Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

The purpose of this discussion page is to manage the Level 3 list of 1,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles (e.g. at WP:FA and WP:GA status). See the table to the right (on desktop) or above (on mobile) showing the historic distribution of Level 3 articles.

All level 3 nominations must be of an article already listed at level 4.

All proposals must remain open for !voting for a minimum of 15 days, after which:

1. After 15 days it may be closed as PASSED if there are (a) 5 or more supports, AND (b) at least two-thirds are in support.
2. After 30 days it may be closed as FAILED if there are (a) 3 or more opposes, AND (b) it failed to earn two-thirds support.
3. After 30 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for +30 days, regardless of tally.
4. After 60 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal has (a) less than 5 supports, AND (b) less than two-thirds support.

Nominations should be left open beyond the minimum if they have a reasonable chance of passing. An informed discussion with more editor participation produces an improved and more stable final list, so be patient with the process.

For reference, the following times apply for today:

• 15 days ago was: 18:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago was: 18:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago was: 18:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Hunting  3 Bow and arrow  3, add Service (economics)  4

Under Economy  3, we currently list four industries within the Primary sector of the economy: Agriculture  2, Fishing  3, Hunting  3, and Mining  3; and two industries within the Secondary sector of the economy: Manufacturing  2 and Construction  3. We do not list any industry within the Tertiary sector of the economy at Level 3 or above.

Such a distribution between the three sectors is imbalanced, and within the primary sector, hunting is arguably the least important: most animals produced for human consumption (either for meat or animal products) are farmed (i.e., agriculture), not hunted. A case can be made for removing fishing instead, given that it is a subtopic of agriculture and seafood comprises a minority of meat consumed in most countries around the world, however it is probably a more widespread practice than hunting, so my preference is for the removal of hunting. Given that the tertiary sector is mostly about the provision of services, adding Service (economics)  4 makes sense.

Support

1. As nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   UPDATE: agreed, definitely remove Bow and arrow  3 first. At best it's a subtopic of Hunting or Archery  4. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

2. Support swap with Bow and arrow  3. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Gizza (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Support the original proposal of removing hunting and adding service. Oppose the new swap of removing Bow and arrow (which is both a significant hunting tool and military weapon) and adding service. Gizza (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
4. Support removal --Thi (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
5. Support. Both removal and swap. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
6. Support removal of Bow and arrow and addition. Interstellarity (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
7. Remove bow and arrow, add service. Idiosincrático (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Bow and arrow should be removed first. --Thi (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose, Hunting was the only way all of humanity fed itself for over 90% of its existence, before agriculture was common. Food and Agriculture are at level 2, at level 3 we start listing several animals and food and drink types and crops, I would prefer to keep hunting, seems more vital in the long run than soybean, cheese, tea, chicken, egg. I also agree hunting may be more vital than bow and arrow.  Carlwev  12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

• @Carlwev and DaGizza: - the nomination has been changed. starship.paint (RUN) 09:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Carlwev: - could you make your vote explicit on Bow and arrow and Service? Which is more vital? starship.paint (RUN) 09:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • There's still not enough votes to render a decision on Service. starship.paint (RUN) 12:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Add Peter the Great  4 (no swap with Catherine)

There are plenty of editors that suggested a straight addition rather than a swap with Catherine. My reasoning is in the above discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Meh, weak support; while he is probably fit for this level, we are over quota at V3 and I'm afraid it'd overrepresent Russia in that regard (Peter, Catherine, and Stalin) since we don't have key rulers of all sorts of countries, such as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk  4. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. When I look at the names on Wikipedia:Vital Articles#Leaders and politicians, I can't see Peter the Great as being as influential. I also think that Cleopatra  3, Nelson Mandela  3, and possibly Joan of Arc  3 should also not be on this list (i.e. they are more celebrity-notable than as politically influential as the others on this list). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

   i.e. Constantine the Great  4, would easily rank well ahead of these three (and Peter). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

   i.e. Franklin D. Roosevelt  4 should be ranked alongside Adolf Hitler  3 and Joseph Stalin  3 as the biggest leaders of the 20th century (and Roosevelt took American out of the Great Depression). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

   Joan of Arc would probably come to mind if I was asked for the ten most vital women to world history. She should be kept, especially since we removed Frida Kahlo  4. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

   That makes sense to me. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Russian representation is sufficient as it is. Also much less important than e.g. Green Revolution which was recently removed. Gizza (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
3. On second thought, V4 might be a more appropriate level. Idiosincrático (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

• @Interstellarity: - any other article you would like to propose to remove, or any support for any removals listed above? starship.paint (RUN) 03:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think we should remove an article since we are over quota. Calligraphy seems to make the most sense being removed since there are other topics more important. Interstellarity (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Move Laozi and Homer to other categories

We moved Moses and Abraham out of people and into religion because they were not placed into people at level 4. As I understand, the reasoning for not placing them there at level 4 is because historians generally consider them legendary figures and not real people. But I can't figure out why this would only apply to religious figures. In level 3, Homer  3 and Laozi  3, in particular, are widely considered to be not real people. Both are generally believed to have been invented to be writers for the works now attributed to them, which were actually written by various other people. I suggest moving them out of the people category because they are not people. As to the new destinations, I suggest under literature for Homer and under Eastern philosophy next to Confucianism for Laozi. I believe those are the only two non-people remaining in the people category, but if I am mistaken let me know and I'll add that to the list. Ladtrack (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. I don't think that Homer  3 is considered a "legendry figure", and the debate still goes no re Laozi  3. Can't see a clear case for moving unless their status as "legendry figures" was more clear-cut/widely accepted. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

   Both are pretty widely considered not real people. I didn't really want to go into it because I thought it'd be more well known than it appears to actually be, but here we go.

   The page Homeric Question, which surrounds the authorship of the Iliad and Odyssey and whether Homer exists, has the line "Most scholars, although disagreeing on other questions about the genesis of the poems, agree that the Iliad and the Odyssey were not produced by the same author, based on "the many differences of narrative manner, theology, ethics, vocabulary, and geographical perspective, and by the apparently imitative character of certain passages of the Odyssey in relation to the Iliad." This is sourced to four different publications, and nearly every other source that comments on the matter will agree with it. Both the Iliad and the Odyssey are generally believed to be a set of oral traditions that were rewritten to fit into a single storyline afterwards. Most importantly, they were collated by different people, according to writing analysis. The existence of the poems themselves are considered the strongest evidence (frankly, pretty much the only evidence) for the existence of the author, and since they weren't written by the same person, that leaves pretty much no room for a historical Homer. Even if a historical Homer existed, such a person could have only made one of the two epics at most, and most of the biographical details must have been invented later. Anyway, the scholarly consensus strongly trends toward no, there wasn't a real Homer. If you want more, go to the Homeric Question page, which covers this in more detail than I could ever hope to.

   Like with Homer, the page Laozi says "By the mid-twentieth century, consensus had emerged among Western scholars that the historicity of a person known as Laozi is doubtful and that the Tao Te Ching is "a compilation of Taoist sayings by many hands", with an author being invented afterwards. The book's conspicuous absence of a central Master figure place it in marked contrast with nearly all other early Chinese philosophical works." This is also well-sourced, and the next paragraph notes that fragments of what later became the Tao Te Ching have been found without being attached to the rest of the document, dating back from before Laozi was said to have been born. This strongly suggests that Laozi was not a real person, but rather, as the article states, a name attached to a book written by many. It is a little hard to come to a consensus surrounding this because Laozi is sometimes considered a religious figure, but frankly virtually no historians would legitimately argue that the Tao Te Ching was actually written by a single author.

   Is it possible that Homer and/or Laozi existed? Yes, it is. But the works attributed to them could not have been written by them in the way that the legends say they were, there is no contemporaneous evidence supporting either of their existence, and there is substantial evidence against the possibility of both of them existing. This project moved Moses and Abraham out of the people section because Level 4 did not have them there, which is because historians consider them to not be real people. Well, this is the same deal. If anything, there is more evidence for Moses than for either of these two. Scholarly consensus strongly trends against both of their existence. Ladtrack (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

   This is not the forum to make these arguments, it should be on the article pages where Homer is considered a real person and Laozi is a source of debate. thanks. 08:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Add Information

This is what is used to inform people about everyday events in the form of books, the news, word of mouth, etc. Interstellarity (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Redundant with communication, knowledge, and sense at this level. Cobblet (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Idiosincrático (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Swap: Remove E (mathematical constant)  3, Add 1  4

(Edited based on some feedback)

TL;DR While e and pi are very important to a range of areas in math, 1 is crucial to virtually every area in math and many beyond that, in both trivial and nontrivial ways. Sorry for the rambling. I was told that my previous explanation lacked sources.

I would honestly be willing to remove any of the numbers on this list (0  3, E (mathematical constant)  3, and Pi  3) in favor of 1. 1 is the foundation on which all other numbers are based. I would argue that that alone would be enough to make sure it's the highest number on the vital article list, especially given how the rest of the list is constructed (eg arithmetic is level 2, while number theory and calculus are level 3 due to arithmetic's more fundamental nature, even though number theory and calculus are probably of more interest to Wikipedia's readers).

With that said, I realize that's not necessarily convincing enough on its own, so I'll try to justify it as much as I can. 1 is fundamental to a much wider range of mathematical areas, including the ones in which e and pi are most important.

Most of the definitions of e given on its own Wikipedia page are linked very closely with 1. The limit definition, where e is the limit as n goes to infinity of (1+1/n)^n, has two ones in it, although that doesn't say as much on its own. Specifically, this definition covers some important properties of 1 as well. It is effectively measuring the relationship between small deviations from 1 and correspondingly large exponents. If you replace the first 1 in the definition with any other number, the limit is either 0, infinity, or doesn't converge. e's use in compound interest is very closely related to excess returns over 1.

It's also defined as the sum from n=0 to infinity of 1/n!, which is sort of a trivial use of 1, but gets at another important point. Because 1 is the multiplicative identity, the reciprocal (or inverse) of any number is obtained by dividing 1 by the number. This results in 1 appearing in a lot of important formulas as the numerator of a fraction, but also results in 1 being removed from a lot of formulas in which it would otherwise appear. If a formula included a 2*pi, for example, we would consider that formula to be an important application of pi (and this happens a lot, to the extent that many mathematicians throughout history have used 6.28... as the circle constant instead of 3.14...) If a formula included a 2*1 or 2/1, the one would simply be omitted.

Some examples of this include the formula for the nth triangular number n*(n+1)/2. In addition to the 1 that already appears in this formula, this formula is also equal to (n+1 choose 2). We would normally express this as n*(n+1)/(2*1), but the 1 gets left out of a formula in which it otherwise plays a useful role. Similarly, the expected value of a random variable with density f(x) is equal to the integral of x*f(x). It should really be divided by the integral of f(x), but since the integral of any probability density function is 1, this again gets left out.

Anyway, on the subject of e, there are also some calculus definitions based around 1. It is defined as exp(1), and is also the unique number such that e^x is its own derivative. It turns out that the derivative of k^x is equal to a constant times k^x for any positive k, but e is the only number for which that constant is exactly 1. Other constants become important due to their relationships with 1.

Pi has a similar story. It's primary definition comes from the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter being 3.14... to 1. Many of its geometric and trigonometric applications come from relationships with the unit circle (radius 1), in which 1 radian corresponds to distance 1, cosine is equal to x/1=x, and sine is y/1=y. The definition of pi in terms of an area of a circle also assumes a circle of radius 1.

I would be happy to keep going with other properties, but I doubt anyone is paying attention at this point anyway. Granted, while the ability to find 1 almost anywhere in the definitions of other constants is sort of an argument in its favor, I realize that it's probably important to show how it stands on its own as crucial to other fields. Here is a non-exhaustive, but pretty broad list of examples.

Arithmetic: the most obvious, but most basic example. 1 is the first number almost every child learns, and through successive additions of 1, every positive integer can be reached. It also forms the basis for continued fractions. It's far from obvious that taking a sequence of fractions with numerator 1 can give simple representations of many important constants, including e, the golden ratio, and the square root of 2. There are generalized continued fractions that can have arbitrary numerators, but the fact that so many of the important properties come from numerator 1 is very significant.

Analysis: Many analysis courses and textbooks begin by taking the number 1 and applying successively more advanced operations to get all of the operations we care about. If you use addition, you can get the natural numbers. With subtraction, you can get the integers. With division, you can get the rationals. With polynomials, you can get the algebraic numbers. With limits, you can get the real and complex numbers. This forms the basis for much of analysis, and thus much of modern calculus. Thus, 1 is crucial not just for simple math, but for much more complex math as well.

Algebra: 1 is the multiplicative identity. This is crucial to many properties of arithmetic and algebra on real and complex numbers, to the extent that the identity element in any group is often given the name 1. The diagonal elements of an identity matrix in any number of dimensions are all 1, and any correlation matrix must have diagonal entries equal to 1 and all other entries between -1 and 1.

Probability: Probabilities are defined to be between 0 and 1. Any certain or almost certain event has probability 1, and many important theorems in probability involve proving that something does or does not have probability 1. All discrete probability distributions sum to 1, and all continuous distributions integrate to 1.

Combinatorics: Pascal's Triangle starts with a single 1 (and arguably an infinite row of 0's), and uses a simple, organized sequence of additions to compute all combination values, forming the basis for a large portion of enumerative combinatorics.

Computer Science: It may seem a bit trivial that computers only use 0's and 1's, but there are still a lot of useful properties that come out of this. The Church-Turing thesis shows that those two numbers and some simple sequences or rules can perform vast amounts of computation, and the fact that 1 is the multiplicative identity means that operations like multiplication on a computer are relatively simple (just shift some bits and add).

Set theory: Advanced set theory courses often begin by defining 0 and 1 in terms of sets, and then building up to all cardinal numbers. Bertrand Russell notably spent hundreds of pages proving that 1+1=2 in Principia Mathematica, which forms the foundation for modern set theory.

Pi and e are very important to certain areas of mathematics. 1 is crucial to almost all areas of mathematics, and in plenty of nontrivial ways as well as the obvious ones.

If 1 seems too simple and not worth including, I would argue that is largely due to the way that sources like Wikipedia currently think about it. Pi has a featured article and e has a good article, so it was easy to find useful facts about them in one place (it's probably also easier to come up with them since you can just scan useful formulas for the symbols). I had to come up with a lot of the 1 properties myself, even though most of them seem important enough that they probably should appear on 1's page. With a successful push from the VA project, I could easily imagine a 1 article that demonstrates just how vital it is in nontrivial ways.

Sorry about the rambling. I've thought about this for a while, and some people in the discussion thought that this explanation could use more evidence.

Support

MathAndCheese (talk) 01:55, 24 Aug 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Remsense ‥ 论 02:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
2. e is a constant that appears in formulas in a wide variety of seemingly disparate disciplines. The fact that something so seemingly 'trivial' (trivial defined very loosely) appears so often in groundbreaking and fundamental theorems indicates its higher levels of importance. If I'm using VA as a method for figuring out what's most important to learn, I would want to teach people about e first, before 1 which is more 'trivial' and has less non-intuitive properties that people already innately know even if it may objectively appear in more mathematical statements. Aurangzebra (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

   I honestly thought your second sentence was an argument for 1 until I saw that it was under the "Oppose" section. If you replace "e" with "1" in the first two sentences, they sound just as reasonable if not more. I think I understand what you're trying to say, but the fact that e coming up frequently is "surprising" in some sense, while 1 comes up more frequently without being surprising, speaks to 1's importance.

   I'm not really sure of how you can teach people about e before 1 (although again I probably see what you're trying to get at). If you already know the important properties of 1, you can always skip the article, but that doesn't make it less important. I don't think that the vital article project should make assumptions about people's knowledge, and the current placement of more "obvious" topics at higher levels seems to reflect that. MathAndCheese (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

3. Opoose per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose – Idiosincrático (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Each reason given is faulty in one way or another, and none are based directly in what we write the encyclopedia around, which is the interest afforded in reliable sources. I would go as far as to say that the point raised about "some numbers taking longer to come about, ergo less vital" (my paraphrasing) is perfectly backwards. A huge portion of the history and present richness contained in mathematics is unmistakably intertwined with and rooted in e, π, and 0. While 1 is unmistakably interesting and the concept of the unit is philosophically central, there is not nearly as much to say in terms of breadth and depth. If I had to hazard my own negative critique—1 is almost too fundamental to approach the same levels of interest; that of the kind gestured to by the OP seems superficial. Remsense ‥ 论 02:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a fair critique, but I think it partially comes down to a difference of opinion on what this list tends to represent. In practice, the list does tend to favor things for their importance or fundamental nature over what people may need to learn from an encyclopedia. Arithmetic appears at level 2, while topics like number theory and calculus do not. I'm sure that there aren't a lot of people coming to Wikipedia to learn about arithmetic, but it is an important topic that is so fundamental to other branches of mathematics that it gets a spot in a higher level. In general, if there is a topic on this list that can't be understood without first understanding some more fundamental topic, the more fundamental topic tends to be placed at a higher level, even if it is more abstract and of less interest to a typical reader. I don't claim that it necessarily should be that way, but this does seem more consistent with the way that the rest of this list is constructed. MathAndCheese (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The only way we meaningfully define "importance" is attestation in sources. Remsense ‥ 论 21:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Surely that's also an argument for 1 then? I'm not sure of exactly what you mean by "attestation in sources," but I can't imagine a meaning in which 1 doesn't come out ahead of e and pi. The 5 listed criteria on the Vital Article page are:

Coverage: It's hard to define whether a number is "broader in scope" than another, but if I had to choose 1 or e, I'd think 1 is the clear choice just for how broadly applicable it is.

Essential to Wikipedia's other articles: 1 is crucial to virtually every math and science article and many in other topics.

Notability: Seems to be mostly referring to people, but "material impact on the course of humanity" seems to apply more closely to 1.

No (Western) bias: Probably doesn't apply

Pageviews: In favor of pi and e MathAndCheese (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, each point is based on your personal opinions and not what any reliable sources say. Remsense ‥ 论 22:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I only just understood what you meant by "reliable sources." I've thought about this for a while, so I think I made some assumptions about what people would and wouldn't find important, and I omitted a lot of the evidence that I was using in my head. I realize that my explanation ended up pretty long and rambling, but I hope it addresses your concerns about using evidence to support my point. I'd love to hear what you think. MathAndCheese (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This proposal is essentially inactive, but it's disappointing when an editor thinks ChatGPT will somehow come up with additional compelling arguments and evidence for their case they were unable to convince anyone of previously. This shows a fundamental lack of respect for and engagement with the counterarguments already given to you. Remsense ‥ 论 23:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Add Franklin D. Roosevelt

compare reasoning by @Aszx5000 in the "Add Peter the Great" discussion.

Hitler, Stalin (and Mao) are already there, with Roosevelt missing. Similarly Washington and Lincoln are included, with FDR being the only other US President consistently ranked in the top three with them, also missing.

I'm aware there are efforts not to be too US-centric here, but if anything Washington and Lincoln are vastly less important as leaders on a global level than Roosevelt (or any modern US president, frankly). Many of the other world leaders listed here are taken from the high points of that nations relative power, whereas these two come mostly from Americas founding mythology and did not have anything close to the international standing during their time as some of the other leaders here had. (This is not a suggestion to remove or swap either of them, to be clear) — jonas (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all authoritarian dictators and had significant personal influence over their countries. Roosevelt is an influential president in shaping US policy, but I think he isn't as important of an individual on an international stage due to the nature of America's government requiring input from many individuals to function. I would not rank him "top three," as subjective as those lists are. Jefferson had an impact still felt centuries later, for example. Woodrow Wilson would likely be as influential as FDR, from a long-term point of view. I'd rather see all the other US presidents all brought down a level than see more get brought up.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

   FDR is considerably more influential than Wilson and his presidency was more influential than Jefferson's _pbp 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose. I think two should be the limit for U.S. presidents here. The most vital president is definitely Lincoln. As for the second one, FDR and Washington both have good reasons to be listed, but I think Washington is a bit more vital than Roosevelt. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose – per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

1. Comment @QuicoleJR and @Purplebackpack89 I strongly disagree that FDR was more vital of an individual than Jefferson. His presidency was impactful, no doubt, but Jeffersons impact exceeds his time as president. Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, for starters. His presidency saw the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory. He is one of the presidents who set the stage for everything that was to come. Woodrow Wilson played a huge role domestically and internationally in WWI. His domestic policy is what set the precedent for FDR to do what he did, and in fact, FDR was the vice-presidential nominee in the 1920 United States presidential election that immediately followed Wilson's terms in office and would have likely been a continuation of much of Wilsons administration. Vitalness is a difficult thing to quantify, but Washington and Jefferson are both massively important more than 200 years later. Lincoln was president during the most challenging events in U.S. history, but I would not consider him the most vital, just the most popular to remember in public consciousness. Roosevelt was president during the World War and had some major domestic policy changes, which is certainly noteworthy and would be in the top 10 levels of importance, but somewhere around Wilson, in my opinion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   History major here. The idea that FDR and Wilson equate in influence is laughable and not supported by any reputable historian. If, for no other reason, consider how they were viewed at the end of their presidencies: Wilson was essentially a persona non grata, his party was repudiated and would be repudiated for another decade. When FDR died, there was essentially a continuous line of people from Warm Springs to Hyde Park to pay respects and his party would control government for most of the ensuing two plus decades (Ike was really non-partisan rather a Republican).

   No, Wilson's domestic policy did NOT set the precedent for FDR's policy. Wilson didn't have anything anywhere near close to the New Deal. FDR did NOT win in 1920 and, if he had, his party would have governed much differently than he did. I might add the New Deal doesn't really figure in your analysis of FDR, even though it "set the stage for everything that was to come". Almost every successive Democratic president has sought to expand the New Deal welfare state and civil rights; every Republican president since Nixon has sought to contract the welfare state and ignore issues of civil rights.

   Also, your spelling is awful. _pbp 15:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Lol, I fixed the spelling; that's what I get for checking the internet before coffee while working in markup. I’m to used to throwing a word out, having Grammarly catch my drift.

Wilson literally had a campaign platform called "The New Freedom" that focused on major reforms in agriculture, labor, banking, business, and tariffs. On Encyclopedia Britanica, it states, "By the extensive use of federal power to protect the common man, the New Freedom anticipated the centralized approaches of the New Deal 20 years later."

The Federal Reserve Act created the central bank of the U.S., and he created the Federal Trade Commission and Internal Revenue Service. He definitely set the stage for FDR, and we can't know if the FDR party would have governed differently if his ticket had won in 1920; that is just speculation.

FDR died during wartime before we could cool off and see the mess of reconstruction. If he had lived, I don't know if that would be the case. Like Abraham Lincoln, it is really easy to make a hero of a dead president. Truman dealt with the aftermath and isn't viewed nearly as well as FDR.

I don't know if you think this is reputable, but the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project states "Wilson had a great influence on both Roosevelts. FDR served as his assistant secretary of the navy and carefully observed the harsh lessons Wilson's campaign for the League of Nations exacted on his presidency. ER embraced Wilson's commitment to progressive reform and his passionate commitment to the League of Nations. He closely observed the scathing treatment Edith Wilson received from the press when the first lady did not conceal her influence within the administration." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not particularly down for you shitting on Harry Truman either...the end of WW2, the beginning of the Cold War, the Fair Deal, integration of the armed forces...a lot of historians rate HIM as a better president than Wilson _pbp 23:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not particularly "particularly down" with what your tone, the last two comments have felt very uncivil, especially your language in the last one. These people are complicated individuals and discussing their impact and historical significance needs to be doable without having a nationalistic knee jerk reaction to defend them. There is an entire page dedicated to Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and not the least of the reasons was these was Executive Order 9066. Regardless, you're conflating how good these presidents were with how impactful and vital they were. Hitler is extremely vital to understand, but he is not a very good guy in my strong personal opinion. FDR was the center of a lot of propaganda, and he died during a war before he had to get his hands dirty with the post war period, which in my opinion is largely why he is remembered so fondly and why Truman initially had a very low public opinion when he left office. All the bad stuff was pinned on Truman, all the good stuff credited to the late FDR. How good or bad they were as presidents isn't really that important, the question is how vital they are, and I don't think they are vital enough for level 3. In American History would definitely rank them below Thomas Jefferson in terms of how overall vital they are to the understanding of the history of the United State. Globally, Jefferson did some things that had major impacts on the world as a whole. Jefferson is the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence. Check the "legacy" section of that page. He wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which is the precursor to the establishment clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is the foundation for Freedom of religion in the United States, which has a pretty significant impact in the rise of Secularism globally. Jefferson still had slaves, which makes him a pretty bad guy in my personal opinion. I still think he is extremely important as a historic figure, at a global level, exceeding FDR and every former president besides George "Conotocaurius" Washington. I still wouldn't put Jefferson at Level 3. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I never said Jefferson was less or more important overall, however I DID say FDR was a better President. I don't know if you noticed, but I never actually supported FDR's inclusion, merely criticized your line of opposition to it.

Tone, schmone, deal with it. I HATE it when people police my tone. And you've got to understand that the reason I'm frustrated you is that you're a non-history major (granted, geography is a related discipline) and you've fallen for fringe and revisionist viewpoints, such as "what if FDR had lived after the end of World War II", again forgetting that Harry Truman is himself thought of as a Top 8 president ever. In particular, the criticism of FDR page is fring and and revisionist; it seems to exist because FDR is frequent target of right-wing POV pushing. And I don't know where this "nationalist kneejerk" comment is coming from...I'm not praising FDR while damning non-Americans. _pbp 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Truman is only thought of as one of the "top 9 presidents ever" in hindsight when it comes to how "good" their presidency was; immediately after his presidency, he had an extremely low approval rating. The goodness of a president is not relevant to how "vital" they are for inclusion, and the "goodness" rating and "impactful" rating are completely different but equally subjective things. I'm referring to the latter when I say that FDR and Wilson are equally impactful in the long term. My line of opposition is based on my own subjective opinion, of course. One paper I'd recommend reading is Cognitive psychology: Forgetting the presidents as I think it covers some of the things related to memorability and relates to what I think would make a president "vital" to the understanding of the American story and the world as a whole.

Tone is very important when discussing things online, and is one Wikipedia:Five pillars, and part of [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]. The talk pages aren't like Reddit or Facebook, there is supposed be a bit more civil approach. I don't like it when people swear at me due to their frustration, and if a co-author on another publication were to speak like that, it would not be acceptable. Not that it matters, but I have a minor in history as an undergrad left over from when I changed from a history major to geography. Most of my undergraduate geography gen-ed is in history, and I almost got a double major but decided to go for a second minor instead. I have studied Historical geography a bit, worked on journal articles and projects involving historical research as part of my GA funding, and am currently working on some projects. Our personal credentials are not really important, however, on Wikipedia. Sources are what matters here; you can't just declare something fringe and "right-wing POV pushing" to dismiss it. I'm sorry that it frustrates you that I don't defer to you or change my opinion because of your degree. Your language seems aggressive, and you're making personal remarks about my background to dismiss my point of view or interpretation is frustrating to me. Maybe knowing more of my formal credentials and background will frustrate you less though, or maybe it will just cause you to further dismiss me as only having a "minor" in history.

The "nationalist kneejerk comment" refers to you not being "particularly down" with my criticism of Truman "either". This is where tone is important; it seemed like you were communicating that he was above criticism, and your Userbox declaring, "This user worships Franklin D. Roosevelt as a God" definitely reinforces my opinion on the matter. This tone and statement, coupled with your userbox, comes off to me as a defense of a National symbol. Historians discussing presidents or any historical figure are going to offer both criticism and praise, and political groups will also criticize them. Criticism of FDR and Truman is not necessarily "right-wing POV pushing" anymore than praise is "left-wing POV pushing." In the case of Truman, he didn't run in 1952 in part because of his poor polls, and when he left office, his polls were extremely low. Only decades after his death have historians begun to view him much more favorably than his contemporaries viewed him. Speculation that if FDR had remained in office, he might have lost some popularity is only speculation that FDR and Truman might have taken similar actions and been perceived similarly. This is pure speculation as we can't exactly test this with an experiment, but that is true of all "what if" statements in history. Similar speculation was brought up in a history class I took when discussing the popularity of Lincoln compared to his successor, and it was immediately compared to public perceptions of FDR and JFK. It isn't something I'm creative enough to come up with myself. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Broad reorganziation of certain career paths listings under "People."

I'm looking at the organization of these pages, and it is difficult to wrap my mind around how haphazard things are. Trying to fix the latest problem I've noted is a bit daunting, so I'm proposing it more generally to see if there is any consensus that it is a problem, and how to proceed. The category of artists, scientists, Mathematicians, and Musicians, etc. is at level 3, however the pages for these career fields are Artist:Level 4, Scientist:Level 5, Mathematician:Level 5, and Musician:Level 5. This pattern continues through the career paths under people. Based on my understanding, these fields should be higher level then the subfields. I would propose moving Artist, scientist, mathematician, musician, writer, Exploration, Filmmaking, etc. to at least level 3. We can remove some of the individual people in these categories to make room, as I struggle to see how any individual artist, scientist, mathematician, etc. would be higher importance then the career field that defines their category. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. We can remove some of the individual people in these categories to make room, as I struggle to see how any individual artist, scientist, mathematician, etc. would be higher importance then the career field that defines their category tells me that this proposal was not made on a well-founded understanding of how these articles relate to one another. It is perfectly reasonable for examples of a broad category to be more vital than the category itself. If you have further questions, consider asking first instead of drafting a proposal to remove the thing you're confused about. Remsense ‥ 论 23:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Add Conspiracy theory

Conspiracy theories has been used throughout history to downplay major world events in history.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The proposal is insultingly lazy. If you can't be bothered to explain why, please stop trying to change what we consider to be our most important articles. Remsense ‥ 论 22:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Theory  4, Scientific theory  4, Pseudoscience  4 and Fallacy  4 are only level 4, I'm not convinced this is that more important.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Per Laukku, I'm not convinced this is one of the most vital topics throughout all of human knowledge. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose – per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
5. Oppose - per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
6. Oppose per above. Redundant to science, logic, history, etc. at this level. Gizza (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Tiny change

The "people" category seems to put it in chronological order of when they were born, yet Van Gogh and Picasso's positions are switched. It's not much of a difference but I'd recommend swapping their spots.

Thank you. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Be bold and do it! The Blue Rider 19:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't, as the page is extended - protected which requires 500 edits (amongst other things), while I only have a little over for 400. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)