Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of agnostics


 * It's on the way to being more verified. I think a verify tag for a few weeks would be enough. I rarely put things up for deletion so I don't know how, or if I can, withdraw this. It was very close to being a joke nomination, I'm a little irritated it's still taken seriously. This article has been around since September 2001 and if done right can have a purpose. If it gets deleted I oh all you interested in this topic a huge apology. This is not what I was expecting and I reject the whole vote again in strong terms.--T. Anthony 07:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The motivation for the nom is not important to me, even if it was in bad faith, and your change of heart is reflected in your Weak Keep and then Keep votes. I don't think the AfD can/should be withdrawn. I am opposed to almost all listing by religion because an individual's religious beliefs are far too complex to be neatly summarized on a list- most people struggle with religion throughout their lives. What list does Bob Dylan go on? Jew, Christian, atheist, agnostic- all of the above? Was Karl Marx a Jew, a Christian, an atheist? Jewish law would have one answer, the Nazis another, and historians debate these types of questions for decades if not centuries. The proper place for us to address the issue is within the context of their bio pages. --JJay 07:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I respect that, but in a way a Category has a worse problem on this. In a list you can in least annotate and explain. In a category a name is just there and kind of effects the article. If a priest was on record saying sometimes he wasn't sure about the existence of God a poorly thought out person could add Category:Agnostics to his name almost as easily as he could add him to this list. Maybe moreso because lists seemed to be watched much more strictly now due to the proliferation of, what I'd mostly agree, are stupid ones. Added to that nothing on his article is changed by being on a list, whereas Categorization does. If you're in favor of removing agnostics as a category then disreagard the following.--T. Anthony 10:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: You make some good points. I'm going to try and rethink my vote in the context of this list before the end of the day. --JJay 10:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment:I’ve thought long and hard about this, but can’t seem to come around to your point of view. Lists are insidious and dangerous. They get copied all over the net as if they were gospel. Categories less so. Categories are also immediately visible, showing up as a watchlist change, allowing editors who know something about the topic to react.
 * Ideally, lists should have annotations and explanations, but they rarely do. Mostly, they seem to be like the previous incarnation of this list, which just a few days ago had a one line introduction with 42 names (and only 1 with an explanation). Now it has 12 names, two with explanations. I would probably make further cuts such as Darwin (his relationship to god is fodder for an advanced College Seminar and the Cambridge Companion to Darwin argues strongly against trying to pigeonhole him on religion); Protagoras (On the Gods has not survived, we don’t really know anything about his religious beliefs); Andy Rooney (agnostic but claims to talk to God); Bertrand Russell (he states fairly clearly that he is more of an atheist), etc.
 * The dangers of trying to group people by religious belief/sexuality worry me more than any possible loss of utility through deletion (and I remain unconvinced of the utility- do we learn anything by knowing that a scientist or European politician have at some undefined point described themselves as agnostic?). Furthermore, these lists seem to function on an: are you now or have you ever been standard? If President X once said in an interview that he was an agnostic and that got mentioned in passing in his article, then he remains. Without extensive googling, the few editors monitoring can not judge the validity of an addition/retention to the list. Perhaps if this became a monitored List of notable thinkers on agnosticism, it might have some merit, but I can’t in good conscience change my previous vote, despite your undeniable efforts to improve the contents now. --JJay 04:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is your conclusion on the List of agnostics, I hope that you will, for the sake of consistency, put VfD tags on all of the lists in List of people by belief. I suspect that, if you did so, most such lists would be kept by the consensus of those who watch such lists.  This would confirm the curious double standard to which List of agnostics is being subjected.  If you--or anyone else who maintains a vote of "delete" on similar grounds--do not put VfD tags on all the other lists of people by belief, then that is a tacit admission that you do not really regard your own justifications for deleting List of agnostics as valid, and are arbitrarily holding that list up to a standard to which you do not hold the other lists of people by belief.
 * You express a vague notion that there is a danger in "trying to group people by religious belief/sexuality," but do not say what this danger is. You say lists are inherently insidious and dangerous, but don't back this assertion up with anything.  Where you do list specific problems with the list, they are problems that can be addressed by improving the list.  Ambiguities or changes in a person's beliefs can be addressed within the list, and caveats made.  Unverified claims about the beliefs of people can in principle be verified, or else such people can be removed from the list.  Claims that are not annotated or explained now can be made so in the future, as various editors gradually improve the article.  As with any article, the vigilance of one or two conscientious editors can winnow out spurious additions or unsubstantiated changes.  And the deletions made by those who object to someone's inclusion on the list will inspire those who favor their inclusion to back up this preference with facts and citations, making the list even more authoritative.  No one is claiming that the list is perfect as is.  You admit it is better than it was, but inexplicably foreclose on the possibility of any further improvements being made.  That lists are indiscriminately drawn up and perpetuated elsewhere on the internet is no adequate objection to the list under discussion here.  Articles in Wikipedia can be held, and are increasingly being held, to a higher standard.  That so much effort has been put into discussing the relative merits of the list and the criteria for inclusion indicates an editorial investment and a commitment to higher standards that cannot help but improve the article in question. Rohirok 05:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Despite your request, I have no intention of nominating other lists on VfD. I did not nominate this list. I have never nominated any list for VfD and will not start now. Please do not assume a double standard or tacit admission of something. I would never say to any keep voter that their vote is only valid if they intend to create every possible corresponding list that wikipedia may lack. However, if someone else chooses to nominate these religion-type lists, I will vote as I see fit. Furthermore, I have no interest in imposing my views on anyone here, nor have I actively sought to encourage Keep voters to switch to Delete. My original vote was Delete per Dpbsmith. My last comments were meant as a sincere response to a request to change my vote.
 * After reading every article currently on the list, as well as Charles Darwin's views on religion (quite a hard slog), and selections from Darrow[], Darwin, and Bertrand Russell[] related to agnosticism found on the net, I came away even more convinced that trying to listify someone’s belief/non-belief in God is a slippery and untenable prospect. Darwin, particularly, had a lifelong back-and-forth regarding religion and the evidence for his agnosticism is mainly linked to a handful of letters. However, he is widely accepted as agnostic. Regarding one of your specific points, I was asked to explain the difference between an agnostic category and list. I have nothing to add, except that lists are dangerous, in my opinion, because they are readily copied from Wikipedia onto other sites. They become eternal, despite changes that might be later carried out on the original. Mistakes whether malicious or not are thus self perpetuated. And the vigilance you speak of is too often lacking. I’ve seen some horrible examples with the LGBT lists that do not require exposition here. If this all seems vague I apologize. Your remarks overall are well taken, but I can not change my vote. Thanks. --JJay 06:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment You certainly may vote as you see fit, and may place, or refrain from placing VfD tags as you please. I was merely pointing out the logical consequences of a standard that you and others are subjecting this list to that, if carried out, would detract from rather than improve Wikipedia.  If you are right that "lists of people by X" are inherently inappropriate for Wikipedia, then List of agnostics ought to be deleted, as should all the other lists of people by religion, political belief, sexuality, etc.  However, the vagueness of the justifications made by you and others for this principle places your votes to delete on shaky ground, and there is a corresponding loss of authority for such votes on that basis.  There is more at stake here than the existence of this one list, since a successful deletion on the grounds you are suggesting is a step toward a broader standard barring "lists of people by X."  Is that a standard that will improve Wikipedia?  Wikipedia standards ought to be consistent, but they ought also to be built on firm justifications, rather than arbitrary or vague ones, to which I believe List of agnostics is now being subjected.  Where justifications for deletion are more specifically grounded (such as unverified or uncited claims, or a failure to acknowledge the subtleties or ambiguities of categorization), they point toward improving the article, not deleting it.  The quality of an article as it currently exists is never a justification for outright deletion, since improvements can always be made.  What is needed to justify deletion of an article is a strong case that it is inherently unsuitable for Wikipedia, even if every conceivable improvement were made to it.  I do not believe such a case has been made, nor do I believe that if such a case were made and accepted in this instance, that its consistent application to similar articles would result in an improvement to Wikipedia, even in the opinions of most of those who have thus far favored deletion. Rohirok 16:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would attempt a response, but I fear anything I might say would be construed as vague and arbitrary, as you have so repetitively pointed out. Like the Agnostics, I doubt the existence of any real need or demand for this list. I could cite as rational proof the surprising lack of voting for this Afd. As you have now pontifically ruled that my Delete vote is on shaky ground and lacks authority, I was going to change it to abstain (neither keep nor delete). However, since you have also now reverted my edits, without any preliminary discussion on the list talk page, I see that you are not interested in any type of intellectual discourse, but rather, like most list compilers, in imposing a dogmatic vision of reality. Agnostically yours. -- JJay 22:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand that you feel slighted by my comments on this page, and because of your perception that I have reverted your edits. If you feel my judgments are groundless, please say why. Your latest comment does not seem directed toward the substance of my comments, but toward the perceived tone.  I have not reverted your edits.  I put the lengthy quotes and commentary you added in the footnotes section, to make the list clearer and "easier on the eyes."  Only one quote was deleted, since it pertained to Russell's views on Catholicism and had little bearing on his status as an agnostic.  As evidenced by your own comment, your decision to refuse to change your vote from "delete" to "abstain" is not based on the merits of the article itself, but is an attempt to "retaliate" against someone whose editorial activities you take to be dogmatic and immune to rational discourse.  But this is not the case.  The vast majority of edits on Wikipedia are made with no discussion, and the justification for the edits that I made were explained as I made them.  Have you responded to any of my so-called "reverts" in the discussion page?  If you had, I think you would have found me open to a rational discussion on how best to improve the list.  In fact, I refrained from deleting your "perhaps ironically" qualification to Rooney's claim to have spoken with God, and opened up a discussion about it on Talk:List of agnostics before I came here and saw your latest comment. I appreciate your contributions to improving the list, and as you will see by looking at the footnotes, those contributions remain mostly intact. I wonder, though: Why bother improving an article if you believe it does not belong on Wikipedia at all? Rohirok 23:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: It’s strange how we get further apart with each little missive. Perhaps God deleted the two not particularly lengthy quotes I added. In any case, they are gone. The purpose was to add some nuance to what was and will remain a neat grocery list of self-proclaimed agnostics- satisfied that validation has been achieved through a single quote surgically removed from somewhere or other. The response demonstrates my point that a list with select quotes, taken out of context, can not get to any semblance of the truth with a complex issue like agnosticism.
 * You believe that someone’s views on organized religion have little bearing on their status as an agnostic. I beg to differ (and did not realize that status was all that mattered). It is crucial, since both are ostensibly most concerned with how one relates to God. Agnostics are not born. Their thinking evolves within and in reaction to a societal framework often governed by organized religion. To doubt God is to doubt organized religion as well. It should be a vital issue, if the list strives for any meaning at all.
 * If some of these noted Agnostic thinkers hated organized religion, or a particular religion, that should be addressed, not swept under the carpet. A slight effort has been made in this direction with Darwin and this was the impetus for the Russell quote I added. Considering Russell's status, I thought it would raise some questions (not that I have the answers). The response was rapid removal with the edit comment- deleted unnecessary info on his views on Catholicism. Perhaps you do not believe that sincerity is a factor either, or consistency, or motivation? Potential readers suffer an enormous disservice from attempts to minimize the complexities, but I guess complexity can not coexist with the inherent boosterism that seems to be a key concern and underlies the list's stated bias for inclusion.
 * Although the Russell quote was almost immediately binned, despite its impeccable source (public speech) from one of the 20th century’s leading philosophers, the ridiculous Rooney quote- as if anyone takes very seriously what he has to say- received some discussion. The response was illustrative: much effort was expended in relabeling Rooney’s piece a broadcast editorial (Rooney is a humorist and commentator), context was provided (i.e. attack on Pat Robertson.), and a very careful cut-and-paste was fashioned to focus on Mel Gibson and Pat Robertson. Perhaps this served the purpose of underlining Rooney’s rationality.
 * Yet, there is no context for Sincerely, Andy Rooney (book of letters on diverse topics), and the letter that is selectively quoted, practically begins with the phrase: I am not always clear what I think about religion. And why is the letter’s one affirmative statement not included: I call myself an agnostic, not an atheist, because in one sense atheists are like Christians or Muslims. They’re sure of themselves. A Christian says with certainty, there is a god; an atheist says with certainty, there is no god. Neither knows. Instead, all your selections focus on rationality, which is just one of the components of agnostic thought. It is an oversimplification, even for Andy Rooney.
 * I was going to switch to abstain, out of a sudden rush of optimism that the few recent additions might push the list into the right direction. I also do not want to be struck down by god, a higher power , something, if I am responsible for its deletion. There was no retaliation- this is not personal- because no action was taken.
 * Comment JJay wrote: "To doubt God is to doubt organized religion as well." Perhaps, but to doubt organized religion is not necessarily to doubt God.  That is why I deleted the Catholicism quote.  The other quote demonstrated Russell's agnostic views adequately for purposes of the list.  This list needn't document every last view a person has on religion, but merely their view as an agnostic.  I'm not sure what the other quote is whose deletion you object to, as there have been a lot of edits recently between you, me, and Dpbsmith.  Perhaps if you posted your objection to Talk:List of agnostics we could hash this out and reach consensus.  I regret that we've sunk to the level of personal attacks, and apologize for my role in the descent.  Thank you for your efforts to add documentation and context to the list. Rohirok 05:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: You are quite welcome. Thanks for the enlightening discussion. -- JJay 18:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree entirely with T. Anthony's above comment. And T. Anthony: you shouldn't be upset or ashamed that you nominated this even though you wanted it to survive. I don't see it as a horrible sin to nominate something for deletion that you don't think should be deleted, as long as you're doing so not to make a point, but to clarify and better understand where people stand on deleting or keeping the belief-based lists. That's a very valuable thing to know, and helps a lot with dispelling the idea that people voting to delete various Roman Catholic and Jewish lists are motivated by bigotry: clearly it's a general distaste for lists at work. But, as you point out, lists are better than categories for any complex, disputable, or cite-requiring topic. This is why lists of people by belief are much more worthy of inclusion than lists of people by nationality or other rather simple criteria: because of the very trickiness involved in listing people by religion, necessitating quotations, references, and clear, detailed explanations. -Silence 13:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, but this is one of the closest cases where I did kind of do it to make a point. Although what you say almost does validate what I did anyway. I do, mostly, now think it's lists in general and things in Category:Lists of people by belief in particular that's apparently the problem for some. I might have thought prejudice was the issue without that, but I don't know of any strong prejudice against agnostics really. This was treated essentially the same as any Catholic or Jewish(also ethnic group I know) or what have you belief list. Anyway these lists probably could do with some fixing, but this can probably be done even without deletion votes. I'm not sure annotation is necessary for every name on a list, I've been essentially doing that in a last ditch effort to rescue some, but probably there should in least be a reference source at the end. I'd kind of prefer a reference, even if it's just a link, of some kind in about every article though. As for lists in general they may not be entirely encyclopedic, but they are acceptable in reference books. The World Almanac has several lists, even though it at times calls them something else.--T. Anthony 01:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote count
I think delete and keep are roughly tied at the moment.--T. Anthony 14:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, could be. I hope this Afd never closes and remains tied through eternity, giving us the time to debate this worthy issue. In the mean time, in the interest of fairness, I'm going to boldly strike out your weak keep vote- one vote per person and all that. -- JJay 16:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)