Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907/RFC: Passenger and crew list section

RFC: Passenger and crew list section
Should the passenger and crew list be removed from or kept in this article? Does it violate any policies or guidelines by its presence? Would it be detrimental to the article if it were removed? MickMacNee (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevant links

 * Victim Lists (essay)
 * Talk section at the top of this page - ""
 * Feel free to add any others you know of

Discussion

 * Preface: There is absolutely no valid reason that I can see for this section to be in the article. Past discussions have not been conclusive, despite what was claimed when I was reverted when trying to remove it earlier today, hence this Rfc. I've given my opening arguments below in the green box. MickMacNee (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been claimed by the reverter that because the list was included in newspapers at the time, that it is therefore notable. This is false. Per the guideline, the presence or absence of notability does not govern article content, only article topics. Inclusion/exclusion of the list is purely an issue of consensus and other in-article content policies, such as WP:NOT. It's news value at the time is wholly irrelevant anyway - what was of value to newspapers then is not what is of value to an encyclopaedia now. This is a list of people not one of whom has their own Wikipedia article and played no relevant role in the event apart from the obvious, and therefore, per WP:Lists of people, their inclusion is not justifiable.

It has also been claimed that inclusion of the names of the dead gives the article some sort of gravitas or extra human face. WP:MEMORIAL makes it quite clear that this is not Wikipedia's purpose, and we are not here to put a human face on tragedy beyond the facts, so again, it's not justifiable. (And with no actual discernable use, the simple factual list of people does not form part of the facts of the article as I define it there).

It is said that the silence over its inclusion as the article passed FA shows it is acceptable. I say this is nonsense, but I would have no objection to anybody canvassing each and every FA contributor to obtain their specific views on it one way or the other. I note that in it's first failed attempt to become an FA, the issue of the list was brought up, and the answer is not in my opinion overly convincing.

It is said that because this list is in a 'show' box, and because external links can be problematic, that it is justifiable keeping it in the article. These are red-herrings, they don't address the central issue of its appropriateness or usefulness at all.

It is said that this list's inclusion somehow helps people who are seeing victim names in other places, and Google them, to find this article. I find this just bizarre. If, in the imho given their apparent lack of notability anyway, they are being mentioned in other sources, then it's going to be pretty obvious why - because they were involved in this crash, and this will be mentioned in the source. I see no conceivable situation where Googling the name and finding this list will be the only way they can find this article.

I hesitate to go down the BLP route, I detest the BLP fearmongers who abuse that policy often to justify simple deletionism or worse, but not distressing people who might arrive here on a false positive on Googling an ancestor's name might come into this issue too, and BLP is pretty consistent in other areas in that including people's names needs to have real world justification from a standpoint of actual, real, usefulness and relevance, which does not resemble the defences I've seen so far.

Finally, it will probably be suggested that 'it does no harm' including it. Well, I think it does. Having an entire section included for no discernible reason except 'we can' is probably one of the worst messages Wikipedia can send out. If you want, you can call it a violation of WP:UNDUE, by suggesting the names of the dead are more important to this topic than they actually appear to be. An even harsher way to look at it is to assert it is simply WP:TRIVIA. Collapsing it into a show/hide box is not the usual way trivia is dealt with.

Plenty of people have said that it's simply not encyclopaedic, and while that can be seemingly countered by the common defence of 'it doesn't break any rules', that does not negate this rather obvious expression of simple common sense.


 * I'll be spamming this Rfc to the content board, the aviation wikiproject, and Talk:WP:NOT, and to the Village Pump. I've no objection to anyone spamming it anywhere else, as long as they follow WP:CANVAS. MickMacNee (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done MickMacNee (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove. One example of a solution worked out by involved editors is to make a list of only notable passengers, ones who have an article written about them, which is what was done at TWA Flight 800. Such a list, however, is entirely replaceable by prose in the article body, with a short sentence or two about each notable person. All this article needs in the way of a complete passenger list is to link to the list in an external website. Readers who are interested can go to that page. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Linking to an external site has several problems:
 * It takes time to load, sometimes many additional seconds
 * It requires frequent monitoring for link rot
 * The external site may be (as in this case) in a foreign language, and the needed scrolling is not obvious and requires extra effort
 * Crew positions are not obvious in foreign sites
 * All of these drawbacks are instantly resolved with a show/hide list. It appears instantly, never moves, requires no scrolling and is in English. Those who are not interested, don't click on 'show'. Crum375 (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The names and ages of the victims is a valuable addition to the article, and is based on reliable sources. It has been reviewed, along with the rest of the article, during its featured article candidate review, and was found to be an acceptable part of the article, which was promoted to featured article with it. I see no reason to remove this useful information. If someone is not interested in seeing the names, they don't click on the "show" button. Crum375 (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove all but notable persons per past precedent and WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT. Otherwise, any time there's a multi-victim "disaster", people would push to include all victims listed even if they number in the hundreds or thousands. --M ASEM  (t) 01:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All these names are notable in that there are multiple sources for them. This is not a memorial issue, because only their name is mentioned, not biography. And it's not a WP:BLP1E because they are all dead, and in any case this is not an article about them individually. Crum375 (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not notable. If they have been listed in multiple sources simply because they were in the accident, that's a brief burst of news (despite the tragedy) and they would fail WP:NTEMP and WP:BLP1E. While we're not talking notability per a standalone article, it is important for BLP issues and also to avoid being indiscriminate. Again, the logic to "keep" this list means we should have a similar list for all the victims of the Haiti disaster, or the Sri Lanka tsunami, which is well beyond our purpose here.  That doesn't mean something like Wikinews can accept that list, thought.  --M ASEM  (t) 02:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, actually, they are not all notable, per WP:BLP1E. No amount of references which include the person in a raw list will establish them as notable. Binksternet (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, dead persons are not living persons, so BLP1E does not apply. And the notability issue is for articles devoted to them, while this article isn't. The point is simple: if a reader is not interested in this information, he doesn't click on 'show', so I can't see any rationale to not give him that option. Crum375 (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BLP1E is routinely applied to events involving dead people. If the person/subject/event wasn't notable while the person was alive, then the fact that s/he is now dead does not magically make him/her/it notable.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BLP1E is for living persons, by definition. It specifically applies to when a living person is notable enough to have a WP article, not to just be mentioned in another article, per reliable source. And in this case, it doesn't apply for both reasons: these persons are dead, and they are not the article subjects. Crum375 (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BLP1E is a common sense addition along with WP:NTEMP that one event does not necessarily infer notability on a person. Certainly not death in nearly all case; death is a natural part of human life, and the fact someone dies - however tragic the loss may be - rarely changes how we should handle that person from an encyclopedic standpoint. There are exceptional cases where death does create notability: victims of significant crimes (ala the Zodiac Killer), or possibly the first (recorded) person to die of a new strain of virus or something like.  Otherwise, it's part of life even if it wasn't from natural causes.  What this means here is that unless they were already notable before they got on the plane, every person was a indiscriminate data point, and just being one the unfortunate passengers in the crash does not make them notable for inclusion. That's the factor here - we are not an indiscriminate collection of information and the fact that such lists exist easily in spaces outside of WP (whether at Wikinews, Wikisource, or external references) means they should not be included here. A summary of age, nationality, etc. is fair, but not every point. --M ASEM  (t) 15:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I notice that you have replied with some argument to practically every editor who favors removal of the list. It's poor form to go around arguing with every RFC respondent who disagrees with you. It discourages participation and contributes to an unfriendly environment. This RFC exists to get feedback from the wider community, not to give you more people to argue with. If the community's consensus is different from your personal opinion, then please find a way to cope gracefully. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove except for notable people (convert to prose) and perhaps crew. Have you ever seen a complete list of passengers in any normal kind of encyclopedia for this (or similar events, e.g., the Titanic's sinking)?  I haven't.  It's not encyclopedic information.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a special kind of encyclopedia, and we are forging new ground. In this case, what is the downside caused by allowing those readers who are interested to find out the names of the victims to click on the 'show' button? Crum375 (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That something is WP:HARMLESS does not make it encyclopedic. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an collection of harmless information.
 * Remove, I don't see how the list of names is valuable or useful in any way, other than to the people who personally knew the victims. The names are an informational dead end. Because the passengers were not notable, learning their names cannot lead anyone to any further facts or better understanding of this or any other article topic. An entirely different assortment of 154 non-notable passengers could have been on that plane and nothing would have been different about the incident and this article other than the names. It's verifiable information, but it's just data, and it is only relevant and encyclopedic in the aggregate: as a numerical statistic of the fatalities. postdlf (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the passenger families are involved in ongoing lawsuits against various parties, and often their names are mentioned in related articles. If a person reading such an article wants to find out about a specific family's victim(s), they can go to Wikipedia and click 'show'. Other readers may be interested in the victims' age distribution, or last names (e.g. to learn about families with children). All readers who are interested in the names would click 'show', while those who are not won't. Having the victim list instantly available on demand is a service to the interested readers, without imposing it on other readers. Crum375 (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: lawsuits, the most effective way to present that information is in a dedicated section, like we have at Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907, summarizing the lawsuits rather than stating their case in full. If any of those lawsuits are individually notable, such that they would merit standalone articles, then it may be appropriate therein to give decedents' names, though typically the relationship of the plaintiff to the decedent(s) (mother, sister, etc.) would be enough given the legal claims of those lawsuits (except perhaps on the issue of calculating damages, if the suits get that far and the issue is covered in depth in reliable sources).  But regardless, there is no way the lawsuit topic could justify a full data dump of all names in this article, given that the list of names cannot not tell you which passengers had surviving relatives and which ones of those sued. Was there anything unusual about the age distribution of the victims?  If so, has a reliable source noted this?  If so, then an appropriate sentence summarizing that conclusion would be far more effective, useful, and encyclopedic than a data dump of every individual age.  postdlf (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the lawsuits have minor write-ups in the media about the various proceedings, and our goal is not to inundate the article with their minutiae. But if a reader happens to read such an article and wants to find out more, he can come to the WP article and verify the names relating to the litigants (I have done so myself on several occasions). The victims ages and names are not "unusual", they are just things that readers may be interested in. The point is that those readers who are not interested don't click on 'show', leaving it only to those who want to see the names, so it's win-win. Crum375 (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your lawsuit argument is, frankly, nonsense, because at most you've only justified a list of the passengers relevant to the lawsuits, presented in connection with those lawsuits. A list of all passengers wouldn't be helpful or relevant to the lawsuits at all. Additionally, your hypothetical reader being blandly "interested" in seeing the names and ages is not anywhere near being a real argument.  You have to do better than that to justify why that information should be in the article.  That someone, somewhere, for some unknown purpose, may want to find it there is not good enough.  postdlf (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The lawsuit was an example where a reader might be interested in verifying the name for himself. The list of all passengers is vital in such a case, because a partial list won't allow verification. As I noted above, I myself have used the WP article with the list after reading about one case in a news article. If the WP list had been partial and the specific name did not appear in it, it would have told me nothing. Crum375 (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I really have no idea what you're talking about here. It sounds like you're positing that someone will read about the lawsuit, want to verify that a passenger named in the lawsuit as a victim was actually a victim on the plane, and therefore should use a Wikipedia article to verify that fact.  I hope I've misread you, because that's utter rubbish on many different levels.  postdlf (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I am saying. Someone reads a news story in some online site, and wants to read more about it on Wikipedia, and cross-check the facts. It's something people do every day. Could you explain why this is "rubbish"? Crum375 (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Odd that you would recommend against including minutiae yet promote the list of passengers each of which never earned a notable public presence. This list is exactly what external links are for: details considered too much for the article. I am loathe to establish this new beachhead in terms of article style—taken to its extreme, all sorts of diagrams, specifications, lists and so on could be appended to Wikipedia articles as long as they are hidden until the reader clicks 'show'. Bad precedent. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. We want to avoid the legal minutiae in the legal section to avoid confusing or distracting the readers with excessive details. In the case of the names, all we are telling them is "here are the victim names, click to see them if you are interested." There is no possible confusion, or distraction, in such a case. Only information for those interested, and simply knowledge that it's there if needed for all others. Crum375 (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that using "show/hide" boxes in the body of an article is discouraged anyway because of accessibility problems. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:1E , WP:NOTNEWS - if the only reason these people are widely publicized is because they died in the crash, and had no material affect on the crash, they should not be listed, since it is just a memorial. Unless they had a material affect on the crash (like say a hijacker) or are independently notable (enough to have an article written on them) that they are notable without needing to have been a victim of the crash, then they should not be listed. A lawsuit does not necessarily make something notable either. WP:CRYSTAL affects using the lawsuit, since it has not yet had a major impact on tort or the aviation industry, and in any case, a list of victims has little to do with the impact of the lawsuit. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not violate WP:MEMORIAL, since only the names and ages are mentioned. It doesn't violate WP:BLP1E (or WP:1E), because they are dead, and in any case the article is not based on the names. It doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS, because the article is not based on the names, and of course the accident itself was notable. The names are clearly relevant and well sourced, so the only possible issue is distraction to readers who don't want all those details and just want the big picture. This is solved by making the list hidden except to those who are interested in seeing it. Crum375 (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove - Does not contribute to the article. If this list was important the default view of it wouldn't be "hidden". NotMEMORIAL applies; name and age is the sort of thing you get on a memorial so just because it is brief information does not mean it isn't memorial type information. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep As far as I can tell, none of the arguments based on policy are plausible.  Notability is not an issue since we are not creating disitnct articles for each person.  All that matters here is that WP is not paper.  We are becoming a leading encyclopedia because of the vast diversity of information we provide.  The names of victims of a disaster don't particularly interest me and they may not interest you, but they might interest someone who is doing research on a particular incident or part of the world. As long as the information comes from reliable sources, including it violates no policies.  (Plus of course these attempts to argue from policy are always a bit amusing when WP:IGNORE is the first rule (well, technically one of the first two policies)).  Since there is no cost to adding this reliably sourced information, asll these policies people are trying to pile up really add up to less than nothing. Any admin who reads these policies carefully will see that they provide no compelling basis for excluding properly sourced information from ...a repository of information. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note. Crum375 specifically solicited the input of Slrubenstein in this Rfc here. His justification is given here. MickMacNee (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove - Does not contribute to the article or the understanding of the reader to this subject. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove. Only Wikinotable people should be mentioned. Otherwise, a simple table showing the nationalities of passengers and crew is all that needs to be shown. Mjroots (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If what you say is true, where is the policy which tells us that? If the author of a notable accident article believes that the name of a victim, or any other reliably sourced piece of information related to the accident is relevant and of interest to at least some readers, what policy forbids him from adding that information? Crum375 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove as per all the points already raised particularly not memorial, general consenus in the past has been that only victims who are notable should be mentioned. Notability measured by already having a wikipedia article. Refer to proposed guideline at WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents) which says Passengers - Information about the number of passengers, fatalities, injuries and survivors. Information on the nationalities involved should be included. Optionally notable passengers may be recorded but should be limited to individuals with a Wikipedia article. Information including ethnic or religious backgrounds and school affliations should not be included. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposed guideline you mention presumably has as its rationale the need of many readers to quickly get to the important elements of the article, without being bogged down or distracted by details, which may be of interest to just a select few. This is why this list is collapsed by default: those who prefer to ignore it, just skip it like any other un-clicked link, while those interested click on "show". What is the downside to making that information instantly available to those readers who want it, even if it's only a few? Crum375 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Featured articles should not have hidden text; they do not mirror or print (see MOS). If the content is notable and worthy of inclusion, at minimum, it should not be hidden or collapsed.  If it's lengthy, it could go in a daughter article, but it shouldn't be hidden. If deemed unnotable, it should be deleted.  I have no opinion on the notability, not having looked at it, but if it stays, it should *not* be in a collapsed table. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * SG, how is this collapsible list, an available detail viewed by only those who care to click on "show", any different than all the other collapsible horizontal nav-templates which accompany many articles nowadays? For example, for aviation, they include all the aviation accidents of that year. Is the annual accident list in different countries more important than the list of victims? Crum375 (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The collapsed Nav boxes serve and claim to serve zero article content. They are strictly for, as the name so subtly implies, Navigation purposes to other articles. Non-notable victim lists can not even provide navigation aid to to a reader. Active Banana (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove. The passenger list provides no real information to further a reader's understanding of the topic - as someone mentioned above, the outcome would have been the same no matter who was on the plane.  Consensus has long been that WP:Memorial applies to more than just an article about someone who is deceased - that is also means no lists of non-wikinotable victims in articles about a tragedy (this came up when I was working on Aggie Bonfire several years ago, and I've seen it more recently as well).  If these individuals didn't meet the notability criteria before their deaths, then why do we need to list them?  I also agree with Sandy's point that FAs should not have hidden text. Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are the reliably-sourced names and ages of the victims of a notable crime or accident prohibited from being mentioned in an article about the crime or accident? Can you be sure that no reader is interested? If so, why do the news media mention them? And regarding SG's point, as I replied above, why is the collapsible list of all the aviation accidents of that year around the world allowed, and the collapsible list of the victims of this specific accident not allowed? Crum375 (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The aviation accidents are in a navigational template at the bottom of the page-- not article text-- within guidelines. See WP:MOS on collapsible lists in text.  FAs should not have collapsible lists in text (nor should any other article).  One quick way to solve this dilemma, while preserving the FA quality of the article, is to move the list to its own article and see if that article survives an AFD.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't consider the names alone as individually wiki-notable, so a dedicated article about them wouldn't be justified in my view. I do see them as adding reliably-sourced, useful (to some) information about the accident itself, which is of course very notable. The collapsible victim list appears as a narrow bar across the page, near the bottom, after the main text, near the external links list and the other collapsible templates. I don't think it belongs at the very bottom, because it would look awkward there, and unlike the other templates, its information relates to this article, not to the general topic. As I see it, the collapsible name list is similar to an external link to the same essential information, with the differences I noted above:
 * It is much quicker to load (instantaneous vs. many seconds for a real EL to some archive)
 * It is immune to link rot
 * Being in a foreign language, it is easier to access because no scrolling is needed through a foreign page to get to the actual list
 * The crew positions and other minor details are clearer in English
 * So as bottom line, I see this as a service to some of our readers who are interested in this information, without penalizing those who are not. If there is some other way of achieving the same results, I am open to suggestions. Crum375 (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Most articles use an External link to a reliable source without any serious problems. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A large fraction of our links suffer from rot, as I am sure you know. And even the ones which are still accessible, may take a long time to load. Plus in this case the article is in a foreign language, and requires scrolling to the right place. Also, it's our duty to make life easier for our readers, unless there is a good reason not to. Why not allow the readers who are interested an instant access rot-free click? What's the downside? Crum375 (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Linkrot can be countered with using archiveurl's and services like WebCite. Furthermore, our goal is verifyability, not verified - as long as there's a paper version that - despite the effort and time - is available, it is a useful resource. --M ASEM  (t) 18:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can the list be hosted by Wikisource? Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's really simple. You have the choice of giving the user a link to an external site, or a button to press to instantly see the information inside the same page. The external site is always going to take longer to access, and has no nice "hide" button to make it disappear/reappear instantly with a simple click. The external site may suffer from rot, or may be in a foreign language, and will take longer to load, sometimes many seconds. So we have the choice: simple click and get the data instantly, or click the external site link, pray and wait. Why not choose the easiest option for the reader? Crum375 (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You keep using the concept of "instantly", but the list of names, and the building of the show/hide box in the user's browser, adds a very small amount to the total loading time of the article. All readers are subject to this additional hit, even if they do not care to peruse the list. There is no "instantly" involved here; there is a tiny toll taken from each reader. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the Internet doesn't work like that. The vast majority of the time is handshakes, and only a tiny fraction is actual transfer time. I believe that no reader would be able to feel the difference, assume there is any, between loading the article with and without the collapsed list. On the other hand, loading the external site, assuming it isn't broken, can take many seconds, and that's before you need to manually scroll to get to the list itself. Crum375 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What you ought to have replied was "yes, the Internet works like that", because it does, following which you could have explained about handshakes and the far greater wait for an external website. You can't deny that each reader pays a very small toll for the convenience of the few who want to look up a name, even if that toll is so short it cannot be sensed by humans. I argue that the few who need to find a name will have the patience to wait a few seconds for another link. Again, I see this show/hide box as a new beachhead in what we consider suitable for a Featured Article, and I do not want it. If accepted, many more things of ever greater size may be justified in show/hide boxes. I think that kind of accretion is bad for the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * remove such lists as inappropriate and generally non-encylopedic - in this instance it is particularly unencyclopedic to have an inclusion of the victims age as it has zero relevance to anything but heartstrings. Active Banana (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the names and ages are zero relevance, why do the news media mention them along with their accident (or crime) reports? Crum375 (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because news media provide information relevant on the day to their readership, but note this is an encyclopedia not news media. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about creating articles about flash-in-the-pan news events, so that's not at issue. The point is that we are in agreement that a particular subject is notable, and agree that it deserves its own article. If it's about an infamous serial killer, for example, would we suppress the names of his victims after they were widely published in the media? Similarly for any detail which goes with the article topic: once reliable sources have decided that detail is important enough to mention, who decides that it's not relevant for the wiki article? Crum375 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * With serial killers the individual deaths and circumstances around them form a big part of the legal case against the serial killer, so they are inherently far more notable. With nearly all airline crashes, they're just random people that happened to be on the flight. Only if they're individually significant should they be mentioned.- Wolfkeeper 18:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The news media, our reliable sources, make a decision to publish the names. That's because they think it's relevant. Why should we prevent that information from reaching our readers? And in any case, we would provide it anyway as an external link, so the only difference is that this method would make access easier for the reader. Why penalize him? Crum375 (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats why newspapers are not called encyclopedias. Active Banana (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove encyclopedias are about summarising knowledge and linking to primary sources of information. These kinds of lists are in no way summaries, and should therefore not be included.- Wolfkeeper 18:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The summary is a choice of the article authors; they decide what is important and what is not, and how to present the material. In this case, having a collapsible bar instead of a slow external link seems like a good compromise. Why not allow the reader to get instant access? Crum375 (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On that basis, should we upload open source software like Firefox onto the site, because it saves people a few seconds clicking? No of course not.- Wolfkeeper 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not here to save people fractions of a second clicking; we're here to provide summaries of knowledge, not lists of primary source data.- Wolfkeeper 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many seconds is not "fractions". Sometimes external links take a very long time to load, and they are messier when they come up (e.g. require scrolling though a foreign webpage) than the collapsible list's simple show/hide mechanism. Our goal is to make the reader's access to our page and its content as easy and painless as possible. We cater to our readers, not editors. And what is the downside of having a quick show/hide for a collapsible list instead of a slow foreign external link? Crum375 (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding a whole bunch of relatively useless information to a page slows page loads and rendering for everyone. It's still got to be loaded, and processed by the browser, even if it's invisible. I'm pretty sure that adding invisible lists like this is a net loss of time for the readers. And we're not actually here to make the readers life easy, we're here to write an encyclopedia. And we don't have lists like this for other disasters, there's no list of dead in the wikipedia for 9/11 for example (none that I can find anyway, which amounts to the same thing).- Wolfkeeper 21:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There's no reason not to include such lists, really. The reason we can afford to keep such information is that Wikipedia is not paper.  A sourced list of participants in any notable event is a great resource for the future--I don't think it hubristic to think that Wikipedia, because of its many mirrors, might outlast some of the secondary sources from whence we take such lists. The arguments about NOT#MEMORIAL and whatnot are essentially fighting over minutae, rather than focusing on the net benefit of retaining this info. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If anything the notability (small 'n') of the victims reduces over time; if you are a relative or friend of a person killed, then the news of their death is clearly important, but after a few years that's clearly far less important, everyone that needs to know, knows. For example, TWA flight 800 lists a few victims as being particularly notable; and this seems a very sensible thing, but it doesn't list all 230 that died. The general conventions people operate under seem very much against this idea, a complete list is a level of detail that the Wikipedia doesn't have for anything really, and probably wouldn't benefit from either.- Wolfkeeper 00:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * After plenty of thought, I'm leaning towards remove. In its current incarnation (name, age), this list—and others like it—is of negligible encyclopedic value. If giving the article a human dimension is the goal—a goal I feel is not incompatible with the larger purpose of Wikipedia, by the way—it's not enough. (It doesn't even distinguish passengers from crew, for instance. Who were these people? What did they do? How many families were on board? Were any of the children unaccompanied?) Conversely, this type of information would be simply too much for the type of source we aim to be—an encyclopedia—and would bring on a whole other sort of issues (notability, WP:MEMORIAL, what gives us the "right" to make this public, etc.), some of which have already been mentioned, more eloquently, by other editors above. In my very humble opinion, "there's no good reason not to include it", "there's no downside", "why not" et al. are not really valid arguments. Slrubenstein quite rightly notes that "[current policies] provide no compelling basis for excluding properly sourced information from ...a repository of information." But should we be a mere repository of mere information, or should we strive to be a repository of valuable information? If so, where do we draw the line? Yes, this is a perennial issue, and as such warrants no further discussion here. But I have yet to see a succinct, valid, and truly persuasive argument for keeping the list—and by the size of this RfC, that's saying something. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note. Crum375 specifically solicited the input of Fvasconcellos in this Rfc here. His justification is given here. MickMacNee (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought the crew was separated out, but perhaps it was in another article. If the crew were separated, with their roles listed, would it make a difference, in your view? As far as families, I don't think there are sources for that, and I think no information (beyond the surname and ages, which does give some indication of families) is probably better than partial in that regard. As far as sourcing, this information is all provided in a reliable source, so we wouldn't be the ones publicizing it first, and they are all deceased which means it's not a BLP issue (although certainly sensitivity is warranted). I myself have used this list several times, to compare against other articles I read relating to lawsuits by family members, or other mentions of the victims elsewhere. I can see other readers doing the same, while others may just glance to get a feel for the age spread, last names, apparent families (per last name and ages), and perhaps national origin (per last name). My guess is that an average reader would be more likely to click "show" in this format, where the response is instantaneous, and "hide" can make the list immediately disappear again, vs. clicking on slow and notoriously unreliable external links, which often move him to another page. I see this collapsible list as a service to readers who are interested in the victims as individuals, without penalizing the ones who don't. It's something that can only be done with an online encyclopedia, and can make the reading experience quicker and more interesting. Crum375 (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There may be good reason for naming some of those on the flight if it is relevant to the article. Eg if a pilot's actions were described then referring to them by name would make the text more readable than repeatedly writing "the pilot did this, the pilot did that" and reduce confusion if there were two aircraft involved. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, the information is important to the collection of all information. I see the material as belonging in an appendix.  I would expect any book on this subject to have the list of deceased in an appendix.  This is not something we normally do.  An appendix would probably correspond to a subpage of the article.  The current situation, a collapsed section, serves like an appendix section online. Unfortunately, a collapsed section doesn't lend itself well to the printed format.  Link rot is a very important issue here.  Relying on an an off-site link for the safekeeping of information is contrary to the wider purpose of the project, unless we (the project) can archive the content of the link.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but it's not only linkrot (which can potentially be solved with archive.org), but also speed and language. External sites, including archive.org, are notorious for having unpredictable and often long load times (and sometimes coming up with an error). A simple "show" button is more inviting with its instant response than an unpredictable experience with an external link. Also, the foreign language of the external site is an issue, esp. if it requires some scrolling to get to the names list. As far as accessibility, we still include the external link, so anyone who cannot access the list by pressing "show" can still get it by clicking the link, like any other EL. Crum375 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In principle, archive.org is not a solution as it is not under the control of the project. Speed and language are important, but not necessary factors.  I am concerned about the use of "show" buttons, because (1) in general they can enlarge the page size too much, and (2) because collapsed sections are removed entirely when making the PDF version.  The collapsed section uncollapses in the printable version, which is undesirable (what prints shouldn't exceed what you expect to print, if you don't check the printable version), but I think we need to move in the direction of ensuring good PDF versions, as they, unlike the printable version, are copyright compliant with respect to the listing of contributors.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do like your concept of adding "appendices" to articles. It would be nice if there were a way to implement that. But if it's just loading another wiki page, it could take time to load, like any external link, and WP itself can sometimes take ages to load a page. Regarding copyright, as I noted below, a list of published victim names does not have creative content and is not copyrightable. Crum375 (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "copyright" point is not about the list, but, as it seems to me, the "printable version" of wikipedia pages are not in strict copyright compliance. I believe that this is being addressed by the new "Download as PDF", and so I focus on this feature.  When the page is downloaded as PDF, the collapsed sections disappear without trace.  This is undesirable, although it may be the best we can do at this time.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect that the list of deceased is uncopyrightable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The goal of Wikipedia is not "the collection of all information"; its the collection of encyclopedic information, in the form of encyclopedia articles. And that means to provide comprehensive summaries of notable subjects, not dumps of all data pertaining to those subjects.  And data is all that the full names and ages of all passengers are.  I completely agree that any book on this incident would reasonably include an appendix listing the deceased, but again that's a different project than we have here.  Otherwise, Wikisource would not be a separate project, and copies of primary source material would instead be integrated into Wikipedia.  Books also don't have the ability to urls to external sites, so Wikipedia's ability to provide easy access to information elsewhere further obviates any need to include it within this article.  That such external sites are not under our control is not a compelling argument for changing the scope of Wikipedia's mission to becoming an archive of, well, everything.  Nor should we ever assume the attitude that if it's not available online that it's lost.  postdlf (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Postdlf, are you saying that appendixable material, such a the crew and passenger list, belongs on Wikisource? That seems quite reasonable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, apparently not based on Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. I haven't spent too much time there so I don't know how that plays out in practice, but it seems pretty clear from the text that they only accept complete source documents, not raw data, unless the data is itself contained within a source document. That's a shame.  Maybe we need a WikiData site?  But the fact that Wikisource also would not accept this passenger list doesn't change my thoughts regarding Wikipedia's scope.  postdlf (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Under most circumstances, passenger lists should be in source documents (press releases from the airline and news articles that entirely consist of passenger lists) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A rather late question is the copyright status of the list. If it is copyrighted, this Rfc becomes moot, but even if it isn't copyrighted, then maybe the list could be hosted on Wikisource instead, subject to their scope (which I'm no expert on). MickMacNee (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Copyright is not an issue when it's a published list of victim names, since there is no "creative content" in it. Crum375 (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Facts are not copyrightable, and the names are nothing more than facts. postdlf (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove - I haven't read all the comments above, but based on those that I have read, I believe it's better to remove all but notable people and merge those into prose.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 05:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia ia a big place. We live in the 21st century. I predict this discussion will seem idiotic in a few years when we talk to computers. Question: if the list had been included in this talk page, archived etc...  does it not survive into eternity as well? In other words, are not all-and-every edits kept anyway? 85.197.19.228 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not debating about a few years from now, we are debating about now. Currently, the internal list goes against WP:NLIST. When we change policy, the affected articles can adjust. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove all bar notable people and merge into prose-- Snowded TALK  17:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I would be inclined to say keep, because the information is harmless, it's hidden so it's not taking up space, and it might be useful for someone. However, if it's considered best practice not to have hidden text inside articles (and I have seen this argument about collapsible tables of contents too), perhaps a compromise would be to create a template for the end of the article containing the names. This could serve as the template for all aircraft accidents, if people wanted to use it, where victims are listed in a collapsible box after the article, along with any other templates. Would that work as a compromise? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If a passenger-list template at the end isn't wanted, the list could go in the infobox as collapsible text, or in a special table within the article, set aside from the text. The MoS says:
 * "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable for use, but should not be used to hide article content. This includes reference lists, image galleries, and image captions; they especially should not be used to conceal 'spoiler' information (see Wikipedia:Spoiler). Collapsible sections are useful in navboxes or infoboxes, or in tables which consolidate information covered in the prose. When scrolling lists or collapsible content are used, care should be taken to ensure that the content will still be accessible on devices which do not support JavaScript and/or CSS."
 * SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Well, the hidden information still needs to load when ever anyone looks at the article and so it is still an issue of excessive information for people accessing from limited bandwidth sources. And really, for anyone who may need the list for anything other than purient reasons is going to be going to the other reliable sources that have the full information anyway, so I am not sure the compromise offered addresses many of the concerns. Active Banana (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think moving the same list to the infobox will satisfy any of the concerns about having too much detail, about the list not being a summary or encyclopedic, about not hosting a memorial. Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot see how this list could ever be classed as not being article content, certianly not in the way that phrase is used above. MickMacNee (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep A) was apparently promoted with this material. B) Arguments to remove seem to boil down to "it's not encyclopedic", which is in they eye of the beholder I suspect other encyclopedias would have covered this if they had room (WP:PAPER), C) pointing at an essay on the topic isn't convincing. WP:NLISTS states that "entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines".  Which to me implies that lists aren't somehow special and different than other material in an article.  So there is no real controlling policy or guideline that says we must remove it.  Given that it is useful and doesn't harm the article's readability or add WP:WEIGHT issues due to the collapsing box I see no reason not to have the list. As noted, any book or broader coverage of the event would have such a list.  The "appendix" analogy is a good one here.  Hobit (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I don't buy this 'Appendix' analogy in the slightest, and 'Wikipedia is not a book' is the precise reason why. Yes, books have Appendices. I've read a ton of books on the Falklands War for example, and many include lists of the dead, or at least those involved in the topic of the book, as an Appendix, but I have yet to see a single encyclopoedia, paper or online, that considers the inclusion of such an appendix as a worthwhile addition to an article on the war, and that is most definitely not simply because of a PAPER shortage - that is not what that particular piece is about at all. WP:PAPER is explicit - you cannot invoke it to include something that goes against the Five Pillars. And what's the first pillar? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. So no, you can't really brush off opinions that boil down to "it's not encyclopedic" by invoking WP:PAPER, especially not when you haven't really proven that other encyclopoedias would do this, if only they had room. If it was important or of actual value, they would make room. The online version of Brittannica certainly doesn't have space issues does it? Do they have appendices like this in their articles? I don't believe so. Encyclopoedia's are summary/tertiary works, be they online or paper, and they do not cover any topic in such detail as to resemble an actual book on the subject, which is why you normally don't find such appendices in articles here. MickMacNee (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't find appendices in our articles for technical reasons, not because they'd be bad in any way. If there were an appendix section which cost nothing in load time, and which would otherwise not distract readers who are not interested in them, it would be a great asset. We have to learn to think outside the box, and focus on what's good for the readers in the modern age, not some arcane rules whipped up by our forefathers. Crum375 (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia of 2010. Appendices don't exist here because they are not needed or wanted, it has nothing to do with not having the creative technical solutions or modern thinking necessary to achieve it. Sub-paged appendices or any number of other non-distracting implementations are easily done right now without any technical changes, just a few tweaks to policy and the MoS, but they are not employed. Even this solution here is feasible for small works, but again, its implementation is in a minority of one that I know of on Wikipedia, certainly for such abstract and barely usefull data. Appendices, especially ones that are not of any real benefit to readers, are simply culturally resisted, by very modern and very can-do editors, who know all about what's good for readers in the 21st century. I find the idea that this is just a case of Wikipedia dragging its heels and sticking to arcane rules quite unbelievable tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because you personally don't like appendices, doesn't mean that millions of other readers don't. I, for example, find it very useful when reading about certain technical topics to have the core of the article at the top, and the appendices in a separate section at the bottom, where more detailed information, or more background data is included. Sending people to external unpredictable or slow-loading sites to get that data is reader-unfriendly, while having a single button that instantly shows that information when needed, and keeps it tucked out of the way otherwise is a perfect solution. So if you, for example, don't want to see the background data, you just don't click the button, and you never see it. Others, who do want to see it, press the button and see it when they need to. That's the beauty of Wikipedia and the Internet of the 2010s: unlike older technologies, where everyone was forced to a lowest common denominator, here each can have what they want, without distracting the other. Crum375 (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's what you should do: write a new proposed guideline for the adoption of data appendices in Wikipedia. Define their intended scope, inclusion criteria and sourcing methods, and how technically to implement them.  Advertise it on the Village pump and elsewhere, and then get a consensus in support of adopting that guideline as Wikipedia practice.  That shouldn't be hard to do with millions of readers on your side.  Once you've accomplished that, we will revisit the issue of whether this passenger list is an appropriate appendix to this article based on the applicable guideline.  postdlf (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, because we already have it now. There is no rule on Wikipedia that says that we can't call a given section "appendix", or "blah" &mdash; the word 'appendix' was only used as example. So there is no need to add new rules, or new policies or whatever. The issue here is not the name, but the format or style. Specifically, if the editors of a page think that certain background information, referenced to a reliable secondary source, is worth including in the article (e.g. because of translation issues, or reliability of the external link, or format, or in general user convenience), and they also feel that the information could be distracting for those readers not interested in the details, they can use the collapsible option for it, along with a link to the source to cover accessibility issues. So again, no need for any new policies as long as the data is reliably sourced, and this just adds more convenience for the interested readers, while other readers can simply ignore it. Crum375 (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Closure requested
As 30 days are up, I've requested closure of the Rfc at WP:AN. MickMacNee (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
As is the norm in cases where there is a dispute about interpretation of policy, two distinct things need to be evaluated: the amount of support a particular interpretation gets and how well the various arguments are, in fact, based upon existing practice.

The position favoring keeping the list is based on two explicit arguments, and a third that is obvious even though it was not made explicit: (a) That the article was featured with the list, and (b) that inclusion of the list is harmless and possibly informative. The third argument, I think, is one borne out of a desire to humanize the article &mdash; to make explicit the human tragedy aspect.

While those arguments may be commendable, I think they fail to match policy. Wikipedia is not paper, but neither is it a repository of raw data (which such a victim list is, despite the human aspect); one of the five pillars we agreed to is Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, that decision also means that there are a number of things Wikipedia isn't. That the article did have the list when featured doesn't mean that our evolving guidelines and community mores would find it appropriate now; many articles that once were featured would today fail to pass muster as our criteria evolve and become more demanding.

So, for this article, the position that the list of victims should be removed "wins" on both counts: not only does it have the greater numerical support (though by no means sweeping consensus), but it is also the best grounded in policy. Arguments based on WP:NOT and WP:NTEMP are particularly compelling and have not been addressed convincingly by the editors that would favor keeping the list.

However, the strong feelings displayed during the discussion point out the difficulty: the community isn't quite sure how to handle lists of victims in general. I would recommend that a wide consultation of the community is made on the subject in general, detached from any particular article, so that a more definitive guideline can be written. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the summary, I shall now remove the section, and ponder the next step. Punting Victim Lists to VPP is probably a good first step. MickMacNee (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)