Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1 (2004-05) Archive 2 (discussions begun 2005 - June 2006) Archive 3 (July 2006 – June 2007)

Contents 1 Ordering of Mac, Mc and M' 2 Some people care about places of birth 3 Proposed redraft - Sorting of surnames with independent prefixes 3.1 Final draft 4 Biographical project notification 5 Subcategory for current sports team members 6 Categorization of people: Biographies of living people 7 Dead people and categories' inherent inability to express NPOV subtleties 8 Question 9 Religion categories for living people 10 Categorization by name

[edit] Ordering of Mac, Mc and M'

This came up is one of my early edits, when I knew less than I do now about Wikipedia. For ease of finding a name, even when the correct spelling is not certain, it is common practice to sort them all as if they were Mac. As described above this can be before the other Ms or after Mab... The Telephone Directory places them all ((including names such as Mace) after Mabbott and sorts all as Mac, but that is hardly a definitive source! I am told that this is documented in a "standard text" for librarians, but have not sourced that. All I have found on-line is Everything - third section; second bullet. Collation indicates that this practice may have fallen out of favour since computerisation. I agree that much of the time it is an unnecessary complication; even in List of Scots there do not appear to be a vast number of Macs and Mcs (m' less common nowadays). However I believe we should have an agreed style. Comments? Finavon 22:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also advocate having all McX names sorted as Macx, but it's a lot of work, and I think we would need to establish a wider agreement (perhaps including groups like Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland) before insisting upon it. There are a lot of McX articles still sorted as McX, and it might be suitable as a bot task once a general agreement had been reached. There are also good reasons for not sorting McX as MacX, so I don't think we should be too rash. --Stemonitis 07:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just recently been applying the current guideline, WP:Categorization_of_people#Ordering_names_in_a_category, specifically the bit that reads: The first letter of each word should be in upper case, and all subsequent letters should be in lower case, regardless of the correct spelling of the name to a number of "Mac"/"Mc" articles when I noticed that there were too many "Mc" articles sorted as "Mac" to be coincidence. Assuming I'd missed a policy somewhere, I went looking, but I haven't seen it anywhere. This talk page seems to have the most serious discussion on the issue of whether "Mac" and "Mc" should be split or merged.

It's my impression that the merge approach, of having them all sort together regardless of actual spelling, is an older style that's fallen out of fashion, probably a victim of the shift from hand collation to machine collation. I used to see address books with a separate "Mc" tab, the 15th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (circa 1984) used merge (and had a one line assertion that it was the right thing to do in a well-constructed index, in the Mac article). I also used to see small-town phone books that had a separate "Mc" section.

However, most recent things that I can find have gone with split:

• my local phone book (Austin, Texas)
• MSN's Encarta
• the online Encyclopedia Britannica
• infoplease.com
• the Author's Index of The Cambridge History of English and American Literature
• reference.com
• Handbook of Texas
• a Library of Congress index of 19th century authors
• online Worldbook Encyclopedia
• Webster's Dictionary see [1] versus [2]

I do find some holdouts for merge:

• the Columbia Encyclopedia (which is the same content as Yahoo's encyclopedia)
• newadvent.com's Catholic Encyclopedia

Personally, I favor split because:

a) it seems to be the current trend, see above.

b) it's a straightforward mechanical rule that doesn't require any judgment calls. While Wikipedia guidelines shouldn't favor simplicity to the significant detriment of the encyclopedia, when it's a relatively free matter of style, the simpler guideline should be chosen. There's already a significant learning curve to becoming a good editor; I don't think adding more special cases helps.

c) Adopting the merge approach will lead to secondary rules that have to be made. Consider Dick and Mac McDonald; under a merge approach, they sort as "Mac"; what then do we do with the giant corporation named for them, McDonald's, sort it the same or different? And articles derivative of the company name, such as McJob and McMansion? We could have one rule for people and another for non-people, but that produces absurdity, with McMurdo Sound and Archibald McMurdo being separated.

d) It strikes me as being a slippery slope or Camel's nose. There are, for example, Chinese names that have several alternate romanizations, such as 王, which has been romanized as both Wang (surname) and Wong (surname). (And there's a different chinese name that commonly romanizes as both "Wong" and "Huang".) It could easily be argued that Chinese historic names ought to be sorted under a canonical name that represents some chosen standard romanization, rather than whatever happens to be the historical accepted romanization, but then we'd be arguing about which is best, for dozens of names, and new editors would have even more rules to learn. (We already have folks arguing that the historical romanization for Mehmed II ought to be replaced with the contemporary Turkish romanization "Mehmet"). I think accepting a split approach would be to throw an Apple of Discord, giving everybody with a socio-linguistic axe to grind that little bit of inspiration and ammunition to keep flogging their cause (but maybe I'm just paranoid). And no one seriously considers sorting "Derby" and "Darby" together, even though they evolved from the same name (and are pronounced the same in some parts of the world, though not mine).

e) It could possibly be argued that using the phonological argument for grouping "Mac" and "Mc", when we don't use phonological sorting anywhere else, is quietly promoting Scottish nationalism. While I'm proud of my one distant ancestress from Scotland (a McDiarmid), I don't think the Scots need special treatment.

Since it's a reasonable argument to have, given the historic precedents of sorting both ways, whatever we come up with as a consensus should be memorialized in the guideline. Studerby 21:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Of these five reasons, only a) and b) are really relevant. The case under c) that it would introduce inconsistencies is not especially significant since it is rare that any such pairs of articles would be categorised together, most categories being either biographical or non-biographical, and relatively few being mixed (I can't think of any, although I'd be prepared to bet that there are some). Sorting rules already differ between categories, and that's not a problem. Transliteration of Chinese (d) is utterly irrelevant, because we would sort on whatever romanisation is used in the article title. Finally, e) doesn't apply, because this is not really a phonological argument; it's entirely to do with traditions of collation, and Mc and Mac have traditionally been grouped together, whereas others such as Darby and Derby have not. Scottish nationalism has no bearing on the issue, for several reasons, including that Mc- / Mac- surnames are also Irish. I think it is still unclear whether the general trend among relevant works is to lump or to split (my dictionary has McX explicitly under MacX), and that is more or less the only criterion we should be using to judge. Simplicitly is vaguely desirable, but not at the cost of authority. Surnames and their collation are surprisingly complicated, and attempts to over-simplify are likely to be fruitless. Please, let us stick to the relevant factors and not get carried away with speculation and invention. I might also note that whatever is decided upon (if anything at all), most of the McX articles will be ill-sorted, because a large majority have internal capitals in the sort key. If there weren't so few other surnames beginning "Mc" (cf. Leri Mchedlishvili and Guram Mchedlidze), this would be quite urgent. --Stemonitis 21:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stemonitis, and I always index both MacX and McX as Macx. This isn't just a a convention, it's a convention with a reason, because the spellings are not always handled consistently across a family or even for the same person, and there is no guarantee that an entry found somewhere for "John MacCarthy" will not be listed elsewhere as "John McCarthy", or (without capitalisation) as "John Mccarthy" or "John Maccarthy". The consistent approach makes it easier to find articles, and isn't that the whole point of indexing? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There's been a recent discussion of this and other alphabetisation issues at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Alphabetization, which may be of interest. PamD (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some people care about places of birth

Despite what the main page says: Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_residence: "The place of birth is rarely notable."
~ender 2007-06-17 17:14:PM MST

As CfD for 2007 June 21 noted, there is also interest in where people were buried. Biographies are interesting both from the perspective of the individual, as well as the perspective of local studies.Ephebi 16:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 29 and in the absence of other viewpoints, I have been bold Ephebi 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed redraft - Sorting of surnames with independent prefixes

This continues from the long discussion above.

current text:

• People with multiple-word last names are usually sorted by the entire last name in English, and not (for example) according to the Dutch system which puts some words like "van", "vanden", "van der" after the rest of the last name. Example: (Dutch)[[Categorie:Nederlands voetballer|Basten van Marco]]; [[Category:A.C. Milan players|Basten, Marco van]] → [[Category:A.C. Milan players|Van Basten, Marco]]
• Note that some people are typically called this way in English, for example, for Beethoven, use [[Category:Classical era composers|Beethoven, Ludwig Van]]; similarly, for Montesquieu, use [[Category:Enlightenment philosophers|Montesquieu, Charles De Secondat, Baron De]].

Proposed new text:

• People with multiple-word last names are usually sorted by the first capitalized element, though this is a complex field and there are exceptions and inconsistencies. The French and Spanish "de" and German "von" are usually not sorted on, except for some examples who lived in English-speaking countries, like Wernher Von Braun (V). But the Italian "De" or "Di" usually is sorted on. Often, historical European figures with local names are treated differently from modern figures with the "same" name living in English-speaking countries - thus Anthony van Dyck and Steve Van Dyck are sorted on D and V respectively. Examples:

Beethoven, Ludwig van

Bismarck, Otto von

Di Stefano, Giuseppe

Eyck, Jan van

Maupassant, Guy de

Van Basten, Marco

Van Buren, Martin

- Any comments? Obviously it could be extended to book length, but I think this is clearly more accurate than the current text. Johnbod 18:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of minor points: the list format should probably be run together into a single line, and all words should have an initial capital letter in the sort key, even if they don't in the text or title. I also prefer to have the articles linked, for several reasons. So the new text would end:

Examples include "Beethoven, Ludwig Van", "Bismarck, Otto Von", "Di Stefano, Giuseppe", "Eyck, Jan Van", "Maupassant, Guy De", "Van Basten, Marco" and "Van Buren, Martin".

Other than that, I think it's fine. --Stemonitis 06:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do all the words have to be capitalized - is this a rule? That is not how most editors (including me) usually do it on WP I think, and if it is like that, the names as they are normally written need to be visible in normal viewing mode as well to make the point about which words are capitalized, I think. Otherwise fine. Is there a way to display the full link as written, whilst keeping it functional? Johnbod 17:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I take your point about the links (I hadn't really though it through), but I do think putting all the examples in a single line helps to keep it compact. The capitalisation of (only) the first letter of each word is necessary because the order in ASCII is for all the upper-case letters to precede the lower-case ones, and having a mixture of both leads to mistakes (e.g. "MacMillan" and "Macmillan" should sort together, not with "MacMillan" before "Macadam"). I added that recommendation to the guidelines recently, so I guess a lot of people haven't noticed yet. --Stemonitis 17:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing how this looks:

Examples include: "Ludwig van Beethoven → Beethoven, Ludwig Van", Otto von Bismarck → "Bismarck, Otto Von", Giuseppe Di Stefano → "Di Stefano, Giuseppe", Jan van Eyck → "Eyck, Jan Van", Guy de Maupassant → "Maupassant, Guy De", Marco van Basten " →Van Basten, Marco" and Martin Van Buren → "Van Buren, Martin".

- not bad; I thought it was Van Basten under V, so conforming to the capialization rule; but it it seems he may be van Basten under V, so an exception. If so, he should be changed or explained. Like many of these examples, the uses within the WP article are inconsistent, & include plenty of both Van & vans. His official website goes with van, the AC Milan one with Van. Johnbod 17:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe use Jean-Claude Van Damme instead, better known, better looking, and certainly a V. Johnbod 02:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final draft

• People with multiple-word last names are usually sorted by the first capitalized element, though this is a complex field and there are exceptions and inconsistencies. But for coding reasons the first letter of each word is capitalized in the actual sort text. The French and Spanish "de" or "du" and German "von" are usually not sorted on, except for some examples living in English-speaking countries, like Corne Du Plessis (D). But the Italian "De" or "Di" usually is sorted on. Dutch/Flemish/Belgian/South African names are especially unpredictable. Often, historical European figures with local names are treated differently from modern figures with the "same" name living in English-speaking countries - thus Anthony van Dyck and Steve Van Dyck are sorted on D and V respectively. Some examples: "Ludwig van Beethoven → Beethoven, Ludwig Van", Otto von Bismarck → "Bismarck, Otto Von", Giuseppe Di Stefano → "Di Stefano, Giuseppe", Jan van Eyck → "Eyck, Jan Van", Guy de Maupassant → "Maupassant, Guy De", Martin Van Buren → "Van Buren, Martin, and "Jean-Claude Van Damme " →Van Damme, Jean-Claude".

- van (or Van) Basten, and Von (or von) Braun dropped as correct capitalisation & sorting unclear. Johnbod 17:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Boldly adding now, but further comment welcome. Johnbod 19:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest: "But for coding reasons..." -> "For coding reasons...". Just think it reads better... Studerby 19:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it is a bit counter-intuitive, as you decide the sort on whether it's a capital or lower-case in normal text, but code them all as upper-case. I think the "but" is a small alert to that. Anyone else? Johnbod 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biographical project notification

In case people here are interested: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Sortkey and birth/death categories standardization project. Carcharoth 14:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subcategory for current sports team members

There are many categories that inexplicably lump a sporting team's past memebers with its current members. For example see: Category:New York Yankees players, Category:Boca Juniors footballers, and Category:San Antonio Spurs players. Why can't I start creating subcategories for every one of these cats to differentiate current players from players who are no longer on the team? For example, we would have Category:Current New York Yankees players and Current Boca Juniors footballers:, etc.

Granted keeping these categories maintained would take an enormous amount of work at first, but work is what we Wikipedia volunteers are all about, and I would certainly pitch in. And, yes, certain categorizations would become out of date quickly, but I believe editors who were fans of the respective teams would recategorize articles as new players joined and old players left the team. The result would be greatly useful.

I'm 90% sure that people have brought this up before and decided against this idea (if so, please provide a link to the old discussion), but I would like someone to confirm it for me. I have also left an identical note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports. If I don't hear back from any of you with reasonable objections, I will procede to begin making the subcategories. Thanks, --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization of people: Biographies of living people

To quote:

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced. Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;
• The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Why shouldn't these criteria apply likewise to biographies of dead people? They seem ideal for both the living and the dead, irrespective of the addition burden of accuracy and verifiability associated with WP:BLP. --Rrburke^(talk) 22:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a general consensus that privacy concerns don't apply nearly as strongly to dead people, particularly the long dead; that's certainly the situation legally in many jurisdictions. That eliminates the first criteria. The second criteria still holds though, and that plus WP:RS and WP:V do raise the bar for applying category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preferences. If for example, some famous dead general turns out to have kept a diary that indicates he once had gay sex a time or two, well BFD (ironic), that hardly deserves the application of the tag (nor mention in the article, unless it becomes a modern meta-issue of some kind). While interesting to narrow academics and activists, it's not relevant enough for encyclopedia inclusion. On the other hand, if famous dead general's diary tells us that he had a long term gay lover and it's somehow relevant to his public life (e.g. lover was a spy for the other side of a war), then the relevant aspects of relationship get included in the article and the category ought to get applied. The relevance criteria is really more general; the Category:Jugglers tag should only be applied to people to whom juggling is somehow a relevant notable part of their lives. Studerby 01:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

All such inaccuracies need to be corrected, but there is an important extra reason for caution in the case of living people, because dead people don't sue for libel as often as living people. With dead people, we can take time to consider our options, but time is an expensive luxury with people still able to engage libel lawyers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead people and categories' inherent inability to express NPOV subtleties

A question: if something is disputed in an article about a dead person, should we go with consensus regarding the application of category at the bottom (since the choosing of the category itself cannot give both sides of the argument (ie. be wholly NPOV) and must come down on one side)?

For example, if someone was tried and acquitted of a crime in an earlier age - yet evidence (reliable, convincing and authoritative) is later published suggesting the person was not just guilty, but that the trial was interfered with by the authorities - can they then be placed in a category such as 'criminal'? Thanks for the views:) Malick78 (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no one responded so I'll be more specific. John Bodkin Adams was acquitted in a trial in 1957 that seems to have been fiddled with (Scotland Yard archives released in 2003 show this, according to Cullen, 2006). The archives show that pathologist Francis Camps identified 163 cases where Adams could have killed and multiple sources believe that, at the lowest, he killed dozens. Even the acquitting judge described Adams in a post trial (1984) book as a "mercenary mercy killer". Hence, critical consensus tends towards the view that Adams was a serial killer. And I would like to categorise him as such - something that would be useful to readers and allow them to find the article more easily and make their own decision.

Two other editors however insist that the 'not-guilty' verdict is unquestionable. Yet I contend a verdict is merely an opinion based on evidence presented (and not all evidence is always presented in a trial, sometimes it is presented badly... and in this case, the prosecution gave confidential police reports to the defence to aid them!) and can be questioned. These two editors, in my opinion (and in the opinion of the judge and other sources), are giving the verdict 'undue weight'. Also, it should be remembered that the subject is dead, so we have more leeway than if he were alive.

Basically it comes down to two things: can verdicts be questioned (not a suitable question for this page I realise), and can a categorisation come down on one side of a debate if critical consensus suggests it should, allowing the article itself to elaborate all the subtleties of the case in a way that better satisfies NPOV?

As a comparison please see Sacco and Vanzetti - two men convicted of murder but not categorised as murderers since critical consensus is that they were innocent. Also, less relevant but illustrating the point still, Jesus is categorised under 'Roman era Jews' - yet proof of his existence is hardly incontrovertible. There is just a consensus that he probably existed. So, having said all that, what may I do in Adams' case? Malick78 (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization of people#General considerations has:

For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness.

I bolded one word in that quote. Re. consensus, there is a consensus that categories should not include questionable examples. Sacco and Vanzetti would be an example of a questionable characterisation as murderers. Is JB Adams an unquestionable example of a murderer? I don't think it should be too difficult to form a consensus about that. If there is residual doubt, or if the characteristic is labeled "suspected" (as it is in the first line of the JB Adams article), then don't include in the category. On the other hand, it is possible to include both Adams and S&V in a list, if that list is properly annotated regarding the remaining doubts, and if the list is set up in such a way that doubtful inclusions are allowed (for some lists talk page discussions led to exclusion of doubtful cases too).

Re. your Jesus example, I think there is little or no residual doubt that he was in fact a Roman era Jew. Anyway, consensus seems to be there is no significant residual doubt in that case. Note also the difference in "sensitivity" (as it is called in the Wikipedia:Categorization of people guideline) between a category that indicates place, time and cultural association, as opposed to subcategories of "criminals". There is little residual doubt that Jesus was a convicted criminal (I think even Josephus as an independent source confirms that). But as a highly sensitive categorisation the actual category found at the bottom of the Jesus article is somewhat more convoluted, category:Disputed convictions leading to execution. Both Sacco and Vanzetti are in that category too (by categorisation of redirect pages, which makes that the category doesn't show up on the S&V page itself). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: there appears to be a Category:Suspected murderers, which might be something on which consensus might form for JB Adams. But I don't want to make you too enthusiast, the category is a few months old, with only one entry currently. No idea whether a "stable" category would be possible in the long run there, many people might object: category criteria should at least be set high enough in order not to feed suspicion where none is due. Anyways, the current category definition of that category ("This category is for those who are currently having proceedings brought against them for murder, but haven't yet been acquitted or convicted.") would exclude JB Adams. Then that category definition might be expanded (for which consensus would be the only way too), keeping an eye on criteria that should at least be set high enough in order not to feed suspicion where none is due. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your erudite and constructive comments. More views of others would still be appreciated. Regarding the word 'suspected' in Adams' article's opening para - that's there for NPOV but I suspect few reading the whole article would doubt his guilt is overwhelmingly obvious. Malick78 (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The "unquestioned" qualification has been put in the Categorisation of people guideline for NPOV too. It's the same principle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found this which seems to be pertinent. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight says:

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

(My bolding of words.)

This would seem to suggest that Adams, considered by the majority of experts on the subject to be guilty, could be included in a serial killer category. It's not an 'unquestioned' categorisation as your guideline gives, but is unquestioned by most independent scholars (something I would give details of on the Adams talkpage). Views? Malick78 (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing "proportionate" about categories in this sense, categories are a yes/no switch. The kind of "proportionate" you were referring to in your last paragraph above confuses "majority" and "consensus" - there is a "consensus" that all views have to be fairly represented, but not on selecting the "majority view" as the fair view when other views exist. Answering your initial statement: "[...] categories' inherent inability to express NPOV subtleties". Yes, true: one can't express NPOV subtleties with categories. Categorisation is a non-subtle system, and that's what it's for: 4 or 5 categories (or maybe a dozen) at the bottom of an article, no chance to express much subtleties.

The subtlety or "proportion" is in the whole of the article (including images, templates etc), which includes not labeling (nor in the lead section, nor in the categories at the bottom of an article) a person with an unmitigated vindicative epithet if you're not absolutely sure (and "absolutely sure" is subject to consensus and adequate references). Only if the *article* content itself excludes any remaining doubt that person X is a murderer – and the article could only say that based on a non-divergence of sources – the person can be categorised/labeled as such.

There's also subtlety and proportion on Category pages (that is the pages in Category namespace): there would be something disproportionate (for example) if Jove and the flying spaghetti monster were listed next to each other on a Category:Deities page, so the subcategorisation (involving intermediate steps like Category:Fictional deities and Category:Roman deities) is more subtle than that.

Note that the NPOV-related guidance specifically for categorization is currently at Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Categorization --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks for all the info. May I now suggest to everyone that we add a new section to this page? We have a section for bios of living people, so one for dead people would naturally fit in after it. Here we could mention that categorising is slightly less strict, and that critical consensus should be the guiding force in grey areas such as John Bodkin Adams and Sacco and Vanzetti. We could quote/amalgamate the passages we have quoted on this talk page and this would provide a ready and easily accessible source for editors seeking guidance. Would that seem reasonable to everyone? Malick78 (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I frankly doubt that a [Suspected serial killers] category would survive very long. Categories must still be accurate, and "Suspected ..." categories frequently get rejected at the WP:CFD, mainly on the problems relating to subjectivity. And the suggesting grouping of [Suspected serial killers] is not a true subset of proven [serial killers]. With these historical figures, there is no chance of a fair trial, regardless of what a few authors might say in their bestsellers. This is where the list has real benefits, and Adams is already mentioned in Most prolific murderers by number of victims. Ephebi (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I wasn't suggesting a [Suspected serial killers] category. I want to put him in the main serial killer category because real works of research (not 'bestsellers') say, without a shadow of a doubt, that he killed. The whole issue has arisen because the page here gives advice for living people but none for dead. So an amendment is needed. NPOV says that a category should reflect all major opinions as fairly as possible. The majority of opinions (the trial judge, Cullen, the BMJ, the BBC website...) think he killed, only two sources don't (Surtees - a former colleague, Hoskins - who was left 10,000 pounds by Adams in his will) and they have serious credibility problems. To reflect this weight of opinion in favour of Adams being a killer means categorising him as such - does it not? This is what Wikipedia guidelines elsewhere suggest - I just want others to clarify and confirm this and then to include it on this page where it belongs and where there is currently a blindspot. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malick78 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I understand what you say, but, regardless of what the trial judge thought in the Adams case, the jury found him not guilty as charged. Another similar case where the modern forensics point towards a murderer is Charles Bravo, but this is (rightly IMHO) categorised as [unsolved ...]. If, as you seem to suggest, people should be classified as "murderers" on circumstantial evidence when the process of law (such as it was at that time) could not do so, I think that would be non-encyclopedic Ephebi (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to be missing something: a legal verdict is an opinion based on evidence produced. Making it unquestionable is giving this opinion undue weight, when subsequent opinions drawing on more evidence may be more reliable. While we should not question the verdicts regarding living people, dead people are fair game if reliable sources overwhelming question the verdicts pertaining to said dead people.

This however is only one of the two points I was making. The other is that there is no guideline for categorising dead people, only living ones. This needs to be rectified. Do people disagree with that? If not, please make comments in order for a new guideline to be drawn up - presumably based on the quotations of current policy given earlier in this discussion. Malick78 (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please, with respect - opinions are what lawyers have. A jury's verdict in a criminal case is more than just opinion. Juries are not infallible, but its the highest level of judgment available. Regarding authors, the types of opinion they can produce is unlimited when their subjects are beyond the grave, especially as the sort of "evidence" they produce is never cross-examined, and not even subject to peer review in a scientific journal - that's their strength & weakness. Regarding your second point, the guidelines for biographical categorisation clearly already applies to both dead & alive biographies IMHO. However the level of verbal precision needs to be very much more accurate for living people. For dead people that does not mean we have carte blanche to be speculative. Your statement that something "may be more reliable" in hindsight is similarly speculation until it has been properly tested. Now, the fact that someone is subject to such speculation can be notable in its own right, but as wiki editors we still have an obligation to be accurate & verifiable, and so we should write this up as speculation, not as fact. Obviously as we go back further in time certainty can become more difficult, but this is where we have to work within reason. Ephebi (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• If a court in the middle ages decided a woman was a witch, we wouldn't categorise her as such now - we'd be happy to ignore the verdict. It all hinges on our perception of the safety of a verdict in a given era. Now Adams was acquitted in 1957, which I'd say allows us to question it - GB justice wasn't great then and the article goes into detail regarding how the trial was scuppered by the authorities on purpose. The verdict therefore is open to question.
• Secondly and more importantly in fact, if we agree with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight:

  "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

  (My bolding of words.) Then if the majority consider Adams to be guilty, it should be reflected in the category, should it not? I see few flaws in that logic. Whether the majority actually do consider him guilty can be discussed on the Adams talk page. I'm just attempting to establish the ground rules before doing so. Thoughts? And please, think about the theory before applying it to Adams. Malick78 (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Bruce Willis and John McEnroe were born in American military bases in Germany. Are they German Americans (based on that sole fact)? I notice this Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage. SamEV (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Willis' mother is/was German, which is why people may have labeled him German-American. McEnroe currently isn't labeled as a German-American and that would be silly indeed unless his mother, who isn't mentioned, is/was German. Afasmit (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just in case the person I named might be part-German after all, I named two. Ok, then. McEnroe is not so labelled, but Martin Lawrence, born in Germany to a military father, is categorized in Category:German-Americans, despite there being no evidence given that he's a German national or citizen, or has German ancestry. From what you tell me then, "Born in Foo" does not mean "Fooian" necessarily, as I thought too. I take it that you wouldn't object if I or someone else removed that category from his article. Would any one else object? SamEV 02:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the category, as the article gives no indication that Lawrence is of German descent. Being born within the boundaries of Germany (or any other country) does not automatically imply German descent. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I wanted to be as sure as possible that I understood the guidelines. Thanks again. SamEV 08:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion categories for living people

The current guideline states that for a religion category to be included for a living person, "The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. " We have some disagreement on how this applies to politicians. Does the fact that a person is a politician mean that the religion is automatically "relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life"? In many articles, a religion is listed in a politician infobox (sometimes sourced, most times not), and not mentioned at all in the article. If it is mentioned in the article, it usually just says "Subject attends Church X." I think that this means the religion is not relevant and religious categories should be removed. Others have questioned this interpretation. I'd like more community input on what is meant. Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck achieving consensus in the U.S. that religion is unrelated to politics, is trivial, not relevant, etc. (I would rather see the focus on performance, but that's just me.) To many it seems as fundamental as someone asking, "So where are you from?" (In fact, upon moving to the Deep South one of the first questions from many older neighbors after introduction was "Have you found a church yet?") It is up to the reader/voter to determine whether or not the subject's public stances match with the basic tenets of their professed faith or that faith poses problems to them. Unless you are proposing to remove religion from all the infoboxes and text and only provide it if it has direct bearing on some issue, what you suggest lacks self-consistency. Many politicians advertise their religious faith--it's not something they typically try to hide in shame or concern. Some actors and others are also enthusiastic about their beliefs or lack of them. I have no problem with challenging accuracy or sources, but I do not accept the notion that religion should be held as some sort of secret only disclosed on a "need-to-know" basis in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.Red Harvest (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If the person advertises it, and this is published in reliable sources, then the religion can be included in the article. However, unless this has bearing on that person's notability (and that is spelled out), it shouldn't be in the categories, according to this guideline as it's currently written. For example, George W. Bush's religion is very relevant to his political notability because he repeatedly refers to his religion as reshaping his life and points to it in many of his political speeches. On the other hand, if all an article can say about someone's religion is an infobox entry relating the religion (oftentimes not cited), and there isn't enough information to relate that to any positions they hold or any other pieces of their life, then no, I don't think it meets this guideline for inclusion in religious categories. Karanacs (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Republicans in particular tend to wear it on their sleeve. But disregarding that aspect, it's not some sort of secret for many or even most people. Unless the categorization appears incorrect or given for mal intent (absent any other reason for providing it), then I can see no reason not to allow such basic information. And if one removes the category, then the heading in the infobox must also be removed because it is not considered a valid way of classifying people. Is that what we really want done? I believe that the interpretation you are using has the unfortunate consequence of exposing wiki to charges of "politically correct" bios--where religion is pushed aside/suppressed. If the information/category in the bio is provided in good faith, is not inaccurate, and doesn't unreasonably slant the biography or slander the religion then what possible basis is there for removing it? So far I've seen no valid reason given and I don't believe it was the intent of the guideline to make the hurdle so high. Red Harvest (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the standard applied to the categorization of people (living or not) should be left alone and continue to be included as it is seen fit by individual editors. Religion means many things to many different people. Being Jewish, for example, doesn't necessarily mean one is just a follower of the Judaic religion, but its also considered an ethnicity -- something no different than being African-American. Nsaum75 (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization by name

Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_the_person.27s_name suggests this should only be done in certain "very notable" cases, but there isn't any kind of criteria listed. There are now categories for Category:Dick Cheney and even Category:Fred Thompson (with 5 articles). I'm not sure whether that's legitimate or not. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)