Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

FA FA GA GA A – Total December 1, 2007 83 45 90 139 25 690 1022 June 1, 2008 88 46 79 140 25 670 999 December 1, 2008 88 50 72 145 24 682 1014 FA A GA B C – Total December 1, 2009 82 7 49 586 146 129 999 January 1, 2011 78 8 60 472 255 113 986 January 1, 2012 76 1 76 454 275 109 991 June 29, 2013 88 3 88 450 289 82 1000 October 13, 2013 90 4 92 446 284 83 999 January 13, 2015 90 2 96 417 333 60 998 December 23, 2016 94 2 107 425 355 17 1000 December 10, 2017 91 3 115 392 376 17 994 January 22, 2019 92 4 122 389 380 12 999 December 20, 2019 88 2 121 390 383 17 1001 November 25, 2020 83 1 127 373 402 15 1001

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 1000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. Since the list is currently full, it is recommended that a nomination of a new topic be accompanied by a proposal to remove a lower-priority topic already on the list.

All proposals must remain open for !voting for a minimum of 15 days, after which:

1. After 15 days it may be closed as PASSED if there are (a) 5 or more supports, AND (b) at least two-thirds are in support.
2. After 30 days it may be closed as FAILED if there are (a) 3 or more opposes, AND (b) it failed to earn two-thirds support.
3. After 30 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for +30 days, regardless of tally.
4. After 60 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal has (a) less than 5 supports, AND (b) less than two-thirds support.

Nominations should be left open beyond the minimum if they have a reasonable chance of passing. An informed discussion with more editor participation produces an improved and more stable final list, so be patient with the process.

• 15 days ago: 10:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 10:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 10:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Biography moratorium until May 1, 2022

Per the discussion of September-October 2021, the following biographies may not be discussed for removal or addition, except as a component of swaps with biographies not on the moratorium list, until May 1, 2022. In addition, no "bulk proposals" related to biographies, whether additions or removals, may be held in that time.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove Nikola Tesla

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Cue the angry Redditors, but not on either list. He did wondrous work with electromagnetism and telecommunications, but he is redundant in that respect to Faraday and Maxwell. He also didn't do much to bring his inventions to mass market like Edison or even Westinghouse did; as said earlier with Gutenberg and Stigler's Law, that's what's ultimately just as (if not more) important for this list than actual invention, which is why we list Walt Disney (at least for now) instead of Winsor McCay and Henry Ford instead of Karl Benz or Ransom E. Olds (yes, neither of those are in the STEM sections, but the same principle applies).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom, although I could be convinced that he serves as a "foil" to Edison like Stalin serves as a "foil" to Hitler (not that any of those two pairs have anything else in common).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support although Tesla complements Edison's article. --Thi (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support switching my vote since we now have a good enough number of writers removed, and in the spirit of (hopefully eventually) pairing down the list to 100. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Very influential in the field of Physics, well known too. -- Maykii (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Incompetent as a businessman, but a key figure in making the alternating current a viable method of distributing electricity to consumers. He was also a pioneer in the development of wireless power transfer. Dimadick (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Tesla's work is more related to Edison's than to Faraday's and Maxwell's, who were scientists rather than engineers. Tesla's contributions are far more relevant to modern society (Western or not) than those of, say, Abraham or Socrates; and he gets roughly as many page views than Abraham, Socrates, and St. Paul combined. If Abraham needs to be listed next to Moses, Socrates needs to be listed next to Plato and Aristotle, and St. Paul needs to be listed next to Jesus, redundancy between Tesla and Edison is not a reasonable ground for removal. Cobblet (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose - A towering figure worthy of listing at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Perhaps we should canvass the Redditors? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

We already have, it would seem. Cobblet (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The following thread started as a response to my !vote. Cobblet (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Abraham and Moses will never be removed from this list. Paul certainly will be but earlier we will probably remove both Tudors or one of them. Dawid2009 (talk)

I'm not sure any of these figures, including Paul, will ever be removed. It would be interesting to see now how many people still feel strongly about reducing the number of biographies beyond what we have now. Cobblet (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm in full favour still of getting to 100; in full favour of doing heavy cuts to entertainers, athletes, writers and other artists on the 2,000 list and turning that one more history based and TNT'ing lvl 5 and making it 10k with more basis in history; but still covering more popular contemporary articles like Jeff Bezos or Justin Bieber; which would make it easier to remove articles like Tom Hanks from the 2000 list and wouldn't put him on a basis with Zac Efron, who shouldnt be listed anywhere. Either way; all levels i'm in favour of a little restructuring and level 5 is embarrassing, i pretty much am much more strict now and believe these lists should be more stricter. GuzzyG (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand you feel that way about this list. (I have no opinion about the lists I don't look at anymore.) But do you really think it's worth going through the kind of acrimony this page has seen this year for the sake of a few more cuts? Have you noticed how some participants are turned off by it? Cobblet (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I was just replying to your wondering about if anyone wanted cuts; not so that i want more discussion towards it - as clearly it won't do any good, but no clearly it's not worth contention; which is why i supported the moratorium and haven't nominated anything on here in forever; only participating because these lists go hand in hand with my own stuff and i have to pay attention to cuts or additions. (and i've been asked to create my own lists like Zelkias as a direct comparison, which i will do) But i also think that if debate leads to contention - like it has here; it'll probably happen outside of biographies too and that in a way it's unfortunately inevitable nature of this system, where votes are what matters - not argument and the votes are very limited so people feel the need to change votes as one can tank a whole nomination. I don't see a way to improve this other than bringing more eyes here but the contention would probably scare whoever away. I don't know a fix. GuzzyG (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Remove Finance, Add Accounting

Accounting is an important in all businesses. Interstellarity (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity
2. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per previous discussions on both halves of this proposal. Are you suggesting financing isn't important to all businesses? Cobblet (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal per above. Neutral on addition. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Rabindranath Tagore

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not on Thi's list. I don't know enough about Tagore and his placement in Indian culture, and whether he passes the "global secondary school standard", so I'll refrain from voting for now.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support Tagore is important for the Indian subcontinent but not sufficiently influential for our encyclopaedia. As a poet he is studied far less than Milton or Byron. Important as a historical figure but not supremely influential as a writer, and certainly not Shakespeare or Dante. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong support Per Zelkia. I do not think Tagore should represent history of literature in South Asia at this level. Bengali and Hindi language in modern world are not translated as often as European languages so have weaker monopol. We recently removed Akira Kurosawa who surpassed Tagore in Asian of the Century at category arts/culture/literature. Perhaps swapping Bhagavad Gita for Mahabharata and add something like Trimurti would be better to cover Indian culture by diverse way, however I am not convinced Tagore is neccesary, we represent pop culture at this level and soon we are going to remove more important biographies like Niels Bohr... Dawid2009 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal Splitzky (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support we have Bill Shakespeare and English literature, that is enough. Also far, far, far less well-known than Jane Austen or Mark Twain in the contemporary United States. Also TOOSOON, it's hard to determine the long term impact of a writer in the first 100 years after their death. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The Indian subcontinent is a major region for literature and it has a very long history. (goes back to Kalidasa; also another candidate for this list). India has alot of English speakers too; which makes it even more important to list a representative of on the English encyclopedia. (as shown by Tagore getting nearly 10 mil more pageviews in English than John Milton) There's no reason to cut here; if Tagore goes than Satyajit Ray must come on; Indian culture is essential for a English encyclopedia to cover. (Long history of British Raj/lots of English speakers). I would cut Rumi before Tagore. (but wouldnt cut either). GuzzyG (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose An Indian writer is definitely essential for this list. -- Maykii (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose First non Western Nobel Prize in literature. Definitely a leading figure in Indian culture. Yann (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Non-Western literature deserves a basic level of representation. Cobblet (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. I would consider a swap with Kalidasa but not an outright removal. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Zelkia1101: I would have voted to remove this entry, per the support !votes above. Not sure if that makes the difference to tip the balance in the discussion, but I do think he should be removed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Hey there! It would not have made a difference. Since all nominations require a 2/3ds vote to pass we would need five additional votes in favor of removing Tagore in order for it to pass. That's highly unlikely to materialize. The rules dictate that a nomination fails after thirty days if it has "a) earned at least 3 opposes, and b) failed to earn two-thirds support." That's the case here. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah OK thanks. Never mind then! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Add James Watt

I initially forgot to add this. Watt perfected the steam engine, which enabled the Industrial Revolution. His importance is such that the SI unit of power, watt, is named for him.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Extremally pertinent to understand history of science and history of technology. We certainly need at least father of industrial revolution. This is time when machines started replace many human's activities in everyday live. He is very easy findable in every the shortest Encyclopedia. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support If we have Gutenberg; than Watt should be on even a 100 list. Up there with Ford in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 13:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Highly influential figure. Dimadick (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Biography is not as important at this leval as Steam engine and Industrial revolution. "Locomotive transport, not Watt engines, accelerated the Industrial Revolution" [1] --Thi (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Similar types of arguments pro and con could be made for him, Gutenberg, and Cai Lun: they're all primarily associated with one massively important invention. Given that there remains a consensus to try to reduce bios, I will oppose additions which I think are borderline. Cobblet (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Agreed that the steam engine and Industrial Revolution are more pertinent to readers here. Level 4 is sufficient. czar 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Knowledge of Watt is tied very closely to his invention, whereas Gutenberg's fame as the quintessential inventor (along with possibly Edison) goes beyond mere technical achievement. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

@Purplebackpack89: In the past you said that Watt is more vital than Washington, do you still belive so? Would it be possible to swap Tesla for Watt and Cai Lun for Shen Kuo?. Shen Kuo gets less pagevievs than this wikiproject, some sandboxes and even some user Pages... Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

James Watt, Van Gogh, Goethe and Wagner also are THE ONLY biographies which were on original list of 54 vital people by User:SethAllen623 but not on our list. Here is diff where PBP says that Watt is more vital than Washington or Gauss. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Frank Lloyd Wright or Le Corbusier

This has also been discussed and voted down before, but it would be nice to have an architect if we get under 120. Both FLW and Le Corbusier are the pre-eminent architects of the 20th century, and both of the collections of their works have been deemed UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Although Wright did not participate in the design of early skyscrapers like his Lieber Meister Sullivan, and only ended up designing one minor skyscraper, he did envision a mile-high tower well before the Burj Khalifa could even be imagined, and more importantly defined the transition between Arts and Crafts and modernist architecture. Le Corbusier, on the other hand, defined modern architecture and has a plethora of work to his name in Europe.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Conditional support if we get down to under 120 biographies without it As nom; I'm biased towards FLW, but I'm fine with either.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. -- Maykii (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Support adding Le Corbusier. I have only heard of Wright because Don Rosa likes to reference him in his stories. Otherwise, not that famous. Dimadick (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not neccesary, level 4 is sufficient Dawid2009 (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose per the recent discussion on adding Le Corbusier. As pointed out previously, we already have an architect in Michelangelo, so this is really a proposal to add someone who is known exclusively for being an architect. No 20th-century architect really stands out in this regard: Le Corbusier is not more vital than Mies van der Rohe (from a technical perspective) or Gaudí (in the popular consciousness), and both Sullivan and Olmsted are just as important to the history of American architecture as FLW. Again I would go back to Mimar Sinan as an architect that truly stood out from his contemporaries, as acknowledged by both Le Corbusier and FLW (see my comments in the previous discussion), and would also happen to represent the long tradition of visual arts in the Islamic world for which we have no coverage on the list. But if the goal is to reduce the number of bios overall, I'm not going to support his addition either. Cobblet (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not if we've cut down. FLW or Corbiusier or Mimar Sinan don't have sufficient cultural status to be on here as a artist after these cuts in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Agreed that Level 4 is sufficient. czar 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Architects are just not very famous. Their work is more enduring. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Space race

Certainly we have room to readd this per precious discussions. While we do not have enough space to list two comparable astronauts then we should have this article. I support this proposal especially based on Thi's rationale in the archive and sources which they showed in previous discussion. This is also de facto parent article for arms race. Cold War is extremally popular topic related with 20th century. I think if we have room for Age of discovery and polar expolar and three XV explorers, then we should have at least very parent and very wide article for space exploration (NASA have lack coverage for milestones which did USSSR). On the purely historical perspective I also believe it is fair to have three articles related with second World War (the war, Hitler, Stalin) and two articles related with Cold war (the war, and just space race). Dawid2009 (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Added more on 13:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)~

Support

1. Strong support as nom Dawid2009 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support One of the greatest explorations in history. It gave us Earthrise and The Blue Marble. Space settlement is secondary. "We set out to explore the moon and instead discovered the Earth." [2] --Thi (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong support extremely important event in human history. Planting humans on the moon is likely the single most impressive technological achievement yet accomplished. A feat that children are likely to learn about for centuries in the future. Much more important for an encyclopedia than Impressionism, nursing, Twain or Kafka. Zelkia1101 (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Not as important as literature, but still emblematic of the 20th century. Dimadick (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per previous discussion. Redundant to Cold War and space exploration, and didn't result in permanent human habitation outside of Earth; the "good stuff" in that is yet to come. I would, however, support adding NASA.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
2. as per above. Yann (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
3. per John M Wolfson. Too much overlap with space exploration. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
4. I am a space geek but yeah, space exploration is enough. Is rocket a vital topic? It should be if it isn't. (Note: I checked, it's vital-3) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Per above. Space exploration already covers it.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• All of this not to mention the advent of satellite technology that powers the very cellphones and computers that all of you are using. None of it would have been remotely possible without human encroachment into space.
• The concept of an arms race dates back to at least the late 19th century and has continued on since then, whereas the space race was a decade and a half in the middle of the 20th century; I am befuddled by the assertion that the space race is somehow the "parent article" of an older and more general concept.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, my but wording but Essentials I mean that arms race and space are equelly vital, meanwhile for this level better fita space race which is not covered by military hstory. Space Exploration is not history article and I preferencji space race over NASA as the latte-rurkowcy has Łąck coverage of USSD achivements. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Seoul

As said earlier in the section of Taiwan, I think it would generally be preferable to add cities rather than more countries to fill out human geography, and in any event we only have 19 cities (excluding the City article itself at level 2) rather than a clean 20. I think Seoul would be a good fit for the last spot; it is considered an Alpha- city by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network, is in the Top 5 of the world's metropolitan economies with over 900 billion dollars, and is on the WikiProject Cities Core list.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Vital city to the world economy. Dimadick (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose About half the country's population lives in the Seoul Capital Area. South Korea is not so important a country, and Seoul is not so important a city, that this kind of overlap is desirable. I'm not suggesting you would disagree, but with South Korea already on the list, it clearly makes more sense to add Taiwan than to add Seoul. I think human geography is already much better covered than physical geography as it stands, we have spent a long time in the past discussing the list of cities, and I think the choices we've made are fine. Cobblet (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Many countries would be more essential additions. --Thi (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
3. per Cobblet User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose North Korea would be better option if we want add smaller countries. This would not be very fair to list South Korea and Seoul ahead of higly populated countries which we recently rejected (eg Uganda). Dawid2009 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Sigh and sad oppose. I live there but the arguments above are sadly well made. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Sundial

We are at 99 "Technology" entries currently. Very few of them are historical in nature. The sundial is a simple technology that has been used for thousands of years.

Support

1. as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Sure, list it as a bullet point under "clock".  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Clock does a pretty good job of covering the history of timekeeping devices. I think there are other technological areas which could use more attention – textiles is one that comes to mind, for example. Weaving? Cobblet (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_10#Remove_Sundial. --Thi (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Clock is fine. -- Maykii (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Seems minor to me, subjective view, sure, but so are most others here :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

This is motivated by a discussion on a recent popular television series. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Plough

From the article, It has been fundamental to farming for most of history. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Seems even more fundamental than irrigation, you can plow with natural irrigation, but can't plow without it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose I would prefer adding irrigation.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

   Although I do commend the proposer for having a username that is (arguably) a stylized plough.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose Agree that if farming technology needs more coverage, irrigation seems like a better place to start than tillage. Cobblet (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Irrigation is as vital as plough and History of agriculture is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• I would probably support Irrigation as well, but don't want to open more nominations until some more of the biography discussions are closed and archived. I do note that the article Irrigation is in far worse shape than basically any article on the list; I'm doing some triage but it desperately needs attention. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Beef, Lamb and mutton, Pork, and Poultry

We list different types of cereals (wheat, maize, and rice) in addition to listing cereal, and we list potato and soybean as types of vegetables while also listing vegetable; as such, I think we should list different types of meat in addition to listing meat given the ubiquity and centrality of meat in human diets. Beef, pork, and chicken are by far the most consumed meats in the world today, and sheep meat generally is not too far behind outside of the west. I also doubt that there would be significant overlap with the animals themselves since we only list cattle of the concerned animals.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom; at the very least we should have beef and pork. Lamb is historically/culturally significant but possibly expendable, and I am also fine with simply listing chicken as food but think poultry is more general and including turkey, duck, etc..  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Potatoes and soybeans are listed because they're staple crops which are globally produced on about twice the scale of poultry and pork, the meats with the highest production. Meat only features prominently in the diets of people in developed countries or in places where other protein sources happen to be scarce: they're not all that ubiquitous or central from either a global or a historical point of view. Specific meats are less vital than the animals they come from, and listing meat and animal husbandry provides enough coverage at this level. I would rather add more farm animals first: I've suggested sheep before, as another example of a farm animal that is raised for more than just meat. I would also add seafood (production of 178 million tons/year, 2018–2020 avg.) before adding any other types of meat (134 million tons of poultry produced in 2020). Meat barely mentions seafood and only focuses on the meat of livestock animals, which makes sense since the meat industry is not usually defined to include the seafood industry. However, we do list fishing. Cobblet (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose all but Poultry. Too much overlap between the animals as well as meat. I would probably support some article on pigs/swine but not pork. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose The meat is not more important than the animals themselves. I would support the addition of sheep, swine, and chicken, given their international importance as sources of food. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Details, not necessary entries. --Thi (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• I would support either Poultry or Chicken but am not sure which I prefer. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'd definitely prefer listing chicken, by far the most common bird in the world, and a source of both meat and eggs. Cobblet (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Would it be reasonable to swap with Meat? Or add Vegetarianism for ballance? Dawid2009 (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Meat and vegetable are already listed. Cobblet (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Sand and Cement

They are important materials throughout history. Interstellarity (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Sand. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Sand as well. Staple of beaches and deserts. Even beyond use as a material, presents engineering problems to be solved wherever it exists. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Listing concrete, the most important material in which they're used, is enough. I don’t see why sand would be any more vital than clay. Cobblet (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose We already list both concrete and masonry, and I don't think sand is particularly important in its own right but rather as binding agents/ingredients in concrete and glass.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Concrete is listed. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Cement only. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I note we already have concrete; of course there is a clear distinction between concrete and cement. Or should glue be added instead? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Cement is a part of concrete, but I think the difference is unimportant at this level.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I have partially withdrawn the nom. This nom is now only on sand. Interstellarity (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Chicken and Sheep

Two of the most common animals worldwide and some of the first to be domesticated by humans. Both are used for their meat as well as other products like wool and eggs and they have had a huge impact on human culture and society. -- Maykii (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. -- Maykii (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
2. While I do think we're having a lot of animals recently, our biotrimming makes it not as bad. My support for Chicken, however, is weakened by the fact that it wasn't a particularly common meat outside of Asia prior to the mid-20th century ("A chicken in every pot" referencing its luxury as late as 1928), although eggs seem to redeem it somewhat.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support both. They are arguably just as important to human civilization as cattle, which we do list. Admittedly, cattle perhaps a touch more important, since cattle are used for both meat and for drafting, but chicken and sheep are consumed more, and cross culturally the most well-known sources of meat. Sheep husbandry was an extremely vital profession throughout human history, for instance. Ewe's milk is as important as cow's milk in many cultures. Eggs, another staple food, come from chickens. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per discussion. --Thi (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support essential animals. GuzzyG (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• I won't support sheep unless either pig or domestic pig is also being added. (it's not at all obvious which to add, so I'm just going to wait for now) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I would also support the addition of domestic pig. -- Maykii (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Insurance

Finance-related topic which concerns both companies and citizens. Listed among main articles in some my old encyclopedias.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Crucial financial innovation that allows for otherwise too-risky investments to take place.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support undisputedly an indispensable part of the modern world Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support fundamental topic of modern day society. GuzzyG (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support I think this is reasonable considering the space we now have at this level. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Nobel prize

"The Nobel Prizes are widely regarded as the most prestigious awards given for intellectual achievement in the world." (Britannica) They cover three areas of civilization: science, arts (literature) and social ethics (Peace Prize).

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Weak support but I don't know where we would put it. We don't list other lists such as the Ten Commandments, and Seven Wonders of the Ancient World was actively rejected about a year ago, so I don't know if this list is accommodating of such articles.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Ok for level 4 but really terrible addition for the level 3. Far too specific. Previosly removed with extreme consensus. I feel this is nominated purely to something "add to add" when we are well under quta. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Dawid. If this was really that important, than one would expect other prestigious prizes like the Fields Medal or Lasker Award to be on level 4. Cobblet (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose The prize award on its own isn't important enough, but "the prize and a list of all the winners" would get close. But we don't do lists at this level. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose too trivial to be at this level. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I'm not quite sold on the Ten Commandments, but they would be much better additions than the Nobel Prize in my view. Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove Arabic alphabet, Brahmic scripts and Cyrillic script

These are probably covered by language articles.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removing Cyrillic script. Now that Uzbek and Kazakh are abandoning it, Russian, Ukrainian, and Serbo-Croatian (in Serbia, Montenegro and Republika Srpska) remain the only languages with more than 10 million speakers which still use the script. Swapping Cyrillic for Ukraine would seem to me an improvement. The Arabic alphabet at least forms the basis of the Persian alphabet from which still other scripts such as Urdu and Pashto are derived, and Ajami script was also formerly widespread in Africa. So the significance of Arabic scripts is far from redundant to the Arabic language. Maybe Arabic script is a better choice to represent the family though, given that we list the family of Brahmic scripts rather than Devanagari. Cobblet (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support swap of Brahmic scripts with Devanagari I oppose outright removal, but Devanagari is a much more focused article and much more important to a wide swarh of the world than the Brahmic scripts article, which gives an overview of abugidas in general. I think we should prioritize specific articles over general pages. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Brahmic scripts unless we're swapping with Devanagari; India deserves quite a bit of representation on this list given its huge population both today and historically, and most (at least a large plurality, if not the absolute majority, of) Indo-European language speakers prior to European colonization were in India; in any event, such scripts are used also for non-Indo-European languages such as Tamil, much like the Latin script in the west. Weak oppose Arabic alphabet and Cyrillic script. Arabic is the world's most-spoken language that is neither Chinese nor Indo-European, and one of the UN's six official languages, so its alphabet is quite frequently used. However, on a global basis it is less vital than Arabic numerals, IMO. As for Cyrillic, it's also used for a UN language (Russian) and has prominent transnational use in Eastern Europe, but I could be convinced that it's rather niche globally and not as vital as the historically-important Greek alphabet despite its technically wider use.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Brahmic scripts and Cyrillic script should be kept, since they have been frequently used on earth.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal of Arabic script and Cyrillic script given each script's importance to human history and the cultures that use them. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose all Dimadick (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: remove Cyrillic script, add Ukraine

Per above discussion. Cyryllic script should be ranked on the same level what Japanese script, at this level is not very necesarry if we can have Ukraine and Russia. This is glaring how Eastern Europe is hyperbolically underrepresented in comprasion to western if we take into account how much odd [for this level] small countries and cities we have from western Europe, western Euope is hyperbolically more overrepresented in comprasion to rest of the Europe than North Africa is overrepresented in comprasion to rest of Africa; so Ukraina simply must be added, this is extremally warranted, more vital country than Netherlands and Taiwan as Taiwan and Netherlands have smaller population and do not have cultural significance just as Israel or Saudi Arabia. I simply can not realise how we ever could add Netherlands which have far more than 50% less population than Ukraine, this is beyond me but whatever...

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Extremely reluctant support addition I don't want to support this, given that the current country list is adequate if not slightly bloated. Already having Poland seems rather excessive in my eyes, and having three Slavic countries is rather insane given how Western Europe is far more influential culturally and historically than Eastern Europe. Indeed, I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but I think Ukraine is approximately as vital as California; both have similar populations, and while Ukraine has more history and is more culturally marginally important (despite not being a country for most of its existence), California has had far more impact on global pop culture and a far, far larger economy. I was originally going to oppose on those grounds, but I realized that even though Taiwan has a greater economy it has a much smaller population than Ukraine, and has a rather similar relationship to the Mainland as Ukraine does to Russia. As such, I can't find a rational reason to support Taiwan but oppose Ukraine. If someone comes up with one I'd switch to oppose. Also, adding Ukraine would give us an uninterrupted land bridge between Britain and Rusia.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Among most-referenced articles. Large and influential country. --Thi (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Listing three Eastern European countries is very reasonable when six Western European countries are listed. People who think that the list of countries has gotten too long should not have supported adding the Netherlands in the first place. Ukraine is just one of several geography articles related to Eastern Europe and Russia (e.g., Danube; Central Asia or a country from that area) I would prefer to list over an article on the Cyrillic script. Russian orthography is already covered by Russian language; on its own, it's not a very convincing reason to keep Cyrillic listed. It reminds me of how we used to list East–West Schism in addition to Eastern Orthodox Church. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

   This is reasonable to add one more country from Eastern Europe especially if we consider that we do list three geographical objects for Eastern Europe (along with Moscow) and nine from Western Europe (along with cities). FWIW in 1650 Russian Empire had 15 mln population, Poland-Lithuania 11 mln, England+Scotland about + 6mln, Dutch Republic 1,8 mln (during that time Kiev had 419,537, Paris 375,456, London 138,404, and Moscow 99,772). Not so long time ago we had on this level all three: Russia, USSR and Russian Empire., but in theory among say 1500-2000 articles IMHO this would be better to have Poland and Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

5. Support Per above. GuzzyG (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support addition This is one of the very few countries I would still support adding, one of the largest in Europe, relevant in today's world too. -- Maykii (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal per my comments above. Japanese also has three scripts (four if you count Romaji), the main one of which is subordinate to Chinese characters, so the analogy is not apt. Removing Cyrillic would make Rusian the only UN-official language whose script is unrepresented. Cyrillic isn't as vital as Latin script or Greek alphabet, but it's vital enough.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal Given the importance of Cyrillic in much of Eastern Europe. Certainly much more diffuse than the Greek alphabet, though the Greek alphabet is obviously more historically important. I'm functionally neutral on the addition of Ukraine Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal The script dates from the Middle Ages and has high impact. Ukraine is only independent for the last 30 years or so. Dimadick (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal Important and influential script across much of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union / Russian Empire. -- Maykii (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Good News

here. 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:A8D3:102:98C:870F (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Merging levels 1 and 2 talk into this talkpage

This talkpage has 550 watchers, whereas the level 1 talkpage has only 114 and level 2 talkpage has only 89. This is to be expected; the last substantial change to level 1 was in December 2018 and the last one before that had been in August 2015, and I assume level 2 is also updated rather infrequently. I had to courtesy ping VA regulars to a level 1 discussion and it was brought up that perhaps the top three level talkpages should be merged. I think it's a good idea; the main drawback would be that it would slightly hinder archiving, but we can simply merge the archives together as well (of course, pre-merger archives would still remain available). All discussions here would, of course, refer to level 3 by default unless stated otherwise.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
2. per nom and my suggestion on that page User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We should encourage fellow Wikipedians to spend some time participating in discussions of VA1 & 2 pages instead.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I don't see what has changed to make this necessary now. Cobblet (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Somebody bothered to make a level-1 proposal for the first time in years. It should have been where people pay attention. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the number of watchers for the other levels of the project for reference? are they around the same or greatly higher, it's been a while since I checked that kind of stuff. Is this just to merge the talk pages, but not the lists themselves? (similar to how lev 4, geography, history and bios etc are on different pages, but discussed on one page) Is this wha the proposal is? And the actual lev 1 talk page would just contain a manual or automatic redirect to here, at lev 3. Is this what you mean?  Carlwev  21:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is to merge solely the talkpages and leave due redirects; it would also merge subsequent (but not pre-merger) archive pages, unless consensus is strongly against that.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the level 4 talk has 196 watchers (31 of whom viewed recent edits, and 1,391 pageviews in the last month) and the level 5 talk has 91 (32 of whom viewed recent edits, and 412 pageviews in the last month). As a refresher, levels 1 and 2 have respective 23 recent-edit viewers/452 last-month pageviews and 24/182. It would, however, be extremely impractical to merge levels 4 and 5 due to their unwieldy sizes, and the analogy between the levels is imperfect since levels 4 and 5 are supposed to change quite often and thus don't need "special attention" given to them when changes are in fact proposed. Overall, I still think this is a good idea, especially given the small size of Levels 1 and 2 meaning that they don't particularly need their own talkpages.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes

Add Domestic pig

Important in meat production worldwide and quite often referenced in culture.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. I was going to propose this alongside chicken and sheep but I thought that might be too much. Pigs are just as important as other livestock though. -- Maykii (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support given the importance of swine as a source of food Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
4. This would be the last mammal species I'd add (and likely the animal species, though I could see pet), but just vital enough.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per above. GuzzyG (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

If we're looking for food-related articles to add, I would rather have added meal before adding any animals which are primarily relevant as sources of meat. An article that describes an important aspect of everyone's daily habits, regardless of cultural background or dietary preference, ought to be more vital than articles that relate to a particular meat. Cobblet (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, chickens are also almost exclusively used for food products (well, other than cockfighting, but that's secondary), and we (are probably going to) list it above Egg as food or Poultry, even though other bird meat and eggs such as duck and quail are consumed. Pork is by far the most common meat, and its presence in human culture has been prevalent and permanent such that both Islam and Judaism prohibit its consumption while the ancient Romans, and modern East Asians, consider it a prized delicacy, and the animal itself has entered folklore as a symbol of greed and gluttony. I agree that swine aren't as vital as Cat, Cattle, Dog, or Horse, but given the other additions I would say they're vital enough. I could certainly add meal, given that we still have some space from the bio-trimming.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you seriously mean to call pork a "prized delicacy" for "modern East Asians"? Rekishi's Chechen-cuisine-based rationale for goats being as vital as cattle is still the most bizarre thing I've heard today, but this is a strong contender for second... Cobblet (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying that pigs are as vital as chickens and nearly as vital as sheep.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

And I'm saying I'd rather list something more directly related to eating habits than pigs or chickens. Cobblet (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I thought you were singling out pigs since you haven't said much about chickens or sheep.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Add goat

Support

1. As nom. It is, IMO, as vital as cattle, which is now listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No rationale for why goats would be as important to list as cattle. They're not working animals. They should stay on the same level as camel, donkey or elephant. Cobblet (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

   @Cobblet:Because goats have been raised for their meat or milk, and lamb and mutton have been used by a lot of cuisines (e.g. Chechen cuisine and Chinese one).--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

   But we are probably going to list sheep, which makes goat redundant.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

   Goats have also been commercially exploited, and goats are no sheep.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

   Goats are extremely closely related to sheep, however, and you even used "lamb and mutton" to describe their meat, the same words for sheep meat. This would be like listing both Dog and Fox.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

2. We do not need any more animals, especially not mammals, after sheep, chicken, and domestic pig. I would rather list Ant, Spider, and even maybe Lion and Bear before considering adding Goat.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not necessary. --Thi (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

References

Add Southern Ocean

We list every other ocean, this one is controversial but I think it still warrants being here. -- Maykii (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.
2. Strong support Its existence has not been controversial for at least twenty years (longer than Pluto's demotion from planet status), one poorly worded and unsourced statement in the Wikipedia article notwithstanding. Only the precise limits of its boundaries are subject to dispute. That makes it no different from any number of geographical constructs that don't have universally accepted boundaries or are defined differently in different contexts. People in different countries recognize a different number of continents, for example. The only reason the International Hydrographic Organization has not published an official definition of the Southern Ocean is because its member countries can't agree on one, not because this organization (or any other) denies the ocean's existence. Even National Geographic, which used to label the ocean differently from the others because of this lack of international agreement, finally changed its practice earlier this year. If the Southern Ocean isn't vital because of a lack of inhabitation, why do we list all the planets? What makes Neptune or Algeria or the Caspian Sea so much more important to the average reader than the primary storage of heat and carbon for Earth and the driving force behind the thermohaline circulation which connects the World Ocean? You do not understand global climate and ecology if you do not understand the Southern Ocean's role in it, and this topic is neither covered by Antarctica nor by any of the articles on the Pacific, Atlantic or Indian Oceans, because the modern consensus is that they do not include the Southern Ocean. Lack of population is precisely what makes the Southern Ocean one of the world's last great wilderness areas and thus the subject of a concerted international effort to establish multiple protected areas which are or would be some of the largest in the world. Why would we not have room for both Antarctica and the Southern Ocean when we have room for both Arctic and Arctic Ocean? Cobblet (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Largely per Cobblet. Its status notwithstanding, the Southern Ocean is a conspicuous absence here, and I feel our list is incomplete if we list four of the five oceans. Obviously the Atlantic and the Pacific are essentials, followed by the Indian Ocean. But if we have the Artic Ocean why not have the Antarctic Ocean? Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Per Cobblet. GuzzyG (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Dimadick (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Per Cobblet. I admit it was mistake when I made nomination for removal that. Souther Ocean or Ocean Current seems like good choice when we have room. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose largely because its very existence is controversial, as the article states: geographers have disagreed on the Southern Ocean's northern boundary or even existence, considering the waters as various parts of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans, instead. Even assuming its existence, I believe Antarctica is sufficient to cover much of this given that the ocean's perimeter has been sparsely populated throughout human history; Antarctica is the only continent not at Level 2, so it makes sense that this would be the only ocean not at Level 3. (I would also support the removal of Arctic Ocean, but at the very least it contains the North Pole and has been continually inhabited for millennia by various groups.)  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap (Level 1): Remove Language, Add Society

I am posting this nom here instead of level 1 because this page is watched more. There has been some talk about adding society on the level 1 page since it is a better choice for this level. I know some articles on level 1 cover society, but I was hoping that we could take out the articles that cover society such as language, and replace them with other articles unrelated to society. Interstellarity (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support addition iff we swap it with human instead.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Society is what makes us humans. At least this topic needs better article in English Wikipedia. --Thi (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal, would rather remove human The human article deals with the species Homo sapiens, its diet, distribution, evolution, etc.. We are not vital as primates, mammals, or even animals. We are vital as thinking, reasoning, and problem-solving entities, and while it's a shame that person seems to be ill-suited for inclusion this is already covered by philosophy, science, mathematics, language, and technology. Essentially, the things that make us human should take priority over the biological characteristics of what happen to be our physical vessels. The difference between "specially evolved primate" and "rational being" will become quite stark as artificial intelligence evolves and becomes just as, if not even more, competent at these tasks. Of course, the history of all of this, in human history, should remain, but it is the height of anthropocentrism to arrogate ourselves the same position as the article for life itself, and including such a "mundane" article as a specific species on a specific rock in space on what should be a pure and eternal list is what I think is the most glaring issue of the list.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Going off what John has said, society is implicitly covered in human, human history, the arts, language, and even science. Language is covered nowhere, and it is so incredibly important to the human experience across every single culture and society on the planet that it cannot be removed. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

The following articles, IMO, already cover society to some meaningful extent:

• Human
• Human history
• The arts
• Language

I think removing human history is out; I'd personally never read it since it covers stuff I've learned in primary and secondary school, but that's precisely why we should have it at a high level. Also, the arts, being essentially "that which expresses the human condition", seems universal enough to warrant its inclusion here, so that's out as well. The human article predominantly covers the biological aspect of the human body, so I could see it being removed (we're relevant because of our ability to think, not as a species); however, person, which would be its replacement, has fewer than 100 interwikis and isn't even at Level 5. That leaves language as the last one to be considered; I'll have to consider it some more before I make a decision.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think of human as basically the one article on level 0. Not that I think we need a level 0 at all – I may come to regret making this comment at all. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As for language vs. society: on the one hand, I'm one of the people who originally suggested adding society a long time ago. On the other hand, language enables society, and underpins fundamental aspects of human identity, e.g., culture and ethnicity. It's even thought of as something that separates humans from animals and defines us as a species. I tend to think philosophy is a weaker choice for level 1 than language. While not wholly redundant to language the way linguistics would be, a large part of modern philosophy grapples with problems of language. Cobblet (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Religion perharps? 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:8CA2:6D80:9746:C400 (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I think that's redundant to philosophy and, if we add it, society.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I personally think philosophy is a contender for Level 0; since such an idea is ludicrous, however, we can agree to disagree. Modern philosophy might be language-focused, but it's also been such a niche and irrelevant part of philosophy (and, indeed, the wider world) that we actively removed contemporary philosophy from level 3 a month or so ago. Philosophy in general, from Socrates/Plato to Russell, underpins much of science (what is empiricism? falsifiability?) and mathematics (what is logic? do numbers actually exist?) and cognition more generally; I think the very concept of abstraction and having ideas is what separates us from beasts, and language is but a (admittedly very important) manifestation as our status of "rational animal".  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. I would also prefer all the level 1 articles to be extremely relevant to all readers today, and it bothers me that "philosophy" is listed when "contemporary philosophy" is of rather marginal relevance nowadays. If science and math represent the aspects of "philosophy" that matter most to modern readers, listing those topics ought to suffice. Cobblet (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Skeleton, Add Bone

We should probably list the building blocks before the ensemble piece, right? There is also much more in terms of topics branching off bone than skeleton.

Support

1. Support as nom Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support addition per discussion. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Vital in anatomy. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal I would Rather remont paelontology which Seemann be arcana in comprasion to history of life which is currently not listed. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• Both seem to be vital. No need to swap, both should be in the list. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

988/1000?

What we want do with so big space?... Dawid2009 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know, we'll probably fill it significantly with some of the articles already being proposed. Maybe some physical/human geography, or science, otherwise. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Hopefully more nonbiographical essentials Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I hope that will be stuff other than Biographies/geography. Franky I would be glad if we make no geography nomination untill we± reach at least 995/1000. IMHO number of countriesis about right meanwhile Cities MAYBE very slightly bloated. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Florence Nightingale

It would be outrageous to suggest that Wikipedia editors should prioritize improving 100+ biographies while also suggesting that fewer than ten of those prioritized biographies should be about women. And I know of no other person in history, man or woman, who has been singlehandedly credited with founding a modern licensed profession. In doing so Nightingale transformed the perception of a female-dominated field from one that was not considered respectable into one that was. We list no other person who acted so consequentially to improve the status of women in society.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support A list of 110 should at the very least have 10 women (at minimum) and as has been said; one of the very few people who has played such a dominant role in a very important field today. Her biography itself is important too; unlike Gutenberg (who some fought to keep here) or Disney; where in which their invention and company is more important than them as people and their biography is unimportant (they're used as surrogates for the invention/company). Nursing has a direct impact on people and is very important unlike animation; so if Nursing makes her redundant; then i don't see how Film, History of film, Comics and Animation do not make Disney redundant. It deserves a rep here. We're also underrepresented in science figures compared to intellectuals, so Nightingale fits. Her "historical resonance"; has resulted in many things like battleships named after her USS Florence Nightingale (AP-70), asteroids like 3122 Florence, the most distinguished award in her field Florence Nightingale Medal, schools like Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, among many statues. Her legacy section is bigger than most people here, all this without the backing of a multi billion dollar company today.. i don't see how she isn't still a very important figure and there's certainly not many very important fields that affect lots of people today so singuarly defined by one person. GuzzyG (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
3. I've been convinced. Far better than Sappho, Jane Austen, or even Hatshepsut. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support While I disagree with both Guzzy G and Wolfson's arguments, Nightingale's high impact is undeniable. Dimadick (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Could definitely be on a level 3.5 list, or a list of the 200 or 500 most vital people, but she isn't vital enough for the top 100. Her level of technical achievement and historical resonance is simply not great enough, and she's somewhat redundant now that we have nursing. We need fewer people on this level, not more. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Would suit better for larger list of biographies and separate biography project. --Thi (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
3. OpposeDawid2009 (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Extended content

Nightingale resonates with plenty of Wikipedia readers. In terms of pageviews she is ahead of every listed inventor, scientist, and mathematician other than Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Edison, Tesla, Curie, Einstein, and Turing. She gets more pageviews than Gutenberg and Hippocrates combined. Her pageviews are also comparable to people like Abraham, Bach, Dante, Kant, or Ramesses II. Modern medicine deserves a representative, and nobody in the field can claim a technical achievement greater than founding a profession that underpins modern healthcare. Cobblet (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Pageviews are by no means the only indicator of vitality. They're just one factor. Florence Nightingale may have more pageviews than Gutenberg or Shen Kuo or Hippocrates, but it's ridiculous to suggest that she is more influential or vital than the most influential man of the 2nd millennium, the father of medicine, or Chinese civilization's most celebrated scientist. Of course, that's not to say that Nightingale isn't important, but I'm afraid that she's not quite this level, especially when we have nursing here already. But even if we didn't have nursing the objective should be, where I'm concerned, to trim biographies and not add them. Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Every time the factors you provide (this time it was technical achievement and historical resonance) are addressed, your only response is to suggest that there are unspecified other "indicators of vitality." We call that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and while you're entitled to your personal bias as much as everyone else, it's not an argument. You also rely on the same strawman over and over again. The list's purpose is to "select 1000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles." It is not a question of which historical figures are "more influential or vital" than others, but what kind of content on Wikipedia should be prioritized. The point of looking at page views is not to argue that Nightingale is more vital than Hippocrates or Gutenberg. The point is that she is just as if not more interesting to Wikipedia's readers as more traditionally "canonical" figures from the hagiography of Western intellectual history. Thus her biography deserves to be prioritized just as much if not more than theirs, especially in view of Wikipedia's demonstrated gender bias and the Wikimedia Foundation's goal for Wikipedia to represent the full, rich diversity of all humanity. This bias is manifested in the current list of biographies: 9/112 or 8.0% of the list's biographies are about women, a figure that is completely out of whack with the proportion of Wikipedia's readership who are women (roughly a third), the proportion of biographies on Wikipedia (19%), and even the number of Wikipedia editors who are women (somewhere around 13-20%). I think a minimum of 10% of the biographies listed as priorities on this page should be about women. Any fewer and this list can in no way be said to even approach representing the full diversity of all humanity. Cobblet (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC) I have been very clear on multiple occasions what factors I use in order to determine vitality. In fact, I think I am the only member of this project who has laid down his or her specific process for selecting vital articles over others. You can read about my process here or here. I'm afraid you are simply mistaken with the rest. The articles that are most relevant to Wikipedia users are those that are most vital in history, culture, the arts, science, sport, technology, and so forth. Judging what articles belong in this list necessarily involves taking into account modern salience, historical importance, centrality in academia, connections to relevant topics, and so forth. By any such metrics it becomes rather clear that Florence Nightingale, though important, cannot count among the 100 most vital or important Wikipedia biographies. And I am opposed to adding or considering additions merely on account of sex. That's not our job. On that note, however, there are far more important women in history, like Isabella I of Castile or Mary, mother of Jesus who would make better candidates for inclusion on this list. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC) All of the factors you have previously mentioned (achievement, influence, popularity, uniqueness, and variety) have been addressed by GuzzyG and me. All you have done in response is try to move the goalposts by making vague and completely unsubstantiated references to newly invented "metrics", without even suggesting how one would quantify things such as "centrality in academia" or "connections to relevant topics". And while you may have no interest in tackling Wikipedia's systemic biases, the community and the foundation that enables it is very well aware of the urgency of doing so. It may not be your job, but it is very much our job. Cobblet (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC) No, you haven't. That some ships or institutions were named after you does not mean that you are among the 100 most essential biographies for Wikipedia. Florence Nightingale is a popular 19th century figure whose contributions in her life time very much set the standard for modern nursing. That's not in dispute. What is in dispute, however, is that these achievements alone do not garner her a place among the 100 most important Wikipedia biographies, especially since we already list nursing, and especially since the focus as it stands should be to trim off biographies and not add more fluff. As for the point about representing women, unfortunately almost all human societies up to and including the present day were or are heavily patriarchal, with little room for women to advance in the fields of science, mathematics, philosophy, literature, politics and so forth compared to men. Because of this, women are going to be underrepresented in the listings and there is not much we can do about it. However, if you were actually interested in adding more women, Florence Nightingale should not be the first one to come to mind. Mary, mother of Jesus is an obvious addition to our list, even at 100 articles. I've proposed her before, but my nomination was shut down. Our French counterparts list her, and she's historically the most famous and well known woman to have ever lived, a revered figure in Catholicism and Islam. I don't know why the founder of modern nursing is worthy of addition but a woman who has been venerated by the two largest world religions for greater than a millenium and has more art, music, and literature dedicated to her is not worthy. Isabella I of Castile is another worthy addition. Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC) What is "patriarchal" is the inability to recognize that the argument that Nightingale is redundant with something on the list could just as easily be made (and has often been made) about any other person: Socrates is redundant with Plato, Aristotle, and Ancient Greek philosophy; Walt Disney is redundant with Animation; George Washington is redundant with American Revolution; and so on ad nauseum. What is also "patriarchal" is the hand-wringing about the inability to do anything about the perception of women in male-dominated fields, when it is women who have predominantly served as caregivers in society despite being denied access to formal medical training. Nightingale's contribution lies precisely in transforming the perception of a female-dominated field from one that was not considered respectable into one that was. That is absolutely the kind of sui generis achievement which impacts everyone's life that we should prioritize writing about. To regard her position in history as "fluff" while we live in a pandemic where over 100,000 health care workers have died seems frankly a little perverse. As for your other suggestions: Mary has been proposed at least three times and strongly rejected every time: I'm not rehashing a debate that's never gone anywhere when we're already sick of discussing biographies. I don't recall Isabella being discussed in any depth, but her article is demonstrably less popular than Nightingale's. She also seems like an inferior choice from the standpoints of uniqueness and variety: we already list two other queens (Catherine of Russia and Elizabeth of England) from the early modern period. Cobblet (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) None of your comparisons except for Disney are particularly apt. Socrates is the origin of a genealogy of philosophy that stretches back over 2000 and touches nearly every branch of the field to this day. The line from Aristotle to Avicenna to Thomas Aquinas to Descartes to Locke to Kant to Marx to Russell all trace the ultimate origins of their field back Socrates. As for Washington, he is relevant to acts beyond the American Revolution; to wit serving as the nation's first president and being an icon of republicanism and liberal governance. I agree with you on Disney. I voted to have him removed, if you actually bothered to check the record, but the group's opinion went against my personal judgement. Disney is obviously a very important cultural and historical figure, whose contributions in his own field of human endeavor fundamentally reshaped the nature of that field and gave rise to incredibly important developments in Western culture. The same could be said about Florence Nightingale. We just don't have room for every important historical figure. As for Mary, it's incredibly disappointing that her candidature has been rejected numerous times, given that she is by great measure the most recognizable woman in world history, and has been so for greater than a millennium. But I'm not going to give you Nightingale just because I can't get Mary, who is without question the more vital of the two. Nightingale is more popular than Isabella because the former is (a) an Anglophone and (b) lived more recently, but the latter is far more vital. A student of history is much more likely to encounter Isabella through her role in the Reconquista, establishment of the Monarchy of Spain, funding and patronage of Columbus's voyages, and the setting up of the Spanish Inquisition than they are to learn of Florence Nightingale's role in the Crimean War and her founding of nursing. Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Great, so the legacy of Socrates is amply covered on the list, and Washington is also redundant with the United States, Democracy, and Liberalism. All the more reason to remove them then? Perhaps, perhaps not – this is exactly why some people have wanted to remove all the bios; but then listing nursing is not a good reason to exclude Nightingale either. A list of biographies, even a short one, that ignores reforms related the status of women in society is simply out of touch with today's world. And any student of history or philosophy is much more likely to stay at a hospital and be attended to by a trained nurse at some point in their lives, than specifically study the work of Isabella or Washington or Socrates. Nightingale's legacy directly affects everyone regardless of where they come from and what they study in school. She is exactly the kind of person worth writing a high-quality article about. Mary might be enormously important to Catholics, but the consensus so far has been that we do not need another figure from Christianity. It is essentially the same form of argument that was made to remove Kali from the list. Cobblet (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "And any student of history or philosophy is much more likely to stay at a hospital and be attended to by a trained nurse at some point in their lives, than specifically study the work of Isabella or Washington or Socrates." Yeah, that makes nursing supremely vital. That's not an argument for the vitality of Florence Nightingale. People who are not just vital because their contributions are important, or because they contributed to important fields. This is, admittedly, the mistake I made when I nominated people like Norman Borlaug. To take an extreme example, Mitochondrial Eve is probably more influential than any person on this list, as without her nobody alive would exist as they do right now. But that isn't an argument to, say, swap Newton and add Mitochondrial Eve. Socrates and Washington are vital articles because Socrates the person is a vital biography and Washington the person is a vital biography. Nightingale is not supremely vital because nursing the profession is. If you are interested in adding more women, there are other women in history, to wit the ones I mentioned, who would be much better additions. Mary's importance is to all Christian denominations, Catholics especially, and that's to say little about Islam, which reveres the woman probably more than any other religious figure bar Abraham, Moses, Muhammad, and Jesus. Who do you honestly think is more historically, culturally or artistically vital? "We don't need another figure from Christianity" is just silly, given that Mary's importance extends beyond mere Christianity, and because it's idiotic to think of additions to this list in terms of quotas. Why is it bad that we have so many figures from the Abrahamic faiths when they've exerted an impact on world history far more profound than any other social, political, religious, cultural, or artistic movement? Any objective measure of comparison would find Mary ahead of Florence Nightingale in terms of vitality. That people's philosophies are shortsighted enough not to see Mary's vitality does not mean that we should add Florence Nightingale as consolation because she's a woman and we need to fill some sort of quota for women. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC) You originally gave five factors for vitality: achievement, influence, popularity, uniqueness, and variety. I think Washington and Nightingale meet all five factors, while Mary doesn't meet the criteria of variety, and Socrates or any other Greek philosopher doesn't meet either uniqueness or variety when Plato and Aristotle are listed. There's going to be overlap between articles when we're listing a thousand of them. The question is where we think redundancy is necessary and where it is not. Saying Nightingale is not supremely vital because nursing is, is like saying Socrates is not supremely vital because Plato's dialogues are. Citing Russell as a reason for Socrates the person being vital while denying Nightingale the person any credit for the modern healthcare system doesn't make any sense. Cobblet (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Let's examine these criteria more closely, shall we: Achievement Washington was the commander in chief of the Continental forces during the revolutionary war and the first president of the United States, setting during his tenure important precedents and founding the governmental structure of what would go on to be the most powerful nation in world history, ultimately stepping down for power in what is arguably the most important development in the history of the United States. Socrates's main achievements lie in ethics, rhetoric and critical thinking, distinguishing between pre-Socratic and post-Socratic Greek philosophy. Florence Nightingale founded a nursing school at St Thomas' Hospital and organized care for soldiers during the Crimean War, that care forming the basis of much of modern nursing today. Mary is the weakest in terms of personal achievement, that being principally giving birth to, nursing, and raising Jesus. Influnece Cross-culturally and historically, Mary trounces the rest. Not even Washington comes close to her historical vitality. Socrates is closer but not quite there. Washington defined what republican government looks like. Socrates founded Western philosophy, a man to whom a millenia-long line of philosophers from modern Britain to medieval Iraq to Renaissance Italy trace their lineage. What is their to say about Mary, from Catholic Mariology, her importance to Islamic doctrine, her prevalence in art. She has been without question the most venerated and celebrated woman in the past millenia and a half of human history. No one quite comes close to her staying power. Nightingale's practices are credited with the formation of modern nursing. Popularity with users, by which a traditional measure for me is pageviews and ngrams. It's hard to reliable input Mary into Google ngrams, so I'll go off pageviews alone. Here are the stats for English wikipedia. Nightingale leads Mary, but an analysis of cross-linguistic pages shows Florence losing to Mary. Nevertheless, all four figures meet my baseline for popularity. Uniqueness Washington does not particularly have anything going for him here, other than the fact that he is only one of three leaders of democracies we list. Neither does Socrates. The former fits in with the tradition of male leaders in the 18th century while the latter is just another Greek philosopher. Both Nightingale and Mary are women, which is a traditionally underpresented group. Florence Nightingale would be one of two women in her category if she were added. Mary would be alone. Variety This is my biggest sticking point against Nightingale. We already have nursing to represent her field and Hippocrates to represent medicine. Of the four figures, Nightingale is the most squarely defined by her field. For Washington we have overlap in liberalism, United States and American Revolution, but Washington's influence as a leader is not captured in any single one of those fields. Socrates is redundant to Ancient Greek philosophy and possibly Plato, but Socrates's fame in culture and history transcends his associations as just a comment by Plato. Mary may be represented by Jesus or Christianity, but neither captures her supreme importance in art, music, literature for over a millenium, or her mere fame as the most recognizable woman in human history. Furthermore, Nightingale is an Anglophone of the 19th century, while Mary is a Jewish woman from the Middle East. Of these five criteria, the only one where Nightingale can be said to beat Mary is in technical achievement. Mary's lack of technical achievement in her life is made up by her overwhelming importance to the arts and traditions of both Christianity and Islam. This alone makes her supremely vital to our readers as a historical person. The same applies to Washington and Socrates. Nightingale, however, is famous as the founder of modern nursing, which we already list. She is not particularly famous beyond that designation, nor is she cross-culturally or historically present or important enough, nor are her technical achievements particularly supreme compared to the founder of Western philosophy or the role model of liberal governance. Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC) I don't agree that Mary is "cross-culturally" influential. She is less relevant to Muslims than Khadija bint Khuwaylid, Aisha or Fatimah. Do you think Islamic fundamentalists care much about her? And she has basically no influence outside Christianity and Islam, i.e., she is irrelevant to half the world. Meanwhile anyone who has been visited by a nurse owes something fundamental to Nightingale: that is cross-cultural influence. Mary still meets a baseline threshold of influence, but she is nowhere close to Nightingale in this respect. It's much too reductive to say that Nightingale is the second woman in her category. She is fundamentally neither an inventor nor a scientist, but a social reformer. In other words, while her practices were innovative and she was a pioneering activist, there isn't really an invention or scientific theory associated with her. Rather, at the risk of repeating myself, her most important contribution is transforming the perception of a female-dominated field from one that was not considered respectable into one that was. We could easily create a separate category for her if we wanted to. That makes her more unique than any of Washington, Socrates, or Mary. It goes without saying then that I disagree completely with your analysis of variety. Hippocrates cannot be said to have anything to do with social reform; there is no redundancy whatsoever between him and Nightingale. Previous discussions have repeatedly established that Mary fails on the variety criterion. I'd also say that Washington's influence as a leader is amply captured by United States and American Revolution, and Socrates hardly transcends Plato; but that's not relevant to Nightingale. In short, I consider Nightingale ahead of Mary in all five categories. Cobblet (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC) I'm confused. Is Nightingale a representative of nursing/medicine or social reform? You said nursing first, but now you assert it's social reform. If it's social reform she is an overlap with Wollstonecraft, another woman who lived roughly contemporanously with her. You are also flat out wrong about Mary in Islam. You would realize this if you had just read the first line of the Mary in Islam article: Mary... holds a singularly exalted place in Islam as the only woman named in the Quran, which refers to her seventy times and explicitly identifies her as the greatest of all women, stating, with reference to the angelic salutation during the annunciation, "O Mary, God has chosen you, and purified you; He has chosen you above all the women of creation." She is far more important to Islam than Aisha, and suggesting that they are of equal importance to that faith just reveals incredible ignorance. But even if Mary were only relevant to Christians, that would still make her far more relevant as a person to billions of people on this planet than Florence Nightingale, who personally comes nowhere near Mary's popularity, historical resonance, or cross-cultural importance. Do you think the people of the Phillipines or Iraq care about Nightingale as much as they do Mary? They don't even come close Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC) It's both, and in fact Nightingale is even more than that: she's also a pioneer in graphic design. You persistently underrate Nightingale's achievements by being overly reductive. Wollstonecraft is a thinker and writer, not a caregiver or an activist like Nightingale. It's a similar divide between theory and practice (a greater one, in fact, given that Wollstonecraft has no relationship to healthcare) that separates Edison and Tesla from Faraday and Maxwell. Of course Mary is exalted in the Quran, but Muhammad's immediate family is also central to Islam. If we're going to quote Wikipedia articles, "Fatimah occupies a similar position in Islam that Mary, mother of Jesus, occupies in Christianity." She's the daughter of Khadija, who is exalted as the first Muslim. Aisha is controversial, but that isn't all that different from how Christian denominations vary in the degree to which they venerate Mary. The phrase "even if Mary were only relevant to Christians" directly implies lack of "cross-cultural importance." The Philippines is a Catholic country, and Iraq is not covered by Google Trends, so you're not proving anything there. It's weird that you're aggressively berating me for alleged ignorance about Islam when it would appear you can't even find Iraq on a map. I don't need to put up with this: I'm out. Cobblet (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Don't try to weasel out of your previous comments. You said, and I quote, She is less relevant to Muslims than Khadija bint Khuwaylid, Aisha or Fatimah. This is just objectively false. Mary is the most exalted woman in Islam, and the most important to Islamic theology according to Muslims themselves. If there were need for a woman to represent the Muslim faith, it would be Mary. And once again, even if you accept the delusion that Mary isn't that important in Islam, she is leagues ahead in importance compared to Nightingale for billions of people on this planet. When I said Iraq, I actually meant Iran. Sorry, it's a one letter difference. Do you want to bet that the people of Iraq care about Florence Nightingale more than Mary, the most important woman in their faith? I just can't get your story straight. The suggestion that Florence Nightingale is a key representative of graphic design is about as silly and spurious a suggestion as your previous suggestion that Mary Wollstonecraft represents English literature. The truth is everything you think Nightingale "represents" is already covered by other people or articles on this list. Even if you wanted a representatitve of social care or activism there are legions of men and women that are of equal status to Nightingale that you could just as easily nominate. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Wow, so you're doubling down on this. You think Mary's more important to Islam than Fatimah, even though Fatimah's role in Islam is comparable to Mary's in Christianity. That would imply that Mary plays a bigger role in Islam than she does in Christianity. Also, nobody who gives a fig about Islamic culture confuses Iran and Iraq. In fact, never in my life have I heard anyone do that. That's like confusing the UK with the US, or Australia with Austria. I don't think I'm the weasel here. I think our previous analysis of your five factors spells out clearly our differences in opinion. I have nothing more to add. Cobblet (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC) You're deliberately obfuscating. Mary is recognized by Muslims themselves to be the most important woman in the religion. Our Wikipedia article on Women in the Quran quite explicitly says so. The Quran calls her above all other women in creation. She is, in fact, the only woman mentioned by name in the Quran. To suggest that Fatimah holds an equal place in Islamic doctrine to Mary betrays a critical misunderstanding of the Islamic religion. Furthermore, it's literally one letter. I must have looked at the map and saw Iran colored in and when writing my reply I wrote Iraq. You never actually answered my question: Do you think that, even if data for Iraq were available, Nightingale would beat Mary? Of course not. You have consistantly demonstrated an utter inability to defend your nomination. All of your arguments fall apart at the merest scrutiny, and you immediately run to accusations of sexism when someone points out the obvious flaws in your argument. We are done here. Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Here are relevant quotes from the sources the article on Fatimah cited for the assertion that her status in Islam is comparable to Mary's in Christianity: For Shi'ite commentators,... their [Muhammad, Fatimah, Ali, Al-Hasan, Al-Husayn] purity and sinlessness turns them into the Holy Five, and a certain parallelism to Christian concepts of the Holy Family – in particular between Fatima and Mary – cannot be denied. (Fitzpatrick & Walker, p. 8) Khadijah and Fatimah are the ultimate archetypes for Muslim women... it is easy to see how the cult of Fatimah has often been compared to that of the Virgin Mary. (Rogerson, p. 42) With multiple Quranic verses and hadiths pointing to the significance of [Fatimah's] standing as a central figure not only in Islam but in the history of womankind, she is among 'the great women of the worlds', alongside Mary, Asiya and Fatima's mother Khadiyah. (Abbas, p. 98) Where's the obfuscation? Meanwhile, you said: Mary is recognized by Muslims themselves to be the most important woman in the religion. Our Wikipedia article on Women in the Quran quite explicitly says so. Except that Women in the Quran#Mary (Maryam) actually says "Mary, the mother of Jesus, is one of the most important women in the Quran". Who's deliberately obfuscating now? Article on [Women in Islam#The Virgin Mary] clearly says The Virgin Mary (Maryām) is considered by the Quran to hold the most exalted spiritual position amongst women. A chapter of the Quran (Sūrat Maryam, the nineteenth sura) is named after her, and she is the only woman mentioned by name in Islam's sacred scripture; Maryām is mentioned more times in the Quran than in the Bible.[605] Furthermore, the miraculous birth of Christ from a virgin mother is recognised in the Quran., about Fatimah only says: Fātimah al-Ma'sūmah was the sister of the eighth Imam and the daughter of the seventh Imam in 'Twelver' Shī'ism. Her shrine is located in Qom, a city which is one of the most important Shī'ah centres of theology. During the Safavid dynasty, the women of this family were very active in embellishing the Shrine of Fatima Masumeh. In times of war, Safavid royal women found refuge in Qom, and likely compared their situation to that of Fatima Masumeh Article on Fatimah also says The Quranic praise for Mary in verse Q3:42 is often echoed for Fatimah through a Sahih hadith that lists Fatimah, Khadija, Asiya, and Mary, mother of Jesus, as the outstanding women of all time. Why at least here one time Fatimah is not mentioned in Quran by name? Dawid2009 (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Thanks for trying to continue the discussion in good faith. There's a difference between identifying the woman the Quran holds in the highest regard, and the women Muslims hold in the highest regard. When the Quran says "O Mary! Surely Allah has selected you, purified you, and chosen you over all women of the world" (3:42), that is in the context of the Annunciation. There is a dispute on whether the Quran means to suggest that Mary was the greatest woman of all time: see Mary in Islam#Annunciation. This dispute is reflected elsewhere in the same article: the lead starts by quoting 3:42 and calling her "the greatest of all women", but Mary in Islam#Islamic tradition says "Mary is one of the most honored figures in Islamic theology, with the majority of Muslims viewing her as one of the most righteous women to have lived, and a minority viewing her as a prophet." Muslims read not only the Quran but also hadith, one of which says that there are four great women: see your quote from the Fatimah article as well as my quote from Abbas. I regret that I forgot this hadith includes Mary, so considering her on par with others such as Fatimah is certainly reasonable. But there is no agreement among Muslims as to who is "the" greatest. See e.g., Kaltner in New Perspectives on the Nativity,[3] where the relevant paragraph on p. 176 begins: "The choice has generally come down to either Mary or Fatima as the preeminent woman of all time." Regarding your last question, while Mary is the only woman called out by name in the Quran, "Approximately 24 other virtuous women are discussed in the Quran—pious women who dedicated their lives to Allah—but instead of naming women by their first names, the Quran calls them by their family references—an Arab tradition at the time."[4] In bringing up Aisha I was recalling The Muslim 100[5] which ranks her above any other woman at #6, Khadijah at #7, and Fatimah at #11. Stowasser in Women in the Qur'an, Traditions, and Interpretation, "The Chapter of Mary" makes many of the same points: [3:42] leaves the question of Mary's status “above the women of the worlds,” and here the exegetic debate is remarkable both for its intensity and also the lack of consensus. At stake is Mary's ranking among Qur'anic women figures but also, and more importantly, in relation to the elite women of Islam, especially the Prophet's wives Khadija and A'isha and the Prophet's daughter Fatima. The problem is addressed by questioning whether Mary's preeminence is absolute (over all other women and for all times) or relative (over the women of her time). The larger number of traditions recorded in Tafsir and qisas al-anbiya literature establish, on the authority of the Prophet, that Mary and Fatima, Khadija and Asya (the Pharaoh's wife) are the best women of the world and also the ruling females in heaven; traditions on A'isha's inclusion in this group are fewer in number. While Asya's and Mary's merit is established on the basis of the Qur'an (66:11–12), Khadija's merit is seen in her great service to the Prophet's mission, and that of A'isha in her status as Muhammad's most beloved wife and a prominent authority on his legacy after his death. Popular piety has, in some fashion, settled the question of Mary and Asya, Khadija and A'isha by making all four Muhammad's wifely consorts in paradise. Indeed, it is said that Khadija's heavenly mansion will be between the houses of Mary and Asya. This leaves the question of Mary's ranking in relation to Muhammad's daughter Fatima. In Muslim piety, and here especially Shi'i piety, the connection of Mary to Fatima is such that the two figures at times appear collapsed into one. Mary was one of four miraculous midwives who assisted Khadija in Fatima's birth, and Mary also appeared to Fatima to console her during her last illness. Both were visited by angels, received miraculous sustenance during childhood and also during the isolation preceding the birth of their children, and both are believed to have shared the same miraculous qualities of freedom from menstruation and bleeding at childbirth. What most deeply binds Mary and Fatima together is the joint image of mistress of sorrows. In Sunni tradition, Fatima's suffering is mainly linked with the Prophet's death, whom of all of his children she alone survived. In Shi'i piety, she is also, and primarily, the grieving mother whose short and hard life was made bitter by the foreknowledge of the future martyrdom of her son Husayn, an event of divine redemption and cosmic significance. Although, according to the Qur'an, Jesus was persecuted and rejected by his people but not slain, Shi'i hagiography has recognized strong affinities between Jesus and Husayn as, also, between their holy mothers. Mary and Fatima, holy figures of solace and hope, are at times revered simultaneously. While some traditions reported on the authority of the Prophet award Mary and Fatima equal rank as the two reigning females in the celestial realm hereafter, most Shi'i authorities rank Fatima above Mary; indeed, Fatima is sometimes referred to as Maryam al-Kubra, “Mary the Greater.” Cobblet (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC) As for popularity in Iraq: you yourself admit that popularity is just one out of many factors to be considered, factors on which we have already laid out our respective positions. Again you conveniently forget your own principles as soon as they're used against you. I can concede that page views on the English Wikipedia shouldn't be the only criterion for determining popularity and looking at that one statistic might overstate Nightingale's strength on this point relative to Mary. But it should be still be the most relevant criterion, since this is a list for the English Wikipedia. Readership of different language Wikipedias varies by gender ratio, age profile, motivation, information need, etc. As for a hypothetical popularity contest in Iraq whose result you decided in your head? Not so relevant. But I love that this is your idea of an objective measure of comparison. Before you spout off about Islam again, maybe you should reflect on how objective you're really being. Then again, given how loudly you're willing to trumpet your own ignorance, perhaps that's a lost cause. Cobblet (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Mary de facto gets more pageviews on English Wikipedia than Nightingale. Mary de facto gets better google trends in Iraq than Nightingale and this is avialble to check. Google trends are better measure for popularity. First of all going by measure of pageviews on English Wikipedia Shia Islam gets more pageviews than Sunni Islam what makes no sense given how overhemingly Sunni Islam has more population. Would you list competitive eater ahead of Go plaeyer on the level 5 too? You do not realise how you waste your time on analysing shortsighted pageviews. Going by google trends among about 200 countries there are two where Nightingale beats Mary (Nepal and Japan). Dawid2009 (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Thanks for providing better data Dawid. I don't like the use of Google Trends because it's unclear to me how Google knows that users are searching for Jesus's mother as opposed to some other Mary. When I just search "Mary" (no qualifiers), the Knowledge Panel for Jesus's mother comes up. Does that search count towards her score on Google Trends? If it does, that's not really fair: I could just be looking for information on the given name Mary, for example. But for the sake of argument, I'm happy to concede the popularity issue in Mary's favour: I frankly didn't expect Nightingale to come out ahead even on English Wikipedia page views, and it actually surprises me how close they still are with redirects included. Popularity is one of the five factors Zelkia suggested we look at. I still think Nightingale's ahead on achievement, influence, uniqueness and variety, as I explained above (sorry if it's hard to find). Which is not to say I think Mary is in any way a bad choice for the list (I didn't participate in any of the discussions about her): just that Nightingale might be better. You know, I would've considered supporting your first suggested swap back in 2018 if it hadn't been immediately shut down by four opposing !votes, which you might have avoided had you provided a more detailed rationale as the nominator. Cobblet (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC) I agree with Zelkia that Mary is cross-cultural phenomen. People from non-Abrahamic countries know about her just as adult from western world can hear about Laozi's quote If you are depressed you are living in the past. If you are anxious you are living in the future. If you are at peace you are living in the present.. While I consider health care as something more important than Christianity or Chinese Philosophy then as person I would call Nightingale less cross-cultural phenomen than Laozi or Socrates and certainly less than Mary. The only two countries on the map where Nightingale beated Mary are Nepal and Japan but even there Mary is very hearable. For example article on Our Lady of Fatima which is subtopic of Mary gets more pageviews than article on Hikaru Genji, see: [6]. If you can call about graphic design for Florence Nightingale then we can also tell that Mary is relevant for Caodaism or the most promient Ethnic Religion by Ezili Dantor, and use that arguments against Paul. IMHO Mary meets criteria "uniqueness" because of religious figure which is central Christianity and the most frequently studied woman in Quran is better choice for the list than Mother Theresa who surpassed Einstein in !voting process for Gallup's List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century. To answer your original reply on Zelkia's statement This is incredibly disappointing Mary's candidature failed numerous times (firstly: you said we essentially for thę same reason removed Kali): I could easly support addition of Shiva for cost of Henry who has article included into category Category:Founders of religions. IMHO Mary also meets criteria of variety but if we would consider that choice as swap with Paul. Your new point Which is not to say I think Mary is in any way a bad choice for the list is not compatibile with your original Mary still meets a baseline threshold of influence, but she is nowhere close to Nightingale in this respect., you use wasel words. You have opinion "Nightingale is better", I have "Mary is better" (literally I have: Nightingalle is incredible woman who changed history and is great in many uniques ways but Mary is better. Beetwen Mary and Nightingale there is no comprasion) and I am not going to change your opinion, but this is incredibly ignorant to say that Mary is nowhere close to Nightingale, especially that plenty people around the world would say that Nightingale is not nowhere close to Mary (not I !voted on Mother Theresa ahead of Einstein), this is incredibly disapointing to hear anyone could say that. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Yes, people from non-Abrahamic countries are still more likely know about Mary than Nightingale: that makes Mary more cross-culturally popular, in the sense that she is more prominent in the popular consciousness. That doesn't make her more cross-culturally influential. For me these are two very distinct concepts. People know about all sorts of famous people that have no impact on their lives. That is popularity, not influence. For me, influence means impact. Anybody who's been visited by a nurse, regardless of cultural background, has been impacted by Nightingale's contribution to society. That is cross-cultural influence. But if you're not a practising Christian or Muslim, just the mere knowledge of Mary being the mother of Jesus is very unlikely to have any impact on your life. That is what I mean when I say Mary is less cross-culturally influential than Nightingale, even if she is more cross-culturally popular. Now, you could say in response that you think the way I think of influence or impact is much too narrow, or that you think that popularity in terms of simple name recognition is far more important. If either of those things reflect how you think, it would then make sense that you think Mary's a lot more important than Nightingale. And you're fully entitled to that opinion: it isn't for me to say that you are right or wrong to think that way. All I'm trying to explain to you and Zelkia is why I don't see things the way you do. Sorry to disappoint you, but someday you will realize that people who were not brought up in an Abrahamic faith are going to have a perspective on things related to religion which are very different than yours. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Why isn't John the Baptist who is important in Islam too; John the Baptist in Islam more important than many of the men? How is Johannes Gutenberg more important than a prophet of god; it would be unjustifiable to list anyone else first under this definition. But you're only applying it to women here. If Mary is the ultimate woman and " historically the most famous and well known woman to have ever lived" than why have you not put her in your 50? Especially considering you have Elizabeth and Marie Curie; or would that because we specifically have quotas to each section; which you're against here but reenforce in your own work? "because it's idiotic to think of additions to this list in terms of quotas. Why is it bad that we have so many figures from the Abrahamic faiths when they've exerted an impact on world history far more profound than any other social, political, religious, cultural, or artistic movement? Any objective measure of comparison would find Mary ahead of Florence Nightingale in terms of vitality. That people's philosophies are shortsighted enough not to see Mary's vitality does not mean that we should add Florence Nightingale as consolation because she's a woman and we need to fill some sort of quota for women" This quote from you above would also then apply to Elizabeth and Marie Curie too; but your own 50 considered quotas, so why is it bad for everyone else to consider them? To cap it off where is all the art and historical resonance for Neil Armstrong, who also beat Mary into your 50? It seems inconsistent. "we should add Florence Nightingale as consolation because she's a woman and we need to fill some sort of quota for women" this quote in particular comes across as pretty sexist to be honest; because Florence invented a pretty common field today and that perfectly fits into people we list here; the fact you see adding some women automatically as a consolation for their gender speaks volumes; even worse when you'd want Neil Armstrong on this list; who didn't invent a whole field and is less important to cultural history as a whole than Florence. Dismissing a woman who invented her whole field as being irrelevant because of overlap; but recommending Mary for giving birth to someone listed is the height of inconsistency. "quotas" are not the boogeywoman; it's a reasonable thing and a much better system than just adding "personal heros" and favs. [7] GuzzyG (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Your argument is predicated on false pretenses. What's good for a top 100 list may not be good enough for a top 50. This sort of logic applies to Mary. Mary is obviously an incredibly important figure in Christianity, definitively more important from a religious sense than both Saint Paul and Luther, but Luther and St. Paul are historically more important figures in themselves, and ones whose own achievement in their own lives surpasses Mary's, and since I do not have room for four Christian figures I could not include Mary. It may behoove you to know, however, that Mary was on my short list, and remains so, for the level 1 articles. If you have a suggested swap, I'm happy to consider it, since she is worthy of a place on the list. Curie and Elizabeth I are not religious figures, so they are evaluated according to their respective professions, science and politics respectively. Of course, I am cognizant of the fact that Elizabeth and Curie are both women, and their both being women was a factor taken into consideration when I added them. I judge articles' place depending on their importance within their own field first and formost. Quoting myself: Furthermore, what makes someone "vital" varies depending on the field of human endeavor that they represent. A musician is vital for different reasons than a scientist, who is vital for different reasons than a politician. For this reason, a person's vitality has to be measured relative to others in their field. To put it another way, this list isn't of the 500 most influential or vital human beings overall, but instead the 500 most influential human beings within their fields. To illustrate what I mean, I don't think it's controversial to suggest that Francis Crick's contributions to human civilization are far more important than Michael Jackson's music. That said, Crick is not on this list, while Jackson is. Crick's absence can be explained by the presence of 90 other scientists and inventors whose contributions are far more important than his, while Jackson is probably the single most recognized musician around the world. In summary, Francis Crick may be more vital than Michael Jackson in absolute terms, but Jackson is more vital than Crick in relative terms. However, and this is what makes me different from you, I did not added either figure because they were women. I added them because I thought their accomplishments in themselves and their fame and importance to history made them worthy of this list. Had they been men I would have added them just the same. As for your cogitations about John the Baptist, John the Baptist is nowhere near as important to either Christianity or Islam religiously or doctrinally than Mary is. I don't know what argument you were trying to make, but I'll just leave it at that. 21:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC) I suppose I should address Cobblet's mutterings. Saying that Fatima occupies a similar thematic role in Islam as Mary does in Christianity does not mean that Fatimah is as important to Islam as is Mary, who is acknowledged to be the most important woman in their faith, and the only one mentioned by name in the Islamic holy book. To quote Cobblet's sleazy point again: She is less relevant to Muslims than Khadija bint Khuwaylid, Aisha or Fatimah. This is just blatantly false, and I've been enjoying watching a worm trying to wiggle off a hook. I will once again quote the Quran directly: "O Mary, God has chosen you, and purified you; He has chosen you above all the women of creation." Aisha isn't the woman above all creation. Nor is Fatimah. Nor is Khadijah. It's Mary.Zelkia1101 (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC) I admit that I originally understated Mary's importance to Islam. However, you continue to overstate her importance. Read the sources I have quoted to you, especially Stowasser, which speaks to how the passage you're quoting (3:42) is interpreted by Muslims, and says the following: 'While some traditions reported on the authority of the Prophet award Mary and Fatima equal rank as the two reigning females in the celestial realm hereafter, most Shi'i authorities rank Fatima above Mary; indeed, Fatima is sometimes referred to as Maryam al-Kubra, "Mary the Greater."' Muslim views on Mary are not nearly as universal and clear-cut as you suggest they are, which is the essence of what I was trying to say in the first place, even if I did get the details wrong. I'm sorry for that. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @Cobblet: There are plenty places on Wikipedia which call Mary as "greatest woman of all time" in Islam and there are which carefully call Mary "one of greatest women of all time by Islam" because of Wikipedia often blow on the cold in such cases, similarly if we change article on Shakespeare "one of gratest English writers of all time" (that also would not be out of place) then that would change nothing at all here. This is not non-objective to say that "Mary generally is the most important women by muslims themself". Even user ios2019 who earlier edited evidentaly by IP from Iran (Iran is Shia, not Sunni for that matter) was the only user who supprted addition of Mary in my nomination for such small list. This source which you mentioned at special:diff/1053492761 also says Prophet Muhammad tells Fatimah that Mary will be the greatest among those in Paradise what would be one the most competitive argument for choice the most important woman in Islam. This article also does not say that Mary is less significant in non-Quranic perspective, in contrast I find there, that this is more correct to call Mary as prophet in non-Quranic perspettive if I rigtly understood. Article on Jesus in Islam on Arabian Wikipedia literally is not called as Īsā (Jesus) but Īsā ibn Maryam (Jesus, son of Mary) and at least one thing which we should not forget is fact that Jesus is the most often reffered character in Quran and one of the most often mentioned by name (see List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran). However, one reason I had to oppose removal of Moses and Abraham is fact that this is too clear Jesus has lack influence on Judaism, and Abraham and Moses have slightly higher position in Islam than Jesus (BTW note how the author use capital letter for Moses in the title but intentionally uses small letter for Moses when mention him next to Muhammad, which calls by capital letter; that should realise how relevant is fact that Muhammad called Mary as the geatest woman among all, or why this is rather difficult to argue that Asiya might be more important to Muslims than Mary). This article about the Muslim 100 which you mention above does not rank Aisha as #6 (as you said) but mention various Muslim figures in chronological order for that matter. Also, Aisha is not mentioned among four outstanding women for Islam and history by haditahs, Asiya is mentioned there. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC) The passage I quoted from Stowasser above has more to say about perceptions of these women, including Aisha. Please read it: it gives a nuanced account of the issue. I'm not sure why you think The Muslim 100 lists people chronologically when it does not. It is a ranking by influence, and Aisha is listed on page 45 at #6. Even if you cannot access the book directly, see e.g., this book review: "But he had to acknowledge the difficulties faced him if he tried to rank his 100 especially if he has chosen not to arrange them chronologically." Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @Bzweebl and Dimadick: Those who previously supported the nomination of Norman Borlaug are invited to consider how many lives the 28 million nurses in the world save each and every day. Cobblet (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Sexual Intercourse

An near universal human activity and a central aspect of all human society and culture, given how it is the mechanism through which human beings continue the species. It’s importance to culture relates to complex social norms relating to sexual behavior. Consider furthermore religious proscriptions on sexual activity, social norms surrounding virginity and modesty, rules surrounding sexual ethics that regulate or prohibit fornication or adultery or incest, or the free love and sexual liberation movement. Consider legal ramifications of sexual intercourse like obscenity, rape, or age of consent. Further tied to important topics like birth control, abortion, prostitution, pornography, marriage and human sexuality. Seems odd to have AIDS, birth control or human sexuality on this list when we don’t have sexual intercourse. It is also, predictably, one of the most viewed articles on this site.

Support

1. Support as nom Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support More popular than football and board games, not that I'm suggesting their removal. Almost universal, across time and geography. Covered by human sexuality, but important enough stand alone, and gender and sexual orientation are included and also covered by that too. Many things are covered by something wider, Football by sport, Louis Armstrong by Jazz, Jazz by music. Sexual intercourse is covered by human sexuality, but I still think it is important enough. As mentioned above could be seen as odd to have AIDS before this, a sexuality transmitted disease before sex.  Carlwev  00:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support We have room now and it is tied to other topics. --Thi (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support I had on my mind to nominate it one day. Natural behaviour which is also per Carlwev argument. Except those biologial which mentions John below IMHO we also need more human-centric. Listing human sxuality on the level 2 IMHO is not overlap but argument for inclusion Sexual Intercourse here. Not sure better than wider topic Human sexual activity which has Template:Human sexual activity sidebar but sound OK, not less vital than AIDS or Birth control. I would also add birth to 1000 articles. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We already list sex (as in male or female), and human sexuality at level 2; I believe that sufficiently covers both the biological and social characteristics of sexual reproduction. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

For a bit of context, I’ve been sitting on this nomination awhile. I’ll grant there is a nontrivial amount of overlap with reproduction and human sexuality. But I’ve since reasoned that sexual intercourse’s absolute popularity across every single human society, the act itself being performed by a vast majority of humans who have reached adulthood, makes it at least as important as football, if not more since intercourse is more universal, despite the overlap. Human sexuality is also a level 2 article, so I see no harm including more articles under its umbrella. Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove Bible and Quran as well as other specific religious texts.

We have way too many articles on specific religions overall. And what's in Bible and Quran can very much already be covered by Christianity and Islam, as well as Vedas and Bhagavad Gita for Hinduism. This is not to say they are not important, these texts are just too specific and overlaps too much with the related specific religion article. I'd prefer more high level ideas in religion rather than specific one, prophet is not even covered at this level, although essential in almost every religion.

Lolitart (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Lolitart (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose the Bible and Quran are important as texts to billions of people around the world. In terms of these two works alone there is nothing quite like their singular influence in human history. Sure there is overlap with religion, but religion is such an important component of human history, culture, and society that we can have this degree of overlap. The Bible, Quran, and Vedas are also supreme works of culture that have meanings past their religious centrality. Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I'm fine with listing a handful of literary texts (why not, when we list 100+ biographies?), and religious texts are among the most influential examples. Cobblet (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• To play the Devil's advocate (heh) here, we don't list any other "specific works", whether of art (like the Mona Lisa), literature (like the Iliad or Odyssey), or film (like Citizen Kane), so why should scripture be necessarily exempt from this? My gut feeling is to strongly oppose this like Zelkia, but my gut feeling was also to not add Ukraine. I'm still neutral on this, but I just wanted to point that out for now. Indeed, if we don't list Shakespeare's works since we already list Shakespeare, why not remove the Bible when we list Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Paul the Apostle? Ditto for the Quran and Muhammad, etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  If this fails (which is likely), might I suggest adding an East Asian work, most likely the I Ching? I would not be surprised if it were a former entry. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  We do list two specific works of architecture as extremely iconic examples of engineering and the visual arts. We used to list more, but we got rid of them. Cobblet (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough, although those are more physical. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Malaysia

This is the last country (excluding Ukraine which is currently being proposed) which I think should be on the list. Malaysia has a rather decently sized population of 32 million and a GDP of 900 billion. Geographically, it is one of the most biodiverse countries on Earth (considered megadiverse) containing many species found nowhere else on Earth, Kuala Lumpur is considered a global city and the country is a member of ASEAN. -- Maykii (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)