Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Why Kaiser Bill?

I would be pleased if someone could explain why Wilhelm II of Germany is to be found among the core biographies? By any measure he hardly counts as significant figure in world history. He was an intensely vulnerable man, ill-suited to his high position; he did not control events but allowed events to control him. In essence he was a mediocrity, much like his cousin Nicholas II, who-rightly-does not appear. As for responsibility for the Great War that heavy burden might just as easily be heaped on Franz Joseph. If we need a German to replace him might I suggest Konrad Adenauer, who did so much to resurrect his shattered country. Rcpaterson 07:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Franz Joseph also has the distinction of being one of the longest reigning rulers in history, and of starting several other wars. Plus, all the fun that everyone in his family died horrible deaths. But I agree, Kaiser Bill is not that important. john k 10:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Wilhelm seemed to be more of a figurehead than an influential leader, as Hindenburg and Ludendorff were the ones actually calling the shots during WWI. Kaldari 00:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
For the last three years of the war, at any rate. Obviously Wilhelm did a lot of stuff before World War I, but I don't see as he's terribly more important than, say, Lord Salisbury, or the aforementioned Nicholas II. john k 02:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
So, should we remove him? Anybody want to keep him? Maurreen 06:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Added “free picks”

These noms were among those added by “free picks” as part of a win-win proposition. Maurreen 06:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Philosopher
  1. Thomas Hobbes
    1. Support plange 01:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support john k 16:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support Rcpaterson 00:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    4. Support - Helped lay the philosophical groundwork for democracy, seems pretty important to me. Kaldari 05:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    5. Support - top tier --Rikurzhen 22:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Politician
  1. Edmund Burke
    1. Support. Maurreen 15:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support. Rcpaterson 23:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support Rikurzhen 06:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Scientists
  1. J. Robert Oppenheimer
    1. Support Maurreen 07:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Rikurzhen 06:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Blaise Pascal
    1. Support. Maurreen 04:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Kaldari 07:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support studerby 13:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Ernest Rutherford - chem/physics
    1. Support Rikurzhen 06:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Maurreen 06:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Ptolemy - astronomy, geography, ancient
    1. Support Rikurzhen 06:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Writer
  1. Henrik Ibsen. Created the modern theatre, probably. john k 10:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support. Maurreen 15:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Rikurzhen 08:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth I, Socrates, Joan of Arc, and Voltaire

These are more free picks that were added. Maurreen 06:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Rehashing contested entries that have been removed

Queen Elizabeth I

  1. Oppose Not important enough. Leaders should be kept to those who have had a huge historical significance outside one country. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support she had a huge impact on at least one other country - America! The state of Virginia (first permanent English Colony in North America) was named after her and settled because of her financing and influence. Her support of artists and philosophers during the Elizabethan era influenced many courts of Europe. plange 01:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Calgacus. Outside of the Commonwealth, I don't see much impact. ♠ SG →Talk 20:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support, surely Elizabeth had significant impact on Spain (which she was at war with for the last 20 years of her reign, and had complicated relations with before then), France (in whose civil wars she several times intervened), the Netherlands (where she aided the rebels), and Scotland (whose queen she killed and whose civil wars she intervened in and which was not, at that time, part of England), as well as England and Ireland. She's at least as important in Europe as her dad, who is listed. john k 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Ranked #95 in Hart's top 100, and we need more women. Walkerma 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Calgacus Laserbeamcrossfire 06:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Maurreen 18:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support This whole process of assessment seems to me to be terribly arbitrary. I do not understand why Elizabeth would not be included as a key figure in British and European history when her father and Henry II are. As a ruler, and a politician, she was far more successful-and significant-than either of these men. For a small offshore kingdom to fight off the greatest European power of the day must count for something. It might also be worth pointing out that her intervention in Scotland in 1560 was vital in ensuring the success of the Reformation. Rcpaterson 23:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. support - commonly found on top 100 lists --Rikurzhen 22:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Comments
    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)
    True there were many other significant political figures during the Renaissance, but few, if any, women of comperable power and significance. Secondly, this is a list for the English encyclopedia, so a bit of bias towards British and American leaders is to be expected. Thirdly, Queen Elizabeth's life cotinues to exert influence today due to her fame and popularity. Robert the Bruce does not. Kaldari 01:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Am making another appeal for this lady. It just seems very weird that the ruler who gave the Elizabethan Era its name is not going to make this list, when other names like Babe Ruth are on there. Her influence definitely stretched outside of the British Isles. Plus probably the first powerful female ruler (that we know of)? plange 02:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There's plenty of powerful female rulers before Elizabeth. Eleanor of Aquitaine, for instance, just to take another Queen of England. john k 12:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
erm, that's like comparing Calvin Coolidge to FDR plange 16:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been much debate over the inclusion of Queen Elizabeth I. Although she has been opposed, several people are still arguing for her inclusion (which has been rare thus far). The arguments against her inclusion have been "not important enough" or "not influential outside of England". It seems that both of these arguments have been well rebuffed in the debate. Not only that, but several external sources have verified her importance and notoriety:

  • She ranks #31 in the book 1,000 Years, 1,000 People[1]
  • She ranks #88 in Life magazine's list of the Top 100 people who made the Millennium
  • She is listed in Michael Hart's "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History"
  • In a BBC poll[2] she ranked 7th for "The Greatest Briton of all Time", higher than any other British monarch

Unless someone can present a convincing argument why all of these sources are wrong, I'm going to go ahead and add her to the list in the next day or two. Kaldari 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it one way or another but at this point I think we might as well add her. We can always do a vote to remove her later on down the road. There are still a fair amount of spots left. We could also go back to 250 people if that is an issue. VegaDark 03:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Britian's most popular monarch[3]; widely cited as among the most important figures of the past millenium[4][5][6]; inaugurated the Elizabethan Era, often called the "golden age" of English history; exerted significant international power during her reign, both in the New World and in Europe (especially Spain, France, and Ireland); widely regarded as one of the most powerful and influential women in all history.[7] Kaldari 02:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Socrates

  1. comment not a top 10 philosopher; real credit lies with Plato and Aristotle. but socrates the character is top tier. --Rikurzhen 00:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The biggest thing I took out of doing classics at university is that too much importance is assigned by westerners to too many ancient Greeks. Socrates is a literary character, primarily found in the literature of Plato, rather than a real person. He is covered by Plato. 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)
  3. Support Jesus is also a literary figure, but I wouldn't presume to say that Paul of Tarsus adequately covers his impact. Socrates laid much of the philosophical foundations that Plato and Aristotle built on top of, in fact many would call him the father of western philosophy.[8][9] Kaldari 01:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Comment Well, the Mother of Western Philosophy must have gotten around. Do a google hit and you'll find the honor claimed for Plato, Thales of Miletus and René Descartes.Google Book Search Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Not sure. Socrates is mostly a literary figure found in the works of Plato, but he was also a real person, and is described by other sources (notably, in some detail, by Xenophon). Scholars do try to determine, and do argue about, what in Plato's dialogues is representing Socrates' views, and what Plato's, by means such as comparison with Xenophon, and so forth. It is generally thought, as I understand it, that the Apology, for instance, mostly represents Socrates' own views. On the other hand, I'm not sure he's absolutely essential. I shall ponder it for a while. john k 02:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc

  1. Oppose Not a contender. Famous and iconic, yes. In the top 250 people ever, I hardly think so. Surely Charles_VII_of_France, not even one of France's most important kings, would get in ahead of her. How exactly has this person made a major impact on the world? Box office ticket receipts for the trashy and inaccurate movies made about her?! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Maurreen 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Why? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support plange 17:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Why? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Rcpaterson 00:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Why? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The only film I saw about the life of Joan of Arc was that with Ingrid Bergman; I'm not sure it had that much of an impact, though. I came across this page a few days ago and decided to participate out of a sense of fun, not because I think it will ever be possible to get people to agree on the most significant figures in world history; quite simply its a hopeless exercise. Look at the list itself. Why, for goodness sake, is Kaiser Bill there; or Sir Walter Scott; or Walt Disney; or Pele; or the Brothers Grimm etc., etc., etc.? Basically I 'voted' for people I either admire-like writers or philosophers-or because I thought them worthy of note. Why Joan? Her life was so brief and her actions so circumscribed. But she was like a pebble that started an avalanche: before Joan the English rarely lost; after Joan they never won. World historical significance?-I don't honestly know; but quite an achievment for a seventeen year old girl in Medieval Europe. Only specialists know now of Charles the Victorious; everyone knows of Joan: not, I think, just because of the cinema. I read the transcripts of her trial when I was at school, and was amazed by the lucidity and quality of her answers. I have to say ad nauseum that this whole exercise is quite, quite arbitrary. I argued for Kipling because his influence as a writer transcends literary fashion, and, quite frankly, because I like his work; others disagreed. You nominted Columba I imagine because you are a Scot; I voted for him defintely because I am a Scot; I simply do not believe he is of world importance. As a historian I have always admired Leopold von Ranke; you obviously do not. I despise Hegel; you obviously do not. Where do we end? Rcpaterson 01:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. Support Kaldari 05:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Why? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      1. History's most prominent female military leader. She was responsible for reinvigorating French forces during the Hundred Years' War and turning the tide against England. Her life continues to inspire music,[11] literature,[12], and yes, even movies[13] to this day. Kaldari 01:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, I have to agree with Kaldari here. How many female military leaders are on this list, especially any who have had a major impact on religion and on the history of Europe? ♠ SG →Talk 12:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Voltaire

  1. borderline --Rikurzhen 00:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, not even in the top 2000 people ever. Total lack of perspective. Assuming philosophers at all get into the top 50, I defy anyone to argue that Voltaire is of more philosophical importance than actual greats not on the list, like Hegel. Add Voltaire and the flood-gates open to every semi-significant man of letters born in Europe between 1500 and 2000. How about Lord Kames, Johann Gottfried Herder, Adam Ferguson, Leopold von Ranke, Arnold J. Toynbee, etc. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Voltaire is noteworthy as a writer, but as per above he's borderline between top tier and 2nd tier in that class. --Rikurzhen 01:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Neutral A first class second class thinker. Rcpaterson 02:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support - notable as a writer, not a philosopher. Listed 7th on Murray's Western Literture list.[14] 36th in 1,000 People ranking.[15] Listed in Michael Hart's 100.[16] Listed 56th on the Influential Books list.[17] Kaldari 02:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support - as a writer. He wasn't really a phliosopher, so I fail to see why his lack of philosophical importance is relevant. He was an important writer and public figure of his day, and is considered the typical figure of the Enlightenment. Are you really suggesting that Voltaire is no more important a figure than Lord Kames? That's ridiculous. john k 02:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Added

  1. John Maynard Keynes -- Added. -- Maurreen 06:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    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)
    4. Support Rikurzhen 06:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    5. Support Kaldari 07:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Urban II-you can not be serious!

I see that Urban II appears as a possible candidate in '5. New Nominations' above. What can I say? I realise that this English language version of Wikipedia is inevitably skewered towards a Western cultural perspective; but in our present political climate I can imagine how Urban figuring on a list of the most significant people in history would appear to Muslim people. Now, I know there is more to Urban than the Crusades; but everyone who knows anything about Urban, the Council of Clermont and the Middle Ages associates him with this movement-'God wills it.' Does anyone-I mean anyone - believe that the Crusades were anything but a complete disaster, from the massacre of Jerusalem in 1099 to the sack of Constantinople in 1205 and beyond? The Crusaders came like savages to ravage ancient cultures and civilizations, in a far more barbarous way than the Germanic tribes in the final decades of the Roman Empire. I know that Urban did not 'will' any of this; he was, nevertheless, the spiritual father, in more ways than the obvious one. Rcpaterson 11:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler and Stalin are on the list, as is Genghis Khan. I wasn't aware that the criteria had to do with doing good things. (Constantinople was sacked in 1204, btw). john k 11:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the date: a typo, I assure you! Poor old Urban: how would he feel about being put in that company? Obviously 'bad' people will figure on a list of significant figures in history. I do not for a moment believe that Urban was bad: he provides, it might be said, the perfect example of that old adage 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.' My point was really to do with perception. Urban is far from being a significant figure in history-unlike Hitler, Stalin and Genghis Khan. To select him as such suggests a particular cultural and historical bias. Rcpaterson 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clarifying. I think I agree. If we had a wikiproject on, say, people involved with the political history of medieval Europe, Urban would probably qualify, but I agree that he's not important enough for this list. john k 12:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Core_biographies/Archive_6&oldid=915686352"