Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Wait a minute...

I just went through and counted the whole list and I came up with 201 people. Can someone double check it for me. Kaldari 20:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, 201. Honestly, though, does it matter if we're a few over? ♠ SG →Talk 20:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid that might happen. Thanks for finding that. My choice would be to close this now. Maurreen 20:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's declare the list officially complete. We should archive everything on this talk page and clear the slate. I think any future debates on additions or subtractions should start from scratch (as I certainly don't want to pull 3 pages of debate on Queen Elizabeth I back onto this page again). Kaldari 20:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me, should we have some sort of vote to finalize the draft list? (By the way, my opposition to Elizabeth I was a mistake, I'm not sure why, but I saw "Elizabeth II" instead of I. Time for new glasses?) ♠ SG →Talk 21:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need a vote. We've essentially accomplished our immediate goal. If it is important to anyone that we have only 200, or any other change, they can raise the issue from scratch. Maurreen 21:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This list obviously has a lot of room for controversy, but overall isn't too bad. The philosophers listed are largely appropriate, but don't you think Karl Marx should be added, seeing as his political philosophy supplied the foundations for the rise of communism/socialism and the cold war? I don't want to just add though without consensus --The Way 05:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I saw that he was placed under 'social scientists' instead of philosophers. A problem of classification rather than exclusion --The Way 05:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Socrates

I forgot to add Socrates earlier when I added everyone's free picks. I'm going to do it now. Maurreen 21:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I just fixed it in the Ancient Greece list, but then I noticed Socrates was also in "Middle Ages and modern." Fixed that, so we're still at 201. ♠ SG →Talk 22:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe I've been looking at it too long. Maurreen 22:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Converting to a worklist

Now that we have a full list, I would like to propose that we convert it into a worklist so that we can actually start working on assessing and improving the articles. Here is a mock-up of my idea for the worklist (red link removed). I created the whole thing by hand and now have Carpel Tunnel Syndrome :) Does anyone object to switching to this format? Kaldari 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. A few suggestions:

1. Use that as a supplement instead of a replacement. I like the simlicity of the current list.
   • Sure. I would strongly suggest that we at least remove the assessment icons from the simple list so that we don't have to update it all the time. Kaldari 22:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Include a column or two for Version 0.5 (general or nominated and accepted).
   • Sounds like a good idea. Kaldari 22:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Set up by subject. I expect most people are more interested in some fields than others. Maurreen 22:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
   • This idea sounds fine to me, however, I don't have the motivation to rearrange the list myself. If you feel like doing the work, go ahead. Kaldari 22:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you like, maybe it could go at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biographies. Maurreen 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. Kaldari 22:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow! But couldn't we have this made using mathbot? I think I can make this auto-generated... Should I go ahead and try? I can make a core biographies work group and we mark them and then at the next bot run (tonight) the list will be populated with comments, et al...plange 22:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can auto-generate something, that would be amazing. Would we still be able to maunally maintain information like "Date of last review" and "Version 0.5 status"? Kaldari 22:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the only thing it won't do is 0.5 status... I can check with Oleg (who does mathbot) and see what can be done to include that. There is, after all, a version column and I don't know how that gets filled.... plange 02:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the worklist to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biographies and updated the instructions there. Kaldari 23:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up "Top"

Are there articles tagged as top that aren't on this list? Do we need to fix the tags? Maurreen 22:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

yes. yes, but how? --Rikurzhen 22:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the word "Top" from the template on Aaron Copland. Maurreen 22:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up A-C and a few other sections. Maurreen 00:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the Top attribute (and WPBIO tag wherever missing) to about 45 articles. Now, I have to remove the top attribute from close to 100 articles. Be back in a jiffy. ♠ SG →Talk 18:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, the bot will run sometime around 11:30 EST and we'll have a new worklist. Here's the link to anything marked as Top that have not been assessed plange 18:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn that was a lot of edits! 90 articles have had their Top rating changed to High, Mid or Low. I have probably made a lot of errors in evaluating these articles, so feel free to flip through them and change the assessments as you see fit.

On another note, while I was going through them, I realized something: Salvador Dali and John Wayne are not core biographies! Why not? ♠ SG →Talk 19:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a couple got missed. I've fixed these so we now have 201 article in the Top category (as we should). Kaldari 00:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we should have less than 201 - Articles about groups of people (Such as the Beatles and the Wright brothers) should not have this tag. VegaDark 01:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We should have at least 201, one for every person and group in core. I wasn't sure about members of groups, such as the Brothers Grimm, who have separate articles and are also each tagged as Top. ♠ SG →Talk 01:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not beleive that individual members of Top groups should be tagged Top. For example, the Brothers Grimm is a very important encyclopedia article, but I don't think it would matter much if the articles for Jacob Grimm or Wilhelm Grimm (which is just a stub) made it into a release version. Very few people are interested in them as individuals and they are not especially notable as individuals. Articles about people like John Lennon, though, should probably be considered for separate inclusion in the list. Kaldari 03:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you guys have been busy. I think the articles tagged as "top" should match our list at 201. Maurreen 03:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

SG asked about Salvador Dali and John Wayne -- I'm not sure, but I think John Wayne was not nominated. If Dali was, he apparently didn't get enough support. Speaking for myself, I'm not ready to make any changes anytime soon. I'm thinking the list is probably about as good as it's going to get. Maurreen 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of getting John Wayne nominated at this point? I know we're already over 200, but come on! Even people in the Middle East know who John Wayne is. ♠ SG →Talk 14:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember how I said that Queen Elizabeth I was the most famous Queen of all time (besides the band). Well it seems someone must have taken me literally, as all four members of Queen were set as Top-importance biographies :) Kaldari 04:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the most famous was the Queen of Hearts ... :) Maurreen 04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

John Wayne

♠ SG has suggested adding John Wayne. If anyone is added, I think two should be removed, to put the list at 200. But I'd prefer the list settle for a while. Maurreen 14:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That was evil. I can't think of anyone to remove from the list, let alone two. ♠ SG →Talk 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see how we're going to move forward otherwise. We finally came to a settled list so that we can move to the next phase, while fully acknowledging that the list is not perfect, but it's a place to start. Otherwise we're going to have to open this back up again and go through more straw polls for adding John Wayne and whom to delete, etc. plange 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right. I suppose it's not a big deal, best to keep moving forward. ♠ SG →Talk 17:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

AIDs

One thing, can everyone visit the names on this list and put their vote to it so they can get picked? I think this would be a great way to start as we can harness the energies of some other Collaboration drives to improve our articles... plange 22:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder where is the best central place to list these.

Tangentially, is anyone good with templates? It could be neat if there were a template on all the COTW pages that listed all the articles currently being worked on by the COTWs. Maurreen 22:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be good... I'm pretty good with templates, do you want me to try and see if I can get people adpot it? plange 22:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, on our Collaboration page for WP:BIO I'm listing any biography currently in a collaboration and reached out to any active project that does these to let me know when a biography is picked plange 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually going to put the list here so that I can update the links:

1. Pele - voting ends August 26
2. George Washington - voting ends August 24 (short by 4 votes only)
3. Martin Luther King, Jr - ends Aug 27
4. Confucius

plange 22:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if could make a template, that could be great. Then each COTW could just update it at the rollover, and everyone could see the latest info. It might need to be horizontal, for the bottom of the pages. Maurreen 22:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I can do this tonight -- should it just display the name of the project and their current collaboration (with links)? plange 18:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Maurreen 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Done! {{COTWCurrentPicks}} plange 03:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Pele was picked! Perhaps we start with that one? plange 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

George Washington

has been picked as an AID! Should this be our first project?? plange 13:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Vanishing Popes

I see the Pope question has been archived, though undecided. Why? Rcpaterson 22:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Because we realized we already have 201 on the list, as it says above, under "Wait a minute." Maurreen 22:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Rcpaterson 22:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Huzzah!

I imagine we've gotten the list more or less complete for the moment, then? What's to do next? I have access to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and could use that as a source to improve any articles on British figures, as a starting point. Of our articles, the following ought to have ODNB entries: Chaplin, Hitchcock, Austen, Byron, Dickens, Eliot, Joyce, Milton, Scott, Shakespeare, Yeats, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Churchill, Burke, Elizabeth I, Henry II, Henry VIII, William I, Columba, Wollstonecraft, Darwin, Lister, Babbage, Bell, Faraday, Maxwell, Newton, Rutherford, Watt, Bacon, Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Gibbon, Keynes, Malthus, and Smith. (Er, so yeah, there's rather an Anglophone bias, eh?). I'll try to go through some of these, in order of how interested I am in the person. john k 23:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hawking and Hume are both GAs, but have not been nominated for Version 0.5. Maurreen 23:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I started reading Stephen Hawking in hopes of nominating it for 0.5. But I have three questions in just the second screen of the article. Maurreen 03:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of GAs, Martin Luther was just awarded GA status (and seems close to FA), however, a POV war between Lutheran and Jewish editors is preventing the article from achieving a higher level of quality. I would like to invite any impartial (i.e. not Jewish or Lutheran) editors to review the article and give their opinions on how it can be improved. Otherwise I'm afraid it will languish in it's current state of mediocrity, due to the rigid stalemate it is in and the territorialism of the editors. Kaldari 01:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I myself am leaning toward working on the easier ones first. Maybe some of the various fights will peter out on their own. Maurreen 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe it would be best to work on the Start-class ones first--well, as soon as we actually get them all evaluated :P Kaldari 03:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Now let's do some real work

Now that we have a worklist, let's complete the following tasks:

• Assess articles in worklist that are not yet assessed
• Add assessment comments to articles in worklist
• Review assessments and update review dates
• Make sure worklist matches the Top-importance biography category

Discussion of the above tasks should be done over at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biographies and this talk page should be reserved for discussion of the list itself. I realize I just violated my own suggestion, but I wanted to make sure everyone knows what's going on :) Kaldari 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Page name

Since this page is apparently now officially a sub-project of WikiProject Biography, what do folks think of moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies? --kingboyk 20:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

All done. Archives and (hopefully all) subpages moved too. --kingboyk 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Additions?

I'm slightly confused, because the project page suggests discussing changes here, but the discussion on the rest of the page seems to suggest that the discussion and the composition of the list has finished. I wanted to suggest Lope_de_Vega as an important Spanish-langauge author, and I also wanted to suggest J. R. R. Tolkien (slight bias on my part here), but then I see that the Tolkien article is already selected for Wikipedia 0.5. Remind me again of the differences between the "Core biographies" project and the Wikipedia 0.5 project? Carcharoth 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Marie Curie

Certainly a physicist of the first rank, she is the only person to have won Nobel prizes in two different fields of science - her contributions to radiation had a profound effect on twentieth century science. I'm surprised she isn't already on your list. Not sure how to nominate, so if this doesn't count then raise her name on my behalf. Durova 04:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support adding Marie Curie to the list, although perhaps we should remove a couple while we're at it to keep the list size at 200. Kaldari 20:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

New nominations

In response to the two sections above: We finished up the list about a week ago and maybe forgot to make that clear on the project page. I'd prefer the list settle a while, but it's a wiki and is always subject to change.

We had intended the list to be 200 biographies, but accidentally went over by one. So if you want to nominate anyone to add, please suggest a couple of people to delete. Maurreen 08:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The impression I get is that this is a work list. It is merely the first 200 articles that this WikiProject will work on, right? Then you will work on other ones? This relates to the point I made above, about how this relates to Wikipedia 0.5 and so forth. If something has already been selected for Wikipedia 0.5, but is not on this list, what is the point in adding it? Also, many of the articles are also tagged as being part of the "CD Selection". Can anyone explain, briefly, what the history is behind all this, as it seems very confusing! Carcharoth 22:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As for ones to delete from the list, I don't really want to get into that, as if it is a work list, it would be better to start work on reviewing/checking/improving the articles, rather than constantly tweaking the list. Maybe start a "reserve list", and ones considered to be "core" people could be swapped in from the reserve list as needed. Maybe start the reserve list with the people that got rejected when drawing up the list of 200? For what it is worth, the people on the list that I had never heard of were: Jackie Robinson, Frank Lloyd Wright, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Columba, Frederick Douglass, Ts'ai Lun, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, Laozi. Some of these will be because I just hadn't heard of them, but some do seem a bit obscure. Alfred Nobel sticks out like a sore thumb in the list of scientists, as he is not in the first rank of scientists and thinkers. It looks like he's been included because of the prize he founded, and that is a silly criterion to use. If you are going to remove anyone to make room for Marie Curie, I'd get rid of Nobel. Carcharoth 22:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's not forget we still have 46 articles to assess quality on. Also I've noticed that people keep changing the importance settings. Another reason we should probably switch to using core=yes at some point. Kaldari 03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I could be open to adding Marie Curie, if we get a consensus on two deletions. I don't agree with any of the suggested deletions. Maurreen 07:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

On further thought, I could live with deleting Nobel. But, like you said, "it would be better to start work on reviewing/checking/improving the articles, rather than constantly tweaking the list." Maurreen 17:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

More political nominations

I suggest the following politicians should get top importance:

• George W. Bush: by far one of the most notable presidents of modern times, in generations to come I wouldn't be shocked to still see critics of his foreign policy (excuse the blatant POV)
  • Oppose - We don't yet know how important his presidency will be historically. Besides, there not really much point in us wasting effort on that article. It's already one of the most edited articles on Wikipedia. A dozen more cooks in the kitchen probably won't help things. Kaldari 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• John F. Kennedy: 43 years on he is still a very notable president, if anything due to his assination.
• Charles I of England
• Margaret Thatcher: the first female PM of the UK, and the longest serving PM.

I also seek the demotion of Henry II of England. Computerjoe's talk 09:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a joke; right? Please, please tell me it's a joke. George W. Bush, the stupidest man on the planet-one of the most significant figures in world history?? Very good; I admire your sardonic wit. I must say I have always enjoyed his press conferences: his sheer genius in mangling the English language-that is, when he manages to express himself at all-demands some degree of admiration. While we are on the subject I would like to nominate

• Torquemada
  • Oppose - too obscure Kaldari 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Titus Oates
  • Oppose - too obscure Kaldari 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Benidict Arnold-history's greatest American
  • Very funny Kaldari 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Eric Cartman-history's second greatest American
  • Even funnier Kaldari 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Jack the Ripper
  • Oppose - no thanks Kaldari 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Before I finish you might like to know that Margaret Thatcher was not the longest serving British PM; her 'rule' was exceeded by Robert Walpole and Lord Liverpool.

Comment above was left unsigned by User:Rcpaterson.

I don't see those people in the top 200. Maurreen 07:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I nominate George W. Bush because of his failures. Computerjoe's talk 10:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(Gladstone and Salisbury also served as prime minister for longer than Thatcher did, although not consecutively. You've also forgotten Pitt the Younger, who did serve for longer consecutively.) john k 11:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest John Quincy Adams for addition to this list.

Only 165 listed

The worksheet only lists 165 articles (Index · Statistics · Log). Would you mind tagging the remaining 35/6?

Please note that the syntax has changed: it's now priority=Top|core=yes. The priority parameter is only used if the article is within the scope of one or more workgroups; core=yes puts the article onto the core bios list. --kingboyk 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Top Priority?

I came to this page via that for Cleopatra to question why her life has been awarded 'top priority' on your rating scale when her importance is at best tangential; but I see that there are others here of what I would consider to be of a similar low priority. Please forgive my ignorance, but I have never even heard of Margaret Sanger, whom, I suspect, is largely unkown outside of North America. Why was she selected and not, for example, the British Marie Stopes, to whom she seems very similar? And what about the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius? A soldier and a victor over the Persians, yes; but is he really more significant than, say, Justinian or Basil II, the last of the great emperors. And who in two or three generations from now will consider Che Guevara, that transient icon of the sixties, as a world historical figure? Is there really a need for such a 'core list', which is bound by its very nature to be both subjective and arbitrary? My apologies for coming at this late stage to raise questions which others may consider inconvenient White Guard 02:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As to the need, as it says on the project page, this is a work list for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team and anyone else who chooses to use it.

About possible changes, I will make a note at the top of the page. Maurreen 18:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What's 'Version 1.0'? Anyway, for suggestions see above. White Guard 23:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved it back down here. I meant the above to be general instructions. Maurreen 23:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry: I wasn't sure. White Guard 23:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've gone over the list: there are simply too many 'minor' figures. Is Andy Warhol really a more significant artist than, say, Botticelli or Albrecht Dürer? And for goodness sake why Cleopatra and not Rameses the Great?? Is Gregor Mendel more worthy than Alexander Fleming? There is also too much contemporary mythology around Nelson Mandela, an ex-terrorist who presided over a corrupt and failing state. If I have to confine myself to two or three suggestions could we please remove Cleopatra, Andy Warhol, Indira Gandi, Hirohito (why on earth was he considered worthy of note?), Mother Theresa and Che Guevara. In their place I would propose;

• Nehru
• Rameses the Great
• Botticelli
• Emile Zola

White Guard 23:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not convinced. Andy Warhol, for example, is probably one of the most well-known modern artists.

We are not closed to changes. There is general interest in adding Marie Curie, for instance, but we haven't figured out who she would replace. Maurreen 23:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Andy Warhol may be 'well-known' but so is Jack Vettriano (ugh!); is this a sufficient criterion for 'greatness'? Time is probably the only judge in these matters, and time is likely to confine Warhol and the like to the same creative ghetto as Hans Makart. Have you ever heard of him? A great fad in old Vienna, and a young Herr Hitler's favourite painter. Have you ever been to Egypt? Much of what you see is the work of Rameses; there is nothing of Cleopatra. Nehru was the leading Indian politician of the twentieth century, not his daughter, whose record was at best dubious. I suppose we could go on debating like this forever; but my point is simply to raise doubts about the suitability-and desirability-of this core list. White Guard 23:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then, let's just agree to disagree. Maurreen 00:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. My comments stand for others to draw their own judgements. White Guard 00:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone who worked on the list will agree that it is very imperfect. It was not intended to be perfect, but merely a good start. Further, it's a worklist for the project, not a definite "who's the greatest according to the Wikipedia Biogragraphy project". It's a "who is the project going to select to improve first" list. We had to start somewhere and the chosen biographys had to be of enough iterest that people would be willing to work on them. We did try to balance out our collective biases (which seem to run towards literature and a Eurocentric view) and more or less pick people who would be worthy of the label "core", but we all know it's deeply subjective and flawed. The list is not intended to go into the Wikipedia proper either. Think of it is the "articles that the biography team think ought to be FA class". We're doing the work, so we get to pick the list; anybody can work on the articles we've neglected to include. The main point is to try to make the Wiki better, and for us this process might work. The project is too new for us to know if it will work or not, but we wanted to start, and to focus our efforts, and the list will be something that we can point to and say "see what we did" and pat ourselves on the back when we're done. We hope. studerby 04:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note in case any of you have missed the recent template changes. Core biographies should now be tagged with core=yes. This adds them to Mathbot's core bios worksheets and assigns them Top priority to the catch-all biography list.

priority= is a new parameter to replace importance=. It's only affect is on the workgroup's article lists. So, workgroups may decide on the priority and may assign Top priority even if not a core article.

In other words, complaints and queries about core=yes belong here; priority=Top enquiries should be addressed to the workgroups or to the person who made the assessment. Remember anyone can make an assessment so it's not even necessarily true that we agree with it either. --kingboyk 08:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

David Attenborough

I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#David Attenborough but have decided to relocated my discussion here. This is the topic I posted in full

I was wondering if this article should be moved to Top priority? It's an article that needs a lot more work for its subject, who has had probably the largest impact on how most of the world studies and knows about the world around us as well as in several other fields. Despite this the article needs a lot of fixing and seems to have been ignored, until I noticed nobody had even rated it on the quality or priority scale. May I have some input?

Attenborough is easily the best known biological documentary maker in the world but he doesn't seem to fall under any of the blanket terms for a top priority standing. How does he stand against other top priorities and should he be included? I know I left out suggestions for replacements currently but I'm not even sure he correctly qualifies currently. –– Lid^(Talk) 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually you were probably in the correct venue first time round :) Attenborough isn't going to be in the 200 core articles, I'm fairly sure of that, but I think you can make a convincing case for him to be Top (or at least) High priority in the Arts & Entertainment field. --kingboyk 16:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I just went back and re-clarified my statement in the other thread, I'm posting this here largely because this subgroup would have the best idea of top standings, not because I think it will likely be considered a core article. I'm considering this a litmus test and may extend it to envelop the ranking of Malcolm X as well. –– Lid^(Talk) 16:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Good luck. --kingboyk 16:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I also meant to include Oscar Wilde and Stanley Kubrick as part of the other articles to test. Just to restate: not all of these are really fore core biography, but rather to see if they qualify as top priority. If it's agreed they are a core then it's a bonus. –– Lid^(Talk) 16:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If JFK isn't a core biography, how the hell could Attenborough be? Computerjoe's talk 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Summary: He wants to know if it can be priority=Top. That's no longer the same as core=yes. He's not really in the right place. --kingboyk 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Two more political nominations

from ghoti 20:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• John A. Macdonald — As Canada's first Prime Minister, Macdonald had a profound impact. Certainly counts for priority=Top, but should also be recognized alongside George Washington and similarly notable leaders.
• Pierre Trudeau — Trudeau was Canada's fifteenth Prime Minister; he introduced the Canadian constitution as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. His tremendous impact on Canadian culture and politics has influenced Canada's position with the rest of the world.

It's really difficult to identify who should be dropped in order to make room for these. My strong preference would be to grow the list beyond 200 (which is arbitrary anyway AFAICT). Nevertheless, I'd suggest dropping any two (I'm not too sure about the last two) of the following:

• Aeschylus — While certainly notable as a playwright, I'm not aware that his influence extends to other aspects of the modern world; certainly not as much as Homer or Virgil.
• Marcel Proust — Same story, notable in his time and his field, but of questionable long-term international influence (IMO).
• Thomas Malthus — Already (arguably) documented as having missed the 100 Greatest Britons.
• Søren Kierkegaard — Very important in his field, but with less impact on the rest of the world.

I'd rather add Marie Curie. Maurreen 21:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting list you guys got here. I say keep Malthus and Kierkegaard, their influence on the rest of the world is undeniable; Malthus' economic forecast has had tremendous impact on the policies and individuals of Britian. Kierkegaard's philosophy has had tremendous influence on the rest of the world: he is more likely to be looked up by non-philosophers, and his thought can be seen in Kafka and Ibsen, who are on this list. I'll second Curie, to replace Aeschylus, and maybe MacDonald over Proust, but I'm not too enthustatic on that. I don't agree with Trudeau, his influence is great in Canada, but not so much on the rest of the world... yet. MacDonald maybe, as he is important as the person who guided Canada from a lump of land to a country. Kyle Rayner 00:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. Yeah, on second thought, much as I hate to admit it <grin>, Marie Curie probably beats out Pierre Trudeau for the moment. We can revisit that one in another twenty years. The catch is that I see alot more US presidents than political figures from anywhere else. Roosevelt vs. Trudeau ... I think it depends on your country of origin. --ghoti 02:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is John MacDonald really more important than Proust? That seems incredibly dubious. Aeschylus, by the way invented drama as we know it. I think that only political figures who had some importance outside their home country should be considered for this list. This would exclude practically all Canadian politicians, for better or for worse. Washington became an icon throughout Europe and Latin America. MacDonald is, I would suspect, barely known outside Canada. Cultural and scientific figures have an easier time transcending boundaries. I would agree, however, that it's better just to grow the list beyond 200. john k 11:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oddly, you may be supporting my point with your arguments. <grin> Has the existence of Canada had an impact on those outside it? Has Canada's impact on world politics been notable? I suspect so. While Macdonald might not be known outside Canada, Aeschylus is not known outside drama. I grant that Aeschylus had an impact on the development of theatre, but the relationship between Britain and the US would likely have been very different without a sovereign Canada, not to mention the results of World War II. This is why it's so difficult to compare such vastly different categories. Has Aeschylus' contribution to theatre had a greater impact on the world than Macdonald contribution in nation-building? By what criteria do we decide which is more "important"? --ghoti 05:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Walter Scott - delete his critical reputation suffered a serious downturn during the twentieth century. Still widely read, but no longer generally acknowledged among the first rank of English language writers.

  He remains, however, quite influential - his invention of the historical novel was imitated across Europe, and his work inspired plays and operas, and so forth. Relatively inessential, but not ridiculous. john k 11:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• If the desire is to include the inventor of the historial novel, then replace him with Marie-Madeleine Pioche de la Vergne, comtesse de la Fayette who created the genre with La Princesse de Clèves 150 years before Scott. Durova 21:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Aeschylus - retain his innovation in Greek drama was pivotal to all that followed: before him, dramas consisted of a single actor and a chorus. By placing a second actor on the stage he invented dialogue.

  Concur. john k 11:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Alfred Nobel - delete to make room for Marie Curie. The Nobel Prizes were his most notable innovation - other than that he was more an inventor than a scientist. Durova 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  This seems plausible, if we must stick to a 200 person list. john k 11:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with deleting Alfred Nobel and adding Marie Curie. Maurreen 13:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Me too --plange 14:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting booth

This is a partial archive of failed nominations. ♠ SG →Talk 10

00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, it looks like people just can't agree. So, here's my suggestion: we need to have a vote. I'm going to list all of the above people who have been nominated for either deletion or addition. THE ONLY WAY ANYONE WILL BE ADDED IS IF SOMEONE IS REMOVED. So even if, let's say Marie Curie has the most supporting votes, if no consensus can be reached on any of the deletion nominees, Curie won't be added.

1. Voting will end one week from September 12, meaning you have until September 19 0:00 UTC (midnight) to get your votes in.
2. We will only delete one person per addition, plus one extra to get to 200 from 201 if anyone wants to.

You don't have to give a reason for your vote, but if you do, keep it short. Sound good? Then let's get going. (Note: I have copied a few votes from the above discussions to jump start the process. Before you vote for something, make sure I didn't already vote for you — if you were placed incorrectly, please change your vote.) ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Additions

Louis Armstrong

Failed

1. Support Late nomination - no jazz artists on our list yet. Pivotal virtuoso and innovator of a major art form. Durova 03:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. I'd like to have Louis Armstrong on there, but I don't think it's going to happen. ♠ SG →Talk 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose ◉ ghoti 22:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose White Guard 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Kaldari 15:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose Hemmingsen 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Supportplange 19:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sandro Botticelli

Failed

1. Support White Guard 23:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose kingboyk 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Kyle Rayner 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose ◉ ghoti 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose john k 22:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Kaldari 15:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support plange 19:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

W. G. Grace

Failed

1. Support Stonemad GB 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose ♠ SG →Talk 19:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose White Guard 22:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC) This is a joke, right?
4. Oppose Kaldari 15:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose then why not James Naismith or Alexander Cartwright? ◉ ghoti 04:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose no influence outside of his sport --plange 19:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy

Failed

1. Oppose ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose White Guard 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose kingboyk 22:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Kyle Rayner 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose ◉ ghoti 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Computerjoe's talk 07:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose much as I love him, his influence isn't across most of the world --plange 19:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

John A. Macdonald

Failed

1. Oppose. Highly important in Canada, but elsewhere... I'm really not sure. ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose White Guard 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not a chance. One of the 200 most important people in history in the whole world?? kingboyk 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral Kyle Rayner 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Kaldari 15:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose plange 19:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Jawaharlal Nehru

Failed

1. Support White Guard 23:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Important but Gandhi is more recognisable. --kingboyk 22:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Kyle Rayner 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Not so much impact outside India ◉ ghoti> 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose Kaldari 15:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose plange 19:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

William Pitt the Younger

Failed

1. Support Stonemad GB 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose ♠ SG →Talk 19:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose White Guard 22:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Kaldari 15:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose ◉ ghoti 04:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose plange 19:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

J. R. R. Tolkien

Failed

1. Support Carcharoth 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose White Guard 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose kingboyk 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Kyle Rayner 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose Kaldari 15:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose love him, but... plange 19:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Pierre Trudeau

Failed

1. Neutral. My supporting vote would be biased, living in Canada and all. ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose White Guard 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose kingboyk 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Kyle Rayner 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Durova 16:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose plange 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Lope de Vega

Failed

1. Support Carcharoth 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not appropriate as a core bio on the English Wikipedia I feel. priority=Top for this one. kingboyk 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Kyle Rayner 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose ◉ ghoti 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose plange 19:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Victoria of the United Kingdom

Failed

1. Support Stonemad GB 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose ♠ SG →Talk 19:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose White Guard 22:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC) We are not amused.
4. Oppose As with Hirohito, someone who presided rather than led. Durova 03:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Kaldari 15:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Computerjoe's talk 19:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose plange 19:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

John Wayne

Failed

1. Support. Everyone knows John Wayne! ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose White Guard 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Erm, no. kingboyk 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Kyle Rayner 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose ◉ ghoti 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose Ephemeral. Durova 03:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Kaldari 15:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose plange 19:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

Aeschylus

Kept

1. Keep Durova 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Keep ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Keep White Guard 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Delete kingboyk 22:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral Kyle Rayner 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Keep john k 22:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Keep Hemmingsen 16:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Marcel Proust

Kept

1. Keep ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Keep kingboyk 23:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Keep Kyle Rayner 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Keep john k 22:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Keep plange 19:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nominations for deletion

Michael Jordan, Bruce Lee, Jackie Robinson - you cannot be serious if you think they are among the most notable 200 human beings ever to exist. Jackie Robinson especially is almost totally unknown outside the USA. The inclusion of WG Grace would restore a little non-US balance, but I really don't think there is room for many sportsmen on this list.

Frank Lloyd Wright should be deleted. Much as I love his work, if there is only to be one twentieth-century architect Le Corbusier has to be a much more credible candidate. Andy Warhol should also go.

Walt Whitman: not a first rank writer - he should be replaced, perhaps by Wordsworth.

Indira Gandhi had little impact outside India, not a particularly important country in her period. Hirohito doesn't merit a spot either.

William the Conqueror and Edmund Burke should be deleted - perhaps William Pitt the Younger and Queen Victoria would be possible replacements.

Benito Mussolini could perhaps be replaced by Cardinal Richelieu.

Frederick Douglass was only of parochial importance - William Wilberforce was a much more important contributor to the cause of the worldwide abolition of slavery.

Sun Tzu should be deleted - I suspect the only reason he is there is because he is familiar currently due to being Don Rumsfeld's bedtime reading.--Stonemad GB 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not even going to bother arguing how ridiculous I personally think some of your suggestions are, as it is not my place to do so. So instead, I've merely added all of your suggestions to the above voting booth (which I have already voted for you in). However, I will say the following: remove Mussolini? Sun Tzu is only on there because of Donald Rumsfeld? My friend, that is insane. ♠ SG →Talk 19:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)