Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 5

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles
Latest comment: 11 years ago by GabeMc in topic Suggested changes
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Writers

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The writers chosen seem to come from a kind of prose directed towards the same audience, i.e. academic adults. Maybe this can be alleviated by replacing James Joyce with a writer with another intended audience, such as one of the following:

Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You know who needs to be on here? Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens. I think he's a better representative of American lit than Edgar Allan Poe pbp 19:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It is an excellent suggestion, although Poe is probably there because he is representative of a genre rather than of his country. Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to keep Poe, but I support MT/SC before him. From others listed here, Tolkien, Andersen and Aesop may be vital, in that order. The rest, probably not so much (IMHO, of course). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Horse, Cattle, Exploration

Latest comment: 12 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

I think we are at 1000 exactly. I believe very strongly we should have some animals that are key to humans today and in history, most notably the horse, we have bicycle, I think horse has enormous importance historically for war and transport more than the bike.

For human agriculture and food, we have many many things from plants, tea coffee beer wine maize rice cereal fruit vegetable nut wheat potato spice soybean. But from animals we have mammal, animal husbandry, domestication and meat, and a few animal products egg (food), without chicken, milk and cheese, without cow, I think cattle is important enough world wide today and historically for its own mention other than meat, and animal hubandry, I believe cattle seams more important than egg, nut and soybean. I know these have been discussed before, and I know they have been in the list before, but I'm raising it again, I think they belong. maybe lose nut as they are fruits which is included.

I also feel exploration maybe should be here, it is odd to have a list of "explorers" and space exploration, but not exploration.

I may make some changes but I will ask opinions here first, what are users opinions?Carlwev (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You've raised the disparity issue before, and that has been answered. Before making changes, you need to propose them. I see some vague ideas put forward in your comments, but no specific actions. For comments, you'd need to make a specific proposal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

OK fair enough, I propose something like this, the list is roughly in the order of how strongly I feel about it, the things I want too add I believe are very important too global history, industry, war, culture, and effect or did effect many people. What your opinions and feedback for this proposal, on either some/one/all of them?

  • inclusion itself means 1 in favor (user who added it to the list)

Carlwev (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Also does anyone else think it is slightly odd to have deafness and blindness but not, sight/eye and hearing/ear Carlwev (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That's still a lengthy list to try to discuss. Wholesale, I can't agree with it because there are quite a number of additions/removals that don't make sense to me. Why add fashion, which is an article about trends in Western clothing? Why remove stove (your reason given above suggests that you haven't actually seen the article, since it's not just about cooking stoves). There are some good ideas in there, but you're trying to do too much at once, and that means it's less likely that there will be consensus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe my big list is a bit daunting, I did start with a small list that grew. Maybe I wasn't clear, I am not necessarily saying these should all be added and deleted in one go, Instead of posting many single one in one out proposals I put all the things I think should maybe be added or deleted in one list. This is my opinion I think most of these could be changed, but it's not my vital 1000. I'm asking other users which ones they think stand out from each side of the list as obvious sensible changes. Even if only a few or one is changed at a time or at all. You said you disagree with fashion and stove and I can see why. You also say there are some good ideas in there, I would like to know what you think the good ideas are, see if more people agree or not and then maybe replace things one at a time, not all at once, only if there is consensus. Am I making sense? Which one do you agree with? Carlwev (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's just not of the same importance as the others in the category: Angkor Wat, Colosseum, Great Pyramid of Giza, Great Wall of China, Machu Picchu, Parthenon, Stonehenge, Taj Mahal. None of the others concentrate on the work of one man. Rather, they encompass more historical and cultural breadth, in my view. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm on the fence about removing Fallingwater for three reasons: (1) it's the only example of American architecture, (2) it's the only example of domestic (as opposed to monumental) architecture, (3) it's the only example of modern architecture. If we remove it, we ought to replace it with something that would fill the void. I can't think of a better example of domestic architecture or art, but could see replacing it with Empire State Building, Chrysler Building, or even Skyscraper, any of which would at least satisfy two of my concerns. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I am definitely in favor of the following removals: Goddess (God is enough) and World wide web (Internet is enough). I am in favor of the following additions: horse, cattle, dog, and cat. I think there is a good argument to be made for the horse and cattle playing a pretty major role in human history. As far as dog and cat, those 2 weren't on your original list, but no other animals are as integral to modern humans that live in developed countries than those 2 animals. I am against adding army, navy, or airforce (military is enough).Rreagan007 (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support removal of the following topics, per rationale given by the nominator (or stated by me): Fallingwater, Goddess, World wide web, Syphilis (a major disease - but I don't think it cuts it), Magnetic resonance imaging (one of many branches of science and technology), Semiconductor device (ditto), Angkor Wat (regional footnote), Schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Autism, Pyramid (historical trivia), Geothermal electricity (science and tech again), Candle (really?). Oppose removal of: Bicycle (major mode of transportation) International Space Station (major and for most of the time, only human semi-permanent space habitat), Kidney (major organ). Neutral on others. Support adding: Horse, Cattle, Road, School, Aging, Island, Snow (we have Rain already), Wind (but would like to point out we really need to add Air), Violence, Dog, Coal, Fuel, Fashion. Oppose adding: Martial arts (minority sport). Neutral on others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Air redirects to Atmosphere of Earth, which is in our vital 1000 list, (I nearly didn't spot that my self at first)
  • I will add your "in favor and against" to the above list to better visualize the total of everyones oppinions so far. - thank you, I am very grateful for your imput, thank you for giving input about many articles, very helpful. Carlwev (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Second pass. Also support removing Nut (fruit), Egg (food) , and object adding Bank (I don't think this is vital, a similar argument could be made for stock market, for example - I think they are just a tier below concepts like corporation or factory, which are currently included, and whose inclusion I do support; the concept of banking would similarly IMHO fail below concepts such as retail or finance). I also oppose tourism (too new in a global form, and one of many branches of world economy and industry that we don't list on that level). I am leaning oppose on map, exploration, animation and spear, but would have to think more about those. Oh, and add me as opposing all 28-33 (cat and beyond). Neutral on others, but would be happy to engage in discussion of anything (ping me on talk). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I was about to remove Fallingwater and add Horse per the above, but as both animal husbandry and domestication are part of the Agriculture part of the article, I am a little hesitant with adding Horse. It does not seem quite right. I would be more comfortable adding more general terms such as Fertilizer, Shepherd or Hunter-gatherer. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Spotting prepositions in the same category, I boldly added Ageing and removed Syphilis. However, it is obvious that the latter provided some balance as HIV/AIDS is now the only example of a Sexually transmitted disease. If somebody wishes to revert and demand further discussion, I will not protest. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

    • Horse vs animal husbandry/domestication, I would accept the reason: "I just don't think this topic is important enough" I knew someone would mention the fact animal husbandry is here. All I would say to that is does the fact a topic has a "parent article" that covers it mean immediately that it should definately not be included. What if I said we don't need the Beatles, Elvis Presley and Bing Crosby because we have rock music and pop music. Or we don't need Sahara because we already have desert and Africa, or London as we have UK etc. Much of the list looks like its OK to include a specific topic if some parent topic is there too, I think this is OK in some places and I think it would be OK with horse too. I believe horse has a unique vital importance to humanity, even though domestication and animal husbandry are already there. (I'm not a "horse person" either by the way) Carlwev (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's gone a bit quiet, I shall suggest another change, World Wide Web for Road. Carlwev (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Walt Disney vs Bing Crosby

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I'm not too keen on Bing Crosby being in the vital 1000, I think Michael Jackson is more famous and influential and he has been removed already. film is in the vital 100, but has nothing more in the vital 1000 except perhaps television. The other vital 100 topics have been greatly expanded to cover more topics and biograhies, but film has not. Music has 10 musicians and 11 other topics and others like visual art, literature etc have about the same expansion. Is there an unwritten rule that allows 10 musicians 10 artists and 15 writers but no film people or topics. Is Walt Disney not more influential than Bing Crosby, but because his medium is film not music he is not included. I am not keen on there being many more biographies than entire nations but people seem to like it this way; and being that way do people think Walt Disney is more notable and influential to mid 20th century art/media than Bing Crosby? and is Disney's work remembered more today than Crosby's? They are also from the same nation and time period so we're not any more or less "recent" or "American" than we already are if it is altered. I also think there are a few more people influential people in film like Charlie Chaplin and Steven Spielberg but I'm not putting them foreward though. Support or oppose Crosby -> Disney? Carlwev (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I will agree that given those two, Disney is more recognized and had more impact on the world; would support a switch. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Support. The Anglo-Saxon golden age of popular music is already represented by Elvis Presley and The Beatles. Disney therefore seems to add something more substantial than Crosby. Unlike The Beatles and Elvis Presley, I fail to see how Michael Jackson was tremendously influential musically speaking. I think artists such as Miles Davis, John Coltrane and John Cage would be safer bets from the post-WWII American music scene. There is also the question of whether all three post-WWII artists should be within (presently) radio friendly popular music, and whether one should be picked from outside USA/Britain. There are plenty of possible candidates. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support adding Walt: though I would note that Disney and Bing are apples and oranges; Disney is more noted as an animator and studio exec than as an actor or singer pbp 18:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I can see your point but we are kind of forced to compare different kinds of articles that is the nature of the 1000 list. As far as random articles go, they do kind of have some similarities, both biographies of the same time period and country and both art/media/popular culture. But ignore that, yes they are different too, but the whole purpose of squeezing the most important topics into a list of 1000 is to compare "apples to oranges" and to decide if apples or oranges or both should be here. A list of varied important topics with a 1000 limit has been made; so to an extenct every article should be compared to every other article even if they are apples and oranges. If I were to think about a subject and its impact on humanity from the list or suggestions by itself, or think about and compare two or more together at the same time some of my ideas would probably be the same and some different. Carlwev (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Add History of Asia and History of Oceania

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Histories by continent are vital. Particularly the omission of History of Asia is glaring. I suggest adding those, compensated by the removal of History of Japan and History of India, they seem slightly less vital than History of the United States and History of China, which had/have more of an impact on the world (although frankly, I wouldn't mind to see all history of country go). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, if any of these should go, it should be History of United States. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how we classify these vital articles. IMO, the more vital articles are the ones that get more views. Readers tend to view countries more than continents. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Add conflict

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently at conflict (process), but I expect it to be moved back to conflict soon. I think it is a vital social concept, and should be added to Social issues section. Potentially replacing terrorism (parent key idea, war already present) or Humanitarianism (human rights present)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Remove / change various history of concept fields

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This thought begun as a proposal to remove history of agriculture, as we already have as vital agriculture, and related, animal husbandry, and domestication. I don't think history of agriculture cuts it. But the same could be said about a number of other histories of: history of art (art is vital), History of literature (literature is vital), History of classical music traditions (music is vital; classical music tradition is not even stubbed), History of painting (painting is vital), History of science (science is vital), History of technology (technology is vital) and finally, History of mathematics (mathematics is vital). I am a big fan of history, but I just don't see histories of specific concepts being that vital. I am certainly supportive of the current history section, which accounts for 63 articles, but I don't think we can justify it spinning elsewhere, not where we have core concepts like many listed above. Their histories just don't cut it, IMHO. Further, why is it that we have history of x, but not history of y, where y is also a vital topic? Why no history of philosophy, history of architecture, history of religion, history of economics, history of medicine, history of biology, history of geography...? Arguments could be made that they are as vital as anything we have, yet they are missing. Therefore I have the following two proposals:

  • 1) remove all history of articles outside history section, cutting the gordian knot of which history of concept is more vital then the other (seriously, can anybody argue that history of science is more or less vital than history of philosophy, or history of literature to history of religion? Those arguments will go on forever unless we say NO clearly)
  • 2) allow one history of for each SECTION if applicable; we currently have 11 sections. People has no need for history of, and is mostly covered by history of the world. History should see historiography included. Geography should see history of geography added. Arts and culture would have its history of art retained. Philosophy and religion would see history of philosophy and history of religion added. Everyday life needs no history of article. Society and social sciences has no need for history of the social sciences as it will be covered by history of science, retained in science section. Health and medicine would gain history of medicine. Technology and mathematics retain their histories (History of technology and History of mathematics, respectively). This would see four articles added, whereas histories of agriculture, classical music traditions (music) and painting would be cut. This solution has the advantage of retaining more history of concepts articles, and stabilizing the situation (although we would have to cut something else somewhere, as it's +4 -3 solution).

In both cases, we agree not to add any histories of outside the history section, or unless the sections are changed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Road

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to propose adding road and deleting World wide web. Do users support or oppose, some of my thoughts are...

We have automobile and bike but not their primary mode of travel "road"

Roads were in use long before cars and bikes, - and the concept of a road although closely linked to the car is a separate important topic.

We have ship, plus we have what they travel on canal, river, sea. I think road is as important as canal if not more.

Although they are not identicle, I think World wide web is sufficiently covered by the internet article.

Whilst on the subject I also thought of suggesting deleting Pyramid for Road if anyone likes that idea better.

Carlwev (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Support, replace Pyramid. I cannot accept a removal of WWW. As History of the World Wide Web puts it, The term is often mistakenly used as a synonym for the Internet itself, but the Web is a service that operates over the Internet, just as e-mail also does. I think this service is too important in its own right for the article to be replaced. As for Pyramid, it is disastrous to remove it, but even more disastrous to not have Road in the Vital Articles. Narssarssuaq (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Apparently,
Therefore, it appears prudent to replace Pyramid with Road at this point. Replaced. Narssarssuaq (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Classical element

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Classical element appears to be up the alley of the Vital Articles. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Fallingwater problem

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

As several people have noted above, Fallingwater looks misplaced in the following list:

    1.   Angkor Wat
    2.   Colosseum
    3.   Fallingwater
    4.     Great Pyramid of Giza
    5.   Great Wall of China
    6.     Machu Picchu
    7.     Parthenon
    8.   Stonehenge
    9.   Taj Mahal

In the above list, there are 4 decidedly secular and 5 religious/semi-religious architectural pieces. As no cathedrals are included, and this list should be based on architectural merit rather than other forms of importance, I suggest the inclusion of Siena Cathedral instead of Fallingwater. It may not be a perfect addition, but at least arguably an improvement. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have rather called this section "the architecture problem". Have you noticed that although most people live in buildings, and most of the world is urban, there is only 1% of this list (10 of 1000 articles) dedicated to architecture? I think more could be warranted rather than less. In terms of the selection of articles, I am not sure what the process was which established this list. I note there is a scale jump from the overarching architecture article to a selection of 9 particular buildings. As far the merits of this approach go, I can see that an attempt has been made to cover both geographic regions and time, and in that context Fallingwater is the only building from the last 300+ years. It is also one of the few non-monumental structures in the list notable for their interior space. So I do oppose the proposed replacement, in particular as the Siena Cathedral far less notable. Instead I suggest a broader rework of the list, to include mid-scale topics, such as important movements (for example: Bauhaus, Postmodern architecture). Further I note that no architect is in the vital list 1000, while many painters and writers have been included. I also would suggest inviting participation to the discussion from WikiProject Architecture. --ELEKHHT 06:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
What you say makes sense, except that I understand that Fallingwater is significantly less notable than Siena Cathedral, Florence Cathedral, St. Basil's Cathedral, St. Peter's Basilica, Al-Masjid an-Nabawi, and modern places like Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, perhaps Bibliotheca Alexandrina and Sydney Opera House (the latter is already a World Heritage Site)[1], etc. List of World Heritage Sites may provide some ideas. Fallingwater does provide some balance to the list, but it does not make sense to exclude all cathedrals in order to fit it in. Apparently, it is not a World Heritage Site, which is not necessarily a criterion, but it does add to the worries. Narssarssuaq (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe from a tourism or religious perspective some of those cathedrals are more notable, but believe me in terms of architecture Fallingwater is far more influential. The list of WHS has a different scope (preservation), and btw, a whole bunch of F.L. Wright buildings including the one in question are on the tentative list. What I suggested before was, that if one would include articles with broader coverage such as Frank Lloyd Wright that would than indirectly but closely link both to Fallingwater and the Guggenheim you are suggesting. Similarly with Gothic architecture or Renaissance architecture a whole lot of those important cathedrals would be closer. --ELEKHHT 07:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I recognise that Fallingwater might be considered more excellent by the archetypical modern-day practicing architect. Architecture is, however, also about art and history, where practicing architects have less competence, and it can be seen in the discussion at the top of the page that several users (presently 6) object to it being on the list. I think your suggestions are good, if they are possible to incorporate properly. How would you like to see them implemented? Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  1. The vital 10, 100, 1000 and 10,000 lists are linked and I believe are or at least should be consistant with each other; any structure in the 1000 should also be in the 10,000 also/first. If we do want to add another structure, picking one from Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Arts#Architecture.2C_35 is probably a good idea. Failing that any fresh article we put in the 1000 list would have to be put in the 10,000 too. We shouldn't remove one structure that doesn't belong just to add another one slighly better but one still not quite fitting in properly.
  2. Don't forget the list of structure types Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Mechanical_and_structural_engineering, maybe we should put these together rather than apart as one is in tech and one in art, users have said before "We don't have any structure/building types only individual buildings examples" as they haven't noticed that individual structures and structure types are in a completely different part of the list. Also, Construction, linked to structures is not in tech or arts but in Society and social sciences? Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Society_and_social_sciences_.2896_articles.29
  3. After saying that, I don't think we "have" to keep 10 structures just because it is a round number and we have 10 now. Could we not just have 9. I would personally much more prefere something I listed earlier such as.... Horse, Cattle, Season, Wind, Snow, School, Hospital, Island, Violence, Immigration, Mail, Paper.....perhaps. But for these I have already suggested deleting others as well. Carlwev (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
To keep it simple, I will just reiterate that Fallingwater is the only architecture related article from the past 300 years+ in this list. In contrast if you take painters there are four (Monet, Picasso, Dali, van Gogh) and if you look at writers there are five (Poe, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Joyce, Kafka). So if you must remove Fallingwater, than at least please add Frank Lloyd Wright from Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Other visual arts, 36. --ELEKHHT 21:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Notice that the two Western works of "architecture", Stonehenge and Parthenon, are more than 2000-2500 years old. As things are at present, the one building which represents all of Western architecture after AD 1 is Fallingwater. As noted above, more obvious choices might exist. You do, however, come up with some good arguments. Narssarssuaq (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I would say Gothic architecture is more vital than Stonehenge. --ELEKHHT 22:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a list from the Expanded Vital Articles: See also Technology>Construction section

  1.   Architecture
  2.   Sacred architecture
  3.   Architectural plan
  4.   Architectural style
  5.   Architectural theory
  6.   Proportion
  7.   Landscape architecture
Specific structures, 28
  1.   Acropolis of Athens
  2.   Angkor Wat
  3.   Buckingham Palace
  4.   Chartres Cathedral
  5.   Colosseum
  6.   Eiffel Tower
  7.   Empire State Building
  8.   Great Wall of China
  9.   Hagia Sophia
  10.     Machu Picchu
  11.   The Kremlin
  12.   Pantheon
  13.     Parthenon
  14.   Sydney Opera House
  15.   Statue of Liberty
  16.   Stonehenge
  17.   Taj Mahal
  18.   Palace of Versailles
  19.   Willis Tower
  20.   World Trade Center
  21.   Seven Wonders of the World
    1.   Colossus of Rhodes
    2.     Great Pyramid of Giza
    3.   Hanging Gardens of Babylon
    4.   Lighthouse of Alexandria
    5.   Mausoleum of Maussollos
    6.   Statue of Zeus at Olympia
    7.   Temple of Artemis

Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Add Christmas proposal?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A cheesy proposal or not?, not my favourite idea but I think there are less deserving articles included. Christmas has been celebrated by billions of people for hundreds of years, even among non Christians. It is probably the most well known cultural/religious holiday/festival in the world, is a big part of culture and economy. We have several religious kinds of articles that I think are less notable and less impact on humanity that it could replace

  1. Goddess we have God and Deity which are enough and not male only, (My primary suggestion for removal)
  2. Mary (mother of Jesus)
  3. Bahá'í Faith only 6 million followers been ariond for less than 200 years, we have countries missing such as Vietnam with over 80 million people
  4. Bhagavad Gita is part of the already included Mahabharata

Thoughts? Carlwev (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think The Holocaust needs to be on this list

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I find it odd that the systematic state-sponsored genocide mass-murder with the most dead, namely The Holocaust, isn't on the list. I think it should be added. In my opinion, the best article to remove would be Nazi Germany - I think that between The Holocaust and World War II we don't also need that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Genocide and World War II casualties would be more general, genocide does not, however, fit into the history section. The latter of these could be worth considering, the weakness is that it doesn't prominently cover minorities. The weakness of only including Holocaust is that it somewhat excludes other victims of Nazi crimes against humanity, we have the World War II persecution of Serbs, Porajmos, Eastern Front (World War II), Japanese war crimes and more. It's all pretty terrible. The best thing would be to have one article which sums up all the atrocities or crimes of the nazis or of WWII, perhaps including the background. If such an article does not exist, I'd go for Nazi Germany or Holocaust. The weakness of the former is that it does not directly treat atrocities, which is the proper reason why this subject is of interest. A more positive view is Universal Declaration of Human Rights and United Nations. In my opinion, your suggestion has a lot of merit. World War II casualties is more general, but its point of departure is not the genocides and the mindless aggression against civilians. Support. Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Changed. Contributions to the discussion are still welcome. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggest replacing "Information Technology" with "Computing"

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This list includes the article "Information Technology" but not "Computing" which is the broader topic of which IT is a subtopic- I think "Computing" should replace "IT" in this list (and it is a better developed article as well). 121.45.194.72 (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Topic categories

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I found some problems with variances between the topic categories for Template:WP1.0/categories and Template:Vital article. It seems that often, both templates will be on the same talk page, and there are 2 topics where the parameters differ slightly: in "Art" and "Philosophy". It looks like Template:VA uses "Art" as a parameter, where Template:WP1.0 uses "Arts". This has led to the creation of parallel categories for Vital articles, I have narrowed it down to the "Art" category for the VA template, as in Category:Wikipedia vital articles in Art. However, I can understand the confusion between the 2 parameters being so close to one another. The other topic that I don't know how to resolve is "Philosophy" for the VA template, and "Philosophy and religion" for the WP1.0 template. Currently, there are both Category:Wikipedia vital articles in Philosophy and Category:Wikipedia vital articles in Philosophy and religion, that are populated by Template:VA. It looks like most of the articles in the 2nd category are related to only "Religion"; however, WP1.0 uses "Philosophy and religion" as its parameter and category. My question is, should we create a "Religion" category tree to replace the "Philosophy and religion" category for the Template:Vital articles? Otherwise, if we use the "Philosophy and religion" parameter for Template:VA, it would require all of the talk pages already in the "Philosophy" categories to have their parameters changed. Appreciate any input! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Exportable version

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there an exportable version or dump of this list like in a text file or comma delimited file? 75.70.142.23 (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Filmmakers

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

A Filmmakers section has been added. Walt Disney is the only person listed. There are, however, five other obvious candidates:

Should Walt Disney be replaced with any of these? I hope that someone who is familiar with these six filmmakers can comment. Narssarssuaq (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Vote Andrei Tarkovsky. Narssarssuaq (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Vote Walt Disney and undo the change (no consensus, the only person participating in this discussion was you). Walt Disney was added only recently, after a widely-participated-in discussion. Removing him would be jumping the gun. pbp 17:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I think a wider net would need to be cast than those five proposed additions; Tarkovsky is a viable choice but earlier pioneers like Sergei Eisenstein would probably be more useful to the list than later prodigies. You might want to drop a note past WT:FILM to drum up a consensus on who has the most merit. GRAPPLE X 18:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Vote for either Kubrick or Fellini, def. not Disney. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Georges Méliès if there only should be one. The popular TSPDT have Orson Welles on top, though that site is in serious conflict with WP:WORLDVIEW. Smetanahue (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Vote keep disney, add kurosawa, chaplin. tarkovsky is hugely important to film MAKERS, but less known by the general population. Kubrick had a spottier record, and was not quite as important to the development of film worldwide as kurosawa and chaplin (i say that as a rabid fan of 2001). Fellini is a film buffs delight, but not quite as imp as kuro/chap. also, chaplin was a major actor and film business entrepeneur, and the face behind the most iconic film character ever. Bergman is the equivalent of Fellini, eisenstein. its not just who made the best films, but who was most important in the development of the medium as a combination of high art, popular culture and business. note: my "vote" would have to be echoed by more than a few others to matter at all.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
    If you're going by influence alone, then Eisenstein is the only one of those who would come close to a top 5. Most important in that case would be the Lumière bros, followed by pioneers like Méliès, Abel Gance, Dziga Vertov, Jean Epstein etc. If we necessarily have to force an American in, the prime choice among US scholars who want to have a "father of cinema" is usually DW Griffith, though his influence has been severely exaggerated by Anglo-centric historians. Kurosawa et al were great genre filmmakers and undeniably popular, but in genres and with techniques that already were well established by others before them. Smetanahue (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't quite get why only one should be on the list. If this is the case, definitely not Walt Disney. I'd go for either Tarkovsky or Chaplin. Anyway, I think a list of, say, ten filmmakers would be best. --CocoLacoste talk 06:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've made room for a few more filmmakers by deleting some other folks - I've added Chaplin, Eisenstein, Kurosawa (to avoid Systemic bias) and Spielberg (I know it may be considered recentism, but I do think he has already made a worldwide impact on the art). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Added Australia to list of continents

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

List of continents of course must include Australia. I have added it, but not removed any other entry to compensate. 121.45.213.224 (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice work! How was that one missed I wonder ... GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Because Australia the continent and Australia the country are the same article, I believe... pbp 02:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Mathematics

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I think Mathematics is overrepresented with 62 entries compared for example with 63 for history and 20 for language. Many of the articles are highly specific and could presumably be covered under the more general entries. Since I am not an expert I would encourage a mathematician to see if they can restructure the math section to make room for more entries in some of the other sections.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin and Miles Davis

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I suggest adding Led Zeppelin and Miles Davis to "Composers and musicians" category. GeezerB (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Maunus' recent changes

Latest comment: 11 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

Can we get a consensus whether Maunus undiscussed, recent additions do actually qualify as vital articles. Maunus, it would be nice if you would discuss your changes here on this talk page. I disagree with the listings of Ástor Piazzolla and the aforementioned three musicians. Why was Socrates removed? Clearly one of the most influential philosophers. And Rand was not more notable than Weber; she is known as the founder of one minor movement and her works are heavily drawn upon Dostoyevsky, while Weber's teachings are groundbreaking in sociology. The addition of a women named Aisha and removal of Paul ("the most influential early Christian missionary and leader of the first generation of Christians")? What happened with Constantine the Great (first baptized Roman leader who eliminated persecuations and relocated a whole empire, performed heavy defeates, etc) and Joan of Arc (important defeats against Burgundy and England)? Meir replaced with Stalin (while controversial made notable defeats against Germans, Gulags, creation of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, etc)??? Mesoamerica (a region in the Americas)???? Maunus additions are heavily undue and biased, particulary the additions of low-ranking women, people from the Americas and the removal of notable leaders and classical musicians. My comment may appear rude, but I want to express what I regard as controversial, particularly the undiscussed changes. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 22:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me from your edit, that you want to remove all women and/or non-Christians. Socrates is only known to us through the writings of Plato, who is listed, so to list them both here would be redundant, not? Also, in a list of 12 religious figures you want to include Jesus, Mary and Paul? Most people in the world are non-Christians BTW. Further, Jobim was influential in creating bossa nova, Piazzolla pioneered tango music and Kuti pioneered Afrobeat music. Their inclusion here broadens the coverage to more than just white-European musicians/composers. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
We all have our own bias, but our objection is to reduce it and make a neutral encyclopedia. Your allegations are incorrect. I don't care about their ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. And I don't care how many people are Christians, but all three people are clearly what defines that religion. We hardly can imagine Christianity without one of those people. I am not knowledgable in Islam, but I am just curious why Paul was removed. The same situation exists for other changes. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 22:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Per your above logic, I've now added Paul the Apostle and removed Benjamin Franklin. I think four Christian leaders in a list of 13 should suffice. FTR, I wasn't the one who removed him. I'm also curious, why did you remove Leif Ericson? He discovered North America, wouldn't that make him at least a top 10 explorer? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose removal of Martin Luther; undone: First off, could someone more clearly delineate what's on, what's off? Secondly, I somewhat approve of Manuas' globalization edits. Thirdly, I disapprove of Gabe's removal of Martin Luther; Luther was the seminal religious figure of the second millennium; we don't need three people from the first 50-100 years of Christianity and then 0 from the next 1900-1950 years. That I have reverted per BRD. Fourthly, I think that we could make room for some of what we all want if we act on my above proposal to remove a few mathematicians pbp 23:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I added back Martin Luther before your above comment. I was just trying to find a good one to remove, Ben Franklin seemed excessive in the list of 18, so I removed him to make room for Luther. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Can we DISCUSS before making BOLD removals, please? pbp 23:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, not to be snarky, but the guideline is to 1) be bold, 2) revert, 3) discuss, not the other way around. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Prior to Manuas' edits, this was pretty much locked, and couldn't be edited without thorough discussion. I support a return to that pbp 02:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • My position on Franklin is that while his groundbreaking work with electricity is obviously significant, his greatest invention (the lightning rod) seems to pale in comparison with the others in the "Inventors and scientists" sub-section. PBP, what's your argument for his inclusion over Paul? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that it's a little excessive to have three people from the first 50 years of Christianity. I'd also note that Franklin was also a significant author, diplomat and political force in addition to being an inventor/scientist pbp 02:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Right, but we shouldn't place Franklin on the "inventor/scientist" list based on his merits as an "author, diplomat and political force". FTR, I'm not arguing for Paul's inclusion, that was TomKat. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to intervene, but what is Ravi Shankar doing in the top 15 when there's no Led Zeppelin? Arguably the most influential and significant band after the Beatles. I'd also add Pink Floyd since there has to be at least one progressive/psychedelic artist in the top 15. GeezerB (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Virginia Woolf

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Would you agree to replace Virginia Woolf with William Faulkner? GeezerB (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I would not. Woolf is far more influential than Faulkner. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Back it up. GeezerB (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
No need. You are the proposer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It was you who claimed that Woolf is more influential than Faulkner. GeezerB (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Woolf is a major influence on feminist and lesbian theorists. Faulkner is just another male, pale and stale author who received a Nobel Prize in 1949, but we have plenty of scientists who received Nobel Prizes for far more important and enduring work. Few people today would have read or even heard of any of his work, and his influence is confined to literature. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I actually agree that Woolf is more influential, but Faulkner is an overall greater figure in literature. GeezerB (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess Google Scholar results are a reasonable (if mindless) metric of influence. Woolf 59,300; Faulkner 32,000. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Werner Heisenberg

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Would like to add Werner Heisenberg and Hans Bethe to the physicists list. Both are Nobel Prize winners, and much better known (for good reason) than Johann Balmer, Antoine Henri Becquerel or Nikolay Nikolayevich Bogolyubov. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree, especially regarding adding Heisenberg and removing Bogolyubov. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Upon further inspection, I don't see a "physicists list", either I missed it, or perhaps you mean the "Inventors and scientists" list, but neither Johann Balmer, Antoine Henri Becquerel or Nikolay Nikolayevich Bogolyubov are included there. I still think a strong case could be made to add Werner Heisenberg, wherever he belongs. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was looking at level 4. I would nominate Heisenberg to replace Carl Linnaeus at level 3 so we have somebody from the generations of scientists after Einstein and Bohr. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I've swapped in Werner Heisenberg and removed Ali. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

People by DOB, or alphabet

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone recently suggested that the list needs to be in alphabetical order for some reason, but it seems to me that the encyclopedic value of the list is improved using DOB chronology. Many readers won't know that Pythagoras pre-dates Euclid, or that Confucius pre-dates Aristotle, or that Zoroaster is considered the world's first prophet, pre-dating Abraham by a few hundred years. I suggest that for people, we should list them by age, starting with the oldest and ending with the most recently born. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Religious and political figures

Latest comment: 11 years ago27 comments4 people in discussion

I suggest we limit the list to those who actually founded religions or who were instrumental in their founding. E.g., trim out Mary and Ali and add two scientists from the 20th century, Werner Heisenberg and J. Robert Oppenheimer.

  • I prefer Paul and Martin Luther be included or neither.

GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why we need both Einstein and Oppenheimer. They both were notable for roughly the same thing. I also feel the list is a little scientist-heavy, at the detriment of other fields. I might be inclined to add Washington instead of Oppenheimer so that we can keep Lincoln, who I think you're overly critical of. In many lists of great Americans, he's consistently ranked at the top, above Washington, Jefferson. Also, it was wrong for you to undo my edit, and even wronger to call me a "white POV pusher". pbp 14:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
No, that is not true at all. Einstein is famous for the general theory of relativity, the old quantum theory and his mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc2 which has been dubbed "the world's most famous equation", all from the 1900-1925 period. He is not famous for the Manhattan Project, which he was not involved with beyond signing the Einstein-Szilard letter. Oppenheimer is the one associated with the Manhattan Project. And I don't think 20 scientists amounts to making the list scientific-heavy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you finished your thought. And regardless, I don't see Oppenheimer as significant enough to justify his inclusion at the expense of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. pbp 18:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
He isn't. There are 20 slots for scientists. FWIW though, you are comparing the impact of the abolition of slavery in one country with the impact of nuclear weapons, which is global. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You're far too enamored with people who founded things, like nations or religions. By the same logic, we should lift QE1 for King Arthur and Napoleon for Roland. Sure, Washington and Jefferson "founded" the USA, but the USA wouldn't be the way it is now without Lincoln. To say Jefferson > Lincoln can't be done without considering Jefferson's artistic, scientific, or philosophical contributions. Solely looking at political or military contributions, Lincoln > Jefferson. If you think that Jefferson belongs on the list, put him in the philosophers pbp 17:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Lincoln was president for 4 years, Washington for 8. Washington was also the general who won the Revolution. Lincoln never fought in any battles nor did he ever lead men into battle. Washington was the only US president to be elected unanimously. Both Jefferson and Washington are far more vital to American history than is Lincoln, who often gets way too much credit for "winning" the Civil War. The north had twice as many troops, twice as many factories, and twice as much money to spend on the war. Any Union president could have defeated the south at that time, and Lincoln's great accomplishment was allowing his generals to do whatever they wanted (read rape, pillage, plunder). Also, he didn't really free the slaves, the EP freed only the slaves in the "rebelious states", not those in the north or the west. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
N.B. The only states that permitted slavery outside of the 11 states of the Confederacy were the so-called border states of Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri, all of which were effectively occupied by the Union army. Slavery had already been abolished in the other states of the Union. As for the advantages of the Confederacy, they were fighting in defense of their own territory, knew and understood their own geography, had far shorter supply lines, and were motivated to defend their hearths and homes. It's no wonder the American Civil War was a bloodbath, with Napoleonic era infantry tactics confronting rifled small arms and cannon. Lincoln's great accomplishment was holding a democratic government together while sustaining a war effort that sapped the morale of the voters. As for the "rape, pillage and plunder," there was very little rape in evidence, but a 40-mile swath of Georgia was stripped clean of all of food stuffs and most valuables during Sherman's March to the Sea. Living off the land was a necessary evil, and both armies engaged in it when they marched on the other's territory. Unfortunately for the Confederacy, most of the war was fought in the South. (And, for the record, please note that I am a Southerner and live in Atlanta.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, so am I to gather that you don't really like Lincoln that much? If there were a four years that were more important to the course of American history than any other four years, it'd be Lincoln's 4 (and one month) in office. Damn right Lincoln wasn't elected unanimously; the fact that he wasn't kinda, sorta started the Civil War. "Any president could've defeated the South"...that's a load of bull for a lotta reasons, the most notable of which was that several of the people Lincoln ran against had platforms of not defeating the South. As for the rest of your Lincoln-bashing, I could do the same for Jefferson and Washington what you did to Lincoln, even though I believe Jefferson and Washington to be great men.
pbp slams Washington and Jefferson just for the hell of it
They owned slaves. One of them had a child by a slave (and the other was probably impotent). Washington lost most of the battles he commanded troops in (Trenton and Yorktown being exceptions). Sure, they served two full terms, and lived on after that. During Washington's two terms, nothing really happened, and what did happened was more the work of Alexander Hamilton than Washington himself. Sure, Jefferson bought Louisiana, then for the last two years of his term, the American economy ground to a halt with the Embargo Act. Yeah, Jefferson, wrote the Declaration of Independence...which was a rip-off of John Locke and Thomas Paine; and even that required some help from John Adams and Ben Franklin
But I am of the opinion that there are too few political/military leaders and too many of other things. So one of the other things should be deleted so we can have both Washington and Lincoln. We'd have room for both of them if not for some of your cockamamie additions in the last few weeks pbp 22:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like America-centric cultural imperialism to me. Why not Simon Bolivar instead? Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Hawkeye7. Also, FTR, I don't dislike Abe in the least, why make it about that? This isn't a popularity contest, is it? Washington regularly tops lists of the all-time greatest Americans, Abe rarely does. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

First, are we limited to certain numbers within certain categories? If so, why? Second, why are talking about dropping either Washington or Lincoln when the obvious, if politically incorrect, candidate to be dropped is Susan B. Anthony? On what planet is Anthony deemed to be more "vital" to American or world history than Washington or Lincoln? On a list of the top 50 for the 20th Century, I might pick Golda Meir, but not on a list of 20 for all-time political and military -- so, why her? Sounds like we were trolling for women to add to the list, guys.

And, for the record, I agree that Washington and Lincoln were both far more important to U.S. history and the worldwide evolution of democratic republics than Jefferson. I also agree that St. Paul and Martin Luther were both more important to the founding and evolution of Christianity, respectively, than Mary. As for Bolivar, include him if you bump Anthony and Meir, but certainly not at the expense of Washington. Let's recognize that Bolivar was the "Latin American Washington"; one was a conscious imitation of the other. One successfully founded the first large-scale democratic republic in history, and the other left a chaotic constitutional mess and a cult of personality. Read the articles, fellas. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So, you're saying add Bolivar and add back Lincoln, but delete Anthony and Meir? I can live with that pbp 00:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
In short, yes.
One further small point, many historians rank Lincoln as a "greater," more historically significant U.S. president than Washington. While I don't necessarily agree with that statement, I think a quick review of this list, Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States, might be informative. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • What? Lincoln was "far more important to U.S. history and the worldwide evolution of democratic republics" than Jefferson and Washington? How so, please explain? Also, this isn't a popularity contest and our coverage should be broad. Are you saying that there isn't even one single female leader worthy of the list? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
First, please review the composite Wikipedia list of U.S. presidents with historical rankings. It is not a "popularity contest"; most of rankings are based on surveys of historians, who consistently list Lincoln as one of the two greatest presidents. Some even rank Lincoln ahead of Washington. While I don't subscribe to the "Lincoln is greater than Washington" thesis (in some ways, an apples vs. oranges argument), I can understand their logic. Lincoln saved the world's first large-scale democratic republic, he prosecuted the first modern war (a civil war) while preserving an elected constitutional governmental, and, yes, he does get credit for ending slavery in the United States. His five years in office permanently changed the common understanding of the U.S. Constitution in myriad ways. Lincoln served as a modern-day exemplar of the democratically elected leader of a republic at a time when many other countries were seeking examples for successful republican government; he was a hero and role model to two or more generations of democratically minded reformists world-wide.
Personally, I think Washington and Lincoln are of relatively equal stature for one reason: without both Washington and Lincoln, the United States as we know it today would not exist, constitutionally or geographically. The same simply cannot be said for Jefferson. It was not the strength of Jefferson's character and leadership that saved the republic in its infancy; his primary contribution to the founding was his authorship of the Declaration of Independence. John Adams was the primary intellectual and organizational driver, and Washington provided the military and moral leadership to survive what was in effect an 8-year-long civil war. Add Benjamin Franklin's diplomacy in wooing the French and keeping them onsides through Yorktown, and you have the American Revolution in a nutshell. After the war, Washington could have been king, pro consul, dictator for life, or any other title of his choosing. Instead, he retired to his farm in 1783, earning the sobriquet "the American Cincinnatus." When it was obvious that the Articles of Confederation were failing to provide the necessary structure for a successful national government, he was drafted to chair the Constitutional Convention in 1787. After the Constitution was adopted in 1788, he was unanimously elected president. Again, with a word, he could have been king, pro consul, or dictator for life, but he undertook the undefined job of "president" as a duty, not as a right. Prior to 1788-89, no such position had ever existed, least of all in the context of a large democratic republic, and the Constitution was an untested governing document of only seven pages. The precedents of republican conduct, constitutional interpretation, civilian control of the military, scrupulously honoring the limits on executive power, and demonstrated respect for the elected Congress and unelected judiciary laid the groundwork for stable, successful, constitutional government -- the first time in human history that such an experiment in large-scale republican democracy was ever undertaken. When he retired after two elected terms in office, voluntarily relinquishing power for the second time to return to his farm, George III remarked that Washington was the greatest man in history for the sole reason that he could relinquish power. Compare Washington and Lincoln to, say, Oliver Cromwell or Vladimir Putin, and you begin to understand the importance of Washington and Lincoln to the norms of constitutional republican government.
In comparison, Jefferson was the third president whose greatest accomplishment in office was doubling the size of the country with the Louisiana Purchase. Not a small thing that, but not exactly on par with winning the war of independence as the commanding general and setting the precedents for constitutional republican government as the first president that survive to this day . . . .
As for the women folk, it's not a matter of finding "one single female leader worthy of the list." It's a matter of intellectual honesty, and avoiding political correctness by including worthy women who are not as worthy as other men. Susan B. Anthony was barely a footnote until American historians went digging for the contributions of women in the 1970s; she does not compare in significance to Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln. Golda Meir was obviously one of the central figures in the founding of modern Israel, but let's compare her to some of the other 20th Century figures omitted from the list: Wilson, Clemenceau, Lenin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin. Is Meir really of greater historical significance than Lenin, Churchill and Roosevelt? If you can name any female political or military leaders you honestly believe had greater historical impact than those gentlemen, please do: you have a receptive audience. Oh, and as an aside, I think V.I. Lenin should be included on the list before Mao. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with adding V.I. Lenin and removing Mao. If your argument against the inclusion of women is because they lack the "greater historical impact" of their male counter-parts, that is perhaps in part due to thousands of years of female oppression by males. According to Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions: "In sections such as those pertaining to People, History or Geography, weight is given to some articles to produce a more diverse, worldly list." (emphasis added) GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Um, we still have Elizabeth I on this list... And as for having women for the sake of having women, Susan B. Anthony is a ridiculously poor choice. She never held political office! She wasn't even married to someone who held an important political office! To include her over Lincoln (who I would note was ranked ahead of Washington in the Atlantic Monthly's 100 Most Influential Americans and in the Discovery Channel list) is criminal! And, yes, consensus is a bit of a "popularity contest" among those who particpate. pbp 02:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I, for one, never said that life was fair to female would-be politicians before the modern era. In light of that subtle hint from the Vital articles FAQ, perhaps we should consider a selection or two from the likes of Hatshepsut, Catherine the Great, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher and Benazir Bhutto. As acknowledged, Elizabeth I is already on the list. Got any other suggestions for women who were historically significant political leaders? If we are going to add more than two additional women, perhaps we should consider expanding the list of military and political leaders to 25, so we're not arguing about whether we bump Lincoln, Lenin or Meir. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I said we needed more than 20 above. 25 total, maybe 3-4 women and 21-22 men. Just not Susan B. Anthony; she's not a political leader. And yes on Lincoln pbp 15:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Is there any reason why we can't expand this particular list from 20 to 25 persons? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I think we should expand it to 25, but I'm trying to get an accurate tally so we know where we are at in terms of the 1,000 article limit. It seems to me that a few could be trimmed from the other sections. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I've now counted and re-counted and determined that there are currently 989 articles on this list, leaving room for 11 more. I went ahead and expanded the leaders list to 25, which still leaves room for 6 more articles. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, Gabe. I can live with the 25-person list as it now exists. PBB, how about you? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Bhutto seems an odd choice. I think we went a little over-the-top on adding women. We have, what, five now? That's 20%, when probably in world history, the number is <10%, really <<10%. We may have swung too revisionist pbp 05:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I've now removed Bhutto and added Peter the Great (there was no leader from his century). That leaves 4 women on a list of 25. Does this resolve your concerns PBP? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Explorers

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Room should be found on the explorers' list for Neil Armstrong, as the first man to set foot on the moon and as a representative of the space-faring generation. Before anyone objects that Armstrong was part of a team, I ask you to review the list. All but one or two of the explorers listed were the commanders or leaders of the expedition teams that made them famous. Please consider. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest adding Armstrong and dropping Jacques Cartier. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Done pbp 17:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Do we need him? We already have moon landing, plus about 7 other space tech things, do we need all these, are we giving undue weight to remarkble one off events or objects that make news but don't effect many people. Carlwev (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Carl, I'll respond with a question: In the last 1,000 years of history, what was a more significant event: the mapping of the St. Lawrence River or landing on the moon? Which do you think will be viewed as the greater milestone during the next 1,000 years of human history? A good argument could be made for including Yuri Gagarin instead of Neil Armstrong, but I believe Armstrong's moon landing represents a greater technological and exploration achievement than orbiting the Earth. These lists are by their very nature subjectively selective, and most notable persons and topics will be excluded.
As for the impact of space technology, I would suggest that handheld computers and calculators, micro-circuitry, velcro, long-term food preservation, weather satellites, GPS mapping applications, and deep-space telescopes have all had a significant impact on the evolution of human quality of life, technology, and understanding. The Apollo moon landing is a representative example of that technology, and arguably the most notable milestone of space technology and exploration thus far.
As for whether we should include three, five, seven or ten examples of "space tech things," I'll leave that to others to argue. Clearly, several examples should be included. Which would you keep? Which would you remove, and with what would your replace them?

Jimi Hendrix

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

There are currently only 2 "modern" musicians in the "Composers and musicians" cat, which itself only has 9 total entries, so ... do I really have to nom one for demotion, or can Hendrix just be added? If I have to nom one for demotion, does it have to be one of the current 9 entires in that cat? If so Verdi, though admittedly arbitrarily. Neither Elvis nor the Beatles cover modern guitar music, add Hendrix as the 10th article in that cat. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I dropped Stravinsky and Chopin to make room for some music that represents the rest of the world other than 60s-70s pop and European classical. I think that Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner and Verdi are a reasonable place to cut off since there are none above either of them in their respective fields. For Chopin and Stravinsky one could have long arguments about whether other composers are more suited - Tchaikovsky? Puccini? etc. I added Louis Armstrong to represent jazz (one more would be good), Fela Kuti as a representative of African music, Ravi Shankar as a representative of Indian music, and Antonio Carlos Jobim and Astor Piazzolla to represent Latin America. All of these have had a global impact that goes way beyond their individual continents and into other genres than the one's they played in. I am thinking that a Hip-Hop artist and an artist representing the Asian musical traditions would be reasonable. But then it becomes a questin of space. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Excellent work Maunus! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The replacing of Chopin and Wagner by Piazzolla and Hildegard von Bingen is described as "excellent work". Wow. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
FTR, I was complementing Maunus' addition of ethnicity to a list that was previously 100% white European, it had nothing to do with Wagner. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:DUE. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
That's irrelevant, this list is not an article. And the inclusion criteria explicitly states that it aims to achieve a breadth of coverage. There is no good reason that most of the included should be male European classical composers.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, WP:DUE would seem to apply to having 4 Germans in a list of 13 musicians (30%). FTR, I have nothing against Germans. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
It does "speak" of "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", so I wish you good luck finding music encyclopedias that consider Piazzolla or Hildegard von Bingen more significant in the history of music than Wagner. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
They are surely more significant within theire respective genres. The history of music is not defined by what happened to be significant in European music from 1700-1900.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
However, they are not significant in the rest of the world.--Tomcat (7) 21:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree, considering that classical music is a huge influence in movie soundtracks seen around the world. Jusdafax 06:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I am amazed and shocked about the additions of Antônio Carlos Jobim, Fela Kuti and Ravi Shankar. Jobim is only known for one particular song, Kuti is some guy I never heard until now, and Shankar is one of millions of sitar player that had no real impact to music except for backing well-known artists. I recommend removing them and add some groundbreaking composers; strangely I can not see Tchaikovsky (huge repertoire), Chopin (Romanticism), Liszt (Romanticism), Rachmaninoff (Post-Romanticism), Debussy (Impressionism), all that shaped music. Also, how does Armstrong qualify? If you include jazz musicians, then don't forget Miles Davis (cool jazz, hardbop, bebop, funk-jazz, fusion, hip-hop jazz), John Coltrane (bebop, modal jazz, other complex jazz fusions) and Charlie Parker (very influential bebop player, similar style as Coltrane's). How does Jimi Hendrix qualify for this list? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 21:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Shankar is arguably the most influential and important Indian musician of the last 100+ years (see India, approximately 1.2 billion people). How does Armstrong qualify? He is often credited as helping to invent swing and is considered by some as the first African-American to attain popular appeal. Hendrix is the only non-white musician that represents modern rock music, which has been the most popular form of music for the last 55+ years. He is widely considered to have been one of rock's greatest instrumentalists (if not the greatest). Yes, an argument could be made for adding several of those classical composers, but European classical music does not define music globally and to add them would require you to remove others (throwing the balance off). Please keep in mind that the coverage shoud be broad. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What's happening to this list?

Latest comment: 11 years ago29 comments9 people in discussion

How can we have Golda Meir if we aren't even including Israel in the 1000 list, Meir is notable for being Israel's leader, Meir has an article in about 66 languages, Israel has an article in over 200 languages which seems more important?

We have some things missing that are/were very important to millions of people: Horse, Hospital, school, Cattle, Plus other good candidates could be: snow, wind, season, sky scraper, island. Seems odd to have mountain and river in top 100 but not island in top 1000.

Medicine, How can you have MRI but not hospital? we do.

Food, how can you have soybean and egg (food) but not cattle?

some have been deleted that I think should probably stay furniture, board game has gone but Chess and Go (2 board games) have stayed.

What are all these modern musicians popping up, we have nations with 50+ million people and hundred or thousands of years of history missing like Vietnam and Korea (but we have the wars because they are recent and the USA took part) Thailand, Congo, Ethiopia so we can have Hendrix, Shankar, Led Zeppelin, Fela Kuti? really. How can a leader of one nice country be more important than another whole country in itself, How can we start listing modern leaders of Pakistan and Israel before you include Vietnam and Thailand themselves? Carlwev (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Carl, as I said above, these lists are by their very nature subjectively exclusive. Many, many notable subjects have been omitted. What we are trying to do is to have a representative sample numbering 1,000. I actually agree with some of your criticisms, but not others. As revised, the military/political leaders list does a pretty decent job of presenting a representative sample over the last 5,000 years of human history. The vital list qualifications also includes a mandate to include not only a representative sample, but also to include diversity in the sample, including significant women and representatives of cultures outside the Anglosphere and European influence. Could Golda Meir or Benazir Bhutto be bumped in favor of someone else? Sure. Who do you propose?
As for the non-inclusion of Israel, Vietnam and Thailand, it's simply a matter of subjective priorities. What countries would you drop in favor of including Israel? Ancient Egypt? The Roman Empire? France? The United States? I might also quickly add that the greatest historical significance of Israel and the Jews has largely been their contributions to the evolution of world religion and moral philosophy, not their politics. The list already includes Judaism, the Talmud, Abraham, Moses and Jerusalem, so it's not like the list excludes Israel and Jewish-related topics. As for the inclusion of Korea, Thailand and Vietnam, please make your case, and then identify what countries be dropped in favor of their inclusion? See, not so easy, huh? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I think there are probably too many people

I am not suggesting deleting countries, what made you presume I was? Who said we are only allowed 23 countries, but we have to have 135 people. When I started watching this list it had 125 people, it has grown to 135 now. There were more countries previously too. I believe entire nations are normally more notable single people, not to the point where we should name all nations but no people, but I think 135 biographies and 23 countries is too far off. Golda Meir cannot be more notable than Israel surely, or am I mad, we should probably have neither.

I agree with some comments made earlier. It is not our fault that on average, men have been more notable than woman. In fact one could say, to include a woman "because she is a woman" among other reasons, and to leave out a more notable man, is sexist to the man. Or better why not have another country instead. - We appear to have no female musicians is this wrong? Should we delete Beethoven to add Madonna?

While I'm here I don't think we need Eisenstein in Filmmakers.

Money, US dollar and the Euro? How can we have 2 currencies without "currency" itself shouldn't we have something like "Currency" and "Bank" instead of Euro and Dollar? a bit more universal/international and less Anglo/European? Carlwev (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Carl, my free advice is this: focus on the contents of particular sublists, and make your case for particular additions and deletions. Some of your criticisms have merit, but you're not going to get any changes implemented by simply venting in a series of scattershot criticisms across widely disparate subject areas. If you want to discuss filmmakers, start a "Filmmakers" thread. Likewise, countries, money, etc. You might be surprised when other discussion participants agree with some of your specific gripes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I think Carlwev has the right of it - I've been watching here with a bit of dismay, though to be honest this list has always made me raise my eyebrows. Take writers for example: four modernists, two Russians, half the entries represent the last two centuries. Seems skewed compared to "works' with a very different focus - but the logic has always escaped me. A lot of balancing to be done here. And I'd suggest advertising this conversation a bit more and soliciting input from more content editors. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Truthkeeper, I don't doubt the overall list can be improved, both structurally and in its individual selections, but that requires specific category-by-category discussions by informed editors. I had never participated in these discussions until yesterday, when I was attracted by a AN/3RR post regarding edit-warring over the military and political leaders sublist. That little dispute appears to be largely resolved now, but I have no doubt that particular sublist could still be further refined.
There is an obvious challenge in selecting 1,000 articles to be a representative "core" of the several million articles and lists found on Wikipedia. As I have said above, the compilation and refinement of such a list is an exercise in subjective prioritization, but I don't believe that invalidates the exercise. I also think that there is a certain discipline in restricting the list to 1,000 articles. By significantly expanding the numbers beyond that, I believe we make the list meaningless. Keeping the list to a manageable size, and making a genuine effort to prioritize the articles to be included is, I believe, a worthwhile exercise. It's akin to what Ed Hirsch compiled back in the late 1980s, sort of Wikipedia's Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with that, especially, if the list draws some good editors and writers to underserved and underdeveloped articles on the list.
If you want to help refine the list, I suggest you start specific discussion threads. If you think the concept of the list is worthless, ignore it. No harm, no foul. I may or may not remain active in the discussions, but I do find it a pleasant diversion from other Wikipedia work on my to-do list. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I've had this on my watch for a long time, have spent quite a lot of time studying the list (I've worked on a few of these pages), and the heading, "what's happening to this list", drew me in because I've noticed all the activity and wondered the same. I've not at all said it's a worthless exercise; I do, however, think the list should stay somewhat stable. Some editors rely in it, for the Core contest for example. I have to wonder about some of the changes and when I have time will try to figure our why, for example, Franz Kafka, James Joyce, and Virginia Woolf are both here and on the Level 4 list - in other words when did they get promoted up? I'll review the earlier threads as well as watching more recent comments. At the moment I'm intrigued by what Hegvald and Elekhh have to say: I'm inclined to get rid of the biographies too, but would like a little time to mull it over. I do think more participants would be helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
One small point: Everything on this list is supposed to be on the Lv 4 list as well pbp 01:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a rather hopeless project. But if I may have my say, I'd suggest removing all biographies, every single one. I understand why people want to include biographies; they're easy to write compared to larger and more complex subject.

But take a look at the area of "classical music", which is included as one of very few musical "genres" (not that "folk music" is even a genre -- it is a multitude of extremely different traditions). Looking at the people representing classical music, we have Johann Sebastian Bach, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, Richard Wagner, Giuseppe Verdi, Frédéric Chopin and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. It is easy to think of other names that could rival one of these, and that seems to be the way much of the discussion has been going above. But the consequence is that the list has 1 baroque composer, 1 1/2 classical (in the narrower sense) and 4 1/2 from the Romantic period. (I'm counting Beethoven as part classical, part Romantic). But there are no 20th century composers, no Haydn, no representative for the Italian Baroque (no Monteverdi, Corelli, Vivaldi) and any name one would chose would push one of the others off the list. The obvious solution, I think, is to remove all the names and replace them with period articles (Baroque music etc.)

Same thing with many other overly specific topics: Colosseum is included, but I cannot find Roman architecture. The Iliad and Sophocles are included, but not the Odyssey, Euripides or Aeschylus, or any Greek history writer; the obvious solution should be to be to strike Iliad and Sophocles from the list but include an article on Ancient Greek literature. Adding Greek drama would retain the current number of articles but still cover more ground. --Hegvald (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree with Hegvald above: this list has to be rethought, with all biographies replaced by broader topics. Same applies for architecture: remove all buildings and provide coverage of broader topics, which include those buildings (Raised this issue previously here). --ELEKHHT 23:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You mean 135 individuals rather than groups of people, societies, civilisations...? And why do you think that topics do not properly describe the role of individuals? --ELEKHHT 23:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Right, I meant individuals, thanks for the correction. Why would we need 865 topical articles? Why not just food? Do we really need 14 types of food listed under food? So you want to drop Jesus, Paul and Martin Luther and say its all covered by Christianity? I think what's being missed here is the fact that there are 4 levels of Vital Articles, 2 include individuals, 2 do not (FTR, the category is currently named People, not individuals). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The problem with including 135 individuals is that you inevitably exclude other individuals who may have an equally good claim to be included. As I said above, including Bach means excluding all other Baroque composers. Including the seven classical composers means excluding many others, as well as quite possibly important topics in Indian, Chinese or other non-European forms of music that I may not even have heard of.
As for Jesus, there probably isn't enough known about Jesus-the-historical-individual to write much that couldn't better be included in an article with a larger scope. Christianity is large enough a topic area to warrant several articles, but excluding Jesus and Paul would allow the list to include an article on Early Christianity (which is currently missing) and one more article in addition to that.
Dirtlawyer's suggestion that this list isn't intended to cover all topics but to be a representative sampling (if I have understood him correctly) is intriguing, but that approach will force you to continue arguing over choices between individual people and other individual minor topics (such as works of art or architecture) that are really impossible to make, while excluding huge areas of knowledge that fall between the chairs. It will certainly never lead to a stable selection of "vital articles". I also don't think this is what is implied by the introductory lines at Wikipedia:Vital articles.
Please note that I am discussing this list of a thousand articles. Any limitation forces certain choices to be made. With an unlimited amount of space, there is no reason not to have articles on every chapter and perhaps verse in the Old and New Testaments and every minor character mentioned in one of the OT genealogies (including the reception history of these topics). There almost certainly has been enough written in two millennia of Jewish and Christian exegesis to make that possible. But when prioritizing is necessary, you need to cover more ground by moving the coverage to a more general level. --Hegvald (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Under "Science: Chemistry: Chemical element": we have 10 elements listed, but wouldn't all of these be covered under "Periodic table", as well as "Chemical element" as a sub-category? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose completely removing bios: There are no bios in Level 1 or Level 2, there are many bios on this list and even more (an insane amount) in Level 4. The "basic" concepts are Level 1 and Level 2's territory. By the time you get to Level 3 or 4, it's something different. It's important concepts, regardless of how basic. Maybe we have too many bios. Maybe 100 is enough. But 0 is waaaaay too few pbp 01:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I would oppose any trimming of the "People" section to 100 articles while there are dozens of less vital articles in other sections. E.g., under "Science: Chemistry: Chemical compound" we have water, salt, oil, and carbon dioxide, the last two seem quite random and arbitrary. If we are pushing the list too close to 1,000 (which we aren't), then I think we should first look for redundancies in the other categories before any decision is made about how many "people" we should include. Isn't "Speed of light" redundant with its sub-category, "light"? Further, if we are currently 6 articles short of 1,000, why do we need to trim anyway, except to avoid redundancies and tighten the focus while improving the broad and diverse coverage? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Classical music is hugely overrepresented. Probably less than 5% of the world's people care at all about this very important lineup of dead white men. Don't come on the radio much around here I must say. Piotr Illiyic Tchaikovsky and Frederic Chopin hasn't been influential in developing any of the genres most people in the world actually listen to. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with you in principle, but I also think that 7 out of 15 isn't too bad, but its quite close and should not be expanded beyond that ratio. I added Tchaikovsky and Chopin so that the "classical" reps weren't almost entirely Germans, so that Europe was more diversly represented ethnically in terms of classical music. I completely agree that the most common and influential musical forms of the past 57+ years have not been classical, not by a long shot. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I came across this list of 150 articles, it has no people or countries, but it has a few articles we don't have in this 1000. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics I haven't examined it thoroughly but it looks like a very decent and well thought out list, I would suggest everything on that 150 should be in this 1000. At first glance, things it has that are missing from the 1000 are: humour, fuel, archaeology, natural disaster these probably belong in the 1000 list more than Golda Meir, Led Zeppelin or Fela Kuti.
  • When I thought things could be changed I brought it up on here on the talk page and got many opinions and waited a while, it took me ages to make what I think are sensible changes like deleting Fallingwater and adding something as vital as Road which was previously missing. Now people are coming and adding their favorite rock musicians after little or no discussion; musicians below Elvis and Beetles should go I believe. If I'm honest, it kind of makes me want to forget about this list and abandon it.
  • I think individual people should definitely be reduced or removed. I can see the suggestion of removing all biographies, half of me agrees with this half of me does not, and I believe there are many users who would not want it removed completely. But it definitely needs reducing to include wider topics of similar or different fields. At first glance it seems odd to have 10 artists but only 6 art movements, 15 composers/musicians but only 6 music genres. People; whether we remove all or many, lets be sensible about "VITAL" people, Beethoven looks sensible on the list, but Fela Kuti, come on, are you kidding. Alexander the Great looks sensible but Golda Meir???? I dislike opinions like, we have to have an African musician or we are being racist or something, and, we have to have more female leaders or we are being sexist, its ridiculous. It's not our fault who history says is more notable or vital. Sorry for moaning a bit but I hope users get my point.
  • I agree with the statement that Classical music is too highly represented too. I think people is not the only section over represented too, maybe food, Medicine, individual structures like Angkor Wat, Colloseum and some other suggestions could be trimmed, I already expressed dislike for Egg (food) and Soybean plus several medical techs like MRI, I hope I will look at the list and make some proper suggestions soon and stop simply moaning about it. Carlwev (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

GabeMc's recent deletions

I'd like to express Opposition to the following deleted articles, which were deleted by GabeMc without consensus earlier today:

The rest of his changes I'm undecided on, though I would have preferred he followed the consensus-first, changes-later model that I've generally adhered to on this particular page pbp 22:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Chess and Go (game) are covered under Board games. Color does not belong under "Everday life", its an optical/scientific topic. Comics is redundant with drawing, and Fine art is redundant with Visual arts, painting, and sculpture. Beer and wine are covered by Alcoholic beverage. PBP, please consider loosening your reigns here. IMO, you are exhibiting ownership issues. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not expressing OWNership, I'm enforcing prior consensus. I'm not the one making BOLD edits without a consensus. You're expressing much more OWNership than I am in that you are making lone edits before discussing. Color belongs in the top 1000 someplace. Fine art is a general term much in the same way alcoholic beverage and board game are. You have been reverted pending discussion; please do not revert until then pbp 22:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
"Enforcing prior consensus"? 1) Consensus can change, and 2) why do you think that you are the designated "enforcer"? Also, you aren't supposed to use rollback in a content dispute PBP (and you could lose that priv for doing so), so I've reverted you. You simply cannot rollback two hours of work because you want to be tedious. Lets first discuss how many should be added back and why. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Rollback wasn't used, GabeMc. It will take you about 30 seconds to go to the article history and find your old revision and restore it if there's a consensus for it, which as of 23:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC) there isn't. As of right now, there's one person (you) for your edits, and at least one person (me, plus whoever put the stuff there in the first place); so consensus hasn't changed. You should have discussed your edits before making them. pbp 23:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't know. Haven't ever contacted somebody on the subject who wasn't already talking about it here or in user-talk space pbp 23:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Its not contacting them that constitutes canvassing per se, its about the utter lack of neutrality in your diffs, which make it quite clear that you attempted to rally support for your position. According to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification: "such notices should be ... neutrally worded with a neutral title". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It's time to make a few things clear, Gabe. You just can't come to a core Wikipedia area like this and steamroller changes through on your own. It isn't right, as it violates the principles on which the encyclopedia is founded. I agree with Purplebackpack89, you should have discussed your edits first, and you are out of line. Jusdafax 05:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete MRI add Hospital

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Without examining the list thoroughly this is probably the first of several suggestions that stand out to me as sensible, who agrees or disagrees with this particular change, I may have more suggestions later after a longer look at the list. Carlwev (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Which section includes MRI? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Here it is:Technology > Food and health > Magnetic resonance imaging I abbreviated to MRI which it's known as and redirects to it, Sorry I'm a slow typer, bad speller and a bit lazy. Carlwev (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Well, I absolutely agree that hospital should be added to the list, but I am unsure if we need to remove MRI to add it, as the list is currently 9 under the 1,000 article limit. Either way, it does seem silly to list a specific machine that a hospital might have and not hospital. On the other hand, it begs the question, why not include Doctor and Nurse as well? Since a hospital is pretty useless without them. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested changes

Latest comment: 11 years ago109 comments13 people in discussion
superseded by later discussions. Genetic drift and a few others have been removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In an effort to reduce redundancy in the list, I suggest the following changes:

Arts and culture
  • Remove "comics" as redundant with drawing, and remove fine art as redundant with visual arts, painting, and sculpture.
Geography
  • Since there is no portion of Mesoamerica not overlapped by Latin America, I suggest we remove it as redundant. Kinda like having North America and the "Deep South" listed.
Mathematics
  • Remove Linear algebra and Matrix (mathematics) as redundant with Algebra.
Everyday life
  • Color does not belong in this section, it should be among the scientific articles if anywhere.
  • Remove Chess and Go, add Board game to broaden scope of coverage to more than two board games.
  • Add Alcoholic beverage, remove beer and wine, again, to broaden our coverage and avoid being overly specific.

Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose a few of these: Color id a very important concept and needs to be somewhere. Comics probably does too. "Fine art" can encompass performance art as well as visual art. Board game and alcoholic beverage are good catch-alls and I'm fine with their addition, but the problem here is that the specific terms (Chess, Go, Beer, Wine) predated the use of the catch-all term. I'm taking linear algebra right now, and I abominate it, but am undecided as to it and matrix's place in this list. It's worth noting that it ain't just y=mx+b. pbp 00:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Color is simply not an appropriate topic at "Everday life", that's why I removed it, as a scientific topic that does not belong there. Blind people cannot see colors, yet they still participate in everyday life, not? Despite their distinctions, linear algebra is a sub-category of algebra, and its inclusion on the list is redundant. Why is Comics a vital article that is not redundant with drawing? Fine art is redundant with visual arts, painting, and sculpture. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Color shouldn't be axed just because some people can't see it. I never said it should be in everyday life, if you want to place it under Physics (Optics is a subset of Physics), that's fine. You've also somewhat misrepresented my booze and games comment; my vote was that the general term should be added while the specific remained pbp 00:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Then revert me. The start of this thread says: "In an effort to reduce redundancy", adding them would increase redundancy. Color is redundant with optics, as optics is "the branch of physics which involves the behaviour and properties of light". Loosen the reigns, you are not the master of this page. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I reverted you earlier. And you ain't exactly the voice of the masses either. pbp 01:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
What's the point of just deleting articles at this juncture? a) We're under 1,000; b) You aren't proposing any additions. If you do, I'd recommend against biographical additions; expanding biography appears to be DOA pbp 01:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
My edits today were made "in an effort to reduce redundancy in the list". It matters little if we are over 1,000 if there are several articles that should be removed. I never said anything about expanding the bios beyond 135, but I would caution you against implying its a foregone conclusion that the bios cannot be expanded. In the end, that's an issue for consensus (not just those who you canvassed to oppose me). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Stop throwing the word "Canvassed" around...the two people you mentioned were already talking about Wikipedia:Vital articles on this very page or elsewhere; and one of them asked a direct question which I answered. Remember that in the thread, there was substantial support for 0 bios; I agreed with you that there should be some bios, but I don't believe anyone was in favor of more than 135; certainly not a consensus. I'm just not seeing now as the time to reduce redundancy, and as I said, I don't see Color as redundant pbp 01:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
1) Color does not belong in "Everyday life", 2) Color is redundant with optics and light (which I assume covers the visible spectrum, aka, colors). 3) The accusations of canvassing relate to: "I urge you to propose changes to those lists" and "GabeMc showed up and demanded large changes to the list. He was the one who pushed for the addition of (Golda Meir), among other. If you have problems with his adds, I suggest taking it up with him." Per WP:CANVASS: "Canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate — is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." Which, IMO, certainly applies to your recent "requests for comment", which were obviously biased against my position. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment - this thread is less than 2 hours old. My suggestion would be to let this drop until others can evaluate and have time to weigh in. I did notice the changes and there are a few I don't agree with, but on my wiki "to do" list is to evaluate the level 4 list which will take time - and I haven't a lot of time for WP at the moment. Also, just for the record, I don't consider myself as having been canvassed - I responded to another editor here, a page I've had on watch for well over two years, and then made a few comments on my talk page. No big deal at all. As far as I know, I've never interacted with Purplebackpack - so not really sure what's being alleged. At some point, when the conversation is less heated and I've got a bit more time, will weigh in. Off the top of my head, I'm having issues with the changes to the visual arts pages and think that maybe that project should be alerted, and I'm evaluating the alcohol articles to see whether they can support beer & wine. Not sure about it. As Dirtlawyer said above, this all takes time. So my suggestion is to be patient and allow others to join the conversation. As it's going, no one else will. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If Alcoholic beverage does not cover beer and wine, then its a glarring ommission of the article. Why include beer and wine and not whiskey, vodka, gin, and rum? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I dunno, does rum have a 2000 plus year history? Is it produced on all continents? Wine is a huge topic - we could add to alcoholic beverage as a summary, but it should go on one of these lists as a core/vital article. I'd say it's more vital than rum. But, I'd like to review the pages first. Will take some time. I had a quick look at fine art, and yes, I think that does overlap with visual art - so is probably okay. Will you thank me for my input too, as below? Truthkeeper (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Adding: I've decided to unwatch. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I support those changes, I feel the other article adequately overlap on these subjects. As far as I understand the vital articles, they cover the subjects, so they should be top level articles; when an article is subservient to another topic, we should always select the broader topic and express the subtopic in summary style. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Truthkeeper that Lv 4 needs work. It's probably significantly over 10,000, is way too U.S.- and biography-centric, and there are areas that are significantly under- or overrepresented. I'm of the opinion that Levels 3 and 4 should be handcuffed, in that an article shouldn't be added to Level 3 unless it's already on Level 4; and that an article shouldn't be removed from Level 4 unless it's already off Level 3 pbp 02:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
As a general comment, having less than 1,000 articles, at this juncture, is not necessarily a bad thing. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't, sorry. This list is eight years in the making; it should be fairly complete pbp 02:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
So you think the list "should be fairly complete" at this point, yet you are advocating for the removal of 35 bios? Then the list would be at 956, and even less complete. Do you have 44 other articles in mind that you will first discuss here at length, then, after a clear consensus has been achieved for each and every suggestion, we will add them so as to "complete" the list? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment before I unwatch. Said this before and reiterating: I strongly suggest bringing in more editors to the discussion, probably via neutrally worded posts to various wikiprojects, the core contest, and maybe cent. I won't do it myself, given the accusations above re canvassing. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I would enjoy participating in a centralized discussion, although I don't know exactly what we would need all those people to talk about. --NickPenguin(contribs) 13:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • My view if anyone cares. Because of different views users' have, and potential edit wars, I would think posting ideas here before making changes to pages like this is probably a good idea, that's what I do, majority of the time; and now we are forced to as page is protected. However sometimes I, or other users have put ideas here and got no input after a week or two or longer, so it can be frustrating. I would love to go through the whole list and delete and add articles mercilessly that I thought definitely should or should not be here, but I have not, because although I may believe some of my ideas are so blatantly correct, I know I'm not always right, and I know others may not think the same as me. Canvassing? I can see the argument but don't really think pbp has really done anything wrong, I receive many requests to participate i in discussions, I thought it was normal, it may have been slightly better to reply on this talk page and not mine but it's no huge deal, I was already taking part in discussion. I think making bold edits others seem to dislike, without waiting for the opinion of others, then making accusations is worse behavior. Some of these changes I like some I don't, I dislike many of the recent changes before that happened just before these ones, but my opinion on the ones mentioned, and a few more is...
  1. Fine art, I don't think it's a terrible inclusion, but I don't like it that much, I probably wouldn't include it in the 1000 list.
  2. - Go, - Chess + Board game, should definitely have board game itself before listing individual ones, deleting chess and go? not sure, maybe/probably, but not the worst inclusions by far, would probably delete something else first.
  3. - Beer - Wine + Alcoholic beverage, same opinion as board game, chess, go.
  4. colour I believe should DEFINITELY be in the 1000 list, where to put it is a separate issue art, physics with light, or everyday life, to say delete it because some people are blind is silly, over half of "everyday life" is not experienced by everyone on the planet, not eveyone can read, or speak Portuguese or eats meat but they are all there too. Would probably put with light though. To say it is covered by optics? Almost everything can be over covered by something else, colour, although mentioned in optics and light, is definitely important enough to be mentioned itself. I wouldn't say delete Catholic and Protestant because we have Christianity. Colour is also in this different vital list of only 150 which I like. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics.
  5. Furniture ,(deleted by someone previously) Pretty sure we should include furniture.
  6. Letter (alphabet), I know we have alphabet, but pretty sure we should have letter also, it was in the vital 100 at one point but take out. Probably have letter before several alphabets.
  7. Probably keep comic, drawing is an art or activity, comic is a type of book, a type of art, a whole industry that is present in most of the world and been around for over 100 years. I would delete individual writers or artists, or Mona Lisa before deleting comic.
  8. Mesoamerica vs Latin America one not both, probably keep Latin
  9. Also, Oceania vs Australia (continent) one not both, Oceania is larger over encompassing, and used more I think.
  10. While I'm here I don't think we should have, Antônio Carlos Jobim, Jimi Hendrix, Fela Kuti among others.
  • If we delete these three then 1) the list will include exactly one non-white person, 2) Rock and roll will be represented by only one American (and two total acts), which is ridiculous. Why these three anyway? Do you have a reason why these three do not belong? Although Elvis was a great singer, he was a somewhat feeble musician, and completely unable to write music. The Beatles were great singers and songwriters, but not at all great instrumentalists. Hendrix is the only musician who represents "modern" rock music, and if he seems too recent, remember, he died 42 years ago. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I will try to add some ideas for possible improvements soon, although I seem to not get many replies anyway. MRI vs hospital anyone?.

Carlwev (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Carl, I would suggest that there needs to be a proper balance between general and specific topics. Beer and wine, as specific beverages, both have major significance for the development of human culture over at least the last 6,000 years, and such significance is not expressed in that they are just two among many other alcoholic beverages. Likewise, chess and go are not just two more "board games"; they were and are significant cultural developments in and of themselves; Parker Brothers' "Monopoly," "Stratego" or "Trivial Pursuit" do not share the long-term cultural significance of either chess and go. While I think there is a great deal of room to improve this list, I would also suggest that many, if not most of the current items were included based on sound reasoning and understanding of their impact on human culture and history (e.g. wine and beer), and should not be willy-nilly deleted without careful consideration. I might also add that salt, olive oil, cheese, wheat and rice are specific topics of similar importance; they are not just "food" items. Like beer and wine, early and classical civilizations were organized around their production to a very large degree. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
"Most of the current items were included based on sound reasoning...and should not be willy-nilly deleted without careful consideration". Isn't that what I've been saying all along? I perfectly agree with your assessment of the situation. pbp 16:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)FYI:Stratego is Milton Bradley
Why address me I didn't remove them, or campaign to do so, I said maybe it was good idea to remove them, I also said they are not terrible inclusions and I said I would've removed many other articles before those (beer wine chess go). Carlwev (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I would suggest removing Cricket. While popular in the areas where it is played, it is nowhere as globally popular as Association football. The same arguments could be made for baseball, basketball, hockey, etc. Just because it's older doesn't make it worthy of inclusion on this list as one of only 3 sports listed. It's not even an Olympic sport. Angryapathy (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    As a replacement, I'd suggest Martial arts. Much more expansive across all regions of the globe. Angryapathy (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    Cricket is an Olympic sport. It was granted this status by the IOC in 2007. And it is played by more people globally than any other sport except Association football. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I suggested about 6 months ago to include martial arts or combat sports which could stretch to encompass boxing and wrestling as well as the Asian forms, no one else seemed to agree and at least one disagreed; I would still support adding it now. I was never very keen on cricket being here, but I never mentioned it, but again it doesn't look like the worst article tlisted it's not the first I would think to delete.Carlwev (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    I'd replace it with Basketball. Obviously, the #3 sport on this list is going to be less popular than soccer or track. But basketball has worldwide appeal; there are successful basketball federations in both Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries and NBA players from all six of the habitable continents. pbp 00:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Carl, per your comment: "When I started watching this list it had 125 people, it has grown to 135 now", I'm curious. Why is 13.6% (135/991) too many bios for level 3? 21.6% of level 4 articles are bios (2238/10318). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The short answer is that it's easier to expand bios twentyfold than it is to expand other things tenfold. Note that in levels 1 & 2, the percentage of bios is 0%. There are a limited number of important topics in certain fields; by contrast, there are an infinite level of bios. But since the 10,000 is 318 over, I've recommended that the bulk of cuts come from bios, and that bios only be 20% of the list. pbp 00:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
      • If 20% is a fair amount for level 4, then why is 13.5% too high for level 3? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't want this discussion to spiral into an argument or something similar, but I will say my peace. I believe there are too many bios in the 10'000 list also, it just hasn't been brought up much by me or anyone and this is the talk page for the 1000 list. I said believe having 135 bios in a list of supposedly the 1000 most vital important topics is too many. I also said I believe entire countries are normally more notable single people, not to the point where we have no people and all countries but 135 vs 23 seems a silly ratio to me. I cannot understand the rush to add a South American musician when we have only one South American country; if I thought South America was under represented I would look to include Argentina and/or Colombia, or something like Incan Empire before adding Antônio Carlos Jobim. If I thought Asia was under presented I would add Vietnam before Ravi Shankar. You removed beer and wine and added alcoholic beverage, without waiting for others' opinions, with the idea that alcoholic beverage encompasses beer and wine and therefore they are redundant, plus a few more more deletions along the same lines, chess, go, board game etc (which I have not expressed a dislike to). Why can one not be more in the opinion that I kind of have that Rock music which is included encompasses Jimi Hendrix therefore he is redundant and can be removed (you could stretch to remove Elvis and the Beatles for the same reason but they have been here for a long time, are more famous and I don't remember anyone requesting their removal). As I said before if we struggle to add a notable female (or South American musician) just because they are female and leave out someone more notable that is not right; and if you struggle to list them all, people of all races, both sexes, and many time periods to try and be politically correct we end up stacking up loads of bios some of which are not that notable. This is supposed to be the list of the 1000 most important topics, not people, and it is not the list of the 1000 (or 135) most politically correct and racially diverse biographies. Are you saying we have to have Hendrix because he played guitar better than the Beatles? it sounds like it. Not just him, I think many Classical musicians can go too as "redundant" It's not our fault who history says is most notable. Also you wouldn't have 13.5% of articles in the vital 100 as bios would you, it has none, so why is it OK here in the vital 1000, how can you have Carlos Jobin before Colombia? I would like to add I hope no one uses the argument "there is only 208 nations in the 10'000 list so to have 23 here, about 1/10 of that is about right" because that is all the nations of the world, you cannot list more nations than there are, and yes I 'can' imagine someone bringing that into the discussion. I'm sounding grumpy now, I don't want to upset any one, I am looking at the poll now Carlwev (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Per your comment: "Are you saying we have to have Hendrix because he played guitar better than the Beatles?" No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying we should include him as arguably the greatest instrumentalist in the history of rock music, something no one would ever accuse Elvis or the Beatles of being. Also, to not include a single rock musicians of color is beyond ridiculous IMO. It seems to me that you do not appreciate Hendrix as the brilliant rock composer that he was. The day he died, the New York Times described him as, "a genius black musician, a guitarist, singer and composer of brilliantly dramatic power. He spoke in gestures and big as he could imagine and create." BBC Radio 1 reported: "Jimi Hendrix, regarded by millions as one of the most talented and original performers in modern rock music, is dead." Listen to "1983... (A Merman I Should Turn to Be)", ideally with the "Rainy day" bookends. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry, but if we only have 15 musicians, I don't think we should have more than 6 or 7 from the 20th century, and no more than 2 (and probably only one) from rock-and-roll. The style lasted, what, 30-40 years, primarily centered in two countries? On the 10,000, you can have the 5-10 most important, and also important people from non-White or non-Western traditions. On this list, there's consensus that we shouldn't have an inordinate amount of biographies. Therefore, it has to be mainly of the seminal people in certain areas. pbp 00:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Rock (and genres derived from it) has not been limited to two countries, that claim is ridiculous [wildly incorrect]. This genre has been more influential in many parts of the world than European classical music. I don't think there is a country that doesn't have its own genres modeled on inspiration from Rock.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Sounds like yet another of your personal opinions PBP, which is not in anyway supported by the facts. Is there a valid reason why we can only list 15 musicians? Also, rock didn't die out in the 1980s and 1990s (remember grunge?). Its the most popular form of music for the last 56+ years, and most forms that are not straight rock are in fact derivatives of rock. FTR, the 2013 Grammy for Album of the Year went to a folk rock band, and the 2013 Grammy for Song of the Year went to an indie rock band. Also, only 6 of the 15 currently listed musicians were born within the past 100 years, 9 were born at least 113 years ago. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm entitled to have opinions, Gabe and also to post them on your talk page whenever I want. "Rock and roll" really was only the 50s, 60s and early 70s, after that it was different iterations of "rock", like "heavy metal" and "folk rock". And there's a serious problem with the entries you're advocating, and that's recency. 40% of the people in music come from <5% of recorded history. I also think you give too much significance to unimportant sports and entertainers at the expense of thinkers, scientists and political leaders. You're too pop-culture-oriented pbp 02:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • 1) Verdi, Chopin, and Tchaikovsky are all from the same period. 2) As far as "I can post on your talk page whenever I want", per WP:OWNTALK: "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages", and 3) I reserve the right to respectfully request that you do not post there. Per WP:NOBAN: "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests". 4) Per: "You're too pop-culture-oriented". Don't you realise that Bach, Beethoven, and Wagner were pop-culture during their lifetimes? Or do you think they always called it classical music? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Beethoven died in poverty at a time when music was largely confined to the rich and churches. He didn't get any gold records. He didn't have any gold-plated carriages. Same with Mozart. pbp 04:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You missed my point entirely, which wasn't at all about the artist's relative wealth at death. Hendrix owed about $250,000 when he died, Elvis didn't have enough left for his family to upkeep Graceland (he had about $1,000 in savings), that's why they made it a museum, to generate income so that they could keep the place. Sly Stone is currently homeless. Whitney Houston also owed money and was in the red when she died; living off "future royalties". Michael Jackson was famously experiencing money problems during his final years, which likely lead to the planned shows, which likely added to his anxiety, which likely contributed to his wanting to use more downers then he should have that night, etcetera. The Beatles were nearly broke by late 1969, and Wagner had money troubles throughout his life, but nonetheless, he was a legendary popular music star in his own time. What I meant was, to music enthusiasts, Beethoven and Mozart were representatives of the "popular music" of their time. Or are you arguing that their music wasn't popular among the privileged classes during their lives? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm arguing that most people were something other than the privileged class, and that Beethoven lacked mass appeal across the spectrum of German and Austrian society. pbp 16:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • What we need is a sensible balance between Western pop culture, Western high-brow intellectual culture and the culture of the rest of the world. For that we need people to 1. advocate for both based in familiarity with their particular interests. 2. compromise and realize that their own particular interest is just one among many. 3. compromise.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • IMO, the current list is a sensible balance between Western pop culture, Western high-brow intellectual culture and the culture of the rest of the world. If anything, I think classical is a tad overrepresented, with 8 of 15 entries having died prior to 1894. Where are the hip-hop artists? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Nix on hip-hop. Let me get this straight...of the 2000 years of the common era, almost half of the people in the composers are from the last 5-6% of that time, and you want to add even more from the final 5-6%. Putting Western pop culture on par with high-brow culture and historical culture (which wasn't even mentioned). Classical is not overrepresented: it lasted a lot longer, was spread across more countries, and its songs have a longer shelf life. Can you say recency bias? pbp 04:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:RECENT Does not apply here pbp, at all. WP:RECENT is a guideline for article space only. Also, nix on your ego/power trip backpacker. The Sugarhill Gang started 34 years ago, well before you were even born, assuming your attitude is any indicator of your age. I predict an embarrassing loss on your part regarding this list. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • FWIW, according to this website, 102 million rock albums were sold in the US last year (not counting metal, which sold 32 million), versus only 7.5 million classical albums, just below jazz at 8.1 million, Dance/Electronica at 8.7 million, and Latin at 9.7 million. In fact, the only genre that classical outsold was New Age (1.7 million). Overall, for every classical album sale in the US in 2012, there were 49 non-classical albums sold. For every classical album sold in the US last year, there were 4.26 heavy metal albums sold, 6.62 R&B albums, and 3.2 Rap albums. If you combine rock, metal, and alternative (52.2 million), then the ratio is 24.8 to 1 in favour of rock music. So what was that again about rock dying 30-40 years ago? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I'm not seeing U.S. album sales in the last few years as germane. I see them as a recency argument. This list should be about what was important historically, not what's in the moment. By the logic of your argument, we should replace Bach with Adele (who outsold anyone else in 2012) and the Brandenburg Concertos with the Harlem Shake. Wikipedia already is accused of a huge recency bias, and privileging pop culture from the last 100 years will just further that. Strong oppose any additional musicians after 1900 pbp 04:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Its certainly germane to your ridiculous claim that rock is dead, but you know that already. Also, more apples and oranges. Is Adele widely considered the greatest instrumentalist in the history of rock music? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
What is hit a lot is subject to massive fluctuations, and is also subject to recency bias. Hits have never been used as a metric and never should be pbp 04:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Says who, you again? You really can't always be your own source pbp. Hits are certainly a factor regarding donations to the Wikimedia foundation, donations which allow this project to continue, ergo ... GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
You're pulling positions out of thin air as much as I am, Gabe. They just happen to be ones you agree with. There's a pretty good reason why to divorce this list from hit count. Articles that are hit a lot tend to more detailed and better sourced than ones that aren't. Virtually everything related to the two pop culture topics of Lady Gaga and The Simpsons are FA, GA, or FL. Again, if you think I'm so high and mighty, complain to some admin, and see that they'll agree that I have the right to have input pbp 16:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • After some consideration, I agree with Purplebackpack89 regarding "hitcountitis," if I can coin a term here. Current Wikipedia popularity should not be a consideration in any way of what we define as vital. We are an encyclopedia, not People Magazine. Jusdafax 04:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree. A long term perspective is essential. HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

Arts and culture

  • Remove "comics" as redundant with drawing.
Support
Oppose
  1. Per above pbp 01:14,
  2. keep comic, drawing is an art or activity, comic is a type of book, a type of art/writing, a whole industry that is present in much of the world and been around for over 100 years. I would delete individual writers or artists, or Mona Lisa before deleting the whole industry/artform of comic. Carlwev (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  3. I've changed my mind. Comics should remain. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  4. Comics is no where nearly the same thing as drawing! Comics cannot possibly be redundant with much of anything, not even graphic art. It should stand on its own. Fylbecatulous talk 16:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  5. Comics should be kept. A major popular art form for generations, and a huge influence on motion pictures. Jusdafax 02:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove fine art as redundant with visual arts, painting, and sculpture.
Support
  1. Per my above comments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  3. This one I can agree with and support. Absolutely correct. Fylbecatulous talk 16:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support, I had already suggested removing this my self some time ago. It doesn't look like a great article, doesn't have an exact meaning, seems to mean, very carefully done art for the purpose of being art, which becomes reduntant with what ever the art is eg sculpture painting music theatre. Carlwev (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose

Mechanical and structural engineering

Support
  1. Trim the redundancy. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Internal combustion engine nothing about Jet engine, just a redirect to that article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Geography

  • Since there is no portion of Mesoamerica not overlapped by Latin America, I suggest we remove it as redundant. Kinda like having North America and the "Deep South" listed.
Support
  1. Per my above comments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support, Only need one of Mesoamerica/Latin America, as they are similar and overlap, I think Latin America is a better choice, but only just. Carlwev (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Mesoamerica like Latin America is not geographically but culturally defined, and the two regions do not overlap in time or in cultural traits. Mesoamerica is like Mesopotamia - an ancient cultural region and one of the only where complex writing systems and technology developed independently. We don't remove Mesopotamia because we have the "Middle East".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Mathematics

  • Remove Linear algebra and Matrix (mathematics) as redundant with Algebra.
Support
  1. Per my above comments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support -- speaking as a former graduate economist, clearly redundant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  3. OK. I support. This would be a correct action. Fylbecatulous talk 16:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose

Everyday life

  • Color does not belong in this section, it should be among the scientific articles if anywhere.
Support
  1. Per my above comments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support -- move to science section. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. I don't see a problem with redundancy with Optics. If by "redundancy" you mean subsumption, then why not just have an article on Science and be done with it? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  4. Definately scientific. Fylbecatulous talk 16:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Per above pbp 01:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Where ever color goes, we may want to match it in the 10,000 list where it is in presently everyday life at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Anthropology, psychology and everyday life Carlwev (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Remove Chess and Go, add Board game to broaden scope of coverage to more than two board games.
Support
Oppose
  1. Per above pbp 01:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per my my comments above -- chess and go both represent significant cultural developments beyond being two more board games. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  3. Per Dirtlawyer1's fine points. Support adding Board game. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Add Alcoholic beverage, remove beer and wine, again, to broaden our coverage and avoid being overly specific.
Support
Oppose
  1. Per above pbp 01:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per my my comments above -- beer and wine both had a significant impact on the evolution of human civilization far beyond being just another two alcoholic beverages. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  3. Per Dirtlawyer1's fine points. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  4. Alcoholic beverage is a modern catch-all term. Some less modern languages may not even have a word for it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposals

These are many ideas of possible additions and deletions. They are in no particular order, some I feel strongly about some not as much. If we get agreement on only a few I will be happy, more and I will be more happy. I may put all my reasons down for each individual suggestion later but will take me a while. I would appreciate opinions positive or negative. And I am never sure how to present my ideas so forgive me if list is awkward. I know the numbers don't match but I may add more later, and I'm not expecting on all of them so it doesn't matter, list below Carlwev (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well we might be making progress but you appeared to change your mind on some of them, I edited half way through and made a mess. maybe you should Put a 2 next to the articles you agree with and I'll leave the editing alone for a bit. At the moment it's just me and you, hopefully others will give their opinion and we will get somewhere. We may want to state ones we disagree with also to build a better picture, We might want to put Beer, Wine, chess, go, fine art, comics and any more in also, so they are in one place Carlwev (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, I wasn't quite done mulling over the options, but I think the count is now accurate. I'm not going to list the ones I disagree on, that just seems too tedious for me. Lets focus on what we agree on. I think we should allow the above straw poll and RfC to conclude before we act here on the choices we assume will be made there regarding Beer, Wine, chess, go, fine art, comics etcetera. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to draw attention to this list once more. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics I know its just another list but I believe it's a very stable and sensible one, and I have had no input in it at this time. It has only 150 vital articles but has some that are not in this 1000 list at this time, it would be good to think if something is in the list of only 150, it should at least considered for 1000 list. A small number of my ideas came from there. Carlwev (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I have added more to the list keep watching. Public transport, maybe more important to humanity as a whole than space shuttle, we already have space flight. We are also missing "drink" in food and drink, even though its in the title of the section, never noticed that before. We may want to have drink itself before individual drinks.

Possible additions (1 support includes nominator)

  1. Archaeology (4 support, Carlwev, pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  2. Communication (4 support Carlwev, pbp, Fylbecatulous talk )
  3. Solid (4 support Carlwev (talk), pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  4. Liquid (4 support Carlwev (talk), pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  5. Gas (4 support Carlwev (talk), pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  6. Horse (4 support Carlwev (talk, Dirtlawyer1)
  7. Bank (4 support Carlwev (talk), pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  8. Letter (alphabet) (4 supportCarlwev (talk), pbp, Fylbecatulous talk ) (1 oppose, Dirtlawyer1 -- redundant to Alphabet)
  9. Fuel (3 support Carlwev (talk), pbp)
  10. Furniture (3 support Carlwev (talk), pbp)
  11. School (3 support Carlwev (talk), pbp)
  12. Hospital (3 support Carlwev (talk), pbp)
  13. Season (3 support Carlwev (talk), pbp)
  14. Island (3 support Carlwev, pbp)
  15. Natural disaster (3 support Carlwev (talk), pbp) (1 oppose, Dirtlawyer1 -- why?)
  16. Currency (3 support Carlwev (talk), pbp) (1 oppose, Dirtlawyer1 -- should be money)
  17. Vietnam (3 support Carlwev , Fylbecatulous talk ) (1 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  18. Thailand (3 support Carlwev , Fylbecatulous talk ) (1 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  19. Martial arts (2 support Carlwev) (1 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  20. Animation (2 support Carlwev (talk)) (1 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  21. Violence (2 support Carlwev ) (1 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  22. Exploration (2 support Carlwev ) (1 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  23. Tourism (2 support Carlwev ) (1 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  24. Fortification (2 support Carlwev ) (1 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  25. Drink (2 support Carlwev )) (1 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  26. Cattle (2 support Carlwev, pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  27. Wind (2 support Carlwev, pbp) (2 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  28. Coal (3 support Carlwev, Dirtlawyer1) (1 oppose)
  29. South Korea (2 support Carlwev, pbp) (2 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  30. Humour (2 support Carlwev, pbp) (2 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  31. Public transport (2 support Carlwev, pbp) (1 oppose Dirtlawyer1)
  32. Map (3 support Carlwev, pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  33. Petroleum (2 support Carlwev, Dirtlawyer1)
  34. Waste (1 support Carlwev)
  35. Hygiene (1 support Carlwev)
  36. Migration (2 support Carlwev, Dirtlawyer1)
  37. Human swimming (1 support Carlwev )
  38. Snow (1 support Carlwev) (1 oppose)
  39. Sky scraper (1 support Carlwev) (1 oppose)
  40. Mail (1 support Carlwev) (2 oppose)
  41. Christmas (1 support Carlwev) (2 oppose)
  42. Immigration (1 support Carlwev) (2 oppose)

Possible deletions (1 support includes nominator)

  1. Genetic drift (5 support Carlwev, Dirtlawyer1)   Done
  2. Schizophrenia (4 support Carlwev, pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  3. Parkinson's Disease (4 support Carlwev, pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  4. Autism (4 support Carlwev, pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  5. Electrocardiography (4 support Carlwev, pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  6. MRI (4 support Carlwev, pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  7. Space Shuttle (4 support Carlwev, pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  8. International Space Station (4 support Carlwev, pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  9. Nobel Prize (4 support Carlwev, pbp) (1 oppose Dirtlawyer1)
  10. Euro (3 support Carlwev, Dirtlawyer1)
  11. United States dollar (3 support Carlwev, Dirtlawyer1)
  12. Egg (food) (2 support Carlwev (talk)) (1 oppose, pbp)
  13. Nut (fruit) (2 support Carlwev (talk)) (1 oppose, pbp)
  14. Soybean (2 support Carlwev (talk)) (2 oppose, pbp, Dirtlawyer1 -- one of the 2 or 3 most important food stuffs on planet)
  15. Bhagavad Gita (2 supports Carlwev) (2 oppose, pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  16. Antônio Carlos Jobim (3 support Carlwev (talk), pbp, Dirtlawyer1) (1 oppose)
  17. World Wide Web (2 support Carlwev (talk)) (2 oppose, Dirtlawyer1 -- either internet or WWW)
  18. Fela Kuti (2 support Carlwev (talk), pbp) (1 oppose)
  19. Natural selection (1 support)
  20. Kali (1 support)
  21. Krishna (1 support)
  22. Shaktism (1 support)
  23. Mona Lisa (1 support Carlwev)
  24. Don Quixote (1 support Carlwev)
  25. Space station (2 support Carlwev, Dirtlawyer1)
  26. J. Robert Oppenheimer (3 support Carlwev (talk), pbp, Dirtlawyer1) (3 oppose Fylbecatulous talk) Hawkeye7 (talk)
  27. Heredity (1 support) (1 oppose, pbp)
  28. Epic of Gilgamesh (1 support Carlwev (talk)) (2 oppose, pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  29. Goddess (2 support Carlwev, Dirtlawyer1) (1 oppose)
  30. Semiconductor device (1 support Carlwev (talk)) (1 oppose)
  31. Angkor Wat (1 support Carlwev (talk)) (2 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  32. Colosseum (1 support Carlwev (talk)) (2 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  33. Machu Picchu (1 support Carlwev (talk)) (2 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  34. Parthenon (2 support Carlwev (talk)) (2 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  35. Stonehenge (3 support Carlwev (talk)) (2 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  36. Taj Mahal (2 support Carlwev (talk)) (2 oppose, Dirtlawyer1)
  37. Bahá'í Faith (3 support Carlwev, Dirtlawyer1) (1 oppose)
  38. Lake Baikal (3 support Carlwev, Dirtlawyer1) (oppose)
  39. Lake Victoria (3 support Carlwev, Dirtlawyer1) (1 oppose)
  40. Candle (3 support Carlwev, Dirtlawyer1) (2 oppose, pbp)
  41. Jakarta (1 support Carlwev (talk)) (2 oppose, pbp, Dirtlawyer1)
  • Comment: In the next 48 hours, I'm going to put up my supports of Carlwev and GabeMc's proposals. I may generate a small list myself pbp 15:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I have now added my supports and opposes. If an item was on both Carlwev and GabeMc's list, I registered my support or opposition at Carl's pbp 22:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusing nature of the lists, I hate looking through paragraphs of different text though it's hard for me to visualize. I would suggest anyone who edit the above list also write a sentence with their supports and opposes and additions in written form so we can follow, I am so bad at these things. Carlwev (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

OK looking at it my list was a nightmare to follow if you didn't understand it and there were no ways to see who agrees and if anyone marks a wrong count by accident (or on purpose) without checking the history. I hope this new way is better, sign with 3 tildes by all your voting input to leave your name. I hope it is easier to follow. Any long comments we can put below. Sorry about making big messes.

Would appreciate if everyone signed there existing votes and any new ones. Any new ideas could go straight to the list in the correct order and signed straight away, instead of several new lists Carlwev (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This possible deletion list has gotten truly messed up, with the opposition mixed in with the supports and most not signed. At any rate, I decidedly oppose the deletion of J. Robert Oppenheimer. I abstain from any more signatures in the deletion row because I can't parse it out. Fylbecatulous talk 17:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I will try fix it a bit. are your signs in the additions column supports? you could also write your supports and opposes here and I or someone else could adjust the list and paste your sign in, if it is getting to messy. I never realized some peoples' signatures were so long in edit format.Carlwev (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, my signs in the additions row are all for supports...(I don't believe I amended the totals). So I support four additions and oppose one deletion. Clear as mud, right? ツ Fylbecatulous talk 23:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • While I applaud Carl's effort, I also reluctantly agree with Fylbecatulous; this list is nearly impossible to follow regarding the confirmation of supports and opposes, and as such, I'm not sure how anyone could discern with any certainty what consensus has been arrrived at. IMO, this is due mostly to the lack of a clear !voting method. I have no idea how many of my !votes are properly represented and how many aren't. If we use the above list as the starting point of a more tedious, but also more easily verifiable system, I think we could eventually cull most of the improvements suggested above. At this point; however, I think we need a "re-do" with a more reliable/verifiable system, such as the one I used above or the format used by Dirtlawyer below. Also, I suggest that we edit the list section by section, so as to avoid convoluting the discussion with Opperheimer versus Vietnam arguments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Redo, maybe. Section-by-section, eh, not so much. There doesn't seem to be a consensus that weight is allocated properly amongst the various sections and subsections; hence why in VA/E I proposed figuring out the various weights of the sections before figuring out who belongs in each section pbp 00:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The various weights of sections should be fluid, and allowed to change as consensus changes, so I strongly disagree with setting the "limits" in stone. A section by section approach would be the most easily understandable system, and at the end, if we end up with more than 1,000 articles, then we should have a discussion about which sections should be trimmed and why. For example, while Carl has suggested that we remove World Wide Web, it has not been made clear that Internet is currently included in the same sub-section. So, readers may not be properly informed as to the rationale for removal of WWW without the context of the sub-list in which the article is currently included with Internet. Conversly, while Carl suggested adding Christmas, the !voters will have absolutely no way of knowing (without searching the entire list of 1,000 articles), that there are no other holidays included anywhere on this entire list, religious or otherwise. So why would we add Christmas as the only holiday? Further, it is quite likely that the casual !voters might wrongly assume that there is already a holiday sub-list here at VAL3, and that Christmas has somehow been excluded, leading them to !vote for its inclusion in a nonexistent sub-list. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
That's essentially what we did with VA/E, and you yourself have bemoaned the result. pbp 01:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Correction: I bemoaned your inability to compromise and suggested that we should allow outside input before proceeding, due to our inability to reach a compromise, on anything. E.g. you said 5 American footballers total, I said 7, and you gave absolutely no indication of any intent to negotiate whatsoever. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Philosophers and social scientists

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guys, I can't figure out your system or how you are tracking !votes above for purposes of the straw poll; it's a little bit chaotic if someone new stops by and wants to express their opinion. That having been said, I strongly suggest that we delete Ayn Rand, eccentric Objectivist "philosopher" from this category, and add Adam Smith, one of the most significant philosophers/social scientists in history, and undoubtedly the most influential economist ever. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Support: pbp 01:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Support.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW: Core biographies

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
Name Date of birth Date of death Age Country of birth Country of death Occupation I
Aeschylus 525 BC 456 BC 68–69   Greece   Italy Writer  Y
Akbar October 24, 1542 October 12, 1605 62   Pakistan   India Politician  Y
Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī 780 850 69–70   Uzbekistan   Iraq Scientist  Y
Alexander the Great July 20, 356 BC June 10, 323 BC 32   Greece   Iraq Politician
Muhammad Ali January 17, 1942 — 82   United States — Artist  Y
Dante Alighieri May 14, 1265 September 13, 1321 56   Italy   Italy Writer
Thomas Aquinas January 28, 1225 March 7, 1274 49   Italy   Italy Theologian
Archimedes 287 BC 212 BC 74–75   Italy   Italy Scientist
Aristotle 384 BC 322 BC 61–62   Greece   Greece Philosopher
Attila 406 453 46–47   Hungary   Hungary Politician
W. H. Auden February 21, 1907 September 29, 1973 66   United Kingdom   Austria Writer
Augustine of Hippo November 13, 354 August 28, 430 75   Algeria   Algeria Theologian
Augustus January 16, 63 BC August 19, 14 77   Italy   Italy Politician
Jane Austen December 16, 1775 July 18, 1817 41   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Writer
Charles Babbage December 26, 1791 October 18, 1871 79   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Scientist
Johann Sebastian Bach March 21, 1685 July 28, 1750 65   Germany   Germany Artist  Y
Francis Bacon January 22, 1561 April 9, 1626 65   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Philosopher
Mikhail Baryshnikov January 28, 1948 — 76   Russia — Artist  Y
The Beatles February 25, 1943 December 8, 1980 37   United Kingdom   United States Artist
Ludwig van Beethoven December 16, 1770 March 26, 1827 56   Germany   Australia Artist
Alexander Graham Bell March 3, 1847 August 2, 1922 75   United Kingdom   Canada Scientist
Otto von Bismarck April 1, 1815 July 30, 1898 83   Germany   Germany Politician
Simón Bolívar July 24, 1783 December 17, 1830 47   Venezuela   Colombia Politician
Jorge Luis Borges August 24, 1899 June 14, 1986 86   Argentina   Switzerland Writer
Gautama Buddha 563 BC 483 BC 79–80   Nepal   India Theologian
Edmund Burke January 12, 1729 July 9, 1797 68   Ireland   United Kingdom Philosopher
Lord Byron January 22, 1788 April 19, 1824 36   United Kingdom   Greece Writer
Julius Caesar July 12, 100 BC March 15, 44 BC 55   Italy   Italy Politician
Cai Lun 50 121 70–71   China   China Scientist
John Calvin July 10, 1509 May 27, 1564 54   France   Switzerland Theologian
Catherine the Great April 21, 1729 November 17, 1796 67   Poland   Russia Politician
Miguel de Cervantes September 29, 1547 April 23, 1616 68   Spain   Spain Writer
Charlemagne April 2, 742 January 28, 814 71   Belgium   Germany Politician
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor February 24, 1500 September 21, 1558 58   Belgium   Spain Politician
Charlie Chaplin April 16, 1889 December 25, 1977 88   United Kingdom   Switzerland Artist
Christopher Columbus August 1451 May 20, 1506 54–55   Italy   Spain Politician
Winston Churchill November 30, 1874 January 24, 1965 90   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Politician
Cleopatra VII January 69 BC August 12, 30 BC 38–39   Egypt   Egypt Politician
Columba December 7, 521 June 9, 597 75   Ireland   United Kingdom Theologian
Confucius September 28, 551 BC 479 BC 71–72   China   China Philosopher
Constantine the Great February 27, 272 May 22, 337 65   Serbia   Turkey Politician
Nicolaus Copernicus February 19, 1473 May 24, 1543 70   Poland   Poland Scientist
Hernán Cortés 1485 December 2, 1547 61–62   Spain   Spain Politician
Marie Curie November 7, 1867 July 4, 1934 66   Poland   France Scientist
Cyrus the Great 590 BC 529 BC 60–61   Iran   Uzbekistan Politician
Louis Daguerre November 18, 1787 July 10, 1851 63   France   France Scientist
Charles Darwin February 12, 1809 April 19, 1882 73   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Scientist
René Descartes March 31, 1596 February 11, 1650 53   France   Sweden Philosopher
Charles Dickens February 7, 1812 June 9, 1870 58   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Writer
Walt Disney December 5, 1901 December 15, 1966 65   United States   United States Artist
Fyodor Dostoyevsky November 11, 1821 February 9, 1881 59   Russia   Russia Writer
Frederick Douglass February 1818 February 20, 1895 76–77   United States   United States Politician
Thomas Edison February 11, 1847 October 18, 1931 84   United States   United States Scientist
Albert Einstein March 14, 1879 April 18, 1955 76   Germany   United States Scientist
T. S. Eliot September 26, 1888 January 4, 1965 76   United States   United Kingdom Writer
Elizabeth I of England September 7, 1533 March 24, 1603 69   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Politician
Euclid 300 BC 250 BC 49–50   Egypt   Egypt Scientist
Leonhard Euler April 15, 1707 September 18, 1783 76   Switzerland   Russia Scientist
Michael Faraday September 22, 1791 August 25, 1867 75   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Scientist
Pierre de Fermat August 17, 1601 January 12, 1665 63   France   France Scientist
Henry Ford July 30, 1863 April 7, 1947 83   United States   United States Scientist
Francis of Assisi September 26, 1181 October 3, 1226 45   Italy   Italy Theologian
Benjamin Franklin January 17, 1706 April 17, 1790 84   United States   United States Politician
Frederick the Great January 24, 1712 August 17, 1786 74   Germany   Germany Politician
Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor December 26, 1194 December 13, 1250 55   Italy   Italy Politician
Sigmund Freud May 6, 1856 September 23, 1939 83   Czech Republic   United Kingdom Scientist
Galileo Galilei February 15, 1564 January 8, 1642 77   Italy   Italy Scientist
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi October 2, 1869 January 30, 1948 78   India   India Politician
Carl Friedrich Gauss April 30, 1777 February 23, 1855 77   Germany   Germany Scientist
Genghis Khan 1162 1227 64–65   Mongolia   China Politician
Edward Gibbon April 27, 1737 January 16, 1794 56   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Politician
Giotto 1267 January 8, 1337 69–70   Italy   Italy Artist
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe August 28, 1749 March 22, 1832 82   Germany   Germany Writer
Vincent van Gogh March 30, 1853 July 29, 1890 37   Netherlands   France Artist
Mikhail Gorbachev March 2, 1931 — 93   Russia — Politician
Brothers Grimm February 24, 1786 December 16, 1859 73   Germany   Germany Writer
Che Guevara May 14, 1928 October 9, 1967 39   Argentina   Bolivia Politician
Johannes Gutenberg 1400 February 3, 1468 67–68   Germany   Germany Scientist
Hammurabi 1810 BC 1750 BC 59–60   Iraq   Iraq Politician  Y
Hannibal 247 BC 183 BC 63–64   Tunisia   Turkey Politician
Stephen Hawking January 8, 1942 — 82   United Kingdom — Scientist  Y
Ernest Hemingway July 21, 1899 July 2, 1961 61   United States   United States Writer
Henry II of England March 25, 1133 July 6, 1189 56   France   France Politician
Henry VIII of England June 28, 1491 January 28, 1547 55   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Politician
Heraclius 575 February 11, 641 65–66   Turkey   Turkey Politician
Herodotus 484 BC 425 BC 58–59   Turkey   Italy Writer
Hippocrates 460 BC 370 BC 89–90   Greece   Greece Scientist
Alfred Hitchcock August 13, 1899 April 29, 1980 80   United Kingdom   United States Artist
Adolf Hitler April 20, 1889 April 30, 1945 56   Austria   Germany Politician
Ho Chi Minh May 19, 1890 September 2, 1969 79   Vietnam   Vietnam Politician
Thomas Hobbes April 5, 1588 December 4, 1679 91   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Philosopher
Homer 800 BC 750 BC 49–50   Turkey   Greece Writer
Victor Hugo February 26, 1802 May 22, 1885 83   France   France Writer
David Hume April 26, 1711 August 25, 1776 65   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Philosopher
Henrik Ibsen March 20, 1828 May 23, 1906 78   Norway   Norway Writer
Ivan the Terrible August 25, 1530 March 18, 1584 53   Russia   Russia Politician
James Joyce February 2, 1882 January 13, 1941 58   Ireland   Switzerland Writer
Thomas Jefferson April 13, 1743 July 4, 1826 83   United States   United States Politician
Jesus 7 BC 26 32–33   Israel   Israel Theologian
Joan of Arc 1412 May 30, 1431 18–19   France   France Theologian
Michael Jordan February 17, 1963 — 61   United States — Artist
Franz Kafka July 3, 1883 June 3, 1924 40   Austria   Austria Writer
Immanuel Kant April 22, 1724 February 12, 1804 79   Germany   Germany Philosopher
Johannes Kepler December 27, 1571 November 15, 1630 58   Germany   Germany Scientist
John Maynard Keynes June 5, 1883 April 21, 1946 62   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Scientist
Søren Kierkegaard May 5, 1813 November 11, 1855 42   Denmark   Denmark Philosopher
Martin Luther King, Jr. January 15, 1929 April 4, 1968 39   United States   United States Theologian
Akira Kurosawa March 23, 1910 September 6, 1998 88   Japan   Japan Artist
Laozi 400 BC 350 BC 49–50   China   China Philosopher
Antoine Lavoisier August 26, 1743 May 8, 1794 50   France   France Scientist
Bruce Lee November 27, 1940 July 20, 1973 32   United States   China Artist  Y
Gottfried Leibniz July 1, 1646 November 14, 1716 70   Germany   Germany Philosopher
Vladimir Lenin April 10, 1870 January 21, 1924 53   Russia   Russia Politician
Leonardo da Vinci April 15, 1452 May 2, 1519 67   Italy   France Artist
Abraham Lincoln February 12, 1809 April 15, 1865 56   United States   United States Politician
Carl Linnaeus May 13, 1707 January 10, 1778 70   Sweden   Sweden Scientist
Joseph Lister, 1st Baron Lister April 5, 1827 February 10, 1912 84   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Scientist
John Locke August 29, 1632 October 28, 1704 72   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Philosopher
Louis XIV of France September 5, 1638 September 1, 1715 76   France   France Politician
Martin Luther November 10, 1483 February 18, 1546 62   Germany   Germany Theologian
Niccolò Machiavelli May 3, 1469 June 21, 1527 58   Italy   Italy Philosopher
Ferdinand Magellan 1480 April 27, 1521 40–41   Portugal   Philippines Politician
Thomas Robert Malthus February 13, 1766 December 23, 1834 68   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Scientist
Nelson Mandela June 18, 1918 — 106   South Africa — Politician
Mao Zedong December 26, 1893 September 9, 1976 82   China   China Politician
Guglielmo Marconi April 25, 1874 July 20, 1937 63   Italy   Italy Scientist
Karl Marx May 5, 1818 March 14, 1883 64   Germany   United Kingdom Philosopher
James Clerk Maxwell June 13, 1831 November 5, 1879 48   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Scientist
Gregor Mendel July 20, 1822 January 6, 1884 61   Austria   Austria Scientist
Michelangelo March 6, 1475 February 18, 1564 88   Italy   Italy Artist
John Milton December 9, 1608 November 8, 1674 65   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Artist
Claude Monet November 14, 1840 December 5, 1926 86   France   France Artist
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart January 27, 1756 December 5, 1791 35   Austria   Czech Republic Artist
Muhammad 570 June 8, 632 61–62   Saudi Arabia   Saudi Arabia Theologian
Benito Mussolini July 29, 1883 April 28, 1945 61   Italy   Italy Politician
Napoleon August 15, 1769 May 5, 1821 51   France   United Kingdom Politician
Isaac Newton January 4, 1643 March 31, 1727 84   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Scientist
Friedrich Nietzsche October 15, 1844 August 25, 1900 55   Germany   Germany Philosopher
J. Robert Oppenheimer April 22, 1904 February 18, 1967 62   United States   United States Scientist
Jesse Owens September 12, 1913 March 31, 1980 66   United States   United States Artist
Blaise Pascal June 19, 1623 August 19, 1662 39   France   France Scientist
Louis Pasteur December 27, 1822 September 28, 1895 72   France   France Scientist
Paul the Apostle Error in Template:Date table sorting: years cannot be zero 64 63–64   Turkey   Italy Theologian
Linus Pauling February 28, 1901 August 19, 1994 93   United States   United States Scientist
Pelé October 23, 1940 — 84   Brazil — Artist
Peter the Great May 30, 1672 February 8, 1725 52   Russia   Russia Politician
Philip II of Spain May 21, 1527 September 13, 1598 71   Spain   Spain Politician
Pablo Picasso October 25, 1881 April 8, 1973 91   Spain   France Artist
Max Planck April 23, 1858 October 4, 1947 89   Germany   Germany Scientist
Plato 424 BC 348 BC 75–76   Greece   Greece Philosopher
Edgar Allan Poe January 19, 1809 October 7, 1849 40   United States   United States Writer
Marco Polo September 15, 1254 January 9, 1324 69   Italy   Italy Politician
Ezra Pound October 30, 1885 November 1, 1972 87   United States   Italy Writer
Elvis Presley January 8, 1935 August 16, 1977 42   United States   United States Artist
Marcel Proust July 10, 1871 November 18, 1922 51   France   France Writer
Ptolemy 83 161 77–78   Egypt   Egypt Scientist
Pythagoras 580 BC 500 BC 79–80   Greece   Italy Scientist
Qin Shi Huang 259 BC September 10, 210 BC 48–49   China   China Politician
Raphael April 6, 1483 April 6, 1520 37   Italy   Italy Artist
Rembrandt July 15, 1606 October 4, 1669 63   Netherlands   Netherlands Artist
Jackie Robinson January 31, 1919 October 24, 1972 53   United States   United States Artist
Auguste Rodin November 12, 1840 November 17, 1917 77   France   France Artist
Franklin D. Roosevelt January 30, 1882 April 12, 1945 63   United States   United States Politician
Jean-Jacques Rousseau June 28, 1712 July 2, 1778 66   Switzerland   France Philosopher
Babe Ruth February 6, 1895 August 16, 1948 53   United States   United States Artist
Ernest Rutherford August 30, 1871 October 19, 1937 66   New Zealand   United Kingdom Scientist
Saladin 1137 March 4, 1193 55–56   Iraq   Syria Politician
Margaret Sanger September 14, 1879 September 6, 1966 86   United States   United States Politician
Walter Scott August 15, 1771 September 21, 1832 61   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Writer
Shaka 1787 September 22, 1828 40–41   South Africa   South Africa Politician
William Shakespeare April 26, 1564 April 23, 1616 51   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Writer
Adam Smith June 5, 1723 July 17, 1790 67   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Philosopher
Socrates 469 BC 399 BC 69–70   Greece   Greece Philosopher
Joseph Stalin December 18, 1878 March 5, 1953 74   Russia   Russia Politician
Suleiman the Magnificent November 6, 1494 September 5, 1566 71   Turkey   Hungary Politician
Sun Tzu 544 BC 496 BC 47–48   China   China Writer
Emperor Taizong of Tang January 23, 599 July 10, 649 50   China   China Politician
Mother Teresa August 26, 1910 September 5, 1997 87   North Macedonia   India Theologian
Nikola Tesla July 10, 1856 January 7, 1943 86   Croatia   United States Scientist
Henry David Thoreau July 12, 1817 May 6, 1862 44   United States   United States Writer
Thucydides 460 BC 395 BC 64–65   Greece   Greece Writer
Timur 1336 February 19, 1405 68–69   Uzbekistan   Kazakhstan Politician
Leo Tolstoy August 28, 1828 November 20, 1910 82   Russia   Russia Writer
Mark Twain November 30, 1835 April 21, 1910 74   United States   United States Writer
Giuseppe Verdi October 9, 1813 January 27, 1901 87   Italy   Italy Artist
Virgil October 15, 70 BC September 21, 19 BC 50   Italy   Italy Writer
Voltaire November 21, 1694 May 30, 1778 83   France   France Writer
Andy Warhol August 6, 1928 February 22, 1987 58   United States   United States Artist
George Washington February 22, 1732 December 14, 1799 67   United States   United States Politician
James Watt January 19, 1736 August 19, 1819 83   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Scientist
Max Weber April 21, 1864 June 14, 1920 56   Germany   Germany Writer
Walt Whitman May 31, 1819 March 26, 1892 72   United States   United States Writer
William the Conqueror 1027 September 9, 1087 59–60   France   France Politician
William Wordsworth April 7, 1770 April 23, 1850 80   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Writer
Mary Wollstonecraft April 27, 1759 September 10, 1797 38   United Kingdom   United Kingdom Writer
Wright brothers August 19, 1871 May 30, 1912 40   United States   United States Scientist
Frank Lloyd Wright June 8, 1867 April 9, 1959 91   United States   United States Artist
W. B. Yeats June 13, 1865 January 28, 1939 73   Ireland   France Writer
Zheng He 1371 1433 61–62   China   China Politician
Zoroaster 1000 BC 950 BC 49–50   Uzbekistan   Afghanistan Theologian  Y

We should probably select our 100-130 biographies from among this list. There are a few glaring problems with this list, however: it's far too Western Europe/US-centric,and has five sportspeople on it while omitting some more significant individuals pbp 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Sounds like good idea in theory. I haven't had a good check, but I know we have, or have had recently several that are not in this chart like Golda Meir, Virginia Woolf, Frida Kahlo, Sergei Eisenstein, even Steven Spielberg, and many musicians Michael Jackson, (gone now) Hendrix, Ravi Shanar, Antônio Carlos Jobim, Fela Kuti. This would be worth looking at further. There are some people we couldn't add at least without an additional article. You couldn't have Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan or Bruce Lee without Boxing, Basketball or Martial arts and similar things, a person cannot be more notable than the whole medium they are famous for surely. I also have a pet hate about people being mentioned but their country not, especially if they are notable as the leader of their country. Eg Golda Meir but not the only one. Also there are no actors or sports people in the vital 1000 and probably shouldn't be. Carlwev (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1) See WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, 2) The list has Michael Jordan and Muhammad Ali listed as artists, Margaret Sanger and Christopher Columbus listed as politicians, and Henry Ford as a scientist. 3) People keep saying that Isreal is not on the 1,000 list therefore Golda Meir shouldn't be either, but Israel is on the list and Meir is not. 4) Che Guevara, really? A core topic as a politician? He was a terroristic rebel, not a politician. 5) This list has more than 200 bios on it, so if there are 211+ core bios, why only 135 in VA3? Also, is the list of core bios limited in the way that VA lists are, or can this core topics list grow to as large as it wants? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Che Guevara, Cuban Minister of Industries for , was a politician even if apparently you don't like his politics. War and revolution are also forms of politics, just as anarchism is a form of government. Guevara also clearly belongs in the list. I don't think Sanger needs to be included as her influence was rather limited to the US. I think Meir probably does belong especially because there are so few women. Perhaps Benazir Bhutto as well. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Maunus, 1) I didn't mean to slam Guevara, perhaps he was a poor example, but should we also include Fidel Castro? 2) Per: "I don't think Sanger needs to be included as her influence was rather limited to the US." Wasn't Guevara's influence limited to Cuba? 3) Per: "just as anarchism is a form of government". How so? It's my understanding that anarchism is anti-state/government, and quite the opposite of a governmental form. 4) Meir and Bhutto were recently on the list, but have been removed (not by me). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you realize that Guevara's influence goes quite a bit beyond Cuba and that he is a global icon of a particular political vision. I don't think abortion activists worldwide wear t-shirts with a picture of Sanger. Your understanding of anarchism is misconceived as would be clear if you read the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Guevara's influence goes beyond Cuba, I agree. But women in almost all nations have abortions, not? Per Anarchism: "Anarchism is often defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. However, others argue that while anti-statism is central, it is inadequate to define anarchism. Therefore they argue, alternatively, that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not only, the state system. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations." Guess I don't get it, because the Wikipedia article seems to support my assertion that Anarchism is anti-government. What am I missing here? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they do, but that is not because of Sanger. You are missing the fact that the hierarchic State is not the only form of government - Anarchism is antistate and in favor of non-state, non-hierarchic forms of government. Therefore it is a form of government.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Anarachism is a government in the way that zero is a number and black (or white) is a color. Also, I've made a proposal at the Core bios talk page to change the designation of Pele, Ruth, etc. from Artists to Sportspeople pbp 00:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is the general view of people who are ignorant about anarchism and its role in political theory. It shouldn't be wikipedias view. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I see that Jesus and Muhammad are included in the core bios, but neither Abraham, Moses or Solomon are on this list, so who is representing Judaism? Also, the above list includes Socrates (who never wrote anything down), but not Plato, from whom we know Socrates. This core list has far too many issues IMO to be considered an especially important guide for VA3. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I have a lot of issues with it too, but it's a better blueprint than most. It's also been discussed more extensively than all topics on this list put together. The idea is that some, but not all of the bios on this list should be on this one. pbp 00:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Level-2

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I think all Vital-2 articles should be included. Right now, Entertainment is missing. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Well spotted, I thought it went without saying that is a rule. Entertainment should definitely be in vital 1000 if it's in the 100, I think we should add it soon as we can, it's still protected at the moment though.
Not sure if that should be in the 100, but it should be in the 1000 pbp 16:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, probably not a 100 item. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Defining recentism

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Per Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions: "There are no 'set in stone' guidelines for WP:VITAL. Since it encompasses so many topics, a single overarching criterion for inclusion would be irresponsible. Over time, however, certain commonly held notions have become prevalent. This applies especially to the most frequently revised area, the People section."

  • "Anti-recentism: of the 135 individuals currently in the People section, only two of the Beatles are still living. While living individuals, such as Vladimir Putin, George W. Bush, Tony Blair or Queen Elizabeth II, have tremendous current notability, they are avoided because their place in history is difficult to ascertain."

It seems the only criteria suggested by this "guideline" are 1) that recent implies living, and 2) that living people "are avoided because their place in history is difficult to ascertain". Which would seem to imply that if a living person's place is history is not at all difficult to ascertain, then this anti-recentism notion would not apply to them. I think we need to more clearly define what "recent" means in the context of WP:VITAL before we add/remove articles based on this vaguely defined concept. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Defining vital

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Per Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions: "There are no 'set in stone' guidelines for WP:VITAL. Since it encompasses so many topics, a single overarching criterion for inclusion would be irresponsible."

During many of the above threads the terms "notable" and "vital" are being used almost interchangeably. According to Wikipedia:Notability: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article ... Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject.

Per WP:LISTN: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables ... There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not."

According to Wikipedia:Vital articles: "Vital articles is a list of basic subjects for which Wikipedia should have corresponding high-quality articles, and ideally featured articles."

I think we need to more clearly define what notable means in the context of WP:VITAL, before we move forward with arbitrary cuts or adds. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What's important to remember is that many of the broadest articles (which seems to be the bread and butter of VAs) may not have high readership, so they may not be so urgent to improve. For example, how many people read articles like everyday life? People are much more likely to look at World War II than History of the world, and to look at Monopoly rather than board game. Many scientific articles are more widely read than science. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that an article's average hits should be at least one of the determining factors regarding how "vital" an article is to the Wikipedia project? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Nix on hit count as being an important factor. Articles that are hit a lot are also of better quality, on average, than run-of-the-mill articles pbp 02:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
PBP, please do us all a massive favour and just say that you disagree with using hits as a determining factor for an article's "vitality". When you go around using "nix", it implies you think you are the leader/bossman (you aren't), and that all ideas must first be cleared through you. Consensus will determine which factors we should consider, not you. Yours is but one voice among many, so please stop acting like you run the place. If others think that hits should be a factor, then they will be a factor whether you like it or not, understand? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes - Too much, too fast

Latest comment: 11 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

Folks, for the past week I have been trying to follow this massive upheaval to the list with very limited success. It has reached the point of overwhelm. We need to slow down the pace and the rhetoric, and possibly bring in other eyes as well, seeing how few are involved. I don't deny that some change will be good but let's do it at a pace that will allow casual users to get a handle on what is going on here. Thanks. Jusdafax 04:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I second what Jusdafax wrote immediately above. I also suggest that every single article should be considered individually, with discussion on the merits regarding each individual article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree in turn with Dirtlawyer. The trouble with a sensitive list like this is that you will never get everyone to agree on what is vital. This makes a consensus-based approach imperative. To be brutally frank, although I agree with some of Gabe's changes, and applaud him for provoking some interesting discussion, I would like to suggest a revert to the pre-Gabe changes list, and then calmly, one by one, go over his proposed changes, and any others that are suggested. I also think we advertise via Rfc's as needed. This is the heart and soul of Wikipedia, here. Let's get this right. Jusdafax 06:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Might I suggest that instead of just arguing from personal opinions, that various books that are lists of "influential people" or "influential ideas" and similar things be consulted for actual help in deciding things? This or this might help. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • JDF and Dirtlawyer, we are going article-by-article (see above). Is there a slower or more tedious way then what we've been doing that I am not aware of? JDF, per your above comment: "I would like to suggest a revert to the pre-Gabe changes", you should never use roll-back to revert 6 weeks of good-faith edits because you disagree with a point or two. If you have an issue with any additions I've made, then I suggest you, discuss them one-by-one, as you are asking everyone else to do. Also, we are using RfCs to gain a broader perspective, there just hasn't been that much diversity in our responses thus far. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Gabe, while I second Jusdafax's comments, there was no intent on my part to single you out. I have previously expressed my preference for individual consideration of each subject above. I cannot speak for Jusdafax, but my comments apply equally to every change proposed by you, me, Purplebackpack, Carlwev, and everyone else. Group mass proposals for additions or deletions are not the considered discussions for each individual topic I would prefer for the modification of this list. After one or more requests that we organize the discussion on a subject-by-subject basis, I felt compelled to participate in Carl's mass list; otherwise my opinion would not be considered. You will note that (a) in several instances where my opinion was not that of the majority, I left a brief explanation of my reasoning, (b) I did not express an opinion in several instances where I did not feel competent to comment or did not have the time to do the necessary homework. Please AGF. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Jusdafax, I don't think a complete revert to pre-Gabe changes is completely necessary. Some of his changes have been reverted; there is consensus for others. Maybe we are going too fast now, but we were going too slow before, both here and at VA/E pbp 20:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

So what now?

I'm not sure how many people we need to support a deletion/addition proposal before we follow it, or how long we leave a proposal up before following or rejecting it, and how many opposes we can sensibly over look if consensus is the opposite, these things appear to not be discussed. Also how much is too much to do all at once.

I have not given it deep thought but someone needs to set a starting point so I'll suggest a "rough" guide. Have 3 deletion proposals and 3 addition proposals up at once, we leave them for at least 7days but longer if needed, minimum number of support to follow through? not sure 3 - 4 - 5? number of opposes? must not exceed 1/4 of number of supports? (although would be perfect if there were none) How does this sound? Suggest any alternative ideas as this idea was just of the top of my head.

There are not many users taking part in the discussions I may try to get more users involved. I may message users that have within the last 6 months but not the last month given input to the discussion on the possible additions/deletions within the vital 1000. I brought up a similar list of proposals with a few of the same articles about 6 months ago some articles where agreed on some not, some users agreed with many of my proposals some not so much, I will message them all. I am not trying to canvas, a word which has been flying around lately, I am just trying to get more input from people I know have already expressed interest fairly recently in the vital 1000 articles but may not be aware of this present discussion.

My long list above, people said yeah good idea but too hard to follow, but I will use it as a starting point to pick proposals from as some people seem to like some of the proposals. I think I will start with Archaeology, Communication and Horse they appear to be liked.

Carlwev (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I think suggestions for removals and/or additions should remain for 10 days without any action taken. After 10 days, suggestions with no opposition and at least one support other than the nom should be implemented. After 14 days, if there is 67% (⅔) or better support for a suggestion, then I think it should be implemented. As far as discussion as a requirement, I think discussion will occur when needed, pertaining to the less obvious suggestions where no clear consensus is apparent. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I am uncomfortable with the the fact that only four or five people (sometimes fewer) are participating in these discussions and making these decisions. We really require a greater number and a wider variety of discussion participants, including, if possible, more of the original members of the Vital Articles WikiProject who created this list. I cannot help but feel that we are rewriting the list without due consideration of its original structure and balance. I am especially wary of what I perceive as a move to broader parent topics at the expense of high importance specific topics. In all events, we should have more than four or five discussion participants. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Dirtlawyer, 1) of course we would prefer more participation, but TMK, its not a requirement anywhere else on Wikipedia: some of the project's most viewed articles are regularly edited and altered without any prior discussion. 2) As far as: "rewriting the list without due consideration of its original structure and balance". Its original structure and balance do not dictate its future "structure and balance", consensus can change, and it often does. Per: WP:EDITCONCENSUS: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." You seem to be overly concerned that recent changes are "set-in stone", they aren't, and over time the content of the list will naturally fall where it should, ala Smith's "invisible hand". Also, I think a couple of editors are taking this page a little too seriously, maybe we should all just relax and stop acting like Chicken Little; the sky won't fall-out if we make a bad change or two, they will eventually be fixed by others. Remember, I added VI Lenin with little more than a suggestion from you, and there was not an extensive discussion among 5 or 6 editors about whether two consecutive Soviet leaders in a list of 25 is excessive (I certainly think that it is). Now, Lenin seems to be "written in stone" for no other reason then you agree with the addition (I agree with adding Lenin, I just think Stalin should go if Lenin stays, which is something you seem to generally agree with, yet you have decided against casting a !vote to that affect). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Gabe, I've been around Wikipedia for four years, so I do understand the concept of "consensus." Obviously greater participation is not required, but if we want to do good, meaningful work with these lists, most of which will survive critical review by later editors, we need a more critical and more organized approach. In order to this right, we also need more input from people with a wider variety of expertise and academic background. I feel pretty confident about my own background in law, politics, economics, mathematics, history, and world civilization topics. But there are gaps in my own knowledge within those broad subject areas, and giant gulfs beyond them. The same is true of all of us presently participating. The more people, the more input, the fewer gaps, the better the final product. That's where I'm coming from, and where I think Jusdafax is coming from.
Nothing is written in stone, especially by me. Nothing should be included on my say-so, nor anyone else's, Lenin included. That having been said, we should not chuck the existing structure and logic of the pre-existing list without some consideration. Having reviewed it, I think it was a pretty decent list, one that the previous working group had obviously spent a good bit of time and effort to compile. We should not completely disregard their work, knowledge and insight, especially in a willy-nilly manner. That's why it would be helpful if we had some of the previous working group on hand; we might learn something from them. It's what political scientists call "institutional memory." At a minimum, they should be individually invited to participate on their user talk pages out of respect for their previous work. Most are probably gone, but a few may return and we might benefit. Beyond that, there should be some sort of Wikipedia-wide RfC notice, using the various boards and newsletters available for such.
One last thing, and I don't want to harp on it, but you and Purplebackpack need to ratchet down the online back-and-forth in this discussion. It's distracting to the rest of us, and not conducive to taking this list where it needs to go. I respectfully ask that you consider that as a friendly plea -- remember, sometimes it is more fun to kill the bastards with kindness. Really. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
DL, I agree with you regarding pbp, and from my perspective, we already have cooled it down here (about a week ago I think), but thanks for the unsolicited "friendly" advice. Per WP:OWN, the original editors/creators of this list do not hold any particular sway over its eventual form whatsoever. However, FWIW, I generally agree that we should be cautious about moving toward broader topics while neglecting important specific ones. Also, Carl is correct to say that the list is currently under 1,000, so I don't see removal as an absolute requirement for an obvious addition, until we are closer to 1,000. Why do you consider the article-by-article approach being used below "willy-nilly"? How could we possibly be more tedious? One last thing, I find your "schoolmaster" approach here a bit off-putting, so if you want more participation, be more open to the ideas of others, and support them when you do agree. Also, there is no need to regularly throw your creds around, your voice is but one, just as is mine, and I don't need to (nor would I) run-down my resume at this talk page in an attempt to gain respect; it doesn't (nor should it) work that way. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Gabe, I think you've missed my point; I wasn't running through subject areas in which I have a decent depth of knowledge to impress you. I was running through that list to say, yeah, I know some stuff, but there's a lot more beyond my niches in which I have no particular background. And that's true of all of us. The more of us participating in this discussion, with a wider variety of backgrounds and academic fields, the better the final product will be. As for the past contributors, no, they don't own anything; but neither do we, and it's a mistake not to get the benefit of their perspectives if they are still around. That's my point. Sorry if I sound like a "schoolteacher"; I've done that, too. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I would love more users to participate, and would feel much better if there were many more people giving their views, I have messaged 4 users who gave input to similar discussions in the past but have heard nothing back yet. Maybe you could encourage others too. I am a little puzzled over your comments, what needs to be deleted to make way for articles Archaeology, Communication and Entertainment? As we are proposing 4 deletions at the same time (Euro, US Dollar, Nobel Prize, and Genetic drift) all of which you left comments on, and all but one in agreement. So is it not suggesting those 4 would go to make way for them? Also as someone said before we are under 1000, according to the sub header totals on the page we currently only have 985 articles not 1000, so at this point we don't necessarily 'have to' delete anything. I can see some people want a mixture of articles; but I believe broader parent topics are closer to what it means to be a vital article. I think it very odd a list of 1000 vital articles can include 135 biographies but could miss out these broad parent topics of communication and entertainment; especially when other groups of users included them in lists of only 100 and 150 vital/core articles, and when we are only at 985 articles anyway. And how could entertainment be in the list of 100 articles but not the list of 1000 articles of the same project? we would have to delete it from the list of 100 if it isn't in 1000 list surely. But this is just my view and appreciate people giving their view too. Carlwev (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Carl, your points are well taken. If you want an easy add (at least from my perspective), start the discussion for "horse," as you mentioned above. If we were to include only two animals on the list, the horse should be one of them given its impact on the last 5,000 years of human civilization. Also conspicuous by its absence is man's best friend, the "dog."
  • Regarding greater participation, what steps have we taken to notify the original members of the the Vital Articles WikiProject and the wider Wikipedia community of these discussions? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Funny you say that, I meant to mention horse in my last comment but forgot. I definitely think horse should be here, I think many other do too, I nearly did propose it but other users have suggested too many things all at once are too overwhelming, off putting or confusing. I thought the 3 proposals I put up would be the most 'popular'. Horse and dog were in the list a long time ago I believe, I also proposed them over 6 months ago and horse was fairly well received and almost got added but didn't quite push through. But I think I will add the proposal very soon. Carlwev (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Good call on horse. My rule of thumb for evaluating specific topics like "horse" (as opposed to broad category topics like "communication") is what is the perceived impact of the particular topic on human evolution, civilization and/or history? Viewed through that lens, adding horse is an easy call for me. This is the same rationale by which I came to the conclusion that wine and beer need to stay on the list and salt needs to be added. These are big impact items from the standpoint of how human civilization evolved and was organized. At some point, we need to swing back around to considering the "food and drink" list, but I also recognize that we should probably work our way through the larger list in some methodical fashion rather than jumping about from category to category. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't Mammoth and Bison also be included if we are to add horse and dog? What about Ox? Also, many geneticists believe that the big cats were perhaps the most important relationship in nature that led to our evolution to upright-walking, collaborative, and communicating animals; lest we be eaten for a lack of organisation. So one could argue that Big cat is even more vital an article then is horse or dog, which are really just beasts of burden (as with any slave). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe. I suppose a case could be made for the mammoth in prehistory and the bison in the context of American Indian culture, but neither has had the world-wide impact of the horse and the dog in the development of human culture. Multiple civilizations have risen and fallen on horseback; the Aryan predecessors of the modern Iranians, Indians, and other regional cultures were horse people. Not to mention the Mongols and Arabs. The most important invention in human warfare between iron and gunpowder was the stirrup. Dogs have been man's primary animal companion and protector for 10,000 to 15,000 years, and humans and canines have enjoyed a mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship that has impacted the evolution of both species. As for cats, I like them and I live with a Maine coon cat; big cats are predators and the little ones are roommates. Neither has dramatically impacted the evolution of human civilization in a long, long time, if ever. In recorded history, cats would rank far behind horses, dogs, cattle/oxen, sheep and goats as cultural influences. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Dirtlawyer1 speaks for me here, as we agree 100% on the issues that have been raised, as far as I can tell. I'll be able to participate a bit more in this discussion on Sunday. Until then, best wishes. Jusdafax 07:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes - Too much, too fast

Latest comment: 11 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

Folks, for the past week I have been trying to follow this massive upheaval to the list with very limited success. It has reached the point of overwhelm. We need to slow down the pace and the rhetoric, and possibly bring in other eyes as well, seeing how few are involved. I don't deny that some change will be good but let's do it at a pace that will allow casual users to get a handle on what is going on here. Thanks. Jusdafax 04:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I second what Jusdafax wrote immediately above. I also suggest that every single article should be considered individually, with discussion on the merits regarding each individual article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree in turn with Dirtlawyer. The trouble with a sensitive list like this is that you will never get everyone to agree on what is vital. This makes a consensus-based approach imperative. To be brutally frank, although I agree with some of Gabe's changes, and applaud him for provoking some interesting discussion, I would like to suggest a revert to the pre-Gabe changes list, and then calmly, one by one, go over his proposed changes, and any others that are suggested. I also think we advertise via Rfc's as needed. This is the heart and soul of Wikipedia, here. Let's get this right. Jusdafax 06:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Might I suggest that instead of just arguing from personal opinions, that various books that are lists of "influential people" or "influential ideas" and similar things be consulted for actual help in deciding things? This or this might help. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • JDF and Dirtlawyer, we are going article-by-article (see above). Is there a slower or more tedious way then what we've been doing that I am not aware of? JDF, per your above comment: "I would like to suggest a revert to the pre-Gabe changes", you should never use roll-back to revert 6 weeks of good-faith edits because you disagree with a point or two. If you have an issue with any additions I've made, then I suggest you, discuss them one-by-one, as you are asking everyone else to do. Also, we are using RfCs to gain a broader perspective, there just hasn't been that much diversity in our responses thus far. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Gabe, while I second Jusdafax's comments, there was no intent on my part to single you out. I have previously expressed my preference for individual consideration of each subject above. I cannot speak for Jusdafax, but my comments apply equally to every change proposed by you, me, Purplebackpack, Carlwev, and everyone else. Group mass proposals for additions or deletions are not the considered discussions for each individual topic I would prefer for the modification of this list. After one or more requests that we organize the discussion on a subject-by-subject basis, I felt compelled to participate in Carl's mass list; otherwise my opinion would not be considered. You will note that (a) in several instances where my opinion was not that of the majority, I left a brief explanation of my reasoning, (b) I did not express an opinion in several instances where I did not feel competent to comment or did not have the time to do the necessary homework. Please AGF. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Jusdafax, I don't think a complete revert to pre-Gabe changes is completely necessary. Some of his changes have been reverted; there is consensus for others. Maybe we are going too fast now, but we were going too slow before, both here and at VA/E pbp 20:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

So what now?

I'm not sure how many people we need to support a deletion/addition proposal before we follow it, or how long we leave a proposal up before following or rejecting it, and how many opposes we can sensibly over look if consensus is the opposite, these things appear to not be discussed. Also how much is too much to do all at once.

I have not given it deep thought but someone needs to set a starting point so I'll suggest a "rough" guide. Have 3 deletion proposals and 3 addition proposals up at once, we leave them for at least 7days but longer if needed, minimum number of support to follow through? not sure 3 - 4 - 5? number of opposes? must not exceed 1/4 of number of supports? (although would be perfect if there were none) How does this sound? Suggest any alternative ideas as this idea was just of the top of my head.

There are not many users taking part in the discussions I may try to get more users involved. I may message users that have within the last 6 months but not the last month given input to the discussion on the possible additions/deletions within the vital 1000. I brought up a similar list of proposals with a few of the same articles about 6 months ago some articles where agreed on some not, some users agreed with many of my proposals some not so much, I will message them all. I am not trying to canvas, a word which has been flying around lately, I am just trying to get more input from people I know have already expressed interest fairly recently in the vital 1000 articles but may not be aware of this present discussion.

My long list above, people said yeah good idea but too hard to follow, but I will use it as a starting point to pick proposals from as some people seem to like some of the proposals. I think I will start with Archaeology, Communication and Horse they appear to be liked.

Carlwev (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I think suggestions for removals and/or additions should remain for 10 days without any action taken. After 10 days, suggestions with no opposition and at least one support other than the nom should be implemented. After 14 days, if there is 67% (⅔) or better support for a suggestion, then I think it should be implemented. As far as discussion as a requirement, I think discussion will occur when needed, pertaining to the less obvious suggestions where no clear consensus is apparent. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I am uncomfortable with the the fact that only four or five people (sometimes fewer) are participating in these discussions and making these decisions. We really require a greater number and a wider variety of discussion participants, including, if possible, more of the original members of the Vital Articles WikiProject who created this list. I cannot help but feel that we are rewriting the list without due consideration of its original structure and balance. I am especially wary of what I perceive as a move to broader parent topics at the expense of high importance specific topics. In all events, we should have more than four or five discussion participants. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Dirtlawyer, 1) of course we would prefer more participation, but TMK, its not a requirement anywhere else on Wikipedia: some of the project's most viewed articles are regularly edited and altered without any prior discussion. 2) As far as: "rewriting the list without due consideration of its original structure and balance". Its original structure and balance do not dictate its future "structure and balance", consensus can change, and it often does. Per: WP:EDITCONCENSUS: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." You seem to be overly concerned that recent changes are "set-in stone", they aren't, and over time the content of the list will naturally fall where it should, ala Smith's "invisible hand". Also, I think a couple of editors are taking this page a little too seriously, maybe we should all just relax and stop acting like Chicken Little; the sky won't fall-out if we make a bad change or two, they will eventually be fixed by others. Remember, I added VI Lenin with little more than a suggestion from you, and there was not an extensive discussion among 5 or 6 editors about whether two consecutive Soviet leaders in a list of 25 is excessive (I certainly think that it is). Now, Lenin seems to be "written in stone" for no other reason then you agree with the addition (I agree with adding Lenin, I just think Stalin should go if Lenin stays, which is something you seem to generally agree with, yet you have decided against casting a !vote to that affect). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Gabe, I've been around Wikipedia for four years, so I do understand the concept of "consensus." Obviously greater participation is not required, but if we want to do good, meaningful work with these lists, most of which will survive critical review by later editors, we need a more critical and more organized approach. In order to this right, we also need more input from people with a wider variety of expertise and academic background. I feel pretty confident about my own background in law, politics, economics, mathematics, history, and world civilization topics. But there are gaps in my own knowledge within those broad subject areas, and giant gulfs beyond them. The same is true of all of us presently participating. The more people, the more input, the fewer gaps, the better the final product. That's where I'm coming from, and where I think Jusdafax is coming from.
Nothing is written in stone, especially by me. Nothing should be included on my say-so, nor anyone else's, Lenin included. That having been said, we should not chuck the existing structure and logic of the pre-existing list without some consideration. Having reviewed it, I think it was a pretty decent list, one that the previous working group had obviously spent a good bit of time and effort to compile. We should not completely disregard their work, knowledge and insight, especially in a willy-nilly manner. That's why it would be helpful if we had some of the previous working group on hand; we might learn something from them. It's what political scientists call "institutional memory." At a minimum, they should be individually invited to participate on their user talk pages out of respect for their previous work. Most are probably gone, but a few may return and we might benefit. Beyond that, there should be some sort of Wikipedia-wide RfC notice, using the various boards and newsletters available for such.
One last thing, and I don't want to harp on it, but you and Purplebackpack need to ratchet down the online back-and-forth in this discussion. It's distracting to the rest of us, and not conducive to taking this list where it needs to go. I respectfully ask that you consider that as a friendly plea -- remember, sometimes it is more fun to kill the bastards with kindness. Really. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
DL, I agree with you regarding pbp, and from my perspective, we already have cooled it down here (about a week ago I think), but thanks for the unsolicited "friendly" advice. Per WP:OWN, the original editors/creators of this list do not hold any particular sway over its eventual form whatsoever. However, FWIW, I generally agree that we should be cautious about moving toward broader topics while neglecting important specific ones. Also, Carl is correct to say that the list is currently under 1,000, so I don't see removal as an absolute requirement for an obvious addition, until we are closer to 1,000. Why do you consider the article-by-article approach being used below "willy-nilly"? How could we possibly be more tedious? One last thing, I find your "schoolmaster" approach here a bit off-putting, so if you want more participation, be more open to the ideas of others, and support them when you do agree. Also, there is no need to regularly throw your creds around, your voice is but one, just as is mine, and I don't need to (nor would I) run-down my resume at this talk page in an attempt to gain respect; it doesn't (nor should it) work that way. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Gabe, I think you've missed my point; I wasn't running through subject areas in which I have a decent depth of knowledge to impress you. I was running through that list to say, yeah, I know some stuff, but there's a lot more beyond my niches in which I have no particular background. And that's true of all of us. The more of us participating in this discussion, with a wider variety of backgrounds and academic fields, the better the final product will be. As for the past contributors, no, they don't own anything; but neither do we, and it's a mistake not to get the benefit of their perspectives if they are still around. That's my point. Sorry if I sound like a "schoolteacher"; I've done that, too. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I would love more users to participate, and would feel much better if there were many more people giving their views, I have messaged 4 users who gave input to similar discussions in the past but have heard nothing back yet. Maybe you could encourage others too. I am a little puzzled over your comments, what needs to be deleted to make way for articles Archaeology, Communication and Entertainment? As we are proposing 4 deletions at the same time (Euro, US Dollar, Nobel Prize, and Genetic drift) all of which you left comments on, and all but one in agreement. So is it not suggesting those 4 would go to make way for them? Also as someone said before we are under 1000, according to the sub header totals on the page we currently only have 985 articles not 1000, so at this point we don't necessarily 'have to' delete anything. I can see some people want a mixture of articles; but I believe broader parent topics are closer to what it means to be a vital article. I think it very odd a list of 1000 vital articles can include 135 biographies but could miss out these broad parent topics of communication and entertainment; especially when other groups of users included them in lists of only 100 and 150 vital/core articles, and when we are only at 985 articles anyway. And how could entertainment be in the list of 100 articles but not the list of 1000 articles of the same project? we would have to delete it from the list of 100 if it isn't in 1000 list surely. But this is just my view and appreciate people giving their view too. Carlwev (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Carl, your points are well taken. If you want an easy add (at least from my perspective), start the discussion for "horse," as you mentioned above. If we were to include only two animals on the list, the horse should be one of them given its impact on the last 5,000 years of human civilization. Also conspicuous by its absence is man's best friend, the "dog."
  • Regarding greater participation, what steps have we taken to notify the original members of the the Vital Articles WikiProject and the wider Wikipedia community of these discussions? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Funny you say that, I meant to mention horse in my last comment but forgot. I definitely think horse should be here, I think many other do too, I nearly did propose it but other users have suggested too many things all at once are too overwhelming, off putting or confusing. I thought the 3 proposals I put up would be the most 'popular'. Horse and dog were in the list a long time ago I believe, I also proposed them over 6 months ago and horse was fairly well received and almost got added but didn't quite push through. But I think I will add the proposal very soon. Carlwev (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Good call on horse. My rule of thumb for evaluating specific topics like "horse" (as opposed to broad category topics like "communication") is what is the perceived impact of the particular topic on human evolution, civilization and/or history? Viewed through that lens, adding horse is an easy call for me. This is the same rationale by which I came to the conclusion that wine and beer need to stay on the list and salt needs to be added. These are big impact items from the standpoint of how human civilization evolved and was organized. At some point, we need to swing back around to considering the "food and drink" list, but I also recognize that we should probably work our way through the larger list in some methodical fashion rather than jumping about from category to category. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't Mammoth and Bison also be included if we are to add horse and dog? What about Ox? Also, many geneticists believe that the big cats were perhaps the most important relationship in nature that led to our evolution to upright-walking, collaborative, and communicating animals; lest we be eaten for a lack of organisation. So one could argue that Big cat is even more vital an article then is horse or dog, which are really just beasts of burden (as with any slave). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe. I suppose a case could be made for the mammoth in prehistory and the bison in the context of American Indian culture, but neither has had the world-wide impact of the horse and the dog in the development of human culture. Multiple civilizations have risen and fallen on horseback; the Aryan predecessors of the modern Iranians, Indians, and other regional cultures were horse people. Not to mention the Mongols and Arabs. The most important invention in human warfare between iron and gunpowder was the stirrup. Dogs have been man's primary animal companion and protector for 10,000 to 15,000 years, and humans and canines have enjoyed a mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship that has impacted the evolution of both species. As for cats, I like them and I live with a Maine coon cat; big cats are predators and the little ones are roommates. Neither has dramatically impacted the evolution of human civilization in a long, long time, if ever. In recorded history, cats would rank far behind horses, dogs, cattle/oxen, sheep and goats as cultural influences. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Dirtlawyer1 speaks for me here, as we agree 100% on the issues that have been raised, as far as I can tell. I'll be able to participate a bit more in this discussion on Sunday. Until then, best wishes. Jusdafax 07:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes - Too much, too fast

Latest comment: 11 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

Folks, for the past week I have been trying to follow this massive upheaval to the list with very limited success. It has reached the point of overwhelm. We need to slow down the pace and the rhetoric, and possibly bring in other eyes as well, seeing how few are involved. I don't deny that some change will be good but let's do it at a pace that will allow casual users to get a handle on what is going on here. Thanks. Jusdafax 04:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I second what Jusdafax wrote immediately above. I also suggest that every single article should be considered individually, with discussion on the merits regarding each individual article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree in turn with Dirtlawyer. The trouble with a sensitive list like this is that you will never get everyone to agree on what is vital. This makes a consensus-based approach imperative. To be brutally frank, although I agree with some of Gabe's changes, and applaud him for provoking some interesting discussion, I would like to suggest a revert to the pre-Gabe changes list, and then calmly, one by one, go over his proposed changes, and any others that are suggested. I also think we advertise via Rfc's as needed. This is the heart and soul of Wikipedia, here. Let's get this right. Jusdafax 06:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Might I suggest that instead of just arguing from personal opinions, that various books that are lists of "influential people" or "influential ideas" and similar things be consulted for actual help in deciding things? This or this might help. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • JDF and Dirtlawyer, we are going article-by-article (see above). Is there a slower or more tedious way then what we've been doing that I am not aware of? JDF, per your above comment: "I would like to suggest a revert to the pre-Gabe changes", you should never use roll-back to revert 6 weeks of good-faith edits because you disagree with a point or two. If you have an issue with any additions I've made, then I suggest you, discuss them one-by-one, as you are asking everyone else to do. Also, we are using RfCs to gain a broader perspective, there just hasn't been that much diversity in our responses thus far. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Gabe, while I second Jusdafax's comments, there was no intent on my part to single you out. I have previously expressed my preference for individual consideration of each subject above. I cannot speak for Jusdafax, but my comments apply equally to every change proposed by you, me, Purplebackpack, Carlwev, and everyone else. Group mass proposals for additions or deletions are not the considered discussions for each individual topic I would prefer for the modification of this list. After one or more requests that we organize the discussion on a subject-by-subject basis, I felt compelled to participate in Carl's mass list; otherwise my opinion would not be considered. You will note that (a) in several instances where my opinion was not that of the majority, I left a brief explanation of my reasoning, (b) I did not express an opinion in several instances where I did not feel competent to comment or did not have the time to do the necessary homework. Please AGF. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Jusdafax, I don't think a complete revert to pre-Gabe changes is completely necessary. Some of his changes have been reverted; there is consensus for others. Maybe we are going too fast now, but we were going too slow before, both here and at VA/E pbp 20:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

So what now?

I'm not sure how many people we need to support a deletion/addition proposal before we follow it, or how long we leave a proposal up before following or rejecting it, and how many opposes we can sensibly over look if consensus is the opposite, these things appear to not be discussed. Also how much is too much to do all at once.

I have not given it deep thought but someone needs to set a starting point so I'll suggest a "rough" guide. Have 3 deletion proposals and 3 addition proposals up at once, we leave them for at least 7days but longer if needed, minimum number of support to follow through? not sure 3 - 4 - 5? number of opposes? must not exceed 1/4 of number of supports? (although would be perfect if there were none) How does this sound? Suggest any alternative ideas as this idea was just of the top of my head.

There are not many users taking part in the discussions I may try to get more users involved. I may message users that have within the last 6 months but not the last month given input to the discussion on the possible additions/deletions within the vital 1000. I brought up a similar list of proposals with a few of the same articles about 6 months ago some articles where agreed on some not, some users agreed with many of my proposals some not so much, I will message them all. I am not trying to canvas, a word which has been flying around lately, I am just trying to get more input from people I know have already expressed interest fairly recently in the vital 1000 articles but may not be aware of this present discussion.

My long list above, people said yeah good idea but too hard to follow, but I will use it as a starting point to pick proposals from as some people seem to like some of the proposals. I think I will start with Archaeology, Communication and Horse they appear to be liked.

Carlwev (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I think suggestions for removals and/or additions should remain for 10 days without any action taken. After 10 days, suggestions with no opposition and at least one support other than the nom should be implemented. After 14 days, if there is 67% (⅔) or better support for a suggestion, then I think it should be implemented. As far as discussion as a requirement, I think discussion will occur when needed, pertaining to the less obvious suggestions where no clear consensus is apparent. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I am uncomfortable with the the fact that only four or five people (sometimes fewer) are participating in these discussions and making these decisions. We really require a greater number and a wider variety of discussion participants, including, if possible, more of the original members of the Vital Articles WikiProject who created this list. I cannot help but feel that we are rewriting the list without due consideration of its original structure and balance. I am especially wary of what I perceive as a move to broader parent topics at the expense of high importance specific topics. In all events, we should have more than four or five discussion participants. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Dirtlawyer, 1) of course we would prefer more participation, but TMK, its not a requirement anywhere else on Wikipedia: some of the project's most viewed articles are regularly edited and altered without any prior discussion. 2) As far as: "rewriting the list without due consideration of its original structure and balance". Its original structure and balance do not dictate its future "structure and balance", consensus can change, and it often does. Per: WP:EDITCONCENSUS: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." You seem to be overly concerned that recent changes are "set-in stone", they aren't, and over time the content of the list will naturally fall where it should, ala Smith's "invisible hand". Also, I think a couple of editors are taking this page a little too seriously, maybe we should all just relax and stop acting like Chicken Little; the sky won't fall-out if we make a bad change or two, they will eventually be fixed by others. Remember, I added VI Lenin with little more than a suggestion from you, and there was not an extensive discussion among 5 or 6 editors about whether two consecutive Soviet leaders in a list of 25 is excessive (I certainly think that it is). Now, Lenin seems to be "written in stone" for no other reason then you agree with the addition (I agree with adding Lenin, I just think Stalin should go if Lenin stays, which is something you seem to generally agree with, yet you have decided against casting a !vote to that affect). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Gabe, I've been around Wikipedia for four years, so I do understand the concept of "consensus." Obviously greater participation is not required, but if we want to do good, meaningful work with these lists, most of which will survive critical review by later editors, we need a more critical and more organized approach. In order to this right, we also need more input from people with a wider variety of expertise and academic background. I feel pretty confident about my own background in law, politics, economics, mathematics, history, and world civilization topics. But there are gaps in my own knowledge within those broad subject areas, and giant gulfs beyond them. The same is true of all of us presently participating. The more people, the more input, the fewer gaps, the better the final product. That's where I'm coming from, and where I think Jusdafax is coming from.
Nothing is written in stone, especially by me. Nothing should be included on my say-so, nor anyone else's, Lenin included. That having been said, we should not chuck the existing structure and logic of the pre-existing list without some consideration. Having reviewed it, I think it was a pretty decent list, one that the previous working group had obviously spent a good bit of time and effort to compile. We should not completely disregard their work, knowledge and insight, especially in a willy-nilly manner. That's why it would be helpful if we had some of the previous working group on hand; we might learn something from them. It's what political scientists call "institutional memory." At a minimum, they should be individually invited to participate on their user talk pages out of respect for their previous work. Most are probably gone, but a few may return and we might benefit. Beyond that, there should be some sort of Wikipedia-wide RfC notice, using the various boards and newsletters available for such.
One last thing, and I don't want to harp on it, but you and Purplebackpack need to ratchet down the online back-and-forth in this discussion. It's distracting to the rest of us, and not conducive to taking this list where it needs to go. I respectfully ask that you consider that as a friendly plea -- remember, sometimes it is more fun to kill the bastards with kindness. Really. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
DL, I agree with you regarding pbp, and from my perspective, we already have cooled it down here (about a week ago I think), but thanks for the unsolicited "friendly" advice. Per WP:OWN, the original editors/creators of this list do not hold any particular sway over its eventual form whatsoever. However, FWIW, I generally agree that we should be cautious about moving toward broader topics while neglecting important specific ones. Also, Carl is correct to say that the list is currently under 1,000, so I don't see removal as an absolute requirement for an obvious addition, until we are closer to 1,000. Why do you consider the article-by-article approach being used below "willy-nilly"? How could we possibly be more tedious? One last thing, I find your "schoolmaster" approach here a bit off-putting, so if you want more participation, be more open to the ideas of others, and support them when you do agree. Also, there is no need to regularly throw your creds around, your voice is but one, just as is mine, and I don't need to (nor would I) run-down my resume at this talk page in an attempt to gain respect; it doesn't (nor should it) work that way. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Gabe, I think you've missed my point; I wasn't running through subject areas in which I have a decent depth of knowledge to impress you. I was running through that list to say, yeah, I know some stuff, but there's a lot more beyond my niches in which I have no particular background. And that's true of all of us. The more of us participating in this discussion, with a wider variety of backgrounds and academic fields, the better the final product will be. As for the past contributors, no, they don't own anything; but neither do we, and it's a mistake not to get the benefit of their perspectives if they are still around. That's my point. Sorry if I sound like a "schoolteacher"; I've done that, too. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I would love more users to participate, and would feel much better if there were many more people giving their views, I have messaged 4 users who gave input to similar discussions in the past but have heard nothing back yet. Maybe you could encourage others too. I am a little puzzled over your comments, what needs to be deleted to make way for articles Archaeology, Communication and Entertainment? As we are proposing 4 deletions at the same time (Euro, US Dollar, Nobel Prize, and Genetic drift) all of which you left comments on, and all but one in agreement. So is it not suggesting those 4 would go to make way for them? Also as someone said before we are under 1000, according to the sub header totals on the page we currently only have 985 articles not 1000, so at this point we don't necessarily 'have to' delete anything. I can see some people want a mixture of articles; but I believe broader parent topics are closer to what it means to be a vital article. I think it very odd a list of 1000 vital articles can include 135 biographies but could miss out these broad parent topics of communication and entertainment; especially when other groups of users included them in lists of only 100 and 150 vital/core articles, and when we are only at 985 articles anyway. And how could entertainment be in the list of 100 articles but not the list of 1000 articles of the same project? we would have to delete it from the list of 100 if it isn't in 1000 list surely. But this is just my view and appreciate people giving their view too. Carlwev (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Carl, your points are well taken. If you want an easy add (at least from my perspective), start the discussion for "horse," as you mentioned above. If we were to include only two animals on the list, the horse should be one of them given its impact on the last 5,000 years of human civilization. Also conspicuous by its absence is man's best friend, the "dog."
  • Regarding greater participation, what steps have we taken to notify the original members of the the Vital Articles WikiProject and the wider Wikipedia community of these discussions? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Funny you say that, I meant to mention horse in my last comment but forgot. I definitely think horse should be here, I think many other do too, I nearly did propose it but other users have suggested too many things all at once are too overwhelming, off putting or confusing. I thought the 3 proposals I put up would be the most 'popular'. Horse and dog were in the list a long time ago I believe, I also proposed them over 6 months ago and horse was fairly well received and almost got added but didn't quite push through. But I think I will add the proposal very soon. Carlwev (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Good call on horse. My rule of thumb for evaluating specific topics like "horse" (as opposed to broad category topics like "communication") is what is the perceived impact of the particular topic on human evolution, civilization and/or history? Viewed through that lens, adding horse is an easy call for me. This is the same rationale by which I came to the conclusion that wine and beer need to stay on the list and salt needs to be added. These are big impact items from the standpoint of how human civilization evolved and was organized. At some point, we need to swing back around to considering the "food and drink" list, but I also recognize that we should probably work our way through the larger list in some methodical fashion rather than jumping about from category to category. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't Mammoth and Bison also be included if we are to add horse and dog? What about Ox? Also, many geneticists believe that the big cats were perhaps the most important relationship in nature that led to our evolution to upright-walking, collaborative, and communicating animals; lest we be eaten for a lack of organisation. So one could argue that Big cat is even more vital an article then is horse or dog, which are really just beasts of burden (as with any slave). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe. I suppose a case could be made for the mammoth in prehistory and the bison in the context of American Indian culture, but neither has had the world-wide impact of the horse and the dog in the development of human culture. Multiple civilizations have risen and fallen on horseback; the Aryan predecessors of the modern Iranians, Indians, and other regional cultures were horse people. Not to mention the Mongols and Arabs. The most important invention in human warfare between iron and gunpowder was the stirrup. Dogs have been man's primary animal companion and protector for 10,000 to 15,000 years, and humans and canines have enjoyed a mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship that has impacted the evolution of both species. As for cats, I like them and I live with a Maine coon cat; big cats are predators and the little ones are roommates. Neither has dramatically impacted the evolution of human civilization in a long, long time, if ever. In recorded history, cats would rank far behind horses, dogs, cattle/oxen, sheep and goats as cultural influences. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Dirtlawyer1 speaks for me here, as we agree 100% on the issues that have been raised, as far as I can tell. I'll be able to participate a bit more in this discussion on Sunday. Until then, best wishes. Jusdafax 07:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_5&oldid=1142662345"