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: 12:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 12:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 12:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup time

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles#Cleanup time. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPPR

Please see this discussion at the village pump: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal:_Split_the_biographies_from_the_main_vital_articles. I opened up a discussion there for greater visibility. Interstellarity (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Red categories

Hey team - a fair number of categories for vital articles have not been created and so appear red on Special:WantedCategories. Can someone from this project take on the task of setting them up? Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove Assyria or Add Babylonia

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.

---

I don't think it makes sense to list Assyria when we don't list Babylonia. I think that Assyria should either be removed or Babylonia should be added so that both articles are on the same level. I would be opposed to the removal and addition at the same time. Interstellarity (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support removal of Assyria as first choice. Interstellarity (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal of Assyria. Ideally I do agree we should have both or neither and the list is 999 right now so it looks like neither wins out. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal Mesopotamia covers for this, methinks.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition of Babylonia or swap with Hammurabi. --Thi (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Support addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support addition Babylonia was long-lasting and had a major impact in the ancient world. 20:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
7. Support removal I cannot see any good reason to keep Assyria when we are above the article limit, Mesopotamia is already listed, and we don't list things like New Kingdom of Egypt, Roman Empire, Vedic period, Olmecs, or any period of Ancient China. Cobblet (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Support addition, more famous. Ambivalent on removal. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
9. Support removal per consensus. (I changed my vote.) --Thi (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Assyria was the greatest empire of the first half of the 1st millennium BC, and had a great historical impact. Dimadick (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition We have no room. Cobblet (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition already covered by Mesopotamia, methinks.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose addition I'm functionally neutral on removing Assyria, but Babylonia is not necessary. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:01, 27 September 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.

Swap: remove Shape, add Two-dimensional space

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.

---

Top-priority article vs. Low-priority article (in WikiProject Mathematics). Three-dimensional space is already listed at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support More specific article. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal I think geometry should adequately cover general properties of geometrical objects like size, shape, position/distance, orientation, symmetry, etc. We also list several articles on specific shapes. The article on shape doesn't add very much that isn't already covered by other articles on the list. Cobblet (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support More important Whycantusernamesbe21 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Per nominator's rationale. Dawid2009 (talk)

Oppose

1. Oppose we already have space at this level, and while shape is more specific, it also has been the subject of deeper inquiry throughout human history.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition Unlike for 3D geometry, we already list plenty of topics related to 2D geometry, so a general overview is less necessary. Also, we live in 3D space, not 2D space. Cobblet (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose shape is the important concept; the article should be improved and not removed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:18, 21 September 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.

Trimming the biographies – Religious figures and explorers

Same thing as with the political figures, but to save time I'm merging the religious figures and explorers section.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove Abraham

Not on Thi's list. I'm going to have to oppose this, however, given that he is the defining figure and eponym of the Abrahamic religions, whose adherents are I presume at or about the majority of the world's population. Maybe I can support a swap with Abrahamic religions (which admittedly isn't even at level 4), however.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Mythical figure, less important than the Book of Genesis which contains tall tales about him. Dimadick (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Mythical figures were not included for example in Zelkia1101's list of biographies. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support We've previously removed Zoroastrianism and rejected the addition of Greek mythology. Given that, I don't think it's fair to list two figures from Abrahamic mythology when the Bible is already listed, and no mythological figure from any other culture is listed. FWIW, Abraham gets fewer page views than Zoroastrianism or Krishna. Cobblet (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Might be a radical opinion, but i'm not in favour of mythological figures being listed at all (and definitely not next to real people), as there's way too many competing ones across civilizations, (Yellow Emperor or Gilgamesh for example and there's no reason to prioritise here). Moses, Homer, Jabir ibn Hayyan and Laozi fit this description, but i'm more lax with the latter three. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support despite his importance to the Abrahamic religion. We should also be removing Laozi Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Literally namesake of three of the biggest religions, way too important. -- Maykii (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose Although there is scholarship casting doubt on his historicity and his story contains legendary elements, this is the founding figure of Judaism and the faiths that followed: Christianity and Islam. He is to The Jewish tradition what Jesus is to Christians or Muhammad to Islam. Page views are irrelevant. This is a significant religious figure to multiple religions. I’m surprised this is even being raised as a theoretical exercise. Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Strongest of the possible opposes Per above. Also, that would be embarassing to keep so many writers, Tudors, Joanna d Arc etc. but ever remove Abraham or Moses. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• I'm open to this proposal as a swap (with Abrahamic religion, perhaps). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• @Cobblet: But as User:Montanabw pointed, pageviews are irrelevant for the most archetypal obvious stuf. Apple does not WP:primary redirect to Apple Inc. per WP:Pageview but Apple remain primary article clearly per WP:Commonsense. You can even discover that Venus gets less pageviews than Zorroastrianism by the same manner but does not matter at all. You must admit 99% of people who know what is Venus are not going to Wikipedia, especially are not going to Wikipedia by checking in google „What is Venus?” but you cerstainly can not say the same about Zorroastrianism, Shikism, Anglicanism and other niche stuffs (On meta someone compared Henry VIII to Guru Nanak so I am talking about it). Two Tudors which we list have better pageviews on Wikipedi than Abraham, St. Paul and St. Mary but if you are goint to relevant Google Trends St. Paul gets interchangebly the same what Henry/Elizabeth, Abraham is slightly ahead of, menwhile Mary overwhelmingly is ahead of all of them in almost any and every possible country, not mention to fact Elizabeth sound to have "search for obscure" like „Who is Elizabeth?” „Elizabeth Wikipedia”, certainly not „Why Elizabeth is important?” etc.. Google Trends is far more measurable for checking how topic is promient because of analyse of these google trends is connected wikidata, this also focuss whole spectrum of „Abraham” and „Category:Abraham”, so "Abraham in Islam in google trends etc., Google knows how people do use Internet, this is more proper measure; FWIW see also other proper examples: [1],[2],[3], [4] and [5] (similar situation with Hindu Deities, I assume).

Frankly, it is not accident Abraham and other Religious figurę shadowed Aristotle in NgramViewer, it is not accident John Paul shadowed Mary Curie at Polska Times (ranking most influential/important Poles of all time). I will note that the same user with Iranian IP supported removal of Ibn Khadul but they wanted to add Mary to this level (our current list with no women at section "religious figures" does suggest that religion is purely man activity). Pay Cobblet attention that it is not accident Mother Theresa shadowed inThe Greatest Indian the musician Lata Mangeshkar whose you so like that wanted swap with Wagner. I agree with Montanabw that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha are the most vital religious figures on the list, especially due to fact that after removing them we would have no single religious figure central in all Abrahamic religions (Jesus is not central in Judaism just as he is in Christianity and in Islam FWIW and the rest clearly is less universal/relevant)... I am on the point that religion should constain more than 7% so can not support any entire in that section for removal for now; there are many worse biographies to cut, (I do think we could swap tudor(s) or Saint Joan of Arc with other biographies, say Florence Nightingale or Wu Zeiten). Dawid2009 (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove Moses

Also not on Thi's list. Likewise I'll have to oppose because I feel we need one Jewish figure, and any specific historical rabbis are far too niche/"irrelevant" for this list.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Mythical figure, less important than the Book of Exodus which covers fairy tales about him. Dimadick (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per above. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support since Jewish tradition is present at this level via Talmud. --Thi (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support despite his importance to the Abrahamic religion. We should also be removing Laozi Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Moses is the central figure of Judaism and is also rather important in Christianity. Maykii (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
3. TLDR Indeed Waste of health and time to bothering about it. IMHO entitres where nominator technically oppose own proposal should be closed as WP:Snow because of what is sense to open disussion where nominator technically is even not neutral by!voting?...What is purpose of such discussion then? Every central figure is just as important, he is central for his religion(s) just as Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha etc. I am opposing every Religious figure being removed per that rationale and my recent comments in the archives. See also Ngram Viewer 14:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

   To answer your question, I'm proposing these discussions because I think they're at least worthy of discussion in the interest of "bulk-reducing" the biographies, even though I myself disagree with it. Saying that such is not neutral is like saying nominating something you support is not neutral.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

4. Oppose if someone suggests a swap for Ten Commandments ... I would still oppose that, but less strongly. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Paul the Apostle

Not on either list, and the only removal from the religious figures section in GuzzyG's list. I'm neutral on this; on one hand he's arguably redundant to Jesus (a Level 2 biography if there ever was one), but on the other he created Christianity as we know it, firmly separating it from its origins as a Jewish sect and putting it on a centuries-long path to becoming the world's greatest religion.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Weak support If some religious figure has to go, of those being proposed on this page, this one could. He is important, but if we have to trim, he’s less significant than Abraham or Moses—or Jesus or Muhammad. That said, My only real argument here is his relative rank. Montanabw^(talk) 07:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per above. Three figures for one Christianity (when we don't even have two for Islam) is too much and there's much closer overlap between Paul and Jesus than Martin Luther. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Three other Christian figures including Thomas Aquinas remain. --Thi (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I can see why people think he might be redundant but he is such a central figure to the formation of Christianity that I think he is worthy of staying here. Maykii (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. [Dawid2009; see Moses]
3. Oppose Much of the New Testament consists of the Pauline epistles, and he has had more of a historical impact than Jesus. Dimadick (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose certainly more important than Aquinas. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Incredibly important figure in the history of religion. He's on my Top 50 list. The New Testament, which he wrote the greatest portion of, is one of the most important texts in the world. Christianity is what it is today because of Paul. How is he less important than Goethe or Twain or Austen or Kafka? Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose, this absolutely insane. Paul is perhaps more important the Jesus in actually helping the spread and dissemination of Christianity. Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Ibn Battuta

Not on either list. His article's opening sentence is essentially a "brag" about his long journeys and how they were longer than those of Marco Polo or Zheng He. Such numbers are indeed impressive, but it kind of shows that he's not as historically significant as those two, both of whom are on both lists. There doesn't appear to be any historical significance beyond "his was the longest journeys before the modern era", and if we're not adding Mount Everest because we don't accept being merely the biggest/oldest/superlative in one category, I don't think we should have Battuta on here either. We already have Jabir ibn Hayyan, Avicenna, and Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi to represent the Islamic Golden Age, so we also aren't losing diversity by chucking Battuta.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. per nom. Maykii (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Yeah. Not top tier historically. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support swap with Mansa Musa. Interstellarity (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support; neutral on a swap with Mansa Musa. We shouldn't have Marco Polo, and shouldn't have Battuta either. All that is known about Ibn Battuta's life comes from the autobiographical information included in the account of his travels should be more than enough to remove a 14th century figure. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support swap with Mansa Musa. Per others users who support that swap. Along with me perhaps there are four users who are ok with that. :1Me 2Cobblet 3JMW 4Iterstellarity and at least Power does not oppose that. Musa is certaintly by far better biography which somehow represent West Africa than Fela Kuti who is suggested in discussion above. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Support a niche figure. Mansa Musa is not necessary. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Significant explorer. Dimadick (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
   # Oppose He should be swapped with other biography which somehow represents Islam World or remain on the list. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I could only support a swap with Mansa Musa, who is better known and left a more significant legacy. In terms of page views, Mansa Musa is ahead of Ibn Battuta and even Magellan nowadays. Cobblet (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

   I could support a swap with Musa, but as said earlier Battuta just doesn't make the cut IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

3. Oppose I'm in favour of a cut down to 100, but not if figures like Ibn Battuta, Zheng He, Shen Kuo and Emmy Noether are the first cut, in which i fear they will be. I'd put Battuta over Wagner, Disney, Gödel, Bohr, Magellan, Milton, Amundsen, Weber, Henry VIII and Franklin, who are the real weak links of overlap/more niche figures that we list. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

   Noether should be cut, IMO; she's by far the most obscure westerner on the list, and a general view I have on biographies is that if they're not widely known by the end of secondary school in "any culture" (western, etc.) then they don't belong on here. In fairness, though, she's a better placement than Ludwig Wittgenstein, whose work is even more theoretical, niche, and irrelevant to everyday life, would be. That said, at the rate this is going I highly doubt we'll ever reach 100 biographies; 120 is an acceptable compromise, IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

   We recently just removed Lenin who had so significant impact for example on Chinese politics... Perhaps Shen Kuo is not biography which we should cut first but I would not hestitate to reduce his priority on the level 4 (if we are in business removing important bios). He has less pageviews than "that niche project or some user pages" and we rejected earlier Cai Lun. I have generally similar definition of vitalness what earlier User:Zelkia1101 said. I also belive English-language writers are weakest bios on the list. We have five English-language writers on the list (if we count Mary W.), after remove any sea explorer we would have the same number of sea explorers what English-language wrtiters... Dawid2009 (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

   I will strongly oppose the removal of any of the ten listed women. When we suggest that Wikipedia make it a priority to have 100+ featured biographies, and we understand that Wikipedia's problem of systemic bias is well documented, how can it not be a priority to have 10 featured biographies of women? How can the "mother of modern algebra" and "the most creative abstract algebraist of modern times", whose eponymous theorem is "a standard workhorse in theoretical physics" and gets compared to the Pythagorean theorem in terms of fundamental significance, not be exactly the kind of person we need a high-quality biography of, particularly when women in STEM are a particularly notorious blind spot in Wikipedia's coverage? There may be other female scientists like Rosalind Franklin or Ada Lovelace who are more frequently introduced to younger students because their contributions are more easily explained; but their fame points to widespread interest in women in STEM as a whole, and apart from possibly Curie, no woman in the history of science or mathematics has produced a more significant body of work than Noether. Cobblet (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

   I could support a swap of Noether with Ada Lovelace, but most people don't know about modern algebra so being the "mother" of it probably isn't enough for this list, IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

   I disagree, but Lovelace isn't a option imo; too much overlap kinda with Turing. It'd have to be Rosalind Franklin. Women in STEM is a important thing to cover and if we have one obscure person to the public, it's not that bad, especially in this case. Let's be honest too, most everyday people on the street absolutely would not recognise Gauss, Euler and definitely not Gödel/al-Khwarizmi, we're severely overestimating public interest in high level mathematics. GuzzyG (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

   To be fair, al-Khwarizmi isn't western so I exclude him from the "secondary school standard" (he's presumably known to secondary school graduates in MENA), but fair enough on the rest (although people should know Euler).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose swap

Discuss

@Cobblet and John M Wolfson: What is current couting/score of that nomination and how we can reach to any consensus? Should we now ping all users who putted !Vote earlier and explain what discussion is about now? Dawid2009 (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove Ferdinand Magellan

Not on either list. Even though this was shot down rather recently, I'm moving from opposing this to being neutral. Although he was the one who first circumnavigated the globe, that isn't as impressive as it initially seems because the West has known that the earth is round since antiquity so Magellan's voyage didn't really "prove" anything, and Magellan himself didn't even survive the whole voyage, dying in the Philippines. If we don't include persons simply for doing something the longest or the most, as I advocate for with Battuta, then perhaps we shouldn't include Magellan solely for circumnavigating the globe, although granted at least it's more readily definable than Battuta's dubious "longest pre-modern voyage", so I remain neutral.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Initially I opposed this but to be honest, I feel like we don't need as many explorers on the list as we currently have. Magellan didn't even survive his main voyage and we already knew the Earth was round. -- Maykii (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support His achievement of a "circumnavigation" (which of course he did not actually complete) boils down to his discovery of the Strait of Magellan. That's significant, but not enough to put him ahead of Vasco Núñez de Balboa (first European to find the Pacific from the New World) or Andrés de Urdaneta (who actually made trans-Pacific commerce possible). I consider their legacies redundant to Columbus's in the same way the legacies of Bartolomeu Dias and Afonso de Albuquerque are redundant to da Gama's. In the context of Spanish imperialism I'd consider both Hernán Cortés and Bartolomé de las Casas to be far more significant figures; I reserve an adjective like "towering" only for people like the latter. In my view, the fact that Magellan is only mentioned in the context of Oceanian exploration in human history (alongside Abel Tasman and James Cook) weakens his case rather than strengthens it. Do Jadwiga of Poland and Władysław II Jagiełło also have to be included on this list because they appear in that article? Cobblet (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Figures like Hernán Cortés are more important as explorers, more locked into history as a representative of Spanish imperialism and Magellan didn't actually complete his most important achievement. We list Turing, not Charles Babbage. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support His name is famous, but the actual achievements can be told in the article Age of Discovery. --Thi (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support It's not our job to post obscure geniuses on here (see my comments on Noether in the Battuta section), but nor should we put people who are known for a simple superlative that has no further significance (also see Battuta); we don't have Gagarin or Armstrong on here (rightfully so, IMO), so we shouldn't have Magellan.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support per JMW. Interstellarity (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support a famous name, but we have too many explorers, and he didn't even complete the circumnavigation. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per my comments now in the Archives. He is relevant to the most core articles on Wikipedia like Human history or Pacific Ocean. Magellan and Columbus are the most highly ranked explorers in plenty independet reliable sources: [6],[7]. I also agree with Zelkia's comment below. This is not accident Magellan is so highly rated in many independet sources, he shadowed Elcano, despite fact actually Elcaano was Spanidar and Magellan was Portuguese. During Age of Discovery Magellan had extremally high reputation due to his orientation/knowlage/skills/experience, Columbus when reached to America called Indigeous people "Indians" because of he though he is in India. Next circumnavigation of Earth was done about 70 years later and Magellan's was milestone in Age of Discovery. I agree with Montanabw he is maybe slightly overrated but in the end he is still enough important to be listed a this level as typical topic in primary school. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose One of the towering figures in human history. Dimadick (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose though an unpleasant individual, the circumnavigation that has his name was a significant milestone. Certainly no educated person still believed the world was flat, but the significant thing is that it was accomplished, even if others may have more sophisticated impacts. Montanabw^(talk) 07:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Montanabw. Jusdafax (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose That he didn't finish his circumnavigation himself is a mere technicality that does not diminish his cross-cultural importance or his place as a preeminent explorer in the history books. Far more important to human history than Kafka, Austen or Milton. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

(Failed) Remove Vasco da Gama

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.

---

On Thi's list but not on GuzzyG's list. He's the "Columbus of the East", perhaps, but we already have Columbus. This is a far more preferable removal to Roald Amundsen, who I'll propose and oppose below, although one can argue that we should have at least one of da Gama and Magellan.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

#As nom; I would rather keep Magellan, minding my comments on him above.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

1. I honestly don't think we need Magellan or da Gama, both of their discoveries are not as important as others on the list. -- Maykii (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose He opened India to European trade and colonization. Dimadick (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I'd say he is the second most important explorer after Columbus on the list. Remove Cook and Amundsen first. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I share DaGizza's view. --Thi (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per DaGizza and my comments in the previous discussion. Cobblet (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Alright, you've convinced me.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose I made a mistake when i took him off, he is important enough. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Oppose Incredibly important figure in world history. He's on my Top 50 list. Much more important than Kafka or Milton. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I support the removal in principle, and made this exact proposal a few months ago (which was rejected). I am procedurally neutral at this time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 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.

Remove Roald Amundsen

On GuzzyG's list but not on Thi's list. I'm going to have to strongly oppose this, however; we need an explorer of the polar regions, the last frontier of mankind excluding space (and maybe oceans), and Amundsen fits the bill more than anyone else.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support just not as influential as more vital explorers. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support He is not culturally influential just as other nominated explorers. He is not typical topic in early primary school. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Many other related to history or polar regions are equally vital. --Thi (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Another controversial take and i support a cut down to 100, but polar exploration is on the same level as space (Gagarin or Armstrong), aviators (Lindbergh,Earhart or the Wright Bros) and the ocean (Jacques Cousteau), Amundsen doesn't have the same cultural profile as a Marco Polo or Columbus to significantly elevating him into the top 100 people of all time. Not when we're missing Emperor Meiji or Saladin founders of important countries today or important historical dynasties. To cut Lenin but keep Amundsen is odd. GuzzyG (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support to make the cut to 100. Interstellarity (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Weak Support only support if there is consensus that the target is 100 names at this level. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Support While I'm sympathetic to the inclusion of a modern explorer, how is Amundsen's legacy more vital than Ibn Battuta's Rihla? Cobblet (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Agreed with nom that we need a polar explorer on the list and there is no better pick than Amundsen for that. -- Maykii (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Yes, agreed as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Led the first expedition to make a complete passage of the Northwest Passage, led the first expedition to reach the South Pole, led the first verified trip of any kind to reach the North Pole, and his disappearance made headlines. Probably the most important explorer of the 20th century. Dimadick (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose mostly per Dimidick, but also of note that we have few modern day Scandinavian explorers and in his time not being an Englishman was held against him to some extent, one reason he doesn’t have the publicity that other, less accomplished arctic explorers got…Montanabw^(talk) 07:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Finding a consensus on 100 articles

It seems to me that more and more people on this page are trending towards the feeling that we should cut down our biography section to 100 articles. I have been seeing John posting biography articles for deletion in mass. Most of these are, predictably, failing to pass. I think this is because people have not reached a consensus about what articles should be trimmed, are people are judging each article on the merits of its own case rather than on its relative importance to the other articles on the list. For that reason, I thought it may be a good idea to have a place to formally discuss removals before they are nominated so most of us are at least on the same page come time to actually nominate articles up for removal. In addition, discussing removals beforehand allows us to negotiate certain people on and off the list, with the view of achieving some sort of overlapping consensus. You may wish to create subheaders to organize discussion around individual. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll go first. These are the removals I would consider making in order to get to 100:

(Politicians - 5) William the Conqueror, Henry VIII, Akbar, Suleiman the Magnificent, Catherine the Great

(Religious figures - 4) Abraham, Moses, Laozi, Adi Shankara

(Explorers - 1) Ferdinand Magellan and/or Roald Amundsen, ideally we would be adding Neil Armstrong

(Philosophers and social scientists - 3) Ibn Khaldun, Mary Wollstonecraft, Max Weber

(Writers - 6) Murasaki Shikibu, John Milton, Jane Austen, Rabindranath Tagore, Franz Kafka, Mark Twain

(Musicians - 1) Richard Wagner

(Inventors and scientists - 4) Shen Kuo, Jabir ibn Hayyan, Benjamin Franklin, Niels Bohr

(Mathematicians - 1) Emmy Noether

These should all reduce down to 100. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Such type discussion was closed recently few months ago when Aza24 said that we could make moratorium or be more focussed on improving articles. Now it is more "forum about rankings" or try cut biographies "just to cut". Why reduce to less than 115? I agree with JMW comment in Battuta section that for example 120 would be more reasonable compromise (at least for now given how fastly this list is able to change), given how various are opinions/feelings in that projects (note few years ago some users even suggested larger quota larger than 150). I assume now this will go to the same point what recently but will wait again what others think (one thing which strike me at above proposal is cutting William and Henry as I would prefer swap Elizabeth for Queen Victoria and keep Henry, the rest I kept at my !votes). Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think 100 is feasible if people don't agree on the specific removals themselves, and 115-120 is a more realistic target. As such, any bulk action as you are proposing here would result in a clustermuck and a time sink compared to what I'm doing now. As for any more additions, I would oppose Armstrong and Gagarin as they were "men simply doing their jobs" and the Space Race (which we actively removed a couple of months back) didn't lead to permanent human habitation of space; we'll have to, Sagan willing, wait for Elon Musk to do that and become the only living person on the list. I'd only really support Rockefeller and maybe Mansa Musa.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll be completely honest I don't really get why we need to lower the biographies so much other than people are just bored and want to add stuff from other categories. -- Maykii (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

To be frank, an "encyclopedia" with only 100 biographies, would not be worthy of the name. When I was 6-years-old, I used to read a biographical dictionary aimed at child-readers. It had 500 names. Dimadick (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Trimming the biographies – Philosophers and musicians

You know the drill by now; for reference, here's Thi's list and GuzzyG's list. I was originally going to wait until each section was closed to do the next section, but that would make the whole process take months. Note that I am skipping writers for now due to the fact that we already did a similar process for writers several months ago, which was the inspiration for all this. If there's overwhelming consensus to do writers yet again, which I don't feel that we particularly need, I can do that at the end. I am aware of Zelkia's discussion above and have already expressed my skepticism there; while I was originally doing these trimmings with ~100 bios in mind, I now see no particular magic in an "even 100", and while I do think some trimming is in order forcing the list down to 100 is too awkward and procrustean compared to a 115-120 list; as such, please don't support a removal solely to get down to a certain number like 100 or even 110, and instead judge a nom by its own merits.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove Socrates

Not on either list. I'm sorry, but I am uncomfortable with having Plato and Aristotle and not having Socrates; the three form a distinct and well-known grouping and direct descent (Socrates led directly to Plato who in turn led directly to Aristotle), and it just seems wrong to leave him out. I could maybe, possibly, support a swap with a pre-Socratic philosopher like Thales or (a reintroduction of) Pythagoras, but even then probably not.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Lenin can be said to form distinct and well-known groupings with Marx and with Stalin; that didn't stop us from removing him. Few have complained that we don't list all three members of the First Viennese School, while the presence of Tolstoy on the list was given as a reason to remove Dostoyevsky. We also don't list Du Fu next to Li Bai, Leibniz next to Newton, or Diego Rivera next to Frida Kahlo. We only list two of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (OK, bad joke). Socrates is mentioned by name over 100 times in the article on Plato; by comparison, Aristotle is only mentioned 31 times, so the redundancy of Socrates to Plato pointed by the nominator in the previous discussion is quite real. Plus Ancient Greek philosophy is already listed, where there is more coverage of Socrates.
   I've previously opposed adding Greek mythology, but is Greek philosophy is so much more important that we need the overview article plus three biographies to represent it, while Greek mythology is represented only by Homer? And while it isn't the worst example of over-coverage of a specific topic in terms of biographies (sorry to bring up the English writers again, but Milton really ought to be removed first), the intellectual achievements of Athens during the Age of Pericles are already represented by Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, and Hippocrates. Even without Socrates, this moment in history already occupies an extremely privileged position on our list. Cobblet (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support I don't really see much reason that we need all 3 of the Greek philosophers on here. In all honesty, I would be fine with having just Aristotle. We already have enough representation of this era of philosophy. -- Maykii (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Ancient Greek philosophy is listed. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per Cobblet's thorough breakdown. GuzzyG (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Plato is Socrates as far the vital level 3 list is concerned. Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support - covered by Plato. Interstellarity (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support per above. It's nice to have complete sets but we just don't have the space at this level anymore. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Support We have surviving texts from Plato and Aristotle, which have influenced everything from literary criticism and science to theosophy and adventure fiction. Socrates left no surviving writings. What we have about him are second-hand accounts from Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes, and a hand full of other writers. I don't consider his impact as equivalent to the other two. Dimadick (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose despite being nom. I'm quite reluctant to even nominate this given that it might actually succeed, tbh.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose I understand people who say that Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are an overlap, but Socrates is a seminal figure in Western history and philosophy. There is no comparing him with Lenin. Whether its his status as a gadfly or the Socratic method, Socrates's influence is without much compare in the West. How can people possibly justify removing him and keeping Kafka or Austen, both figures who are exponentially less influential than Socrates. No self respecting list would not have Socrates but would have Murasaki Shikibu. Socrates is sometimes considered the founder of Western philosophy! Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose, just feels very very wrong. Bill & Ted's and all. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Extended content

Only a terrible encyclopedia would miss Murasaki Shikibu (regarded as writer of one of the first major novels and a founder of the novel, arguably Japanese literature's biggest figure); no "self respecting" encyclopedia can miss that. Average Joe in America or Europe may not know her, but encyclopedias are supposed to be better than that and this list in particular representative of human acitivity. Without Plato, there's no Socrates on this level, that synergy is enough to make him not necessary to cover, because to cover him is to cover Plato's writings twice. This line; in Socratic problem "It is widely understood that in later dialogues Plato used the character Socrates to give voice to views that were his own"; is a killer. This is the predominant example of overlap and there's no reason why we should have overlap in this case, but not others. Lenin is in a similar example (founder of something, actual namesake of the thought/ideology behind it) yet removed for Stalin, who spread it more, (like Plato). There might be a kneejerk reaction due to the longevity of the names, but it's still pretty much the same thing. Either way, i'm sure people wouldn't consider a full set of Eastern philosophers like Mencius or Zhu Xi (despite covering more people today and through history), to outright dismiss their contributions is not the right way either (or Sun Tzu popular in pop culture in the west). Under consideration, a true self respecting encyclopedia would understand it's limitations for such a list, not cover someone completely covered in someone elses work who is listed already and cover the person of a important tradition itself (founder of a novel) moreso. GuzzyG (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC) The object of our work here is to list the most influential and important people in human history respective to our readership base. Our job is not, nor has it ever been, to uplift obscure talent or to allocate space for the sake of representation. Murasaki Shikibu is a non-entity on English-language Wikipedia, which is what this list serves. Her fame comes from one work which, unlike Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy very few people actually study in the West. If this were the Japanese version of Wikipedia it would make total sense to include Lady Murasaki, but this is the English version. Between Socrates and Murasaki there is no comparison. And the fact that much of what we know about Socrates comes from Plato does not diminish the importance of Socrates one bit. It's such a silly argument to make. Socrates remains and will remain a preeminent philosopher regardless of how knowledge of him is transmitted. That Plato reinforced Socrates in his own Platonic philosophy only serves to underscore Socrates's importance. Nobody in their right mind would argue that Murasaki Shikibu is more vital than the founder of western philosophy. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Obviously the novel is important, but Murasaki Shikibu does not get to be on this list because she may have written the first novel. Cervantes isn't on this list just because he wrote the first Western novel, but because that novel of his, Don Quixote, is arguably the most famous prose work to have ever been written and because the themes, motifs and intrigue he put into that novel permeate almost every genre of modern-day literature. This is objectively not so with Murasaki. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC) "founder of western philosophy" seems awfully weird considering Pre-Socratic philosophy exists (or Thales of Miletus or Pythagoras, who we removed); now you'll cite "pre-socratic" in the name as a reason of his dominance, but i don't see what gave Johann Augustus Eberhard ultimate authority to decide importance (and he's not on any lists). Seems awfully odd to cover a biography twice (through Plato's works, on such a small list...). But i'm sure you'd argue Johannes Gutenberg had more influence than Cai Lun too; with no bit of thought behind maybe as to why.... I hope to see you vote for Foucault on this list aswell; considering he beats Socrates in NGrams [8]; (as do many other social scientists, cause they're favoured in a NGrams way, especially up against artists; especially foreign language ones; since you've shown dislike of Chomsky; here's Chomsky overriding Cervantes by margins [9]; surely not proof of anything...). Even if this is a English encyclopedia, a weak encyclopedia wouldn't cover anything outside of it or mean we should only cover western things. There's 9 Greeks and on a 100 list that's too much. (should ideally be 6). Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, Euclid, Alexander the Great, Herodotus and Homer are enough. That's still 7. I'd say the same about Americans, Benjamin Franklin and Walt Disney should go. We have to be proportionate about covering eras properly. Greece is not that far above Rome and Constantine the Great is better to cover than more Greeks. Ancient Egypt lasted millenniums and we only have two representatives. It's overkill. This list, as far as i am aware was never meant to be strictly based on power/influence, but to cover that across fields. Zoroaster had more power than Chaplin or Ford but both personify film and business, two fundamental aspects of society today, meanwhile religion covers other figures better now. So we cover the latter, not the former. This choice is made easier with Socrates, cause any fundamental coverage of Plato would include all we know of Socrates in of itself, hence he's not as important to list. Influence is all a matter of time anyway, most fundamental people will last centuries. In 2,419 years people like Descartes and Marx will still be around (and become just as historically worthy as Socrates, as this is his distance to today). If you're super strict; any BC person would win on long term "influence" and people like Augustine of Hippo would dominate this list, but we pick from different centuries for a reason as we pick by field. People like Chaplin ARE long term influence in their field, pretty much the earliest you can get in film. So it's pointless to bring them up in comparison to BC philosophers. Either way we have to be careful of patches of history in which we cover really well, yet neglect in other area - like with year 300 to 1200, which will get worse with William the Conquerers removal; there's no reason these 900 years should have bare coverage while we cover Greece so well. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Socrates is called the founder of Western Philosophy in the first sentence of the first paragraph of his article's lede. Again, I don't see why you think that the fact that a great majority of Socrates's work is contained in Plato is somehow a diminishing point against Socrates. That Plato took so much time to expounding on Socrates's life and opinions should speak to his importance in and of itself. I'm sorry, but I just hate this stupid idea that every person has to represent something or some aspect of something in the most specific sense and that we have to have quotas based on sex or nationality or religion or time period. Socrates is more vital than Murasaki Shikibu because he is far more well-known, far more studied, and far more recognizable to our audience, and that should be reason enough for keeping him. For some reason there's this silly school of thought that biographies are intrinsically tied to the non-biographical subject-matter that the person dealt with in life. This is the school of thought I once foolishly held to when I proposed that Florence Nightingale or Coco Chanel be added to this list, solely for "representing" nursing and fashion. Biographies are ranked based on the importance of that individual person's accomplishments or achievements, not by what they "cover." Roman Empire is supposed to cover Ancient Rome, we don't need Constantine the Great for that. If we cared about nursing and fashion that much, we should have added the nursing and fashion articles. The reason Socrates is on this list but Constantine isn't is because Socrates is much more important to our audience and that's that. A person's importance should have to speak for itself, and I'm not saying that Murasaki Shikibu is not an important figure in the history of literature. I am just saying that, relative to her, Socrates is much more important, and it would be foolish to remove him and yet still have her. Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC) So you clearly see philosophers that predate Socrates; yet he is supposed to be the founder? Makes no sense. The problem is that you see most biographies relating to women or non-white people as fitting into a diversity thing, when you just don't think past a clearly massive western perception, like Neil Armstrong in your top 50, yet decrying every non-white figure or woman (on this list, yet alone 50) for no long term influence. Over time; i would 100% guarantee that Mencius is "is far more well-known (over time to more people), far more studied (over time by more people)" than someone like John Locke (and def more important to the philosophical foundation of a much, much bigger societies philosophy); the only difference is you pick and choose the audience based on this being a "English" encyclopedia and then cite everything else as a "diversity" thing, despite the fact that Europe has a small population compared to Asia, yet it's picking and choosing what people matter. Cai Lun is a diversity add and Johannes Gutenberg isn't with no critical belief on why over time Euro historians may have outright ignored Cai Lun; and counting that against him for being left out. It's a very easy way out and yes; covering 10 people in one place and than 10 for pretty much the entire next millennium is overwhelmingly "foolish". If being known to more people was completely made of merit people like Hatshepsut, Akhenaten, Khufu and Narmer would be on the fame level of Tutankhamun and Cleopatra (two of the weakest pharaohs, but known more); is it that hard to understand how fame can be misplaced and influence should go beyond fame (and be important by itself)? Believe me, the world is vast and many more people are supremely famous to more people based on total people than many on this list, outside of a western perspective; it's not diversity - it's being accurate. Zhu Xi was taught for 600 years to hundreds of millions and yet you would call him a diversity pick and no influence and choose Neil Armstrong over him, whos been dead for 9 years (and why no Gagarin, he'd be like Socrates, right "first/founder"...). That would be a prototypical example of a poor encyclopedia to me, in which would see the world only through one lens. GuzzyG (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Founder does not mean "first" in any sense. Shakespeare is sometimes referred to as the father or founder of Elizabethan theatre, though he was preceded by Marlowe. Obviously there are men like Thales et al., but these men's philosophy is no longer extant in today's world, whereas Socrates's ideas form the bedrock of his predecessor's beliefs and inform much of how we think of philosophy and rhetoric today. That is why he is sometimes called the "father of Western philosophy". As for diversity, I have made it rather clear that this is an English-language encyclopedia, and therefore this list should serve the needs and interests of those who are wont to use the English-language version of Wikipedia. The majority of our userbase is from the West, particularly the United States and the Commonwealth, which means that the historical figures on this list are going to be Westerners. If this were the Japanese- or Swahili-language version of the site, it would obviously be different. The reason we list Johannes Gutenberg and not Cai Lun is because Gutenberg is far more relevant to our userbase than Cai Lun, because our users are far more likely to have encountered Gutenberg in their history books than Cai Lun, and the data bears that up. Hell, Gutenberg is more popular than Cai Lun even in China! The reason we list John Locke and not Mencius is because Mencius, his work, and Confucianism more broadly are not very relevant enough to our audience, whereas John Locke is the father of Liberalism, an ideology which is supremely relevant to our readers, and because John Locke is a seminal figure in our chronology of philosophers. I put Armstrong on my top 50 list not because I wanted a "representative" of space travel, but because Armstrong's actions in themselves represent a supreme human achievement, and because he is the most well-known space traveler to our audience. Zhu Xi, by contrast, is rather unknown to our readers, and there is no indications that he will become so. To round off my point, there is obviously a lot of ambiguity in deciding what makes someone vital or not vital enough, but our job is not to uplift unrecognized genius or to provide space for the sake of representation. Vitality is not "merit." I personally think that Norman Borlaug deserves to be as well-known, as appreciated, and as relevant as Sigmund Freud, but I would be a fool to suggest that they are of equal relevance, because the data just would not bear me up on that point. The page views, the ngrams and the statistics have to give us some inclination of vitality. A person's relevance to our readership, their vitality in other words, has to speak for itself. Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC) I think it says it all that you linked the "past 90 days" version of google trends; knowing full well that the complete version, shows Cai Lun ahead [10]; (it goes without saying these comparisons alone are dishonest; because both google and wikipedia are banned in mainland China; so you're holding people to standards they can't even compete in...). If you truly believe Chinese people care more about a historical figure that is the definition of a diversity pick for Europeans (Gutenberg); over the only known inventor of one of their Four Great Inventions; even without manipulating data to suit the point; i don't know what to say - you support "founders" of things that already have figures; yet not the inventor and instead the Euro populariser. But hey; since i do stats for every single figure listed on any wiki lists (and more); but take in account differences; if you're interested in understanding another culture for once; here's Cai Lun vs diversity pick on a actual Chinese website [11] and [12]; now i had to show a translated version; so it's poor but it speaks for itself. A encyclopedia that uses manipulated data from it's pre-selected favourable audience to support a diversity pick (western populariser), is what would make one encyclopedia not be "self respecting" and would seem to be what you're against and yet... GuzzyG (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC) The version you linked showed them tied, so I don't know how this supports your point. Yeah Google is banned in Mainland China, but so is Wikipedia, as you point out, so I don't know why we ought to be factoring them into our analysis either if they don't even have access to the site in the first place. Gutenberg isn't a diversity pick for anybody. Nobody on this list should be a diversity pick for anything. That's the whole point. People are on this list because they are relevant to our readership, which, I previously pointed out, is predominantly from the West, and therefore will concern itself mostly with Western people. For one, Gutenberg is not the "popularizer" of paper. He's the inventor of the printing press, a different invention. And that doesn't really matter. Gutenberg doesn't get to be on this list just because he invented the printing press, nor does Cai Lun get to be on this list just because he invented paper. Gutenberg is on this list and Cai Lun isn't because Gutenberg is a relevant figure to our readership, a figure whom people regularly read about, inquire about and look up, whereas Cai Lun is incredibly obscure. Now, if this were the Chinese version of Wikipedia it may make perfect sense to have Cai Lun in place of Gutenberg, because Cai Lun is more relevant in that cultural context. The point you are failing to grasp is that it is impossible to objectively assess vitality in a vacuum. What makes a person vital is intricately tied to the social or cultural context of the beholders, in this case the readership. Of course technical achievement matters, but it is not our job to recognize obscure, unrecognized genius. Technical achievement does not indicate vitality, relevance does. Put another way, Gutenberg is on this list because Gutenberg the person is relevant to readers. Obviously paper is very relevant to readers, but Cai Lun the person is not. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC) His lede openly says "While not the first to use movable type in the world,[a] in 1439 Gutenberg was the first European to do so"; he's clearly not anywhere near being sole responsible for it; just a Euro face for anothers invention. You consistently shift the barriers; in all the oppose votes you mention "influence" (and inventing paper is the strongest influence for someone in printing and thus any Gutenberg influence is built of Cai Lun); but now you've changed it to readership; so i assume i can count on your for support in listing Pablo Escobar [13]; who is highly "influential" to our readers (to the tune of 153 million spread across many languages on diff continents - say 10 mil in French), from that dastardly non-Euro continent. He's much more "influential" than that much more obscure genius John Locke (with 23 mil views [14], across barely any languages, not even over a mil in German or French, that European importance!). Or does technical importance and merit only now come into play? Even in google search, nearly complete worldwide dominance [15]; ironically though China is the one massive country on Locke's side, the one country you've just said doesn't count because they're banned (and four others you'd surely dismiss too.., how's that Euro heritage and thus interest for Locke???). What about the "readership" now, do they matter or not?. It's not pick and choose, either it counts or does not - viewership demands Escobar a place on this list - technical achievement and merit keeps him off (and the founder of the novel on and in what should for Cai Lun). If readership's interest in Escobar is not worth a result based on merit, then it doesn't count in your argument; cause inventing paper subsumes the printing press (which is your whole thing for Socrates too right, being the founder?) (except for paper or the novel lol). It's hard to keep up, it keeps changing. GuzzyG (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Gutenberg is quite openly acknowledged to be the inventor of the printing press. Although other prototypes existed before his, he is responsible for popularizing it, and it is his name that bears the credit for him. If you search "inventor of the printing press" on Google, you will almost exclusively get content on Gutenberg. What you don't seem to get is that vitality is not just a marker of influence or of readership. It is both. A person has to have both significant achievement and reasonable relevance to readers in order to merit a place on this list, in my view. Pageview counts do not count for everything; they are just one of many metrics that helps me decide whether I believe an article is vital enough for inclusion on this list. Just because you have a myopic way of determining vitality does not mean that everyone else shares it. Obviously Pablo Escobar has greater pageview counts than John Locke, but that's only because Pablo Escobar is a contemporary, recognizable figure in popular culture whose influence is no where near John Locke's. Pablo Escobar should not be on this list because he is not responsible for any supreme human achievement, as is the case for the father of liberalism. It is highly unlikely that Escobar's name will survive and be as important four hundred years following his death, as is the case with Locke. Likewise, while Cai Lun is responsible for inventing paper, a supreme human achievement, but he is pitifully unknown to readers, and his name gets far less mention in textbooks than Gutenberg, or Locke for that matter. As I said, paper is an extremely relevant topic to our readers, but Cai Lun does not get to be on this list because he invented it, because Cai Lun the man is not relevant to readers. You seem to not actually pay attention to what I am writing, because if you did you would realize that I have said over and over again that a person's achievements alone do not mark their vitality. Cai Lun has little relevance to our readers other than as trivia for the man who invented paper. I can only say it so many ways, but his ivention is what is relevant, not him, and there isn't anything more to it. Likewise, for Murasaki, the novel is relevant as a literary form, but Murasaki herself is relevant to our readers, evidenced by the abysmally low attention she receives. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Except in his own lede.., (moveable type isn't a printing press, and the article admits he wasnt the first; - for someone who cares about founders; you seem to give credit to latecomers very often). Bi Sheng exists too. If Bi Sheng and Gutenberg were given equal fame (and that day will come); then who would be chosen, the inventor or the diversity pick? (who would never support a "introduced it to asia" figure). You'll reply "Gutenberg built on his one more/did more with it" forgetting you are arguing this on a Socrates nom, where in Socrates was built upon by Plato..... wonder what the difference is. Gutenberg the most influential inventor, when his invention utilises another invention (paper)? Makes no sense. By your own paper vs Lun example, than all we should list is Printing (or Printing press), as that article would cover everything and not just focus on one of the many who worked on it. (Why we don't cover the Wright brothers). Most inventors are treated like this; Alexander Graham Bell is not listed too for this reason (listing the invention over the thing). I'd put James Watt over Gutenberg. (yes, he improved upon a invention too). Thomas Edison is the one example of multiple important inventions, so he is listed. (and over time, as bitter historians of the Tesla/Edison dispute fade, Edison will go down as last millenniums most important inventor and since you like statistics without any acknowledgement of biases within them, then America's soft power influence and mega fame will propel it's own top inventor further into the history books then a 15th century German). You just don't use arguments consistently, now it's BOTH readership (only "cough", Europeans and Americans) and influence; but it makes for one inconsistent list; like why was Michael Jackson our unanimous pop culture fame representative when he only gets 124 mil views [16]; surely if Escobars views were because of recency, he wouldnt outdo mega famous celebs who are on here for their fame. (since you like data; musicians gets more pageviews than any type of artist/celeb; Ariana Grande is the highest currently active musician in pageviews (at 107 mil) [17], the two highest in google trends; Justin Bieber only gets 85 mil [18] and BTS; which has 56 million [19]; (the only musician higher than MJ is Freddie Mercury at 177 mil [20]) So no, even at the peak of celebrity, even to the people we list on here for being big celebrities; Escobar outperforms. The next highest criminal is Ted Bundy at 87 mil [21] or Charles Manson at 85 mil [22]. Isn't it funny how our readers have crime figures up with the biggest celebrities and that reader interest is in most cases different to importance, and a professional, "self respecting" encyclopedia should understand that and not have it be the end all be all of analysis (low pageviews don't take away someones "supreme human achievement". Folklore doesn't go away either, you probs may not acknowledge LatAm readers; but their Robin Hood won't just disappear, criminals from Dick Turpin and Rob Roy MacGregor survive or even Guy Fawkes is right at John Lockes views at 21mil. When you use stats as data, you have to understand biases within them (like athletes being high because people check for weekly updates); criminals have a shocking effect, which drives readers interest (and in a level 5 way, is importance for that level); on this level - merit trumps all; if Mainland China had full access to wikipedia and google; his stats would reflect that; but since all of the west has them available, Gutenberg would win; but it's a dishonest test from the start and any "professional, self respecting" encyclopedia would be able to discern that and consider it into it's analysis and include it. My view of vitality is anything but myopic and short sighted and i think most people would agree here on that. I would actually say your view of vitality is shortsighted or at the very least inconsistent. You consistently use weak figures against strong ones to booster your arguments or manipulate the data by showing it when it favours you; or you saying that you supported Coco Chanel for this list (with 124 people) for diversity (you also forgot we DO list fashion); yet she's not in your 500 either (showing you never really cared for her to be added, cause if you consider her for a 124 list than a 500 one is a certainty). Pablo Escobar isn't representative of "supreme human achievement" - yet Al Capone is on your 500 (with only 44 mil views [23]); for a stats guy i wonder what the difference is. (ignoring Capone only had control of one city for 7 years and died in disgrace, not as powerful as Lucky Luciano in his own time..., meanwhile Escobar had a multi decade long run, was the most powerful of his kind, completely controlled the cocaine trade and is the wealthiest criminal in history, who died on top - there's one difference though). So less views/less merit...and yet still Escobar wasn't on your 500. Far, from being myopic - that's my whole point; we should carefully scrutinise everyone on this list and not have kneejerk reactions to the removals of recognisable names and be aware of a wider world (an English encyclopedia still covers the world!). We have four millenniums of important names; just including the 1st millennium BC and latter half 2nd millennium is more of a weakness aswell and yes, careful consideration should go into this. If that's myopic, i'll own it. GuzzyG (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC) You don't get it. While there is debate as to who invented it first, popular consensus pegs Gutenberg as the inventor of the printing press. The popular consensus ought to be considered the correct consensus, as least where we are concerned. If you look on Google for "inventor of the printing press", you will almost entirely find content on Gutenberg and not Bi Sheng, and for a good reason: Gutenberg's printing press is the model that is actually used throughout much of the world. It has nothing to do with who the inventor or the popularizer is. Furthermore, it isn't our job to recognize the "real" inventor vs. the guy who may have copied him (there is no evidence that Gutenberg relied on Bi Sheng's schematics. Furthermore, I do not care about "founders", I care about importance to readers. Socrates is the founder of Western philosophy, which makes him important to our readers. Cai Lun is the founder of paper, but Cai Lun the person is not important to readers, so he is left out. If you actually compare Bi Sheng and Gutenberg it becomes laughably obvious. You seem to not understand that when I bring up pageviews I do not mean nor have I ever meant that pageviews are everything, or that we should base our list off pageviews. That's ridiculous, and you are wittingly making a strawman of my argument. My whole point is that, in order for a person to be vital, there must be significant audience engagement with that person on Wikipedia, in popular culture, etc. Reach is only one factor I analyze, along with technical achievement, salience to history, exposure in academia, spread of work, fame among laymen, and so forth. Al Capone is a popular contemporary figure. Although he has more pageviews than a Descartes or a Dante, you will note that both Descartes and Dante far exceed him in all the other categories I mentioned. I will reiterate my believe that it is impossible to judge vitality divorced from the cultural, social or linguistic context. You just can't create a vital articles list that will appease every culture or vantage point in the world. If this were the Mandarin-language version of Wikipedia, it may make perfect sense to list Bi Sheng or Cai Lun over Gutenberg. Why? Because both of those figures have greater relevance to Mandarin-speaking and -reading audiences. However, this is decidedly not the Mandarin-language version of Wikipedia. It is the English-language one, and we have to decide which articles are actually relevant to our readers. Zelkia1101 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC) As for Escobar vs. Capone, the reason I would choose Capone over Escobar is that Escobar is only contemporarily famous as a drug lord, mostly due to TV programing about him. Al Capone, possibly due to having lived earlier in history than Escobar, is much more popular in depictions in media or film, is much more popular in print, and is much more likely to survive in history. So this is a case where the "less popular" Wikipedia page beat out the more popular one. But it's not as if Al Capone is an unknown figure who gets no more than 300 or 100 pageviews a day, as is the case with Cai Lun or Bi Sheng. Zelkia1101 (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC) There's no debate; it's simple if you can read. If some European person left out Cai Lun in 19th century textbooks and not credit others; one can take a guess why; the fact you conveniently skirt around that issue;in every example i've gave; makes me think you are ignoring the obvious and it's a pathetic encyclopedia who goes around with fake popular myths. The funny thing; if you continuously mention readers and books and lists missing out Cai Lun; but the original ranking influence book (in 1978); the one who started this list thing in a proper setting; The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History; lists Cai Lun in the top 10 (shown from the 1992 edition on wiki); above Gutenberg; a white supremacist made this book (again; in the 70s); so what's your excuse in leaving him off? Even more hilarious; this book is so big in multiple languages; it gets 10 mil views [24] (and thats without popular languages like French); almost as much as Gutenberg himself (14 mil) [25]; so our "readers" are reading a article on a book (and imagine how many who've read it who don't bother to look it up on wiki); that places Cai Lun above Gutenberg almost as much as readers who look up Gutenberg. So; if anything; readers who stumble upon this list are likely interested in this thing and wonder what the difference is. Ofcourse you'll say it's only the professional opinion and yours is better etc; but it makes one wonder, what makes you the arbiter and different from people who are published and why should we differ from established sources in this area, if you're so keen on who's written about? Why was your first thought that these lists don't include Cai Lun? You really think a folk hero of a whole continent; compared to one American city is NOT "much more likely to survive in history"; again, seems like a proper reach, other than a pattern of continuous dismissal of certain people. One begs to wonder then what do you consider Al Capones "supreme human achievement" of being? Remember, it takes 44 million people alot less longer to forget than it does 153 million people. (and most of the poor in LatAm don't exactly browse wiki either - this is Escobar's base who see him as a folk hero Robin Hood, this does not affect Capone's audience who in which no one sees as a Robin Hood folk hero). GuzzyG (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are saying in the first three sentences of your screed, so I am going to ignore it. If you would like to put your thoughts in coherent English, I might actually be able to respond to them. I am not suggesting that Cai Lun is not an important person, but rather that, for our readers, Gutenberg is far more important, which is why he is on this list and Cai isn't. I will say that Influence does not at all equal vitality. The book you mentioned lists William T.G. Morton, the inventor of anesthesia, as more influential than Adolf Hitler, but would you honestly suggest that Morton's biography is more vital than Hitler's? That's obviously silly. Mitochondrial Eve is probably the most influential person to have ever lived, because without her none of us would be living, but do you see a case for including her? The likelihood that readers will "stumble" on Cai Lun is much, much smaller than that they will "stumble" upon Gutenberg. As for Al Capone, he does not qualify for "supreme human achievement", because if he did then I would nominate him for this list, or I would put him on my Top 50 list. Supreme human achievement only applies to the top tier. But anyway, I put Al Capone ahead of Escobar because the data suggests to me that Capone is diffuse in popular culture and therefore more likely to survive in history than Escobar, at least for the majority of our readers. In many ways this is a subjective assessment, but it isn't really relevant to our subject-matter. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Comment: Gentle reminder for everyone to keep WP:Civility in mind. INDT (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove Cicero

Not on either list. I'm neutral on this; he was a hero of mine during high school ("secondary school", for non-Americans), and I was aware of his significance during it, but I was also a star Latin student and my experience may not be typical. I've said with regards to Emmy Noether that in order to be on this list someone should be widely known by the secondary-school graduate population of at least one culture; Levels 1 and 2 are (generally) for primary school stuff, and Levels 4 and 5 are (generally) for college/uni and grad-school level stuff. I don't know whether Cicero passes this test.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose I feel like having a Roman who wasn't a leader of the state at this level makes sense and Cicero is easily the most famous. Rome was a massively influential civilisation and I definitely think it deserves having a philosopher on here. -- Maykii (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose A Roman intellectual is warranted on a list like this. GuzzyG (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Cicero is nothing like Emmy Noether. The latter is obscure to pretty much anyone outside of the field of mathematics. Cicero, by contrast, is known across the humanities, and though he is no Socrates or Aristotle, he has his name is far more diffuse in popular culture than Noether.
4. Oppose Key figure in thwarting the Second Catilinarian conspiracy. He summary executed Catiline's conspirators without a trial. That makes Cicero an influential figure in the Roman civil wars. Dimadick (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Niccolò Machiavelli

Not on either list. Again, I'll personally have to say no to this given the wide renown of the word "Machiavellian", itself but a superficial scratch on Machiavelli's impact on political science. I will, however, support the removal of Max Weber below.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support We have enough early modern philosophers, we can afford to cut one. -- Maykii (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Fields like linguistics are more important than political science and have no representation here. I'd put archaeology over political science too. Similar to culture like Sun Tzu, which would be a much better pick if we needed something in that area. GuzzyG (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Per Above. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
2. The father of political science is more important than Rumi or Austen or Milton or Kafka. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose not sure if I agree with linguistics being more important than political science. They are both important and it's hard to compare the two fields. Not that we will likely find the space but I could see the early pioneers in political science across 3 different civilisations (Machiavelli, Sun Tzu and Chanakya) fitting in here. Gizza (talk • voy) 10:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose The Prince has had more of an impact to political history than any single politician: "Machiavelli's ideas on how to accrue honour and power as a leader had a profound impact on political leaders throughout the modern west, helped by the new technology of the printing press. Pole reported that it was spoken of highly by his enemy Thomas Cromwell in England, and had influenced Henry VIII in his turn towards Protestantism, and in his tactics, for example during the Pilgrimage of Grace. A copy was also possessed by the Catholic king and emperor Charles V. In France, after an initially mixed reaction, Machiavelli came to be associated with Catherine de Medici and the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre. As Bireley reports, in the 16th century, Catholic writers "associated Machiavelli with the Protestants, whereas Protestant authors saw him as Italian and Catholic". In fact, he was apparently influencing both Catholic and Protestant kings." 14:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Discuss

Remove Friedrich Nietzsche

Not on Thi's list. I will also have to oppose this, but can maybe be convinced otherwise; he's one of the chronologically last philosophers I would consider for this list (behind only Russell, Sartre, and Camus), and is well-known in pop culture. Whatever doesn't kill his placement on the list makes it stronger.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support This will be controversial but do we really need multiple 19th century German philosophers? And out of Nietzsche and Marx it is obvious who is more vital. -- Maykii (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Richard Wagner was removed. Famous figures articles must be maintained carefully in an encylopedia but I am not wholly convinced that this level is necessary for Nietzsche. His writings were often vague and possibly overrated as classics of literature. [26] --Thi (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Is he much more important than Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel or Jean-Jacques Rousseau? or much more worthy to list than both of these? I don't think Nietzsche is on the level of a Plato/Confucius or Descartes either, which is who else he is listed against. GuzzyG (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support You must admit we still have too many Germans on this list Dawid2009 (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Much more of an influential figure than Rumi, Austen, Milton, Twain or Kafka, or Chaplin and Emmy Noether for that matter. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Nomination is a tightrope stretched across a chasm. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose His concept of the Übermensch ("the combination of ruthless warrior pride and artistic brilliance") had a large impact on both Nazism and Anarchism. Dimadick (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Max Weber

Not on GuzzyG's list. I learned of Weber and his seminal role in establishing sociology during my first year of college/uni. The problem is that I had absolutely no idea who Weber was before then and that my introduction was in college/uni and not high school/secondary school as I've discussed earlier. The "three founding fathers of sociology" are, to my recollection, Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. We already list Marx but don't list Durkheim, compromising that as a possible "natural group" like Socrates-Plato-Aristotle. Furthermore, we already have Freud, and while Weber might technically have had more of an impact Freud is far better known and established the more "innovative" psychology compared to Weber's sociology being more political science-y. All things considered, while I originally supported his addition a couple of months ago I support his removal now.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. -- Maykii (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Weber's views has stood the test of time better than Freud's who represents different paradigm than modern cognitive psychology, but he is not as well known outside the academic world. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support I think he's a bit too similar to Marx for the kind of strictness we should have with overlap and in a name recognition in mass culture way out of place with Freud/Marx. GuzzyG (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support - His views overlap with Marx. I think there is a stronger case for keeping Marx than keep Weber. Interstellarity (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support per all the above and comments around me. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support don't think we need two sociologists at this level. FWIW, we have only one true economist in Adam Smith (Marx touched on economics but was foremost a political scientist, philosopher and sociologist). Somebody like John Maynard Keynes brings more to the list than Weber, not that I suggest adding him when the biography section is in a state of flux. Gizza (talk • voy) 08:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Much more of an influential figure than Rumi, Austen, Milton, Twain or Kafka, or Chaplin and Emmy Noether for that matter. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose As the criticism in his article points out, his version of Anti-Catholicism and popularization of historical misconceptions concerning the supposed superiority of Protestantism have had an impact on academic thought. He was also a main influence on the Frankfurt School, and its critical theory. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

(Failed) Remove Michael Jackson

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 either list. That said, I'll still have to oppose this as he represents modern, post-1980 pop culture; as "pop", he's a counterpoint to the "rock" of the Beatles. FWIW, he also has far more interwikis than either The Beatles or Elvis Presley, whom he replaced.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Just as vital as the Beatles in my opinion. -- Maykii (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Someone representing pop culture celebrity is needed, especially as the 21st century is defined by it, who better than the biggest of that kind of figure? Bigger internationally more than the Beatles and definitely Elvis. GuzzyG (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose - He is a key figure in the rise of current pop music. Interstellarity (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Apart from being the most important icon of modern music, no one has influenced other artists of many different musical genres and styles as much. If we have to select an individual artist who represents modern music, he is undoubtedly Michael Jackson. Apart from that, considering his musical career as a child we can see that he is also a link between the popular music of the 20th century and the 21st century. Salvabl (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose, the subject basically defined the genre both in sound and appearance for a generation, and is still widely referenced by modern artists (e.g. Bruno Mars, The Weeknd). BD2412 T 18:10, 25 September 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.

Swap: Remove William the Conqueror, Add Emperor Meiji

We list three English monarchs, one should go and I'm nominating William as I feel like he is the weakest. I'm proposing a swap for Meiji as we do not have any leader of Japan and he is by far the most important. His reign saw Japan go from a collection of basically feudal states to becoming an empire on par with the western powers, leading to Japan becoming an industrial power and one of the most powerful nations in the world with a legacy that continues today. -- Maykii (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Suppport as nom. -- Maykii (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Per nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Henri VIII is the weakest, especially with overlap and the fact we don't cover much early first millennium figures, but i realise Tudor history has alot of TV pop culture backing, so i will support William going as a concession. Either way, the Meiji Restoration is fundamentally more important to Japanese history than WWII. Hirohito may be more famous in the west; but Hideki Tojo was just as involved and that counts against him. (also we removed Churchill for having overlap with Hitler/Stalin and we don't list FDR, there's just too many things that count against Hirohito). GuzzyG (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support while I agree with Guzzy and think that Henry VIII is weaker than William the Conqueror, as a swap this is a massive improvement. Emperor Meiji is the person most responsible for turning Japan into an industrial superpower, and making Japan the first non-Western, non-white developed/first world country. Don't think we need another WWII axis power leader. Hitler is sufficient. Gizza (talk • voy) 11:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal William the Conqueror is a rather marginal historical figure who, while important, is not important enough for this level. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal per Zelkia1101. --Thi (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong, strong oppose No single rationale given for removal/swap. Especially when we are in business removing biographies and we have reformation over everything related with Normans/England, we even do not list the latte-rurkowcy to. Willism's Impact is very Long. For me Elizabeth I is weakest British politican leader because of this is difficult to argue Elizabeth can be more vital than Henry but too comfortable to argue that Henry is more vital. I can not see sense for that swap especially after removal of Lenin... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawid2009 (talk • contribs)

   Irrespective of everything else; even on a list of 100; do you really think the single most figure of the industrialisation and rise of Japan and the resultant rise of Japan as one of the most important countries on the world stage is not important to cover? Hokusai and Murasaki Shikibu are important cultural reps (and Japan has one of the biggest cultures in the world and is sufficiently represented here); but surely the leader who is most responsible for the rise of the country is just as important to list? From a world sense, three Japanese figures on a list of even 100 is proportionate. Every other country listed in the Great power article has a political leader on this list. (Rome for Italy, although cutting one of the emperors for Giuseppe Garibaldi would be ok on a 100 list aswell); would you really say that in the case of one single person responsible for a country becoming a great power is not enough for this list; why would Japan be the only sole super power we don't cover? Especially considering it's extreme cultural presence today? It would make no sense. We list Milton and Disney but not someone responsible for a great power? GuzzyG (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose addition While William the Conqueror is a marginal figure, Meiji is even more so. A better choice would be Hirohito, though not even he is good enough for the list. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition "Emperor Meiji's role in the Restoration, as well as the amount of personal authority and influence he wielded during his reign, remains debatable." History of Japan is more important topic. --Thi (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose it's impossible to imagine a history of England without William the Conqueror, and it's impossible to imagine an English encyclopedia without a history of England. Also opposed to the addition; we need fewer political bios, not more. I would certainly prefer to use the quota to remove History of East Asia and add History of China and History of Japan. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal, neutral on addition William has had a large impact due to the successful Norman Conquest, development of an entirely new elite under his rule, his redistribution of land, his Domesday Book being the most comprehensive survey available to historians and economists, and the "formal elimination of slavery" which coincided with his reign. I doubt that Meiji himself can be credited for the innovations of his reign. The Meiji (era) was vital to history. But its driving force was a new oligarchy which was determined to advance huge reforms, and (in the process) eliminated traditional class distinctions. Dimadick (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I think we should also consider Hirohito. I think between Meiji and Hirohito, I can't really decide who is more vital between the two. Interstellarity (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

We removed Churchill due to overlap with Hitler and Stalin and this is also the reason we have never added FDR. Too many WWII leaders. The Meiji Restoration is more fundamental to modern Japan than WWII. -- Maykii (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Trimming the biographies – STEM

This will be the penultimate section of trimming unless we want to redo writers. Oddly enough, neither list proposes any changes to the mathematicians section, but I have my own proposal.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove Jabir ibn Hayyan

Not on Thi's list. I'm neutral on this; on one hand he's not even definitely historical (though technically neither is Jesus) and much of his work included non-scientific musings, he is representative of the Islamic Golden Age and all it gave us.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support not vital enough for this list Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support There is genuinely not much on this guy and his article talks about alchemy and magic... I've wanted him removed for a while. -- Maykii (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Islamic Golden Age is included and Ibn al-Haytham would be better choice than Jabir ibn Hayyan. --Thi (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Neither alchemy nor Jabir are relevant for such small list. Level 4 should be sufficient. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose "Most contemporary scholars... agree that the Iliad and the Odyssey were not produced by the same author"; yet that doesn't stop us from listing Homer. Being the "father of Arabic chemistry" is enough reason to be included in a list of 100 vital bios, and the fact that the Jabirian corpus also includes topics outside alchemy/chemistry only makes the case for including him stronger. We don't disqualify Newton either even though he "was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians." Cobblet (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Johannes Gutenberg

Not on either list. I'll have to oppose this; even if he didn't technically "invent" the printing press, he brought it to widespread adoption throughout Europe with movable type, which kicked off a revolution in its intellectual culture and changed Western history forever; per Stigler's Law, that's what ultimately matters.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I would rather list the printing press itself. -- Maykii (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support The printing press is more vital. --Thi (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I think out of all the people nominated in this section, this one is least likely to go since he played a pivotal role in getting information to the commoner. Interstellarity (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose second only to Newton as the most influential person of the 2nd millennium. World's most influential inventor. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per Interstellarity: he played a pivotal role in getting information to the commoner in the West. Maybe I could eventually very weakly support swap Shen Kuo for Cai Lun but let keep Gutenberg on this level, he is far too influntial. I can not see why we need either of printing press and printing, and the latter seems much better option. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose The printing press allowed dissemination of ideas at a much faster pace, helped in modernizing Europe and its colonies, and was likely an underlying cause in both the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. 15:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Discuss

Remove Benjamin Franklin

Not on either list. This is a somewhat reluctant support for me given Franklin's varied life and achievements, but he's more famous/notable for being "the first American" than he is as an actual inventor, and we already have American Revolution and George Washington at this level.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support We don't list stronger figures like Louis XIV so i don't see how he represents enough to make this list; you can't claim polymath status if there's stronger inventors out there (like James Watt) and stronger political leaders out there. Washington is enough for this era. GuzzyG (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Weak support Franklin's a wonder, but he's not supremely vital or influential either as an inventor or as a politician. There are much weaker people on this list that need to be cut (our bloated writers' list), but Franklin can go too.
4. Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Louis XIV would be better choice. --Thi (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose He advanced studies on electricity, created a functioning lightning rod in 1752, and corrected some early misconceptions on the actual properties of the Leyden jar. These alone would make him an influential figure in science. Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Nikola Tesla

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)

Oppose

1. Oppose much more vital than Kafka, Milton, Austen, Noether, or Chaplin Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Very influential in the field of Physics, well known too. -- Maykii (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. 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)

Discuss

Swap: Remove Niels Bohr, add Max Planck

This is proposed by GuzzyG's list, whereas Thi's list has a straight removal. I'm neutral on this; on one hand, Planck actually invented (well, discovered) quantum mechanics, but on the other, as I've said with Gutenberg and Tesla, that invention/discovery is secondary in importance to actually "doing something" about the invention/discovery, and it could certainly be argued the Bohr's work brought Planck's discovery to fruition/maturity with his model of the atom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support removal No need for him when there's Einstein. He's just fluff. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Removal per above. -- Maykii (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal - I think one 20th century physicist (Einstein) is enough for this level. Interstellarity (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal Einstein is needed and I would support the addition of History of physics. --Thi (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal Bohr is not Einstein level and it seems to be consensus to only list one 20th century physicist and obviously that is Albert Einstein. GuzzyG (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
6. per above; we can make due with Einstein alone at this level. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition Planck is very underappreciated, of course, but not vital or seminal enough for the list. Covered by other articles. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Addittion per above. -- Maykii (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition per above. Interstellarity (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose addition Good idea, but probably not really necessary. --Thi (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose addition per my comment above. GuzzyG (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
6. per above; we can make due with Einstein alone at this level. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Strong Oppose both the removal and the swap. We certainly should have both Bohr and Einstein at this level. Bohr has very high google Trends. He is usually !voted in extremally wide Internet Pools among physicians as Fourth to Maxwell, Einstein and Newton ahead of others. I think he has stronger totop of representative field in natural sciences/Physics than Nietze in philosophy/social sciences who is not going to be removed because of Nietze usually is! voted by specialists about in top 10. We currently are not going to remove Nietze with Score 4-2. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Strong oppose both the removal and the swap. Bohr's atomic model marks the real beginning of QM as the fundamental explanation for everything that happens at the atomic and subatomic level. Both Planck and Einstein rejected the Copenhagen interpretation developed by Bohr (and his assistant Heisenberg), which the overwhelming majority of physicists today accept, in no small part due to the outcome of the Bohr–Einstein debates. Bohr and Einstein are fully equal in stature as physicists and to suggest one is redundant with the other makes about as much sense as saying Stalin is redundant to Hitler. The rejection of determinism in physics and the rejection of Hilbert's program, both of which forced us to acknowledge the limitations of scientific inquiry, are revolutionary advances in human thought as important as any historical event in the 20th century. To remove Gödel and call Bohr redundant while keeping Amundsen, Socrates, and St. Paul demonstrates an embarrassing lack of and disdain for basic scientific literacy. Cobblet (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
9. oppose removal Bohr is credited as one of the founders of the CERN. Dimadick (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Remove Emmy Noether or Kurt Gödel, add Georg Cantor

As I've said above, Noether is the most obscure westerner on the list (uniquely, I didn't know who she was before I found this list), and Gödel is second, being known to the general public mainly for "proving math impossible to complete". I'm willing to relax the "secondary school standard" for mathematics (but not science), and all three of Noether, Gödel, and Cantor are rather grad-school in level. That said, I do think that set theory, Cantor's line of work, is the basis of modern mathematics and his work on real numbers arguably separates math into a "before" and "after", and is more fundamental to overall mathematics than the works of both Noether and Gödel. I fully understand if others disagree, however.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom; I would prefer removing Noether, but if female representation in STEM is that important on the list we could axe Gödel instead.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removing both Both are obscure, relatively unknown past their fields, and have little relevance to our readership base. I think Noether is a little less relevant than Godel, but they are both not vital enough for this list. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Removal of both per Zelkia. -- Maykii (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose per previous comments by Blueclaw and Abstractillusions here and my comments [[27]] and in the discussion re Ibn Battuta above. Cantor's contributions to set theory could maybe be argued to be slightly more fundamental to pure mathematics than Noether's contributions to abstract algebra; but Noether also made a fundamental contribution to modern-day theoretical physics in the form of Noether's theorems. The depth of her contributions to both pure and applied math puts her ahead of Cantor IMO. I'd consider Noether more vital than at least half of the ten women on the list. Meanwhile, as others have noted, Gödel's incompleteness theorems are possibly the single most profound contribution to math in the 20th century; I'd also put him ahead of Cantor. I consider both Gödel and Noether easy choices to remain on a list of 100 biographies. Cobblet (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose per Cobblet. GuzzyG (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition Cantor is not nearly vital enough for this tier. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Addition per above. -- Maykii (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Cobblet. Also anecdotally, before encountering this list I was more familiar with Noether than many of the other Western biographies and I'm not a math major, so that argument doesn't resonate with me. Gizza (talk • voy) 08:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose addition History of mathematics is listed and no more mathematicians are needed. --Thi (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Oppose No reasonsble rationale given for the removals Dawid2009 (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Oppose removals Noether has had a large impact on theoretical physics. Gödel was a philosopher in the field of religion, and tried to prove the existence of God through pure logic. They had an impact outside mathematics, something which I am not certain is also true for Cantor. Dimadick (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

If Noether's theorem is so important, we should be listing it and not Noether. The point of an article being vital is that the person himself or herself is vital. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

As already explained, her legacy is twofold: her eponymous theorem is part and parcel of modern theoretical physics, but separate from that, she was also responsible for systematizing abstract algebra as a major discipline within modern mathematics. Listing her theorem does not capture her vitality any better than listing a painting by Rembrandt or a work by Nietzsche captures theirs. And my previous comments are directed specifically to why we need her biography on the list. Cobblet (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m afraid neither of the two achievements you mentioned actually make Noether the person vital. It’s the same deal with Godel. His Incompleteness theorem is a central axiom of mathematical logic, but Gödel the individual is obscure and unknown outside of mathematics departments. Contrast Noether or Gödel with Einstein or Turing and it becomes obvious. Not to belabor the same points, but Noether is not like Neitzche or Rembrandt in that the latter two and their works are not obscure to most of our readers. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I very strongly doubt the average reader would be able to say anything intelligent concerning Nietzsche or Rembrandt (and even you can't spell the first name). Their names are more famous than Noether's, but I strongly disagree that bare name recognition should count more towards vitality than concrete achievements. I also note that I am not supporting the removal of either Nietzsche or Rembrandt. Cobblet (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It has little to do with whether the average layman could say “something intelligent” about any of these people and much more to do with whether each individual captures the audience’s interest. Rembrandt and Nietzsche are both far more popular with our users than Noether. And I never, ever said or suggested that name recognition trumps technical achievement, or is more important. Rather that inclusion on this list requires a holistic review that takes into account technical achievement, salience to history, and popular saturation. Someone with exceptional technical achievements who is unknown to readers is not vital, just as an incredibly popular figure whose technical achievements are minimal also is not vital. Both components are necessary. Notice I compared Noether to Einstein and Turing, both of whom, we can easily see, exceed Noether where technical achievement is concerned. I wish people like Noether or Borlaug could be more recognized, but the truth is they aren’t, and it isn’t right to make space for them on the basis of technical achievements alone. Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Trimming the biographies – Artists

This is the last section I'm planning to do. Sorry to do this so soon after the previous section, but this is short enough that I think it's fine.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove Claude Monet

Not on GuzzyG's list. I don't know enough about art to have an opinion on this.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support We already have four modern artists, we do not need that many. If I had to keep one it would be Picasso, the rest are expendable. -- Maykii (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal or eventually swap with Impressionism which is wieder topic. Per above, having four modern artist for such small list which is focussed on whole human history which cover thousands years is rather short-sighted and eurocentric. I support trimming biographies to 115 quota because of I belive that articles related with art movements (impressionism, surrealism etc.) and other art stuff like textile art, rythm, piano (FWIW Monet gets worse Google Trends in France than Chopin: [28], even though Chopin is Pole lited currently at the level 4, Monet is French listed at the level 3) harmony etc. are more needed than whole biography about Monet. Removal of Monet would not be out of place, especially swap with Impressionism which mention Monet 34 times would not be out of place; Impressionism never was listed at Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews and Monet never was on meta list of 1000 articles which constain 200 biographies because of he is not so famous; he is influential but so are Wagner, Monteverdi, Lumierre Brothers, Sophocles (all level 4) and plenty others. Level 4 should sufficient, not 3 where we already have history of painting. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Breakdown of our 8 artists leans 3 old masters, 4 modern ones and one Asian artist. Considering most importance in painting leads older; i see no reason why we should serve modern arts more. (would be like having 4 pop musicians over 3 classical musicians, we cover 3 of each in music fine). Monet is the weakest of the modern 3. Impressionism is the better fit as any encyclopedia would list the movement over Monet first. I don't see how Monet is any more vital than Salvador Dalí, Peter Paul Rubens, Albrecht Dürer or Diego Velázquez. Monet is more on the level of those four and if we had to cover a modern French artist instead of a painter i'd prefer Auguste Rodin or again, even Le Corbusier or Marcel Duchamp, those three would cover more ground. Can Monet be said to be a stronger 19th century arts figure than Wagner (who was removed) or 20th century figure than Lenin (also removed). Van Gogh, Picasso and Frida. (and Leo/Michelangelo) are the big five in worldwide fame/recognition. They're the essential five , Monet could easily be cut. GuzzyG (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose As a matter of principle, I will oppose any attempt to whittle down the number of musicians or visual artists when we have such a bloated writer’s category. Both Monet and Van Gogh are far more aesthetically and historically significant than Austen, Kafka, Milton, or Tagore. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Few can lay claim to spearheading an entire art movement that would develop and be reacted against for decades to come. Monet can. DMT Biscuit (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Impressionism and Monet are also popular with the general public. --Thi (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose The de facto founder of Impressionism, and counted as an ideological ancestor to Modernism. Primarily, because he challenged conventional notions about art and its purpose. Dimadick (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Vincent van Gogh

Not on either list. I don't know enough about art to have an opinion on this.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per what I said about Monet. -- Maykii (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose As a matter of principle, I will oppose any attempt to whittle down the number of musicians or visual artists when we have such a bloated writer’s category. Both Monet and Van Gogh are far more aesthetically and historically significant than Austen, Kafka, Milton, or Tagore. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Van Gogh is probably the most well known modern artist with Picasso. Ideally both Monet and Van Gogh should remain, I think Rembrandt is weaker because two other old masters are listed. --Thi (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I am somewhat reluctant about this, as he accomplished very little before dying at the age of 37. Posthumously, he was a key influence on Fauvism and Expressionism. Like him, they embraced a "subjective perspective" of reality and rejected the conventions of Realism. Dimadick (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Walt Disney

Not on either list. I'm conflicted on this; on one hand he is the preeminent figure of animation and created such icons as Mickey Mouse, thereby being foundational to corporate pop culture, but on the other hand we already list both the Beatles and Michael Jackson for post-1950 pop culture. If we do remove him we need to merge Charlie Chaplin into the Artists section since "filmmaker" is too specific a category to have its own section with only one person, unlike "businesspeople".  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support the Walt Disney Company is supremely important, and if we had a list of corporations it ought to feature, but Walt himself is not particularly important as a filmmaker or cultural icon. Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support too much overlap with all of Film, History of Film, Animation and Comics listed. Irrespective of the company, the man's biography is not vital enough for this level. Even in business, businesspeople like John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan affected capital at their peak and we don't list them. Nor Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Ub Iwerks shares alot of co-credit for Disneys stuff too. Alfred Hitchcock and Akira Kurosawa were removed and they have infinitely more influence on actual filmmaking... He's not the second filmmaker you'd choose, or the second businessperson; combining them doesn't make him better; we list Michael Jackson for modern day pop culture. As John mentioned elswhere; there's Winsor McCay and if animation was treated as a serious art and it's influences given proper attention and focus; (and thus McCay was as famous); he'd come out on top too. Someone's importance shouldn't rely on the other figure being not as known. On such a top list; Disney is just not as unanimous and clear a figure as a artist should be like Beethoven or Picasso. His name is spread apart of his business and highly recognisable; but so is Coco Chanel and that never helped her and again - so is J. P. Morgan and ignoring pop culture; any academic study of business would focus more on the namesake of the United States biggest bank than it's biggest company in pop culture presence. (even if you think that's unfortunate). He's no Ford and personally in a biographic sense no Chaplin. Definitely on a 150/200 list, but not on a smaller one. Too much against him. GuzzyG (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Michael Jackson was voted for representative of American popular culture. --Thi (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The Walt Disney Company (under its earlier corporate titles) was indistinguishable in the public's mind from Walt Disney during his life, and its creative process was so tightly centred on Walt that it struggled after his death. The studio was highly innovative in animation, and remains iconic: to this day a certain set of characteristics come to mind when someone says "Disney film" (which resulted in the company creating other studio brands for other types of films that it produced). I can think of other filmmakers who could be considered to be vital to the history of filmmaking, but I can't imagine a history omitting the role of Walt Disney. isaacl (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Disney is the only animator on the list and he is by far the most influential. -- Maykii (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I would argue that Walt has had a far more global influence than J. P. Morgan or Rockefeller. Disney comics are being published and produced across Europe, in Brazil, and in Egypt. Disney films and characters were cited as influences by Osamu Tezuka and Albert Uderzo. Disney's storyboard technique is still standard in the film industry. What cultural impact can a mere banker have? (I would place Morgan as less vital than the likes of Max Fleischer, Walter Lantz, or William Hanna). 17:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Discuss

On what planet would the creator of Woody Woodpecker be more important than one of the main driving forces behind American Gilded Age capitalism and whose company (his namesake) has descended into JPMorgan Chase; the largest bank in the US. Which has more global power today, the United States biggest bank or Woody Woodpecker? I'm not gonna even get into the Rockefeller Foundation's impact (hint Norman Borlaug or hard accomplishments like Central Philippine University). I'd like to think funding top international universities has the same cultural impact as some comics published by his company. I see no reason why animators deserve a figure here; sports has more hard impact on culture (football/soccer) and is not covered, i know Wikipedia demographics lean more comics but comics are still a relatively niche thing compared to literature/music/film. It's a massive reach to cite Disney's companies comics for his own importance. By this type of reach you could argue for Ric Flair being listed because he headlined a event of 355k people in North Korea once (Collision in Korea) among many other international things. Why do we need so many 20th century American culture figures, did Disney really have more of a global impact than Franklin D. Roosevelt? It makes no sense to list him when so many other people of his era did more than make comics and especially when in his own time we don't list the leader of the winning side of that centuries (and the US) biggest war. GuzzyG (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, Mickey Mouse is far more iconic than what most other countries create, but I get your point that Rockefeller would be better than Disney.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The logic you are employing disadvantages almost all artists and creatives, since their influence tends to be far less pronounced than that of industrialists, scientists, politicians, etc. JP Morgan is definitely more influential than Disney in the absolute sense, but he is also more influential than Chaplin or Twain, and yet they are on this list and he isn't. Of course, both Disney and Chaplin are much more well-known to popular audiences, and their work, and thus their influence, is much more accessible to a layman, which is why they are both on this list. I'm saying this not to defend Walt per se but to underscore the impracticality of judging vitality on the basis of "influence" alone. Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse is a co-creation with Ub Iwerks (so shared importance for that) and even Mickey Mouse can't compete in global influence as JPMorgan Chase or the oil industry. The biggest bank is more of a globally powerful influence than cartoons and comics. Woody Woodpecker is another thing. If it was a businessperson in Australia i'd agree; but these are figures that signify the rise of the biggest economy today and that has to be more "vital" than a cultural example of that growth. It's all moot anyway; because Franklin D. Roosevelt is infinitely more bigger as a global policy maker in Disneys exact time period and we don't list him so publishing comics is inherently of weaker global influence, so there's no real need for Disney (and there's no argument for a sports figure being listed, despite a bigger international and historic presence for sport than animation, most cultures have a sport like game, not the case for animation, dance arguably is more spread amongst cultures historically too and yet isnt covered). We list 12 artists who have lived in the 20th century (17 every other category combined in the 20th century); it's way too much on a short list and Disney is the weakest. (we already list animation AND comics, that's enough). GuzzyG (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Also if we ignore the main participants in American capitalism's growth (Rockefeller and Morgan) and go for global cultural symbols of American capitalism instead; Mickey Mouse would be up there with McDonald's and Coca-Cola and yet Ray Kroc or Asa Griggs Candler/John Stith Pemberton are not on the 2000 list; we've chosen to list the things over them; so i see no case why even Mickey would result in Disney being on this list. With historical perception in a couple of decades i'd even put Microsoft and Apple Inc. as bigger global changemakers than Disney too and we list neither founders. If he stays; move him to business; because it's not his filmmaking that qualifies him but his business work. (and no film scholar would list Disney second in filmmaking). (also filmmakers should remain a separate category, even with Chaplin). GuzzyG (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Walt Disney is very heavily conflated with his business; it's valid to compare him with business people. (his main artistic work is a co-creation, Snow White is a adaption and many others worked on it). Steve Jobs funding of Pixar, helping it survive is another more important business person involved with changing animation (from traditional animation to computer generated/John Lasseter is not on the level 4 list). Disney is mainly a film producer; as such he is a business man through and through; hence i compare him with business people. Flowers and Trees was the first animated cartoon to win the oscar and Disney was not the animator, just the producer. No; Shakespeare level artists in their own art forms are generally permanent in history; film is inarguably one of the most dominant art forms of the 20th century and Chaplin is it's leading symbol (and he's held this all throughout films prominence). As long as film lasts; he will - that does hold more longevity than being one of the most prominent figures in the rise of American capitalism; because Henry Ford symbolises business better and film will probably hold it's importance for a couple centuries and Chaplin is inextricably linked to it. Disney is stuck; Hayao Miyazaki is more critically well regarded (and in his own article; cited by Glen Keane as a huge influence on the studio since The Rescuers Down Under; the second film into Disneys Disney Renaissance which gave rise to their most important period) and John Lasseter is just as much a game changer (to computer animation). I would personally think that film as a art will last longer than the American economy; so his influence will outlast most American business people. Twain is only number one in American literature and that's clearly more important than any Animator. Animations importance is defined by the fact we only cover 3 on the 2k list (McCay, Miyazaki and Disney). We cover 88 entertainers (and 59 actors), 21 architects and 97 athletes, all major fields, spread globally more than animation with more of a historical base and yet we cover none on this list. It's disproportionate. We cover Animation (over Science fiction) and Comics on this list and that's enough coverage for this art form. If animation is so important to deserve a figure here; than why do we not add more to the level 4 list? We can't correlate Disney with the company; if anything of Disney must be listed it would be the company; but Standard Oil and Microsoft would outrank it; so again - why would the founders of those not be more important? I've never suggested to add Morgan because he is outdone by Rockefeller and there's overlap to the point you'd probably need both (or Carnegie); but Disney shouldn't squeeze in anyway. Chaplin and Twain are more important than Morgan (and Disney); because film and American literature in a normal trajectory should outlast even a American state; which Morgans importance is forever tied to. Disney may define animation and theme parks but they're not on the film/literature level in anything. Superman is just as much a global symbol like Mickey Mouse and yet we cover none of it here. There's nothing in which Walt or something he is involved in does not clash with something else. GuzzyG (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, to be clear, I support removing Walt Disney, and I'm largely in agreement with your argument. My sticking point is that, at least in this case, we shouldn't compare two folks across fields, because the influence of a banker does not look the same as the influence of an animator/director etc. Rockefeller is arguably more influential than Disney, of course, but Disney's products are much more recognizable to an everyday audience. Standard Oil is an artifact of history. The Walt Disney Company is by far the most well-recognized producer of popular entertainment in the 20th century. As for Chaplin, I'm not sure I agree with your characterization that he best represents film as a whole. Chaplin is mainly associated with a period of comic silent films. He typically ranks high in importance, but he usually isn't a top of all time. Figures like Audrey Hepburn or Humphrey Bogart are more typically associated with the pinnacle of cinema than Chaplin, who is more comparable in influence to Harry Houdini. In terms of plaudits, Disney has received the most Academy Awards of all time. What I mean by all of this is that, while I don't think Disney is sufficient for this list, I don't think Chaplin is very sufficient either. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Finance, Add Accounting

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

Support

1. Interstellarity

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)

Neutral

Add Chess

Since we're trimming the biographies, I think we should add some non-biographical articles to compensate. Although we already list board game, chess is unique among board games in its ubiquity, having such variant forms as suicide chess, correspondence chess, and in the depth of mathematical and computational study that has been undertaken on it; there are plenty of chess engines, but not so many (significant) checkers engines, poker engines, bridge engines, or backgammon engines. Elo ratings, now ubiquitous in sports statistics, originated as a way to compare chess players. It is also international and long in its history, dating from medieval India via Persia to eventually become a truly global game, and by far the most vital indoor game (some, though not yours truly, might even call it a "sport").  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)\
2. Weak support I am a little conflicted about this one, but I've decided to voice my, admittedly halfhearted, support. Chess (and its derivates) is an incredibly old game whose salience to the lives of everyday people spans over a millenium of human history. It's far older than association football, for instance, to say little of the historical importance of chess's predecessors, namely Shatranj. Chess is also incredibly diffuse as a human endeavor, right on the level of football I think, though football obviously captures far more attention. Overall, chess would be a nifty addition to this list. I am, however, concerned about overlap with board game. I realize that we are over quota as it stands, and people do not seem to want to commit to slashing the biographies to a more workable number, so I am wary of cold additions. Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Weak support Frankly, I find it to be more amusing than any ball game. And it has had a large influence on popular culture. See Category:Films about chess. Less vital, however than most art forms. Dimadick (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per previous discussion when this was nominated for removal. Recently we were discusing removal of board game and few mentioned that it has overlap with game. Even though Chess and Go maybe are games with greatest tradition, I do not think this is on the same level what other Sports/Recreations we list (for example football, swimming etc.) which are popular among men and women. I call it sport but I do not think it is important enough for this level. (BTW Carlsen, player with highest Elo is not listed on the level 4 yet, I think we could already discuss to add him or swap with Fisher) Dawid2009 (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Perhaps if this were a Russian-language project. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I recommended removing this a long time ago. I have done as much as anyone on Wikipedia to document the worldwide popularity of the game, but I would still consider it overly niche for this level. There are several sports with a broader following, and there must be many other things people do for enjoyment (pet is the first thing I thought of) that are a lot more essential to understanding the human condition. I would also consider it infinitely more important for people to know something about a person like Emmy Noether than to know something about chess. Cobblet (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose unless it is a swap with Board game. --Thi (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I agree there's a case to be made for swapping Fischer for Carlsen on level 4 nowadays. Cobblet (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cobblet: I noted you years ago were playing correspondence chess with others on Wikipedia, let start again :P Dawid2009 (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure! We can start a new game on that page if you want – hopefully VM won't mind. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Add Nursing

Per precious discussions. Very important topic associated with Medicine and coverage of Women's history. Dawid2009 (talk)

Support

1. Either this or Florence Nightingale sounds good.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Certainly as important as Dentistry. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per previous discussions and above Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Either Nursing or Health care are important enough at this level. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per everyone else, important field. GuzzyG (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Absolutely vital to modern healthcare. Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I changed my !!vote from support to neutral because of I found Health care has better google Trends [29]. Also, I would very like to add Florence Nightingale at this level as founder of modern Nursing and as statistician but.... Guess Nursing can have more overlap to Nightingale than Health care si maybe let list the latter to cover something more/different, what do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove contemporary philosophy, add modern philosophy

Outside of Sartre and Camus, philosophy has been relegated to being a niche and academic affair since the early 20th century, the period covered by contemporary philosophy. Modern philosophy, which spanned roughly from Kant to Nietzsche or Russell, contained far more influential and impactful ideas within philosophy and the outside world.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. At the very least I support the removal; I'm sure we can find a philosophy topic more deserving of inclusion than philosophy's nadir in importance.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Academic philosophy has had very little influence on modern life. Political philosophy from the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the Victorian period has influenced most of mainstream political movements. Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal Subtopic of Western philosophy is not much needed, unless it is a swap with several philosophers. --Thi (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Trimming the biographies – Writers

I wasn't originally going to do Writers since we had a similar discussion to this several months ago, but might as well to complete the biographies. After this is all done I'll have a section on possible additions.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove John Milton

Not on either list. I'm fairly neutral/conflicted on this and shall refrain from voting for now.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support Painful for me since this guy is a personal hero and his inclusion on this list is because of me. Milton is probably the second most well regarded English language writer, at least in academia. Paradise Lost is a seminal work of English literature. Areopagitica is one of the most important documents in the history of liberalism. But I’m afraid Milton himself just isn’t that diffuse or vital to be on this list. Unfortunately being the second best English-language author just is not enough. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Might be more important critically; but i'll say that both Geoffrey Chaucer and Lord Byron are just as important to English literature; Paradise Lost might be a canon work; but Chaucer is more important chronologically (and The Canterbury Tales arguably just as important); while Milton is covered by Shakespeare and Lord Byron was one of the defining figures of Romanticism and affected culture so much he became his own archtype Byronic hero; Milton's biography has never achieved that. (as shown by Paradise Lost receiving more pageviews at 10,982,339 views [30] compared to Miltons bare 6,157,244 views [31]. Since we can't list all three English language poets, (and Walt Whitman and Edgar Allan Poe just as noteworthy in the US), i can't see listing Milton on a list so small (and western culture figures/artists should atleast have more than 10 mil views imo; say Tagore gets seen as unimportant but he has 22 mil views total [32], with nearly 10 mil more than Milton in English). GuzzyG (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Chaucer, Defoe, Swift or Dickens are equally well known literary figures. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per above. -- Maykii (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Not on Thi's list, and I agree with this removal. I know Goethe's a hero in Germany, but for the wider world I struggle to find a reason to really care about him (or even differentiate him from other ~contemporaneous Germans like Schopenhauer or Hegel) compared to the much more distinctive Kafka (who I'll get to later).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose To remove Goethe for Kafka is like removing Shakespeare for Dickens. It's better we lean towards older figures than newer ones in artists anyway. Goethe has lasted nearly 200 years as his countries most dominant writer; we don't know yet if Kafka will outdo that. (or outlast Goethe in general). Until this happens; we must pick Goethe. (and German writers should not be represented twice over Russian or French either, so one has to go). GuzzyG (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I think a German writer is warranted for the list, Goethe is more vital than Kafka. -- Maykii (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I am not necessarily opposed to removing Goethe per se, but I won't vote on his removal until I know Kafka is getting the boot as well, since it makes no sense to me that Kafka should remain over the undisputed master of German literature. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove Jane Austen

Not on either list. I agree with this removal; for female writers we already have Murasaki and for Englishwomen of the late 18th/early 19th century (and also, arguably, writers) we have Wollstonecraft. We also don't list the Brontë family at this level.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong support Austen is great fun but Shakespeare is sufficient for English-language literature. I’m afraid there isn’t anything that distinguishes her from the Dickens or Orwell tier or pushes her up to the Shakespeare tier. Austen is obviously very important as a writer but 16 authors of fiction is too much and Austen is not cross-linguistically diffuse enough to be included. If Dickens was removed, so too should Austen. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose There should be two writers who represent English on a English encyclopedia and Shakespeare and Austen are good contrasts. (and there's no Janeite equivalent for Mark Twain). GuzzyG (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I'm not quite clear what makes Austen a good companion to Shakespeare, or why Shakespeare even needs a companion in the first place. Why not Dickens? His work is much more diffuse and cross-linguistically significant. Why not Agatha Christie, who is the second most best-selling author of all time, after Shakespeare? Hell, to bring up an old example, why not J. R. R. Tolkien, whose work singlehandedly popularized and redefined fantasy literature as we know it? My point is that there is nothing that really distinguishes Austen other than she has a term named after her. If we were going to add a second English-language author, I think Twain would make the most sense, since at least Twain could represent American literature and Shakespeare Commonwealth literature. But I don't think that's good either. By adding an English-language companion to Shakespeare we are insinuating that the author's influence on English literature is comparable to Shakespeare's, and I don't think that's true of anyone. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The centuries long dominance of pop culture puts her above Christie and Tolkien; Dickens may be as known; but it's obvious that Austen holds up too and we should cover a woman. Austen is on the current Bank of England £10 note; which makes her extremely present in modern day British culture; Dickens is not on currency; which shows who in Britain is seen as more of a better representative. They're close; but Austen edges him. GuzzyG (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Charles Dickens was on the same tenner note that Austen now occupies. Have a look. I don't know why inclusion on currency is a metric, but that's that. Austen and Dickens are both roughly equal in terms of pageviews, Google trends and Austen only barely edges Dickens out in terms of ngrams. But again, I struggle to see what Austen has that puts her up with Shakespeare? If it's that she's a woman, why does Murasaki not cover that? At least Murasaki represents a different language and a different region of the globe. Austen doesn't particularly cover anything necessary. The novel's supreme representative is Cervantes. Perhaps she represents satire? But then again why not have Swift? Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I will not !vote in that section because of I do not think it is neccesary to remove women from this list without swap even for cost "reducing overrepresentation" but just will note that "apperance on money for short time, for few years" should not be considered as "argument for cultural significance". Atlanic Ocean is named after Greek Mythology subject for centuries but Greek Mythology was denied (instead adding greek mythology, regular candidates are subtopics of Apollo program even though this one does not have WP:primary topic for Apollo, or prove disambiguation against it), Marusaki Shibiku apperaed on Japanese money but this does not seems be very significant. What I can see in Japanese "Google trends for searching encyclopedias and dictionuares", topics related with Greek Mythology are more popular overhemingly than Marusaki Shibiku [33], [34]. However I would not support removal of Marusaki Shibiku either. While I can see how for some strange can be having Shikibu ahead of Twain then I feel we should have at least one yellow woman on this list and Shibiku is one of the best picks for that, perhaps I could support removal of Shibiku if we would have Wu Zeiten on this list who was one of the richest people in history and the only woman emperor in China. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove Mark Twain

Not on GuzzyG's list. I'm going to have to oppose this, if somewhat weakly. Twain is the only American writer on the list, and, while this isn't the best (or, really, a valid) argument, I do personally enjoy his works. While people do (sometimes rightfully) complain of Americentrism on the list, the United States is the largest country in the world where the majority population speaks and writes in English natively, and the writers list is disproportionately European, not American. So this is one of the few times where I argue for an American to be on the list for representation purposes.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support Twain does not really distinguish himself from other canonical American authors like Hemingway or Poe. I understand why people want a rep for American literature but Twain just is not Shakespeare level and is not historically or aesthetically significant enough. Shakespeare is enough for English-language literature and our writers’ category is too bloated. If this were a top 200 list Twain may have a place, but alas we need to be sensible and not have this many authors of fiction when other fields are neglected. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support I can dig a one of each language approach. (except Austen because she represents women and we can't go below 10 total, no way. All languages with one, but English with two would fit the English language encyclopedia focus i guess too). But it's clear that Twain is the dominant American writer, that's not in doubt. [35]. I just think our coverage of Jazz (Armstrong); American pop music (Michael Jackson); Hollywood (Charlie Chaplin) and Rock and Roll (The Beatles) cover American contributions to art and art forms sufficiently. Americans are not as big in Literature and visual arts or classical music so it's fair not to list them here. We don't list Andy Warhol for visual arts. GuzzyG (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support I do not think we have room for single US writer. This country is sufficiently represented by pop culture figures and has shorter history than United Kington. This is almost preposterous we have six articles related with English literature but four (soon maybe 3) related with Greek Philosophy, three related with Hinduism and three related with Second World War. Mark Twain is mentioned in article English Literatue and for ballance I support adding many American Writers to the level 4 which is more toward recentism and is not focussed on things with civilsational impact etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Rabindranath Tagore

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 Just note I support this nomination as someone who earlier defened absence of Bengali Language at this level, which is often mentioned as candidate for removal. In think there are other Indian topics which deserve FA and literature section really has been bloated in comprasion to every single other. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:17, 2 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)

Discuss

Remove Franz Kafka

Not on GuzzyG's list. I'll have to oppose this, and I'll have to strongly oppose having Goethe but not Kafka. I'm aware that Goethe is probably the "more objectively famous" German writer, but there's really not much to differentiate him from being just "some German dude" like Hegel or Schopenhauer. Kafka, on the other hand, defined an entire genre of works with his surrealism that gives us the word kafkaesque, and therefore seems to have a much broader global appeal and "wins" by marginal considerations.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support Kafka isn’t even clearly the most important writer of the 20th century, and he is by no means Shakespeare or Goethe level. Having Kafka as one of the top 10 writers just makes so sense, and kicking Goethe out makes much, much less sense. Goethe is the Shakespeare of German literature, as recognized by Germans themselves. Goethe is far, far more important. Kafkaesque is a term but so is Orwellian, and Orwell is a much more well known 20th century author, and yet he isn’t on this list. Kafka adds nothing to this list quite frankly. Modern literature is represented with Tolstoy and Kafka wouldn’t even be my third choice for 20th century author. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Per my Twain vote; one writer for each language except English with two is a good idea. I agree with Zelkia; Goethe is the most dominant in his country (it'd be like removing Shakespeare for Dickens); 20th century literature has not settled on a clear defining figure yet; let's let it settle and see who survives; there's way too many potential writers still. I'd prefer Surrealism; Kafka isn't more important to that movement than Salvador Dalí (who's been removed). There's no way to fit him in. GuzzyG (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Redundant to modernism. Recent discussion about Goethe convinced me that he should be the only German writer on this list. This is of course far better to have two dramatists (Goethe and Shakespeare) than countless number of Englishlanguage writers. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss