Wikipedia talk:Proposed guideline for lists of people by ethnicity, religion, and other cultural categorizations

Reason for this guideline

There has been a lot of debate recently around deleting lists of people grouped by ethnicity, race, religion, and other cultural groupings. Unfortunately, Wikipedia:Categorization of people deals with this issue from the point of view of categories; there is no guideline for the similar but distinct lists of people. As a result, there has been a ton of confusion on this issue. To try and ease this confusion, I have created this proposed guideline. I hope people will comment about it below as they see fit. Best, --Alabamaboy 12:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I should add that much of the wording of this proposed guideline comes from Wikipedia:Categorization of people. I thought about trying to add lists into Wikipedia:Categorization of people, but that guideline is part of the overall group of categories guidelines. Because the wording of the category guideline already achieved consensus, I simply reworked it for this proposed guideline. But if people believe this proposed guideline should instead simply be merged with Wikipedia:Categorization of people, I'd love to hear that too. Best,--Alabamaboy 14:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good so far

Some comments for the "General" section:

• For number 1, we may want to specify that a grouping should be notable and covered by reliable sources, and link to policies and guidelines on notability and/or reliable sources. We don't want any fuzzy areas concerning what is "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic".
• For number 2, linking to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) and maybe even mentioning its guidelines may help.
• I'm not sure I understand what number 3 is trying to say.

Also, should we make mention of lists of cross sections by nationality? For example, how would this guideline be applicable to List of Canadian actors?

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we couldn't do all that.--Alabamaboy 15:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a quick question, what is notablility when we are talking about ethnicic or religious groups? Could someone outline briefly a quantitative answer or isn't there one? Otherwise, I'm glad someone is sorting this out I've seen a few AfD's on this kind of thing. SGGH ^speak! 22:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Response: I guess it means the group should be notable itself. For example, a person may be of Iranian-Italian descent. But since no article exists on Iranian-Italian, then there's no need for a list on that. However, since Jewish-Americans do have an article, then a list on jewish-american artists, painters, writers, etc. could be created. But that's just my interpretation. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, following up from your statement of "For example, African American literature is a distinct literary genre, and therefore a List of African-American writers is valid. However, there isn't a comparable phenomenon of African American economists, so a list for "African American economists" should not be created." The keeping of lists of hispanic and puerto rican Medal of Honor recipients would be notable in that respect also? Due to issues regarding acceptance and recognition of such ethnic minorities in the US armed forces? Or have I misinterpretted your comment? SGGH ^speak! 22:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In view of the fact that Hispanic contributions to our nation are an element of the whole immigration reform debate and Puerto Rican contributions are an underlying element in the perennial debate on PR's relationship with the nation, I think it's particularly relevant that lists exist to easily identify and, if desired, single out, Hispanics in general and Puerto Ricans in particular who have achieved the highest level of military recognition. If and when those debates ever end, the lists would become unnecessary and irrelevant. Let us all hope that that day will come, but it hasn't yet.Pr4ever 01:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Before we get to the basics, we have to expand what the purpose of this guideline is. We're just stating what the purpose of lists are, and that's not enough for a separate guideline from WP:LIST. Otherwise, any policies or guidelines proposed here should be merged to WP:LIST, rather than creating a separate policy. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As a style guideline, WP:LIST is "intended to help keep the formatting, grammar and style of Wikipedia's articles consistent." (See Category:Wikipedia style guidelines.) Are you suggesting a refactor of WP:LIST? If not, it seems the proposed guideline is reasonable. I'm not categorically opposed to refactoring WP:LIST, but that guideline, as written, doesn't cover the subject of the proposed guideline. --Ishu 01:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It might conflict but a guideline like this will prevent several racism motivated AfDs. The piece still needs work but the proposal is definitely reasonable. -凶 23:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Guidelines are not created by voting upon them. WP:POL, WP:PNSD, WP:VIE, WP:CON. >Radiant< 11:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Prior debate

See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession. Could someone read all that and summarize? (I merely noticed both these pages, and so am pointing it out to you) --Quiddity 08:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. I'll have to check it out.--Alabamaboy 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Overlistification

Wikipedia:Overlistification is a proposed guideline that intersects with this proposed guideline. There are some good things in Wikipedia:Overlistification and some things that would need to be changed. In particular, the section "Irrelevant Intersections by Race, Gender, Beliefs, Sexuality, Ethnicity, and Religion Lists" appears similar to what we've proposed here. Some tweaking of language would be needed, but the similarities are there.

Unfortunately, there is an appearance that Wikipedia:Overlistification is being created to bolster one side of the debate around the deletion of certain types of lists. I'm sure the same could be said for our proposed guideline. As people may know, the guidelines and policies which succeed at Wikipedia tend to be the ones which reach consensus from people on both sides of a debate. Perhaps we should merge info from Wikipedia:Proposed guideline for lists of people by ethnicity, religion, and other cultural categorizations with Wikipedia:Overlistification, bring in info from the current list guidelines, and see if we all can't reach a general consensus on this issue. Any thoughts on this from people? Is so, joing the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Overlistification#Problems_with_proposed_guidelines.2C_possible_ways_to_achieve_consensus. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for categories vs. lists

Before dealing with the specifics of this and similar proposals, can we discuss the differences between lists and categories? CFD discussions have often reached the conclusion that some groupings might not be appropriate as categories but may still be appropriate as a list. So here is my take on the similarities and differences between categories and lists:

Similarities

• Both must be verifiable
• Both must be valuable for navigation, research, etc...

Differences

• Lists can be annotated, categories cannot. An article's membership in a category must be obvious and uncontroversial . Lists can explain why each entry is included and controversies can be noted and explained.
• Categories are for important distinctions. Lists can cover less important information.
• Categorization is displayed on every page included in the category. Links are only displayed as the result of an editorial decision, if and when appropriate.

I think this implies the following:

• Any topic that is appropriate to be a category would also be acceptable as a list. A list would not be necessary if a category exists, unless if it adds information that could not be found in the category or organizes the information in a way that a category cannot (like a sortable table).
• A topic that is not suitable for a category might however be suitable as a list.
• The criteria for keeping or deleting a list are not qualitatively different from the criteria for keeping or deleting an article. Categories have constraints that articles and lists do not.

So for example, Matthew Shephard is in Category:Episcopalians. The only mention of religion in his article was that he was a member of an Episcopalian church. This does not seem to be worthy of categorization. It might be reasonable to link the church membership to List of American Episcopalians. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on why you think "a list would not be necessary if a category exists"? As you've stated, lists can cover minor information of the items so listed. And personally I absolutely think they should provide minor information rather than do just a pure listing. Assuming that a list does provide minor information, would you say that its existence is justified even if there is a category for the same grouping? Also I'd like to point out one thing that lists can do that categories cannot - you can list red-linked articles on a list. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement. I said "A list would not be necessary if a category exists, unless if it adds information that could not be found in the category or organizes the information in a way that a category cannot (like a sortable table)." You've outlined reasons to have a list that illustrate how a list can add information. If the function of a list is identical to a category it is redundant and not needed. If it has the potential to add more information it should stay. In most cases a list will be superior to a category in conveying information. The advantage of categories is that membership on the list is managed in the member's article and the membership is displayed on each member's page. So if the conveying of more information is essential to the topic, the information should be a list. If the topic is essential to defining the members the information should be a category as long as membership is obvious and uncontroversial. Sometimes it won't be a question of either/or. Both will be appropriate. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This should be part of WP:LIST

Is there any reason that this should be its own guideline and not part of Wikipedia's List guideline? This proposal is simply an amendment to WP:LIST. It should be discussed at WT:LIST. --JayHenry 05:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No activity, thus rejected

Per the policy on proposed guidelines and policies, failure to demonstrate a consensus of the community equals rejection. --Kevin Murray 02:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)