Talk:Time 100/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Time 100. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
World record holders by year
I don't like this idea. I don't think it's very necessary. If readers are that interested they can just deduce it from the "multiple appearances" section. Brutannica 04:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Holding the world record for most appearances on the world's most prestigious list is the greatest achievement and it needs to be historically documented. And just think, 100 years from now people can look back at all the record holders year by year. Influencey 16:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Mention Jimmy Wales perhaps
Wikipedia's own Jimmy Wales's page says he is also a 100er, but one would never know that looking here. Jidanni 05:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"The most influential person in the world"
I removed this section as unsourced opinion, and Slackergeneration reverted as "very easy to verify". While I agree that it is easy to verify how many times each person has appeared up to a given year, the leap from there to calling someone "the most influential person in the world" is unsourced opinion. The list itself nears on trivia; having the lists of "multiple appearances" above is more than enough IMO. --Itub 09:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's an annual list of the 100 people most influencing the world. If Time magazine puts some on the list more frequently than others they are saying, by defenition, that some have influenced the world more frequently than others. And the person who influenced the world the most is by defenition the most influential person in the world. Slackergeneration 13:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- That is your original interpretation of the facts. First, there's no reason to assume that most frequently listed is the same as most influential. What if someone had a deeper influence over a shorter span of time? Second, there are several categories in the list, and there's no reason to assume that being listed N times as an entertainer means the same as being listed N times as a leader or revolutionary. Unless Time itself, or some other reliable source makes these claims, they cannot be included as they go against WP:OR policy. --Itub 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- If someone makes a deeper influence over a short period of time they will be listed over a long period of time because that influence is still being felt. For example Matt Drudge was listed in 2005, not because of anything he did in 2005, but because by 2005 the revolution he started in the 20th century was most being felt. And Time magazine obviously feels art has just as much influence in the world as politics because both fields are given equal weight in a given year, however politicians seem to make more repeat appearances since that influence is often deeper and distributed among fewer people. Slackergeneration 13:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- You are just putting words into Time's mouth. Choosing to have the same number of entries in each "field" does not imply anything about their relative importance. The fact remains that your argument (regardless of its strength or lack thereof) is an original argument, and is not acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. --Itub 07:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well I disagree. I think the fact that Time magazine top 100 consists of an equal number of people from the 5 main fields means that those 5 fields are equally influential in Time's view because it's far too subjective to say politics is more influential than art. Each person on the list is changing the world in a completely different way, so the only objective way to compare them is by seeing who makes the list more frequently. By contrast if you look at a list of the most influential people of all time: the 100, it does not contain an equal number of people from all fields. In fact it's dominated by scientists, so it's fair to conclude that the author is claiming scientists are most influential. Slackergeneration 18:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Then how do you explain that the most frequent Man of the Year of the 20th century (Roosevelt) was not chosen as the Person of the Century (Einstein, who was never a Man of the Year?). Or how do you explain that Oprah has never been the Person of the Year, if she is the most influential person in the world according to your logic? People from different categories are just not comparable. Imagine we had a list of "world's fastest runners" with 10 people in each of two categories: marathon and 100 m. And by chance only one person appeared every time for the last five years; let's say he was a marathon runner. Does that automatically make him the "fastest person in the world"? No, for two reasons. First, unless you define exactly what you mean by "fastest runner", you can't compare marathon runners with 100 m runners. And second, because even if he was in the list five times, he could have been 10th every time! The fastest runner in the world (for each category) is the one who is currently at the top of his category.
- Anyway, now that you renamed the section and removed the ludicrous claim, at least I agree that the section is objective. I still think it's trivia, though. What's next, adding a list of who has been listed the most times in pages of the magazine that are prime numbers? --Itub 09:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oprah may never have had the most influence over any one year, but it's her cumulative influence of being the Queen of All Media in the most influential country (America) over such a long span of time (21 years) that adds up to make her the world's most influential person. Similary Einstein was never the most influential person of the year, but by the time the influence of his ideas added up over the 20th century, he emerged retrospectively as the most influential person. As for your fastest runner analogy, the anology isn't valid because physical speed is something that is measured at a fixed point in time, not something that accumulates over the years. A better analogy would be philanthropy. If someone made a list of the biggest charitable givers of the 20th century, and then virtually the only person to rank among the most generous nearly every year since, chances are the total amount of financial impact they had would accumulate to make them the most philanthropic person in the world. True, they could have ranked them in last place every year, but what are the odds of the most frequently listed person being ranked last each time. But the beauty of Time's list is that there is no ranking, so the default assumption is that all are roughly equal in influence. Thus the only way you can quantify their relative influence is by frequency of being listed. Slackergeneration 17:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well I disagree. I think the fact that Time magazine top 100 consists of an equal number of people from the 5 main fields means that those 5 fields are equally influential in Time's view because it's far too subjective to say politics is more influential than art. Each person on the list is changing the world in a completely different way, so the only objective way to compare them is by seeing who makes the list more frequently. By contrast if you look at a list of the most influential people of all time: the 100, it does not contain an equal number of people from all fields. In fact it's dominated by scientists, so it's fair to conclude that the author is claiming scientists are most influential. Slackergeneration 18:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- You are just putting words into Time's mouth. Choosing to have the same number of entries in each "field" does not imply anything about their relative importance. The fact remains that your argument (regardless of its strength or lack thereof) is an original argument, and is not acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. --Itub 07:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- If someone makes a deeper influence over a short period of time they will be listed over a long period of time because that influence is still being felt. For example Matt Drudge was listed in 2005, not because of anything he did in 2005, but because by 2005 the revolution he started in the 20th century was most being felt. And Time magazine obviously feels art has just as much influence in the world as politics because both fields are given equal weight in a given year, however politicians seem to make more repeat appearances since that influence is often deeper and distributed among fewer people. Slackergeneration 13:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- That is your original interpretation of the facts. First, there's no reason to assume that most frequently listed is the same as most influential. What if someone had a deeper influence over a shorter span of time? Second, there are several categories in the list, and there's no reason to assume that being listed N times as an entertainer means the same as being listed N times as a leader or revolutionary. Unless Time itself, or some other reliable source makes these claims, they cannot be included as they go against WP:OR policy. --Itub 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't the U.S. president #1 for every year?
I would think the leader of a global empire would be somewhat "influential".
-G
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
haha, i didn't even know who is Oprah Winfrey before reading this article. It's a very american classment.
Oprah Winfrey has no impact on the rest of the world...... funny that so many americans think that only they matter.
In my opinion, this is more of a gallery of notables; it's very America-centric, and includes many people (not just Ann Coulter) that are interesting or remarkable for some reason but not exactly influential. Just like their Person of the Year.. Brutannica 06:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well if it's a list of the worlds most influential people it should be America-centic since America's the most influential country. I would consider all the people who have made the list more than once to be extremely influential. I personally think it's very rare for anyone to change the world, so finding a list of 100 people every year who are doing so is quite difficult. Considering how rare true influence really is, I think the people Time selected are influential enough. I would prefer however to see Time magazine uncover some of the people who are truly influential behind the scenes. Slackergeneration
- "Well if it's a list of the worlds most influential people it should be America-centic since America's the most influential country." -> The European Union, China, Japan and Russia are influential as well. And because the US itself is an influential country does only result in its politicians being influential worldwide (such as George Bush), not its talk-show masters or other private citizens per se. It is an obvious point of critic that the Time's list should better be renamend the list of "the most influential people in American news and media". Themanwithoutapast 14:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well if America's politicians are influential worldwide, then so are its talk show hosts because they control public opinion in America and politicians are greatly influenced by public opinion. Also, Oprah recently came out and endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008 causing him to skyrocket in the polls. If she's influential enough to make Obama the next president, vice president, or at least a powerful voice in the U.S. senate, she is having a massive impact worldwide. Keep in mind that America has about ten times as much power and influence as any other country on Earth, so anyone who has a massive impact on how Americans think is automatically one of the most influential people on Earth Slackergeneration
- "Well if it's a list of the worlds most influential people it should be America-centic since America's the most influential country." -> The European Union, China, Japan and Russia are influential as well. And because the US itself is an influential country does only result in its politicians being influential worldwide (such as George Bush), not its talk-show masters or other private citizens per se. It is an obvious point of critic that the Time's list should better be renamend the list of "the most influential people in American news and media". Themanwithoutapast 14:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Economically and politically the US and the EU (alongside its members) are equal in influence worldwide. China, Japan, Russia, Brazil are influential as well. The US is just one of 5 members of the UN Security Council. For every non-American the Time 100 list is not to be taken seriously - if people like Oprah are listed but the EU's Commission's president or the for instance Javier Solana are not listed, the list becomes a joke. By the way, is the party leader of the Chinese Communist Party listed (he would be influential on about 1.3 billion people at least...)? Themanwithoutapast 19:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, Oprah's a billionaire. I don't think those people are even centi-millionaires. Second of all, you're confusing power with influence. Those people might have more raw power than Oprah but power means nothing unless you can turn it into influence. How have they changed the world. Oprah revolutionized American culture in many significant ways and American culture revolutionized cultures around the world. Slackergeneration
- I feel the list is very obviously US-centric, as well it should be - it is an American publication's view of what influences the world around them. That is probably why the key figures in the Iraq and Middle East conflicts are given far greater visibility than for example the major players in the Darfur crisis or India/Pakistani politics for example, even though the latter have significant impact on hundreds of millions of people.
- First of all, Oprah's a billionaire. I don't think those people are even centi-millionaires. Second of all, you're confusing power with influence. Those people might have more raw power than Oprah but power means nothing unless you can turn it into influence. How have they changed the world. Oprah revolutionized American culture in many significant ways and American culture revolutionized cultures around the world. Slackergeneration
- Economically and politically the US and the EU (alongside its members) are equal in influence worldwide. China, Japan, Russia, Brazil are influential as well. The US is just one of 5 members of the UN Security Council. For every non-American the Time 100 list is not to be taken seriously - if people like Oprah are listed but the EU's Commission's president or the for instance Javier Solana are not listed, the list becomes a joke. By the way, is the party leader of the Chinese Communist Party listed (he would be influential on about 1.3 billion people at least...)? Themanwithoutapast 19:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- The UN estimates nearly half a million people dead in the Darfur conflict alone, and any escalation between India and Pakistan could result in a catastrophe on an unprecedented scale. In terms of the number of people affected and the severity in which their life is altered, Tina Fey and Sacha Baron Cohen, and even many of the political leaders mentioned, fade in comparison. But then again, an American publication certainly has its reasons for making the list America-centric. For example to keep people like "Slackergeneration" thinking that America has ten times more influence than any other country in the world. 193.64.250.102 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good news! TIME's 2007 list now has 44 non-Americans, by my count. Also, 5 of these are Chinese (but only one Indian...). Also, I must admit that Slackergeneration has a point - the USA is the most influential nation in the world, its politicians have more influence than equivalents in other countries, and its culture is important and pervasive. Still, I feel it remains true that the lists tend to feature interesting or somewhat important people than aren't truly influential. And I'm sure we could dig up some good criticisms of other people besides Ann Coulter and Democratic presidential candidates.
- P.S.: Omar al-Bashir is on the 2007 list. Brutannica 06:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- The UN estimates nearly half a million people dead in the Darfur conflict alone, and any escalation between India and Pakistan could result in a catastrophe on an unprecedented scale. In terms of the number of people affected and the severity in which their life is altered, Tina Fey and Sacha Baron Cohen, and even many of the political leaders mentioned, fade in comparison. But then again, an American publication certainly has its reasons for making the list America-centric. For example to keep people like "Slackergeneration" thinking that America has ten times more influence than any other country in the world. 193.64.250.102 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
CONFUSED: Was Bush NOT on the list for 2007, surely that is wrong he being the President of the United States and most powerful single person on Earth, surely.
- Nope he was not. And he should have been. What made this even more controversial (and I noticed that whoever made this page failed to mention it) is that Osama Bin Laden WAS on the list. Obviously showing the true side of TIME, especially when you add the fact that editors believe Western European leaders shouldn't be on the list (i.e. Tony Blair). Can someone say "bias"?
- groan* I'm not totally sure if I should pick up this discussion since it's not totally appropriate here... but... I.. can't... resist.....
- I doubt TIME's biased the way you're thinking. First of all, the wind is blowing differently in the USA, whether the Republicans like it or not. Democrats are more influential and Bush is getting less and less respect, even from within his party. Also, Bush has been featured three times already, and I suspect the editors think people are getting tired of seeing him. And a few west European politicans have appeared, like Angela Merkel and some EU guy -- and Queen Elizabeth. I don't care what her article says, there is NO WAY she has more influence than Mr. Blair! Brutannica 06:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think the reason Tony Blair is never allowed on the list is because the perception is that he just does whatever Bush tells him to do. The Queen is more influential than Tony Blair in the sense that she's maintained her credibility, has been powerful for decades, and is not only loved in Britain, but has enough influence on America that they even made a highly respected movie about her. Slackergeneration 05:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but credibility, length of rule, popularity, and a highly respected movie don't really equal influence, especially not in comparison to Blair. Personally, I see Blair/the UK as the USA's junior partner now - subordinate but still influential in its own right. Hope this wraps this up - I doubt this is appropriate discussion for this kind of site! Brutannica 00:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think the reason Tony Blair is never allowed on the list is because the perception is that he just does whatever Bush tells him to do. The Queen is more influential than Tony Blair in the sense that she's maintained her credibility, has been powerful for decades, and is not only loved in Britain, but has enough influence on America that they even made a highly respected movie about her. Slackergeneration 05:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be acknowledged in the article that TIME being an American magazine has a rather American perspective on the World's most influential people. After all TIME is trying to sell its magazine mainly in the US so its rather obviuos, isn't it? To argue the US ist the most influential country in the world (which is left to discussion) and therefore influence and power is mostly in hands of Americans is a rather short-sighted explanation. Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama and Arnold Schwarzenegger all have multiple apperances but are only shares regarding the influence of the US, while someone like Putin who single handedly steers Russia doesn't make the cut? If Bill Clinton still had more influence on the world in 2006 than Hu Jintao - I must've missed something. There are many more examples. I think you must agree that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has shaped the face of 2007 more than Nancy Pelosi and Michael Bloomberg together. The power of countries such as China, Russia, Japan, India and Canada is obviously not represented fairly in the list. The factor the EU plays nowadays in the world economy, in academcis and politics is neither discernible. What is especially striking is the amount of influence accredited to representatives of the US-media: Winfrey, Banks, Couric among multiple appearances? Come on! If Ellen DeGeneres, Howard Stern & Tina Fey make the list but never any representative of the media from any other country of the world (go check it), it is argueably an American perspective on the world. The same applies for sports: Worldwide Formula 1 is much bigger than NASCAR, still Brian France was included in 2006 and not Bernie Ecclestone, who is not only CEO of the Formula 1 but also pretty much owns the Formula 1. Tony Dungy might be important for American Football fans, but the name of the sport itself already shows that his accomplishments bear hardly any signifcance in changing the world.
This is not meant as the rant it might seem like and not to discredit the list, but rather to objecitvely evaluate it. I agree that there's a lot of work put in composing the TIME 100. Yet, I think that it can objectively be said, that it applies a rather American perspective on the world. It seems more like a list of the 100 people that gave the US reason to talk about. As Wikipedia is an international project after all, this should be shown in this article by pointing out the role of the 'American perspective'. Jello 09:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Duplicate articles?
Are Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century and TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century about the same thing? Jason McHuff (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss at Talk:Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century. Thank you. Jason McHuff (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Kim Jong il.jpg
Image:Kim Jong il.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 01:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Gallery
The "listed multiple times" gallery will become unmanageable as more lists are released. Removed persons listed twice. Galleries are discouraged anyway, and I'm not aware of many / any other examples where what would otherwise be a structured list is presented as a gallery. Deiz talk 05:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
moot
I removed the note about moot from 4chan in the 2009 voting. See WP:BRD for policy on how to proceed following reversion. It is not evidently notable, as there is only one source (and I'm not sure it's a reliable one) and it seems to matter little in the context of the article. The wording was total puffery for Christopher Poole, and included far too much detail. Please persuade us that this is notable in the history of the Time 100, and if it is, please propose wording that doesn't breach WP:NPOV and WP:Wikipuffery. Fences and windows (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah? Well, **** you. You don't own Wikipedia nor the internet. Besides, it SHOULD be noted that moot was nominated. When else would a controversial internet celebrity make it as a Time 100 nominee? ***hole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.165.158.159 (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- </facepalm> Of course I don't "own Wikipedia". There's no need to start swearing at other editors, get a grip. Just find reliable sources and a wording that doesn't make you sound like a 4chan fanboy. Fences and windows (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna go ahead and start a section on the polls from this year. Because the way the internet poll is playing out this year just proves how unreliable an internet poll can be. Especially with a special interest group like 4-chan involved. There has been botting like no one has seen before, and time is just dumping votes tryign to fix it which is smart but IMO illegal. Im curious at this point if they should just go back on their word and kill the internet poll and have this picked by professionals —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfrankl1n (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- A section on the internet poll would be fine. Here's some sources; note that not all of them are necessarily reliable, and that we need to avoid giving undue weight to this section and any individual: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] www.examiner.com/x-6521-Philadelphia-Science-and-Tech-News-Examiner~y2009m3d28-Philadelphia-Representative-Fattah-speaks-out-on-Colbert-win-in-NASA-naming-contest . Fences and windows (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Don't you think that the fact that the inclusion of moot on the list caused all the internerds to ruin the poll constitutes an influence? You see an unreliable poll, I see a poll that tells exactly how much influence a person has over the internet. In other situations internet polls don't work. This one is working just fine, even if the numbers don't constitute actual votes. moot seems pretty influential, even if you don't like what his influence is or who he influences. 67.9.135.145 (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't care whether the poll is reliable or not, I care about: 1. Is the poll notable? 2. Is the voting for moot and the Time 100 response notable? 3. Are there reliable sources that report this? (I linked to some possible sources above). These are the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you can write a section that demonstrates the notability of this, using reliable sources, and without giving undue weight to these events, then please do so. Fences and windows (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is a video on the Time 100 website that can be used as a source for the poll:[6]. This online poll doesn't decide the actual Time 100. A South Korean singer called Rain and Steven Colbert battled it out last year, see Colbert, Rain Not Most Influential. The Time 100 isn't ranked, and neither Colbert nor Rain appeared on the 2008 Time 100 list: [7] Fences and windows (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't care whether the poll is reliable or not, I care about: 1. Is the poll notable? 2. Is the voting for moot and the Time 100 response notable? 3. Are there reliable sources that report this? (I linked to some possible sources above). These are the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you can write a section that demonstrates the notability of this, using reliable sources, and without giving undue weight to these events, then please do so. Fences and windows (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't you think that the fact that the inclusion of moot on the list caused all the internerds to ruin the poll constitutes an influence? You see an unreliable poll, I see a poll that tells exactly how much influence a person has over the internet. In other situations internet polls don't work. This one is working just fine, even if the numbers don't constitute actual votes. moot seems pretty influential, even if you don't like what his influence is or who he influences. 67.9.135.145 (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
moot has now won, with the top places now spelling out marblecakealsothegame, anonymous has completely dominated the poll (despite time itself claiming their security team sucessfully detected and stopped the hacking)...can't argue it's not notable now 92.0.235.83 (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Have you even read what I've written here? This online poll is not the same as the Time 100. A section on the online poll is fine, so long as it uses reliable sources (see [8]) and avoids giving undue weight to moot "winning" this year; the previous polls need mentioning too. And remember that "dominating a poll" and hacking or vote-botting it are not the same thing... Fences and windows (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The following link explains how the poll was hacked: http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/15/inside-the-precision-hack/ --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
this isnt even notable
its just a popularity contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testing123testing123 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's EXTREMELY notable. What could be more notable than the most influential people in the entire world as identified by the world's most influential magazine? It's so notable that when Time magazine held a party to honor the Time 100 people as notable as Oprah & the first lady were in attendance & have both written profiles for each other in the Time 100. And it's not at all a popularity contest. Despised individuals like Osama Bin Laden have been listed in the Time 100. It's about influence, not about who is good or popular. Slackergeneration (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton not making the list in 2010
Wasn't it somewhat of a controversy when Hillary didn't make the list in 2010 when she was more powerful then ever before, yet was chosen 5 times prior to becoming Sec of State?--Ahmad123987 (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
George W. Bush
George W. Bush was in the Time 100 for four times. Please add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U-bahnsurfer (talk • contribs) 17:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Academic research
This section should be removed, as the only example given has so many things wrong with it I don't know where to begin. 75.60.18.64 (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Where was the symposium?
While woking a crossword puzzle I came across this via Mao. The fact that he was one of the most influential people of the 20th century prompted me to see the rest of the list.
Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century
Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century is a compilation of the 20th century's 100 most influential people, published in Time magazine in 1999.
The idea for such a list started on February 1, 1998, with a debate at a symposium in Ha Noi, Vietnam. The panel participants were former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather, historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, former New York governor Mario Cuomo, then–Stanford Provost Dr. Condoleezza Rice, publisher Irving Kristol, and Time managing editor Walter Isaacson.
Then apparentlty a list was started in 2004 as a result of the above list. I went there and found this.
TIME 100
Time 100 is an annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world, as assembled by Time. First published in 1999 as a result of a debate among several academics, the list has become an annual event.
(CONTENTS HIDDEN)
[edit] History and format The list was started with a debate at a symposium in Washington, D.C., on February 1, 1998, with panel participants CBS news anchor Dan Rather, historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, former New York governor Mario Cuomo, then–political science professor Condoleezza Rice, neoconservative publisher Irving Kristol and Time managing editor Walter Isaacson.
Now one of the locales is incorrect or they had a fast plane. I would think that the symposium was held in Washington, D.C. and not Ha Noi, Vietnam (probably means Hanoi, Vietnam). I would change it to Washington, D.C. but I don't know for sure where it was held. I will let the powers above change it. Thanks. --Thorman52 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Howard Stern
Has Howard Stern not appeared more than 3 times? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.71.10 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Put the lists on Wikipedia
As opposed to linking to the Time website shouldn't the lists be put on wikipedia like all the other lists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.64.23 (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, we cannot reproduce lists that are creatively composed, as this violates the copyright of the list-compiler. While we can link to the Time site and we can talk about the list, the list itself cannot be included on Wikipedia. See WP:NFC. -Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
.jpg){kind=link}
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copy editing
Hiya! I'm taking a stroll through the article and noticing a few things that need attention. It looks like there's been a lot of discussion about the article, though much of that seems to me to be about the Time 100 process itself, (such as is it biased toward or against certain countries or world-viewpoints, and who is on the list.)
I'd like to have someone in the Copy Editors Guild take a look and see if we can come up with some ways to improve the article. I'm doing minor copy editing for the moment and I'll pass it along to another editor in the guild with the copy edit tag. Curdigirl (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'll be working through the article; will try to get back to you with feedback. Bobbychan193 (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Irrelevant Opinion
"Writing for The Mary Sue, Rachel Leishman considered Robert Downey Jr. an inappropriate choice to write the blurb for Rami Malek, and questioned why Samuel L. Jackson did not write a blurb.[25] Downey had previously interviewed Malek at the start of his success.[26]"
- This should be removed as it is an irrelevant opinion of one person. 148.77.10.25 (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Adding Paleontologist99, CycloneYoris, who've both reverted this pending edit previously, to participate in the discussion.
I agree with 148.77.10.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the MarySue post seems trivial and unencyclopedic, and Downey's previous interview of Malek doesn't seem relevant at all except to address the Mary Sue "criticism" (which in the source is only "
It went from Octavia Spencer writing Mahershala Ali’s to … Robert Downey Jr. writing Rami Malek's?
", a question mark) Seems like an attempt to insert manufactured drama. Perhaps more appropriate to the article would be to add to In the 2019 list, Time chose authors to write the honorees' blurbs. with some of the blurb authors. Thoughts? Schazjmd (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)- Should we want to go that route, I found a source. Schazjmd (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Went ahead and made the change. Schazjmd (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Should we want to go that route, I found a source. Schazjmd (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Adding Paleontologist99, CycloneYoris, who've both reverted this pending edit previously, to participate in the discussion.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Embedded external links
External links to the yearly lists shouldn't really be embedded into the body of the article as a quasi sort of WP:HATNOTE per WP:ELHAT, WP:CS#Avoid embedded links, WP:ELLIST and WP:EL#Cite_note-7. I've gone ahead and removed most of those that were, but only hid the ones which were added to sections lacking prose content. It's possible some of these links might have value as an WP:INCITE, but they should be formatted as such if they do. I also added some {{Empty section}} templates to those sections lacking prose. It wasn't clear what content would work best in each section, but once content has been added the hidden links might be able to be restored as citations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The “use in academic research” section
It seems to me like this section is of questionable relevance to the overall topic of this article given that it is exclusively about one person who has appeared on the list. It seems like it would be more appropriate on Oprah’s page or elsewhere, but I didn’t want to erase it without gauging consensus. 68.62.162.51 (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC).
- Agreed. It's a joke. It makes Wikipedia a joke. 86.139.218.163 (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Good news! It was removed in January of 2021. A joke? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 11:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)