Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multiracial people (2003)

This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.

To whomever has edited this page recently:

As I was in the process of adding to this page, my additions plus your changes, have caused half the data to be lost because I could not save half of what was there. Thanks.SD6-Agent 06:58, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It may be frustrating, but it's not the other editor's (not me) fault. In the event of an edit collision, you will have been given the chance either to merge you changes with the other person's or copy them elsewhere. -- Daran 16:56, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Page name

Would anyone object if I moved this to List of mixed-race people? The word "multiracial" is not one that I am familiar with (is it American?), and it sounds, to my ears at least, inappropriate. Not exactly offensive, but certainly strange. I consider myself to be of mixed race - partly one thing and partly another. The term "multiracial" seems to suggest belonging to many races - being all of one thing and all of another, at the same time, which wouldn't really work... "Mixed race people" gets more Google matches than "multiracial people", anyway. -- Oliver P. 16:49, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes -- I would definitely object. Perhaps this is more of an Americansim, but to me "mixed-race" emphasized the biological nature of this issue and sounds either vaguely clinical or overly focused on the "mixing of [distinct] races. "Multiracial" tends to be used in a way to empasize the cultural aspect, and to me is both closer to the spirit of the list and less likely to make someone wince when seeing the title. If you do this search for both at Google, you'll can see how these are used differently even in the same article. Also check out the Wikipedia article Multiracial.... Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 20:59, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. The debate about what "race" means (assuming it means anything at all) and whether it is biological or cultural or whatever is irrelevant to the present discussion. Both terms - "multiracial" and "mixed-race" - are based on the word "race", so produce exactly the same connotations in that respect.

The only difference is in the parts of the terms unrelated to race. It's a choice between the prefix "multi-" (meaning "many") and the adjective "mixed". If the people in the list were being said to be "multiracial" - "of many races" - the list would say e.g. that Kristin Kreuk was both (fully) Chinese and (fully) Dutch. It doesn't. It says "1/2 Chinese, 1/2 Dutch", which is clearly saying that she is partly Chinese and partly Dutch. A mixture, if you will.

The present title does make me wince, because it looks just plain wrong. To me, it makes no sense to describe a person as "multiracial". According to the New Oxford Dictionary of English, "multiracial" means "made up of or relating to people of many races". Note that that's "people" in the plural. So it makes no sense, at least in standard British English, to apply the term to an individual. Maybe it has acquired another meaning, but as I said above, I'm not familiar with it. I've just asked a couple of other people here, and they're not familiar with it, either. Shouldn't we stick to terms that all English-speakers will understand?

By the way, in the Google search you give a link to, many of the pages use the word "multiracial" in its standard sense. There are some that don't, but I don't see how they help your argument. Rather, they show that even those people that use your meaning of "multiracial" also use the term "mixed-race", which suggests that it is considered perfectly acceptable by those people. -- Oliver P. 23:07, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Oliver. I won't get into a long response here, and rather than debate the logic of your position or the points you've made, I'll just note that it seems clear that the terms are used differently (or not used) in the States and in the UK. I was just trying to provide more info with the Google search, rather than explicitly support my "position."

The short version is that with the history of race in the USA, something about the term "mixed-race" immediately brings to mind (at least for me) other terms like miscegenation, mulatto, octoroon, and half-breed. Admittedly it's subjective, and you may or may not feel this is applicable, but you asked if anyone objected. It's up to you. -- Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 19:10, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think you're right, that "multiracial" must be an Americanism (I'm in the US) while "mixed-race" a Britishism. I also agree with Bcorr that to my American mind mixed-race sound slightly insulting, while I am sure Oliver's British mind finds multiracial insulting. Perhaps whichever we finally choose should have an explanation of that. I would say since we started it at multiracial, leave it there, and put a redirect from mixed-race. -- zandperl 15:52, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, if we're resigned to the fact that whatever title we have will offend someone, can't we at least have a title that is grammatically correct to everyone? :) -- Oliver P. 04:51, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Deletion

See also: List of Queer composers, wikipedia:list, list of people, list of people by nationality. Reworked (Martin 13:09, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)) - pre-reworked version

Feature suggestion: WikiList project -> wikipedia talk:list

Keep

Delete

All or nothing (comments)

Remove, but only if we also remove other lists based on race.

I say, all or none. NPOV: if we must list people by race or ethnicity, then every person alive or dead should be able to be listed. If not, then we are not NPOV because some unlisted people will be in a second class, so to speak. If this page is deleted, then Wikipedia must delete every such page. If it is not deleted, then Wikipedia must create such pages for every race and we will need to decide what the official list of races are going to be. I think you can see where I'm going. Deleting them all would be best and most neutral. Daniel Quinlan 16:20, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

I'm undecided on the current list, but if it goes, so do other race-based lists (NOT nationality lists, however, two different things!). Most lists should be kept, however: without them, we lose a lot of important nodes connecting the 'pedia. -- Jake 14:34, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Other comments

The list could get long --deletionist

There are dozens of lists that could get really long. What's the problem with having a potentially long entry if the content is information? We don't list every applicable person alive or dead, just those who justify encyclopedia entries, and sometimes only a selection of them. --inclusionist

One criterion for reasonableness (besides interestingness) of a list is whether the group is small relative to the relevant population. E.g., reasonable: List of Nebraskans, List of Asian-Americans (which is fine), List of people with the same first and last name. Less reasonable: List of New Englanders, List of East Europeans, List of people with same first and last initial, List of people with some disability. Unreasonable: List of unmarried people (though List of marriages might be okay), List of European-Americans, List of people with different first and last name, List of men, List of people with glasses, List of heterosexuals (that was a big to-do). (Disclaimer: Your mileage may vary.) Multiracial seems an entirely reasonable and interesting category. -- VV 23:59, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Long precedence of such lists (could only be deleted if some sort of new general precedence on lists was create, unlikely). Not liking the list is not a reason for deletion. Lists of majority groups is silly -- common sense. Maximus Rex 04:10, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If these people are prominent for having done something, they should be listed for their accomplishments, not just for what they are. -- Arwel 11:29, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Agree with "not just for what they are, but note that there's nothing to say a person can't be on multiple lists (what they did, "what" they are, where they're from, etc.)Jgm 12:22, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Meaningless?

Does anybody claim to be just one nation? Especially people from the former colonies like USA? Muriel Gottrop 15:11, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC) (2/8 german, 1/8 chinese from Macao and 5/8 portuguese)

The only question is how do we determine that a person is clearly of two "different" races? For example, would a person who was partly of Germanic blood and part Arab count as biracial, or would they merely count as Caucasian? And I think we should make a note on our page that we're not counting mestizo people as "interracial". Wiwaxia 22:27, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think these questions of definition and boundary and meaning are important ones, but just because the task is difficult doesn't mean we should delete! Let's just do the best we can. :) Martin 22:46, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Neutral? Offensive?

It is POV to only have such lists for a limited subset of all potential ethnicities/races. Remember, NPOV attempts to have no standpoint on every issue, and saying only certain categories are interesting is certainly a standpoint. I would be comfortable keeping the list of multiracial people iff lists of people for more "standard" races appeared. Would anyone reading this like to help work on a list of caucasian people or list of famous caucasians? -- zandperl 01:07, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, the decision about what is interesting or not may not be fully neutral, but it has to be made daily. For instance, this very page constantly hosts debates about whether individual people "deserve" to have a Wikipedia page, which is of course a judgement call. But note that my standard is of interesting and small. Thus, lists of people of any continent-sized race (white, blacks, Asians) would be just too big; lists of people of a certain race within a nation in which they are a minority (e.g., European-Zimbabweans or Chinese-Malays or German-Chileans) is more reasonable by this standard. Similarly, biracial people are a small minority resulting from recent migration patterns and thus fit. Furthermore I don't think there's much doubt that they are of interest to many (above comments witness). -- VV 03:55, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A list of biracial people is certainly valid, considering we have lists of Chinese-Americans, Italians, Japanese, Mexicans and even Lithuanians (though people wanted to delete that last one). Wiwaxia 22:27, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am multiracial and I find this list offensive. You do not see a list of disabled people or a list of women, and either of these groups would likely also be offended if a list of "them" were created. Listing whom is mutiracial identifies these people solely by that characteristic rather than by their important contributions to society, and continues to marginalize us. In addition, I find the very existance of this list to be evidence of its non-NPOV (US Christian middle-class): there are no lists of Caucasian or Asian people (both groups are successful and accepted in America), but there are lists of African-Americans and Jews. Keep only if lists of Caucasians, Asians, disabled persons, non-disabled persons, women, men, heterosexuals, homosexuals, and so on, are to be created. --zandperl 16:03, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC) (1/2 Chinese, 1/2 Jewish and I don't even know what countries the Jewish comes from)

To repeat I point I previously made, if we have a list of people who are astronauts are we then required to compose a list of people who are not astronauts? If we say that Isaac Newton is famous enough to justify an entry but my sixth grade math teacher John Smith is not, are we saying that Newton is better than Smith? In my opinion, the obvious answer to both questions is no. The existence or non-existence a list or entry doesn't imply any moral value about the people who are in it. The question of whether a list is useful or interesting is one best handled by the same consensus used to judge whether or not a person is famous. MK 00:05 (EST) 27 October 2003

I am of mixed race, and I find the idea of deleting this list offensive. There, that's balanced that out nicely. ;) By the way, the principle of NPOV applies to the content of pages in the Wikipedia, but cannot apply to the selection of what pages to have. Everyone has their own points of view about what should be included, and it's impossible to accommodate all of them. My point of view is that lists of people are only interesting if the entry criterion is membership of a fairly small minority. (Okay, so everyone has ancestors from different ethnic groups, if you go back far enough, but only a minority are explicitly referred to as doing so.) It's not necessary for each list of members of a minority to have a complementary list that lists everyone who isn't in that minority. -- Oliver P. 00:38, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Further discussion

This page is a potential cross-referencing nightmare - anyone adding information to it which is not in or added to the page of the individual in question should be hunted down and yelled at. Onebyone 17:17, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I concur. Martin 21:41, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Muriel's suggestion for a Wikilist project -> Wikipedia:Wikitrivia discussion (i just created this one...)