Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Writer contenders

This is a holding area for potential nominees. Maurreen 16:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. Hans Christian Andersen
  2. Aristophanes
  3. Charles Baudelaire
  4. Samuel Beckett
  5. William Blake
  6. Robert Browning
  7. Albert Camus
  8. Truman Capote
  9. Geoffrey Chaucer
  10. Samuel Taylor Coleridge
  11. Daniel Defoe
  12. Emily Dickinson
  13. Denis Diderot
  14. John Donne
  15. Arthur Conan Doyle
  16. George Eliot
  17. Euripides
  18. William Faulkner
  19. F. Scott Fitzgerald
  20. Anne Frank
  21. Robert Frost
  22. Thomas Hardy
  23. Nathaniel Hawthorne
  24. Horace
  25. Langston Hughes
  26. Henry James
  27. Jack Kerouac
  28. John Keats
  29. D.H. Lawrence
  30. Thomas Mann
  31. Molière
  32. Eugene O'Neill
  33. Ovid
  34. Thomas Paine
  35. Alexander Pope
  36. Bertrand Russell
  37. Friedrich Schiller
  38. George Bernard Shaw
  39. Sophocles
  40. Stendhal
  41. John Steinbeck
  42. Jonathan Swift
  43. Dylan Thomas
  44. Kurt Vonnegut
  45. Emile Zola

Moving this along

I've been slowly adding some of these above, but maybe there's a more efficient way. Does anyone think any of them are worth including? If not, I'll archive the whole section. Maurreen 17:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just archive the whole section. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed Roman candidates

  1. Cicero
    1. Support. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Oppose. john k 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Oppose. Maurreen 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Cato the Younger
    1. Support. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Oppose john k 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Oppose. Maurreen 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Pompey
    1. Support. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Oppose john k 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Comment My goodness-Cato, Cicero and Pompey all to join Caesar? Are we to restart the Civil Wars? Rcpaterson 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    4. Oppose. Maurreen 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Solon
    1. Support. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Oppose. john k 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Oppose. Maurreen 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Draco
    1. Support. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Oppose john k 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Oppose. Maurreen 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

More added

Leaders and public figures

  1. Joan of Arc (previously listed and removed)
    1. Support. Maurreen 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support plange 17:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support Rcpaterson 00:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    4. Support Kaldari 05:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Mathematician candidates

  1. Archimedes
    1. Support. Maurreen 08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support VegaDark 11:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support studerby 23:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Leonhard Euler
    1. Support Maurreen 02:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support. Bender235 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support studerby 23:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Carl Friedrich Gauss
    1. Support plange 01:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support. Maurreen 17:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support studerby 23:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Pierre de Fermat
    1. Support. Bender235 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support. Maurreen 17:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support studerby 23:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Social scientists

  1. Thomas Malthus
    1. Support. Maurreen 08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support. john k 11:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support studerby 23:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Activists

  1. Frederick Douglass
    1. Support. Maurreen 15:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support. john k 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support. studerby 23:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    4. Neutral I have no wish to diminish Douglass' achievments-and I known he is significant in American history; but does he have resonance beyond? Rcpaterson 02:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    5. Support Kaldari 06:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Writers

  1. Ezra Pound
    1. Support Rcpaterson 23:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Kaldari 05:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support studerby 06:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. T. S. Eliot. The Waste Land remains a monument of high modernism, even if nobody much cares for The Four Quartets. john k 10:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support. Maurreen 05:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Rikurzhen 07:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. John Milton. john k 02:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support Maurreen 07:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Rikurzhen 07:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientists

  1. Michael Faraday - chem/physics
    1. Support Rikurzhen 06:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Maurreen 06:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support Kaldari 05:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. James Clerk Maxwell
    1. Support. Maurreen 17:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support --Mais oui! 18:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support Rikurzhen 06:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    4. Support Kaldari 07:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    5. from previous discussion: 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)

Addition candidates – controversial – to be archivedl

All failed. Maurreen 06:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Music

  1. Bob Dylan
    1. Support --Mais oui! 07:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support john k 19:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Oppose, for now at least. Additional popular music entries should include something other than rock. Maurreen 23:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    4. Support Rcpaterson 01:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Actually my vote was for Igor Stravinsky, who seems to have disappeared! I have no strong feelings about Dylan one way or the other. Rcpaterson 01:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Richard Wagner, an innovator in opera-writing, certainly, and highly influential. john k 11:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support. Maurreen 15:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Oppose A really nauseating human being. This is my point of view, of course, and I do not suppose repulsiveness is a true basis for exclusion. Das Judenthum in der Musik anyone? Rcpaterson 00:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      Well, we have Hitler. Wagner had disgusting political views, but he was still tremendously influential and important - arguably the most important composer of the 19th century (other than Beethoven, I guess). john k 00:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Influential? I'm not so sure: who, after all, composes in the style of Wagner? In a way he 'constructs' his operas like a man building a wall, with one brick laboriously laid upon another. Nietzsche, his former disciple, had the true measure of the man. In Der Fall Wagner he conrasts Wagner's plodding Nordic mythology with Bizet's life-enhancing Carmen. Give me Puccini or Verdi; but please, please do not give me Wagner. Rcpaterson 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Politics candidates

  1. Noam Chomsky
    1. Support. Maurreen 15:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Hugely influential in the field of linguistics, also an important intellectual figure within U.S. politics.
    3. Comment Hugely influential, yes, but in linguistics, I'd rank Ferdinand de Saussure ahead of Chomsky. Saussure's work was truly foundational; Chomsky (very brilliantly) built on the work of others in the field, particularly Leonard Bloomfield and his school of thought. There is also a huge amount of contention and bitterness within the linguistics community about Chomskyian linguistics and its place in the history of the field. One example tip of that iceberg can be seen at Talk:Ferdinand_de_Saussure#POV.3F. Also, there remain seriously considered competitive theories in linguistics, particularly in Europe but also in the U.S., although Chomsky is definitely dominant there. I've got something of a chip about the linguistics side, and I'm not familiar enough with his actually significance as an activist (as opposed to the talk about him as an activist), so no vote. studerby 23:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    4. Opposed by john k, see below. Kaldari 06:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Martel (stopped the Muslim invasion of France)
    • Probably not and we already have Charlemagne, one person per family is enough. Either Julius Caesar or Augustus should be excised on the same grounds. Probably Julie. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Charles Martel, and the Battle of Tours, really werent that significant and have a very overblown place in European history/mentality. The traditional image of the unstoppable Muslim hordes being halted at the last by the Hammer isnt especially accurate and the truly lack of concern expressed by contemporary Muslim sources regarding the defeat show this. Hee certainly is a significant chap with notable achievements but i wouldnt say hes significant enough.
    1. Mild Support I think he should be added, but I won't fight over him being on the list Laserbeamcrossfire 06:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Oppose. Hugely overrated. Tours was just a raid, and his victory didn't actually prevent Oxford divines from debating the Koran under Minarets, or whatever Gibbon's great phrase is. His popularity is all the more reason that Gibbon should be on the list! john k 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support --Mais oui! 18:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Antonio José de Sucre (one of the founders of the Latin American countries and an extremely important figure in the development of Latin America) --Laserbeamcrossfire 07:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Oppose. john k 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Oppose doesn't seem to meet definition of Top. plange 02:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Ashoka Huge figure in the history of India, ranked #53 on Hart's list.
    1. Support, I think. john k 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support. studerby 09:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Comment - not familiar with this person, so need to hear an argument as to how he meets Top definition plange 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed Roman candidates

I have archived the following and seconded [[User:John Kenney|john k]'s oppose votes.

  1. Cicero
  2. Cato the Younger
  3. Pompey
  4. Solon
  5. Draco
Maurreen 03:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion candidates

  • Umar (pivotal figure in the history of Islam)
  1. Oppose – Important in Sunni Islam, but outside of Islam, I don't think he has had much impact. ♠ SG →Talk 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, I think. Creating an Islamic Empire, driving the Romans out of Egypt and Syria, and destroying the Persian Empire doesn't qualify as "much impact"? ETA - I would consider him as more of a political than a religious figure, though. john k 00:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Social scientist candidates

  1. John Maynard Keynes
    1. Support. Maurreen 07:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Comment: reluctant to vote against, but much of his work has been thoroughly discredited; nevertheless a tremendous figure in economics, and arguably still highly influential on modern (21st century) politicians
    3. Support. The correctness of a social scientist has very little do with their importance. john k 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Leopold von Ranke. Considered the developer of "scientific history. john k 10:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support Yes, absolutely; as significant in his own way-and time-as Herodotus. Rcpaterson 23:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Less name recognition than Keynes. Maurreen 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support plange 02:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

English language

  1. Samuel Johnson - Maurreen 17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Not sure. Samuel Johnson is most famous at this point not for his own writings, but because somebody else wrote a really really good biography of him. On the other hand, as the subject of the msot famous biography in world history, perhaps he's a shoo-in... john k 11:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      1. I was mainly thinking of the dictionary. Maurreen 02:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Rudyard Kipling (certainly over Conrad)studerby 07:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Oppose. Kipling is considered a minor author by most critics (certainly not as important as Conrad), and is no longer popular enough to warrant inclusion on that basis. john k 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support I have no idea who 'most critics' are but Kipling is one of the great innovators in the history of the English language and literature. As for popularity being a basis for inclusion why not have Jackie Collins or J. K. Rowling? By what assessment, I have to ask, is the grossly overrated Ernest Hemingway included when so many better writers are not? As I have said above this whole exercise is arbitrary in the extreme. Rcpaterson 23:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      1. What I mean is that Kipling is neither particularly critically respected (that is to say, by academics and such like) nor (at this point) particularly popular. I like Kipling, but he's not generally considered by critics to be one of the best writers of the English language, and he's not all that popular anymore either. He's less read than Hemingway, I would say, although perhaps I'm showing an American bias in saying so - "If" was voted Britain's favorite poem, I guess. At any rate, my point was that Kipling never had academic/high literary supporters, and now he's no longer incredibly popular in the way he used to be, so that he doesn't deserve to be on the list. YMMV. john k 00:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      2. Thank you for that. I still do not know who the 'academics and such like' are who do not believe Kipling is worthy of respect. In any case they are quite wrong; Kipling is one of the great craftsmen of English prose. I suspect that much contemporary assessment is coloured by ghastly notions of political correctness. But, in the end, time is the only true critic. Edward Gibbon may not be 'popular' but he's still around. My own belief is that in time to come Kipling will still figure high in the Pantheon of English literature when much of what passes for good writing today has been consigned-and justly consigned-to the dustbin of history. Rcpaterson 00:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        RCP - Kipling has, I think, already survived the test of time to an extent, and I would not be surprised at all if he remains, if not high, at least well within the pantheon of English literature after many contemporary writers have been consigned to the dustbin of history. My point was not that people do not believe Kipling is worthy of respect, but that most critics than I am aware of take Kipling as a figure of the second rank, and most tend to focus on the "high modernists" who were his contemporaries. Is Kipling ever going to generally be considered the equal of Joyce, or even Conrad? It seems unlikely to me. If the list were longer, I'd certainly support Kipling, but it's short, and there's a lot of English writers I'd put ahead of Kipling - even a lot of contemporaries of Kipling that I'd put ahead of him. I'd also add that Kipling's political views are rather unappetizing. Not as bad as Wagner, certainly (whom you voted against on the basis of his nasty political views), but he's also not as important a figure as Wagner, I think. Plus, Kipling's a mediocre poet, and we don't yet have any good poets on the list. john k 10:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        I didn't nominate him solely for his rank in the realm of litcrit; it's my impression that his writings had social and political importance within the history of the British Empire were out of proportion to their literary qualities (for better or for worse). studerby 14:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        I think that's true. But I still don't think he qualifies for top importance. We currently have 10 English language writers. We'll probably get at most about ten more. I don't think Kipling is important enough to be in the top 20. I will admit that Scott is a fairly comparable case - both were incredibly popular in their day, and both are still reasonably popular, but not nearly so popular as they were. Both have tended to be denigrated by critics, but also to have scholarly defenders. Both, I think, can be acknowledged to have had significant influence beyond the merits of their own work. But I don't think Scott really belongs, either. If we want an English Romantic, Byron has the advantage of genuinely iconic status (how many times has Byron shown up as a fictional character in somebody else's work? How many later Romantic and post-Romantic writers, especially in the non-English-speaking world, view the Romantic hero as essentially an extension of Byron's persona?), a much more interesting life than Scott, and probably greater critical respect, while Wordsworth has the advantage of being the founder of English romanticism (I don't especially like Wordsworth, but he gets massive props in the scholarly community). john k 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      3. Joyce is a case sui generis. Kipling is a superb craftsman, a master of the nuances and cadences of English prose; and,as such, is as good as, if not better than, Conrad, whom I also happen to admire. He is as significant in his own way and time as Virgil and Horace were for the early days of the Roman Empire. I would include him as a story teller, rather than a poet; but I do not think it fair and accurate to describe his highly memorable poetry as 'mediocre.' But, I came back to my contention that this whole process is hopelessly arbitrary. I happen to like Edgar Allan Poe; but is he really worthy of inclusion in a list of the most significant writers in the English language? Rcpaterson 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        1. I believe Poe makes the list for three reasons: #1 he's a household name and enourmously popular, #2 he's had a significant influence outside of literature (think Tim Burton or Roger Corman), #3 he was influential in the development of several genres: horror, science fiction, detective novels, etc. Kaldari 23:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        2. I think Poe should probably go, too. And Sir Walter Scott, as I said (how did he get on in the first place?) john k 23:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support Maurreen 01:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Other languages

  1. Hesiod studerby 07:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support. Maurreen 15:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Oppose. Does anybody really read him who is not a classicist? I think he clearly goes to the second ranks. john k 00:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Oppose plange 02:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous candidates

  1. Le Corbusier
    1. Support. Maurreen 07:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Oppose - over-hyped. --Mais oui! 07:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support- yes over-hyped as an architect but his influence on the world of architecture is undeniable. Pascal.Tesson 16:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting the number

I'm thinking we might be better off going back to a limit of 150. It seems like most of the people in the top 100 to 150 are usually shoo-ins. But in my view, the level of importance for No. 151 to 250 is probably closer to the next 1,000 than the top 100. In other words, it seems like once we get past 150, the choices are much more gray, and I'm not sure it's worth the effort. But I'm not sure I said any of this as well as I'd like. Thoughts? Maurreen 20:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The line is arbitrary wherever it is drawn. The number should be decided upon based on the practical considerations of "how many is practicable to actually improve," rather than the idea that there's some kind of natural "top 150," which is silly. john k 21:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "how many is practicable to actually improve," has been essentially my general intent. Maurreen 21:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, we're at 152 right now. Managing 100 more articles than what we have right now does seem a bit daunting. However, I think there are a fair number of shoo-ins that still aren't on the list yet. Perhaps we should compromise on a nice round number like 200. How does that sound? Kaldari 00:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. Maurreen 10:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting "Top" definition

I'm thinking it might be wise to reconsider how we want to define this group. I think it might be worthwhile to distinguish between the importance of the person and the importance of the biography.

Given that this is all meant to help people find info, maybe we should give some weight, or more weight, to which biographies people are most likely to look up, or which they most expect to find, in a typical encyclopedia. That doesn't mean we would need to be overly heavy in current celebrities. We could still keep the list relatively timeless, but with perhaps a wider focus. I think such a criteria could make decisions easier also. Maurreen 20:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

For reference, here are our current definitions. Maurreen 20:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

For an understanding of how "Top" relates to potential lower-importance categories, keep this in mind, as it might help decide if a biography is really "Top" or "High," etc.:

High - Must have had a large impact in their main discipline, across a couple of generations. Had some impact outside their country of origin.
Mid - Important in their discipline
Low - A contributor to their discipline and is included in Wikipedia to expand depth of knowledge of other articles.

About 20 slots left

In the interest of moving this along …

We have about 20 slots left. And we also have about 20 candidates with at least two signed supporters and no opposition.

Does anyone feel strongly that any of the following should not be included?

Does anyone feel strongly that anyone vital would still be missing?

  1. Archimedes
  2. Brando
  3. Burke
  4. Chomsky
    1. Eh. I'm going to oppose. If he's on for linguistics, I don't think linguistics is a prominent enough field for any linguist to qualify, and I'm not sure there's any reason for Chomsky to be the only linguist on the basis of that alone. In terms of his political activism, I'm not sure that his work there is really particularly timely, and is mostly kind of fringe. john k
  5. De Gaulle
    1. Oppose plange 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Douglass
  7. Eliot
  8. Euler
  9. Fermat
  10. Gauss
  11. Ibsen
  12. Malthus
  13. Melville
  14. Milton
  15. Orwell
  16. Pound
  17. Rontgen (discovered X-rays, had to look that one up)
  18. Wilde
  19. Welles
  20. Woolf
Maurreen 18:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Bruce Lee has 3 supports with no opposes, I think he should be added to this list. VegaDark 22:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make one last appeal for the following:

  1. Thomas Hobbes - Got 4 votes of support and one objection. One of the 3 intellectual forefathers of modern democracy along with Locke and Rousseau. It seems lopsided that we would list Locke, but not his intellectual counterweight Hobbes.
    I agree that he should be on their, although I think calling him a "forefather of modern democracy" seems a bit presentist. john k 23:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    What is happening with Hobbes? Rcpaterson 22:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Moses - arguably the most important historical figure in Judaism; also important in Christianity and Islam. The main objection to his inclusion is that he is a legendary figure, and thus much of his biography is bound to be apocryphal. However, we already include other legendary figures in the list: Laozi, Gautama Buddha, Jesus, Zoroaster, and perhaps even Socrates. Admittedly, Moses has the least evidence of having actually existed, but are we really prepared to defend omitting Moses from the list? Kaldari 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Am at work, will weigh in tonight plange 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
My stance on adding the Moses article is that I don't feel this project should include ANY biblical/other religious figures that has a large contingent of people who believe the persons existance is debatable. This includes Jesus, Moses, etc. This is because this project is supposed to include people either living or that once lived and we cannot confirm these people did in fact live or if they were made up. I think to respect all religious beliefs we should leave these articles out, as simply including them in a project intended to cover people that lived doesn't respect the beliefs of a large group of people. Now, that being said, these articles are still very vital and important in an encyclopedia and by all means should be on the list of articles to improve to featured status, which is the ultimate goal of this project after all. My suggestion would be to have a Biblical figures subproject that keeps these ideas in mind but still strives to improve the articles. My position is that we should take out all biblical/religous figures that may or may not have actually existed, but if people don't agree to that, then by all means add Moses as he was a very important biblical figure and shouldn't be left out if we are including biblical figures. VegaDark 22:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Jesus's historical existence is accepted by most historians, and there are multiple, separate sources for him which all emerge not too long after his death - the 4 gospels, the letters of Paul, and (probably) at least a brief reference in Josephus. There are numerous people who believe that Jesus existed who are not Christians. Moses is a lot more problematic. There is no evidence for him save the last four books of the Pentateuch, which most scholars agree were written centuries after the time when Moses supposedly lived. Having a biography of Moses is basically impossible, because he is, more or less, a literary character. One can't assess anything about his life in a scholarly way. There has never been a serious book about the "historical Moses." Jesus is at a different level (although of course there are a few who doubt his historical existence), in that one can interrogate the sources that we have about Jesus in the same way one interrogates other historical texts. Moses is basically comparable to someone like Romulus - there's just no way to have any clue if he existed. Most scholars, on the other hand, seem to accept that Jesus did. We shouldn't act as though the two situations are similar. john k 23:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think you've convinced me, although I would like to be reassured that some WikiProject out there is going to shepard Moses into a usable state for 1.0, but I suppose we already have enough to chew on ourselves. (I'm dreading the Jesus article already) Kaldari 23:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I think Socrates and Buddha don't qualify for legendary figures in the same way that Moses does, either, although I'm less familiar with the sources on Buddha. Zoroaster and Laozi seem like plausible candidates for removal. john k 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to Chekhov, by the way? He got two support votes and no opposition. john k 23:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps your comment on Chekhov was not recognized as a vote of support. Kaldari 23:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

I wonder if Voltaire and Rousseau should be counted as literary figures, rather than philosophers. Rousseau's novels and autobiography are among his best-read works; Voltaire is most famous for a picaresque (Candide), and wrote numerous plays and historical works and such like. Neither is particularly studied in philosophy departments, where Hume and Kant are the big 18th century names. Certainly Voltaire, at least, has hardly a genuine philosophical work to his name. john k 00:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK with me. Maurreen 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It sounds fine to me, too. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Me 3 :) Kaldari 19:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Core_biographies/Archive_4&oldid=1037280111"