Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Saladin?

Not sure where to put this, but shouldn't Saladin be an Asian political figure, not African? A bit technical, yes, but since this doesn't have a seperate Middle East politician section, I think it should be more appropriate for Saladin to be in the Asian category. --Laserbeamcrossfire 07:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The majority of his empire was in North Africa, but using the "extended" territory of Southwest Asia, he can be listed under Asia. ♠ SG →Talk 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
His capital was in Damascus. john k 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
He was born in Damascus. --Laserbeamcrossfire 16:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
He was born in Tikrit, actually, like old Saddam, what with being a Kurd and the Burid dynasty rather than the Zengids, whom his family served, ruling Damascus at the time of his birth. But he mostly lived in Damascus after 1174, and he died and was buried there. john k 10:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Please vote on this proposed change of the definition for Top. This is an effort to try to help clarify who should be on this list.

Should this section of the sentence: "and in the majority of the world" be revised to say "and in the majority of both the Western and non-Western world. For instance, Buddha not only affected the Eastern World but has widely affected much of the Western World".

I think it's vital we get this out of the way before we decide on any more deletions and inclusions. plange 08:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. plange 08:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. --I'll bring the food 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. It sounds like some people want to increase the scope of the list, yet this change would obviously reduce the number of people who meet the requirements. It would also heavily favor people who have lived more recently, since the Western and Eastern worlds are much less separate than they used to be. Kaldari 20:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I would changed "impacted" to "affected." Maurreen 12:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • It looks like no one objects to this. Maurreen 19:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Others on here, speak now or forever hold your peace :-) will change on main page in a couple more hours if I hear no objections by then plange 19:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Number

Maybe we should raise the number to 200. That would let more people in, while still keeping a manageable, do-able size. Maurreen 12:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's as easy as that, then why not just make it 250? That's a more natural number after all. And if we're going to do that, we should allot places for different subjects, so that we don't end up debating if JFK was more important than Voltaire and Diego Maradona for the development of world history, which of course would be a ridiculous question. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Why restrict the numbers at all? Why don't we just have a list of all possible core people, and approve/reject each one? I'm not at all keen on this A is more important than B and tit for tat kind of manoevre. --kingboyk 13:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
250 is OK with me.
I think it's good to have a number, and a relatively small one, otherwise I'm not sure there's much point in having a list at all.
I disagree with setting aside a specific number for certain areas. I think that's too hard to formulate. Maurreen 13:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we can expand, but I think we all need to vote on the straw poll since that will make it easier to determine who gets on this list. Then we can just say, if they meet it they get on, no matter how long it is. plange 19:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidates for removal

Straw poll: Please indicate support or opposition for each.

Philosophers
  1. Søren Kierkegaard -- Maurreen 14:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Political figures
  1. Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor -- Maurreen 14:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Oppose. He is probably the most important and most famous monarch from the high middle ages. He revolutionized European law and kingship, took Jerusalem by diplomacy, and is held by some to have triggered the European Renaissance. He is a shoe-in. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Hirohito. Really not all that important in the larger scheme of things. Meiji would probably be a better candidate. john k 11:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Writers
  1. Fyodor Dostoevsky -- Maurreen 14:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Oppose. Certainly can't see any reason for excluding this author, universally regarded as one Europe's greatest ever writers, from a list of 150 let alone 250. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Oppose plange 01:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Current status

The following each have at least two supporters and no opposition voiced.

Count
  • Allow as many as 250 on the list. (It now has 134.)
Additions
  1. Inventor - Charles Babbage
  2. Political figure - William I of England
  3. Scientist - James Watt
Maurreen 14:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Philosopher - John Locke - Maurreen 21:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Removal
  1. George W. Bush
    1. Support plange 01:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
So ... I'm going to add Babbage, William I, Watt, and Locke, and delete Bush. Maurreen 02
05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Worthwhile?

If we can't get consensus on a definition or a number, maybe this is not even worthwhile. Maurreen 21:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we have fairly good consensus on the current definition. Just because people are floating ideas for tweaking it doesn't neccessarily mean there is substantial objection to the current definition. The number issue seems to be pretty arbitrary. I don't think it would really matter that much what the number is, although I think a small number (100-250) would be easier to manage. Kaldari 21:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Cinema

Right now we have Alfred Hitchcock as the only representative of cinema. I would contend that Akira Kurosawa and Walt Disney were more influential than Hitchcock. What do people think of adding both of them (since we're expanding the list).

  • Akira Kurosawa
  • Walt Disney

Kaldari 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. I support Disney. Maurreen 00:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support plange 01:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, agree both were more influential than Hitchcock. VegaDark 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, adding Akira Kurosawa and Walt Disney... Kaldari 16:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

John Paul II

Pardon me for asking, but John Paul II is rated as "Mid" importance, whilst, just as an example, David Hume, a philosopher whom I have encountered only in my college studies, is ranked at "Top" importance? J.K. Rowling, a newcomer to the field of popular literature, is rated at "High" importance? As such, John Paul II fills all the qualifications for a Top importance subject. He is a must-have for a print encyclopedia. He is more likely to be looked up than Albert Einstein by ordinary people, and indeed, his name is known to more people than Einstein's name is. In fact, have Einstein's ideas "changed the way people think?" This is only wishful thinking by perhaps a handful of physicists. "High" importance, and Patrick Henry is given as an example of a person that had "some impact" outside their country of origin. John Paul II visited over 150 countries, gave speeches on most universities, and was a key figure in political relations in his era. "Mid" is applied to people who "were important in their discipline." Well, you could classify Karol Wojtyła, before he became the pope, as important in his discipline.

Well, I guess being elected as a spiritual leader of over 1 billion people in the world doesn't qualify that person as somebody important, or does it?.

Above comment was unsigned. Maurreen 02:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please wait before bringing up inconsistent ratings-- for one thing we will probably be NOT rating anyone that does not get Top. Second, this rating system is new (less than a week old for biography) and so right now there is some variance on how people are rating them. If you feel John Paul II should be included as top, then add them as a nomination and we'll vote on it, but by your definition of why he should get Top would mean nearly all popes should get that designation too.plange
I agree with plange. Also, given that John Paul II died relatively recently, it's hard to evaluate his historical significance. Maurreen 02:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't sign it. I don't have a wikipedia account. Why do you think all popes should get that designation? I doubt anyone could say anything about any of the previous popes, more even their contemporaries hardly knew their names. And yes, this does relegate them to High (for those that were important within the Catholic Church), or Mid (relevant to the Catholic Church only). However, I think you will agree that we shouldn't include people like Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev, Margaret Thatcher, or other politicians within the "Top" category. They either died recently, or they are still alive. "It's hard to evaluate their historical significance," isn't it Maurreen?

As to my reason, it was mostly a sarcastic view on the subject. I didn't mean it to be especially serious. But John Paul II was in fact very well known, if not as a spiritual leader, then as a political figure. If anything, he was one of the most important world leaders in the last quarter of the 20th century, this should make him included.

Furthermore, by adhering to the standards, you'll easily fill the Top category with thousands upon thousands of people, Plange. The problem is that the former popes were relevant to their times. Same goes for many scientists, politicians, and celebrities. You should include maybe 30 or 40 composers, 50 to 70 writers, 20 painters, a number of sculptors and architects, 10 to 20 kings or queens per nation, hundreds of scientists and inventors. They were important to their times. If you start cutting, you'll soon have to decide whom to leave in the top importance. Should it be Newton or Einstein? Well, Newton is less relevant, as his theories are now proven to be inexact, so we should forget Newton and move on to Einstein. Same in schools -- why teach simplified physics if we can teach relativity to first graders?

Doesn't cut the cheese. Wikipedia Biographies will likely include a few historical figures and will be mostly filled with people who lived in the 20th and 19th centuries. Otherwise, we'll follow double standards.

  1. You can sign with your name or IP.
  2. You should be able to see above how we're handling nominations. Maurreen 17:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Added

Actors and related

  1. Charlie Chaplin - Has been added. Maurreen 10:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support. Maurreen 17:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support VegaDark 09:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support Kaldari 23:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Artists

  1. Giotto di Bondone, founder of modern painting john k 11:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC) -- Added. Maurreen 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support plange 06:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support -- Mais oui! 07:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raphael. Generally considered the apogee of renaissance painting. john k 11:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC) -- Added. Maurreen 15:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support plange 06:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support -- Maurreen 04:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Added inventors

  1. Alexander Graham Bell - Added. Maurreen 17:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. No I just meant because Italians and Italian-Americans claim that Antonio Meucci invented the telephone, and get pretty irate if anyone says otherwise. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Calgacus, I'm not sure whether your note means you oppose, or you expect others to oppose. Maurreen 16:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support - inventing the telephone is a pretty earth-shattering development in the history of the world, probably more so than inventing the television for example (John Logie Baird). Hard to see how he is any more controversial than everybody else on the list. Some of the other people there are extremely controversial: mass murderers for example. --Mais oui! 08:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support. Maurreen 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    4. Supportplange 01:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    5. Support. Although credit for inventing the telephone is disputed, his contributions are still incredibly significant. Kaldari 05:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Louis Daguerre Maurreen 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC) – Added Maurreen 07:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support plange 01:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Guglielmo Marconi Maurreen 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC) – Added Maurreen 07:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support plange 01:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Added philosophers

  1. Francis Bacon – Added. Maurreen 05:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support. Maurreen 08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support john k 11:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support --Mais oui! 07:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Voltaire (previously listed, but deleted) -- Added. Maurreen 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support plange 01:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support. Maurreen 21:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support. Ranked #74 on Hart's Top 100. Walkerma 16:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    4. Support. john k 16:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Added political figures and leaders

  1. Hernando Cortes, conquered Mexico. Maurreen 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC) -- Added. -- Maurreen 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support plange 01:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support, as the list of leaders in the Americas is mostly made of Americans. ♠ SG →Talk 20:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support per plange Laserbeamcrossfire 06:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Philip II of Spain (most powerful ruler of his day, etc. See below) – Added Maurreen 07:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support The most powerful ruler of his time, he ruled over a huge portion of the world, including modern Spain, Portugal, Belgium, the Low Countries, a great deal of Italy, most of Latin America, the Philippines, etc. etc., had a major impact on the histories of France (which he fought a war with early in his reign and whose civil wars he intervened in repeatedly), England (which he tried to invade, and whose queen he tried to both marry and murder), and the Ottoman Empire (whose fleet his fleet defeated in a famous battle). john k 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Laserbeamcrossfire 06:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Frederick the Great (made Prussia famous, and such like) – Added Maurreen 07:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support. Frederick is certainly generally considered of greater importance than his great-great-great-grand-nephew, who's listed here. The leading military figure of his day, started two great European wars, friend to Voltaire, enemy to Voltaire, partitioner of Poland, &c.
    2. Support as stated above Laserbeamcrossfire 06:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. William I of England (conquered England, which quite possibly changed the Western World (possibly) - Added. Maurreen 02:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support. Maurreen 14:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support plange 01:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support --Mais oui! 07:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Added relivious figures

  1. John Calvin – Added. Maurreen 05:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support plange 01:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support john k 11:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support --Mais oui! 07:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Added scientists

  1. Stephen Hawking -- Added Maurreen 15:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support, think we can manage to fit him in now that we are going up to 250. I could see leaving him out if we stayed at 150 though.VegaDark 01:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support. Perhaps the most prominent figure in modern cosmology (with Carl Sagan) and of course a brilliant physicist. Kaldari 02:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support. Maurreen 05:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Gregor Mendel Maurreen 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC) – Added Maurreen 07:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support VegaDark 00:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Linus Pauling – Added Maurreen 07:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support. Maurreen 13:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support VegaDark 00:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Max Planck – Added Maurreen 07:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support. Maurreen 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support plange 01:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Nikola Tesla -- Has been added. Maurreen 10:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support. Maurreen 13:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support. john k 11:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support. Kaldari 23:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Added writers

  1. Aeschylus. Invented drama, more or less. john k 10:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC) -- Added. Maurreen 15:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Support studerby 05:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Question: Is he more important than Sophocles and Euripides? Maurreen 07:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • On the whole, of about the same importance in terms of his actual work. I put Aeschylus because he pioneered the idea of drama by adding a second actor to the performance. I think that gives him a slight edge. Having all three would also not be inappropriate, though. john k 16:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Support OK, you convinced me. Maurreen 05:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Dickens. Surely he's a shoo-in. He was the most popular writer of the 19th century. Way more important than Walter Scott. john k 02:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC) - Added. - Maurreen 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support. Maurreen 08:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support. Bender235 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support. If we have to, toss Scott. studerby 05:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Ernest Hemingway - Maurreen 02:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC) – Added Maurreen 07:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Support Kaldari 02:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Edgar Allan Poe - Added. - Maurreen 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support. Maurreen 08:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support. Bender235 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support. studerby 05:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mark Twain. An American writer, perhaps? john k 02:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC) – Added Maurreen 07:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support Maurreen 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Support Kaldari 17:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mary Wollstonecraft - Maurreen 12:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC) - Added. - Maurreen 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Support Kaldari 17:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Support plange 07:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Added miscellaneous

  1. Margaret Sanger -- Added. Maurreen 11:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support. Maurreen 08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support Kaldari 06:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support studerby 09:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed or withdrawn candidates

History, leaders, politics
  1. Ardashir I founder of the Sassanid Dynasty (as there are still far too many Europeans)
    1. Oppose - doesn't seem to meet the definition for Top? plange 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Oppose per plange. ♠ SG →Talk 20:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Oppose per plange. Laserbeamcrossfire 06:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    4. Oppose. He's not even the most important Sassanid ruler. If we're going to add another Persian, I'd suggest Darius I. Ismail I of the Safavid dynasty might be a good choice, on the more modern side - He forcibly converted Persia to Twelver Shi'ism, which surely has had a major impact. john k 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Manco Capac as there are too many dead white guys on the Americas list. The Inca Empire lasted longer than the United States has so far.
    1. Oppose - doesn't seem to meet the definition for Top? plange 05:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Oppose - per plange Laserbeamcrossfire 06:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Oppose - also, the Inca Empire only lasted about 100 years. john k 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jean Henri Dunant - founder of the Red Cross and initiator of the Geneva Convention, first winner of Nobel Peace Prize - Maurreen 12:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Oppose - not enough substantial impact on the course of world events Laserbeamcrossfire 06:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Oppose. I think we should try for iconic names that most people will be at least vaguely familiar with. john k 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Religion
  1. Moses
    1. Oppose, biblical figures should not be part of this Wikiproject. VegaDark 07:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support. Maurreen 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Oppose More of a biblical article than a bio. --kingboyk 14:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    4. Oppose, existence debatable. DHN 18:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    5. Oppose plange 01:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    6. Support Don't think existence is an issue; clearly a shoe-in.Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    7. Neutral – I have to agree with VegaDark, but at the same time, it does meet the criteria for top. ♠ SG →Talk 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Standards

It seems to me that it doesn't particularly make sense to follow the same standards for every category. A couple of points on this:

  1. Pretty much by definition, political leaders (with a few exceptions) do not have the kind of lasting intellectual influence over centuries that writers, scientists, philosophers, and artists do. How many political leaders have had influence over the "majority of the world" for "long after their deaths"? I think that, ideally, people on the list should be divided into several groups, with separate conditions for whether they belong on this list.
  2. It doesn't seem to me that there is anything wrong with a project in the English wikipedia focusing on writers in the English language and writers well known in the English-speaking world. John Keats may not be more important in the context of the world as a whole than Du Fu, but he is way more important to the English-speaking world, due to the fact that Du Fu is more or less inaccessible to anyone who doesn't speak Chinese, and historically, very few people in the English-speaking world speak Chinese. (Prose authors or writers of narrative poetry in foreign languages tend to be more accessible, since translation is much more effective in conveying the basic sense of things, but the point still holds to a certain extent). There is nothing particularly wrong with a slight bias towards English language writers, especially poets.
  3. Beyond this, it seems to me that there is perhaps too much emphasis on influence here, and not enough on fame. The most basic use of a reference tool like an encyclopedia is for people to be able to look up terms, concepts, persons, and places that they heard of, and find context about them. As such, I would think that this project should ideally cover any person who might be referenced in a way where it would be generally expected that most educated English-speakers know who is being referred to. This seems, more or less, to be a uniting feature of most of the people on the list at present (exceptions include Tang Taizong, Frederick II, Charles V, Charles Babbage, T'sai Lun, and Al-Khwarizmi, none of whom are really household names, which is perhaps largely a function of Western-centrism for the first and the last two, and of declining knowledge of European history for the second and third - they would certainly have been familiar to readers of, say, the 1911 Britannica in a way they no longer are). But there's a lot more people who would fit this criterion too - probably well more than 250.
  4. Some random points - why on earth is Leonardo da Vinci listed under inventors? As far as I'm aware, he didn't actually invent much of anything. His general significance is as an artist. Secondly, how do the Beatles qualify as a biography? Biography articles, as I understand them, consist of articles about individual people. We have articles about the individual members of the Beatles, which are biography articles, but The Beatles is not one. john k 17:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Your ideas have some merit. Do you want to draft separate conditions for subgroups for whether they belong on this list?
Fame has some importance, but I'm not sure it's more important than influence. For example, I don't want the list to be overladen with pop stars. I'm hoping it should be relatively timeless. Although we should also keep in mind names that people are most likely to look up.
I'll move da Vinci. Maurreen 17:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is that the subgroups were not set up with the idea of "we need to have people here" it was a way of dividing up who met the criteria, so I think we need to be careful about making different criteria for different groups. People have mistakenly thought (because of the subgrouping) that we had parceled out "space" to these different subgroups, and so there are "slots" to fill. This isn't the case. In fact if you look at earlier versions, we wiped out whole subgroups when we realized none of them met the criteria. plange 17:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. What I am suggesting is that we parcel out slots for different subgroups in an intelligent manner. I am aware that this is not the current set-up. john k 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Beatles, we also list The Brothers Grimm and the Wright Brothers. Perhaps the Beatles are a bit of a stretch, but I don't see it as being especially problematic.
Regarding fame, I tend to agree with Maurreen. The list would consist entirely of althetes and pop stars if we decided inclusion based on fame (well I suppose Jesus might make the list as well). Personally, I think the point of this list is a bit more high-minded than just listing Wikipedia's most popular biographies. We are striving to present a depth and bredth of knowledge that would hopefully enrich someone's understanding of history and the world, as that is arguably the goal of a good encyclopedia. Kaldari 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well put. Maurreen 17:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...I think I'm actually more high-minded than you guys, as I wasn't even thinking of the "list would be inundated with pop-stars. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of a more high-minded and rarefied (and incredibly difficult to define) notion of fame - long-term fame, or something. I certainly wasn't advocating that Shakira replace Confucius on the list. And I agree that influence ought to be considered, but I think fame is of similar importance. A couple of things would, at any rate, go a long way towards relieving the pop-star problem without bringing in this problematic notion of influence: (1) we can limit the list to people who died, say, more than 20 years ago, or even just to people who are dead; a separate project could deal with living people (who are, in addition, under different general standards in terms of potential libel and so forth than people who are dead). Note that this has already been done to a certain point, as only a relatively small number of living individuals (Ali, Pelé, Baryshnikov, two of the Beatles, Mandela, and Gorbachev) ; (2) giving each of the categories semi-separate criteria, would allow us to make more stringent qualifications for some types of people than for others; and (3) we could simply set arbitrary numbers for categories and time periods, to limit the influx of moderns. john k 17:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like a grand idea, but perhaps a bit ambitious. It's been hard enough getting people to agree on 1 criteria, much less a dozen. I'm open to new ideas though. Perhaps you could create a subpage to flesh out what you have in mind. From your description I would imagine it to consist of several seperate lists, each with its own unique criteria for inclusion. I'm not ready to endorse such a scheme, but it would be worth looking at, IMO. Kaldari 18:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I am open to varying criteria for different major fields.
I am open to excluding live people, or a similar limit.
I disagree with setting numbers for different fields. In my view, that would make needless complication and be less flexible than deciding about each nomination on its own merits. Maurreen 03:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't suggest exact numbers, but rather ball park figures to give a general sense of the balance we feel is appropriate. john k 04:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Core_biographies/Archive_2&oldid=915686199"