Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

List vs Category

Can we strengthen the notion that having a category is no reason for deleting a list on the main page? This rationale is always used for deleting lists when a category exists, and I am directed to this page, but there is nothing here that says that. If the language was a bit stronger it would be helpful. Also in lists of people including birth and death year would make a list of people inherently useful since you can sort on year of birth or search for the youngest, oldest, first born, first dead quickly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

From the intro of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes:

[Categories, lists, and article series boxes] should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other.

I suppose that was what you were looking for. Don't know who directed you to the list guideline, it would have made more sense to direct you to a guideline that compares categories with lists.
That being said, each of these grouping techniques has its own "maintenance" characteristics: for each page (be it category page or list page) the benefit of having the page is compared with the effort needed for its maintenance. Sometimes a category is easier, and the list has no real added value, or in other cases a category would cause problems where a list wouldn't: in these cases the community can choose to have one of these types of pages, and not the other. But in many cases maintaining both is more than justified, because each has its specific advantages, and the disadvantages of maintainability don't outweigh that. But, unless a content policy (WP:NPOV, WP:V,...) gives a binding indication, that is often a community decision. --Francis Schonken 10:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Re birth and death years in lists: I'm with you there. Note that for disambiguation pages (which are a highly formalised type of lists), this is inscribed in the MoS, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#People. I'd support to adopt that as a general principle for (most) people lists. Not always, however. And some lists would be more useful when indicating years in office I suppose (compare the little list in template:Princess Royal). --Francis Schonken 10:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Thats why I have been converting lists to tables, and using the sort version. They have spreadsheet-like functions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see leaving the decision to the vagaries of a vote on a case to case basis as being useful. It would save much time and effort to say that both are complimentary, and that having a category is no reason to delete a list. Its like arguing over which is more useful: a table of contents; or an index in a book, and relying on a vote book by book. I am sure votes would be cast in favor of one or the other, yet books always have both. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure if this is the appropriate forum for this question. If it isn't, I'd appreciate a point in the right direction. I removed over 100 redlinks from the List of progressive rock bands and musicians because it didn't seem appropriate for a list to have so many redlinks. Another editor objected on the grounds that many of the bands were important but obscure and that the list also could serve as a list of needed articles for progressive rock bands. I appreciate those points, but my concerns is that when a list item is a redlink, there is no way for somebody viewing the list to know if the redlink represents a notable band that doesn't have an article yet or a band that completely fails WP:N. In a case where there were two or three redlinks it might not matter all that much, but this was a huge number of redlinks. Is there a policy regarding redlinks in lists? I read the project page and the archives and couldn't find anything. Thank you. janejellyroll 10:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I had a similar issue with List of illustrators, which was basically a magnet for anyone (generally anon IPs with no other contributions) to add entries which nobody could verify. I took the approach discussed on the talk page there - if they don't have an article, remove from the list. An exception to that would be if they were notable but didn't have an article yet, in which case references would need to be provided for inclusion into the list.
If you look at the list before cleanup you'll see how many redlinks there are. What you can't see is that a huge proportion of the bluelinks go to articles which are not about illustrators at all, just namesakes of non-notable (or at least unreferenced) illustrators.
I think that list before the cleanup had no value at all to anyone and was totally unencyclopedic, but is now worthy of inclusion. I agree with the approach you've taken with List of progressive rock bands and musicians, although it's worth pointing out that without constant attention, it won't take very long to return to its previous state. Better guidelines would certainly help with dealing with objections, if this approach represents consensus, which it seems to from what I've read. CiaranG 12:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I posted this suggestion on the List of progressive rock bands and musicians, but it certainly has broader applicability for most WP Lists.
A number of us working on the List of photographers were struggling with red-linked names being added to the List, which was becoming increasingly diffult to maintain/verify (and the subject of vandalism/spurious entries). So we reserved space on the article's talk page for red-linked names (which could then be easily verified, and removed altogether if they were not noteworthy - or removed and added to the main List when articles had been created for them). When a red-linked name is found on the main list, we simply shift it to the talk page, check the notablility of the name on the Internet and several authoritative online/text reference tools and provide those research links as applicable. Then we wait to see if the red-linked name turns blue, or go ahead and write a stub or lengthier article if the research is promising and we feel so moved. The same solution would probably work for this List, too. What do you think? Pinkville 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan, and it seems to be working in practice. CiaranG 18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
We independently reached the same conclusion at List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft, and while at it, we decided to also agree on other issues, such as the format of each entry, eligibility criteria, etc. We ended up creating a dedicated list inclusion guideline, which is now a sub-page of the Talk page, with a pointer to it from the Talk page. We also created a 'holding zone', another Talk page sub-page, where we keep redlinked (but otherwise apparently eligible) items. Crum375 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Interrupted Numbered Lists

How would you go about formatting a list where the list is interrupted by text?

Thanks, The freddinator 16:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind - I got it.The freddinator 16:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking to lists

I think the guidelines ought to cover the adding of lists to "see also" entries. I see many cases where the links are tenuous and where the reader value is questionable (e.g. why would somebody reading about, say, a singer who happens to be mixed race - and whose career hasn't been defined by that - want to click through to a list of mixed race people?). --kingboyk 12:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't. Delete it unless it is directly relevant and not mentioned in the article. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

is there a template

to use when a list is being considered to be turned into a category? maybe something along the lines of "This list is being considered for Categorization, blah blah blah April 2007, discuss on the talk page" or something? --Piemanmoo 06:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Attribution

When creating a standalone list which contains only existing wikipedia articles, how is attribution handled? Should references be left to the individual articles in the list, or should they be transcribed over to the list page? I ask because a list I am working on has been tagged as unreferenced, but looking around for examples I haven't yet found a List which includes references. Marasmusine 06:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the references should be in the articles themselves unless some particular item is disputed (or likely to be disputed). --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bibliographies

Are unannotated but complete bibliographic lists of notable authors encyclopedic under WP:NOT if the vast majority of the books wouldn't qualify for independent articles under WP:BK? If so, what is the threshold for making the list a separate article? See for instance John Piper bibliography. Compare also Category:Bibliographies by author. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletion of obsolete lists

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Mass_deletion_of_obsolete_lists.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition

The following two statements should be added to this guideline, in my point of view:

  1. It is discouraged to create lists which do not containt any information except for a textual presentation of items (i.e. with no internal links to articles). Wikipedia is not a place to collect and indiscriminate collectino of informaiton nor is it a a directory.
  2. Creation of lists when all of their internal links are redlinks, is not a best practice. Creation of lists about such topics should be postponed to after some articles are established, which could be collected in these lists.

I tried my best to present them as shoulds, not musts; if you think these should be reworded, feel free to give it a try.

Your comments would be appreciated. huji—TALK 10:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On your first suggestion I have no strong feelings except to note that I assume you mean stand alone lists, not lists internal to an article. However, I would proceed with caution here, I as can see that there could be situations in which a list of non-notable items is a useful addition to the encyclopedia. I vigorously oppose your second suggestion, as it violates one of three purposes set forth for lists: Development. A lot of red links in a list indicate an which the encyclopedia needs better coverage not that the list is invalid. Dsmdgold 14:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How would a list of non-notable items add to an encyclopedia, by only listing some names in text, with no reference? Again, when there are lots of redlinks, without a source, how could we prove them? I am speaking about standalone lists of non-notable items, the notability of which could not be assured, because of lack of any citation, either intrawiki, or out of wiki. Do you think rewording the above statements to target what exactly I'm speaking about, can help?huji—TALK 18:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. Agree, but with Dsmdgold's caveat.
  2. Agree. Red links should be used judiciously for subjects that actually warrant an article, which most new editors fail to do.
There is a worrying propensity to create lists of just about anything.Adrian M. H. 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you intend the first rule to refer to lists of non-notable items, wouldn't it be helpful to refer to notability in the rule? As to the second rule, it seems seriously problematic for the reasons mentioned above. e.g. what would you do about List of Ambassadors from New Zealand to France (let's pretend for illustration that there are no bluelinks here)? Christopher Parham (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Parham, I'm in agreement with you, at least to some extent. The above statements should not sound like a crtieria for speedy deletion. They should sound like "should not"s. I'm not a native English speaker, you may help me by rewording my senteces above. And about a link to notability guideline, you are correct. huji—TALK 03:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
To address a few of the points here, a list on non-notable items is different than a list of non-notable items without a source. Not all lists of non-notable items are useless, although some are. There are many lists of notable items that are mostly red-links simply because no one had gotten around to writing the articles yet. For examples see the various state lists for NRHP properties. Inclusion of a property on the NRHP in and of itself moves the property to notable status, yet ewe have very few articles on them because few editors have been interested in writing articles on local landmarks. Another example is List of dragonfly species recorded in Britain. When it was first created it was overwhelmingly red-links. Now it is a featured list. Dsmdgold 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

List contents

Can Milo explain to me why he deleted this text? Please respond with how this text is incompatible with current policies. After all, Guidelines are there to explain and clarify policies.

Avoid creating lists based on a value judgment or opinions of people or organizations. For example, a "List of obnoxious people" is clearly not acceptable, but more subtle examples could be a "List of demagogues", or "List of exploitative companies", or a "List of authoritarian leaders", as each one of these are based on value judgments even if these can pass the test of verifiability.



The principle of Neutral Point of View, declares that we have to describe competing views without asserting any one in particular. When dealing with lists, this can sometimes become a challenge. If you include political leader XYZ in a List of dictators, on the basis of a mention of XYZ being a dictator by one source, be sure to confirm that this is a widely held opinion, otherwise you will be in disregard of NPOV. Wikipedia:No original research applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed.

Provide an argument that dismissed the above text as being in contradiction with content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been previously warned about this unilateral guide-creation behavior at section Wikipedia_talk:List guideline#Attention: Jossi. There's more if you continue to press, but I'd prefer to avoid embarrassing you, and move on with project work.

Jossi, ... please stop being impatient. New sections have no place on the guideline page until they've acquired consensus. You are skipping the most important step of the process of creating guidelines: that of building consensus. You are trying to apply the process in reverse: requiring the building of consensus to remove the changes you've made to the guideline page. If you keep going straight to the guideline page with your changes (which have failed to reach consensus here so far, and in a previous proposal draft), then this matter will have to be reported on the Administrator's notice board, as you keep violating WP:POV, which is especially serious when it pertains to the foundation upon which Wikipedia is built: it's policies and guidelines. Your actions will not survive the scrutiny of several administrators, so please, do not force the matter any further. Continue to press your points of view on this talk page, and if they have merit, others will support them. --Polar Deluge 03:57, 6 August 2006

PD: Please tone down the rethoric and the silly threats. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:02, 7 August 2006

Polar Deluge's accurate comments on your unacceptable behavior speak for me as well. I'm unimpressed by your response to PD, which at best highlights your insensitivity to the need for contrition, and at worst is part of your jossi: boss of Wikipedia imperium behavior seen elsewhere.
Even if this were an ordinary article, which it is most certainly not, the cycle is bold, revert, discuss, not bold, let-stand, discuss. After you read this and have a chance to think clearly about your shrinking options, I will again revert this unconsensed addition from the List guideline.
To make your options unambiguously clear, if you then again edit this section back in, I will take you to WP:AN, where you will face additional charges as well. (Btw, it's not my style to bluff.) Your adminship is on ethically thin ice, so you don't want that to happen. Be wise, step back into line while you have the chance. Milo 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You accusations are without merit and pretty close to a personal attack. By all means place an inquiry at WP:AN if you think I have abused my admin privileges or if my behavior is incompatible with established principles. You reverted my additions, and you did not address the argument presented. Guidelines in WP are there to explain policy, and the text added is 100% compatible with such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, personal attacks like this are unacceptable. Guettarda 20:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
A lot of editors confuse a behavior comment with a personal attack. 'jossi is a blankety-blank' is a PA. Tough but civil comments on editors' behaviors are not personal attacks. 'jossi is misbehaving and here is a diff of it' is a permitted and necessary behavior comment. Especially, apparent behaviors of guide or policy breaking are commentable. Otherwise no one could ever tell another editor that they were misbehaving, thus giving the other editor an opportunity to improve or explain that their behavior was misunderstood.
And please recall that I'm the second editor to be calling jossi's behavior unacceptable. There's getting to be a lot of metaphorical smoke here to rebut jossi's claim of no metaphorical fire. Milo 01:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You are most welcome to assess my editing behavior as unacceptable. But you are to be most discouraged to make threats as the ones you made above. Most inappropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, let's deal with that notion. Apparently, when you tell other users that undesireable things are going to happen to them because of their Wikipedia guide or policy breaches, you claim to be "warning" them. But when I do the same thing to you, you call that a "threat". By parity, either you have posted hundreds(?) of "inappropriate threats" to other users (and I less than 10 probably), or we both have posted "warnings" as permitted and encouraged by Wikipedia guides and policies.
I choose to call them "warnings". But if you persist with the "threat" terminology, know that in the real world it's legal to "threaten" to sue or call the cops. Likewise, at Wikipedia, it's regular (rules-ok) to "threaten" to perform actions allowed to any editor, and to report irregular behavior (not rules-ok) to the Administrators' Noticeboards. Milo 05:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, if you have any concerns about the exercise of my duties and as administrator, by all means place a notice at WP:AN. You are welcome to check my logs. I will not respond anymore to these type of comments. If you have something to complain about about my behavior, do so at the WP:AN where it will be evaluated by fellow admins. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Please respond with how the added text is incompatible with current policies. Address the argument without resorting to threats and other such remarks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Jossi's text. I think that any list whose inclusion criteria are not absolutely objective, or based on overwhelming consensus, would be in violation of WP:NPOV, and therefore cannot exist as such. Crum375 20:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the text - it isn't something new, just an application of policy to the list guideline. Guettarda 20:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I support it too. ElinorD (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this text as well; it's just iterating existing policy. Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Example

Let's assume a List of mass murderers. In such a list, would it be acceptable to add to the list George W. Bush based on Islamist sources? Would the same list allow the inclusion of Ariel Sharon based on one source (for those not familiar with this subject, note that there are such sources)? Surely not. This text applies to all lists on subjects about which there is dispute and it explains the application of WP:NPOV to lists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If my wording needs improving, or other editors have alternative proposals on how to address the application of NPOV to lists, these will be welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Such a change needs wider discussion

The notice at the top of guideline pages states This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.

But Jossi, you posted changes directly to the guideline without it becoming generally accepted first. That renders the guideline notice totally false.

There are over 8,000 lists on Wikipedia, which in turn contain hundreds of thousands of listed items and links. So any change to the guideline pertaining to them has wide ramifications. A single individual should not be allowed to unilaterally and single-handedly change a well-established guideline.

Changes to the guideline should be made after consensus has been reached concerning the proposed change. Sincerely, The Transhumanist    23:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I agree. I added the wording as I believe that it was a worthy addition. Another editor reverted (and that is fine) but did not engage in a discussion. So I reverted again to force a discussion. Now hopefully people are engaging in a discussion and that is good. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You've still got it wrong. The editing cycle for ordinary articles is bold, revert, discuss, not bold, revert, rebold-and-discuss. You could have, and should have, started the dicussion without the re-bolding edit. Since I explained my action in the edit summary, I think it is optional for me to start the discussion; I've seen many reverts accepted without discussion. But since, by two opinions, you improperly used "bold" in a discuss-first Wikiguide, I decided to give you the option of letting the improper edit drop from sight, rather than face your present embarrassment. Milo 05:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that the only one being embarrassed is you, Milo. It is sad that you do not notice it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The change contradicts WP:CONSENSUS

Quoting that policy...

Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process.

So the arguments above and the guideline change they support, which would require "overwhelming consensus" prior to including them in a list (or even creating a list in the first place) violates the essence of "silence equals consent".

Therefore, I oppose Jossi's changes to the guideline.

Note that guidelines and policies do riquire the building of consensus first. But to require that articles be subject to the same procedure would create a terrible bottleneck in their development.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist    23:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You objection is noted. Now let's discuss the merits or lack thereof of the addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Closer analysis

Avoid creating lists based on a value judgment or opinions of people or organizations. For example, a "List of obnoxious people" is clearly not acceptable, but more subtle examples could be a "List of demagogues", or "List of exploitative companies", or a "List of authoritarian leaders", as each one of these are based on value judgments even if these can pass the test of verifiability.

But there have been verifiable demagogues and exploitive companies throughout history. To disallow lists of this nature doesn't seem appropriate. The part of this guideline that troubles me the most is that it attempts to override Wikipedia's verifiability policy. There are many things that are subjective which are objectively reported on Wikipedia. Jossi, you seem to have confused subjectivity of reporting with subjectivity of the subject. The Transhumanist    23:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

Let me point out a phrase that is included in all our content policies (my highlight):

Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

What that does mean? It means that having Verifiability is not enough. You need WP:NPOV as well, and a list in which only one viewpoint is presented cannot be NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain further. In the article about Fidel Castro all significant viewpoints about his leadership of Cuba are explored. Those that assert the viewpoint that he is a dictator, those that assert that he is a gracious leader, and various hues in between. That is NPOV at its best. On the other hand, a List of dictators (that BTW, was deleted in an AfD based on the same arguments I am making here) that includes Fidel Castro is de facto asserting the viewpoint that he is a dictator, without the benefit to present competing views about his leadership of Cuba, and that, my fellow Wikipedian, is a violation of WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You said above: "But there have been verifiable demagogues and exploitive companies throughout history". Of course! That is what we have in Wikipedia articles about companies such United Fruit Company in which we can present all viewpoints about such a company, and articles about people such as Mussolini in which we can present all viewpoints about the fascist leader of Italy. In a list, you cannot do that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You're coming very close to asserting that because a list article isn't a text article, that Wikipedia can't have list articles containing any subjective information. The next section contains a vetted method I call primary reliable source references, in which Wikipedia does not take a position on whether a listed person is, say, a dictator, but points to reliable source references that make that claim. The improved article would be titled, List of persons referred to as dictators. By thus not taking a position Wikipedia remains NPOV.
Likewise, supporters of Castro would free to create a list titled List of persons referred to as non-dictators. One could even combine the two as List of persons referred to as dictators or not. Milo 05:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Milo. You'll be censoring lists. Besides, the items on the lists are links. All the reader needs to do for clarification on any subject on the list is to click the link. Disallowing such lists by citing the NPOV rule is ludicrous. Lists are excellent research resources, and if you wanted to study "dictators", then a list of them is a good place to start. Without such a list, you are left finding them by search string which can be quite time consuming. And if someone contests an entry on a list, then an annotation with the objection could be included. Jossi, your proposed addition to the guideline is very anti-list, and would be able to be applied to any list that was even slightly subjective. This would hinder the very purpose of having lists in the first place. No subject for which there is an article is off-limits to lists. If you can have articles on a particular type of thing, then it stands to reason that you can have a list of those things as well. The Transhumanist    22:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Already solved problems using List contents example

Quote:"Let's assume a List of mass murderers. In such a list, would it be acceptable to add to the list George W. Bush based on Islamist sources? Would the same list allow the inclusion of Ariel Sharon based on one source ... ?" -- Jossi 21:07, 5 May 2007
Hypothetical lists can be conjured up that would simply never exist for long, and that's probably one of them. No matter who claimed that George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon belong on LOMM, would be wrong in rhetorically-accurate English because murder is illegal killing. Sovereign heads of state and their militaries (usually) commit legal mass killings during time of war.
But fixing the hypothetical to List of mass killers, the short answer is that, yes, if the Islamist sources were ultimately vetted as WP:ATT/WP:RS reliable sources, then George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon are acceptable list entries. But what's still wrong with that, is that global citizens conflate murder with killing, so they think that the likes of Timothy McVeigh should be on that list and not heads of state -- though they would waffle about whether to include Augusto Pinochet and Idi Amin. My solution would be to add an exclusion filter similar to list rule #5 implemented at List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC), such that heads of state are excluded from listing.
Without the head-of-state filter, the next problem would be that those who excuse McVeigh's actions as justifiable homicide in revenge for Branch Davidian deaths at Waco, may (weakly) claim that Wikipedia is taking sides against Branch Davidian interests by "is"ing that McVeigh is a mass killer, due to the list title being ("List of whatevers"). With the LOGRTAC method, that problem is generically solved by adding "referred to" to any controversial, but reliably sourced "List of blanks referred to as whatevers".
That way Wikipedia is not taking sides in a controversy. WP simply points out reliable sources of controversial opinions where others have claimed 'George W. Bush is this ' and 'Ariel Sharon is that '. These are pointers or references. It turns out that if one doesn't like references, one doesn't like encyclopedias (a tertiary source totally dependent on references), and one therefore has no business editing at Wikipedia.
Of course the sources themselves are NOT NPOV, and there is NO WP requirement for them to be NPOV. Because there may be a dispute about the fact-checking reliability of otherwise reliable Islamist source analysis, adding "referred to as" to the title solves this problem, because they are now a reliable primary source: i.e., the Islamist press/media, correctly news analyzed or not, really did say that about George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon. The WP standard for reference to a primary source, is that anyone without special knowledge can see that it is true, that the otherwise reliable source, Islamist or not really did say that.
A remaining "problem" with this presently working approach at LOGRTAC is that anti-reporters who want to suppress opinions that they don't like, can never be satisfied. In essence they say, '...but, if Wikipedia implements primary reliable source references in lists, then readers can still link to opinions that I don't like'. To which, the short pro-reporting answer is, yes. Milo 01:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not arguing that we need NPOV sources, that is a straw man argument. ALl sources are POV, representing the bias, opinion, etc. of the source. The problem with your analysis is that you are violating WP:NOR in excluding heads of state from an hypothetical List of mass murderes as that is just arbitrary and from your invention. Also, as argued above, it is not enough to build an article on the basis of WP:V alone. You need to respect NOR, NPOV, and V as well. That is what the text added is stating. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
And we are not here to discuss a specific list, BTW. That is better done at article's talk and not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
"you are violating WP:NOR in excluding heads of state" You aren't the only one to claim this, but I've looked over WP:OR (=WP:NOR while typing one less letter) and I don't find a statement that declares that selecting and organizing article information is original research. Pick the applicable statement(s) from WP:OR and I'll consider your position further.
"excluding heads of state... is just arbitrary " That de-selection at LOGRTAC isn't arbitrary since it is done by rule, and the rule itself isn't arbitrary since it evolved from a specific organizing need. For Stalin to be listed as a general cult reference is an inaccurately intermixed junior homonym. After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, therefore at least some selection is mandated.
"not arguing that we need NPOV sources" I'm aware that you know that. I wrote that for others who read this, to avoid that 'frequent Wikipedia misunderstanding'.
"And we are not here to discuss a specific list" You choose your examples and I'll choose mine. I choose to discuss LOGRTAC as an example because it's got a working controversial list system, of which many editors seem to be unaware. I'm not claiming that further LOGRTAC improvement is unnecessary, only that some of the subjective list article problems you are concerned about have been solved there. For sure, LOGRTAC works better than did List of dictators. Milo 05:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not the only one that is asserting this. There are other experienced editors that are a telling you the same (user:Gimmetrow, user:Pjacobi and others), but you do not seem to be able to listen. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The WP:OR thing? To me it's currently an unsupported hypothesis. Pick the applicable supporting statement(s) from WP:OR and I'll consider your/their position further. Milo 07:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
That is being discussed at that article's talk page. There are at least four editors addressing the NOR violation of that list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
And I repeat yet again, please do discuss specific articles' issues in the article's talk page and not here. This is a discussion about this guideline and not about a specific article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hypothetical examples have severe limitations. Where my specific experience with a real article is useful in forming a generalization for all articles, I respectfully decline your request. Milo 07:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
No problems. I will then respectfully decline to address the specifics of that example in this talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty with Lists in WP needs to be addressed

Lists in Wikipedia need to comply with all WP content policies, and there is an obvious difficulty in maintain lists on topics about which there is controversy and/or competing viewpoints on the subject of the list, as lists, by their nature, will only assert one viewpoint about the subject: that which supports the inclusion of a list member in the list. Arguing that there is no such a problem, is naïve at best, or disingenuous at worst ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Some examples:

See the point? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

We also have:
So how do we make a list of people "associated with rail transport" NPOV? I'd say that do so by including people who meet a reasonable, neutral criteria then also noting that particular entries are disputed by reliable sources. -Will Beback · † · 06:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Will for this sample of lists as it illustrates the issue very well:
In summary: yes. there are problems with lists in WP, in particular in subjects about which there is substantial divergence of viewpoints. And that is what I am addressing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Will, can you please explain if it would be possible (without the wording about Lists and NPOV) to tell an editor not to create List of people referred to as antisemitic and include Jimmy Carter in that list? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with your characterizations of the above lists. For example, Jesse James is no more a person "associated with rail transport" than he is a person "associated with buildings". That list has no criteria and is apparently made up of whatever anyone adds to it. As for your new example, to borrow your formula, either a person is referreed to as an anti-Semite (in a reliable source) or is not. The fact that they have been referred to in that manner is verifiable. The list would be NPOV because it does not endorse the reference, merely report it. -Will Beback · † · 18:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"lists, by their nature, will only assert one viewpoint " I don't have a problem with one viewpoint per list, because an indefinite number of lists are possible to cover all the viewpoints. But I can see the point that a single viewpoint should have some binary balance in a particular list, if an opposite reference exists in a reliable source.
In the case of List of people associated with rail transport, maybe no one would to want to refute any such list member, but List of groups referred to as cults might experience considerable effort to find reliable sources refuting that certain listed groups were cults.
In a previous section, Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline#Closer_analysis, I first suggested a simple solution to be vetted. In a bit more detail: For every list item entered and linked in accord with the list title, allow every list to also include a binary-opposite link. For example, if List of persons referred to as dictators included Idi Amin with a link to a reliable source stating: "Idi Amin was a famous African dictator. -- The Fact-Checked Times"; then it would also be permissable to post another link to a reliable source stating: "His men considered him a military leader, not a dictator. -- Reliable-Source News".
To avoid the list filling with cruft, the first reference would have to state that some person was a dictator, then and only then could a second reference state that they were not; the second reference couldn't be added prior to a first reference. There could be up to as many second references as first references, but no more. If editors somehow needed more of the second references, but there were few first references, then an opposite titled list article could be created, such as: List of persons referred to as non-dictators.
As this is proposed, I think existing lists will not lose items, so there might not be much opposition to the concept. Milo 07:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
That does not work, Milo. On the hypothetical example of List of mass murderers, you can most certainly find a source that will assert that Ariel Sharon is such, but you will be hard pressed to find a source in which it is said "Ariel Sharon is not a mass murderer" because that is not what most sources will say about Sharon. That subject is better explored in an article about Ariel Sharon, or Sabra and Shatila, rather than in such a list. In your example about Amin, there is wide consensus of sources that he was a dictator, so that it not an issue in his case. As for your idea about creating "non" lists, are you serious? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. We don't need anything far complicated or far fetched--we just need to make sure that these are good articles in and of themselves. If all the article is, is a list of names or places or anything else with no additional information, it's not very helpful, for organization or anything. The list of California Historical Landmarks doesn't just list them--it has a description of each one, and organizes them. A list of famous mass murders could have a description for each and why the fit that qualification, and if there is contention, a line refuting it. This keeps the list, a list, and normal, and yet preserves NPOV. And, whether or not Ariel Sharon is a mass murder is irrelevant, as he wouldn't belong in a list of famous mass murderers anyway. The whole point of lists is to keep them compact, and when you ask people who they think of when they think of mass murderers, that's not what people think about. The lists have to have an encyclopedic purpose and anyone who is famous who is or has ever been accused of being a mass murderer isn't particularly encylopedic, or of note, and it isn't of any help at all organizationally--that I can think of anyway. Let's be realistic. And stop putting in material that doesn't have consensus. Just because you think it's right and must be in there doesn't mean that it goes in a guideline. Guidelines are written by the wiki community, not an individual. Further reverting to insert the material without consensus is WP:OWN, and that's not especially not ok on a guideline page. People look to these for some semblance of stability. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:06, May 6 2007
FYI have reverted only once, and now we are having a good debate about this. As I have asked Will above: can you please explain if it would be possible (without the wording about Lists and NPOV) to tell editors not to create List_of_antisemites or List of people referred to as antisemitic and include Jimmy Carter in that list? And while you are at it, please tell me how long before that category is placed in AfD if it was created? You can also read Wikipedia:Categorization of people for some more insights on how the community thinks about this subject. And finally I would want to ask what, in you opinion, is the difference between categories and lists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Attention: Stop readding material that doesn't have consensus. It shouldn't have been added to begin with, much less readded again, and again. Policies and guidelines by default require the consensus of the community--they're like page moves, if you're going to be changing something, propose it first and see what happens. It's not being bold to make a change to a guideline or policy page without discussion--it's overreaching. The people who come to the page while it's here assume that it's policy or guideline with a big green checkmark and quote it that way.

Now, about the "difficulty with lists". I don't believe that anyone here is saying that there is no problem Jossi. But we have other policies that handle that. It it's a matter of NPOV, then the article can be tagged as such per NPOV policy--lists are articles after all. We don't have to recreate the other policies and guidelines here. If the issue is further, that you think that most lists are, by nature POV and therefore shouldn't exist, that's a whole different boat. We would be talking about most lists--lists of wars, anything political, even things that most people wouldn't find contentious at all. These lists are a means of organization, and they should be better named, and organized, but removing them altogether under the guise of NPOV doesn't wash. The main issue, is that lists should not just list. List of iconic drinkers is a great example of a list article. If that was done with the more contenious issues, there would be a line or two to explain why the person/organization/etc fit the list, and what contention there might be about their role. The solution is not however to cut lists off at the knees. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:58, May 6 2007

I am not arguing that lists are not good organizational devices, Miss Mondegreen. They are. And you are correct in saying that all articles, including lists, need top comply with NPOV. And yes, some types of lists are broken in Wikipedia, and need fixing 'badly'. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
There are some excellent uses of lists, as can be found in Wikipedia:Featured lists. But I would argue that there are lists that are POV magnets, that violate V, OR and/or NPOV and that are difficult if not impossible to maintain. As the admin that closed the deletion of List of dictators said: The result was DELETE. DELETE Inherently POV, offends against non-negotiable core policy. Most of the discussion can be ignored as it misses the point: the non-neutrality is not in the content but in the existence of this. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_dictators. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I just fixed my comment--somehow part of it got deleted, and a lot of the comment's here are out of order. Please be careful when commenting people--this is getting to be a real mess.
Jossi--I understand everything that you are saying, and there are articles and lists that are POV magnets and there always have been and always will. What I don't understand is how intserting that language in the guideline will change anything. It's not going to make a whit of difference--the lists that are problems can be dealt with and are already under the policies we have now. And I don't believe that the language in the guideline is going to all of a sudden make people stop creating these types of lists. What it will do is create edit wars and deletion wars over lists that we should have, but that need work, or that someone simply wants to kick up a fuss about.
We all agree that there are problems here. But adding that language isn't going to make the problem go away, and it's not going to make dealing with it easier. And a lot of people, myself included see the new language creating lots of problems. So please explain why you want the new language--what do you think it will do? Miss Mondegreen talk  03:16, May 7 2007
I would wish that all editors here would agree that there are problems with some lists. But that is not the case, Miss Mondegreen. Some editors are arguing that there are not such problems. That is the concern, and the reasons for the wording. Maybe the wording should be tightening as to focus the issue on problematic lists such (i.e. POV magnets,) such as lists that categorize people, organizations, beliefs, etc. that involve opinions, as to differentiate it from lists about facts. Maybe you have some good ideas on how to word such a statement? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, almost everyone, if not everyone on this discussion page has agreed that there are problems with some lists. To say otherwise would be folly--someone could create a list of famous people who often have dirt under their fingernails. People create all sorts of lists (the nature of a wiki) and I don't think that anyone except perhaps some vandals would not have issue with some sort of list or another.
I don't have good ideas about how to word such a statement. You're talking about paraphrasing a complex policy that applies to this particular type of article in not the most standard way. I don't know how to do that without ending up with a product that changes policy, that says something different, and I'm not ok with that.
The second issue is that I still don't see why this is necessary. I see what the issue is with these articles, but I don't see how adding a few lines here that refer to a policy already in existence is going to change anything. Will people stop creating certain types of articles? Will AFDs be handled differently? The latter certainly should NOT happen, because it doesn't matter what we write here, this is a guideline, and policy trumps guideline, not vice versa. And I doubt that the former would be affected by anything. The only other possibility is that people will edit lists differently, and I must say that I not only doubt that as well, I think this is the wrong way to get them to do that. If you think that people will read the guideline and write accordingly, then we should place emphasis on a list not just being a list of names, etc, and then people might create better lists. Badly paraphasing policies that they should already know, just to remind them that lists are not exempt isn't a way to solve this problem, because if they need that reminder, that reminder isn't going to help. Help on how to write a list, or what makes a good list article (i.e. avoiding POV, etc.) might actually do some real good however. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:21, May 7 2007
Thank you, Miss Mondegreen. Note that there are other editors that have commented in this page that agree that the wording is fully compatible with core policies, as I have argued. Be aware that such difficult lists keep going back to AfDs or carry the perennial POV/NOR tags forever, unless we do something to assist them. I would take this issue to VPP and to the NPOV talk page, as I believe this is that important, and maybe with more people involved in the discussion we can find a better way to provide assistance to editors that are working on problematic lists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have placed notices at VPP and NPOV tag to attract other editors to this debate. I have also tagged the disputed section with the appropriate tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of bisexual people. This is causing a problem right now; a person does not publically call herself bisexual, yet people wish to add her to the list. I quoted a policy about categories that requires that the subject self-identify in the category, but technically speaking this doesn't apply to lists. This is a problem. Ken Arromdee 20:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be instructive to the participants in this discussion to see how many of the lists above have already been to AFD, to read the respective AFD discussions to see how the issues of neutrality and verifiability are addressed (if they actually are at all), and also to see some lists that have been deleted:

Uncle G 10:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Uncle G. I have spent 15 minutes checking these and in most cases the issues of Categorization of people, NPOV and V have been the basis for deletion. The ones that survived AfD are interesting as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

disputed content

First, I'm not happy that once again, the text was added back (I'm talking about yesterday before the dispute tag). You can't revert on the basis of someone else's argument, or on the basis of NPOV policy, because not having the text there doesn't change NPOV policy.

Some people think that adding a reminder about NPOV here, and talking about how it applies to lists will help. Not having it doesn't abandon policy. The issue is that there are two parts of the text that overreach. Do not continue adding stuff in or removing dispute tags or whatever until there is consensus. That's not conforming to NPOV or anything else, that's called WP:OWN, and refusing to recognize that your opinion is only an OPINION.

Now, I added a dispute tag--this has been going on so long, that actually it's the first section which was most contested, and that part has already been rewritten slightly if I recall correctly.

Let me tell you what I think is exactly the problem with the text.

My problem with the first section is the phrase "value judgments". You can prove that someone is a demagogue--just because it isn't nice to call someone that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make factual lists. Secondly, we have all sorts of lists based on public perception. List of iconic drinkers. Iconic. It's based on public perception. Verifiable, but certainly a value judgement.

My issue with the second section is as follows:

"be sure to confirm that this is a widely held opinion, otherwise you will be in disregard of NPOV"

Widly held opinion. Widly held by whom? Any list having to do with anything political or religious will have multiple widly held opinions. I'm concerned that this text will be cited as saying that certain lists can't exist because a "list of religious terrorists" doesn't give the other side of the story. Religious terrorists are only called terrorists to one set of people. The system should work fine--they can go on any list technically applicable. People could add the same names to a list of religious terrorists and a list of religious martyrs. But people either don't or kick up a fuss. But I can't see how getting rid of lists that show a widely held opinion, but only one widly held opinion is the answer.

Any solutions? Am I wrong about the intent of the second section, or how I think it will be interpreted?Miss Mondegreen talk  06:39, May 8 2007

That is an excellent idea, Radiant. There are many parallels between Lists and Categories, in particular when we are trying to categorize opinions of third parties about people or organizations.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Mondegereen, you say "Any list having to do with anything political or religious will have multiple widely held opinions." and that is exactly my point. Such lists are POV magnets, fail NPOV as competing opinions will be disallowed, and in many cases fal NOR as well, as the criteria for inclusion in the list is often time concocted by editors in a futile attempt to fix what cannot be fixed in relation to violation of content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it doesn't mean that these lists shouldn't exist--they just have to be done as more than lists of names, they have to be done as list articles. If you want to place emphasis on NPOV, then you need to place empahsis on the proper way to write a list. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:33, May 9 2007

Please do not skip the proposal process

The policy for the establishment of policies and guidelines (and changes to them) is covered at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. First you propose, and if it is accepted by the community, then it becomes part of the guideline, not the other way around. Jossi, you just went straight to the guideline and changed it, which is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. Policy requires that consensus be reached via discussion first. Please follow the proper procedure here, and wait for a consensus to emerge from discussion of your proposed addition to the guideline. Thank you. The Transhumanist    22:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You can spare me the "blatant" part. Yes, I added the text in a attempt to describe what I believe to be existing policy and to generate a discussion which we are having. Many editors supported the addition. Rather than pass judgment on other editor's actions, I would expect you contribute to the discussion. What is your position on the matter? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't allude to "official processes" that don't actually exist. WP:NOBOOK. People edit guidelines all the time and that is not in principle a problem. >Radiant< 09:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting and readding material-there is no consensus

I'm very, very tired of people thinking that they can decide to remove dispute tags (I know that technically one became a subsection of the other but if the reader can't see the difference there is nonw) or replace sections that don't have consensus and I don't want to hear "let's discuss the actual issues", because right now, this is the issue. Not a day of discussion has gone by without someone pushing this back on the talk page. There is no policy or guideline called "crum" or "jossi"--you can't revert per that, when there isn't isnt' consensus. You also can't revert per NPOV, because NPOV doesn't overule consensus for a guideline. There's a dispute about whether or not the text in question adequately reflects the policies that we have, so when you revert per "NPOV" or "per jossi" or "per crum", it's called WP:OWN.

I'm removing the section. Quite frankly, it doesn't belong on the page even with a disputed tag. A disputed tag is for something that had consensus that issues are being raised with. This hasn't ever had consensus--it's just been pushed on the page. I probably wouldn't be this much of a stickler in other circumstances, but I'm very upset about the extent of pushing that's occured here. If no consensus does occur and discussion trails off, I think it would be far too easy for someone to remove dispute tags when people weren't watching even though the text hadn't gained consensus. And then the whole thing would start up again. This is not how policies and guidelines are supposed to be created, and this is quite frankly exhausting. Text doesn't go into a guideline until it's gotten consensus. This hasn't. And there shouldn't be any more changes on the actual page concerning this if and until consensus is achieved. And consensus won't be achieved if people can't stop pushing this long enough to actually talk about. If people aren't interested in getting consensus, just in a revert war, this will just end up in dispute resolution, and no actual discussion about the issues will take place. Just leave the project page alone. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:33, May 9 2007

Lists and NPOV

This is the text I added.

Avoid creating lists based on a value judgment or opinions of people or organizations. For example, a "List of obnoxious people" is clearly not acceptable, but more subtle examples could be a "List of demagogues", or "List of exploitative companies", or a "List of authoritarian leaders", as each one of these are based on value judgments even if these can pass the test of verifiability.
The principle of Neutral Point of View requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any one in particular. When dealing with lists related to subjects that are controversial or about which there are significant divergent viewpoints, this can sometimes become a challenge. If you include political leader XYZ in a List of dictators, on the basis of a mention of XYZ being a dictator by one source, be sure to confirm that this is a widely held opinion, otherwise you will be in disregard of NPOV. Wikipedia:No original research applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed.

I would appreciate comments on how these two sentences contradict existing policy, and if the text as written is not acceptable, I would welcome alternative formulations of that wording to address for problematic lists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest removing or reducing the examples as they muddy the explanation more than clarify it. That woud result in (with a couple of small additions):
  • Avoid creating lists based on value judgments or opinions of people or organizations. ("best", "worst", etc.) The principle of Neutral Point of View requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any one in particular, and that includes lists. Wikipedia:No original research applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed.
Requiring that we determine if something is a "widely held opinion" is almost impossible. I suggest that instead we suggest that if there's a dispute it be mentioned. -Will Beback · † · 00:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
value judgments can be both factual correct, verifiable and NPOV, and really only the last two are required. I think what you're attempting to say, is that handle lists that are value judgments with care--to some extent the way you would a BLP, and make sure that they are both verifiable, NPOV, and that the pieces of information on the list are notable. Lots of information in an article is not notable itself, but the topic of the article is notable and background information is necessary. For lists, the item on the list must be notable. So, for List of iconic drinkers, it can't just be that the person is notable, they have to be notable for drinking--this is a good list not only because of how it's written but because of the title.
the widely held opinion part is not good. To address NPOV, lists have to do more than list. Can you write a section that paraphrases NPOV, and explain the main components of a good list, especially that a good list should have a short description of each item on them, including why they are on the list, and any contention about their placement on the list. We could include links to some FA list articles in that section, that really highlight a good list. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:48, May 9 2007
Miss Mondegreen, I reverted your removal as I'm not sure what you mean by no consensus. NPOV, V, and NOR apply to all articles, including lists. What that means in practise (in part anyway) is that we should only list people who are referred to as X (as in List of X) by reliable sources, and that the view that A is an X is either a majority or significant-minority view in those reliable sources, and isn't a tiny-minority one. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should have read my full edit summary which said, "see new comment on talk page". You could have then gone to the talk page and read my recent comment title:

'"Stop reverting and readding material-there is no consensus"

or The Transhumanist's comment:

'"Please do not skip the proposal process"

or previous comments:

"disputed content", "Attention: Stop readding material that doesn't have consensus", "The change contradicts WP:CONSENSUS" and "Such a change needs wider discussion"

Just in case any of this wasn't clear, I've reverted again and written a very clear and new section at the bottom of the page and will direct people there in my edit summary. Please read that before touching the project page. Miss Mondegreen talk  00:41, May 10 2007


An example of an approach that can be adopted to lists of something that depends on a rather subjective judgement is List of major opera composers (compiled by including any composer listed in six out of ten other reputable lists). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand Miss Mondegreen, concerns, but please note that most Lists in Wikipedia are just lists of names, groups, things, etc. with no commentary, and "list articles" are few. I think that we can replace the wording about "value judgements" and use instead "lists about viewpoints rather than facts", or something of the kind, and warn users about the difficulty in keeping these lists compliant, not only with V, but with NPOV as well. I would say that Will's proposed wording is getting closer to something that can be useful, but it needs to acknowledge further the POV magnet aspects of such lists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What if someone were to make a list of far left political parties? Can that be handled in a NPOV manner? Intangible2.0 15:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. It depends on the way the list is constructed and titled. For example, if the list includes only these groups that have self-declared to be associated with anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, Maoism, and similar, it may be possible. Note that in this case the list will abide by NPOV (See WP:SELFPUB) as we are not using the list to describe what others think of these parties, but used to describe what these parties say about themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Better still, would be to create separate lists for each political variant, such as List of Maoist parties, List of Marxist-Leninist parties, etc. But maybe all we need is what we already have in List of political parties, Category:Lists of political parties, List of political parties by ideology and Category:Political parties by ideology ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
What about what I said about value judgments? Also, I do see what you'r saying but these are the types of lists that should be list articles. A "List of demagogues" would be fine if it was a list article, and that's something that couldn't really be handled by self-confession. How many people are self-confessed demagogoues? Miss Mondegreen talk  00:49, May 10 2007
I think that we have a massive gap in understanding. This is an encyclopedia, and in such a List of demagogues has no place. If there is a person that has been described as such in a published reliable source, we report that in that person's article, alongside all other significant viewpoints. If we do not have that common ground, Miss Mondegreen, I would argue that you may have not understood what NPOV means. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Att: anyone who keeps reverting

I am aware that NPOV applies to all policies, guidelines, articles, lists, etc. The issue here is not whether NPOV applies, it's whether or not the text in question acurately reflects NPOV, and consensus has not been reached. Until such consensus is reached, adding this text back is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POL.

NPOV does not give you carte-blanche to add material to this guideline to help enforce NPOV. If people disagree with you on the grounds that they don't like NPOV, then yes, NPOV would overrule them as community consensus for that policy has already been achieved. But, if people disagree that it helps support or enforce NPOV, or if they think that it does things beside enforce NPOV that are negative, then you can't just scream "NPOV!" and stick it into a guideline. People have provided real and serious reasons why they don't like the text in question and are working to improve it. The text does not have consensus. Stop screaming NPOV as if it matters. It doesn't. We're working to improve the text, and once it's improved and consensus is achieved it will go back in.

Pushing WP:OWN will not help. Miss Mondegreen talk  00:41, May 10 2007

Being the original whistleblower, I completely agree with and support Miss Mondegreen's statements above.
Now onto the issues raised by Will Beback's insertion of:

=== Lists content === The principle of Neutral Point of View requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any one in particular. Wikipedia:No original research applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed.

I respect Will, but inserting unfinished text that lacks context is a bad idea, and I think he should remove it until consensus is reached. It also sends a bad message to those rogue editors who somehow think it's ok to insert any text into the List guideline without consensus!
The current problem is that a text of general principles, without examples, is subject to unbridled specific interpretations, due to trying to take an analog principle with many shades of textual implementation, and make it cut-down congruent onto the digital structure of a list. As with the choice of graphic processing algorithm for reduction of a color image to black & white printing, what examples are chosen will determine the outcome of the guide and the ultimate implementation of 8,000 lists.
For example, I can already forecast that some editors will claim that it's WP:OR to assemble a list at all. After all, a particular list may not exist elsewhere, and if it did, duplicating it here might well be copyvio for things like 100-best lists.
Similarly wild list creation interpretations exist for WP:NPOV. Milo 05:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I put that text in as a compromise that I thought we could all agree on. I agree that when there's a dispute we should seek consensus. -Will Beback · † · 06:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think people are asking for {{shrubberies}} here. Of course there is consensus for the NPOV policy. Let's discuss the content of this page, rather than simply stating that "process wasn't followed" in writing it. >Radiant< 09:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a Monte Python fan, and also, I respectfully disagree with your process-dismissive attitude. Because of its meta-effect, abuse-of-process is quite serious in structured decision-making systems. There might not now be a content discussion if I hadn't noticed a mysterious list-related morph, discovered a process abuse that was causing it, and expended a lot of social capital to expose it. (You're welcome :) Milo 06:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
First, I don't believe that anyone has disagreed with NPOV policy or the consensus that it has. The issue is, as I tried to explain here how NPOV applies to lists, and whether or not the text in question adequately captures that.
The reason this keeps getting raised in section after section, is that since Milo's original revert, there have been 16 reversions (including various forms of partial reversions) by 8 different editors about that material. The first reversion was done by Jossi in attempt to bring people to discussion. The problem is, is that in the 6 days since, even though discussion has been ongoing, everyone has edited the article and then talked. And that's not ok.
Yes, it's highly distracting and it means that less work gets done. One editor does one revert, another reverts back and comments complaining, and then there's a policy argument and people complaining that the real issues aren't being discussed. As long as this keeps happening, it's going to be an issue. And saying that we should be focusing on something else really just prolongs it--let's just all focus on trying to find consensus, and if we do that and avoid revert wars, then everything that happens as a result of the revert wars won't be an issue.
Also, if you're going to use wikislang and provide a wikilink for those who may not know the term, it's generally a good idea to use a wikilink that exists. Miss Mondegreen talk  11:00, May 11 2007
Actually Milo, that could be argued for any article or list--the whole point is that Wikipedia collects imformation elsewhere and makes an encylopedia out of it--these articles and lists often don't appear elsewhere, or similar articles and lists do, or articles and lists with bits and pieces of pertinent information appear elsewhere and it's our job to combine them, without WP:SYN. Synthesis is odd thing, because there's a difference as you've just noted between the word and the policy. Synthesis naturally occurs--it has to in order to create an article, but WP:SYN refers to drawing a new idea or conclusion that isn't referenced and that's OR--writing an article or list isn't. While this reinserted section is not what we all ideally want, it will only create problems with those who will always twist guidelines and policies to say what we want and we can only do one thing in those scenarios, which is stand up and correct it--I think it's a fine start, and it's great that we're moving in the direction of accomplishing something rather than bickering. Miss Mondegreen talk  04:49, May 11 2007
My unoriginal advice is "Don't show unfinished work". However, if you are satisfied with Will's reinsertion, I'll defer to your opinion. Milo 06:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a living encyclopedia. Everything is unfinished work. Also, I think that the issue is an issue of interpretation of policy, not just text (I think the various interpretations of the policy is why the text is getting so many varied readings), and that it's not going to be that simple to sort it out. As such, we should have something on the page while we work. Plus, if we can all agree on anything at this point--that's really great. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:08, May 11 2007


To what extent does NPOV apply?

"I think that we have a massive gap in understanding. This is an encyclopedia, and in such a List of demagogues has no place. If there is a person that has been described as such in a published reliable source, we report that in that person's article, alongside all other significant viewpoints. If we do not have that common ground, Miss Mondegreen, I would argue that you may have not understood what NPOV means. ˜ jossi ˜ (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)"

And we reach the cruz of the matter. To what extent does NPOV apply to lists?

Assuming that these are well written, sourced, verifiable lists that are list articles when necessary and appropriate:

  • Can we have a "list of notable demagogues" or "list of people known as damagogues"?
  • Can we list political parties and leaders by their political leanings?
  • By their expressed political leanings?
  • By their perceived political leanings?

Does NPOV prevent us from creating these types of lists at all?

I don't think so. I think that this has to be done with enormous care, and that these lists that we all percieve to be in danger of breaking core policies, especially NPOV, must be list articles.

  • Could list articles not present conflicting views fairly--providing the information for why they belong on the list, that there is a conflict and wikilinking to the appropriate place for more information, either the article about the thing, or a conflicting list?

List article would do exactly what lists don't: they would assert facts, including facts about opinions — without only inserting opinions

This is the weakness of lists, and the reason that they come under such speculation and fire. As soon as an item is on the list--it says EVERYTHING. If it's not on the list, it says NOTHING. List articles take care of that issue, take care of the issue of asserting (whether it is opinion or fact), without providing the necessary factual basis that includes information about the bias that put it on the page.

It's a tight rope to walk and these articles have to be created and watched with care. But I'm unwilling to say that just because it's difficult, it can't be done or it would be against policy. Lists, even POV magnets can be created and follow policy. We just have to write a really good guideline for how to do it, and for what is absolutely not acceptable. Miss Mondegreen talk  05:57, May 11 2007

You hit the nail on its head. To what extent does NPOV apply to lists? NPOV is non-negotiable, so it applies 100%. As you say, it is extremely difficult to NPOV such lists, and for that reason, we ought to alert editors in tis guidelines about the tight rope they will need to walk on when attempting such lists, and that they should not be surprised if most of these efforts will result in AfDs and perennial POV tags. Please help craft some wording to reflect that concern. ˜ jossi ˜ (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but then you do agree that if done properly, a list of notable demagogues could be ok? Could follow our core policies, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:SYN, even WP:NPOV, and be an encylopedia list. If we're in agreement on that, then I'll look at the previous attempts and the policies in question and attempt to craft and attempt to craft a wording that strongly emphasises the need to follow these policies, and gives concrete suggestions on how to do so. If anyone has additional suggestions that they think would help an individual list follow these policies, please add a comment here. Or if anyone can point to list articles that could have fallen pray to NPOV but didn't using one of the tactics we've discussed, or can link to a good list article, preferably an A class or an FA article (if one exists), please--it would be great to be able to provide an example.
Also, if other people have ideas about how this should be written, please--take a crack at it. Miss Mondegreen talk  04:20, May 12 2007
Can you give me an example how a List of demagogues will follow our content policies? Pick a few notable politicians and give it a go. How the article will read? What their entries will look like? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a good question. I'm going to bed, but tomorrow I'll take a look at the demagogue article and some particular contentious political articles and try and craft a few NPOV entries to the list. Off of the top of my head however I'd guess that it would be a safe bet to divide the list into politicians accused of, and demagogues. Current politicians might be safer to filter into the first of the two cats because we often don't get proof of politicians lying, especially the kind that fits in this cat until after their active careers. Miss Mondegreen talk  16:44, May 12 2007
It won't be easy to convince the community that such list is even possible, but I look forward to see a sample. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You see, you can have a head of state that was labeled as a demagogue by a critic of that head of state. But you will be hard pressed to find a source in which that politician is rebutting such allegations, thus violating NPOV. In the article about that politician, you can describe all aspects of that politician, including the fact that critic XYZ called him a demagogue. That's NPOV 101. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's vet List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC) which lies at the center of the present controversy, and possibly at the center of all list issues. It is highly developed and consensed by years of debate, but remains at "no consensus" with slightly more than 50% keep votes in five AfDs.
Some/many opponents keep trying to kill it because their groups are listed, period. They can never be satisfied. Others are philosophical opponents who think pointers to ("referred to as") negative critical opinions in reliable sources should not be placed in this encyclopedia, even though it has been firmly consensed that "referred to as" avoids Wikipedia taking sides in reporting what are almost entirely opinions. They think that reporting of groups referred to as cults is not NPOV, basically because only Alcoholics Anonymous has ever been described (and scientifically proved) to be a beneficial cult; therefore, nearly all cult references are unfavorable. However, by calculation from the range of prevalence of cults reported at Cult compared to the approximate number of cults reliably listed by governments, science, and media, perhaps 96-98% of all cults are good, or good enough to avoid getting mentioned in reliable source newspapers and magazines. Despite occasional poorly-informed claims of exceptionalism and bias in reliable source media, it's not easy for groups to get cult-reported in the news. Many Googled claims of group cultism in web blogs never appear in media. Newspapers are cautious about reporting a quoted opinion of a group as a cult, because of the potential for libel suits (with or without merit) and the risk of losing advertisers (in the case of cults related to the local majority faith).
Proponents claim that the "French Report" (Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France) has declared that within ordinary cults, a significant to major set of human rights issues are at stake (exploitations too similar to slavery), plus potential danger to the public of rising destructive cults cannot be ignored (mass suicides, heavy weapons caching, and nerve gas attack), and that as a result, some kind of early observation or reporting of groups who annoy or frighten their neighbors should be public policy. Exactly how to do this are governments' works in progress, but whether to do it seems to be a done deal.
This is an international issue, and the majority of what I call "global citizens" are strongly interested in reading about which specific groups have gotten into trouble, as described in reliable sources. This is not hard to understand. They want to know because they are afraid of being gassed in a subway, or having their family members exploited by unscrupulous cult leaders, or led to their deaths by insane cult leaders. They think they have a right to know, or at the least, their government should engage in "cultwatching" to protect them by stopping small crimes and abuse before they grow into great crimes and carnage.
It is true that there are significant minority religious rights at stake which the United States has pressed with the French to the point of criticizing French internal affairs. The French grumble but continue to address and improve these practical cultwatch enforcement complaints. Other Euro governments appear to be using the French Report principles with variations on cultwatching enforcement. (See Groups referred to as cults in government documents)
By way of full disclosure, jossi was the first VfD(now AfD)er of LOGRTAC. By number of written talk page words, I'm a major "pro-reporting" proponent, who thinks this information can meet encyclopedic standards, and by default, should be reported because of the French Report principles. I think many, not all, "anti-reporting" opponents can never be satisfied, since they believe that that by default, this information should not be reported. My personal NPOV test for anti-reporters' editorial participation in list improvement is when they can view the LOGRTAC list as "equally unfair to everyone".
Ok, I've laid it on the table as I see it. jossi will now tell us why I'm not only wrong, but why we shouldn't even be discussing this here. To which I respond with my personal opinion that we wouldn't be having this "List content" discussion at all if jossi weren't desperate to at least neuter LOGRTAC reporting — the Wikipedia list article that will not die.
Good luck in summoning the wisdom of Solomon. Milo 13:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
(Obliging to your request): a) You should not personalize this discussion; and (b) You should move article-specific comments to these article's talk pages. I am asking you, please stop with this, remember WP:NPA and WP:AGF which you keep busting. Also, note that I worked on that article for many months, alongside other editors in an attempt to make that list compatible with our content policies. We got quite close to it until it became obvious that it would never work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Milo--the particularities of article info really don't belong on the page, Jossi's right. But, since this issue has been raised--Jossi, do you think this article could become NPOV is it was structured differently? Right now there are two sections and there are brief descriptions of types of cults and then references for why each cult fits on the page. If each cult had a few line description for their official viewpoint--or what they've said in the media to rebut it, or whatnot, would that work? _________ formed as an a official church x years ago. They profess ___, ___, _____ and are known for blank. However, ____ has led to their often being referred to as a cult in the media (references).
Would that work? Pretend for a second that their aren't hundreds of editors to convince etc (i.e. in this particular case, due to consensus, it may not be possible). Do you think that this article could be restructured in a NPOV fashion? Miss Mondegreen talk  16:44, May 12 2007
I would prefer that the discussion about that specific list is handled in that article's talk page. Note that the article includes substantial OR, as well has NPOV concerns. You can read the comments by experience editors there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The OR is related to the arbitrary criteria for inclusion, that according to editors commenting there violates WP:OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Editors may need to be reminded that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that an arbitrary criteria violates NPOV. "List of entertainers who lived to 100" would have an arbitrary criteria as well, but I don't think it's problematic as NPOV or OR. -Will Beback ·:· 18:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
In that list, Will, there are no NPOV issues, as a person either lived to be 100 years-old or it did not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You see, Will, lists about facts are easy; lists about opinion, on the other hand and in particular if there is significant disparity of opinions, are not easy, and I would argue, not possible to made the compliant with OR and NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
It is a fact, not an opinion, that some groups have been referred to as "cults". They've either been called that or not. In order to be neutral we can also include reference to contrasting viewpoints, if any. -Will Beback ·:· 23:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but we do that in these group's articles, where the competing viewpoints can be laid out for our readers as NPOV dictates. A list on opinions that are controversial (as indeed is in this case, or in other cases as the example of List of demagogues), you can very easily violate NPOV:Undue weight. You may have a journalist that called group X a "cult" or person X a "demagogue", but you will be hard pressed to find a journalist that writes that group X is not a "cult", or that person X is is not a demagogue. My argument is that we can comply with WP:V in these type of lists, but we can only comply with V and NPOV in the article's about these persons of groups. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jossi. I think that by including a person or a group in a controversial list, we are violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, since the mere act of listing under a given title effectively promotes a controversial opinion about that person that cannot be neutrally balanced per WP:NPOV. I therefore do not support any list of people, or groups of people, that have controversial attributes. Crum375 00:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
How do we define "controversial" in this context? Does it mean that if anywhere, at any time, someone disagrees with the inclusion of an entry on a list that listing is therefore controversial? Being Jewish can be controversial, and the listing of individuals as Jews is occasionally quite controversial. I don't see how we'd come up with clear language to define "controversial" in this context. -Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we should use the same definition of 'controversial' that we already have in WP:BLP, where we also use the term 'contentious', which I believe is synonymous. I think the exact same considerations apply, so we don't need a different definition for controversy or contentiousness here. Crum375 01:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any definition of "controversial" or "contentious" in WP:BLP. Am I missing it? -Will Beback ·:· 02:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
What I meant is that since I consider this issue a corollary of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, whatever definition or meaning is used in BLP is the one we should apply here. IOW, if 'controversial' or 'contentious' is unclear, it should be defined in BLP, and whatever meaning is agreed upon there should be used in this context. To me personally 'controversy' is where there is a dispute among published reliable sources regarding an issue, after excluding extreme minority fringe views. Crum375 02:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
"Regarding an issue..." That could be viewed two ways. One, that entries about whom there is a dispute should be removed. Two, that lists whose topic has any dispute about it should be deleted. Again, taking one of the "list of Jews" that we have, there are individual entries that are disputed and there are also published disputes about the definition of "Jew". I think that we need to avoid allowing any tinge of a dispute to veto our content. -Will Beback ·:· 04:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
To me, once it's clear that there is potential controversy about the list topic, I would nuke the entire list as contradictory to NPOV. I would only have lists with objective clear-cut non-controversial inclusion criteria, and certainly steer clear of lists of living people or groups with controversial attributes, as per BLP they would be even more sensitive. Crum375 05:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
"Potential controversy"? That appears to me to be an unworkable standard that, if applied to Wikipedia generally, would result in us losing most of our content. I think we need to find a less drastic, more practical standard that allows for a variety of POV to be presented neutrally. -Will Beback ·:· 05:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Controversial, as in there are multiple and competing viewpoints, not about editor's disagreement to include a member in a list . In these cases, don't use a list, rather, do that in the article about the person, group, or subject. That's my argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
That refers to specific entries not to lists in general. In practice that standard would mean that even a single source disputing the inclusion of an entry on a list would be sufficient to remove that entry. In other words one viewpoint would trump even a majority of opposing viewpoints. That seems excessively strict. It would be more helpful to readers, and more in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, to retain the entry and describe the dispute. -Will Beback ·:· 02:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[restarting indent]
I think the issue here is that lists aren't articles, and since list entries contain either only the entry, or a small amount of information pertitent to the entry, this can be seen as POV, because only information dealing with the issue at hand is presented. Jossi's right--it's not presented in terms of the grand scheme of things the way it is on the person's individual article, but that does not mean that neutrality does not exist.

Asking for any controversial information to have the full balance of the person's (since we seem to be dealing with people mainly) life weighed against that entry is asking for a DEFENCE, not neutrality.

Look at the NPOV policy:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."

Readers are left to form their own opinions....about the topic at hand, about the article, or list. If readers form their opinion of an entry based on information about one thing in a person's life, yes, that's incomplete. But, if they are given both points of view about that particular thing--then the entry is neutral, it's just not very complete in terms of looking at the person as a whole. If we have a list of winners of a prize, and there's controversy surrounding a particular year's win, we would make a mention of that in the list. All I would get from reading the list is that so-and-so won a prize and it was controversial because of x. Neutral. The person might also be a biggot. Might also have latter gone insane and killed people and then himself. Unless that directly relates to the prize, none of that information would be on the list. Whatever information about something is on a list--no matter how neutrally presented--it's going to be incomplete. Maybe if I read that list entry and nothing else, I'll get a much better impression of the person than if I read the article about them--maybe I'll get a worse impression.

But that is irrelevant and doesn't have anything to do with lists or NPOV. The only things that remains the same, is that readers are left to form their own opinions. And maybe they'll form them knowing little, and maybe they'll want to know more. Maybe they'll read the first paragraph of an article and close it. We can't force full and complete knowledge on our readers--we can't force them to balance their opinions, or at least their intake of opinions by saying "no lists, no blurbs, nothing that won't get balanced out". The readers may be judge and jury, be we're not here to defend them-to say, "they may have done this, but look, what a philanthropist!".

We're here to write verifibale neutral articles. And that includes lists. Why don't we get back to the issue of neutrality within the list itself. How to write neutral a neutral list, instead of attempting to rewrite to NPOV policy. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:45, May 13 2007

Let's take a concrete example. There's recently been a lot of contention over whether we should categorise Lewis Libby as Jewish. By extension that's a dispute over whether to include him on the "lists of Jews". Here are five options we have in such a situation. A) We could include him if there are one or more reliable sources. B) We could include him but note that other reliable sources dispute the designation. C) We could segregate his entry in a separatevsection of the list headed "disputed entries". D) We could remove the entry because it's disputed. E) We could delete the entire list, even if it's well-sourced and has an objective criteria, because it's a contentious topic. I think that B or C would be the best answers. It sounds like Crum75 is proposing E. I'm not sure what other editors prefer. -Will Beback ·:· 08:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with doing either b or c. As I noted above, it's possible to be neutral about "Lewis Libby, Jewish?" without needing to eradicate lists and only include that information in an article. The rest of the information in the Libby article isn't pertinent to the neutrality of the list. And this holds true for non-controversial lists, and for highly controversial lists (demagogues etc.). Miss Mondegreen talk  09:09, May 13 2007
In this case I would agree with B or C, because there are sources that dispute the fact that he is Jewish. But that does not work on the List of demagogues. because as previously said, you may find a source that labels someone as someone with a pejorative, but we will not find a sources that specifically denies that, would we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears that you and Crum75 have opposite views. I think he is saying that if an entry is disputed the entry or the entire list should be deleted. OTOH, it sounds like you are saying that if an entry isn't disputed it should be removed. You mention the issue of pejorative labels. Lots of terms can be used pejoratively even when they also have neutral or positive meanings, such as "liberal", "theoretical", or "popular". It's a matter of viewpoint. So I don't think we'd want to write a guideline that simply says that list criteria can't include potentially pejorative terms. - ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue I am raising applies to pejorative as well as positive meanings used in lists. List such as List of beautiful people, List of intelligent people, etc carry the same difficulties as it pertains to compliance with WP content policies. Let me ask this: What is the difference between the Wikipedia:Categorization of people guideline and this guideline? Should we have different standards for lists than for categories? and if so why? (see also Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Categorisation ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Nonesense. Remember--the information doesn't have to be correct, it has to be verifiable. And it only has to be neutral to the extent of the information that's out there. If the New York Times published an article calling someone a demagogue and we can honestly find nothing else, nothing to present another side, then we don't throw the New York Times out in an attempt to find neutral bathwater. It's hard to remember, but our goal isn't to be correct, isn't to portray what's right, isn't even to portray neutrality--our goal is to be verifiable. And that means remaining neutral when doing so and not throwing out good sourced material just because we can't present an opposing arguement to balance the scales. We are not advocates here--we are data miners. We find as much information as we can on a topic and we present it, neutrally and well-sourced. It however, is not neutral to only portray bad information where good information is there to balance it and vice versa. Neutral does not mean balanced--neutral means presenting all of the information we can find, without bias. Miss Mondegreen talk  01:41, May 17 2007
I very much disagree with your statement that "Our goal isn't to be correct, isn't to portray what's right, isn't even to portray neutrality--our goal is to be verifiable". That is only a 'third of the equation: we need to be verifiable, we need to be neutral as per NPOV, and we need not to be engaging on OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If you have a problem with that equation, you will be better served by discussing NPOV, V and NOR in their respective pages that state very clearly in their leads that (my highlight):

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
And my next sentence said, "And that means remaining neutral when doing so and not throwing out good sourced material just because we can't present an opposing arguement to balance the scales." The problem you have is precisely one that comes of not reading the policies together. NPOV doesn't come into consideration if there's nothing verifiable. You're saying that presenting multiple points of view is manditory--that if we can't find them, since we can't solicitate them, we can't present the information we have. That's wrong--we present the verifiable information we have neutrally. You're saying not to present information because we don't have an opposing view to present. That's not neutral, that's exclusionary. And we don't need a source that says "____ is not a demagogue" We could add a line that says "_________ has been described as truthful, honest and ____" by ____. But, specifics really aren't the point here. It wouldn't matter if it was the most contentious wiki list entry ever. If no one could come up with an opposing source, then it could stand. Removing it for a lack of a source citing it's contention would be decidely unneutral. Miss Mondegreen talk  06:40, May 17 2007
I consense Miss Mondegreen's views. It suddenly occurred to me a few hours ago that suppressing the reporting of verifiably bad facts, because counterbalancing good facts aren't available in reliable sources, too closely approaches "Righting Great Wrongs". Milo 07:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Or, phrased in terms of NPOV--we can only be neutral within the bounds of verifiability. We don't exclude verifiable information because something to balance it does not exist (reliably sourced) and we don't include unverifiable information to do that balancing. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:25, May 17 2007
That is a bit of a straw-man argument, Miss Modengreen. In an article about Notable Person , we describe all the viewpoints about that person, good, bad and indifferent. In a list we are not doing that and therefore we are violating content policies. I am not arguing for exclusion of information, I am arguing for inclusion of all available information about Notabe Person, and that can be surely done on the article Notable Person and not in List of sexy people, even if Mr. Notable Person was described as sexy in an article in the The New York Times. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is an insurmountable problem. We just need to get better about including diverging viewpoints in lists. While ethnic heritage lists may seem non-contentious, there are many arguments over whether entries are really Jewish or Polish, perhaps because they only have one such grandparent. The answer is not to exclude the disputed entry, or to ditch the entire list, but rather to include a note beside the entry explaining its inclusion and the differing viewpoints. Certain cases could even be segregated - people who are only Jewish throught their fathers, for example, or people whose ancestors came from areas now part of Poland but previously part of Prussia. That's the strength of lists over categories - they allow us to annotate and shade. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 17:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I see that we may have exhausted this conversation. I am yet to be convinced that such shading is at all possible. As they say: "The proof is in the pudding". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, I've addressed that point again and again, and you keep responding to the finer points of my argument until we settle round back here again. It is not our responsibility to defend viewpoints. When so-and-so is noted as having achieved "#1 on best dressed of (year)" four times in an article NOT on that person, but on a magazine or award or something else, do we have to provide all other information about the person's life? Do we have to balance it with a link showing that another magazine put the person on their worst dressed list? With information on the person's career and their charity work? Is including only that information presenting a picture that isn't neutral? No. The subject being discussed isn't so-and-so, but an award or a magazine, and if people want to know more about that person, they can go and click on the little link.
The same is true in "best dressed list", with one caveat. Information on whether the entry is controversial would not only be appropriate, but necessary for NPOV. If the person wasn't listed on other worst dressed lists, and there's no real other information about their dressing, then no other shading is required--the same way we don't have to mention that so-and-so won two academy awards or donated two million dollars to charity, or was arrested for a DUI in the article about the award. It's just not pertinent. Lists can, and do acheive neutrality. What you are saying is completely different. You're saying that because lists (even if they are netural on the matter at hand) don't include other information about each entry that helps tell where that list entry falls in the scope of things, that lists, can't be neutral. If that's the case, the it's not just people and controversial lists. No list can be neutral, because lists, by their definition categorize things.
Take notable alumni lists for example. A list of people who attended a school, often with a small description of what makes them notable. If they got suspended, expelled, etc--not mentioned. The other schools they attended aren't listed. If the school is an excellent school, and they attended for a few months before getting kicked out and attending a string on other schools--no mention of that may be made--they'll be listed alongside valedictorians. If the school is not a good school and they went on to really incredible schools--nope not their either. Often graduation years or years of attendance aren't even on the list. These people are being categorized by one particular thing in their life (big to some, a footnote to others), and all the list contains is names. Does that make it not neutral as you claim of these other lists? No. All the lists say that they are a lists of notable alumni--that is, people who attended the school. And the entries don't need information to balance them out. If people want to know where that attendance fits into the scheme of things, they'll click on the link. Same as they will any list.
There's your pudding, unless you really are arguing that lists as a form cannot be neutral. If not, you can't have it both ways. If what you're arguing about neutrality and lists is applied, lists, as a form, cannot be neutral. I don't buy this--I don't think you've been arguing for it and I don't think it matches up with how we treat neutrality everywhere else. But, you can't have a different interpretation for neutrality once we get to the types of lists people disagree on. We need an application for neutrality that applies to all. Take a good look at neutrality in articles--not just the article as a whole, but all of the instances where we deal with mentioning something and not being able to address the full scope of the topic, or mentioning only one fact about something and linking to everything else on the topic. Miss Mondegreen talk  00:03, May 18 2007
This discussion has gone long enough, I believe, and we have yet to find common ground. List about things and facts are easy pie, and very useful, such as List of type designers. Lists that are based on opinion, are much tougher to make them compliant. Impossible? Not necessarily. Very difficult? Certainly. As I said, the proof will be in the pudding. Specific lists that are POV magnets, for political, racial, or religious reasons will have a pretty hard time to gain compliance. Should we address this in this guideline? I believe so, but others disagree, so be it. Let editors of these difficult lists address the issue in these lists' talk pages, and see if they can manage to gain consensus on how to apply our policies. The proof will be in their pudding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

LOGRTAC example: WP:OR, arbitrary criteria, and NPOV

(LOGRTAC = List of groups referred to as cults)

• jossi wrote: "The OR is related to the arbitrary criteria for inclusion" There is no OR. I've repeatedly asked to debate on that single issue on the talk page, and gotten no takers. But since you mentioned it here, the criteria for inclusion is a record of strong consensus, which consensus is a required process, and therefore cannot be OR as defined by guide. I hope we are done with that current OR notion at LOGRTAC, so we can move on to the next one.
• As for the claim of arbitrary criteria, of the six criteria (including #0) one is a compromise, another is WP:ATT/WP:RS source referenced, the rest are in between, but all have some reasoned, consensed basis. WP:CONSENSUS approves of using reason, but admits, "It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position." Therefore consensus criteria can include reasons such as a compromise. "Arbitrary" is yet another notion, formed by some of 48% of AfD-polled editors, to defeat a working system for listing controversial opinions.
• I'm interested in Miss Mondegreen's improved LOGRTAC NPOV proposal:

Miss Mondegreen wrote: "If each cult had a few line description for their official viewpoint--or what they've said in the media to rebut it, or whatnot, would that work? _________ formed as an a official church x years ago. They profess ___, ___, _____ and are known for blank. However, ____ has led to their often being referred to as a cult in the media (references)."

I think LOGRTAC editors would preferably want to point to such a statement, not quote it. That way there will be no propaganda text on the list page. Editors could point to a WP:ATT/WP:RS news source or a listed group's own website as to their own opinion on whether they are a "cult" or "sect". At their own website, the listed group can write as long a statement as they wish. I'd say they would have to include a specific statement using the words "cult" or Euro language "sect", and would have to use language denying being a cult, or being a sect, as opposed to a vague denial that tries to avoid using those specific words. However, for those groups that have no such statement, some version of Miss Mondegreen's statement could be stored somewhere off of the main LOGRTAC page (there are several ways to do this).
This proposal won't stop the anti-reporting complaints by members of the listed groups, but the philosophical opposition may have to think up new objections.
• At this surprising event of LOGRTAC having survived AfD #5, I detect a persistent if marginal element of consensus for list reporting of WP:ATT/WP:RS references to unpopular opinions. I'm ready to recommend the LOGRTAC method as a general solution to the listing of controversial opinions, as so far evolved. I agree that not all the problems are solved, but I think it's time to acknowledge how much has been accomplished by the intense debating work of dozens of cult topics editors over the last 2-1/2 years of LOGRTAC and its predecessors. It's nearly a thankless task, but I did once each thank Will Beback and cairoi, and there are many other intelligent and persistent cult topics editors who should be thanked. Milo 01:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Milo, this is NOT the place to argue about a specific article. Also, ATT isn't policy, so please don't reference it as such unless and until it becomes policy again. Refering to WP:V is perfectly suitable.
Getting back to the issue at hand, Jossi, my comments above were purely theoretical, and not dealing with the specifics of the article. I asked you a question which you didn't answer, and really, I don't give a flying sea monkey about allegations of OR or propaganda text. Because neither of you are being neutral. I didn't see any evidence of OR--it would be hard for their to be any given how well sourced it is and how little text is on the page--it would even be hard to claim SYN. At the same time, Milo, linking off site to rebuttals is a completely unacceptable way to build an article or a list, especially if it's done for the primary purpose of keeping "propaganda" off wikipedia--to the extent that you won't even quote it. You've already made a decision about who or what is correct.
I don't care and it doesn't belong here, not from either of you. Details from the article, it's creating, the afd passing--none of that belongs here and neither do attacks on it. Mentioning that the article exists, linking to it and then discussing that type of article in theoretical terms is fine. If you can't manage to handle that (Milo, Jossi, etc), then don't even link to an article. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:45, May 13 2007

List contents: notability

Not sure if this issue has been raised before, had a look around but couldn't locate it. Some lists keep getting a lot of spam and non-notable entries. List of computer system manufacturers is one such example, and I can imagine that there are others as well. What I'd like to know is if there exists a policy on removing any entries where a wikipedia article doesn't exists? I know that this might also include a lot of notable entries which haven't got their own article yet, but at the same time this might help us keeping lists somewhat short, and verifiable. I'm not suggesting that we append this to existing policies, or at least not yet, I just want to hear what other editors think about this. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists, like anything else, have to be sourced. So in a list of alumni, each alum needs a source for attending the school. A wiki article is generally taken as an equivalent to proof of notability. You can't use wikipedia as a source, but since articles themselves have to be notable, the proof of a blue link is generally taken as proof of having passed Wikipedia's notability standards. If not blue-linked, then red links should have a source proving their notability as well. If it looks suspect, you can revert and say that it needs to be sourced--on both of those gorounds. However, you can also do a quick internet search yourself. Now, being on the internet isn't proof of notability, but it will rule out some stuff right away. If a supposed internet DJ doesn't show up on the internet--then that's vandalism. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:20, May 15 2007
Lists should be restricted to their notable members. The featured list criteria (WP:FLC may be relevant). >Radiant< 09:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please chime in on a discussion over the forking of bibliographies

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(lists_of_works)#Necessity_of_forking_bibliography_from_main_article -BillDeanCarter 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lists/Archive_3&oldid=1084179749"