Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

Clarification of consensus required

The #Revised BLPCAT proposal above has received 7.5 supports and 2.5 opposes. Further input from previously uninvolved editors would be useful to clarify whether or not there is a sufficient basis for implementing the proposal at this time. --JN466 23:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think with all the variations it's gotten too complicated and there's no legitimacy to following anything up. To anyone coming to this fresh, it just isn't clear what the issue is. If it's mainly due to Ed Milliband, then the issue would seem to be whether there should be a policy specifically about atheism (which perhaps there should, I'm not sure). Any proposal that self-identification is needed for ethnicity is plain wrong and any proposal that reliable sources are needed is otiose. Sorry, but I don't think anything useful is going to come from these discussions. --FormerIP (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps not. But we have so many non-productive arguments elsewhere in the project about ethnicity-based categories that I think it would make sense to ask for self-identification in contentious cases, to settle arguments one way or the other. That is what the proposal is about. --JN466 13:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Given the way the discussion has proceeded with various counter-proposals, I don't think it can be said that there is consensus to adopt it. The ironic thing is that it wouldn't have helped avoid the controversy over Miliband, given that there is ample self-identification in his case -- so it can hardly be said that it would settle arguments one way or another. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
It would settle most arguments about ethnicity; Miliband's case was hardly typical. But I don't think there is consensus to adopt it either. --JN466 22:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Naming convention for married females

First, I apologize, if this is not the correct place to post this message. I have noticed that articles about married women are named as firstname maidenname marriedname. I know some women like to hyphenate their married name followed by their maiden name, but I have never seen that order {firstname maidenname marriedname). Why was this particular naming convention chosen? NorthernThunder (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You should probably take this to the Manual of Style. My experience suggests that this is something that is very much up to the preference of the person in question. --TS 03:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Some people use the style (it's less common now than it used to be) but I certainly don't think we have a "naming convention" per se. Shimgray | talk | 17:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Tony Sidaway that the basic convention is that we use what the biography subject uses--for example, Bill Clinton rather than William Jefferson Clinton and Suw Charman-Anderson with a hyphen but Hillary Rodham Clinton without a hyphen and Demi Moore rather than Demi Guynes Kutcher. betsythedevine (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Until the changes in custom brought on by second wave feminism in the 1970s and later, {firstname maidenname marriedname) was long the standard in English-speaking countries. But that's no longer a solid consensus. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Not true of South Africa at least (and I suspect in some other countries with significant English speaking populations too). The retention of maiden names in any format is a relatively new phenomenon. Practically unknown in the 1970s, very rare in the 1980's and still widely regarded as pretentious well into the 1990s. It's only in the last decade and a half or so that it's become an unremarkable phenomenon. Roger (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. A woman's formal legal name (at least in the States) was Firstname Maidenname(s) Marriedname(s) (thus, a tradition of heavy-handed humor consisting of listing an oft-married woman's full panoply of names; try googling "Elizabeth Taylor Hilton Wilding Todd Fisher Burton Warner Fortensky"); but as you say, it was considered odd or pretentious to use the full thing unless one had become professionally known by the maiden name, or if one was a writer (e.g., Marion Zimmer Bradley). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO specifies (yes it's a rule, not an optional preference) that we must always use the name exactly as the subject herself does, so there isn't a fixed convention at all. Roger (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

But the title of the article is occasionally something else, if the subject is best known under some other variation of her or his name. Again, Bill Clinton, formally William Jefferson Clinton, is a good example. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly the point of the rule, the article title must follow the subject's own preference but the article should also mention in the intro the person's formal/legal name if it is different. (President Clinton's own preference is "Bill", not "William".) Roger (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Inasmuch as the concept of a "formal" or "official" name applies in the UK, the maiden name has not automatically been part of a married woman's name. Indeed when seeing the maiden name in American usage I have assumed that this was an affectation. I would be surprised if any uniform laws on the matter applied in the United States, to be honest. Possibly the IRS or the Social Security apparatus or the larger banks have preferences, however. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't assume the UK has a uniformed practice. In Scotland, married names were legally regarded as aliases, so one would be cited in a court document as "Kate Middleton (or Windsor)"--Scott Mac 17:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Criminal–Crime-noted-for

Notice: I've posted a discussion on the wp:MERGE page's discussion page asking about how to determine when to create separate articles about both a criminal and the crime for which s/he is noted and when to combine them.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Religious identification in BLPs

Although it specifies categories, I believe that this section of WP:BLP applies equally to prose:

"Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."

My interpretation would seem in keeping with the overall principle behind the policy, but others have said that this applies only to categories. Does it apply equally to prose? If it does not apply to prose, why not? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Generally, prose has the advantage of nuance. E.g. we can say "has regularly been described as an atheist, however he has remarked ....". The problem with categories is they allow no nuance - we either have someone in or out - so we need to take more care. --Scott Mac 22:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Note that this applies to "Categories, lists and navigation templates", not just categories. In BLP prose, I'd ask whether religious beliefs need be mentioned at all in any case, where they have no relevance to the person's notability, and suggest they certainly shouldn't without evidence of self-identification if there is any possible doubt. General BLP policy seems to be orientated around not giving superfluous information for the sake of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I see your point, Scot, and I agree. Having said that, I have concerns that BLP has nothing else to say about labelling someone as an adherent of a particular religion. Even something simple and common-sense like a reminder that, lacking self-identification, reliable third-party sources are required. If that is the case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
That is already the normal expectation. The interpretation you are after here is simply not part of policy, and if you want it to be that way there would need to be a consensus for the change. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The body of the article has the expansiveness to fully treat issues concerning attributes of identity fully compliant with WP:BLP. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Without wishing to get involved in this whole CoS debate (because it bores me to tears), can I suggest that the section on Scientology in the Doug Dohring bio needs references from other sources than the Church itself, at a bare minimum. If they can't be found, it should go. They aren't a 'third-party source'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The category has been removed by another editor, citing WP:EGRS, but from the sampling of Scientology-related BLPs that I have seen over the last few days, the sourcing to CoS publications is common. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleting the category is clearly necessary, but without 3rd-party conformation of Dohring's links to the CoS, they aren't WP:RS, so the section needs to go. This is WP:V, and nothing to do with the CoS as such. I'd say the same thing if it was the C of E. Why is any of this under dispute? It seems common sense to me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit by Nomoskedasticity to reinstate the Dohring category is a clear BLP violation as there was in fact no self-identification per WP:BLPCAT.Griswaldo (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Lists

WP has many lists of many people. Often these lists include names of people wikilinked to their articles in WP. Some lists have many entries that provide reference citations to justify the people being on the list. Many lists rely on the citations found in the linked articles. Is some BLP purpose served by editors who perform bulk deletions of every name on a list that lack citations? Aren't the citations in the underlying articles sufficient? This type of deletion just seems to undermine the BLP effort by turning off other editors, destroying their good faith work, and by just wasting time and people in the whole process--all to no particular benefit to protecting the living people being discussed. Work on the underlying articles would seem to provide a better benefit in this regard. Hmains (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Is some BLP purpose served by editors who perform bulk deletions of every name on a list that lack citations"? Yes, maintenance of basic Wikipedia standards (see WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:BLPCAT, etc, etc). Any unreferenced inclusion of a living person on a list should be deleted on sight, and Wikipedia isn't WP:RS. This is basic stuff. If someone is added to a list on the basis of erroneous information in a Wikipedia article about them, how is the list going to be corrected if the error is? In any case, the criteria for inclusion in lists and categories may be stricter than that applied in a BLP, where nuances etc may be discussed. 04:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
That is not what I said. It is not that the WP bio article is being used as a source. It is being used as a link to a source. The WP article has the necessary cited references. Hmains (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The WP bio may have a link to the necessary cited references at the time. There is no guarantee these citations will remain in the article (actually, there is no guarantee the bio will remain either). This is beside the point though. References need to be given explicitly, as with any Wikipedia article. How else can they be verified, and subject to normal scrutiny? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I asked. And higher level summary articles (such as history) often make statements that only have reference citations in lower level articles--fact, whether WP good or bad. There are probably hundreds of such lists with thousands of names, as lists have been made this way in WP 'forever'. Of course, the only lists BLP would be concerned about are those that involve BLP concerned topics as listed in this project article. I think the people doing the deleting would be better serving the cause of BLP by opening up the linked articles, finding (or not finding) the citations there, fixing the article as necessary, copying the citation code, fixing the list by deleting the name or adding the citation. You could even consider the list to be a helpful tool to BLP concerned editors as providing a good point to go looking for possible BLP problems in the bio articles. We even have some lazy editors who look up some names, find a few problems and then quit and try to get the entire article deleted--hardly a BLP confidence exercise. Hmains (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
With unlimited time and resources, that would be the ideal solution. Unfortunately we don't have either, and it is a lot simpler to delete something as unverified than it is to search through citations attempting to verify it. The responsibility for this situation ultimately lies with those that wish to maintain the lists, as with any article. Personally, I think that many lists of BLP's are of limited value anyway. What do others think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me, in microcosm, as being the same problem as the mass deletion of unsourced BLPs, over which the Wikipedia-space has run red with electrons. Yes, ideally everything would be perfectly sourced at precisely the point where a reader has questions, so that he need not even read to the end of the sentence and differentiate between footnotes to know where it comes from, much less click through a blue link, or go to Google. As a practical matter, we have to draw the line somewhere, and people who go through nice lists and delete useful information wholesale are not helping. My attitude is, as long as the information is well cited on Wikipedia, whether the precise citation appears on the list is a matter of taste - if challenged, we can certainly put it up, but a priori removing all listings without citations right next to them, even if verification is just a simple link to the bio away, is disruptive and lazy behavior, a triumph of BLP fanaticism overcoming reason. RayTalk 22:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • By a strange coincidence, I was just about to post here a proposal that BLPCAT should require any entries of living people in lists to have a cited source, in the list article. We have lists with dozens or hundreds of unsourced entries, at least some of which will be wrong. Such lists are a maintenance nightmare. To verify that each and every entry on this list is justified, a person would have to spend hours. In my view, the onus for keeping an entry in a list should be on those who wish to have that entry in the list. They should provide a source. A close reading of WP:BLPCAT would indicate that this is the intent even now, but it could be stated more clearly. It would also make sense to require birth and death dates in lists of people, so it is apparent which entries are living people, and which are not. --JN466 18:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I would go further and remove both lists and infoboxes into their own section WP:BLPLIST - Both of these have been added in the past year and whilst the intentions are good, their current position is open to all sorts of wiki-lawyering; because the concerns that these are designed to address being WP:OPCAT, the inability to cite Refs in categories, the inability to have notes explaining where self-identification is not available or different from consensus of sources. In fact most of the concerns over rewording BLPCAT since then have been because of these differences. It was notable that the inclusion of lists occurred as an addition to the "Poor light" section and not as a stand alone debate on the inclusion of lists within BLPCAT. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Stuart. The intentions were good for adding Lists into BLPCAT, but there are some subtle differences, for instance, over-categorization is a serious problem since it adds clutter to the bottom of the page, but Lists are less intrusive. Lists also have the characteristic that they are more article-like, with (1) footnotes; and (2) an (optional) lead paragraph. Similar problems with including Navbox/Infobox in BLPCAT: there are several flavors of Navboxes: (a) individual person info boxes; (b) footer navigation; and (c) sidebar navigation ... and it is not clear which of those BLPCAT is applying to. For those reasons, I think Lists (and Sidebars) should be broken out from BLPCAT. A simple way to do that is to just duplicate BLPCAT and call it BLPLIST, and go from there. --Noleander (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Stuart and Noleander. The differences between lists and categories should be better acknowledged. I think explicitly requiring citations in lists could be useful if there were sufficient safeguards against losing information; e.g. some sort of PROD system for unsourced entries, where enough time is allowed to respond properly, or simply a requirement that entries deleted due to inadequate sourcing be copied to the list's talk page. --Avenue (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind what the explicit policy is here (emphasis mine):

This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.

A wikilink to another article is not an "inline source", much less a reliable source, so no, that doesn't qualify. However, in my experience, when it comes to lists editors regularly ignore this requirement, and often specifically deny its applicability, so while explicitly requiring citations in lists shouldn't be required, in practice it probably is. Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Material in article leads are another example of "indirect citation", since leads have an option for being completely unsourced as long as they merely summarize later material. If a list entry is truly "challenged or likely to be challenged" then a citation would be appropriate. I think it would depend on the type of list really. Gigs (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This notion of "indirect citation" is nowhere found in or supported by policy. Many article leads don't have citations, but that's not supported by policy either. I know some FA reviewers prefer to have no citations in the lead because it looks "cleaner", and FA writers keen to get their articles promoted kowtow to them, but that's an unfortunate situation, not an example of good practice. Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Can I suggest that maybe there ought to be two sorts of lists for living people: uncontroversial ones, where inclusion need not be sourced, and potentially-controversial ones, where inclusion must be explicitly sourced? Any new list (and all existing ones, allowing a period of grace to adapt to the change) will be by default potentially-controversial, and for a list to be labelled uncontroversial, a clear consensus must be arrived at, after discussion...somewhere... This needs more thought, but I'll offer it up for now...AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
We need a WP:HALFBAKERY :P I think something like that could work, but maybe less formal. Just as lists generally sort out their own inclusion criteria on their talk page, maybe they should also set a sourcing policy based on talk page consensus. But that's probably a discussion for a more general forum like WP:LISTS. Gigs (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, you can't make a cake without half-baking it first. :P Yes, it needs more thought... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
If we allow unsourced list entries, we are inviting problems that will only get worse over time. An unsourced addition to a list is not the sort of thing that would be picked up by recent changes patrollers, and a significant proportion of such entries may be wrong. Some may be subtle vandalism that goes undetected. For an example of a poor list, see the list section List_of_Jewish_American_entertainers#Music. Even a fully referenced list can contain errors, but at least you have a starting point for verification. In something like List_of_Jewish_American_entertainers#Music, nobody will even start verifying. It's a turn-off, and life is too short. --JN466 15:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not the forum nor audience to discuss lists in general. Unless this stays on course to discuss only BLP concerns, you will never get your serious BLP work done and will have failed in this effort. Hmains (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
So, are you saying we should add "for lists of people, the policy requirement of inline citation cannot be ignored?" Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmains, I was replying to AndyTheGrump, above, 03:32. I got the indentation wrong, sorry. I can see in a way what Noleander and others said above. Categories, lists, infoboxes and navigation templates are similar, but different. A category is applied to an article which must have self-ID, conviction etc. in a cited reliable source. Same with an infobox statement. A navigation template is different: it is not possible to cite a source in one, and it has to rely on sourcing in the linked article. A list of people can and should have in-line citations for each entry, both for the dead and the living, but especially so for the latter. --JN466 01:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand. I also agree that every fact assertion should be cited. In fact, it is not so thoughout most of WP articles, lists, etc, as is readily apparent to any reader--featured articles and lists to the contrary. And I am suggesting that BLP concerns about not harming anyone should trump other concerns in this particular forum. And I suggested triage might help by identifying and then going after the highest harm list locations first so that limited resources (all us volunteers) can perform their no-harm work in the most productive manner. Hmains (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand your point as well. However, we should be proactive as well as reactive. Making clear that list entries need citations now saves trouble later on. We can make editnotices for lists to help with that, as well as look at BLP wording. (Noleander and I are currently doing some work on this, see User:Jayen466/BLP_Edit_notices.) --JN466 18:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmains, no absolute view trumps every other concern. Sometimes our core content policies will lead us to say harmful things about people, and that's OK, and even sometimes required for NPOV. We don't exist to only report positive things. Gigs (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
That is true enough, but is it relevant? NPOV may justify doing harm, but it can't justify doing it without evidence - i.e. citations etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess it was phrased badly. My point is that nothing is absolute. Gigs (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure that absolutely nothing is absolute? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

From a practical point of view it's helpful to have a list that's more rather than less comprehensive so that when you've referenced one article you can easily find another that the same references would be useful for. By way of a personal comment, I find that Wikipedia has a tendency to make improving articles ever and ever harder. Opbeith (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP template

I'm dismayed to find that even after the completion of Mistagged BLP cleanup, some editors are still using "unsourced BLP" tags on article that are not completely unsourced. I have made a proposal to clarify the template's wording. Please comment there. Gigs (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Untagging

The article contains no information on how to proceed once an article has been referenced. Presumably the tag should be removed immediately to reduce the risk of over-zealous AfD based on the sight of a red tag, but should anyone be notified? Opbeith (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If at least one independent RS reference has been added, such that a {{BLP unreferenced}} tag no longer applies, but the sources are still not sufficient to support all the facts asserted and/or establish notability, replace it with a {{BLP refimprove}}. If enough independent RS references have been added such that you believe in good faith that all facts are supported and notability is clearly established, remove the tag. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that part of the procedure, but is any form of notification to anywhere supposed to take place?Opbeith (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
No, if you believe any tag no longer applies you may remove it. If you think one was added in error you can bring it up on the article's talk page or notify the editor that placed it. We're all in this together. J04n(talk page) 00:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It's just that tagging and untagging seems a bit of a haphazard process. Opbeith (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Requests

User:Thaynecas, a user with no edits before a few minutes ago, made this edit, removing the birthday from a BLP. The user then left this message on my talk page stating that the subject of the article did not want his birthdate and year shown on Wikipedia. The date is from a reliable source. How do we handle this?--TM 14:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

An editor with the eponymous name User:Joseph diescho (the subject of the article in question) removed the birthdate and year on December 15.--TM 14:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
There's WP:DOB but I assume the subject of the article will need to contact the Wikimedia Foundation to confirm that it's really him since the date has already been published by the Namibia Institute for Democracy. The contact details are in WP:BLPSELF. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Should BLPs be allowed on WP

I think of posting a BLP as obtaining a patent for an invention.

The person that receives the patent is the one who first put time, energy, and money in to applying for one. Should this be similar to the policy for BLPs?

Dabomb39 (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) 12/29/10

You mean for getting the title for a common name? We generally use disambiguation pages if a name is particularly common or it isn't clear which one people would be looking for the most. Gigs (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E consideration

Doesn't need to be done now (and I would highly suggest it not be done now, as it might spark an edit war), however, it's clear that eventually we need to decide whether BLP1E is fine as it stands or needs to be changed in order to have an explicit clarification for things like mere suspects in a widely-covered event. Jared Lee Loughner comes to mind as of this writing, because people seem to think that two sides of the same coin justify two separate actions. That is, on one hand an article forked from the event may be justified due to the obvious widespread coverage of the individual as being a suspect (passing WP:BLP1E); on the other, it's an issue of whether or not a mere suspect should have his own page when taken in concert with WP:CRIMINAL (thus not passing WP:BLP1E). Keep in mind, I'm not talking about convicts—just otherwise non-notable suspects. --slakr\ talk / 01:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" helps here. However I would add "extent" "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by the persistence and extent of coverage is in reliable sources". The extent is likely to indicate the amount of citable material, and hence whether they should be an article or a section. Really, form that point of view, BLP1E is a re-herring, since from BLP point of view it makes little difference whether there's an article or a redirect to a section under a given persons name. Rich Farmbrough, 18:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Deceased

  • But material about dead people may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, so anything questionable should be removed promptly.

Where is the consensus for this material? I tried to make it more clearly applicable to survivors as living people, but that was reverted for lack of discussion.[1] So it's fair to ask what discussion led to that exact text.   Will Beback  talk  02:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it was actually in the article (with slightly different wording) until recently, and seems to have been removed without consensus. I've not traced the changes fully through the article history, but a quick check shows this in a version from Nov 13 2010: "This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased. But material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased, so anything questionable should be removed promptly. Any individual born less than 115 years ago is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed the individual's death. Persons over 115 years old are presumed deceased unless listed at oldest people." AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to make sense. "But material about dead people may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, so anything questionable should be removed promptly." What's the problem with it (except that I think we should go back to "deceased" instead of "dead people")? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I can't see anything wrong with the original wording. If something is 'questionable' what is it doing in an article anyway, regardless of what it is about? Nobody can read this as saying we can't include negative sourced commentary on Benito Mussolini because he has living relatives. Perhaps the wording needs a little tweaking: perhaps it should read "... in the case of recent deaths, so in such cases anything questionable should be removed..." just to make it clear that it is the implications for the living that are the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
My concern is that text is vague. "May have implications"? If it is about living people, then this policy already applies. If it is only about dead people, then this policy does not apply. The text I replaced it with makes that clear: However, material that discusses survivors still comes under this policy. The purpose of the longer text seems to be to extend the BLP coverage for an indeterminate period of time after death. I think the text I used is more precise. What doesn't it cover that needs to be covered?   Will Beback  talk  05:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not only about text that discusses survivors. For example, a claim that a deceased married man was having an affair with the married woman in the car with him when it crashed, killing them both—that claim affects the living partners of both parties. So it's something we'd want to handle with the same care as an edit about living people, even though strictly speaking that's not what it is. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
That's an interesting case. However the language you're championing could continue to cover a biography of a dead persons for decades after their death, without any clear reason. We might not know if the surviving spouse is even still alive. Nor is it clear about only covering material that affects living people. At a minimum, we need to tie them together by adding a word like "which":
  • But material about dead people which may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, so anything questionable should be removed promptly.
I'd also suggest removing "may have" - that's so vague it could include almost anything. So that gets us to this:
  • But questionable material about dead people which has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, should be removed promptly.
Any objections to that?   Will Beback  talk  06:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Yup. It's policy creep into an area that the community has long opposed. If there is any need for a special reference to dead people (there isn't beyond confirming BLP does not apply to them) then something along the lines of "Where the bios of dead people contain biographical information about those still living this policy applies to that information".©Geni 18:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems fine to me: note that it refers to 'questionable material', so it isn't a carte blanche to exclude everything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You've clearly never read an obituary of one of the UK's more ah colourful characters. 'questionable material' pretty much is carte blanche to exclude everything of significance.©Geni 18:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It is a little moot "questionable material" may always be challenged and removed from any part of the encyclopedia, whether it is about a living person or not, the onus is then on the people wanting to include it to demonstrate it is neutral and verifiable.--Scott Mac 09:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We have a saying in the UK - "You can't libel the dead" (i.e. the dead have no rights over their good name). Don't know about other countries. Sushisurprise (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's true. The issue here is about negative material that reflects on living survivors. Slimvirgin gave one example above. Another example would be saying something like, "Joe Smith was a member of an organized crime family," which would back-handedly assert that his surviving family members are criminals. Likewise, a statement in a biography that "Smith's parents beat him as a child" would reflect on his parents.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
It is true you can't libel the dead. However, BLP has never just been about "not getting Wikipedia sued". It is about recognising the negative impact we can have on living people if our articles are not neutral and factual - and therefore we take extra-special care with any negative material - demanding solid sourcing as a minimum. When we are dealing with the recently dead, it isn't just about living people mentioned or alluded to in their articles, it also about recognising that material about the recently dead is still particularly sensitive for their living relatives - and thus we need also to take care here, and demand strong sourcing before retaining negative material. I'm not saying that the recently dead should be treated exactly the same as BLPs - I'm saying that the duty to "get it right" extends to every article - but the need for particular care exists with article that could be wrongly hurtful - that means BLPs first, but close behind it would be recently dead people, or things like small businesses. There are no hard lines here, perhaps more of a sliding scale of sensitivity. Of course, ideally all material in articles (BLP or not) would be referenced, and certainly all negative material.--Scott Mac 21:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Affirm Scott Mac for a different reason. I've been working on a proposed change to this section at User:John J. Bulten/BDP, though I am not ready to debate it here. However, my proposal makes note of one solidly stated principle above, that the "duty to get it right" or "need for particular care" necessarily contains gradations and thus relies on a sliding scale, with BLP's at an apex, small business at a lower point, the recently dead sliding over a couple weeks from the apex to the "average" level, and so on. Particularly, I focused on people possibly dead but not known to have died, and argued that the force of BLP should especially then be considered to have a sliding scale of applicability as the most recent update of having been alive recedes into the past. The fact that there are many such people in all eras makes a simple yes-no BLP-or-not paradigm unworkable. Thus, while the present text is acceptable, I would also support change that makes the gradualism explicit in non-BLP cases if not prejudicial to my own BDP proposal. The period of time should be indeterminate (community-decided, case-by-case), just like the period of time for keeping the "recent-death" tag up in such articles, and BDP should not become "BLP by survivor-proxy". JJB 22:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
So, for example, we should go easy on Ferdinand Marcos because his wife and children are still alive. Where do you draw the line on the "sensitivity" question, without getting involved in censorship accusations? I say providing you don't libel any of the immediate family, then the deceased should be considered fair game.Sushisurprise (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
If by fair game, you mean "follow the relevant policies—WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc.—to the high standards expected for an editor", then yes. NW (Talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Template/Tag for unsourced list of members/contributers/speakers/etc.

From time to time I come along lists of a number of individuals allegedly part of some group, but without references proving that point (unless mentioned else where in the article). I can't remember what template or tag I put up in a couple cases before (mostly because I quickly sourced or deleted the info). I want to put it up for a controversial article where I' know I'll get an argument. Can't find a relevant template. Should I use Citation Needed or something under Template:BLP. Does there need to be a new template for this kind of case? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Restoring deleted content

  • Restoring deleted content: To ensure that material about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

If material is in compliance with this policy then why is a consensus required to restore the material? This provision gives a single editor veto over content. They can just keep insisting that it violates BLP and refuse to allow it to be restored.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

First, it's not clear til the last sentence the policy is talking about a whole article and not some portion of an article. But how do you get consensus to restore a whole article? That doesn't make sense. At least This Jan 9 2010 version included instructions how to recreate an article: If the material is significantly repaired or rewritten to address the concerns, then it may need discussion or may be added to the article as is; this should be considered case-by-case. Users may wish to draft a proposed article in user space and seek discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. In any event, if the matter becomes disputed it should not be added back without discussion and consensus-seeking. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the section should be renamed "restoring deleted articles".   Will Beback  talk  04:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
@Will: Key phrase is "without significant change". If material was removed on BLP grounds, why would we want to allow an editor to restore it essentially as it was before without getting consensus? And I don't understand your equating "consensus must be obtained" with "single editor veto"—unanimity is a stronger notion than consensus. alanyst /talk/ 05:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually the whole Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion section is a mess! For one thing the bolded phrases "Summary deletion, salting, and courtesy blanking" are not even defined! Maybe they were phrases used in past, but not any more. It looks like the whole thing can be cut substantially, with a short paragraph on the burden of editors to prove deleted material in BLP is not highly problematic (and mention going to WP:BLPN for disputes) and a longer one on deleting pages and restoring them.
User:Alanyst - are you talking about consensus on just when some material is removed or when whole article deleted? For example, a bio of interest to me was just summarily deleted with no warning; an editor asked for permission to put it on a user page and a few of us may or may not work on it. I know we won't get consensus on what to put in it, but with five or six more good WP:RS, I think we can easily consense it should be suitable for putting back. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
From the quoted passage above, I read the antecedent of "it" (in the sentence "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first") as "material about living persons [that] has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections" from the preceding sentence. Therefore I think this applies to small portions of material as well as entire articles. alanyst /talk/ 05:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, WP:Consensus does say it's not unanimity - or it seems it used to; geez, the way things change. And of course consensus never overrides policy anyway. Since you definitely have articles where a bunch of editors want to trash someone and would consensus to horrors. Well, enough for tonight. Let's clean it up tomorrow. To sleep and dream about spending all this time doing something I'm actually getting paid for :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
If there's one editor loudly saying it cannot be restored without consensus, then a single person can prevent a consensus and thereby prevent legitimate material from being restored.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Anon adding potentially damaging rumours as questions on a talk page

An anonymous editor raised a question on Talk:Chris Tomlin about whether we should discuss rumours that he may be a homosexual. The first response was that anon should go to this project page (to learn about what is and isn't permissible) and substantiate the rumours. After a quick Google search that could find almost no hits I commented that it was essentially libel. Anon responded that we should discuss the controversy. Again, no sources given which was my comment. The anon responded by attacking me and still not offering proof of any controversy or any discussion. No WP:RS or even WP:V source. I deleted as this is essentially turning into a forum and is against WP:BLP. I would like some direction with this matter. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Good call. Jclemens (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
What you did (removing unsourced claims from the talk page) is standard and required by BLP. Normally you would just mention the article at WP:BLPN (not here) however that does not seem necessary. I will watch the article for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know if it needed to be elevated to the noticeboard, but will know to do so from now on.
Thanks for watching. It's better to have a neutral observer than someone who has an interest in the genre watching. It avoids accusations of conflict of interest. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Can we please have some guidelines on this. I am currently engaged in a dispute where three lengthy quotes talking about how LivingPersonX does not truly believe in their religion, their political ideology, and doesn't care about America, that it is all an act purely for money. The sources are two attack biographies and editors I am engaged with claim the article is neutral because we are not saying these things but just posting what they have said, and that a bio giving praise should be entered if found. I do not believe there should be critiques of people's characters on BLP's even if we are just reporting them. Can I please get some guidance?AerobicFox (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, "we are just reporting what a reliable source said" is not sufficient in itself to justify ignoring the requirement that we write about living people conservatively. The specifics would depend on the individual case and exactly what is being said; I guess for advice on that you will have to identify the article in question and ask for advice back on the BLP noticeboard itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

U.S.A.?

"Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States..."

Does this mean that U.S. laws have hegemony over Wikipedia?

Wikipedia servers are based in the U.S.A., and as such are bound by U.S. laws. If Wikipedia was based elsewhere, no doubt different laws would apply, but I know of nowhere were it could be based to be outside any legal jurisdiction. This isn't 'hegemony', so much as a recognition of a practical reality. In any case, Wikipedia policy tends to be noticeably stricter than would be required by law, as a result of WP:NPOV, [WP:V]] and similar standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If he's dead, we don't care

A deceased person can also be harmed by false allegations. The person has relatives that does not like that such things are written (I would be very angry if I was the widower of a woman who suffered from false allegations at Wikipedia, even after her death).. I propose it to be changed so the BLP policy also applies for persons 20, 30, 40 or perhaps 50 years after their death. This should be discussed. The purpose of this is to avoid false allegations on deceased people, to avoid harm to their relatives. JustEase (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustEase (talk • contribs)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of WP:BLP, there are no special rules regarding the living and the dead as regards falsehoods or undue negative content - the various policies are more quickly implemented in the case of living persons, is the difference. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What about George Washington?

One might play up legends and stories that he started a war by assassinating someone. Washington has been dead since 1799. Should there be a policy concerning that Founding Father and respect for him? — Rickyrab | Talk 15:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Also: Muhammad (dead for numerous centuries, but gossiping about him might anger millions of Muslims), Jesus (many say that he was resurrected, but officially dead is pretty much officially dead), just about any past Pope, etc., etc. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, no, and no, etc. WP:NPOV
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The below articles show some of the reasons why there is a BLP policy and why that policy makes sense, even though those aren't Wikipedia behind-the-scenes pages but Wikipedia articles proper.

The addition reads:

Wikipedia articles

Is that okay with the community? — Rickyrab | Talk 15:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No. For one thing, some are already part of the text. For another, the policy is to elucidate actions, not merely list problems without explication. Finally, you've been bold, but discussion here prior to the edit would have been preferred.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is a woman who is sentenced to death in the USA notable?

Question at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Is_a_woman_who_is_sentenced_to_death_in_the_USA_notable.3F SilkTork *YES! 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is why.

This whole article is why I abhor Wikipedia so much and wish it would crash, burn, and go away forever.71.245.207.16 (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Public documents

(Restored form archive for more thorough debate.)

"Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."

I can see no reason for not allowing these documents, used correctly. (Public documents of course is ... everything we can cite: I imagine what is meant is some kind of vague hand-wavy "official documents".) We extensively use election returns to support articles on politicians, we cite SCOTUS cases in articles about SCOTUS judges. Certainly we should not be using unsubstantiated witness statements as if they were fact, but this is a perfectly normal citing requirement. Nor should we be digging out personal information that doesn't belong in articles, but once again this is common sense. Rich Farmbrough, 18:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Agree with you at face value, but perhaps someone added this for some reason I now can't recall? --Cyclopiatalk 20:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that 'public documents' may not in fact refer to the person you think they do, and to confirm that they do sometimes needs OR. They may also include personal information that shouldn't be included in a BLP - addresses etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I am currently in a dispute about this issue at Mohamedou Ould Slahi. My suggestion would be to change "assertions" to "allegations" and another sentence that clearly states written opinions of court judges are not included in this category. Mnnlaxer (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Rich on this. An official filing, especially if sworn to, should be preferred over any newspaper article or book especially an autobiography or a biography written by a family member.
Despite the policy every contributor uses original research all the time. Original research is used whenever a contributor uses a search engine to find information on a subject. Original research is also used to determine which of the search results applies to the person who was meant because large, prominent families tend to reuse given names, sometimes within the same generation. JimCubb (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think "public records" would be a more appropriate phrase than "public documents". It better carries the flavour of birth certificates, real estate valuations, and similar incidental governmental data, which I assume is what's meant. --Avenue (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Rich, the crucial wording in that area is to support assertions; it is perfectly acceptable to cite facts about a person from public records and court documents (for example; findings). But assertions (i.e. speculation or opinion) is definitely a problem; citing allegations of wrong doing from a trial transcript is definitely a big problem btw you might want to go a bit more neutral on the central discussion template --Errant (chat!) 13:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a good point - certainly if it said "to support speculation and opinion" it would be clearer. Well I wanted it to be a hook - change it if you wish. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC).

Note: this section once said

Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details such as home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations and home or business addresses should not generally be used. Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are public records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publicly available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source.

(In other words the meaning in respect of legal filings was completely reversed)Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC).

ErrantX makes a good point, I think. We should be able to use "public records" as sources, but only where the statement being verified is not speculation, misleading, or anything of that sort. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw this on CENT, and I agree with Avenue, ErrantX, and Fetchcomms. "Public records" is clearer wording than "documents", and as long as the public records are used to source facts, and not, in effect, WP:SYNTH, then it makes entirely good sense to use them. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Trial sources and rulings are like any other source. They may contain primary (untested, undigested) first-hand material and claims, which is the view/claim of the speaker only. They may contain analysis, summaries or balanced collations of expert views, references to past cases or rulings, and other analysis to the point it probably has the standing of a secondary source. No need shown for any special rule or policy clause here. We already clearly say how sources may be used in BLPs (including covering problems like gosssip, speculation, original research, misleading, etc) and official trial sources etc are clearly reliable sources in the sense WP:RS means the term. Subject appears covered. Hence oppose more policy wording until a genuine need is shown that existing words don't already cover. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the view FT2 takes of what the policy is. But the present wording is grossly unsatisfactory, because it contradicts that view. The former wording above at {once said) comes nearer, , though it does not give the precision of FT2s statement.
The fact that the situation keeps arising in current controversial cases is reason for change. Another reason, and a good one, is that it contradicts basic policy. And finally, it's nonsense: it actually says we cannot use Supreme Court decisions! True, I have not seen that particular weird statement yet, but , as we unfortunately know, if something can be misinterpreted for someone's attempt to make a point, it will be. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Though BLP policy tends to be conservative, there's no reason why we can't have more comprehensive guidance, distinguishing between partisan legal briefs, lower court rulings vs. higher court rulings, facts vs. allegations, primary v. secondary source usage, etc. Court records are very valuable resources, so long as we can identify the cases where we don't want them used. I think we can do that while still emphasizing that significance can only be established by a secondary source, and that BLP writing should still err on the side of caution. Ocaasi (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
One problem with these kinds of primary sources is the cherry picking they allow: an editor can comb through hundreds of documents and insert tidbits they think are helpful to the POV they support into some article. I have seen this in BLPs and an article about a boot. Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Public documents are inherently unreliable, because they are primary materials. There is no editorial judgment, the accountability if any runs along completely different lines, and it is often impossible to know what they mean without bringing extrinsic knowledge to the table. There is certainly no way to judge the weight or relevance of a public document without adding our own interpretation as editors. Court filings are one of the most obvious examples (where, for example, a raw digest of someone's criminal charges, legal briefs, causes of action, etc., is almost completely unhelpful). But so too are all kinds of public filings. We can't dig up someone's old driver's license records to try to show where they lived, or their property deeds to show that they lived in a house. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Primary sources aren't always evil, though; we can use them for basic, noncontroversial details or carefully quote someone as having said something in [court case X], etc., no? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Court documents? No. See the first post in this thread. And this is a very good part of policy; see the comments of Johnuniq and Wikidemon. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
We can only use court documents and similar if secondary sources have already used them and we want to add slightly more detail. But the text must be for the most part supported by the secondary source, not the primary one. This is to make sure, for example, that someone doesn't pour through court documents searching for a person's messy—and otherwise unpublished—divorce details to add to their BLP. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Court decisions are often swept up in the primary source ban as "court filings" but IMO should be treated as secondary sources. Judges spend substantial time sifting and synthesizing the evidence before them before arriving at a conclusion--typically they do their job more carefully and accurately than many journalists on deadline. While I agree that many court documents, such as complaints and deposition transcripts, should not be used in biographies of living persons, I think that public decisions of trial courts of general jurisdiction should be cite-able regardless of whether they are reported in newspapers. In general, the judges themselves are a more accurate source for their own rulings than a newspaper article by a layman, who may garble or misstate the content. I would also like to see WP:BLP revised to reflect this--I have been involved in many debates here in which people cited it to exclude notable court decisions. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that court rulings are often poorly reported. From my experience with a couple of controversial New Zealand cases, court decisions seem to be a more reliable source than many newspaper articles for not only their ultimate rulings, but also the facts of the case. --Avenue (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
SV, your position about court decisions is not reasonable. They are records , but they are written by people who are experts in their subject, who write in the awareness of reviews by other courts, whose work is citable in the legal literature, who summarize the issues before them, whose decisions are authoritative. Sometimes they are not mere;y acceptable, but the best possible sources for BLP That a person has been convicted of a crime is best proven by the court record of the conviction--what a newspaper may same about it is of less reliability. If we want to call someone a murderer in a title or infobox, the court record is the reference needed. The facts in a civil dispute involving a person are as established by the court decision, and any secondary work based on it is of lesser authority--except, of course, another court decision (from a higher court). With respect to court arguments or pleadings or indictments, they're another matter, but can still be used for the opinions of the people who said them. The reason to take care is that sometimes editors here do not realize, and use such pleadings as if they established the facts of the matter. We can not call someone a murderer on the basis of an indictment, even if reported by secondary sources also. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
DGG is right. Affidavits, deposition, testimony, etc. are all primary sources, and are rightly excluded as not permissible--all they establish is that A said B about C, and a primary source cannot be used to establish anything with respect to a third party. Decisions, on the other hand, are legally established. If we can use them to call a convicted murderer a convicted murderer (and we can and do), then on what basis would we reject any other fact established by a court? To be sure, they are most appropriately reported with attribution as "X court found that...", just like any other reliable source. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The fact that A said B about C is sometimes relevant as well. I can't think of much that would be totally useless to us. I think it's misguided to say that "someone might dig up effectively unpublished dirt" to justify such a strict prohibition. We already have a section on low profile people. This prohibition most often gets invoked on very very high profile cases, where it makes the least sense. We aren't protecting anyone there, we are just lowering the quality of our coverage. Gigs (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I think people are mixing up reliability and desirability here. If it were relevant to an article then court verified contents of an affidavit they filed, their property deeds, or other public records are indeed reliable in the sense of WP:RS - we know who wrote them, we know that they can be verified, the source is of known reliability for the documents they hold, and they are valid sources for the words they state having been truly stated. Whether they are desirable to use, or should be avoided if possible, and if they merely speak to the author's view as a primary source, is a separate question. But in the sense that we would say a blog or tabloid is unreliable, a public record document is usually a reliable source for its contents. There is no reason to set a blanket ban on them. The question is more as others have said, what guidance we want to give on their use. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If court records are reliable enough to get you put to death or to take your money or property away from you, then why are some people on Wikipedia such pussies about using them? RenamedUser5 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP = GAY

Who came up with this policy? It seems really stupid, and gay, and, like, who cares? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenamedUser5 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I very much doubt that the BLP policy is "lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind"; "bright and showy" or homosexual. Your mileage might vary. NW (Talk) 21:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Year of Birth

Many years ago, circa 2006, we discussed eliminating the full birth date, and concluded that year of birth should be included for most people, but not month and day.

Recently, I've had private communication that asked to remove the year that she became active in her field, and also not include her year of birth. Perhaps she's being overly sensitive, but in the entertainment field, I understand sometimes there's rampant discrimination as women approach 40.

Actually, her month and day of birth are well known on various public social media. But she's done quite a bit to try to obscure her year of birth (that I've determined).

She's had an article for almost 4 years, with a notability tag (removed last August), and recently has been performing in front of tens of thousands (and televised before millions). The usual Category:Year of birth missing (living people) was added to the page some 14 months ago.

What to do? Leave the category, but add a bang comment in the source indicating that she's asked her age not be revealed? What about those folks running around with automated scripts?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Currently:

If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year.

Proposed:

If the subject complains about inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and omit the date. Add a comment in place of the date, such as:

<!-- subject requested birth date removal --> A similar comment must be added next to a related maintenance category:

[[:Category:Year of birth missing (living people)]]<!-- subject requested birth year removal -->


--William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Relevancy for ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality (WP:EGRS)

Further information: Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality § Relevance revisited

A contentious editor, All Hallow's Wraith (talk · contribs), has been trying to remove without discussion the long-standing requirement that all Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By gender, religion, race or ethnicity, and sexuality requires (at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#General):

4. Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest. Moreover, inclusion is not transitive to any other activity. (For example: a notable LGBT activist is not automatically included in a corresponding LGBT musician category, unless also notable for one or more LGBT-related music compositions or performances.)

Note that Wikipedia:Categorization#What categories should be created explicitly requires:

They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects, such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features. Examples of types of categories which should not be created can be found at Wikipedia:Overcategorization.

See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation:

Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently from a Lutheran or Methodist. Similarly, in criminology, a person's actions are more important than their race or sexual orientation. While "LGBT literature" is a specific genre and useful categorisation, "LGBT quantum physics" is not.

For many years (since 2006?), Wikipedia:Category_names#Heritage has specified:

Again, "notable".

Also, Wikipedia:Categorization of people applies to ALL people, living and dead.

As time progressed, it appears that the real underlying reason for removal is that it is frequently cited in WP:CFD decisions about ethnicity categories. S/he now claims that discussion here removed a notability requirement for Ethnicity in December, 2010. Could folks here please point to such discussion?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

wouldn't it make more sense to ask All Hallow's Wraith to point to the discussion - if he/she says it occurred, he/she should be able to find it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I did, twice. S/he hasn't replied.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The questions

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion, partly caused by the muddled wording of the policy and guidelines as they stand, and as they would still stand if this proposal were implemented, it might be more profitable to consider the relevant questions separately:

  1. When is it desirable to have categories (of people) based on (a) gender (b) sexual orientation (c) ethnicity (d) religion?
  2. When deciding whether to place a person's article into an existing category based on (a) gender (b) sexual orientation (c) ethnicity (d) religion, what additional criteria need to be considered over and above those that are normally considered when placing articles in categories? Do these extra criteria (if any) apply to all people or only to living people?

If we could get clear answers to these questions, it would be easy to word the relevant policies and guidelines to match.--Kotniski (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the same questions with regard to lists in place of categories.--Kotniski (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
These are always, or almost always, intersection categories. We don't have lists or categories of females, lists of bisexuals, Christians, etc. We have lists or categories (say) of African-American poets, or gay German playwrights, etc. It is desirable to have a list if: (a) the subject is notable in its own right, e.g. there are scholarly works, major reportage, etc., on the topic of African-American poets; and (b) there is a sufficient but reasonably limited number such that we can construct a useful list with sensible inclusion criteria. The fact that ethnicity is a social construct is neither here nor there. So is being a poet, and almost every other piece of humanistic knowledge. Once we've decided that there should be such a list or category, the next question is the inclusion criteria. In general it's up to the editors on a given page to decide on the criteria, and it's dangerous to legislate that from above. One problem is that ethnicity is different than gener, or sexual orientation, and also one ethnicity has different bounds than another. One is Native American in a very different way than one can be Hispanic, or African American, or First Nations in Canada, and one can be all at the same time. But at a minimum, I would say that there has to be strong enough reliable sourcing from a single source that a person fits all the categories. If one source says a person is African-American, and another says he is a poet, I don't think we can necessarily call him an African-American poet. You would have to find a source that calls him that. The question of a list's notability is fairly rooted in policy; the inclusion criteria is more of a discretionary thing about how we want to build an encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikidemon: Look again: there is Lists of Christians and Lists of Jews and several other broad lists. They serve a valuable purpose in the encyclopedia: indexing and searching. --Noleander (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, as super-lists and super-categories. If we have a list of Christians, and a list of writers, and a list of athletes, and a list of Norwegians, what's the big deal with intersections anyway? Is there a technical means where the reader can make their own intersections if they wish? If I want a list of all the Norwegian Christian writer-athletes, something that doesn't seem likely to stand around here, is there any kind of query I can run for that? I know people are talking about making Wikipedia content more database / semantic web friendly like that. That could make all this discussion moot. Just do away with all intersections in favor of a tool, and then header articles about the intersection as a subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly right. And until WP has some decent database query capability, we have to rely on the tools we do have now: Lists and Categories. And we should endeavor to make them as supportive of indexing & searching as possible. --Noleander (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me - how on earth, and for what legitimate means, would you want to classify biographies - especially those of living people - in this fashion? It has already been made abundantly clear that there is no way to construct these categories here in a way that is scientifically valid. Feketekave (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
How on earth? Sources. I'm not sure what science has to do with anything here. There are plenty of subjects, most really, that fall outside the scope of science. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree with Wikidemon's above response. Wikipedia follows the world of information—not the other way around. When sources say something is so—it is so. This project should not be about creating a new body of information that has been altered in ways that make it better fit our personal beliefs. Reliable sources dictate our content—not the other way around. WP:VERIFY says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." That does not mean that we are including untruth. It means we are including the real world—and yes—with all its blemishes. There is an alternative to this, but the alternative is worse. It is compiling the encyclopedia in accordance with "original research". I think standard policy frowns on "original research". Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Again: this is not about factual information. This is about how living individuals are classified and used. Feketekave (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- and this is why we already have other BLP guidelines stating what we may and may not do. Feketekave (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Feketekave—you say, "This is about how living individuals are classified and used." Can you please explain to me how individuals are being "used"?
On a similar note in a previous post you say: "There is so much leeway on this issue that there is barely any kind of fact, actual of false, here: rather, what is at issue is the exercise of the power of groups to conscript individuals or to classify other individuals according to blood." How are individuals being conscripted? I don't think that we are using individuals and I don't think that we are conscripting individuals. All that we are doing is following a lead set by reliable sources as concerns ethnicity, and we are doing so for the purposes of categorization.
I also find you saying at another post: "Ethnicity is a construct with strong ideological pressumptions. What these are depends exactly on what is meant by ethnicity; in the worst of cases, the usage of "ethnicity" in Wikipedia comes across as racial classification or attempts at group conscription that are out of place in an encyclopedia." Can you please tell me how categorization by ethnicity can be construed as "group conscription"? Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
That ethnicity is not a "fact" is a perfectly reasonable personal viewpoint. It is an opinion, which is the problem. Purging ethnicity from the encyclopedia because one doesn't believe in ethnicity is an extreme exercise, and not one reflective of the current state of human knowledge. Most major American universities, for example, have ethnic studies departments, concentrations, scholarship, etc.[2][3][4][5][6] It's quite a stretch to say that otherwise reliable sources - scholars, newspapers, books, government records, and so on - become opinion pieces when they describe someone's ethnicity. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Pardon the sarcasm in advance ... because I'm sure those ethnic studies programs are training a slew of young scholars in the discipline of creating and maintaining lists of Armenian race car drivers. There is zero correspondence between the academic understanding of ethnicity and the nationalistic back patting going on when editors who self-identify as this or that decide to list everyone else who is notable and can possibly also be called this or that. Sorry, but I find this argument bordering on offensive to all the scholars who take ethnic studies seriously. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo—you refer to "…the nationalistic back patting going on when editors who self-identify as this or that decide to list everyone else who is notable and can possibly also be called this or that." Can you give an example of this? Bus stop (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but it goes beyond "nationalism" strictly speaking. I meant the comment more generally to include other group identities like ethnic and religious ones, for instance. I used only "nationalistic" out of convenience. Here are some recent prominent examples: Andre Geim and List of Jewish Nobel laureates (as well as the relevant category) and Ed Miliband and List of atheists in politics and law (as well as the relevant category). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo—how do you see "nationalistic back patting" manifesting itself in the examples that you have given? You mentioned: "Andre Geim and List of Jewish Nobel laureates (as well as the relevant category) and Ed Miliband and List of atheists in politics and law (as well as the relevant category)." Can you please tell me what would lead you to believe that "nationalistic back patting" was taking place? Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
In those cases we're talking about ethnic and religious back patting, though Geim also had Category:Russian Nobel laureates (which is nationalistic) slapped on the entry as well before I removed it. I'm not sure what you don't understand about these examples? Individuals who identify with the groups in question argued and even edit warred to keep Geim labeled as a member of their group despite rather obviously not meeting our criteria. Why? Because he's a Nobel laureate and people want the pride of that fact associated with their group. That's what I mean by "back patting". "Good job guys, another one of us is awesome!" The same issue was going on with Miliband and his supposed "atheism". These two examples were also seminal in getting the wider discussion going about this aspect of our BLP policy. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No one here has suggested that we erase "ethnicity" from the encyclopedia altogether. Not in the least. Sorry, but that's just plainly inaccurate.Griswaldo (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I do find the effort to get rid of ethnicity on Wikipedia borderline offensive. That's the clear subtext, and often the overt text - it gets stated again and again in these arguments that ethnicity is nonsense so we shouldn't cover it even though the sources do. The relation between scholarly conceptions of ethnicity and including ethnicity in the encyclopedia is precisely the relation between scholarly conceptions of any topic and including it in the encyclopedia. It's a part of the corpus of human thought, it gets written about, and we compile it for the encyclopedia. If you want to dismiss the editors who care about this as engaging in nationalistic back-slapping, well, maybe that's where the sarcasm begins. I have no opinion or knowledge about Armenian race car drivers, but recent weeks have seen failed campaigns to get rid of Jewish-American entertainers, Irish Americans in sports, Italian-American architects, and plenty of other significant topics. This has been going on for months, perhaps years. There's an ongoing campaign to change the nature of Wikipedia's coverage of ethnicity. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Again I don't see any arguments in this discussion about removing ethnicity from the encyclopedia. Scholars don't compose lists of Swedish-American knitting champions, by the way. I don't think anyone has a problem with well sourced entries on meaningful intersections that have significant coverage in reliable sources, and yes I mean even those dealing with ethnicity. That's simply not the same thing however, as claiming that any intersection with ethnicity in it is inherently meaningful. Especially when it is sourced via sources that have no inherent expertise in ethnic studies (newspapers, etc.). My point is that you're trivializing the work done on ethnicity in the academy by suggesting that these things are comparable. The sources used to categorize people by ethnicity in the encyclopedia are going to be 99% non-expert sources. Given that fact alone, I wonder why there is such an uproar over being more careful when it comes to living people. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Last time I checked newspapers were reliable sources. Some people do have trouble with meaningful intersections. I don't see anyone here advocating that all ethnicity intersections are worthy, or for Swedish-American knitters in particular (although you never know what may receive serious coverage). What I do see on this page is advocacy that ethnic categories should be removed despite the sourcing, and some opinionated statements on the nature of ethnicity. I had mentioned American Jewish entertainers, Irish-Americans in sports, and Italian-American architects, all amply sourced. Scholars generally don't compose lists of any sort, but they do write on various topics, ethnicity included. The scholarship establishes the noteworthiness of the subject, the news accounts establish the verifiability of the list items. Am I trivializing the scholarship of jazz music by saying we can use newspapers to source who is a jazz violinist? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The scholarship establishes the noteworthiness of the subject, but it does not establish the noteworthiness of the list of X people based on labels thrown around in a popular news media. Your argument suggests a connection there that simply does not exist. Regarding jazz violinists, I have no expectation that the category is populated in a manner that respects the scholarly understandings of jazz. And why would I? Regarding ethnicity, I don't have that expectation either, but that is exactly the point. That's why we need stricter criteria for things like ethnicity, religion, and sexual preference, because unlike being called a jazz violinist, being categorized as, for example, Croatian, an atheist or a homosexual can be quite contentious, even at times, dangerous. I should also add that the music example is particularly poor here, since the popular media industry involved in labeling musicians has much more expertise in the subject than the general news media has on ethnicity. But I don't want to sidetrack the main point. These types of lists, when they exist, will always be populated in a way that has no direct connection to the scholarship not he subject, and that is absolutely to be expected. Given that fact, we need to figure out how to deal with them most appropriately, and to do so with each specific context in mind. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
You can't call someone a Jew because being Jewish is more contentious than being a saxophonist? That in itself is a contentious position, and reflects the POV I am concerned about - some people are uncomfortable about ethnicity so they want to deny it. Populating a list of Jewish American entertainers because there is a nexus between Jews in America and being an entertainer is no different than populating a list of anything else. You establish through the sources that the topic is worthy, you find sourceable examples, and you list the examples. Incidentally, I cannot grant that scholars are a better source than journalists at noting a person's ethnicity. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Who said you can't call someone Jewish? Did I miss something? Here I thought that we were discussing a stricter policy when it comes to categorizing someone as X ethnicity and not a proposal to do away with all ethnic labels across the project. That you constantly require a straw man to argue against is rather telling here, and indicative of why its pointless for me to continue. You're not disagreeing with your interlocutors, you're disagreeing with an caricature of their arguments. Yes Wikidemon, it is a fact that it is more contentious to call someone a Jew (on average) than it is to call someone a saxophonist. It follows that we should be more cautious when we do so -- and that is what is actually being proposed here. I'm sorry that I can't live up the black and white farce of an argument you are trying to pin on me, but I'm just more comfortable with arguments I actually believe in than those you want to put in my mouth. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, don't blow your lid over this with the edit summary,[7] it's just an encyclopedia. You didn't miss anything, you're just advocating a result then denying that's your goal. The proposal as worded would do away with many of the Jewish-American X categories that have already withstood deletion attempts, and depopulate those that remained, resulting (if adopted and enforced, which appears unlikely at this point) in a broad removal of ethnic categorization from the encyclopedia. I disagree strongly with these efforts because they delete a lot of important encyclopedic content from the project that is of particular interest to people who are interested in ethnicity. Also troublesome, much of the support for this effort is very aggressive and uncivil, accompanied by taunting, word games, and sarcasm, and accompanied by a troublesome explicitly stated POV that ethnicity does not matter and that people should pay less heed to ethnicity. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo—you expound at length about the improper motives of other editors but you portray your own motives as pure. You say, "On a related note, I'm firmly against the use of Wikipedia to promote the various social groups that some Wikipedians belong to", and also you say "We are not a social network for people who are interested in reaffirming their own personal sentiments of national or ethnic belonging." Why are other editors acting improperly while you are acting properly? How do you reach this conclusion that another editor's wish to include ethnicity for a notable individual who is the subject of a biography is improper while your wish to not note ethnicity is somehow proper? You say, "Let's leave the identity politics to the blogosphere and spend our time writing an encyclopedia." I don't understand how you make this distinction between another editor's wish to put sourced information into the project and your wish to keep that sourced information out of the project. Editorial disagreements are normal but there isn't a blanket right or wrong concerning ethnicity. I disagree with you on other points as well. For instance I am not suspicious of people's motivations. I do not care if it is boosterism for one's own ethnic group that motivates editors to wish to note in an article the ethnicity of a notable individual. Their motivation does not enter into the calculations as to whether that bit of information should stay or not. I also don't know how you know what motivates someone else. But the bottom line is that the information regarding ethnic identity for a notable person has to be evaluated by Wikipedia standards. We have a Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard that can help with that. We have of course the quotidian article Talk page. These decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. Also—how does a minority ethnicity group of editors outweigh the much larger group of editors who do not belong to that ethnicity? You talk about what has to be a small ethnic minority of editors engaging in "back patting". Wouldn't consensus prevent a small handful of editors from putting spurious claims of ethnic identity into an article on a notable individual? I fail to see how an ethnic clique of editors can gain consensus support since the far larger group of editors paying attention to any article is not likely to be members of that particular ethnic identity. If there is editorial disagreement there are probably some sources to support each side of a disagreement. I simply don't care about the hypothetical ethnic pride of an editor. It completely escapes me why that is part of an argument for a policy change. Sources are what matter—we examine sources. We see how well sources support material for potential inclusion in articles and/or categories. Bus stop (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Ethnicity as a social construct is a valid topic for academic study. To study it, you need to recognise what it is - a social construct. The fact that some editors cannot progress beyond their own obsession with vacuous ethno-tagging in order to actually understand the phenomenon is no reason to surrender to their obsessions. I 'believe' in ethnicity in the sense that I believe (actually, I know) that it is a typical part of social discourse in many (if not most) societies. I do however believe (actually, again, I know) that there is nothing 'real' to ethnicity beyond the constructs of those who consider it significant. Furthermore, all the evidence suggests that even in the minds of those who see it as 'real', it is a fluid, amorphous and contextual concept, rather than a fixed 'attribute'. Or to put it another way, an opinion. Nobody is suggesting that ethnicity as a subject shouldn't be discussed on Wikipedia - all that is required is that we discuss it for what it is, not as some form of barcode. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—reliable sources determine what material gets included in Wikipedia. I find at WP:SOURCE that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." You say, "I do however believe (actually, again, I know) that there is nothing 'real' to ethnicity beyond the constructs of those who consider it significant." If reliable sources support unequivocally an ethnicity for a person, then that ethnicity becomes "real", for our purposes. You may feel strongly that "…there is nothing 'real' to ethnicity beyond the constructs of those who consider it significant" but I don't think the encyclopedia has to follow your beliefs. Wikipedia's principles concern themselves with the presenting in a neutral way what sources say—on all topics. When a reliable source supports an ethnicity for an individual that is mentioned in an article, that ethnic identity becomes potentially usable material for the project. Bus stop (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Bus Stop, I am no longer interested in debating with you what you think is 'real' or reliable'. If you wish to ignore the research of sociology, anthropology, psychology, historiography, and almost every other relevant discipline of academic research, and assert that ethnicity has a 'reality' beyond being a social construct, there is little point in arguing. You are wrong. Fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—I am not "assert[ing] that ethnicity has a 'reality' beyond being a social construct". I have not said that. Reliable sources determine, for the purposes of the Wikipedia project, what a person's ethnicity is, as well as if indeed they have an ethnicity at all. We go by sources. You should not think that because you believe that ethnicity is merely a social construct that it is not material that is reportable in an encyclopedia. Sources determine inclusion/exclusion. Editorial consensus does too. This is standard operating procedure—applicable to ethnicity as to myriad other types of information. Bus stop (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Social constructs aren't encyclopedic subjects? That would mean deleting 99% of the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
So if you don't approve of a topic, the editors who do are obsessing? I think I understand Jewishness as well as the next guy, and it is a very real thing, thank you. The notion that qualities that are fluid and multivariate are not attributes seems a little simplistic, epistemologically. Human knowledge is not a relational database. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
"Human knowledge is not a relational database". Precisely. So why should we pretend it is, and have a Boolean 'Jew'/'not Jew' field in our Wikipedia BLPs? Of course 'Jewishness is' real (as is Irishness', or 'South Londoner' or...), but we need to recognise the sense in which it is real, and the limitations this puts on the extent to which it has meaning. And no, I've seen nobody object to ethnicity as a topic. What is being objected to is the arbitrary way it is applied by POV-pushing editors and ethnic train-spotters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—you say, "…we need to recognise the sense in which it is real, and the limitations this puts on the extent to which it has meaning." No, we do not. Sources do that for us. We do not have to "recognise the sense in which it is real". Sources, if they are reliable and authoritative and reputable, determine whether something is real or not. You are perfectly justified in wondering if an ethnic identity "has meaning." But your doubts should not keep sourced material out of an article. Bus stop (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Bus Stop, will you please stop spamming this thread with repeated postings of exactly the same simplistic argument - other contributors have moved beyond this, and are actually trying to discuss the issue in a constructive manner. Your complete refusal to answer the point that others make, and endless repetition of the words 'reliable sources' suggests to me that your only objective is to side-track rational debate. Wikipedia has never been a repository for random 'facts' dragged from sources, reliable or otherwise. It is an encyclopaedia, and as such has always relied on editorial judgement regarding the relevance of sourced data. Furthermore, where such data is frequently ambiguous, as 'ethnicity' is, it has long been the policy to avoid stating as fact things which are better attributed to the words of those claiming them, when such claims are included at all. If you think that Wikiopedia should change its policy in this regard, and simply include any 'fact' found in any 'reliable source' with no discussion as to reliability, meaning, or relevance, you are arguing in the wrong place. If you have nothing constructive to add to this discussion I suggest you find some other forum or topic instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—I agree with you that "editorial judgement" is called for. I thought I made myself clear that only when sources are of good quality and make their assertions without ambiguity do we follow their lead. We would also exercise a great deal of caution if various sources contradicted one another. Just as anything can be included in Wikipedia, so can anything be excluded. The sort of material we are discussing is only potential material for inclusion. "Editorial judgement" is always available as a counterbalance to those attempting to add junk to biographies: even if an ethnic attribute is reliably sourced, an editorial decision can be made to leave it out. The place for making this sort of decision should be the article Talk page. Editors at articles are more than capable of weighing the applicable factors in order to reach conservative decisions, and we also have the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard which is well-used and seems entirely capable of resolving these sorts of questions on a case-by-case basis while bringing to bear the input of a large number of editors. In my opinion we should build flexibility into our processes. I'm opposed to limiting the options available to editors. I'm also opposed to limiting the number of editors involved in day-to-day decisions.
I don't take the negative view that there is a great deal of self-promotion going on here vis-a-vis "tagging" notable individuals on the basis of shared-membership in an ethnic group. In one post you have said, "…that some editors cannot progress beyond their own obsession with vacuous ethno-tagging in order to actually understand the phenomenon is no reason to surrender to their obsessions". And in a subsequent post you have said, "What is being objected to is the arbitrary way it is applied by POV-pushing editors and ethnic train-spotters."
I don't think what you are describing is widely practiced. And I am not sure that even if it is practiced that it is necessarily all that harmful. The success of Wikipedia I think has something to do with the enormous number of editors providing input to it. That implies that any ethnic group that may be represented by editors is small in relation to all editors. In short I think you are "making a mountain out of a molehill" and you are in support of a policy change that will further reduce the autonomy of the multitudinous editors that are probably a key ingredient in this project's success. I'm opposed to limiting the flexibility of editors and I am opposed to limiting the number of editors involved in these decision-making processes. Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Question: What does the issue of ethnicity being a social construct have to do with BLPs? BLP exists for a reason. That reason is not to push through any policy or sub-policy you like simply because you can't think of another place to put it. If you don't like the ethnicity categories and want to curb them, this desire and opinion has nothing to do with why BLP was created. At least not in the way it's being argued by AndyTheGrump and a few of the others. It's the equivalent of putting in what should and should not be in the opening paragraph of an article into the BLP rules instead of into WP:MOSBIO - could be useful or not useful, but totally unrelated to what this page is here for. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

All Hallow's Wraith makes a good point.
Why are some of you arguing about "nationalistic back patting", and "ethno-tagging", and "POV-pushing editors and ethnic train-spotters"?
At WP:BLP I read the page in a nutshell: "Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research."
I agree with All Hallow's Wraith that the complaints that some of you are making are out of place at WP:BLP. Bus stop (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
We aren't 'arguing'. We are pointing out that ethnic categorisation is neither 'verifiable', or 'neutral' in any fundamentally objective sense, and has no place in a neutral encyclopaedia, unless given proper context - which WP lists and categories singularly fail to do. Hence the debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Excellently put. Feketekave (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Really? So I see that Barack Obama is listed in Category:African American lawyers. Do you actually believe that Obama's membership in the ethnic group "African-American"—widely reported, relevant to his notability, self-identified, etc.—is "unverifiable" and "non-neutral"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What we have here is plainly a case of confusion between "verifiability as the standard of truth" as a policy and as some sort of guiding principle. If taken as a principle, it is clear that it does not apply here; the statements we are discussing are not statements of fact, and it is extremely important not to use the principle to magically make them into statements of fact. There are, needless to say, other principles that are at least as important and do apply here: namely, scholarly seriousness and, of course, respect for the autonomy of living individuals. (This last point is why this discussion arose as a discussion of BLP guidelines.)

It is my humble opinion that, if taken as a policy, verifiability does not apply here either: on top of the arguments given before, there is also a slew of practical issues (a source that classifies a living individual in a simplistic way will defeat 99 sources that do not do so, simply because a mention defeats absence). Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, we need explicit guidelines that overrides a naive or willful understanding of verifiability as a policy. BLP already provides some; we are arguing for an additional guideline that is at least as justified as all the other ones. Feketekave (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My answers to the questions brought by Kotniski are:

  1. Whenever there is an agreement of sources on the issue.
  2. No other criteria; perhaps defaulting to not cataloguing if sources indicate a controversy but nothing more.

Wikipedia is based around WP:V and around WP:RS. If verifiable reliable sources agree on ethnicity, religion or whatever else, we have not only the right, but the duty towards our readers to properly catalogue such information to help our readers find information. To cut it short:

  • Ethnicity may be a social construct (this is an opinion, not a fact: as a molecular biologist, I can say that genetics would beg to -partially- differ), but this is entirely irrelevant. "Singer", "poet" or "politician" are social constructs as well. A socially constructed belonging is no less real than a material one, given that society and its network of constructs is a very real thing.
  • In any case, we follow sources, we do not bend WP to our own philosophical views. So, if sources regularly use, even if only for the sake of brevity, ethnicity as a meaningful category (and they do), then we follow that, because it means it is considered a meaningful way to categorize the subject by sources.
  • If there is a substantial controversy or disagreement between sources, I agree that a clear-cut categorization cannot be made, and so we should refrain from use such labels. This I agree, to respect WP:NPOV. Otherwise, we're creating a problem where there is none. --Cyclopiatalk 12:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Perfect. Can that be our policy please? --FormerIP (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
No. For one thing, we have the right to select how to present our material; this is why we have policies to begin with. For another, "ethnicity" (a relatively recent invention as a popular concept, as somebody else pointed out) is a subjective construct in a much deeper sense than, say, "politician" - and it is so in ways that are related to the basic issues underlying BLP policy. People choose to be politicians. As for the networks (plural!) of belonging that people construct for themselves, the networks that are built for them by others, and what third parties project onto them, they are three entirely different things. The drive to ethnicise English Wikipedia (compare to fr.wikipedia.org or de.wikipedia.org!) is extremely unlikely to result from some sort of pure fundamentalism regarding the way that Wikipedia should reflect other material; rather, it is an attempt in itself to gain a space for the construction of ethnicity. (I was about to type "ethnic nationalism", but that may be the case only for a part of all participants considering one side of the issue.)
We can and should have articles on ethnicity, just like we do and should have articles on theology. Shall we categorise all biographical subjects into Saved and Damned whenever any source deemed to be reliable gives information towards the same? Feketekave (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


  • we have the right to select how to present our material : Yes, of course. This doesn't mean that, as serious reliable editors, we should take our philosophical/political/whatever whims and happily use them to remove or add whatever we enjoy. As a matter of principle and as a matter of fact, we follow WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Even WP:BLP after all doesn't do anything different than calling to apply slightly stricter standards and being a bit more cautious on these principles. We may have a right to decide (not select) how to present stuff, but we shouldn't have the right to ignore what sources say due to our philosophical inclinations. This would fly in the face of NPOV for a start. We may not like that sources talk about ethnicity of people, but they do with impressive regularity, and we should follow them.
  • ethnicity" [...] is a subjective construct in a much deeper sense than, say, "politician" - To be fair, it's the opposite. I can analyze your mitochondrial DNA and guess, with a reasonable confidence, if your mother is of relatively recent African or European or Native American descendence, for example. See haplogroup for discussion. I am fully aware this doesn't fulfill the meaning of "ethnicity" as it is understood culturally, but there is an objective basis to at least part of it: it's in your DNA, in your very molecules building your body here and now. Now, of course I am aware that most sources don't do DNA testing of their subjects and merely report descendence and/or apparent ethnicity, and are fine with that. But again: if they do so (and they do), the same we do.
Note: I am fine with putting something like "People considered to be X" rather than a simple "People of ethnicity X", to make clear that it's a classification that sources do and that may or may be not 100% objective. Yet if sources consider people to be X (whatever X is), then why should we self-censor to avoid reporting that?
  • As for the networks (plural!) of belonging that people construct for themselves, the networks that are built for them by others, and what third parties project onto them, they are three entirely different things. : Different why, in what meaning, and how is this relevant?
  • rather, it is an attempt in itself to gain a space for the construction of ethnicity. : This is a very serious WP:AGF violation and I ask you to retract. I don't care if it's ethnicity, religion or "People who are considered to like Kermit the Frog". I personally care about a thorough encyclopedia and I care about not letting our personal philosophical opinions remove what other readers could consider useful or otherwise interesting reliably sourced information (or a useful/interesting criterion to search within WP). We should remember we're doing this for the readers. It's not a game that we play to be politically correct: it's a service we provide to reorganize, sum up and put information in the most useful and complete way to the readership.
  • Shall we categorise all biographical subjects into Saved and Damned whenever any source deemed to be reliable gives information towards the same? : I am not aware of it being used as a meaningful categorization by many sources but in case it is so, why not? --Cyclopiatalk 17:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky

Looking for input on an FA article that is having a slow edit war the past 6 months - pls see Talk:Wayne Gretzky#Nationality removed from lead. Thank you allMoxy (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E: is it really part of policy?

I've been involved in a couple of AfD's and similar discussions where this section has been invoked and it isn't proving particularly convincing. Policy is usually more or less the established consensus of the community. If the consensus is that "famous for a day" human interest stories where there are abundant sources (i.e. WP:V is satisfied) even when the person's long term notability is dubious or depends on what happens next should, per the AFD, have an article in spite of WP:BLP1E, should we re-evaluate the presence of that section in this policy? BLP is a little more complicated in that more than the community's consensus goes into writing policy, of course, but this appears to be a WP:N issue rather than the types of issues that make BLPs have special interest. At the very least, this section needs to be rewritten so that it isn't negated on a regular basis. SDY (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If BLP1E is negated on a regular basis then that sounds like there is an issue (of course, it is fine for editors to make rational decisions that it doesn't apply). Are you able to provide any examples? --FormerIP (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the one I'm stuck with now is WP:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr., which appears to be a fairly obvious case of "one eventism" but the deletion discussions have been anything but obvious. There are a couple of others referenced in that discussion (e.g. Sullenberger, can't remember his whole name, but that airline pilot with the "successful" crash), Nadya Suleman (aka "Octomom" which has two articles), and there are likely others. The reality is that in this age of 24-hour news, finding reliable sources on these people isn't really all that hard when they take their fifteen minutes of fame before disappearing into obscurity again. SDY (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, SDY, but I don't think those examples illustrate your point very well. Daniel Hernandez Jr is a current AfD, and looks to be leaning towards being merged. Chesley Sullenberger appears to have independent notability as an author and air safety expert (I know nothing about him, but if he does then he does). I can't for the life of me see why we need separate articles for Nadya Suleman and Suleman octuplets, but I'm not sure this is a great example of a breach of BLP1E. Per the wording of the guideline, I'd say that Suleman's involvement in her own pregnancy is "substantial and well-documented". Should an article for Sixth pregnancy of Nadya Suleman be created instead?
Overall, it looks to me that these are examples of borderline cases where you have an opinion, rather than evidence of widespread disregard for the guideline. --FormerIP (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't dispute that these are cases where I have an opinion (well, other than Sullenberger, which I was never invovled with). The Hernandez case shows, though, that for policy BLP1E isn't very authoritative in that it was no less obvious a 1E case at the first AFD and yet the first AFD closed as no consensus. Given the very loose nature of 1E, wouldn't it be better classified as a guideline? SDY (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the first AfD was wrongly decided, but that's going to happen from time to time and it isn't evidence of a crisis. I don't think 1E is loose. It does sometimes go against what people instinctively feel, but the same can be said for any policy and it just shows why we need written rules, at the end of the day. --FormerIP (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In some cases the background to the individual involved in the event is of key importance in understanding the outcome of the event; for instance the media coverage of Chesley Sullenberger made it clear that due to the unique experience and history of Sullenberger made him unique in his ability to successfully achieve a water landing of a commercial aircraft. The fact that this was expressed by so many reliable sources (on an international level) makes it notable and something that we should record to allow our readers to fully understand the event that took place and it's outcome. However in that case that information could not be merged into US Airways Flight 1549 as it is WP:UNDUE so it is better it stand alone in it's own article independent of Sullenberger's other notability. The same can often be applied to other notable heroes,victims, assassins, and terrorists. This is already menitoned in BLP1E in relation to John Hinckley, Jr. but perhaps it could be clearer to that effect as WP:1E already is? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Random idea

One of the concerns that has been raised here is that we have no idea if a new article is a BLP. Would it be possible to add a radio button or somesuch to the article creation page that indicates that it's a BLP? Something that'd be obvious and newbie-friendly to find. If a BLP is found as a new article that's not properly tagged (i.e. if there's any evidence of an attempt to evade detection) that would be a serious red flag that would warrant at least temporary protection until someone's had a look at it. Might also be able to construct a bot to identify possible new BLPs (i.e. anything that has a living person type infobox, anything with a birthday, anything with a lot of "he" or "she", et cetera). SDY (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about putting something into the article creation process, but I'd be very cautious about a bot to identify as yet unidentified BLPs. If you ran a selection for "anything with a lot of "he" or "she"" excluding articles in the category living people then I'd expect a list full of articles about fictional characters, films and teams. Better in my view to encourage more new page patrollers to install hotcat and at least put new BLPs into the category living people. ϢereSpielChequers 15:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the bot would have to be fairly conservative (i.e. at best flagging articles for a human reviewer rather than actually taking action, generating a "pot_BLP" report) The article creation process could have a "wizard" (to borrow a windows term) that could lead to some basic categorization and a little bit of template. Might actually make it easier for new users to create articles. I know the first one I wrote was a lot of opening other articles and copy-pasting formatting. For WP:MED as an example there are some "templates" for articles, and inserting those directly into a "new" article would help users follow the suggested outline. Maybe more general a suggestion rather than a specific BLP issue. It's a question of whether it's useful to new users, as the veterans will likely just skip the wizard and go "raw". SDY (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Bah, I'm blind. Turns out the wizard already exists, I've just never seen it used. SDY (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I suspect there are already reports of possible BLPs, hence the batches of previously unidentified unreferenced BLPs that occasionally turn up. But working out the criteria for an additional one that had a high enough success rate for someone to think it worth going through could be tricky. Also that wouldn't help us identify BLPs before they were created, whilst an enhanced article creation wizard could. Changing the article creation interface so that more new BLPS were categorised as such could well be possible. I would envisage something that asked the article creator a few questions about the article and thereby derived some of the categories. If it got a yes to the questions Is this a biography? And is this person still alive? Then why not go on to specify that we need a source for that article. Plenty of newbies do use the wizard, so improving it would pay dividends. ϢereSpielChequers 16:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I've made a suggestion at WP:Village pump (technical) to have a "wizard by default" option that would encourage people to use it. Experienced vandals and hatchetmen will of course avoid that step. Are there statistics on "problem BLPs" regarding whether they're being created by new users (and/or socks) as opposed to simply tendentious editors? Autosemi-protection was apparently considered of marginal utility because the serious problems with BLPs are not always vandalism. SDY (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
There are various options for automatically semi protecting articles, ranging from flagged revisions where edits go live but are marked as not yet approved, to pending changes where edits which don't go live until approval and semi protection where newbies can't edit. DE wikipedia and some other languages have implemented flagged revisions, we have a majority here but possibly not consensus for pending changes - though not for all articles. I understand that some of the minority who oppose this don't think that it is effective at reducing vandalism, or don't think that what has reduced vandalism in other languages would work here. I believe they are wrong and I very much doubt that we will see DE wikipedia opening up to vandalism by getting rid of flagged protection.
I doubt if we have stats on creation of problem BLPs or that stats could be easily compiled, but the new researcher right includes access to deleted contributions, so in future we may see research on Wikipedia that includes or even concentrates on deleted stuff, rather than the current blind spot where most of the serious research on Wikipedia is done by people who don't have access to deleted edits.
If by problem BLPs you mean the sort that get deleted as attack pages then in my experience they are almost all by new accounts, no way to tell how many are socks and how many are newbies, but accounts don't last long if they create attack pages. If by problem BLPs you mean unsourced, poorly sourced or non-notable, then the vast majority but not all are created by newbies or are hanging around from the early days of the project. However the proportion of these that are problematic in terms of libel etc is tiny. In my experience our real BLP problem is not new articles but unsourced, fraudulent or poorly sourced inappropriate info added to existing articles, some but by no means all of which are BLPs. ϢereSpielChequers 18:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Has anyone ever done a study or evaluation of the BLP noticeboard to tabulate the types of BLP problems? Would this type of study be useful? Honestly, I'm done with what I'm going to WP:WikiOtter for the WP:MED collaboration of the month and I'm going to be sitting around on planes and in airports all day friday with little to do. SDY (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closed (again). The overall result is no consensus for most elements of the proposed change. The one element that appears to have consensus support is the addition of 'ethnicity' to the language regarding placing BLPs in categories. Extended closed rationale below.

In effect, four significant changes to the wording were being proposed:

  1. Adding 'ethnicity' to the language about categories.
  2. Adding 'gender' to the language about categories.
  3. Adding 'ethnicity' to the language about lists, templates and infoboxes.
  4. Adding 'gender' to the language about lists, templates and infoboxes.

Only a minority within the discussion clearly supported the proposed changes in toto, arguing from past precedent and the importance of careful attention to verifiability and notability when dealing with BLPs. Despite these arguments, a majority rejected the inclusion of 'gender', arguing in part that because gender is usually obvious and any special restrictions on assigning gender-based categories was unnecessary instruction creep.

The inclusion of language about both categories and lists, etc., confused the discussion somewhat. Some supporters spoke only about categorization, but did not clearly qualify their support to that portion of the proposal. Some opposed the application of the language to lists in particular, because list articles provide more opportunity for qualification and explanation, but did not address whether templates and infoboxes had this same opportunity. Because of this, I cannot see a clear consensus in the discussion for applying any of the changes proposed to the list/template/infobox language.

Clearly this is a contentious discussion, with strong opinions all around. There are also, unfortunately, concerns about the proposer's behavior in soliciting participation from other editors and also seeking out a particular admin to close the discussion. These combined to create a lot of side discussion that does not directly bear on the changes proposed. For any future discussions around this topic (which I'm sure will not go away), I would encourage the opening of a full RFC with notices at the Village Pump and other venues, rather than attempts to notify individual editors. Splitting out the different points for discussion might also help the clarity of the results. --RL0919 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 31 § Relevancy for ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality (WP:EGRS)

To reduce quibbling about different wording in different guidelines, existing wording should be inserted here to match WP:EGRS.

Also, change the redundant wording "belief or orientation" to "information" in two places; this will shorten and simplify the sentence structure.

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the information in question; and this information is relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
...
These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and/or {{infobox}} statements that are based on ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or suggest that persons have a poor reputation.

Ethnicity, Gender, day 1

The WP:EGRS guideline applies only to Categories. Your proposal above extends that guideline to Lists. Yet Lists are vastly different that categories because List articles can (and often do, especially in contentious areas) supply context, footnotes, sources, and nuances. You may want to consider re-submitting this proposal but limit it to Ethnicity (not Gender) and limit it to Categories (not Lists). --Noleander (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
No, that has already been decided. In fact, this should reduce conflicts, because Lists and Templates are annotated with "context, footnotes, sources, and nuances." I'm sorry you don't like it.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
What was already decided? My prior comment had several sentences in it. --Noleander (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that "already decided" in relation to WP:EGRS is quite a bit misleading. This text was added into that guideline in July 2009 by... William Allen Simpson. It was added there after being brought up on the talk page by... William Allen Simpson. No one else wrote in in support at the time. When I tried to remove it from the page, citing lack of consensus, I was reverted by... William Allen Simpson. So to keep citing that "policy" as having "been decided" is quite a bit misleading. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Certainly, many guidelines were drafted and committed by me over the past half dozen years, as was an earlier version of this policy section. That does not make them any less valid. Decisions about policy and guidelines are often decided elsewhere than the talk page, while we often use the talk page to store the draft. Wraith's deletion of a valid 18+ months old guideline (without anything like proper notification) was ruled invalid after review by a neutral administrator. Wraith's wiki-lawyering is the reason we are here today. Could we stop wasting time talking about process, and concentrate on whether to add two words here to match WP:EGRS, and 5 other guidelines? You might notice the two words match "E" and "G"!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't matter how many guidelines you drafted. But citing a guideline that you wrote, discussed with yourself, added, and then reverted back, all without the help of a single other editor, is disingenuous. The neutral administrator you're talking about, after discussion with me on my talk page, ended up unsure as to who was right on the matter. I also love the fact that you're complaining about me deleting your guideline without "proper notification". I left a note on the talk page, just like you did. No one objected, so I deleted it - just like when you left a note on the talk page, no one objected, so you added it to the article in the first place. We both followed literally the same process to add and then delete that bit from the guideline. Why you think it has any validity whatsoever is beyond me. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I must concur with All Hallow on this point. This proposal seems like a one-man crusade, and is at odds with the wider consensus that has been established throughout WP in literally hundreds of Categories and Lists. It is frightening to contemplate the prospect that a few editors could push-through a policy change that would - overnight - cause the deletions of thousands of entries in Categories and Lists. --Noleander (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
It is frightening that we could have one editor delete the notability and relevance requirements at WP:EGRS, established after a long and arduous process taking several months, and having been stable for a long, long time (relative to Wikipedia history). Oh My Gosh, that's exactly what happened! Of course, that was Wraith.... Please re-read all the guidelines cited above. I've done my best to be clear and concise.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you two are carrying on about, but it's abundantly clear that there is no consensus among the Wikipedia community for the proposed restriction of ethnic categorization. Wiki-lawyering about who made a particular edit to particular guideline page is utterly besides the point. The community is not behind the proposed change. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - for ethnicity. 'Gender' however is a little difficult - taken literally this might be read as not being able to state whether a BLP was about a man, or a woman. I'm sure this wasn't the intent, but I think this needs clarification, or possibly further discussion as a separate rewording. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • It would only be a problem with transgender people, and I would support self-identification in that case. --JN466 01:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Agree with Jayen466. This is only about creating and including folks in categories. There's no reason to bother, unless it is relevant to their activities. The recent testing of the South American athlete comes to mind, although I don't remember the name. But we shouldn't exclude or include somebody, just because genetic testing says their self-identification is somehow "incorrect".
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ridiculous. I use Jason Derülo as an example once again. As the son of Haitian immigrants, he's obviously of Haitian descent. It's absurd to require that this fact be "notable to his public life" in order to be listed under Category:American people of Haitian descent. Why would we want to do that? It doesn't make any sense. Nor does requiring that his being "African American" be notable to his music in order to be listed under Category:African American musicians. Obviously, he's an African-American musician. What logical sense does it make not to categorize him as such? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    That is not the question. The only issue before us is whether BLP should be different than all other pages. All categories are required to be both notable and relevant. Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. The Jason Derülo article does not give any verified sources indicating African descent, and he does not self-identify as African American. In cited sources, he's of French and Haitian descent. Removed! We do not subscribe to the racist one drop rule, nor do we add folks to African American categories based merely on appearance as "not white".
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    What are you talking about? Who is this "our"? Under your proposal, Jason Derulo couldn't be listed under "American people of Haitian descent" unless this was notable to his music? Does that make any sense? No, it doesn't. And yes, obviously he's African-American, see here and here. Whether or not he self-identifies as African-American or Haitian-American wouldn't get him listed as an "African-American musician" or an "American of Haitian descent" anyway under your proposal, because some poor editor would apparently have to "demonstrate" that this is notable to his songs? Is this proposal for real? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the addition of "ethnicity". On gender, I doubt t hat restricting categorization by gender is plausible. How would we determine if a singer's gender was important enough to his/her notability to determine whether they go into something like "French female singers" vs. "French singers"? Would that mean that female sports players would automatically keep their "Women's..." categories, because most sports are segregated by gender? Unless we're actually prepared to eliminate all gender based categories, I doubt we could make the distinction usefully. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
If the fact that he is Haitian is notable, then it may be mentioned in a category. But if only the fact that he is a musician is notable, then it may not. That seems logical to me. There is no requirement that Haitian descent must be related to his musical activities. Debresser (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
According to this proposal, his Haitian ancestry should be "relevant to [his] notable activities or public life". Since Derülo's activities consist pretty much entirely out of his music career, that would mean his Haitian ancestry would have to be related to that to be listed under "American people of Haitian descent". Which doesn't sound like a good idea to me. If I'm a student doing a project on famous Americans of Haitian descent, it would be immensely helpful to me if he was listed in that category. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support in spirit. I would like to see some wording that recognizes that these categories are usually uncontroversial, especially gender, but leads to removal of unsourced categories if there is any controversy over them. Gigs (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    That's an excellent suggestion! (I remember you've made it before.) Let's do that after this certification process is complete. Always best to complete one thing at a time.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no reason given for the change, unless one is accepting of "to reduce quibbling" as a reason for the change. I feel the opposite is the case. Simplification is not called for here, necessarily. These attributes are different in fundamental ways from one another. In some instances some of these attributes of personal identity should be included in the article only if accompanied by self-identification; in other instances this is not called for at all. Ditto as concerns notability: in some instances it might be arguable that the relation between an attribute of identity and the person's reason for notability is so tenuous that inclusion is gratuitous and perhaps even contrived. Yet in other instances inclusion of attributes of identity may be warranted even if not related to notability—that is simply because the reader is understood to be interested in all relevant material. The simplification seen here in the interest of reducing quibbling is also going to be used by editors in their incessant arguments to keep material out of articles and to block categorization as concerns individuals. It is not unheard of for editors to have some very personally motivated reasons for mounting arguments to keep well-sourced and perfectly innocuous material out of articles and categories. I see no reason to enshrine in policy that all attributes need both self-identification and a relationship to notability. This gives more tools for censorship to those already inclined to exclude material from biographies that is not in violation of the spirit of WP:BLP. This is an abuse of WP:BLP. It encroaches on normal article-writing, including the categorization that facilitates the research aspects of the project that makes Wikipedia useful to readers. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    Again, that is not the question. The only issue before us is whether BLP should be different than all other pages. Do we permit these two methods of categorization for living people, and then delete them as they die? That seems very difficult to enforce and implement consistently. The folks at WP:CFD are overworked enough already.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
William Allen Simpson—WP:BLP involves sensitivity. This is a collaborative project—"quibbling" is what this project is about. You are suggesting substituting simplicity for sensitivity. I find the following language:"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity..." There is not any one applicable rule as to whether or not any attribute of personal identity should or should not be included in an article or in a category. This is for individual Talk pages of separate articles. We should not be providing language in policy for editors to exclude material based on reasons unrelated to the special sensitivities that should be accorded the biographies of living people. This is suggestive of an abuse of WP:BLP as you are not providing a reason for the suggested change. Reducing quibbling is not a reason. This is a collaborative project, where quibbling is intrinsic. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't entirely understand this - especially the bit about deleting categories when people die - but if we are going to categorize people by gender or ethnicity (and most of the time I'd prefer it if we didn't), I wouldn't have thought self-identification would be the criterion (it should be what reliable sources say, as with most things, plus a dollop of common sense).--Kotniski (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I generally agree, but self-identification isn't that bad. The real problem is "related to notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources". That means we couldn't list the son of Haitian immigrants as an "American person of Haitian descent" unless this was related to his profession? (even if he repeatedly self-identified) That doesn't make any sense. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support because the qualifier: "unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the information in question; and this information is relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources" is good all around! IZAK (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Because it is being applied to Lists as well as Categories. Lists (as has been discussed above in this Talk page) should not be lumped in with Categories in BLPCAT because Lists do permit "disclaimers and limitations" and other contextual information that Categories do no support. I have no objection to applying this proposal to Categories, but sweeping Lists along with the Categories is ill-considered. --Noleander (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    Again, that is not the question. The only issue before us is whether BLP should be different than all other pages. Language about "Lists along with the Categories" was added months ago. That bus has left the garage.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The proposal above adds words both into the Category text and into the List text. This proposal could just focus on the Category text. By choosing to add words to the List text, the proposer is deliberately continuing the (erroneous) treatment of Lists as the same as Categories. The proposal could easily be split into two parts. The proposer did not choose to do so, and so my Oppose vote remains. --Noleander (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Note It should probably be pointed that out that William Allen Simpson just keeps on Canvassing. He has successfully brought IZAK and Gigs and Jayen466 over here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    Notifying folks that proposed earlier versions of this text is required.
    • On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed.
    Indeed, I've not had time to complete all my notifications. I'll be working on that over the next few days, little by little.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Question - Im not too familiar with the BLPCAT policy history, but hasnt there been substantial discussion aboutList of Jewish Nobel laureates and how that list (based on ethnicity) was entirely valid (even though the ethnicity was immaterial to inclusion in the list)? I guess I'm asking for some habitue of this Talk page to re-cap the history of that topic. Would adopting this policy cause most (living) persons to be removed from that list article? If so, this policy absolutely should not be adopted. --Noleander (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
As some here know, the existence of precisely such lists is extremely controversial. Feketekave (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support pending further discussion. Although I think it may be useful to separate categories from lists and gender from ethnicities to gauge community support if there is no clear consensus forming here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • oppose Has the problem already brought up of fairly obvious cases where they haven't even bothered saying they fall into the category because it is so obvious. In general is unnecessary rule creep. We can rely on reliable sources just as much as we can rely on self-identification unless there's an obvious cause of controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Question for -William Allen Simpson - WAS: I've read your comments above, and most of your comments are directed at how the BLPCAT policy could guide a decision on whether to delete a given Category (e.g. you cite CFD, etc). Yet most editors, I believe, treat the BLPCAT as primarily guiding whether a given individual can be inlcuded in an existing (valid) Category. That is a huge difference. I think the wording of BLPCAT shows it is aimed more at the latter than the former, so you might want to re-cast your comments. --Noleander (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? We've long has this restriction in creating and naming categories. Simply following the criteria of Categorization, they should not exist. But they keep getting added to articles, and thus re-created, and WP:CFD has to clean them up (over and over again). The lack of prescriptivism in this policy is only the current wikilawyering rationale for adding ethnic or gender categories to articles.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I cannot understand your logic. You did not respond to the points I raised. Of course WP should, and does have many ethnicity-based Categories. There is no policy prohibiting them, and they are very useful to readers. The proposal you are making above is to change the rule on which living individuals may be included in a given ethnicity-based category. Your proposed rule would cause many key persons to be deleted from many Categories, such as List of Jewish Nobel laureates. That is not sensible and is not going to happen. --Noleander (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) We do not need the excessive consistency proposed above. Why should a properly sourced list, with appropriate notes and caveats, be subject to the same membership restrictions as a category that cannot include such caveats? This proposal is also a clear case of rule creep. It stretches a rule that deals with unobservable and often highly sensitive personal characteristics (sexual orientation and belief) and tries to force typically observable and much less sensitive characteristics (gender and ethnicity) into the same mold. If you were instead trying to extend the rule to something similar in nature (e.g. transgender or ambiguously sexed people, such as the South African runner Caster Semenya), I would be much more likely to support it (although I think requiring self-identification in the latter case would probably be too big a stretch as well). --Avenue (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Avenue's comment: "Why should a properly sourced list, with appropriate notes and caveats, be subject to the same membership restrictions as a category that cannot include such caveats?". This is a very important issue that needs to be addressed. Not only does it justify rejection of the current proposal, but it even justifies revising the current WP:BLPCAT policy, because that policy treats Lists and Categories identically. BLPCAT started off as a decent rule for Categories, and an overzealous desire for uniformity caused Lists to get dragged in about a year ago. On two occasions, a proposal was made to distinguish Lists from Categories in BLPCAT, but it failed because of the simple fact that it is virtually impossible to get consensus for change in WP policies (due to the "there will always be 20% oppose, not matter how sensible the proposal" principle). --Noleander (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity, Gender, day 2

  • Have to oppose this for now, as it doesn't seem to have been properly thought through. I share Noleander's concern above: there seems to be confusion between the questions of which categories should exist, and which articles should be placed in a category once it does exist. BLP is dealing with the second question; and on that question I think the criterion should be what information can be reliably sourced, nothing more, otherwise we'll end up with incomplete categories. Though generally speaking I'd be in favour of a move to limit the number of categories of these types that exist in the first place.--Kotniski (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
    Again, that is not the question. Unfortunately, as you well know, wikipedia editing doesn't actually work that way. In any case, that's not the argument made: that this policy trumps category creation and naming guidelines. This brings this policy into line with existing guidelines, so there is no perceived conflict or nuance.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
    I don't see any contradiction between the policy and guidelines (except in that the guidelines aren't worded particularly well), though I may do if you can point one out to me. As I see it, the guidelines (if you mean Overcategorization) are about what categories should(n't) exist; the policy (BLP) is about how we decide (in certain specific cases) whether to put a given article into a given existing category. Once we've decided that, say, the category "LGBT golfers" should exist because we think sexual orientation is a notable characteristic of golfers, then we can populate it without worrying for each individual whether their orientation is notable for their golf-playing. The issue addressed by BLP is that in the case of living persons we need to be especially wary of the danger of defamation when putting a living person into some category. (OK, I see that's not actually what the policy says; the whole thing needs tidying up, certainly, but I don't see that the solution is to extend to another two classes of categories the same somewhat muddle-headed thinking that's been applied to religion and orientation.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
    Ramble. Yes, I think what I don't like is that this section of BLP is getting outside of its scope. BLP should be about protecting living people from potentially defamatory or privacy-breaching labels, not about preserving the usability of Wikipedia's category system, which is the job of other policies and guidelines that, most importantly, don't cease to apply when the subject dies. I can accept that sexual orientation and (perhaps to some extent) religion are potential BLP issues in that sense, but I don't think that gender or ethnicity normally are. If we want to control overcategorization based on these features, then we want to do it mainly because it overloads and overcomplicates the category system, with respect to both living and dead people, and so BLP is the wrong place to be doing this.--Kotniski (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
    About this "policies trump guidelines" thing: It's not actually true. See Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. For example, an immediately relevant guideline can 'trump' a vague policy. For another example, we never delete interlanguage links (a mere informational page) even if they (currently) violate WP:LINKVIO (a major policy). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    I agree, and certainly that was the long-term consensus. Guidelines are simply more detailed than policy, usually with more examples and explanation. Unfortunately, a bit of recent wikilawyering brought this into question regarding WP:EGRS. Simplest to make this policy exactly match the existing WP:EGRS guidelines.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Per proposer's rationale. Categorizing people by ethnicity, gender, etc. is only informational when the category is meaningful to the person's notable activities. On a related note, I'm firmly against the use of Wikipedia to promote the various social groups that some Wikipedians belong to. While there are certainly people opposed to this rules change who are so for principled (and not political) reasons, I've seen way too many of the recent BLP identification controversies not to note the fact that these usually stem from pride based identity politics (nationalistic, ethnic, religious, etc.). To those of us who do not belong to a certain group the categorizations become trivial at best, and to those who do belong they become badges of pride, or worse at times to some who do not belong they can be badges of hate, ridicule, scorn, etc. Let's leave the identity politics to the blogosphere and spend our time writing an encyclopedia. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment/question: Why should notability be tied to categorization by attribute of identity? I should think that categorizing people by well-sourced attributes of identity is an unalloyed good, or at least unless a reason can be given for why an individual should not be categorized by an attribute. Is there a reason that categories of identity should be related to the individual's reason for notability? Isn't this a project for bringing information to people? The principles of WP:BLP do not seem to me to be applicable to the proposed alteration to policy. WP:BLP emphasizes the "sensitivity" with which we must approach article-writing concerning living people. I find: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity..." How would that translate into creating rules in policy that prohibit categorizing people by well-sourced attributes of identity unless those attributes are related to notability? By what rationale would well-sourced and in many cases 100% innocuous information be blocked from inclusion in the categorization function of the project? I think that the default position should be for the inclusion of information. The proposed change in policy is to a default position of exclusion of information. How is that consistent with a project that ostensibly assembles sourced information? Special sensitivities apply to biographies of living people. In fact sensitivities should extend to those no longer living as well, in my opinion. But why should we enshrine in our policy language that the standard fare in information concerning personal attributes of identity should be excluded unless it can be demonstrated that these attributes have a strong connection to an individual's notability? Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm sure this must be the third time recently I've opposed this. Kudos for not giving up, though. The purpose of the guidance on sexuality and religion is to protect a legitimate right to privacy and act against the genuine problem of categorisation ultimately based on rumour. The same issues don't arise for ethnicity and gender, however (or, the cases where they might are not common enough to justify the application of a blanket rule). There seems to be a rationale here that (per Griswaldo, above) "Categorizing people by ethnicity, gender, etc. is only informational when the category is meaningful to the person's notable activities". That's just not true in the first place. It's just as informational as the year in which someone was born, their nationality, the fact that they are a living person, their alma mater etc etc. There doesn't seem to be any specific logic being put forward as to why ethnicity and gender should be special cases. --FormerIP (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is ethnicity "opinion"? Reliable sources are up to the task of supplying us with the ethnicity for a person. If the source isn't "reliable" then an argument can be made that indeed we do not know the person's ethnicity. Another situation is not inconceivable in which two sources contradict one another in this regard. In such a case an editorial decision might be reached on an article Talk page that we do not know with assuredness that we know the individual's ethnicity. But in a case where sources clearly indicate what a person's ethnicity is—is it still opinion? Editors at individual articles need the latitude to make decisions of this sort. They should not be hobbled by overly simplistic policy. Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Bus Stop, do you not understand that ethnicity is a social construct? It is something that can only be 'true' in as much as people believe it to be so. This is all that needs to be said on the matter, and your endless going on about 'reliable sources' is of no consequence whatsoever - it is impossible to 'know' someone's ethnicity in any sense other than as an assertion that you know that someone says that the person is of this or that ethnicity: opinion. Frankly, I find your obsession with 'sources' for the plainly unsourcable tiresome and probably indicative of some deep insecurity about the issue - but this is of no relevance to the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Why would ethnicity be "plainly unsourcable"? Sources all the time tell us about such aspects of a person's identity. Are you saying that under no circumstances can we rely on sources when they tell us what a person's ethnicity is? Bus stop (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I simply must say that Category:2011 births is opinion, too. Not everybody agrees on what year it is now. Same thing for geography. Almost every method of categorization and labeling is based on a normalized opinion. Most are universally accepted in the Western world, of course. But still... All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, ethnicity is a "real" property just as much as all the other things we categorize people by. Is there really a clear physical divide between writers and non-writers, kings and non-kings, towns and non-towns? No, everything is fuzzy (like everything we write in articles is potentially fuzzy), but in determining what's true we defer to what reliable sources say (which is also a fuzzy matter, of course). --Kotniski (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Except not. Ethnicity is a construct with strong ideological pressumptions. What these are depends exactly on what is meant by ethnicity; in the worst of cases, the usage of "ethnicity" in Wikipedia comes across as racial classification or attempts at group conscription that are out of place in an encyclopaedia. Feketekave (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Feketekave—you say "Ethnicity is a construct with strong ideological presumptions." Sources determine ethnicity. We are not presumed to have expertise in these areas. Reliable sources tell us what a person's ethnicity might be, if applicable. And if reliable sources are found to be in contradiction with one another then we may have an unresolvable problem. But standard procedure should be to see what sources say and then to follow their lead. You say, "in the worst of cases, the usage of "ethnicity" in Wikipedia comes across as racial classification or attempts at group conscription that are out of place in an encyclopedia." I don't think we should be saying what is "out of place in an encyclopedia." Wikipedia is not censored. My perception is that many people are very interested in knowing the ethnicity of others. In many cases this is wholesome and innocuous. But I don't think we need to be imposing rules on the construction of this project with the purpose of creating a better world. Ethnicity is an attribute of identity. In biographies it is exceedingly common to find references to an individual's ethnicity, as well as to a variety of other personal attributes. I think editors should have free rein to reach decisions in this regard by discussion at article Talk pages or at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
We go by what sources say on matters of fact. There is a basic philosophical difference here. What is at issue is not whether, say, a table is brown, but whether a certain kind of classification is meaningful and acceptable. There is so much leeway on this issue that there is barely any kind of fact, actual of false, here: rather, what is at issue is the exercise of the power of groups to conscript individuals or to classify other individuals according to blood.
Very many sources - and just about any serious, non-sectarian, general print encyclopaedia - will never indulge in such classification. Applying rules intended for matters of fact to this issue results in an enormous bias towards classification: it is enough for one source to classify, for whatever reason, and this will outweigh 99 sources that refuse to classify. Feketekave (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, you are showing your colours clearly with your "wholesome" comment. Feketekave (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Feketekave—you say, "you are showing your colours clearly with your 'wholesome' comment." What are my "colours" and how am I showing those "colours" by my using the word "wholesome"? (My whole sentence was, "In many cases this is wholesome and innocuous.") Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity, Gender, day 3

  • Oppose While editors should use discretion, and err on the side of caution in those rare instances where the correct category is disputed, they should not be prohibited from proving required to prove that, for example, a monarch's gender is "notable" before placing the ruler in either Category:Kings or Category:Queens. Identifying the person's gender or ethnicity is not an invasion of privacy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    1. I think you might have an extra not in there, otherwise you are agreeing with me! Nobody in this proposal is "prohibited from proving" notability. On the contrary, other guidelines already require it!!!
    2. While an "invasion of privacy" argument may seem easy with a Straw man like highly public officials named Kings and Queens, it certainly wouldn't apply to sportspersons, etc.
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
You really think it's an invasion of privacy to identify a sportsperson as a man or a woman?!?--Kotniski (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I repeat: as is required to document the result of many WP:CFD Gender decisions. Many of those are sportsperson categories.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
You again seem to be confusing the question of whether categories should exist (which is what your link refers to) with that of whether to put an article in a given category (which is what this guideline refers to). Until we can get that distinction clear in all our minds, I don't see any point in further discussion. NickCT's comment below seems to sum up the "thinking" behind all the support for this proposal: "I'll support any policy wording that [makes] ethnic categorization more difficult". Never mind whether the resulting policy wording makes any logical sense. This still seems to me like a knee-jerk, improperly-thought-through reaction against what is widely perceived (quite reasonably) as excessive categorization and listing by ethnicity. We really need to ask the right questions, clearly, if we are to get meaningful answers.--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - for ethnicity Ethnicity is a highly subjective category. In current discourse, it depends partly on self-identification; when others - as often happens here - assign an ethnicity to an individual irrespective of this fact, many readers will reasonably assume that the individual identifies with the ethnicity in question. Moreover - ethnicity, if understood culturally, is a multiple and non-binary matter; if understood racially, it is a category that should most definitely not be used in Wikipedia.

    I would moreover be wary of having an instance or two of self-identification be taken in and of themselves as a sufficient criterion for ethnic labelling: the instances may be rhetorical, they may be a response to provocation, etc. Feketekave (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that living African-American musicians cannot be included in the Category Category:African American musicians unless they publicly say "I am African American"? Or that living Jews cannot be included in List of Jewish Nobel laureates unless they say "I am Jewish"? That is not sensible, and - as a practical matter - will never be followed. Mind you, I have no objection to requiring that there be a Reliable Source that asserts the ethnicity, but the requirement for self-identification is not reasonable. --Noleander (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that both the category and (certainly) the list you mention have no place in an encyclopaedia. Feketekave (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, in fact, those two things already require self-identification via the guidelines. Certainly after death, we require a consensus of sources. But more importantly, self-identification rarely comes up, because it's not both notable and relevant.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey Noleander, as someone who's conversed with you in the past and generally been impressed by your reasoning, I'm disappointed we fall on different sides of this issue. I think the basic problem here is that there exist editors on WP, who finds out that "Black Times Weekly" notes that John Doe's great granddad was african american, and so they want to apply Category:African American musicians to John Doe. We need some kind of policy that explicitly prevents this kind of practice. Could I beg you to reconsider your position? NickCT (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
NickCT: Thanks for the insight about the "Black Times Weekly" situation you are citing ... I've never really seen that situation before, but I can see how it might happen. My experiences have been pretty straightforward: the editor must supply an excellent reliable source that squarely puts the individual within the category (ethnicity, religion, etc). Cant there be some middle ground between "self identification" (which would eliminate much valuable and accurate info from the encyclopedia) and "any old source" (which is your Weekly example)? Every editing decision in WP comes down to judgement and consensus. I think the best middle-ground guideline is: "Ethnicity must be determined by reliable sources" and let editors work it out on the Talk pages. --Noleander (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
That example isn't a problem. A statement in a source that John Doe's granddad was African American isn't the same as a statement that John Doe is African American, so it doesn't cut it in the first place as far as categorisation goes. What if John Doe is quoted as saying: "My granddad was African American"? And why the need for a rule to address a non-problem when it produces the bizarre side-effect that even if Stevie Wonder's own mother is quoted in the back page of the Bible as saying that he is African American, the category has to go until he says it himself? --FormerIP (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
@FormerIP - Ok, so what if the source is an article on "notable black musicians", and it mentions John Doe's grand dad is African American in a way that might infer that John Doe himself could be considered African American. I promise you there are editors who would take this as sufficient grounds to categorize John Doe. re Stevie Wonder, I take your point. Really, I'm mostly worried about places where race/ethnicity is an open question. I think when there is a huge slew of RS noting an individual as being African American (as is probably the case with Wonder) with no RS arguing to the contrary, it's probably OK to categorize Wonder as such. At the moment though, I'm more concerned with over-zealous ethnic categorization, rather than over-cautious ethnic categorization; hence, I support the rewording. NickCT (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you think "when there is a huge slew of RS noting an individual as being African American ... with no RS arguing to the contrary, it's probably OK", then I think you ought to oppose this proposal. That's not to say there isn't an issue, just that this isn't the right solution. In cases where there are contradicting sources etc we already have policies (chiefly WP:V and WP:NPOV) that should work. If they are not working, I agree that's a problem. But a proposal that will prevent as much good editing as it will bad is not the answer.--FormerIP (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the thing is, I'm more concerned that ambiguous cases are inappropriately labelled, than that obvious cases aren't labelled. If we can't have some really clear and consistently followed policy on ethnic categorization, than it's best to be as conservative as possible when categorizing; however, I would support some additional wording to the policy that says something like "when there is a huge slew of RS ... it's probably OK". As sort of a thought experiment, I've mocked something up here. NickCT (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is an excellent idea. It aims for a good middle ground between draconian exclusion and the wishy-washy inclusion. It attempts to codify what is really happening in the Categories & Lists, so it reflects a broader consensus. I'll take a stab at tweaking your sandbox wording (just revert if you want to manage it yourself). --Noleander (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Tweak away. The correct way to deal with this might be to have several interested just to brainstorm language. NickCT (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've refined the text to make it as crystal-clear as possible. I removed some duplication, consolidated similar things, made explicit was what implicit, and added a few examples. Other editors are free to continue refining. The draft text is in Nicks sandbox here. --Noleander (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Self-identification may or may not be a valid criteria. But what about "relevance to notability"? Somebody could presumably repeatedly self-identify, yet still be removed from the category because somebody says it's not relevant to their career. That's the most inexplicable part of this proposal to me. And one no one seems to be talking about. NickCT, in your sandbox proposal, if "B" is true, why do you need "A"? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Precisely - the text of the article should mention these matters only when relevant, and these lists and categories are extremely controversial in part because, by their own rationale, they run against any sensible policy of the kind that is being proposed. If these matters can be left to the text of the article, then a non-mention that X is supposedly Fooish, Fayish or X-Y will in no way imply that X is not Fooish, not Fayish or not X-Yian. Lists and especially categories force these complicated matters in one way or the other. Feketekave (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. I partially agree. We should include some kind of provision for explicit self-identification. NickCT (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
You're saying a provision that says explicit self-identification is enough to list them in the category, regardless of whether someone things it's relevant or not? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - for ethnicity - I've made arguments on this topic in several forums, which I don't care to repeat. Needless to say, people ought to be categorized by ethnicity very cautiously. I'll support any policy wording that ethnic categorization more difficult. NickCT (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose regarding ethnicity as unencyclopedic, POV, and WP:CREEP regarding the relevance of personal identity as a valid categorization of people in the world. It's also very naive, as self identification is but one of a number of factors pertaining to individual identity, others including social construction, external perception, and legal classification. This would basically do away with a range of knowledge (ethnic studies, concerns of ancestry and heritage, etc) that has deep cultural and scholarly relevance. I would also dispute that we can legislate this kind of WP:CREEP from the top down on a page like this. There is obviously consensus on Wikipedia for inclusion of categories like Jewish-American X, or X of Irish descent, because those categories, lists, and articles are duly sourced and have long been a part of the encyclopedia, but just as obviously there are editors who have sought to do away with all of these, many based on the stated opinion, biased and offensive to some, that ethnicity doesn't mean anything. You are six-feet-two, or from Minnesota, or of Irish descent, whether or not you identify as such, and whether or not it is a significant part of your notability. If a person suffers from Parkinson's disease, we can put them in a category of sufferers from Parkinson's disease even though with few exceptions that's not what they're notable. From whence the opinion that being of Jewish descent is something to purge from the encyclopedia? I have not contemplated gender, and wonder what that arises from. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It's also very naive, as self identification is but one of a number of factors pertaining to individual identity, others including social construction, external perception, and legal classification. That's exactly why identifying people by ethnicity is problematic to begin with. There is no uniform understanding of ethnicity and when identity politics are involved the situation becomes even muddier. I'm not sure it's the support arguments that are naive on those grounds. Just the opposite.Griswaldo (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo—you say "There is no uniform understanding of ethnicity…" Reliable sources, for our purposes, determine ethnicity. We need not have expertise in this area. We need not personally grasp all that there is to know about ethnicity. It is your assumption that there is no "uniform understanding of ethnicity" but in point of fact reliable sources use the term all the time. It is only rarely that sources are in conflict about what an individual's ethnicity might be. In those instances that sources adequately identify an ethnicity for a subject, I think that becomes usable information just as any other well-sourced information. Bus stop (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
If I humor your claim for a second can you tell me how often reliable sources say something like "John Doe is ethnically Lilliputian"? I can answer that for you, they rarely ever do. Instead they say, "John Doe is Lilliputian". For some so called ethnicities, this isn't a big problem. "African-American" fits that bill for instance, but for most it is highly problematic. If your source says "John Doe is Serbian," how do I know it doesn't just mean he is a citizen of the Republic of Serbia, which is a nationality and not a so called ethnicity? If your source says, "John Doe is Chinese," which of the many ethnic groups in China does that mean he belongs to? If your source says "John Doe is Jewish", does it mean he is "ethnically" Jewish even if he's descendant of converts? The truth is that sources rarely ever make emphatic categorizations of ethnicity, instead they ambiguously identify people with identifiers that may or may not really be ethnic (as opposed to national, religious, etc.). So yes we rely on sources, but if you really wanted to rely on sources that clearly identify ethnicities good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
We go by what reliable sources say. Don't forget the reader is exposed to the same sources that the editors are exposed to. The reader inhabits the same world that we editors inhabit. We share in common the available sources. The only difference is that the reader is presumed to be ignorant of the ethnicity of the person being researched, and we have to see to it that we determine what reliable sources have to say in regard to the ethnicity of the person that a biography is written about. If nothing serves to identify the person as regards ethnicity then obviously we report nothing for ethnicity. But the default position should not be that we report nothing as concerns ethnicity. An encyclopedia is a meeting of minds between reader and writer. The mediator between reader and writer (or editor) is the reliable source. Reliable sources are also writing for readers. Our job is to compile information. If our sources are indicating an ethnicity for a person then there is a good likelihood that will suffice for the reader's purposes. Yes, it is true that sometimes this is more clear than in other cases. But that is still not a reason to fail to report on an attribute of identity that is in demand by readers and that is being supplied by reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of all things, including social constructs like ethnicity, race, and gender identity. It's naive to think that self-identification is either a necessary or sufficient basis for determining ethnicity, even if we were in a position to decide that. But we aren't in that position, the sources are. Nor are we free to do away with ethnicity as a sourced attribute of people just because it's complicated. Ethnicity, or gender identity, is not necessarily a contentious or negative thing, which is where the POV comes in. Some people just don't like ethnicity or consider it valid, and some of the comments here reflect that. Other people derive great meaning from it, as fuzzy as the boundaries are, and would as I said be offended to be told that it does not matter. Yet others are chauvinistic. Some resent being categorized, and many people ignore it. Anyone who's watched the subject of identity politics knows that there are strong feelings on many sides of this. Deciding that ethnicity is not a valid way to categorize people, or that self-identification is the only valid means, is taking one side of a contentious issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Other people derive great meaning from it. So what? We are not a social network for people who are interested in reaffirming their own personal sentiments of national or ethnic belonging. As I said in my response to Bus Stop, the sources are rarely clear about whether or not an identification they make is properly understood as "ethnic" in the first place. A source might say, "John Doe is a German," but it will rarely if ever say, "John Doe is an ethnic German," or "John Doe's ethnicity is German." What does being a German mean? Depending on the context, "being German" might actually mean any number of things, but it does not unequivocally mean being of German "ethnicity," that's for damn sure. My own perspective has nothing to do with any strong feelings about ethnic identification. What I would like to do is to keep everyone's strong feelings about ethnicity out of the encyclopedia as much as possible. Now I don't think that we do this at the expense of losing quality information either. These types of identifications are only meaningful if the context in which they are being utilized is fully explained -- who is making the claim, what group are they referring to, what does it mean to them to be a member of that group, etc. The idea that a category label, or a list of people can ever provide this context is simply absurd. So no, we don't lose anything even remotely informative by being stricter with our ethnic categories. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo—you say, "We are not a social network for people who are interested in reaffirming their own personal sentiments of national or ethnic belonging." Nor are we trying to be. We go by what sources say. Our aim as editors should be to adhere as closely to what sources say as possible. You say, "These types of identifications are only meaningful if the context in which they are being utilized is fully explained -- who is making the claim, what group are they referring to, what does it mean to them to be a member of that group, etc." That is not always 100% correct. We exercise judgement in matters of an editorial nature all the time. True—if we are confronted with a situation in which actual ethnicity is frustratingly unclear—we may have no alternative but to fail to address that dimension of a person's identity. But sources commonly try to address questions that concern an individual's relation to a group. This is exceedingly common in biographies. Biographers often try to flesh out the derivation of the individual from an originating group. If this is complex—then more than one category may be necessary. You are expressing your personal opinion when you say, "The idea that a category label, or a list of people can ever provide this context is simply absurd." In fact sometimes this is quite straightforward. But no matter what the case may be—if reliable sources can be found going to pains to explain what group of people this individual derives from or belongs to—that is usable information. The reader should be presumed to be interested in that information. And the reverse is operational as well: a reader may be able to only recall the ethnicity of a person whose name they are ignorant of or have forgotten. The purpose of editorship, or at least one of the purposes of editorship, is bringing together the pieces of information in a workable project. Categorizing by ethnicity facilitates research. Bus stop (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity, Gender, day 4

First off I have to point out that it seems obvious that Donama was summoned by William Allen Simpson and that was by using language that is not completely neutral: "Trying to remove an end-around of WP:EGRS that's being exploited."
In response to Donama—not everything has to be "provable" or "scientific". At WP:VERIFY we find: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Ethnicity need not be scientifically provable or true. Incidental sources as well as more focussed biographies address such questions, and that establishes fact regarding these issues. Bus stop (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose BLPCAT and EGRS have been the centre of substantial instruction creep particularly over the last 18months - previously on this page there has been discussion about removing/repairing the policy with little progress. Without resolving issues such as verifiable, relevant identification which is not "self-identified" as well as the fact that Lists and Infoboxes can contain caveats yet are included in a section that exists because categories cannot have caveats, we should not allow further instructions to creep in. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • No consensus - Clearly there is no consensus here. Rather than wasting more time with alternating Support and Oppose !votes, the issues need to be broken down into smaller chunks. Specifically: (1) gender vs ethnicity: several editors above explained they would support one but not the other; and (2) category vs list: several editors indicated they would support one but not the other. For instance, a proposal to add Ethnicity (but not gender) for categories (not lists) would, perhaps, garner more support. --Noleander (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
In any case, if some consensus could be reached, there might be exceptions. Especially regarding people who are trying to hide some ethnic/gender characteristics that might be relevant to their activity that has been widely commented upon by WP:RS, especially should they be trying to cover up some questionable, bigoted, criminal, etc. behavior. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
You should disclose that you were blatantly canvassed by the proposer here. --Noleander (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the dude spent the whole day canvassing. I know life isn't "fair", but someone should take this into consideration. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that qualifies as canvassing since I was part of a similar discussion on this same talk page over a related issue not too long ago. My two cents. Middayexpress (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Canvassing? - The originator of this proposal has invited several individuals to comment (see contrib history here for March 9th). The invitations explicitly state that the proposer is "trying to remove an end-around of WP:EGRS that's being exploited." If we are going to invite people, the invitations should be made to Projects, and the invitations should remain silent on the POV of the inviter. --Noleander (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
He's already canvassed quite a few times during this process. We can add Donama to the list of those successfully canvassed. Not too shabby. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I've also been canvassed but openly my POV is opposed to the nomination so in my case at least it may be seen as neutral canvassing Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the canvassing accusation. Wikipedia rules allow individuals to be contacted if they have been involved in a particular discussion previously. (I have been contacted, as I have been discussing this particular issue a couple of months ago, and in several articles.) But, I do think that this applies only when people with differing opinions are approached equally. Otherwise, it could be considered canvassing.--Therexbanner (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
You seem to miss the point that the notification was not neutrally worded. That makes it seem a clear case of canvassing to me. --Avenue (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The notifications that Noleander points to were indeed not neutrally worded, and as such would constitute a breach of the guidelines on such notifications. However, the earlier notifications All Hallow's Wraith points to were different, and in my view neutral. I received one of those earlier notifications myself. Now, that said I think people are making more of this than needs to be. If he contacted individuals who are opposed to his perspective, and did so with a non-neutral message, that non-neutral message is going to have an adverse effect on his desired outcome. The real problem with canvassing is not the tone of the message but who gets it. Its clear that he did not discriminate in that sense. Now someone warn him or take him to AN/I about this if you want more satisfaction, but please don't use it as a means to poison the well here. If you think the discussion is too tainted to continue then propose a way to fix it, but again don't just taint it more with talk about someone's conspiracy to manipulate the result. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I would not mind being contacted on the issue in the future. Feketekave (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:CANVASS does say "However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate". This would appear to have been the goal of the initial canvassing as well. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. I was asked to comment here. The restriction on religion and sexual orientation exists because those are generally considered to be subjective personal matters which only the subject can truly designate. OTOH, gender and ethnicity can be determined objectively. There are good arguments that we should not routinely categorize people by their ethnicity and gender, but I think there are better arguments for using those categories where they help the reader find articles of interest, which is the purpose of categories.   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity, Gender, day 5

  • Support for ethnicity, not gender. Someone was kind enough to inform me of this discussion on a topic about which I've had a strong interest for many years, and it's clear to me that this specific inconsistency needs to be explicitly addressed, particularly as there are on-going and often nearly intractable WP:BLP issues with the current wording. Jayjg (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • support for ethnicity. I think gender requires special rules as it is generally non-controversial, except in certain cases where it becomes an important blp-issue, I think this needs to be thought through very thoroughly.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • As with LtPowers, I am confused as to why I received a notification on my talk page indicating an unacceptably high level of WP:Wikilawyering is occurring within this discussion. Based upon the comments I have read, I wonder if the problem is WP:Canvassing instead of Wikilawyering. --Allen3 talk 21:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry that you are no longer interested in the topic. "Unfortunately this means cleaning up articles after the periodic appearance of someone obsessed with ethnicity/religion/nationality/blood type/anatomical measurements of porn stars feels the need to add (usually unsourced speculation about) such characteristics."
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I was also just canvassed by WAS.. but anyway, I oppose his proposal. Ethnicity and gender are things reliable sources can decide, even when the subject hasn't "publically self-identified" with them. If reliable sources say Jason Derülo is of Haitian descent, then I think we should include it, regardless of whether or not he's said anything about it publically. After all, Charlie Sheen publically self-identified as being from Mars - should we change his ethnicity to "Martian"? (sorry, I couldn't resist. :D ) Mlm42 (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood; I didn't realise we were talking about inclusion in categories. Mlm42 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, the problem seems to be whether articles like List of Haitian Americans (and therefore Category:American people of Haitian descent) meet the general notability guideline. They don't obviously satisfy this guideline.. and there doesn't seem to be consensus about how to resolve this. Mlm42 (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Despite leading the opposition to this nonsense, I wouldn't even necessarily vote to keep these categories. While we do have the category American people of Haitian descent, however, it should be accurate and not bound by inexplicable rules that someone made up and added to EGRS without the help of a single other editor. It's not even about self-identification. Derülo could repeatedly self-identify as Haitian-American, and apparently he could still be de-listed if someone thinks it's not "notable" to his career (and I would say it's not). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
My point was that without a reliable source which talks about "American people of Haitian descent" as a group or set, then it fails the notability guideline. If no such source exists, then should we have a list / category on it? That's the fundamental question.. and the community appears to be divided on it (as mentioned in WP:N). Mlm42 (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, but that's to do with the existence of the category itself. Like I said, I wouldn't necessarily vote to keep these categories. I was saying that while they exist, why wouldn't Derülo be in it? And what does the BLP policy have to do with him being in it? If reliable sources agree that he's of Haitian descent, what possible harm or damage can it do to include him in it? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I see; yes, you're right. The proposal that started this thread is not the way this problem should be fixed. The problem is the existence of the lists/categories in the first place. Mlm42 (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Simpson spent the day canvassing. I will give him credit for being so persistent, I suppose. But this is ridiculous. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
    Not exactly "the day" — looks like about 15 minutes today (21:22–21:36). But perhaps you could explain your WP:STALKING my contributions, yet again!?!? Of course, bringing a topic to the attention of interested groups of editors is a requirement; see the quotation I've already posted several days ago. It's always best to do no more than a dozen at a time, as recommended by the policy process. PLEASE STOP asserting "bad faith", over and over and over again.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Following edits that are directly related to what we're doing here (like, oh, asking over 30 people to come over here using non-neutral language) is not considered wiki-stalking. How else are we supposed to know someone is canvassing? Guess? You asked 15 people to come over here just today using loaded language. Yes, that is relevant to this conversation, without question. BTW, speaking of your "quotation" from WP:CANVASS, maybe you should read the rest of the page. Like the parts about what's considered inappropriate: "Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand"; "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner."; "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement"). All of the above is true of what you've been doing, so yes, it does need to be mentioned. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity, Gender, day 6

  • Support. Persons, living or dead, do not usually need to be categorized by ethnicity or gender, unless there's a clear reason to do so, but if there is such a clear reason, then it's fine. This is what WP:EGRS already says. The issue here is that WP:BLP's wording implies that EGRS only applies to dead people (and non-people), and BLP's wording trumps that of EGRS because the former is a policy and the latter a guideline. They should be in agreement, to avoid confusion and nonsense. And to avoid blathery week-long flamewars like this one. Existence of a category (and its survival at WP:CFD) is generally "a clear reason" for these purposes. There is no reason at all to create Category:Gay Afro-Canadian female pool players, but there is (for better or worse) a general consensus that Category:Female pool players is useful, and that anyone who qualifies for this category should have their article so categorized, or there would be no point to having the category. So, "oppose" !votes above that complain that categories won't be properly populated are silly. I.e., this entire "debate" is mostly not a rational discussion, but a bunch of miscommunication. No proposal to change actual practice or redefine common sense is before us, only a proposal to make two WP guidance documents agree with one another so that common sense is actually more likely to prevail. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 07:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC) @Mlm42: Yes, reliable sources can be used, carefully, to categorize someone in ways that the subject has not public[al]ly spoken about, or even to contradict the subject. You also beg the question, though. If Charlie Sheen does in fact self-identify as a Martian, and can be reliably sourced as doing so, this is possibly notable information for his article. Not that WP would say he is a Martian, but that he says he is a Martian. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 07:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
      • WP:EGRS says this because William Allen Simpson added it to that page after no discussion with other parties whatsoever and no agreement to add it. I never said (and no one else did either) that because BLP didn't say it, it doesn't count. I said it doesn't count because there was no agreement to add it and only one person had brought it up/added it/reverted it back into the article. And you're here because he canvassed you over today. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Please don't make assumptions about my motivations and rationales. I'm here because I was notified of the discussion and it interested me. W.A.S.'s opinion on the matter pro or con had nothing to do with it. If you check my record at CfD and elsewhere, you'll find I've been plenty active in discussions about proper categorization of people, overcategorization, handling of living people, etc. While I agree that the tone of the notification I received was biased, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of either side of the debate. If WP:EGRS's wording were disputed any any significant number of people, a discussion like this would be taking place at its talk page instead, and the entire thread here would be marked {{Resolved|1=Moot; language at WP:EGRS under consideration for inclusion in BLP is disputed at EGRS.}} — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 18:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for ethnicity. The gender issue should be argued separately, hopefully not by wikilawyers. I believe I have said this before... having oddball ethnicity categories is just a problem waiting to happen. For example, if a famous person's article were to be stealth-vandalized by including them into some oddball ethnic category, a type of electronic graffiti, they could place that person in the electronic ghetto of mind-numbing ethnic categorization. I know it happens all the time, especially when some celebrity makes a publicized racist comment, they often get put into every category imaginable, from Category:Primates and Category:Mental retardation to Category:Infectious diseases. Adding a BLP to an ethnic category requires no proof, no sources, and leads to both mistakes and vandalism. Let's prefer not to do that without good sources. The gender category would be less likely to offend, as a person's gender is rarely controversial and therefore it would seem unlikely to cause significant problems. (Any examples?) I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
    • For the record, Uruiamme was Canvassed using loaded language. P.S. - the requirement being added here isn't "good sources" (I hope we can all agree that's required already). It's self-identification, which isn't so bad, and "notability to career", which is inexplicable and impossible to define. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
      • For the record, haven't you over-worked that angle? I immediately thought I was indeed canvassed, (knee jerk) but I realized that I had indeed commented on this elsewhere and that we refer to it differently. (I needed to assume good faith.) Why do you take up other people's offenses for them? Are you a lawyer? Could I not have defended myself against canvassing without your cries of foul?
      • By good sources, I mean sources of notability to a person's career. Like a footballer of a particular ethnicity -- not related to a person's career but sports sources may spin it into a topic. My view is that a footballer's career is not going to be related to their ethnicity without some good sources. Their gender, well, I think is different. It would be very instructive to consider why Tiger Woods' ethnicity and religion are apparently notable, while Venus Williams' ethnicity and sex are categorized, but Scottie Pippen is notable for neither his race, his gender, nor religion. Now, certainly not all of those categories would be changed in this proposal, but I wanted to throw out some big names to see if anyone else can spot some potential problems and extrapolate them to rank-and-file BLP articles. I like to saw logs! (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't think I "over-worked" it. Easily half the support votes here have come from people William Allen Simpson has personally canvassed, and with a loaded message, to boot. That's an issue. He canvassed 15 people just today. That's an issue. I don't really understand what you're saying re notability, and indeed, it seems everyone has their own take on what it means. That's part of the problem. Are you saying that if multiple sources have given someone's ethnicity coverage, it's notable enough for a category? How would that be decided? (and it doesn't quite say so in the proposal). Aside from that, how does one decide "multiple"? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I do not see the language used as notably non-neutral, and, at any rate, that would have been something that can work both ways. It is clear that Mr. Simpson contacted interested parties on both sides of the issue. For the record, I was not contacted. Let us stick to the issues. Feketekave (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - All Hallow's Wraith please stop poisoning well. Enough is enough. If you think William Allen Simpson has acted improperly then take the matter to one of the many venues in which editor behavior is scrutinized. You have made your point here already over, and over, and over, and over. Few people seem to agree with it btw, but that's not the point. The point is that this venue is for discussing the proposal being made and not for complaining about canvassing. If you continue to do so I will have no choice but to assume bad faith -- that, ironically, you are trying to manipulate the result here through well poisoning. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. W.A.S. did obviously canvas, but that's an issue for his talk page or, if someone's going to have a real fit about it, for WP:ANI. Has nothing to do with the issues raised. A.H.W., please read WP:TE. I say that as someone who has made the mistake of over-repeating arguments in debates like this, so it's not a slap, just a "learn from my mistakes" word of advice. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 18:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity, Gender, day 7

  • Reminder: links to the excellent compilation of prior WP:CFD decisions about suitable categorization of:
    1. Ethnicity
    2. Gender
    The vast majority of these categories were deleted. Of those kept, some have a restriction on their notability, relevance, and self-identification. While these results were frequently codified in the category naming and EGRS pages, this discussion is about adding these two words (and only these words) to this policy, to better reflect prior decisions and conform to all other guidelines.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't necessarily support the existence of some of these categories, but the fact that they exist and who is categorized in them are two very different issues. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
      • That's not a meaningful analysis. Suppose the majority of new articles about high school athletes are deleted for lack of notability. That doesn't mean the community has decided Wikipedia should not cover high school athletes. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
        • That's not a meaningful objection. This is not about articles, this is about categories/lists/templates/etc. When these categories have been agreed upon, the agreement almost always discusses or restricts the membership. Therefore, these are not separate issues.
          --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Again, not a meaningful conclusion. It's a pretty simple logical fallacy. Nearly all rocks are judged to be small. Therefore, we ignore boulders. The meaningful categories on notable subjects are rarely deleted, only when a closing admin legislates policy (the ones I've seen have been overturned on review) or when something sneaks by without anyone noticing. It's a straw man argument to pose things like Swedish-American knitters, point out that category or others like it have been deleted, and use as an argument for a categorical exclusion of ethnicity that people are supposedly promoting trivia. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was asked to comment here, but it's a lot to read. Is the proposal saying that we may not describe or categorize someone as Welsh—even if she was born and raised in Wales to Welsh parents and has never lived anywhere else—unless she has actually said of herself: "I am Welsh"? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 07:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
William Allen Simpson—you say, immediately above: "4. We are only discussing whether to explicitly add two words ("ethnicity, gender,") to this policy to bring it into conformance with all other guidelines"
And you also say, immediately above: "5. So far, nobody has given any rationale for making BLP an exception to the general rule. Do you know any reason we would categorize/listify/etc. a living person as Welsh, then delete them from the category/list/etc. after they died?"
But so far you have not given any reason why we should add "ethnicity" and "gender" to this policy.
You imply immediately above that the reason might be "to bring it into conformance with all other guidelines." And you also imply at the top of this discussion that the reason might be "To reduce quibbling…" Is that the extent of the reasons that you have for the change that you are proposing? Again, the only two reasons that I am aware of that you have given for your proposed change is:
1. "to bring it into conformance with all other guidelines"
and
2. "to reduce quibbling"
Have you offered any other reasons? Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi William, the proposal says: "Categories regarding ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the information in question ..." That means someone would have to say "I am Welsh," or similar, before we could categorize them as Welsh, no matter how obvious it was. Comparing gender and ethnicity to religious beliefs and sexual orientation doesn't quite work, because it's not obvious what a person's religion is unless they have self-identified in some way; the same is usually true of sexual orientation. But with ethnicity it's often obvious, and there would usually be no reason for a person to say "I am Welsh," or "I am a man." So we would sometimes end up not being allowed to state what was demonstrably true.

    Personally, I don't think this matters much, because we categorize living people too much anyway, so trying to reduce that is a good thing. But it would be so counter-intuitive not to be allowed to say of an English male writer that he was an English male writer that enforcement would be impossible, so I fear this is a proposal that wouldn't work in practice even if it's accepted on this page. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

    1. Part of the problem with the use here of "Welsh" is it could either be a nationality or ethnicity. When used in an occupation, that might be Category:Welsh actors. No need for self-identification.
    2. But some folks seem to want to categorize people (who are not Welsh citizens) with one or more Welsh parents (or grandparents, or great-grandparents) as Welsh, too. There are people in 4 or more ethnic categories.
    3. Likewise, we don't have a gendered Category:English male writers or even Category:Male writers, whether or not they self-identify. Simply not notable or relevant.
    4. Instead, we have Category:Female authors who wrote under male or gender-neutral pseudonyms. For that we need notability, relevance, and self-identification.
    5. An example given earlier in this discussion has clearly stated that he doesn't want to be pigeon-holed by his ethnicity. Yet folks here argue we should categorize him anyway, because it is "obvious", and can be verified from multiple sources. That's wrong!
    But in practice, this only provides us with a hook to gently remind errant editors that categorizing/listing/etc. people as such is against a policy or guideline. A never ending quest perhaps. (frown)
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
William Allen Simpson—you say, "An example given earlier in this discussion has clearly stated that he doesn't want to be pigeon-holed by his ethnicity." Which person are you referring to? Bus stop (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I definitely oppose this proposal when it comes to gender, and less strongly oppose it for ethnicity as well. Both are generally objective enough that we can assign them based on descriptions in reliable sources, without having to wait for the subject to identify themselves. (Obviously, if they have identified themselves as a particular ethnicity, that should take precedence over what the sources say.) As for the suggestion that 'our current approach means treating BLPs differently' - I don't see how. We should adopt exactly the same approach for biographies of dead people: self-identity should not be required in order to categorise them into a gender or ethnicity-based category. Robofish (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
    As an afterthought: wouldn't this proposal mean we would be unable to categorise someone as 'French', 'Russian', 'Japanese' or 'Korean', unless they have actually stated 'I am French/Russian/Japanese/Korean/whatever'? If that's right, it seems like a complete non-starter to me; since the vast majority of citizens of those countries are of those ethnicities, most of them probably don't see any need to explicitly state it. Robofish (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure this is yet another strawman argument. You know that we don't put any people in Heritage categories who are already covered by Nationality + Occupation? Of course you do, I remember you from years ago.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it me, or is it not appropriate for William Allen Simpson to be making personal appeals to the apparent closing editor (Raul654) that includes more loaded language ("as the same 4-5 editors make repeated objections to every support !vote, to the process, to the previous discussions, etc. The discord has discouraged other editors from participating") and running tallies ("although support for "ethnicity" is running 2:1, folks seem evenly split on "gender"). He also originally summoned Raul654 with the same type of language (""Certain quibblers", "Thus, (non-notable or irrelevant) ethnicity and gender might be allowed for living people, but removed for the dead, undead, or incorporeal"). Surely there's something not quite right with this? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
That is improper. This page should be where arguments and counterarguments are made. Most involved people's eyes are on this page. There is no reason (that I can think of) that any one editor involved in this process should be making a special appeal to the closing administrator. Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity, Gender, day 8

  • Oppose, especially for the reasons well-articulated by Wikidemon. And because this proposed expansion would lead to another diversion of editorial energy from (i) developing and organizing verifiable content dervied from reliable sources to (ii) behind-the-scenes procedural disputation based on particular editors' preconceptions about what sort of content they like and don't like. For me, at least, this is a happier place when there is more of the former and less of the latter. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Err... you mean the opposite. It seems that this would force a user to work less on the trivial aspect of tagging their favorite celebrity's ethnicity and more on actually building an encyclopedia. Bulldog123 07:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for ethnicity. Neutral on gender at the moment. I see where some of these problems lay concerning gender overclassification, but it's such a minor problem compared to the massive train-wreck that is "reporting ethnicity" on Wikipedia, that I don't feel it's necessary for now. Griswaldo has made a stellar point here regarding the misconception that it's easy to find external sources that report a person's ethnicity. It's not. In most cases (especially cases where there is no relevance attributed to the mention), it's near impossible. On the other hand, if their ethnicity is relevant, it's fairly easy to find a source reporting it for that person. Also, I think a lot of red herring arguments are being made on the oppose sections here. Nobody is suggesting we "do away with ethnicity" on Wikipedia. Bulldog123 07:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
If no sources can be found for something, it shouldn't be in the article, much less categorized. I don't think there's any debate on that. I've probably personally removed more uncited ethnicity categories than almost anyone else participating in this discussion. The difference, I feel, is that I want to remove uncited categories and some of this guideline's supporters want to remove cited ones. This proposal will let them do that. And yes, I've seen much argument over the understanding of this- or that-ethnicity related guideline on Wikipedia. It does take away time from valuable editors. WP:V is so simple, direct, easy-to-explain, and obvious that it should be all we need. Using that policy alone, you could go out there right now and remove probably 70% of ethnicity categories. Isn't that good enough? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Bulldog123—I don't think ethnicity reporting for individuals should be construed as the final word on the subject. I don't think the reader should be understood to be utterly accepting of everything they read. We should be utilizing sources to not mislead, more than to firmly answer for a person's ethnicity. What I am saying is that I don't think there is an unreasonable amount of harm in categorizing someone where they may not 100% fit. I do not think sources have to literally and precisely pinpoint a person as being of an ethnicity. We should be allowed flexibility in categorizing a person by ethnicity where they most likely fit. We have a Talk page of an article and we have an excellent Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. These resources allow balanced decisions to be made, affording the input of a broad range of editorship. I don't buy the notion that categorization requires wording in a source that an individual is "ethnically XYZ", or "of XYZ ethnicity". That argument can be made. But it should be made on a case-by-case basis—and with reasons given. Certainly WP:BLPs require sensitivity. An argument would have to be presented that categorizing in a particular ethnic way would pose an imposition that we should not be engaging in. Well-sourced information that is approximately on-target concerning an ethnic category for an individual should be considered. It can always be rejected, but we should reserve for ourselves the right to consider categorizing by ethnicity in ways not necessarily 100% in accordance with the exact words sources use.
The proposal is unwise because it takes away from us the ability to categorize by ethnicity unless an unreasonable set of standards is first met. I see little reason to require self-identification in all cases concerning ethnicity, and I do not think relevance to notability should need to be established—in all cases. Once a person has been declared notable, for our purposes, it follows that there is a readership interested in knowing about such factors as their ethnicity. Much of this discussion has circled around the validity of ethnicity and its "social construct" status. Sources should determine for us if the noting of ethnicity is called for concerning an individual in question. That is—if sources conspicuously note ethnicity—we should (probably) follow suit. Bus stop (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposed wording - Although it is appropriate to restrict the application of ethnicity and gender categories to cases where the information is relevant according to reliable sources, the categorization guidelines do not justify requiring public self-identification for ethnicity or gender.
    Religion and sexuality are completely personal, and ethnicity and gender are at least partially public. One can not know a person's religion or sexuality unless that person openly declares it; it is possible, however, to know (to a certain extent) a person's gender and ethnicity even in the absence of a public declaration. Whether a person actively identifies with those identities is, of course, another matter, but it should not be our only concern.
    To address existing problems related to categorization by ethnicity, we should require the highest standards of sourcing when such categories are added in the absence of self-identification. For instance, an article about John Doe should not be added to Category:African-American people based on a source that identifies one or more of Doe's parents or grandparents as "African American"; we should require a source that explicitly identifies the subject of the article, John Doe, as African American. If we do this, I see no problem with continuing to categorize living people by ethnicity, even in the absence of public self-identification by the subject, so long as the characteristic is relevant according to reliable sources. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2011 (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.

No valid consensus

  • The discussion close here is not a reflection of community consensus regarding ethnicity, and not a reasonable way to legislate policy across the project. If implemented, it would overturn the result of multiple AfD discussions and deletion reviews, as well as longstanding practice on Wikipedia regarding some ethnic categories. My specific objections are discussed in the discussion above. If anyone has a specific proposal for how to modify a policy page, we can conduct an RfC on this. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
    • A specific proposal exists above. It was discussed for 8 days and an admin closed the discussion declaring a consensus to make part of the change it proposed. You clearly don't agree with the result, but denying what happened is not the way to go. Also what AfD discussions is this going to overturn? This effects inclusion in categories and on lists. It does not directly effect the existence of categories and lists. No AfD discussions have decided on inclusion criteria so I'm unsure what you mean there.Griswaldo (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
      • What happened is that the proposal does not have project-wide consensus. I do not deny that an administrator closed the above discussion and made a declaration. However, that declaration is not a legitimate basis for imposing policy across the project, something that is potentially very contentious. An 8-day canvassed vote is no way to deal with issues of how the encyclopedia deals with ethnicity. Following the sources of the world, one's ethnicity need not be sourced as "relevant to their notable activities or public life" to be included in a category intersection. It must simply be reliably sourced. My exposure from the "List of Jewish-American X" articles and related categories is that the editors there have steadfastly refused to allow others to depopulate the lists on this basis. If they try again, armed with above declaration, they will not find consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The closing admin's statement is deficient: "Closed. No consensus to add gender to the BLP guidelines. I'd say there is consensus (about 2:1 as I read the discussion below) to add ethnicity to the BLP guidelines". It has three major flaws: (1) contains no discussion of the merits of the arguments (which are more important than the !vote-counting); (2) it is blatantly relying on vote-counting, which is contrary to WP consensus policy; and (3) it does not reflect the fact that numerous strong arguments were put forth by both sides. I suggest that if someone wants to make any changes to BLPCAT, they submit a new proposal, that (for instance) just focuses on Ethnicity and Categories. --Noleander (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
...also, it is important to not that WP:BLP is a policy, and the threshold for making changes is higher than for mere guidelines or essays. The proposed ethnicity change would cause literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of persons to be removed from Categories and Lists, and such a major change to the encyclopedia needs a very strong consensus, which does not yet exist. --Noleander (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If there is a proper way to appeal a decision like this, and I'm not knowledgeable on those types of things personally, I suggest you follow that process instead of simply proclaiming your disagreement with the result here.Griswaldo (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but single drive-by admin cannot make a major policy change like this. Even his !vote counting is wrong: it was 3:2 (based on 21:14), not 2:1. --Noleander (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Why are you telling me that instead of appealing it in the proper manner. What I see is an RfC closed by an admin and the complaints by two people who don't agree with the decision. If you are planning to do something about it then do something about it instead of complaining here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

To anyone who thinks there is consensus, I invite you to edit List of Jewish Nobel laureates and remove all the living persons who have not, as the proposal requires, self-identified as Jews. Or remove all living writers from List of African-American writers who have not self-identified as African-American. Of course, that is a rhetorical request, because any such edits will be reverted, because the vast majority of WP editors do believe that there is no need for self identification. This proposal is plainly inconsistent with the consensus of the wider WP community. --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Uh. I'd say it's pretty easy to source List of Jewish Nobel laureates per self-identification of living people. In fact, I'll gladly collect sources for that now. Anyone interested? Also, Noleander, I think your complaint here is a bit extreme concerning the African American cats and lists. These lists shouldn't include any African American writer, but one's whose African American-ness is relevant to begin with. Therefore finding sources where they mention being Black or experience the African American life... isn't going to be as hard as you purporting. Bulldog123 21:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Noleander, somebody from that List of Jewish Nobel leaureates could repeatedly self-identify as Jewish, but this policy would still mandate their removal unless their Jewishness be notable to their notable activities (which isn't likely if they're a chemist). That's why it doesn't make any sense. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't the first step here be to at least strike up a conversation with the closer about this by the way? Also, I'm unsure of how productive this combative, "I just dare you to edit these entries", challenge is. BTW, the idea that the regulars at these entries represent more of a community consensus regarding these pages than those who responded to a community wide RfC is absurd. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, a conversation with the closer would be good. I'm sure he is watching this Talk page, and perhaps he can clarify his understanding of vote-counting, why he did not mention the canvassing, his assessment of the impact to existing ethnicity lists, and the absence of a summary of the pros and cons. As for "the regulars at these entries represent more of a community consensus" - I agree with you that those editors are no more authoritative than these Talk page editors. My point was simply: only 21 editors weighed-in here to support the proposal, but there have been hundreds, or even thousands of editors that have implicitly opposed the proposal (by their deliberate acts of building-up the hundreds of ethnicity-baesd Lists and Categories). My point was one of magnitude, not quality. --Noleander (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups, so that we can get broader range of input. --Noleander (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, this is pretty much classic Wikidemon behavior: screaming "no consensus" when consensus doesn't seem to go his way. Examples:
  • here -- arguing that a unanimous Cfd consensus against ethnicity/sports categories was "invalid" and should be overturned because he doesn't agree with it (literally lol)
  • here -- trying to overturn a deletion by importuning the closing admin to "rethink" his decision instead of sending it to DRV (where it might not be overturned)
  • and here -- striking up a deal with a closing admin to "overturn his close decision" if a separate (related) article is overturned at DRV. The admin, rather inappropriately, agreed to this instead of requesting it goes to DRV as well.
Clearly, Wikidemon will never believe there is a consensus for anything unless (maybe) it's unanimous. These unattainable standards for "worldwide magic consensus" seem more like an agenda-driven filibuster than any actual concern that people's opinions are being ignored. In the end, all this does is preclude any type of positive change on wikipedia and, frankly, we should rather start looking for self-identification sources (which are much easier to find than one might imagine) than continuing with these endless complaints. Bulldog123 21:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
(out of sequence) Bulldog, please stick with the issues and not the editors, and if you're going to cite my edit history to advocate your position don't distort it to argue bad faith. It is a courtesy to first notify the closing administrator and ask them to reconsider before invoking process. The admin here is presumably still watching this page as are all of the participants; in a CfD once the decision is made the page is archived and everyone goes home. The deletion decisions you mention were all fatally flawed, and the two so far reconsidered are now overturned. The third will happen in due time but as a mass nomination of 25+ categories, some valid and others not, it is more complex. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
...as a mass nomination of 25+ categories, some valid and others not, it is more complex. That some are valid and some are not is only your very nichey (and sometimes totally unsubstantiated) opinion. And on that CfD, it appears to be one not shared by a pretty good sampling of average unaffiliated Wikipedians. There's nothing improper about mass nominations and your post-CfD !keep rationale, although well-presented, is still unconvincing. However, constantly attempting to overturn deletion discussions because you believe the delete !voters opinions are inconsequential, "random," or wrong... in my mind... is bordering on inappropriate. Oh, and I made no "distortions" whatsoever. Everything I said can be verified by what you write in those diffs --- and it just so happens that most of what you write lengthy post-AfD/CfD !keep rationales that you treat as "fact" instead of just your opinion. Bulldog123 22:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Setting the record straight, as I said two of the three deletion decisions have been reversed so far and the other should be in part and likely will be. That's hardly a ringing endorsement for your claiming that my simply disagreeing with decisions you advocated for is is agenda-driven editing. Again, please stick to the issues. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I cannot speak for Wikidemon. But here is what I would expect to see in the above discussion before consensus were declared:
  1. Notification to the relevant WP ethnicity-oriented projects, so they could participate
  2. A compromise proposal that is somewhere between the two extreme ends
  3. A final statement of the final compromise so that everyone can scrutinize it
  4. An assessment of the impact of the canvassing
  5. A summary by the closing admin of the pros and cons, and a discussion of how they do or dont promote the BLP policy
  6. A discussion of the impact to the hundreds of ethnicity-based lists and categories.
So, no, I personally am not looking for some magical 100% consensus, but a 21:14 !vote with no back-and-forth and no discussion of the long-term ramificatiions is not sufficient to extend a major policy. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above. 22 support votes to 14 opposes (or 21 supports if Noleander has it right) is not 2 to 1 - the ratio cited above to justify consensus. Aside from that, it's simply inappropriate for the same editor who proposed these changes to personally contact the closing admin and ask him to close the discussion, as well as prod them with language like "Certain quibblers", "although support for "ethnicity" is running 2:1" (which wasn't true when he said it and isn't true now), and "The discord has discouraged other editors from participating"). Why is this okay? Surely it wouldn't be okay if I did it? I'd be the first to say so (I hope). And this is all on a policy proposal that has been rejected / reached no consensus before. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the people who opposed this, it looks like the close does reflect the actual consensus of editors above. I also think that some of the comments did have implict back and forth since people do in subsequent remarks address concerns raised by others. There is a plausible argument that this should have had a large RfC given the major policy aspect that is involved in this and the past failed attempts to make this policy. I don't have any strong opinion on that part in either direction. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

My problem with the close is based on two things:
"2 to 1" was cited as the vote tally. But 22 to 14 isn't 2 to 1 or "about 2 to 1". And if we're going by numbers here, shouldn't the canvassing be an issue?
The person who proposed these changes was the one who contacted the closing editor and asked him to be the one to close it. He then continued to contact him with loaded language. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you really think that Raul would be so easily swayed that a message happening to have slightly loaded language would influence his close? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't think he would be easily swayed. But I find this whole idea that the proposer of the policy personally selected the closing administrator and kept prodding him to be disquieting. This isn't really how the process is supposed to work, is it? One side shouldn't really pick the judge? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is self identification or relevancy to notability important as concerns ethnicity? In this lengthy discussion I don't think anyone ever addressed that. Most of the argumentation concerned several editor's objection to what they saw as boosterism on the part of editors. The other argument was that ethnicity was only a social construct. Fine—supposing we accept that editors are including ethnicity out of ethnic pride, and supposing we accept that ethnicity is merely a social construct. But the policy hinges upon whether a prerequisite for inclusion in categories by ethnicity is both self identification and relation to notability. Has anybody in this discussion suggested a reason why a prerequisite for inclusion in categories for ethnicity should be self identification and relevancy to notability? Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The "notability" part in particular seems to have nothing to do with BLP concerns. Let's say someone repeatedly self-identifies as ethnicity X, even on national television (a talk show or whatnot). What could the possible BLP concern be in that scenario? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The simple answer is it's very, very rare to find someone who repeatedly mentions their ethnicity to the media but whose ethnicity has no connection to their notability whatsoever. And also apply your question to religious belief or sexual orientation: Let's say someone repeatedly says they are gay or Catholic, even on national television. What could the possible BLP concern be in that scenario? It's just very unlikely to ever happen. People usually stay mum about this stuff for a reason (A.K.A. Kevin Spacey being gay) -- just because the media does figure it out (or think they've figured it out) and report it -- doesn't mean it's relevant to the individual. The media, as we know, reports a lot of inconsequential things about celebrities (and primarily because it just attracts a certain viewership). Not every celebrity's baby's name, for example, is encyclopedic. Bulldog123 22:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Bulldog123—you say, "Just because the media does figure it out (or think they've figured it out) and report it…" Either the source is reliable or the source is not reliable. You are merely invoking a question concerning the reliability of the source. And you say, "…it's very, very rare to find someone who repeatedly mentions their ethnicity to the media but whose ethnicity has no connection to their notability whatsoever." We want to know of a reason why we must establish that ethnicity bears a relation to the person's reason for notability. I don't think we need to concern ourselves with how rare or common it is for someone to mention their ethnicity to the media in an instance in which their ethnicity is not tied to their notability. Bus stop (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
We want to know of a reason why we must establish that ethnicity bears a relation to the person's reason for notability. Because encyclopedias don't categorize by attributes that are not considered biographically notable.... and in 99% of other cases... Wikipedia doesn't either. Mentioning a few "factual attributes" - like one's sexual orientation or ethnic background - in a wikipedia article is one thing, but adding people to lists and categories that emphasize those attributes and imply connections between individuals who share those attributes in common... is totally different. Bulldog123 00:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Bulldog123—you refer to "…adding people to lists and categories that emphasize those attributes and imply connections between individuals who share those attributes…" but we neither "emphasize those attributes" nor "imply connections between individuals who share those attributes" when we include individuals in Categories and Lists. We are just supplying relevant and sourced information. Readers may or may not find that information useful. We need not defend the inclusion of information such as ethnicity on the basis of its value as information. We need not see an immediate and apparent need for the inclusion of ethnicity. We should not mislead. But having assured ourselves that the inclusion of information on ethnicity is not misleading, we should lean toward including it unless the inclusion of that information would likely pose an imposition on a living individual. This is the only tie-in to WP:BLP that I am aware of. That reliable sources supply us with information about ethnicity indicates that there is a degree of substantiality to that information. We don't have to know how it is useful. We should be trusting of the judgement of a source if we deem that source to be reliable. Reliable sources set the precedent for us—not the other way around, except as concerns the special sensitivities of living people. Wikipedia should be understood to have higher standards than reliable sources when the article is of a living person. We very much screen material on the basis of whether or not it poses a potential problem vis-a-vis the special sensitivities of living people. If in doubt we should use the article Talk page or the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Ethnicity does not necessarily pose a WP:BLP issue. Including that information in Categories and Lists is called for unless it seems that WP:BLP would be violated. WP:BLP says, in a nutshell "Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." WP:BLP is being misunderstood if it is being understood to mean that we can't include ethnicity in Categories and Lists even when no special concerns regarding living individuals can be discerned. Bus stop (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
For me the motivation of the proposal is to limit the current practice of including people in ethnicity based lists or categories based on arguments such as "it is common knowledge", "obviously he looks X" or "his grandfather was X" and enforce the policy of WP:V also in the area of inclusion in lists and membership of groups. The proposal is basically to require that WP:V (our most basic policy) also applies in the case of group membership ascription. We wouldn't classify somone is a socialist with out attribution to a source, why can we call someone irish without attribution merely judging from haircolor, name or genealogy? I think this strict policy is fully justified by the fact that the opposite case is now rampant all over wikipedia's ethnicity related pages. The list of Jewish Nobel Laureates for example contained untill recently several persons who had publicly disclaimed any affiliation with Jewish identity and publicly stated that such issues were irrelevant to their being a Nobel laureate. Even worse is the rampant tendency of ethnicity infoboxes having galleries of persons whose identification with the group in question "E.g. White Mexicans" is completely unsourced. I much prefer the strict policy to the sloppy laissez faire we are forced to endure now where every nationalist can claim people as members of their favored category based on surname, looks, place of birth, etc. Ethnicity has to be relevant to be relevant.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Yup, unsubstantiated randomly-generated montages like File:WhiteAmericanFolks.jpg and File:Spanish-American-people.JPG. Half those people would never even call themselves "Spanish American." Bulldog123 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Maunus, I agree completely with the WP:V part. But that's all you need. You could enforce everything you just described simply using that policy, and be in the right (for example, your List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners is a good case - if they don't identify as Jewish, it wouldn't pass WP:V). You don't need this additional legislation, which explicitly says that self-identification isn't enough (and thus, I'd imagine most of List of Jewish nobel laureates would have to be deleted unless it was shown their self-identified Jewishness had any relation to their chemistry or biology practices). Bulldog123, Is it really all that rare for famous people to mention their ethnicity to the media? I don't think so. George Clooney mentions being of Irish descent quite a lot in interviews, but I don't think you can say it's really relevant to his notability. Shia LaBeouf mentions his Cajun background a lot, and again with the relevance part. And if self-identification is so rare, then wouldn't the self-id criteria be enough? As for the "religion" part, I don't know why that's there either. But its existence doesn't justify the addition of ethnicity. Like I said, if someone publicly identifies themselves as ethnicity X, what's the BLP concern with categorizing them that way? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
That is not a blp concern but a general concern of not including non-encyclopedic information. Clooneys irish and Shia Labeouf's cajun identities are irrelevant.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
But this is a BLP page. The rules etched here should be relevant to the purpose of BLP, not to relevant or irrelevant information. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Maunus—you mention "Clooneys irish and Shia Labeouf's cajun identities." You are referring to a sort of decision that is not 100% clear. It is not clear in all cases whether such attributes of identity should or should not be included. Editors have to discuss this. In addition to the article Talk page we have a perfectly workable Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. These are questions to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Policy should not be dictating whether attributes of identity should or should not serve categorization purposes. Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I realize that inclusion of ethnic based categories now will be a question of justifying membership by showing that it is notable, and that as such it will require discussion. However it shifts the burden of argument to those who wish to include someone in the category, instead of as now simply assuming that ethnic category membership is notable. It isn't necessarily and basing categorization on it requires justification.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess we're not seeing eye-to-eye on the word "repeatedly" here. Amy Poehler calls herself Irish Catholic in some interviews but I don't see why it's necessary to add her to Irish Catholic categories because of that. I'm saying that any truly notable "repeated" mentions of it will have relevance attached to it. Stuff mentioned on talk shows is mostly considered TRIVIA. Bulldog123 23:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If Amy Poehler self-identified as Irish Catholic, why would it be a potential BLP violation to categorize her as an American of Irish descent? Notability or lack of it isn't a BLP issue. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Why would i be encyclopedic?·Maunus·ƛ· 23:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The BLP policy doesn't exist to make sure things are encyclopedic. It exists to protect living people. A certain rule or argument may be valid, or it may not, but that wouldn't justify its inclusion on this page, which has a very particular purpose. And like I said above, I don't think there's consensus. 22 to 14 (or 21 to 14, as Noleander says - somebody probably out to come up with a definite figure), with a few editors explicitly abstaining or saying they're not clear about this policy, is not normally considered consensus. And it's not 2 to 1. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you have the same problem with sexual orientation requiring relevance? Why just ethnicity? Bulldog123 01:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I do, actually. The relevance criteria doesn't make sense anywhere. Just because it already exists for other things doesn't justify extending it. As for sexual orientation specifically, I don't think there's any BLP on Wikipedia of an openly LGBT person who isn't listed under LGBT categories. There's certainly no practice of the relevance criterion for LGBT or sexuality. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Question: people think that there would be a stronger consensus if the fragment about their self-identification being relevant to their notability was removed? That seems in practice to be the main bone of contention. Looking through the original discussion and this discussion it looks like that would be much closer to something that meets consensus in the sense of having as large as a fraction of the commentators happy. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

JoshuaZ—self-identification (with an ethnicity) and relevance to notability (of an ethnicity) are argued by some to be necessary preconditions for inclusion in a category for that ethnicity, or for inclusion in a category involving an "intersection" with that ethnicity. (Someone correct me if I have stated that incorrectly.) Rather than repeat myself, you can probably figure out my feelings on the issue from what I've posted here. Bus stop (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if I understand you correctly. For me, that was the main fault of the proposal, and the reason I opposed it. Essentially, it took guidance intended for categories, extended it to lists, navboxes and infoboxes (without sufficient consideration, IMO, of the inherent differences of these), and added a separate requirement from the BLP policy that previously applied to the wholly-personal identities of religion and sexuality. I believe not only that gender and ethnicity should have been discussed separately, but also that the requirements of "relevance" and "self-identification" should have been proposed individually. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, I never had a strong problem with self-identification. It is something that can be sourced or expressed in the article and something there isn't likely to be much debate about. On the other hand, notability or relevance is such a fragile and hard to define criteria that can potentially be very destructive. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there is a simple empirical test for 'relevance': if an article reads "Joe Dweeb is a notable Xish mole-catcher...", and the only information imparted by 'Xish' is that Dweeb is Xish, it isn't relevant - unless someone can provide a reliable source that suggests that being both a mole-catcher, and Xish is significant in itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
JoshuaZ: you ask about "... if the fragment about their self-identification being relevant to their notability was removed? ". Yes, I would concur that removing the self-identification requirement from WP:BLPCAT would assuage many of my concerns about this proposal. Indeed, that is a good "middle ground" position that seems to strike a good balance between the two extremes. The reason the self-identification requirement is a problem is clear when you consider List of African-American writers. Assuming that about 60 persons on that list are living, and that 90% of them have not self-identified, that means that 54 writers would be removed from that list!!! Removing the self-identification requirement from BLPCAT would remedy that problem. And here is a second sensible compromise: Make the new ethnicity proposal apply only to Categories, not Lists. That way Lists - which can contain footnotes, text, and context - will still be available to provide index and search functions to readers and researchers. --Noleander (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there was any kind of consensus to make it apply to categories but not lists. Context that can be provided on a list can presumably be provided in the article text as well (if the context exists). The best way is to perhaps discuss every issue separately - self-id fication, relevance, and categories/lists. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Serious questions about validity of closing

I just discovered that the proposer of this proposal asked the closing admin to close the discussion, and in that request, the proposer mentioned that the !vote count was 2:1. Then, 2 days later, the admin closed it and in his very brief closing statement, the admin repeated the 2:1 statistic. Yet the !vote count was 21:14, or 3:2. That gives the appearance that the admin did not actually count the !votes. That fact, coupled with the agressive canvassing by the proposer, plus the lack of detail in the closing statement (nor any discussion of compromises or ramifications) hopelessly taints the closing action. Did the closer even read the discussion? I've asked the closer to provide some clarity on these issues. I think the best course of action is to resume the discussion with the compromise suggestions that JoshuaZ is pursuing above. --Noleander (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about the tainted appearance of this close, too, and I've also requested that Raul revert his closure. --Avenue (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
"relevant to their... public life" is also a concern because private versus public is not a proper distinction about ethnicity. Addressing both issues we would have:
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are this information is relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources; in the case of ethnic categories (including ethnic ancestry) sources used in the article must explicitly identify the subject as belonging to or self-identifying as a member of the group, and it must be of biographical significance or relevant to their notable activities.
...
These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and/or statements. that are based on ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or suggest that persons have a poor reputation.
(I struck the last part as redundant). - Wikidemon (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This might be okay. But what does the "biographical significance" part mean? Somebody being the son of Irish immigrants is biographically significant to me, as is someone being Jewish. Do I have it right? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I gather someone can be seen as Jewish without them or their parents having had any active involvement in Jewish community life or religion. In that case, their being Jewish would not necessarily seem very biographically significant to me. I do agree that being the son of Irish immigrants (or Chinese, Polish, etc) would usually be biographically significant, even if it has no clear relevance to what they are noted for. --Avenue (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
See, it's kind of hard to puzzle out exactly what this wording means. Someone else may not agree with what you just said (i.e. son of Polish immigrants wouldn't be biographically notable, nor would being raised Jewish). So it seems like this wording is fairly similar to what we have up there now, in that it gives out fairly confusing standards that are tough to really puzzle out. Whereas self-identification is usually pretty simple. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
We can leave it to the sources, which is what we're supposed to be doing. If the sources give importance to someone being Jewish (whatever their definition) or Irish-American, whatever, so may we. That's a lot better than trying to puzzle out the often impertinent question of whether their Jewishness is a "public life" thing. Inherently, ethnicity is not public. Or it is. But it's not a variable. If someone is African-American are they publicly so? What does that even mean... they "act black"? Talk about being black? Get involved in African-American things? - Wikidemon (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Our job is to compile information with as little interpretation as possible. Our job is not to step on the feet of living people, and it might not be a bad idea to avoid stepping on the feet of dead people as well. At WP:BLP we find: "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." I think we are all losing sight of just what WP:BLP is. WP:BLP is normal practice plus added care. WP:BLP is just standard practice plus greatest care. The words "greatest care" are the only thing that separates the way we as editors operate under WP:BLP and the way we operate project-wide. Notability, or relevance to that which an individual is notable, has nothing to do with WP:BLP—it has nothing to do with, "verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
"Our job is to compile information with as little interpretation as possible". No. Just plain wrong - our 'job' is to produce an encyclopedia, not a database. Tagging people with 'ethnic' stereotypes should play no part in this - and if the only reason somebody is described as being of a certain ethnicity is to assert that they belong in a certain category, it is stereotyping, isn't neutral, and thus fully within the remit of WP:BLP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—you say, "…if the only reason somebody is described as being of a certain ethnicity is to assert that they belong in a certain category, it is stereotyping…" That is according to you. We should be following reliable sources. And in the case of a biography of a living person, we should be following only high quality reliable sources. When a high quality reliable source notes a person's ethnicity, it becomes information that we should incorporate into our encyclopedia. You can call it "Tagging people with 'ethnic' stereotypes…" but that is merely an expression of your personal beliefs. We should not let our strongly held personal beliefs influence our editing decisions. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Coming from an obsessive ethno-tagging SPA contributor like yourself, I find your comments regarding "strongly held personal beliefs" frankly laughable. I note too you have given no justification for this tagging whatsoever - do you agree with me that this is only appropriate in a database, or are you going to explain why such labels should be applied? I can find a 'reliable source' that says that the value of Pi is is approximately 3.14159265 but I wouldn't put that in a biography. Why not? Because I couldn't justify doing so. If I did, it would be removed as irrelevant. Simple logic (and Wikipedia policy) says that if you wish to make a statement in an article, you have to be prepared to provide a reason to do so. Unless you can provide a rational argument as to why this shouldn't apply to statements about ethnicity (particularly unqualified ones in lists and categories), you will have to accept that having a 'reliable source' for something is a necessary requirement for inclusion, but not a sufficient one. Or alternately, you could call for a change in general policy (but not here): rename the project WikiDataBase, and include everything we can 'source' about everyone. Compile as many categories as you can, and don't complain if someone else decides to compile a list of Jewish people convicted of financial misdemeanours because they find it 'interesting' - I'm sure such a list could be made, and verifiably sourced. I'd argue that such a list should not be compiled, but the logic of your arguments seems to imply that it should. That is what I mean about stereotyping, and why I see it as wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to leave a talk page note on that one. Folks, please stick to the subject and don't let your passion about this issue lead you to forget Wikipedia about WP:CIVIL and related policy. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

WTF

Raul just reverted his close of this RfC, because he's "not really in the mood for a big bruhaha over this". I find that rationale for reverting completely unacceptable. He had two acceptable options. 1) Defending his actions, and 2) reverting them after admitting to making a mistake. I would not have agreed with the rationale for #2 but I would have accepted it as a valid, indeed honorable, course of action if he truly believes that he was mistaken for whatever reason in closing the discussion, or in reaching the result he initially did. Now he has just mired the discussion in even more controversy.Griswaldo (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've often thought "WTF" to myself when working on Wikipedia, but I've never actually typed it in :-) --Noleander (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Ok. How do people feel about the following wording?

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding ethnicity religious beliefs, and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the information in question; or this information is relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
...
These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and/or {{infobox}} statements that are based on ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or suggest that persons have a poor reputation.

This removes "gender" which apparently has less of a consensus for inclusion. This also makes inclusion weaker since self-identification or notability is now sufficient for inclusion in the categories. I'm not sure that this should apply to lists because we can (unlike categories) include sources in the lists directly. But for now this seems to be a middle ground that should maximize consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It will never fly to allow notability to trump self-identification. Some people want such information to be private, and essentially now you're requiring them to affirmatively deny labels that otherwise reliable sources may place on them in order to not be labelled as such at Wikipedia. On second thought, can they even affirmatively deny it? What trumps what when self-identification and claimed notability clash? That wont fly with many of us. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you are deeply misinterpreting what this would do. It has to be relevant to their notability. That's much stronger than simply having reliable sources saying they fit in a category. For example, if an actor happens to have some RS say they fit in some ethnic group, but no sources at all connect that to their career, they wouldn't go in the category. Obviously, if someone actively self-identifies out of a category, that trumps other issues (that would seem like common sense to me. But if you feel a need we could add an explicit line to that effect.) JoshuaZ (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose based on that description, which reflects an artificial concept of ethnicity developed solely for the purpose of Wikipedia compromise rather than the off-Wikipedia understanding of what ethnicity means. Self-identification is not the determinative issue for ethnicity - neither necessary nor sufficient, and to make it so is not an encyclopedic undertaking. Perhaps on census forms, but in general people do not choose their ethnicity. I disagree with the "public life" requirement too, because that is often not a meaningful issue regarding ethnicity. I'll point out that we can't legislate a compromise on this page anyway - anything agreed to here becomes a proposal that would have to reflect, or gain, consensus across relevant parts of the project. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, ethnicity is a very cultural fluid notion that isn't well-defined. People even change their ethnic identification over their life times. And identifing people as an ethnicity does raise real BLP issues. Self-identification isn't a perfect solution but it handles a lot of the problems. The relevance to notability is to help deal with some edge cases more than anything else. And yes, while we can't legislate, BLP is the relevant policy, and a community centered discussion here is what matters for determining project policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, JoshuaZ do you have a test case that might illustrate how that would work? Also, what happens when editors argue that certain intersection is notable generally speaking, let's say "Jewish actors". Does that now extend to any actor who is also labelled as Jewish in reliable sources, or only to those whom there are sources specifically about being notable for being Jewish?Griswaldo (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
So to use one test case, Judd Hirsch is known for playing older Jewish men, which he is. So one could include him in the category if one had a reliable source saying so, because it connects his ethnicity with his notability. You could do that even if you couldn't find a statement from him saying "yes, I'm Jewish and I'm saying so explicitly just to make it even more obvious." Neve Campbell would be included in the Jewish category because she self-identifies. But if Natalie Portman had never explicitly said she was Jewish one wouldn't include her in the category (I'm assuming here there are no reliable sources that claim her acting career is somehow connected to her ethnicity.) Does that help? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
That's entirely unsatisfactory. (Assuming that the above is correct regarding sources) Natalie Portman is Jewish, and to pretend she isn't because she chooses to not publicly self-identify is a denial of her ethnicity. It would be ridiculous to disenfranchise most people of their ethnicity by imposing a "don't ask / don't tell" policy on the topic. Incidentally, I don't think anything can hinge on whether one plays one's ethnicity as an actor. There are people famous for portraying other ethnicities, and in the history of Jewish entertainment, the choice of certain notable Jewish actors to portray non-Jews was in itself a notable fact. That's a minor side issue but it illustrates the problem with questioning whether ethnicity is relevant to a person's notability, or public life. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
One of the reasons, precisely, for *not* having this kind of categories is that the absence of an individual from such a category will not be construed as an assertion that he or she definitely does not fit in that category. Feketekave (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't ask, don't tell is not in any way an accurate metaphor here. No one is saying, "it's OK if you are X ethnicity as long as you keep it to yourself. If you tell us about it we'll ban you." What on earth did you mean by that? I'd also like to echo Joshua below on how backwards your notion of disenfranchisement is. You think that it is enfranchising to label someone as X when they've chosen not to do so themselves? I'm seriously beginning to question your motivations in this discussion, as they are beginning to appear to be argument for arguments sake. I have no other way of explaining what else is going on with this last reply. If you can clear it up be my guest but I'm really rather baffled.Griswaldo (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
What they're proposing is "unless you publicly self-identify as X we will not treat you as X". Sorry if contemporary conceptions of ethnic identity seems backwards to you, but requiring public self-identification as a determining criterion of ethnicity is not the way ethnicity is generally understood, not in America at least. That is disenfranchising. Not sure about other parts of the world. Please keep accusations about other editors' motivations off discussion pages like this, thanks. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
As a point of fact what Joshua has proposed is not "and" but "or" regarding self-identification and notability (self-identification in other words is not required if the other criteria is met). OK if that is what you want to essentialize from "don't ask, don't tell" then I'm not going to quibble with you over it. I was hoping you were done with the straw men. How many times do you have to be told that this does not effect entry content but only use of categories and additions to lists? Being categorized as Jewish or being placed on a list of Jewish people is like wearing a badge that says you're Jewish and nothing like privately accepting that ethnic label. The assumption that everyone who privately accepts an ethnic identity wants to be slapped with an ethnic badge, is ass-backwards. Those who do want to be viewed as Jewish, or Armenian, or Lilliputian, will slap the badge on themselves. Being enfranchised means having the right to do something. No one has said that living people should lose their right to be Jewish, or Armenian or Lilliputian. Quite to the contrary. We're saying they have a right to control how they present their ethnicity to the public. I resent the claim that I don't understand American identity politics. I understand them all too well. What this debate suffers from is an aspect of those politics. You also claim that ethnicity is not understood in the manner I have presented it. Well I have not presented "ethnicity" in any manner at all. I'm not arguing about what makes someone Jewish or not Jewish, I'm arguing about how we responsibly present someone's ethnic identity here on Wikipedia when that person is a living breathing human being. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, if being categorized Jewish without having stood up and announced it to the world (and being covered by a reliable source as having done so) is being slapped with an unwanted unwanted "badge", and having the Jewish category removed from your biography because you have not sung it from the rooftop in that way is (I can assure you - perhaps not for you but for many) a disenfranchisement, then what can we do? The same thing we always do, we stick to the sources without second guessing them. Subject to all the other concerns about weight, reliability, etc., if the sources describe you as Jewish, or African-American, or Irish American, or whatever, so does the article. It's simple, really. Encyclopedia building. Regarding how many times you must voice your opinion before I agree with you, once, ideally, because further repetition does not add anything. If you're going to call my conception of identity "backwards" then please don't take mock offense when I say that you don't seem to understand it. In fact, as I asked earlier, please try to leave the personal digs out of this. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't call your concept of identity backwards, nor have I been promoting any concepts of identity of my own. I called your notion of "disenfranchisement" backwards, which it is. Can you stop with the straw men please? And, just to keep matters straight, I also did not take offense to the notion of not understanding your concept of identity, but to not understanding some general American way of conceptualizing identity (which is what you claimed). Once again, this has nothing to do with how one conceptualizes identity. This has to do with how we categorize people based on ethnic categories here on Wikipedia. Can I ask you why you added ... "and being covered by a reliable source as having done so", as if that was some even greater hurdle I was proposing above and beyond self-identification? Isn't that a requirement for any piece of information added to the encyclopedia that it was "covered by a reliable source?" I'm perplexed by that statement. Regarding your claim to merely be "encyclopedia building," can you please provide some evidence that what you wish to do vis-a-vis ethnic categorization is something one might understand as "encyclopedia building". You must have some good examples of other encyclopedias that do that same thing I imagine. As you and I both know, no encyclopedia includes every piece of information about every subject. Also, no encyclopedia categorizes types of entries in every way imaginable. So since their is discernment on what information to include and how to categorize entries in any encyclopedia I imagine that you have ample examples to support your case regarding "encyclopedia building." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
(rolls eyes) Please. I'll stop defending myself against the ad hominems as soon as you stop making them. Or maybe I'll just stop. Either way, again, better to stick with the discussion topic rather than complain about other editors. The encyclopedia in question is Wikipedia, and the concept is sticking with sourced information rather than filtering it through our opinions about the subject. The point is that if the body of the sources says "X is / was [raised as / practicing / educated / brought up as / etc.] Jewish" we should not have to hunt for a "and they said so themselves" or an "and it relates to their public life or career". - Wikidemon (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
What do you propose to do when sources and selfidentificaton conflicts? What do we do when a living person has explicitly and verifiably stated that they do not identify with x category, but that certain sources include them in it anyway? Do you not agree that the policy needs to be able to adress that question specifically? What do we do when certain external criteria for inclusion do not match with the groups own criteria for inclusion? (e.g. Nuremberg laws define "Jew" differently than does the Torah etc. which trumps which?) Self identification is necessary to avoid people being put into categories they do not identify with. This is the basic BLP issue, and the reason that selfidentification is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for inclusion into a category.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
What do we normally do when the sources conflict, or contradict the (sourced) word of a living subject? Offhand, we proceed with caution and err on the side of omitting the category. However, the absence of a sourced affirmation should not be taken as a denial. That's not how BLP works in other contexts, and to date not how it has worked with ethnicity. We generally follow what the sources say. A source that uses the Nuremberg laws, or Jewish religious tenets for that matter, as the basis for its declaration that someone is Jewish would not be a reliable source. We generally take the New York Times on its word, though, or a serious author writing on the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I don't follow your logic. If someone doesn't want to self-identify as a member of a group, it isn't disenfranchising them to not include them. The default for someone is to not be included in a category. In any event, the actor example is just an example. If one had an actor from one ethnic group where it was notable that they never played actors from their own ethnic group, and you had reliable sources saying so, that would be fine to. The key to that point is that there are reliable sources that say more than just "is member of ethnic group A" but rather "is member of ethnic group A, and this matters for reasons X,Y,Z." Speaking more politically, some version of this restriction is going to get passed because most people here quite understandably don't want to be in a position where we have serious BLP problems of people being described in categories that they don't consider accurate and aren't relevant to their work. Some version of this is going to get added to BLP. The question is what will get added. So repeatedly arguing against any addition is not going to help make a compromise. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The reliable sources already use their own standards for deciding whether or not to say that someone is Jewish, Irish-American, or whatever. And we have our own amorphous standards for deciding what is relevant and noteworthy enough to print. To date, all attempts to create general relevancy criteria have failed. I trust that we're not trying to invent one here for reasons of identity politics, or to mollify people clamoring to restrict ethnic identification simply because they think there's too much of it. If there's a real problem with people reasonably objecting to their ethnic categorization on Wikipedia let's hear it and figure out where it comes from. This particular proposal would require self-identification not to Wikipedia, but to a reliable source in a way that convinces the reliable source to mention the self-identification. Thus, to be counted as Jewish one has to stand up on a chair in front of a writer to announce it. There are plenty of people who are quite open about being Jewish (or Irish-American, or whatever), and consider it part of who they are, they just don't go around in public wearing it as a badge in connection with their career or public life. I doubt they want to be left off the books for making that choice. Moreover, there are plenty of sources that mention a person's ethnicity without mentioning how they decided the fact or why they mention it. That stuff is left in the reporter notes and fact checking log. If someone is writing their life story - their biography - they often describe ethnic background. An "up close and personal" type of magazine article would mention their being Jewish. A "roundup of today's entertainment news" article would not. Portman is probably in that category, although in point of fact I think she has self-identified and her Jewishness has been tied to her public life. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, if you simply want to require extra solid sourcing before mentioning someone's ethnicity in a category, why not say that directly? You could tweak the wording, but something like "for a person to be placed in an ethnic category requires a strongly sourced statement in the article that they are in that category, indicating that it is biographically important and relevant". That's a lot better than a person isn't ethnic unless they announce it in public and it affects their career. Trying to agree among Wikipedians on when ethnicity matters, and why, is a POV exercise. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I would back that proposal. For me the important thing is to have a statement within policy that can be used to remind editors that ethnicity is not simply "obvious" or "obviously notable" but requires solid sourcing and solid arguments for inclusion. At present there are not a good policy basis for removing poorly sourced or poorly argued ethnic categorizations, and the burden of evidence is almost on the person who argues for exclusion. I think it is important that in this issue we follow the standard policy of reequiring verification and notability for inclusion of information.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have some objections to this compromise proposal (for example, it applies the ethnicity limitation to Lists, which are radically different than Categories) but - in the spirit of compromise - I would support it (pending further discussion) because it relaxes the onerous "self identification" requirement which would (if not relaxed) have the effect of eliminating hundreds, even thousands, of persons from Lists and Categories ... even in Lists that are amply annotated and footnoted. --Noleander (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't support that wording because I don't believe self-identification somehow trumps relevance. I'm okay with loosening the "self-identification" requirement but not the relevance requirement. I would, however, support a compromise that makes clear that simply because we find a source claiming somebody is of [blank] ethnic background, that doesn't mean it's immediately appropriate to add them to any and every list and category reflecting various ethnicity and occupation combinations. A relevance part should be required when adding individuals to such cats and lists... i.e., if an architect is of Polish descent and says he is of Polish descent, he still doesn't get put in Category:American architects of Polish descent unless some external source (or he himself) connects his Polishness to his job as an architect (how ... I don't know... but if it's relevant combination than it will certainly be mentioned). That a single reliable source reports it shouldn't be (and really isn't) enough. As Griswaldo explained, we have no idea what standard some of these "reliable" sources are using. They could be using a "nationality-based" or "religious-based" (in the case of Judaism) standard... and not an ethnic one at all. Yet, it appears many users here "don't care" what the standard is even though it then violates WP:V (because it verifies something different). It's like adding Christian Bale to ethnic Welsh categories even though he's explicitly stated that his parents are not Welsh by ethnicity -- that he was merely born in Wales. Or it's like adding Elizabeth Banks to ethnically Jewish cats and lists even though she's a convert to the religion. It's not proper to merely assume a source means one thing over another -- there has to be an appropriate context -- and if there isn't, it shouldn't be used. I simply don't want stuff like this happening again, where Aleksandra Wozniak was added to two Jewish lists and a Jewish cat because what appeared to be an okay source listed her name under a list of "Jewish sportspeople" with no other details. Presumably, that IP was someone related to her asking she be removed from the list, and he was refused because "a reliable source called her Jewish, so that's enough." (the ethno-tagger's bible quote). Bulldog123 18:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to even respond to a discussion that closes by calling people "ethno-taggers", but I fundamentally disagree with the above point, which is distinct from the proposal. If a person is a member of a class, and the class is a notable one, we don't have to establish separately that the person's notability is related to their being a member of the class. Vladimir Ashkenazi is Jewish (although perhaps not under the standard proposed above). He is a classical pianist. He is a Jewish classical pianist. Jews in classical music is a notable subject in its own right. But we do not have (for the sake of argument - there may be a source out there somewhere)[8] a source that ties Ashkenazy's notability as a pianist to his being Jewish. We nevertheless include him in the list of notable Jewish classical pianists, and to leave him off would be a significant omission and disservice to our readers. That does not mean including him in any and every category that intersects with Jews - that's a strawman, as those categories do not exist on the encyclopedia and do not belong. We do include him in the category for Jewish classical musicians because being a notable subject, that category is viable, and Ashkenazy is a member of the category. True, we have no way of knowing whether he is called Jewish for being of Jewish ancestry, ethnicity, lineage, or religion - we could find out, but let's say we cannot from the sources. We don't pick and choose which way of being Jewish is the one that counts. If the sources describe him as Jewish, then we do too. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
And let's not forget the important purpose Categories and Lists serve: WP does not have a superlative indexing system: instead, we rely on Lists and Categories. That's all we have. So if a student is researching a paper on, say, African-American artists, we need to make sure WP provides a way for the student to find them in this encyclopedia. That is a fundamental requirement that the BLP policy must support, and the List of African-American visual artists does a decent job of meeting that need. As we haggle over the wording in BLPCAT, let's not lose sight of the ultimate goal. Just because a handful of editors have abused ethnic categorization is no reason to over-react and create a rule that would delete thousands of living persons from these lists. --Noleander (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wow. Secular Jewish music, which is the article that contains the section Wikidemon linked to on Jews in classical music is a great example of an entry filled with uninformative trivia. It begins in a promising manner, actually discussing various Jewish genres of music, but when we hit the very large final section "Not Jewish in form" it turns into 99% banal statements. Here is an exemplary paragraph:
  • While Jazz is primarily considered an art form with African-American originators, many Jewish musicians have contributed to it including clarinetists Mezz Mezzrow, Benny Goodman and Artie Shaw (the latter two swing bandleaders made significant contributions in bringing racial integration into the American music industry[4][5]), saxophonists Michael Brecker, Paul Desmond, Kenny G, Stan Getz, Benny Green, Lee Konitz, Ronnie Scott Zoot Sims and Joshua Redman, trumpeters and cornetists Randy Brecker, Ruby Braff, Red Rodney and Shorty Rogers, vibraphonist Terry Gibbs, drummers Buddy Rich, Mel Lewis, and Victor Feldman, and singers and pianists Billy Joel, Al Jolson, Ben Sidran and Mel Tormé. Some artists such as Harry Kandel were famous for mixing Jazz with klezmer as was modern Texas klezmer Bill Averbach, and others like Flora Purim have worked with Latin jazz and Jazz fusion. Since a great deal of Jazz music consisted of musical cooperation of Jewish and African-American musicians or black musicians funded by Jewish producers, the art form became "the racist's worst nightmare".
Most of this section of the entry, which actually dominates the entry size wise, is really just a list of Jewish musicians associated with various genres of music. There is minimal prose within it that actually meaningfully discusses how Jews have contributed to these genre's of music, or what the Jewish influences to them might be. Just sentence after sentence listing famous Jewish musicians. I'm glad Wikidemon linked to this entry, because it is indicative of what is wrong with, yes gasp Wikidemon, "ethno-tagging". People who engage in this activity are not really interested in what makes it meaningful, outside of the fact that it is personally meaningful to them to see famous people who identify with the group they identify with. In another discussion above, Wikidemon went out of his way to claim that he's just promoting "encyclopedia building". Well an encyclopedia, and specifically Wikipedia, is not and indiscriminate collection of information. Now please, pretty, pretty please do not make a strawman out of my argument. I think an entry on Secular Jewish music is absolutely encyclopedic, and if the latter section was written like the earlier ones I'd have no problem with it. But as it is this entry is atrocious.Griswaldo (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
In other words this entry does not make the case for why most of the musicians it lists within it are notably "Jewish jazz musicians" or "Jewish classical musicians", or why those intersections are valid subjects that merit discussion in the first place. If the only difference between the contributions of Jewish jazz pianists and Irish-American jazz pianists is their heritage then that is of no interest at all to the subject of jazz piano. What about that do people fail to understand? It is also of no interest to the history of Judaism and Jewishness that there have been Jewish jazz pianists, Jewish plumbers or Jewish philanderers for that matter. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Giswaldo: assuming that the section is poorly worded and poorly sourced, isnt the solution to re-write the section and delete un-sourced material? That is what editors do all day, every day in WP. Extending BLPCAT as a weapon against poorly-written List articles is over-reacting (baby-with-the-bathwater, etc). That is why I support a compromise that keeps BLPCAT, and even adds ethnicity into it, but discards self-identification. Reliable sources are sufficient, and List articles support footnotes, and footnotes are already required in many important List articles. --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not that it's "poorly worded or poorly sourced." It's that it has no encyclopedic content whatsoever. As Griswaldo accurately points out, most of that article is just one massive list of random people organized in prose format. Also check the last few paragraphs of Secular_Jewish_culture#Visual_Arts_and_Architecture, which does the same thing. "Look at all these unconnected artists who have had some sort of Jewish background... cool, huh?" It even includes artists like Balthus and Lucian Freud who have both explicitly stated that their Jewish backgrounds (or lack thereof according to Balthus) have little to do with their art. There's ZERO material in that section actually describing what modern "secular Jewish art" is and how these people contribute to it. The first half is better, the second half is a joke. With statements like - If a person is a member of a class, and the class is a notable one, we don't have to establish separately that the person's notability is related to their being a member of the class - it's clear Wikidemon sees Wikipedia as a directory/database and not as an encyclopedia. There's really nothing more to say. Bulldog123 22:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It is correct that we cannot simply establish a category of "secular jewish art" or "Jewish Jazz music" and then simply add people who are Jewish and secular artists or jewish and Jazz musicians to that category. For Jewish secular art it has to be something more than simply secular art practiced by Jews (because there is probably no genre of art in the world that has not been practiced by jews) and it must be possible to determine whether a particular jewish artist contributes to or fits within that category thorugh means that are not simple "deduction" (he is jewish he is an artist). I do not doubt that there exists a tradition of Secular Jewish art, but it is obviously also the fact that not every jewish artists contriibutes to it.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
"many Jewish musicians have contributed to it including clarinetists Mezz Mezzrow, Benny Goodman ... saxophonists Michael Brecker, Paul Desmond"
That's funny! Paul Desmond isn't even Jewish. This is exactly why all of us need to stop wasting time on making up and then fighting over weird policies that make no sense whatsoever, and more time actually looking for factual information, bringing it into the encyclopedia, and correcting errors (Alexandra Wozniak is another example). These policies do not assist us in doing this, or anything else. Fact over debate. That should be everyone's motto. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Found another one! Zoot Sims is not Jewish at all. How'd he even get on that list? I rest my case. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Gotta love the text on Flora Purim: "hence Purim presumably has Jewish ancestry through her father". Try and source that one! Seriously, folks, if you hate ethnicity categories and ethnicity text and ethnicity lists, you could go through Wikipedia right now and clean this stuff out using Wikipedia:Verifiability. You will never run out of material, I assure you. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
What case have you rested exactly? That Jewish classical musicians is not a notable subject or viable category? That Vladimir Ashkenazy is not a Jewish classical pianist? Improving articles by requiring citations and sticking with the sources would be a lot more productive than trying to do away with ethnic categorization by fiat. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
No, my case that all our times are better spent improving these articles and categories instead of making up strange policies that are only going to make things worse. I'm on your side, here.... I think. As for Vladimir Ashkenazy, his mother isn't Jewish, so I don't know how Jewish he really is. But that's a case-by-case issue or debate, not a policy issue. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Vladimir Ashkenazy is not a Jewish classical pianist. You'd have a hard time proving Vladimir Ashkenazy can actually even be called "Jewish" because his mother isn't Jewish, he's not Jewish by religion, and he (presumably) hasn't publicly self-identified as Jewish anywhere. Sure, he is verifiably a "person of Jewish descent" by virtue of his father being an ethnic Jew... but that's about it. Exactly one hit comes up when you look up "Vladimir Ashkenazy" and "Jewish pianist" on google books and it does nothing but mention Ashkenazy's name in a single sentence on a single page to make a remark about something else. Sorry, I don't buy that as a "reliable source indicating Ashkenazy's father's Jewishness affecting his work as a pianist. Try again. Bulldog123 07:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)\
We don't have to show that his father's Jewishness affected his work as a pianist. That's the point. Either he's Jewish or not, something we can turn to the sources on. A book on Jewish classical pianists devotes an entire chapter to him, but it's not online so I cant assess the reliability or what it actually says. Other sources describe him as Jewish.[9] He says that he never felt Jewish,[10] which can serve as a denial. He also says that he doesn't identify as Russian, but he is Russian.[11] So that becomes a sourcing question. Daniel Barenboim is much easier to source as Jewish, and he's a pianist too among other things.[12] If he's Jewish and he's a classical pianist, he's a Jewish classical pianist. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you link to that book where there's an entire chapter devoted to him being known as a Jewish pianist? We don't have to show that his father's Jewishness affected his work as a pianist. That's the point. Either he's Jewish or not, something we can turn to the sources on. Unfortunately that's not how things work around here. Editors don't get to decide who is or who is not a "Jewish classical pianist" by virtue of just proclaiming stuff like If he's Jewish and he's a classical pianist, he's a Jewish classical pianist. Look at it this way, if "Jewish classical pianist" was up for CfD (which, arguably, it should be) a few editors might inevitably argue that it is a notable intersection because some pianists have their Judaism affect their work (which, albeit unlikely, could be possible - I suppose - for a handful of individuals). They'd argue this because categories can only exist per WP:OCAT if the combination is known as a distinct cultural phenomenon. So say the category was kept for that reason. You'd be argue that although this category was only saved because it serves to include a handful of Judaism-influenced pianists, we should still include Vladimir Ashkenazy because a few disparate sources may have declared him to be a Jewish... even though he appears not to self-identify, indicates no connection between his art and his father's heritage, and his background isn't even truly Jewish by most Jewish peoples' standards? Isn't that a classic example of a BLP violation? Also, your argument that he doesn't identify as a Russian but we still call him a Russian is yet another instance of people confusing nationality and ethnicity. According to this quote -- After all, Mr. Ashkenazy freely admits he never identified intellectually or emotionally with either his Russian background or his Jewish heritage, and he now lives comfortably in Switzerland with his Icelandic wife and their five children. -- it appears Ashkenazy would not consider his ethnic Russian and ethnic Jewish backgrounds to be relevant at all to his "intellectual" achievements (read: his music). However, he was born a Russian citizen so it's not improper to place him in Russian nationality cats... just like it's not improper to place him in Icelandic nationality cats. Any ethnic Russian cats - however - should be reviewed immediately after this quote. And regarding any Jewish ethnic cats... sorry, but this bears repeating because a lot of users have difficulty with it, the default of an article's category-space is not "Jewish" ... it's "nothing." The fact that we're even discussing this at such length goes to show how necessary this policy/guideline change is. Bulldog123 19:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
First, that's not my argument - I'll let you reread it. My link to the book on Jewish pianists, above, mentions a chapter on Ashkenazy.[13] As I explained, the contents are not online so we cannot tell what the book says or if it's a reliable source. Even if it is reliable, it appears to be contradicted by other sources regarding Ashkenazy's self-identification. If Ashkenazy is not Jewish, something that is entirely possible, the argument doesn't even arise. It's a simple WP:V issue we can handle just fine(and are handling)[14][15] without making up new policy. Next, that is the way things work here. We have discussed this several times on different forums; you and some others just happen to disagree. If a person is French, and he's a chef, then he is a French chef. We could quibble about whether we need a single source saying he is both French and a chef, whether multiple sources will do, or whether we need the source to say he is a French chef. But whichever sourcing standard you choose, we don't impose a content standard requiring us to dig into whether his being French contributed to his career as a chef. It's a given that Jewish classical pianists are a notable phenomenon, not worth going down that rabbit hole. If you don't believe that being Jewish has anything to do with these various occupations (but somehow, nationality does), that's a different issue entirely that can be discussed elsewhere. That issue is not about sourcing or BLP, but rather your conception of ethnicity and how Wikipedia should treat it. Judging from your repeated dismissals of the relevance of ethnicity to anything, here and elsewhere, that's what it looks. But if we accept the sources, and consensus of the community, there are a number of notable specific ethnicity / occupation pairs, and the job of editors is to adequately source who is a member of the which.- Wikidemon (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all, if you're actually using Books LLC as your reference, you should know you're sourcing Wikipedia with Wikipedia. There is no "chapter" on Vladimir Ashkenazy being a Jewish classical pianist in that publication, it's literally just a paper form of his Wikipedia article. We're already tainting the internet with misleading information via this article, it's sad we now have some weird publisher helping it move along. Anyway... I guess I'll have to admit I don't really understand what your argument is. You seem to argue (here and there) that certain categories should exist because there are people whose X heritage is a defining or driving factor in their ability to do or be Y... but yet don't have an issue with populating those cats full of individuals who don't uphold that connection between their ethnicity and their occupation (i.e., Vladimir Ashkenazy's father not having to be an influence in his piano playing/composing). You can understand how this is confusing, right? You brought up this French chef example once before in an AfD a while back. "French" is a nationality and categorization by nationality is done to every occupation category on wikipedia (see: WP:Categorization of people). However, Category:Chefs of French descent would be pointless nonsense - an arbitrary ethnicity/occupation mishmash - and I'm not seeing how the way you're suggesting we use Category:People who are Jewish and who are pianists is any different from that. Oh, and no, it's actually not that obvious at all that "Jewish classical pianist" is a notable phenomenon. It might be for a really, really narrow group of people, yes... but even that is kind of hard to prove right now. secular Jewish music says NOTHING about Jews and playing the piano. Bulldog123 18:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This exchange you two guys just had on Vladimir Ashkenazy is exactly the kind of thing we should be having - a case-by-case analysis based on facts. Whether or not to apply whichever category should be decided on each individual page based on a merger of facts and consensus. It's exactly why we don't need sweeping policies and incomprehensible rules. WP:V is so basic and obvious that it's really good enough. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:V is not enough and these types of exchanges almost always end in the no-consensus revert-war zone. People tend to ignore or not understand WP:OR, WP:OCAT and WP:SYNTH and so things get heated and out of hand. The biggest excuse people give for planting excessive ethnicity cats and lists all over the wikipedia articlespace is that... "there are no plainly-worded policies/guidelines against doing so." We need one. This can be it. Honestly, if you have nit-picky issues about the details (like how this affects descent categories) then we can and should compromise, but acting like there no need for a change at all is just elongating an already overlong problem. Bulldog123 19:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:V is not enough? Reaaaly? I took the Jewish categories out of Ashkenazy's page last night before this back-and-forth between the two of you even happened. No one reverted me. No sirens appeared in the background. Thunder and lightning did not strike me down. Life went on, it appears, as before. So I'd say, yes, WP:V is definitely enough. I'm a small-government Wikipedian, see. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I still maintain that it's not enough. And just to prove it... look, I already found a source that calls Vladimir Ashkenazy Jewish: [16]. Took no time at all. According to vague language WP:V, I can re-add all those categories now. With Wikidemon and Bus Stop's logic, that would be totally fine. Yet, Ashkenazy still doesn't identify as Jewish and still maintains, according that that quote, that his Judaism has nothing to do with his intellectual efforts. So how did WP:V alone stop this from being a BLP issue? Bulldog123 04:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
A single reference doesn't mean that WP:V is automatically satisfied. These references don't live in a vacuum. Anyone who tells you that having one source means that's a proven fact forever is not correct in their interpretation of WP:V. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And what happens with someone like Bob Dylan (also listed on that page), who is not religiously Jewish at all, and hasn't been since the 1970s apparently. Yet he belongs to the following categories we're told - Category:Christians of Jewish descent, Category:American people of Lithuanian-Jewish descent, Category:American people of Ukrainian-Jewish descent, Category:Jewish American composers and songwriters, Category:Jewish American musicians, Category:Jewish American writers, Category:Jewish peace activists, Category:Jewish singers. If he converted to Christianity in the 1970s what makes him a "Jewish peace activist", or a "Jewish singer"? I mean, despite not liking the descent categories, I understand how they are accurate, but what makes someone who is no longer Jewish a "Jewish peace activist"? Is there really no choice in the matter at all?Griswaldo (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are born of Jewish ancestry, you cannot be un-born so. However, you are pointing out an important difference between being of Jewish descent, Jewish religion, Jewish ethnicity / culture, and so on. Distinctions like this affect all ethnicities, but do so in different ways. A more systematic approach would be helpful, particularly as we're trying to code things in a way that will someday be useful to the semantic web. But the complexity of the task does not justify giving up on it. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
"Ancestry" categories should simply be prohibited, they contribute nothing of value to the encyclopedia. Ethnicity is not about ancestry by the way. How can it be so difficult to make a guideline under which a "Jewish singer" is used only about someone who sings Jewish music, and not someone who sings and may or may not have been exposed to Jewish music in early childhood?·Maunus·ƛ· 02:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Maunus—"Jewish" is an attribute of personal identity. For Wikipedia purposes it is established by reliable sources. If a source indicates that XYZ is "Jewish", we should categorize him/her as "Jewish". There is no reason why there should be any relationship between an individual's reason for notability and the attribute of personal identity serving categorization purposes. The person has a Wikipedia article because notability has been established for them. As policy says, "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." Under the fortified standards of WP:BLP we require good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
So '"Jewish" is an attribute of personal identity' is it? Lets see who agrees with you? There is this lot [17] for a start. They seemed to like 'reliable sources' too. The rest of the world has moved on since then, and realises that 'personal identity' isn't something that you should impose on people against their will. I fully expect you to rant and scream about the comparison, and call for me to be blocked, if not strung up from a lamppost. I don't care any more. You are propounding the same principle - that 'ethnicity' (or 'race') is something more substantial than mere social convention, and therefore needs to be noted, categorised, and acted upon. Stereotyping people, whether 'negatively' or 'positively', isn't just incorrect, it is morally offensive in the context of recent history. That is all that needs to be said on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
(an ec, perhaps?) There is an opposite lesson there, that forgetting ethnicity in favor of cultural assimilation is a dangerously misguided exercise because no amount of self-denial will convince the world to forget who you are. Some think that if we refuse to group ourselves or others into categories based on race, culture, ethnicity, gender, or other matters beyond individual control we will do away with the bigotry and oppression of the world. Some believe with equal fervor that plowing up our roots in favor of those of the dominant culture is itself a form of oppression. Some follow the notion that every person should invent themselves; others that all should recognize their heritage. It's not up to the encyclopedia to take a stand here in favor of one point of view or the other - and these are strong, highly politicized points of view that play to opposing sides on current issues like affirmative action, discrimination laws, ethnic studies programs, multilingual government services, and Native American tribal sovereignty - only to convey to the reader how the world conceives these things, as gauged by the reliable sources. The sources describe people as Irish-American, Jewish, Palestinian, or Native American, and in doing so they're not spewing either boosterism or disdain, not the reliable ones. They're establishing context. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—you say, "You are propounding the same principle - that 'ethnicity' (or 'race') is something more substantial than mere social convention…" No, I am merely arguing that we should follow sources—that is standard operating procedure. The alternative would be the following of original research. We all have opinions, and points of view, and personal convictions. Policy is clear that we adhere closely to sources. You say, "...'personal identity' isn't something that you should impose on people against their will." I don't think we would be doing so, for one simple reason: people serve as sources about themselves. That translates into a person no longer Categorizable as being Jewish if they articulate: "I am not Jewish", or something to that effect. By the way, I have never taken our disagreements personally, so I don't know why you are saying that I am likely to "call for you to be blocked." Can you show me where I have ever said anything to you that I perhaps should not have said? I will apologize if called for. Just show me a link to anything of that nature. I consider this an intellectual disagreement. Obviously I think my argument has more validity to it. I will grudgingly acknowledge that you have made me think into these issues more than I would have otherwise. Bus stop (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok Bus Stop. We seem to be getting somewhere - I apologise if the analogy I used was harsh, but I think it needed to be said. Now, to once again ask an awkward question, is 'following sources' actually morally different from 'obeying orders'? In either case one is asserting that one need not consider the consequences of ones actions, as they are determined by others. I beg to differ. I see no reason to insist that anyone should be obliged to confirm or deny the 'ethnicity' that others attempt to impose on them, just because a 'source' exists. If we are to accept that ethnicity is a 'personal attribute', rather than one required by external considerations, there can only really be one default - ethnicity: none. Anything else is a denial of individuality itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—you say, "If we are to accept that ethnicity is a 'personal attribute', rather than one required by external considerations, there can only really be one default - ethnicity: none." No, we follow the lead set by sources, in most circumstances. Standard operating procedure at Wikipedia is to compile the encyclopedia in conformance with verifiable sources. If sources say that XYZ is ZYX, then it should follow that we Categorize XYZ as ZYX. You refer to "…the 'ethnicity' that others attempt to impose on them…" I don't think we would have ethnicity imposed on anyone. If an individual said that they were not of ethnicity ZYX I don't think we would Categorize them as ZYX. Although there could be exceptions even to this. These are all questions that should be decided on a case-by-case basis. If there are questions related to this we should use the Talk page of the article or the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Bus stop (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
See my comment on ambiguity in the next subsection. Also, what AndyTheGrump said. Feketekave (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The sources think recent ancestry (e.g. being second generation Italian American) is worth writing about, so the value in the encyclopedia is the same as the value of adding anything that is sourced, a faithful reflection of the state of human knowledge. A guideline restricting ethnic categories to people who engage in activities typical of their ethnic group would be easy to write, but would only replace the question "who is an x ethnicity" to "what things are x ethnicity things". It would also cause Wikipedia to diverge sharply from the subject it is trying to present. What the world generally means by "Jewish musician" is "Jewish person who performs music", not "person who performs Jewish music". You can find sources for both, and in some cases those are two different articles or lists. Klezmer is a form of Jewish music, but List of klezmer musicians is a in the category category:Lists of musicians by genre, not List of Jewish musicians. Similarly, spirituals are in the African American tradition, but a list of people who sing spirituals is also under musicians by genre, not African American musicians. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
And exactly what would be lost if we had a Klezmer music or Traditional African-American music category, but no Jewish musicians (according to themselves or some imaginary Selektion?) or Black musicians (one-drop rule? rounding up or rounding down?)? Yes, some opportunities for ethnic glorification and for tag-your-neighbour would be lost, but anything of valid scholarly interest would presumably fall into the first kind of category. Feketekave (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
That's an unhelpful and somewhat offensive comment. What would be lost if the real categories and not your redlinks were deleted is ethnicity, some you obviously don't approve of given your Nazi reference and derogatory caricature of the subject. Not everyone believes that multiculturalism is evil. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, but, if anything, my comment shows that (like most other literate human beings) I have multicultural interests. If "ethnicity" would be lost, then your understanding of the term corresponds not to culture, but to a (binary, a priori, totalising) classification by descent. The problem is precisely the conflation of these two topics. Feketekave (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so culture is fine but ethnicity is bad. Are you okay with African-American, Jewish, Irish American, and Native American, as culture categories? Whatever. You brought up the Holocaust and the one-drop rule in the same sentence. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

The point I was asking about is being missed to some extent here. How do we justify placing Bob Dylan in Category:Jewish peace activists? How can we say that Bob Dylan is a "Jewish [insert anything]"? As I stated above, the Jewish descent categories are accurate for Dylan, but as someone who left Judaism consciously he is clearly no longer Jewish. If I'm born in the United States as an American citizen but then during adulthood I emigrate to Poland, renounce my American citizenship and take Polish citizenship am I still an American? Or take the Jewish situation in reverse. If someone is born an Episcopalian and in adulthood converts to Judaism (I know a rare phenomenon but not unheard of at all) are they a "Jewish [insert anything]"? In fact I'd like Wikidemon and Bus Stop specifically to answer that question. Is this person to be categorized as "Jewish"? Beyond that problem, Category:Jewish peace activists also implies that Judaism, or at least Jewishness, informs his peace activities. If it didn't the intersection would not be notable. Can that be said for Bob Dylan? Doubtful.Griswaldo (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely it's the same way as we can justify putting Richard Nixon in 20th-century presidents of the United States as someone who left the presidency consciously. Our categorisations do not have represent what things currently are, but simply that that categorisation applied to them at some point in their lifetime. Article Text will clarify whether that category still applies, or whether it is a categorisation that has since ceased to apply but is applied because he was considered to fit the category by reliable sources at the time. As for whether the Category:Jewish peace activists applies to Dylan, I would have to say not at the moment because no real assertion of his being a "Peace Activist" is currently made in his article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The Nixon example is bad because there are special conventions that apply to the titles of office in politics, at least American politics. Why did you shy away from my "American / Polish" example? Ethnicity and nationality are clearly much closer than ethnicity and holding the office of president of the United States. Just like being born to Jewish parents gives you no initial choice over your religious or ethnic identity, when you are born to American parents you have no choice but to be an American until adulthood. Some will complain that ethnicity is different because you can't just shed it when you please. I'll preempt that claim right now by saying that there is no way to divorce such thinking from racialism, and the notion that ethnicity is a function of genetics, as opposed to being a social construct. The reality is that ethnicity has always been a social construct, even within groups that have historically (or cross-culturally) constructed their identity in part around strong notions of descent (even biological descent). In those cases it just means that the public awareness of descent is one of the things that you have to fudge or wrangle your way around in order to gain or lose your place in the group (and depending on the group and the time period they may be happy to help you "fudge or wrangle around" the issue). Ethnic boundaries are and have always been porous, and this understanding is reflected in the anthropological literature since at the very least the late 60s (e.g. Fredrik Barth's edited volume, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries). But I'm getting side tracked. What about the nationality comparison?Griswaldo (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo, I'm just curious, why do you think that your Bob Dylan question needs to be answered here? Wouldn't that be a question and an issue for his talk page and his article? This is what I find impossible to understand. You could be 100% correct on whether Dylan should be listed as Jewish, but why does that fact need to inspire some sort of policy? Shouldn't the answer to that be reached using sources, facts, and consensus on his talk page? Why would the answer to the Dylan question then be relevant to other articles and other characterizations? Are you trying to come up with some sort of policy for Jews who converted to Christianity? Or are you using a one time Christian convert to justify a policy that would mostly effect regular Jews, not converts out, so to speak? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
AHW, I'm just using an example. You know, if you want to make a policy change isn't it worth discussing concrete examples? I'm not trying to "come up with some sort of policy for Jews ... ", I'm trying to use an example that might be effected by a policy change. You doubt the relevance of this example, but let me ask you this--why do you think Bob Dylan is currently tagged with these Jewish categories? Because, without the proposed changes to the BLPCAT policy people claim that reliable sources saying his parents were Jewish and his upbringing were Jewish is enough to slap the tag on. The problem is they're not leaving it up to Dylan himself at all to tell us what his religious/ethnic identity is, they're leaving it up to some (perhaps most) in the Jewish community to say, yep this makes him one of us. That's 100% OK for the Jewish community, but the United States, and the English speaking world at large, and hence Wikipedia is not defined by the identity norms of the Jewish community. This larger social setting is pluralistic, and for the most part democratic. We don't determine an individual's identity based upon what one of it's subgroups claims. We let individuals freely associate with the groups they want to associate with, and hence we give them the opportunity to lay claim to their own identities. In the case of Bod Dylan we ought to take the hint when he himself leaves the social group his parents belonged to, declaring himself a member of another group publicly. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Then, you're doing just what I said - using this example to create a policy that would mostly effect people who are not in the same situation as Dylan. You're also saying that without this policy, you couldn't get Dylan de-listed from the Jewish categories on his talk page? Well, then, surely that means (if true) that there's a consensus by Wikipedia editors that he should be listed as Jewish? Presumably all the people you're implying would come in to Dylan's page to say that he's Jewish carry as much weight as the ones who come on the BLP talk page to create policy? You're essentially saying you want to reach consensus to create a policy that would overturn consensus elsewhere. I just don't understand this approach. I just saw Abraham Zapruder listed under "Jewish American history", a category he surely doesn't belong in. So I went and removed him from it. I didn't go and try and create a policy that would allow me to remove it (and potentially be very destructive elsewhere). I just went and did it. If someone reverts me, well, then, that's an issue for Zapruder's talk page. Presumably the opinions of the editors on Zapruder's page carry as much weight as the opinions of editors on the BLP talk page, or on Dylan's talk page? Why must one supercede the other? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
No I'm not doing what you're saying simply because you've repeated the claim that I am twice now. Thanks for playing that game, but you're not one of our lucky winners today. I have no personal desire to change Bob Dylan's entry, and really I couldn't care less what his ethnicity is or what he claims about it. I only care that we accurately reflect those claims. Would you prefer I used another example? Bring in another example and I'd be happy to discuss how the proposed changes would effect that entry. In fact, I beg of you to please do so, since you claim that the proposed changes "would mostly effect people who are not in the same situation as Dylan" and would be "potentially be very destructive elsewhere". OK, then please show us where it would be potentially destructive, and what entries will be effected that are not like Dylan's. The ball is in your court on that. Also, please understand that consensus changes, and especially when policies change, and it should do so. If we a functioning consensus at the Dylan entry based on policy or readings of policy, then such a consensus should change if the relevant policies change (and this does happen with repeated AfDs and RfCs that start swaying in different directions because of evolving policy changes). If there is consensus at the Dylan page now to keep the categories that's fine. As I've pointed out, it is quite arguably within current policy. But if editors there resisted a larger community consensus regarding a policy just because they don't want it applied to their pet page, then we'd have a problem. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want Dylan's entry to accurate reflect his ethnicity claims, such as they might be, then why don't you make the edit? Why this need to create some sort of policy around it? Surely WP:V is all you need? (and if the editors on Dylan's page don't see a problem with this categorization, why do we, and what makes our opinion superior?) My problem is that Dylan and other examples are constantly used to justify the creation of policies that have nothing to do with that specific example, and 95% of the articles effected by these policies don't resemble Dylan's situation. So how does he justify it? And the notability or relevance criteria has nothing to do with Dylan's situation whatsoever. Other examples? How about Neil Diamond, Barry Manilow, Art Garfunkel, Paul Simon, and Michael Bolton? (p.s. I don't mind JoshuaZ's proposal as it at least lets in some leeway and is broader). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with AHW. Just because some editors have made mistakes categorizing a handful of persons, is no reason to establish an exclusionary policy that would cripple Wikipedia's indexing/searching capabilities. Incrementally extending BLPCAT everytime a single editor abuses ethnicity, is a excellent example of WP:CREEP. In addition (for the tenth time) I repeat: Lists and categories are different in that regard: even if we outlawed ethnicity-based Categories, Lists should still be permitted to be based on ethnicity, because Lists accomodate footnotes and annotations, the absence of which is the entire raison d'etre of BLPCAT (that is: BLPCAT exists only because categories do not support contextual information). --Noleander (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
AHW, those are all good examples of musicians who should not be categorized as Jewish with the available sourcing. They are all currently categorized as Jewish, not based on sources that say, for instance, "Barry Manilow is Jewish", but sources that say "Barry Manilow had a Jewish mother and an Irish father", etc. What self-identification ensures is that we report ethnicity based on what a living person considers about themselves and not what others determine about them by putting their family information through an ethnicity criteria of some kind. E.g. "If you have one Jewish parent, then you are Jewish for our purposes." I would say that the policy would help us with all of those entries, not damage them. Categories by descent can be accurately filled with sources that make statements like, "he has one X ethnicity parent", etc. but categories about ethnicity should require sourcing that determines what the person considers themselves in the present.Griswaldo (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Why shouldn't they be categorized as Jewish? You can find plenty of sources that they are. Their Jewish status is not in dispute. See, that's the point. You use Dylan as an example because that's one who many editors would agree not to categorize as Jewish. But really, you're going after people who are quite easily verifiabily Jewish (and I'm sure you can find self-identification for all of them). But you don't use those as examples because they're not as catchy and it wouldn't seem objectionable to most editors to list them as Jewish. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources that say they are Jewish? Then why do our entries not say they "are Jewish"? They only say that they were born to Jewish families. I see no sourcing in any of those entries that states that these people "are Jewish". "But you don't use those as examples because they're not as catchy and it wouldn't seem objectionable to most editors to list them as Jewish." I am using those examples now after explicitly asking for other examples aren't I? So put the money where your mouth is then. Where is the reliable sourcing that says they "are Jewish" and while you are at it please explain why the entries never make such statements? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And just so that there is no confusion, I'm not saying that all or even any of these singers don't consider themselves Jewish. They may all consider themselves Jewish. What I'm saying is that I am not able to state this since I do not have the information necessary to do so. I'm also saying that presently our entries don't state it either and I'm wondering if you know why?Griswaldo (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Our entries don't say they "are Jewish" because the norm is to say "born to x family" or "raised x". It's just biographically better that way and I'm sure that's why most editors do it. People aren't thinking of satisfying arcane rules when they write these things - I think it would be jarring and pointless to have Neil Diamond's entry say "he self-identifies as Jewish". If it says he was born and raised Jewish, that would already be the expectation. It would be redundant. If you want self-identification, here's Neil Diamond, Michael Bolton, Barry Manilow. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes other entries are written in that way as well, but the categories that match those biographies are not identifying people as, for instance "Irish Americans", but follow the same pattern as the entries do, while that is not true for these Jewish categories. For instance, Category:American people of Irish descent is not called Category:Irish Americans. It would seem to me, that these categories and entries are getting around the notion of a positive ethnic label by instead mentioning heritage, which has nothing to do with what someone may or may think about themselves (while an ethnic label does). That said let's get to your now three examples. OK, so these three are examples of musicians who self-identify with Judaism (or Jewishness) but their ethnic identity is not clearly part of what makes them notable. So that's why you think the original proposal above would cause problems for entries like this? Not because of self-identification as much as the tie in to their notable activities? I do see your point there, if only in the sense that it no longer becomes a BLP issue. I agree with the above proposal in entirety, but I can see how the second part isn't really about BLP anymore. If we're protecting people's rights to chose what to reveal about their ethnic identity then self-identification should be enough.Griswaldo (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, at least we can agree on that. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Sources aren't thinking of Wikipedia's rules either, which may be more to the point. Sourcing self-identification is an arbitrary and somewhat convoluted standard. If a source wants to mention a person's Jewishness, they may just say the person is Jewish. Or they might say the person grew up in a Jewish household, or follows the Jewish faith, or some other things. A flat-out statement that someone self-identifies as Jewish (or any other ethnicity) is fairly unlikely to appear in a given source, as is a quote where the person says "I am Jewish", because that's not usually what the source is writing about. At best you'll get a colorful quote in which the person talks about Jewish things, and then you'd have to analyze their own words as a primary source to decide whether those statements amount to a self-identification or not. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
And dont forget why BLPCAT's self-identification rule was invented in the first place: because the two attributes it applies to (religion and orientation) are very internal/subjective. BLPCAT was never intended to apply to more objective attributes like country of origin or ethnicity. I understand that arguments can be made that ethnicity is entirely subjective, but when balanced against the utility and benefit of providing ethnic information to readers (specifically, that ethnicity is discussed by thousands of important reliable sources) self-identification cannot be made mandatory for ethnicity in BLPCAT. --Noleander (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo—you say, "…Wikipedia is not defined by the identity norms of the Jewish community." Wikipedia is not defined by the identity norms of any community. Our assumption should be that good quality sources are cognizant of the differences between the way Christians define themselves and the way Jews define themselves.
And you say, "The problem is they're not leaving it up to Dylan himself at all to tell us what his religious/ethnic identity is, they're leaving it up to some (perhaps most) in the Jewish community to say, yep this makes him one of us." Bear in mind the difference in conversion requirements. Conversion to Judaism involves defined standards. Judaism has defined requirements for conversion. This is true even of the congregations at the more liberal end of the spectrum of Jewish observance. In some instances the best solution is to include the individual in both "Jewish" and "Christian" Categories. This, by the way, should be addressed on the Dylan Talk page or the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Bulldog123—you say, "Unfortunately that's not how things work around here. Editors don't get to decide who is or who is not a "Jewish classical pianist…" There is no need for a source saying that an individual is a "Jewish classical pianist". If an individual is sourced as being Jewish and sourced as being a pianist, then that individual is a "Jewish pianist" for Categorization purposes. The two factors—"Jewish" and "pianist" can serve to Categorize that individual in 2 Categories, or that individual could be Categorized in one Category which combined those 2 factors—it doesn't make a difference—as far as sourcing requirements are concerned. The combining of the 2 factors in one Category does not change the meaning of the term "Jew" or the meaning of the term "pianist". "Jew" takes on no new shade of meaning when that Jew happens to be a "pianist", and "pianist" takes on no new shade of meaning when that pianist happens to be a Jew. Jews play the piano the same way non-Jews play the piano, and pianos are played the same way by non-Jews as they are by Jews. Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Bus stop, what you're looking for is Wikipedia:Category intersection. Encyclopedias don't work the way you're describing. We don't maintain Category:LGBT Jewish American pianists just because people exist that are notable for being all three things (Jewish, a pianist, and LGBT). This is hardly a "red herring" example -- there are plenty of musicians who fit all three of those things... so why not have that category too? Because WP:OCAT exists. Bulldog123 03:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Bulldog123—please explain on the Vladimir Ashkenazy Talk page why Ashkenazy shouldn't be included in Category:Jewish classical pianists. Bus stop (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Bus Stop, can you please explain why (with due regard to WP:NPOV) Robert Maxwell shouldn't be included in a category Jewish fraudsters? Your logic seems to imply that he can... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Andy, why shouldn't he be? - presuming of course that there are enough other people who fit that category to ensure it meets with our criteria for creating categories. It certainly seems a better fit for Maxwell than either Category:Czech fraudsters or Category:British fraudsters . However I see from this cfd that such a category would fail on the lack of an appropriate parent category as fraudster is not considered an occupation and Jewish is not considered a nationality.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
That's kind of the point. Including Nationality.Occupation categories is a standard encyclopedic practice. It's enforced to keep the parent occupation categories from being uselessly large. However, Ethnicity/Occupation categories (and Religion/Occupation categories and Hair Color/Occupation categories) shouldn't exist unless they can be described as a "distinct cultural entity" supported by reliable sources (per WP:OCAT and to a larger extent per WP:OR/WP:SYNTH). Bus stop seems to think that any combination of ethnicity and occupation is appropriate. His own words: If an individual is sourced as being Jewish and sourced as being a pianist, then that individual is a "Jewish pianist" for Categorization purposes. - Bus Stop. So, if an individual is sourced as being Jewish and is sourced as being a rapist, then that individual is a "Jewish rapist" for Categorization purposes. Same logic. What's wrong with that? We have a category for Category:rapists by nationality, so why not? Bulldog123 07:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that many individuals do not associate closely with a particular nationality and having categories based on the ethnic group are better representations of who they are and allow for better navigation between them. If after reading an article of a Latino serial killer I realise it wasn't the article I was looking for I as a reader do not want my attempts to find the corrrect article to be hampered because the correct individual wasn't closely associated with his being Canadian. As for concerns that this categorisation is "unencyclopaedic" - we also represent aspects of specialist encyclopaedias and some (like the encyclopaedia of serial killers by Newton) do categorise by criteria such as ethnic group or race. Of course hair colour is arbitrary so suggesting it here is just a Straw Man. Ocat is a real concern - but I would generally advocate it in place of nationality or if the individual was in few other categories. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to argue for easier navigation, push for a wikipedia feature like category intersection (which I would love to have too). I don't believe "helping college students find stuff better" should be used as a criteria for whether or not a category should exist. Ethnicity and religion can be just as arbitrary as hair color when it's not given context and relevance. That's what's trying to be changed here. I still don't understand why you would oppose that. Bulldog123 09:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—what is the meaning of these sorts of posts:

"Compile as many categories as you can, and don't complain if someone else decides to compile a list of Jewish people convicted of financial misdemeanours because they find it 'interesting' - I'm sure such a list could be made, and verifiably sourced."

"So '"Jewish" is an attribute of personal identity' is it? Lets see who agrees with you? There is this lot [18] for a start. They seemed to like 'reliable sources' too."

"Bus Stop, can you please explain why (with due regard to WP:NPOV) Robert Maxwell shouldn't be included in a category Jewish fraudsters?"

I see references "Jewish people convicted of financial misdemeanours", the Nazi Party, and "Jewish fraudsters". Bus stop (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you're driving at there... but it be best if you got back on topic. Bulldog123 07:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
And now Jewish rapists? Right back at you, Bulldog. It's a Reductio ad Hitlerum thing. Instead of actually dealing with the logic of the matter they make up an absurd or extreme category, then claim that if you don't support their proposed requirement that ethnicity be backed by self-identification and relevance to the subject's notability, you or your position would cause Wikipedia to have that category. Per a discussion on ATG's talk page, I think that the question of categorizing Jews by external definition of ethnicity may be one of the few places where the subject of Nazi Germany is on topic, even if I disagree with the comparison. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Surely you understand how ironic your suggestion is that Bulldog is the one who is not "dealing with the logic of the matter"? There are two options here. 1) You neutrally believe that any intersection with ethnicity is not only viable but informative. That includes any intersection between a notable attribute that a person of a certain ethnicity has, and their ethnicity. In such a case "Jewish Nobel laureates," and "African American actors" are just as viable and informative as "Jewish people convicted of fraud" or "African American rapists." 2) You believe that only intersections between ethnicity and positive attributes are viable or informative. In that case the latter categories are a no-no. What you are currently doing is claiming neutral ground without accepting the consequences of your logic.Griswaldo (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Third option - you're completely misstating my position (and others) and have not carefully read the discussion here. I have said at least half a dozen times on this page that I am referring only to intersection categories that are themselves notable subjects. So has everyone else. I don't think anybody here has argued for random intersections. You and Bulldog123 are the ones advocating a change to the status quo, a status quo that has not ended with categories about rapists, fraudsters, knitters, and all the other categories you've been dreaming up (and if it did, that would permit it to be handled under existing policy). Making up absurd and borderline offensive things, then claiming that I and others support them, is a low level rhetorical trick that you and Bulldog have been practicing. Please don't get hoodwinked by your own rhetoric. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
That's amusing. You might be correct about your own position theoretically, but not User:Bus Stop's, as he has explicitly argued that any intersection is fine as long as both attributes are verifiable. In practice I'm like to probe a bit further about your claim as well. You linked to Secular Jewish music in order to establish the notability of Jewish musician intersections, though that entry does no such thing. Do you actually have evidence that "Jewish jazz pianist" is a notable intersection (because that laundry list of Jewish jazz musicians gives no such indication? From a purely informative standpoint isn't it much more meaningful to put Bernard Madoff in a category like "Jewish people accused of fraud" than it is to put Neil Diamond in any number of "Jewish musician" categories? After all Madoff's caper is intricately intertwined with his ethnicity -- his victims were predominantly Jewish, because of the social network it spread out over, and multiple reliable sources have covered that angle of the crime. Certainly you would support that category for people like Madoff right? (Note: I would not support such a category myself) The way I see it, you're just slightly more sophisticated than Bus Stop because you claim only to support notable intersections.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo—you say, "You might be correct about your own position theoretically, but not User:Bus Stop's, as he has explicitly argued that any intersection is fine as long as both attributes are verifiable." In fact, I did not. I think you are referring to the following which was posted by me:
"If an individual is sourced as being Jewish and sourced as being a pianist, then that individual is a "Jewish pianist" for Categorization purposes. The two factors—"Jewish" and "pianist" can serve to Categorize that individual in 2 Categories, or that individual could be Categorized in one Category which combined those 2 factors—it doesn't make a difference—as far as sourcing requirements are concerned. The combining of the 2 factors in one Category does not change the meaning of the term "Jew" or the meaning of the term "pianist". "Jew" takes on no new shade of meaning when that Jew happens to be a "pianist", and "pianist" takes on no new shade of meaning when that pianist happens to be a Jew. Jews play the piano the same way non-Jews play the piano, and pianos are played the same way by non-Jews as they are by Jews."
Note in the above that I did not argue that "…any intersection is fine…" If you were referring to a different post made by me, then please point that post out. Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, what's wrong with the cat Jewish rapists? How is it an absurd or extreme category? It's a perfectly valid category given the logic displayed above. There are plenty of people that can be sourced as both "Jewish" and "rapist." Roman Polanski might be one of them, depending on how reliable a "rapist" source we can get on him. Moshe Katsav is in both a rapist category and a Jewish category. So... uh... like you said about Ashkenazy: We don't have to show that his father's Jewishness affected his work as a pianist. So... I guess we don't have to show how Moshe Katsav's Jewishness affected his ability to be convicted of rape. And then you went on to say about Ashkenazy - If he's Jewish and he's a classical pianist, he's a Jewish classical pianist. Okay. Same with Katsav. If he's Jewish and he's a rapist, he's a Jewish rapist. So what's absurd about it? I seriously don't get it. Does that somehow cross the line and become ridiculous because it's a negative attribute instead of a positive one? I think my point is clear. Relevance is important when it comes to creating and maintaining these cats and lists... and constantly denying it isn't getting us anywhere. Bulldog123 09:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. By the way, this is not a reductio ad Hitlerum, but rather a reductio ad absurdum - and that is a perfectly valid form of argument. Feketekave (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that this discussion is more about Jews than any other topic. The ostensible topic is categorization in BLPs. Yet this page is seemingly a discussion of categorization in BLPs of Jews. It just seems an anomaly; that's why I point it out. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I see you slowly brewing a canard here through your repeated insinuations. Please stop. When a very large percentage of the people arguing against these proposals are people with specific interests in maintaining our various categories of "Jewish [insert attribute]" then it's pretty natural that the discussion keeps on coming back to those examples. Also, for whatever reason, those various categories and lists have been quite controversial recently (with various discussions and AfDs, etc.). If you have better examples to discuss then please bring them here. I also have a feeling that there are a much higher proportion of these intersection categories and lists for Jews than for any other ethnicity. I will note that the only other group that has an entire parent category for such lists is Armenian. It is notable that the entries on those lists are a complete mess and mostly unsourced. Someone would do well to fix those lists. That said, a comparison here is helpful. Would you rather we focused on these Armenian categories in our discussion?Griswaldo (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a bit of a funny focus, though it is seems to occupy far less than half of what we've saying. It is my impression that, as Griswaldo says, this is an example that has been used mostly by a few supporters of categorisation, rather than by its opponents. It is nevertheless an interesting example - in part because history shows particularly clearly in that case the consequences of indiscriminate binary categorisation, and in part because it shows how much of a fudge there is: are we talking about religion, culture(s), language(s), affinities (of what sort?) or some sort of a priori racial classification? Most of what can be said in that case can be said in any other, however. Feketekave (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
In the now archived no consensus discussion about the proposed changes there were only two editors who brought up the Jewish categories as examples - User:Noleander and User:Wikidemon. Noleander brought it up multiple times in that discussion, and in the discussions that followed. As discussions progressed after the close of the RfC others have discussed the Jewish categories that Noleander and Wikidemon brought so prominantly into the debate -- (myself, All Hallow's Wraith, Bullfrog, Maunus, Avenue, AndyTheGrump, JoshuaZ, Bus Stop, etc.). If you just do a search on this page for "Jew..." you can see this clear as day. If you want to point the finger at the instigators then point away at Noleander and Wikidemon. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Feketekave—I think there is too much of a preoccupation with trying to tease out the last bit of meaning from the label "Jew". We should be following sources. You say, "…are we talking about religion, culture(s), language(s), affinities (of what sort?) or some sort of a priori racial classification?" If sources say an individual is a Jew, we should just be passing that information along to the reader. This preoccupation with "Jewish" being a "religion, culture(s), language(s), affinities (of what sort?) or some sort of a priori racial classification" is in many cases a Wikipedia overlay. It may exist outside of Wikipedia as well, in fact I have no doubt that this preoccupation does exist outside of Wikipedia. But when passing information along to the reader, I think we should confine ourselves to just what sources convey. If of course sources comment on other dimensions of what they mean when they say "Jew" or "Jewish"—we can pass that information along to the reader as well. But where that information is absent, we are accurate in saying someone is either "a Jew" or "Jewish". There is no deficiency in that description if that is all that is reliably sourced. The personal attribute of being a Jew has some significance no matter what other descriptive terms can be brought to bear. We may not be providing as much information as is possible, but we are obviously limited by what sources tell us. Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Not to restate the obvious - but this makes the it these sources point towards highly ambiguous; this is what makes this issue very different from a factual one. (Not to mention that many of the sources will be in the nature of, say, Armenian Journal or Azeri Moment or Parsi Thought Weekly, and thus may arguably have a vested interest in fudging the matter so as to construct communities that by now may be partly imagined.) It ought to be clear that this makes the usual verifiability criterion not directly applicable; as this is not necessarily obvious to all, a clear BLP policy is needed - and with good luck we will be getting one. Feketekave (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Feketekave—you say, "It ought to be clear that this makes the usual verifiability criterion not directly applicable..." Can you please tell me why the "usual verifiability criterion [would] not [be] directly applicable"?
You refer to, "…communities that by now may be partly imagined." How do you know what "communities" are "partly imagined" and what communities are not "partly imagined"? Isn't this just original research? Shouldn't we be adhering to what sources say? If you are arguing that a community is "imagined" when it is not "imagined" aren't you leading the reader astray? Bus stop (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo: You ask about "positive" vs "negative" categories and as an example you give: "African American actors" vs "African American rapists." Note that the WP:BLPCAT already contains policy to address that: ''Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability". No one has ever suggested modifying that policy. That is why most examples in this discussion are about neutral or positive categories like List of African-American writers, because the whole point of BLP (and BLPCAT) is to avoid defaming or libeling living persons, and the existing "poor reputation" requirement already serves that need. --Noleander (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
So Bernie Madoff would meet the criteria all around in a hypothetical category for "Jewish people accused of fraud"? Is that what you're saying? He's certainly notable for both committing fraud and for using his connections within his own ethnic community to lure in victims to his scheme. I would be opposed to such a category on principle but I have a hard time reconciling your argument with such opposition.Griswaldo (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec X2) "Instigators?" This discussion is deteriorating. Best to stick to the proposal. People have raised many different examples, some reasonable and others absurd. I'm reminded of the convention among anthropologists to discuss martians as the generic category. I've mentioned Native Americans, Irish Americans, Palestinians, and Italian-Americans, and other people have brought up other groups. It does so happen that some of the most heated advocacy of late has been the mostly unsuccessful campaign to do away with Jewish-related categories, a result that the advocates now wish to overturn. Some have brought up extreme and implausible categories like rapists in a reductio ad absurdum+Hitler argument, which is fine, then accused others here of supporting them, which is not. If anyone wants to create categories and lists of ethnic rapists they can go ahead and do so, and see what happens. Nobody is advocating for that and it is not a consequence of keeping BLP the way it is. Exactly what is the current problem that needs fixing? Are there any specific categories currently on the encyclopedia that anyone thinks should not be there, and what about the current proposal can fix that without collateral damage in a way that the current versions of WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP, or WP:NPOV cannot already handle? - Wikidemon (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. You and more prominently Noleander bring the Jewish categories into the discussion (no problem there) and others continue to discuss those examples. For doing so Bus Stop starts casting aspersions and insinuating that other people appear obsessed with those categories for some creepy reason. When someone calls him out on the fact that it was actually those who share his POV who brought these categories into the discussion then that person is lambasted by you. Catch 22 anyone? "Instigators" was meant to be ridiculous sounding, because it was responding to an equally ridiculous series of insinuations. But yes this discussion is deteriorating. I'll happily take part of the blame but it takes two to tango, and to cause this kind of scene it takes a bakers dozen. I'm taking this as a good opportunity to leave the discussion and dewatchlist the page for a few days until this dies down. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo—you say, "…Bus Stop starts casting aspersions and insinuating that other people appear obsessed with those categories for some creepy reason." I believe you are referring to this post by me:
"It seems to me that this discussion is more about Jews than any other topic. The ostensible topic is categorization in BLPs. Yet this page is seemingly a discussion of categorization in BLPs of Jews. It just seems an anomaly; that's why I point it out."
If that is not the post, please correct me. I am not "casting aspersions" in the above. Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
(out of seq due to ec, addressing Griswaldo) There are a number of reasons why Jewish-American ethnic issues could be getting proportionately more attention here or elsewhere, most of them benign and some that could make for a good joke. I hadn't noticed who started it but I'd rather not cast aspersions either way. One thing to be careful about when shouting about Jewish matters is that we don't drown out equally important concerns elsewhere. There are some passionate feelings about Native American issues too, and African American issues, Asian American issues, and issues without "American" in them, they just don't always debate so prolifically in anonymous public forums. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

the proposal is about BLPCAT which focuses instead on the question of whether or not an individual should be included in an existing category or not. Those are two different questions. As Wikidemon says, WP already has policies and procedures to decide if a given Category or List should exist (CFD, Notability, etc). BLPCAT has nothing to do with determining the validity categories: it is about defamation and libel. But, this has been mentioned 3 or 4 times above in this Talk page. Getting back on track, a couple of compromise proposals that have been mentioned include:

  1. Include ethnicity in BLPCAT, and replace the self-identification requirement with a very strong Reliable Source requirement (for ethnicity, belief, & orientation)
  2. Include ethnicity in BLPCAT, but only for Categories, not Lists (because Lists support footnotes & text)\
  3. Include ethnicity in BLPCAT, and replace the self-identification requirement with a very strong Reliable Source requirement (only for ethnicity; leave belief & orientation alone)
  4. Include ethnicity in BLPCAT, and replace both the self-identification and the "notable activities/public life" requirements with a very strong Reliable Source requirement (for ethnicity, belief, & orientation)
  5. Include ethnicity in BLPCAT, and replace both the self-identification and the "notable activities/public life" requirements with a very strong Reliable Source requirement (only for ethnicity; leave belief & orientation alone)
  6. Do nothing: leave BLPCAT as it stands

Are there any other compromise proposals that were made? --Noleander (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP is not only about libel, but also about privacy. Feketekave (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is true. Do either of those compromise proposals seem better to you for addressing BLP privacy/defamation concerns? Or can you suggest another option? --Noleander (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, namely, not having categories by descent. That way (a) we would not impose identities on others, (b) we would also not have the issue that omission of X from category Y might be taken to imply that X does not belong in category Y (since such a category would not exist to begin with). This takes care nicely of individuals who may have private loyalties that they wish to keep both real and private. Feketekave (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we can acknowledge that some people simply want to do away with all categorization along ethnic, racial, ancestral, and/or certain other grounds. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Fek: It sounds like you are talking about the existence of categories. That is better dealt with in WP:Categories. WP:BLPCAT is about whether or not a given individual can be placed in a valid category or not, so let's try to focus on that. --Noleander (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The first is reasonable, except that the "notable activities / public life" part of BLPCAT should not apply either. Ethnicity is considered a biographically important fact for some people regardless of whether they wear it in public or to their day jobs, and does not cut along public / private lines the same way that beliefs or sexual orientation does. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add that option (and variants thereof) as (3), (4), and (5) above. --Noleander (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
After adding those, I have to say that (3) and (5) - without addressing the merits - would be nearly impossible for a typical editor to understand. The complexity of the wording (exception within exception within exception) would be beyond most people's grasp. I'm wondering if we should strive for a rule that is simpler? ---Noleander (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Options (3) (4) and (5) really make no sense. What does "really strong reliable source requirement" even mean? We're going to spend time arguing with each other on the talk page about whether the provided sources are "really strong" enough? Bulldog123 18:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Every permutation should be addressed separately. Nothing is gained by tying one circumstance to another. Consider one at a time for the most apt evaluation of the condition under evaluation. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Bulldog123—you say, "What does "really strong reliable source requirement" even mean?" WP:BLP is not some kind of magical policy that stands apart from the rest of policy. I read: "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." WP:BLP is about extra attention (greatest care) to basic policy. We should not necessarily be overlaying basic policy with notions of relations between notability and ethnicity or a lot of the rest of the suggestions above. Bus stop (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
BusStop is correct. WP already has a fundamental Verifiability policy that requires all material in the encyclopedia to be accurate. The essence of BLP is to take extra care when adding material about living persons, to avoid defamation or privacy issues. That "extra care" is a bit fuzzy, sure, but "self-identification" is certainly not an acceptable interpretation of "extra care". I would submit that "extra care" could be incorporated into BLPCAT by simply asking (a) for multiple sources; and (b) requiring the sources to be unanimous. Worded the other way: if there were any documented dispute about the person's religion/ethnicity/orientation, then the person could not be so categorized. For that reason, choice (4) may be best. --Noleander (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is choice 4, presented as a proposal:

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding ethnicity religious beliefs, and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the information in question; or this information is supported by multiple high-quality reliable sources, and is not subject to any dispute.
...
These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and/or {{infobox}} statements that are based on ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or suggest that persons have a poor reputation.

"or this information is supported by multiple high-quality reliable sources" - Honestly. That's a massive pitfall if I've ever seen one. What does "multiple" mean and what does "high-quality" mean? This is all so subjective it's going to spawn a trillion more talk-page debates that end in no consensus. Bulldog123 19:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Why would the subject of a biography have to "self-identify" in order to establish their ethnicity? And why would there be language added for "multiple high-quality reliable sources" when that is already part of WP:BLP: ("This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research.")? Bus stop (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to be frank with you, Bus stop. If you don't have anything new to say, please just don't say it. You've copied that blurb about five times already in this discussion. Bulldog123 19:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Bulldog123—you say, "...it's going to spawn a trillion more talk-page debates". That is what this is—a Talk page debate. We are writing an encyclopedia that is a collaborative project. We should not be here deciding how questions that have not even yet arisen should be decided. We can and we should be providing guidelines. But we do not know what cases will arise. We cannot be making across-the-board requirements such as requiring "self-identification" or "relevancy to notability" (which admittedly is not in the above proposal, but has been on the table for consideration). WP:BLP should have its emphasis on fortification of the usual policy. I am opposed to what I view as arbitrary accretions to basic policy. We would be well-using this time by coming up with additional wording emphasizing the need for quality in sources and the extra need in weighing sources against one another when sources make assertions about attributes of identity that are at variance with one another. Bus stop (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The spirit is right, but the multiple sources / dispute part is a little wonky and procedure bound. What if there's a single very high quality source + a self-identification (e.g. the person's official professional website says they are X, and the Wall Street Journal says they are X)? I would just make some reference to taking particular care with sourcing this information. Also, we should be clear that "dispute" means that their ethnicity is the subject of an off-Wikipedia dispute or contradiction among the reliable sources. Finally, it would be useful to work in (perhaps via a comment or example) that by "ethnicity" we mean to broadly encompass things like recent ancestry, national origin, and cultural background. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikidemon: could you write-up an alternative wording that would overcome those problems? Maybe we can find a good compromise here. --Noleander (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that if no clear consensus forms that makes the community feel we’ve hit upon a guideline that is *good stuff*, it is best to not try to push do do something on a false premiss, where we are imagining there is a severe imperative to act; there isn’t. Failing a good, blanket policy, these sort of issues can be handled on a case-by-case, article-by-article basis. What’s good for Spanish American may not be a good fit for a particular problem at African American.

    I might also add that Bulldog’s aggressiveness in this matter isn’t helping the community achieve a consensus; it instead drives detracts the community from the most widely accepted course of action (even though that seems to be at odds with Bulldog’s wishes).

    Raquel Welch has been learning Spanish lately and giving public speeches in Spanish and better trying to embrace her Spanish heritage. Yet, I doubt there is a single quote from her publicly declaring “I am a woman (so you may write about me being female) and I consider myself to be Spanish American.” Notwithstanding the inability to locate such a flat declaration, it doesn’t seem improper to me—given the copious totality of the available evidence—to include her in a montage of Spanish Americans.

    By the same token, were Michael Jackson alive today, he would no-doubt take deep offense to being labeled as an African American—every bit of his personal behavior made it clear that he eschewed that identity.

    Having mere wikipedians undertake to decide these sort of things can be a violation of WP:SYNTH unless good common sense is used. Since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that “anyone can edit”, common sense is often in short supply.

    I’d like to see a good proposal that is a good fit for all these groups (some are simply touchier than others). Failing that, taking a time-out might be a good idea. We can all address issues on a case-by-case basis for several weeks and might be able to revisit this later with better and more specific ideas. Greg L (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for copying and pasting the material you've already added to the Wikiproject Ethnic Groups talk page. Continue, if you like, constantly following me around and mentioning "Bulldog this" "Bulldog that" but know your comments will merely be ignored - in other words, I'm just going to act like you're not here. Have at it. Even barking dogs get tired. Bulldog123 22:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Hey… that’s just too, too funny. With 27 posts here on this page just by you (and a lot of it quite aggressive and circuitous), I was just going to suggest that the whole community ignore you. That’s pretty dang funny to see you complain about me weighing in here with my one post (because you were here first five days before I thought I’d mention something). I’m sorry, did I miss the vote where the community here made you king?? Did the community arrive at a consensus that all that you write is spot-on-correct & good stuff that others shouldn’t disagree with? So… just, pardon me all over the place for suggesting to the unfortunates here that have to put up with eeeeeeendless arguing from you, that the community is not required to respond to you endlessly. See WP:Tendentious editing if you don’t *get* it. Greg L (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_31&oldid=1095494673"