Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Archive 1

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles | Level/5 | People
Latest comment: 9 months ago by Starship.paint in topic Move Henry Chadwick (writer) to Journalists
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

American "other" politicians removals

Latest comment: 11 months ago235 comments13 people in discussion

We've been having discussions recently about what makes US Presidents vital, with some even getting removed from the list. But something that sticks out to me upon reading our list of politicians is that the "Other" sections for American politicians are astoundingly large, longer even than the lists of presidents. Reading some of the entries, I'm shocked that many would be considered Vital by any metric, with so many examples of first ladies, senators, vice presidents, state governors and local mayors. Many of these people I had never heard of before, and upon looking through their articles, I can understand why. When going through them I asked myself a simple question "Would this biography be considered vital were it about someone from anywhere other than the United States?" I'm starting with the contemporary articles (44 entries), I'll later move on to late modern (48 entries) then early modern (16 entries). Of the contemporary articles, I identified 23 for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support all. (I had minor reservations for Romney and Senders, which are the only two I've heard about before, but... nah, to modern/not that influential to be vital; vital = leaders of major movements/people who achieved something besides being in the media and being runner ups, vice-whatevers, and such). Sorry, to tired to copypaste my sig to ~20 subsections below. I give permission to nom or anyone else to do this if they care. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose most Three reasons:
  1. The bloat of Americans is much more serious in the activists, jurists, actors, and other sections than it is here, and many of the figures being nominated are easily more notable than half the American activists that are left untouched
  2. The nominations seem to be coming from someone who doesn't understand American history and institutions. The nominations indicate a lack of understanding of a) separation of powers between the branches of government (Congress theoretically holds equal power to the Presidency, making the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader and President Pro Tem, and the chairs of major House and Senate committees) b) federalism (a lot of powers held by central governments in other countries are handled by state governments in the US) c) the two-party system (losing an American presidential election in the post-1945 era means you still enjoyed the support of 50 million or more people). In addition, Piotrus knee-jerked supported all of them without applying any scrutiny, and freely admits to not having heard of
  3. I can and will make individual cases for why each of these is notable. pbp 18:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
    1. I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. Also, you're well aware that I have nominated dozens of activists for removal. By all means go ahead and nominate others from there that you think should be removed.
    2. Separation of powers, federalism and two-party systems aren't unique to the United States.
    3. Ok. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Activists vs. politicians is NOT apples and oranges because the line between politics and activism is a blurred line. Take environmentalism for example. We have environmental activists such as John Muir listed under activists. However, the person who established the Environmental Protection Agency, the person who put California on a progressive environmentalist track, and the current Presidential Climate Envoy all are listed under politicians (and the latter two are up for removal!)
Finally, let's address the question, "Would this biography be considered vital were it about someone from anywhere other than the United States?" As far as British leaders and politicians go, in almost every era, we have somebody who wasn't the monarch because we almost always have the sitting Prime minister. In addition, there's frequently somebody else beside the monarch and PM...a consort, a royal, a backbencher... pbp 19:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
@Grnrchst: The more I think about, the more your removals and non-removals seem entirely arbitrary. For example, you've nominated Hubert Humphrey, Mitt Romney and Bernie Sanders for removal but not George McGovern or Shirley Chisholm. Hubert Humphrey was Vice-president and lost a close presidential election; McGovern was never Vice-president and got clobbered. Shirley Chisholm lost a nomination; Bernie Sanders lost two and Mitt Romney won one. What's your methodology? pbp 17:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
U.S. politicians to me seem underrepresented if anything. With its proclivity for producing important single politicians and its status as the most important economic power with a democracy in the world, it's very tough for me to justify most of these removals. I assure the nominator that these politicians' importance are orders of magnitude greater than our representative from Nauru, our representative from St Vincent and the Grenadines, the 5 Guyana politicians listed, and the 4 Uruguay politicians listed. It also, really, isn't helpful to pick these removals seemingly at random. There are some low-hanging fruit, but the best way to go about is to ask someone in the know to compile a list – that way you're not proposing to remove Goldwater, Thurmond, Wallace. J947 ‡ edits 20:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm simply becoming less and less convinced that these removals are warranted. The United States is a country of 330 million people and has 58 contemporary politicians listed – one for every 5.72 million. As for comparable countries: the UK, excluding royals, has one for every 3.21 million; Canada has one for every 2.55 million; Australia has one for every 1.35 million. The U.S. is the big brother in a sense for all these countries. I'm hardly one to complain the Americans aren't being treated fairly, but these proposals to decrease U.S. representation to one contemporary politician for every 9.49 million inhabitants will in the long run be viewed as a mistake. J947 ‡ edits 23:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider: Hey, just wondering if you read my general rationale above for opposing the American politicians removals and my specific rationale on various politicians. To call it knee-jerk is kind of disrespectful and ignores the nuances of what I said. I'm frustrated by the original nominator, who clearly blanket-nominated a whole bunch of people without due diligence. And now I have two other people, Piotrus and you, blanket support every single proposal, again without much scrutiny. I have a degree in American history and, not to toot my horn too much, but I feel I'm more of an expert in American politicians than most of the other VA editors. And I feel like my expertise is going to be outvoted by people with little or no knowledge of American history. pbp 15:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

+1. To be honest, I've been trying my best not to kneejerk oppose every single one but it's my opinion that most of these articles nominated for removal are top 25,000. I don't really want to blanket-oppose because I think American politicians are more important than most do – and voting on individual proposals because of where one wants the quota to be is rude – but if 3 people are blanket-supporting and the bar for a proposal passing is just 55%, it's going to be incredibly hard not to. And at least if you're going to do so, vote to remove someone much less vital than Goldwater/Wallace/Thurmond like Donald Rumsfeld, Ross Perot, George McGovern, and Daniel Inouye – all of whom I would consider voting to remove and some of whom pbp – the expert here – might as well. J947 ‡ edits 22:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I read your rationales and most of them were not particularly convincing, the positions that most of these politicians held (senators, governorates, etc) are not significant enough to reach vitality. You seem to be doing inherent arguments, I wanna know what they actually done in the office instead of what were their titles. I disagree with J947's premise that US politics are actually that important that warrants such a big disproportion on the quota between (other major) countries. Nevertheless, as a show of good-faith, I will withdraw my vote on George Wallace, Barry Goldwater, Robert McNamara and oppose George F. Kennan. The Blue Rider   15:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that! I will meet you in the middle by proposing a removal and discussion myself, and fleshing out my rationale. pbp 19:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Interstellarity: I notice you voted "support" on a bunch of these but you didn't actually give any rationale. What is your rationale? Are you just blindly voting support for whatever reason? Did you read the rationales I gave for opposing the removals? pbp 13:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Purplebackpack89: For now, I have removed my supports for the politicians. Basically, I was trying to speed up development of the list so that it would get better with time. Although most nominations come with good intentions, I should have been more careful with where I throw in my support. Unless it has a snowball’s chance in hell of passing, it would be good to provide a rationale in future nominations. Thank you, I will adjust my behavior accordingly. Interstellarity (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove Spiro Agnew

PASSED
6-0 The Blue Rider   15:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


This guy was Nixon's vice president and was involved in Watergate, but as far as I can tell, he's not really notable for anything other than that. Honestly I'm only even aware of this guy's name because of a joke in Futurama.

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support an unspectacular VP.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Just as purplebackpack89 is knee-jerking opposing everything, I will knee-jerk support everything. The United States only got their independence in 1776 and they only became the hegemonic global power in 1991!! They are not that important of a country, this list of SO but SO americacentric and recentist, let's stop doing appeals to novelty. Thank you. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    pbp did not oppose everything. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    Only two proposals he didn't oppose, besides pbp didn't support anything either. The Blue Rider   15:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    He actually did support one. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure it's more than two that I passed on. And for ALL the ones I opposed I gave reasons stating their significance. You haven’t. pbp 16:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    I support per nominator on most. The Blue Rider   16:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    that's barely better than no rationale at all. Did you even read the ledes and Infoboxes of all the people you voted on? pbp 17:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    @The Blue Rider: Please read my comment above explaining why I oppose this proposal, and my specific comments as to the notability of specific entries. Also, 1991 for the US as a world power? From 1914, they were one of a handful and from 1945 they were one of two. pbp 15:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    I specified that it was hegemonic, a lot of political identities acquired that status throughout history and you don't see nearly as much entries about them as you see about the United States, plus since the subprime crisis a lot of scholars start noting that we now live in a multipolar world, so the United States is slowly losing its status. The Blue Rider   15:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    Compare how Britian 1815-1945 is covered. We have all the monarchs AND almost all the Prime Ministers AND usually a royal or a backbencher. Even post-1945, we have three royals other than QE2 and C3 (not counting the Queen Mum, listed pre-1945), and six non-PM politicians, even though Britain was no longer a world power.
    We have 8 Nazi politicians even though that regime lasted only 12 years. 23 Soviets and Russians from 1945 to now. Early modern, modern and contemporary combine for 66 articles. We have four Luxembourgers post-1945 and two Monaguesques even though Monaco is tiny.
    Also consider activists, which is far more bloated in favor of Americans than politicians is. Why are politicians targeted but not activists? pbp 17:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Interstellarity (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  6. Was uncommittal as this is a name I recognise but little lasting importance. Better options. J947 ‡ edits 23:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Courtesy ping to the article's FA nominator @Brianboulton: Do you think Spiro Agnew's biography is vital to the encyclopedia? Is there something about Agnew that you think makes him one of the most ~2,500 most important politicians in history? --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Brianboulton has unfortunately passed away. J947 † edits 06:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Agnew is ironically more known for resigning the Vice-Presidency than serving in it pbp 20:36, 20 November 2023 (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.


Remove Robert Byrd

PASSED
4-3 The Blue Rider   15:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


Byrd was a senator that served in the senate for a really long time. Is there something he did during his long tenure that makes him vital? He's clearly been involved in a lot of political debate, but nothing sticks out to me. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Totalibe (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Easily more notable than most of the American activists listed. The thing about the Senate is that you're 1 of a 100 and it has certain rules, such as holds and the filibuster, that damn near allow one Senator to stall the entire government. Also, Byrd was President Pro Tem of the Senate (after Prez, VP and Speaker, next in line to the Presidency) for 11 years, Senate Majority Leader for six years, and Chair of the Appropriations committee for eight years. The Appropriations Chairmanship allowed him great access to pork barrel spending. pbp 19:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Because of his lengthy tenures in highly influential federal positions, I'll oppose for now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose per above. J947 ‡ edits 23:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Remove Richard J. Daley

FAILED
3-4 The Blue Rider   15:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


The mayor of Chicago for two decades, he seems to mostly be notable for his handling of the events of 1968 and allegations of corruption. Doesn't seem to particularly stand out from other local mayors. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
    It is very hard to become vital as a mayor, and this guy does not make it. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
    Still not sure about this one, but I am moving to neutral due to the arguments made by pbp. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Easily more notable than most of the American activists listed. This nomination complete lacks understanding of who Ricard Daley was. First off, he was mayor of a city of 2-3 million people for two decades. Also, he was chair of the Cook County political machine, which, combined with his mayorship, afforded him complete and total control over the city and a great deal of influence in state and national Democratic Party politics. His machine won Kennedy the Presidency. Oh, and 1968. pbp 19:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. One of the most influential Mayors who ever lived. Probably had more influence on the presidential selection than any mayor in history.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. The nominator's summary of Daley could not be more incorrect. Despie being just a mayor, he was extremely influential in the development of the modern Democratic Party. Curbon7 (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose: mayors are very rarely vital if they're not New York or London, but this guy makes it. J947 ‡ edits 23:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Remove Thomas E. Dewey

NO CONSENSUS
4-4 The Blue Rider   15:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


A state governor and lawyer most notable for his crackdown against organised crime. Not sure how he's vital exactly. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. He is an important footnote in history. I am having trouble elevating him above that. I respect his role in law enforcement, but still no.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
    I would argue that this level contains a lot of "important footnotes" like this. This one is one of the more important ones. Also, there is this, which clearly shows that he enjoyed the support of a large portion of the country. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Easily more notable than most of the American activists listed. Serving as the Governor of a very large state for a dozen years, twice winning the Republican nomination for President, coming within a hair's breadth of winning? Terrible nomination. pbp 19:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per pbp. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Totalibe (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. J947 ‡ edits 23:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Remove Bob Dole

PASSED
3-2 The Blue Rider   15:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


Another senator that I don't understand the case for inclusion here. What did he do that was so vital to know about? This is another person I only know about through pop culture, this time as a Simpsons joke. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Easily more notable than most of the American activists listed. First off, won a major-party Presidential nomination AND earlier a major-party Vice-Presidential nomination (lost both). A Senator for 27 years, and a Congressman for eight more. Senate Majority or Minority Leader for 11 years. pbp 19:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose; ^ that's a lot. J947 ‡ edits 23:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Remove Barry Goldwater

FAILED
Not removed, 2-7 pbp 23:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

One of the main opponents of the Johnson administration, was a proponent of the Southern Strategy and a key figure in early US libertarianism. How any of this makes him vital, I'm uncertain, although I think the Southern Strategy may have had the most impact. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. His 1964 presidential candidacy represents an inflection point in American conservatism and his libertarian streak is also quite important. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Easily more notable than most of the American activists listed. Also, per Wasted Time. pbp 19:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. If any non-presidents are to be listed... J947 † edits 06:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. His role in realigning the parties and reinventing libertarianism and conservatism shifted the GOP to a conservative direction. This is widely established and discussed upon in books and studies as referenced. Hence, Goldwater is a clearly vital US presidential candidate in my opinion (and I am a non-American). VickKiang (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Totalibe (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  6. Significant impact on conservative politics in the country. starship.paint (RUN) 15:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  7. The progenitor of modern American conservatism. Curbon7 (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Remove Carl Hayden

PASSED
5-2 The Blue Rider   15:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


Another long-serving US senator, that seems to have been most notable for his influence on the US highway system and his behind-the-scenes dealings in the senate. Again, not sure what makes him vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Totalibe (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Interstellarity (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  6. Finding myself here because although he was influential, other New Deal figures were moreso. Curbon7 (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Largely for his tenure as President ProTem and length in office.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. We generally are tentative in listing politicky politicians and that contributes to our not listing of Biden and Bill Clinton on VA4, if you follow me. This guy, however, seems more of an influential infrastructure guy than a politicky politician; in terms of impact he's less a politician and more a civil servant. It's the sort of understated influence we, and encyclopaedias in general, desire to cover. Combined with his very long tenure, he makes the cut IMO. J947 ‡ edits 00:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Discuss

This is one that I'm probably OK with losing from the list, but I gotta play devil's advocate on your nomination...you said "influence on the US highway system" but "not sure what makes him vital". So...the Interstate Highway System and the New Deal public works projects don't make you vital. Next to FDR and Ike, Carl Hayden may have had the greatest impact on American infrastructure from 1930 to 1970. pbp 19:37, 20 November 2023 (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.

Remove Jesse Helms

PASSED
6-0 The Blue Rider   15:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


Another long-serving US senator. Seems to have been a prominent opponent of various social reforms and part of the conservative wave that peaked with the Reagan presidency. Nothing stands out to me. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Interstellarity (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  6. Helms is an interesting figure, but not particularly distinct. Curbon7 (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
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.

Remove Hubert Humphrey

PASSED
4-2 The Blue Rider   15:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


A prominent liberal senator and LBJ's vice president. Nothing stands out to me as making this biography vital reading. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. More notable than activists and politicians that are being retained. Seems arbitrary that he's up for removal and not some others. pbp 18:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose; prominent liberal senator. J947 ‡ edits 23:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Remove George F. Kennan

FAILED
2-6 The Blue Rider   15:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


Seems to have been influential in Truman's post-war anti-Soviet policies. But I associate these with Truman, more so than Kennan. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Don't know if he belongs with politicians or with some other classification, but he had a profound effect on initial U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War and on thinking about American diplomacy overall. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per Wasted Time. Easily more notable than most of the American activists listed. pbp 19:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. I think we should have a few people notable as diplomats. Although his diplomatic tenures were short, his advisor roles seem prominent.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Important and influential internationalist during the Cold War period. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    Also related to US's Cold War foreign policy, we could consider adding Nicholas J. Spykman. The Blue Rider   17:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  5. Vital for an encyclopaedia to cover. J947 ‡ edits 23:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  6. One of the most important foreign policy thinkers of the whole Cold War, significantly influenced two fields of international relations. Curbon7 (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Remove John Kerry

PASSED
4-2 The Blue Rider   15:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


He's a politician that's been around a long time, but I struggle to seem as anything more than another person in various democratic administrations. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Easily more notable than most of the American activists listed. First off, I'd argue winning a party nomination in this era makes you notable (59 million people voted for him! By comparison, only 27 million votes TOTAL were cast in the 2005 British parliamentary elections). Was a U.S. Senator for 28 years, Secretary of State for 4 years, and a Committee Chair for 4 years. pbp 19:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. I don't agree that winning a party nomination makes one automatically vital, but in addition to almost becoming U.S. president he's been an important politicial figure for over 50 years including being secretary of state. The number of U.S. politicians who've been around since the early '70s is remarkable; you really don't see that in any other country. It shows how individual-based the U.S. system is, and therefore how important it is to list plentiful contemporary American politicians because in a handful of men a world superpower is controlled.
    Though what the U.S. does have is far too many late modern politicians listed, at least given the fact that we list 917 contemporary politicians and just 493 late modern, and the U.S. has more in the late modern category when it was significantly less influential. J947 ‡ edits 00:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Remove Mitch McConnell

FAILED
Not Removed, 3-5 pbp 23:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

Another long-serving senator, that is rather influential in Republican federal politics. But vital?

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Easily more notable than most of the American activists listed. If by "rather influential in Republican federal politics", you really mean, had more or equal power to President Obama for long portions of his term... pbp 19:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. The way he finagled the Scalia and Ginsberg seats changed history in a way that makes him vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. The U.S. system is weird but he's sort of been 'leader' of the Republican Party for the past 17 years and has an influence spanning the past 50 years. Add in the above, and he's clearly vital at this level. J947 ‡ edits 22:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. per all opposers above. Influential on the Senate, influential on the presidency, influential on the Supreme Court. starship.paint (RUN) 16:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Remove Robert McNamara

FAILED
Not removed, 2-6 pbp 13:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

He was the secretary of defense during the JFK and LBJ administrations, but I can't see anything that makes him independently vital of either. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Architect of the truly disastrous Vietnam War strategy. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per Wasted Time. Easily more notable than most of the American activists listed. pbp 19:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per Wasted Time, plus the fact that he also had a major effect on the World Bank. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Significantly shaped American foreign policy through the Vietnam War. Curbon7 (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  6. J947 ‡ edits 23:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Remove Walter Mondale

PASSED
Removed, 5-1 pbp 13:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

A senator, diplomat and lawyer. I don't see anything remotely vital about his biography. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Interstellarity (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose; think Mondale squeaks over the bar. J947 ‡ edits 23:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
You left out that he was Vice-president for four years and won the 1984 Democratic nomination pbp 14:26, 1 December 2023 (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.

Remove Tip O'Neill

PASSED
4-3 The Blue Rider   15:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


A long-serving house representative. I don't see anything vital about his biography. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Totalibe (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose: House speaker (i.e., House leader) for 10 years in what seems an influential tenure. That sort of role passes the bar for the U.S. J947 ‡ edits 00:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    Make that oppose per Curbon. J947 ‡ edits 22:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Most powerful speaker since Cannon. Curbon7 (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Curbon. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Remove Nancy Reagan

PASSED
Removed, 8-0 pbp 13:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

A first lady of the US. Her highest-profile activities include a failed anti-drugs campaign and bringing an astrologer into the White House. Not sure how she's vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. This is about the only removal I can get behind. We DO need to have women on the list, but Betty Ford may be a better choice than Nancy Reagan. pbp 19:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. J947 † edits 06:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  6. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  7. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  8. Interstellarity (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
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.

Remove Harry Reid

PASSED
5-3 The Blue Rider   15:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


Another long-serving senator that I don't understand the perceived vitality of. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Given the already-existing bias towards US politicians, he doesn't really seem to stand out, especially given that his time as Senate Leader largely coincided with the Presidency of fellow party member Obama (which rather overrides him in vitality) Totalibe (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Important cog in Obama-era governance, but not as important as other figures of the era. Curbon7 (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Easily more notable than most of the American activists listed. Being the Majority or Minority Leader of the Senate is pretty damn important. pbp 19:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. One of only 3 people to be senate Majority leader for 8 years.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Weakly. J947 ‡ edits 23:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Discuss

Re nom: if you don't understand the perceived vitality of being majority leader and 30-year senator, while many regulars here do have interest in American politics, then it's probably best to steer clear of this area. In order to make informed judgements at VA5 it is unfortunately necessary to have a lot of background knowledge, or help from outside lists of importance like Starship.paint is rightly using in the jurists section below. J947 ‡ edits 23:41, 5 December 2023 (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.

Remove Mitt Romney

NO CONSENSUS
3-3 The Blue Rider   15:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


A former executive and governor, now a senator. I mostly know of this guy as Obama's opponent in 2012, but I don't see much else about him that seems particularly noteworthy. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Easily more notable than most of the American activists listed. As with Kerry, I'd argue winning a major party nomination is enough. Also served as a governor of one state, a Senator of another, a corporate head and the organizer of the Salt Lake Olympics. pbp 19:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. He is exemplary a successful politician who was not a career politician.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Weakly. J947 ‡ edits 23:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Courtesy ping to FA nominator @Wasted Time R: Do you think Mitt Romney's biography is vital to the encyclopedia? Is there something about Romney that you think makes him one of the most ~2,500 most important politicians in history? --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. No, it's not vital, although he has gotten a new biography just written about him (Romney: A Reckoning, by McKay Coppins) given that he's become a lonely moral voice in the U.S. Republican Party. I agree that a lot of the names you have nominated here could go, although I didn't look at what you let stay and I don't have a good sense for how these vital levels are formed. However I have flagged four that I definitely think should stay. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2023 (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.

Remove Bernie Sanders

FAILED
3-4 The Blue Rider   15:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


I get that the American left loves this guy and he's been a prominent US senator, but I don't think there's much in his biography that stands out to me as vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Prime example of the bias trinity (americentric, recentist and androcentric). The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose. I mean he's pretty influential – long-serving Independent representative, runner-up presidential primary candidate – and one of the most vital politicians of the 2010s, but I do understand the desire to wait a while to evaluate his legacy. J947 † edits 05:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Maybe recentist but he is maybe the single most visible figure in the revival of leftist politics in the US Totalibe (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Prominent as an independent.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Remove Adlai Stevenson II

PASSED
3-2 The Blue Rider   15:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


A governor, a member of the federal government and a diplomat. Not sure what about his biography is supposed to be vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Easily more notable than most of the American activists listed. 53 million people across two elections voted for this guy for President. Also, a question: other nominators got courtesy pings, why didn't I get a ping about Dewey and Stevenson. pbp 19:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
    Re: courtesy pings. I was pinging FA nominators for articles at Featured Article status. Neither Dewey nor Stevenson are featured articles. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Quite an influential figure in the immediate post-war period. J947 † edits 05:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Remove Strom Thurmond

FAILED
Not removed, 3-4 pbp 13:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

A prominent opponent of civil rights who switched to the Republicans over it. He didn't manage to stop the passage of the civil rights act and didn't seem to have any larger impact on politics. Doesn't seem remotely vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Easily more notable than most of the American activists listed. We sadly need a couple of segregationists at the VA5 level and he's one of the most notable, after Wallace, from the post-1945 era pbp 19:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. J947 † edits 05:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Totalibe (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. One of the most important people of the 50's/60's segregationism. Curbon7 (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Remove George Wallace

FAILED
2-7 The Blue Rider   15:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


Another proponent opponent of civil rights that didn't appear to have much of a larger impact on politics. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Famous segregationist and an inflection point of contemporary American populism – you can trace a direct line from Wallace's grievance-based presidential campaigns of 1968 and 1972 to what happened in the 2016 election and continues to happen today. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Easily more notable than most of the American activists listed. We sadly need a couple of segregationists at the VA5 level and he's the most notable from the post-1945 era. pbp 19:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. J947 † edits 05:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. He is probably the most famous American segregationist of the civil rights era from the 1950s and onward. Quite a few books and studies have been written on Wallace, and I am definitely opposed to removing this. VickKiang (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Per everyone Totalibe (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  6. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  7. Wasted Time R said it better than I ever could. Curbon7 (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Remove some of the Marx Brothers

Latest comment: 11 months ago14 comments8 people in discussion
Removed, 4-0. starship.paint (RUN) 10:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

Remove Zeppo Marx and Gummo Marx

I understand that Groucho Marx is vital, but do we need to take up 6 slots with this family. Zeppo Marx and Gummo Marx had limited tenures with the act and seem to be less vital. Chico Marx is probably OK, but I am not so sure about Harpo Marx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom removing Zeppo Marx and Gummo Marx. I could use some help assessing Chico Marx and Harpo Marx for whom I am currently neutral.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Zeppo and Gummo definitely go, Groucho definitely stays. If I was keeping a second Marx Brother, I'd keep Harpo because Harpo's schtik is more memorable pbp 11:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support removing Gummo and Zeppo. I think Groucho and Harpo stay. Chico I'm kind of on the fence about. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support removing Zeppo and Gummo Totalibe (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
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.

Remove Chico Marx

PASS
4-0. The Blue Rider   22:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


4 or 6 slots is a lot for the Marx Brothers.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support removing Lorax (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 10:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. A single slot for them as Marx Brothers will do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
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.

Add John Mayer

Latest comment: 11 months ago9 comments4 people in discussion
PASS
4-0. The Blue Rider   17:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

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.


With the above removals there may be room (depending on genre assigment) to add John Mayer (discography): 4 multiplatinum albums and 3 additional platinum studio albums, 1 platinum and a multiplatinum live album and 2 multiplatinum video albums (whatever those are), 8 #1 singles (mostly niche charts), 7 Grammys. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. The Blue Rider   16:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Begrudging support. I hate this guy's music but there's no doubt that he's been incredibly successful. Almost certainly vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. I have restored this discussion from Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Subpage 1/Archive 1. It received 4 votes and should have been closed by someone.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. I do not close discussions in which I participate.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. @Starship.paint and J947:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:27, 15 December 2023 (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.

Move Henry Chadwick (writer) to Journalists

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Done. starship.paint (RUN) 02:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

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.

Fundamentally, Henry Chadwick was a sportswriter, a la Grantland Rice. He should be moved to the journalists section “Sports journalists, commentators and sports announcers”

Support
  1. pbp 16:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.

Add Toaripi Lauti

Latest comment: 11 months ago9 comments6 people in discussion
Not added, 2-3. starship.paint (RUN) 02:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

He was the first Prime Minister and only Chief Minister of Tuvalu. He was also later knighted and appointed a Governor-General of Tuvalu. As an independent nation, Tuvalu deserves to have a politician on the list, and Lauti is the most important.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. I like our coverage of a politician from every country, no matter how small. Countries are the supreme agents of our international system, that is, there is nothing above countries in the hierarchy, so we should list a politician that was fulcral and important to each country. The Blue Rider   11:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    You could argue that this argument could be applied to everything regarding a country, but that's not the case since Tuvalu (VT3) adequately covers the geographic and administrative regions of the country and History of Tuvalu (VT5) adequately covers Tuvaluan mythology, but Politics of Tuvalu shouldn't be a vital article, instead it would be better covered by the single-most important politician (normally in these small countries, a politician that was important for their independence, which is the the case of Toaripi Lauti). The Blue Rider   11:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    VT4 not VT3, though I'm sure you realise that. I realise I'm extreme in disliking listing every country at VA4 (a slight dislike), every capital city at VA5, a politician from every country at VA5, apparently also every history of country at VA5 – though surely the capital is listed for its role in politics, and the history article is listed half for politics, so that should obviate the need for a politician – but it always seems so recentist to me, for one (Tuvalu has only been independent since 1978 and a UN member since 2000). And perhaps my disbelief in how far we go to accommodate micronations is enhanced by the fact that I am very interested in the goings-on in Pacific island nations and for one am a big Nauru fan, so I'm extra-surprised that we have a need for total representation. That's just where I'm coming from. Ultimately Tuvalu is important to 10,000 people and little else – it doesn't have global impact exceeding its size much more than Springfield, XXXXXX; its status as a country does not really confer the requisite diplomatic importance. J947 ‡ edits 23:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I dislike our coverage of a politician from every country, no matter how small. They'd be better spent on larger nations. Just the very fact that Toaripi Lauti may be listed ahead of Barry Goldwater is a telling indicator the balance is wrong. J947 † edits 07:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Very much agree with J947. Vital list should be about vital topics, not politically correct ones or such. I fully agree we need to deal with systemic bias, but this means we need to look for people from non-Western cultures that are historically significant even if not very well known in the West. This is not the case here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. There are better ways to address bias than filling the lists with people who have highly limited international influence, potentially at the expense of others (also from outside the "First World") more powerful than them. Totalibe (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
Removed in 2019. J947 † edits 04:11, 19 November 2023 (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.

Remove Jerry Brown

Latest comment: 11 months ago34 comments10 people in discussion
Not removed. 4-4. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

Seems to be a pretty big figure in California politics, but it's unclear to me what he did during his terms in office that makes him a vital figure. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. I was predisposed to opposing, but his long WP:LEAD just tells me held a lot of posts and served a long time without ever achieving a federal office. I know this means he had influence. However, I don't understand any political legacy based on the lead. Did he change anything that mattered? We are now holding U.S. Presidents to a substantive test. I don't think a non-Federal employee should escape such scrutiny.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
    @TonyTheTiger: Please read the below oppose rationales. He passed several important bills, meaning he changed something that matters. He also ruled 40 million people for sixteen years. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
    @TonyTheTiger: - please respond! Whether you affirm or change. Thanks! starship.paint (RUN) 02:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. The Blue Rider   12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I would say "big figure" is an understatement. He passed several important bills in California, ran for president twice, served four terms in office, and even his gubernatorial portrait was widely discussed by the public! QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Easily more notable than most of the American activists listed. The guy was governor of a very large state (35 million by his second go-around) for sixteen years. Influential . pbp 18:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose because if he's from anywhere but America we're listing him 10 times out of 10. California has a population of 40 million; we can equate the influence of being governor of a state that size to the influence of being leader of a country of 5 million, perhaps. We're definitely listing a 16-year leader of a 5-million-population country. J947 ‡ edits 23:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
    Name the most prominent people who have been the head of state of a population between 5-10 people who ruled 12 or more years with the {{VA link}} so I can see if they are listed and how high.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
    Simply choosing random countries that fit the description, not the most prominent. New Zealand (head of government, not state): Richard Seddon   5, William Massey   5; Austria: Thomas Klestil (two days shy of 12 years), Heinz Fischer (12 years exactly); Togo: Gnassingbé Eyadéma   5, Faure Gnassingbé; Paraguay: Carlos Antonio López   5, Alfredo Stroessner   4. I'm not surprised that we only have one of the two Togolese but I think the lack of the two Austrians is an unintended omission more than anything else: we have three post-1945 Icelandic politicians but just the one Austrian/Swiss (UN secretary-general Kurt Waldheim   5). J947 ‡ edits 05:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
    How many rulers from those same countries ruled 12+ years and are not listed?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
    Those are all the (modern) rulers who ruled 12 years for those countries; 5 out of 8 are listed. J947 ‡ edits 22:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
    Are you sure? Teodoro Obiang comes to my mind and I'm sure there are more. The Blue Rider   22:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
    Equatorial Guinea does not meet the population number that we are discussing. Also, I would probably support adding that politician. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
    Togo, Austria and Paraguay also don't have a 5 million population; doesn't really matter the exact number as long as it is a tiny country, like Equational Guinea is. The Blue Rider   22:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
    The exact number definitely does matter (unless you're saying that NZ is less important than Liechtenstein...), but given Obiang has ruled for 44 years it's a moot point. J947 ‡ edits 03:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry – for those four countries (with 5–10 million people each as the moot was). For the sake of clarity, Obiang is listed as he should be. J947 ‡ edits 03:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
    This type of comparison lacks, states aren't the same as countries. An head of state is clearly more influential than a Governor since the former has the executive power and the latter doesn't. The Blue Rider   13:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
    J is comparing the governor of a state with 40 million people to the head of state with a country of 5 million. Governors of a U.S. state certainly have one-eighth the influence of presidents or monarchs of a country of a same size; probably more like one-quarter or one-third. Remember federalism...a lot of things handled by national governments in other countries are handled by state governments in the U.S., or shared between the central and state governments. pbp 18:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
    Federalism doesn't grant the same powers to state governors that a president, PM or parliament, even of small countries, of a unitary state does, namely right to declare war, right to celebrate treaties, right to diplomatic representation, right to collect taxes, right to coin money, etc. The Blue Rider   22:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
    Actually, U.S. states can collect their own state taxes. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
    I meant taxes coming from imports and exports. The Blue Rider   22:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
    Funnily enough, that's why they're 1/6 or so as important. J947 ‡ edits 03:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. Didn't vote/was unsure on this initially, but oppose per J947, especially with California being the single most populous and arguably most powerful U.S. state. Totalibe (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

British royals

Latest comment: 10 months ago64 comments13 people in discussion

Remove Mary of Teck, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Removed Mary of Teck, 6-0. NOT removed Prince Albert (2-5) and Prince Phillip (2-3). starship.paint (RUN) 03:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

Don't see any reason why she is vital other than being royal consorts especially since we don't list Queen Camilla. Interstellarity (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support. They did not leave their mark on the history. Minir figures. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support Mary of Teck, oppose others Not that well-remembered as a major historical figure today. Totalibe (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Mary of Teck per nom. Neutral on others. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. On reflection, I'll support the Mary of Teck removal. J947 ‡ edits 04:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removing Mary of Teck. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose all two (weak oppose Mary of Teck). Think the royal to remove would be Prince William at this stage. J947 ‡ edits 00:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Prince Albert and Philip Albert is widely emphasized in Victorian historiography, and his marriage to Victoria marks the start of the current British royal house (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor). Philip I'd argue gets on by virtue of having a highly visible status as consort for nearly 70 years. Totalibe (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Prince Albert and Philip Albert the Good is a major historical figure behind the Great Exhibition and many arts and cultural movements. Philip was a consort for 70 years. Queen Camilla has not done nearly as much. Eleanor of Aquitaine remains the most famous British consort though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Hawkeye7: Are you sure Eleanor of Aquitaine was a British consort and not a French one? ;-) pbp 04:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    She was both. The consort of Henry II (England) and Louis VII (France). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose removing Prince Albert. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Oppose removing Albert, major figure of the Victorian era. Curbon7 (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. I'm roughly 50/50 on all three of these. Phil was obviously consort for a very long time but it was when Britain was on the wane and it's hard to point to significant substantive achievements. A lot of Albert's significance comes from dying young and Vicky spending the rest of her life memorializing him. Mary of Teck I can see getting dropped from the list, but that DOES mean dropping a woman when women aren't well-represented in the politicians and leaders list. FWIW, if I was ADDING a recent British royal, it probably would be Andrew Parker Bowles' ex-wife. FWIW, we don't have the ex-Parker Bowles, but we DO have Lady Di; and we also have Queen Mum Elizabeth. pbp 04:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Neutral on removing Philip. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
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.

Remove Anne, Princess Royal; Catherine, Princess of Wales

Removed both Anne 6-0, Catherine 5-2. starship.paint (RUN) 13:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

I just noticed something which rather proves the point about some People lists being easier to get on than others: while we're discussing the removals of these pretty damn important royals as far as British royals go, there are some clearly inferior and very modern figures listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous#Socialites (40/40 articles). (I haven't nominated Meghan as I'm unsure how important her acting career is, but feel free to.)

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but to me this just shows how underrepresented politicians and leaders are. These modern royals proposed to be removed don't look out of place in their section, but viewed in combination with other royals they really do. Either that or we're being too harsh on other royals for not being influential while their social currency is great. A combination of the two, IMO.

Support
  1. Support as nom. J947 ‡ edits 10:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. pbp 17:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. Royalty cruft. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Interstellarity (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support Anne.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Kate, major social figure. Curbon7 (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Curbon7: You might want to also check out the removal discussion for William below. pbp 22:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Kate, a very notable figure (one of the most notable women alive), and guaranteed to be the future queen? Aszx5000 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
    Guaranteed? What if she predeceases William? What if William predeceases Charles? What if they get divorced? What if there's a car crash in a riverside tunnel in Paris? It's likely, but it's not guaranteed and it might be 10, 15, 20 years from now. pbp 13:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    Furthermore, we recently removed Mary of Teck, we never had Camilla Parker-Bowles in the first place and we're contemplating removing William. How is Kate more notable than the three of them? And one of the most notable women alive? Really? Really? pbp 14:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
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.

Remove William, Prince of Wales

Removed 5-0. starship.paint (RUN) 13:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

Mentioned him above, may as well propose it now.

Support
  1. Support as nom: pales in comparison to the other royals listed. J947 ‡ edits 10:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support. Royalty cruft. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support Maybe he'll be vital some day, but he's not king yet. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Will support for now, will support addition one he becomes king. Interstellarity (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Less influential than his wife at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Let's be honest: the only reason William hangs on to a vitality case is because his grandma died. If QE2 were still alive, William would be a pretty easy removal. It's also worth noting that William is one of the youngest people on the entire list. For example, he's younger than his current PM, he's younger than Macron, younger than Trudeau, younger than Zelenskyy (his DAD is younger than Biden). William's even younger than most of the ATHLETES on the list...Barry Bonds is older, Kobe Bryant is older, Tom Brady is older... pbp 17:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

However, I do question this: why are people saying that Kate is more influential than William? @Curbon7:, @Aszx5000: Please explain! pbp 16:35, 22 December 2023 (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.

Move Diana, Princess of Wales from politicians to socialites

Moved 7-0. starship.paint (RUN) 13:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

I was today years old when I found out we had a socialites subcategory of people. Diana was the spouse of an heir to the a constitutional monarchy; her vitality stems from her fame, not any acts of governance. It's notable that her daughters-in-law are listed as socialites, not politicians. pbp 17:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. J947 ‡ edits 21:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. Royalty cruft. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Diana did her most important work as an activist against land mines. She was the "People's Princess", sure, but she was that even after she left the royal family. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Interstellarity (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
  7. support TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.

Move Wallis Simpson from politicians to socialites

REMOVED
Removed, 6-1, counting Aszx5000 as a remove vote and Purple as a keep vote. pbp 13:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

See rationale for Diana above. Very similar except Di was married to Charles before he was king and Wallis was married to Edward AFTER he was king. "Socialite" is literally in the first sentence of Wallis' article

Support
  1. pbp 01:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. She was not a politician. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
    I would also support her removal from level 5. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
  1. Probably just best to remove her – she's not really vital outside of forcing her husband's abdication. J947 ‡ edits 01:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. I'd also prefer outright removal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. I'd also prefer removal. She's only known for being Edward's wife and a Nazi. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Yes, we can remove her. starship.paint (RUN) 16:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support removal. Interstellarity (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
@J947: @Piotrus: @Grnrchst: Would you also support a quota reduction in socialites? Because if Wallis Simpson isn't vital, IDK if any socialites, except for Diana, ARE. We ARE talking about the first woman to be Time Person of the Year. Many of the socialites listed are just "famous for being famous", or for being daughters or wives or mistresses of filthy rich men. Some should be swapped for their families. A few others are arguably misclassified and belong in other categories if at all. pbp 16:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Could reduce from 40 to 30 to start. starship.paint (RUN) 16:10, 28 November 2023 (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.

Remove Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Removed 4-1. starship.paint (RUN) 13:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

Not notable outside her marriage to Prince Harry. Interstellarity (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. A middle-tier TV star marries a minor British royal pbp 22:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per above. Also, how is she vital, but Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex is not? --Kammerer55 (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. 81 interwikis, but I think that's just royalty/celebrity bias. Gossip vitality, but not serious vitality, IMHO. Ping me if you disagree. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, wrongly or rightly, one of the most notable women alive today; not an obvious removal to me. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Neutral
Discussion
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.

Add Daniel Andrews

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments6 people in discussion
FAILED
Not added, 1-4 pbp 12:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

  • Highly influential Australian politician, especially on COVID-19 related policy in Australia.
  • Subject of huge national and frequently international discussion.
  • Long-serving Premier of Victoria.

GraziePrego (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Nominator.
Oppose
  1. Subject of huge national and frequently international discussion. - I've never heard of him though. When AP doesn't put your name in their titles... seems like he is not that recognizable? I'm not sure that he is that extraordinary. starship.paint (RUN) 13:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. "frequently international discussion". Just 9 interwikis. I don't see it. Oppose addition. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. Certainly one of the more important Aus political figures this century, but don't think he quite makes the cut – he isn't Joh Bjelke-Petersen–level, unfortunately. There's likely to be a push to reduce the number of Australian politicians listed soon anyways. J947 ‡ edits 07:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Not at level 5. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Add Mahapajapati Gotami

Latest comment: 10 months ago9 comments7 people in discussion
PASSED
7-0. The Blue Rider   12:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

Probably the most consequential woman in Buddhist history. Gotami raised Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. She convinced him to allow the ordination of women in Buddhism and became the first Buddhist nun. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Pioneering figure for the rights of women in Buddhism. She was influential within the first sangha. The Blue Rider   12:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 04:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  5. Per nom. J947 ‡ edits 05:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  6. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  7. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
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.

Add Walter Iooss

Latest comment: 10 months ago7 comments6 people in discussion
Not removed, 1 - 4. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

Photographers is currently under quota (61/65 articles). Iooss was long associated with Sports Illustrated. I only see one other sports/action photographer among the 61 Lev Borodulin. For a couple of generations, he was the photographer you dreamed of being because he use to shoot top sporting events and the annual Swimsuit issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Just two interwikis, nothing suggests anything but mildly succesfull career (one minor award). Maybe Sports Illustrated should be vital (it is), but a photographer who worked for it, none of whose photographs seem to have stand-alone notability is pretty far from vital, IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Obscure figure, clearly not a vital photographer. The Blue Rider   21:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. per above opposers. Does not seem cross cultural. starship.paint (RUN) 02:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Not an obvious level 5 candidate. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
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.

Add Qiu Jin

Latest comment: 10 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion
PASSED
Added 4–0. Respublik (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

Inspired by Grnrchst proposal, I nominate Qiu Jin. In a world where Confucianism prevailed, women were often shut down and put aside, but Qiu Jin managed to overcome those challenges and became an influential figure, pioneering the Chinese feminist movement and the 1911 Revolution that overthrew the Qing dynasty. She is regarded as a national heroine in China. The Blue Rider   19:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

  1. As nominator. The Blue Rider   19:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Seems important, though the little pageviews on her article makes me doubt quite how much of a Chinese national hero she is. J947 ‡ edits 23:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    I mean, yeah but taking into account how rare is it for women, especially Chinese, to have hold any kind of influence in political matters, I would say she's borderline vital. The Blue Rider   14:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. "considered a national heroine in China". Good enough for V5 unless we have quota issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 06:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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.

Add William G. Morgan

Latest comment: 11 months ago10 comments5 people in discussion
I just realised this is redundant, William G. Morgan   5 has been level 5 since 2018. starship.paint (RUN) 02:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

Inventor of volleyball, which is V3. 36 interwikis. A good balance for Walter Camp, inventor of American football, also V5. If Afootball, a sport which is not particularly popular anywhere outside US, gets its inventor on V5, the guy who invented internationally more popular game of volleyball should be V5 too, IMHO. For another example, inventor of modern soccer, Ebenezer Cobb Morley, is V5 too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Inventor of a popular sport, makes sense. Curbon7 (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 06:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
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.
Discuss
@Piotrus, QuicoleJR, Curbon7, and Starship.paint: There is conception to keep Morgan among educators at the level 5 but add to sporpeople on the level 4, there is obviously such practitce. For example Abraham is in religion section on the level 4 but among people on the level 3... Dawid2009 (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@Dawid2009: - I am not sure what you are talking about? William G. Morgan is not level 4? Are you saying he should be? starship.paint (RUN) 02:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: Yes, excatly, based on everything what I said in my previous interactions with User:GuzzyG and User:RekijshiEJ, I also support Tom Brandy on the level 4 but just as SWAP no way straight removal. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@Dawid2009: - propose at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4 starship.paint (RUN) 14:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove Megan Fox

Latest comment: 10 months ago8 comments8 people in discussion
PASSED
Removed 6–1. J947 ‡ edits 20:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

There is an abundance of current and former sex symbols, who are not that acclaimed on the list.

Support
  1. As nom -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support. Not so great a standout. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Just another celebrity. The Blue Rider   21:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support - very popular in 2007-2009, then her career tanked. Compare: Scarlett Johansson, much more successful. starship.paint (RUN) 05:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support. not vital. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I think she makes the cut. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
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.

Remove Alec Douglas-Home

Latest comment: 10 months ago14 comments9 people in discussion
REMOVED
6–1. Respublik (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

This PM only managed to pass one major bill before resigning. His other positions in government are not enough to make him vital.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support per Tim riley's comments. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per discussion. The Blue Rider   18:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. per discussion and nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  5. Per Tim's comment in discussion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support. not vital. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I believe he served as PM long enough to be included on this list. pbp 16:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    Even if you don't find a little under a year to be a very short tenure, what did he actually do in the position? He passed one major bill and promptly resigned. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


Discuss
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.

Swap Fernando Chui for Bo Xilai

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion
PASSED
Implemented 4–0. Respublik (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

Fernando Chui was the second chief executive of Macau from 2009 to 2019, and his article doesn't really mention much of note other than that and a bribery allegation. His predecessor, Edmund Ho, also doesn't really seem to be all that vital either but he does at least hold the distinction of being the first. Also if we're comparing Macau to China's other special administrative region, Hong Kong, which has five entries for contemporary politicians, HK is over 11 times larger population-wise (672k vs 7.5 million) and has a much larger international profile.

Bo Xilai was one of the most powerful men in China until 2012, when he was arrested and later imprisoned due to alleged corruption, in a case that may or may not have been motivated by a power struggle with Xi Jinping's faction of the CCP. He was the party secretary in Chongqing, a metropolis of over 30 million people and his achievments made him an icon for the left-wing of Chinese politics, which was likely what made him so dangerous to Xi, whose rise to national leadership coincided very closely with the fall of Bo. Totalibe (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Bo is a good representative of the modern Chinese politician. This includes his downfall. Chui's impact is not apparent. starship.paint (RUN) 02:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Nom Totalibe (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. Well argued. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
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.

Add James F. Byrnes

Latest comment: 10 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Added 4-0. starship.paint (RUN) 02:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

I've just come across this guy, an American politician who shaped the Cold War. He was named TIME Man of the Year in 1946 for his anti-Soviet actions as U.S. secretary of state. He was also important domestically: as there was no Vice President due to FDR's death, Byrnes was next in line to the presidency lest Truman become unable to govern. Aside from his controversial tenure as secretary of state, historian George E. Mowry called Byrnes "the most influential Southern member of Congress between John Calhoun and Lyndon Johnson" (from our lede), he was governor of South Carolina, and Byrnes was a Supreme Court justice. All this came in a long political career that spanned from 1911 to 1955: a massive New Deal figure.

Support
  1. Support as nom. J947 ‡ edits 03:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Conditional support if quota allows. Well argued although he does not strike me as obviously vital. Borderline, but if there's room, why not for now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. FDR wanted him to succeed him and not Truman. He may have been the most important figure in the FDR administration, especially during World War II, except for FDR himself. Although if we add this fellow, we should reconsider some of our recent removals. pbp 17:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. Should definitely be added. The nominator makes a very convincing argument. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
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.

Australians

Latest comment: 10 months ago47 comments10 people in discussion

Australia is rather bloated with 8 modern military articles, rather large for a country that is not a major military power. For contrast, Canada made a similar military contribution in the World Wars but would only have a single article, and that only if the McNaughton proposal passes. The entire continent of South America (with a history of military dictatorships and silly wars amongst themselves) has but five articles. France is a UN Security Council permanent member and only has seven.

Thomas Blamey is the only Marshal in Australia's history and the only Australian representative of World War Two so I think he's safe. However, I think everybody else needs to be up for grabs. Australia should have some representation for its World War One contribution (currently four people, not counting Blamey who was a junior officer at the time), but I want additional input as to whom pbp 17:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove Harry Chauvel

FAILED
Not removed, 1-4 pbp 15:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

Australian World War One commander, first Australian to three and four stars. Probably stays but I think needs a look. Nine interwikis. pbp 17:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Seems I am not going to change this much but I don't see what makes him vital. And yes, I read other comments here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The article gives some good reasons why this guy is vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. He was a commander during the Boer War, First and Second World Wars? He was also the first Australian to become a corps commander and reach the rank of general. I'd definitely say his article is vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Most senior Australian commander of the Great War. Major influence between the wars. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 03:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Just noting that this is a Featured Article. Do we have any mechanism for informing FA/GA nominators of discussions about their articles here? I feel like editors with that kind of subject-matter familiarity should at least be invited to discuss their vitality. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
We don't have any rule or mechanism to do that, but we could just ping said editors. Pinging Hawkeye7. The Blue Rider   18:09, 18 November 2023 (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.

Remove Talbot Hobbs

Removed 5-0. starship.paint (RUN) 02:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

Australian World War One subordinate. Only six interwikis. If we REMOVE an Australian World War figure, he seems the easiest to cull pbp 17:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Not really sure how this even made it here, honestly Totalibe (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Surprised this was even on the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Not vital. SnowFire (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Doesn't appear at all vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.

Remove John Simpson Kirkpatrick

Removed 4-0. starship.paint (RUN) 02:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

On the list for being a folk hero rather than a commander. Only a single interwiki link so IDK if he is notable or known outside of Australia pbp 17:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. This guy does not appear to be vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Does not appear vital. SnowFire (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Certainly not vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.

Remove John Monash

NOT removed, 4-0. starship.paint (RUN) 02:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

Commanded the Australia Corps late in the War; was primarily a brigade and division commander. Has 19 interwikis, considerably more than Chauvin, Hobbs. Article makes uncited claim, "Monash is considered one of the best Allied generals of the First World War and the most famous commander in Australian history." Has a case but perhaps at the expense of Chauvin and certainly Hobbs. pbp 17:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. That statement may not be cited but he's very well-remembered and commemorated in Australia, as you can see under the "Legacy" section. The establisment of ANZAC and their role in Gallipoli was actually pretty important in shaping the emerging Australian national identity. Totalibe (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per Totalibe. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per Totalibe. His role in Gallipoli was very important. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Most important and commemorated Australian military figure. Influence beyond Australia as the commander of the Australian Corps. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
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.

Remove Peter Cosgrove

Removed 4-0. starship.paint (RUN) 02:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

This fellow seems to be on the list for small-level engagements and being Governor General, which is not an inherently notable office. Only saving grace may be that he has 33 interwikis...but most other Governors-General of Australia have nearly that many pbp 17:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Does not appear vital. SnowFire (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Probably not vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Not vital enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.

Remove Breaker Morant

NOT removed, 3-1. starship.paint (RUN) 02:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

One of two Australians whose claim to being on this list comes from being a war criminal. We don't need both him and Roberts-Smith and probably not either. Only 9 interwikis. pbp 17:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Big impact on the Australian popular imagination, and arguably early identity in a similar way to John Monash. Totalibe (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Unfortunately, inexplicably turned into a folk hero because murder is okay or something. idk. SnowFire (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per Totalibe. His status in the popular imagination definitely puts him on the list. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
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.

Remove Ben Roberts-Smith

Removed 4-0. starship.paint (RUN) 02:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

One of two Australians whose claim to being on this list comes from being a war criminal. We don't need both him and Morant and probably not either. Only six interwikis. pbp 17:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Nope, heard of him but get him off. J947 † edits 22:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Interesting article, but not vital. SnowFire (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. We have a section for war criminals and he's not even vital enough to be on there. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Archive_1&oldid=1208322377"