Wikidata:Property proposal/social status

social classification

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person

   Done: social classification (P3716) (Talk and documentation)

Description	social class as recognized in traditional or state law
Represents	social status (Q189970)
Data type	Item
Domain	persons, fictional persons, mythical characters
Allowed values	culture-specific social class hierarchies
Example	Cicero (Q1541) → equites (Q122166) Thomas Jefferson (Q11812) → slave owner (Q20956728) Sally Hemings (Q257464) → enslaved person (Q12773225) Thomas Wolsey (Q206512) → commoner (Q3443060) Spartacus (Q83406) → enslaved person (Q12773225)

Motivation

Note that this is meant to be orthogonal to occupation (P106). Pharos (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Why? What is the value of the classification? How are we going to stop opinion rather than fact? Seems very judgemental. Where will you apply cut-offs on its use? At what period of time will we stop using it? Will you expect start times when someone moves into the nobility? At what point will we decide sons of, or daughters of, not be noble.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs) at 09:12, 23 January 2017‎ (UTC).
  • Though genealogy of noble families is a popular topic, this isn't the main use-case I was thinking of. Perhaps some of the new examples I've added can give a better illustration — the idea for this originally came from an observation that slavery was usually being treated as an "occupation", which struck me as very wrong-headed.--Pharos (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I think this is valid to have - it's certainly not the only classification where the borderlines have ambiguities. I think the name in English should perhaps be "social class" though - "status" doesn't quite capture what you are looking for here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• I share Billinghurst's concerns; this needs a much better name and clearer description, if it's not be misused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment @Pigsonthewing: I've renamed and given a better description, to emphasize that this isn't for informal socioeconomic categories (lower, middle, upper class), but for those that are clearly defined in law.--Pharos (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support With the updated description. ChristianKl (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Yes. I don't like using, for example, "slave" as an occupation. It's not. Missvain (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Does this also work for the caste system? Jane023 (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Possibly, but that is a sensitive subject, and perhaps warrants a fuller discussion before it is implemented there.--Pharos (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Dhx1 (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment. I would not include Thomas Jefferson (Q11812) → slave owner (Q20956728). Thierry Caro (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it's appropriate; whether or not someone was a slaveholder is an important piece of biographical data, particularly when comparing United States historical figures.--Pharos (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think "social hierarchy" is a good label for this... --Yair rand (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I originally proposed "social status", and still kind of like that. Others have suggested "social class", but I think that may lean too much toward something like "middle class". An alternative might be something like "social classification".--Pharos (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

    +1 for "social classification". --Yair rand (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Pharos, Yair rand, Thierry Caro, Jane023, Pigsonthewing, ArthurPSmith: Is everybody happy with the current label "social classification" and the description, so that the property can be created? ChristianKl (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If slaves are indeed included, 'social' is not correct. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't understand the objection here, are you saying that slavery is an economic rather than a social system? It's both. See, for example fr:Stratification sociale.--Pharos (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• @Pharos, Yair rand, Thierry Caro, Jane023, Pigsonthewing, ArthurPSmith:  Done ChristianKl (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)