User:Jmabel/Draft on Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality

Work in progress, based on en:Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality

Categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability can be the subject of controversy. Commons content is sometimes classified by:

• Ethnicity – e.g. Category:African American educators, Category:People of Malaysia of Chinese descent, Category:Romani people
• Gender – e.g. Category:Female bullfighters, Category:Porn actors/Category:Porn actresses, Category:Female composers
• Religion – e.g. Category:Christian theologians, Category:Hindu poets
• Sexuality – e.g. Category:LGBT sportspeople, Category:Gay politicians, Category:Bisexual sportspeople
• Disability – e.g. Category:Deaf beauty pageant contestants, Category:Amputees from the United States, Category:Musicians with visual impairment

These discussions occasionally pop up on Commons:Categories for discussion, tend to be controversial, and vary wildly in their outcome. Cross-categories are typically used to split larger categories (e.g. Category:LGBT sportspeople is used to reduce the size of Category:LGBT people).

General

General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability is permitted, with the following considerations:

1. Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic.

   For example, most sportspeople should not be categorized by religion, since being Catholic, Buddhist, or another religion is not relevant to the way they perform in sports.

2. While Commons' policy on neutral point of view is generally much looser than the various Wikipedias', there has been a strong consensus that category names should be neutral and, insofar as possible, grounds for inclusion in a category should be objective.

   Derogatory terms are not tolerated in a category name under any circumstances, and should be considered grounds for speedy deletion. Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term; a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders.

   For example, "AIDS victims" is not an appropriate term for HIV-positive people. When in doubt, err on the side of respect.

3. Subcategories by country are permitted, although terminology must be appropriate to the person's cultural context.

   For example, Canadians of aboriginal/indigenous heritage are categorized under Category:Indigenous peoples in Canada, where as people of aboriginal/indigenous heritage in the United States are categorized under Category:Native Americans in the United States.

4. As to the inclusion of people in a category related to ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability, please remember that inclusion must be based on
   English: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
   .

   For example, regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, a category for this person or an image of them should only be added to a LGBT-related category based on verifiable, reliable published sources that support the inclusion. We should be particularly cautious about including a living person in a category that indicates an identity that they have not publicly embraced.

5. Particular caution must be applied when gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categories are used to diffuse categories. For example, if we split "guitarists" into "male guitarists" and "female guitarists", it is important that this does not preempt categorization by musical genre, nationality, or whether they play electric or acoustic guitar. We may want to consider following the English-language Wikipedia (en-wiki) in having gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based subcategories be "non-diffusing" For example, on en-wiki, en:Category:American politicians is diffused along many dimensions, but has non-diffusing subcategories like en:Category:African-American politicians—meaning membership in en:Category:African-American politicians does not preclude membership in other diffusing subcategories of en:Category:African-American politicians).

By type

Ethnicity and race

Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not. Ethnic groups may be used as categorizations, even if race is a stereotypical characteristic of the ethnic group, e.g. with African-Americans or Anglo-Indians.

For example, we do have Category:Jewish musicians, but we should not have Category:Semitic musicians.

Citizenship, nationality (which country's laws the person is subject to), national origin, and national self-identity (which country the person feels closest to), although sometimes correlated with ethnicity, are not the same as ethnicity and are not addressed on this page.

Gender

A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. For example, Category:Women contains (directly or indirectly) Category:Mothers, Category:Featured pictures of women, and Category:WikiWomen, as well as Category:Feminism and Category:Women's universities and colleges. Similarly, Category:Men contains (directly or indirectly) Category:Fathers, Category:Bromance, and Category:Recumbent men. Neither category, however, should directly contain individual women or individual men.

As another example, a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special interest, given that historically the overwhelming majority of heads of government have been male. If we implement it as a diffusing category, it must be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category; alternatively, we can implement it as a non-diffusing category. In either case, we should also categorize such people in the appropriate gender-neutral role category (e.g. Presidents, Monarchs, Prime Ministers, Governors General), and should not create separate categories for male and female occupants of the same position, such as "Male Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom" vs. "Female Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom".

As most notable organized sporting activities are segregated by gender, sportsperson categories constitute a case where "gender has a specific relation to the topic". As such, sportsperson categories should be split by gender, except in such cases where men and women participate primarily in mixed-gender competition. Example: Category:Male golfers and Category:Female golfers should both be subcategories of Category:Golfers, but Category:Ice dancers should not have gendered subcategories. Category:Actors and Category:Actresses, and Category:Male models and Category:Female models are also divided by gender.

Religion

Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question, either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate.

Sexuality

Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person are subject to the usual considerations for living people: such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. For example, a living person who is caught in a gay prostitution scandal, but continues to assert their heterosexuality, may not be categorized as gay.

For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. Historically, LGBT people often did not come out in the way that they commonly do today, so a person's own self-identification is, in many cases, impossible to verify by the same standards that would be applicable to a contemporary BLP. For a dead person, a broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship about the topic is sufficient to describe a person as LGBT. For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such—but no such doubt exists about the sexuality of Oscar Wilde or Radclyffe Hall.

Categories that make allegations about sexuality—such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected of being gay"—are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, and the case is clear-cut, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted; anyone can perform the de-population, and such categories can be reported on the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard for immediate deletion, without resort to Commons:Categories for discussion (though the latter remains useful where there is not a clear-cut case).

Disability, intersex, medical, or psychological conditions

There are several guidelines that apply to categorization of people with disabilities, intersex conditions, and other medical or psychological states or conditions.

1. People with these conditions should not be added to subcategories of Category:Disabled people, Category:Intersex people or Category:People by medical or psychological condition unless that condition is considered defining for that individual. For example, there may be people who have schizophrenia, but if reliable sources don't regularly describe the person as having that characteristic, they should not be added to the category.
2. Categories which intersect a job, role, or activity with a disability or medical/psychological condition should only be created if the intersection of those characteristics is relevant to the topic and discussed as a group in reliable sources. Thus, we could have Category:Deaf musicians, Category:Amputee sportspeople, or Category:Actors with dwarfism since these intersections are relevant to the topic and discussed in reliable sources, but we should not create [[:Category:Biologists with cerebral palsy, since the intersection of Category:Biologists + Category:People with cerebral palsy is not closely relevant to the job of biologist nor is it a grouping that reliable sources discuss in depth.
3. As with gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categories, particular caution must be applied when disability-based categories are used to diffuse categories. For example, it is important that placing a photo or category within Category:Musicians with visual impairment does not preempt categorization by nationality, instrument, musical genre, etc. Again, we may want to consider following the English-language Wikipedia (en-wiki) in having disability-based subcategories be "non-diffusing"; see discussion above.

Special subcategories

Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. Although Commons itself is not an encyclopedia, it is a good rule of thumb that if a substantial and encyclopedic article (not just a list) could not be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must at least be possible to create one.

Generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources. If this criterion has not been met, then the category essentially constitutes original research. Although there are exceptions, this will usually mean that categories relating to social or cultural subjects are more likely to be valid than others.

For example, LGBT writers are a well-studied biographical category with secondary sources discussing the personal experiences of LGBT writers as a class, unique publishing houses, awards, censorship, a distinctive literary contribution (LGBT literature), and other professional concerns, and therefore Category:LGBT writers is valid. However, gay people in linguistics do not represent a particularly distinct or unique class within their field, so Category:Gay linguists should not be created. For similar reasons, Category:African American musicians is valid, but Category:African American surgeons should not exist.

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

Whether such a grouping constitutes a positive or negative portrayal of the racial or sexual group in question is also not, in and of itself, a valid criterion for determining the legitimacy of a category. At all times, the bottom line remains could a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping?

Other considerations

People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of a category; if they do not fit, they simply should not be added to it.

Concerns about the "neutral point of view" status of a particular category must be weighed against the fact that not having such a category may also unacceptably advance a particular point of view. Your personal feelings should not enter into the matter: if a category meets the criteria defined above, then it is permitted, and if the category does not meet the criteria, then it is not permitted. This is the only way in which the myriad points of view on the matter can be realistically reconciled into a relatively neutral position.

Be aware as well, that under these criteria, categories may change over time. Something that is not currently an appropriate category may become a valid one in the future, or vice versa, if social circumstances change. The criterion of whether an encyclopedic article is possible should be the gauge. If a new field of social or cultural study emerges in the future and lends itself to an encyclopedic article, the related categories will then become valid even if they have previously been deleted.

Ghettoization: final rung

For Commons purposes, the "final rung" in the category tree is one that contains categories for individual people, and/or directly contains images.

Whenever possible, a valid occupational subcategory should be structured and filed in such a way as to avoid "ghettoizing" people, but at the same time, Commons rules about redundant categorization should also be respected. It is entirely possible to meet both of these expectations simultaneously; if you can't, consider alternative ways of defining the category. For instance, if you cannot create Category:Gay politicians of Germany without ghettoizing people from Category:Politicians of Germany, then it may be more appropriate to eliminate the more specific category and simply retain Category:Gay politicians and Category:Politicians of Germany as two distinct categories, or to refile individual images, or categories about individual people, into more specific subcategories based on the particular political body their career is associated with (e.g. "Members of the German Bundestag", "Chancellors of Germany", "German Bundesland presidents" or "Mayors of Berlin").

Also in regards to the "ghettoization" issue, an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality/disability subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree, unless the parent is a Meta Category. If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory. For instance: if Category:Poets from the United States is not realistically dividable on other grounds, then do not create a diffusing subcategory for "African American poets", as this will only serve to isolate these poets from the main category. Instead, simply apply "African American writers" (presuming Category:Writers is the parent of Category:Poets) and "American poets" as two distinct categories.

See also

• en:Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality