The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Keep. Even weeks after the closing date, I don't see a consensus, we have a split, about half of those commenting are in favor, the others against. There is no meaningful way ot close this as a delete, as there is no consensus--Eptalon (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for women by occupation[change source]

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reasons: Unlike English Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia doesn't usually have separate categories for women/females by occupation unless there is a particular reason for it. An example of a reason is with female sports competitors, because females compete separately from males.

In most cases, women working in a given occupation aren't any different from men in the the same occupation, but having them in separate categories gives the impression that they are, especially when there is no corresponding category for men.

Having a separate category for women in a profession category removes them from the general list under, for example, Category:Composers; this makes people have to look in a separate place to see the females. Some people may not even notice that the females aren't included under the general category, resulting in a type of segregation or exclusion of the females in the occupation.

Pinging @Hikitsurisan, Macdonald-ross, and Ottawahitech: because they created the categories covered in this request.

Note: if the categories named "Women <foo>" are kept, they should be renamed to "Female <foo>".

Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

In North America the term female when applied to a human, is considered offensive (try googling, say, “women vs females”).Ottawahitech (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some may consider it offensive, but it's ambiguous. For example, if you call someone a "woman doctor", it's not clear whether the person is a doctor who treats women or a doctor who is a woman. Categories that include both women and girls can't be called "Women <foo>" because women are adults and girls are not. However, if people feel strongly about this, and the categories are kept, then the naming should be standardized. That can be decided when this RfD is closed. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of ambiguity, the term female applies equally to humans, cows, flies, etc Ottawahitech (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't many animals who are lawyers, rappers, etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So does "men", but we refer to them as "male [whatever]" and not "men [whatever]". Also not really sure where you are in North America; it isnt commonly seem to be offensive here. Vermont (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech and Gotanda: This request is really about categories, not articles (even list articles). If we think lists of women by profession are a problem, that can be in a different discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Yes, I understand they are different and the deletion discussion here is only about the Cats not list articles, but thanks for making sure, Auntof6. --Gotanda (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) If kept, we should be consistent and name all Women (Occupation)s as it is simpler. Sidenote: Using female as a noun in common speech or writing is offensive ("How many females were invited?") but is commonly used and inoffensive in some cases as a modifier ("How many female patients were admitted?").
1a) If kept, do we similarly rename a category of Men (Occupation)s?
1b) What do we then do with people who do not fit neatly in a binary system?
2) Regarding the list I created recently by borrowing from EnWP, I did that as a hook and list to start creating more articles about women in linguistics. Linguistics and language education are things i know about and have interest in, so it seemed a natural place for me to work on adding some diversity to the articles here.
3) Like the rest of Wikipedia we have a very poor record of representation of women and minorities here. For example, if I look at the Category:Linguists there are 44 pages of which 9 are about women. I'm pretty sure I created all nine or at least most of them. I'm not particularly proud of that fact. But just pointing out that unless we make a clear effort, this wiki like all the others will be overwhelmingly white and male. That isn't a very good encyclopedia. So, I agree with Auntof6 that "In most cases, women working in a given occupation aren't any different from men in the the same occupation, but having them in separate categories gives the impression that they are" and that that is a problem. At the same time I was using the list to try to highlight the issue and create red links to be filled in later by anyone.
So, yes, Delete but then we need to get our act together here regarding gender and racial diversity and do a better job of representing under-represented people. --Gotanda (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: I knew that was the practice, but I didn't remember a specific discussion. If you could remember where it was exactly, I think it would be helpful to link to it here. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The exact naming of the categories is a separate issue from whether there should be separate categories for women. The point of this discussion is whether such categories should exist, regardless of what they are named. If they should exist and we keep these, then we can standardize the names. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: I realize you believe these are separate issues. However to me this is putting the cart before the horse. I feel I cannot be party to a discussion that may entrench the use of a derogatory term in Simple. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't having two categories that's the issue, it's having only one. Some of these categories have equivalent male ones, but some don't. And following what society does is kind of the reason for this request: women are seen as separate in some areas of life, but not others. As for entertainers, they are separated when it comes to awards, but not so much in daily life. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And like anything else we do on Wikipedia, we follow what the sources do, if they write about them seperately (as they generally do for entertainers) then we categorize them separately. That being said, I am hard pressed to think of any profession where we don't specifically mention someone is a female whatever. We even do it in my rather non-unique profession. But if there are some out there that aren't often talked about in such a manner then we wouldn't. But in the case of the ones above, we certainly do, articles very regularly talk about female scientists, they certainly do about rappers and politicians. Composers I don't know well enough to say but I would bet when articles talk about a female composer they mention she is female. Remember categories are about things that are defining of a subject, one of the most defining features of any person is the sex they are or aren't. Now whether or not we should define by that, that is a whole can of worms, but it does reflect reality. -DJSasso (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having women based categories, such as American actresses, American female singers, Woman presidents (by country), Female criminals and Actresses by area would be an excellent idea. We should include these categories. Not including them is discriminatory and a bad idea. Angela Maureen (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that sometimes pointing out that someone is female is done to set them apart when there's no need to: it's an obvious trait that may have no importance related to why we care about the person. However, I have just reread en:WP:CATGENDER, which points out when it is valid to have these categories. After considering that, perhaps the following would be a better proposal:
  • Keep most of the categories listed above, all except the one for lawyers.
  • In cases where we have a category for females, either now or in the future, do one of the following, depending on what makes the most sense for the topic: either have a corresponding male category, or have the female category be a non-diffusing subcategory.
What say ye? --Auntof6 (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Also, if any of the categories are to include girls, we can't name them "women <whatever>". --Auntof6 (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A google search will quickly establish that not everyone agrees that woman is not an adjective. For example I found this in one of the articles I read on this topic: I checked four different dictionaries, and two don't include woman as an adjective (1, 2), one does (3), and the fourth said that when woman is used in the adjective position it's actually an appositive noun and it’s in the process of becoming an adjective (4). So the dictionaries don't give us a clear, definitive answer. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's focus on the categories up for discussion:
  • In almost all parts of the world, politics is open to both sexes, so being a woman doing politics is not special. Even in countries with very strict religious laws do we find female politicians: there are in Iran, and there are in Saudi Arabia. So no to the category for female politricians.
  • Same with the lawyers: Gender/sex is not a defining aspect of being a lawyer. So no to the female lawyers.
  • Female scientists: this is a rather broad category, currently with 30-odd entries. I think splitting it would make sense (in those case where we end up with at least 4-5 people in the subcategory). Classifying the older ones (often "polymath doing ...") might be difficult.
  • Female composers: Most classical composers I know were male, so findig female ones is challenging (And if I were into music theory: In what way are their works different from that of male composers of the same era?). Anyway: imaginably keepable.
  • Female (performing) artists in general: If we find enough to make a category.
I hope this helps find a solution to this issue. --Eptalon (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, and I wouldn't normally say this about most things, but I am positive this has been argued about at en.wiki many times by large numbers of editors. I think this is a situation where we should follow their lead as it will give us a broader view to work from. If they have a category on it, we should have a category on it. And we should rename them to whatever they use. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I be OK with that as long as we don't end up with people creating categories there just so they can say that one exists. We also might want to occasionally check whether enwiki adjusts what gender categories they have, and make corresponding adjustments here. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest that would likely end up in POV territory if we lumped them all together as in professions where women are less common they would be drowned out by the sheer number of men in the category. Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive either. -DJSasso (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Djsasso, those are answers to different questions or my comments. Does anyone have an answer to the question I asked? "Why not just keep it simple in practice as well as language?" This principle applies elsewhere on things such as stubs. As far as the response to other things goes. Why would such lists be POV? (And, if they are wouldn't the same logic apply to categories?) Re: "women are less common they would be drowned out by the sheer number of men in the category" The other solution is to make more articles about women. Re: "Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive either." Sure, but one would be simpler. Lists seem to offer more flexibility and some space for qualification or explanation. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Djsasso, you have again repeated an unsupported assertion. " The lists wouldn't be POV, the lack of categories would be." Why is point of view different for lists and categories? What is the non-neutral point of view that these would represent? In other words, why? I know that you feel that to be true, but nobody has really explained why? Can anyone? --Gotanda (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: Yes, because the category currently exists. If it gets deleted, that page would be handled like all the other pages in the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thaks for your clear reply, Auntof6. I have another question: I just discovered Froma Harrop who is a political commentator, and it occurred to me we will need a category for other women who are involved in politics, but are not politicians. I know there are restrictions about creating new categories for women until this wp:RFD is closed. can someone please explain what categories can/cannot be created? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that there's an official restriction on that. It's more a question of not making more work for the closing admin to do if the decision is not to keep things as they are. As for that particular person, do we have a general category yet for political people who aren't actual politicians? We should probably have a general category before we subdivide by gender. I also note that the enwiki article on her doesn't have any politics categories, even though such categories exist there. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some of the deletion candidates: Category:Composers has over 100 articles, and 21 subcategories, one of them women composers. Same with Category:Politicians: 44 articles, 20 subcategories. Category:Scientists: 10 pages, 26 subcategories. Category:Rap music: 8 subcategories: 14 pages. In the case o 'Rap Music': We create a category 'Rap musicians', or 'Rap musicians by gender', which has the male and the female rappers/rap musicians. In the case of the politicians, composers, lawyers, and scientists: Splitting by gender is not the right option, at this level of categorization. The split needs to be done farther down the category tree. I think this is the best solution to come up with, given we do not agree on a complete deletion. If this is the case, I would also propose creating a guideline, when this RFD has been closed. --Eptalon (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that we are trying to do our best here, but I cannot agree with these because the initial stage is flawed, unworkable, and discriminatory. "To not be sexist, when a category is split by gender, we need both male, and female. A split where there's only one, but not the other must not exist." A simple male/female gender binary is not founded in scientific research or the experiences of many people. It will exclude or misidentify subjects of articles. Wikipedia is not a progressive actor outside the mainstream on this, but even the main Gender article on EnWP recognizes more than two genders. --Gotanda (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any person is either male or female (sex); this will affect how they behave or feel (gender). Also note that many artists are extrovert, and depending on the age they lived in, they were able to speak more freely about how they felt (their gender). People like en:Antonio Salieri come across as very versatile. en:Farinelli was a very successful castrato opera singer who lived in the 17th centrury. No one will keep you from creating caterories for the other genders, if you find enough entries (3 or 4, I forget), in the respective category that you subdivide by sex/gender. We cannot require editors to create the different categories for the postulated genders, if they remain empty - DEWP has 1300 Baroque composers, we currently have 39. Given that rules were very important in the Baroque era, and people had their well-assigned place and role, I guess we will struggle to come up with the 3-4 entries we need to split into male, and female. How many Baroque composers do you know where we can prove they were gay/lesbian or bisexual? - Such splits are probably easier in more modern times, where the "rules" are less strict. But note that even today, homosexuality is seen as unnatural (and therefore a crime) in many countries. For this reason, requiring more than the differentiation into male and female as a rule is probably pointless.--Eptalon (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 22:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Category