- Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The discussion involves a contentious topic (BLPs and BLPgroups with living adults and children) and it was an active discussion when it was closed with a no consensus determination. Beyond this, comments about self-identification were incorrectly applied (when reading his sources, most of these articles were related to 'self-identification' as one sees in census information; IE where it is applied appropriately. Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you calling for the category to be deleted? It's not clear what remedy you are seeking here. Owen× ☎ 22:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am requesting that either deletion or relisting for further consensus is considered. Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as closer – I have already responded to some questions about the close (which in my view have more merit to them than this complaint). Arguments about whether the sourcing is sufficient to establish a WP:DEFINING characteristic is a great topic for discussion at the CFD, but DRV is not CFD 2.0. I was asked to relist the discussion on my talk, but per WP:RELIST something should rarely be relisted more than twice. Given that this is a massive discussion was open for a month, I think editors have had more than enough time to participate and relisting is dilatory. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The CfD was open for almost five weeks, and was correctly closed as no-consensus. The closer provided a detailed and well-thought-out rationale, carefully navigating this political minefield. Yes, this is a contentious issue, and there will always be an "active discussion" when it is time to close, but we can't leave this open indefinitely. "Continue relisting until I get the result I want" is not a valid DRV appeal. Owen× ☎ 22:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (as participant in the discussion) regrettably endorse, closer is right that further relisting would not have helped. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (involved in last discussion) I support deletion, but would accept relist/reopen, not least because this is BLP territory and this is very likely WP:POVCAT, so we should make sure to get this right. This isn't a category for people who aren't NA, as per RSes, but a category for people who've said they're NA but we, as editors, don't have evidence to support that. That's dangerous and requires WP:OR.
- If RSes say they're not NA, then we should just say that, instead of putting them in a weird umbrella category which is ripe for abuse. As per the category page, this category includes people who make statements of self-ID where "reliable sources substantiating the statement have not yet been identified in their articles" so the statements should simply be removed from those articles if not supported.
- Another issue is that the substantiation required is narrowly defined in these categories, and in a way that doesn't fit how WP usually defines reliable sources. If RSes we would rely on for other factors consistently refer to a person as x, we should also call them x. We shouldn't withhold that fact until the RS we like says it.
- Otherwise, any category which actively labels people based on what we can't prove about them is on inherently shaky grand, and gets into WP:CATV and WP:POV pushing territory. There are only a small handful of exceptions I can think of (e.g., cases where someone is well known as claiming heritage that isn't theirs), and those could better be dealt with in other ways.
- Just to be clear: I have no problem categorising people who are considered frauds by RSes as such; my issue is with categorising people just because we can't prove they definitely are what they say, or with cherrypicking certain RSes over everything else.
- Edited to add suggestion/possible compromise: When there is contention or lack of consensus about a category, it is permissable to make it into a list instead. That actually seems like it could be a good solution, since it addresses several issues, such as the category being WP:NONDEF for most BLPs. I would also support this option. Lewisguile (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse There's not really any other way to close that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 16:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. There was clearly no consensus and no indication that any consensus would form despite the CFD having been listed for over a month. Changing to a list is a reasonable proposal (which I personally oppose), but DRV is not the venue for that discussion. Frank Anchor 19:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I will also note that creating a list does not mean that the category should be deleted (see WP:NOTDUP). If people believe that the sources exist per WP:NLIST, anyone can go ahead and create a list, no CFD required. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - I have very little experience with categories, but I have considerable experience with lengthy and inconclusive discussions, and I can see that this was a lengthy and inconclusive discussion, and a lengthy and inconclusive discussion at a deletion discussion should be closed as No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
