Category talk:Huguenot participants in the American Revolution

Concern

I have marked as patrolled. However, unless the articles contain reliably referenced identification of these people as "Huguenot", they will be removed. As that may be problematic, you should consider that this may be better suited as a list article, not a category. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Response

Reference your concerns regarding the Category: Huguenot participants in the American Revolution, this topic has at least much usefulness as many other categories on Wikipedia and focuses on notable individuals who share at least two common characteristics: being of a refugee heritage and participation in a distinguishable period in world history. It also follows a template that identifies the refugee characteristic in multiple, similar, long-existing categories covering various countries. The only distinctions here between those existing, related categories are that this category focuses on a particular event (The American Revolution) and maintains a neutral viewpoint regarding national origin and even the political affiliation of everyone listed. All the individuals listed are of verifiable Huguenot descent and compilation of their names may assist further research. In fact, in preparing this new category I have identified and referenced several Huguenot descendants and referenced their ancestry myself on Wikipedia. Furthermore your singular decision to delete the links to biographical articles you do not feel distinguish how "Huguenot" someone is demonstrates a subjective value judgment on your part, which violates the stated policies of Wikipedia, to include the guidelines for the creation of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntldr (talk • contribs) 06:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.30.66 (talk) 67.79.30.66 (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

So much for AGF.

First point: My concerns are just that: Concerns. Nowhere have I decided to delete any links of yours. I don't understand where you get that I have somehow decided to delete any of your category links. I made no judgement of any kind on your new category. In fact, I saw that you're new here, and thought I could save you some time and grief in the long run, because the policy is very clear on these things. I am simply offering you some tips on making your category "policy-compliant" in order to be able to withstand a W:CfD discussion.

Second: If the individuals you are adding to this category are indeed Huguenot, and identified themselves as such, then once they are reliably sourced in their respective articles, they can be added to your category. If that is the case, and these are as verifiable as you state, that should not be a problem for you. (Your own research–however accurate–does not count.) Anything else, per your own statement above, is original research and is not allowed. I guarantee you, in that case, someone will delete the links, and possibly the whole category.

Third: I raised a concern about articles being categorized for which there is not yet a basis for such categorization. Several articles that I quickly checked fall into this situation. BTW: You can add such content to the articles, if you have reliable, third party sourcing for it. If that does not exist, even though you may have the research to back such claims up, it falls again under the umbrella of original research and those individuals can not be categorized as such.

Finally: This discussion should take place at one spot or another, not here AND at the talk page of the affected article. I have moved it over there for now.

Good luck, and let me know if I can help. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 08:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

response

Given that the tone and content of your initial comments were anything but of "help the new guy out" nature I find your concerns about assuming good faith ringing a wee bit hollow. I also grasped the multiple "no original research" guidance already. Though I might assert that the sound Wikipedia policy that excludes original research should not imply excluding the linkage of documented articles. Actually, the policy I read encourages duplication. And that visible and identifiable source of connections may help inspire outside research beyond Wikipedia. Also, Since I am "new" I am making a habit of reviewing articles I have linked and finding additional, third-party references as needed. I find that quite enjoyable and educational. I also just found other existing categories such as one I just linked covering Huguenots in American History. There are multiple, related Categories all like that one that seem not to fit your approval criteria, but are none the less useful.Gruntldr (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt there was a 'tone', none was intended. I see a problem with the category you created, and offered a possible solution for it. Instead of hearing what I am saying and assuming good faith, you have chosen to get defensive about it. The fact that some of these people are not identified in their articles as Huguenot will guarantee that the categorizations will be removed. I never said it would be me doing the removing.

To address your other comment, it is not (and never has been), about any perceived 'approval criteria' of mine, it's about Wikipedia's policy and guidelines (I put a link to those on your talk page). And it's not about usefulness, either, when it comes to new articles and categories, only verifiability counts—which, right now, many of your categorized people lack. That's part of why I don't create categories myself anymore: I wasted too much time on several, only to have them removed in favor of list articles. Again, Good luck with your project, but now I'm done. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 09:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)