User talk:Theredproject/Timeline of Race and Ethnicity CFDs

Invitation to review this page for omissions

Hello @Gerrit, FuriousFreddy, Nat Krause, Radiant!, Taka, Morton devonshire, Alabamaboy, Alabamaboy~enwiki, Nabla, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Pharos, Bearcat, Tickle me, William Allen Simpson, Carlossuarez46, Flyer22 Frozen, SMcCandlish, StAnselm, Alanscottwalker, ScottDavis, Bus stop, RGloucester, Marcocapelle, BrownHairedGirl, Necrothesp, Roscelese, and Debresser:.

I am trying to understand the evolution of the guidelines regarding the categorization of articles by gender, race, ethnicity, and sexuality, so I have attempted to create a timeline of these discussions. I have been able to find discussions as far back as 2004, and as recently as last year. I am pinging you because you have been involved over the years in these discussions. I am only pinging editors who were involved in more than one discussion, or extensively involved in one.

I am inviting you to review this timeline, for omissions and other factual errors. Given how contentious these conversations have been at times, I would like to encourage you to not re-litigate the issues. If you prefer to message me privately, you can email me: Special:EmailUser/Theredproject. My main concern is whether I have missed any conversations, or grossly misunderstood them. 0I know that some of you are no longer active. I also completely understand if you do not have time or interest in looking at this. Zero obligation! Just thought I would offer an invitation. Theredproject (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the sort of thing I keep a "log in my mind" about. I've done a page very similar to this, on a different topic. It's a decidedly solo endeavor. A much more concise "just the highlights" approach is here. Anyway, doing pages like this requires learning the advanced search syntax very well, and being willing to trawl through large amounts of Wikipedia-talk, article-talk, even user-talk discussions. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am fascinated by how Wikipedia represents the various sorts of human identities. I will try to pay attention to this discussion as it unfolds. Thanks for pinging me. Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What can be gained from such an analysis? And what is its purpose? Debresser (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Debresser. What is this for? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, BrownHairedGirl—you both seem to be asking for the result in advance of the research. This is an investigation into "the evolution of the guidelines regarding the categorization of articles by gender, race, ethnicity, and sexuality". How have the guidelines changed over time? Bus stop (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop, you appear to be conflating two issues:

The evolution of the guideline
How the guideline has been applied at CFD

AFAICS, the guideline has been remarkably stable. Its core principle has remain unchanged since its creation in ~2005.

The most significant change in CFD decisions that I aware of is that until ~2014, there was a pattern of CFDs repeatedly deleting gendered categories even where gender had a clearly defining relationship to the topic, e.g. with actors. I challenged that through several stages, and once we changed the categorisation of actors, other occupations began to be reassessed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intersections of professions and the Jewish ethnicity have repeatedly been deleted, with especially Category:Jewish mathematicians being the subject of repeated and long discussions.

By the way, @BrownHairedGirl:, you were the last one to delete that category. Are you aware that there are 6 national subcategories of that deleted category that exist at present? Debresser (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a rational approach to categorization by identity is in order. Theredproject is saying "Zero obligation! Just thought I would offer an invitation." I am simply going along with the described attempt to "understand the evolution of the guidelines regarding the categorization of articles by gender, race, ethnicity, and sexuality". I favor the pursuit of knowledge even if that pursuit could possibly result in a dead end. Besides, it is not my initiative to do this. I would not want to put a damper on someone else's enthusiasm to research something that is inarguably problematic, namely categorization by identity. As I've said, I've been "fascinated by how Wikipedia represents the various sorts of human identities." Bus stop (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @BrownHairedGirl and Debresser: for these other threads. I have been looking at them today, and am trying to synthesize it. What is this for: I am trying to understand the process and principles in which these guidelines were formed. I have drafted this timeline to make sure I understand the history, without missing anything. In particular, I am interested in the contours of race and ethnicity on Wikipedia. As someone who has worked on the gender gap for a while with Art+Feminism, (and is active at AfD, though not CfD) I have noticed that there is very little research done on race and ethnicity on Wikipedia. As I started researching this, I started to realize that it is a lot harder to employ the same kind of gender gap research methodology on other related topics like race and ethnicity. Right now, I am just trying to understand the guidelines in full, as part of my effort to try to understand why there has been no research on the topic. You can see some of my previous research here: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/02/where-wikipedias-editors-are-where-they-arent-and-why/605023/. Theredproject (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]