Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of agnostics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Since this was an admittedly bad-faith nom, I'd like to see much better than a numerical tie to delete. This is a good example of why one can't effectively retract an AfD nomination: other editors, acting in good-faith, have expressed their desires for the article and should still be listened to. I read the talk page too, by the way. -Splashtalk 21:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of agnostics

No real evidence on many of these. Many of them are not noteworthy for their agnosticism. And so forth.--T. Anthony 19:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: Creator of this AfD, me, has since admitted bad faith in making it. He also thinks this debate is getting overly long/endless.--T. Anthony 09:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No more useful than a category. And Inaccurate on the face of it, since agnosticism was originated by Thomas H. Huxley—as noted in the list itself—and the first recorded use of the word was in 1870, so saying someone born before Huxley was "an agnostic" is as wildly speculative as calling someone born before Christ "a Christian." There is no obvious connection between the religious beliefs of many of these people and the things for which they are noted. As with some other lists of this kind, it is poorly defined and badly sourced. For example, it includes "Tenzin Gyatso, (1935-), the 14th and current Dalai Lama," but our article on Tenzin Gyatso does not say he is an agnostic and our article on Dalai Lama says (as you'd expect) that "The current Dalai Lama (the 14th) is a respected Tibetan Buddhist religious leader." So, this is really a "List of people who some Wikipedians thinks are agnostics, or would be if they had lived after 1870, and regardless of what they themselves declare their religious affiliation to be." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You're consistent, I like that. My initial intention was slightly insincere. And I realize it pretty much was insincere now. I apologize to everyone.(edited by--T. Anthony 05:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Right. And by the time you trim it down people who were important as agnostics, assuming you include only people who self-identify as agnostics as adults, you've got a mighty short list, self-identified agnostics being quite a bit scarcer than self-identified Catholics. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh possibly "Category Agnostics" is rather underpopulated. I picked this one mostly because it's about the oldest "List of people" at Wiki.--T. Anthony 00:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Agnostics are scarcer than hen's teeth—rarer than atheists, I think. I just checked out the category, and really, it's about what expected, except for the obvious omission of Thomas Henry Huxley... and I think Herbert Spencer qualifies as well but I'm not sure. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The reasons given here justify improving the article, not deleting it. List of agnostics is one among dozens of lists at List of people by belief, all of which serve as useful supplements to their respective "ism" articles, since they help put beliefs in a cultural context by linking them with widely recognized people. I see no reason to suppose that List of agnostics cannot be made just as useful as these other lists. Since agnosticism is a general epistemological position with regard to a belief held widely throughout history (theism), it is perfectly legitimate to apply such a label to persons who lived before the word was coined. The position existed long before the word was coined. Agnostics who lived before Huxley coined the word may be listed, as may people who have not used the word explicitly to label themselves, provided it can be substantiated that their position is consistent with the position described in Agnosticism. Buddhism is consistent with agnosticism, since Buddhism is not a theistic religion. The Dalai Lama might not be an agnostic, but his Buddhist faith does not preclude that possibility. There are people on this list whose agnosticism ought to be verified. There also might be people who ought to be removed from the list. But the article itself ought to remain. Rohirok 05:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Nothing you've said explains why a list of agnostics shouldn't go in the article on agnosticism. Why split it off from its context?
The list can't be "improved," it can only be rebuilt from scratch, because nothing in it says what the criteria for inclusion are or what the justification for including each name is. There's so much garbage in there that every name needs to be checked individually. The only way to fix it would be to remove all of them and add names one by one, with proper citations of other articles or sources. There are less than fifty names now, and in all likelihood there would be far less than fifty after you eliminate the Buddhas and the Protagorases and the people whose agnosticism is a footnote completely unrelated to their notability. It's not as if the list were too long to include in agnosticism or as if agnosticism were to long to include them. By my reckoning, agnosticism is less than 16K.
Lists such as these tend to accumulate borderline articles because they can be perceived as trivia challenges. "Can I think of someone to add to the list?" Worse, they become unintentional POV forks. Main articles are watched closely by people familiar with the subject matter. I don't think you could get someone into the article on agnosticism without its receiving some degree of review. But lists are treated far more casually. Someone who has agnosticism on their watchlist wouldn't even necessarily know that the list has been created. And, people treat lists as a sort of challenge: "Can I contribute to this list? Can I think of someone who could possibly go on this list who isn't there now?" So, they tend to accumulate borderline items, rumors, vague memories of vague claims, and so forth.
As for agnostics before Huxley, would you accept a list of Christians who lived before Christ or Muslims who lived before Mohammed? Suppose someone were to argue that Christianity and Islam do not exclude each other, for which a good case can be made—I believe Muslims make precisely this claim. If someone made a good case that some Christian prior to Mohammed had Muslim-like beliefs, would you accept that person on a list of Christians?
Conversely, you say "Buddhism is consistent with agnosticism." Well, Christianity is consistent with Judaism. Would you accept Christians on a list of Jews? Episcopalians on a list of Catholics? Unitarians in a list of deists?
But it doesn't matter what you or I think. We are not authorities—well, I am not, anyway—and Wikipedia is not founded on the authority of its contributors. This list itself as a "list of agnostics," not a list of people who Rohirok thinks are agnostics or list of people whose beliefs are not inconsistent with agnosticism. Can you find any verifiable evidence that the Dalai Lama calls himself an agnostic? What business have people got putting the Dalai Lama on a list like this without providing such a reference? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Incorporating the verified agnostics (those who self-identify as such, or those who express a documentable view on the knowability of God that can correctly be called "agnostic") into the main article might be a good idea. I still believe that a list of agnostics is not inherently inappropriate for Wikipedia, and that such a list can be made every bit as edifying as the many others also in the List of people by belief. I believe there is a double standard in viewing those other lists as acceptable, while rejecting the List of agnostics whole-sale.
The list can be improved, by making the criteria for inclusion specific, and insisting on documentation for each entry. I agree that the criteria shouldn't be "whoever a particular person thinks is an agnostic." It should be whether this person is/was in fact, and verifiably, an agnostic (and this does include people who don't necessarily use the word to identify themselves, since the concept of divine unknowability existed before the word was invented to fit the concept. For example, certainly Huxley was an agnostic before he came up with the word). A list in the main article might be ok, as long as it doesn't get too long. A category has the drawback of not allowing for clear and easy citation to justify a person's inclusion in the category. List of atheists is a good example of how List of agnostics could be improved by making inclusion criteria specific. The temptation to add unverified trivia will be diminished when such criteria are explicated up front.
The case of revealed religions is not at all comparable to that of agnosticism with respect to adherence before coinage. Belief in revealed religion is dependent on the revelations of a prophet or prophets, and it is indeed untenable to claim that such a religion had adherents before it was "revealed." However, agnosticism is not a revealed religion dependent on the teachings of any prophet. As I said before, it is a general epistemological principle with respect to God, and does not depend on any revelator for its existence. Did Huxley "reveal" agnosticism to the world? Of course not. He merely invented a word for an already existing concept.
Concerning Buddhism/agnosticism compatibility: I never suggested that anyone who has a belief that is not incompatible with agnosticism ought to be listed here, but only that identification by another label is not necessarily grounds for exclusion. Some belief systems are compatible or overlap with others, while others are exclusive. Many Unitarians were Deists, and many Deists were Unitarians, so it's not unreasonable to have some people on both lists. In fact, Thomas Jefferson is one such person. (Note the call on the List of Deists to "redefine the list, complete it, prune it, or discuss its parameters on the talk page." This would be an appropriate notice for the List of agnostics, and better than outright deletion. Again, there is a double standard at work here.) I take issue with some of your claims about the supposed compatibility of other belief systems, but will skip over those objections and cut to the salient point: Making distinctions between belief systems can be complicated, but it is possible to do it with reasonable care and verification, and the existence of these lists of people by belief can help clarify the overlaps and distinctions.
I grant that List of agnostics needs more specific criteria, it needs pruning, and it needs verification. Deletion is too extreme a solution. Rohirok 06:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete too broad - and impossible to verify as a whole. --Doc ask? 09:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The list need not be verified as a whole, but its particular members need to be verified. I'll admit that most of the members are not verified. This does not mean that they are unverifiable. Rohirok 06:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as inherently unmanageable, subjective criteria almost always will have to be deployed. Jtmichcock 13:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Change vote to Keep and Rename to List of notable agnostics. Jtmichcock 14:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Not inherently unmanageable, for reasons mentioned above (criteria can be tightened and made explicit, verification can be made a must for inclusion). No subjectivity is necessary for inclusion of self-identified agnostics, and very little is necessary to reasonably include those who express agnostic views without explicitly labeling them "agnostic." Wikipedia would be mostly empty and useless if all partly subjective evaluations were eliminated. Rohirok 06:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Members of the list are unverified, not unverifiable. Criteria is not hopelessly broad, since a generally accepted definition of agnosticism does exist, and all that is needed is to more rigorously apply this definition to the list. A category might be appropriate, but why should a list of agnostics be unacceptable, whereas the other lists of people by belief are acceptable. This seems to be a very arbitrary and hasty call for deletion of this particular list. Rohirok 06:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh dear. This is only one of three bad faith delete votes I've ever done. Every time I do it I feel fairly guilty. Well except the one most widely seen as bad faith, List of virgins. That was only not totally bad faith, I really do think that list is silly. However if "list delete mania" hadn't caught on I admit I wouldn't have bothered. My first "bad faith delete" vote was "Nationmaster" because I got so irritated with the snarkiness of the editing process there I thought it might shake "things up." I was newer them. This one was because I got mad about religion related lists being hated so I wondered if irreligion lists would get the same treatment. I guess they do, although in a sense this is another belief related list. Can someone explain why things concerning Category:Lists of people by belief hacks many of you off so bad? Anyway I did start believing what I was saying so thought maybe I wasn't in bad faith. That came after about 30 hours of no sleep. After a good sleep I realize now I have made a terrible error as it seems this really will get deleted. That's not what I want. I would like it to be cleaned up and essentially "tightened up", meaning limited to people who strongly identify as Agnostic, but I regret the idea of deleting it. I'm wondering if I can withdraw my nomination. If not I change my vote anyway to Weak keep. Weak because I admit there are still problems with the idea.--T. Anthony 05:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the semi-retraction. I will do my best to improve the list, and hope that it will not be deleted. First step: pruning the unverified. Rohirok 06:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and deleted all of those listed whose own biography pages on Wikipedia did not verify their agnostic status. Note that Protagoras remains, though he predates Huxley's coinage of the word agnostic. This is because he wrote: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life." That's agnosticism, folks. Those I've deleted might be added in again later, but only if whoever adds them can verify their agnostic status with a citation. I'm watching the page, and will be vigilant in enforcing this standard. I believe these changes adequately address the important concerns of those who have thus far supported deletion, and invite them to change their votes. Rohirok 07:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It's going in the right direction then. I change my vote to just Keep and apologize again for making it.--T. Anthony 12:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Go one step (admittedly medium-large step) further and I'll support.
A current problem with the page is that although it says "Those whose agnosticism cannot be verified are not listed here," that passive-voice leaves unanwered the question "verified on whose authority."
If each name were to be accompanied by a supporting quotation and a source for that quotation, preferable a quotation from the person listed, then there'd be no problem because the reader could then judge for himself whether or not the person used the word agnostic, and, if they did not, whether they were agnostics in the opinion of the reader.
That solves the verifiability/authority problem and it makes an interesting page that seems to have some reason to exist beyond categories or the individual articles. For example:
Protagoras, (d.420 BCE), Greek Sophist and first major Humanist: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life." [But a source is needed] [Funny, it's quoted a skazillion times but a source didn't pop up instantly for me...]
Charles Darwin, (1809-1882), founder of the theory of evolution; member of the Anglican church and attended Unitarian services. Wrote: "my judgment often fluctuates...In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Ch. VIII, p. 274. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905
Dpbsmith (talk)
  • Keep. Lists can provide something categories never can: specific information on each entry in the list, vitally important to something as vague as "agnosticism", with its numerous definitions and gradations. If anything, a category would be much worse than a list because it wouldn't be able to explain the nuances or situations surrounding each individual's specific agnostic beliefs, or provide sources or citations to justify the claim that the people listed are indeed agnostic. Categories are only better than lists when (1) having everything in a single, alphabetically-ordered list is preferrable; (2) no information whatsoever needs to be provided for the individuals so categorized; and (3) the category's topic is not significantly disputed or overly complex, such that any of its entries would require sourcing to justify inclusion. 2 and 3 fail, and 1 may fail as well (if we decide to expand the list to include all variants of "agnosticism" and have different sections for each), so clearly a list is better than a category in this case—though I see absolutely no reason not to do both.
    • ??? And the reason why this should be a separate article, rather than a section in agnosticism, where it would be under the eye of people interested in that topic, is... ???? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The reason for it to have its own article is because we expect it to become much larger. If we merged it, it would just have to be unmerged as soon as someone put any work into expanding it; easier to leave it separate. Merge it if you really want, but I prefer merging articles where there's not a strong chance that it will have the potential to be a good article on its own in the near future. And the argument about a separate page keeping away the agnosticism editors is invalid, because it could be used to argue against any page separations—anyone interested in agnosticism can easily monitor this page as well, as it should be linked to quite prominently on that page. But aside from that, it makes little difference either way. -Silence 05:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I've looked at this article on occasional, I've looked at the agnosticism article maybe once. I know what agnosticism is and if I don't I have plenty of books to explain it better. Who is agnostic I don't necessarily know.--T. Anthony 05:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, a strong oppose! to moving this article to "List of notable agnostics", as Jtmichcock suggested above. Such a suggestion demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of Wikipedia article and list notability qualifications (all articles and lists are inherently assumed to only include "notable" entries and information) and lack of experience with the thousands of lists and categories that do not have "notable" in their name— because it's always assumed unless stated otherwise. The current article title is fine. -Silence 19:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dpbsmith. --JJay 05:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
It's on the way to being more verified. I think a verify tag for a few weeks would be enough. I rarely put things up for deletion so I don't know how, or if I can, withdraw this. It was very close to being a joke nomination, I'm a little irritated it's still taken seriously. This article has been around since September 2001 and if done right can have a purpose. If it gets deleted I oh all you interested in this topic a huge apology. This is not what I was expecting and I reject the whole vote again in strong terms.--T. Anthony 07:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The motivation for the nom is not important to me, even if it was in bad faith, and your change of heart is reflected in your Weak Keep and then Keep votes. I don't think the AfD can/should be withdrawn. I am opposed to almost all listing by religion because an individual's religious beliefs are far too complex to be neatly summarized on a list- most people struggle with religion throughout their lives. What list does Bob Dylan go on? Jew, Christian, atheist, agnostic- all of the above? Was Karl Marx a Jew, a Christian, an atheist? Jewish law would have one answer, the Nazis another, and historians debate these types of questions for decades if not centuries. The proper place for us to address the issue is within the context of their bio pages. --JJay 07:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I respect that, but in a way a Category has a worse problem on this. In a list you can in least annotate and explain. In a category a name is just there and kind of effects the article. If a priest was on record saying sometimes he wasn't sure about the existence of God a poorly thought out person could add Category:Agnostics to his name almost as easily as he could add him to this list. Maybe moreso because lists seemed to be watched much more strictly now due to the proliferation of, what I'd mostly agree, are stupid ones. Added to that nothing on his article is changed by being on a list, whereas Categorization does. If you're in favor of removing agnostics as a category then disreagard the following.--T. Anthony 10:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: You make some good points. I'm going to try and rethink my vote in the context of this list before the end of the day. --JJay 10:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

(Discussion of voting that followed has been moved to the discuss page--T. Anthony 04:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC))

  • Please read before voting. -- JJay 16:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.