Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Identity (failed proposal)

This is a the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump .

This is a proposed Wikipedia guideline for dealing with issues of labeling people and organizations in Wikipedia articles. It doesn't address the use of proper names for individuals. For the guideline on referring to individuals by name, see

Labeling in a manner which is neither offensive nor contrary to the wishes of those about whom we are writing articles is not only good etiquette, but also helps to reduce editorial conflicts about which specific labels should be used in a given article.

When in doubt, or when editing a controversial article, take the time to read the article's talk page before editing. Often, compromises on specific articles or terms have been hashed out at considerable cost in terms of personal time and effort. Aim for consensus.

Self-identification

Use the name(s) and terminology that the individual or organization themselves use.

• Self-identification: When naming or writing an article about specific groups or their members always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use. Transsexual people, for example, should be referred to using the personal pronouns
  (male, female, or another) that they themselves prefer.
• Do not assume that a different term is more inclusive or accurate. For example, a person who appears female or who was born female may identify as male or something else other than female.

Be specific

Be as specific as possible.

• Use the most specific terminology available. If someone is of Ethiopian descent, describe them as "Ethiopian", not "African",
• Almost always use terms as adjectives rather than nouns, thus, black people, not blacks, gay people, not gays, person with albinism, not albino, and so on. Note that there are exceptions to this rule: "Jews" is the standard plural.

Be neutral

Where there is doubt, aim for neutrality.

• Some terms are considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if they are quite commonly used. Even though people may use these terms themselves, they may not appreciate being referred to by such terms by others. Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders.[
  discuss
  ]
• However, do not be so general as to render terms meaningless.

Avoid gratuitous references

Do not call more attention to a person's identity labels than is strictly necessary.

• While it is often appropriate for an article to note that a person is
  Christian, etc., if the fact is related to their notability
  , and to discuss the ways in which those identities have impacted their work, it is never necessary or appropriate for an article to constantly qualify the person as a "gay writer" or an "African-American linguist".
• It is only rarely, if ever, necessary for a reference to a person's cultural, religious, sexual or gender identities to be present in the very first sentence of the article before their occupation has even been mentioned. For example, it is usually more appropriate for an article to begin "John Smith is an American writer", and then discuss his sexual orientation later in the article, than for the article to begin "John Smith is a gay writer from the United States." Similarly, it is almost never necessary for the very first sentence of an article to point out that the subject is female.

• While "
  Coloured" it is the normal designation of a specific cultural group in South Africa
  which uses that term for itself. Do not impose an alternate term that would be considered more acceptable in the United States but is not known or recognized by these South Africans.
• Similarly, while "
  Black Canadian
  " in most cases. Although "African American" is broadly used synonymously with "black" in the United States, sometimes even disregarding origin (African, Caribbean, Latin American, or otherwise), the term may not be the correct choice. Also, "black" should never be replaced with "African American" if the subject is not American.
• The prefix "Afro-" is often conventionally used for specific multi-ethnic groups (e.g.
  Afro-Cuban
  ) outside the US, but is disfavored in that country; avoid "Afro-American".

• Avoid outdated terms when referring to present-day people. However, historic terms can be appropriate when describing historic usage, or in description of past eras.
• Avoid unclarified use of ambiguous terms. For example, "Asian" can be a continent-wide term, or may more specifically connote South Asian in the United Kingdom, but East Asian in the United States. Wiki-linking the term, if it must be used by itself, is a good idea: [[Asia]]n, [[East Asia|Asian]]. Otherwise, simply be more specific. When making first reference to someone from India or having an Indian background as "Indian", wikilink the term as [[India]]n, unless no confusion of this usage with its usage in reference to indigenous peoples of the Americas is likely to result in the context. "Russian" should not be used as a stand-in for "Soviet" when referring to a person from the era of the USSR whose ethnic identity is not known more specifically.
• Caucasoid", "Negroid", and "Mongoloid
  " are not appropriate for contemporary ethnic, national or social identities, and should be used only in their correct scientific or historical context.
• "Caucasian" in the meaning of "pertaining to the Caucasus region" is correct, though clarification distinguishing this usage from that of Caucasian race may be helpful. "Caucasian" should not be used to mean "white" in the ethnic/racial sense, except in quoted material, due the ambiguity and its disuse in this sense outside the US.
• "Chinese" or "Chinese person" are preferred over "Chinaman", which is outdated and has racist connotations; see topical guideline
  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)
  .
• "
  Gypsy" when referring to the ethnic group, although the terms are not always synonymous (especially when "gypsy" is lower-case and used to refer to itinerant people of unclear ethnicity). Avoid "Gypsy" when a more specific name in available. Even Roma/Romani may not always be correct (see, e.g., Lom people, Dom people
  ).
• "Kosovan" and "Kosovar": See topical guideline
  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles)
  .

• A
  Alaska Native
  is usually preferred.
• In Canada, the term "Aboriginal peoples" is preferred over "natives" as a collective term. "Aboriginal" encompasses First Nations, the Métis, and the Inuit; the term "First Nations" refers only to "Indian" groups and does not encompass the latter two groups. "Indian" and "Eskimo" are not generally considered acceptable.^{[clarification needed]} Note that it is never appropriate to describe an aboriginal Canadian as "American Indian" or "Native American".
• Although terms such as "American Indian" or "Native American" are commonly used within the United States to collectively denote all indigenous peoples of North and South America regardless of which country they reside in, the terms are widely rejected by people outside of that country due to the potential ambiguity of the word "American". The terms should only be used on Wikipedia in the narrow context of the United States. For cases where the article is a broad, transnational summary of very general aspects of indigenous North and South American cultures, use constructions such as indigenous peoples of the Americas.
• It is always preferable to refer to groups and individuals as specifically as is appropriate in the context. The specific culture to which a person belongs (e.g.,
  Anishnaabe, Abenaki, Maya, etc.) should be used instead of broad umbrella terms such as "Indian", "native" or "First Nations" whenever possible. See also Native American name controversy
  for more terms and background.
• In
  List of Indigenous Australian group names
  ). However, "Aborigine" is strongly deprecated as a noun.

• For people, the terms "
  homosexual
  ", which has clinical associations and may even be considered pejorative. However, homosexual may be used in describing people in certain instances, in particular in historical and legal contexts.
• When referring to the broader community of all people who identify with one of the "minority sexual and gender identities", the inclusive term lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender is preferred rather than referring simply to the "gay community". This may subsequently be abbreviated as "LGBT", although for clarity's sake the term should be spelled out in full the first time it appears in an article. Subsequent occurrences can also be explained in situ, with the {{Abbr}} template: {{abbr|LGBT|lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender}}, which displays as LGBT, with a mouse-over tooltip. This is especially useful in sections, which may be independently reached via links, below the original appearance of the full phrase.
• For sexual behaviors, "homosexual" may be acceptable, although in many cases "same-sex" can and should be used instead. For instance, articles discussing the question of legalizing or banning marriage between two people of the same gender should refer to same-sex marriage rather than "homosexual marriage" or "gay marriage". Various statutes use the specific term "homosexual", and this should be preserved in context.
• Two-spirit is preferred over berdache. However, the latter term is appropriate in historical contexts, specifically when discussing the defined and specific role of the berdache within historical aboriginal cultures.^{[clarification needed]}
• MOS:IDENTITY
  .
• Neologisms, like
  transwoman, should be used carefully, as many terms defining gender minorities have somewhat fluid inclusion criteria and are umbrella terms defining those outside gender-binary roles and identities
  .