Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people

Introduction

Certain kinds of categorization can be the subject of controversy. In particular, 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

These discussions occasionally pop up on WP:CFD and tend to be controversial, and wildly varying in their outcome.

Discussion

Discussion took place at the talk page.

Summary

The discussion has now been deemed as closed. The policy has been determined as follows:

General

General categorization by race or sexuality is permitted, with the following considerations:

1. Terminology must be neutral. Derogatory terms such as "faggots" or "niggers" 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, "Eskimo" for an Inuit or "Indian" for a native person are not appropriate terms. When in doubt, err on the side of respect and the right of people to define themselves.)
2. 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.
3. 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. Blasians, Hapas, Multiracial people.

Special subcategories

Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You must be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category is not valid.

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, gay literature is a distinct literary genre, 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 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?

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, categories should not be gendered. A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. For example, 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.)

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.