Talk:List of Tutsis

Sourcing
It is very easy to find a reliable source for the ethnicity of most prominent Tutsis. Go to Google Book search, and search for "name" Tutsi. Look for a book by a university press or other reliable source which says "X is/was a Tutsi". Add it as an inline cite. If no such reference can be found after diligent search, then remove the name. Not enough time or skill to do the search? Then tag the name as needing a citation by adding after the name. Edison (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've hidden names that do not yet meet the inclusion criteria.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For someone who died several hundred years ago, it might be more rational to just tag the name as "citation needed." Apparently you did not have time to research even a single name as I suggested above. Leave it all to me. Thanks. Edison (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I do useful research now and then. And kudos to you for yours.  The inclusion criteria don't allow redlinked people to be listed, so there's more to it than just finding a reference.  Anyway, maybe I'll do a couple tomorrow.  Okay? :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your move of hiding the names seems very reasonable. Then anyone can find a ref and unhide one. I have been working backwards from the more recent. Redlink names are fine in a list if they are referenced. This may inspire someone to create an article. Having an article or not having one proves nothing, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and a large proportion of the articles at any instant are hoaxalicious vanispamcraftisements which simply have not found their way to AFD yet, and many notable subjects simply have not had articles created for them yet. Edison (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Redlinks, "rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." So, it's perfectly acceptable at this list to keep redlinks hidden, and I hope we can do so, because that's what's being done at List of Hutus.  I'm sure that if that motivates you to write some articles, they won't be hoaxalicious vanispamcraftisements.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "..are encouraged to.." is not language associated with a hard and fast rule. It is not acceptable to keep redlinks hidden, when references are linked indicating their notability as national leaders. The existence of an article is not a prior requirement for list inclusion. The guideline you cited says that redlink entries should in fact be included for items/people whose notability is attested by references. Names of national political leaders clearly are notable, and they probably should have articles, per [WP:BIO#Politicians]]. It takes me about 20 times longer to create an article that is starter class, by my standards, than to find  references at Google Books search for a name and add an inline cite. You are not authorized to schedule my time spent here as a volunteer, and I have the right to reference 20 names in a list such as this rather than writing a single article and adding a single name to the list.  Edison (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Ex" Kings?
I don't understand the meaning to write a historical list of kings calling all them as "ex" kings. The world "ex" (Latin) or "former" (English) is referred to living peoples, not to dead ones. Juan Carlos I is an ex king of Spain, Felipe II is not an ex king, he is a king dead since centuries. Barack Obama is an ex president of USA, George Washington is not an ex president, he is a dead president, a historical president. When we write about history, we must have a historical vision, or everything and everyone becomes "ex". Present is not the measure of all things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.59.128.207 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)