No closer is going to close this against policy - WP:DEFINING, in particular. - jc37 11:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  • This is literally the talk page for the guideline I’m trying to amend. What do you suggest, exactly? Which venue will meet your standards for setting consensus?
  • Also, if you could please refrain from speculating about my motives, rather than taking my opening statement at face value, I’d appreciate that. — Biruitorul ^Talk 11:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    • lol. You're going to have to look long and hard to find a more ardent supporter of WP:AGF, than me. That said, a key part of agf, is "unless there is evidence to the contrary". And I linked to such as I saw. Are you suggesting that I am incorrect in my observation? - jc37 11:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
      • I am suggesting two things: one, that my reason for starting this discussion is stated at the beginning; and two, that “the guideline talk page is not the right venue to discuss a change in the guideline” is an absurd position. Could you perhaps try to bring up any arguments as to why the deceased should be limited to a single heritage category, even if two or three or five are attested by reliable sources? — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
        • Guidelines bring specifics to broader policy. But you're not going to be able to change a guideline to violate broader policy. WP:CAT is policy. WP:DEFINING stems from that, as does this page. You could potentially write whatever you wanted on this page and still not get past that. You also have the potential of running afoul of WP:BLP, among many other things. And no, I don't need to see more "cherry-picked" examples. Categorization is a broad policy because it essentially covers all of Wikipedia. You can of course choose to not like that. But it is what it is. - jc37 12:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• One, this discussion pertains specifically to the deceased, so WP:BLP does not apply.
• Two, WP:CAT is also a guideline.
• Please continue to invent reasons why this RfC is invalid, but at least get your facts straight first. — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ah. the "it isn't named a policy, it's a guideline" argument. : )

  My point was/is that WP:CAT is the top level set of rules for categorisation. And you are going to have a pretty difficult time going against DEFINING, as it is wrapped pretty tightly in WP:V and WP:NOR.

  See also Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Disadvantages_of_a_category - another guideline : ) - jc37 12:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  And for that matter - WP:BLPCAT, and WP:BDP... - jc37 12:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Taking at face value the idea that WP:CAT is policy, how exactly is policy breached by allowing for deceased individual X, supported by reliable sources, to be listed under two rather than one heritage categories? — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment — thus far, as a result of William Allen Simpson’s canvassing, two editors have joined him in voting to oppose. (The number prior to his appearance at this discussion was zero.) — Biruitorul ^Talk 11:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've been involved with categorisation on Wikipedia since 2006. Do you think there is any chance that you're going to find a cat-related policy page that isn't on my watchlist?

  These policies do not emerge out of thin air. You're welcome to not like them. I've done my own share of opposing various written policy. But if you're going to do so, I think you should probably come at it better informed of arguments in previous discussions, and more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But, YMMV, of course. Happy editing... - jc37 12:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I do have arguments, such as the fact that plenty of deceased people are recorded by reliable sources, or by their own declaration, to have been of multiple heritages, and that there is no coherent reason to limit it to 1. — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose, for categorization we require WP:DEFINING characteristics, there is no obvious reason to define different criteria for ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Marcocapelle: There are plently of reasons, such as the characteristics being defined as important by sources, and by the subjects of our bios themselves. Dahn (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  • If sources consistently define a characteristic as important then it is a defining characteristic and then we do not need to have this discussion at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Marcocapelle: I am aware that it must be exhausting to read through all the discussion above, but I would respectfully recommend a change of perspective, which is in fact rather minor, but makes a world of difference. If a consistent source (i.e. a biography of X, and not a genealogy of X's family) makes reference, however passing, to X's descent from Y ethnicity, we mention it and categorize the article accordingly. A consistent source is not likely to mention trivial details, so that would be an objective criterion of its importance. The alternative would be endless squabbles about what is and isn't "consistent mention in a consistent source" -- and do please try and imagine another outcome to such debates other than "they'll ask me what is 'consistent mention', and I'll tell them". Before you answer with the exact same line as above, may I please ask that you at least consider the advantages of my proposal (if any)? Dahn (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  User:Marcocapelle's above statement (timestamp 13:55, 5 May 2023) is exactly spot on. - jc37 16:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Further comment, "nobody follows it anyway" is a very strange rationale. In order to be able to follow it better, we would need fewer categories instead of more. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, with the caveat that I find "at least one heritage, or none" a bit clumsy and in need of wordsmithing. Perhaps "zero or more heritages"? Idk. At any rate, the key point -- that we should not be imposing arbitrary restrictions on properly-supported ethnicity categories -- appears to be sound. (Procedural note: I have arrived here from the Village Pump link, but am not convinced that there are any forum-shopping or local-consensus issues here. Certainly an XfD (even multiple XfDs) is not any less of a local consensus than an RfC on a guideline talk page; in fact the unrepresentativeness of XfD participants has been a known problem throughout those processes' history, while an RfC has a considerably better chance of attracting a representative cross-section of the community.) -- Visviva (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support for the removal of an arbitrary limit, but oppose any outcome that suggests this guideline might bypass WP:DEFINING. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as is. I don't really get what are the motivations behind the proposed changes (besides what seems to be bitterness), but they do not seem to be an improvement in any way. Descent/heritage categories are useful when they bring a significant light to the profile of the person who is the topic of a biographical article, however the unfortunate proliferation of non-defining such categories by limitless climbing up the family tree is the opposite of useful. The current version of the guideline states clearly and concisely that moderation is good in this regard, by providing practical limits that are easy to understand and apply. Note that this guideline does not forbid in any way to place articles in categories for ethnic identities that are actually defining for them (not descent ones) per WP:EGRS. Place Clichy (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  So how about deceased people with two parents of differing heritages? That’s not “limitless climbing up the family tree” (which in any case is a straw man, as raw genealogies are specifically excluded), it’s the parents we’re talking about. Which parent do we choose for the category, which do we exclude, and on what basis? — Biruitorul ^Talk 05:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

An arbitrary static limit is not useful either. How would you justify having to exclude one defining ethnic identity in a subject with two defining descents? The whole reason for this dispute was the application of this irrational limit to the article of an individual who indeed had two defining (as in, he was a political representative of both) ethnic ancestries. And there are no proposals for climbing up the family tree but for the following of what reliable sources say.

Your comment besides what seems to be bitterness regarding the motivations of the nominators is unfounded. Either elaborate on what you meant here or refrain from such conjectures in the future. Super Ψ Dro 17:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - per nom. There is no good reason for an arbitrary restriction to one ethnicity. In many cases one will be appropriate but where more than one are appropriate we should not be preventing that from the categorization. Rlendog (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support I like this new wording because it makes it even clearer than the "may" that the users do not need to do so at all. "Zero or more" is good here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per ShaveKongo and my experiences in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth area. There ara many people whose heritage is Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian etc. Focusing on a single ethnicity jusst leads to more squabbles. Sharing is caring :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Note to the closer

To whomever may decide to close this, please be aware the the RfC proposal has been substantively changed several times after the RFC was initiated, and after several people expressed their views.. In my estimation, that renders this discussion currently invalid as an RfC. That said, I think the discussion could continue in the hopes that contributors to the discussion may come closer to a unified proposal. This seems to still be at a work-in-progress stage. After that, I think a new RfC could easily be (re-)started, - jc37 15:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

jc37: None of the minor changes were substantial to the point under consideration, and the one tweak was actually proposed by one of the voters. This looks like a remarkably contrived argument against the emerging consensus. Dahn (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I am quite content to leave that determination up to whomever decides to close this. - jc37 17:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

When they do close this, I'm sure they will be able to reach their conclusion without an inaccurate procedural heads-up by one of the involved parties. Dahn (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Dahn, as of right now, out of the last 300 edits to this page since 20 April 2023, 145 were made by you. I think just maybe it's time to give WP:BLUDGEON a read and a think. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Please leave me alone FOARP, particularly if you cannot answer to the point and keep diverting focus. If I'm being excessive, it is for the reviewers to decide, not for you to filibuster. Dahn (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Any change made was a technical fix at the suggestion of participants, with the same practical effect. At any rate, we could simply ping all participants informing them of the change and giving them a few days to change their vote if so inclined. — Biruitorul ^Talk 17:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

• Alt proposal historical persons may be identified by notable association with the heritage of one or both parents. This logically follows from the fact that The heritage of grandparents is never defining per WP:COP-HERITAGE, but also from the fact that people have, you know, two parents.
  • Example: If parent Foo comes from country A and parent Bar comes from country B, they get together before/after moving to country C where they get child Foobar who acquires Cian nationality, it's reasonable to categorise child Foobar as Cian people from Aian descent and Cian people from Bian descent. This reflects common patterns of human migration that might sometimes be worth noting.
  • Condition: WP:RS must provide WP:SIGCOV for it. It's not sufficient to have a casual mention in a tabloid that The 20-year-old Aian–Bian singer made her debut with the 2018 single "Blahblahblah". We need something like an interview in which Foobar gets to explain what being of Aian–Bian heritage means for her career as a Cian singer. (WP:OCEGRS: people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.) But that's as far as WP:COP-HERITAGE can go: only the heritage the subject has from their parents counts.
  • Clarification: If parents themselves have two heritages from their parents (i.e. the subject's grandparents), that has no effect on the subject. E.g. if Foo has parents from country D and E, and Bar has parents from country F and G, we should not categorise Foobar by Dian, Eian, Fian and Gian descent. Because D, E, F and G are grandparent heritages of Foobar, which are WP:NONDEFINING per WP:COP-HERITAGE. We ask the question: "What was the nationality of X's father/mother?" We do not take the nationality of X's grandparents into account. (This better sums up the suggestions and points I've made above per advice from jc37). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Jc37 better? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. The proposal above has substantively changed what it has been proposing several times, and after people started adding to it. Which kinda invalidates it. Better to start fresh, I think. - jc37 13:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Conditional support, only if the above proposal falls. Better than nothing, but still does not address the Alexander Pushkin example. — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm looking through various talk archives to see if I can get a sense of how things went in past discussions. And perhaps find out the "why" of why this guideline is written this way. this discussion, for example, I think is worth looking at.

  Also, there is sometimes a bit of a fuzzy line between "heritage" and "ethnicity", and rules for one tend to apply to the other as far as notability and defining-ness. - jc37 13:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Good point, I've been thinking about what "heritage" is really supposed to mean. WP:COP#Categorization schemes has separate sections for:

  1. By ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, disability, medical or psychological conditions
  2. By nationality and occupation
  3. By heritage

  The last one links to Wikipedia:Category_names#Heritage, which states: The standard form for categories by ancestry, culture, or ethnicity is "FOOian people of BARian descent", where "FOOian" is the person's nationality (country of citizenship) and "BARian" is the person's ethnic ancestry (such as Category:Irish people of Ghanaian descent and Category:American people of German descent).

  So what added value does "heritage" bring to the table here on top of those already provided by #1 and #2? "ethnicity" is already mentioned in #1. "ancestry" and "culture" are new, but apparently you can/should combine "ancestry" and "ethnicity" as "ethnic ancestry", so "ancestry" doesn't have added value on its own. In addition, there is no Category:People by culture tree. What I do find is that there is a Category:Culture by ethnicity. So once again, "culture" cannot stand on its own, it is dependent on "ethnicity", which is already mentioned in #1.

  Given that WP:COP-HERITAGE itself also invokes WP:OCEGRS (about ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation), it once again seems like "heritage" is simply "ethnicity" under another name. WP:OVERCAT never mentions "heritage" either, it just seems an unnecessary rule in general that already falls under #1. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  PS: The first example given, Category:Irish people of Ghanaian descent, is in the Category:Ghanaian people and thus in the Category:People by nationality tree, not the Category:people by ethnicity tree. In fact, the only mention of "Ghanaian" in List of contemporary ethnic groups (which should be the standard for determining which groups are typically considered ethnic groups according to WP:ETHNICRACECAT) is Ghanaian Sign Language. I don't think Category:Irish people of Ghanaian descent is only meant for People with Irish nationality who descended from people who use Ghanaian Sign Language (but I could be wrong, of course...). And unless the nationality of the subject's parents should automatically be considered the subject's "ethnicity" (which I doubt), it seems that several guidelines are poorly adjusted to each other at best, and don't know what they're doing at worst.... Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, per Wikipedia:Category_names#Heritage, it would seem that "heritage" is a catch-all word to include ancestry, ethicity, culture, and muddied with national decent. . This essay, would seem to list more potential stumbling blocks to potentially resolve, as well. - jc37 13:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Nederlandse Leeuw: "Descent" covers both/either nationality and ethnicity, and works just fine, despite your (rather contrived) example. Dahn (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not really. Numerous recent CfD precedents have demonstrated we should not mix them up, because it inappropriately WP:CROSSCATegorises people. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_7#Category:Turkic_rulers, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_21#Category:Germanic_people_by_occupation and subsequent decisions. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Numerous recent CfDs all involving the same group of editors... And again: we agree that categories for Germanic people is likely absurd, but that's not the level of categorizing we're discussing here, is it? Dahn (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Why, though? Why is it so stringent that a significant heritage, mentioned in sources, be excluded from categorization? Dahn (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Because there are some things that Wikipedia is WP:NOT for. It needs to have encyclopedic relevance. Wherever "heritage" (whatever that means) is relevant, it can be mentioned, and our policies and guidelines determine when it is or is not relevant. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Because references cannot be explained when you categorize something or someone. And if the choice is between categorizing inaccurately or not categorizing - we go with not categorizing. If there is significant coverage from verifiable reliable souces, the info should be able to be added to the article in question. - jc37 13:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Nederlandse Leeuw: This is circular reasoning -- we have a different reading of WP:NOT as applied to these categories, and we have argued for cases where the rule and the alternative you are suggesting will marginalize info that is evidently encyclopedic. This is why we have worked with examples and comparisons, not mere recitations. Do engage with them: how and why is wikipedia is not a place that would categorize Pushkin's African heritage, which is in itself the subject of scholarship? Dahn (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Biruitorul @Dahn Quite frankly, nothing in the article Alexander Pushkin seems to make clear what impact the fact that His maternal great-grandfather was Major-General Abram Petrovich Gannibal, a nobleman of African origin had on Pushkin's career. The 3 mentions of "Africa(n)" in that article all seem to repeat the same point, which however doesn't affect Pushkin's career. This is a simple case of people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. per WP:OCEGRS plus The heritage of grandparents is never defining per WP:COP-HERITAGE. It's worth keeping these things in the bio, but not worth a category. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Of course, it is very relevant what the wikipedia article on Pushkin refers to, and especially how you have assessed it for us, as opposed to his African heritage being the singular topic of scholarly works, and mentioned in his poetry. How could I have been so callous as to imagine otherwise? Dahn (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  How about you go and write about how his African heritage is mentioned in his poetry in his bio? That might make it significant for his career. At the moment we see no evidence of it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  How about you make your assessment based on the source I indicated, or any one of the number of sources which deal with this topic at length (as both a biographical fact and literary trope). In my case, one of the many bios I contributed was hacked by one of the users who persistently enforce this absurd rule guideline that user was simply unable to correctly interpret the fact that the subject of the bio represented two ethnic constituencies (Bulgarian and Gagauz) at the same time, including politically. This is exactly the same level of encyclopedic knowledge that led to this guideline being conceived in the first place. Do I make my point clear? Dahn (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Dahn Yes, you are making quite clear that you once again find that people who created this guideline or are following it are idiotic, moronic, absurd, quite whimsical, contrived, hamfisted, inept, stupid, strange, sloppy, stringent, unfathomable, created by editors who never stopped to consider the implications beyond their pet peeves, an "editorial decision", have a (low) level of encyclopedic knowledge, are simply unable to correctly interpret (a) fact, and engage in editorial whims, censor(ship), barr(ing). As a matter of fact, pretty much all rule-making (is) absurd, ridiculous to you, because rules only lead to absurd bickering, endless squabbles, endless controversy, absurdity. Whenever you invoke a policy or guideline, it is to criticise it as unreasonable. When multiple users disagree with you and point to a guideline, it's some sort of small cabal that conspires in order to be mean against the silent majority, or "the truth": in your own words: a specialized teams of wikipedia undertakers, a select group (I won't say "clique") of editors, a small conclave's attempt to limit categorization, an (inevitably much smaller) group of editors 20-odd years ago, the users who persistently enforce this absurd rule guideline. You already selectively ignore guidelines that you don't agree with, because this section of the guideline is not just counterproductive, but also casually ignored by anyone but this group of editors. It's only stopping you from including info that is evidently encyclopedic.

  I would cautiously suggest that your overall attitude over here is not very constructive and may be in violation of WP:CIV. I'm probably not the only one thinking this, but I think I'm someone who should point out the patterns, because it is not just incidental, and you are doing it against multiple people you disagree with. It makes me not want to take you seriously anymore. I find it difficult to work with you if these are the attitudes that you are engaging in towards the rest of us. This can't go on like this. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I would cautiously suggest that you cannot answer my points, and therefore pick on my perceived behavior. That said, I do apologize if I have offended you, and assure you it was not my intention; what is my intention is to call out a blatant absurdity that is simply holding up this project as hostage to whims. As for the claim that I would view any rule as idiotic: presumably this is why I have proposed an alternative guideline myself. Please note that making your comments stand out randomly and repeatedly in glaring colors is remarkably annoying, and will not add any substance to your claims. Regards, Dahn (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you keep saying I have proposed an alternative guideline myself. You didn't. Biruitorul made this proposal. Unless you are a sockpuppet or sockmaster of Biruitorul, this is not your proposal. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  In the course of the discussion above, and below, I have argued that we should mention ethnicity/descent as mentioned in biographical source used, and not limit the number of categories -- if the qualified source mentioned them, then they are worthy of mention and categorization; I have also argued that genealogies are already disqualified from being used as sources in bios, meaning that we have an objective criterion defined for us when dealing with ethnicity. Most recently, I have outlined this in my replies to you, to Marcocapelle, and of course to Super Dromaeosaurus (who seems to advocate the exact same solution, presumably also making him a sockpuppet). I'm beginning to suspect you have in fact read this proposal, but are filibustering to dilute it in the stream of words. Not the least annoying thing to do, Nederlandse Leeuw. Dahn (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Jc37: What is there to "explain", beyond the fact that categories reflect facts mentioned in reliable biographical sources? Dahn (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  And not just trivia. We need to be careful of WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE, as well. By categorizing, we can be giving an undue weight. Again, this isn't about cherry-picked examples. These have to work for all examples. - jc37 13:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

And do they work for the examples given so far? Super Ψ Dro 16:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Some facts are WP:TRIVIAL. We need to draw the line somewhere. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am aware that we need to draw the line somewhere, and I have exhaustively explained where the line would be drawn in my proposal (it would be drawn where biographers draw it, and short of where genealogists draw it -- especially since we are actually barred from using genealogies as references). Your claim that something mentioned in biographical sources is "trivial" seems arbitrary, of the very kind of arbitrary we are questioning here. Dahn (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Have you read any of the policy/guideline sections we've been linking to? Or are you just continuing to repeat your position? It's a sincere question. Some of what you are posing is already addressed. As for consensus, I also linked to this discussion, which directly talks about one feature of heritage - racial ethnicity - and the question of "categorizing biracial people". If you want to sway opinion, perhaps it might be worth finding out what other Wikipedians have thought. I may not agree with everyone in a discussion, but if I'm hoping to find consensus, it helps if I figure out what they are saying and why. - jc37 14:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I have, and I question their applicability here. Dahn (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  You question the applicability of all the policy and guidelines thus far quoted.... Ok, I'll bite - Why? Please explain why none apply here. - jc37 14:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Because the suggestion that (to name just one case of the ones above) Pushkin's African heritage, the subject of intricate biographical studies and his own work, is "trivial" would be a statement bordering on the moronic. It seems no one has even considered such cases so far, so I don't argue that it is moronic -- just very very weird. Dahn (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  That tells me that you've read User:Nederlandse Leeuw's comments. It doesn't clarify why you think that all of the linked policies and guidelines are inapplicable to this situation, because, as yet, you have not demonstrated that you've read them to understand the point that they were making. So far you just keep repeating an example that you feel disproves his point. That's nice, but without the "why", it doesn't mean anything. You haven't shown that you understand WP:SIGCOV, for example. Or that you know why genealogies may or may not be used. I'm attempting to engage with you. And I can be swayed in opinion. But please come forward with more than just IWANTIT. - jc37 14:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your input. I assure you that in my ~17 years of activity on this project I've never read the indicated guidelines and policies, and neither has anyone who disagrees with your claims. Dahn (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Nice. Sarcasm is of course a great way to sway opinion. And even in doing that, you still haven't shown me what about all of the policies and guidelines do not apply here. You made the statement. I'm asking for clarification on your statement. If you are disinclined to clarify in order to support your assertion, please let me know and I'll freely disengage with you. - jc37 14:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  All of the guidelines you invoke either suggest that heritage is relevant categorization in at least a number of cases (even the one we're discussing here suggests that it is, but establishes a ridiculous threshold for it), or don't deal with it at all (you just stretch the meaning to imply that they do, then ask me to disprove your claim -- something I won't even bother with). Dahn (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  So, if I understand you correctly, they apply, you just don't think that they should apply - either "at all", or at least not in the way that they currently do. Thank you for clarifying. That sounds like a much broader discussion than merely this one.

  My understanding is that categorisation requires that the information be WP:DEFINING to the subject of the article being categorised. If it's not, we don't do it. Living, dead or fictional - it doesn't matter.

  Now here's the interesting part: I really don't have an opinion on the question of "1 parent or 2 or even more than that". I just hven't researched it enough to form an opinion. This was your opportunity to help point that way, to possibly even sway my opinion. Instead we never got past the fundamentals of policy and guidelines. C'est la vie. - jc37 16:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing should hinge on wikipedians' definition on what is "defining" (or "consistently mentioned", or other such gimmicks), once the fact of one's ethnicity is already mentioned in a reliable source -- it is the source that has found it defining. That's enough of a criterion. And that is the jist of what I am arguing. Regardless of what you pick or don't pick up from it. Dahn (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• in my proposal which one are you referring to? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  The proposal that we should refer to, and categorize, by any descent/ethnicity mentioned in a biographical-type reliable source, as opposed to genealogies (as noted above, we are in fact already barred from using genealogies as sources in bios). If such a source mentions an ethnicity, we mention it as well, and use it for categorization. It is a simple, clear-cut, non-idiotic way of establishing what is and isn't significant heritage, without imagining that we could have votes or decrees on which part of a source is/n't significant. Dahn (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  non-idiotic way I would kindly request you not to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't even suggesting that. I was simply arguing that, yes, some categorizing would be idiotic (as in "Germanic people by occupation"), but this is not the case with my own proposal. Now: to the point? Dahn (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support following sources. Oppose anything else. If reliable sources, and not simply family trees as mentioned above, highlighted the ethnicity of an individual's grandfather, it should be added. Leave all of this to people actually writing biographies here and to academics providing sources to write them with. As I've stated, all of this is useless. Nobody benefits from adding some kind of limit, reader included. Super Ψ Dro 14:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly The simplest and most elegant solution, and it is unfathomable why nobody thought of it in 20 years of absurd bickering and absurd rule-making. Dahn (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Another support for this proposal. Just common sense. Ortizesp (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Objection to RfC @Biruitorul: Please reword the statement of this RfC (the information before the first timestamp, as appears on WP:RFCA), as it is neither brief nor neutral. It should summarize only what the proposal is, rather than explain why you believe it is necessary. It should simply be, Should the following passage X be changed to Y? instead of I believe that X should be changed to Y, because of A, B, and C. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for resolving this concern. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose alt, support original. This newer proposal is nothing but WP:OR squabbling over the definition of ethnicity, which is what WP:R&E specifically warns against. We should go only with a person's self-identity and how they are described in reliable sources — otherwise, we end up with endless fighting about who belongs to what ancestry, like what currently makes up a substantial share of the comments in the current discussion.
  On the other hand, the original proposal is only about changing a portion of the guideline that is worded in misleading language that contradicts both WP:DEFINING and how reliable sources discuss ethnicity, though this issue is evidently not limited to the quoted passage but affects the entirety of WP:COP-HERITAGE. Subjects should be categorized by all traits which are defining and verifiable. The early Support !votes addressed all points that are directly relevant to the issue at hand: reliable sources consistently describe some people as multi-ethnic, so the guideline needs to be reworded to reflect how reliable sources actually categorize people by ethnicity. The proposed rewording accomplishes exactly that, in that it allows ethnic classifications to reflect all ethnic classifications that are used by reliable sources, including by omitting ethnic categories altogether where they cannot be verified.
  I was apparently canvassed here, presumably based on a string of WP:CFD nominations by William Allen Simpson, who is strongly opposed to changing the guideline. That in itself shows that they have a strong interest in distorting the outcome of this discussion. Besides, most of the categories nominated at CfD by William Allen Simpson were either intersectional categories that can be addressed through WP:NARROWCAT or WP:OCEGRS wihout any reference to WP:COP, or were incongruous with the ethnic classification used by individuals and secondary sources about them (e.g. lumping all categories for members of Turkic peoples into an umbrella category, when no individual descended from a Turkic people claims to be, or is described as, "Turkic").
  It is still possible that the best solution is to deprecate WP:COP, but I am not 100% supportive on that issue. It seems to overlap with the scope of WP:EGRS (categorization of people by demographic traits), and contradicts other guidelines in some places, but the nuances of categorizing people may require a sub-guideline or explanatory supplement to explain clearly. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  User:LaundryPizza03 - You are very right about overlap. This page was one of the first pages on categorisation, it predates WP:CAT, and actually predates the concept of Wikipedia policy as we know it now. From the very beginning of the category system, deciding how (and whether) to categorise has been a struggle to work out.

  I think it might be worth discussing merging WP:COP-HERITAGE to WP:CATEGRS. Having 2 not-quite-the-same policies seems like something that should be fixed. - jc37 12:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Clarification — to questions by Nederlandse Leeuw and Jc37 and LaundryPizza03, these were distinctions originally discussed regarding category naming conventions together with restrictions on category content (later moved here to WP:COP). Ethnicity category names are of the form "Barian Fooian" or "Fooian Bars", and we have spent years discussing whether or not a hyphen was required, and which order was required: Italian-American versus Black British versus German Jews, depending on local practice. Heritage category names are only of the form "FOOian people of BARian descent". They serve somewhat different purposes. The agreement of the time was they would be allowed only with stringent restrictions. There has long been agreement that somebody who self-identifies as a particular ethnicity will not also be categorized by any partial heritage, and migrants will never be in any descent category. One of the most important was against the despicable One drop rule. Another was against derivation by surname, a speculative practice by less reliable sources (often racist, class, or caste related). Of course, these are all restricted by limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person." Also, do not add categories to pages as if they are tags.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Time to question that "long-standing agreement", which was taken without consideration for facts, which is inherently POV (since it adds an editorial voice), and which has yielded the most absurd and arbitrary results -- as outlined above. Once you have to concoct arguments why Pushkin's African ancestry is non-encyclopedic, just to preserve the guideline in its current form, the problem is not Pushkin, but the guideline in its current form. This is regardless of how a group a users feel strongly about this guideline being their oeuvre that needs to be somehow preserved and left unquestioned. Dahn (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Incidentally: the repeated mention of the one-drop rule shows what sort of worry went into fabricating this editorial voice. The implication here is that if mention heritage as defined by reliable sources, the sort of reliable source that provides a summary of what is relevant about a bio, we still have to develop a psychological blockage because this may lead to a one-drop rule -- even though none of the editors who support this claim was able to produce an example where following reliable source would lead to such forms of racism. Not one example.

It boils down to: A thousand sources may refer to Pushkin's African heritage as a significant fact, and Pushkin himself may call himself an African, but we still would not refer to that in our categorization because three or four editors on wikipedia are reminded of the one-drop rule. Dahn (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Your arguments might hold more water without the hysterics and hyperbole, and honestly, the gross exaggerations.

I have been present for some of the discussions concerning these things. And far more than "3 or 4 editors" were involved. Oh and by the way, at the moment, I'm only seeing 2 or 3 editors currently actively supporting your position. So you might want to avoid standing in a glass house and throwing stones.

Anyway, we don't make policy based upon exceptions. And yes issues around "One drop", and "octaroons" and other such stuff came up. Remember - the references that we're looking at for some people are reporting these things from the views of their time, not our current social norms. To apply our social norms to those references would be Original research.

And this is why such things need explanation. But thanks to the limitation of the category system, explaining the inclusion of an article in a particular category cannot be explained. And by the way, that's a part of why there's been a long concern that perhaps he shouldn't be categorising by heritage at all. Because it can be a bit more complicated than saying a person is of Irish descent, for example.

And finally you still haven't responded about this recent discussion the result of which was to not categorise based only upon someone's parents at all. Oh, and incidentally, that discussion alone had more than "3 or 4 editors". These discussions have been going on for years. And then time goes by and someone - like you - shows up with a couple of cherry-picked examples of why the long-debated concensus should be overturned. And then we're off to another time sink. I'm now thinking about a quote I have at the top of my talk page, and am again reminded of the wisdom of it... - jc37 11:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37: Well then, can you provide a single example where categorizing based on a reliable source would result in something resembling the octaroons, the one-drop rule etc., or in fact any form of "original research"? I understand how this has been a pet peeve that you share with a couple of editors, but surely, in those 20 years you must have been able to produce an example of such unintended consequences, especially as it relates to historical characters. Where is it? Dahn (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Concerning the question about "should people with one African-American parent be categorized as African-American?" and your reference to it, it seems like yet another attempt to divert focus: regardless of whether they are or aren't narrowly defined as "African-American", they do belong in a category of "people of X descent", once the descent of one of their parents is mentioned in reliable sources. But now you: should we or shouldn't we include Pushkin in a category reflecting his African descent? How many hundreds of sources would have to mention it before you take the editorial decision of allowing his inclusion there?

As for the "hysterics and hyperbole": friend, let's take a moment to note that, however many editors may be marginally involved in one of 1,000 discussions on these topics, it appears to always be the same four or five or ten editors who are consistently involved in them, and who claim to have steered consensus. We know this, at the very least because one of them has canvassed invited the others to this discussion which threatened "consensus" (by showing how many editors actually oppose the "consensus", or are just now pausing to realize the ludicrous implications of the "consensus"). So let's not, and say we did. Dahn (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

And yet, you continue with it. Whether or not someone did something you think was incorrect, doesn't justify actions you are choosing to do. We are each responsible for our own actions.

Anyway, I'm not actually claiming to agree with any of this. As I told you above, I haven't yet fully formed an opinion on it, considering where things are currently. But that discussion is a fairly recent consensus, and I think it might be worth looking at to learn what others might think. If you're suggesting that consensus has changed, it might help your argument to show how it has. - jc37 12:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• I won't call what you're doing "astroturfing", to match your suggestions of "hysterics", but I will ask you, again, to ground this discussion: do you have an example where following sources would result in applying the one-drop rule on wikipedia? Or is this just, to quote a phrase, "hysterics"?

I don't need to argue that the consensus has changed, when William Allen Simpson himself "thanked" me for pointing out articles that have become FAs while included in multiple ethnic categories -- so that he could then proceed to remove the categories (because, again, he personally is really invested in this particular activity). Most people would assume that the guideline being ignored is in itself evidence that the consensus is not really a consensus -- that is, if the comments made by other users here don't do the same. Dahn (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

And again, you're focused upon the actions of others. This is a content discussion.

Let me put it another way - to "succeed" at overturning current consensus, you have to show that that consensus has changed. In this case, you have to show how your proposal does not violate WP:DEFINING - the categorisation policy for all categories, not just ethnic/heritage ones. And then show how consensus has changed more specifically that recent discussions'consensus should be overturned, and our current policy should be changed. And so far, you have not done that. You merely show an example that you would like to see categorised differently. The onus is on you to show the consensus has changed. If you don't, then nothing happens. There is no onus on me to do anything. And yet, here I am, attempting - repeatedly - to engage with you. And get a lot of hyperbolic response, while continually hoping for something more substansive. Look - attacking me isn't going to get you any closer to your seeming goal. You can either step up and try to collaborate to build a consensus, or continue this adversarial nonsense. I understand the attraction. Been there myself. But whatever. Do as you will. If you actually would like to engage in a policy discussion, please let me know. - jc37 12:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, enough. Filibuster if you must, but try and at least address the point. Neither you nor anyone else clinging to "the consensus" (already shown to not be a consensus at all) has been able to produce a single example to back up your claims about how and where the one-drop rule would apply if we were to discard this inept portion of the guideline. As a minor note: I don't actually have to show you anything, as you were not appointed to a position where you would rule on this issue; also as a side note: "to [overturn] current consensus, you have to show that that consensus has changed", while not the first surreal claim to be featured in your filibustering, is by far the most surreal yet, on par with Catch-22. Seriously, give it a rest. Dahn (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't say that you had to show me that the consensus has changed. Just that it needs to be shown, else no policy/guideline will be changed. That's not "surreal", that's policy - see also WP:CON. Though I was suggesting that consensual discussion with me and others could help you show that. However, my personal assessment, at the moment, is that it's pretty much a "fail" on both counts. In my estimation, you seem too hung up on using ad hominem arguments, seemingly to drive editors away from contributing to the discussion, rather than actually presenting arguments regarding the content and/or guidelines/policies in question. - jc37 15:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the notion that "to [overturn] current consensus, you have to show that that consensus has changed" is a logical self-contradiction, making it impossible to actually change consensus or show that it has already changed. That is what I meant. Again, what is the point of this, other than filibustering? Dahn (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Dahn but seeing you first deny that over-categorisation is even a problem, and then when examples of a "One Drop Rule" being applied (Jimmy Carter being categorised as an "American of English descent" based on nearly 400-year-old ancestry) you trying to defend that, has made up my mind to oppose this motion. I'm OK with multiple categories for descent if they are actually defining of the subject, but not simply removing the idea that categories should not be based on mere trivia. jc37 is correct, your style of argumentation is dismissive and not conducive to reasoned discussion. FOARP (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

FOARP: As I am sure you know by now, overcategorization would be something like including subject in every level of one's ethnic category tree (such as including Carter in both "English people" and "American people of English descent"); it would also be an issue with frivolous categories such as "Smokers" or "Canasta players". The issue here is your claim that ethnic categories as mentioned in reliable sources are still "trivial", which puts you ina postition where you decide that certain scholarship is trivial. The one-drop rule would mean identifying someone as belonging to an ethnic or racial group he does not identify with, based on some sort of abstract rule that we devise ourselves -- this is patently not the case with Carter, whom the category simply describes as a person of English descent -- incidentally, it did so based on an unusable source, and so in that specific example may actually be short of the standard. This whole claim that you're fighting some attempt to introduce the one-drop rule into wikipedia guidleines was not backed by any example so far, and, when at long last you were pressed to actually produce an example that would show us what you mean, you only came up with exampels that are patently not examples of any one-drop rule. That should mean something about the very logic that gave us this absurd guideline in the first place.

I will not comment on the rest of the claims, beyond saying that they look like the sort of badgering people resort to when their entrenched position is questioned by evidence. Dahn (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"the sort of badgering people resort to when their entrenched position is questioned by evidence" - Evidence? What Evidence?!? You haven't cited any evidence! My position is resolutely not "entrenched" because I even !voted for the motion before it became clear that you were also going to use the motion to remove the requirement that categorisations not be based on genealogical trivia. I don't understand how you don't get that RSes can talk about all sorts of trivia of which genealogical trivia - such as the categorisation of Jimmy Carter as of "English descent" based on a 400-year-old-link (a "One Drop Rule" if ever there was one) - is just one: RSes most definitely can tell you that X is a castanets player, had green eyes, lived briefly in Sheboygan etc. etc. but these are not reasons to categorise people as such.

Anyway, happy to leave this discussion with you at that. FOARP (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

As a random example, I have repeatedly cited as evidence the case of Pushkin's African ancestry (he was about one eigth African) being in itself the topic of scholarly works, and his own poetry, with a link to one such source, while you kept claiming that such treatement is "trivia".

"before it became clear that you were also going to use the motion to remove the requirement that categorisations not be based on genealogical trivia" -- read again where I specifically and repeatedly argue that we should not use genealogical trivia, that we specifically already ban its use, but that we can and should rely on ethnicities mentioned in biographical sources. Let's try and contemplate the concept together: a biography of X refers to the origin of his ancestors maybe six generations back; a genealogy of X's family mentions their origin under Charlemagne. We use the former, not the latter. The former is significant coverage, because its very nature does the selection of the topic for us; the latter is, indeed, trivia. I'm tired of repeating myself on this topic, so do please make the effort to catch up, and then you'll perhaps note why most of what you claim motivates me, or "will happen" if we drop this absurd system, is actually alarmist (not to mention annoying). Dahn (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - If this was just a proposal to allow multiple heritage-categories, I would not object. However, it appear that the proposers of this motion just want to be able to add people to categories even when those categories are not defining of the subject at all, but merely mentioned in a single RS in passing. This is just going to lead to even more over-categorisation of articles. As long as this is the case, I'm afraid I have to oppose. FOARP (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • The alternative is to ask you and other wikipedians who have mastered the truth what is and isn't a passing or relevant mention in a relevant source. It would just be POV with extra steps, not to mention endless, pointless litigation over a topic that could be easily wrapped-up; and this is the very reason why I and others are objecting to the approach. Dahn (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"One-drop rule"

The risk of enforcing a one-drop rule as a result of changing consensus on this issue has been repeatedly invoked by a number of users, as a blanket statement. I invite them to use this subsection as a venue where they may produce specific examples of where this would be the case. So that we know if there is any substance to the claim. Let's have it, gentlemen. Dahn (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• I presume the users who keep bringing this up mean that changing the rule would be an invitation to originally research a subject's racial or ethnic heritage, or that it would introduce completely trivial sources that are not actually reliable. However, neither of these would be allowed under a reformed guideline, which would simply allow as many ethnic/descent categories as are validated by standard reliable sources (i.e. biographies, not genealogies, not bare family trees). If they do mean anything else, let them explain and exemplify what they mean. Dahn (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• An example of what I mean by a "one drop rule" is that it can reliably sourced that nearly everyone in Europe is likely a descendent of Charlemagne. It would not make any sense to categorise people as such, or as having French heritage. Similarly there's all sorts of "do you know" stuff where people explore their genealogies (there's even a long-running BBC TV series on this theme which I believe has been syndicated to the US and Australia), but the connections uncovered in them are typically not notable even if, again, they can be reliably sourced. Categorisation should be for something notable about the person that is worth mentioning in the lead section, not just barely-relevant stuff that is briefly mentioned in the body-text of an article. As for examples at present on Wikipedia, I'll just go through the articles about US presidents since WW2:

• Joe Biden is categorised as a American person of French descent, a heritage that he has never spoken about as far as I know, and which is not defining of Biden at all. Even the English/Irish-descent categorisation is somewhat on the tenuous side but at least Biden has spoken about them (the Irish side much more than the English of course). The source for this is a French expat zine.
• Bill Clinton is categorised in at least four different descent categories. NONE of these are mentioned in the article.
• Ronald Reagan is in at least three descent categories (and "American Nationalists" *eyeroll*), again, none of these are even mentioned in the article.
• Jimmy Carter is in the English descent category, the basis for which is his being a descendent from someone who arrived in America in 1635. This is the essence of a "one drop rule" for categorisation. The source for this is clearly a genealogy, and not that it was something actually notable about Carter.
• Gerald Ford is in the English descent category, not mentioned in the article.
• Richard Nixon is in four different descent-categories, none of them mentioned in the article.
• Lindon Johnson is in four different descent categories, these are simply listed in a single sentence in the article sourced to this archived webpage which also does not provide any substantiation.

Of the rest I think the categorisations for Obama and Trump are less bad since at least they have been covered in detail by reliable sources, ditto Eisenhower's Pennsylvanian-Dutch categorisation. The lack of descent categorisations for the Bushes and Truman is entirely correct - they are Americans. The only ones I would agree were actually important to the coverage in the article were Obama's Kenyan heritage (because of the birth certificate conspiracy theories) and JFK's Irish descent (because it was an issue in his presidential campaign).

Ultimately it just looks like categorisations are being used to say things about a person that we would not say in the body-text of the article either because it would be massively WP:UNDUE, or because it cannot be reliably sourced.

For myself I have no objection to people being categorised in multiple descent-categories so long as these are things that are actually notable about the subject. Descent that is either not mentioned in the article or just barely mentioned is not defining of the article-subject. FOARP (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

An example of what I mean by a "one drop rule" is that it can reliably sourced that nearly everyone in Europe is likely a descendent of Charlemagne. It would not make any sense to categorise people as such, or as having French heritage. this is an unrealistic extreme example. Who does that? I've never such a case and I doubt I am going to. But in any case, if such a thing happened it would be a violation of WP:OR. In the examples you've given, the issues are also related to original research and to the use of reliable (and not any random one) sources. Provided that both WP:OR and WP:RS are appropriately fulfilled, a change on the guideline shouldn't give any problems. If there are claims to a descent but no reliable sources to cite it, we ignore it. If these two policies are not addressed the problem in the article is more general and goes beyond this guideline. Super Ψ Dro 13:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Jimmy Carter "English descent" is reliably sourced, it's just ridiculously WP:UNDUE given the tenuousness of the link and its unimportance to the subject. Carter was born 300 years after the other Carter arrived in America, never spoke about it as far as I am aware, and it has no bearing at all on the content of his article. It would not be WP:OR to say that everyone in Europe is likely descended from Charlemagne so X is a descendent of Charlemagne, it would just be silly and meaningless. A similar situation can be seen with descent from Ghenghis Khan (supposedly ~10% of Eurasia is descended from him, and supposedly descendents can be identified genetically). FOARP (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, descendents in the male line can be identified. But still, that amounts to millions of men, hardly a notable marker for an individual. Donald Albury 16:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

None of that matters. Unless a source would say that X person is explicitly a descendant of Charlemagne or Genghis Khan, it is original research. If such a source, a reliable one, exists, this claim can be uncontroversially included into the article. Whether this is due info is another matter, but there would be no way to rationally oppose a French/Mongol descent category in the case it was added.

Also. I am not sure why there's so much scandal and attention to all of these extreme examples. I've written a few dozen biographies in Wikipedia. None of them have had the chance to enter in such extreme realms. Most of the time it's just a source mentioning their father or mother was of X ethnicity, or sometimes grandfather and grandmother. A source may also simply define someone of "X origin". No, sources don't try to pass random people as descendants of Charlemagne or Genghis Khan, nor do they try to go back to 50-100 generations. I think it's time to put an end to these extreme examples. We cannot work with them. They do not naturally occur in biographical articles except in a very small number of cases.

By the way, the source for Carter's English ancestry is a genealogical tree. As far as I know we've said they are not valid sources. A valid source would be a scholarly paper stating that X person is of X origin after a scholar having deemed it as worthy of mention in their paper. That's what should be used, and what I've seen used the most. Super Ψ Dro 21:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

So a single RS mentions an characteristic of a person once and we add it as a categorisation? You're going to end up with a thousand categories for some articles if this is the standard! FOARP (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The very point of this section is that you and others who make this claim would be able to produce an example where this has ever been the case -- for the specific ethnic categories. Where have biographical RSes ever mentioned thousands of ethnic identities for that same person, that would then result in thousands of categories? Kindly name one example, FOARP. Dahn (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@FOARP: Allow me to also note that you keep adding examples of articles where ethnic categories have been added without sources. Although nobody is proposing to add unsourced categories, and despite the fact that, no matter how you phrase the guideline, someone may still add stupid categories to non-policed articles. So what do you argue is added to the conversation by appealing to those examples? Dahn (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• FOARP, Donald Albury: Is there any published, reliable biography of, say, Mark Twain or Bill Clinton that would trace his ancestors to Charlemagne or even anyone alive in Charlemagne's day? If the answer is no, and if all the examples are hypothetical, then why keep avoiding what is being asked and proposed here? And, conversely, if such biographies of Twain and Bill Clinton do mention their ancestry down to colonial times or whatever, then, respectfully, who are you to allege, against published, vetted scholarship, that such details are insignificant? Dahn (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• I want to be very clear that WP:UNDUE is not about facts, by which I mean facts published in reliable sources, but about opinions. For instance, if some scholar where to opine that Carter is "actually" of Tibetan ancestry, "regardless" of his documented ancestry, we would not cover that opinion, or would only cover it marginally. But if the facts of his English etc ancestry appear in reliable sources, we can and by this point should take their presence in reliable sources as in and of itself verification of their (relative, surely, but encyclopedic) importance. Otherwise we are imposing an editorial voice, and at this point one has to ask: whose voice? Dahn (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  Strong disagree. We should categorise people by defining characteristics only. See WP:NONDEF. If the ancestry is tenuous and/or only discussed very briefly in reliable sources without being important to any expect of their coverage, then it can hardly be “defining”. FOARP (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  You may indeed strongly disagree, but that, again, is not what I was asking. I will reformulate the question: Why is something mentiond in standard biographical sources not defining? Because you say so? The alternative view has been outlined: if it appears in RSes, is is defining, and you would be agreeing against the source -- which, may I remaind you, is not something that we do on wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Dahn - I'm not sure why you are ignoring the very long-standing consensus at WP:OVERCAT that only things worth mentioning in the lead section of the article are "defining". This is not something I've just made up. In contrast there is no consensus for the idea that anything mentioned in an RS (which would include obvious WP:OCTRIVIA like tattoos, eye/hair-colour, etc.) is defining. We are not talking about whether or not something should be mentioned in the article, we are talking about whether or not it should be used to categorise them. FOARP (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Because you say so? No, because WP:NONDEF says so. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it does not. You just stretch its meaning to make it seem like it says that. Dahn (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@FOARP: There is no "long-standing consensus", there is just a rather small group of dedicated editors, who never stop to consider the implications of their rather myopic perspective on this issue, and there is the rest of wikipedia which has consistently done things otherwise. To be sure, there is a consensus that there is such a thing as overcategorization; there isn't, and there never was, a consensus that ethnic categories for generations more distant than one's parents (or not even these!) should atomatically be regarded as overcategorization. It is the very point of this discussion we're having here. Dahn (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• • As it happens, Carter’s English ancestry was discussed during his presidency, and in a later scholarly article regarding his genealogy. Other than the fact that 300 years passed between the time one Carter left England and when the future president was born, what exactly is the objection to categorizing him in the English descent category, given its treatment in reliable sources, where it has been the central focus? — Biruitorul ^Talk 21:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be categorising people by trivia. See WP:NONDEF, WP:OCTRIVIA, and WP:OCEGRS, which states "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career". Did Carter's 300-year-old ancestry influence his career in any way? Is it something you would mention in the lead section of Carter's article? No, obviously not. This is a necessary check on over-categorisation which is obviously a problem in the bio field. FOARP (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• The claim that mention in RSes is trivia is what's being questioned here. Dahn (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Eh? RSes can't mention Trivia? Obviously not true: they can and do all the time. The definition of "trivia" is not "not true" but "not important". FOARP (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• RSes can mention trivia, but the claim that this is trivia is your own concoction, and sourced from thin air. For instance, when entire scholarly books are written about Pushkin's African ancestry, and you keep pushing for the claim that it is still "trivia", then the problem is not the RS and the cultural phenomenon you question, but your personal style of doing things, and the blanket editorial voice that never stopped to consider the individual implications. Dahn (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Dahn - Since you appear to have become unable to identify correctly even who you are responding to any more, I think it might be a good idea for you to take a break from this discussion lest you be accused of WP:BLUDGEONing it. For the record, I have not mentioned Pushkin once in this discussion. FOARP (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• @FOARP: Or maybe you focus to where you notice that the whole point was that I had mentioned Pushkin's case, repeatedly, and that you kept ignoring the case I made (precisely, you didn't even mention him, you skirted past the example), continuously insisting that all cases are trivia, and even that I never cited evidence to state that they were not trivia. Not to mention that you keep arguing as if I said we should use family trees and the like as sources, that I want to open the floodgates of genealogical trivia, when I specifically indicated that I too aim for a standard of inclusion, one that is way short of bare genealogies (just one that relies more on what biographical sources say than on what random wikipedians think is "important" in said sources). Take a break yourself and reread what's being argued here. Dahn (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• @FOARP: Crucial distinction in my line of reasoning: "descent mentioned in a biographical study" = non-trivia; "descent mentioned in a genealogy" = trivia. (Again: this is in fact already covered by Point 4 of WP:DIRECTORY, making this whole guidline here redundant on this point.) You may disagree with my reasoning, but do at least render it correctly and argue against it, not against random peeves of yours. Dahn (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination as amended on May 8

Comment — Hi, the reason I’m pinging you here is because between the start of the RfC and May 8, you expressed support for the proposal, but I made several technical changes to it during that period. As the discussion progressed, various participants suggested changes which I incorporated. The basic idea is still the same, but since the wording did change, I thought I’d let everyone know, just to give people a chance to express any further opinions. I’ll keep this open a couple more days and request a close early next week.

To reiterate, the final proposed wording is “historical persons may be identified by notable association with zero or more heritages”.

@Ortizesp: @Visviva: @LaundryPizza03: @Dahn: @Super Dromaeosaurus: @-sche: @I dream of horses: @ShaveKongo: @Compassionate727: — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging the people who supported, but not everyone else - WP:CANVASS/WP:VOTESTACKING - yeah, no. - jc37 20:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I think any literate person understands that the point of pinging them here is to establish if they still support the change, after those minor alterations which came after their original vote. It has been alleged that supporters of the change would not/might not support the change any longer. Would you rather Biruitorul invite in oppose voters to specify if they still oppose? Dahn (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. When you re-ping commenters, you ping everyone, else it is votestacking.

Oh, and for the record, you never convinced me of a reason to overturn the previous consensus - so I'm neutral on this. There's too much that just hasn't been covered here for me to support or oppose this. (aka, I think this proposal is short-sighted due to over-relying on cherry-picked examples - there's too much we just don't know). Though, I have no doubt that this won't be the last time that this page comes up for discussion. - jc37 21:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I won't drag this needlessly, because I'm reading the above reply as somewhere between filibustering and astroturfing, but I will note: (1) no attempt is made to sway consensus, -- if anything, asking them again may actually result in them changing their vote to an oppose, so this is fully transparent, in every single detail, coming out and asking people if they stand by what they already voted; (2) this "short-sighted" proposal is the first time any examples were ever invoked for transparent analysis (I'm estimating that about a dozen were presented above), but of course, once they were invoked, they are "cherrypicked" -- we could easily invoke fifty other examples where the current phrasing would prevent valid categories from being added, and would validate the random imposition of some editors as self-appointed censors, but it would presumably still not be enough for you (not that persuading you is of an absolute necessity here). Dahn (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, it's not about "me", it's about showing that consensus has changed.

And - besides everything else - votestacking doesn't show that... - jc37 22:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yesterday, I pinged the people who supported this RfC prior to the last change in wording on May 8 in order to confirm their support had not changed. Today, I’m pinging those who opposed or did not support, just so I don’t have to hear bizarre accusations of votestacking.
• @Walt Yoder: @Donald Albury: @Doug Weller: @Buidhe: @FOARP: @William Allen Simpson: @Nederlandse Leeuw: @Marcocapelle: and of course @Jc37:. — Biruitorul ^Talk 05:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• No change in my Support of Biruitorul's proposal, the scope of which has not been altered. Dahn (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Super Ψ Dro 10:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Addresses all of my concerns thata are not about WP:COP in general. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• I would prefer the wording of "zero, one, or both parents" since any exceptions to this rule are likely to be rare/nonexistent and fall under IAR. I would also support adding wording to the effect that ethnicity is non defining for most people in the twenty-first century. (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• "Zero or more" must be a joke, is it meant to exclude negative numbers? As before, I oppose anything that aims to undermine WP:DEFINING while if this is not meant to undermine WP:DEFINING then it is entirely redundant. So, keep opposing regardless. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Still oppose, and Still in favour of Alt proposal. Reasons:

• Define "heritage" first: Before we can really decide the question how many "heritages" a person may be categorised with, I think we need to clarify what "heritage" even means in the first place. Otherwise we are just talking past each other. I've taken it to mean the nationality of one's parents being different from one's own, but in my analysis with jc37 above (see I've been thinking about what "heritage" is really supposed to mean. WP:COP#Categorization schemes has separate sections for...), I concluded it is actually another word for "ethnicity" and has no independent added value on its own according to our current policies and guidelines. The latter are quite vague, arbitrary and poorly supported on this point, and sometimes fail to provide good examples. E.g. Category:Irish people of Ghanaian descent has nothing to do with "ethnicity", but turns out to be based on the nationality of one's parents being different from one's own, just like I thought. This is just one of many consequences still overlooked by the nomination-as-amended-on-May-8 (as Jc37 said: There's too much that just hasn't been covered here).
• Make it defining: "Zero or more" is WP:NONDEFINING per Marcocapelle.
• Align it with current policies and guidelines: The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable per WP:COP-HERITAGE; therefore, only the heritage of 1 or both parents can be WP:DEFINING (per Buidhe). This another overlooked consequence of the nomination-as-amended-on-May-8 per Jc37.
• Provide clear and unambiguous examples in the nomination's rationale, and don't repeatedly change them without properly informing participants: I see the recent discussion has focused on analysing "examples". I don't see examples offered by nom Biruitorul. The original nomination of 20 April 2023 did include several examples: Harriet Tubman, John Gielgud, Andrew Jackson. Look at Elvis Presley! Look at George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Woodrow Wilson. Look at Robert Menzies or Pierre Trudeau. But these have all been removed from the nomination on 5 May 2023; this undermined the nomination as a whole, particularly because it has not been replaced by a better rationale. Many participants may not be, or evidently have not been, given a good idea of what was being discussed, and how this changed over time, due to not being properly informed about the repeatedly changing nomination and rationale (jc37 pointed this out in #Note to the closer). So other than hand-picked examples in comments (rather than as part of the nomination's rationale), nom has only provided the following "examples" (I've ctrl+F'd for the word "example" so I may have missed some):
  • Barack Obama's permitted heritage be English, French, German, Irish, Kenyan, Luo, Scottish, Welsh or Swiss – I think it is only "Kenyan" (father) and "American" (mother);
  • Regis Philbin, who proudly identified as being of both Irish and Italian heritage – I think it is only "American" (father) and "Italian" (mother);
  • Alexandre Dumas, of whose Haitian grandmother a big deal has been made for 200 years – I answered "Haitian" (father);
  • Alexander Pushkin, who was himself proud of his African great-grandfather – I answered "no" per WP:COP-HERITAGE & WP:OCEGRS.

Other than that, every time the word "example" is used in this RfC, it is by someone other than nom. Nom should provide examples in the rationale, and may need to add some examples in comments for clarification. So far, it has been mostly the rest of us (both proponents and opponents) trying to figure out what nom even means by making up our own hand-picked examples, which then lead to even more discussions and confusion instead of clarifying nom's rationale.

• Conclusion: If we continue to be in a deadlock over the nomination-as-amended-on-May-8 versus the Alt proposal (or other options), I think it's better to withdraw this RfC and start over. Procedural recommendations:

1. It should first be established what "heritage" even means before making a new proposal. (This may lead to the conclusion that "heritage' is entirely redundant for categorisation purposes, as jc37, Marcocapelle and I have suggested might be the case).
2. A new proposal should be in line with all other policies and guidelines, and take all consequences into account (especially The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable per WP:COP-HERITAGE).
3. A new proposal should not be repeatedly amended, after which participants are not properly informed about its amending.
4. A new proposal should have a properly formulated rationale, which provides unambiguous examples.
5. A new proposal's examples should not be removed later (unless replaced by better examples; the deprecated examples may be struck through for clarity).
6. A new proposal's examples normally shouldn't require hand-picked extra examples by nom in the comments, let alone participants making up their own examples, which futher confuse rather than clarify nominator's rationale.

I'm still open to changing the current guideline, but not per the nomination-as-amended-on-May-8, and not under these circumstances. I hope this response may help move things forward, because it is a complex issue, but it can be fixed. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2023 (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.