Wikipedia talk:Victim lists

Verifiability

I disagree, while lists of indiscriminate information are typically useless, keeping track of specific victims names is a way of enforcing verifiability. "Killed five people" is less historically-verifiable/accurate than providing their names. Care should be taken of course, to avoid any Memorials Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In what way, shape, or form is it "less accurate"/"less verifiable"? Saying "He killed Bill, Joe, and Sue" is no more accurate than saying "He killed three people". Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It is, actually. If you tell me Omar Khadr "killed an American", that's not as verifiable as if you tell me he "killed SFG19 Sgt. Christopher Speer". And it's the same thing, but on a larger scale. If we had a list of names of the Six Million, I doubt you'd see as much doubt/denial. Verifiable victim lists are a benefit, as long as they don't turn into memorials. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• The verifiability enforcement claim is a red herring: The reliable sources that support "The Jonestown tragedy killed over 900 people" will either explicitly name the victims or give an authoritative headcount. If the New York Times says there were over 900 victims, that's just as authoritative as if they list all 900. In either case, Wikipedia can just say "there were over 900 victims" and have a footnote pointing to the New York Times article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No it's not - because if NYT says "over 100", the Herald says "116" and the Daily Mail says "112", having the names helps us verify the actual number as well as figure out the discrepencies. Does their "9/11 victim count" include the hijackers? include people who died in hospital a week later? we have no way of allowing people to research the facts if we don't include names. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • This is a good argument to use a good, reliable source. If a given source lists 116 victims by name, it is sufficient to say "there were 116 victims" and cite the source. If a given source says "there are 112 victims" and lists them by name, and a different source says "in addition to those killed in the first hour, the following people were killed: ...", then you as an editor can combine both lists, come up with a total of 116, and cite both sources. There is no ambiguity. Likewise, I can say "Reports range from 112[citation here] to 116[citation here] killed" and let people check out for themselves which sources included which names. Wikipedia is not about duplicating unencyclopedic information, it is about including encyclopedic information and making as sure as reasonably possible that it is accurate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Though isn't compiling the Original source of the list of names ourselves instead of citing other sources which have compiled them an example of WP:OR? Making that list and finding out who is right is not our place as an encylopedia. If there are doubts on the head counts, then we say the range or reasonable speculation. We don't go out and give our own list of names that may or may not be any more accurate. Chris M. (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Terrorist attack"? Isn't that a little to brash? At least by WP:WTA standards? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles that are lists and articles about lists

I think lists should be created in two cases:

• When everyone on the list is famous, such as "notable people who ..." lists, as is the case today.
• Cases where the list itself is notable.

I would add a third case:

When there is a good reason to summarize information on a victim in a stub, but it would not make sense to do so in the original article nor to do a separate article. In other words, to have a brief sentence or paragraph on each victim or circumstances around the killing. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of the proposed third criterion, although it may need fine-tuning. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For example, the list of American fatalities in the Vietnam War is notable because

• it is enshrined on a wall
• it is enshrined on traveling walls
• it is regularly read in its entirety

Similarly, the list of victims of the 9/11 attacks are notable.

Now, for very large lists such as these two, the list itself is simply too large or unwieldy to be part of a single article and it does not need to be part of Wikipedia - it is sufficient to include a reference about it. However, an article called "Names on the Vietnam Wall" or "Official fatality list of 9/11" would be about these lists, and would talk about why the lists are notable. If a similar list were small, such as "List of firefighters killed in 9/11" it could be included in Wikipedia.

Likewise, lists which are worthy of "about this list" articles but which are constantly changing might be better included by reference rather than verbatim, so that less maintenance is needed.

In summary: If the list itself is notable, there should be an article about the list and it can contain the list itself if doing so would not be unwieldy.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there's no problem in articles about lists. Yet it does not mean, nor even for the lists you... list, that the list content is worthy of including, e.g., we have articles on books, yet we don't include the book text, not even for short stories. Such full text would be something for Wikisource, right? - Nabla (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Small victim lists

Small victim lists like List of Charles Whitman's victims should be merged into article about the event. There is no need to create an article just to list 20 people, and there is no need to go into detail about every person on that list. The particular example of List of Charles Whitman's victims is a good example of lists gone haywire: Most of those people are not notable and the only encyclopedic information is their name and, if they students or other non-locals, their hometown. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability determined by public response

In the case of highly visible events, such as Virginia Tech massacre and 9-11, the list of victims can become notable by the subsequent response. In the case of Virginia Tech massacre, the list of victims was substantiated by an independent review panel's inquiry, by the establishment of a special compensation fund, scholarships, etc, all of which was accompanied by significant reportage in reliable sources. As with all topics, the issue comes back to notability and reliable sources. I don't see why a list of victims is any different than any other topic and therefore I fail to see the point of this essay. Ronnotel (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That is the same as above. It is natural to have an article *about* a list (notable, verifiable, etc.) but not an article that is *the* list - Nabla (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What is notable about lists such as that, though? Remember, notabilty is not temporary. The names just weren't notable, and the list itself isn't notable - plenty of lists of alumni are used in scholarships and their ilk, but that doesn't make their names notable. The reality is that the lists aren't notable, and the names aren't important. The event itself is notable, and will be referenced by the media in the future when more school shootings happen, but the list? That's completely unimportant. The media published the lists, sure, but they publish a great deal of non-notable garbage; we are not a news archive but an encyclopedia, and it isn't our job to keep sensationalist garbage with no value up. They were used to memorialize, and the purposes of the lists on Wikipedia is to be a memorial. The names just aren't important to what happened and they have no intrinsic value. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an essay, and was originally meant to be an attempt to get the community to discuss the matter and Wikipedia policy as relates to it. That was my goal, but instead I see a lot of argument and agreement, but little discussion of the underlying policy.

The point of WP:Lists and WP:Notable is to give us good guidelines for what is worthy of inclusion. People often have different interpretations of the guidelines, and from time to time a discussion of what they mean is important, in my mind.

The problem is Wikipedia is constantly infested by non-notable garbage that the media, local or national, coughs up, but then forgets about, and more to the point, the world forgets about it. Much of what is reported in the media is quickly forgotten and never mentioned again; finding the stuff which is actually noteworthy and important is part of our job as Wikipedians. Notability is not temporary, but that cuts both ways - it means something which might be covered by the news, but forgotten about shortly thereafter, and the world doesn't reference it... that's not something which is notable, despite receiving news coverage. It was ultimately trivial.

Just because newspapers report something doesn't mean they're notable. The victim lists, for instance, are pretty much trivial coverage - they'll show them, just as they'll show the names of people killed in Iraq, but only extremely rarely will anything important come of them. Most victim lists are a good example of this - they basically will never be referenced again save in books specifically about the event, and more to the point, they don't enhance anyone's understanding of the event. Sometimes they won't even show up in such books; I doubt any book on Vietnam or WWII has a comprehensive list of everyone who died in it, and perhaps more to the point, I suspect that many books on the Gulf War don't include lists of the people who died in it, despite that list being quite short (at least from the Western perspective; obviously the list of dead Iraqis was very long).

Mostly this is a result of recentism and memorialization, as well as using Wikipedia as a news archive, all of which is inappropriate. The reality is that in a thousand years, the list of names will be entirely meaningless to someone's comprehension of what happened. We don't write Wikipedia just for today. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this essay will not garner consensus until it is aligned with WP policies such as WP:N and WP:RS. Please go back and read those more carefully. Ronnotel (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Arguing that a policy change goes against policy is not really an argument, is it? That a proposed policy is not in the policy is a self evident truth. Such argument would mean that policy is written in stone, frozen for all eternity (which, BTW, is against policy as policy states that it may change). Naturally, with exception granted to fundamental issues, which is not at all the case here.

Actually we could argue, and I do, that notability policy is merely the current community accepted interpretation of the basic policy:«Wikipedia is an encyclopedia».

So the question is: Do list victims belong in an encyclopedia?

In my opinion the current policies and guidelines (i.e., the current community accepted interpretation) already reply to that with a clear: No! Still as that is not readily clear for all, inserting a line, similar to the bolded conclusion in the end of this essay, in the current policy could be useful to further clarify it.

So, what policies I think already exclude victims lists?

• Notability (in general) - Apparently you argue that «If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable»», applies to victims list, because they have been featured in reliable sources. Actually, in my opinion it does not because the list was not the topic but a detail of it. Even if there was a few reports on the lists itself (made by? made for? etc.) those would be details of the topic, not the topic itself. Say, we can see/read reports on the daily practice sessions of any top sport club, yet the daily practice (player A arrived 5 minutes late, player B did individual practice, etc.) is not in itself notable, the club is, and these detailed reports show it, but are not worthy including in any article.
• Notability (people) - states that «lists are not intended to contain everyone [...] Instead, inclusion on the list should be determined by the criteria [for individuals] above». So a list with *some* victims, those that meet the criteria as individuals, is OK, an extensive list, whose inclusion criteria would be that 'everybody is listed because some are' or that 'belongs to a larger event', is not OK.

Anyway, I repeat, whether it is already in policy or not is beyond the point, the point is that it is meaningless information, in what concerns an encyclopedia, even a so extensive and inclusive one as WP, for reasons stated in the essay and above. Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea

I agree with this proposal. Stifle (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a very good essay to me, too. Rossami (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The essay does not explain how having such lists harms Wikipedia in any way, let alone does it explain how censoring the work of well-meaning, emotionally involved editors is somehow less harmful. The essay selectively cites some guidelines and policies while ignoring others (such as by using UPPERCASE to SHOUT at the reader) and exhibits a stunning lack of sensitivity toward people who are reacting emotionally to a tragedy. This essay reads like little more than yet another pretext for deletionists to practice incivility after the fact on wave after wave of well-meaning newbies. Without question, many people in the future will react emotionally to tragedies by seeking to memorialize them; and Wikipedia's encouragement to be bold, without requiring new users to have any knowledge of this essay first, will cause them to act on impulse by creating victim list articles. Deletionists will then come piling in after the fact and insult these people by obliterating their hard work, quite possibly generating ill will and hostility toward the project, which might translate into fewer donations, less participation, and more vandalism. Wikipedia allows users to create lavish user pages and plaster them with userboxes having no encyclopedic value whatsoever, simply because some Wikipedia users like to create these kinds of pages, and if we start deleting all the fancy but useless user pages, we will drive valuable contributors away. At least victim lists are verifiable and therefore encyclopedic in a broad sense. (Verifiability is a policy whereas notability is merely a guideline, and the definition of notability must continually expand as Wikipedia does. The more users Wikipedia attracts, the more and more articles of marginal "notability" they will want to create. Bet on it.) Wikipedia is not paper and thus there is no detectable harm from having articles that that are only interesting to a few people. Wikipedia has articles about the most obscure towns, for example, some of which show less than one page view per day. Did the essay author attempt to see how popular these victim list articles are? Wikipedia has articles about arcane topics in mathematics which might only be "notable" to a few dozen people in the entire world, and never make the news. The argument about news coverage of such victims dying down after a while is wholly unimpressive. News coverage of everything dies down after a while - how can it matter whether that takes one day, one year, or one century? We don't read much news these days about Grover Cleveland, for example. An encyclopedia exists in part to give people an easy way to look up old news when it stops being news. Similarly unimpressive is the complaint about American bias - Wikipedia has far more coverage of American topics in general than of Finnish topics. This is never a logical argument against having an article about (for example) some small American town; it is only an argument for people who care about Finland to join the project and help out. However, my main objection to this essay is the heavy-handed, uncivil enforcement it will surely stimulate. If every user who agrees with this essay will agree to personally greet all the first-time article creators and give them some pre-emptive guidance before allowing them to waste hours of their time on doomed articles, then the essay could start to make some sense. Otherwise, it's just another legitimized method to bite the newcomers for no substantial reason after we sucker them in with our promises of how easy Wikipedia is. If we want Wikipedia to be welcoming, then lets make it actually welcoming, by allowing people to make and keep the kinds of articles we can reliably predict they are going to make. Or on the other hand, if we don't want Wikipedia to be friendly, then let's stop pretending to be. --Teratornis (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

wrong

"Lists of victims of an event are inappropriate unless all listed victims have Wikipedia articles of their own."

• this ignores the fact that the lists in at least some cases were created because of the deletion of the individual articles. Personally, I think that in many of the cases (such as VT) the individual articles were justified in all cases by the amount of coverage in various sources nationwide, and I would like to try once more some time to get this established. But assuming this remains the consensus, its standard practice here that material not worth a full article can be article content, and that content can be written in the form of lists. This rule is an attempt to close off even this avenue. DGG (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Imagine how much faster Wikipedia would develop if all the people who waste their time deleting other people's work on narrow fictitious grounds of "notability" (as opposed to real problems like copyright violations) would spend that time adding content to Wikipedia instead. I think we should require deletionists to justify deletions on some grounds that an article harms Wikipedia, and that the effort to destroy other people's work is more beneficial than applying the same effort to improving all the articles that need improving. Since we save a copy of every edit by every user, deleting an article doesn't even save any server space. If nobody is looking at an article, it is no more harmful than the archives of our talk pages that we keep forever even when nobody looks at them. Wikipedia keeps getting bigger and bigger; we're up to 6,926,291 articles now. Wikipedia has more than doubled in size during the time I have been using it, and I have noticed no penalty from Wikipedia's increased size. It is just as easy for me to ignore the millions of articles I don't care about as it was to ignore a much smaller number a few years ago. I don't try to impose my sense of what is important on everyone else. If I have no use for a certain article, maybe someone else does. --Teratornis (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A case in point

A case in point is the removal of the list of dead at Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907, following a RFC, at Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Victims with articles

The essay says Lists of victims of an event are inappropriate unless the majority of listed victims have Wikipedia articles or sections. Just like it to be considered that any listing should be limited to individuals with a Wikipedia article (that is they have already passed general notability requirements). The current wording suggests that other non-notable victims could be listed if a majority have articles which I think may be subject to some ambiguity on implementation. MilborneOne (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I think that if most of a list is notable, then it makes sense to have the list for navigation purposes, even if for no other reason. Having got that far, it would be a bad thing to have a nearly complete list, as it may serve as misinformation on who were not victims. I think the valid point is that if a list is mostly a list of non-notables, then don't include the list. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK understood I was coming from in-article lists which should only include notables. MilborneOne (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Citing of guidelines and policy

This essay opens with the statement: Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, lists of victims of mass casualty WP:EVENTS, whether as stand alone WP:Lists or lists incorporated into the primary EVENT article are inconsistent with Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

I'm uncertain if WP:NOTMEMORIAL has been updated recently, but I don't see where it says anything like that. It mentions notability requirements for subjects of articles – which would apply to standalone victim lists – but I don't see where it says anything about victim lists within an article on the subject. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

RFC on victims of a disease

People watching this page might be interested in joining Talk:Hospitalized cases in the vaping lung illness outbreak#Inclusion criteria RFC. The page is largely two lists (although not using bullet formatting) of two groups of (mostly) living people, i.e., those who have filed lawsuits related to their illnesses and those who have talked to newspapers about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Merge from WP:Casualty lists

These are redundant essays (WP:ESSAYFORK), and WP:Victim lists has a much longer history. There is very little at WP:Casualty lists that is substantively different from the older essay, and what of it there is can be easily merged, then the newer page redirect to this one. Actually "casualty" might be a better final name than "victim", which can be effectuated by a round-robin move.

While WP is very tolerant of duplicative (even somewhat consensus-contrarian) essays in userspace, we generally merge redundant ones in project space (either through this informal merger-discussion process or more forcefully via WP:MFD). To the extent that some essays start to take on a fair amount of consensus weight, there's a high risk of WP:POLICYFORK over time, with people PoV pushing little differences until there are two vying things that people "cite" in discussions. We need to not go there, especially since these essays are not at all aimed to be in conflict with each other. They're both focused on appropriate coverage in Wikipedia being based on non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. That is, they are topical applications of WP:N and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, to the same topic.

To the extent they're already starting to diverge, it is not possible for them both to wind up representing consensus, so they either already badly need to merge, or the lower-consensus one (which would be WP:Casualty lists) has to be userspaced.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Support both options per argument above. Neutral: I went to merge these, and discovered they are arguing exact opposites of each other, one inclusive, the other exclusive. This dichotomy needs resolution before any meaningful merger could take place. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 14:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Victims of a government

A dictatorship is able to censor informations about vicitms, so informations about them are limited. I belive that this Wikipedia should not accept such policy of cruel governments. Shootings in the USA are extensively covered, even if their reasons are unencyclopedic. State terror in Iran is encyclopedic, but difficult to describe. Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Jokela school shooting

Ironically, despite what the essay states, the Jokela school shooting article does in fact have a victim list. :3 F4U (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)