Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
 |
This page in a nutshell:
|
Categories help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called. However, certain kinds of categorization can be the subject of controversy - in particular, categorization by gender, race and sexuality.
This editing guideline is not Wikipedia policy; rather, it is advice gathered from consensus via discussions and established practice, which may help inform decisions on whether a category related to gender, race and sexuality should be created, merged, deleted or further developed.
Contents |
[edit] When to use categories
Every page in the article namespace should belong to at least one category. The categories to be included, which serve as classifications, should be the significant (useful) topics to which the subject of the article most closely belongs to as a member, and where users are most likely to look if they can't remember the name of the thing they are trying to look up.
Articles are sometimes classified by
- Gender - e.g. Category:Women composers, Category:Female Nazis, Category:Male porn stars
- Race - e.g. Category:African American poets, Category:Black Canadians, Category:Indian Americans.
- Sexuality - e.g. Category:LGBT sportspeople, Category:Lesbian politicians, Category:Bisexual actors
Race and sexuality cross-categories may sometimes be used to split larger categories, such as Category:LGBT sportspeople being used to reduce the size of Category:LGBT people.
Discussions on these categories occasionally appear on WP:CFD and tend to be controversial, and wildly varying in their outcome.
[edit] General
General categorization by race or sexuality is permitted, with the following considerations:
- Terminology must be neutral. Derogatory terms are not to be tolerated in a category name under any circumstances, and should be added to the list of speedy deletion criteria. 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, labels such as "AIDS victim" for an HIV+ person or "Eskimo" for an Inuit are not appropriate terms. When in doubt, err on the side of respect and the right of people to define themselves.)
- Subcategories by country are permitted, although terminology must be appropriate to the person's cultural context. For example, a Canadian of aboriginal heritage is categorized at First Nations people, not Native American people.
- Inclusion should be justifiable by external references. (For example, even if you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a gay-related category if factual, reliable sources can be provided to support the assertion.)
People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; they just shouldn't be added to it if they don't fit. In many cases, distinct categories already exist for ethnic grey areas, e.g. Eurasians.
[edit] Gender
Categories should not be gendered unless the gender has a specific relation to the topic.
A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. For example, Category:Women contains articles such as International Women's Day, Women's studies, and the subcats Category:Awards and prizes honoring women and Category:Women cricketers where the articles are about women who participate in Women's cricket. Similarly, Category:Men contains articles such as father, men's studies, boy and human male sexuality, as well as male-specific subcategories. Neither category, however, should directly contain individual women or individual men.
Separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category (e.g. Presidents, Monarchs, Prime Ministers, Governors General). Do 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".
See Category talk:Singers by gender for details on female and male singers by nationality categories.
[edit] Race
Categories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic.
A race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic.
[edit] Sexuality
Categories should not be based on sexuality unless the sexuality has a specific relation to the topic.
A sexuality-specific category could be implemented where sexuality has a specific relation to the topic.
[edit] Special subcategories
Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, could be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must be at least 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.
As well, remember that a category is not automatically a valid substitute for a list — if the category's head article could never be anything more than a bulleted list of individuals who happen to meet the criteria, then a category is not appropriate.
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 an LGBT writers category is valid. However, there isn't a comparable phenomenon of gay linguistics, so a category for "Gay linguists" should not be created. For similar reasons, African American musicians is valid, but "African American economists" would not be.
Similarly, an "(ethnicity) politicians" category should only be created if politicians of that ethnic background somehow constitute a distinct and identifiable group with a specific cultural and political context. Thus, a "Native American politicians" category would be valid; an "Italian-American politicians" category would not be. 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 can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping?
[edit] Other considerations
Concerns about the POV status of a particular category must be weighed against the fact that not having such a category may also be a potentially unacceptable POV. 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 realistically be reconciled into a relatively neutral position.
Be aware as well that under these criteria, categories may change over time. Something that is not currently a valid category may become one in the future. A category's inappropriateness now is not necessarily a valid reason to not have the category in the future 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.
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, Wikipedia rules about redundant categorization should also be respected (these are currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization). 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 "Gay politicians from Germany" without ghettoizing people from Category:German politicians, then it may be more appropriate to eliminate the more specific category and simply retain Category:Gay politicians and Category:German politicians as two distinct categories, or to refile people from the parent category into more specific subcategories based on the particular legislative 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, a gender/race/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. If a category is not otherwise subdividable into more specific groupings, then do not create a gender/race/sexuality subcategory. For instance: if Category:American poets is not realistically subdividable on other grounds, then do not create a 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.
