Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/Today

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, and how to do cleanup.

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.

How to use this page

[edit]
  1. Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or to be created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies here, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas. (See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
  3. Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
  4. Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
  5. Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. (If you are recommending that the category be renamed, you may also add a note giving the suggested new name.) This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
    1. Alternately, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
    2. If you are concerned with a stub category, make sure to inform the WikiProject Stub sorting
  6. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
    1. Alternatively, if the category is a candidate for speedy renaming (see Wikipedia:Category renaming), add it to the speedy category at the bottom.
  7. Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
  8. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
  9. Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

[edit]

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

Discussion for Today

[edit]
This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024_October_15


October 15

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:Human resource management books

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here and no other books in Human resource management publications Mason (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Strange World (film)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A category for the film with its only articles being the film itself and its soundtrack is a bit overkill and unnecessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Legend of Qin characters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: An AfD in 2017 resulted in the redirect of articles for characters from this series to the list that remains as the sole entry in this category. This category is no longer warranted. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Failed verification and WP:NONDEF issues. I checked several articles at random and most do not support the source of the claim of Native American descent being "self-identification" or that the individuals have not "shared proof of this heritage" (proof is not mentioned). The insinuation here is that these people are not genuinely of Native American descent but sources don't support (or contradict) that. As for some self-sourced claims of descent being false, that is true for all other types of descent but we justifiably don't have Category:People who self-identify as being of Sephardic Jewish descent. Furthermore, people saying "I'm Native American" in an interview, if they lack a genuine connection to Native American culture, is never going to meet the standard for categorization in WP:NONDEF. (t · c) buidhe 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, I agree that these should be deleted per nom but definitely nominate all the subcategories too. Per the below discussion, I'm changing my vote to neutral for now. Was not aware of a previous discussion on this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose. This was the subject of a very long CFD, the contributors of which should be pinged. Mason (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that there had been a prior CfD but the result is hard to reconcile with the P&G. Seems like a better solution to the identified problem might to be enforcing existing wp:defining rules or even eliminating Native American categories by descent that aren't for registered tribal members. The situation as it is now feels like Wikipedia trying to decide who is proven to be a real Native American or not—which the sources, in the vast majority of cases, don't allow us to do. (t · c) buidhe 02:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it's unclear to me what differentiates this category tree from the People of Native American descent tree. Articles like Tiffany Darwish seem like they could be placed into either. What type of source is required to declare Native American identity "proven" rather than a mater of "self-identification"? (t · c) buidhe 02:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many people are of descent and not enrolled tribal citizens but this is still a defined aspect of their biography. The point of this broad category is that Wikipedia is *not* trying to decide who is or is not of Native ancestry but reflecting what published, sources state: that these individuals have stated they have Native ancestry in their published biographies. What would move someone into just the "descent" category would be confirmation from the tribe, which might come in the form of their parent being a tribal citizen. User:Netherzone created List of Indigenous newspapers in North America, which helps make it easier to find tribal newspapers. Yuchitown (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that almost all articles in the category fail verification as it is currently drafted. This is a problematic category, especially for BLPs. It is a subcat of Category:American people who self-identify as being of Indigenous descent, which makes the stronger claim that the indivudals have no proof of the heritage. (Previous parent categories put everyone in this category under Category:Native American cultural appropriation and Category:Transracial (identity), but those at least have been removed.) It is of limited use to have a category that groups together known frauds, people who have a genuine but incorrect belief that they have Indigenous ancestry, and people who do have Indigenous ancestry but a particular standard of proof hasn't been found in reliable sources.--Trystan (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will ping all participants at the previous CFD. I will also note (without comment) that since the previous discussion, ArbCom has passed a motion stating that Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan (who both participated in the prior CFD) are to be considered a single user.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Brandmeister, CorbieVreccan, Dimadick, Indigenous girl, Jjj1238, Koavf, Marcocapelle, Mark Ironie, Moxy, Namiba, Place Clichy, Qwerfjkl, RevelationDirect, TheMainLogan, ValarianB, and Yuchitown: Pinging previous participants, regardless of participation in the above discussion. I have no opinion on the merits of the proposal. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose deletion the category was created because of the very specific and nuanced differences between claiming Native American heritage and claiming any other kind of heritage. There are numerous cases (as the amount of articles in the category suggests) where an individual's claim to Native American ancestry is relevant enough for inclusion, but they are not considered to be Native American by the Native American community because of the aforementioned nuances that exist here. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment does not engage with the deletion argument at all and should be disregarded by the closer. Unless there is more clarity about how the two sets of categories are distinguished in reliable sources and how we can verifiably distinguish them, there is no basis for categorization. You also haven't explained how people in this category meets the defining criteria. I wonder if there is even any evidence in reliable sources that native American heritage (as opposed to being an actual tribal member) is somehow distinct from all other ethnicities that it requires a different categorization scheme (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yes, this is often defining and also Native American is a unique political classification in the United States, not an ethnicity. Yuchitown (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To expand further, these are longstanding categories based on self-identification (a term widely used in literature about Native American identity) by individuals in secondary, published sources. These are the broadest possible categories that reflect that the individual has claimed Native American ancestry. I hope everyone in this discussion have familiarized themselves with the topic of Native American identity in the United States, and how it is a unique political status that is not comparable to ethic or racial classifications or other identity classifications, such as those of the LGBTQ+ communities. Being Native American is a communal identity, not an individual identity. While being a tribal citizen clearly requires confirmation from the tribe in question, being a descendant also requires confirmation and also has real-world implications (for instance, direct descendants of tribal citizens are still eligible to use the Indian Health Service, even if they aren't enrolled. Innumerable individuals make claims to Native American descendency, but often these claims are unsubstantiated so they go into this category or its subcategories. That doesn't mean they do *not* have Native American ancestry; it just means confirmation in reliable, secondary, published sources needed to recategorize them haven't been found yet. These are broad, Schrödinger's cat categories. Without them (and anyone here who has edited Native topics for years will know), these individuals repeated get added to the specific tribal categories (e.g. Category:Mohawk people) and repeatedly have to be removed. The name of this category is factually accurate and meets Wikipedia's requirements for what can be verified. Yuchitown (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose This is both defining and relatively easy to source. Dimadick (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That someone has made a claim of Native American ancestry is often easy to source. Where almost every article fails verification for this cateogry is in sourcing the claim that they have no proof of that ancestry (as the parent category words it), or that they have not shared such proof (as this category words it). Our failure to find a source making a certain claim can’t be used as verification for the claim that no such source exists; that is WP:OR, used here to make contentious claims about BLPs.--Trystan (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't prove a negative. This larger, baseline category is for people who claim descent. If reliable, published sources confirmed descent, then the person moves to a smaller category. Yuchitown (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't prove a negative. But that's the problem with the scope note as currently written; it claims an unproven negative (that they have no or have not shared proof). It then goes on to heavily cast aspersions on the subjects in the category ("In some cases, they make the claim despite having been proven to have no Native American heritage at all," and "See also: Pretendian"). The way you characterize the scope in your comment above is much more neutral, and it would go a long way to addressing the BLP concerns if the scope note were revised to say "This category lists notable citizens of the United States who claim to have some Native American ancestry. For individuals whose descent is confirmed by the tribe in question in reliable, published sources, use Category:American people of Native American descent."--Trystan (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t create this category, but I agree that it would be much better and more helpful to edit the description to be completely neutral. (I have done so with various subcats). Is it okay to make these edits now or wait until this discussion runs its course? Yuchitown (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it would be fine to make the edits now, if there are no objections.--Trystan (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify I get the point of opposers, but because of apparent doubts in some (or many) of such claims, this is clearly WP:OPINIONCAT and hardly WP:DEFINING as compared to e.g. established Category:Native American people. Brandmeistertalk 08:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Inclusion here is not an opinion. All the people included in these categories have identified as being of Native American descent (generally or of a specific tribe, in which case they go under the appropriate subcat) in secondary, published records. Often that's all that can substantiated; that they include that in their biography. When tribes confirm their citizenship or descendancy in secondary, published sources, then they can be moved into the smaller categories. Yuchitown (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different Procedural Oppose Since the original nomination, there have been a number of subcategories which this parent category serves to group and shouldn't be deleted in isolation. (I do have concerns about most of the subcats though.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Subcategories Two of these subcategories serve a clear purpose: The Cherokee heritage groups are why the Cherokee group is so large and descendants of multi-racial people who fibbed about their identity to utilize the Pocahontas exception to racial segregation justifies a subcategory. (The Category:American people who self-identify as being of Powhatan descent subcategory is misnamed though, since few would be able to name Pocahontas' tribe.) I'm less sure what the purpose is for all the other, mostly small, tribal categories though since the exotic sounding name of the tribe may have basically been picked at random. Occupational subcategories for actors and politicians dubiously claiming ancestry might be a better approach. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These categories are based on how the individuals have self-identified in secondary, published sources and use the terminology they use. For instance, this article mentions Nadema Agard identifying being of "Powhatan" descent. Speculation, second-guessing, and original research isn't permitted on Wikipedia. Yuchitown (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suport per nom. Better editing can eliminate the issues around WP:BLP.--User:Namiba 14:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Deletion I also have checked many of these articles, and so far, the majority fail verifiability on self-identification, resulting in such claims for people, including BLPs and BLP notables of non-BIA tribes, that are not supported by reliable, published sources and seem to, instead, be the implications of original research. The insinuation for the people categorized as self-identifying is that they are frauds. Wikipedia, which now plays a significant role in AI-generated searches, relies on its policies that require all material in its mainspace must be verifiable so as not to spread disinformation.Bcbc24 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wikipedia requires that the categorization of articles must be verifiable, "clear from verifiable information in the article" why it was placed in a particular category. If the article does not mention that an individual self-identifies, then it is OR to say they do and that they belong in a self-identifying category.Bcbc24 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (including subcategories) to regular descent categories, but purge obvious cases of fraud. The articles usually contain very little information about this topic, in most cases they just rely on the subject's own statement about their descent. But that applies to every other descent too. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The determining "obvious cases of fraud" is beyond Wikipedia's capacity and would constitute original research. Yuchitown (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't if reliable sources agree on it. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Those individuals are listed in the pretendian article. The U.S. press doesn’t cover the subject (so Wikipedia doesn’t either except in a few cases).
      Although a merge might be a good idea but merge the “descent” categories into the “self-identified descent” container categories since an individual stating they have Native American ancestry is extremely easy to verify with sources. Yuchitown (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The articles in this category are evidence that it is not always that easy. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I should follow up that there are countless articles, books, and even academic journals about Native identity, descendancy, genealogy, Indigenous identity fraud, tribal rolls, etc. and these are referenced in the many, many Wikipedia articles on these various subjects. What’s easy to verify with published, secondary sources is when an individual has publicly stated that they have Native American ancestry. The public statement is what’s easily verified. Yuchitown (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree with that, but my point is that a subject's own statement is sufficient for regular descent categories. There is no reason to add "self-identification" because that is what descent categories imply in the first place. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion Wikipedia has no standards for white people or Italian Americans to prove their race, ethnicity, heritage, or descent, beyond what RL states. It's discriminatory to insist on increased racial scrutiny for Native people. Further it's unreasonable (and invasive) to expect to see a Native subject's personal identification and demographic papers which could "prove" their identity online. Using those if they were available would be OR. The language of "self identify" when not supported by RL is additionally against BLP. Commenters should know the users originating this category are POV pushing across Wikipedia for Native racial purity standards that don't exist even among the most conservative Native people offline. They do not speak for even a vocal minority of Native people. This ideology is only prevalent on Wikipedia, on pages they have edited. See a previous convo here. See also the BLP Noticeboard. Check their history for many many more. Pingnova (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging previous participants in this subject: @CaroleHenson, @Morbidthoughts, @David Fuchs, @Only in death, @Alanscottwalker. Pingnova (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pingnova, being Native American or First Nations is not about race or ethnicity, and to frame it as such is simply wrong. Native American tribes are sovereign nations - it's about citizenship (political status; participating in cultural community). It's about who claims you (meaning which tribe claims someone as being a member of the tribe). It has nothing whatsoever to do with what a person claims about themselves. You have made a very strong statement by saying It's discriminatory to insist on increased racial scrutiny for Native people. No one is or was ever arguing for increased racial scrutiny, that's simply nonsense, and it is degrading towards your fellow editors. Please stop framing your arguments in terms like "discrimination" and making this into an argument about race and ethnicity when it is most certainly not. Netherzone (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I'm not sure how to respond to a statement like "being Native American or First Nations is not about race or ethnicity," considering it very much is about race and ethnicity. The US Census is just one major institution that treats it as such, not even including the rest of scholarship. Wikipedia itself acknowledges Native people as a racial category. I find this a very disturbing response to my concern. Pingnova (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pingnova, sorry you find this disturbing but Indigeneity is not about race - it is about nation-hood and/or citizenship....it's about who claims the person (meaning tribe or nation), not who the person desires to be affiliated/identified with. There are Native Americans who are white, black, brown, red and yellow in their appearance or "presentation", however what distinguishes these individuals from those who are self-identifying is the fact that they are enrolled in a recognized tribe - they are citizens or members of their tribe or tribal nation (in other words, they are claimed by the tribe or nation) - they are part of those communities - and this fact must be backed up by verifiable, reliable sources (the tribes or Indigenous press, or other verifiable source knowledgeable on Indigeneity). Honestly, I don't understand why we are going over this again - there was a CfD re: this category in 2023, and an earlier one in 2019, both of which supported keeping the categories. Netherzone (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually its both, depending on who you are talking to and the context. And sometimes neither. Citizenship of a nation is generally a functional issue to do with where/how you live, your rights and benfits etc. Race & ethnicity less so except where by extension it affects the citizenship. Race & ethnicity is cultural heritage, which can be entirely divorced from citizenship. And certainly is in cases of forced dispossession. My comment on the BLP board (linked above) was in regards to an issue which people were overthinking in regards to wording in prose. The problem with categories is there is no nuance, you are either in the category or you are not. For someone who says "I have heritage X" - absent reliable sources it is a self identification. But there is no way in the current climate to indicate (in a category title, that lacks the prose available) that is distinctly different from people who are citizens of a tribe or who have recognised descent, without sourcing that verifies that. You cannot prove they are not without delving into original research. So insofar as this is a category, its named accurately enough for the large body of people who lack sourced proof they are of X tribe, or X heritage. Which, also like it or not, would rule out huge amounts of people who genuinely are of X tribe because reliable sources, as wikipedia defines them, do not support that stated fact. For a category to apply, it must be sourced reliably in the article. Doubly-so for a BLP. TheMainLogan has an illustrative example below of the issues, LDP has reliable sourcing that his father is part Cherokee, its not original research to say he is of Cherokee heritage in factual voice. It would be to say he is a citizen of the Cherokee nation, without reliable sourcing that indicated that. So any self-described category would clearly be inappropriate, but (and I havnt looked this far) if the category for cherokee is limited to cherokee citizens only, that would also be inappropriate. Which is why my general stance has always been "does this help a reader find the person's article? otherwise fuck da category police". Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, being Native American is a unique, political status (this was substantiated, 7 to 2, in the Haaland v. Brackeen case). The example previously given, the U.S. Census, uses the terms "American Indian" and "Alaska Native", and they do so because while some Alaska Natives, such as the Tlingit and Athabascans, are American Indians, many are not. Yupiit, Unangan, and Inupiat are *not* American Indian; however, they *are* Native Americans in the United States, as that article explains. Being of descent also has political ramifications; even members of unrecognized historical California tribes have CDIBs and can access Indian health services. These various terms mean specific things and even have Wikipedia articles. Within the umbrella term of Native American are hundreds of distinct ethnicities. Lou Diamond Phillips is a case that demonstrates the need for a vague, all-encompassing category. This phenomenon is so commonplace entire books are written on the subject and there's a Wikipedia article for Cherokee descent. Yuchitown (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion but support restructuring this BS. I think something should be done about the individual articles in this category and subcategories that outright say their subjects are of indigenous origin but users insist should use self-identification categories. For example, Lou Diamond Phillips' article outright says under "Early life" that his dad is part Cherokee, and "Personal life" notes that this was reported by Indian Country Today. Yet, despite the article pushing his Native roots, users insist on only using the self-identification category. It's contradictory nonsense. —theMainLogan (t•c) 14:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I strongly oppose deleting this category. We already decided thru consensus to keep this category just last year. [1]. I do not understand why some think that self-identifying as Native American is not a relevant category. Why would anyone think it is the same as saying someone is a Pretendian or some other offensive slur? It is not. It simply means the person has said themselves that they are NA or have ancestors who were NA, but if these claims are not confirmed by the tribes themselves, or by the Indigenous press, then it is simply a claim. Self-identification is not a judgement or a form of prejudice or a badge of shame. At all. As Yuchitown has pointed out, being Native is a political status - Native American and First Nations are sovereign nations. Indigeneity is not the same as race or ethnicity. If editors want to look deeper into the status of a person, here is a list of Indigenous newspapers and newsletter: List of Indigenous newspapers in North America where one can search for articles on Native identity, and for articles on many notable Native American and First Nations people. If confirmation of tribal citizenship is found, then self-identification is no longer relevant, because the person's status has been confirmed. We all know that anyone can say anything about themselves that they wish to proclaim, however that does not necessarily make it true. It's heresay. Honest or naive mistakes can be made by people, family stories exist about these things, as we have seen in recent news reports. The category itself is neutral, serves a useful encyclopedic purpose and I feel very strongly that it should not be deleted. Netherzone (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pinging people who haven't edited this category and who didn't engage in the previous deletion discussion is WP:CANVASSING. Yuchitown (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to descent, per the above. Unfortunately, whatever they think their doing, as seen in their arguments supporters want to use this for politics untethered to sources directly about the subject, or based on their own original research, practicing a kind of legalism-dispute against subjects. I came across this relatively new political effort on a long-standing article of an historical (long-dead) person where there is no support that that subject ever 'claimed'. What you have is independent RS (not self-anything) flat out ascribing that this was of their descent. So, in that sense, it is a lie that 'the subject claimed' or that they self-anythinged. We can't go back in history to bolster political claims of today, and we can't sue and bring to trial long dead subjects based on legalisms and original research (and we can't do it to BLPs), nor can we lie about them. Should it ever matter to the subject (DUE) that this controversy (ie., controverting prior independent RS) belongs anywhere near their article, new independent RS will have to write the person up specifically, not Wikipedians.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't edited this category or participated in the previous Cfd or 2019 failed merge proposal and did not stumble upon this discussion organically but are here due to WP:CANVASSING. Your previous statement is a diffuse attack against "they." I didn't participate in an editing discussion about a "long-standing article of an historical (long-dead) person" with you. Let's please stick to the subject and facts at hand. Yuchitown (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alanscottwalker, who is the "they" that you speak of? Netherzone (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'They . . . supporters' should be clear. 'Singular they . . .subject' should be clear. It is the supporters who base the reason for this category to exist on politics and original research. Anyone can see that's not an attack, it is a critique of their basis argument. Nor is the critique diffuse, it is trenchant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worse than I thought: I didn't realize that the criteria for being in the "actual Native American descent" category wasn't something like "independent reliable source" but rather "the tribe says so". Given that decisions on enrollment are political and not infrequently controversial/contested, it seems like a serious POV issue to rely on the tribal government as sole arbiter. Maybe we should rename this category"People of Native American descent" and make the other one, which apparently should be called "People descended from enrolled Native American tribal members", a subcategory. The distinction between ethnicity and political status is a red herring: we don't make the Austrian government the sole source for whether someone is allowed to call themselves of Austrian descent either, nor is the Israeli government allowed to decide who is Jewish. (This does not relate to the WP:DEFINING issue, which has never been satisfactorily answered). (t · c) buidhe 21:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Descent, by definition, is not the same as tribal enrollment. Seems like you should support this category, Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent, since any notable American who has publicly stated that they are of Native American descent and that statement has been published in a reliable, source is in—viola!. It’s verifiable and factually correct (BTW in the US tribes determine tribal citizenship, in Canada the federal government determines who has status as a First Nations person or not). Yuchitown (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Political status is not the same as ethnicity, which is why recognizing a single political entity as sole arbiter of ethnicity (the people of native American descent subcategories) is a serious POV problem. Besides enrollment controversies, there are many people who have confirmed native American descent (not self identified) by genetics, genealogical research, or other means. (t · c) buidhe 14:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Breaking it down because there's obviously a lot of miscommunication:
    • I was saying that descent is not tribal enrollment. This is about a descent category, not a tribal enrollment category.
    • There is no single political entity as sole arbiter (this is not a category about status First Nations people in Canada).
    • Native American is not an ethnicity; Native Americans includes hundreds of different ethnicities.
    • Disenrollment would be another conversation (in fact, there's a Tribal disenrollment article). If someone was disenrolled, they would still be of descent.
    • Incidentally, User:Trystan added confirmation from a tribe. If people don't like that edit, have a conversation on the category talk page. It was just added; it can be removed. Yuchitown (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe, rarely does a BIA-tribe or non-BIA tribe publish through secondary RS that a person is or was an enrolled member. Even notable people I have met and know to be members of a BIA tribe would fail to get into a "People descended from enrolled Native American tribal members" because the "tribe says so" RS does not exist. Yet they are categorized as Native American in their Wikipedia articles even when verifiable RS does not support their enrollment status.
    So descent categories might work if applied equally to all and no verifiable source disputes the descendancy because categorizing people as self-identifying is a problem. If the article supported by RS does not explicitly say the person self-identifies, it is WP:OR to categorize a person as self-identifying. And how about someone like Kali Reis, who is categorized in her article as self-identifying as Wampanoag, although she is a member of the Seaconke Wampanoag Tribe, a non-BIA tribe? Or Edwin Gourdin, who died in 1966. None of the verifiable RS on Gourdin's article or off says he self-identifies, yet within the last two years, his categories have moved him from being Native American and Seminole to self-identifying as Seminole descent. His article lead has also changed so that instead of Gourdin being "the first African-American and the first Native-American (Seminole) to be appointed a Superior Court judge in New England", he is now "the first African-American and the first self-identified Native American (Seminole descent) to be appointed a Superior Court judge in New England."Bcbc24 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that's the exact NOR problem I identified. (t · c) buidhe 14:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And refusal to follow WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Indeed, Wikipedians are attempting to create something about a subject -- that the subject did something, or Wikipedians are, in effect, original-research-doxing the subject, to prove or disprove. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Bcbc24, Tribes publish articles about their citizens constantly. List of Indigenous newspapers in North America provides examples for searching. However, as I pointed out in my above comment, the category was just edited; the edits can be undone with discussion on the category talk page. Yet they are categorized as Native American in their Wikipedia articles even when verifiable RS does not support their enrollment status. If you find something uncited, feel free to request citation or delete the information. If an article is miscategorized, remove the category. Yuchitown (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the Indigenous press and media outlets, there are Native American scholars whose well-researched academic papers and/or published books can be trusted as independent reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is an intractable BLP problem with throwing everyone into a vaguely defined, broad category, and then stating in the category description "In some cases, published sources refute their statements of Native American heritage." That casts negative aspersions on everyone in the category. There isn't a clear articulation of what standard of verification is being applied to elevate subjects from this category to Category:American people of Native American descent, and I suspect any such differentiation would run afoul of WP:NOR, given that it seems to go far beyond WP:V. A category for individuals whose claims to Native American ancestry have been challenged or debunked in reliable sources may be warranted. But the majority of this category is just people who failed to meet whatever standard is being applied to Category:American people of Native American descent, and I don't see how that is defining.--Trystan (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you aren't angry that I reverted your text from the category. It seems since the idea of publishing sources connecting an individual to a tribe or tribal member to confirm descent is so repelling to Wikipedians, as seen the comments immediately above, the "Native American descent" categories should be merged into this larger category. If a person's biography in an entertainment magazine is deemed an acceptable RS, then they only thing can be factually taken from that is self-identification. Perhaps some of the commenters here who seldom or never contribute to or create Native American articles can share why they feel so particularly, strongly about eliminating this category. Yuchitown (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not angry at all; I understand the reversion given the above discussion. As for why I personally feel strongly about this category, it is for the BLP concerns I discuss above. Some have previously been addressed (we no longer categorize everyone in this category as being transracial and guilty of cultural appropriation), but others remain. I have particularly in mind those individuals in Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent and its subcategories who are in fact of Native American descent, including those who have proof of that (it's just Wikipedia and published reliable sources that don't have that proof). Grouping those individuals in a category that says their claims are unsubstantiated and in many cases debunked seems inescapably pejorative to me. I don't object to Category:American people of Native American descent having a higher standard of verification than other descent categories, given that reliable sources well establish that an inordinately large number of individuals incorrectly claim Indigenous descent (whether through a good-faith mistake or deliberate fraud). But whatever that standard is, it should be clearly articulated. For individuals who don't meet that standard due to a lack of sufficient sourcing, my strong preference would be not to categorize them on this aspect at all, rather than to put them into a category framed in such a way that casts suspicion.--Trystan (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for responding. This category was definitely created as a compromise to accommodate Wikipedia's understandable needs for citation balanced with the need for factual accuracy. An attempt to address means of confirmation of descent was made at WP:NDN-ID; however, that appears to be too offensive to non-Native Wikipedians and those unfamiliar with Native issues to be adopted. Entertainment media, like People Magazine, are simply not going to be reliable sources for anyone's Indigenous ancestry. That's why I would be fine with just folding all the "descent" categories into the "self-identified descent" categories, if it's too offensive to request informed, authoritative sources (i.e. academic journals, tribal media, etc.).
    On a complete flipside, it's standard for individuals to *not* be added to LGBTQ+ categories unless the person themself publicly identifies as such. So Wikipedia has made an accomodation to the real-world situation of a specific group that doesn't allow for *anything* published, such as in People Magazine, to define how someone is categorized. Yuchitown (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A person's public identification as Native American is defining and can be reliably sourced, particularly through tribes themselves and affiliated publications. The comparison of being Native American to be Jewish or some other ethnicity is fatuous; Native Americans are not members of a race or an ethnicity, but rather are citizens of sovereign nations. There is no insinuation that the people in these categories are not of Native American heritage. There are a number who were adopted and likely do have Native American ancestry, but because they are not citizens of a tribe, the source of their identity is through self-identification. "Self-identification" is not a pejorative term. I would like to reiterate that the clear majority of Native and Native allied editors who are involved with the Indigenous WikiProject and/or who regularly edit Native American-related articles favor the retention of these categories. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no insinuation that the people in these categories are not of Native American heritage. The category description says In some cases, published sources refute their statements of Native American heritage. Coupled with the statement that if the claim were substantiated, they would be in a different category, there is a clear casting of doubt onto the subjects in this category. Not to the extent that there formerly was when everyone here was categorized as transracial, but still problematic in my view.--Trystan (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This category has been a lightning rod for POV pushing, with the label of "self-identifying" used to imply that certain people are not truly Native or are a "pretendian." Add into this the selective use of citations by supporters of this category to determine if a person is self-identifying, such as in the situation described by User:theMainLogan where an article in the very reliable publication Indian Country Today about the Native ancestry of Lou Diamond Phillips wasn't considered sufficient to avoid having him labeled self-identifying, and you have a category that raises serious BLP issues. If the consensus is to not delete this category, then at a minimum all reliable citations proving someone is Native should be accepted, not simply the current standard being used.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. As I've pointed out in a previous category discussion, this is a very awkward-sounding categories that thousands of readers and article subjects could find to be inaccurate, biased, or even offensive.
"American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent" is not wording that is typically used in academic literature.
Federal recognition is a controversial topic that should be discussed in the article text itself. It should not be forced into category names.
Category names should be based on serious non-biased anthropological and sociological research, and should not be based on decisions made by bureaucratic governments that may not always be fair.
I primarily focus on ethnic groups in the Middle East and Balkans, and categorizing thousands of individuals and entire clans as "self-identified" would be extremely offensive. For example, what if Serbia, Iran, or others do not officially recognize certain ethnic groups that Western anthropologists would certainly recognize as genuine ethnic or ethnoreligious groups? For example, if we were to label Yazidis or Alevis as self-identified minorities, that would be completely unencyclopedic, POV, and totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. Would we the generic Wikipedia reader out there be all right with "Self-identified Jewish people"? "Self-identified Hazaras"? "American people who self-identify as being of Jewish (or black, etc.) descent"? Most likely not!
There are also many unrecognized ethnic groups in China, since the Chinese (PRC) government officially recognizes only 56 ethnic groups. Should we also categorize every single individual from those unrecognized minorities as "self-identified minorities"? Certainly not, as that would be very awkward, controversial, and out of line with what Wikipedia categories should really be all about.
Another good reason to oppose this renaming is the WP:CONCISE guideline. We shouldn't make category names overly long and complicated.
As a result, the same should apply to Native Americans, First Nations, and other indigenous peoples in North America. Intra or intercommunity politics considered to be obscure, confusing issues by the general public should not be allowed to force its way into category names.
The subjects of various BLPs would also find this category, and related categories to be very offensive, and as a result this would violate Wikipedia's BLP policies.
I would also suggest taking a look at this book which discusses this issue in detail: Forgotten Tribes: Unrecognized Indians and the Federal Acknowledgment Process. Equiyamnaya (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - It is truly shocking to me that so many of the "d*lete commenters are ignoring the thoughts, words and knowledge of our community members who are themselves Indigenous Americans, as well as the long-time members of Wikipedia Project Indigenous peoples of North America. Yet another erasure of Indigenous voices on WP. Netherzone (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to tag the subcategories so they can be discussed here. This is also your general reminder to remain civil, please. If being respectful is not good enough a reason, closing discussions is much harder when there is a bunch of incivility.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the merits of this proposal; listing these out so people can see what is being discussed. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ethnicity ≠ citizenship, and tribe membership is closer to citizenship. Belonging to a tribe is associated with ethnicity but is not 1-1 and this issue is highly contested and complicated - removing this category would mean a massive, highly misleading oversimplification. The wording is awkward but the issue at hand is awkward. There’s not a perfect fit for everything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Asian actors

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The practically same category was deleted un British actors of Asian descent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_20#Category:British_people_by_ethnicity_and_occupation Pinging @LaundryPizza03: from last discussion. Mason (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empires and kingdoms of foo

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These are not all "empires and kingdoms", but rather include all historical states which once inhabited the modern-day territory of these countries. Opting for "polities" rather than "states" to remove any ambiguity (and these were not all "countries" either). Category:Former political entities in Afghanistan (currently the lone country cat in Category:Former territorial entities in Asia) and Category:Former countries in Indian history already exist, and thus Category:Empires and kingdoms of Afghanistan and Category:Empires and kingdoms of India should be merged there, and the two parents renamed with the desired naming scheme. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:AAGPBL teams

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles and one category in each. Already covered by other categories so no need to merge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba, in that sense you can make one for every team, plus a category for managers, but I don't think that will be good for navigation at all since only one team - the Rockford Peaches - was around long enough to have at least five managers. As I noted, these are all well covered with other categories in Category:All-American Girls Professional Baseball League so why keep?
@Marcocapelle, what do you think? I know you changed your vote but still. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should make one for every team. I'm personally trying to expand the categorization scheme for women's sports (see Category:Women's sports by populated place.)--User:Namiba 14:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diseases and disorders

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This was moved to the current name via a 2008 decision with very little discussion. However, the main article is disease, not diseases and disorders. This makes the category not match the article. I believe it should be moved back to the broader "Disease" to match the main article, which does not only include individual diseases but also the entire topic of disease. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This category tree is suppose to include chronic disorders, not just diseases. Mason (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason: The article disease states that a disorder is a form of disease. Disorder (medicine) is not an article. That means the current title is redundant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This rename makes it seem like you're removing disability and related concepts from the tree. Even if that isn't your intent, I see no advantage to this rename beyond brevity. I actipate numerous removals of people with disabilities from the child categories, as well as the removal of chronic disabilities. Moreover, I do not want to have to argue that Autism is a disease rather than a neurological difference. Mason (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brevity is established Wikipedia policy, see WP:CONCISE. On the other hand, having something not cause offense to people is not. In fact the opposite is true, see WP:NOTCENSORED. So if the argument is that classifying many things under a disease banner will cause offense, it isn't really a policy-based reason. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have missing my point. @Zxcvbnm I am trying to avoid have people misunderstand the category. "I actipate numerous removals of people with disabilities from the child categories, as well as the removal of chronic disabilities." This means that I expect many people to misunderstand that disease includes disorders. And I do not want to have to explain to people that over and over again that this definition is broad. WP:CONCISE says that the goal is to "balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." What I am saying is that the new name does not provide sufficient information, and that for example, Autism is not some term people intuitive consider a disease. Mason (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is a thing that can be explained in the category's description. For example, "This category also contains things typically referred to as disorders in common parlance. Do not remove X and Y". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Events at Yankee Stadium

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE, we do not categorize events by the venues they were held at. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=931652817"