[WikiEN-l] Thoughts on naming people - article content, this time.

[Slim Virgin]

On 6/1/07, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at 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.

It *should* be, but in practise it's been a nightmare to enforce.
There was a small group of accounts (some of them now proven
sockpuppets) that was determined to maintain these lists (speaking now
about the Jew lists), and usually not with sources. Attempts to oppose
them were often met with personal attacks. In fact, that is one of the
early reasons I ended up being attacked on Wikpedia Review: they
decided I was removing unsourced names from lists of Jews because I
was an antisemite who wanted the lists to be very accurate, so that
when the names on them were attacked, no innocent non-Jews would be
caught up in it. I kid you not.

There's only so much of this people can take, so they dip their toes
into the dispute but withdraw when they see the silliness. Plus you
have lots of anon additions, because it's an easy and fast way to make
a contribution.

Every attempt that I know of to put them up for deletion has failed
because people hate to see what they think is information
disappearing, even if it's useless, unsourced, and they're not
themselves willing to maintain it.

Try looking after any of the lists yourself for a couple of weeks.
It's soul-destroying.

> 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.

It's been tried. When we did it, we were accused of WP:POINT, because
it did leave us with some absurdities i.e. having to decide whether to
remove people we *knew* were Jewish and everyone knew were Jewish, but
where no reliable source had ever actually said or implied it. If we
did remove them = WP:POINT. If we didn't remove them = other unsourced
names must be allowed in too.