Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia/Archive 1

See related
Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession.

Rough draft
First, very rough draft, but I am sure you will get the "gist". I believe that it is an important subject based on my experience in dealng with lists related to controversial subjects. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 23:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Use Wikipedia as a source

 * Here's a different solution entirely:


 * For (almost) any list, each entry should have an article (except those who are notable only in the context of a list or whose article will soon be created), and the article should mention the characteristic which is the criteria of the list. If there is significant debate over the matter covered in the article, the list will reflect that.
 * For example, if the editors of leader XYZ decide that he was a dictator, then he goes on the list of dictators. If notable sources call him one but others protest it, then he can be on hte list as a debated entry. If there's no mention in the article of the matter then he is not on the list at all.
 * There are several advantages to this form of criteria: 1) The editors of a biography (or other subject matter) are be in a better position to review sources and discuss details of the subject than the editors of a list can be. 2) It ensures consistency. We shouldn't have the situation where the list calls the leader a dictator, but the biography makes no mention of it. 3) Readers can expect to see an NPOV treatment of the characterization in the linked article. The pros and cons of calling a leader a "dictator" can be treated at length there. The entry on the list can be treated as a summary of that NPOV material. 4) It discourages moving POV conflicts into multiple articles. An editor who strongly wishes to label leader XYZ a "dictator" cannot make an end-run around the XYZ biographers by sneaking the name onto the list. 5) Vice versa, it provides a check on those who remove a designation from the list or an article without any explanation, which can be easy for other editors to miss. Interested editors can more easily detect a deletion because of the double entry. 6) It is easy to maintain. Editors of the list need merely check the article to see if a new addition qualifies.


 * This is the method used for List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, as originally discussed at Talk:List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people/archive. That was once a very controversial list but since the new criteria was implemented (mid-July) the outcome has been even better than we expected. The editing has been very smooth and the quality of the content has gone up appreciably. Of course there are always going to be lists that have different needs, I suggest that this is a very effective criteria for other lists. -Will Beback 01:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That could work but not in all cases. What you will end up doing is more contentious editing in biographical articles to include a tiny comment by a minority that. for example, Bush is a dictator so that it warrants its inclusion in List of dictators. For example, I can go in the article of Juan Perón, that currently does not name him as a dictator and find a reference that calls him that, so that I can go later and argue for Juan Perón's inclusion in List of Dictators. The bad faith nature of inclusion in lists is what this guideline wanst to address. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 01:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In your Bush example, the alternative is that the editor could add that name to the list of dictators, without the Bush biographers even knowing about it, simply by convincing the list editors, who might have to quickly try learn about a subject about whom they would be otherwise ignorant. If the editor has to include the info in the Bush article the Bush biographers can see it and question the sources more authoritatively than the list editors, who may be more interested in Eastern European Communists or Latin American Juntas. I can't think of a good reason to have a list give a different characterization of a suject than the respective article. If a sufficiently good case can be made for putting Peron on the list of dictators, than the same case can be made for adding that word to his biography, and the discussion about it is better held at "talk:Peron" than at "talk:list of dictators". [There is no way of testing "faith", all we can do is establish procedures that work regardless.]  -Will Beback 01:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

WP content article and evidentiary standards
Notice, of course, that Peron was removed from the List of dictators precisely because his WP article did not support that characterization. The idea of generally deferring to the judgement (and WP:V, WP:NOR, and all the rest) of the editors of a main article is exactly the right approach. The dictators thing is, I believe, what largely prompted Jossi's interest in this guideline, though I'd like to broaden the focus to other lists. There is not necessarily quite an identity between criteria stated in a list and what is most notable in an article, but if something cannot be supported in main articles, it certainly doesn't belong in a list. But the correlary of that is that if it is WP:NPOV to call Idi Amin a "dictator" in his article, it doesn't suddenly become POV to include him in a list of dictators. And the maintainers of the Amin article presumably are better subject area experts than are the list maintainers. On the other hand, in this example, "dictator" is defined in a specific way on the list, and even though (as of this moment when I checked), the word "dictator" is not used in the article Idi Amin, clear support for both of the stated necessary criteria in List of dictators are contained in the former article.

Follow this further. I could insert "GW Bush is a dictator" in his article, but it would stay there for all of 30 seconds before someone rolled it back. On the other hand, the facts supporting the inclusion have been in the articles for Amin or Anastasio Somoza García (the latter using the word as well), in relatively stable form for months. Deferring to WP content article editors takes a slight amount of common sense, but it's not mysterious. An edit quickly rolled back or widely edit warred is not sufficiently evidentiary; stable long-standing descriptions are quite usable, and are even the best form of evidence to use.

Where I have encountered far more of an evidentiary standard personally is with the identitarian lists. I personally worked on List of Jewish jurists and List of born-again Christian laypeople because of the terrible evidentiary standards. Something like List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers is very similar in concept, as are pretty much all the "Jewish whatever" lists (though a bunch of sockpuppets who had been the worst on these got banned recently). In contrast to the dictators, where adding someone (even if measured against criteria) has a pejorative tone, the editors who add names to these lists do it out of a kind of self-affirmation. To put it frankly, editors who are themselves, Jewish, born-again, or LGBT, feel comforted by adding a bunch of names of famous and respected people to their List of people like me. And this makes for positively horrendous respect for WP:V.

A compounding problem with these identitarian lists is that the adjective term is not particularly cleanly defined. Exactly what it means to be Jewish, born-again, or LGBT is very context dependent, and that context may often change over a person's lifetime. If there is a List of African-born painters (I think there is not currently), it is not particularly subjective or dependent on self-identification. Even if a given painter moves elsewhere during her life, her birth is non-contentious. On the other hand, someone who becomes born-again Christian may change her mind religiously; someone with a Jewish ancestor may or may not identify as Jewish; someone with same-sex attractions or behaviors (for example, less than their opposite sex ones) may identify in various ways, and variously at points in their life.

What happens on these lists is that some very determined self-affirmation identitarians scoff at the notion that a listed person's article should need to support the identity claim (and likewise scoff at including any external citations, or any reliable and relatively non-partisan ones). Having an official guideline that said "it better be supported by the individual's WP article would provide wonderfully unambiguous standards for names that might be added to identitarian lists (those without WP articles would need some external evidence, but hopefully they'll get articles over time as well). I do not need to externally investigate whether each of a hundred painters are LGBT, Jewish, or born-again, as long as I can be relatively assured that the subject area experts in each of the hundred put that information on that content page (and put it there in a way accepted by other editors on the topic). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If only there were a technoical way to ensure that there was no sneaking someone onto a list without adding the "on the list" tag to to article itself. This is one step away from the list becoming a category. -  brenneman (t) (c)  12:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a good point... why to have such lists when you have categories? A better question is, what does a list do better than a category? &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 17:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * List and categories are complementary. Lists can be annotated, while categories cannot. So we can call an entry in a list "debatable", but an article is either in a category or not. Lists can include entries for which we don't have an article (yet). Additions and substractions from a list are easility monitored, but categories are hard to monitor, short of adding every single article to one's watchlist, and checking the category periodically. There are others, but those come to mind in this context. -Will Beback 22:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Lists also allow for reordering and better layout than categories. And they can be used when a single article contains two or more specific items in a particular category (e.g. a List of fruits could contain both oranges and nectarines, even if they were in the same article). Turnstep 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My main concern
My main concern is that in an article, you need to report competing views for NPOV, and those views that are minority views cannot, by any means, be stated as if these were the majority views. In a list, you bypass all of that by the de facto inclusion on a list. Readers see XYZ in List of dictators and does not matter how much context and competing views you pressent in the article of XYZ, his inclusion in the list is making a very loud statement leaning towards the POV that XYZ is a dictator. And we could demonstrate this as follows: Following Lulu, this will not be possible, but according to current policy this is more that possible. Bets anyone? &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 18:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) research a notable source that claims that Bush is a dictator
 * 2) add an NPOV cite "According to XYZ, George W Bush is a dictator" to George W. Bush
 * 3) add G W Bush to the List of dictators


 * This is not possible according to the current list criteria for the dictators. My argument is that List of dictators is exemplary of the best that WP lists can be (of course, I say that having had a hand in making it so).  Most lists have no stated criteria, or minimal and vague criteria.  Many lists have no annoations of listed items whatsoever, or only the most broad summaries of who/what a person/thing is.


 * In contrast, the dictators list states two explicit required criteria (both drawn from a synthesis of numerous respected and consensus sources; which mostly agree with each other, except in difference in wording). By these criteria: (a) GWB is not an absolute ruler; (b) GWB (mostly) does not rule outside the rule-of-law.  Each of those italisized terms is fairly rigrously defined within political science/political theory, BTW.  Moreover, generally (and as a goal) the annotations by each name specifically illustrate the rulers conformance with the stated criteria.


 * So even if we located several sources for the phrase "GWB is a dictator", that would not suffice for his inclusion in the list. OTOH, within the GWB article it might be appropriate to write about the quote, e.g. "According to several sources, GWB should be considered a dictator[footnote]". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So, what you are saying is exactly what I am saying: that a minority viewpoint in an article about XYZ being a dictator is not enough to list XYZ as a dictator. I agree 100% with that and somehow the spirit of that statement needs to be reflected in this guideline. That is what I have tried to wite. User Will Beback was concerned with the lack of abilty of editors to assess what a "widely-held" position is. I would argue to the contrary. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Take it out of the context of the politicized list that grabbed your attention, and the same principle still applies.  For example, take the fairly neutral hypothetical list I mention above: List of African-born painters.  If the place-of-birth of a certain painter is not agreed upon, but some sources speculate she was born in Africa, that should not generally be sufficient for inclusion in the list (or if included, the caveats should be very explicit).  The fact might well be notable enough to mention in the painter's content article, but lists should generally only represent consensus opinion.


 * Of course, we don't need to be pedantic, nor do articles always have exactly the same focus or criteria as lists. So if a person is described as a "Nigerian neo-classicist oil painter" without using the exact phrase "African-born", nor specifying a specific place of birth, we can use a bit of common sense.  Obviously, if we later learn that the painter was not born in Africa, but later obtained Nigerian citizenship, we can fix that&mdash;consensus and common sense aren't the same as "incontrovertably proven". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Do you think the current wording presents this issue clearly? If not, please go ahead and re-write it. This may seem pedantic, but for me it is paramount. There are list editors that believe that if there is a mention anywere that XYZ belongs to a list, that is enough to warrant the inclusion of XYZ in the list, even of there is no consensus or a widely-held opinion that warrants it. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) I liked this: lists should generally only represent consensus opinion. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't all Wikipedia articles represent consensus? How is that different? How do we determine the consensus, except by usual Wikipedia means? -Will Beback 22:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * By some reason, you keep avoiding the fact that lists are more problematic than articles. Look: in an article about controversial topics, to maintain NPOV we have to present all POVs fairly. In a list you cannot always do that because the mere inclusion of a thing in the list implies a de-facto POV assertion that the thing belongs in that categorization. So, we are saying that if there is a minority view point that advocates the inclusion of a thing in a list, that is not be allowed: Lists should generally only represent consensus opinion means that a minority viewpoint is not enough to list a thing in a list. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 23:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. Please explain how we decide which opinons are widely-held, or consensus, or of the majority. -Will Beback 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am trying to assume good faith, but it seems from your comments that you are not accepting the basis for this guideline: that there is an inherent problem with some lists. If that is the case, please say so so we can all understand your position. In regard to your question, why should I do all the explaining...? Surely you can do that yourself as well or better than I can, after all you are a very experienced editor, aren't you? Give it a try... &asymp; jossi  &asymp; t &bull; @ 00:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really accept the premise that there is an "inherent problem" with lists that is any different in principle from problems in so-called content articles (I've used that phrase, but recognize that lists are content too). But as things have practically evolved, I do acknowledge that lists have sometimes become dumping grounds for less rigorous evidentiary standards.


 * In any case, I think there is a distinction to be made about consensus between main articles and lists. To pick my same old favorite hypothetical list: an art historian might publish a book purporting that Titian was actually born in Algiers prior to moving to Veneto as a child.  This example is utterly fanciful, I have no reason to believe this is true.  I suppose such a imaginary book might also purport to find Africanist influences on Titian.  Anyway, the minority hypothesis of this book might well be notable enough to include in the Titian article, but presented there as a minority position.  For list purposes, List of African-born painters should just skip listing Titian until or unless the thesis on his birth becomes consensus.  Obviously, some subtlety and judgement is required here: if the position gains traction, but is still not universally accepted, it might become reasonable to include the name with annotate caveats rather than exclude it altogether. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I concurr. This is my understanding as well. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 01:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So in this context, the consensus is among experts, scholars, etc, rather than Wikipedia editors? -Will Beback 03:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you re-read Lists_in_Wikipedia. I think that it is made pretty clear what we are talking about. If it is not clear we need to re-write that section. &asymp; jossi  &asymp; t &bull; @ 04:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If we want to make sure that there is a consensus among "content article" editors, then couldn't it be handled best by requiring a mention of the characteristic there? Its presence would be dependent on the ongoing consensus of article editors. -Will Beback 06:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would argues that editor concensus should under no circumstances override a widely held POV. We must rely on WP:NOR on this one. Consensus of editors cannot bypass WP policy. I thought that this is implied. If not, we need to amend WP:NORa nd WP:NPOV... My view is that given time and patience editor's consensus should match worldview consensus, don't you think? Otherwise we are in the wrong business :) &asymp; jossi  &asymp; t &bull; @ 16:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't use list for negative (or positive) characterizations
I don't see the need for making this a guideline. -Will Beback 03:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Some lists, even if worth maintaining, imply a negative characterization of the things listed. A good example is List of dictators. Such a list, if not carefully maintained can be used to promote a certain POV: Opponents of a certain ruler may attempt to include that particular ruler in the list despite that ruler not meeting list criteria; and conversely supporters of a ruler may attempt to remove that ruler despite the ruler meeting list criteria. Ensure that the criteria for inclusion in the list are neutral and based on widely accepted definitions of terms.
 * Identitarian lists are another example where POV may often be incorporated. For example, on List of Jewish jurists, List of born-again Christian laypeople, and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers some editors add names to these lists out of a kind of self-affirmation. To put it frankly, editors who are themselves, Jewish, born-again, or LGBT (or otherwise wish to affirm the value of those qualities), feel comforted by adding names of famous and respected people to their List of people like me. In these types of examples, membership in the adjectival category is both contextual and often not obvious. Both clear criteria and adherence to these criteria must take priority over any praise or condemnation an editor may feel is implied by membership.
 * Care to explain why not? &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 04:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Negative characterization" is problematic, as the second paragraph proves. Is "Jewish" a negative term? Yes, to some people, and it's positive to others. "Dictator", "cult", "liberal", "drunk driver", "child molester", "Monarchist" etc, are terms that can be used negatively, but which also have neutral definitions that can be used correctly. I think we should be very careful about creating a rule governing what kind of lists we can have. So long as a topic is V, NOR, and NPOV, that should sufficient. If we can have an article on dictatorship, if we can call certain people "dictators", then we should be able to have a "list of dictators", even if it's a negative term. As a practical matter, some articles, like "list of dictators" itself, have been so hard to maintain that we may have been better off without them. But that is a problem of sourcing and criteria. It is not an inherently inappropriate list. As for the text above, I agree with most of it, only I disagree with the conclusion, in the header. And we should avoid being too-closely wedded to the distators example. Here is a how I'd re-write the text:


 * Set a clear, neutral criteria
 * ''Ensure that the criteria for inclusion in the list are neutral and based on widely accepted definitions of terms. Both clear criteria and adherence to these criteria must take priority over any praise or condemnation an editor may feel is implied by membership. Some lists cover characterizations that can be considered negative. Such lists, if not carefully maintained can be used to promote a certain POV. Opponents of a subject may attempt to include it in the list despite that it does not meet the list criteria; and conversely supporters may attempt to remove that it despite meeting the list criteria.


 * How does that sound? -Will Beback 06:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the title for the section is wrong. I added the parenthetical "or positive" to try to tweak it. But I think the title should be rephrased altogether. However, the specific issue of adding names to a list "because we like them" is important to warn against (IMO, even more than "because we don't like them" is). The identitarian names are a specific issue I've wrestled with to no end, so I think some specificity on stating the danger is worthwhile. Obviously "Jewish" is a term of praise rather than condemnation for most of the existing Jewish list editors... though I guess in principle it could be a term of condemnation given different editors; but it really should not be either if we follow WP:NPOV. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 11:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I like Will's sentence, but I agree with Lulu that a mention of identitarian lists is also needed. I have changed the text acordingly. Nevertheless, I am still somewhat unsatisfied with the possibility that we are not really addressing some of the issues... For example, what is the encycopedic value of lists such as "List of drunk drivers"? And also, what are we saying about other negative characterization that are problematic. For example, it is easy to understand that a "List of demagogs" or a "list of obnoxious people" would not be acceptable, but what about lists of things whose definition is disputed? If the definition a thing is disputed, how can you make a list of things without breaking NPOV, V and NOR? If, for example, you do a "list of cults", whose scholarly definition is completely different to the definition by counter-cult advocates, to add group XYZ to a "list of cults", which definition will you be using? the religious scholar? ("an unortodox religion"), the secular contercult? ("groups that often exploit members psychologically and/or financially"), the Christian contercult? ("adherence to doctrines which are pointedly contradictory to orthodox Christianity"). Even of you chose to describe a criteria as one of these three definitions, you will still be in violation of WP guidelines by asserting one POV over the other. The intention of this guideline is to provide some parameters that addresses these problematic type of lists. So how we address this? &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 16:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed amendment: remove all Jewish-related lists
Please read my sixteen point introduction at Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession and contribute to Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession. Thank you IZAK 10:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * IZAK's suggestion is far outside the scope of this particular guideline. Whatever the merits of IZAK's idea, this page on evidentiary and POV issues is not specific to Jewish lists (though I used one I had worked on as an illustration, in parallel with another religious list, and one about sexual-identity).  The identitarian issues apply in pretty much the same way to anything ethinic, religious, sexual-identitarian, and probably to some concerning political opinions (e.g. I think there was a successfully deleted list about so-called "Pro-life politicians" which was probably a similar marker of "people like us"). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you elaborate on that?--Antispammer 21:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have noticed elsewhere that IZAK has recently expressed a desire to delete almost all Jewish lists under the idea that they might be used by anti-semites to identify (alleged) Jews. FWIW, I am not particularly inclined to follow that sentiment.  AFAIK, SlimVirgin has taken a more nuanced position, similar to my own: keep some, delete others, depending on how much the ethnic/religious thing relates to the profession (but in all cases require more rigorous evidence than has typically been provided).  In any case, whatever the position of those various parties, it really is mostly outside scope of this particular proposed guideline. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Political posturing
Interesting that "list of Pro-life politicians" was deleted. What, in your view, is the difference between a "list of dictators" and that list? Seems to me that the lines get quite blurred.... &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 19:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It might have been a category rather than a lists, I only vaguely recall voting delete. But in either case, the "pro-life" mantle is purely a political self-identification.  Essentially every USA politician postures: "Abortion is bad, but..."  What comes after the "but" varies widely, and everyone who claims to be "pro-life" accuses everyone else of not really being so.  Who was the politician who said "I am opposed to abortion in all cases, but of course if it was my daughter who needed one, I would support her"? And Bill Clinton is famous for his "Make abortion safe, legal and rare" (despite generally being a whipping boy of the fundie "pro-lifers").


 * This is part of why I think that the descriptions treated as terms of praise are even worse than those treated as condemnation. Though there was not, AFAIK, any "List of anti-choice politicians", which would be the same list with a different POV expressed by the title.  For that matter, many anti-abortion fanatics are simultaneously pro-death penalty and pro-war; which tends to show that the term is inherently used in a rhetorical sense rather than a descriptive one.


 * I would not oppose a list that had an actual criteria. For example List of politicians who are members of the National Right to Life Committee.  Well, I wouldn't oppose it on the same grounds, it might still be overly specific in promoting or singling out a particular organization.  Dictator is a term relatively well defined in political science, and the criteria on that list follow the political science consensus. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Lulu for the explanation. It is now clearer for me. Do you think we are ready to post a message at the Village Pump, so others can have a look and comment? &asymp; jossi  &asymp; t &bull; @


 * I think it's ready for some greater attention, and consensus formation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I will post a short message at the Village Pump (policy) &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs more on OR
I don't see much there about not creating lists of slang, or other open-ended lists of crud. There is a real problem with people adding random terms they heard once at a drunken party, or neologisms etc. Perhaps we should distinguish between lists which serve as indexes (ie, every item is a wiki link) and lists which contain terms (see Goth slang and Metasyntactic variables amongst others). On the whole, I think finite lists (works by Bach, world surfboarding champions) and semi-finite lists (brands of snowboard, railway gauges) are much more useful than potentially infinite lists (terms for "bottom", people who have met Pope John Paul II...). Well, perhaps "infite" and "finite" aren't the right terms, but there should be a general limit to the number of potential items in the list, and the feasibility of checking the entries. Stevage 00:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Stevage's goal. Care to propose some languages? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Lists must be adequately restrictive as to provide finite, defined results"? That's a stab at it, but reads kind of high-falootin'. "Lists must not be so open-ended as to welcome infinite results or abuse" would be a more direct way of putting it, but isn't very elegant.  User:MattShepherd 15:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the idea that we have many weird lists, but I think that we should avoid making a rule about what kind of lists are acceptable. That goes way beyond the original purpose of this proposal, to make sure that lists are NPOV. We should probably leave the decisions about what lists to have to the AfD process. -Will Beback 18:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Support
The proposal correctly identifies that lists are used to push a point of view or to have a list of "people like me". Taking them to AfD is often hit or miss because some of the people are members or sympathizers of the group in question or are themselves pushing a point of view. In addition, non-involved parties reason, "We have this similar (POV or identitarian) list, so I don't see why we should delete this one." Having a policy might make it possible to consistently delete these kinds of lists on AfD or delete them all at once. It would be nice if repeatedly violating the policy would get the user a warning since some users produce an inordinate amount of these types of lists. -- Kjkolb 12:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't need another guideline on this
By all means have a discussion page on this, but let's not have instruction creep - it should not be a formal guideline or policy.

All that really needs doing is to employ WP:NPOV and WP:V coupled with the principle that Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia. Nothing more (which is why no separate guideline is necessary).

I'm surprised the discussion at present doesn't make clear what Verifiability means for lists. WP:Verifiability means that every snippet of information should be referenced, and if it is not, it can be removed (although often it may be best to ask for a source and only remove information if none is forthcoming). Applying this rigidly would help a lot - much of the problem with some lists is that they have no sources. For a list, every entry is a snippet of information - every entry requires a source, otherwise it should be removed.

Put NPOV on top to eliminate lists that are inherently biased or campaigning in nature (or to eliminate the bias and campaigning in any lists that are at risk of becoming biased or campaigning nature) and you're pretty much on top of the issue.

In short - apply WP:NPOV and WP:V to lists rigidly and the problem will go away, jguk 20:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a really well-written page. Thank you to everyone who worked on it. Jguk, I agree that it's obvious WP:V applies to lists, but the list maintainers scream blue murder when you try to apply it. With a separate guideline spelling things out, there might be a chance of easier enforcement. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, SlimVirgin. As one that has "suffered" attempting to enforce policy on a few lists all I can say, I wish it was that simple. Fact is that right and left people are using lists innapropriately, thus this effort in providing some recommendations. Each one of the recommendations in this proposed guideline is based on real situations. I see not harm in providing some clarification on how to enforce WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR in lists. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 21:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have definitely "suffered" quite a bit trying to explain to list editors what WP:V means in a list context. One of the worst, in my personal experience, was List of born-again Christian laypeople.  The problem was that the existing editors, who were pretty uniformly born-again themselves, felt that the fact that they had (allegedly) verified it to their own satisfaction was purported to constitute "verification".  So I got lots of retorts of "I checked it with Google".  Moreover, they tended to get up in arms with the idea that it was supposedly either an insult to a person whose name is removed, or an insult to the religious belief listed, to remove an unevidenced name.  Some of the Jewish lists have a very similar problem.  Probably others that I have not worked on too.  Being able to point to a guideline that is specific to lists would have helped enormously in getting editors to understand the underlying meaning of WP:V and WP:NOR. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I would add that I see no harm in discussing how WP:V and WP:NPOV apply to lists - but I wouldn't want to see anything made official. Just keep it a discussion page. I'd also like to see other discussion pages on how Wikipedians see policies applying in given circumstances - but again, I wouldn't want them to have the force of a formal policy or guideline either, jguk 21:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not to have this as a guideline? Please clarify. Thanks. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 21:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the template to illustrate my idea. I believe we should have the minimum number of policies and guidelines, but that it is useful to have discussions as to how they should be applied in given circumstances - enough to be able to show those unfamiliar with our practices how experienced Wikipedians apply policy. Kind regards, jguk 22:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It would also have the advantage that nothing needs to get formally adopted - so people agreeing with 95% of what you say but not 100% won't stop something useful coming out of it, jguk 22:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. I will think about it. As this is the first of such "discussions" I want to understand if these would help, or if these will just be dismissed by list editors with a "hey, these are not guidelines just discussions and have not been adopted by the community". &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @

Examples of why we do need a guideline
I would suggest that you go and check some of these lists, and maybe get a feeling of why we do need a guideline that is unambigous as it pertains specifically to lists: &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 23:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (pay attention to the criteria: "This is a partial list of confirmed and debated famous people who were or are gay, lesbian or bisexual." (my emphasis)
 * List of purported cults (Note the title of the list and the fact that use of the term "cult" is in itself disputed and has various and conficting definitions.)
 * List of transgendered people (No sources provided for more than 35% of the people in the list, and that include Milton Berle, comic who had a standard routine of dressing as a woman, but was not a transgender.)


 * How would this proposal affect these lists? Is there a problem with having a "debated" section in lists? It seems quite useful, as entries will often not be 100% agreed upon, and admitting that an entry is debated is NPOV. -Will Beback 23:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd add that the first two lists you mention have very clear criteria developed through lengthy discussions with many editors. The real problems, IMO, are with lists that have no clear criteria, such as List of political epithets. -Will Beback 23:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with too much text is that people don't read it all, it risks becoming contradictory and is often ignored. Here, all you need to do in those cases is exert WP:NPOV and WP:V. The argument should be "These lists do not comply with WP:NPOV/WP:V in these respects...... If you don't believe me, then look at this discussion page where loads of Wikipedians agree with me that I am interpreting these policies correctly." My point is that the emphasis should be on complying with WP:NPOV and WP:V and stressing that these policies are mandatory to everything in the reader-facing namespaces, jguk 23:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Will, please explain how can you have "debated section" in lists and at the same time conform with WP:V? What you are saying is exactly the reason why do we need a policy for lists: You are asserting that because it is verifiable that there is a debate about person XYZ being gay, it is OK to include person XYZ in the list of gay people. Not so... you need to conform to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as well. Lists are not the place to present competing views, leave that for main articles about the subjects in the list, as you will be making a huge assertion that they are gay by the simple fact that these are included in the list!. People don't read the "small print". That is why you cannot have a list with "debated criteria" if you follow the spirit of this guideline: Set clear, neutral and unambiguous criteria and Lists should generally only represent consensus opinion. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 00:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm 100% in favor of this (or some modification of it) becoming a guideline, if not an outright policy. Just being a "discussion" is far too little, and will be disregarded with no effect on the list editors who are creating the problems addressed here. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be an interpretation of existing policy, clearly linked and based on WP:NPOV and WP:V. It would be too confusing to add lots of new stuff which may conflict with that. Besides, I think all that is needed is a clearcut comment that WP:NPOV and WP:V apply to lists - and indeed meeting the requirements of WP:V can be difficult as every entry needs to have a reference to support the assertion that it meets the list inclusion criteria, jguk 23:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Like every other editor who has worked on this, I strongly and unambiguously disagree with your complete reinterpretation and destruction of our proposed guideline. Please stop unilaterally mass deleting the content of the page! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

I have put forward a number of positive suggestions - in particular the need to tie this unambiguously into WP:NPOV and WP:V. The revised version still needs reworking, put was proposed here. I am eager that whatever happens, it is entirely compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:V, and even more important that it does not detract from them in any way. It's a shame that David is more attached to his words than the concepts. Are they not as follows:
 * WP:NPOV and WP:V effectively necessitate that list inclusion criteria are specified and clear-cut
 * WP:V mandates that all information in a list (and that information includes for each entry that that entry meets the list inclusion criteria) is referenced with a reputable source.

Isn't that really what is needed? And if it is, shouldn't we be explicit in this? jguk 00:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

More on identitarian problems
In principle what you say, Jguk, is correct. Adherence to WP:V and WP:NPOV is mandatory for anything in the article namespace. The problem is that you fail to understand the premise behind this proposed guideline: editors are abusing lists and bypassing policy in lists and getting away with it!. If you read the proposal slowly and in bteween the lines you will hopefully understand how this happens. But believe me, it does happen and more often than you think. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 00:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As for your concerns of compliance with content policies, this proposde guideline not only is in full compliance, but it also furthers the understanding of these priciples as these apply to lists in Wikipedia. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 00:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we've fully evaluated the problem. I'm concerned that making this an enforceable guideline could be a way of bypassing issues in individual lists. There is no objection from the editors of List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people to having a "debated" section. I don't think it's appropriate for us here to decide that that list may not include such a section. -Will Beback 02:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I respecfully disagree. That list and others suffer from a lack of compliance with the non-negotiable content policies of Wikipedia, and the reason for the need for such guideline. The fact that there is no objection from the editors of that list means only that no one has asserted these policies as yet. Consensus of editors cannot override these principles: That is why these have been stated as 'non-negotiable. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 02:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tell me again how that list violates the rules? Are you saying that nothing in any article can be included which is not 100% consensus, majority, widely-held, universally-acknowledge Truth? If so, that isn't how Wikipedia works. We're here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using a neutralpoint of view. I don't see how that list violates any of that. It appears that this propsoal is trying to set a much higher standard for lists than we set for other articles. -Will Beback 03:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made my observations about that list at Talk:List_of_gay%2C_lesbian_or_bisexual_people. It is most definitively non-compliant and a good example why we need to clarify policy in regard of lists. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 03:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And if anyone wants to check why do we need a guideline such as this, read the responses of the list editors after I challenged the compliance of the list with WP policy. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 05:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is almost verbatim the same misguided reaction I got trying to clean up born-again and Jewish lists. For example:


 * ...I take it you are seriously questioning if John Greyson is gay? Really quite mindboggling. Here's an online reference, one you might have easily found yourself. [1]. - Outerlimits 05:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Editors of these&mdash;who feel like they are "in the know" about specific individuals&mdash;perpetually claim that it suffices that a reader "might have easily found" the verification on their own (i.e. by doing outside research). And FWIW, it takes about two seconds for these "in the know" editors to resort to allegations that someone demanding evidence has some prejudice against the identitarian category.  So Jossi gets accused instantly of homophobia for trying to get WP:V met at the LGBT list.  And the first time I asked for evidence at List of Jewish jurists I was said to be a follower of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; and likewise, for asking for evidence at List of born-again Christian laypeople I was accused of anti-Christian bigotry.


 * The moral I certainly take away from this is that citing WP:V (and WP:NOR) never seems to gain enough traction for a large class of editors. Something more specific, and something binding, is really important to get in place. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The base assumption here is fundamentally flawed. Identitarian lists are not any more prone to POV issues than any other list, and any assumption that they are is itself a distinctly unacceptable and blatantly false POV. What the identity lists are more prone to than other lists is being a target for anti-identitarian (racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, etc.) POV and vandalism.


 * I think Bearcat is being naive, at best. While I certainly haven't ever edited, or even read, most of the N thousand lists at WP, I just don't believe that List of songs whose title includes personal names is going to suffer the same POV problems that the identitarian lists often do.  Moreover, while I recognize the conceptual possibility that racists, anti-Semites, homophobes, etc. might do something bad, I've never actually seen this in practice on these lists (except drive by vandals, usually anon IPs, who make easily reverted idiotic additions).  The problems I have seen uniformly come from the "list more people like me, screw the evidence" editors.


 * It is true that certain types of identities tend to promote more problems than others. Part of what the "problem" ones tend to have in common is that they are non-visible in some sense.  Gaydar to the side, it's easy to not know if someone is homosexual.  And it's also easy to not know if someone is Jewish, or born-again Christian.  In some sense, it's only the fact the person endorses the identity that makes it true (I'm not talking about whatever psychology or biology might relate to sexuality: if someone always says they are sexual, we have to take that as highly presumptory; we're not their psychoanalysts).  Nationalities are an identity too, and while its not like you can "tell by looking", there is some official documentation of the fact.  So List of Canadian senators is a lot less likely to have identitarian POV or verifiability disputes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Naive" is one thing I most certainly am not. I expect a retraction forthwith. Bearcat 07:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever. "Bearcat is not naive".  Now can I have a retraction on all the infantile accusations of homophobia, bad faith, stated intents to obstruct the improvements, and so on? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You'd have to talk to Outerlimits on the homophobia and bad faith stuff, because I never alleged either one. And I never suggested that I would block any changes to the article, either; I suggested that I would revert deletions that I considered unjustified on the basis of the existing evidence. Bearcat 07:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, let's kiss and make up. Smooch, smooch.  You indeed never made the homophobia accusations (I just reviewed the talk page of the GLB list), that was mostly Outerlimits.  Some of the obstructionist posturing... well, let's just say we're now all acting in good faith, and for the best interests of Wikipedia. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And for what it's worth, the fact that idiotic drive-by vandalism is easily reverted isn't really the point; the point is that we're constantly going through an endless process of reverting idiotic drive-by vandalism. Yes, it's easily reverted; it's just so damn regular and consistent and endless that it gets frustrating. Bearcat 07:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to understand why you get these reactions when you target an identitarian list, start with the fact that the minority group lists are constantly living under a barrage of persecution and vandalism. So if you want to target the identity lists for cleanup, the onus is on you to figure out how to approach the topic in as sensitive and careful a manner as possible. The onus is on you to figure out how to communicate the problem in an effective and reassuring way that doesn't raise people's hackles. The onus is on you to prove that you're not just another in the endless line of bigoted vandals that we're constantly cleaning up after as it is.


 * It's tough. I think my approach has been improving with refinement.  To put it crudely: the gays have been less obnoxious than the Jews and Christians were.  And some of the other editors who joined in this latest effort have helped a lot too.  I pretty much "went it alone" trying to clean up the born-again list.  That said, it unfortunately continues to seem like you have to step on the right toes to shake lose the entrenched anti-evidence habits of editors on these pages.


 * I suppose I had a vague hope that the fact my bona fides in gay rights are heads and shoulders above those of any of the self-appointed advocates on these pages might have helped. But it didn't really seem to slow down the slew of accusations of homophobia any.  For that matter, Jtdirl who is apparently a really quite significant legal expert and advocate in gay rights worldwide was subject to the the same barrage of infantile insults too. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you still did kind of come across like you were thinking of yourself as the drill sergeant coming in to lay down the law and babysit a bunch of unruly misbehaved children. Which may not have been what you intended, I suppose...but I know from personal experience that what one intends to say and how other people actually hear it can be two different things sometimes. Bearcat 07:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the next person who presumes to lecture me on the appropriateness of my reaction to Jossi and Lulu at Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people is more than welcome to trade lives with me for the rest of 2006. You be a gay man for a year, and maybe you just might begin to actually understand what it's like. Maybe after the 79th time you've had to revert a serial killer who was added on the basis that he was once seen wearing lipstick...maybe after the 327th time you've had to readd Billy Bean because some homophobic sports fanatic doesn't want to admit that any gay man ever played major league baseball...maybe after you've spent five days in an unending argument with people who refuse to understand why "AIDS victims" is an inappropriate category name, less than three months after losing your own best friend to that goddamned disease...maybe then you'll begin to understand why we're entirely justified in reacting the way we do when someone suddenly swoops in with an agenda and starts treating us like a bunch of POV-pushing idiots who need to be babysat.

I'm not suggesting that the lists should somehow be held to a more lax standard than other content. But you have a responsibility to monitor your communication style, and ensure that you approach the subject in a careful and respectful manner. Our reactions would be entirely understandable if you knew anything about what we actually have to deal with as editors of "minority group" topics.

For starters, "This list bypasses the non-negotiable content principles of Wikipedia: WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR" is absolutely the worst possible thing to say as the first sentence in your first post on the topic. For one thing, it does no such f*cking thing whatsoever — and for another, that writing tone would ping any reasonably intelligent editor's bigot-vandal radar. So the first thing to do if you want a smoother ride? Start by finding a more careful and effective introduction, one that stresses the goal rather than the "problem". And if you get a bad reaction, don't chalk it up to POV whiners being obstructionist — actually make an effort to understand why they're reacting badly, because it's an entirely understandable and legitimate reaction if you have even a modicum of ability to empathize with other people's experience. Bottom line? If you're getting a bad reaction, then you need to evaluate and adjust how you're handling and communicating the situation — because we are not reacting in unreasonable or unpredictable ways. Bearcat 05:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do agree, I'm afraid, that I think Jossi's first post was too gang-busters. I did the same thing when I first approached the identical problems on List of born-again Christian laypeople (another oppressed minority, to hear them tell it).  And Jossi did the same initial over-the-top approach on List of dictators, though the issues are very different (sorry Jossi, I have great respect for you, but I think Bearcat has something here).  Of course, once the onslaught of stupid accusations of homophobia started, I confess that pissed me off too.


 * That said, I think the practical advice I put somewhere else on this talk page really is the best approach. Start {fact} tagging specific items on problem lists.  Editors who feel attached to those items still get pissed off, but they usually cave in and just provide the much needed citations (even if accompanied by nasty edit comments at the same time).  In the end, being insulted a few times in an edit history is well worth the end result of getting necessary evidence added to lists. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa. I can see now that my first statement ruffled the feathers and was insensitive to editors. No wonder the reaction. Lesson learned. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 19:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Practical advice
Being a veteran of some of the "list wars", especially the identitarian issues, I've found an approach that seems to work moderately well. I won't say you absolutely won't be subject to abuse for doing this, but it has seemed to work somewhat better than sticking a dispute tag on the whole page or demanding evidence as a general principle on the talk page. The approach: attach a tag to individual items that are improperly supported by the underlying article; make an edit history comment saying exactly this much: "So-and-so's WP article does not evidence that they are what this list describes". If you want to do a bit more, raise the same issue on the talk page, but associated with a particular item.

Obviously, an item should not remain listed forever with a "citation needed" flag and no support. But this is a more gentle way to give existing list editors an opportunity to cleanup specific problems. Give this approach a chance for a few days (individually counting for each flagged item) before deleting the item altogether. Even editors who might otherwise posture "How dare you claim so-and-so isn't ?" will often get this nudge, and just provide a reasonable citation as the path of least resistance.

Not sure if something like this advise might belong on the guideline itself. But this kind of approach is a way of assuming WP:FAITH in editors who may have previously failed to meet WP:V. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is going the wrong way
I'm somewhat startled this guideline makes no reference to the wikipedia guideline that handles this up till now: categories, lists, and series boxes.

I agree with Lulu's points above, except that I'd rather ask external references in the list directly, than referring to wikipedia articles. This works fine, e.g. List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers.

Also see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes.

This "Lists in Wikipedia" guideline proposal does not do better than any of that, so I tend to oppose it, unless it shows to do something fundamentally better than categories, lists, and series boxes. Presently it's just more elaborate, contains a lot of detailed instructions I wouldn't agree to, etc... --Francis Schonken 09:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Francis. I read Lists and categories, lists, and series boxes and I can see some basic info on layout and form, but nothing to address the concerns from which this proposal emerged. I would also argue that the loose language about permissibility in lists, is maybe the source of the problem. I mean While they need to meet the same standards of noteworthiness of any other Wikipedia article, these standards are, as always, fairly lax, is in contradiction with WP:V. I will raise the issue in the talk page of that guideline. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 16:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleting lists, and a proposal
For more context, please see:


 * Articles_for_deletion/List_of_anti-heroes
 * Deletion_review

While I agree that "lists are not a place to make value judgements of people or organizations", recent deletions of what at least some consider useful lists have alerted me. True, the above List of anti-heroes ("a prime example of listcruft", according to one deletionist) should have been called List of fictional anti-heroes to make it absolutely clear that no politicians or other real people must be added.

"The usefulness of lists in Wikipedia is very clear as it often provides the starting point for readers to research a particular subject." Search printed encyclopaedias or other reference material, search the Internet&mdash;some of the lists here at Wikipedia are unique, or were until they were deleted (just think of List of song titles phrased as questions). (Fortunately, Wikipedia mirror sites still have those lists.) As for literature lists, students of literature browsing such a list may find valuable advice on what books to choose and read.

There is hardly any problem with original research as, by definition, a list of titles is, if anything, the basis for research rather than research itself. Verifiability depends on the individual list&mdash;song titles phrased as questions are no problem. The same holds true for the neutral point of view policy.

My point is that fiction needs to be treated as a special case as far as verifiability and NPOV are concerned (see Category:Literature lists for examples). The List of fictional war heroes, which has also been put up for deletion, is a case in point. I claim that the vast majority of people who use the Internet to consult an encyclopaedia are mature enough not to believe every word they read. Additionally, a special template (to be created) might point them to the fact not that the list is incomplete and they should add something to it but that it is deliberately so and will always contain contentious items because it is in the nature of fiction to be debatable. Thus, to me such a sapere aude hint would be most welcome. Each and everyone can make up their own mind: This, I believe, is part of human nature. The alternative, which is currently being practised, is wholesale deletion, which is radical and to all intents and purposes counterproductive but nothing else.

Problems inherent in the collaborative nature of this project must be considered and dealt with, not deleted. How long will it take until someone calls the List of film remakes (which already has that stupid tag) POV, unmaintainable, ambiguous, incomplete, too short, too long, unmanagable, unreferenced, unencyclopaedic, unbalanced? In the long run, what will happen with the List of years in literature pages if people keep adding births, deaths, "events", and book titles? Will they all have to be deleted?

"9D/3K looks like a fairly clear consensus to me, and I see no process problems", writes one deletionist at Deletion_review, and subsequent contributors mutely endorse him. However, in democratic thought, voting is an alternative to, not a synonym for, consensus decision-making. But this is quite a different problem, which I'll have to address at some other place. &lt;KF&gt; 03:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I would argue in support of your position that we need to differentiate between lists referring to fictional things and lists that refer to real things (such as people, organizations, human attributes that are not value judgements, etc.). Would a special tag such as "This lists refers to fictional things or persons" help? Having said that, lists, cannot bypass WP content policies, and if a list is unreferenced, it needs to be referrenced. As for other issues: "incomplete" (most articles are incomplete in WP), "unbalanced" (all articles need to comply with WP:NPOV and lists are no exception), "unencyclopedic" (Wikipedia is not paper, so we have some leeway here), "unmanageable" (you can always narrow criteria in a list and split lists into more manageable ones) ... so we may have already some guidelines to address these concerns. &asymp; jossi  &asymp; t &bull; @ 03:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Concerning the deletion of List_of_anti-heroes, I would argue that had WP:LISTS be an approved guideline, that list could have survived the AfD gillotine: if a clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria for inclusion, as proposed, was agreed upon and applied to list members. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 03:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying so promptly. I should like to wait for some more reactions. Meanwhile, I have difficulty understanding the "unreferenced" aspect. Take, for example, the List of fictional Oxford colleges: What are the references here? The only situation where I would think that list was POV is if someone deliberately removed, say, Gaudy Night from it because they do not like the novel (I would have done so). Any time anyone can add almost any tag to any list; who pays attention to the burden of proof?


 * PS I'll have to stop now, so I won't be able to answer. &lt;KF&gt; 03:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My Solution
A wikipedia editor cannot use any List to justify adding material to any article Lets stop this game of come and go persistence. Obviously this whole debate, started with my comments on how I think Fidel Castro should be called a dictator since he was on the List of Dictators. I started this now I can end it. You can not use a List as a means to push your point of view. Reword it how you like, but you get my point.--Antispammer 03:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You give yourself way too much credit. This proposal started out of a concern that goes back months ago relating to several lists. List of dictators is just one of many lists that need the assistance of a solid and clear guideline. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 05:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think the Deletion Log goes widely unchecked, and I am usually against censorship on wikipedia, unless it is vandalism. I think we need to be careful of what we delete and what policies we are pushing for.  Wikipedia is still too chaotic and administrative friendship circles can sometimes get away with deleting things according to their biased version of NPOV.  For example, Articles_for_deletion/List_of_terrorists. Notice their lack of understanding for the word terrorist.  Also notice however state terrorism in which the United States is on there without any references.  This is due to the nature of wikipedia in which I feel is stuck in the middle ages, where association for political ideaology is almost inevitable, but disastrous.  The subculture of wikipedian adminstrators and editors surrounding the second pillar seems to have prevailed over the first pillar, especially dealing in the subjects of history, which should never be whitewashed.  However having said that, I do hold a very pessimistic and unique view, and I think we should all have good faith, and be bold together.--Antispammer 06:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Long-standing consensus
Thanks Jossi for wrestling with the apparently endless single-topic anti-Castro edit warring of CJK. I want to share an "Aaagghh!" with you (you didn't express one, but just seeing the history makes me say it on your behalf). Obviously, CJK missed the point of the GWB example (or just wanted outright disruption of any process). Nonetheless, removing anything too specific isn't a bad idea.

However, there was one concept you removed that I think is important to mention somehow (well, I added it, so I guess I'm biased; but I'm not attached to it being phrased a certain way). The general idea is that there is a distinction between facts that represent the long-standing consensus of "content article" editors and facts that may occur on a page transiently or within an edit war. The GLB list work we've been doing has helped illustrate and clarify this, I think. So in the old example, the way WP works, GWB wouldn't be characterized as a dictator on his page for more than a minute, because editors would revert such an insertion. But the general principle need not have anything to do with dictators or whatever. In general, if a page says some something about a person (or place, thing, etc. depending on what the list is about), and it's been pretty much the same for many months and through multiple edits to other parts, we can assume the fact in question is considered "consensus of subject area experts". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I wonder if you might avoid the wrath of these awful right-wing Americans (yeah, unfortunately I was born in USA too) by avoiding GWB as an example. CJK seems to think that a mention of GWB not being a dictator needs to be accompanied by a much longer rant about Castro being one.  But maybe if we just chose some other obvious non-dictator for the same example, it would escape the fate: say Angela Merkel (I don't much like her, but she certainly ain't a dictator by any criteria); heck, I don't give her coallition a year in power, so it's very non-absolute. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. Let's find another example that is less controversial and still illustrate the point. Thanks. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @


 * Actually, looking at the general paragraph again, I think it stands well enough on its own without going into any specific examples. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What was wrong with the prior examples? I could care less whether we use GWB or not, though we probably should because readers in the English wiki would be more familiar with him than Merkel. Castro is also widely known as a dictator. And it is an malicious distortion to suggest that I formatted it in a ranting fashion, if anyone actually read it. CJK 01:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say I do agree with Lulu's approach to lists. Lulu argues thats instead of focusing on how lists may be inherently biased as jossi believes, lulu argues that lists should have inherently specific, clear, and logical criteria.  That way once lists are more rigorous in keeping in par with their own criteria, the strong POV bias will be diminished for the most part. Correct me if I am wrong lulu.--Antispammer 19:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sounds right to me, Antispammer. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not "interpret me", Antispammer. My point is that unless lists that have clear and unambiguos criteria, and list members are validated mercilessly against that criteria, and references are provided for their inclusion that are representative of wide consensus (such as a WP article of the list member), list are and will continue to used to bypass WP content policies and to push specific POVs. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @
 * Jossi, it seems I have a niche for misinterpreting you. I have misinterpreted you about 3 times already.  Especially once, that actually led me to insult you in the worst fashion possible.  I have come to my simple-minded conclusion that this is because you are at a way higher intelligence than me.  Anyhow, I do agree with your assessment in which lists will always be used as a tool for POV, and I see that you are a wikipedia politician.  I encourage you to be very strong and fight to make all lists have a clear, specific, and logical criteria. Once, you do that I think the editors will naturally be rigorous in keeping in accordance with their own lists criteria.  I also encourage you to not to use the term NPOV so loosely in your arguments, as I have only been on wikipedia a few days and I have already seen this term thrown around so frequently that I actually question the motives of the people that use it.  It is also because of the nature surrounding NPOV that is the longest and most convoluted policy on wikipedia.  --Antispammer 10:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV is actually the second shortest Wikipedia policy after the unwritten one of "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia". As currently formulated the policy in full is "Articles, including reader-facing templates, categories and portals, should be written from a Neutral Point of View". Admittedly, there is then a lot of discussion about the history of the policy and how it might be applied in practice, but the policy itself is very short:) jguk 11:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Rant, uh-huh... it is sad that you [Lulu] actually think that was a rant rather than a well intended counter-example it was, didn't know that mentioning Fidel in any negative context was going to be characterized a "right-wing rant" (I hope its not just "right wing" now to believe that Fidel is a dictator who oppresses his people). I hope this does not mean that we must be forever enemies on opposing sides, but...

But moving along, I don't think there is a problem with the current version or proposal, though I do think that the examples were good (see above). CJK 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Which version?--Antispammer 19:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Lists in Wikipedia/Alternative version
I'm concerned that this page does not highlight more explicitly that all we're really discussing here is how WP:NPOV and WP:V apply to lists. I have devised an alternative version on Lists in Wikipedia/Alternative version, which I do not claim to be the last word, but which demonstrates the sort of formatting and style that I think this page should adopt. Comments would be welcome, jguk 13:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed your alternative version as this one has had all the comments andf the effort of most editors involved. Feel free to edit and make this one better. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 23:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sensitive lists
I would suggest that certain lists be treated as sensitive (with an appropriate template at the top), and all additions to the list be reverted on sight if they are not discussed first on the Talk page, with source. List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people would be one likely candidate. Rd232 talk 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)