< September 16 September 18 >

September 17

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:French Left-Backs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (no need to merge given the other categories on the article). Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The association football defender categories do not yet sub-categorise by nationality. Currently, this under-populated and un-parented category seems over-specific. SuperMarioMan 21:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jared Preston (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Americans convicted of spying against Iran

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL, a subcategorization by the nation, which against they were convicted of spying doesn't make sense with only 8 articles. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:SMALLCAT....William 12:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note: There are (once again) TWO articles in the category; I restored the article about the US hikers, which had been wrongly removed from the category by the nominator of this CFD. Cgingold (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it make sense to put an article on an incident in a category for biographical articles? Even if it did, which I have grave doubts about, 2 articles is not really enough to justify a category. I generally hold articles should actually fit the description of the category. This category should have as its contents biographical articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Colonial schools in India

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename for now to Category:Schools in Colonial India. The renamed category may be nominated for deletion to have a discussion that focuses on the arguments for deletion that were set out by some users. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
changing my !vote to delete, which I will explain below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The category header explicitly states that it is for British India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The header says that the scope is "British India during the colonial period under the British (18th century - 1947)". However, until the mid-19th century, British India was a smaller area. Why not use the more inclusive term? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS To be even more precise, the categories should be: Category:Schools founded during Company rule in India and Category:Schools founded during the British Raj. This way, the category names will have the correct names of the Wikipedia articles in them, and, more importantly, double listing will be avoided. More importantly still, if the founding is a part of the category name, editors will be more likely to provide the correct dates. At present, many of the founding dates are vague. The Doon School use to claim on its Wikipedia page, it was founded in 1927, even though it didn't open until 1935 and its so-called founder was long dead by then. As you will see in Company_rule_in_India#Education or in British_Raj#Education, the government of British India itself, or in conjunction with Indians, founded thousands of schools, including hundreds of secondary schools. These schools were in some ways the stars of India's pedagogical firmament. Although some didn't survive, many did and are known today as government schools (see, for example, Barrackpore Government High School, Barasat government high school). They were attended in British days by children from poor or middle class families who showed talent, achievement, or promise (students such as Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and Srinivasa Ramanujan). They are, however, poorly funded today and for that reason generally avoided by the Indian elite. For that reason also, they are unlikely to be listed on Wikipedia ((see, for example, Municipal Anglo-Vernacular High School, Abbottabad). If the two categories are created, I will be happy to distribute the schools listed in the current category into the correct new ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine. If you already have categories such as "Schools in Pakistan," then the correct categories for the previous periods would be: Category:Schools in India during the Company rule and Category:Schools in the British Raj. For, these were the two polities that existed before decolonization in South Asia. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are all successor states of the British Raj. But it can't be Category: Schools in British India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have Category:British India. I see no reason why we can not preserve the name in this subcat as is done in so many others. We also have Category:People of British India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the subcategories in that category are about British India, but the schools in Category:Colonial schools in India are not all in British India. In fact under "A" four of the six schools were in princely states. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current name of the category is Category: Colonial schools in India. I'm guessing it is meant to be an overarching, catch-all, category. But it, as well as the alternative Category:Schools in Colonial India, are vulnerable to the interpretation that the founding-, the founding ethos-, the pedagogy-, or the values imparted in its constituent schools are somehow connected in an essential way to colonialism. For a less ambiguously named but just as overarching, catch-all category, I'd suggest Category:Schools in India during the Colonial period. Its subcategories could then be: Category:Schools in India during Company rule, Category:Schools in the British Raj, Category:Schools in French India, Category:Schools in Portuguese India. "British India" is sometimes mistakenly used on Wikipedia and elsewhere to mean either the British Raj or Company rule or both. The fewer opportunities we give people to use it other than in its legitimate uses, the less it will be misused. I will ask some admins and oldtimers who work in South Asia related pages to weigh in. Apparently, the listing on WT:INDIA hasn't done enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS I've also posted at the relevant Bangladesh-, Burma-, and Pakistan related pages, since it obviously concerns them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that was the intent, you will need to throw out all the schools that were in the princely states. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once you are done with that and created your Category:Schools in British India, I will make an overarching category Category:Schools in India during the Colonial Period and make your category and well as others, subcategories within it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think JPL is misunderstanding the "British India" term. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Zayeem's suggestion. This makes sense to me. It's bad wording to have "colonial schools in India" instead of "schools in colonial India". It's also true that not all of the subcontinent India was under British rule and a simple rename of Category:Colonial schools in India to Category:Schools in British India will not include all of the schools in India that were not in British-ruled territory of India. Liz Read! Talk! 18:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a location category, then can we include schools in Mumbai that existed there before the British arrived? Can we include schools in the ancient city of Varanasi that existed there long before Britain knew about India's existence. British India existed in time and space, not just in space. Sorry to put it bluntly, you are showing your ignorance of South Asian history. By persistently obfuscating, you are bordering on being disruptive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Updated with many apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe is time to either move the category to Category:Schools in colonial India or close the move. I've seen this before on Wikipedia, editors who are clueless about Indian historiography who insist on using the expression, "British India" outside its specific usage, in part, I think, because it put's Britain's brand (as it were) on India. Not going to happen, at least as long as I'm around. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Updated with many apologies to Johnpacklambert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS the one thing you can delete in its entirety is the spurious Doon School subcategory, pushed on Wikipedia a year ago by a cabal of rowdy schoolboys and alums. It is not colonial, it is not nationalistic, it is simply the worst kind of elitist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. F&F, I don't think that we should get too hung up about the term historical geography; it can be used in several different ways. I used it to mean that "British India" is used to describe 1) a historical period, and 2) a geographical area which is not the same as contemporary India.
My point stands that I am not aware of any precedent for categorising entities in this way. Even if we regard it as a purely historical category, it's hard to see what purpose it has beyond grouping schools that existed in a particular era. It could of course be tightened up to include only schools founded in that era, which be narrower meaning than the present one, and would avoid the horrible prospect of institutions collecting a historical category for every period in which they existed. But even that is misleading, because it appears to create a grouping of "colonial schools". The reality is much more complex, because there are some schools founded by the colonial rulers (e.g. Chittagong Collegiate), while other were founded by religious missionaries (e.g. Scottish Church College and St. Joseph's Boys' Higher Secondary School), or by rajas. Many of the religious foundations were set up almost in opposition to the colony, which missionaries saw as denying education to the Indians. As regentspark noted below, the schools in this category have such a huge variety of origins that it is hard to identify any common theme. I would add that it is worse than that: it creates a misleading impression of commonality between very institutions which have little in common apart from a date of foundation. And for date of foundation we already have categories by date. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my disagreements with JPL, let me be very clear; British India is not (not remotely) an aspect of Historical Geography, even though it had geographical boundaries. It is always, first and foremost, a part of Indian history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent list f&f. Stellar job as always! --regentspark (comment) 12:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with regentspark: the list is great work. I do hope that F&F will develop it enough to move it to mainspace, and it could indeed become a featured list if the sources can be found. It's important that the list doesn't end up as WP:SYN, and that there are some existing published lists to underpin it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, I didn't think of that. I'm assuming you're saying that even if all the schools listed have their establishment dates etc sourced to contemporary sources, the creation of a table or list ranking them by date of establishment will constitute some form of OR or SYN unless the ranking too has been published somewhere recently. Well, if that is that case, then I'll just have to list them alphabetically with their founding dates in parentheses and let the reader figure it out. I'm assuming I'm allowed that. Right? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Baldwin, Pennsylvania

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. If, in the future, there are more than three articles that could be placed in Category:People from Baldwin, Pennsylvania, it may be re-created and then re-discussed at that stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 3 entries. ...William 11:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Political theory journals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although I see what the intention of this cat is, in practice I find it impossible to decide for many journals whether to place them in this cat or in the mother cat, Category:Political science journals. Many journals publish theoretical treatises, but not exclusively. Others, despite having the word "theory" in the title, also publish non-theoretical treatises. Neither cat is extremely large, so it would not result in an overly large category. Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wearers of monocles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#TRIVIA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

LGBT people from the United States by state

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#LOCATION violation; the individual US state that a person comes from is not relevant in conjunction with their LGBTness, and the parent category Category:LGBT people from the United States (which already has several occupational subcategories keeping its size down) is not large enough to warrant the division. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1,000 people or more would be big enough. 380 is not (especially since some of those 380 probably could be filtered down into existing subcategories anyway.) Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And all of those variations are temporary, existing only because we happen to be sitting in the middle of a period when things are in flux. It wasn't that long ago that the legal recognition of LGBT people had no variances by individual state, and it's not going to be very long before that becomes true again in some fashion or other — whether that's a court decision that legalizes SSM nationwide, or whether it's the United States somehow regressing into institutionalized homophobia again, any state-by-state variance that happens to exist in 2013 is not going to be a permanent fixture of American life — it's just a byproduct of the fact that the process of evolution is still underway.
There was also a point when the legal status of LGBT people in Canada varied depending on what province an LGBT person lived in, too — there was a point at which a same-sex couple could get married only in Ontario. That lasted all of a month before same-sex couples could also get married in British Columbia. Bam, bam, down fell the dominoes — and within just two years, everything was standardized nationwide again and the state of province-by-province variability was gone forever. It's not a permanent situation that constitutes a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the people; it's just a byproduct of the fact that a process of change happens to be unfolding at the moment.
And even if unequal status from state to state did somehow become permanent, moving from one state to another is not difficult. All it takes for an "LGBT person from North Carolina" to become an "LGBT person from California" instead is to pack up a truck and hit the Interstate; it doesn't require emigration or a change in citizenship status. It doesn't require approval from a government bureaucrat, it doesn't require a passport, it doesn't require a refugee claim — it just requires having enough money or credit to pay for the trip. Which also makes this category bloat, if we have to add a second or third or fifth "LGBT person from Individual State" category every time someone happens to move from one state to another. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The Canadian example is a red herring; we are not discussing Canada, which has a difft history.
    Sure, USAnian people can and do move between states, with no legal impediment. If they hop around, that creates category clutter if they have a notable association with each state along the way. That's an important qualifier, and it's a long-standing guideline at WP:COP#By_place that only "notable association" is categorised. However, insofar as this is an issue, it applies equally to Category:American criminals by state‎ and Category:American people by occupation by state‎.
The crucial issue is whether state is a defining characteristic of an LGBT person. I cited above the example of legal status, and you are right to point out that it has changed over the last 50 years. However, 50 years is a long time in the history of out LGBT people, and during that period there have been enough big differences to make a real difference to people's lives and to LGBT culture, which extends far beyond legal status. The Gay liberation movement was not a phenomenon of Georgia or Arkansas in the way it was of New York or California, and that has historically meant that LGBT lives varied massively between states.
Are you really trying to claim that there is no defining difference in whether an LGBT person is from Alabama or Vermont? Seriously? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am, because at least by the definition of WP:DEFINING that pertains to whether something warrants a Wikipedia category or not, it isn't. Of course differences exist — I never denied that — but those differences aren't large enough to constitute a defining characteristic of an individual person. And there is no theoretical or actual difference between subcategorizing all LGBT people in the US by individual state and subcategorizing all LGBT people in Canada by individual province, either — in fact, political power in Canada is in many respects more decentralized than it is in the United States, meaning that Canadian provinces have more independent autonomy, more "defining" distinctions from province to province, than US states do. So it's not a "red herring" — but even if it were, it would be so in the opposite direction of the one you intended to suggest, because if anything the logic behind subdividing Category:LGBT people from Canada by individual province would be stronger, not weaker, than the logic behind subdividing Category:LGBT people from the United States by individual state. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that the differences are not large enough to be defining is an opinion - not a fact. There are obviously others that disagree with you. Based on my personal, academic, and professional experience and knowledge - I disagree with the notion that there are no differences to your life as a LGBT person between the US states. I would be curious what you can offer as evidence to support that. I would offer this map, this article, and the LGBT rights in the United States as some evidence that which US state you live in has an impact on your LGBTness - as you put it. Also, as someone that has both worked within US govt and consulted for Canadian political elements - I am surprised to hear you say they are more autonomous - again, that is clearly an opinion. I would also support LGBT people from Ontario btw - I recognize that there are variations in Canada - although far less these days than the US, that would not matter for historical articles when it was an issue for that person. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 13:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the decision is here, it can always be revisited. Just as law changes, consensus changes. Personally, I see this as a WP:NOTNOW decision. If the decision is to Keep, I can see revisiting the issue every 6-12 months to see whether the categorization till makes sense. I have issues with CfD folks who say some decision was made at one point and that closes the discussion forever. Decisions happen in a particular time and place and involve a limited group of Editors. The same discussion happening a year later in a different social environment, with different participants could render a different consensus. Personally, I'm not sure what the correct decision is here. I just know that debate is healthy, it highlights what issues are at stake, what policies are relevant, it's important to hear from different sectors of the Wikipedia community. But, unless the drastic action of salting is taken, decisions aren't forever. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scotland, England and Wales are not equivalent to states of the United States; although they are also part of a common entity, each of them is a full-fledged country in its own right, not just a federated state. The closest functional equivalent to states in the United States would be the counties of the UK (Berkshire, Aberdeenshire, Monmouthshire, etc.) — they're not a perfect analogue to US states, but they're a closer match to it than England, Scotland or Wales themselves are. And Hong Kong is an autonomous special territory of China; while it isn't a fully independent country, it's not equivalent to Michigan or North Carolina either. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A better measurement, in my opinion (and where my examples fit better than some flawed technical definition) is that the laws of each of the states is independent from the federal government. Unlike Canada and many other places with territories - in the US, things like marriage, liquor laws, adoption laws, statutory rape laws, most discrimination laws, etc. are not decided by the federal government, but by the individual state governments. The UK analogy, while technically arguable, is practically a far better one than you want to acknowledge - used regularly in political science (each state has its own military, govt, constitution, laws, courts, leader, identity, etc. - and some started as sovereign nations...Texas thinks it still is sometimes... - and like Scotland they do not have individual rep in the UN, their own foreign ambassadors, they must participate in a federal govt, etc.) - and it fits the traditional history of the states. Anyone that wants to argue that living in one state in the US is no different for an LGBT person than living in another state is not fully appreciating the nuances and impact of the US legal structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varnent (talk • contribs) 13:32, 18 September 2013‎
@Bearcat:, your comparison of US states to UK counties doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. UK counties have no constitution, can be reorganised at central govt's wishes, have no legislative powers, no criminal jurisdiction, no direct control over police, etc. Even |Wales has far less autonomy than a US state. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said right up front that it wasn't an exact or perfect analogue. The political structure of the United Kingdom — a sovereign country whose primary constituent entities are also considered to be countries in their own rights, not states or provinces — is completely unlike the political structures of the United States or Canada, so there's just no easy or natural comparison available. While comparing US states to UK counties may not stand up to much scrutiny, it's still more accurate than deeming California or Ontario as being in any way equivalent or analogous to England or Wales or Scotland — a "constituent countries" level of the political structure does not exist in either Canada or the United States, and a "states or provinces" level does not exist in the United Kingdom, but comparing the states or provinces of North America to the constituent countries of the UK is entirely false. The shires aren't a great analogue either — I admitted that right up front — but "California = Berkshire", as weak as the fit may be, is still a more accurate comparison than "California = England" is. Even if it doesn't have full autonomy over its own affairs separately from the United Kingdom as a whole, England is still considered to be a country in its own right, while California is not. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, it's not "entirely false", and in trying to discuss these matters it would be helpful if you would read what was written and try to discuss it, rather than just declaiming your view as an absolute. Both Varment and I have illustrated our reasons for pointing to a rough similarity, and if you want to reply then it would be helpful if you would engage with those points.
Yes, the two structures are differently labelled and have very different histories and functions. But there are also some similarities: Scotland and California are all second-level national subdivisions, with law-making assemblies, and their own criminal justice systems. In both Scotland and California, there is a third level of government, called counties in California and council areas in Scotland: e.g. Aberdeenshire and Orange County. Their powers differ, but they have a lot in common. In England, there is no second-level authority, but the English counties have much more in common with American counties than with a US state. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

LGBT scientists by nationality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#LOCATION violation, which fails both of the tests by which subcategorization by individual country is ordinarily warranted: the intersection of LGBTness with nationality has no bearing on a scientist's career, and the parent category Category:LGBT scientists is not large enough to warrant subdivision. As per numerous past CFDs, the established practice is that "LGBT occupation by nationality" intersections are ordinarily permitted only where Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT has explicitly established a consensus that they're warranted in that particular case, and are not to be created if that consensus has not been sought (as it wasn't here). Upmerge all entries back into the appropriate Category:LGBT scientists + Category:LGBT people from (Country) pairs and delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for the notion that an editor is required to ask permission of WikiProject LGBT before he/she may create such catgories, I say rubbish. Since when does any WikiProject have the right to assert such unilateral control over the creation of categories?? That is way too authoritarian for my liking -- and certainly not in keeping with the generally accepted norms here on Wikipedia.
Lastly, I was appalled to find that the creator of all 9 of these categories -- who obviously put a great deal of work into populating them -- was not even informed of this CFD. I think that is shameful, and would never be permitted if these were articles. This really needs to change. I took it upon myself to notify the editor that this CFD is taking place, and I hope he will join the discusssion. Notified Category creator using ((cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that by the way - I was a little surprised I was notified earlier. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 00:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
100 articles is not large enough to warrant subdividing by nationality. Five or six hundred might possibly be, a thousand or more would definitely be, but 100 is not. And as I've explained below, LGBT categories present a completely unique set of BLP concerns far greater than any other categories for people ever have to actually deal with — which is why the LGBT WikiProject has always insisted on striking a balance between having enough LGBT categories for the tree to be useful, while not having so many categories that the tree becomes impossible to monitor for BLP compliance.
Very nearly all other category trees are straightforward and uncontroversial, with little room for dispute about what belongs or doesn't belong in them and virtually no latitude available for the trees to be misused as a form of vandalism. Filing somebody in "People from City" for a city they're not from is nothing more than an innocent error, but filing somebody in "LGBT people" who hasn't come out as LGBT can be a homophobic attack — and for that matter, can still rightly or wrongly open us up to a libel suit if we can't monitor the tree carefully enough to remove it right away. Which is why the LGBT project has a unique responsibility to put a lot more work into monitoring LGBT categories for policy compliance than almost any other project ever has to take on — and thus why its own assessments about what types of categorization are or aren't useful, its own decisions about what volume of work it is or isn't willing to accept responsibility for monitoring and maintaining, need to be respected. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ReplyBearcat's claim that this about subdividing 100 articles is nonsense. By the time he posted that, I had already posted below noting that CatScan2 shows 739 articles which are in subcats of both Category:Scientists and Category:LGBT people. Why would a good faith editor base his argument on an assertion which had already been demonstrated to be false?
As to the BLP arguments, Beracat has posted the same set of BLP arguments at length in two places in the same discussion. I will reply to them below, because they are misplaced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And just for the record, I haven't examined the category structure carefully enough to know exactly where the problems arose, but looking at the list that actually got generated it includes a remarkable number of topics that aren't "LGBT scientists" in any way — including for example Wayson Choy, Leslie Cheung, Servants Anonymous Society, A Clockwork Orange, Judy Shepard, Boy George, Zeus (DC Comics), River Song (Doctor Who), Dave Pallone, Stephen Spender, Randall Garrison, Carol Queen, Angelina Jolie, Machinesmith, Richard Socarides, Bob Paris, Barry Goldwater, Brain (comics) and, best of all, Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict. Oh, wait, never mind — best of all is actually Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. And that's just a random partial selection of topics that jumped out at me right away — I also clicked, just for the sake of the experiment, on one topic that I wasn't able to discount just on name recognition alone, and was rewarded with an article about an Anglican priest, so there are other non-scientists somehow creeping into that list in addition to the topics I've already pointed out here. So even if we do have some LGBT scientists who could be added to this category but haven't yet, we do not have 739 of them — because some of those 739 articles are not scientists, some of them are not LGBT, and some of them aren't even people. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This comment seems more appropriate elsewhere - it does not seem to pertain to this specific issue. The need to clean up the category seems to favor the notion of going through and categorizing them further and harms the argument that one big category is working best. Can we please not split this discussion and post that point elsewhere? Probably on WikiProject LGBT talk page. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 00:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no category clutter to clean up; you're misunderstanding the point. BEG cited a machine-generated list to prove that there were 700+ articles affected, not just the 100 or so that were actually in the category — but my point is that the machine generated a bad list which included a large number of topics that wouldn't belong in any iteration of the category regardless of whether it was divided or undivided. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the list has flaws. Thanks for spotting that.
One glitch I have seen so far is that Category:Gender-based violence is a subcat of Category:Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes, which is wrong. There may be other such glitches, and some digging is needed. However, it's clear from the list that although the 739 figure is an overestimate, we do have articles on a lot more than 100 LGBT scientists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try that out on a Russian or Polish scientist and I suspect it would evoke a snort of laughter. Well, no, here's the thing: being an LGBT person from Russia or Poland is obviously going to have a distinct bearing on a person's life — but there's no discernible or encyclopedic way in which that affects scientists differently than it affects people in any other occupation. Being an LGBT scientist from Russia or Poland is different from being an LGBT scientist from Canada or the United States only in the sense that being an LGBT anything from Russia or Poland is different; the "scientist" part is irrelevant to the distinction. To be a WP:DEFINING characteristic rather than an intersection that runs afoul of WP:OCAT, all three elements — "LGBT", "scientist" and the nationality — all have to factor directly into the distinction. "LGBT people from Country" and "LGBT scientists" are both legitimately defining characteristics on their own, certainly — but combined as "LGBT scientists from Country", it's just an intersection of unrelated traits that doesn't constitute a new defining characteristic in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, there is a huge distinction between LGBT in a country where those attributes ate protected against discrimination (such as the UK) and LGBT in a country such as Russia, which are not exactly LGBT-friendly. Are you seriously saying that this doesn't have an impact on their careers, and hence on the opportunities for them to practice science? Seriously? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I've pointed out before, LGBT categories present a unique form of WP:BLP sensitivity, the likes of which no other WikiProject ever has to deal with. In particular, they are still quite regularly added to non-LGBT people (or people who might certainly be LGBT in private but cannot be properly sourced as such in reliable sources) as a form of vandalism or attack editing. (For example, I regularly see Justin Bieber and Michael Jackson being inappropriately added to LGBT categories; Anderson Cooper also used to be a regular addition before he came out and thus became legitimately categorizable as such; people whose sexuality is subject to public dispute because of private actions that might conflict with their public statements of identity, such as Larry Craig and Ted Haggard, regularly get editwarred back and forth; and on and on, etc.)
Accordingly, the LGBT WikiProject's practice has always been to strike a balance between having enough LGBT categories for the tree to be useful, while not having so many LGBT categories that the tree becomes impossible to properly monitor for that kind of thing — and one of the restrictions that the project has settled on is that "LGBT occupation by nationality" intersections are only warranted in a few specific cases where the intersection is itself defining, and not where it's just fragmentation for the sake of fragmentation. And that has been the consensus for years, fully established and well-supported by extensive past discussions on the WikiProject's talk pages and by prior CFD discussions as well. I know how deeply you love to assert that I'm acting all rogue and stuff, but I'm quite simply not. I actually disagree with the WikiProject's consensus on several branches of the LGBT category tree, but the consensus is what it is and my personal opinions are irrelevant.
The bottom line here is that the LGBT WikiProject has a special responsibility, above and beyond what any other WikiProject ever actually has to deal with, to monitor its related categories on a regular basis for BLP issues — and so if the WikiProject has to put in more work than any other WikiProject does, then it gets to have a rather large say in how much work it is or isn't willing to do and how many categories it is or isn't willing to take responsibility for. Instead of having one "LGBT scientists" category to monitor, we now have eleven of them — but is there any genuinely useful reason why we need eleven of them? Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Bearcat, this is supposed to be a consensus-forming discussion, rather than an opportunity for you to lecture others. You based your nomination on numbers, and I have provided evidence to the contrary. 11 categories is actually a rather small number to divide the 739 articles which should be in Category:LGBT scientists, and will be once it is fully populated. Would you be kind enough to respond to that, rather repeating this claim of "fragmentation for the sake of fragmentation"?
As to your BLP argument, it is fatally flawed in several respects:
  1. Any article can have an LGBT attribute added to it in many ways. A vandal doesn't need to add Category:German LGBT scientists; they could just edit the article's body text. Any worthwhile monitoring system which looks only for category additions will fail.
  2. The claim that BLP concerns about categorisation arise only with LGBT categories is also nonsense. If I wanted to vandalise an article on a politician by adding disparaging categories, I could choose from the many subcats of Category:Criminals, Category:Sex workers, or Category:People by medical or psychological condition. Much mischief could also be made Category:Nonexistent people‎, Category:Dead people‎, Category:Castrated people‎, Category:Asexual people, Category:Slaves. That's just the start.
  3. The idea that the LGBT project is some sort of thin blue line acting alone to hold back the tide of BLP vandals is also silly. Any such vandalism will be most readily spotted by the regular vandalism monitors, using tools such as WP:HUGGLE, whether or not categories are involved. The idea that only the LGBT project will spot such vandalism makes no sense, and if you want to pursue that claim, let's see some evidence of the project's special monitoring program.
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that the LGBT WikiProject was somehow the only line of defense that we have against BLP vandalism — but it is a necessary one. For starters, the HUGGLE vandalism patrol is an important task force by all means, but they do not catch everything — stuff most certainly does fall through the cracks and sit in LGBT categories for days, or even weeks, before somebody at the WikiProject level catches it while reviewing the category. Just in the past three months alone, I've caught at least ten articles that were added to LGBT categories as pure vandalism but somehow escaped the Huggle patrol — and I can only speak for what I've personally caught. I can't speak for what other people have or haven't found, and I can't guarantee that there aren't still some articles that nobody's caught — I can only attest that I've personally caught enough stuff to know that as important as Huggle patrol is, it doesn't solve the problem all by itself without anybody still having to monitor things at the wikiproject level. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, there are currently 540 sub-cats of Category:LGBT people. The ten under discussion here are less than 2% of that total, and so it's silly to claim that their retention or deletion is a significant factor in the ability of anyone to monitor the whole, if anyone is doing it.
Nor do I share your presumption that one particular wikiproject has such a significant role in monitoring as to merit the veto you seek over this type of category. These articles also fall within the scope of many other projects, whose members will also be watching them. No such claim has ever been made by anyone from WP:CRIMEPROJ, and the crime categories are every bit as much of a BLP hazard.
You have a point that BLP monitoring is easier if there are fewer categories which could be used maliciously. But as is often the case, you have massively exaggerated and dramatised it. A little less hyperbole would earn you a more sympathetic hearing.
Also, the only editor who appears at CFD to make these LGBT project demands is you. If you really are speaking on behalf of the project rather than just of Bearcat, you should link to some evidence that there is a project consensus for your views, and that BLP monitoring of these categories is actually co-ordinated through the project rather than just being done by you. At the moment, this looks rather like Bearcat pushing his own preferences using the project banner, and that's not a good apperaance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And once again you lapse into accusations of bad faith editing. I certainly have my own opinions about some things — a fact which doesn't make me any different from you or any other Wikipedian — but I have never, not one single solitary time in over ten years of editing Wikipedia, imposed a "personal preference" by calling it a consensus that didn't actually exist. The LGBT WikiProject has had extensive past discussions over the years about which types of subcategorization were desirable for LGBT people and which were not, which types of subcategorization met WP:CATGRS and which violated it; CFD has frequently held discussions about LGBT people categories which have resulted in the same conclusions about which subcategories were desirable and which were not. So whether you agree with it or not, the consensus that this is very often not a useful or helpful level of categorization, that it's usually a violation of WP:OC#LOCATION and WP:OC#NARROW that doesn't have a compelling reason to consider it one of that guideline's valid exceptions, is already established and is not just my own unsupported or tendentious "opinion".
We've had, for example, LGBT comedians by nationality, where the CFD consensus was that "LGBT + occupation + nationality" was not a desirable or useful level of subcategorization — and that was nominated by User:SatyrTN, not by me. We've had CFD discussions which have found that actors, radio personalities, television personalities and fashion designers, among others, did not warrant the "LGBT + occupation + nationality" level of subcategorization, and I wasn't the nominator for any of those either. The consensus is quite well-established that "LGBT + occupation + nationality" subcategorization is only warranted in a few specific cases — i.e. where it genuinely constitutes a defining characteristic in its own right, and not where it's just serving as subcategorization for the sake of subcategorization — and I've not seen any evidence that "scientists" fall in that class, or that this tree is serving any genuinely useful purpose that would constitute a good exception to WP:OC#NARROW or WP:OC#LOCATION.
And I've pointed all of this out to you before, to boot, and just for the record I'm well and truly sick and bloody tired of you constantly asserting that I'm acting out of arbitrary or tendentious personal preference, rather than established consensus, every time you happen to disagree with what the consensus happens to be. And also as I've pointed out to you before, once a consensus is established I put my own personal preferences aside and respect the consensus whether I agree with it or not; I have frequently supported the deletion of content that I personally thought should be kept, and the retention of content that I personally thought should be deleted, if that's where the consensus landed. I don't, for instance, believe that the case for Category:LGBT musicians by nationality is any stronger than the case for Category:LGBT actors by nationality is — they should either both exist or both go — but the general consensus favoured one and opposed the other. So there is simply no legitimate case to be made that I have ever acted on the basis of personal opinions that violated existing consensus, because I consistently respect and uphold consensus positions even if I personally still disagree with the consensus.
So if you feel these should be kept, then kindly argue on the basis of how "LGBT scientists from Specific Country" should be seen as genuinely defining, not on the basis of my editing skills. Especially since your comments elsewhere in this thread appear to imply that you believe the entire tree should potentially be deleted anyway — other than taking issue with anything I nominate just because I'm the nominator, what value could there possibly be in keeping "LGBT scientists by nationality" subcategories if you don't even think we should be keeping "LGBT scientists" in the first place? Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, please try to clam down. This is a consenus-seeking discussion, and if you put forward an argument it may be challenged or countered. That's what happening here, and I am not going be bullied into accepting arguments which appear unfounded.
I did not accuse you of bad faith editing. What I did point out was that your claims about BLP monitoring were exaggerated, that your demand for a WP:LGBT veto had no parallel elsewhere, and that you had provided no evidence to support your claim that the position you were advocating represented an LGBT project consensus rather than Bearcat's own ideas. You may well be sick of me pointing this out to you. If so, then solution is for you to stop doing it.
And please stop this silly game of claiming that I criticise you because I "disagree with what the consensus happens to be". On the contrary, I criticise you repeatedly because you repeatedly make dogmatic assertions about what the consensus is, without backing it up with evidence.
Look again at what you wrote in the nomination: " the established practice is that "LGBT occupation by nationality" intersections are ordinarily permitted only where Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT has explicitly established a consensus that they're warranted in that particular case, and are not to be created if that consensus has not been sought". No ifs, no buts.
Yet when challenged, you point to 2 examples:
  1. CFD 2012 Feb 15: LGBT comedians by nationality, closed as delete
  2. CFD 2012 Nov 8: LGBT musicians by nationality, closed as keep
So, by your own evidence, at least one of the planks of your nomination is bogus. What you call established practice turns out to be nothing of the sort. CFD does sometimes keep this type of category, and in neither case above did it defer to the LGBT project.
And I still await evidence of this LGBT project consensus you mention. Once again, rather than simply asserting it, please provide the evidence of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters you could start by not misrepresenting what I'm saying in the first place.
I specifically gave CFD 2012 Nov 8: LGBT musicians by nationality as an example of where the consensus was to keep it. In fact, even more specifically I cited it as an example of how I respect consensus positions even if I disagree with them — I may not think subcategorizing LGBT musicians by nationality is any more or any less useful than subcategorizing LGBT actors by nationality is, but the consensus to keep the musicians and kill the actors was already established by the WikiProject and backed up by CFD, and so my own personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I specifically cited it as an example of how I leave my personal opinions out of these things, and thus how you can't accuse me of imposing personal opinions in a tendentious manner.
And I gave numerous examples — comedians, actors, radio personalities, television personalities, etc. — of where CFD specifically established a consensus that subcategorization by nationality was not useful or desirable. And I gave the same numerous examples the last five times you falsely claimed that I never give any examples, too.
Whether you agree with it or not, there is a consensus in place that triple-intersecting LGBT occupational categories by nationality is not always useful or desirable; the precedent is that there are some cases where it's considered useful and therefore gets kept, and other cases where it's not considered useful and therefore gets deleted. The consensus is well established that "LGBT occupation by nationality" intersections are considered to violate WP:OC#LOCATION and WP:OC#NARROW in most cases, and thus get deleted unless there's a compelling reason why they're needed in that particular instance.
But you haven't given a reason why LGBT scientists should be in the "subcategorization by nationality is warranted" class with politicians and writers, rather than the "subcategorization by nationality is not warranted" class with comedians and actors and radio personalities and television personalities. Rather, just like nearly every other time that you and I have found ourselves on opposite sides of an issue, instead of giving a reason why these categories should be considered useful you've engaged in ad hominem arguments against me instead.
I am, just for the record, not known around here as a person who takes offense lightly, or as a person who's incapable of collaborating productively and civilly even with people I happen to disagree with on stuff. So if I perceive that I'm being attacked when you reply to me — something which I almost always perceive when I'm talking to you, and almost never perceive when I'm talking to pretty much anybody who isn't you — then it's your responsibility to consider that maybe I actually do have a valid point about the way your writing tone is actually coming across, that maybe you're the one who needs to adjust your writing tone if a personal attack isn't what you're intending to communicate.
So again, here's my question. We have a few "LGBT occupation" groupings where CFD has decided that further subcategorizing them by nationality is considered useful; we have many more where CFD has decided that it isn't. It's not something that CFD always keeps; it's something that actually gets deleted more often than not. I believe that scientists fall in the "should be deleted" camp. I've explained my reasoning; I've given comparable examples. So do you have an actual reason why they belong in the "should be kept" camp instead? Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, I have asked you several times for evidence of this consensus you claim that the LGBT project gets some sort of veto on the issue, and instead of producing it, you complain about being challenged. Now you are complaining again about my tone rather than providing the evidence. That's your choice, but if you want to prolong this attempt to defend unsubstantiated assertions, don't be surprised if they get challenged. (The unlinked items you mention above show that some such categs are kept, but others are not; you have provided no evidence either of a pre-existing project consensus about them, or that there was a CFD consensus to defer to the project rather to accept substantive arguments).
Perceive that as an "attack" if you like, and go seek redress if you want to. I am quite happy for this to be scrutinised; in fact, I'd be delighted for more eyes to be cast on the way you have tried to dictate to a consensus-forming discussion on the basis of principles for which you repeatedly refuse to provide evidence.
Now, if you want to drop the bluster, we can get back to discussing the substantive arguments for and against keeping the category. Your call. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, I have pointed you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Categories before. You can keep jumping up and down and insisting that I've never done so all you like — but I have done so more than once, and it's not my responsibility to keep politely nodding in apologetic supplication every time you decide to claim otherwise. That's not even the sum total of all the discussions that the project has ever had about how to determine which categories are warranted and which aren't, either — you can find various other one-off discussions in the WikiProject talk archives, and even the CFDs themselves sometimes served as the platform as LGBT WikiProject members were sometimes the only people participating in the CFD discussions at all. But the WikiProject does not believe that all possible LGBT-related categories should necessarily exist — it fully supports their deletion at CFD in many cases — but rather has always tried to maintain a consensus to distinguish LGBT-related categories that are useful and should be kept from those that aren't useful and should be deleted.
But the project does maintain the view that some types of LGBT-related categorization are warranted and others are not, the process of establishing that consensus about what's useful and what isn't is documented, I have shown it all to you before, and I have given you numerous examples — actors, comedians, radio personalities, television personalities, and on and so forth — which confirm that CFD has agreed that just because such a category grouping is possible doesn't mean that it's always useful in any given instance. "LGBT occupation by nationality" categories actually get deleted far more often than they get kept, in fact, and I have yet to see a reason why "LGBT scientists" belong in the "should be intersected by nationality" camp.
And, for the record, you'll kindly notice that even in the discussion I just linked to at the beginning of this comment, I argued against several groupings that consensus ultimately favoured keeping, and in favour of several that the consensus went against. And I even argued in favour of a category that I've since changed my mind about, to boot. But no matter what my own opinion is, I respect the consensus. So that discussion also proves, yet again, that I do not act on the basis of tendentious personal opinions.
I'd be more than happy to get back to the substantive arguments for and against keeping the category — if you've got a substantive argument to make, by all means I'm more than happy to hear it. You're free to feel differently about that than I do about how useful these categories might be, but it would be a lot easier to consider your reasoning if you'd actually provide some. But just for the record, I'm not the one who distracted us from the meat of the matter in the first place. You are. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, this is very silly. If this wasn't part of the meat of the matter, why include in your nominator's rationale? If you find something distracting, don't bring it into the discussion.
I don't recall whether you pointed me to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Categories in some other discussion. Maybe you did, but that's not this discussion, and it was wrong to assume either that I remembered it or that other editors had ever been made aware of it. If it underpinned your rationale, why not link to it in the rationale? And when you were challenged, why take four rounds and screeds of text before posting the link? What sort of game-playing is that?
So, fine. The project did have some discussions on this 5 years ago (Sept 2008). Some of what is set out there seems helpful, and some of it may have stood the test of time. Please point editors about to it as background, but it's silly to suggest that it is binding on CFD when you don't even link to it.
Substantive arguments for keeping the category? Just read my "keep" !vote at the start of this thread. The US and UK categories are clearly viable, and breaking out the two biggest national groups helps navigation. I'm not sure about the others, but I think there is potential for populating them.
Anyway, it's kinda funny that you post walls of text rather than one link, and then complain about the lack of a substantive keep argument. It was there in my initial post, but you chose to ignore it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if one or two countries having subcategories that were themselves potentially justifiable on size grounds alone were all that it took, then comedians and actors and radio personalities and television personalities would have to have been kept — because their US and UK subcategories were just as large as, or even larger than, they are here. But the parent categories weren't deemed to be large enough to warrant subdivision, no other country had enough entries to warrant its own separate subcategory, and the intersection wasn't considered to constitute a defining characteristic in its own right.
In the cases of writers and politicians, for example, breaking down by nationality clearly aided navigation, because undifferentiated categories would have been populated in the thousands. But it doesn't particularly aid navigation to comprehensively break down a category that's only populated in the one, two or three hundred range — that just fragments the tree in a way that isn't useful if the breakdown is just a triple intersection and not a genuinely defining characteristic.
"The US and UK categories are clearly viable, and breaking out the two biggest national groups helps navigation" wasn't a good enough reason to actually warrant subdividing LGBT comedians or LGBT actors or LGBT radio personalities, even though it was no less true in those cases — so what is it about LGBT scientists specifically that makes it a better reason here? If it's not the size of the parent category and it's not the definingness of the grouping, then what is it about LGBT scientists that makes them more like writers or politicians where the division by nationality was absolutely needed, and less like the numerous other LGBT occupations where the division by nationality wasn't considered to be valuable or helpful? That's the question I keep asking and not getting an answer to. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No - you just do not like the answers people are giving you. Again, please stop presenting yourself as the final authority - these are your opinions - you do not like the arguments presented - discounting them altogether is poor form, in my opinion. As has been pointed out, many people do feel that being LGBT has an impact on many careers - something that is as public as scientists (with publishing work, etc.) certainly included. Are there studies or essays backing that? For scientists specifically? Probably not, but I do not need an essay to apply logic and experiences to see that being LGBT in that field can have an impact on your work, approach, etc. Nationality impact has also been stated, down to the field level. The point that a LGBT scientist in Russia is likely having a wildly different experience in their field than a LGBT scientist in Israel. Again, I am repeating what has already been said here, but since you did not think any arguments on that issue had been made, I felt a refresher may help. You may not like those examples and feel eager to attack them, fine, but claiming they the arguments are absent is not a fair statement. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 12:30 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Quite easily; there's no conflict. The fact that occupational categories can serve as a way to manage the size of a parent category does not mean that every occupational subcategory that could possibly be created is actually justifiable. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More