Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of illegitimates


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel es tianpower háblame 18:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

List of illegitimates
The text of this article mentions that "illegitimate" isn't a recognized category in the United States anymore and people born out-of-wedlock are now granted the same rights as those born in wedlock, and yet it proceeds to identify certain people, such as Oprah Winfrey, Eric Clapton, Marilyn Monroe, and Eartha Kitt, as "illegitimates". That doesn't make much sense. How can they be "illegitimates" when they are from a country that doesn't recognize the concept? Also, the reference to them as "illegitimates" seems to be without any verification. Where have these individuals ever been referred to as "illegitimates"? Aren't Wikipedia articles supposed to be based on verifiable sources? I have never heard any of these individuals termed "illegitimates", and I have never heard of Eva Peron being termed an "illegitimate". This article seems completely unnecessary and completely without verifiction. If one wants to mention that these respective individuals were born out-of-wedlock, wouldn't it be preferable to mention that on their respective pages? What use does this page serve? -- Andrew Parodi 13:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Catamorphism 20:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Only source named is the book The Fiery Chariot: a Study of British Prime Ministers and the Search for Love with no line citations.  If Marilyn Monroe and Eartha Kitt were the love children of British prime ministers then their biographies need to be rewritten. Durova 20:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete,  we don't need lists that, if full, would cover an significant percentage of the world's population. Sandstein 21:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as illegitimate listcruftery. And per nom.  Slowmover 21:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Bastun 02:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If it was a list of illegitimate people from well over a century ago that have achieved fame and fortune despite it might have some meaning. About as useful as a list of people with red hair (and yes it wouldn't surprise me if such exists). Sfnhltb 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom + a list like this is only going to create a POV and vandalism nightmare. --Hetar 06:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Retain this article. It has been commented that the purpose of this article is unclear.  Granted; this list is so far barely a stub, and so its purpose may at this point be difficult to discern.  But, then, there are many lists on the Wikipedia — what purpose do they serve?  What, for instance, is the purpose of a List of poets or of novelists?


 * It has been objected that the criteria for inclusion in this article are imperfectly defined. True, the criteria do need to be more explicitly refined.  But are they, even now, truly more ambiguous than those for inclusion on a list of poets?  Who can provide a universally embraced definition of "poetry"?


 * It has been suggested that a list of persons born illegitimate could end up including a major part of the world's population. Not really.  The overwhelming mass of humanity, whether fairly or not, are never deemed sufficiently notable for inclusion in any list.


 * Research begins with 1. the framing of hypotheses, and 2.  the accumulation of data.  By the nature of things, one cannot anticipate with any certainty where research will lead.  If it were possible to do so, any research at all would be superfluous.  What, for example, could ever be the point to compiling a list of suicides?  What would be the point of such a gruesome undertaking?  And yet suicide was the subject of ground-breaking sociological research by Émile Durkheim (Suicide, 1897), and — yes — Wikipedia is home to a List of suicides.


 * It has been observed that there may currently be individuals on the List of illegitimates who do not belong there. I suspect that that is indeed the case.  I will posit that no name should appear in the list that cannot definitely be documented as belonging there.  Only those individuals should be listed who, in the circumstances of their time and place, were deemed at birth by their society to be "illegitimate."


 * If the purpose of this list is still to make itself manifest, there at least is one thing that it is not. This list is not intended as a public pillory to shame those whose names appear on it.


 * So, why set up such a list? First, it may be worth noting that, given current trends, this will be a self-limiting list:  the concept of "illegitimacy" — I will venture to say this, at the risk of disclosing a personal bias — appears to be dying out, at least in the demonstrably more enlightened quarters of the world.  But until recent times it was widespread, and it did cause incalculable anguish to those touched by it.  Though I am by no means an expert on their life stories, I am convinced that it was a grim presence througout the lives of Leonardo da Vinci and of Lawrence of Arabia, and of countless other less prominent individuals.


 * I believe that a useful purpose can be served by this list, and that it should have a chance to demonstrate that usefulness before its life is so early snuffed out. logologist|Talk 06:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Response. I'll make one response to this, and then that will be it (otherwise, a debate would go and on). At the very least you should have verifiction of people having been referred to as "illegitimates". You have none. No such category of "illegitimates" exists anymore in this country. (Further, there is perhaps the risk that publishing such a list may constitute slander. I doubt that Oprah Winfrey, Eric Clapton, and Eartha Kitt would be too happy to know they are listed as "illegitimates".) And isn't there already an article that discusses the concept and the places where the concept is still viable? It seems to me that should be sufficient. I fear I shouldn't say this, but I'm going to: this list seems about as appropriate as making a list called "A list of Negros", and then listing various people of African descent. And I wholeheartedly agree that there is little use of a list that would include a great deal of the world's population. And if you believe that being born out-of-wedlock was of importance for Lawrence of Arabia and da Vinci, then wouldn't it be more appropriate to simply include that observation/opinion in their respective articles? -- Andrew Parodi 08:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment WP does have Category:African Americans but that's a name that is generally inoffensive, whereas I don't think many so-called "illegitimate" people like the word—which after all has an inherent pejorative quality. Esquizombi 08:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Response (for Esquizombi). Mind you, it is not a "list" of African Americans, but a category -- a category which is broken down into several different articles. Further, it uses a term ("African American") that virtually no one is offended by. The category is not "Category:Negros" is it? Lastly, the classification of "African American" is viable and is not prejorative. The classification of "negro" is not viable and is prejorative (or at least referring to an individual in such a way is likely to be perceived as such), and any such list would most likely be met with opposition as well. (I respond in order to clarify what I was attempting to say, as I realize the analogy I am attempting to draw is perhaps controversial. But I think most here understand what I'm saying.) -- Andrew Parodi 11:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we're mostly in agreement. Esquizombi 11:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: So... do those who object to the "pejorative" term, "illegitimacy," plan to expunge it where it explicitly occurs in the articles on Leone Battista Alberti, Eric Clapton, Edward Gordon Craig, Eamon de Valera, Alexander Hamilton, Henry II of Castile, Alois Hitler, Violette Leduc, Leonardo da Vinci, Ramsay MacDonald, Shaka, James Smithson, Maria Walpole and William the Conqueror?  logologist|Talk 20:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * One answer Well, with regard to the Eamon de Valera article: no. The Republic of Ireland has retroactively abolished illegitimacy, and indeed has passed legislation explicitly outlawing discrimination based on the circumstances of a person's birth.  However, de Valera lived before this happened and as can be seen from the article, his illegitimate status did impact on his life, and is therefore very relevant to the article. And the article is the proper place for it to be addressed, not in a meaningless list of people born out of wedlock. Bastun 14:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Also, is useless. There is no point having this list. You can not (ad should not, thats different matter anyways) list all people born out of wedlock. --Soumyasch 11:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Who suggested listing all people born out of wedlock? Does the List of suicides name all people known to have committed suicide?  logologist|Talk 20:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Moreover, this is not a list of "persons born out of wedlock" but a list of persons who at birth were deemed by their societies to be "illegitimate." (For the distinction, see the List of illegitimates discussion page.)  logologist|Talk 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note. There is nothing on Eric Clapton's page that says that he was deemed by his society as being "illegitimate" at birth. People are no longer "deemed" illegitimate. I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that perhaps English is your second language or there is some other factor involved that is impeding your ability to grasp the nuance in what the rest of us are saying. To refer to someone as "an illegitimate" these days is highly offensive and very retrograde. -- Andrew Parodi 01:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The article on Clapton states that "Eric Clapton was born in Ripley, Surrey, England, UK, as the illegitimate son of 16-year-old Patricia Molly Clapton and Edward Walter Fryer, a 24-year-old Canadian pilot. Fryer returned to his wife in Canada prior to Clapton's birth."  If the information about Clapton's "illegitimacy" is inaccurate, it should be corrected and Clapton delisted.


 * The Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines "illegitimate," used as a noun, as "a person recognized or looked upon as illegitimate." logologist|Talk 01:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Response. You seem unable to grasp that the term "illegitimate" is not legally viable anymore in this country (the USA), nor any other English speaking country of which I am aware (England, Australia, New Zealand, etc). Therefore, to describe someone as "illegitimate" simply means that they were born out-of-wedlock, not that they are denied any rights. No one as of yet who has voted on this page can see any use in maintaining a list of people born out-of-wedlock when the very concept hardly holds any meaning anymore in most developed nations and all English speaking nations. Wikipedia's rules hold that an issue or person must be "notable" in order to warrant a page, and most of us agree that this is not an issue of notable importance.


 * Has Eric Clapton's out-of-wedlock birth ever been made an issue of consequence for him? Has he ever been denied any rights because of his out-of-wedlock birth? Has there ever been an OFFICIAL declaration by the country of his birth that has established and labled him as "an illegitimate"? Most likely, no. The issue of his out-of-wedlock ("illegitimate") birth is of little to no importance and is treated in his biography in passing and is not a major factor in his life. If the issue of his out-of-wedlock birth is hardly an issue on his own article, then what use is served by referencing it on a page that defines him in terms of an issue that has little to no importance on his main biographical page? I mean, what purpose is there is making lists that group people together based on issues that hardly have any meaning to the respective people or to larger society? Like someone said earlier, we may as well have a list called "List of people with red hair" (a list that would include me, which I'm sure no one cares about anyway; hey, maybe we could make a list called "List of people with red hair who were born illegitimate", another list I could be included on -- another list that would serve no purpose). -- Andrew Parodi 02:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum. In regard to the Random House Dictionary definition of "illegitimate" as "a person recognized or looked upon as illegitimate" -- this definition does not specifically refer to a person of an out-of-wedlock birth. People can be viewed as "illegitimate" for any number of reasons. To reference the page that led me to this page: Eva Peron's power was viewed by some as "illegitimate". Mind you, Eva Peron's power wasn't viewed by some as being "illegitimate" because of her out-of-wedlock birth, but because she was not a formally elected official. In other words, the term "illegitimate" can refer to many, many things, and therefore is incredibly vague and a very weak premise upon which to base an article. -- Andrew Parodi 03:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You've convinced me as to Clapton; I've delisted him. Evita is gone, too.
 * As to the Random House Dictionary, I'm afraid its definition of the noun usage for "illegitimate" does refer to a person born out of wedlock, rather than to one who usurps or misuses political power. The full entry reads:  "a person recognized or looked upon as illegitimate; a bastard."  I omitted the last two words before, because we're already having problems enough with unfortunate colloquial connotations.  logologist|Talk 03:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing Evita from the list, and I think that it is best that you removed Eric Clapton as well. About the Random House definition, that may be that they clarify the term "illegitimate" in relation to someone born out-of-wedlock, but that doesn't change the fact that the term "illegitimate" can pertain to many different situations and circumstances. This page does not clarify the different meanings of the word, the different ways the word has been used, nor does it qualify that within this list the only people who are termed "illegitimates" are people born out-of-wedlock.

Further, an argument could feasibly be made that referring to a person as an "illegitimate" is within the realms of hate speech. Could you imagine if someone made a list called "A list of niggers"? I mean, you could probably compile a list of notable African Americans who have been referred to as "niggers" at some point in their lives, and thereby argue that because these people have been referred to by that word then the list is justified. But the word "nigger" is largely regarded as hate speech, and any list called "A list of niggers" would be perceived as a list endorsing the use of that word and endorsing the discrimination synonymous with that word -- and therefore such a list would be met with resistance.

I hesitate to use that n-word because it is so controversial, but to be frank, I find it as offensive to refer to a person as an "illegitimate" as I find it to refer to a person as a "nigger". As an earlier editor mentioned, this list is probably best to be removed because otherwise it will create a vandalism and POV nightmare. Thank you for removing Evita and Eric Clapton. Now if only I could get you to see that the entire page itself should be removed.... -- Andrew Parodi 04:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My present thinking would be to retain the list only for historic, non-living persons who were so termed in their lifetimes; and only in the same way as with a list of martyrs. For they were martyrs, of a sort.  logologist|Talk 05:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The few people whose notability involves their illegitimacy (like William the Bastard) can be listed in a section of the Illegitimacy article. Including people from widely varying historical eras without any proper legal-historical context makes this a bad list. u p p l a n d 05:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Question: Could similar arguments — vandalism risk, possibly uncertain importance to an individual's notability — not be made for deleting other existing lists as well, for example, the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people? logologist|Talk 05:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Response. To my understanding, people who are included on the "list of gay, lesbian, bisexual," are people who are self-identified as such. For example, it is widely believed that Jody Foster is a lesbian or bisexual. Reference to this is made on her biography, but to my knowledge she is not included on any GLBT list because she herself has not self-identified ("come out of the closet") as gay or bisexual. And I should add, the list is called "list of gay, lesbian or bisexual people". It is not called a "list of fags, dykes, and the confused". -- Andrew Parodi 07:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I daresay not all the individuals appearing on the List of saints self-identified as saints, either. And if "illegitimacy" is a dirty word that is banned from the Wikipedia, then it should presumably be removed everywhere that it appears in the sense under discussion.  logologist|Talk 07:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In most situations, saints are designated by the given church. In most situations, lesbians, gays and bisexuals of their own volition identify themselves as such. The two issues are nearly impossible to compare. -- Andrew Parodi 07:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the List of saints analogy is particularly inappropriate. Theologically speaking, anyone is capable of committing a mortal sin while they are still alive.  Hence they can't self-identify. Durova 14:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Completely off-topic by now (so I won't develop this further), but I do think there are cases of some Hindu "holy men" declaring themselves saints. However, that doesn't seem to be the case in the Western religions. -- Andrew Parodi 14:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But they can hope. The future St. Stanisław Kostka, a pious if rather neurotic young man, reputedly bequeathed a sum of money for his own future canonization.  Anatopism 22:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is with lists which list people without putting the issue in the proper cultural, legal and historical context. Why not just include a few paragraphs in the Illegitimacy article which does that, with actual references in each case to secondary sources which have discussed the question of each person's "illegitimacy" and what significance it had for their life and for how they were perceived by their contemporaries and by posterity? That would be interesting. u p p l a n d 07:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Response: If you think lists like List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people do not fit Wikipedia's guidelines, you're free to nominate those lists for deletion. What's up for debate here is whether List of illegitimates fits Wikipedia's guidelines, and that's unrelated to whether any other unrelated article does. Catamorphism 07:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not advocating the deletion of either list. logologist|Talk 07:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Then there's no reason to mention other lists. Catamorphism 07:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep but rename to something like List of historic figures stigmatized by illegitimate birth. Criteria for inclusion should be (a) already listed on wikipedia and (b) experenced some quasi-notable incident of discrimination based upon believed illegitimate birth.  Modern western figures should generally not be included.  JeffBurdges 16:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP and perhaps change name to something less offensive: this is a worhtwhile list, although changing the title to a more contrmporary term seems like a good move. Interestingstuffadder 16:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP. Agree with the two foregoing votes.  A problem might be finding a title as compact as the present one that seems to engender so much feeling.  I suppose it's akin to referring to a person with diabetes or schizophrenia as a "diabetic" or a "schizophrenic."  It seems to reduce the person to his/her illness or disorder.  Anatopism 22:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or reform as per User:JeffBurdges to List of historic figures stigmatized by illegitimate birth with appropriate criteria--A Y  Arktos 01:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. As the term "illegitimate" is not a legal term anymore, my opinion is that even renaming the list something like "List of historic figures stigmatized by illegitimate birth" is not sufficient. What is an "illegitimate birth"? The term no longer has legal meaning and is now relegated to the realm of colloquial use. Under today's standards, those same individuals would not suffer any legal ramifications due to circumstances of their birth. If the article is kept and renamed, I think a better title would be something like, "Historical figures stigmatized by the categorization of 'illegitimate'".


 * Yes, I realize that's a very long and cumbersome title (which may be another reason the article is better to be deleted). But the important distinction such a title change would make is that it would put the focus on society's bigotry, rather than on the state of an infant. The problem was not that these people were born to unwed parents, but that society stigmatized them for being born to unwed parents. I know that sounds POV, but in reality is it not because today's absence of illegitimacy laws makes it evident that the concept was deemed inappropriate by the courts, was a "problem", and was therefore abolished. -- Andrew Parodi 02:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia, somewhat to my surprise, actually does have lists of persons who have suffered from schizophrenia and from diabetes mellitus. The first ("Notable people thought to be affected by schizophrenia") appears within the "Schizophrenia" article. The second is a free-standing "List of diabetics."

What about a title like List of historic "illegitimates," with the word "illegitimates" placed in quotes to indicate present-day doubts about the legitimacy of that term itself, whenever it may have been applied? The article might list only deceased individuals, and only from periods when the category was legally considered valid throughout the individual's lifetime. Anatopism 04:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Response. The use of parenthesis, in my opinion, makes the word less offensive because it is less likely to be interpreted as an advocacy of the term and designation. However, to my knowledge "diabetics" have never been denied rights and have not endured the stigma that those born out-of-wedlock have had to endure, so on some levels the comparison isn't precise. -- Andrew Parodi 05:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Andrew Parodi. -- Kjkolb 14:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to List of people born out of wedlock or List of people who parents were not married to each other. It's as useful as lists of left-handed people, ADHD people, Scientologists, Baptists, and what not. Carlossuarez46 23:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-useful information. I'm a bastard, you're a bastard. That doesn't mean we have anything else in common or should appear on the same list. — Mar. 30, '06 [07:19] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>


 * 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.