Knowledge talk:Stand-alone lists/Archive 8

1275:. "A fast and easy way to establish this is if they already have an article written about them on Knowledge, since it would have never been approved, or would have been deleted, if they did not meet notability requirements. This is not the sole rationale for inclusion, since some people who might meet notable standards may not have an article". So we have both people who are included in such lists that do not warrant their own BLP and people like Ulysses S. Grant who's relationship to the list is notable for the list, but not for his own BLP. Those are two exceptions to your proposed policy that I find with some regularity. The "Lists of people" section on the Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists page is guidance for all lists of people, not just your ever changing subset of lists of people. Please take some time to appreciate that you are asking for a change to a long standing consensus on in-line verifiable policy; not on an actual policy page, but on a manual of style page. In-line citation at the presentation of the content has been a long standing wp:policy. 328:"someone who wants a source on the list can just go fetch the source from the article". If it was ever there in the first place. And if it hasn't been removed in the meantime (sources get removed from articles for all sorts of reasons, including perfectly reasonable ones). Effectively, an unsourced entry on a list is nothing but an assertion that at some point in history there might have been a source validating inclusion. If the person adding the name to the list understood policy at all - after all, why should anyone assume that adding a new name to a list requires a source if there is no evidence that any of the other entries are sourced? No, someone adding a name to a list can 'just' do what is expected of them in any other context on Knowledge - provide explicit sourcing. If they can't be bothered to perform this elementary task they have no business editing in the first place. We are writing for the benefit of readers, not the convenience of contributors, and we have an 224:, that doesn't alter the fact that unsourced lists can and do frequently contain blatant violations of WP:BLP policy - and the claim that 'it is sourced in the biography' is not only dubious per policy (we don't cite our articles as sources), but frequently impossible to verify, since the source for the claim isn't named. And why the heck shouldn't we insist that the very thing that merits inclusion on a list should be cited where the reader can find it? We are supposed to be writing for the benefit of readers, not the convenience of list-compilers too lazy to actually provide a citation when they are adding someone to a list? If they are adding a name, they must be working from a source (or at least, they darned well should be) and are in the best position to get it right. 806:

event, the place to hash this out should be the BLP itself where the claim and the source can be fully vetted. As it is, most lists of notable X do not have sources no matter how notorious, so arguing they should all be sourced is pointless. They aren't and that's not likely to change. To the contrary, in those few cases where an entry is sourced, it's been my experience that the sourcing is rarely of the quality that would stand up in the BLP and it's offered only because the BLP does not make the claim. It's a way of sneaking things in. All I'm proposing is the simple, workable rule that if you'd like to add someone to a list of notable X that requires blue-linked articles, the BLP should clearly state they are indeed an X.

1452:

should have that verification via source, but it is near universally that this is known and included. As such, a blue-link on a list would be sufficient. But your example, such as being a Freemason, or being a hacker, those are things that may or may not be listed in the bio article. Or even something like a person being a (self-stated) supporter of LGBT rights, that might be in the article but buried. To meet WP:V we should be considering how much effort the V part is met. Birthplace - a jump to the article should reveal it on the top of the page. Freemason/hacker/LGBT supporter, that's not universally going to be the case, so the source should be right there on the list to avoid any WP:V-based ambiguity. --

1556:(3) Re: what about claims that might be "too trivial" for the bio, it seems to me this argument assumes the unlikely; the more likely reason we wouldn't report something is because the sourcing isn't that good. Setting aside that it has not been my experience that WP fails to report stuff because the topic is too trivial, if it's too trivial to report that someone was an X, then maybe he really wasn't that much of an X after all. Most of these lists of notable X introduce themselves as lists of people known for something. If the claim isn't important enough make it into their bio, it doesn't sound to me like they were really known for it. 1082:"It's more than just a list of names". So your proposed recommendation is limited to lists of just names? That seems randomly convenient for you to add at this point in the discussion. Are you aware that there is also a long standing consensus that lists of just names are to be avoided whenever possible? Prose explaining the person's connection to the list is always preferred to no prose at all. If you disagree, please explain how you think Knowledge treats lists-with-just-names differently from lists-with-more-then-just-names. Because the only difference I'm aware of is that the first should be given a tag encouraging editors to expand it? 1611:, not someone agreeing with you. As has been explained to you multiple times now, not all blue links are BLPs. Nor even biographies of dead people. People involved in a single notable event may have links to all types of articles that aren't biographies. Most importantly, that note specifically says "The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited." I've never cited BLP as cause against your proposal, hence my reference. I've only cited in-line citation at the source guidelines. There is no consensus on requiring citations anywhere but at the source of the claim. Hence 1744:

required a WP:Verifiable source. Additionally, the editors on the BLP page of the individual in question should be informed of their inclusion on this list. Please put this on their biography's talk page (canned take page edit). Also, please consider adding this claim to their biography". You patrolling that page is will probably achieve the similar ends. I also encourage you to expand the list with a good lead that describes hackers (maybe differentiating white and black hats) and maybe a little about what makes each entry qualify as a hacker.

31: 1111:"It's not likely to be contentious since we can presume the Ig Noble prize was either awarded or not awarded" and yet the talk page is littered with small debates about the reason the person was given the award or if the award misrepresented their work and that Knowledge shouldn't repeat the misrepresentation. If the editors of this list were following the well established policy of inline citations for every BLP list entry, it would make their work easier. Like the editors at this 399:-- This is precisely the same as if someone adds content to an article with a source and then someone else removes the source. A statement in a BLP article is nothing but an assertion that at some point in history there might have been a source validating the statement. In such a case, as with the list article, the statement/list item should then be removed. If there's no source, there's no source. But the premise here is that there 2026:, but I did it at her article, not at the island's page. There are also two articles that have "of Kos" in their common names. The list is also not long, so verification is not tedious. In cases such as this it helps keep the list clean by avoiding citation clutter on every entry of the list, especially with citations which have little to do with the island itself but rather with the individuals involved. 963:

more than a few instances like this. I've been on both sides of debates about whether these events are WP:Notable enough for inclusions on lists. Trying to create a mandate for only including materiel also found in a BLP, would simply be creating editorial pain where no reason for creating such pain is apparent...because we already have rather broad consensus for inline citation at the list level.

734:-- and we know the fact that a person is a clarinetists is verifiable because it's verified by a reliable source at the person's article, there's no verifiability concern. Now, if someone challenges someone's inclusion on the list, then a citation can be demanded there as with anything else. But it is not the case that, across the board "inclusion in a list requires a source - in the list". — 1725:) that offer little more than a navigational list of names. But the language I proposed doesn't actually say that and I'm willing to concede the point that strictly speaking, yes, our policy does ask for sources every time a claim is made. Would you be more amenable if any ambiguity were removed, clarifying merely that both the article and the list should make the same claim with sources? 1553:. Would it be okay to add Obama so long as I have what I claim is an RS? How about if I have two of them? Or maybe three. How many would you like? My real question is, do you think we should debate the claim and the sources there at the list or is that forum shopping? Shouldn't we settle basic questions of what we will report about an individual in one place, at his BLP? 2134:. This is energetically maintained by a prolific editor, who may have missed the fact that some of the people on the list are Haitian-Americans who have never been to Haiti. They cannot be easily confirmed without a citation, which would clear the matter up immediately. (He has purged the list of citations and {{cn}}s)! I need my ducks in order before taking him on). 152:

by including someone in a list that are not made in the blue-linked article, even if sourced. If you have a new source that supports a new claim that would support inclusion in a list, that claim and source should first be added to the main article, where other editors familiar with the subject will more likely see it and can vet both the claim and the source under

954:

stopped counting at 10) is all the evidence you need that list inclusion in general is contentious enough to require inline citation at the list level. In contrast to your proposal, there are lots of reasons why a well supported fact about an individual might be notable for the list in question, but not for the BLP of the living person. For instance, the people of

1352: 881:. The question is this: Do you think you should be able to add someone to a list of notable X, possibly making a contentious claim that the individual is an X, even if the BLP does not say that, just so long as you have a source? I don't think so. You both appear to think this would be okay; it would be helpful if you could clarify your position. 1709:

claim of a connection should have a reliable source, that you were depending on the editors at that article to sort out the issue, if there was one, the same way you depended on them to sort out any question of notability. (You certainly are claiming these are notable people but you're also certainly not demanding sources for that.)

780:. Another way to look at it: if the inclusion on the list is based on the fact not being contentious, then I should be able to verify that fact with almost no effort by looking at the blue-linked article. If it requires me to read between the lines or get into details, then it probably should be cited at the list article. -- 136:

with the subject, not in a separate list. This is why we don't generally clutter most lists of notable X with references when a blue-linked article is required. These are basically navigation lists, not where we check the claims except just to verify that the article is there and makes the claim. Consequently, I

2354:"a page for non-style guidance regarding stand-alone lists". A renaming would would simply be an acknowledgement of this fact. While it (arguably) may be improper for a "style guide" to discuss non-style related issues (such as Notability), there is no reason why a broader guideline can't cover style issues. 1333:. There are three big problems with your example. First, Grant is a not a living person and hasn't been almost 130 years. He is not covered by BLP. Second, so far as I know, no one assume that if you lived in Eureka, that you are probably a criminal. It is not like being called a hacker. Third, the 805:

be easy to verify it with almost no effort by looking at the blue-linked article. If that's not the case, I don't think you should add the individual to the list even if you do have a source because it should be obvious there might be other sources that disagree or a case of undue weight. In either

440:

If the list is a topic that is even potentially contentious (like being a hacker, white- or black-hat), as compared to a rather mundane fact (like being born from a specific country), then it should be sourced to be included in the list, even if the blue-linked article has this clearly cited as well.

396:

f it was ever there in the first place. And if it hasn't been removed in the meantime (sources get removed from articles for all sorts of reasons, including perfectly reasonable ones). Effectively, an unsourced entry on a list is nothing but an assertion that at some point in history there might have

2075:

Well, there are three other editors at the article, two at the talkpage and one in the article history who don't think this is an improvement. I find such reference use unnecessarily pedantic. It also clutters the article references with references largely unrelated to the main topic. But I've said

1951:

already contains a citation for that information. The reason why is simple... the bio article might end up being re-written at some point, and the information about his height (along with the citation) could end up on the editorial cutting floor... being omitted in the course of the re-write. When

1910:

fashion so that any editor can verify, without otherwise leaving the article for yet another article (which may or may not contain Carter's height, reliably sourced); that we should not have to depend on any particularly subset of editors for any article. (I monitor many articles where I am the only

962:

two years before the town incorporated around it. Celebrated with a town statue and all. It is a well supported and WP:notable event in the town's history, but a minor one in the life of the president and not included on his BLP. Having edited thousands of these pages, I can assure you I come across

899:

is bloody simple: if add something about an LP you need to provide a good reliable source to back it up. If you don't, it'll get ripped out. If you continue to add the same, you'll face censure. I'm not sure which bit of this silliness you are failing to understand, but this thread is going past the

531:

of lists of notable X that also require blue-linked BLPs, I think questions of whether someone really is an X should be decided at the BLP. You shouldn't be able to add someone to a list, especially a notorious or perhaps obscure list, even if you do have a source, if their BLP doesn't also clearly

417:

Personally, I'm less concerned with what 'should' happen than with what frequently does. Which is that people get put on lists with no source at all. Though if the level of scrutiny you are advocating was carried out on the BLP talk page, one would think that little extra effort would be involved in

131:

that includes "A community of enthusiast computer programmers and systems designers", even though their articles do not identify them as hackers and certainly no one believes these are "People committed to circumvention of computer security" or who engage in "unauthorized remote computer break-ins".

1712:

I'm not sure I understand your objection based my suggesting the change here, not on a policy page. Arguably, I suppose it could be ignored if it's only a style issue, which if you think it's a silly rule, you might like. Why would this be a permissible rule only if it's policy, making exceptions

1708:

I appreciate that you intended that statement to indicate that the citation should appear there on the list. But realistically, the statement is ambiguous on where the source is supposed to appear. I read it to be an elaboration on the previous sentence and to mean that the article that makes the

1666:

The text I wrote? With the expressed understanding that I followed it with "The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited." In that, entry on the list must be cited at the list where the claim is made. I can assure you that I posted that on a lot of these pages and yet let stand

1424:

articles... The inclusion criteria for those articles is two fold: 1) the person must be notable to qualify for the list. That is a requirement which is satisfied by the fact that the person has a Knowledge article. Second, the person must be a Freemason to qualify for the list. THAT is a claim

828:

You are essentially saying that 'crap exists, so we may as well stick to that level, because its too difficult to do anything else'. That's just not good enough. If you add information about a LP to any page it needs to be reliably sourced. That's the bottom line, and trying to justify not adding a

633:

So what do you say to the editor who adds a name to a notorious list based on a reliable source supporting a claim that is not made (or perhaps contested) in the BLP? Are saying you think the debate should happen at list article, out of view of the editors working on the BLP? And what if the list

472:

It begs the question, which is why if for "List of X" where X is a potentially contentious claim, the source should be on the list (as well as duplicated in the article, obviously) - we should not be asking readers to search for this in the person's article if the claim is made on the list page and

151:

Where the requirement is for an existing article to demonstrate notability, that existing article should identify the individual as meeting the selection criteria. That article is also where any sources needed to support the claim would normally go. New claims about the subject should not be made

2021:

is not exactly similar to Jimmy Carter's height. Unlike the height issue, which can indeed be removed from an article, this list concerns people associated with Kos. Since for most of these figures that means Kos is their birthplace, the information cannot end up in the cutting room floor as it is

1739:

You're the first of many editors who've read my note and told me it was ambiguous. Perhaps because the others were more likely to assume the pre-eminence of our in-line citation policy. I'm always up for suggestions to improve it. The ultimate goal is not to prevent red linked names of wp:notables

1451:

Well, in considering a place of birth, this is universally a piece of information found in an infobox or in the bio section for any person. (I would be hard pressed to find an example of a person of modern-enough times (19th century onward) lacking any details of where they were born). The article

1279:

specifically discourages what you are suggesting: "Content from a Knowledge article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly." e.g., don't cite the article and thus indirectly its editors as

1067:

That's not an example at all. (a) It's not a list of notable X. (b) It doesn't require a blue-linked article for inclusion. (c) It's more than just a list of names, it's an actual article with descriptions of each award. (d) While some of the entries do have sources and/or blue-links, many have

730:. That's broader than inclusion in a list where inclusion is potentially contentious. Nobody's arguing against verifiability, because verifiability explicitly does not mean the same thing as every statement having an inline citation. If we're talking about a subject that is not contentious -- say, 698:

I do note within the mos we have the language "Stand-alone lists are subject to Knowledge's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of

295:

I'll also add that this is a grayish area that doesn't need to be a huge problem. If someone adds a person to a list, and the person's inclusion in the list is sourced at the person's article, then someone who wants a source on the list can just go fetch the source from the article. Likewise, when

135:

It seems to me, and I think it's been a common practice, just never explicit, that the right place to vet most sources and claims about an individual who's notable and has a blue-linked article is there at the article itself in the plain light of day in front of all the other editors most familiar

1923:

totally exist in our four-dimensional universe or not? That is not obvious. Nor is it obvious that Hermann Witganager should be in the list of longest serving mayors of Ostend-um-Rhine. Even if he is notable. I am not really sure he ever was mayor there, in fact! Let us spare watching editors and

1487:

It's not that it is "controversial" but that on the blue linked article, I don't have to "work" to find a source to support the claim because (in this case) it's sourced in the first + second sentences of the body, and not buried; this is because bio articles universally start with "So and so was

953:

Yes! If you have a WP:Reliable source that supports a contentious claim that is important enough for the BLP page, then the issue is not with the list page, but with the BLP page and why it is being kept off. The mere fact that we are debating the issue of list level inline citations yet again (I

775:

it in the case of a contentious claim. That John Q Smith is a clarinetist is likely not contentious, but John Q Smith being a hacker (which has both positive and negative meanings, and as used in the OP example, a case of someone that would not professionally call themselves a hacker but does the

546:

If we're including BLP on a list of X where there is wide disagreement on whether a specific person qualifies as X, then the list absolutely needs to have a very hard inclusion requirement to eliminate disagreed cases - or potentially the list itself is bad. An example I could think of would be a

269:

In general, the specifics of whether a description/term X should apply to a person is best hashed out at the article for the person. A person should not be added to a list of X if it has not been determined to be appropriate at the article. But there is no broad requirement that the sources which

1743:

If you are dropping the in-line citation objection and simply sticking to the need for better vetting of who and who-is-not a Hacker, then let's take it to the hacking page. I suggest making a note like I did that says something like "calling someone a Hacker is possibly a contentious claim and

202:

I have to agree with Andy's reversion here. A BLP claim needs to be on the page on which any statement is made. If the BLP statement happens to be on 5 or 6 pages, it needs to be cited on 5 or 6 pages. We cannot rely on sourcing from a different page to back up any claim, but especially when it

1898:

is in that list. I maintain that there should be a footnote substantiating that Jimmy Carter is, indeed, under six feet. The other editor believes that a) Everyone knows that, and/or b) they can go to Jimmy Carter's article and find that out, or (his last argument) c) That he and several other

2204:

processes it will eventually be totally sourced. For routine information there is no rush to do this. If a list entry does not have an article, then it may well be appropriate to challenge an unsourced addition of this sort, especially if the list (or article it appears in, in the case of an

574:

question, the verifiability must actually be demonstrated by providing an in-line citation to a reliable source (see WP:BURDEN). Every article (even a list) must stand on its own in terms of sourcing. Facts must be supported in every article in which the fact appears... list articles are no

110:

requires appropriate sourcing for any claims regarding an individual, especially when they may be of a contentious or private nature. But it does not specifically address the question of where the sourcing should go when deciding whether an individual belongs on a list of notable individuals

2150:. I flag it, and erase it after three months or so. Phoneys don't generally show up twice. I am really not interested in most of these people personally. I don't want to, nor should I be required to be an expert on a "list" just because I am trying to maintain its viability to readers. IMO. 1778:

I think we want cites for lists of NN people. e.g. The First Violinists for the Chicago Philharmonic have been 1) Joe Doakes 1879-1883 (cite), 2) Mary Smith 1883-1907 (cite), etc. Should one of these be notable, my understanding is that a cite is still required. Each Knowledge article is

522:

And what if sources disagree? I think you invite the case where an individual gets added to a list based on a single reliable source when in fact other sources disagree or where an individual is added to a list claiming they are "known for" something when in fact that's completely

1545:

Some comments. (1) Doesn't pretty much everyone know how to use Ctrl-F? If you'd like to find where the bio says someone was a hacker/Freemason/LGBT supporter, don't you think most people know how to do a search? It's not like they actually have to read the whole article to find

843:

Exactly - it is a lazy habit that predated BLP and while BLP's in place a while, we haven't really cleaned up messes that existed before. BLP lists really should have a source for every entry until there's clearly no contentious evaluation of inclusion (such as by birth place).

1367:

Clearly, I am not the only person who thinks it's not unreasonable that if you have a list of notable X that requires blue-linked articles, that the linked article should state whatever claim is required for inclusion on the list and provide a reliable source for the claim.

2116:, do you (or did you) have any concern that these entries might be incorrect? It's not clear whether you were concerned about the content itself ("Maybe this doesn't belong on this list") or only about its presentation ("Knowledge looks more respectable with citations"). 1671:. Most editors on this thread clearly aren't siding with your proposal. Instead of wasting everyone's time with this, why don't you focus on something you can change. What is it about the hacker list that you find unnerving? Let us help you change that at the page level. 1914:

Using reliable sites to establish that an item belongs in a list should be stated somewhere clearly and echo-ed in sub-policy and Project articles so this problem does not persist. And yes, "apple is a fruit" is allowable without citation. But the problem with making

547:

list of LGBT persons. Allowing any random source to justify inclusion is brewing for trouble, while on the other hand if we narrow that list to self-identified LGBT persons, that would be far different. We'd still need a source or two to make that clear, obviously. --

1716:

Is your objection that you think I'm arguing against also providing sources in the list? It's true that I do happen to think they're pretty much unnecessary if the bio clearly makes the claim with proper sourcing, especially for those lists of notable X (e.g.,

1959:

As for the "this is obvious" or "everyone knows this" argument... that is not actually a valid reason to exempt a statement from WP:V. It is true that statements such as "Apple is a fruit" or "Paris is the capital of France" do not need to be cited... but the

1795:, not the article on Mary Smith which may be deleted at some point. The link is there to help readers, not to provide a lame indirect citation for lazy editors. The reason is potentially circular citation. If I don't understand the arguments, I apologize. 270:

verify inclusion of a person on a list must be at the list, as far as I know. It's nice when a list is well sourced, and local consensus can produce an inclusion criteria dictating sourcing as a requirement, but I don't think it's a necessary extension of

2588:

disambiguation page, so it was no longer needed in the hatnote. I also cleaned up some outdated advice on glossaries, lists of lists, etc., and added some missing stuff, e.g. outlines. And fixed shortcuts to go to the right places, and added the missing

1268:. So you may want to ease up on the flippant "Blah, blah, blah" comments and instead take more time to fully read what other editors have written. Since you seem to think your proposed policy should only be about notable people lists, lets refer to the 2137:

Nor can a researcher be assured of Haitian ancestry. Are we just saying this? These people BTW, are often not terrifically well-known, another problem which I cannot solve outside of politicians and soldiers. In other words, they might belong on some

1425:

that requires verification, and can only be satisfied by supplying a citation to a reliable source that supports the fact that the person is a Freemason. If either of these two criteria are not met, we remove the person from the list (if added).

2491:

a general guideline - since it currently covers notability issues, content issues, style issues, etc - the problem is simply that the title and template don't reflect what it has become. All that needs to change is the title and the template.

362:

changes and no longer makes a claim that might qualify the individual for inclusion on a list of notable X, they should be removed from the list. We should decide questions of whether someone really is an X, whatever X is, at the subject's

1280:

proof of verification, but use the verification itself directly at the source of the claim. You are essentially asking us to cite the credibility of editors on a different wikipedia page as proof of verification of a claim on these lists.

2142:

list, because they are not known outside of Haiti or have scant fame in the States, as well. But the basic fact of birth (in this case) needs to be proved first before moving on to the "Is s/he famous enough to be known outside of Haiti?"

2182:

was written for a reason. It's perfectly fine for a list to (for now) contain items that are not likely to be challenged, are not currently challenged, and are not contentious. There are 100,000 things to do to make Knowledge better, and

2187:

challenging an entry that is not contentious and was not likely to be challenged, just to "force" it to be challenged to make work for another editor, is not really among them; if it's done by the same person frequently, it borders on

938:

A complete non-answer to my question. Do you think you should be able to add a person to a list, in effect making a claim about them that isn't made in their BLP, just so long as you have an RS? A simple yes or no will do fine.

111:

satisfying certain criteria where the requirement is for a blue-linked article. This has led to some question whether it's appropriate to add an individual to a list based on a claim not made in the main article. For example, in

2559:

I've reordered the sections, and made some conforming and redundancy-cleanup edits so the page makes sense, in the order of: content guidelines, style guidelines, naming conventions, and misc. Had to put naming last, because the

532:

make the same claim, preferably right in the lede paragraph. If nothing else, to do otherwise invites forum shopping. If you have a claim about a living person, you should be able to make it stick at their BLP or not at all.

289:), where inclusion could potentially harm someone's reputation or otherwise cast a negative light on the person, but I still think that's better handled per local consensus as those lists tend to have a good amount of gray area. 699:

the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations." So any "List of people that are X" where X is a potentially contentious thing about BLP means that we must have inline sources per both this MOS and BLP. --

2328:. This page includes more than just style guidance, and we don’t currently have a page for non-style guidance regarding stand-alone lists. Therefore, this page should be separated from the MOS and simply be a page about 1667:

names that do not yet have BLPs but do have citations establishing notability. I don't make policy no matter what I do to discourage frivolous edits to these pages. Citing me won't help your cause. See Nancy Utley from

2424:. Far from a demotion, the proposed move would expand this guideline’s scope beyond style. Or perhaps more accurately, it would correct a years-old error that had technically put it in violation of its limited scope. — 1068:

neither. (You'll probably want to get right on that.) (e) It's not likely to be contentious since we can presume the Ig Noble prize was either awarded or not awarded and it's unlikely that sources would disagree.

1615:. If you can find one I would love to read it. Until then, this is the wrong venue for you to be trying to change longstanding consensus on policy. You should being trying this on a policy page, not an MoS page. -- 367:, not at a possibly notorious or only tangentially-related list where the claim is unlikely to receive the same scrutiny it would at the BLP, e.g., that even it seems reliably sourced, that other sources agree. 1550: 2473:. I’m proposing it be made a general guideline which can address both content and style, as the text currently does. But I have no objection to turning it into a content guideline if that’s the consensus. — 1222:

Do you think you should be able to add someone to a list of notable X, possibly making a contentious claim that the individual is an X, even if the BLP does not say that, just so long as you have a source?"

2196:. If a list item has its own article and there are sources in it that indicate it meets the list's inclusion criteria, that's good enough for the time being. As the list article wends its way through the 1428:

Now... in many cases, the fact that a person belongs to a Masonic Lodge is a very trivial thing to mention in the main Bio article. Indeed the editors of the bio article may well decide that it is simply

1417:

I don't know about that... I would want a citation to verify that someone was from Eureka. It's hardly a "Paris is the Capital of France" type statement that is so easily verifiable that we wave citation.

219:

Sources go in the relevant articles (and a list is an article). Where else would they go? And while I agree that anything that validates inclusion in a list should probably be included in the biography

2217:

case above wrongly including Haitian-Americans with no direct connection to Haiti) are cases where challenging inappropriate entries is perfectly reasonable. It's also a common interpretation of

1809:

But there's also no hurry. If this detail isn't controversial or likely to be challenged it's not productive to demand a citation "just because". All info in a list will get sourced during the

2153:

I am not trying to play killjoy to newbies and if someone insists, I will look up one or two. But looking up everyone on this Haitian list (which had some citations for awhile) is beyond me.

146:"When it's a list of notable X and a blue-linked article is required, the article should identify the individual as meeting the selection criteria. That's the place for any needed sources." 1400:

is one that is a contentious claim, because there are people that 3rd parties might claim are hackers but the actually people would deny it. This is where sourcing is needed to include. --

1115:. They cited every entry, editors at the various BLP's did not find this event to be notable enough for their BLP, and yet, no debate on the talk page; because every entry is well cited. 1984: 1944: 570:

Verifiability is a bright line, core criteria for Knowledge. If we want to say something in an article (and that includes list articles) it must be verifiable. More over, if there is

2146:

For "watchers/reviewers", these need to be hammered out, one at a time. I have had great success over the years without having to personally research each person popping up on a list.

473:

not sourced. Something less problematic like birth nationality, which is not contentious, that's different, but certainly would be preferable to include the source on the list page. --

829:

source is just bollocks – and lazy bollocks, I'm afraid. Make a claim on a page, source it on the page: it's not difficult, and is part of a fairly simple, but very strong policy. -

2350:- While much of the guideline does (appropriately) cover "style" issues, significant portions relate to other, non-style, issues. In other words, this page (despite it's title) is 2221:

that inclusion of a living person on a list requires an in-list citation. I've yet to see a good rationale against this interpretation, because the BLP policy is quite strict.

757:

require all statements to be supported. That needs to be done on the page where an assertion is made, and not just relied upon an unconnected page that may change over time. -

603:

apply, and those too can affect inclusion. For example, if there is only one source that says person Y is an X... and lots of sources disagree and say that say Y is

684:

And incidentally, it is worth bearing in mind that the MoS is a guideline, whereas WP:BLP is policy - and accordingly we cant have a guideline which contradicts it.

2695:

for a particular type of list-of-lists (though few of the various articles with such a title are yet categorized there; some AWB cleanup should take care of that).

1488:

born on DATE at LOCATION". On other categories, membership of the class may not be something directly mentioned, and that's where a source on the list is needed. --

753:

unsupported information (saying someone is a clarinetist is way off "the sky is blue" level that doesn't need a source), but that goes doubly for BLP, where policy

427: 412: 341: 305: 2250:

But, no, I don't know if Barack Obama was a resident of Smithville, Illinois, or Hilo, Hawaii, or not. Maybe I should know, but I don't. And if not him, then who?

500:

If the BLP must state the qualifying criteria for the subject to be included, else they should be removed, the list becomes merely navigational, like a dab page.

2635: 1391: 766: 661: 323: 2501: 2433: 2384: 2363: 2169: 2125: 1500: 1482: 2482: 2464: 2259: 2242: 1862: 792: 693: 679: 376: 233: 115:, where clearly there could be a negative connotation to being called a hacker, there's been a question whether to add serious computer scientists including 2534: 1740:

with good citations from being added to these types of lists. Since I started adding it, spam edits of "Sam: town's local drunk" have decreased drastically.

2299: 1139: 711: 608: 583: 576: 509: 2402: 2012: 1804: 1304: 1022: 2663: 1768: 1734: 1695: 1661: 1377: 1255: 1201: 1106: 1077: 987: 948: 909: 838: 643: 624: 485: 467: 212: 2716: 2576:

nav template to far lower than it should be, when the name section is put before the style section. Restructured the lead to be cohesive and to have a

2341: 2100: 2082: 2058: 2032: 1464: 1446: 856: 1576: 1412: 890: 815: 559: 541: 453: 724:

any "List of people that are X" where X is a potentially contentious thing about BLP means that we must have inline sources per both this MOS and BLP

1382:

The issue that you claim to be trying to fix is not in any way shape or form going to be ameliorated by the rule change that you are suggesting. --

1269: 2022:

central to their bios. It is also easily verifiable, all one has to do is check the early life section of the bios to verify that. I actually had

1649:

example, the ones of concern certainly are biographies. I call your attention to the excerpt from that list which I quoted above, which states,

743: 292:

What about navboxes and other templates which list people? They appear in other articles and include people's names. Require sources there too?

183:

anticipates new claims being made about an individual by adding them to a possibly notorious list if those claims aren't already made in their

2614: 1933: 187:

if there is one or that you should be able to get around this by adding a source to the list where it likely won't get the same scrutiny.

1264:"It's still not a list of notable X that requires a blue-linked article". Well, I already provided that for you with Ulysses S. Grant and 196: 2305: 1833:

if there's a bunch of them. I think this is not helpful when the addition is notable and already has an article with sources, verging on

94: 86: 1567:, if you make a claim about an individual with a blue-linked BLP by adding them to a list, that the claim must also appear in the BLP? 1943:

it appears. The longer answer is this: yes, you would need to provide a citation to verify that "Jimmy Carter" belongs in the list of "

1608: 164: 137: 81: 69: 64: 59: 1668: 1639: 2554: 1894:

a disagreement over the credibility of a subsection name!) "US Presidents under six feet tall." Let us say (for instance) that

1646: 1330: 1265: 955: 2192:, and if it's done by one editor against another editor all the time, who is making useful, good-faith contributions, it's an 296:

the editor adding the name to the list is asked for a source, he or she can just go fetch the source from the article, too. —

2470: 2624: 2621: 2247:

I agree if someone is following around another editor and inserting "citation needed", one should wonder at his/her motives.

2641: 2375:, by itself, is an official policy, carrying higher weight IMO. It seems to me that we would be demoting it, wouldn't we? 1337:, have you looked carefully enough at your example to have even clicked "Edit"? When I did, this is what I found it said: 801:

And I would go further. If inclusion on the list is based on a fact that might be contentious, then it absolutely should

2267: 2548:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2474: 2425: 2333: 2281:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

652:

I would say that that issue is in no way going to be addressed by removing/not requiring sources in list articles. --

2707: 2605: 2233: 1853: 1112: 634:

and the BLP now disagree over whether someone really is an X, each based on some number of RS? That would be okay?

47: 17: 2452: 1396:

The list of people from Eureka, CA, is not the type of list that absolutely needs sources; the original example,

1968:

that "everyone knows this" or "this is obviously true"... the reason we exempt them is that such statements are

2443:

move and transition from MOS to content guideline (Some of the comments above do not realize that the MOS is a

1242:

grounds. Verifiability is simply the first test that must be met for inclusion on a list... but it isn't the

995: 458:

How is relying on the source being in the linked article not a form of using one of our articles as a source?

1972:(there are thousands of sources that do so), and so that actually providing a citation to a source is silly. 2670:

shows that we don't use that format at all (well, I think one example turned up), but overwhelmingly favor

2525: 1602: 1437:

simply because the editors at the main bio article thought it too trivial to mention in the bio article.

1192:

Blah, blah, blah. It's still not a list of notable X that requires a blue-linked article for inclusion.

2563: 2309: 1874: 102: 38: 1975:

That said... If you already know that "Jimmy Carter's height" is currently mentioned and cited in the

2295: 1722: 1474: 1383: 878: 776:

work that is equivalent to a hacker) - that's a contentious claim and per BLP would require a source

653: 310:

No, no, no! That goes completely counter to the point of lists, to our unbreakable BLP policy and to

2049:

article. I have Fixed the Problem (it took me all of five minutes to copy and paste the sources).

2213:

in the vein of over-inclusive redefinitions of subjects to "make" them fit the criteria (as in the

1820: 1559:(4) Are you more amenable if any ambiguity is removed to state clearly that claims require sources 2667: 1228:

source, it passes WP:BURDEN. The claim is verifiable, and the person may be added in good faith.

2631: 2478: 2429: 2418: 2337: 2315: 2121: 2023: 1882:

Let's assume that I have some (currently non-existent) article that passes notability (this is

689: 675: 423: 337: 229: 1651:

Only people who already have a Knowledge article may appear here. This establishes notability.

895:

There is nothing silly about this, and I wonder why you continue to push an unpushable point.

2704: 2602: 2290:. The page provides a general treatment of stand-alone lists not limited to style guidance.-- 2230: 1850: 1841:

to require a citation for addition of a living person to any list, and lean that way myself.

2291: 1907: 731: 579:

includes person Y as an X, then that entry needs to be sourced, and it needs to be sourced

463: 141: 998:. Not exactly a WP:Notable event for a BLP. But completely WP:Notable for list inclusion. 8: 1991:. Doing the work yourself will take you all of two minutes... while trying to force the 1828: 1718: 736: 405: 298: 527:

weight on something that might be true but not what they are really known for. For the

2655: 2497: 2398: 2380: 2371:. This is only a guideline and would be moved to a stand-alone (!) guideline. However, 2359: 2323: 2255: 2165: 2096: 2054: 2008: 1929: 1800: 1761: 1688: 1632: 1612: 1442: 1434: 1421: 1297: 1276: 1251: 1132: 1099: 1015: 980: 905: 834: 762: 620: 319: 208: 2685: 2659: 2627: 2579: 2460: 2117: 1879:

I'm in an argument with a veteran editor over whether list entries need to be cited.

1730: 1657: 1572: 1373: 1197: 1073: 944: 886: 811: 771:

Keep in mind that BLP does not require a source for every fact made about a BLP, but

685: 671: 670:

At the moment, there is no debate - the name just gets added to the list, unsourced.

639: 537: 505: 419: 372: 333: 247: 225: 192: 160: 358:

It surely shouldn't be just an assertion about history. It seems to me that if the

2698: 2596: 2529: 2224: 2214: 2179: 2147: 2131: 1844: 1326: 726:-- Yes, but that's not where this thread started. It started with an edit summary: 286: 176: 1817:

process. That said, I'm generally in favor of tagging non-notable additions with

2590: 2184: 2157: 2088: 1834: 1496: 1460: 1408: 1397: 852: 788: 707: 555: 524: 481: 459: 449: 179:

or anywhere else on the page where the sources should go. I do not believe that

120: 112: 2684:(mostly when an existing, originally concise list grew and grew until split per 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2585: 2571: 2206: 1903:

chance that anyone will make a false entry. The "good guys" will enforce that.

1473:

as merely example where even well sourced birth places are "controversial" .--

311: 2024:

to add a source for one Koan who was actually missing an RS for her birthplace

2493: 2409: 2394: 2390: 2376: 2372: 2355: 2251: 2218: 2210: 2201: 2197: 2161: 2113: 2092: 2050: 2004: 1925: 1838: 1814: 1810: 1796: 1746: 1673: 1617: 1438: 1282: 1247: 1117: 1084: 1000: 965: 959: 901: 896: 830: 758: 616: 364: 359: 315: 282: 271: 263: 204: 184: 180: 172: 153: 128: 124: 116: 107: 1911:

experienced editor. Other contributors are often of good faith, but wrong!)

611:, because including him would give undue weight to a minority view point... 441:

At worst, we're reusing a reference from the blue-linked list to do that. --

2456: 2451:

guideline). Portions which deal with formatting/style could be merged into

2193: 2189: 1976: 1948: 1895: 1726: 1653: 1568: 1470: 1433:

trivial to bother mentioning. Yet we would not remove the person from the

1369: 1193: 1069: 940: 882: 807: 635: 533: 501: 368: 243: 188: 1919:

exception is that there are no contrary statements to offset it! Does the

2520: 1920: 749:

I would say that no-one is doing the encyclopaedia any favours in adding

169:"per WP:BLP policy, inclusion in a list requires a source - in the list." 1645:

Indeed, not all blue links are BLPs, nor even biographies. But in your

2077: 2027: 1956:

in that article. So it has to be cited in both articles, just in case.

1886:

a notability issue). In that article I have a subsection for otherwise

1787:

notability of Mary Smith (linked) to provide us with information which

1489: 1453: 1401: 845: 781: 700: 607:

an X... then WP:UNDUE WEIGHT would apply. We would omit person Y from

548: 474: 442: 332:

to ensure that material concerning living persons is properly sourced.

728:

per WP:BLP policy, inclusion in a list requires a source - in the list

252:

per WP:BLP policy, inclusion in a list requires a source - in the list

2160:

is a real guide or simply a piece of verbosity which can be ignored?

2654:" in the #Titles paragraph about lists of lists. An ongoing RM is 2542:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.

599:

guarantee inclusion" in an article... We have other policies that

1952:

information appears in some other article, we can't count on it

1979:

article... don't be a dick about WP:BURDEN and insist that the

994:

Here's another great example. Winning the highly un-glorious

171:

But I believe he's wrong. While it is absolutely clear that

2568:

template is excessively long, and shunted the corresponding

958:

are quite proud of the fact that Ulysses S. Grant served at

2584:. The "See also" section now includes everything at the 2178:

My own feeling on this (to comment kind of late) is that

2046: 2038: 2018: 418:

actually citing the source where the reader can find it.

2658:

against such a name (though uncertain on whether to use

2037:

If you are going to list notable people from Kos at the

1999:

responsibility, but the reality is that it's a waist of

2515: 1939:

The short answer is that information needs to be cited

1906:

IMO, the article (with list) should be maintained in a

2275:

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal.

1995:

guy to do it will take hours (Yes, technically it was

595:

That said...WP:V also states that "verifiability does

1775:

I am confused about where this is going/coming from.

1238:

in the list. Inclusion can still be challenged on

877:Don't be silly. This has nothing with laziness or 262:list) is not something I understand to extend from 615:the one source appears to verify that view point. 2620:Most of the changes are seen in these two diffs: 2513:– late to the party, but as per the arguments of 2041:article, the information still needs to be cited 2469:Clarification: I’m not proposing this be made a 1983:editor do all the work to copy the citation to " 2447:guideline, which carries the same weight as a 2393:isn't a Policy... it has "guideline" status. 1273:section of the WikiProject Cities/US Guideline 2205:embedded list) is otherwise well-developed. 2087:Thanks Blueboar. This seems to be covered by 1551:List of U.S. Presidents born outside the U.S. 1325:Very well, let us consider your "example" of 1899:editors are watching that article. There is 2306:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists 1825:, or the whole section with something like 1420:Let me give another example... look at our 1924:clearly make brighter lines here. Thanks. 590:important in cases where BLP might apply. 1669:List of people from Glen Ellyn, Illinois 586:(not just at the bio article). This is 175:requires sources, it does not state at 14: 1987:"... just copy and paste the citation 1647:List of people from Eureka, California 1331:List of people from Eureka, California 1266:List of people from Eureka, California 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 254:(as in, a source being mandatory for 25: 900:point of being constructive now. – 397:been a source validating inclusion. 23: 1964:we don't require them to be cited 1234:that does not mean the entry will 24: 2727: 1985:US Presidents under six feet tall 1945:US Presidents under six feet tall 1113:List of people who have been pied 2593:shortcut for "SAL" consistency. 29: 18:Knowledge talk:Stand-alone lists 2453:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Lists 2286:The result of the proposal was 144:section with the edit comment, 2487:In its current state, this is 2194:inappropriate personal dispute 1563:they're made but merely that, 285:to those lists (stemming from 127:under the broad definition of 13: 1: 2170:00:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC) 2126:22:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC) 2013:15:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC) 1947:"... even if the bio article 1934:21:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC) 2642:Lists of lists clarification 2101:01:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC) 2083:17:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC) 2059:13:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC) 2033:08:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC) 7: 2646:We should add "Do not use 2310:Knowledge:Stand-alone lists 2268:Requested move 23 July 2015 403:a source at the article. — 10: 2732: 2717:00:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 2636:23:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC) 2615:22:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC) 2414:WP:MOS itself transcludes 2332:stand-alone list matters. 2300:08:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC) 1805:15:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC) 1769:06:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC) 1735:17:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC) 1696:06:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC) 1662:04:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC) 1640:03:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC) 1577:18:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC) 1501:18:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC) 1483:17:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC) 1465:02:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC) 1447:01:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC) 1413:01:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC) 1392:01:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC) 1378:00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC) 1305:18:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 1256:14:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 1202:09:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 1140:08:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 1107:08:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 1078:05:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 1023:04:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 988:04:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 949:04:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 910:04:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 891:04:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 857:03:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 839:03:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 816:03:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 793:03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 767:02:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 744:02:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 712:02:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 694:23:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 680:22:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 662:23:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 644:22:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 625:22:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 560:21:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 542:21:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 510:21:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 486:21:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 468:21:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 454:21:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 428:20:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 413:21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 377:20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 342:20:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 324:19:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 306:19:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 234:18:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 213:18:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 197:18:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 2666:), and more to the point 2535:21:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 2502:14:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC) 2483:18:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC) 2465:09:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC) 2434:00:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC) 2403:20:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 2385:18:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 2364:11:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 2342:05:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 2156:Can we determine whether 2003:time to point this out). 1723:List of fashion designers 281:sympathetic to extending 2545:Please do not modify it. 2278:Please do not modify it. 2260:19:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC) 2243:03:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC) 1863:10:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC) 2668:Category:Lists of lists 2130:Both. See, for example 1478:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1387:aka The Red Pen of Doom 657:aka The Red Pen of Doom 258:living person added to 167:with the edit comment, 1607:Msnicki, that note is 1356: 1355: 1354: 158: 1837:. But some interpret 1549:(2) Suppose we had a 1350: 1349: 1348: 1224:Yes... if you have a 149: 42:of past discussions. 1970:obviously verifiable 1783:. We cannot use the 732:list of clarinetists 138:added this paragraph 2288:move per discussion 1875:Citing list entries 1719:List of programmers 1335:pièce de résistance 773:absolutely requires 575:exception. So, if 2564:naming conventions 1713:nearly impossible? 1435:List of Freemasons 1422:List of Freemasons 956:Eureka, California 879:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS 609:List of notable Xs 584:List of notable Xs 577:List of notable Xs 242:I agree more with 203:concerns a BLP. – 103:Lists of notable X 2688:), and sometimes 2664:Index of journals 2660:Lists of journals 2648:List of lists of 2555:Post-move cleanup 2533: 2471:content guideline 2211:original research 2081: 2031: 2017:The situation at 1890:reasons (this is 1755: 1682: 1626: 1479: 1388: 1291: 1126: 1093: 1009: 974: 658: 250:'s edit summary, 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2723: 2715: 2613: 2583: 2575: 2567: 2547: 2523: 2518: 2423: 2417: 2413: 2327: 2319: 2280: 2241: 2215:List of Haitians 2132:List of Haitians 2080: 2030: 1861: 1832: 1824: 1791:be contained in 1767: 1764: 1758: 1756: 1753: 1694: 1691: 1685: 1683: 1680: 1638: 1635: 1629: 1627: 1624: 1493: 1480: 1477: 1457: 1405: 1389: 1386: 1327:Ulysses S. Grant 1303: 1300: 1294: 1292: 1289: 1138: 1135: 1129: 1127: 1124: 1105: 1102: 1096: 1094: 1091: 1021: 1018: 1012: 1010: 1007: 986: 983: 977: 975: 972: 849: 785: 741: 739: 704: 659: 656: 552: 478: 446: 410: 408: 303: 301: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2731: 2730: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2713: 2696: 2693: 2682: 2677:, or sometimes 2675: 2651: 2644: 2611: 2594: 2577: 2569: 2561: 2557: 2552: 2543: 2514: 2421: 2415: 2407: 2321: 2313: 2312:– Also replace 2292:Fuhghettaboutit 2276: 2270: 2239: 2222: 1877: 1859: 1842: 1826: 1821:citation needed 1818: 1762: 1759: 1752: 1747: 1745: 1689: 1686: 1679: 1674: 1672: 1633: 1630: 1623: 1618: 1616: 1605: 1491: 1475: 1455: 1403: 1398:List of hackers 1384: 1353: 1298: 1295: 1288: 1283: 1281: 1133: 1130: 1123: 1118: 1116: 1100: 1097: 1090: 1085: 1083: 1016: 1013: 1006: 1001: 999: 981: 978: 971: 966: 964: 847: 783: 737: 735: 702: 654: 550: 476: 444: 406: 404: 299: 297: 277:That said, I'm 121:L Peter Deutsch 113:List of hackers 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2729: 2711: 2691: 2680: 2673: 2656:WP:SNOWBALLing 2649: 2643: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2609: 2556: 2553: 2551: 2550: 2538: 2537: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2405: 2366: 2303: 2284: 2283: 2271: 2269: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2248: 2237: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2154: 2151: 2144: 2135: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 1973: 1957: 1876: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1857: 1776: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1748: 1741: 1714: 1710: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1675: 1619: 1604: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1557: 1554: 1547: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1426: 1418: 1394: 1351: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1284: 1271:Notable people 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1229: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1119: 1109: 1086: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1002: 996:Ig Nobel prize 967: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 821: 820: 819: 818: 796: 795: 769: 738:Rhododendrites 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 682: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 628: 627: 592: 591: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 407:Rhododendrites 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 326: 300:Rhododendrites 293: 290: 275: 267: 237: 236: 216: 215: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2728: 2719: 2718: 2709: 2706: 2703: 2701: 2694: 2687: 2683: 2676: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2622: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2607: 2604: 2601: 2599: 2592: 2587: 2581: 2573: 2565: 2549: 2546: 2540: 2539: 2536: 2531: 2527: 2522: 2517: 2512: 2509: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2490: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2420: 2419:MoS-guideline 2411: 2406: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2367: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2325: 2317: 2316:MoS-guideline 2311: 2307: 2302: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2282: 2279: 2273: 2272: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2235: 2232: 2229: 2227: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2186: 2181: 2177: 2176: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2152: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2136: 2133: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2112: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2079: 2076:that before. 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2029: 2025: 2020: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1958: 1955: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1922: 1918: 1912: 1909: 1908:WP:STANDALONE 1904: 1902: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1880: 1864: 1855: 1852: 1849: 1847: 1840: 1836: 1830: 1822: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1777: 1774: 1770: 1765: 1757: 1751: 1742: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1697: 1692: 1684: 1678: 1670: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1636: 1628: 1622: 1614: 1610: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1555: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1481: 1472: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1399: 1395: 1393: 1390: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1306: 1301: 1293: 1287: 1278: 1274: 1272: 1267: 1263: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1230: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1141: 1136: 1128: 1122: 1114: 1110: 1108: 1103: 1095: 1089: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1024: 1019: 1011: 1005: 997: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 984: 976: 970: 961: 960:Fort Humboldt 957: 952: 951: 950: 946: 942: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 911: 907: 903: 898: 894: 893: 892: 888: 884: 880: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 858: 854: 850: 842: 841: 840: 836: 832: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 817: 813: 809: 804: 800: 799: 798: 797: 794: 790: 786: 779: 774: 770: 768: 764: 760: 756: 752: 748: 747: 746: 745: 740: 733: 729: 725: 713: 709: 705: 697: 696: 695: 691: 687: 683: 681: 677: 673: 669: 663: 660: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 641: 637: 632: 631: 630: 629: 626: 622: 618: 614: 610: 606: 602: 598: 594: 593: 589: 585: 582: 578: 573: 569: 568: 561: 557: 553: 545: 544: 543: 539: 535: 530: 529:specific case 526: 521: 520: 519: 518: 511: 507: 503: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 487: 483: 479: 471: 470: 469: 465: 461: 457: 456: 455: 451: 447: 439: 429: 425: 421: 416: 415: 414: 409: 402: 398: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 378: 374: 370: 366: 361: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 308: 307: 302: 294: 291: 288: 284: 280: 276: 273: 268: 265: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 240: 239: 238: 235: 231: 227: 223: 218: 217: 214: 210: 206: 201: 200: 199: 198: 194: 190: 186: 182: 178: 174: 170: 166: 162: 157: 155: 148: 147: 143: 142:WP:LISTPEOPLE 139: 133: 130: 129:Hacker (term) 126: 125:John McCarthy 122: 118: 117:Marvin Minsky 114: 109: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2699: 2689: 2678: 2671: 2647: 2645: 2628:WhatamIdoing 2597: 2558: 2544: 2541: 2510: 2488: 2475:67.14.236.50 2448: 2444: 2440: 2426:67.14.236.50 2368: 2351: 2347: 2334:67.14.236.50 2329: 2304: 2287: 2285: 2277: 2274: 2225: 2209:-pushing or 2185:WP:POINTedly 2139: 2118:WhatamIdoing 2042: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1980: 1977:Jimmy Carter 1969: 1965: 1961: 1953: 1949:Jimmy Carter 1940: 1916: 1913: 1905: 1900: 1896:Jimmy Carter 1891: 1887: 1883: 1881: 1878: 1845: 1793:this article 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1749: 1676: 1650: 1620: 1606: 1564: 1560: 1471:Barack Obama 1430: 1334: 1285: 1270: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1225: 1221: 1120: 1087: 1003: 968: 802: 777: 772: 754: 750: 727: 723: 722: 686:AndyTheGrump 672:AndyTheGrump 612: 604: 600: 596: 587: 580: 571: 528: 420:AndyTheGrump 400: 395: 334:AndyTheGrump 329: 278: 259: 255: 251: 248:AndyTheGrump 226:AndyTheGrump 221: 168: 161:AndyTheGrump 159: 150: 145: 134: 106: 75: 43: 37: 2700:SMcCandlish 2598:SMcCandlish 2226:SMcCandlish 1921:Higgs Boson 1846:SMcCandlish 1781:stand alone 1763:talk to me! 1690:talk to me! 1634:talk to me! 1613:WP:CIRCULAR 1565:in addition 1469:I give you 1299:talk to me! 1277:WP:CIRCULAR 1134:talk to me! 1101:talk to me! 1017:talk to me! 982:talk to me! 778:at the list 613:even though 165:reverted me 36:This is an 2686:WP:SUMMARY 2190:disruptive 2140:provincial 1829:refimprove 1603:Edit break 1561:everywhere 588:especially 460:Dougweller 330:obligation 95:Archive 12 87:Archive 10 2690:Index of 2672:Lists of 2662:again or 2324:guideline 2180:WP:MINREF 2148:WP:BURDEN 2143:question. 1954:remaining 1835:WP:POINTy 287:WP:BLPCAT 177:WP:BLPCAT 82:Archive 9 76:Archive 8 70:Archive 7 65:Archive 6 60:Archive 5 2679:List of 2591:WP:NCSAL 2580:Nutshell 2526:contribs 2516:Blueboar 2494:Blueboar 2410:Student7 2395:Blueboar 2377:Student7 2356:Blueboar 2252:Student7 2162:Student7 2158:WP:NLIST 2114:Student7 2093:Student7 2089:WP:NLIST 2051:Blueboar 2005:Blueboar 1989:yourself 1941:wherever 1926:Student7 1888:credible 1797:Student7 1439:Blueboar 1248:Blueboar 1232:However, 1226:reliable 902:SchroCat 831:SchroCat 759:SchroCat 617:Blueboar 525:WP:UNDUE 316:SchroCat 205:SchroCat 2586:WP:List 2511:Support 2489:already 2457:AHeneen 2449:content 2441:Support 2369:Comment 2352:already 2348:Support 1785:alleged 1754:kriegls 1727:Msnicki 1681:kriegls 1654:Msnicki 1625:kriegls 1609:my edit 1569:Msnicki 1370:Msnicki 1290:kriegls 1194:Msnicki 1125:kriegls 1092:kriegls 1070:Msnicki 1008:kriegls 973:kriegls 941:Msnicki 883:Msnicki 808:Msnicki 636:Msnicki 534:Msnicki 502:Msnicki 369:Msnicki 312:WP:CIRC 244:Msnicki 222:as well 189:Msnicki 140:to the 39:archive 2521:IJBall 2391:WP:MOS 2389:Um... 2373:WP:MOS 2219:WP:BLP 2202:WP:FLC 2198:WP:GAN 1962:reason 1839:WP:BLP 1815:WP:FLC 1811:WP:GAN 1476:TRPoD 1385:TRPoD 1246:test. 1236:remain 897:WP:BLP 803:always 655:TRPoD 365:WP:BLP 360:WP:BLP 283:WP:BLP 272:WP:BLP 264:WP:BLP 185:WP:BLP 181:WP:BLP 173:WP:BLP 154:WP:BLP 108:WP:BLP 2572:style 2445:style 2320:with 2078:Δρ.Κ. 2028:Δρ.Κ. 1993:other 1981:other 1966:isn't 1240:other 1220:RE: " 123:and 16:< 2632:talk 2623:and 2530:talk 2519:. -- 2498:talk 2479:talk 2461:talk 2430:talk 2399:talk 2381:talk 2360:talk 2338:talk 2296:talk 2256:talk 2200:and 2166:talk 2122:talk 2097:talk 2055:talk 2045:the 2009:talk 2001:your 1930:talk 1917:that 1801:talk 1789:must 1731:talk 1658:talk 1573:talk 1492:ASEM 1456:ASEM 1443:talk 1404:ASEM 1374:talk 1329:and 1252:talk 1244:only 1198:talk 1074:talk 945:talk 906:talk 887:talk 848:ASEM 835:talk 812:talk 784:ASEM 763:talk 755:does 703:ASEM 690:talk 676:talk 640:talk 621:talk 601:also 551:ASEM 538:talk 506:talk 477:ASEM 464:talk 445:ASEM 424:talk 373:talk 338:talk 320:talk 314:. - 279:more 230:talk 209:talk 193:talk 163:has 2714:ⱷ≼ 2710:≽ⱷ҅ 2626:. 2612:ⱷ≼ 2608:≽ⱷ҅ 2330:all 2240:ⱷ≼ 2236:≽ⱷ҅ 2207:PoV 2047:Kos 2039:Kos 2019:Kos 1997:his 1892:not 1884:not 1860:ⱷ≼ 1856:≽ⱷ҅ 1813:or 1546:it. 1431:too 751:any 742:\\ 605:not 597:not 572:any 411:\\ 304:\\ 260:any 256:any 2697:— 2634:) 2595:— 2582:}} 2578:{{ 2574:}} 2570:{{ 2566:}} 2562:{{ 2528:• 2500:) 2481:) 2463:) 2455:. 2432:) 2422:}} 2416:{{ 2401:) 2383:) 2362:) 2340:) 2326:}} 2322:{{ 2318:}} 2314:{{ 2308:→ 2298:) 2258:) 2223:— 2168:) 2124:) 2099:) 2091:. 2057:) 2043:at 2011:) 1932:) 1901:no 1843:— 1831:}} 1827:{{ 1823:}} 1819:{{ 1803:) 1733:) 1721:, 1660:) 1575:) 1499:) 1463:) 1445:) 1411:) 1376:) 1254:) 1200:) 1076:) 947:) 908:) 889:) 855:) 844:-- 837:) 814:) 791:) 765:) 710:) 692:) 678:) 642:) 623:) 581:in 558:) 540:) 508:) 484:) 466:) 452:) 426:) 401:is 375:) 340:) 322:) 246:. 232:) 211:) 195:) 119:, 91:→ 2712:ᴥ 2708:¢ 2705:☏ 2702:☺ 2692:X 2681:X 2674:X 2652:. 2650:X 2630:( 2610:ᴥ 2606:¢ 2603:☏ 2600:☺ 2532:) 2524:( 2496:( 2477:( 2459:( 2428:( 2412:: 2408:@ 2397:( 2379:( 2358:( 2336:( 2294:( 2254:( 2238:ᴥ 2234:¢ 2231:☏ 2228:☺ 2164:( 2120:( 2095:( 2053:( 2007:( 1928:( 1858:ᴥ 1854:¢ 1851:☏ 1848:☺ 1799:( 1766:) 1760:( 1750:D 1729:( 1693:) 1687:( 1677:D 1656:( 1637:) 1631:( 1621:D 1571:( 1497:t 1495:( 1490:M 1461:t 1459:( 1454:M 1441:( 1409:t 1407:( 1402:M 1372:( 1302:) 1296:( 1286:D 1250:( 1196:( 1137:) 1131:( 1121:D 1104:) 1098:( 1088:D 1072:( 1020:) 1014:( 1004:D 985:) 979:( 969:D 943:( 904:( 885:( 853:t 851:( 846:M 833:( 810:( 789:t 787:( 782:M 761:( 708:t 706:( 701:M 688:( 674:( 638:( 619:( 556:t 554:( 549:M 536:( 504:( 482:t 480:( 475:M 462:( 450:t 448:( 443:M 422:( 371:( 336:( 318:( 274:. 266:. 228:( 207:( 191:( 156:. 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.