Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tsideh (talk | contribs)
63 edits
Tsideh (talk | contribs)
63 edits
Line 283: Line 283:
* '''Oppose''' There are a number of reasons why this conversation about Native American identity should not be renamed self-identify. Here are the top four in my mind:
* '''Oppose''' There are a number of reasons why this conversation about Native American identity should not be renamed self-identify. Here are the top four in my mind:
1. The term self-identify as proposed is unmistakably negative, perhaps also its cache. It’s negative in that it’s divisive, exclusionary, and demeaning. It attacks a significant part of Indian Country, like Lily Gladstone, by claiming they’re not real Native Americans, only pretending to be ones (of course there’s a page for that). No, it’s not racism, certainly not colorism. It’s crude chauvinism. It says that on one hand there are normal real Native Americans and on the other there are abnormal people who illegitimately and with no more foundation than their own volition identify as Native Americans, on no better basis than folks who identify as attack helicopters. Everybody hates attack helicopter wannabes. Native American, normal, positive. Self-identify Native American, abnormal, negative. The dots connecting the term as proposed to its pejorative roots couldn’t be drawn closer.
1. The term self-identify as proposed is unmistakably negative, perhaps also its cache. It’s negative in that it’s divisive, exclusionary, and demeaning. It attacks a significant part of Indian Country, like Lily Gladstone, by claiming they’re not real Native Americans, only pretending to be ones (of course there’s a page for that). No, it’s not racism, certainly not colorism. It’s crude chauvinism. It says that on one hand there are normal real Native Americans and on the other there are abnormal people who illegitimately and with no more foundation than their own volition identify as Native Americans, on no better basis than folks who identify as attack helicopters. Everybody hates attack helicopter wannabes. Native American, normal, positive. Self-identify Native American, abnormal, negative. The dots connecting the term as proposed to its pejorative roots couldn’t be drawn closer.

2. It effaces the concept of indigeneity. It says Native American is an identity established, not by self-identity, but by the US govt through a CDIB card. It says that Native Americans are creations not of thousands of years of independent existence and identity, but of the power that recently in their history came to occupy their land. Further, that power can take back the identity it can confer, as it has demonstrated in the past it can do.
2. It effaces the concept of indigeneity. It says Native American is an identity established, not by self-identity, but by the US govt through a CDIB card. It says that Native Americans are creations not of thousands of years of independent existence and identity, but of the power that recently in their history came to occupy their land. Further, that power can take back the identity it can confer, as it has demonstrated in the past it can do.

3. The question is much bigger than this discussion can possibly do it justice. It’s not just a matter of slightly adjusting the name of a WP page. It’s a matter of possibly stumbling into a big philosophical and political decision due to a slight of hand; that self-identity is just a clearer way of saying not acknowledge by the US. No scholarly citations. No peer-reviewed articles. Just, you know, it’s neater to say self-identify than non-recognized.
3. The question is much bigger than this discussion can possibly do it justice. It’s not just a matter of slightly adjusting the name of a WP page. It’s a matter of possibly stumbling into a big philosophical and political decision due to a slight of hand; that self-identity is just a clearer way of saying not acknowledge by the US. No scholarly citations. No peer-reviewed articles. Just, you know, it’s neater to say self-identify than non-recognized.

4. It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity. This discussion has already been had over a much longer period, involving many many more participants, in a much more transparent and deliberative fashion. And a consensus was reached. Then instead of being shelved or secreted away, it was announced to the world and has been in place for years, known today as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UN). This widely publicized consensus speaks directly against the proposal to change the name of this page by declaring that indigenous identity is necessarily self-identify. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tsideh|Tsideh]] ([[User talk:Tsideh#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tsideh|contribs]]) 05:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
4. It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity. This discussion has already been had over a much longer period, involving many many more participants, in a much more transparent and deliberative fashion. And a consensus was reached. Then instead of being shelved or secreted away, it was announced to the world and has been in place for years, known today as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UN). This widely publicized consensus speaks directly against the proposal to change the name of this page by declaring that indigenous identity is necessarily self-identify. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tsideh|Tsideh]] ([[User talk:Tsideh#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tsideh|contribs]]) 05:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Revision as of 05:25, 13 April 2024

< April 6
April 8 >

April 7

Category:People with acquired Guyanese citizenship

Nominator's rationale: I don't think any of the articles in this category actually belong here. They all appear to be birthright citizens (per Guyanese nationality law#Acquiring Guyanese nationality, having a parent with Guyanese citizenship is enough for citizenship regardless of one's place of birth). Upmerging is not needed, because they are all already in subcategories of Category:Guyanese people. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political posters of Italy

Nominator's rationale: Contains only a single non-free file. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As it is, it's a convenient way to tie it into both European posters and the politics of Italy. It's the politics of Italy that's the much stronger connection. Admittedly it's near-empty, because we generally avoid hosting media on WP, but it's also a good tie to Commons, where we have many more items. I don't see any advantage to this merge, other than a rather pointless nod to SMALLCAT. It also singles out Italy (or is the plan, as usual, to remove all countries here, one by one?) when the other countries have very few images in their similar categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge. The category isn't helpful with only a page in it. Mason (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aphex Twin songs

Nominator's rationale: (Or maybe "Aphex Twin compositions".) Strictly speaking, songs contain singing. Aphex Twin tracks have no singing, or no singing in the traditional sense. For example, it is not really accurate to describe Avril 14, a piano instrumental, as a "song". Popcornfud (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose. Don't other categories have non-singing songs in them? I don't think it's helpful for navigation to make the distinction between songs that contain vocal tracks and those that do not. Mason (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, I'm not proposing we create separate tracks for vocal and instrumental Aphex Twin tracks, just keeping a single category and renaming it. (There are very few, if any, Aphex Twins that could really be called "songs" in my view, and I also suspect the habit of calling non-vocal tracks "songs" tends to be an Americanism, but that's probably by the by.) Popcornfud (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

& merge Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin to Category:Compositions by Aphex Twin per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin was created 15 January 2016‎; Category:Aphex Twin songs was created 21 October 2007‎, is therefore older, and therefore should be the merge target. This seems to be a comprehensive solution to all issues observed above. NLeeuw (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on NL's proposal would be very much appreciated!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love it! Mason (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I ping the other participants to ask their opinion? They might not have read this, but I don't want to unnecessarily alert people. NLeeuw (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This final solution is surely in line with my earlier comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle Don't you mean 'certainly'? I often see you use the word 'surely' where I expect the word 'certainly'. As far as I know, in English, 'surely' is usually used in a question sentence to someone else, asking them to confirm something you would expect / like them to believe, or to say, or to do / to have done. 'Surely you locked the door, didn't you?' It's like the English equivalent of '...toch zeker wel...?' See the usage notes at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surely because [surely] connotes strong affirmation, it is used when the speaker or writer expects to be agreed with. Unlike sure it may be used neutrally—the reader or hearer may or may not agree, and it is often used when the writer is trying to persuade.
    • Surely you must admit that it was a good decision.
    In this case, it's like you're asking yourself whether you agree with your own earlier comments. 'Deze oplossing is toch zeker wel in lijn met mijn eerdere opmerkingen?' There is nobody who can answer that question except for you. NLeeuw (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-binary lesbians

Nominator's rationale: I don't really know what to do with this category (and the merge target). I think it needs a merge and rename. I think that these are supposed to be about non-binary people who identity as lesbian or gay. Mason (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the non-binary lesbians category name/title is very objective, right? It's in common use in the non-binary community. The Category:Non-binary gay people was named Category:Non-binary gay men (its naming was discussed at WT:GAY#Non-binary gay category). All biographies in these category were already in the Category:Lesbians and Category:People with non-binary gender identities, with help of WP:PetScan I populated these categories. --MikutoH talk! 23:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that these intersections meets the EGRS criteria for defining. The lesbian name may be objective, but I don't think it works in tandem with Non-binary gay people. I found the lesbian category nested within the gay category, which made the entire nested structure more confusing. Can you point to some literature on Non-binary gay people, because I haven't been able to find any? (Also the thread you linked to voices concerns about the category, including its creation being disruptive; so the thread isn't that clear cut.)Mason (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I would support a keep as well, provided that each category is defined enough so they can effectively be used. As such, I reject this nomination / merger. Historyday01 (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google search yields plenty of results for non-binary lesbians. It's clearly a common and defining identity. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:11th-century Indian medical doctors

Nominator's rationale: There are only a handful of Medieval medical doctors from India. I think we should upmerge for now until there's a critical mass Mason (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Indian people by century feeds ultimately to Category:Indian people and thereupon Category:India (and not any other modern-day successors). Are these physicians Indian if we are to equate India with the ROI? 185.104.63.112 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so I think I now understand what's happening with your dispute over Hong Kong versus China. That's not how nationality works for nesting. So there's no built-in assumption with categories that people nested in India are necessarily citizens of the modern nation of India. Mason (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the alternative target. Mason (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters by political orientation

Nominator's rationale: split, this category is confusing in its current implementation, it contains fictional anarchists, monarchists, nationalists and socialists on the one hand (by political orientation, not activists) and environmentalists, advocates of women's rights and pacifists on the other hand (activists, not political orientation). These are very different things. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't think this is necessary. And are you really sure that environmentalism and feminism not specific political ideologies/movements? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian scientific authors

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection dual upmerge; the category description is part of the job of being an academic. The description says says: "Indian scientists who contribute their scientific publications, among others in scientific journals and magazines, in biology, chemistry and physics, and so on. authors who write scientific books etc, may be categorized in the related scientific fields at Category:Indian science writers." Mason (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Welsh bisexual people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one (underpopulated) occupation in here, which is not helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War criminals by nationality

Nominator's rationale: These are the same thing. Am I missing something? If I'm not, I'm happy to add the rest of the categories to the list. Mason (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These categories are meant for war criminals who were never formally convicted of war crimes. It exists for the same reason why Category:War criminals is seperate from Category:People convicted of war crimes. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT asexual people

Nominator's rationale: Redundant, as all intersex people are LGBT. Editor has been warned about their alternative definition of LGBTQI+ User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Category:Pansexual women#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity. (Also for the emtied categories, I've nominated them to make it clear that the category shouldn't be recreated Mason (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support a merger as well. The fact these were created WITHOUT much discussion is deeply unfortunate and needs to be reversed. I would also say that the said user needs to be warned. Historyday01 (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison No, they aren't. There are plenty of asexuals who identify also as lesbian, gay, bi, or transgender. There are plenty of asexuals who identify as cis and heteroromantic / straight. Wikipedia should not erase queer asexuals. Being both queer and asexuals is a non-trivial intersection, a minority within a minority. There's a reason that terms like homoromantic and biromantic are used in the asexual community; because asexuals queers exist. Likewise, it is flat out false that all intersex people are LGBT. There are plenty of intersex people who identify as cisgender heterosexuals. Being both intersex and LGBT is likewise a meaningful and defining intersection of two oppressed identities. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex transgender people

Nominator's rationale: Redundant, as all intersex people are LGBT. Editor has been warned about their alternative definition of LGBTQI+ User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Category:Pansexual women#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity Mason (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like the other comments, I support this merger. These categories were erroneously created and this needs to be corrected. Historyday01 (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by sexuality

Nominator's rationale: This seems unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Raladic (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:OVERLAPCAT but purge the last subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose People who "who reject a sexual preference label" are very explicitly not defining themselves as LGBT, so that subcat doesn't belong in the LGBT category. Second, not all asexuals identify as L, G, B or T. Plenty of asexuals are cisgender and identify as straight or heteroromantic. Erasing queer asexuals is homophobic and transphobic. Being both queer and asexual is a relevant intersection. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the above comment by Raladic "LGBT [i]s encompassng all parts of the LGBTQIA+ umbrella per current Wikipedia consensus." No one is erasing queer people or asexual people with these categories. As a queer person, I appreciate your concern about representation. However, I think calling the current category homophobic and transphobic is missing the point. Mason (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison We could avoid the debate over whether all asexuals and all intersex people are LGBT by merging the LGBT asexuals and LGBT intersex people categories, but keeping the categories for people who specifically identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. As a non-heterosexual and non-cisgender member of the LGBTQ community, representation is indeed my concern. Thank you. Although, wouldn't people who reject a label by definition also be rejecting an LGBT label? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you're trying to get at with your rhetorical questions. Mason (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison There's a single question. Why should people who reject a label be labeled as LGBT, per your baffling insistence that no label = LGBT? That doesn't add up. That doesn't make sense. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose a merger, but would be fine with simply deleting the "by sexuality" category. I can't support a merger, because the categories, as named, have different scopes, and I'm not talking about the question of whether LGBT includes B, or L, or A, or whatnot, I'm talking about the other category: heterosexuality (for example) is a sexuality, but not (in most cases) "LGBT", so "Wikipedians by sexuality"—as presently named—is scoping itself to somethng broader than "LGBT Wikipedians". However, "Heterosexual Wikipedians" has been deleted for not being related to improving articles, and "Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label" says (for better or worse) that it's only for LGBT-aligned people, so I see that there's nothing but LGBT sexualities to go in the "by sexuality" category, making it useless/redundant to the "LGBT Wikipedians" category, so I am fine with just deleting the "by sexuality" category. -sche (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transgender women by sexual orientation

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_2#LGBT_people_by_sexual_orientation_and_nationality Mason (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this upmerger as proposed. It would be more useful to users this way. Historyday01 (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Category:Overseas Chinese Presidents

Nominator's rationale: I think this means 'Politicians of Chinese descent who became President of a country', which seems like too narrow a category. GiantSnowman 15:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this category into Category:Politicians of Chinese descent instead. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian massacres

Nominator's rationale: merge/redirect, it looks like the scope of the two categories coincides. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that "Indian" is ambiguous, so I'd rather stick to merge as nominated rather than reverse merge. ~~

Category:Genocidal massacres

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be WP:SUBJECTIVECAT - the genocidal massacre article doesn't offer a firm number-based benchmark and it could be rightfully stated that any sizeable massacre is genocidal. As such, that categorization also opens the gates for original research. Brandmeistertalk 14:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one article and one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wollaton Wagonway

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated year categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conservative Judaism in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: "Conservative" has a party-political meaning in the United Kingdom and is therefore an inappropriate description for what is known as Masorti Judaism in the UK. For instance, in the bio on Maurice Glasman, Baron Glasman, who is a prominent member of Masorti UK, he should be categorised as a British Conservative Jew, but that doesn't sit easily with him being also a prominent member of the British Labour Party. Headhitter (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eastern European diaspora in the United States

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Home-made definition of "Eastern European", ranging from Azerbaijani to Montenegrin to Czech to Estonian; it has no siblings like Category:Western European diaspora in the United States or Category:Southern European diaspora in the United States (it seems that everything except Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Turkey is considered "Eastern European" already). NLeeuw (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indo-Bangladesh joint production films

Nominator's rationale: Recreation at a slightly different name of a category previously deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 21#Category:American-Canadian joint production. Films that are joint productions of more than one country are certainly categorized for each relevant country on its own, but do not get special "X+Y joint production" categories -- since there are close to 200 countries in the world and all of their film industries engage in some degree of multinational coproduction with other countries' film industries, scaling this out to its logical endpoint would require the creation of between 30 to 40 thousand categories for every possible combination of two countries. And then we would have to start catting for three-country, four-country and five-country combos too, which is just an untenable nightmare. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

Nominator's rationale The category should be renamed to match the main article, List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sure "Native American tribes" is clearer than "tribes in the United States". However "unrecognized" is clearer than "self-identify" because tribes that are recognized also self-identify as such but that is obviously not in scope here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle They aren't tribes though. They are organizations. To incorrectly call them "tribes" implies that they are indeed tribes but are merely waiting to be recognized. That's a POV. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D. NLeeuw (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I think that this rename has major negative connotations that are unwarrented. Category:Unrecognized tribes does the same thing without the connotation. Mason (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What negative connotations? "Unrecognized tribes" doesn't work because these organizations are not actually tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mason and Marcocapelle. While I understand the idea behind the "self-id" part, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket statement on all unrecognized groups. Self-ID also carries highly negative connotations, as Mason stated, and I don't think that warrants being a blanket statement. "Unrecognized" is also by far the most common term in literature, afaik, however I don't have any data to back that up. PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is self-id a negative? It is simply describing that we don't have a citation to support their claims. I disagree with the statement that recognized tribes self-identify. The process to gain recognition is rigorous and recognized tribes, at least those federally recognized, have to document their continuous direct connection with the original tribes that were here prior to and during colonial contact. With no direct proof connecting them they are therefore self-identifying. They may very well share a heritage and be descendants but they cannot verify by showing a direct connection. That is only a negative because people on Wikipedia and even some of those who self-identify are trying to push that perspective to distort reality. At no point are we saying they are "pretendians". That would require reliable sources stating it through investigation. Self-identify does not equal "pretendian". --ARoseWolf 13:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying someone "identifies" as something vs "being" something very much does have a negative connotation. It implies it is only in their head. There is even a famous transphobic joke (I identify as an attack helicopter/whatever) about how one's self-ID is meaningless. PersusjCP (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot declare every one of these groups to be tribes; that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Is there a term you see as more neutral than "identifies"? I don't mind if "self" is removed. Re: transphobia, a Native American tribe is a collective political identity, while a person's gender and sex is an individual identity; the two concepts are completely different from each other. Yuchitown (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    It's wordy, but I would think along the lines of "claims descent/to be the successor from historical tribe/the aboriginal ___ people" or something like that. Maybe "Organizations that claim descent from Native American tribes." Since "descent"or being the "successor" is generally the more politically accurate idea to what modern day tribes are to historical entities. PersusjCP (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So sorry, but I believe that would be original research since not all the groups claim descent from Native American tribes, like the Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods from Eugene, Oregon, who see themselves as a completely new entity (that is somehow still Native American). Just as a reminder, the corresponding article is List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, so this proposal isn't charting new territory but trying to bring the category inline with the article. Yuchitown (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah that's a good point, I forgot about them... Okay, I support the current/future wording of "Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes," unless someone else can think of a more neutral, all-applicable wording. Maybe alternatively: get rid of the "self" in "self-identify," but I don't know if that makes it more neutral. Or like, "Orgainzations not recognized as Native American tribes," although that's kind of broad. Unfortunately I think because it is such a contentious topic that it is hard to be truly "neutral" in this. PersusjCP (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see how "self-identifying" could be regarded as problematic, as if they could be somehow "delusional" (although I must say this is the first time I've heard it having any negative connotation).
    But so can "unrecognised", right? Doesn't this imply that that these people are in fact tribes, but the U.S. government is just being 'stubborn, uncooperative and discriminatory' in 'refusing' to recognise them as such? The word "unrecognised" arguably carries a subtle WP:POV in it in favour of recognition, and arguably an implied criticism against the government that has so far not extended it to the applicants. NLeeuw (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. All we can substantiate is that these organizations have collectively have identified as being Native American tribes. We cannot go further and do not have that authority; an outside authority having nothing to do with Wikipedia would have to make that distinction. Saying they identify does not mean none of the groups have Native American ancestry or that none of the groups are respected as successors of historical political tribes. But to collectively say all these groups are "tribes" is WP:OR and beyond our capacity or what we can support through published sources. Yuchitown (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Support - I've watched this discussion for a few days and tried to understand or see all the perspectives. I disagree with the negative connotation many are trying to place on self-identification and I think that term should defined somewhere on Wikipedia much like other terms have. The fact that it can be negative or potentially be negative shouldn't be considered because anything can be negative depending on who is defining it. What we should be looking at is the literal meaning of self-identification. These entities are the ultimate source of their identification. I know, some will say, The most notable ones did get recognized by reliable sources or government resolutions. But ultimately the source of their legitimacy when you dig into it is the subject entity itself. If they had proof of their connection to the original people they would have gotten federal recognition. So we are left with an entity that identifies itself as Native American. This may be true and it may not be true, it's still self-identification at its foundation. I support the change in title on that basis. Calling them "unrecognized tribes" places a legitimacy on these groups that cannot be verified. It is wholly non-neutral for Wikipedia to be the one conferring legitimacy. Many don't even call themselves tribes. --ARoseWolf 12:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just following up, "self-identified" is as broad and neutral as possible because a vast range of entities are in this category, including many with verified American Indian ancestry such as the Verona Band of Alameda County, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and the Yuchi (who are almost all enrolled in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation). Yuchitown (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per what Mason and Marcocapelle said, which is that self-ID can have a highly negative connotation and "unrecognized" is the common term in literature. I've already encountered the issue of self-ID violating BLP in an article. If the category was changed as proposed, it's likely we'd have many more BLP issues in individual articles about people. This may seem like a minor word change, but there are strong negative connotations to saying someone who is Native "self identifies," because the inference is that they are Native in name only or falsely claiming to be Native. A change like this will impact countless articles covered by BLP because articles about Native people typically link to their tribe's article. --SouthernNights (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus in any discussion you can point to that says "self-identification" is considered a BLP violation. If I remove anything that I believe "can" be considered negative from every BLP on Wikipedia how long do you think it would take before I was community banned? Yet that's what you did based on your own personal opinion, not consensus. That is the worst obvious and most ridiculous example of POV pushing I have ever seen and quite frankly what I consider very much a misuse of the admin tools. It calls into question your neutrality, not on a personal level because we are all biased to some degree, but your willingness to use the tools you were granted to support your bias despite other good faith editors objecting. --ARoseWolf 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In the case of the article I'm referring to, the recent edits that her tribe supposedly self-identifies absolutely qualified as such which is why I removed them. And I'm hardly the only one who sees it this way -- several editors raised concerns in this very category discussion about such descriptions being seen as negative. For more perspectives on this topic, check out this 2021 research paper published in the American Sociological Association journal (pdf download). Finally, your personal attacks here cross a definite line and violate Wikipedia policy. I strongly advise you do not continue with such attacks. SouthernNights (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Her self-identification as Lipan Apache is not unsourced. We know that her non-profit organization has neither state nor federal recognition. That is a fact, not an opinion. Their identity as a Native group comes purely from their own self-identification, not from government recognition. You referring to "her tribe" is itself a POV and also factually untrue, because it isn't actually a tribe. It's a non-profit organization. There's nothing supposed about it. That's what it is. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are a number of reasons why this conversation about Native American identity should not be renamed self-identify. Here are the top four in my mind:

1. The term self-identify as proposed is unmistakably negative, perhaps also its cache. It’s negative in that it’s divisive, exclusionary, and demeaning. It attacks a significant part of Indian Country, like Lily Gladstone, by claiming they’re not real Native Americans, only pretending to be ones (of course there’s a page for that). No, it’s not racism, certainly not colorism. It’s crude chauvinism. It says that on one hand there are normal real Native Americans and on the other there are abnormal people who illegitimately and with no more foundation than their own volition identify as Native Americans, on no better basis than folks who identify as attack helicopters. Everybody hates attack helicopter wannabes. Native American, normal, positive. Self-identify Native American, abnormal, negative. The dots connecting the term as proposed to its pejorative roots couldn’t be drawn closer.

2. It effaces the concept of indigeneity. It says Native American is an identity established, not by self-identity, but by the US govt through a CDIB card. It says that Native Americans are creations not of thousands of years of independent existence and identity, but of the power that recently in their history came to occupy their land. Further, that power can take back the identity it can confer, as it has demonstrated in the past it can do.

3. The question is much bigger than this discussion can possibly do it justice. It’s not just a matter of slightly adjusting the name of a WP page. It’s a matter of possibly stumbling into a big philosophical and political decision due to a slight of hand; that self-identity is just a clearer way of saying not acknowledge by the US. No scholarly citations. No peer-reviewed articles. Just, you know, it’s neater to say self-identify than non-recognized.

4. It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity. This discussion has already been had over a much longer period, involving many many more participants, in a much more transparent and deliberative fashion. And a consensus was reached. Then instead of being shelved or secreted away, it was announced to the world and has been in place for years, known today as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UN). This widely publicized consensus speaks directly against the proposal to change the name of this page by declaring that indigenous identity is necessarily self-identify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsideh (talk • contribs) 05:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Griffith family

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: just deleted by User:Liz (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was supposed to be deleted on March 20 and again on April 3. Something's not working. Yours6700 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Academics of the College of the Resurrection

Nominator's rationale: To match other staff categories in Category:Bible colleges, seminaries and theological colleges in England Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. But the parent category is Academics by university or college in England. Staff has a *very* different meaning. From looking at the contents, these people are academics. If anything, I think that other categories should be renamed to reflect that these folks are academic staff/faculty. Mason (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I update my vote to oppose. Mason (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2023 Marrakesh-Safi earthquake

Nominator's rationale: Per main article move. Article's name is now 2023 Al Haouz earthquake. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If deleted, it'll leave the subcat as the only one without a main category. But I'm still for renaming. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation would be very much appreciated :) If there is no further participation by next week, I think a rename (per WP:C2D) with no prejudice against speedy renomination for deletion is the appropriate close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I think that there's now just enough to support a category, but I don't feel strongly. Mason (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_7&oldid=1218685927"