On 6/4/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
To de-emphasize these things would probably be more POV than to note them properly. Do we overdo it sometimes? Probably. But is there no place for it?
I'm not advocating any of this, just making random observations and asking rhetorical questions, to see what other people think about the ironic and unwritten general practice:
If the subject is Black, or Asian, or Pacific Islander, or American Indian, or Alaska Native, or Hispanic, we say so. We add them to categories and to lists.
If they are white, rather than saying so, we look for a photo.
If we can't find a photo, we assume that the reader assumes the subject is white, because we haven't stated otherwise, because white is the default skin tone.{{fact}}
If the person knows which boat their ancestors arrived on, we might say they identify as "Norwegian American" or as "Irish American", then the reader can conclude the subject is white, but only if they know the demographics of Norway or Ireland.
Failing that, we assume that the person's race is irrelevant, and drop the issue completely [1].
Disable images and try reading [[The Streets]] or [[Brent Barry]] [2], then think about the blind people who might be listening to a recorded or synthesized reading of the article.
Likewise if a subject identifies as "gay" or "bisexual" we say so, we back it up with reliable sources, we put them in a category, we add them to a list, we put a big LGBT project banner on the talk page.
If they identify as "straight", again, we explain it by example rather than statement. We give a thorough account of the person's various heterosexual relationships and marriages and the children which resulted, possibly invading families' privacy along the way.
Again I'm not pushing for any changes. I'm just wondering if others actually think this is the most neutral way to write, or if it is just what we have conveniently decided to settle upon.
—C.W.
[1] For the record I'm about 37.5% "white". [2] "Trivia", really?