Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hutus


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

The result was   keep. Refining the scope and inclusion criteria for the list is something that can and should be discussed further on the article's talk page. It seems clear that consensus here favors keeping the article and attempting to fix it up. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Hutus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Trivial list of people who happen to be Hutu without any assertion they are notable per their ethnicity. Concerns per WP:BLP have been expressed on Talk page that list could be used to identify targets in future ethnic conflict. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral Comment Please, given the very emotional and tragic issues involving this group of people in the recent past, I just want to remind everyone to remain calm and civil in this discussion. Thank you very much.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh... Well that didn't last long.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a really interesting AfD and a discussion that I think needs to be had. I think that, following Wikipedia guidelines, there is a clear case for this list existing. Being Hutu is and has been a determining factor in some people's lives, particularly those involved in the Rwandan genocide, so I think that this is clearly a notable topic. However, the issue raises ethical concerns beyond notability considerations, given the role that ethnic group classification (often by outsiders such as colonial powers) played in the genocide. Participants in this discussion not familiar with what happened in Rwanda might like to take a look at this article. I would be very wary of listing or categorising people as Hutu or Tutsi on Wikipedia myself, especially if there is no evidence that they self-identify as such. Where that leaves this list, I'm not yet sure. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable and verifiable ethnic group listing only notable individuals of that group. That membership in this ethnic group (which many of our Wikipedia articles describe as "distinct") is a significant biographical fact about someone is underscored by the civil wars in Rwanda and Burundi that were clearly divided among ethnic lines.  So whether we like it or not, being Hutu or Tutsi is an indelible fact of life for many individuals, of which they themselves may be proud, fearful, or neutral, but it clearly has impact and clearly means something for better or worse.  Whether we require self-identification for inclusion, at least among the living, is a matter for talk page discussion.  But there is no consensus-supported requirement that we should only list people by ethnicity who "are notable per their ethnicity", as illustrated by any number of recent AFDs and DRVs that have kept such lists, in fact lists that are even more tenuously related to the subjects than this because they document the descendants of immigrants by that heritage.  The standard across the board is instead that lists of people are not just limited to facts for which people are notable, but significant shared biographical facts, such as education, place of origin, or ethnicity. Prior to listing this at AFD, the nom blanked most of the entries on the list because they were unsourced.  I'm not going to quibble with the removal of the living entries, or the requirement that no living people be added to this list unless they are sourced at the time.  Many of these blanked entries were deceased, however, so there is not a compelling reason to remove them rather than tag them with , nor is there a WP:BLP-compelled reason to delete this list as a whole.  postdlf (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As Cordless Larry states, this AfD presents Wikipedia with a difficult question: Should we include a list which appears to meet formal criteria for inclusion (Hutu is a significant self-asserted ethnicity, and as such, a list of notable Hutus would seem to conform to existing policy), but the consequences of compiling such a list could potentially be grieviously harmful, not just for the persons listed, but also for their relatives etc. Wikipedia is not just a minor website blog, but has the potential to have a significant effect in the lives of many people - it seems to me that we need to consider the wider ethical issues, and on that basis, considering the particular circumstances of the case, and without advocating a more general revision of policy, I would therefore suggest that the article should be deleted.AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If the list were limited to deceased entries and only living entries who verifiably publicly self-identified as Hutu, would that satisfy your concerns? Also, do you have any comment on the possible slippery slope aspects of redacting publicly available information on the basis that someone may use it to target others for harm? This could apply in a number of different subject areas.  postdlf (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A list limited to the deceased would still have the potential to be harmful to living relatives, so no, this would not satisfy my concerns. As for 'slippery slope' arguments, I have already made clear that I am not advocating a more general revision of policy here. This is an unusual case, and needs to be considered on its own merits, rather on the basis of abstractions about 'different subject areas'. In any case, Wikipedia policy regarding inclusion of information has always been more strict than a simple 'include it if it is publicly available' rule. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If the list were limited to deceased entries and only living entries who verifiably publicly self-identified as Hutu, would that satisfy your concerns?; the list should comply to this anyway, period. Although for the deceased there should be a reasonable source of some decent reliability (not just a claim of no substance, for example). Classification lists like this can be a minefield, and it is often best not to bother. Given the shortness of the list my !vote is to merge into Hutus --Errant (chat!) 21:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there is a general requirement that ethnicity lists need self-identification. I think there perhaps should be, but that's another issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCAT probably covers it. Although possibly only at a stretch in this case :) there is also ample precedent on lists with contentious association --Errant (chat!) 22:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. "But there is no consensus-supported requirement that we should only list people by ethnicity who "are notable per their ethnicity". WP:OVERCAT says, " "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right."  WP: Irrelevant Intersections for Lists states: "There must be at least one (though, if it is not a neologism, there should be more than one) article, book, or documentary specifically addressing the issue of a connection between the intersectees and showing how that relationship is manifested, for it to have some notability as an intersection." This list, which claims to be of "famous Hutu people" is also an intersection. If it is more notable than Famous left-handed people it was up to the article creator to establish the connection between being notable and Hutu identity. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are undoubtably many Hutus who are notable per their ethnicity though, considering the existence of groups like Hutu power and the numerous parties involved in the genocide. I'm not saying this list necessarily should or shouldn't exist, but your point is getting somewhat off topic with all due respect.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

*note if cited as it presently is and that anyone added must be a notable person then I lean towards keep although personally I have issues with these lists as to should people be included if they are actually a notable rocket scientist first, but if they are clean and tidy they do appear to be useful tools. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep After all the items  were blindly  deleted, which struck me as a peculiarly pointy thing to do, I started   sourcing them.  Perfectly easy for the ones I tried. . Given that most of the people have been very prominent and have sources like the BBC, I think the do no harm argument is absurd as applies to most of the list.  And I don't think  all of them are living, so whatever BLP objections there might be don't apply to them all. .  And it is not an intersection, but a first order list. The concept of notability is assumed in all such lists--we never include anyone in a list like this without a Wikipedia article or obvious suitability for one. And the concept of "people" is implied in all lists of people.  This is a basic descriptive list, "List of Hutu footballers" would be a second order description, that might or might not be justified.   "List of Hutu footballers who  played for Greece" would be third order--and that would strike me as overdivision. And finally, to to put it directly, I don't think all aspects of the OVERCAT guideline is supported by consensus, and  certainly  the essay  on the list requirement   of a source for a connection  is not supported, judging by the results of recent XfDs. The rules were adopted to prevent disputes about ethnic designations, but the net effect has been just the opposite. The present AfD is a good example.     DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Post's and DGG's thoughtful comments above, which leaves me little else to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Can I ask that those !voting 'keep' to at least consider the ethical issue here. The question isn't so much whether the list conforms with policy (it could probably be made to), but whether it is ethical to compile a list in a context where the danger to individuals is self-evident. This isn't about policy, but about morality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why is List of Tutsis being treated in a different manner from this list? I emphatically oppose them being treated in a different manner, but am not sure whether they should be deleted or kept.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Both articles were proposed for deletion, it's just that the template was removed from the list of Hutus but not the list of Tutsis. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's apparently no deletion discussion for List of Tutsis, unlike for this list. Please just make sure the outcome is the same for both lists.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the proposed deletion of this article was contested, and hence it's gone to a discussion. I agree that the outcome should be the same though. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the prod and easily found history books or other scholarly books about the region which documented the Tutsi ethnicity of a number of the individuals, and added inline references. It is really pretty easy. If no reliable source can be found the name can be tagged or removed.Edison (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've added the following statement to the list: "To be included in this list, the person must have a Wikipedia article showing verifiably that they are Hutu." This is similar to what's at List of African-Americans.  This way, if a person is Hutu, the person won't go on this list if the editors at that person's Wikipedia article have determined that there is some reason not to describe the person as Hutu in that Wikipedia article.  I suspect that there are at least some people whose Wikipedia biographies can very acceptably say that they're Hutu, especially if they died peacefully (and publicly self-identified as Hutu even after the slaughter during the 1990s).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the note is generally a good idea, though I've made some comments on it here. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've expanded the note and hidden it: "To be included in this list, the person must have a Wikipedia article stating and showing verifiably that they are Hutu. If a Hutu person has a Wikipedia article, the editors of that article may have reached consensus not to state that the person is Hutu, in which case inclusion on this list would be inappropriate.  In addition to referencing at the person's Wikipedia article, the referencing needs to be done here as well."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the note, since it does not appear to be grounded in Wikipedia policies or guidelines for lists.See WP:CLN which says "Lists can include items that are not linked (see e.g. List of compositions by Franz Schubert); or items for which there are yet no articles (red links)." Having or not having an article is not that important a criterion for list membership, since a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source, since many articles are hoaxes or poorly referenced, and since many truly notable subjects just have not had articles written yet. A reliable referenced redlink entry in a list could spur someone to create the related article. Edison (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a reasonably encyclopedic subject of value to our readership. Greg L (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep on condition that the hidden note stays as-is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment/Question:This language that is "hidden" should have a "visible" counterpart. These are restricting criteria for inclusion. The reader should be apprised of them. Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have just inserted a visible counterpart: "according to their Wikipedia biographies".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * All the details are missing. The reader is perfectly capable of grasping the criteria that went into compiling this list. Additionally, it is questionable that such language should be hidden at all; I think the totality of any such language should be in plain view. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The reader should be apprised of two factors that are restricting inclusion in this list: 1. all individuals on the list must first have articles, 2. within such articles must be found mention that the individual is of Hutu identity. The discussion is found here. Bus stop (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The list now does that: "This is a list of famous Hutus who have Wikipedia biographies which include mention of Hutu identity."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I find that acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - First order lists of people by ancestry or ethnic group/affiliation are standard fare on Wikipedia. That this list could be used as some sort of hit-list in an ethnic conflict certainly gives one pause, but as long as it follows WP:V, it won't include any information not available elsewhere.  Many more articles than this on Wikipedia can be used to ill end in some scenario, but we do not and should not censor them for that reason.  gnfnrf (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. At least one editor has described this entity as contributing to a situation "where the danger to individuals is self-evident". Either this is true, or credibly arguable, or it isn't. If it is true, there is no discussion here: the entity has to be deleted, period, and no number of "keep" votes or arguments has any bearing on that whatsoever, and the person closing this discussion should ignore all points except that one. We are not Evilpedia. If it's not true, or not credibly arguable, then it's not important whether you keep the entity or not and the other arguments may be considered. Herostratus (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's probably not true with regard to, for example, a person who publicly self-identified as Hutu even after the slaughter during the 1990s, and subsequently died peacefully. It may be true with regard to other Hutus, and that should be taken up at such a person's BLP.  If their BLP doesn't identify them as Hutu, then they won't be listed here (see the hidden note at the top of the article).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * indenting my own vote  Chzz  ► 08:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)  Delete Straight-forward WP:NOTDIR. We have categories to handle this. If this article stays, I intend to start my "List of humans".   Chzz  ►  03:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. See Lists of people.  And WP:CLN.  postdlf (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh, wow. I had no idea we had List of English people and the like. Apparently it is a directory! (No sarcasm intended) - I did not know. My argument here is not valid, so I indented and struck it. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 08:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a directory of its own contents, i.e., indexes of articles. Just not a telephone directory or whatever that might list every person or business that exists regardless of notability.  You're not the first person to get confused by WP:NOTDIR.  postdlf (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously it should be restricted to those notable enough to merit Wikipedia articles (regardless of whether the article exists at this point) and not a directory of everyone of that ethnic/tribal group. It is not right to allow lists of notable persons from some racial/ethnic groups but not other less popular groups. It supplements a similar category, by allowing entries which do not yet have articles. It should by no means be restricted to those who are deceased, just those notable individuals who are self- identified in reliable sources as Hutu, even if some might be unhappy with members of a group which engaged in genocide. Inline sourcing should be required. Edison (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What if the evidence of self-identification pre-dates the slaughter of the 1990s?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That demand is capricious and not based on any guideline or policy of Wikipedia. All that is really required is reliable sourcing, to satisfy verifiability and WP:BLP. I have added a number of references to the list of Tutsis, and it took only a minute or so to find each in scholarly books published  by university presses or equivalent. Edison (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, I think it was more like a question than a demand. Hence the question mark.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See List of Nazis. Should we delete it so that Holocaust victims' families won't be able to find the still living members of the list and their family members? Should we omit those whose Nazi self identification was before the end of WW2?Edison (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that the list not-so-subtly hints at the elephant in the room doesn't help (all the refs pertain the the genocide). It seems frankly provocative, given the history behind the two ethnicities. There's a difference between being neutral and not caring as you pave the way for further ethnical division. If you're all going to keep this, at least find other refs.-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  03:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question: I don't think anyone should be included in this list unless they already have an article on Wikipedia. That should be the vetting process. Bus stop (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the issue is reliable sourcing. If a reliable source, such as a book from a university press or other reliable source, says "Mr. X is a Tutsi or is a Hutu" then verifiability and WP:BLP are satisfied. Countless articles exist which are poorly referenced or unreferenced and which should be deleted. Existence of an article is not determinative of eligibility for list membership; notability and referencing are more important. It is a fantasy that some Tutsi mad at Hutus can't do the same instant Google Book search, or doesn't already know someone's politics/ethnicity. It is like trying to hide what US politicians are/were Christians or Republicans or from Alabama. No ref? Then tag the entry as needing a ref, or remove it. Preferably, you would check Google Books for a ref before removing a name. Edison (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Solomon Perel might beg to differ. Anyway, if you can convince the editors at a Hutu's BLP to describe that ethnicity in the Wikipedia article, even without self-identification, then you're welcome to try.  And if you succeed, then the person can be listed here in this list of Hutus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the issue isn't reliable sourcing. The issue is the morality of compiling an ethnically-defined list in the context of a recent genocide, and continuing ethnic tensions, in circumstances where such a list could put people in danger. I find the refusal of contributors to address this issue utterly baffling. Either Wikipedia is some trivial role-playing game, in which case we are all wasting our time here, or it has the potential to effect the outside world, in which case we have a duty to consider the consequences of our actions. If people wish to argue that they cannot see the potential for such harm, they are entitled to do so, but to simply ignore the question and treat this like any normal AfD is frankly appalling AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So you think that Tutsis have NO IDEA who are the Hutus in their country, without looking it up in Wikipedia, and that they could not do the same Google Book search that took me only an instant, to find them listed in history books and books about the conflict?? Edison (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I think that we should not be exacerbating ethnic conflicts by labelling people ourselves, and thereby giving credibility to the idea that such labels define people. One would hope that history books, and books about the conflict, would treat the issue with more subtlety than a simple Tutsi/Hutu division, and demonstrate that the reality is more complex - presenting ethnicity as an unquestioned 'fact' is precisely the methodology of those who perpetrated the crimes. I have no wish to be an accomplice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ^ This.-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  05:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We are absolutely NOT "labelling people ourselves." That would be original research. Any such identification does and must come from reliable sources. Your opinion or original research about the nonexistence of or complexity of Tutsi/Hutu identity does not trump reliable sources such as scholarly books published by university presses which say "X, a Tutsi, was the Prime Minister." Such sources are very easy to find in history books about the regional conflict, as surely as "Jefferson Davis was a Confederate" in relation to the American Civil War, or "Michael Noble (Roundhead) was a Roundhead in relation to the English Civil War. [User:Edison|Edison]] (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC).
 * CommentWhat do you mean by "^ This.--?" Edison (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Means I agreed with AndyTheGrump.-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  06:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly what he was saying anyway. Everyone seems to happily ignore the reality of the genocide just because the article fits neatly within the rules. The list all but blames Hutus for the genocide all over again. How exactly is that a minor matter to be smoothed over by wikilawyering? Take a look at the list again and tell me that isn't the first impression you get. Three people. All of them connected to the genocide.-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  06:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok since it's been pointed out to me that we apparently *should* ignore the elephant in the room. I'll contest the Keep then on grounds of NPOV. The composition of the list and the references all imply blaming. Again, if the list seriously has no underlying agenda, why is it only composed of three people with sources all directly related to the genocide?-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  06:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's obviously changed since you last looked at it, so your comment/question is moot. But the reason why it looked like that before is because the nom blanked all of the unsourced entries, living and deceased.  postdlf (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. Also note that if Off2riorob sees a way that this is not a BLP issue, it almost certainly is not. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Looking through search results, it seems like the majority of Hutus who have Wikipedia articles were accused of being complicit in the slaughter of Tutsis. So, the non-involved Hutus are going to end up here in a list that predominantly includes accused or convicted war criminals. Is that fair to the non-involved Hutus?  If this list is kept, it might be a good idea to split up the list into people who were convicted of war crimes, and other people.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong on this, but IMHO I think the suggestion is more a question for the talkpage and/or the wikiproject than one for this AfD discussion. Thanks, though.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a talk page concern primarily, but it's also a bad idea. It will just somewhat arbitrarily divide the list based on something other than the source of the subject's notability in many instances, and if the line of demarcation is to be war crimes convictions, that also would not even be a good proxy for involvement in the genocide for those who died before they could face trial or have otherwise evaded it.  Pasteur Bizimungu, for example, was president of Rwanda, and so would have merited an article for that alone, completely apart from whatever role he played in the genocide.  Léon Mugesera is apparently notable only for an anti-Tutsi speech for which he was charged with inciting hatred, and for his consequential deportation from Canada, but he has yet to face trial or conviction for anything.  postdlf (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All interesting points but Epeefleche is right that this belongs on the article's talk page. I'm probably often guilty of making this mistake as well, but I suggest that any more comments on this are made at Talk:List of Hutus. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be better to delete this list than allow several famous non-criminals to be listed in a list that's mostly going to be a list of convicted criminals. I !voted above to keep, but this aspect of the situation was not discussed. I stick by my keep !vote, but it seems that people at this deletion discussion should be aware of this guilt-by-association issue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be giving in to guilt-by-association? "Sorry, we can't acknowledge that anyone is Hutu, because so many of them were bad people."  postdlf (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the solution is to have a separate section for the people convicted of genocide. It's being discussed at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer to it being mainly criminals is an effort to include more articles about notable people who are not. For all of Africa our coverage is disgracefully weak. To a considerable extent it currently reflecta what is reported in mainstream English language news sources, but that is true for all  of Wikipedia.     DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * DELETE Wikipedia is not a list (WP:NOT).   Make it an article or delete it.

KoshVorlon Naluboutes ''AeriaGloris 17:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * KoshVorlon—are you saying that all lists on Wikipedia should be deleted? Or just certain ones? And if only certain lists—how would you make the distinction between those for which deletion would be appropriate and those for which deletion would not be appropriate? Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - moving to delete, I attempted to edit the article and immediately encountered resistance, after this and the realization that hutu and tutu is not a clear issue and the resistance I encountered when attempting to seperate the convicted genocide subjects from uninvolved subjects, I don't think we can maintain this article n line with wikipedia policies. Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - An interesting case. If this were deleted on safety concerns, how would we then address the existence of Category:Hutu people ? Tarc (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I recently removed all articles from Category:Hutu people and Category:Tutsi people that didn't include sources for the ethnicity of the subject. It's rather worrying that this hadn't been done before but WP:EGRS seems to be rather laxly enforced (perhaps unsurprisingly given the number of categories it applies to). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A Good point - logically that would have to be deleted too. Actually, a category is even less tenable than a list, which at least in theory could be properly sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and lists can also be annotated if there is need for clarity to explain inclusion or to note disagreement among sources. The ability of lists to handle this possibly contentious information, and the systematic limitations of categories to do so, was the original principle behind WP:BLPCAT: categories are blunter tools and so should be used more sparingly when it comes to facts about people that are less than concrete, in favor of lists.  And then somehow recently this was diluted, and the equivalent of "and oh yeah, lists too" was added without any real rationale and without a clear sense of consequence.  There have been numerous AFDs recently trying to get rid of ethnicity lists, most of which haven't been successful, some of which were successful but overturned at DRV, and most of which have shown a consensus against the supposed policy of BLPCAT as applied to lists.  postdlf (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I for one am not advocating any change of general policy here. As I've said, I don't think the list contravenes policy as it stands at present (or at least, it wouldn't if it was properly sourced, which it wasn't before the issue was raised). I think there are special circumstances that mean that we need to consider whether the real risks to individuals involved preclude it, even when general policy doesn't. This is essentially an editorial decision, and needs to be considered as such. We have a moral responsibility in cases like this to consider whether abstract 'encyclopaedic' considerations should be outweighed by ethical ones - as I think they should. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep We're not here to make ethical decisions based on saving the world or silly things like that. Making a list of a specific type of people is clearly within our jurisdiction, as we have other lists of the same exact type. Is putting living people on this list dangerous to their well-being? No, as their articles clearly state their ethnic relations. If you're going to make an argument of safety based on not revealing their ethnic relations, then you'd first have to remove said relations from the individual articles, which is something I doubt consensus will find in favor of. Lastly, Wikipedia is meant to be neutral and we cannot censor or remove information based on protection of said person when it is information that is publically available from a simple Google search. That's why were are reporters of outside, reliable information. We don't pick and choose what type of information to present. That's called bias. Silver  seren C 21:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing is 'within our jurisdiction'. We aren't a court of law. Now perhaps you should explain why you think 'ethical decisions' should not be made here - Wikipedia does this all the time, in regard to all sorts of issues. And yes, we do 'pick and choose' what we include. This is the normal editorial process. Frankly, if someone doesn't consider ethics of significance in their actions on Wikipedia, I doubt that he or she should be involved at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep An appropriate and encyclopedic topic, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep noting that BLP has now been dismissed as a rationale for deletion, all we are left with is "they may be targets" which would apply to almost every "List of Notable People Who Belong To a Group" (LNPWBTG) which is a substantial subset of Wikipedia lists of people.  Collect (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Regrettable keep - Cannot in good faith support deleting this for privacy/safety concerns while also supporting the retention of, say, the images in the Muhammad article or the Virgin Killer album cover, both the targets of numerous off-wiki bitchings and threats. For good or for ill an encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge; we really shouldn't get mired in discussions of what this or that group may or may not do with information found here.  "Guns don't kill people..." and all that. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The information found here is by definition available elsewhere. A suggestion: post the following atop the article: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, although my initial reaction was to stay out of this controversy. I have to agree with Tarc's ideas about this relating to Depictions of Muhammad.  I understand the ethical implications, but if done respectfully, I see no reason to have this.  I also agree with DGG and Epeefleche, both of whose opinions I respect. This is now sourced and verifable. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak-ish Keep per the logic expressed in a lot of the arguments above. However, should this list turn out to be 99% people associated with the genocide, it may make sense to consider a name change that would fit that better. --Yaksar (let's chat) 21:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (At the present time 4 out of 14, or 29%, of the names are in the section titled "People convicted in connection with genocide".) Bus stop (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see that. But if we actually made a substantial effort to add everyone verifiable and notable as a Hutu, this number would likely drastically change. And quite a few of those on this list who weren't necessarily convicted were certainly notable for being involved with it in one way or another, the most obvious probably being Juvénal Habyarimana.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


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