Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Archive 1

Contents 1 From Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Alternative version 2 Wikipedia as its own source 3 Please do not blank sections of proposed guideline 4 Proposed alternative versions 4.1 We are mostly in agreement, I think 5 Clarifying value judgement 6 Why long-standing consensus is better than external citation 7 No flame wars (proposal, guideline, etc) 8 What appears to be the problem 9 Main page vs Subpage 10 Upgrading to guideline 11 External links in lists 12 Rejected? 12.1 Objections 13 Poll: WP:LISTS upgrade to guideline 13.1 Vote: Support 13.2 Vote: Reject 13.3 Comments 14 Moving forward

From Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Alternative version

Copied here on January 23, 2006:

I'd like to invite everyone working on this proposal to have a look at:

Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Lists and references

That is a Village pump (policy) discussion from some months ago, preserved on that talk page.

The ideas I subscribed in that discussion could be summarized:

• Lists are not different from (other) pages in Wikipedia's main (i.e. "article") namespace as far as Verifiability etc... are concerned:
  • Avoid "self reference", so: inclusion in a list is not "verified" by the content of another wikipedia article, but by external references in the list (and let these external sources speak for themselves, I mean, what their worth is).
  • Avoid "self reference" also in the other direction: mentioning that (e.g.) a composer is gay, with a reference only to another wikipedia page (be it a list with an external reference), is not enough as reference: every article is meant to be stand-alone regarding its references.
• Categories are, by their nature, *only* depending from correctness of references in wikipedia articles: per wikipedia:categorisation of people category definitions need to take care to be formulated thus that they *exclude* doubtful cases (while there's no choice: a "category" name can only appear at the bottom of an article, if that is a characterisation of that person that is broadly supported).
• For lists the definition of the inclusion criteria on the list is of less importance: external reference works may use their own criteria, which may, in some cases, not be interchangeable: the list only notes down what can be found in reputable sources, and leaves it to these sources to use the definitions they think appropriate (wikipedia is not in the position to discriminate between external sources re. which one used the "wrong" definition, and which one used the "right" definition).
• From this follows also that for *many* sensitive topics it is perfectly viable to have as well a category as a list: the category only contains the *non-problematic* examples; the list can contain more names, referring to reference works and their respective inclusion criteria. If such reference work happens to be, e.g., a "newspaper" or "Encyclopaedia Britannica" (with its many factual errors, according to Nature), readers of the wikipedia encyclopedia have to assess for themselves what value they attach to such publications: wikipedia is not prescriptive and can only note down that in such-and-such a publication, such-and-such was contended about someone. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes says that for many topics several article grouping techniques are used one along another: note that it is clear that it is nowhere said that these grouping techniques are *interchangeable*: for a sensitive topic a list usually can not be converted to a category, neither the other way around (if the external references are not added).

Example of a "successful" list according to the description above: List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers.

Example of a "successful" category according to the description above: category:terrorists (well, there was some fierce debate over the category definition, but I remember everyone was pleased with the final result)

As one of 3-4 main participants, I can barely even begin to describe with words just how unhappy I was with the "final result". It is true that many weeks of constant and single-minded edit warring by Francis Schonken finally got me to give up and just remove the page from my watchlist. However, another editor did finally find a phrase that wasn't quite as bad as what Francis Schonken was doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs) diff

"I'm happy with the proposed text." was your only comment on the category definition that made it. diff --Francis Schonken 10:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that in the above I more or less limited examples to "people": of course, for other "sensitive" topics the same applies, but, in general, the problem usually only comes up sharply in people-related topics.

The results of the Village pump discussion mentioned above (Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Lists and references) are still not fully applied in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, I know, I should have occupied myself with that a bit (mea culpa) - If I had done that, these present two alternative guideline proposals re. "Lists in wikipedia" would have been completely redundant (as in: unnecessary) IMHO. --Francis Schonken 09:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia as its own source

Copied here on January 23 From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

What is the policy about using Wikipedia itself as a cited source for a Wikipedia article? I vaguely remember reading a policy or guideline that mentions this but I can't for the life of me find it again. Reyk 06:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, this isn't allowed. However, other Wikipedia articles may help you find an external source for the info you wish to add, jguk 12:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Re. "For obvious reasons, this isn't allowed." - true, but some nuance:

• See [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#(DELETED SECTION)]]
• Every time one uses these handy things called "double square brackets" ([[...]]), inevitably one additionally supports an article with sources that are in another article.
• Some wikipedians contend that the "For obvious reasons, this isn't allowed" doesn't apply in the case of lists, hence two complicated guideline proposals (wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia and wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia/Alternative version) - unnecessary in the case one wouldn't first assume an "exception" w.r.t. lists, see Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Alternative version

--Francis Schonken 12:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A list is an article in the main namespace. There are no special rules about lists. Indeed, as lists tend to contain an awful lot of information (namely that each and every entry meets the list inclusion criteria), having direct sources on the list page is very, very important, jguk 12:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

With the growing popularity of Wikipedia, such a circular reference may happen by accident, in an indirect way; for instance, if a questionable fact, unsourced, makes it into Wikipedia, people on other sites might start citing it, causing it to spread all over the place and eventually wind up on sites that in turn get cited back here when an editor insists the original mention of the "fact" get a citation. Also, a "Google test" of the notability of someone/something might turn up the various mirror sites of Wikipedia, distorting the result. *Dan T.* 13:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is true. I always do google tests with searches that include "-wikipedia" to reduce although not eliminate this effect. DES ^(talk) 19:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people uses Wikipedia as a source. Its criteria has been that entries must have reference to their orientation in their biographical articles. That is a logical (and mostly non-controversial) criteria. -Will Beback 22:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

But the key in that case, is the bio article contains a reliable 3rd party source (or it better have). That's not us using Wikipedia as a source. That's us moving the location of a source. It's no different then a paper book, which lists its sources on a page other then the one the fact is claimed on. It's not using the "endnotes as the source". It's just putting it on another page, to avoid clutter. --Rob 22:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people is presently not OK with wikipedia guidelines/policies, hence, not surprisingly, *problematic* (it has a dispute notice for I don't know how long)
• List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers conforms to present wikipedia guidelines/policies, hence, not surprisingly: not problematic.

See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Lists and references --Francis Schonken 08:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that realistically, NO ONE (outside of perhaps elemantary school), including within wikipedia, should be citing wikipedia as a source given the nature of how it is written. I find it somewhat distateful when I see it cited in legitamate news sources, considering they could have just as easily used the article to direct their research and cited peer reviewed work instead.

Either way, although citing of wikipedia articles is not appropriate (not only because the articles are written somewhat unverifiably, but also because their contents are subject to change), it speaks highly of our project here when the information between articles is consistent. If two articles present conflicting information, it indicates that someone is not doing their research, namely us. So, feel free to use information you find within the wikipedia, but prepared to find an alternate citation. Shaggorama 10:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

...but no beating around the bush: using double square brackets ([[...]]) is not a technique with which to make a Wikipedia article compliant to WP:V/WP:CITE,

even if the article in which you use the double square brackets is a List;

nor

even if the content of the target article (that is the Wikipedia article to which the term between double square brackets directs) is amply supported by external sources cited in that target article.

--Francis Schonken 10:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not blank sections of proposed guideline

Or at least discuss it here first. The edit comments only very vaguely even relate to the large sections that are deleted, and this sort of editing is very destructive. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

See above #Wikipedia:Lists_in_Wikipedia.2FAlternative_version:

I have removed [the] alternative version as this one has had all the comments and the effort of most editors involved. Feel free to edit and make this one better. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Make it better, but do not blank complete sections without engaging in a discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Either we work on this one, either we work on the alternate version, or what would you propose?

Anyway, nobody seems to dispute the content of the two previous sections on this talk page: I adapt the proposal in that sense. --Francis Schonken 09:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, can we start by saying Jossi was a premature in removing the reference to the alternative version, and restore it for the nonce? I think there are some good reasons for the extra material in the original version, but we can discuss in more detail.

But from there, if there is a paragraph or section that you feel is superfluous, can you please discuss your reasons for that belief here before blanking it out? Other editors might well be persuaded. Or certainly, we might be able to come up with improved wording for a concept to be included. But just deleting major sections that contain ideas that at least several editors feel are important, even essential, makes improving the proposal very difficult. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: "if there is a paragraph or section that you feel is superfluous, can you please discuss your reasons for that belief here before blanking it out?" - Well I did, didn't I? (See two previous sections, one of them copied from village pump, the other from the talk page of the alternate version; further the first of these sections also links to a previous village pump discussion now at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Lists and references) - I only see that neither you nor anyone else seems to have any further content arguments against what has been discussed long ago. --Francis Schonken 09:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You copied in these discussion about five minutes before you started blanking!! Give editors time to read them and respond. And even better, present how you think the discussion in a very different discussion thread relates to the sections of the guideline proposal that you apparently don't like (it is not at all obvious to me at first or second or third read, though I can make some vague guesses about the connections you might see). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, this alleged "consensus" that you copied over from other discussion threads consists solely of opinions you stated in those threads, with no indication here that anyone else ever agreed with you. Please, please, please don't start a new destructive edit war. Please. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

For your (and Jossi's) peace of mind I put my edits in Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia/Alternative version2 - I can't see what's not self-evident about this. So, I'm not surprised this was not further contested. See for example Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Lists and references: it ends with a reply by me on a comment by Jossi, after that is was a further week at Village pump: nobody (not even Jossi) seemed to object to my comment. So, until I read something else, apparently you ran out of arguments. --Francis Schonken 09:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact I did not previously state a disagreement with something I had never seen is hardly the same as agreeing to it. I certainly am not able to follow "every discussion that occurs somewhere on WP". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This case of versionitis I find it quite disruptive. Want to make a proposal on how to make this proposed guideline better, please do so, but do not expect from me to read three versions and understand what is going on. Can you imagine if every article we edit we get into this versionitis? Chaos. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed alternative versions

These two versions omits two of the most important aspects this guideline attempts to address

1. The need for an unambiguous and clear criteria for inclusion that can be applied o list members
2. The need to establish a way to measure consensus for inclusion

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There should not be "criteria". How can we set criteria that are not going to fall foul of WP:NOR? The criteria should be simply "if there is a reputable source that says X is a Y, X can be admitted to a list of Ys". We already have policies, which we apply to every type of article, including these. We do not need to allow OR by the back door. Grace Note 05:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Criteria is absolutely important. We should not stretch the definition of "Original Research", otherwise every article in Wikipedia that is not copy-and-pasted from elsewhere is original research. Every list is original research unless we outright copy it from somewhere. An encyclopedia must obtain its information from reliable sources, but how we classify that information is up to us. Vulturell 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

How we classify sources is set in WP:RS. Encyclopaedias restate what is stated in other sources. They do not innovate or invent. You are trying to do the latter. I urge you to read WP:NOR more carefully. It is not only forbidden to write your own research up without sources, it is also not permitted to construct novel theses from sources. You may not decide who is what. When we say you can set criteria, it is clear that th is can only mean that the criteria for List of Blah Foos is that X is stated by a reputable source or sources to be a Blah and a Foo, not that you will include people you think you can make a case for being a Foo and whose mother was from Blah so that makes them a Blah too. IOW, you cannot apply your personal notion of what a Blah Foo is. You must use others' definitions. If a source says X is a Blah Foo, then he or she is a Blah Foo (see WP:V if you're not clear that verifiability is the standard here, not your judgement of what is or isn't true). Grace Note 06:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No. This is a bad idea. Madonna has been described as "Jewish" by several leading Jewish magazines, like the Jewish Forward. She is not Jewish by religion or ethnicity. Forget personal notion. I'm using the factual notions of ethnicity or religion, which are out there. Use common sense. Vulturell 06:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

With Vulture11, indeed Grace Note's suggestion is a very bad idea and a misunderstanding of WP:NOR. Just finding a source that says something is only one step in deciding membership in a list. I sort of hate to talk about all the Jewish nonsense, because of some of its history on Wikipedia. But put simply: I can find a (reputable, at least moderately so) source that says "Madonna is Jewish"; and I can find another moderately reputable source that says "Madonna is not Jewish". Blindly quoting isn't enough. In the general form, for a great many items and lists, I can find both of the claims: "X is a Blah Foo" and "X is not a Blah Foo". A significant part (though by no means all) of that conflict is because different sources give different meanings to "Blah Foo". Part of what WP editors need to do is specify a particular meaning of "Blah Foo" that will be used for this particular list; sources are judged as supporting, refuting, or simply not speaking to, our criteria, not to every other possible use of the terms by every distinct party. Of course it still needs to be verifiable through external sources that X really does meet our criteria for "Blah-Foo-ness", but we need to indicate what that is to make the judgement. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is a bad idea? My suggestion is to stick to the policies of Wikipedia and not judge for yourself who is what. You seem to be suggesting that editors should use their judgment who to include on lists of foos, depending on what they think a foo is. That's bullshit. Editors absolutely should not specify what a "foo" is. How can it possibly be NPOV to do so? Whose POV would prevail? Clearly, whoever can muster the most votes in a poll. Our criteria should be, as they are for every article, what sources say, not what you, Vulturell or anyone else who wanders along with an opinion, says. Blindly quoting is, in fact, what we do here, Lulu. I understand what you're saying: it would be one method to decide who to include. We say arbitrarily foos are this, that and that, and then admit whoever is this, that and that. But this is precisely OR and precisely why it's the wrong method for it. The OR lies in deciding that foos are one thing or another. Wikipedia does not do that. It just restates what others say about foos. On the List of British Jews page, the argument made by Jayjg was entirely sound: we simply do not make decisions on who Jews are; we report others' decisions. Grace Note 07:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion is to ignore WP:V in creating lists (and much of WP:RS, which is a very bad idea. In its place, you would substitute the simple idea of blindly quoting sources verbatim, sort of making WP into a much worse version of Google. The rule WP must follow is WP:NPOV, which your suggestion also discards. For example, on List of dictators, editors jointly developed a good set of criteria, through discussion and reference to a variety of external sources (and a certain measure of intelligence and common sense... editors are not simply photocopy machines). These criteria are consistent in spirit with the consensus of experts in political science, but the precise wording was developed for Wikipedia.

At times, some editors have suggested rather unworkable substitutions that follow the "Wikipedia is a photocopier" dictum. Some have suggested that the criteria should be "Anyone who was ever called a dictator should be listed". That's a really bad approach, since it effectively includes every political leaders throughout history (and a fair number of non-leaders). Another suggestion that is almost as bad was to take the definitions provided by a half-dozen external dictionaries or encyclopedias (of course, which half-dozen would become a POV morass), and blindly reproduce them all as "membership criteria". While the various sources suggested were all in the same ballpark as each other, no two were quite identical; so under that suggestion, readers would have to judge whether a particular leader met a half-dozen non-identical definitions (all of them? one of them? the majority of them? who knows).

Some of those "Lists of Jewish whatever" lists are some that suffer the worst from lack of criteria or verifiability. It's as far from the truth as it is possible to be to claim that the lists "report decisions"... there's no authority that "decides who is Jewish" (there is, I suppose for "British", but editors never use actual citizenship status, but some vague, "seems British to me" judgements for borderline cases: people who migrate in various directions, etc). What the lists always wind up being, precisely because of the lack of criteria, is "List of people who the most dedicated editors wish to call Jewish, for as long as they can impose their own judgement about who is Jewish and who is not". We have absolutely no idea how many or which Jewish ancestors might be relevant, or whether proof those ancestors exist rather than mere insinuation, nor whether or not actual religious practice is relevant, nor most anything else. It's just an impressionistic amalgam... mostly of "People who a few editors kinda like, and would like to think of as Jewish". The point of this guideline is precisely to remedy that sort of mushy nonsense. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Your suggestion is to ignore WP:V in creating lists (and much of WP:RS, which is a very bad idea." How so? I can scarcely believe you've read the former. It makes a clear statement that verifiability is our goal, not truth. Verifiability does not mean "you can verify that this statement is true". We are in fact strongly discouraged from doing so! Read the policy and you'll see I'm quoting it. You are writing a charter for original research. Your argument is entirely wrong because you have fundamentally misunderstood WP:V. I think you also need to read this much more closely. It entirely disallows setting criteria for who can be considered a foo. See the fourth bullet point. You may not create a list of foos as defined by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, no matter how you derive that definition.

Now, if you were arguing that one could have a list of foos as defined by blah, fine, I agree, you could. Taking the Jewish example, you could have a list of Jews as defined by halakha. But two conditions would clearly apply: the page must be titled List of Jews as defined by halakha and each name must be sourced to a reputable source that so defines Jews explicitly. This kind of synthesis would be permissible, because it is all within the source. But synthesis at Wikipedia is original research, Lulu.

Are you seriously proposing that Wikipedia editors should engage in Talmudic hermeneutics?! And that doing so would not be original research?! I'm speechless. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain why I think the policies are right and you are wrong, Lulu. Take the example of "dictator". Let's say you create a definition of dictator that satisfies you and other editors. Let's say that you avoid original research and use a definition from a source, W, and set that as your criterion. I think that this would be permissible, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, although you would need to be explicit about how you are defining it. So you add your first name: Adolf Foo. And you source it to some place, X. But X only says Adolf Foo was a dictator. It doesn't say Adolf Foo is a dictator in accordance with the criteria set by W. To say that Adolf Foo is a dictator in accordance with the criteria set by W requires you to say that X's definition of "dictator" is identical with W's definition of "dictator". To say that is to create a thesis that is not supported by your source, and is consequently original research.

By this criteria, no adjective can ever be used in any Wikipedia article! Is that really what you think verifiability means?! These claims you make absolutely and completely amount to "Throw out Wikipedia's policies! I can't accept the idea of ignoring WP:V as you seem to advocate, Grace Note!

Let me try again, although this is so painfully straightforward that I hardly know how to start. The criteria for list membership need to include one or more conditions that a thing needs to satisfy to be on the list. Satisfying a criteria means that the thing meeting the condition satisfies WP:V (and WP:NPOV), not that it is "actually true". Something that does not satisfy the criteria must not be on the list, something that does satisfy the criteria may be on the list. Throwing out criteria, and just saying, "Well, it seems like a Foo, whatever a Foo might be in my opinion" is precisely what is known as original research... and it's precisely the fault that a lost of lists currently suffer. But generally not the List of dictators, which was done right, despite the obviously contentiousness of the topic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is so straightforward that I despair of a man of your intelligence not being able to think it through. Setting criteria will always fall foul of WP:NOR unless the criterion is "the source says so", which is precisely what WP:V demands. Not that it's true, but that it actually does say that and anyone can go look.Grace Note 01:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We are mostly in agreement, I think

I'd say Grace Note could be right about this, Lulu. If we had a List of dictators (I almost hate to look), it would have to consist of people named as dictators by reputable sources, and not people who fulfilled dictatorial criteria as decided by a small group of Wikipedia editors. But that is precisely what they're doing with Jews, which as you say amounts to: "List of people who the most dedicated editors wish to call Jewish, for as long as they can impose their own judgement about who is Jewish and who is not."

It seems to me the only way to stop this is to insist on a reputable source for each entry that actually calls that person a Jew. That doesn't mean we'll have no mistakes (the journal naming Madonna as a Jew is an example), but we'll have fewer mistakes than we currently do, and no messing around with our own definitions. We could make a note at the top of each page clarifying that these are people publicly and specifically identified as Jewish. It would also hopefully mean that we'd stop being listed alongside Stormfront as the only source for some of the names currently on the lists. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What you are stating, SlimVirgin, is precisely the need to state the membership criteria at the top of each list. For the Jewish lists, that criteria might be "These are people publicly and specifically identified as Jewish". That sounds like a perfectly good criterion... and one whose wording was invented and written by a fine WP editor named SlimVirgin.

For some lists, more than one criterion is likely to be appropriate. E.g. the dictators one; I'm really proud of what me and other editors have accomplished with that. It's not perfect, but it's amazingly good given how thorny the topic is. In fact, List of dictators is far better than a lot of lists that would seem to be straightforward and non-contentious at first blush. But if the list defines X, Y, and Z as being required criteria, items should be removed when (according to consensus of editors, the judgement isn't made by God or "the electrons themselves", but by editors) they fail to meet X, or Y, or Z. And items should not be added unless they meet X, Y and Z in the first place. If the list doesn't state what X, Y and Z are, as Grace Note advocates, then it just becomes a guessing game, and a random collection of differing intuitions about the meanings of the terms in the list description. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused; it seems to me that Lulu and Grace Note and SlimVirgin are all saying the same thing, that people should be included in lists of Jews only if there are reliable sources which say they are Jews. As such, this wouldn't be a Wikipedia (or SlimVirgin) specific criterion for being included in the list, but simply the application of existing Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As you know, Jayjg, the word "Jew" or "Jewish" has many different meanings (related, but definitely non-identical). SlimVirgin suggests using, as criterion, one of the common meanings... probably the same one I would want. But choosing that common meaning excludes using all the other common meanings. That's all criteria are: deciding which common senses to apply to particular words, and specifying that explicitly on list pages. Whatever sense of words is chosen, obviously meeting that sense needs to be verifiable, using reliable sources, according to NPOV interpretation of the sources, not engage in original research, and all the rest. But refusing to choose which sense of words is meant, leads to lists with fuzzy and indefinable membership standards (i.e. criteria). Which is what we now have with very many lists on WP. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Lulu, I may have expressed myself badly. I precisely want to stay away from coming up with our own definition. I'm saying we should add a name if and only if that person has been publicly identified as a Jew by a reputable publication (regardless of what definition the publication or the person uses). It does mean, as you say, that we'll have lists containing different definitions, but that's a problem we have in Wikipedia in general i.e. we report what reputable sources say, whether or not it's true, and whether or not it's consistent with things the same source has said elsewhere. It's not an ideal situation, and my own preference, in part for that very reason, is that these lists should not exist. Given that they do exist, however, the above seems the least bad option. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying value judgement

I tried to improve the wording about the value judgement angle. Before it had just said "don't make characterizations". But as I mention in the edit summary, most everything is a characterization. "List of blond tennis players" would characterize the members of the list; it's just that few people would take that characterization as value-laden.

On the other hand, some lists are going to group things according to criteria about which some people attach value judgements. The dictators, terrorists, criminals, etc. are clear cases of (generally negative) characterizations, but not ones that are necessarily non-objective. On the other hand, given politics in the world, some other terms have strong value-judgements attached, but not in a consistent fashion. Saying someone is Jewish or gay is for some people a way of condemning them; for other people a way of praising them; I personally am entirely value-neutral about these characteristics... but I can hardly command readers of the list to share my value-neutrality. All I can do is make sure that—however readers might feel about the characteristic—I add or remove it only because of satisfaction of criterial evidence, not because I want to praise or condemn the person/thing listed (this must be true even for editors who feel the trait is either good or bad in some moral sense). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why long-standing consensus is better than external citation

I got thinking some more about this, and how to explain it. To my mind (as I've said before in the talk thread now archived), the long-standing consensus of editor of a Wikipedia article on a given topic is about the best source for a given fact. Adding an external citation for a fact the "content article" doesn't see fit to mention raises a minor bit of suspicion, in fact.

An example came to mind where I believe this is pretty clear. Maybe this is better than the GWB/dictator example, since "dictator" has so many complex definitional issues. If there was a List of murderers, that would not necessarily violate NPOV. It is a classification usually taken as pejorative, but facts such as criminal convictions are pretty well verifiable (that may or may not be the exact criterion used, e.g. for historical figures). Well, someone might want to add Hillary Clinton to this list, under the rather widespread (in certain circles), but absolutely unproven and non-consensus notion that she murdered Vince Foster. I could probably find 500 external sources that made this claim (admittedly, very few of them doing very well by WP:RS). On the other hand, there's absolutely no way the claim would remain in Clinton's WP article as a consensus fact for more than a few seconds, because... well, it's not consensus. And precisely that fact that the subject area experts who edit the Clinton article keep this claim out of the article (on purpose), is our best evidence of what consensus is.

I use an example, of course, that is relatively well known, especially to USAian readers. But for less prominent figures, average editors of the list (who may have never heard of the alleged murderer) really have no basis to judge whether some external citation is particularly reliable. That's exactly where turning to the collective expertise of Wikipedia's own experts becomes crucial Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I could not have argued it better. Thank you for the explanation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No flame wars (proposal, guideline, etc)

Please, WP:PA is actual policy, not even just a guideline, so let's try to keep to that.

Aside from the nastiness in the edit history, this insertion is puzzling:

Until this becomes something more than a proposal (which may never happen) the applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes

Leaving aside the editorializing, the pointer to that other guideline is hard to make sense of. It's a perfectly good guideline, but it has nearly zero overlap with the content of this proposal. It would make about as much sense to point readers to WP:BIO as a guideline... which it is, but also not much related. This here proposed guideline isn't about the organizational question of when to use lists vs. categories, but rather about how specifically to apply WP:V and WP:NOR in the context of lists (which have a special set of dangers and issues that are distinct from those on "content articles" or even in categories). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If one editor believes that there is no need for this guideline, please make your points known here. Then we can discuss your objections, address them and move on. The fact that there is an existing guideline about Categories, lists and series boxes, does not preclude us from developing a guideline designed to address the many problems editors have reported with lists in Wikipedia, in particular when Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes does not concerns itself with any of the issues that this new guideline attempts to address. Is there are any overlaps, these can be taken care of. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What appears to be the problem

IMO, the problem appears to arise from a widely-held belief that lists are exempt from verifiability (and verifying based on other Wikipedia articles is just a walled garden argument), and from Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If those two policies were consistently applied and invoked, I suspect that the rather rampant listcruft in circulation would be less of a problem.

Notability for lists is particularly difficult. When we had lists of groups of four, five, six, seven, and eight AFD-ed shortly after the other earlier this year, it was perhaps a minor victory for common sense. I still think that examining the rationale for creating a list is in order. If the rationale is "It would be cool to have a list of these", then the list should not be created. Stifle 11:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Main page vs Subpage

I would like to discuss criteria (and form consensus or policy), namely, what entitles a list to have its title occupy the (Main) namespace (as opposed to being relegated to a subpage of another article). For example: Isaac Asimov complete bibliography -- Robocoder 17:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Upgrading to guideline

Please state reasons pro and con for upgrading this proposal to guideline status. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

With all respect for Jossi's commendable intentions, but this is becoming painfully ridiculous. The whole page above lists an abundance of objections (by SlimVirgin, by GraceNote, by jguk, by stifle,...), for example regarding the WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV problems that would be caused by the content of sections like Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#Always include list membership criteria and Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#Lists should generally only represent consensus opinion.

None of these issues were properly addressed by the defendants of this guideline proposal: the objections were not refuted as far as I can read the text above. The stubbornness of the defendants in preventing that the proposal would be brought in line with current policies & guidelines was exemplary, etc.

The notability criteria aspect of the proposal was less criticised, so I propose to proceed as follows: (1) rename the proposal to Wikipedia:Notability (Lists); (2) get rid of the parts that dodge WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV; (3) make WP:LISTS redirect to wikipedia:lists instead of to this guideline proposal. --Francis Schonken 08:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of "painfully ridiculous". Note that I can easly say the same about your comments, interventions and counter proposals. If there are specific issues, let's address them. I am not set in keeping this as a guideline, but there is definitively a need to reign on the misuse and abuse of lists in Wikipedia. If this guidelibe does not work, at least address the issues that trigger the idea behind it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

External links in lists

We have an opportunity to expand the knowledge contained in Wikipedia by allowing notable/verifiable items without articles yet to have external links. There are many reasons why article-worthy things may not have articles yet, and adding a link to a list (with some talk page support where needed) is a much simpler procedure than starting a new article. It may even encourage someone to start the article. This will make WP lists a more useful starting point for researchers too.

I mention this because some lists are policed by people who think that only things with existing WP articles can possibly be noteworthy; WP has not reached this point yet. Stephen B Streater 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding external links to lists is a bad idea IMO. See WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is from WP:NOT: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article". So which part of WP:NOT in particular are you quoting? Stephen B Streater 19:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia is not a repository of links. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

WP policy at (Wikipedia is not a repository of links) includes: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article". Your stated opinion is out of line with policy. I think it would be better if ant new list guideline reflected this policy. Stephen B Streater 07:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

One or more links in an article is acceptable. Many links instead of articles in a list is not acceptable. If a subject is notable, it should have an article in WP. If no article exists, create a redlink New item in list about subject and hopefully an editor will come and create the article. Adding links as itenms in a list is neither encylcopedic, nor useful. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in your comments on List of live webcams in the world. Stephen B Streater 06:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That list is probably an exception as each entry must be an external link. On the other hand, and unless you specify a tight criteria for inclusion, you will end up with a list that has no encyclopedic value, and open to abuse. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's an exception - if the cams are independently notable they should have articles; if they are not independently notable they should be removed as being, well, not notable. WP:NOT a link farm, and it's not a webcam search engine either. Just zis Guy you know? 20:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Rejected?

Why is Grace Note adding a rejected note to this proposal? The proposal was not rejected, it is still being discussed. Objections were raised, and these are being addressed. Please stop adding the rejected tag. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would further argue that the fact that a few editors raised concerns about this proposed guideline does not constitute a "rejection by the community". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Objections

I would like to address objections to this proposal. Please list concisely what these concerns are. Thanks ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I agree with you that edit-warring over the template is not bearing fruits either way...

On the other hand you've got *detailed* objections above, deal with them. I can understand you'd prefer a *concise* list of objections, but you're equally qualified as any other wikipedian to produce a well-organised summary, compare Thank you for your suggestion!, etc from {{sofixit}} - this can equally be applied to making summaries of objections listed with great detail. --Francis Schonken 13:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find specific objections about this proposal in the discussion above. Please help me identify the objections. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave you a specific objection - external links in lists should be treated differently from external links in articles. Lists are intrinsically less detailed than normal articles, and can have a wider scope. As long as notability and verifiability are preserved, the constraint of having a pre-exising article should be relaxed. Stephen B Streater 14:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any impediments set ny this proposed guidelinbe for what you are discussing. External links in lists should be treated by in the same manner: having an unambiguous criteria for inclusion, and respecting WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you simply never understood the problems with this guideline proposal. As it is now, it is contrary to wikipedia:verifiability, wikipedia:no original research and wikipedia:neutral point of view. That has been explained to you several times on this and other pages. You have taken so much ownership of this page, that you have reverted anyone trying to bring this guideline proposal in line with these and other policies. wikipedia:neutral point of view is non-negotiable. Period. No vote over this guideline proposal. --Francis Schonken 06:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather thanm repeating that "this proposas is contray to X, Y and Z", why don't you explain 'how it is so. Otherwise your objections cannot be replied to and there is no way to move forward. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

See above, and linked places: I explained, SlimVirgin explained, and so many others explained. You, and others, reacted to those explanations, so I take it that they're generally understandable. --Francis Schonken 15:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to policy add nothing to this discussion. Please explain how the proposal is contrary to these policies. As far as I can see, this proposal is fully supportive of these policies, and provide context on how to apply these policies to the specifics of lists in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, we explained *how* the proposal is contrary to these policies. I take it that these explanations are *clear*. --Francis Schonken 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

Francis: there is a proposal of yours above as follows:

"The notability criteria aspect of the proposal was less criticised, so I propose to proceed as follows: (1) rename the proposal to Wikipedia:Notability (Lists); (2) get rid of the parts that dodge WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV; (3) make WP:LISTS redirect to wikipedia:lists instead of to this guideline proposal. --Francis Schonken 08:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to explore such proposal, to see if it addresses the main concerns which this proposed guideline wanted to cover. Mainly the need for a unambiguos criterion for inclusion in lists and the POV nature that some of the lists in WP become when there is no such criterion provided. Thanks. 15:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I still think this is the best way forward, and am wanting to cooperate to the proposed steps. --Francis Schonken 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What to cooperate? then show some good faith and restore the poll and stop deleting comments on talk pages. It is a valid way to assess the level of support. Do that and we can move forward. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As said I want to cooperate with:

1. rename the proposal to Wikipedia:Notability (Lists);
2. get rid of the parts that dodge WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV;
3. make WP:LISTS redirect to wikipedia:lists instead of to this guideline proposal.

For none of these proposals a vote is necessary.

And what's with the "and stop deleting comments on talk pages"... Sorry, are you resuming to some sort of false accusation now? --Francis Schonken 20:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You deleted the poll I started, while it was ongoing and announced on WP:VP. After I restored it, you "closed" it with the poll close template and archived the whole talk page while many of the comments were recent and on-going, so I had to undo all that. So, restore the poll and then we can resume a discussion on any further proposals. The poll is not irrelevant, as I still think that this guideline can gain community consensus. My proposal to you was to explore your proposal, not to embrace it. Please restore the poll to show good-will, otherwise, I will restore it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As said, there's nothing "deleted" any more, anything that was is restored, even the archiving that was done along the lines described in Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page#Move procedure was undone by you (and I didn't dispute that). If in the first step I had deleted the votes (now completely restored), I never repeated that deletion, and completely agreed with your restorations. If there had been a deletion, by now it should have been completely clear to you that that had stopped, in any possible meaning of the word stop.

So, again: what's with the "and stop deleting comments on talk pages"... Sorry, are you resuming to some sort of false accusation now? --Francis Schonken 05:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll is now restored. Please do not close it until it runs its course. I have placed a new annoucement at the Village Pump. Now we can resume our discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Closed again for the reasons given above. --Francis Schonken 16:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Have it your way. I chose then not to engage with you in any further discussions. IMO, your attitude has been one that is not conducive to collaboration (to say it politely). Have a good day. I will pursue the important concerns that were raised in this proposal in other policy pages and with other members of the community. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

===Items on current proposal that are key === These are the sections in the current proposal that are key to address issues with lists in WP: #Lists are not a place to make value judgements of people or organizations # Always include list membership criteria Can these remain in one form or another? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)</