Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Categorizing articles about people/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Update on Category:American people of African descent

As noted here, the "American people of African descent" category is being removed per the following discussion that Marcocapelle pointed to: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#Category:American people of African descent. And yet categories such as Category:American people of Irish descent and Category:American people of German descent are still being used to categorize people. There are a number of categories like that. Wikipedia should be consistent on this categorization matter or not even bother. Also take note that Category:People of African-American descent still currently exists for categorizing people. Pinging BrownHairedGirl, DexDor, Necrothesp, Dimadick, Hmains, Peterkingiron, Inter&anthro and John Pack Lambert, who all took part in that categories discussion started by Marcocapelle. A related discussion is the #RfC on categorizing biracial people discussion above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I don't see the problem here.
The principle agree at that CFD was that people may be categorised by country of descent, but not directly categorised by continent of descent.
That is to avoid the continental categories being used as a proxy for race.
Neither Ireland nor Germany are continents, so there is no contradiction and no inconsistency. Note that country-specific African categories such as Category:American people of Kenyan descent and Category:American people of Egyptian descent remain intact, and those are the direct comparators with the Irish and German categories.
It seems to me that Flyer22 has misunderstood the decision taken at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl Actually Germans lived all over Europe, so are you arguing, that are you limiting that category to people descended from those born in and after the German Empire was created in the mid-1800s? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
No, @Alanscottwalker, I am not making any such argument.
I simply pointing out that there was decision to categorise people by nationality descent, but not by continent descent.
The geographical extent of national descent obvious varies, and there obvious difficulties with categorising nationality and ethnicity in those parts of Europe where boundaries fluctuated and states came and went, but that fuzziness has long been accommodated within the various sub-continental categories.
The decision to containerise was taken to prevent the by-continent categories from being used a proxy for race. I don't see how the issues regarding German descent differ from those relating to some of the African Empires, such as Zulu.
The post by Flyer22 suggested that the decision at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#Category:American people of African descent has led to European descent being treated different to African. That is not the case, because WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_14#Category:American_people_of_European_descent --applied the same principle to Europe.
Your speculations about how we define "German descent" belong somewhere else. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl What speculations? Is your argument is that German is a nationality, or are you arguing that German is an ethnicity? --Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: As above, I have not taken a position either way on that. And I don't intend to enter into debate on that here, because it is not relevant to the issue which @Flyer22 Reborn raised, viz whether we are treating Europe differently to Africa. Answer: no, we are not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl: You argued, "people may be categorised by country of descent." What did you mean by that with respect to Germans? Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker, you trying to engage in a theological dispute of no practical value to the immediate issue, which is simply that we no longer categorise people directly by descent from a continent.
The point which you raise is is what a colleague of mine used to call "pub talk": an issue which could with much interest be debated in the pub once the meeting is over, but which does not directly impact the business of the meeting. Per WP:NOTFORUM, I am not playing here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, thanks for taking the time to comment. I considered that you might argue something like that. Still, editors on this site commonly use categories such as Category:American people of Irish descent and Category:American people of German descent to indicate "race" and ethnicity as well. I've seen it times over. Anyway, it seems that you all will be looking to get rid of Category:People of African-American descent next. No need to ping me since this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl: Pub talk? No. Look around. We are here on a page about categorization, you have laid down a claim on this page about categorization in response to an OP involving inter alia Germans, and even discussed Germany in your initial response. What did you mean when you said, "people may be categorised by country of descent" with respect to Germans? How is that categorization according to your statement suppose to work? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker, if and when you buy me a glass or several of nectar in a local hostelry, we can have a grand evening debating those questions. But right now, we're not in that pub ... and as above, we don't need to resolve that question here. WP:NOTFORUM.
@Flyer22, that "it seems" assumption comes close to putting words in my mouth. Please don't do that.
The long-standing guideline has been that we categorise by ethnicity but not by race. The distinction is not an easy one, because there is a lot of overlap, but I think that the principle is broadly right, even if only as the least-worst option. I have no desire to change it.
As to African-American descent, see the lede of African Americans: "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are an ethnic group of Americans" (emphasis added by me).
Since the stable consensus is is that this is an ethnic group, I would strongly oppose any attempt to delete the African-American category. (I may support the removal of irrelevant intersections between African-American ethnicity and occupation, but only by upmerger to another African-American category). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl: We are not in a pub, I think that's clear. You are on a page about categorization involving inter alia ethnicity -- so, is it that you don't want to explain your statement, because you do not know what you meant? Or perhaps looking at it now, you realize your statement makes little sense? Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Alan, I know perfectly well what I mean, and I know that it makes sense; I also know that I am getting a bit fed up with your pursuit of a tangent. As above, this is a narrow discussion about a particular issue. If you want to start a broader discussion about the distinction/overlap between nationality and ethnicity, please open a new discussion somewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Then explain what you mean. You said this statement here, in this discussion, so it is either relevant or is that evidence you do not know what you meant? You even called it a "principle". There is obviously nothing more central than a claimed principle of such categorization, here, on this page. What did you mean when you said, "people may be categorized by country of descent" with respect to Germans? Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Alan, the issue here is race or ethnicity. The issue you raise with regard to Germany is nationality or ethnicity. That is a different issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Your words were "people may be categorized by country of descent" - that's what you called a principle, you then said "decision to categorise people by nationality descent", so you are the one who raised nationality right here. Do you not know what you meant, or are you now claiming that your statements are irrelevant? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, I didn't put anything into your mouth, or rather I did not mean to. I was simply indicating that there is no difference in stating "American people of African descent" and "People of African-American descent." I fail to see why one would be used to categorize people and not the other. We can see here that Alanscottwalker simply replaced "American people of African descent" with "People of African-American descent." By "get rid of," I obviously meant "no longer use it to categorize people." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Flyer, the distinction is a fine one, and it may be mostly a terminological issue, but I think it is the best we can do to maintain the distinction between categorisation by race and by ethnicity.
It may be that you want to open up a broader discussion on the viability of the fine distinction in categorisation between race and ethnicity, but unless we open up that broader issue, then we do need to avoid categorisation by race. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
A fine distinction? What is the distinction with regard to using "People of African-American descent" instead of "American people of African descent" to categorize people? "People of African-American descent" is used the same exact way -- to indicate "race"/ethnicity -- and will continue to be used that same exact way unless it's deleted or containerized as well. If you are stating that using "American people of African descent" "People of African-American descent" for categorizing people is fine, then Marcocapelle should add it in place of all the articles where "American people of African descent" was removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Fler, I think I have made exceedingly clear that I am not stating that using "American people of African descent" for categorizing people is fine. So please do not claim that I am. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Eh? You just stated "the distinction is a fine one, and it may be mostly a terminological issue." So what are you talking about???? Again, what is the supposed fine distinction between "American people of African descent" and "People of African-American descent"? And with regard to claims, I stated "if." Stop stating that I'm putting words in your mouth. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
"If" I was stating something which I clearly and repeatedly had opposed = either putting words in my mouth or a pointless hypothetical. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, no, it was a way of asking you a question. I meant the "People of African-American descent" category. Exactly where did you repeatedly state that you were against using "People of African-American descent" for categorizing people? You were focused on the "American people of African descent" category, and argued that there is a fine distinction between "People of African-American descent" and "American people of African descent" when it comes categorizing people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, now I see what you are trying to state regarding "People of African-American descent" and "American people of African descent." Are you stating that the difference is that one uses the wording "African-American"? That "African-American descent" is specific and that "African descent" is broader? Still, like I asked Dodger67 below, who uses "descent" that broadly? See my comment below (the one addressed to everyone rather than to Dodger67). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Per request on my talk page I'm contributing to this discussion here. The reason why I supported containerization (not deletion!) of the category it that it is perfectly fine to keep these categories as container categories with subcategories for Gambian, Moroccan, Kenyan etc. descent, but having articles directly in them implies a mere racial use. By the way, most articles in this category were either in the African-American tree already, or in the American slaves category, or else their African descent was not sourced (or not even mentioned in the article). While I would also support deletion, or alternatively support more restricted use, of descent categories as a whole (including German) that would be for wholly different reasons. That should not be conflated. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Marcocapelle, like I stated above, editors on this site commonly use categories such as "American people of Irish descent" and "American people of German descent" to indicate "race" and ethnicity as well. And "People of African-American descent" is used the same exact way -- to indicate "race"/ethnicity -- and will continue to be used that same exact way unless it's deleted or containerized as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no way how one can suspect German descent based on skin color in the same way that African descent is suspected based on skin color. The two cases are incomparable. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Marcocapelle, considering that people automatically think of German people as white, even though German people can be black, I disagree with your assertion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems you are completely missing the point of the analogy. Category:American people of African descent leads to WP:OR because editors classify black people as of African when reliable sources about descent do not exist. Category:American people of German descent does not have the same effect because editors do not automatically classify white people as of German descent when reliable sources about descent are lacking. In the absence of sources, more precision (by country) leads to a better recognition that we do not know about a person's descent, while less precision (by continent) leads to more speculation about a person's descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Marcocapelle, I have not missed any point. Are you missing a point? These categories -- all of them -- are added all the time when there is absolutely no sourcing in the article to support them. And let me be clear that WP:OR does not mean "unsourced." The WP:OR page is clear about what WP:OR means. Information can be unsourced and still not be WP:OR. Regardless of what you or anyone else thinks about categories like "American people of German descent," they are used to indicate "race" all the time on this site. One may argue that they are more objective than a category like "American people of African descent," but both have been used by editors to indicate racial/ethnic background. Wentworth Miller's article stating that "his father is of African-American, Jamaican, German, and English ancestry; his mother is of Russian, Swedish, French, Dutch, Syrian, and Lebanese ancestry" is not focusing on nationality. It is focused on getting across Miller's "race"/ethnicity, and the corresponding categories are used in that way as well. This is the same thing that sites like Ancestry.com do. An editor can claim otherwise, but the truth is clear as day. As for "classify black people as of African when reliable sources about descent do not exist," see the Black people article. How are you defining "black people"? That article's "Black people" template does not have the African diaspora link right at the top of it for nothing. The real reasons that editors have objected to the "American people of African descent" category is that some editors don't like categorizing by "race"/ethnicity (as made clear on this talk page), the category was mainly being used to categorize biracial or multiracial people of African descent, and, in enough Wikipedia articles, there were no sources to support them being of African descent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Stating that ""his father is of African-American, Jamaican, German, and English ancestry; his mother is of Russian, Swedish, French, Dutch, Syrian, and Lebanese ancestry" is not focusing on nationality" is confusing. The categories are exactly intended to classify by the nationality of the ancestors. Or in exceptional cases, to classify by the ethnicity of the ancestors, e.g. Jewish. Putting "race/ethnicity" as if it is the same is even more confusing. Ethnicity is a social concept, race is a biological concept. If a person has one black grandparent and three white grandparents, he may or may not qualify as African American depending on how his own view about it and on the views of people writing about him. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Marcocapelle, it makes no sense in what way? See the Ethnicity article. It is officially titled "Ethnic group," and it currently gives the following definition: "An ethnic group or an ethnicity, is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities such as common ancestry, language, history, society, culture or nation." Now look at the Ancestry article, which is officially titled "Ancestor." Notice how sites like ancestry.com are focused on biology -- DNA. It's quite clear that stating "his father is of African-American, Jamaican, German, and English ancestry; his mother is of Russian, Swedish, French, Dutch, Syrian, and Lebanese ancestry" is not solely about nationality. That is not the focus of that inclusion. Just like with many other BLP articles, the editor added all of that to indicate that the subject is biracial or multiracial. It's why, right before that sentence, there is the following inclusion: "Miller said in 2003 that his father is black and his mother is white." I have used "race" and "ethnicity" with the slash in this discussion because, as I've stated before, the terms are often used interchangeably (as numerous sources note), and to indicate that I am covering both topics. As for your statement that "Ethnicity is a social concept, race is a biological concept," "race" is also a social concept. It is why, in the Race (human categorization) article, we state, "Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, that is, a symbolic identity created to establish some cultural meaning. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race is not an inherent physical or biological quality." It's why we state, "Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits. Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications." It's why I keep putting "race" in scare quotes. These days, scientists state that race, as it is usually biologically conceptualized in society, does not truly exist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. But I am lost how this leads you to think that we should permit classifying people by black skin when there is no trace of sources about African descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Marcocapelle, I never stated that I am for "classifying people by black skin when there is no trace of sources about African descent." See the #RfC on categorizing biracial people discussion above. I am clear there on how I feel about classifying biracial and multiracial people, who may or may not have brown skin. The Nationality article currently states, "Nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state." It also states, "In older texts, the word 'nationality' rather than 'ethnicity', often used to refer to an ethnic group." It's clear that the Miller ancestry material is not about nationality. It's clear that our African Americans article is not about nationality (it's not the focus anyway). Our African American categories, such as Category:African-American songwriters, are not about nationality either. "American" by itself would be about nationality. My point has been that we do categorize people by "race"/ethnicity. That is what the "American people of African descent" category was doing, except its focus was on American people with partial African ancestry. As the aforementioned RfC shows, we'd already discussed people being added to the category without reliable sources confirming their African ancestry and that it was a problem. You can see how the RfC closed. It was simple enough to remove people from the category if being of African descent was not sourced in their Wikipedia articles. Stating that we shouldn't have an "American people of African descent" category because people can be added to the category without sources? People can be added to any category without sources. The solution has always been to remove the unsourced category. That stated, it's clear that what is meant by "African descent" can vary among editors. Like I stated, I don't see "of African descent" usually referring to cases like Charlize Theron. Sources on African descent are usually about "race." Anyway, we'll see how Category:People of African-American descent is used in the future. "African-American descent" is always about "race"/ethnicity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Dimadick, people often view ethnicity and "race" as the same thing. There are many reliable sources out that there that note the way the terms are used interchangeably. And like I've stated, Category:People of African-American descent still exists. I take it you want that category containerized as well? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed there are Americans of African descent who are in no way "black" at all; Elon Musk, Dave Matthews, Charlize Theron, etc. The type of "all of Africa is just one place" attitude is aggravated by the (inherently racist, imho) habit of particularly American media to not differentiate between specific countries in Africa when reporting for example: "During the past year the Vice President went on many overseas trips visiting numerous countries; the UK, France, Russia, Germany, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Brazil, China, Japan, India, Pakistan and Africa". While WP does not "right great wrongs", we are required to be as accurate and specific as possible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Roger (Dodger67), who uses "descent" in that way? See my comment below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I am catching up on a day or two's worth of conversation here, and bringing a non-American (Australian) perspective.
  • "African" is not a race - if race exists, there are many of them in Africa, and there are definitely a lot of ethnic groups native to that continent, just as there are to Australia.
  • For me, African-American is an ethnic group, predominantly descended from slaves, and not descended from any one particular African population - national, ethnic or racial. They appear to remain a single ethnic group across the USA, separate from other American ethnic groups, and are different to descendants of more recent migrants from African countries.
  • "German" is out-of-scope to this discussion, but not to this page. It is a complex issue depending on ethnic and geographic boundaries that have moved over time, and partly on the perspective of the speaker. I have "German" ancestors who came in the mid-19th-century from villages in Prussia in what is presently Poland, Some of them were ethnically Germanic, but some were not Germanic, but Wendish, however when they reached Australia, they were all collectively "Germans". Those originating villages have changed populations at least twice in the last two hundred years due to intervening government policies of expansion and cleansing.
  • All ethnic and national descent categories should be supported by prose with references, and it's OK for someone to be a different group than one or both parents based on how they identify themselves. --Scott Davis Talk 14:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Certainly agree that African is not a race. Certainly agree everything needs sources. As I have said before on this page 1) races as a fact or concept finds no support in my understanding of the literature or life, and 2) Wikipedia does not categorize by race. But the suggestion made above is that person 'of African descent' is somehow a matter of race. But since people of African decent are not a race, than how is it a matter of race? And since migrations in modern history are a huge part of that history (forced or otherwise) it seems categorically rather an increase of knowledge when sources find it useful to at the least give that information, although we might want more and more information, we can only go as far as the RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I think User:ScottDavis has it right. The word anti-Semitic is a case in point. It never meant what it literally means, bigotry against all Semite. "African-American" has never suggested, for instance, Berber ancestry. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Is that a response to me? Your indenting suggests so, but it does not seem to respond to my question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem is the actual application of the category: if you can't properly source a person's ancestry to any specific African country, such as Nigeria or South Africa or Kenya or whatever, then the only other way left to apply the generic label "African" is blackness itself. The fact that there are also some white Africans isn't relevant: people like Elon Musk and Charlize Theron are properly sourceable to a specific African country, so they would not get categorized as generically "African" since they're already categorized as South African. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: I think you have fallen into the trap of assuming that racists are logical. In 2016, a Kenyan immigrant was elected to Australian parliament. The newspapers got excited about the "first person of African descent" in parliament, until they discovered several other current MPs were born or had parents born somewhere in Africa, including one immigrant from Egypt who clearly didn't fit their expectation of "looking African", but she was just as African as the very dark-skinned ex-Kenyan. If someone's place of origin (or that of their ancestors) has been traced and documented in reliable sources, it will be to a country or colony, not just a continent, in modern times. "African" might be all that was available for American slaves, and "Kanaka" might be all that is available for people who were blackbirded from unknown Pacific islands. but in those cases, there are likely better terms than "African" and "Pacific Islander" to describe their heritage. --Scott Davis Talk 22:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I think I am just unimpressed by that rationale, some people are stupid, some people are racist, some people edit Wikipedia and are stupid or racist, so we can't have a category because some people are too stupid to follow sources, or stupid and racist. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Above, I noted that I now see what is being argued regarding "African-American descent" vs. "African descent." Editors seem to be stating that "African-American descent" is specific and that "African descent" is broader. But when looking at sources on "African descent," they are not usually based on the descendants having been "born in Africa" or "raised in Africa." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

An idea

Since there's been an issue with enforcing the particulars of WP:CAT/R, I would like to know if editors would like to add an addendum of sorts. Instead of what the guideline currently states, I propose a change to the following:

Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be verified reliable published sources that, by consensus, support the information and show that the description is appropriate. For people dead over 50 years, one highly reliable source (such as an encyclopedia, or otherwise general reference text, that lists people belonging to such a religion) can be used to justify such an inclusion.

I'm entirely open to any different ideas (or wordsmithing) on how to fix this problem, but I think we at least need some type of change that states at something akin to this in the guideline, as there is cause for confusion otherwise. As currently, the text of WP:CAT/R seems to require multiple sources no matter how long the person has been dead. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Women Writers

Hi all, I thought I would ask on a wider forum. Could I please clarify why women who are writers from a particular country aren’t also included in their women from country abc? For example, Category:20th-century Australian women writers are also placed in Category:20th-century Australian writers, but they aren’t allowed to be added to Category:20th-century Australian women. As far as I’m aware, we don’t just define a woman be my her occupation, it seems to me we are pigeon-holing women by their occupation. We don’t seem to do this for men. Does anyone know the reasoning behind this decision? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Gender subcategories in Category:American psychologists

I noticed that BostonMensa has been removing women from Category:American psychologists and adding them to Category:American women psychologists‎. This will have the effect that only men will be remaining in Category:American psychologists, since there is no corresponding subcategory of men (in contrast to Category:American writers, which has subcategories for male and female).

Is this desirable? It goes against general guideline 5 in WP:EGRS, which suggests that gender-based categories should be non-diffusing: in other words, according to that guideline BostonMensa should not be removing women from Category:American psychologists. Biogeographist (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I came across this discussion when I noticed the removal of the American psychologists category on a page on my watchlist. Biogeographist, you are right; I looked over the policy you linked and gendered categories are non-diffusing. And of course, logically, it does not make sense that the American psychologists category would only have men. BostonMensa, could you clean up this error? - MapleSoy (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@MapleSoy: Thanks! Given that nobody had yet responded to any comments on this talk page this year, I was afraid that I was talking to an empty room here. Glad you found this discussion. Biogeographist (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The piece about the subject's sexual orientation being relevant to their public life

Hi, Bearcat. Although I watch this page, I just noticed that you made this and this addition to the guideline last year. I'm taking the time to focus on the content you added regarding the information being relevant to the subject's sexual orientation. Given the debates you mentioned, I question this having been added to the guideline without discussion/consensus. That there have been disagreements on this doesn't mean that we should take the side of "the only relevance needed is that they came out." Also, both WP:BLPCAT, a policy, and this guideline currently state "are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." The text you added mentions nothing regarding "relevancy per the sources." That stated, I personally don't have an issue with it being noted in an LGBT person's article that they are LGBT if they came out. After all, they will often be put in one or more LGBT categories, and, per WP:BLPCAT, this aspect should be sourced in the article before they are placed in such categories. But the "There have been debates" piece onward doesn't read like a guideline. And I question us still including the "And the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life" line if we have deemed it automatic that it's relevant to their public life. While being LGBT is unquestionably relevant to an LGBT person's personal life (out or not), it being relevant to their public life is debatable (no matter if the person is well-known), which is why there have been debates on it.

It seems to me that the text stating that "such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" piece should be changed to "such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question. If, according to reliable published sources, the subject's declared sexual orientation is relevant to their notability, it may be best to include this with context." Something like that. I think that what you added should then be removed as unnecessary. I also think we should consider adding something like this proposed text to WP:BLPCAT as well for consistency. I propose this because of the "relevancy" debate and because people clearly are not going by the "relevant to their notability" aspect. There is also the WP:About self policy to consider. When a person comments on something personal about themself, we often go with that, not solely published sources in the traditional sense. I'll alert Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and the WP:BLP noticeboard for input. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I would support some sort of wording change, simply because multiple editors keep claiming that any mention of sexuality in a reliable source is reason to include it -- and they are really liberal about what they accept as a reliable source. Alas, to some people sexual identity and sexual orientations is The Most Important Thing Ever, while to most people such attitudes are from a bygone era and most pepole don't care who you have sex with or whether you used to have a different gender. Those aspects are no longer in themselves notable. Modern society (with some sad exceptions) tends to accept people for what they are without making a big deal about sexuality, ethnicity, skin color, etc.
I suggest that this wording should be added to whatever policy is most appropriate:
For material about sexual preferences or sexual identity to be included in an article, there must be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources showing that the subject self-identifies and that the subject's declared sexuality is relevant to their notability.
---Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2020‎ (UTC)
That won't work, because for a lot of historical subjects (even fairly recent ones) there was no self-identification (indeed, it would often have been self-incriminating), but RS may well be in general agreement based on other evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I’m not sure that this is the right policy, but you could limit the restriction to just on BLP and not general BIOs for the usual BLP protecting reasons. Gbear605 (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Good points, SMcCandlish and Gbear605. Clearly my suggested wording doesn't work with any many historical figures. We do need something that covers those historical figures, though, in order to deal with editors who insist on listing William Shakespeare, Anne Frank, and David as being icons of the LGBT community. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I think for those figures we should simply cover what the position on their sexuality is by reliable sources - if there are reliable sources, especially academic ones, calling a historical figure queer in some way, then we should cover that. Similarly, if there is debate about it, we should also cover the debate.
For example, with King David, we have a source that discusses the debate, both historical and modern, whether he was gay. Some scholars argue that "There can be little doubt, except on the part of those who absolutely refuse to believe it, that there existed a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan" while others suggest that the evidence could lean towards a political alliance, and yet others say that for religious reasons David could not have had a romantic relationship with Jonathan.[1] Certainly there are more sources out there, but this was the first I found. The solution is not to censor the debate but to cover it. Interestingly, we currently cover it in David and Jonathan#Modern interpretations, but not in David.
  1. ^ Kirsch, Jonathan (2000). King David : the real life of the man who ruled Israel. New York: Ballantine Books. pp. 60, 129–132.
Gbear605 (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
That's a great example. David and Jonathan is in Category:Sexuality in the Bible but it is also in Category:Homosociality ("Homosociality means same-sex relationships that are not of a romantic or sexual nature, such as friendship, mentorship, or others.") Yet our article at David is not in any LGBT-related category, and rightly so, as long as the material about same-sex attraction is found in David and Jonathan#Modern interpretations, but not in David. The categorization should follow the claims, and the claims should follow the sources. No source, no claim. No claim, no categorization.
Alas, Jonathan (1 Samuel) is in Category:Ancient LGBT people despite the differing opinions among scholars on this. In fact, a lot of the entries in that cat look dubious. We need a clear criteria for categorizing historical figures as being LGBT. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I suppose the question is whether to describe a person if they are *definitely* LGBT or if there are suspicions that they are LGBT. Given that the actual concepts are modern even though homosexual attraction and being gender-queer in some form is not, it is hard to say that any historical person is certainly LGBT. For example, Anne Lister is in Category:19th-century LGBT people, due to her being blatantly a lesbian (she married a woman and wrote in her diaries about having sex with other women and there are numerous sources calling her one), but by my understanding she had no lesbian identity per se.
The current policy for categorization is For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. ... Historically, however, LGBT people did not always come out in the way that they commonly do today; so a person's own self-identification may, in some cases, be impossible to verify by the same standards that would be applicable to a contemporary BLP. For such a person, a broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship about the topic is sufficient to describe a person as LGBT.
However, there are very few ancient people that there is no debate for - certainly any biblical character is going to have debate simply because some people will refuse to believe it for theological reasons. Because of this, I would suggest expanding this to say that "a broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship or the presence of a significant academic and/or biographical debate about the topic is sufficient to describe a historical person as LGBT". Crucially this policy should only apply to historical persons, and we should be more conservative with BLPs.
Given that this discussion is primarily about how to cover it in the article, not what categories the article should be put in, we should likely apply a similar policy. Perhaps "a broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship about the topic is sufficient to describe a historical person as LGBT, but the presence of academic and/or biographical debate about the topic is sufficient to describe the debate around whether a historical person is LGBT"
Gbear605 (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree that Macon's proposal does not work for article content, in part because it mixes-up a guideline for whether to have an article at all (notability), with the core content policies (V/NPOV/NOR/BLP). At any rate, per NPOV we should not have guidelines/policies that make these matters 'The Most Important Thing To Not Mention Ever', especially if it is true that these matters are as anodyne as Macon argues, in that case, 'Tim Cook is gay', should be treated just like, 'Tim Cook is a graduate of Duke University' both depending on what sources on Tim Cook's life talk about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


  • I reverted the additions completely: the text was no longer conforming to WP:COPDEF. Sexuality should in no way be treated "looser" than any other characteristic of a person, dead or alive: if it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic, it should not be used for categorisation. Even if it can be proven; even if it is referenced to a reliable source in the article. What is defining for a person is to a certain extent culture-dependent (for some cultural contexts, e.g., being LGBTQ may be a non-issue). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Other than that, the changes also seemed to have a quite high friends of gays aspect ;) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I also went ahead and alerted WP:LGBT to this discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I made a vow to myself a long time ago that I wouldn't mess around with tryin to alter policy and guidelines, at least, not directly. I came here due to a notice posted at BLPN, and anyone who's been around there long enough has heard my views on categorization. However for those who haven't, here's a brief overview: categorization is something that is hard-wired into the brains of any animal with an amygdala. It's a vital part of our ability to process the world around us. We can't possibly remember every single detail of everything that happens in a day, so the brain filters out like 96% of everything we encounter almost immediately, before even sending it to the prefrontal cortex for conscious processing. Then what's left over goes back through the amygdala and is filtered again, before being stored as long-term memories in the hippocampus.
Why is this important? Because the job of the amygdala is to filter out all the unimportant info and categorize information, and it does this automatically --without our even realizing it-- based solely upon emotional saliency, or how much of an emotional reaction the information causes. The amygdala is also the emotional center of the brain. Categorization is a fundamental part of our ability to perceive the world around us with such incredible speed, but because it's so fundamental, and because it is so directly linked to emotion rather than rational thought, that is also what makes it so damn dangerous if we're not careful. Categorization is the root of all stereotyping, which in turn is the root of all prejudice. It's a powerful propaganda tool, great for creating an u-vs-them environment, creating hate and misunderstanding, and not only can, but has led to great atrocities throughout history.
I hope all you wise people who help set the categorization policies realize just how important, how vitally important your job is, and please never take it lightly. Anytime we categorize a person --even with the best of intentions-- we are defining that person solely by the title of that category, and that is extremely one sided and, for lack of a better term, "black and white". We cannot help but categorize things, but I think it's important to realize just how powerful and divisive those categories can be, simply because they don't give any information beyond a label. They are extremely tempting tools for anyone with a personal agenda, a cause to fight, or hate to spread, and I think thy need to be under even tighter restrictions than articles.
That said, I think what we have here is a case of zealotry when it comes to many of these LGBT categories. There seems to be a huge push to out people against their own will, or make it some huge part of their article when it really has nothing to do with the person's notability. (It's interesting, because just 20 years ago most gays would have been outraged at the thought.) Unless it's a part of what makes someone notable, then I would opt to leave a person's sexual orientation out of their articles, and leave them out of such categories. I am not sure at this point what the best wording to use would be, nor even where it should go (I'm leaning right now toward making it a part of BLP itself), but I will leave the details of it all up to those of you who are much wiser than I. I jut wanted to throw in my two cents. Please do not think that categories are somehow a less potential for causing harm than articles; they're more! And I hope you all consider that when defining the policies around them. Zaereth (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
To expand on the above excellent comment, forming a Wikiproject:Nazis and putting that Wikiproject banner on the talk page of the US President's BLP would be just as bad (a bit less visible, but just as bad) as putting Category:Nazis on the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the "relevant to their public life or notability" guidance in WP:BLPCAT and this guideline is problematic for EGRS categories. These characteristics are usually publicly expressed, while the details of how they inform a person's life remain deeply personal. If we were to interpret the scope of a category like Category:Catholics from Massachusetts as only including people whose Catholicism is defining, we are left with an impossible task of sorting out the people whose religion, in our view, isn't sufficiently publicly demonstrated as important to warrant inclusion. Such an exercise raises far greater BLP concerns, and reaches inappropriately deeper into subjects' personal lives, than making the category’s scope broader but more objective (i.e., everyone for whom we have reliably sourced public self-identification). I think the broader scope is, in practice, almost always what gets applied with these categories, and what the guidance should reflect.--Trystan (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The problem with the "relevant to their public life" standard is that it's essentially impossible to quantify what it takes to make it "relevant", and how much "relevance" is necessary to justify categorization. How do you establish the baseline standard for what's "relevant"? How do you establish the baseline standard for how much relevance is needed?
    Does a writer have to have specifically written LGBT-themed works? Do they have to have only written LGBT-themed works, such that the moment they decide to write a book about something else their sexuality is no longer "relevant" since they aren't of exclusively LGBT interest anymore? Do they have to have written any specific >1 number of LGBT-themed works before it becomes "relevant"? Does a singer-songwriter's output have to be exclusively LGBT-themed, such that they've never sung about anything but queer topics, before their sexuality is "relevant"? Does a politician have to work exclusively on LGBT issues, and fail to ever concern themselves with general issues such as taxation, public transit, law enforcement, or pandemic management, before their sexuality is "relevant"? Does an actor have to only play LGBTQ characters in LGBTQ-themed movies before their sexuality becomes "relevant", and does it lose "relevance" if they play a straight person in a network sitcom?
    And even the idea that their sexuality has to be directly tied to their notability, such that they're notable because they're LGBTQ but would likely not be notable at all if they had done the exact same things as a cisgender and/or heterosexual person, still doesn't work because there's almost nobody on earth who could actually claim such a thing. Tammy Baldwin's notability doesn't hinge on her being lesbian, for example — as a senator from Wisconsin, she'd still be notable even if she were straight. Oscar Wilde would still be a notable writer if he had been straight but had still written The Importance of Being Earnest. If Lil Nas X were straight but "Old Town Road" had still been the most ubiquitous hit single of 2019, he would still have been notable. While Jason Collins certainly has the distinction of being the first sports figure in the big four team sports leagues to come out as gay while still actively playing, as an NBA player he would still have been notable if he had never come out as gay at all. And on and so forth. But it doesn't matter anyway, because CATDEF doesn't require that a trait has to be directly tied to the notability claim to warrant categorization — it requires only that the trait is defining, which LGBTQness still very much is: even in 2020, LGBTQ people do still have to work significantly harder than straight people do to reach the same level of achievement, LGBTQness is still a thing that people and media notice and care about, LGBTQness is still a thing that occasions academic study about what it means to be openly LGBTQ in literature, music, sports, politics and other careers, and on and so forth. The idea that the base notability claim has to be specifically LGBTQ-dependent, such that the person is notable because they're LGBTQ and would not have been notable if they had done the exact same things while straight, is not the standard and never has been the standard.
    Further, the rule is obviously not designed to "out" people involuntarily, so the argument that it facilitates that is an absolute non-starter — the rule has always been that living people cannot be described or categorized as LGBTQ unless they're out, and it's impossible to involuntarily out somebody who's already come out — but the problem with insisting on "relevant to their public life" as an additional standard is that it is highly subjective and impossible to objectively quantify how much relevance is necessary, literally to the point that almost every LGBTQ person could be vulnerable to having LGBTQ categories removed or disputed on the grounds their sexuality had not attained some mythical, shadowy standard of "relevant enough". Precisely because that standard is impossible to objectively define, it is always possible — even for the likes of Oscar Wilde and Harvey Milk — to argue that more "relevance" is necessary than any person has.
    Simply put, the guideline could absolutely stand to be rewritten, but "relevant to their public life" is not a useful standard to apply or maintain, because beyond the fact of being out it's impossible to quantify what additional relevance to their public life even means, impossible to measure what makes it relevant and what doesn't, and impossible to set an objective standard for how much "additional relevance" is necessary. Bearcat (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Special subcategories

I propose that we delete or significantly alter the following part of the "special subcategories" section. "Similarly, an "(ethnicity) politicians" category should only be created if politicians of that ethnic background constitute a distinct and identifiable group with a specific cultural and political context. There is no significant or notable difference in context between being a German American politician and a Swedish American politician. But an American politician of Native American descent is a different context from an American politician of European background. Thus, Category:Native American politicians is valid, but Category:German American politicians and Category:Swedish American politicians should not exist. The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that politicians of that ethnic background happen to exist."

Some have taken this to mean that American politicians of X European descent should not exist. However, I think this falsely creates a binary of European/non-European within the categorization of American politicians and is presentist to an unacceptable degree. The facts are that "ethnic" European politicians have always been a distinct subgroup within US politics and it is only the very recent past when that has not been one of the defining features of most political candidates. As I linked to in this discussion, every nominated group's politics, be they Italian, Polish, Armenian, or Greek, has been the subject of journal articles, books, journalistic articles, and more. Even the example provided in this section re: Germans and Swedes, is certainly not true for most German and Swedish politicians in the United States until nearly the present day. Swedish Americans in politics have been studied extensively. For obvious reasons, given that the US literally rounded up German Americans during both the First and Second World Wars, I don't feel the need to link to the endless studies of German Americans in US politics. Just like for other categories, articles for which one's ethnicity is not deemed a contributing factor (as defined by the availability of independent sources demonstrating it as such) should be removed.--User:Namiba 15:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

How to organize non-binary gender categories

Right now, if you go to a category like Category:Writers, you'll see the subcategories for Category:Women writers and Category:Male writers listed directly in the main category. To find Category:Non-binary writers, you have to traverse Category:LGBT writers -> Category:Transgender and transsexual writers -> Category:Non-binary writers. This is similar for most occupations with some variation (See Category:Non-binary people by occupation). The non-binary categories feel hidden compared to the male and female categories and it is not intuitive to find them. I would like to propose that we list non-binary categories at the same level that we list male and female categories since it serves the same function (organizing by gender). Alternatively, we could create categories like Category:Writers by gender, but that feels like overkill. Thoughts? Nosferattus (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: I agree, I think in general there should be more expansive articles on nonbinary genders, instead of the distinct categories of genderfluid, genderqueer, agender, bigender etc being filed into the nonbinary page, there should be pages for most notable nonbinary genders. Re: the writers situation, a general nonbinary writers page should suffice Vulture (a.k.a. Transandrosupport) talk) 20:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely agree; this seems like a no-brainer. A lot of people don't even realize we have non-binary categories, and so at other times non-binary people end up being left as the only entries that are directly in the top-level / undifferientiated categories instead of subcategorized (e.g., Category:21st-century American actors, which has male and female subcategories). -sche (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I've gone ahead and made the change to the 7 subcategories of Category:Non-binary people by occupation that weren't already categorised as suggested. GreenComputer (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

CfD for newly created Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity

Comments are needed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 22#Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity. This guideline plays a major role. Crossroads -talk- 02:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Race/ethnicity; and in particular, *why is this guideline apparently using a 19th century definition of race*?

I've noticed this seems to be systemic throughout the 'pedia, but usually reference to the concept of 'race' as though words can't change meaning and this word's meaning was apparently fixed around the turn of the 20th century (despite its long history of having a huge breadth of scope - everything from "the human race", which goes back multiple centuries despite what socioligists would have you think, to usages as specific as, say, the 'East London race').

But the example in this guideline seems a blatantly far-removed from reality usage: for example, we include lists of Jewish musicians, but not lists of Semitic musicians (paraphrased).

Semitic?! Who, in this day and age, other than the most extreme neo-Nazi wingnuts living in the back country under rocks decked out in camo armour with homemade grenades and hand-me-down muskets still thinks that a 'Semitic race' actually exists? Or...is this, like, a European idea that is still fairly common amongst European folk?

In the US, for example, we have our own specific categories that are considered by us to be 'racial'; most of us with brains are aware that they're largely socially defined, but most of us with brains cannot honestly deny their existence either, be it a social manifestation or otherwise (nor do we any longer consider that pretending such will help bring about an end to racial discrimination; we tried that already, and it had the opposite effect). It says in this guideline that African Americans are "not a racial category" but "an ethnic one". By whose definitions, though? Certainly not by ANY English-speaking American's definition, and not likely by other American nonEnglish-language communities either.

You can tell us "[we're] wrong" all you want, but here's what this all boils down to: these words do not have a One Size Fits All definition across the whole if the Anglosphere. And, as of right now I'm not convinced that the definition of race that EnWP aeems to have adopted - that is, apparently, a snapshot in time meaning from over 100 years ago - is in use by ANY present day Emglish speakers in any place other than EnWP.

Suggested remedy: the community at large acknowledge that these words, like all words, can have multiple acceptable meanings both within and between different peoples; andb that, global encyclopædia that we are, must not force a single definition for a word, nor a single word for an idea, to be used sitewide for all cases. That would be detrimental to both the encyclopædia and the English language itself, meseems.

All you all's contributions are still much appreciated, though :). Don't read any of that as intending to be harshly critical or hostile. I appreciate any of your thoughts on this, obviously, sensitive topic. Thanks :) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:F1ED:C01C:3051:CF8B (talk)}

I would agree the guidance here is confusing. It says African-Americans is an ethnic group and to look at the Lists of ethnic groups. But the list doesn't include African Americans (which, mind you, should not be hyphenated). Ironically, on the US Census page, it is listed as a race. May I recommend that if we have a notable identity that has a Wikipedia page, we go by that rather than some convoluted alternative (X people of Y descent)? —Caorongjin 💬 19:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage and LGBT identification

Hi editors, I have observed some common behavior and I'd like to know if it's kosher. A notable person may enter a same-sex relationship, and in the past few years that may entail a legal marriage. It seems that Wikipedia takes it as a given that a person in a relationship with someone of the same sex is LGBT. However, it seems to me that we are making several leaps of original research with this. First of all, the significant other may not be notable, and may not have a disclosed gender ID. Oftentimes, the most we have in WP:RS are the pronouns applied to that significant other and so we make assumptions about their gender based on pronouns used in the press, or perhaps also, their gendered given name.

And then we make further assumptions about the sexuality of the BLP subject and the nature of their putative same-sex relationship. Many people marry for reasons other than love and sexual attraction. Same-sex couples cannot naturally procreate and so raising children may not be a primary goal of a same-sex wedding and relationship. There are far too many variables in-between to consider.

WP:EGRS is plain that we require direct and explicit identification of a person's sexuality. Entering into a putative same-sex marriage is insufficient standalone evidence for categorizing gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Elizium23 (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The guideline wording is "such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the orientation in question". By any reasonable interpretation, a person publicly entering into a same-sex marriage is publicly identifying as LGBT. Similarly, if we couldn't assume gender based on pronouns, we couldn't add anyone using she/her pronouns in a category for women unless we could find a specific quote of them saying "I am a woman". The EGRS guidelines are already appropriately rigorous; they shouldn't be interpreted in an unreasonably narrow way that erases publicly expressed identities.--Trystan (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
But surely you agree that the simple fact of entering into a same-sex relationship or marriage does not require us to categorize that person. The additional requirement stipulates that the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability. So it would seem that only extraordinary cases of activists and other persons who are notable because of membership in the LGBT community would merit the categories, not simply any living person who enters into a putatively same-sex marriage. Elizium23 (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
No, I don't interpret it nearly so narrowly. If it were, we would need to delete just about every LGBT category except LGBT activists, which would be hugely detrimental for readers interested in learning about LGBT individuals. Relevant to a subject's "public life" is very broad. The example that follows illustrates this; the wording is intended to prevent us from outing closeted individuals. For out individuals, they can be categorized in LGBT categories on a similar basis to ethnicity or religion. If someone is publicly in a same-sex relationship or marriage, that is sufficient for LGBT categorization.--Trystan (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
This is an extreme approach that would make it impossible to classify most people even as men or women, in complete contradiction to how social reality actually works. To be honest I wondered if this is WP:POINT. I mean, this seems to be seriously arguing that someone entering a gay marriage might not be gay. None of this is how reliable sources talk about things or how society operates. Crossroads -talk- 02:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
No, I'm questioning how far we take our WP:OR in inferring gender ID and sexuality of people who haven't disclosed it. And I'm telling you that same-sex marriage has very little to do with sexual intercourse. Unlike a Christian marriage, there is no prerequisite for same-sex marriage spouses' ability to have sex with each other. There is no expectation that they procreate and raise children. So same-sex marriage is, if you will, quite divorced from sexual activity. For millennia there have been men and women with no sexual attraction to each other who got married for other reasons. This has included homosexuals and people of alternative gender ID. Therefore it is completely natural that heterosexual cis-men and cis-women would enter into same-sex marriages. Why not? If they want inheritance to work properly or visit one another in the hospital. Why shouldn't a boy marry his father? Why shouldn't a woman marry her niece? The government does not impose any requirement, nor does it require any litmus test, that the same-sex couple wishes to engage in sexual intercourse, or is even capable of doing so. It makes as much sense for a wheelchair bound paraplegic heterosexual man to marry another man as why should he marry a woman he can't love?
Therefore as time wears on and more people enter into legal situations that are deemed as marriage, I feel it would be unwise of us to go beyond WP:RS (because that is what you are proposing and that is the common custom here now) that we've gone beyond what the sources say and insist that same-sex spouses are sexually active, sexually attracted homosexual lovers. Because I guarantee you that there shall soon be exceptions that prove the rule, and I doubt the exceptions will be quite as uncommon as you hope they might be. Elizium23 (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I was right, this is WP:POINT. Crossroads -talk- 03:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTPOINTy Elizium23 (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
As a corollary, what about people who enter into an opposite-sex marriage? We would need to presume them to be straight. Firstly since of the nature of marriage for procreation, and also because of the exclusive assumption in marriage, whether by law, ethics or morals, that going outside the marriage is "unfaithfulness". We would need to exclude LGBT categories and designations from people who contracted opposite-sex marriages and not same-sex ones. Elizium23 (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The sheer WTFery of the "Unlike a Christian marriage" sentence above makes it difficult to take any of this seriously. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Fine, there's an RFC. Talk:Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa#RFC Elizium23 (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:American women novelists

I wonder why this page does not mention the whole tortuous "Category:American women novelists" saga of ten years ago (which received widespread media coverage at the time), nor address the issues that were involved in that controversy (except in a very oblique and limited way at the very end)? AnonMoos (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The page's job is to list what the rules are, not to delve into all the past disputes and disagreements that led to the reasons why the rules are what they are. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can see, it does relatively little to warn people from stumbling into the same controversies. A concrete example might help make things clear (though not obligatory). AnonMoos (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC about WP:COP-HERITAGE

See Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#RfC about WP:COPHERITAGE

WP:FORUMSHOPPING to overturn prior Categories for Discussion results concerning overcategorization by ethnicity. 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 Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By 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) 07:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Categorizing_articles_about_people/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality/Archive_13&oldid=1170282352"