Wikipedia talk:In the news/Important living people

Explicitness

It's not clear to me that including the lists from which important people could be derived solves the problem of ascertaining a priori importance. I think we need to have (1) a pre-existing consensus and (2) be explicit about which specific people are important enough to warrant ITN-inclusion for their death. It takes no amount of foresight to see how quickly an argument for ITN inclusion (assuming the criteria are even changed) will devolve into strong emotions and accusations of "obituarian-ism" by each side as soon as people begin to battle over whether a person warrants posthumous inclusion. I would go so far as to say that the vast majority of Nobel Laureates, academy members, Hall of Famers, etc. are not important enough for "ITN deathworthiness."

Put up a list of 500-1000 important people up now, develop consensus that this is an authoritative and reasonably exhaustive list as well as legitimate criteria, and just leave it alone until a death. If a person was truly important, the evidence or support for inclusion was already made objectively before saturated coverage of their death.

In short, oppose inclusion of links to lists of academies, laureates, etc. as means of determining importance. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About lists. Agree strongly for popular culture things like Academy Awards, and, you're right, often in Nobel prizes, a single award in a list doesn't mean ITN. For academies and halls of fame, maybe I have bias here but think it depends on which ones. Also yes, no way could every winner of every prize be here. You want to build an explict list—that's great if deaths earn a place in ITN and I hope they do.

Because this list was shy on the arts, these looked pretty good for the U.S.

And these are permanently useful because somebody heads every country and dependency. Aren't they all eligible in ITN?

-Susanlesch (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads and former heads of countries and dependencies I can for sure say yes. Let me think a bit more about the other lists. Spencer^T♦^C 01:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline people

This a section for a list of people I'm not sure about. I'll start this off with a person I'm not sure about.

Roger Bannister first sub-four minute mile. Important in track history.

Spencer^T♦^C 01:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we really put Jimbo up there? Spencer^T♦^C 11:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 4 type designers previously, but it appears they have been reinserted. While the work of these people is widely used and viewed, indeed they appear to be important within their field, I question their popularity or importance beyond it. It just seems like a very specialized and (perhaps unjustly) unrecognized field is grossly overrepresented on the list. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectivity

I'm already seeing a problem with the subjective nature of importance. My additions of Ed Koch, David Dinkins, and ~~Rudy Giuliani~~ were removed, but Stone Cold Steve Austin is okay? Now, I'm not arguing for any specific inclusion or exclusion. It's just that I think this list is going to prove to be a nightmare of differing perspectives. --Elliskev 14:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would highly recommend against comparing people of different fields as a way of nobility. See: Wikipedia:Pokémon test. In the same field, it might be okay, but not across different fields. Spencer^T♦^C 23:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the NY majors because that's a big can of worms with regards to City A is more important than City B, City C is bigger than City D, Mayor of City E is a more powerful office that Mayor of City F. Justifications for these mayors could likewise be appropriated by the previous mayors of Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington DC, London, Paris, Tokyo, etc. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list does not have a hard ceiling on size, but it is anticipated that, unlike recent deaths, there would be no more than on the order of 1 name per week; thus importance might be calibrated to the 50 most important people who died in 2007. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer, sorry, I didn't mean to compare. I'm just trying to point out that this exercise is extremely subjective. There is no set standard. It's all opinion. --Elliskev 12:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elliskev, I re-added a bunch after they were deleted--the only way I know is to keep trying. Yes, subjective is right--for Minneapolis I had list from the state legislature, historical society and a commercial site to go by. If lists are out, is there a good worldwide, weighted English, Who's Who online? -Susanlesch (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search came up with this. However, I'm not sure it represents a world view. --Elliskev 17:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, the Time 100 necessarily employs a "recentist" perspective. We are in a position of taking a longer view of importances and notability.Madcoverboy (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is going nowhere. --Elliskev 19:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try to look at it this way. Mayors are not all that important of politicians. However, most others on this list are, for their respective professions, very important. --Plasma Twa 2 22:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that the mayor of a city of 8 million is just as, if not more, important than the head of state of a nation of 1 million. I may be wrong, but I'd argue it. --Elliskev 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe, I won't deny the mayor of New York is one important guy. However, it's pretty much a rule of thumb that a nation is put above a city in terms of importance. The mayor doesn't lead a whole country, after all, even if he has more people. Tokyo has more people then Australia, but I don't think anyone would say Shintaro Ishihara is more important then Kevin Rudd. --Plasma Twa 2 02:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings me back to my point. It's subjective. Wikipedia should not assert importance of a person. We can cite assertions of importance from notable sources. We can make judgments about notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia. We can assess the importance of an article to the project. But, we shouldn't (and would fail if we tried) to assert importance to a person. --Elliskev 12:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but were'nt you jsut doing that in your opening statement up there? --Plasma Twa 2 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word important, so I guess I sorta did. My point was that it's futile to try to rank. I didn't make the point very well. --Elliskev 19:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The powers of a mayor are generally a lot less then the powers of a leader of a country. For example, Michael Bloomberg or whoever you are referring to can't declare war and invade Philadelphia. On the other hand, Mswati III can I presume invade/declare war on Mozambique. (He might be sure of a loss, but he can do it). Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page problems

Is there a reason the page is like it is? Instead of the one long line, it's all smushed at the top. Can somene fix it, it kind of makes it hard to navigate. --Plasma Twa 2 22:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's in three columns, which is why. Spencer^T♦^C 21:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed. Spencer^T♦^C 14:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filtering categories

How about taking everyone in both Category:Top-priority biography articles and Category:Living people for starters? Spencer^T♦^C 21:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whittling down

I would like to dispute the inclusion of the type designers and professional wrestlers on this list. Despite the apparent importance within in their field, Carter, Frutiger, Licko, and Zapf lack any popular salience -- popularly attributable notability. Sure people use their work all the time, but a reasonably educated and aware person would be no more aware of the person who designed their font than the person who designed their iPod or other modern consumer contrivances. Certainly a well-received film like Helvetica may bring attention to the profession, but one could similarly imagine including other arcane design professions such as furniture designers, landscape architects, user interfaces, etc. It's a slippery slope down into irrelevance and interdisciplinary sniping/bargaining.

At the other end of the spectrum, the professional wrestlers are certainly popular - but generally to a population that already systematically over represents its interests on wikipedia. Certainly someone like Hulk Hogan has enduring importance because he is genre-crossing as well as iconic to an era, but the rest, I'm not sure how kindly history will remember their contributions 10, 25, 50 years from now. I'm not attempting to diminish their contributions, only their greater social relevance cum importance.

At the very least, there must be a condition of (1) some current popular salience or recognition and (2) enduring contribution that would justify historical mention decades from now, not simply accumulated honoraria within the discipline and ephemeral popularity. A simple smell test of "if this person died 50 years ago, would I include them on a list of important biographies?" should suffice. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the type designers. And please include more women, too. I am not here to argue (and am sorry to see you've labeled this a dispute) only to stand up for more than one point of view on this list. —SusanLesch (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at this again. I have tried to manage the Minneapolis list, sometimes un- and sometimes successfully, so that one category doesn't grow out of proportion to other cats: if someone adds one name, they should remove one name. But this list could include all of them and I don't understand being tight here and not tight in the voluminous numbers of people you've added. I would say what this list needs in the graphics area are important living people who like Warnock and Geschke we can thank for being able to read just about anything containing letters. Certainly true of at least three of them and possibly all five. Because your message above followed a separate deletion (Laura Bush, and before that McNutt at MIT) my apologies if I didn't think this out in detail yesterday, I felt the three together were pointed at me somewhat. We don't all think alike, thank heavens for that. Hope this helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This, as I pointed out earlier, is the biggest problem with this list. Notability of people changes between everyone. I, for one, do not find anything notable about anyone in the United States section outside of the Presidents. The only one I would keep would be Guliani, due to the fact he will be remembered alot longer then any other mayor of New York.

Similarly, the pro wrestlers on this list are notable to some, and not to others. While I don't think anyone has a arguement against Hogan being on the list, it seems that the others aren't as notable to you. My reasoning for the others is this: Austin and Johnson are both highly recognizable, since they were the two biggest wrestlers while wrestling was most popular in the 90's. McMahon pretty much created the whole buisness, and Flair is widely considered the greatest wrestler in the world. There are more I could add, specifically Bret Hart, who is a legend up here, but since pro wrestling is more of a childish profession, apparently, we can ignore that. --Plasma Twa 2 21:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Try to include more women..." ? The people on this list are there for their contributions. We're not adding any special spaces for women and minorities. The person should be their for their contributions. Spencer^T♦^C 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which does merit and arguement for all the female politicians in the American section. Just because they were the first female to do something doesn't make them all that notable. That is more of a random fact thing between drunk frat buddies (If they talked anout stuff like that). That is not part of the criteria. --Plasma Twa 2 22:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spencer. Yes, we discussed affirmative action of a few different kinds already. Nobody I know of wants to see it here. I probably added more men than women but found the first versions remarkably male (still do in science--looked up Nobel prizes today for something else and found the individual laureates have been something like 95% male). Ms. Pelosi for example has been restored, thank you! I am happy to see this project is coming along. Hope this helps. —SusanLesch (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking a while to respond. Sorry is I came off as overly harsh...I just want people valued for their contributions...Pelosi I agree has good contributions. Allow me to give an example, Barbara Hillary (adventurer), who was the first African-American woman to make it to the north pole. Assuming she had a longer article, I probably wouldn't support her because she was African-American and female, but if she had trekked to the North Pole for a record number of times, I would support. I don't mean to come off as anti-minority (as I am one) or sexist, I'm just trying to emphasize people for their contributions. Spencer^T♦^C 01:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Govenor Generals

What's the status on the Govenor Generals of the Commonwealth countries? If people from the US like Madeline Albright and Nancy Pelosi are worthy of inclusion, then I dare say the Govenor Generals of Canada and Australia are. --Plasma Twa 2 22:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I included them since they were/are each the first American women to hold a position of high political power (subjectively, or objectively if following United States presidential line of succession). Albright was appointed and served in an executive capacity, O'Connor was the first female Supreme Court justice, Rice the highest civilian military position, and Pelosi occupies the highest legislative position. The governor-generals have no real political agency and are thus ceremonial heads of state - you'd have to make an argument for putting up the leaders of the opposition/shadow parties before you could defend putting up the Governors-General. Madcoverboy (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the fact ehy are women makes them any more notable outside of America. And I ahve never put up any leaders of opposition, I believe. All the politicians I have added are former Prime Ministers. --Plasma Twa 2 18:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Putting the Indian subcontinent orr South Asia together with the Middle East is rare outside of the US AFAIK and doesn't really make much sense IMHO. So I seperated the two. Also they are nearly always consider to be part of Asia, especially South Asia but even the Middle East mostly (with places like Israel it gets a little tricky but geographically at least they're more commonly considered part of Asia then a part of Europe). So it doesn't makese much sense to put them seperate from Asian & Oceanian. So I've put them all other there. I also removed Hosni Mubarrak who appeared twice, from the Middle East and added 'Most Valuable Player' to MVP since outside the US most people will probably have no idea what an MVP is. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bands and bias

There are some bands in the music section, while the list should only include individuals. In some cases (e.g. Beatles) it is done correctly, but the rap and pop sections need to be fixed. If the list is meant to be used for deaths in the ITN section it's not much use the way it is now ("U2 died last night after a long and debilitating illness...") I've taken the liberty of doing some edits to the rap/hip-hop section. Public and Enemy Run-DMC are listed as bands, and even though they are both influential as such, I'm not sure any of the members warrant inclusion as individuals. Dr. Dre, on the other hand, is a given, and Nas too I think.

Generally though, the list seems to be too slanted towards popular culture. It's hard to see how 16 baseball players, 8 game programmers and 5 wrestlers(!) find inclusion, but only 2 French politicians. This seems to be a result of systemic bias, both topically and geographically. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 15:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all the former are more well-known to the English public then politicians from non-English speaking countries. However, I do agree we need more politicians. A week or so ago I added all surviving prime ministers of Australia and New Zealand. I do think there needs to be a limit on politicians, though. We can't have every former head of government, I think, because with all the countries in the world that is way too many. However, countries like France and Russia are all important enough to have ever major politican listed, I think. --Plasma Twa 2 00:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources

Time just released their new 100 influential people list for 2008. [1] More fuel for the fire. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of liberal theorists has a few living people at the bottom. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musicians

I saw the list at RIAA certification#Records and was wondering if artists like Led Zeppelin (3 members still living) or Eagles (all members surviving) who had more than 100 million records sold should be up there. Spencer^T♦^C 01:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering the same thing. I noticed ABBA and Billy Joel aren't up there, but they are highly influential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.92.63 (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion section

Just stumbled upon this page. Two thoughts after reviewing the fashion section: Holy cow, systemic bias. I count one Italian, one British, one British/American, and 6 Americans. Americans' influence in fashion is not nearly this great! Also, it would be very helpful if wikiprojects (such as WP:FASHION) were advised of this so that they could lend their expertise. Mangostar (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions at other locations

There have been discussion related to this page here and here. I think it's worth keeping this list, although its use is rather limited. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]