Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Addition candidates -- unopposed

Each of the following should have at least two signed supporters.

If you vote oppose, please move the nominee to the "Contested" section below.

  1. Orson Welles
    1. Support. Maurreen 15:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support. Seems like the sort of figure one would expect to see on such a list, which is really the most important criterion, in my flawed opinion. Plus, it would mean that someone involved in Transformers: The Movie is on our top 200 list. john k 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Musicians

  1. Igor Stravinsky
    1. Support Rcpaterson 01:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Maurreen 03:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support studerby 13:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Philosophers

  1. Ludwig Wittgenstein
    1. Support – Listed in at least two related published lists. Maurreen 09:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Rcpaterson 10:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support Prefer him over Hobbes, certainly. studerby 13:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Science

  1. Marie Curie
    1. Support Kaldari 07:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Rikurzhen 07:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support Maurreen 09:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Enrico Fermi
    1. Support. Maurreen 15:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Rikurzhen 06:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Writers

English language
  1. Joseph Conrad. The great author on European colonialism. Heart of Darkness possibly the most influential work of the 20th century. john k 10:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support Rcpaterson 23:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Herman Melville. Moby Dick and all that. john k 10:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support Maurreen 01:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. George Orwell
    1. Support Maurreen 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Rcpaterson 23:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oscar Wilde
    1. Support. Maurreen 06:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support In the strongest way. Brilliant and innovative. Rcpaterson 23:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Virginia Woolf. Greatest English writer of the 20th century? john k 02:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support. Maurreen 11:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Other languages
  1. Anton Chekhov. Often considered the master of the short story. john k 10:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support Rcpaterson 00:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Michel de Montaigne. Invented the essay. john k 10:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support. Maurreen 15:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Rcpaterson 22:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support Rikurzhen 06:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Addition candidates – contested or unsure

The rest have been archived. Maurreen 06:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Philosophy

  1. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - western philsopher (as a replacement probably)
    1. Support Rikurzhen 06:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Maurreen 07:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Oppose I would be interested to know if anyone actually reads Hegel anymore? I suspect the tendency is to 'admire' him in the abstract, so to speak, for reasons that I've never been able to comprehend.Rcpaterson 22:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion

  1. Support. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support plange 01:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I'm afraid I don't see evidence in the article of Columba meeting the Top Criteria. Unfortunately, I know nothing of Columba whatsoever, outside of the article I just read, so maybe I just don't know enough about him. What is the rationale for listing his as Top? Kaldari 02:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Comments
    • I'm going from memory and I see it's not in the article so I could be wrong, but wasn't he responsible for saving much of the early Christian writings so that they were able to survive the Dark Ages and be reintroduced to Europe at the end of the Dark Ages? Been awhile since I read How the Irish Saved Civilization. plange 05:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeedie. Founder of Iona, and it was Iona that christianized the Picts and northern English. Iona was the premier monastery in the dark age British Isles, and had daughter monasteries from the north of Scotland to the south of England and Ireland, and well as exporting its monks to France. The article as it is is not very good, but here we base our decisions on the character, not the wiki article about him. Was also the patron saint of the medieval Scots. St Andrews position as "patron saint" was manufactured by the bishop of Cell Rigmonaid (St Andrews), who were dedicated to that saint. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Interesting. He still seems a bit obscure. I've never heard of Iona, but I suppose my knowledge of Medieval Christian history is a bit lacking. So basically he founded a prominent monastary that Christianized much of Great Britian and saved important Christian texts from being lost, correct? Did he have an impact outside of the Christian sphere? Just playing devil's advocate :) Kaldari 19:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support --Mais oui! 07:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Though probably more because I am a Scot than I consider him a figure of world historical significance. Rcpaterson 23:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Really not so much of world historic significance. john k 00:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I am reactivating this because it was added to the project page. But I will remove it from the project page. The rule of thumb is that we have added people only if they have had three support votes and no opposition. Maurreen 05:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. I did not vote to oppose him. I could be wrong, but I believe Socrates had only one vote of opposition and Joan of Arc had none. I don't remember the details on Voltaire. Maurreen 03:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Writers

  1. Du Fu - Chinese literature
    1. Support Rikurzhen 06:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Maurreen 06:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Comment I'm pretty sure Du Fu has already been nominated before, although I can't find it now. I vaguely remember someone saying something like "sure he's hugely important, but not to the English-speaking world." Kaldari 06:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      1. They are largely correct. I've read that Du Fu doesn't translate well. Guess it depends on whether the goal is a set of the most important people which happens to be written in English, or the set of the most important people for English speakers. --Rikurzhen 06:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
        I'm confused. For English-speakers, writers are more important when they have been effectively translated into English. It's pretty difficult to make some kind of plausible scale of "More Important" to "Less Important" that has any kind of objective reality. It's a matter of perceptions, and it's worth thinking about the fact that most readers probably haven't heard of Du Fu. john k 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
        I don't have an opinion either way. I take that as a vote for the latter formluation. --Rikurzhen 17:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

I'll archive the following unless anyone says otherwise:

  • Actors: Brando, Lee
  • Philosopher: Hegel
  • Politics: De Gaulle
  • Writer: Du Fu
Maurreen 06:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Leave Du Fu and Hegel. I'm still considering them. Kaldari 07:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Rontgen should be archived also. Maurreen 10:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. Maurreen 05:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidates for deletion

  1. Babe Ruth
    1. Support Not sure what kind of impact he's had outside of baseball and in a majority of countries plange 17:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Two baseball players seems excessive given that baseball is rarely played outside the Americas. Knowing nothing about baseball, I've heard of Babe Ruth, but hadn't heard of Jackie Robinson until five minutes ago, when I saw him on the list. Now that is purely anecdotal evidence, but perhaps something worth looking into. Oldelpaso 18:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. I agree, though the reasoning for Jackie Robinson was because of the sociological barriers he had to overcome and thus helped pave the way for African-Americans in the sport. plange 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Comment (weak oppose) - He's certainly a stretch for the Top definition, however, he's also quite possibly the most famous athlete of all time (next to Muhammad Ali). It would seem strange to me if we had an athletes section that didn't include Babe Ruth. Kaldari 19:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    4. Keep. Agree with Kaldari. Maurreen 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Also, baseball is popular in Japan. Maurreen 07:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) If we have any athletes, we should have Ruth. Maurreen 05:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    5. Support Removal Michael Jordan is much more famous IMO, I think we should replace MJ with him. VegaDark 22:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Once we reach 200...

Once we reach 200 and the list becomes relatively stable, I would like to propose 2 subprojects:

  1. Going through the entire list and making sure every article has a WPBiography template and has been evaluated.
  2. Contacting other WikiProjects and asking them if they agree with our choices of who to include. For example asking WikiProject Germany if we have, in fact, listed the most important German political leaders. Alternately, if we could contact experts in certain fields, such as European literature, perhaps they could give us feedback on our choices.

Kaldari 21:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree on #1, but not on #2, since every project is going to have what is their Top, which is fine, and they'll submit their Top as recommendations for the encyclopedia for their field, but since ours is so broad, it'll be hard for less broad subjects to be objective. After all, we weren't supposed to go about this with the measuring stick of "let's fill in the top x political leaders from country y" but instead we evaluated people individually and then categorized them. In other words, the categories did not come first and so got filled accordingly. If that was the case, then #2 would make sense... That's why I'm having a hard time accepting some of the sports and music people over people like Queen Elizabeth I as it seems like people are seeing the categories and thinking they need to be filled. We don't actually have to have any sports people or dancers or singers if none of them meet our Top criteria. plange 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right. It might be too much of a can of worms to invite other WikiProjects to weigh in. I just want to make sure we've had enough knowledgable eyeballs involved in crafting this list. If anyone knows some good librarians or history professors, it might be worth getting their opinions at least. Kaldari 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Adding another subproject that should go fairly fast: once we have the list we need to go through all the articles rated as Top and downgrade the ones that aren't on our list. VegaDark 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)





New nominations

Pleae put new nominations (or renominations) here. When they get a second vote, they should go above, in either "Addition candidates -- unopposed" or "Addition candidates -- controversial." Maurreen 05:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please put any nominations in alphabetical order.
Nominations and votes need to be signed to count. Maurreen 06:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I’ve sectioned off the new contested candidates below for now. Maurreen 08:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Desiderius Erasmus
    1. Support – Listed in at least two related published lists. Maurreen 09:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Alexander Fleming
    1. Support – Listed in at least two related published lists. Maurreen 09:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. William Harvey
    1. Support – Listed in at least two related published lists. Maurreen 09:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Joseph Lister
    1. Support – Listed in at least two related published lists. Maurreen 09:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Plotinus
    1. Support – Listed in at least two related published lists. Maurreen 09:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

One More List

The book 1,000 Years, 1,000 People: Ranking the Men and Women Who Shaped the Millennium (1998)[1] ranks the 1000 most influential people of the past millenium. Of their top 100, here are the 8 highest not on our list:
39. Francis of Assisi
47. William Harvey
55. Alexander Fleming
57. Toyotomi Hideyoshi
59. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (also seems to be on a lot of lists)
60. Chu Yüan-chang
62. Geoffrey Chaucer
Kaldari 00:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

let's register a vote from you and I and move these to the discussion section above. want to do the same with the other lists? --Rikurzhen 01:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking ahead

Interestingly enough, some of our candidates are current nominations for collaborations. Here's the ones I could find. Might be good for us to go ahead and add our names to the ones we'd be interested in now, so they won't roll off and will hopefully get picked:

  1. Pele - voting ends August 26
  2. George Washington - voting ends August 17 (short by 3 votes only)
  3. Martin Luther King, Jr - ends Aug 20
  4. Confucius
Oops, just assumed he was on here and just saw he wasn't on our list. Should he be?

Anyone know of any others? plange 04:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I had thought Confucius was on the list also. I'll check on it. Thanks. Maurreen 04:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC) He is on the list under philosophers, ancient China. Maurreen 04:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)



Why Kaiser Bill?

I removed him from the list. Maurreen 06:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Rehashing contested entries that have been removed

I added and archived most that were listed here. They were added as part of the “free picks” of the win-win proposition. Maurreen 06:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Columba

  1. Support. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support plange 01:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I'm afraid I don't see evidence in the article of Columba meeting the Top Criteria. Unfortunately, I know nothing of Columba whatsoever, outside of the article I just read, so maybe I just don't know enough about him. What is the rationale for listing his as Top? Kaldari 02:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Comments
    • I'm going from memory and I see it's not in the article so I could be wrong, but wasn't he responsible for saving much of the early Christian writings so that they were able to survive the Dark Ages and be reintroduced to Europe at the end of the Dark Ages? Been awhile since I read How the Irish Saved Civilization. plange 05:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeedie. Founder of Iona, and it was Iona that christianized the Picts and northern English. Iona was the premier monastery in the dark age British Isles, and had daughter monasteries from the north of Scotland to the south of England and Ireland, and well as exporting its monks to France. The article as it is is not very good, but here we base our decisions on the character, not the wiki article about him. Was also the patron saint of the medieval Scots. St Andrews position as "patron saint" was manufactured by the bishop of Cell Rigmonaid (St Andrews), who were dedicated to that saint. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Interesting. He still seems a bit obscure. I've never heard of Iona, but I suppose my knowledge of Medieval Christian history is a bit lacking. So basically he founded a prominent monastary that Christianized much of Great Britian and saved important Christian texts from being lost, correct? Did he have an impact outside of the Christian sphere? Just playing devil's advocate :) Kaldari 19:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support --Mais oui! 07:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Though probably more because I am a Scot than I consider him a figure of world historical significance. Rcpaterson 23:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Really not so much of world historic significance. john k 00:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per john k and Kaldari. Seems like a very obscure person. ♠ SG →Talk 12:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Win-win proposition

I would like to re-suggest that we each get one or two "free picks", unless there is overwhelming oppositon to any of them.

No list like this is going to make everyone happy. But with this suggested method, we can all get something we want, and do it fairly efficiently.

Plange can get Queen Elizabeth, Calgacus can get Columba, and so forth.

If you think the list is now missing one or two major people, please list them here, and people can make any comments they think are needed.

If you think this is a bad idea, please say why or suggest a better way to handle the above case. Maurreen 03:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Maurreen's pick(s)
  1. Socrates
  2. J. Robert Oppenheimer
Maurreen 03:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Plange's picks
  1. Queen Elizabeth
  2. Joan of Arc
plange 04:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Kaldari's picks
  1. Voltaire (under writers)
  2. Joseph Lister
Kaldari 04:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
VegaDark's picks
  1. Bruce Lee
  2. Michael Jordan (had an oppose or 2 earlier but I really feel he is more "important" than most other athletes on the list and don't feel the list would be complete without him)
VegaDark 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
john k's picks
  1. Lord Byron
  2. Henrik Ibsen
john k 10:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Rcpaterson's picks

I could be mischevious and pretend I'm a Marxist-Leninist, nominating Groucho Marx and John Lennon. Instead I will reveal my conservative inclinations and go for

    1. Thomas Hobbes and
    2. Edmund Burke

Rcpaterson 11:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That was cute. :) Maurreen 15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Rik's picks
  1. Ptolemy
  2. Ernest Rutherford
Rikurzhen 19:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Studerby's picks
  1. Blaise Pascal (it looks like he'll make it in anyway, but...)
  2. Francis of Assisi

studerby 03:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Calgacus' picks
  1. Columba
  2. Heraclius

Just because you known more about the 19th and 20th centuries than the 6th or 7th doesn't mean the former are more important. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Added

OK, I’ve added the picks listed above to Plange, Kaldari, VegaDark, john k, Rcpaterson, Rikurzhen, Studerby, and myself. Maurreen 05:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

And Calgacus' picks. Maurreen 19:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Contenders

In case we need them, this is a holding area for potential nominees. Or maybe even renominees also. Maurreen 08:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Business
  1. John D. Rockefeller
  2. Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Writers
  1. Ralph Ellison
  2. Richard Wright

One Pope at least

Having, so to speak, knocked Urban II out of consideration might I make an appeal for at least one Pope? There are a number of significant candidates, but the most obvious are probably Leo the Great and Innocent III, the most significant of the medieval popes. Inevitably there would be a problem of categorization: I personally would see these men as politicians rather than 'Religious figures' as such. They cannot, however, be 'nationalised' like the other figures in this category. Rcpaterson 08:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pius IX and John Paul II are other major candidates. ♠ SG →Talk 20:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Would personally nominate Pope Gregory VII and Pope Gregory I. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Innocent III
    1. Support - see Wikipedia_talk:Core_biographies/Published_Lists#output --Rikurzhen 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Rcpaterson 22:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I think I like Pius IX. He lost the Papal States and declared himself infallible, and he molded the Catholic Church into the form it would retain until Vatican II and, to some extent, beyond. And he had a very interesting papacy, which is worth expanding upon. I'd add a Renaissance possibility - Pope Julius II, who was a great sponsor of art and who created the Papal States in the form they would retain until they were destroyed in the mid-19th century. Also the last Pope to die before the Protestant Reformation irrevocably split Christendom, and something of a symbol of both what was worst and what was best about the pre-Reformation Papacy. Was played by Rex Harrison in a movie! john k 01:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes-'The Agony and the Ecstasy'-"when will you make an end!" Julius, the soldier Pope, forever remembered for his patronage of Raphael and Michaelangelo. A worthy candidate, as are the others mentioned; but both Julius and Pius presided over a papacy either increasingly secular in character or in a state of transition. I was thinking of a candidate to represent it at its apogee, and I personally can think of no better contender than Innocent III, who combined spiritual and secular authority in a way that was never matched by any other Pope. Bringing King John to heel is worthy of mention in itself. Rcpaterson 22:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, how about we list all of the aforementioned popes, and then each of us must pick one. Whichever pope has the most at the end of the vote will get added in. Sound good? ♠ SG →Talk 19:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Pope Innocent III
  2. Pope John Paul II
  3. Pope Julius II
  4. Pope Leo I
  5. Pope Pius IX
    1. Support ♠ SG →Talk 19:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The last four

Once Calgacus's suggestions are added, I believe that leaves us with 4 slots. Personally I would like to see those slots used to broaden our coverage a bit. Here are my suggestions to cover 2 areas we currently do not have represented:

  • Du Fu (Eastern literature) - although his impact outside of China has been relatively small (Kenneth Rexroth and Matsuo Basho are mentioned in the article), we have no non-Western writers in our list. Concensus among literary scholars seems to be that Du Fu is the most important non-Western writer in history. And even if his influence was mostly limited to China, that is 1/5 of the world's population! Kaldari 18:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the fact that there are currently no non-western writers is a little bit of a problem, esp. as there are 29 western writers, 14 of whom write in one language (i.e. English). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
As I've said before, this is the English wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with an English language encyclopedia having more discussion of writers who used the English language. This is a bias, sure, if we're trying to compile a list of the "200 most important people who ever lived(!!)," but I think such a project is complete nonsense anyway. Focusing on biographies of articles that people are likely to look for seems justifiable to me. john k 19:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
What's it being English wikipedia got to do with it?! Poor excuse if you ask me. In reality, lists such as these do little more than reveal the prejudice and ignorance of the people composing it. Doubtless a list written in 17th century China would contain 190 Chinese people, most of whom lived in the 17th and 16th century. This page is entitled "Core biographies"; it implies that those not on it are more important than those not. "Such a project is complete nonsense anyway", you say; well why participate? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I see nothing absurd in having a list of biographies of important people that readers are likely to look up, which we will try as a group to improve. The idea that such a list could possibly comprise the "200 most important people ever" is ridiculous nonsense. Do you really think that such a thing is possible? With literature in particular, the fact that this is a written medium makes it completely relevant to focus more on works in the language we are writing in. For one thing, our readers are more likely to look up, say, Yeats than Rilke, or Byron than Heine, or even, say, Dickens than Balzac. This has nothing to do with the inherent merits of Yeats, Byron, and Dickens over those of Rilke, Heine, or Balzac. It has to do with the fact that in the english-speaking world, English-speaking writers are more important. Inherent importance is nearly impossible to arrive at. To try to figure out the level of importance within a particular culture seems like a more plausible task, and the obvious culture to use in the English wikipedia is, um, that of English-speakers. john k 02:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ostensibly, I agree with you. In fact, I brought up the same point the last time he was nominated. However, I'm not sure I feel entirely comfortable having a list with no non-Western writers whatsoever (although arguably Sun Tzu could probably be considered as such). Kaldari 19:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
And Confucius. But I wasn't necessarily criticizing putting Du Fu (although I'm not a big supporter), just criticizing Calgacus' apparent position that there's something wrong with having half the writers be English language writers. To me that seems like about the proper balance for an English language encyclopedia. Now, that all of our English language writers are white, and most are men, is probably not good, and that

I agree with John. Maurreen 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If we want to take Rockefeller, that's fine with me. But business is not completely nonrepresented; we have Henry Ford. Maurreen 19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, good point. I didn't think about him. Kaldari 19:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


Recapping, and similar lists

Several popes have been suggested. These two appear to be the current leading candidates:

  1. Innocent III
  2. Pius IX

The following are on at least three related published lists but not on ours:

  1. Marie Curie
  2. Enrico Fermi
  3. Alexander Fleming

Areas with little or no representation, leading contenders:

  1. African-American literature, Ralph Ellison, Richard Wright, and Langston Hughes
  2. African-American music; nominees were shot down earlier
  3. American Indians - Cochise, Crazy Horse, Geronimo, Russel Means, William Least Heat Moon, Sequoyah, Sitting Bull, Jim Thorpe
  4. Business, John D. Rockefeller (added this afterward, I meant to include intitially Maurreen 20:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC))
  5. Earth sciences, James Hutton and Charles Lyell
  6. Non-Western literature, Du Fu
  7. Women, have about eight on the list now (comment added later Maurreen 21:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC))

The following each have three votes above, at “Addition candidates – unopposed”:

  1. Igor Stravinsky
  2. Ludwig Wittgenstein
  3. Marie Curie
  4. Michel de Montaigne

I am pretty open. Maurreen Maybe we should have a new straw poll, where we each can pick anybody, and see how that turns out? Or each nominate one person? Or see how much objection each of the above get? Or another option is to leave a few spots open until a candidate gets, for example, at least four votes. Maurreen 19:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So obviously I think Curie, Fermi, and Fleming should get added unless there are good reasons not to. --Rikurzhen 20:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

ignore this

Question Have we missed any that have 3 or more hits (out of 6) from the previously published lists? They would be strong candidates for immediate consideration. --Rikurzhen 20:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was trying to say about Curie, Fermi, and Fleming. Maurreen 20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
doh! short-term memory problem there. --Rikurzhen 20:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, we could include most of these people - go up a bit above 200, and then just close the thing down. Focusing on a specific number at this point is perhaps counter-productive. john k 20:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I like to have a number to keep it from bloating. Maurreen 20:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking more a time limit to keep from bloating. Just add people, then close it down. john k 21:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll: Curie, Fermi, Fleming

The following are on at least three related published lists but not on ours:

  1. Marie Curie
  2. Enrico Fermi
  3. Alexander Fleming
Should we include the three as as set?
  1. Support:
    1. Maurreen 20:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Rikurzhen 21:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. plange 22:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    4. Kaldari 22:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    5. john k 00:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose:
    1. Oppose. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral
    1. I know the names-obviously-and in broad outline the significance of their work; but I simply do not have enough insight; nor do I understand why this particular grouping should have more significance than any other. I do not 'oppose', though, for the simple reason I have no good reason to do so. To be perfectly honest I must confess to an artist's lack of sympathy with science in general-sorry!. Rcpaterson 02:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Core_biographies/Archive_7&oldid=915686384"