On 13/11/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
(There's also a [[Statutory rapists]] subcat, which I'm less comfortable with having - it's rarely a defining feature of anyone in the same way as being a convicted rapist is - but also less worried about; the very nature of the term means you have to be convicted!)
I'm kind of uncomfortable with this for the same reason, and it applies more generally. In particular, [[Category:Statutory rapists]] sounds more accusatory than [[Category:People convicted of statutory rape]], which, to my ears at least, sounds more neutral and matter-of-fact. Of course in non-controversial situations the plain term is fine ([[Category:Physicists]]), but in potentially controversial categories I'd prefer we word things a bit more carefully.
There's a mention on [[Wikipedia:Categorization of people]] of this concept: "For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples"
It's a nice idea, but I don't usually see it happening. Hmm hmm.
Digging around, there used to be - but, thank goodness, no longer is - a Category:Pedophiles - [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_3]]; there's a [[Category:Child sex offenders]], but it is limited to convicts and seems to be policed.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk