Category:National emblems of Argentina
[edit]Category:National emblems of the Republic of Ireland
[edit]Category:National emblems of Japan
[edit]Category:National emblems of the United States
[edit]Category:UK Discrimination law
[edit]Category:Female life peers
[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus. I'm not even going to bother trying on this one. Too many strikeouts, undoing of strikeouts, duplicate sections, ad hominem attacks, I'll be honest, I couldn't even follow what was going on. If someone else wants to try to find consensus in this, feel free to overrule me and good luck. --Kbdank71 17:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Female life peers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is now two separate votes please place all votes after the subheadings below. Nonomy 02:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete An ever higher proportion of life peers are female and their gender is of little relevance to their work. Life peers are appointed (officially in any case) for their expertise in various areas of public life, and men and women have the same duties. Nonomy 20:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the nomination is good faith, then we should also upmerge all the entirely-male categories of peers, to Category:Peers. (comment by User:BrownHairedGirl) [See If the nomination is good faith, then we should also upmerge all the entirely-male categories of peers, to Category:Peers:
- I assume good faith, and trust that the nominator will suport the deletion of these categories too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Representaive peers were peers from Ireland and Scotland elected to sit in the House of Lords after the Acts of Union; they were all hereditary, and hence entirely male. Likewise, the perrs of England (i.e. pre-1707) were all male, as were the 1707-1801 Category:Peers of Great Britain. If I have missed any other all-male categories, I trust that soneone else ill add them to this CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User:BrownHairedGirl's riduculous attempt to conflate this nomination with her nomination of some fundamentally different categories, which I have seperated out). For avoidance of doubt I am completely gender neutral and call of Category:Male life peers to be pre-emptively blocked. Nonomy 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
- I have reverted the splt, partly to avoid confusion, but also because you also removed from this CFD ALL of the contributions of those opposed to this CFD. As to gender neutrality requiring a mirror category of male life peers, read Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations: "That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- then let's have two complete sets of votes. At the moment I find it just about impossible to believe that you are acting in good faith. I will put you to the test by listing all the votes where I believe they belong. Nonomy 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{more abuse deleted} --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom. Calsicol 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
*Delete User:BrownHairedGirl hasn't disguised the role of this category as a piece of feminist campaigning very well. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutrality). Landolitan 20:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
*Delete per Nom. Their sex is irrelevant. The comparable male category is indisputably Category:Male life peers. - Kittybrewster 20:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{undo strikeout of next vote} --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
*Strong keep: the nominator should have read Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations, which is pertinent for several reasons, and should also have checked some figures.[reply]
- With one or two exceptions, there have been no female hereditary peers, so this category is effectively a cat for all female peers. It is not a "current peers" category.
- Women form a small minority of current life peers, and in any case this is a historical category: it includes both past and present life peers. It woukd also have helped for the nominator to have checked some figures.
- There has been a House of Lords for nearly 1000 years, but women have been in a tiny minority until the last few decades, and are still outnumbered by 4.5:1.The House of Lords has changed in the last few decades from being entirely male, but as of this month women still number only 142 out of 609 peers (i.e. 22%).
- The nominator's argument that peers are appointed solely on their merits is confounded by the massive gender bias in such appointments: the current balance of life peers is 469 men to 139 women. Whilst a peer's duties are theoretically gender-blind, to suggest that it has "little relevance to their work" is a very controversial POV (many issues such as childcare receive much more attention from omen politicians than from men).
- All the major political parties are working hard to increase the nunber of women in Parliament, so they clearly disagree with the premise of this nomination. It would be an outrageous act of sexism for wikipedia to delete the category because a few editors reject the assesment of all the major poiltical parties in the UK: that gender does matter in politics, and that the current gender imbalance is so thoroughly unacceptable and so deeply ingrained that they have to change their rules and/or procedures to try to achieve some balance.
- Please note too that the major commerical guide to parliament, VacherDods, categorises peers by gender. So does parliament.
- Some figures for comparison:
- I have therefore nominated for upmerging all the all-male categories: let's see whether this gender-blindness cuts both ways.
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{undo strikeout of next vote} --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
*Keep, don't merge, don't delete, do read WP:POINT. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
*KEEP of course, and look, some of the the usual suspects are here calling for the delete despite the fact that consensus on the issue of categorizing female politicians by sex has been reached. I do try to assume good faith in circumstances like this of course, but it gets more and more difficult when there are these constant backdoor attempts to get around consensus through the CfD process. Otto4711 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
{undo strikeout of next vote} --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
*Keep - of course - useful analysis Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
- This is a cynical use of bad faith tactics BrownHairedGirl must know perfectly well that these additional categories are not comparable. It appears that her only concern is to get her own way. I have separately these completely non-analogous cateogories. These peers by degree categories are in any case not single sex as they can be used for female peers in their own right. (Queen Victoria thought a female who held a dukedom in her own right was a duke, not a duchess.)Nonomy 20:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep the peers by degree categories of course. The comparable male category is indisputably Category:Male life peers. I have separated the two discussions as BrownHairedGirl's manipulativeness is totally out of order. Nonomy 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep It is essential to have separate categories for each of the five tiers of the peerage and they have been around for a long time. Carina22 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vandalism: I just reverted a second attempt to remove ALL the oppose votes from this CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This vote is broken and should be closed, since it has merged two nominations for some time and some User hadn't known what they voted for. If both nominations are meant seriously, keep it splited please. ~~ Phoe talk 22:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
- I think I had fixed it, though you have reintroduced confusion by cancelling out my strikethroughs. The reality is that there is only one category under debate. I don't think BrownHairedGirl really wants to delete the categories for different levels of the peerage and I don't see who else would as they are such obvious basic long-established categories. It was purely a spoiling tactic. If this debate is not allowed to run its course she will have succeeded in stopping a vote because she didn't like the potential outcome and that is not a precedent that we can afford to allow surely? Nonomy 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to keep both them and the female-only category. But if you want to delete a female-only category, then it's only balanced to delete categories which subdivide peers into groups to which only men belong (save for a few historical exceptions). Either classify them all as peers, or retain the female-only category as per existing guidelines.
- THe male-only categories are of no greater enclopdic interst than the female-only ones, and the degrees of rank do not significantly affect a peer's role in the House of Lords. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but I wanted to fix my spelling only (knoww to known). It seems we have saved in the same time. ~~ Phoe talk 22:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
- PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY VOTES HERE. PLEASE VOTE IN THE TWO SECTIONS BELOW.
- This category shoud be considered with Category:Suo jure peeresses, another category of female peers. They should be be either kept or deleted together (thanks to Kittybrewster for pointing me in the direction of this category, which is effectively a category of female hereditaries). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete me as per nom. Nonomy 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: if you are going to split a vote, don't split out the opposing arguments: reinstated below BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: the nominator should have read Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations, which is pertinent for several reasons, and should also have checked some figures.
- With one or two exceptions, there have been no female hereditary peers, so this category is effectively a cat for all female peers. It is not a "current peers" category.
- Women form a small minority of current life peers, and in any case this is a historical category: it includes both past and present life peers. It woukd also have helped for the nominator to have checked some figures.
- There has been a House of Lords for nearly 1000 years, but women have been in a tiny minority until the last few decades, and are still outnumbered by 4.5:1.The House of Lords has changed in the last few decades from being entirely male, but as of this month women still number only 142 out of 609 peers (i.e. 22%).
- The nominator's argument that peers are appointed solely on their merits is confounded by the massive gender bias in such appointments: the current balance of life peers is 469 men to 139 women. Whilst a peer's duties are theoretically gender-blind, to suggest that it has "little relevance to their work" is a very controversial POV (many issues such as childcare receive much more attention from omen politicians than from men).
- All the major political parties are working hard to increase the nunber of women in Parliament, so they clearly disagree with the premise of this nomination. It would be an outrageous act of sexism for wikipedia to delete the category because a few editors reject the assesment of all the major poiltical parties in the UK: that gender does matter in politics, and that the current gender imbalance is so thoroughly unacceptable and so deeply ingrained that they have to change their rules and/or procedures to try to achieve some balance.
- Please note too that the major commerical guide to parliament, VacherDods, categorises peers by gender. So does parliament.
- Some figures for comparison:
- I have therefore nominated for upmerging all the all-male categories: let's see whether this gender-blindness cuts both ways.
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wrong. Many women are included on these lists. They are not all male lists. - Kittybrewster 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question several hundred hereditary perrs now elect 92 of their number to sit in the Lords. How many of those 92 are male, and how many are female? How many of the hundreds are male, and how many are female? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer'. This is not painting by numbers. Women get a vote, just as men do - in elections and on constituency selection panels. In order to rebalance parliament, they are being propelled towards choosing from women only lists, not least because women tend to prefer being represented by men, the result of which is a gender non-neutral parliamentary perspective. - We are now getting women preferred over equally capable men which may well be short-term preferable. Meanwhile let's not create waves by drawing attention to an anomaly that can no longer be justified or supported as seen through our modern eyes. Carina22 hit the nail squarely on the head. - Kittybrewster 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, don't cat by gender here. >Radiant< 09:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong: see existing guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think that section is a clear cut endorsement of your point of view you need to read it again. It is simply a few gently worded potential qualifications to the general prinipal which [[User_talk:Radiant!|>Radiant<] is perfectly entitled to invoke. Cloachland 02:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Wrong The guideline is remarkably specific: "a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default." Exactly the same applies to peers, historically, the vast majority have been male. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer. That is an argument that allows female heads of government but does not embrace peers. Many peers are selected from the ranks of those in the House of Commons which is sexually unbalanced. That is being addresssed by positive discrimination in some areas. But we should take it as read that women are not a special category. - Kittybrewster 08:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Calsicol 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete User:BrownHairedGirl hasn't disguised the role of this category as a piece of feminist campaigning very well. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutrality). Landolitan 20:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: exactly. That's why the guidelines specifically allow gendered categs where they are of special encyclopedic interest: see existing guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Other considerations seems to argue strongly against you on this, BHG. We should not be creating a category for women, nor picking on characters who were historically predominantly male. - Kittybrewster 01:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Kittybrewster, that's an axiom, not a reason. "We should not", you say, but why? The criteria in the guidelines are simple: special encyclopedic relevance. Why do you think that it is of special encyclopedic relevance to note all the nuances of characters who were historicaly male, but not to note those who were female? Are women inherently non-notable? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer. On that ground you could argue for a category for red-headed peers. If a woman achieved something noteable in her own right she should obviously be in the wiki. If women found it very hard to do so then that should be in the wiki (undoubted historic sexisism). But historically men often ahieved by inheriting money and buying commissions or livings - and failed in their purchased calling - but the fact that they occupied that position made them noteable, not the fact that they were male. - Kittybrewster 08:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong: Parliamaent itself categorises women peers, because it has decied that this is relevant to its work. If and when Parlaiment also categorises red-headed peers, then it would be POV for wikipedia not to do so too, but until then it woud be POV for wikipdia to decide that as a sufficiently notable fact to merit categorisation. Note too that Parliament itself does not categorise peers by rank: all hereditaries are lumped together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nom. Their sex is irrelevant. The comparable male category is indisputably Category:Male life peers. - Kittybrewster 20:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment so exactly how many female hereditary peers are there right now? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Totally different issue. - Kittybrewster 01:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not so different at all. The hereditary categories subdivide peers by creating a series of wholly (or overwhelmingly) male groupings, from which women are excluded by definition.
-
- Response. There are many suo jure peeresses who don't yet have a wiki entry. E.g. 11th Countess of Kintore. It would be great if they were to be given an article rather than count merely those for whom an article has been created. "78 in history" is a gross distortion of reality, as is "n Barons - all male". - Kittybrewster 21:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response same goes for the overall tally of 2,000, above. All these categories are incomplete, but I don't see much reason to assume that one is significantly more incomplete than the other, so the ratios still make a reasonable guess. The situation remains that excepot for a few specially provided peerages, descent is through the male line. If that isn't a gendered category, I don't know what is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, don't merge, don't delete, do read WP:POINT. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP of course, and look, some of the the usual suspects are here calling for the delete despite the fact that consensus on the issue of categorizing female politicians by sex has been reached. I do try to assume good faith in circumstances like this of course, but it gets more and more difficult when there are these constant backdoor attempts to get around consensus through the CfD process. Otto4711 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - of course - useful analysis Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to prepare a paper making a case from a feminist point of view perhaps, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be adapted to the needs of any particular lobby group. Nonomy 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment wikipedia exists to record things of encyclopedic interest. The gender ratios in in parliament are a) a very simple statistical fact b) problematised by all three major political parties, not just the sectional concern of a lobby group. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Modern women don't need to be patronised by having attention drawn to our gender whenever we achieve anything, thank you very much. Carina22
Delete per WP:NPOV and Carina22.Abstain, this has gotten silly, good luck to the closing admin who has to piece this all together. renominate and next time NO EDITING OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS OR VOTES. L0b0t 23:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per Carina22 (what exactly is a "life peer" anyway...) Danny Lilithborne 23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Might I politely suggest that you find out what it is you're voting to delete?
- Keep per Fys. Mackensen (talk)
- Keep - It's encyclopedic information. Irrespective of other categories, it stands on its own merits IMO. Anchoress 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Don't categorise by gender. Wilchett 01:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Gender categorization is fine when there has been significant discrimination against that group- no one can doubt that women have been discriminated against in this arena. Arniep 02:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Arniep's comment shows exactly why this should be deleted. He is advocating an editorial stance and Wikipedia is not supposed to have one. Cloachland 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Arniep is noting that something happened. Do you really disagree that women have historically made up only a tiny proportion of parliamentarians, because the rules kept them out? Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is editorialising, but recording that it has happened is as much matter of historical fact as recording which party labels a candidate took at election time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Cloachland is absolutely spot on. By all means record the fact BHG sets forth but not by intoducing an absurd category. If I want to look up a peer I expect to do so under Cat: Life Peers. - Kittybrewster 09:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete The main advocate of this category has confirmed that it is not neutral and not intended to be neutral. Merchbow 09:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is indeed neutral: it does not rely on any POV assessment, and it is more durable than classification by rank or by party. It records a fact also recorded by parliament in all its lists: Merchbow is basically saying that Parliament itself is not neutral in how it categorises MPs and peers. [1], [2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, do not categorise by gender. Lankiveil 02:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep - as the "creator" of both categories, I guess I should say something here. My main intention for creating the categories was, as has been pointed out, that women have made up far less of the HoL than men have (and being peeresses in their own right) and I felt they should have their own category. Still, if the 'pedia wants to stop categorising by gender, then I guess they have to go. Although if that's the case, then similarly get rid of Category:Women and its sub-cats altogether. If not suited for a category though, Female life peers and Suo jure peeresses should still have their place here (even if only as articles) as I'm sure there are people who would like to see them listed on their own as well as amongst the categories for dukes, marquesses etc. We cannot hide from the fact that there are readers of this encyclopaedia who prefer, or at least are interested, to see women in their own place (however derogatory that may sound, it isn't) due to the uncommon place of their roles in society, eg. Category:Women in war etc. Craigy (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless the female category is kept, as per existing guidelines. These are all-male categories, because they record all-male grades of peerBrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is essential to have separate categories for each of the five tiers of the peerage and they have been around for a long time. Carina22 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the peers by degree categories. The nomination is absurd. - Kittybrewster 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This vote is broken and should be closed, since it has merged two nominations for some time and some User hadn't known what they voted for. If both nominations are meant seriously, keep it splited please. ~~ Phoe talk 22:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
- Keep, exercise in WP:POINT. (Incidentally, a number of baronies in the Peerage of England, as baronies by writ, can be held suo jure by females, as well as several earldoms, now all I think extinct, such as Warwick, Kent and Ulster; however, they all seem to be lumped into Category:Suo jure peeresses. Should they be cross-listed in the above categories?) Choess 23:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Obvious bad faith nom. Danny Lilithborne 23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Fys. I like a good POINT violation as much as the next sysop, but decline to participate. Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Be nice? --Masamage 00:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep These nominations breach WP:POINT Cloachland 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't see why women can't be put in these categories, just as we have women in "Actors" and the like. Lankiveil 02:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American punk musicians
[edit]Category:American punk musicians by instrument
[edit]Category:Canadian punk musicians
[edit]Category:Television shows in the Philippines
[edit]Category:Catalan-speaking countries
[edit]