On 6/1/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
And when they are sourced, the sourcing can be inconsistent, because there's often no agreed definition of the term. So with the Jew lists, any reliable source that has called someone a Jew means they're added to the list, even if they're clearly not Jewish according to most definitions, and don't self-identify. So all we''re doing is repeating the mistakes of sources. Of course, we do this in articles too, but in articles you can produce another source that says something else, and you can discuss the nuances. But with the lists and categories, the entry is either in or out.
But with lists, it should be subject to the exact same thresholds of informational notability. First, if they aren't notable enough for an article, get them off the list. No red links or flat black text for BLPs on lists. Next, why on earth isn't there a rule that they can only be on the list based on the proven sourcing from the articles? That's going to be a trick, yes, because of possible errors on sourcing--but that's not our decision to make, because that would be OR. We can't decide who's a Jew or Christian or Wiccan; that's all just RS. If three or four RS say, "He's Jewish!" even if know *know* it's wrong, but no source contradicts that information, we can't justifiably keep it out. But, nothing should be in a list except based on what's sourced on the articles themselves.
Ditto for categories, and I don't see why lists aren't just enforced as slightly wordy/verbose categories.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com