Category "Illegitimate"

Question

Someone has twice removed the category "Illiogitamate" from two the profiles that I manage.  Is this official that the category should no longer bey used?

Comments

There  are a lot of contradictory opinions expressed on the several G2G threads on the topic of categorising children born out of wedlock.

I will summarise my views on thos opinions here, and then leave it up to the PTB co consider the issue.

• People are conserned about "Stigmatising" these children.  They should not be stigmatised, they had no say in their birth just as infant/child mortaliy children had no say in their demise.
• It is said that it serves no purpose. It flags to other genaeologists to not bother searching for the missing father.  There may be other benifits tocategorisation yet to be identified.  Dont throw the baby out with the bath water.
• On the issue of the exclusion of the managers of the affcted profies from the diuscussion because "This job is too hard", there is a work around.  We all recieve regular Wikitree News updates.  Any debates about Policy and Style could be flagged in those reports, so that the interested Profile Managers can go to G2G and join the debate.

Having summarised my arguments, I'll leave it up to the PTB to consider them for this issue and any future proposals, and bow out of the debate.

---

Nick,

You could use the existing "Needs research" category.

---

Why/ the point is that the profile does NOT need further research, there should be proof in the profile that the baptismal record is clear - no known father.  The point is to alert reserchers to that fact.

If you think further research IS neede as there is no source iether way, the Illigitamate category would not be selected.

---

Sorry. Misunderstood flag to other researchers not to bother researching father.

I still Think a note in the bio / narrative would be more effective than grouping all illegitimate births.

---

No worries.

---

Categories are not flags. They are ways of grouping profiles together for research.

Instead of using a category to indicate a fact about a person or their life (not the purpose of categories) you should write in the biography.

Answer 1

Hello Nick.

There is a warning banner in that Category page:

Warning: This is category will be Deleted and should not be used.

(Yes. There is an extra "is" in the text)

See https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Category:Illegitimate

Comments

That is a fat lot of good, My profiles were completed months/years ago.

I disagree with the disconjtinuation of the category, It ccould be a usefull marker for any one researching the social circumstances of the mothers.

Answer 2

I don’t know if the category has been officially deleted but the general consensus, as I read things, can be found in this G2G: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1725634/category-illegitimate-why-does-it-exist?show=1725634#q1725634

Comments

It is only a ''general consencus'' of those who stumbled apon the original question.  I only found out about it when someone took it apon them selves to delete the category from two of my profies.  I do not agree with its rermoval, as it will be usefull to any one interested in the social circumstances of the mothers.

---

This category was sent to EditBot to be deleted. EditBot complains (visible on the category page) that there are too many links to delete. So someone has to do it manually. And this is what I am doing on the profiles I can edit.

---

Can I ask you to only remove those mis categorised and leave those with sources proving the status alone for now.

None of the Profile Managers who use the category were polled about it, so the desision to delete is extremely flakey and should be reviewed.

---

As it is said clearly on the Category page, the "Category will be deleted". That means that sooner or later (rather sooner than later), the profiles in the Tree that have this category, will be touched either by me or someone else to delete the category from the profiles to be able to delete the category for good.

---

@Jelena, you don't need to do them manually, Editbot will remove them. The category was just waiting to be reviewed, I've done that, so it will go to the next phase of the process. You only need to do them manually if it gets to "waiting on Manual cleanup" if there are any left that Editbot can't access for some reason.

---

@Margaret: EditBot says on the Category Page: "BOT: Too many links: S: 0 + M: 625 + L: 1". So there is obviously something preventing it from deleting the category.

---

@Jelena, what that means is that there are too many for Editbot to process it directly from the first one which is "waiting on Bot". If you look at any of the ones in "Waiting on review" they will say the same thing, "too many Links" https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Delete_Categories_-_Waiting_on_review

Once someone with the authority approves them, then they go to "Deletion approved, waiting on Bot" https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Delete_Categories_-_Deletion_approved%2C_Waiting_on_BOT

It's a three step process. Nobody needs to do any manual removal unless it goes to "Needs Manual cleanup"

---

Is there a way to poll all of the affected Profile Managers to get a more definitive opinion on whether the category has value?  I agree with cleaning out those profiles that do not justify using the category, but think thast used correctyly it will have value.

---

it seems G2G suffers the same accessibility problem as Wikipedia admin/MoS pages do. a tiny handful of impassioned editors can change the 'consensus' without most people ever hearing what is going on...

was this cat misused? absolutely! is it useless? probably not.

I just had several categories nuked off a Notables profile the other day similarly. no idea where any such discussion happened, just a bot came swinging by and boom, data gone...

---

I was in no manner involved in this but the statement "a tiny handful of impassioned editors can change the 'consensus' without most people ever hearing what is going on..." is simply incorrect. Most people involved in the categorization project (which is many dozens if not hundreds) read the G2G feed for everything dealing with categorization.

---

There were in excess of 200 profiles categorised.  How many of those Profile Managers were consulted.  I have 4 such profiles but I was not polled on the issue,

---

@Nick - I'm not aware that WikiTree practice is to poll everyone that may be connected to something like this and I'm not sure that's practical with limited volunteer staffing. Things like this are, as practice and policy, discussed in G2G. The really big issues (which this wasn't) are always pinned to the top of the G2G forum under Questions.

---

Tere is an easy work around for that resourcing issue.  Mention the G2G question in the weekly update report that we all recieve.  Then it is up to the community whetyher they wish to express an opinion., but at least we will all have the opportunity to be invilved.

---

this Categorization project, that I've tried to join but is on hiatus? https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:Categorization

people want to participate. if you can't add new members because you're reorganzing, but you can't reorganize for over a year because....??

---

At this point in time you should address your categorization concerns to The Team or Steve Harris. The issues within categorization are many, being Leader of the project is viewed as a no-thanks job with lots of "discussions" which are in reality of no benefit to genealogy, and there is a view among some project Leaders that proposed changes which would benefit some projects or simply make historical or geographical sense for WikiTree aren't considered. 

Answer 3

I am concerned that the illegitimate category has been flagged for removal.  I have not been previously aware that such a removal was up for discussion.

Wikitree prides itself in relation to places of birth that the locations given accurately reflect those names used at the time even when those locations are known by different names now.

The status of being Illegitimate is a term that was very significant in the past, which I think is only one reason for its recognition on wikitree.

It is also foreseeable that it is a category search that people may from time to time wish to use. Like 'which illegitimate children were born in a particular area during a particular period or years?' Or 'which of my ancestors were illegitimate?'

It is a fact that has a primary source.

Comments

Thank you. I agree with everything.

Answer 4

I am using this category. Don't delete it.

Comments

If you have been using this category instead of adding information about illegitimacy to the profile biography, it would be advisable to edit the profiles to include this information. Whether or not the category continues to exist, categories should not be treated as a substitute for biographical content.

Answer 5

Way not swap the "category" you now have for a nice "sticker" parents not married at time of birth??? Individual can then use if want to.

Comments

Yes, any time people want to use categories as "fact flags" instead of groups for research or project work, they probably want a sticker, not a category.

A category of all illegitimate people isn't even potentially useful.

---

Brad Foley,
-----
Stickers are profile feature boxes used:

1. to honor a person or otherwise highlight something that's deemed to be very important about them, or

2. by members on their own account profiles to tell others about themselves.
-----
That does not fit this case. And it doesn't fit "fact flags".

Stickers come with and without matching categories.
I am assuming you mean without here, like "Died young".

Stickers/templates can be used as a filter in a Wikitree+ search.
So in some ways they do work as a "poor man's category".
Stickers have limitations compared to categories though.
Like:
"There should be no more than five Profile Stickers on one profile. Three is better." 

That is problematic because it gives people a way of pushing an unwanted sticker off the profile claiming other stickers are more important.

This category and other similar general global categories are potentially very useful, explained here.

A sticker is more visible on the profile than a category.
The people who are deleting this category do it because of the stigma it carries, they want the information buried deep in the bio text or not on the profile at all. I think they would dislike a sticker even more than a category.

Answer 6

My 6th ggrandfather is thought to have been base born. Maybe as a child of nobility lacking the pedigree. he is thought to be descended from the Churchill line. He/profile is not categorized as illegitimate, nor his parents known. Call it what you may, I am familiar with the various terms, it all means the same thing. I don't think he would be stigmatized by it since it was almost 400 years ago. If anything, it is a reflection on the father, not the child. [father unknown] basically says the same thing without clarification as to why. As far as a category, not sure how useful it is unless tied to other salient factors such as location, time period etc.

Comments

Nh, not precice enough.

My great aunts father was known, my grandmothers widowed mother was working as his live in housekeeper.  The had not got round to marrying at the time of Aunty Elsie's birth, so she was registerd with her mothers name.

Answer 7

Really don't know why you started this question when there is an existing question on the same subject already, in which discussion you have been participating.

Your example given in there was to be able to see what a certain event had as impact on illegitimate births in a specific locale, compared to a nearby locale.  The ONLY way you can determine such an impact is to do a One Place Study, which entails entering ALL the births within the specific time frame you are looking at.  There may have been a general population explosion, and only by having all the births can you judge whether there was a significant impact from the event.  To only enter the illegitimate births doesn't give any sort of proportion.

The category: illegitimate is global, and there is nothing else to link these children.  Categories are not a catch-all to replace bios, for one thing.  If there is nothing in the bio (with sources) to support the category, then it doesn't belong on the profile.  And a global category for this serves no purpose whatsoever.

Comments

Gill Whitehouse,
"You seem to be avoiding the question. How many are miscategorisied?"
I answered. That is a general problem with categorization. How many are miscategorized in any category? Fix the profiles that are a problem for you.

"Are you saying no categories are worthwhile?"
It was a rhetorical question.
I'm done here.

 

---

1.Profiles aren't a problem for me. It was a simple question that didn't get an answer.

2. it's a pity that you can't take the time to explain your position as that's the only way that problems are resolved.

---

@: Danielle Laird: The same applies to Infant or child mortailty, yes no?

There are three issues being discussed.

• Is it usefull?  Yes, it prevents reaerchers wasting time looking for a father when it is not possible to name one.
• Is it misused, well may be,  a job for Editbot to clean up the profiles mis categorised.
• Can we improve inclusion in the Wikitree community by ensuring that appropriate Profile Managers are included in a discussio?  I have suggested one solution to this issue.

---

Well i have to dispute that on the not looking for a father issue. How many people have done an exhaustive search on bastardy/affiliation orders?

---

you are not being civil or discussing in good faith. "pet dog" categories, really??

maybe take a break from rapid replying.

---

Nick, you have a misapprehension on what EditBot can and cannot do.  It certainly cannot tell if a profile is miscategorized or not from the bio data or lack thereof.  That has to be done by an member spending time on each individual profile.  Are you volunteering?

We can't be spending time sending messages to individual profile managers, sorry, but we do have other things to work on.  Like actual bio improvements etc.  The questions asked in G2G get tagged with relevant G2G tags, and one of our volunteers will often add such tags if they are absent to assist people to reach interested members.  One has to follow the specific tag in order to receive notifications about it.  Nobody is going to impose following specific tags on members.

As for the category preventing a person from searching for a father, sorry but no.  The category displays at the very bottom of a profile page, few people will go there first.  As we keep saying, it's a bio item.  If it's written in the bio (with sources supporting it), then it is immediately apparent to somebody who comes along.  The category brings nothing further in the way of help for this purpose.

---

Here is nothing uncivil in her reply.

---

A lot of people in this tread are misunderstaning what I am saying.

OK if Editbot cant doe it, Fairy Nuff.  There will be other sollutions to the miscategorisation issue if we give it some thought.

It does not prevent anything, but it might save some Wikitreer wasting time if they see the categorization on a profile that they think is relevant to the tree they arew working on.  If we scrap the categorization we could be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Do not assume anything of peoples behaviour, we are all different.

---

Sorry, but you're arguing in circles here.

---

You dont have to apologise if you cannot understan what I am saying, really you dont.