Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. 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

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Anyone up for weeding?

Looks like the Top 125 has grown to more than 200... Should we discuss deletions here? plange 16:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No and be bold. Thanks for noticing that. Actually, I realized somehow the top section was never near 125. Maybe I meant to cut it down and forgot. I'm all up for hacking away, saving discussion for disagreements. I'm thinking the sizes of different could vary anywhere from a factor of two to a factor of 10. That is, level A could be anywhere from one-tenth to one-half the size of level B. Maurreen 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the criteria? Is it who's the most famous or who had the most impact? plange 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd give an edge to impact. Maurreen

Then probably any athlete could go, right? Unless something they did impacted humanity broader than just winning a medal? plange 17:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. We just had an edit conflict about sports. I could change my mind, but at the moment I'm leaning toward including one to 10 athletes. Please see the next section. Maurreen 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Jackie Robinson and Jesse Owens probably did have broader impact. Maurreen 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, since their impact was on a sociological level... I think the main ones who broke sociological barriers should stay.... I'm at work now playing hookey, which I shouldn't be some can't dive into this, but will tonight. WP is so dang addictive and my work is suffering! plange 17:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The middle level here now has been cut to 135, just an update. Maurreen 17:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sports

OK, now I'm discussing because I'm not sure. What was top 125 has the following.

Tteam sports

Individual sports

For the top 10 or so, I would suggest:

Any additions this group, or other comments? I'm not sure about football and soccer, etc. A number of people are in a gray area for me. Maurreen 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to use for now. Maurreen 17:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Leaders

Some of these too I'm torn on -- I took Bush out, and am teetering on taking out Trotsky, Putin, and Truman but am wondering if FDR should be added? Though he only had a huge impact in the US and don't know if his New Deal architecture influenced other cultures. Trotsky was definitely a leader in the movement, and an intellectual, but in the end was ineffectual against the Stalin powerhouse....

The short answer is, you probably know history better than I do, and I think I'll defer to your judgment.

Longer answer -- My initial inclination is to lean toward keeping Bush, essentially because of what he's done in reaction to Sept. 11, I see as having wide effect. Then again, it's difficult to judge current events, and I usually lean toward favoring those who have been shown to have lasting impact, or at least name recogniton, after their death or at least leaving their position.

It's also difficult to figure out a proportional WP balance among the USA, the primarily English-speaking world, the Western world and the world as whole.

Given that we're both Americans, maybe we ought to do rough work, and then ask one or a few others to check it for a broader perspective. Maurreen 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll try to scare up some non-Americans to help...plange 18:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Joan of Arc be in here? Much as I love Sitting Bull, am wondering with our new standards if she should replace him? Has any non-American heard of him? This kills me as I love having a Native American in this list, but going strictly from the Top definition...? plange 04:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC) I'm an idiot, I see her now, was looking in the wrong columnplange 04:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Relating this to importance scale

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Importance_.282.29.2C_from_Wikipedia_talk:Core_biographies.

Candidates for inclusion

I'm wondering if maybe Muhammed Ali should be put back in, what do you think? plange 05:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK for now. I'm going to fiddle with it some more. You should feel free to do so also. Maurreen 05:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just noting some others as I come across them. It doesn't mean I definitely think they should be, but wanted to note them so we can weigh it in...

plange 05:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I left a note for the dance wikiproject to ask about the relative importance of the dance people. Maurreen 05:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like Henry Ford should be included, but I'm not sure where. Maurreen 05:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

ooh, yep... I guess under Inventors. I just left a message at Portal:History asking for some input from non-Americans plange 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good. Another possible addition is chemist Antoine Lavoisier. I just deleted some people, also, so now we have room to add if we want, and if no one misses the names I removed. Maurreen 06:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And I just realized we're missing Henry Thoreau. Mind if I add him? Maurreen 06:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added Oliver Cromwell and William Wallace. I'm glad that you asked some people who know more about history. It is easy to have "present-day" bias.

I've been debating about leaving out Helen Keller. Maurreen 06:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Writers, etc.

Should we trim or otherwise change the writers? Some of them are obviously in, but several are in a gray area for me. Here's a list of who we have right now. Maurreen 05:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Must have

William Shakespeare
Homer

Shades of gray

To be honest, when I looked at this list I had to click on Neruda to see who he was..... Shaw is gray for me too, especially if it deciding between him and Ford.

Some other gray areas for me too:

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel - how much influence/impact outside of India?
Sadaharu Oh
Babe Zaharias

Other candidates for admission?

Hank Aaron - again, this could be my American bias. We need some non-Americans :-P
Bobby Jones (golfer)

The other categories seem pretty solid... plange 06:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll take Neruda out and add Ford. Sadaharu Oh was mainly in for geographic variety in sports, I already deleted him. I'd prefer Babe Zaharias over Aaron or Jones, but I'll take her out for now. I guess I'll take Shaw out, too.

Several of the politicians and leaders I had never heard of before, mainly the ones outside Europe or the USA. For the moment, I have in mind to put that section in some loose geographic order, which might make it easier to judge.

I also took out the pope and a few others. Let me know if you disagree. Maurreen 06:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think taking out the pope is good, I'd missed that... Let me take another look at the politicians and leaders again plange 06:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering (if we were still needing to cut) about Akbar and Elizabeth II. Saladin should stay, am borderline on Timur (I had to look him up).... plange 06:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Count

Looks like we're at 140, so we have space for 10 more.... plange 06:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is where we can work out which 10 get added? Just thought of another possibility to add: Che Guevara.

We desparately need some non-Americans as I would love to know if FDR should be in here-- architect of the new deal, Great Depression, WWII, etc. but perhaps he was only significant to us, like Patel was to India, but didn't have much impact outside of here, and so fits with our definition of High.

Leo Tolstoy?

plange 06:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Making into a candidate list:

plange 06:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I second those. What do you think of:

Antoine Lavoisier, chemist
Henry Thoreau

Maurreen 06:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep to both of those! Also how about these?

William the Conqueror
Louis XIV of France, the Sun King

plange 07:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with any of those. But if the count is correct, we're at 150 now. So we would need to delete some more first. Maurreen 07:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added all those. We are now at 146. Maurreen 07:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference

Look what I found! A list of "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" [1]. Maurreen 06:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

hmm, yep, some of these are key too! The more I think about it the more I'm wondering if dancers qualify for Top per our criteria? plange 07:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you might have a point.

We probably have a small number who don't satisfy the criteria.

But if we can have six athletes, my choice would be to have at least one dancer, at least to represent a variety of human achievement. Maurreen 07:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I left Baryshnikov in, esp. because of the wider implications during the Cold War, etc... plange 07:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That list is heavier on the sciences; ours so far is heavier on the politicians and rulers. Maurreen 07:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidates for deletion

(Sounds like it should be a wikipage.)

Please sign if you agree.

Akbar -- Maurreen
1. Oppose. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2. plange 07:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Muhammad Ali – Changed my mind. Don’t think he meets the criteria. Maurreen
Roger Bannister -- Maurreen
Elizabeth II -- Maurreen
1. plange 07:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2. DHN 08:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Man, you would have thought a basic courtesy would be extended and let me know, considering I explained my rationale on the Talk page of the Bio Project! Anyway, probably too late now but I oppose. She is the current head of state of more countries than most people have visited. Please see also my new comments at "Dead people?" thread above. --kingboyk 16:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Timur -- Maurreen
1. Oppose. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Osama bin Ladin -- he could not have influenced more than one generation. DHN
1. Support deletion. Do it now.--I'll bring the food 17:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Maurreen
Walter Scott -- Catchpole 13:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1. Oppose. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth II and Roger Bannister have been deleted. Maurreen 15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

More deletions

George W. Bush - too many rich white guys in the Americas list, indeed, there are no non-USian figures. One (preferably more) need to go, and GWB is the most obvious one to drop. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Benjamin Franklin - same reasons as GWB and next least important. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

More additions?

Please sign if you agree.

Agree. Absolute must. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Eurocentrism

Asia, with over 50% of the world population, is severely underrepresented in this list. DHN 08:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, do you have any suggestions? Maurreen 08:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Only dead people?

I'm wondering if we should only have dead people. It's easier to evaluate their impact after some time has passed. Maurreen 08:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

An opposing idea which has occurred to me is to replace George W. Bush, Tony Blair and so on with "Current US President", "Current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom", and so on. An online (and therefore up-to-date) enyclopedia must surely consider such articles to be Core?

Along those lines, I wonder if the tooing and froing here about who to include and exclude - when the persons in question are quite obviously extremely important - suggests that we have set the number of core articles too low? Why can't we have 500 core articles if need be?! --kingboyk 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - our politician's shape our lives. That is of top importance.--I'll bring the food 17:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding and Removing

Some of the entries seemed to lack perspective. I took away 10 entries of people who cannot in anyway justify entry into a top 150 people list and inserted 8 Removed: Sophocles, William Blake, Mark Twain, Yasser Arafat, Oliver Cromwell, William Wallace, Victoria of the United Kingdom, Joan of Arc, Socrates, Voltaire Added: Walter Scott, Constantine the Great, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, Henry II of England, Mikhail Gorbachev, David Hume. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

William Wallace was restored and replaced Henry II of England, founder of the English legal system, conquerer of Ireland, etc. I guess Wallace is iconic, but I can't say I personally think Wallace more important than Henry. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I replaced Wallace with Oliver Cromwell. Wallace is only an important figure in Scottish history, whereas Cromwell has significance in the histories of Britain, Ireland and America. Catchpole 12:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that several people are at least looking at this, I think it's better to talk about changes first, as we have been doing above. Maurreen 15:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Socrates

I can't understand deleting Socrates, who is "widely credited for laying the foundation for Western philosophy." Maurreen 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand deleting him or Sophocles either. plange 16:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Socrates is a literary character, primarily found in the literature of Plato, rather than a real person. He is covered by Plato. Sophocles is a playwright who wrote a handful of plays. One of the most important individuals in history? I don't think so. This is what I meant by lacking perspective. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to re-add Socrates. Maurreen 16:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Calgacus, we know we're lacking perspective, that's why we invited others to come here and help :-) plange 16:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Writers

Greeks

Sophocles seems comparable with Aeschylus and Euripides. I'm ambivalen. I'm not sure any of the three are more important than the other two, and I'm not sure we need all three. Maurreen 16:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-Western possibilities

Du Fu and Li Po, "frequently called the greatest of the Chinese poets." Maurreen 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Misc.

How about Ernest Hemingway, Nobel winner? Maurreen 16:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on Yasser Arafat

Include

Maurreen 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Exclude

Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
kingboyk Very important, of course, but not one of the 150/200/250 most important figures in history, I'm sure.

Comments

Torn - I know his effort has affected several countries outside of Palestine (so qualifies for High) but do not know how much he has impacted the rest of the world? Can some more non-Western World members pipe in here? And state where you're from so we can get an idea and know we're not all coming from a Wester-world bias. plange 16:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine tuning Top definition

Wondering if this sentence should be revised more along the lines of "and in the majority of the world, comprising at least one other "tradition/world" (i.e. Western World) besides where the person originated from. For instance, Buddha not only impacted the Eastern World but has widely impacted much of the Western World." I know this can be worded better, so feel free to revise if you agree, but that's the gist.... plange 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you guys think of this? Is it too restrictive, or will it help us weed out ones who impacted their culture tremendously but had little impact on the other half of the world? plange 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am open either way. I can see various criteria as being reasonable.

But I don't like the slash. Maybe instead, something like, "in both the Western and non-Western world".

For reference, the current criteria is: "Top - Must have had a large impact outside of their main discipline, across several generations, and in the majority of the world. For instance, Einstein, brilliant physicist, but his theories have affected people outside of physics and in many other countries besides his nation of origin and several generations. His ideas have changed the way people think. No member should give this rating to any biography without first getting Project approval from the other members." Maurreen 17:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we create an exception for important current world leaders? I imagine the v1.0 team will expect many current world leaders to be on the DVD, although currently almost none of them would meet the Top Criteria. People like George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Tenzin Gyatso, Ayatollah Khamenei, Jacques Chirac, etc. Kaldari 00:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask, but we need to decide if this language should be added before any of us vote to delete or add any more people as this will help us judge. plange 00:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the top 150 or whatever number should be relatively timeless. Current national leaders could be handled in a list. Maurreen 12:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

English bias in the 'British Isles' Leaders section

How can one defend the fact that 6 of the 5 (some might say 6 out of 6) Leaders from the British Isles are English while there is absolutely no sign of any number of equally or even more significant leaders from other parts of these Isles ? siarach 16:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions, please? Maurreen 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually il admit to being more than a little hasty in saying the above. Considering there are only the 5 slots it is very hard to think of others who have had such tremendous impact internationally as well as within the isles. siarach 16:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We need to get rid of those designations by region as I think it's leading to confusion on why they are there. It's not that there are 5 slots to fill there, it just happens that there were 5 we tentatively meet the criteria for Top rating who happen to be from there. plange 16:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be for the deletion of Elizabeth I of England, William I of England and Henry VIII; these characters are of great significance for England, but limited significance for the world. Philip I of Spain would be a better candidate, but even he I don't think qualifies. I've deleted them, but if anyone disagrees they can of course easily add them back. But I think we should seriously consider rulers and other figures of more general significance firstly. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly of the 5 Elizabeth i thought was the easiest one to highlight as being of fairly 'provincial' importance and comparatively undeserving. William I i might go with but i think Henry VIII has to stay purely because of his impact on religious nature and evolution of England and to an extent the Isles as a whole which had a huge impact over the following centuries upon the world siarach 16:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC).

I'm asking this in all honesty, it's not rhetorical: Did the Renaissance have impact outside of the Western World? If so, Elizabeth I should be re-added. plange 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Everything that happened in history has some kind of impact elsewhere. But Elizabeth was not the most powerful renaissance ruler, and there were at least 5 rulers who lived in the Europe of her time who were more powerful. Why is Elizabeth special, may I ask? To me it seems the only reason is that the English regard her as one of their greatest monarchs. But really, I think there is more needed than that. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Renaissance had a tremendous impact upon the world through the influence of European powers. Any impact Elizabeth had does not be deserve to be compared as it is so comparatively trivial - she doesnt really deserve to be up anymore than does Robert the Bruce or any other number of highly significant figures from British history who, as a result of their impact upon the Isles, might be said to have had an impact/legacy upon the world. siarach 16:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientists

How about

Would support Maxwell; Watt and Faraday I'm not sure. I'd wanna hear more input from scientists first. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Support James Watt. Revolutionised Britain.--I'll bring the food 17:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Would probably support Maxwell. Kaldari 23:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss first

For the sake of simplicity and cooperations, etc., please discuss changes first. I am going to revert the changes just made that were not discussed first. Thank you. Maurreen 16:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nominations

Cyrus the Great; founder of the Persian Empire, first large scale state in the history of Western Eurasia.
Ivan IV of Russia, i.e. Ivan the Terrible; is often held to have inaugurated Russian autocracy; even if that's spurious, his reign saw the destruction of the remaining "Mongol" strongholds in Russia and the expansion of Russian conquistadores across the Urals. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Jackson was put as "Top" but has been edited. He is Top importance, huge level of influence and notoriety in almost every country. Everyone knows him. Thriller is one of the most successful albums of all time. And lets take "The Beatles". He OWNS their music!--I'll bring the food 17:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So what?! He actually owns Northern Songs, or part of it, which means he owns the publishing rights of the songs. He has no interest in the recordings. All of which is poppycock, of course; please don't try and use such irrelevancies to promote your cause and denigrate another. If Michael Jackson is sufficiently important to be a core topic - and I personally think he probably is - let his case stand or fall on its merits please. --kingboyk 14:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)(WP:BEATLES)

George W. Bush

Is G.W. really one of the 150 most important people in history? Sure he's arguably the most powerful man in the world right now, but is he really that important historically? Is his legacy going to significantly impact the world for many generations? How do we know that? He doesn't seem to meet the Top Criteria to me: "Must have had a large impact outside of their main discipline, across several generations, and in the majority of the world." If we do include G.W., I think we should create a section for "Current world leaders" and adjust the Top Criteria to accomodate that. Kaldari 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on George W. too. My vote's to delete him too....plange 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)