Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 18

As of my writing this post, there are 21 literature biographies among 129 total biographies listed as level 3 vital articles. This accounts for roughly 16% of all biographies. There are more fiction authors represented here than there are scientists (20) and social theorists/philosophers (16). There are nearly three times as many writers listed here than there are religious figures, explorers, musicians, mathematicians, and visual artists. While the written word is important, this is a gross overrepresentation of one discipline that essentially forces us to ignore other achievements that have yet to be covered here. I do not understand how we could have more writers than we do religious and thought leaders, when the latter are vastly, vastly more influential.

For this reason I am proposing a series of swaps to remove a little less than 2/3rds of the writers and add in their place representatives of fields we do not cover, such as nursing, oratory, fashion, political science, architecture and aviation. I have also taken pains to include political figures from parts of the world we underrepresent, such as Africa (Mansa Musa) and South Asia (Akbar). Where I propose a person of a certain underprivileged minority be removed, I have swapped them with someone who likewise represents that identity. I believe that these changes will make this list a much more diverse and better represent the sum total of vital human achievement than it does now. The writers I have decided to keep are only those that have been the most profoundly influential on human history, as supported by the facts in Splitzky's post. They are:

1. Homer - His Iliad and Odyssey are, along with the Bible, the central canonical texts of the Western canon. Beyond his works' profound influence on poetry and epics, Homer is perhaps the most influential figure in developing the Western plot structure and the Hero's journey. Everything from epic poetry to the romance genre to science fiction and fantasy pulls from tropes initially realized by Homer. Principal representative of Ancient Greek literature.
2. The Faerie Queen, Os Lusíadas and Paradise Lost
   ).
3. Sufi
   mysticism.
4. Dante Alighieri - No language owes more to one person than Italian does to Dante. Dante is arguably more important to Italian than Shakespeare is to English. Aside from writing the canonical epic Divine Comedy, Dante's decision to use a vernacular Tuscan dialect instead of Latin was unprecedented. That Tuscan dialect Dante used would later become the modern Italian language as it is spoken today. None of this is to mention Dante's influence on Christian art and aesthetics, especially in his depictions of hell, as well as his other works like La Vita Nuova and his pioneering of terza rima.
5. Miguel de Cervantes - Author of Don Quixote, Novelas ejemplares, and La Galatea. Supreme writer of the Spanish language. Along with being one of the most widely read and circulated works of fiction in the world, Don Quixote is the foundation of modern Western literature.
6. William Shakespeare - What needs to be said? By far the most performed playwright and the most widely read English-language author. His influence on the theatre as well as on the English language with the thousands of neologisms he coined or popularized is immense. Critic Harold Bloom has said that Shakespeare is the center of the Western Cannon, with all other traditions sprouting out from him. Practically every major English-language author and tradition draws from him.
7. Voltaire - Likely the weakest person out of the eight. He represents French literature as well as satire. His novel Candide blisteringly criticized Leibnizian optimism, religious mania, and intolerance. Beyond his influence as the supreme French-language author, Voltaire was an important thinker and philosopher of the liberal tradition whose ideas greatly inspired the French and American revolutionaries.
8. Leo Tolstoy - Representative of 19th-20th century fiction. His prose epics War and Peace and Anna Karenina are considered some of the greatest works of fiction to have ever been written. Beyond his influence as an author, Tolstoy was a huge influence for the various 20th century nonviolence movements led by figures like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.

Now, the swaps

We already have a vital representative of Ancient Greek literature: Homer. Sappho, whose body of work has mostly been lost to history, is influential in the development of lyric poetry, which is why I suspect she was added to this list. While Sappho's contributions to poetry are important, she is beaten out in terms of vitality and influence by Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing. The development of nursing has been hugely influential in modern medicine and physiatry, and we are lacking a good representative of the field. As a social reformer Nightingale led various efforts to improve sanitation and patient conditions, her efforts being extremely successful. We could also use another woman in the science category; we only have Marie Curie out of 20 exemplars of that field. In terms of popularity, according to Pageviews Nightingale's page is usually viewed over twice as much in a single day as Sappho's.

Support

1. Support as nom — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support although we really should list nursing first. But is there another case in history where a woman was singlehandedly credited (rightly or wrongly) with creating an entire profession? Cobblet (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support It's only bad from a POV of removing ancient women, but fine. GuzzyG (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal if other articles are wanted, but I don't know if we have room for both Nightingale and Nursing at this level. --Thi (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support, but if nursing is added, then this will have to be removed. We don't have room for both. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal, neutral on addition upon keeping Jane Austen as the female writer. I'm still debating the addition, since we already have Marie Curie as a female scientist/inventor and should perhaps consider nursing instead.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal per nom Splitzky (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
8. Support both addition and removal, though I may later support swapping Nightingale for nursing. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sappho is too important to remove at this level, her poetry is still very influential and has been for centuries. Nursing is a better addition. --
   talk
   ) 13:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition Nursing or Health care are not listed. --Thi (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per the main article on her: "Her poetry was well-known and greatly admired through much of antiquity, and she was among the canon of Nine Lyric Poets most highly esteemed by scholars of Hellenistic Alexandria. Sappho's poetry is still considered extraordinary and her works continue to influence other writers. Beyond her poetry, she is well known as a symbol of love and desire between women,^[1] with the English words sapphic and lesbian being derived from her own name and the name of her home island respectively. Whilst her importance as a poet is confirmed from the earliest times, all interpretations of her work have been coloured and influenced by discussions of her sexuality." How many writers are seen as important symbols 27 centuries following their death? Dimadick (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Sappho is an influential writer. I would rather remove Homer (and add Iliad or Oddysee) because it it disputed if Homer was an historical person. Minoo (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

If the addition passes, Mary Seacole should be considered for level 4. Cobblet (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Dostoevsky is important as a psychological novelist, but is that really more important than the entire field of architecture or engineering, which we do not represent? Le Corbusier is probably our best ambassador of the field, given that his designs have had a much stronger though much less pronounced influence on modern-day architecture than Dostoevsky's work has had on literature.

Support

1. Support as nom — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal of Dostoevsky. Cobblet (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal Sinan is the better architect to list.
   Ottoman empire is important enough to list a cultural figure from. He's on the wikimedia list, so it wouldn't be out of place. GuzzyG (talk
   ) 05:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition, neutral on removal I would slightly prefer Frank Lloyd Wright, but that's just a personal preference and Le Corbusier is probably objectively better per the above discussion. Sinan is completely unknown in the western world, so is unsuited to be "the" architect on this list. Dostoevsky is important per the earlier discussion, but not so much as Kafka.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   If Sinan is unknown in the West, how is it that Le Corbusier cited his

   Vers une architecture for the notion that "a plan proceeds from within to without"? If Sinan is not "the" architect, why did a certain person who is somewhat qualified to offer an opinion on the subject say that he was?[13][14] Cobblet (talk

   ) 14:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   That's great that Le Corbusier is able to cite him as such, and certainly enough for Level 4; why not just add Le Corbusier instead? He is both more recent, more Western, and more secular, having designed (as a consultant) the UN Headquarters and a whole UNESCO World Heritage site. As said in the Coco Chanel discussion, design in of itself (as opposed to art or engineering) is rather underrepresented on this list.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   Oh, so now we need people who are more Western and more recent?

   Sultan Ahmed Mosque, again both World Heritage sites. What did Le Corbusier and FLW's students achieve? Which Nobel Prize-winning novels did either of their works inspire? Cobblet (talk

   ) 15:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

5. Support removal per nom Splitzky (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal Dawid2009 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal per above. I think Tolstoy is sufficient for Russian literature. Gizza (talk • voy) 13:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Currently there seems to be no clear consensus about architects. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition. If I were going to add an architect to the list it would be Frank Lloyd Wright. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I'm not sure which architect we should really add to the list, I think that is worth its own debate. I'm also not entirely convinced Dostoevsky should be removed now that I have thought about it (I was originally supportive). Crime and Punishment as well as The Brothers Karamazov are incredibly influential books. If he is removed at least we have Tolstoy so it wouldn't bother me too much.
   talk
   ) 19:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Dostoevsky is considered one of the pioneers of existentialism in literature. The main article on his cites his influence on Surrealism, the Beat Generation, Russian symbolism, Expressionism, and psychoanalysis. I think he has had more of a cultural influence than an architect. Dimadick (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Michelangelo is an architect and Archimedes is an engineer. Most inventors could also be called engineers. Moreover Le Corbusier, like most modern architects, is influential only as a designer – I'm not aware of any advances in engineering that could be credited to him. Again I go back to Mimar Sinan as an architect who excelled as both designer and engineer – it's thanks to him that Hagia Sophia still stands today, to name just one example of the latter. Cobblet (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Tagore is rather irrelevant in terms of the other writers we list. Akbar was a supremely influential Muslim-Indian leader. His reign represents Islamic rule of India. He was extremely successful in expanding the frontiers of his kingdom and is notable for his religious syncretism and toleration. He was also a prolific patron of the arts and an extremely effective administrator. As I said before, India deserves to be represented more, and Akbar is arguably more fit to be on this list than either Tagore or even Suleiman the Magnificent.

Support

1. Support as nom — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support addition Not irrelevant at all and with the right Western promotion so that in the West his accomplishments are understood fully - he'd be accepted here, but Akbar is vital too. GuzzyG (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Good swap, Akbar is very well known historical figure. --Thi (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition per nom. --
   talk
   ) 13:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Panini works as the new south Asian literary figure.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support removal per nom Splitzky (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support removal Dawid2009 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
8. Support Akbar was a major patron of the arts. On matters of religion, he created the
   syncretic religion Din-i Ilahi, combining elements of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, and Zoroastrianism. I think his cultural influence is underrated. Dimadick (talk
   ) 18:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
9. Support removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
10. Support per nom — sorry Tagore, you are wonderful yourself. Aza24 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Tagore is a perfectly fine representative for South Asian literature. --
   talk
   ) 13:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal Hyperbolick (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal In spirit since it looks like Panini might not pass.. sucks out of all these writers it looks like there's only consensus to remove Tagore and we'll lose our only South Asian writer, a region with millenniums of literature..... GuzzyG (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal as it appears Pāṇini will not be added. One representative of South Asia's cultural contributions to the world is necessary. Cobblet (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal per previous discussion. With regards to Akbar I'm neutral as I don't see him heads and shoulders above other Mughal leaders. Aurangzeb achieved more militarily and Shah Jahan achieved more artistically (commissioned the Taj Mahal). Akbar was known for bridging cross-cultural divides by translating texts, etc. He created a religion as Dimadick mentions but it lasted for only 15 years so I personally think he's somewhat overrated. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Hello, Wikipedians,

The number of writers on this list does not sit right with me. There are currently 21 writers listed. Literature and storytelling are important, no doubt, but why are there thrice as many fiction authors as musicians, when music is also a very important component of human culture? Why are there five more people in the writers category than there are people listed in the philosophers and social sciences category (16)? That category involves a much broader field of study than just literature. Why are there more fiction writers than there are scientists (20)?

In his book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, Michael Hart has only two storytellers on his list: William Shakespeare (#31) and Homer (#98).^[1]. Compare that figure to the roughly 23 scientists he has on his list, most of whom appear on this vital articles list.

The book 1,000 Years, 1,000 People: Ranking the Men and Women Who Shaped the Millennium only lists the following ten authors in its top 100 people of the millennium: William Shakespeare (#5), Dante Alighieri (#30), Leo Tolstoy (#34), Voltaire (#36), Miguel de Cervantes (#44), John Milton (#53), Geoffrey Chaucer (#62), Charles Dickens (#70), Murasaki Shikibu (#73), and Fyodor Dostoevsky (#77).^[2]

The book The 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written lists the works of only eight fiction authors: Homer (Iliad and Odyssey), Virgil (Aeneid), Dante (Divine Comedy), Cervantes (Don Quixote), Shakespeare (First Folio), Voltaire (Candide), Tolstoy (War and Peace), and Kafka (The Trial).

Comparing these lists we can come up with a selection of authors who have been absolutely canonical: Homer, Virgil, Dante, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Voltaire, and Tolstoy. This is seven people, or equal to the number of musicians we have. I do not think any more than this number is appropriate because it removes room for more vital people. Is

I obviously agree. I'd personally rather have

The Divine Comedy and Don Quixote than Dante and Cervantes, but consensus here feels otherwise. Homer is (like Euclid) barely historical. Having 20 writers is too many. We have no actors (unless you count Shakespeare), while the level-4 list has a lot. We can't have no writers at this level, but we certainly don't need 2% of the list (and 16% of the biographies). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν

) 02:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

And of course many of the philosophers were also writers; in some cases the distinction is blurred. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There are a few reasons why this has happened:

1. There are eight articles listed under literature. There are 200 listed under science and another 99 under technology. So it makes sense to add some extra biographies of writers to counteract the imbalance in the rest of the list.
2. The idea of listing a writer's magnum opus rather than the writer's biography has been brought up before. In fact at one point we listed Don Quixote, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Iliad, the Mahabharata, and Shahnameh. We eventually removed all of these (swapping the Mahabharata for the Bhagavad Gita). As it turned out, it was enough trouble trying to choose a list of writers – trying to choose a list of writers and a list of literary works at the same time was even more challenging. Let's say we swapped Dante and Cervantes for The Divine Comedy and Don Quixote right now. Are we then saying that these are the two works of fiction for which Wikipedia needs a high-quality article the most? Are we saying that these two works are most representative of literature as a whole? I think we made a reasonable decision to focus just on writers at level 3 and leave the problem of choosing representative literary works as a task for level 4.
3. Among the various aspects of human culture, literature is one where the contributions of specific individuals have traditionally been the most well studied and understood. Historically, individual authors and their works have been given a status that has not been given to people in many other fields such as music. This is a cross-cultural phenomenon. It is why the current list of writers is able to cover over 2500 years of history and written literatures of many cultures, while the list of musicians covers 300 years and we cannot agree on a non-Western musician to add (although we did at least add Tagore).

Further to that last point, one has to be careful not to read too much into the categorizations. It wouldn't be entirely wrong to list Sappho and Tagore as musicians, and we certainly could've listed Voltaire as a philosopher rather than a writer. Most of the religious figures could be validly described as philosophers. We could've listed Avicenna, Descartes, Archimedes and al-Khwarizmi as scientists. Cobblet (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cobblet: Thank you for getting back. I wanted to know, instead of listing authors by their works, have you tried swapping them in favor of their [language] literature page? For instance, swapping Goethe and Fafka with German literature, or Abu Nuwas with Arabic literature, or Fyodor Dostoevsky with Russian literature, or perhaps subsuming Milton, Austen, Dickens, Twain and Joyce all under English literature? The benefit of these pages is that they presumably cover a broader set of topics than a biography could. For instance, the Russian literature page discusses Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, but it also goes over Nikolai Gogol, Alexander Pushkin, Ivan Turgenev, Boris Pasternak and Maxim Gorky. All of these authors are important to literature, but could not conceivably be added in their own right. If we already have English literature listed, why not list the literature of other languages? That way we could conceivably clear some of the less important authors on this list while maintaining only the most vital ones, that way giving room to add biographies from more diverse backgrounds, such as architecture, nursing or aviation Splitzky (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC) 04:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC) Splitzky

Indeed, to cover people we otherwise hadn't able to find room for was precisely why we added English literature in the first place. But there are those who prefer biographies over overview articles. Perhaps it may not seem that way from recent discussions, but I suspect picking literatures of specific languages rather than individual writers could spark even more controversy. For instance, it seems relatively uncontroversial that Rumi is a better choice than Abu Nuwas, but is Persian literature a better choice than Arabic literature? And while your proposal would obviously improve the diversity of human activities represented among the biographies, it might not have an equally positive impact on their historical and cultural diversity – note how all three of your suggested additions are Anglophones active between 1850 and 1950, for example. Cobblet (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Realistically, 20 writers is ok. The only issue is that there's too much in favour of English lit. The only two solutions i see to untangling it would be to move Voltaire to social scientists/philosophers (where hes listed on the level 4 list) and swapping Dickens with Victor Hugo or removing Austen and Twain for Emily Dickinson, to cover a woman/American in one. Hugo absolutely is on Dickens level, but might be more controversial to remove on a English list and Twain/Austen are both more famous than Dickinson so would not pass - but as i see it these are the only two options to keep what we represent while getting a cut (or two) in and even if hard, might represent this list better overall while cutting down. GuzzyG (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually the proper/fairer answer would probably be cut Austen/Joyce and add Virginia Woolf. Woolf was swapped for Austen in a time where we had E Hemingway/Joyce/Kafka and no Dickens, so in a representative way Austen was better for time. Now to sought out this over reliance on English language authors it's probably best for Woolf to replace Joyce/Austen. It's the best pay off importance wise probably. GuzzyG (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I am neutral on this discussion as of now, but I just wanted to comment that I oppose moving Voltaire to philosophers. Voltaire is best known as a writer and man of letters who used his fiction to explore his personal and political philosophy. While Voltaire's philosophy is important, especially in the realm of religious toleration, it is largely derivative of other liberal thinkers, particularly John Locke. Voltaire is the rightful representative of French literature. Hugo is not Dickens' equal, and neither Dickens nor Hugo nor any other English writer but Shakespeare can be said to be equals with Socrates or some of the people we don't already have. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

From all my research, writers are the singular most dominant figures when it comes to study. (with religion/science/politics being the most dominant on world impact). I don't offer personal opinion on here and by all available metrics Hugo is absolutely Dickens equal and this is easy to prove because writers are the main figures written about, unlike something like chefs where it is wishy washy. Let's go over the bad metrics first, Victor Hugo 27,069,311 world pageviews [17] and Charles Dickens 26,968,062 world pageviews [18], nice and equal, not bad when there's way more English speakers and Dickens is more frequent in Anglo pop culture, in there it shows 165 Wikidatas for Hugo and 155 for Dickens - equalish.

Now, let's get into real metrics - Hugo has 288,000 on Google scholar [19], Dickens has 206,000 [20], (now you may say Victor/Hugo are more commons terms but John Smith has 152,000 [21], so by all considerations this is accurate - not bad considering most of the top tier universities are in English speaking countries [22], which should favour Dickens. Now Google books search, which changes often so less reliable but Hugo has 8,410,000, [23] while Dickens has 8,370,000 [24], mostly equal. (John Smith has 5,090,000 [25], so it's likely to be legit.) Now Google NGrams, Hugo had English until 1930 and Dickens only really got a big boost over him in 2000. [26], not really impressive for a main writer of the language (as we'll see in the French version next).. In French it's not even close, this is a proper main language writer's dominating. [27]. In German it's closer with Hugo winning [28], In Italian Hugo wins [29], In Spanish Hugo wins [30], In Chinese Hugo wins [31] (to back up popularity diff in China even more, here's likes on one of China's top sites Hugo has 22641 [32], Dickens has 4955 [33]. In Russian Hugo wins [34]. Now if mentions in books/scholar aren't enough, let's analyze library holdings (and the closest thing we have to general readings), but with a reminder this is heavily bias in favour of English writers, because most places in America have a library, which is much bigger than France in this regard. Here's Hugos overall stats 23,183 works in 67,791 publications in 46 languages and 391,607 library holdings [35], with his top two works by stats - Les Mis having 2,648 editions published between 1753 and 2020 in 24 languages and held by 26,863 WorldCat member libraries worldwide and Notre Dame having 2,664 editions published between 1800 and 2020 in 32 languages and held by 25,723 WorldCat member libraries worldwide. Meanwhile Dickens overall has 25,032 works in 96,502 publications in 55 languages and 1,288,659 library holdings, with his top two works by stats - A Christmas Carol having 2,753 editions published between 1457 and 2021 in 33 languages and held by 27,298 WorldCat member libraries worldwide and Oliver Twist having 1,908 editions published between 1837 and 2021 in 45 languages and held by 27,662 WorldCat member libraries worldwide. This is the main thing Dickens beats Hugo in, but as i said not representative because America's bigger than France and Hugo is only known for two works inside Anglophone countries. Either way, by good reads his top two works [[36]] are up there with Dickens [37].

Either way, any personal opinion or subjective method aside he is absolutely up there, beating Dickens in things such as scholar results, which would have to mean he at the very least has more of a wider base of studies. Les Misérables (musical) and The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996 film) place him in popular Angolophone conscious too. I know you like Bloom and Hugo isn't in Bloom's main 26 here The Western Canon, but this is definitely not a negative on Hugo and by all measure - my assessment is fair - they're on the same level rather than not. My favourite author is F. Scott Fitzgerald, im bias towards Banjo Paterson and i also enjoy John Keats and Sylvia Plath (and own almost all their main works - including Dickens/Hugo/any book on the level 4 list with a easy to get English translation...), but i would never suggest any here because they do not fit my critera and in my opinion - by any reasonable metric Hugo is the French equivalent of Dickens at the very least. There should be extra weight towards representatives of the Official languages of the United Nations. (although we're about to lose our Arabic one, we cover the Quran though so we're not totally missing it. Anyway, in light of any other evidence (and this is only some of what i check) i think Hugo does stand next to Dickens.... GuzzyG (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I think Dickens is more relevant for English speakers, but to be clear, I don’t think either of them should be on this list. There are more important people from more diverse fields who should take their places. I’m a fan of OPs seven: Homer, Virgil, Dante, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Tolstoy. Plus maybe Twain. We do not need more novelists, as no others are absolutely essential. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

For context, I was the user who suggested swapping Milton for Joyce, while the former was cold added. After giving it some thought I have to agree with this poster and User:力. 21 writers is way too many representatives of that field. Nobody is arguing that masters like Goethe, Dostoevsky, Dickens, Kafka, or Sappho are not important or they their contributions are not notable. However, these writers fundamentally do not add anything new to the list, and their presence takes up room that could be used to add representatives of fields we miss. For instance, we have 21 writers, but no representative of political science, architecture, agronomy, aviation, nursing and patient care, jurisprudence, oratory, sociology (Marx kind of fits, but where’s Max Weber?) or space flight. Why is this? If the proposal is essentially to remove 2/3rds of the writers and replace them with other representatives, then I’m okay with that, essentially. Let’s keep it to the essentials. My only qualm might be that I would like to see another English language author kept. Perhaps Twain, as he can be a representative of North American literature while Shakespeare represents the Commonwealth. Since a great majority of our traffic comes from the US and Commonwealth, we can have room for two. —- Zelkia1101 (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I've argued before for Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier and even Imhotep (who failed). Wright brothers failed before and so have both Yuri Gagarin and Neil Armstrong. I've argued for Nightingale. Marx pretty much takes the sociology spot. I would love for philosophers/social scientists to have 20 (Hugo Grotius/Cicero/Niccolò Machiavelli and Francis Bacon, Cicero/Bacon failed.). No Agronomy figure would fit on this list. Even figures from the sections on the level 4 section we miss (Entertainment/Sports/Journalism) have failed here (mainly Marilyn Monroe/Pele, journalism is being removed itself let alone any figure). Modern computers are areas we also lack, with Steve Jobs/Bill Gates both having failed. I've suggested Dance and Design because women are the top figures (Isadora Duncan/Anna Pavlova and Coco Chanel). Most angles have been tried and tested, but even as a advocate for many things i think 20 writers is a appropriate target (and with Nuwas swapped for Rumi and without Milton - as good as it gets). Goethe and Sappho being absolutely essential especially. Kafka is the only one i'd support cutting. Wagner and Disney would have to go before Goethe, Dostoevsky, Dickens or Sappho. I was strongly against Dickens/put up Dostoevsky for removal before too.... GuzzyG (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Neither Goethe nor Sappho are encyclopedically essential. Per OP’s post, neither shows up on a top 100 list. Of course both are important, but fiction authors have had much less of an impact on world history than social scientists of scientists proper. There is absolutely no reason to have 20 writers — Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with the list of 21 authors, but I can also do with the 7 plus Mark Twain per Zelkia1101 and a woman (Austen?). As Cobblet says, writers are prone throughout time and cultures to be overrepresented in consciousness anyway, so it's not inexplicable that we should overrepresent them on our list. One field that is underrepresented on here is business; Henry Ford is our only businessman, and people are resistant to adding Rockefeller for whatever reason.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Business being underrepresented is for three things in my opinion, (like activism and MLK or Steve Biko) it's too country specific and harder to pick one in comparison to other figures of that same industry in another country, there's not really alot of historical analysis on business figures being historically important compared to science or politicians or artists and business people are still kinda new in a historical sense. One of Rockefeller, JP Morgan and Carnegie and one of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates will be listed one day. But even as a arguer for Rockefeller, it's hard to any of them on the level of anyone listed here. (after cuts). Plus Disney is pretty much more business figure than filmmaker. (Even if i think he should be gone). GuzzyG (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Once

ignore the "no living persons" rule to put him on, but that'll take a decade or so.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs

) 19:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sappho swapped with Florence Nightingale
• Sophocles swapped with Mansa Musa
• Li Bai swapped with Wu Zetian
• Rumi/Abu Nuwas (whoever is on the list by the time the nom comes up) swapped with Pāṇini
• John Milton swapped with Cicero
• Johann Wolfgang von Goethe swapped with Bruce Lee
• Jane Austen swapped with Coco Chanel
• Niccolo Machiavelli
• Fyodor Dostoevsky swapped with Frank Lloyd Wright
• Mark Twain swapped with Max Weber
• Rabindranath Tagore swapped with Akbar
• James Joyce and Franz Kafka swapped with Wright brothers.

Keep Homer, Virgil, Murasaki, Dante, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Voltaire, and Tolstoy. Let me know what you guys think — Zelkia1101 (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I would keep Twain and one of the women, and have Howard Hughes instead of the Wright Brothers to be both a businessman w/ Ford and a representation of mental illness; I'm otherwise fine with the changes. That said, we don't have a lot lot of writers on here, so I'm similarly fine with the status quo.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I added Lady Murasaki instead of Twain because I thought we needed a woman writer, and Murasaki is arguably more vital than Twain. Tolstoy represents 19th and 20th century literature and Shakespeare represents English literature better. I think it would be silly to have 9 writers when we have 9 religious figures, who are much more important. As for Howard Hughes, the Wright brothers are far, far more historically influential than him. I don't see the case for him being added. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I think Twain represents American literature and satire, although the latter is also Voltaire; I'd still think the former makes him vital enough given the US's dominance in the Anglosphere. I'd personally rather have Austen than Murasaki, although that would have to be sussed out during a nom. Also fair enough with Hughes, I was just spitballing during this brainstorming session.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above about keeping Twain and another woman (maybe adding Woolf) as otherwise we have no American writers and only one English-language writer total. Not sure how I feel about Wu Zetian;

Taizong of Tang seems like a better pick—he certainly represents Sui/Tang/Song as a whole far better than Wu Zetian. Pāṇini and Mansa Musa feel like huge stretches. Though it would be nice to add an African leader, Mansa Musa himself doesn't really have significant political or military accomplishments; I would think adding the Mali Empire is more sensible. Aza24 (talk

) 22:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Apart from Austen or Woolf, Dickinson is still an option. I see Pāṇini as a swap with Tagore and am happy as long as one person to represent South Asian culture is listed. I prefer Mansa Musa over Rockefeller (or any other modern industrialist not named Ford or Edison) at least. Much as I think Tang Taizong would be an excellent choice for the list, I have no problem listing Wu Zetian instead – her biography is about as exceptional as it gets in the otherwise male-dominated history and historiography of China. Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, we're not a list of exceptions, are we? The issue with Wu is that there is still substantial debate in China over the actual breadth of her accomplishments (our article on her is mostly OR and doesn't cite any Chinese historians). Taizong is the standard go to for "greatest emperor", and Wu was only able to enact her reforms because of the monumental beginning that Taizong had. Aza24 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

We're not a list of paragons either. Put simply: Wu Zetian rivals Qin Shi Huang as the most controversial emperor in Chinese history. Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

As regards Mansa Musa, the problem is that Africa and people of African descend are vastly underrepresented on this list. Mansa Musa is the quintessential native African leader. Shaka may be another contender, but I don't think he's influential enough. Sub-Saharan Africa deserves to be represented beyond just Mandela — Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and can support Mansa Musa for that and his obscene wealth.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Most interesting suggestions. Definitely a strong step forward. I'd keep Li Bai, Rumi, and Kafka. I cannot support adding Bruce Lee (not over Sun Yat-sen, no matter how badly one might want to list another actor), Frank Lloyd Wright (the weakest of these three IMO; we have an architect in Michelangelo and if I had to pick another one I'd go with Mimar Sinan) or the Wright brothers (Ford suffices for transport when other modern areas of tech like telecommunications and materials aren't represented at all). I like everything else, but nursing and either the Mali or the Songhai Empire (I actually prefer the latter) should be added along with Nightingale and Mansa Musa. If everyone else really wants Bruce Lee and the Wright brothers, my suggestion is to take out Wagner (classical music will survive with Bach/Mozart/Beethoven) and either van Gogh or Rembrandt (one Dutch artist is enough; I prefer removing van Gogh). Cobblet (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The thing with removing Wagner is then we have our representation of the art music tradition ending at Beethoven (1827), while our visual art tradition continues well into the 20th century. In this sense, we'd then have no real representative of romanticism or modernism in classical music (Beethoven is hardly romantic, in the grand scheme of the period). Wagner is helpful because his music covers everything after Beethoven until at least world war two, perhaps even further, and everything in the 20th century can justly be seen as a continuation of his ideas, or a reaction against them. In this sense he covers composers like Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Stravinsky, Strauss, Mahler; Beethoven alone definitely doesn't. I could see swapping Wagner for Stravinsky; but seven musicians really doesn't seem like too many... Agree about Rembrandt and van Gogh, but the decision seems impossible to make. Aza24 (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

With the original list of writers proposed by Zelkia, literature ends with Tolstoy. I'd keep Kafka over Wagner. We need an expressionist (in any field) and literary modernist more than a late romantic composer, and I disagree that Beethoven does not adequately represent the Romantic period – the entire period is a reaction to his music. Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Currently we are going to be well over quota (after adding Algeria and possibly Carbohydrate, Lipid). So if we would like to have tenativelly/sistematically less than 120 biographies at all, then I think dropping out one German writer would be much much easier and more reasonable than Rembrandt or Van Gogh. While there was no consensus which German writer should be removed then there was no consensus to keep both either (among 13 all involved !voters who technically supported/opposed them, just two wanted to keep two German writers, what is 15%). Originally I was leaning toward Kafka over Goethe but after what was said for example here and here (Thi's point that Nietzshe can debatedly something add to German literature on our coverage of the list) I think Kafka is weak link on this list. Having three writers which somehow represent 20th century (Tolstoy, Kafka, Tagore) is plenty if we are in business of removing biographies and plenty in comprasion to all other fields (for example politics from 20th century). Writers are influential and frequently studied, sure, but maybe number of three writers which somehow represents 20th century is too many, modernly this is easier to find sport/music/religious figure which got international or long national day of mourningin 20th/21th century than writer (just in case someone misunderstands, I of course do not think National Day is proper measure, I am happy we do not have sportperson from 20th century but maybe this could be point that two writers who represents 20th century is not too few but better than three). In light of less than 120 biographies would much prefer to have one Jazz representative than arguing that we need Kafka after removing Dostoyevsky and I could live with Tagore over Kafka. Tagore at least will have long and secure vitality for being "first Asian Noble winner" and "Author of National Athemns for two big countries with huge population". I would probably swap him with James Watt or whoever. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I was debating between Rumi and Lady Murasaki and chose her instead because we ideally needed a woman and a non-Westerner. On second thought, because Rumi is much more popular with users than Murasaki, I might be inclined to ditch her and add him with the rest of the eight. As for Bruce Lee, we need an actor and a sportsperson. He has three things going for him: (1) He's a prolific martial artist, probably the most well-known (2) he is a prolific movie star and (3) he is a non-Westerner and Chinese, both domains we do not cover as much as we should. As for Frank Lloyd Wright, architecture is so important I don't think just having Michelangelo will be enough and Mimar Sinan is not well known enough. The Wright brothers are must-adds for me. They represent the development of aviation, probably one of the most consequential inventions of the late modern period. Ford, who did automobiles, does not cover it in the slightest. I am also opposed to poaching from the artists, especially since we have a bloated writers list that needs to be pruned further — Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Zelkia about Frank Lloyd Wright; Michelangelo is known as an artist writ large rather than an architect, and I didn't know who Mimar Sinan was until I looked him up after you mentioned him. Wright represents various late-19th/early-20th century architectural styles such as the Prairie School and whatever the Guggenheim and Fallingwater are, and is "the" quintessential Chicago, and by extension American, architect, beating out Sullivan, Burnham, and Mies van der Rohe. I'm neutral on adding Bruce Lee; it'd be nice to have another actor, and if we include one it'd be him, but maybe it's not quite as sorely needed as other fields.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If another architect can "trump" Frank Lloyd Wright, I can maybe see it being Christopher Wren, but not anyone non-Western if we only have one true architect (as opposed to other polymath).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That's just not true. The most impactful today is

UNESCO World Heritage Site, compared with FLW's eight, just in the US. By most world metrics, Le Corbiuser is the bigger name. I've been advocating for a architect on this list for years and unless we're specifically going for a English language bias, it should be Corbiuser. GuzzyG (talk

) 01:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I admit I forgot about Corbusier, he's also a good one.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with either Le Corbusier or Lloyd Wright as long as we get at least one devoted representative of the field. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Le Corbusier is better than FLW. But I bring up Sinan not only because his technical mastery was unsurpassed in his time, but also because the architecture of an entire empire was built in his style. Nobody else in the history of architecture can claim that. A modest person once wrote: "Two architects have come on earth. The first one is the Ottoman architect Sinan and the other one is myself." Guess who it was? Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree Sinan would be the best choice for a sole architect. The Muslim world is very important too and the Ottoman empire should a have cultural figure listed. it'd make even more sense if Rumi/Abu Nuwas are removed. If a sole person had the architecture of the UK/US molded after them they'd be listed. The only other concern is who would be better to list between Kalidasa or Pāṇini? GuzzyG (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree with Zelkia's list, considering i have been suggesting most of these names for years (except Wu Zetian or Max Weber). Only two i wouldn't support removing are Li Bai and Goethe. Henry VIII, Ben Franklin, Stalin, Wagner and Disney can all go before them. There is no way Goethe is any less fundamental to German culture than Wagner (and no way is Kafka more vital than Goethe) and Li Bai is a representative of a fundamental literature. I think we should cut down to 100 biographies and cover more countries (better way of being diverse)/art subjects instead, but if we have this number than most of these swaps are not so bad. GuzzyG (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Besides religion (for obvious reasons) for every designation of people we have at least one representative figure from the 20th century, except philosophy. In fact, our most modern philosopher (Nietzsche) died right on 1900! The primary reason that Wittgenstein should be added, is both this, and that he is a very good candidate for being the most important philosopher of the 20th-century (see here). I would also direct your attention to this poll on a prominent philosophy blog, where Wittgenstein arrives in first place easily. The fact is, that there is no figure who perfectly fills up the 20th- and 21st centuries of philosophy in the same way to Avicenna does for the Islamic Golden Age. But Wittgenstein is a good bet, and probably the best; his inclusion would give us a real representative of philosophy of language, which is completely unrepresented, the Monist side of Philosophy of mind (only the dualist side is represented), the first representative of Logic since at least Aquinas, and an attempt to fill the void we have now. Finally I point you to here where four of Wittgenstein's books are included, because "Wittgenstein towers above all other 20th century philosophers to such an extent that it is surprising to find any books not written by him included in such a list." Aza24 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom Aza24 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Gödel and Wittgenstein are arguably the two most important 20th century philosophers, with others (including Bertrand Russell, Imre Lakatos, and Peter Singer) not being vital enough for this level. Mao Zedong is a political leader and we can ignore him for quota purposes User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support His most important publications appeared posthumously, but he is considered a pioneer of ordinary language philosophy. 15:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't agree that we are lacking in philosophers. I don't consider any single 20th-century philosopher sufficiently dominant within that academic area or within the broader public consciousness to list. Contemporary philosophy is enough. I'd be more open to adding philosophy of language. Cobblet (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I'd prefer a 20th-century social scientist to a 20th-century philosopher, given how more important the former had become than the latter at that time. Heck, I'd prefer Hegel to Wittgenstein given his practical impact in the world (via Marx and other students of his dialectics) with his philosophy.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Other listed figures represent cumulative knowledge (science, mathematics, logic, see Gödel) or canonical authors and artists (Nietzsche's works can be read as fiction, from aesthetic viewpoint). Their legacy is secure. For example Thomas Aquinas, Wollstonecraft, Smith and Marx are founding figures in Catholic philosophy, feminism, liberalism and socialism. Social philosophers have given practical impact in the world. I think that it would be more useful to add more philosophical topics, for example branches of logic would be worth considering. Kant was by some definition the last canonical philosopher, central figure for both analytic and continental traditions. Philosophy of mind, Analytic philosophy and monistic philosophies are not listed at this level. For example Marx is representative of materialistic philosophy. Wittgenstein has also his critics, for example M. Pigliucci has called him "one of the most overrated during the last century" [38], [39] --Thi (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose changing to oppose until we can figure out where we are going with the people list, I'm not supporting raw additions currently. --
   talk
   ) 03:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The social theorists who need adding are Cicero (oratory), Niccolò Machiavelli (political science), Max Weber (sociology -- French counterpart lists him), and Hugo Grotius (jurisprudence). I will be suggesting some of these articles as swaps for literatue biographies soon. I do not necessarily oppose Wittgenstein, as he is certainly more vital than Goethe, Kafka, Austen, or Rumi, and I am always up for more social thoerists to be added, but I would like to see those whom we are gravely missing added first. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest swapping Wagner for Max Weber. I'd support removing Dickens and Joyce for Cicero and Machiavelli. I don't think we need Grotius. Cobblet (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment not voting on the nom per se, but I just want to point out that Turing and (especially) Gödel, though listed as mathematicians, are also 20th-century philosophers. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If we are going to remove year, then I see no reason why we would keep day listed. I'm opening this nomination now because I think both articles should be assessed together.

Support

Oppose

1. per earlier discussion. Calendar and season overlap with year. Nothing currently on the list overlaps with day; night isn't on this list (and is an article in horrible shape), we don't list breakfast, lunch, or dinner, nothing about work shifts (other than employment), nothing about eclipses, etc. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. For example time zone is currently not listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. --
   talk
   ) 03:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The recent string of proposals in changing the people list have made me think this, for the most part I have disagreed with most of these proposed changes while some have agreed with almost all of them. I think a consensus should be met by the users here on how we should consider something vital for the list, this is obviously very subjective but a lot of recent proposals to me have struck out not as "vital for a list of 1000 articles for the English language Wikipedia" but more so trying to fill arbitrary quotas so certain things can be "represented". If we can gether a more clear picture of what we should consider vital enough for the list, it would make future proposals and maintenance of the list easier. I do not see eye to eye with the notions of some removals of extremely important influential figures just to be replaced with others because they "fill a gap" but I would be interested to hear the positions others hold. I guess my real question is this, should we be trying to fill every small gap at the expense of the most influential and well-known? Which of those two sides is really "vital"? --

If someone desirous of learning asked me to recommend 1000 English Wikipedia articles for them to read, which ones would I recommend to them, assuming that each article I recommend magically turns into a featured article regardless of its current status? Cobblet (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

These are the criteria I generally use, for reference. I specialize in biography, so my coverage is skewed that way:

1. Popularity with users - pageviews aren't everything, but we shouldn't have articles on this list that few users look at every day (think Abu Nuwas). There are different thresholds for this requirement. A biography should have more views than a general page (e.g. Abstract algebra), since Wikipedia users are especially predisposed to biography.
2. Importance - The page in question should reflect something important about the world, nature, mathematics, science, the arts, culture, society, politics, innovation, etc. If it's a biography, the person should ideally be the best of the best in their field. I have used the term "supreme human achievement" to describe people who fit well. Such people will be inexorably associated to their field of study by the general public (Darwin and biology or evolution, for example). If it's an event, then it should be supremely important to the development of human history and, more particularly, to the lives of people who inhabit history.
3. Uniqueness and variety - One of the less followed rules in my opinion, especially given my recent proposals. Not only should the person or topic be important and popular, they should also represent something that is not represented on the list already. For example, we have no representatives of aviation or flight, a crucial part of the modern world, whereas we currently have 21 authors on our list, of which only six or seven are of any supreme importance. Franz Kafka is great, but he fundamentally does not add anything spectacular to this list. Furthermore, we should not have major holes in our list. Ideally, we would have an even spread of articles that fully represent each important field of study. It's no good if you have an excellently curated list of writers if you have very little representation from Africa, for example. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Zelkia for the most part except for "popularity"; importance in a great chain of being is the primary factor, followed by diversity/uniqueness/"marginal" contributions (sex/geographic/chronological/etc.). Some Anglocentric bias is warranted at this level and we start having biographies, in contrast to Levels 1 and 2, while we don't list living persons or specific secular works of art/literature, unlike Levels 4 and 5.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The main thing from the "diversity" point of view is depending on where you look at it. William Shakespeare, Li Bai, Rumi, Rabindranath Tagore, Jorge Luis Borges and Chinua Achebe are all peaks of the continent (or important region like the Middle East or South Asia they reside from. Shakespeare may be direct for us, but if you're in China Shakespeare would be similar to how a Anglo person looks at Rumi or Li Bai or Tagore, in a "world" literature sort of way. The central focus would be on Li Bai (and Du Fu). This is why "diversity" complaints mean nothing. These are still central figures, just not from a western lens. Considering China has a bigger population than Europe/the US/Canada/Oceania put together, that probably means that Li Bai has a direct impact on more people. It's not just adding people to add people, it's covering the world's peak before we cover a western or Europe 3rd or 4th. Number one (in a larger population) would mean more than 3rd or 4th best in a smaller continent, right? Who would matter more in a Chinese history class, Wu Zetian or Catherine the Great? Euro history isn't automatically the main narrative everywhere. It's just about covering every main narratives figures. Mansa Musa means something to a whole continents history timeframe, even if it doesnt fit into a Euro history of (Ancient/Post-Classical/Early Modern/Modern) timeframe than so what? he's not a European figure, he shouldn't be compared to that metric. Same with figures like Coco Chanel, fashion is one of the arts where a woman has legitimately been the number one figure, how can people complain about forcing people onto the list, than gloss over the legitmate times when a woman has achieved the fields peak? (same with Murasaki Shikibu, who was called overrated even after a thorough explanation of her clear importance....). The world isn't one linear narrative, there's multiple (and certainly Euro history is not the main one) and these figures are all peaks of a main narrative. GuzzyG (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, worth noting the opposes to Mark Twain stating "we need a American writer", how is this any less a appeal to diversity? India, China, Persia, Arabia etc all have a millennium (or nearly in Persia's case) of literature before the US was even founded... So who is this "diversity" really benefiting here? GuzzyG (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Because this is the English Wikipedia and America is the largest English-speaking country, so the idea that we wouldn't have at least one American writer listed is preposterous. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

This type of argument would have more merit on the French Wikipedia, where over half the page views are from France; or on the German Wikipedia, when over two-thirds of the page views are from Germany. Americans account for only about a third of the English Wikipedia's page views. This isn't the American Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I never said it was the American Wikipedia, but America is the largest English-speaking country as well as being one of the oldest, in terms of its English literary tradition, with a significant contribution to English literature. Not having a single American author on the list is just bizarre. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

On the diversity point, I will say I don't have as radical a view on it. This is ultimately an English-language encyclopedia, and because the majority of users hail from the United States or the Commonwealth, it makes sense that our list should be somewhat Eurocentric or Anglocentric. It all depends on the language of the encyclopedia. For example, it would make sense for a Russian encyclopedia to have figures like Dostoevsky, Pushkin, or Gogol on their most vital article list, whereas we have no need for these articles. Likewise, a Chinese vital articles list might have Du Fu or Li Bai but not Jane Austen. That's fine. A French listing might have Molière, Dumas pere, or Victor Hugo, whereas these figures are not as important to us. Essentially every single writer biography can be contested depending on the region or language of the encyclopedia with the exception of the Core Three: Shakespeare, Homer, and Cervantes. I don't think we need a representative of African literature, for instance, given that African literature is not very influential in Anglosphere circles. However, we should have more than one representative of Sub-Saharan Africa. An Igbo encyclopedia might list Achebe as level 3, though. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I won't get into debates on Shakespeare or Homer, but no Hindi/Arabic/Igbo/Mandarin/Japanese etc encyclopedia would be obligated to cover Cervantes as a "core three". They're still the Western core three. "the influence of Homeric epic on Western civilization has been great" means nothing to a Chinese encyclopedia, the core writer/thinker is Confucius. I'm not under any delusion now we will get consensus on these, but it should be noted that Gutenberg being listed in favour of Cai Lun or Bi Sheng is a diversity pick to favour the English encyclopedia, that Mark Twain being listed is a diversity pick to favour the English language, that needing a Romantic composer in Richard Wagner over the many non-European/American styles is a diversity pick to favour the Euro music timeline, that Eastern visual art gets the same amount of biographies as Animation is a diversity pick in favour of the English encyclopedia. I'm just saying, from an actual long lasting historical POV, the actual diversity picks are not the bare minimum non American/European figures we have.. Let's see if someone like Mark Twain is as relevant as Li Bai or Murasaki Shikibu for as long. Twain has been dead for 111 years, Murasaki has been dead for 990 years (based on a 1031 death date) and Li Bai has been dead for 1,259 years and are still central to their countries cultural life. Do we think Twain will last as long? Japan and China are preeminent literatures and countries, if Twain is dependent on being American, are we even sure yet the States will stay united for 1,259 years? The fact that we can question that is a testament to Li Bais importance itself.. Even Shakespeare and de Cervantes have only been dead for 405 years.. Most of these "diversity" picks have lasted centuries and they're questioned, so we should acknowledge where the actual diversity picks are atleast. GuzzyG (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

.....all of which points to the fact about how hard this all is to quantify but whatever. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

China's history is a series of back and forth unifications and splits, so such actions alone clearly does not mean certain cultural figures will be eroded in importance. Aza24 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I know about China's history, my point is that this is a country that has central territory and has millenniums of history. A "Cradle of civilization" one might say. The United States is not a country with integral territory, it is a union of colonial states. If it doesn't exist no more, what would replace it? In China's "unifications and splits" it still has a central culture. Would whatever replaces the US still hold it's culture as integral/central to it's own? Twain does not have anywhere near as good footing in history as someone like Li Bai... America's primary cultural contributions should be covered in popular music, jazz and films first. American writers are not important. (just like American artists, although atleast Andy Warhol has more of a uniqueness about him to his field than Twain).. we should've kept Poe instead of basically swapping him with Twain, atleast he represents genre.GuzzyG (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

GuzzyG, how long someone has been dead is not a good measure of their influence. By that logic, ancient people should dominate the list. But I do not think that the likes of Eupolis or Menander would find a place in a modern list of top writers. Usually when considering the impact an individual has had, I look for information on their followers, imitators, or the derivative works inspired by their own. Dimadick (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That's clearly not what i meant and more fits into my point, you're comparing the central Chinese/Japanese writer to 5 or 50th ranked Greek writers, i was comparing each "central" writer. Eupolis and Menander are not central to ancient Greek in a way Homer is. This is what Li Bai is like.... yes, if you're still the central cultural figure after 1000 years in the biggest country in the world... that must mean more than someone like Twain, how is this not obvious? GuzzyG (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not space-constrained. However, the attention of our readers is. I see "vital" articles as being those which would be in an encyclopedia where space is constrained. I see no need for "representation" at level-3. At level-4, where we have room for 50 actors/footballers, representation becomes relevant. At level-3, I would consider having no biographies at all, except those (Aristotle, Jesus, William Shakespeare, Albert Einstein) that are so vital they cannot be left out.
I would prefer PageRank over page views as the first measure of vitality. It's not perfect, in my tests a few years ago United States and Aristotle were the top two articles, and Harvard University Press was in the top 200. But it seemed to work fairly well. Also, as a practical note, there are (I estimate) 850 or so articles on this level that are clearly "vital", and the last 150 can be easily swapped with the 200 or so articles just missing the cut. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Five the most popular words in Google Ngrams are: ",";"the";"of";"and";"to". Two the most popular words from our vital list on google ngrams probably are "God" and "Lord" which beats everything so giantly. Religion also has high Google Ngrams, better than everything from level 1 (except debatedly Life but for very short stage. Religion has higher Google Ngrams in historical perspective, Life has better peak) Dawid2009 (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

limit of 1000 is arbitrary anyway. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It's also necessary. Having a target number helps to remind us that we need to also be removing articles if we want to add new ones rather than simply continuing to add more without limit. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Still bizarre coming to questions such as whether to swap Goethe for Bruce Lee. If there really are 1000 most vital articles, why not set up a point system for rating holistic vitality of all, and simply have the top 1000 of those without respect to what field they fall in or who is represented? And what would we do with a several-way tie at the thousand spot? Hyperbolick (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That is why the 10,000 article list was created. If there's an article that doesn't quite make the cut here, it can go there. As far as some kind of point system, any system we devise will still be arbitrary. What is and is not among the most 1,000 articles on the English Wikipedia is always going to be subjective in some way. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This has come up at least once before, and I think I opposed its removal previously. But we're now over quota and it seems like people want to keep adding more articles in the people and country sections, so something has to go. Just looking over the religion section, this seems like one of the weakest articles we currently list, given Judaism's relatively small size as a global religion. I think we can probably do without this article at this level to free up some space.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Central to Judaism. --
   talk
   ) 03:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose It had more of an impact on Rabbinic Judaism than any of the Biblical texts. Dimadick (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Judaism's small size belies the fact that it is essentially, albeit indirectly, responsible for most of the world's civilization. 21:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

This has been suggested three times previously, this being the most recent occasion. IMO, Hebrew language seems like a more vital article. Cobblet (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

If this nomination is made based on "quota reasons" then I do not think this is weakest link in religion/philosophy section. If I would looking for hard choices to make place for Zorroastrianism or Greek Mythology then I would rather cut Free Will, Reason/Truth and maybe Belief. Are them all more vital than Causlity, Conscience or Sin? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Here are some swaps and removals of people we can consider. I think this will help keep the quota of articles down so we can add more interesting articles to this level.

One Soviet leader should be enough for this level. Neutral on which one should be removed. Interstellarity (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

Interstellarity (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Both of these figures are more vital than Kafka or Twain. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I see the rationale here but Lenin is just as vital as Marx in terms of Marxism-Leninism becoming such a widespread ideology. Stalin is one of the most important leaders of the 21st century. --
   talk
   ) 16:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose They had far more more impact on 20th-century political philosophy than anyone else. Dimadick (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose as both Leninism and Stalinism were governing philosophies gaining worldwide importance. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

This is tough. Both were obviously important, but do we really need to list both at this level? It's sort of a similar situation to listing both Julius Caesar and Augustus. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

See past discussions re Lenin here (back-to-back discussions) and here. Cobblet (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need to list two mythical figures from Judaism at this level. And of the two, Abraham is clearly more vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Important mythological figure, but I would rather list a goddess such as Inanna or Asherah than a mere prophet. Dimadick (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Moses is the central figure of the Jewish religion and a central figure in both Christianity and Islam. Across all of the Abrahamic religions he is one of the most well-known prophets and figures. He is the source of Abrahamic law, whose influence has been profound on Western jurisprudence. Both Abraham and Moses are vital. Why are we nixing them but keeping Rumi, Twain and Kafka among other non-vital writers? — Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

   We also list Jesus and Paul for Christianity and Mohammed for Islam. That's a lot of coverage for the Abrahamic religions. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

   This is because Abrahamic religions are of paramount importance to world history and culture. They are especially important to our users, most of whom hail from countries profoundly influenced by the Abrahamic creeds. Again, why would we ever remove Moses but keep Twain or Kafka or Rumi or Murasaki, none of whom are particularly important to our users' cultures or traditions, especially when compared to Moses and the Biblical tradition. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

   One reason is because Moses wasn't even a real person according to most Biblical scholars. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose Moses is the most important figure in Judaism and is very important in the other Abrahamic religions. --
   talk
   ) 16:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per PaleoMatt. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
4. No chance for removal that frequently studied cultural figures. They are admittedly vital for English Wikipedia just as Laozi is admittedly vital for Chinese Wikipedia as being semi-mythical matters not. Moses is pivotal figure in Judaism and very important in other religions especially due to his relevant and universal
   the most often mentioned figure in the Quran. I disagree Moses is less vital than Abraham, Abraham is not quoted in canon of Caodaism and is not bolded on metapage along with Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. However I do not think Abraham is less important than Moses either. While there is evidence that Moses is more frequently studied, then Abraham is credited as founder of Judaism and has close range to God in Abrahamic religions. So both are uniques and most vital on their own. Dawid2009 (talk
   ) 05:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Quite famous, seems very vital. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Why do you think it's so clear that Abraham is more vital? Cobblet (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. For me Moses seems more vital than Abraham, whom I'd support removing instead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I made a tentative list of 100 people. More about this later. I noticed that editor GuzzyG made similar list. I can agree with it, although I would at least include Franz Kafka. Quota of 50 countries seems reasonable for me. Quota of 110–120 biographies would be possible, if we make cuts in other parts of the list. Which biographies are absolutely necessary at this level? -Thi (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Updates to list below: Henry VIII, Ibn Khaldun, Max Weber, Emmy Noether, Frida Kahlo and The Beatles added. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Mark Twain, Vincent van Gogh and Max Planck removed. Abraham and Moses moved to other section. --Thi (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Mark Twain added, Friedrich Nietzsche removed. --Thi (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The way things are going, it looks like we will be increasing the number of biographies we list, not decreasing it. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Nevertheless this contribution is much appreciated. Thi, GuzzyG and I are largely on the same page. Relative to Thi's list, I'd keep Ibn Khaldun over Goethe; the Beatles over Mark Twain; Noether over Planck; and Kahlo over Rembrandt or van Gogh. I'd also be indifferent to whether Tagore or Akbar is listed. Relative to GuzzyG's list, I'd keep Kafka over Goethe; da Gama over Amundsen; Monet over Planck; Stalin over Lenin; and Joan of Arc over Jabir. Cobblet (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd keep Walt Disney over Charlie Chaplin and Henry VIII over Elizabeth I. I'd also get rid of Moses. One mythological person (Abraham) from the Abrahamic religions is enough. Regardless, we've never instituted a quota over different sections on the Level 3 list and I'm against starting now. Perhaps some biographies should be trimmed, but on a case-by-case basis. Maybe it would be better to start an official vital biographies list of 100/500/1,000 biographies. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see this as an attempt to enforce a strict quota, but rather an attempt to see if there is a shorter list of biographies for which we can find a strong consensus to keep. What we do with the remainder of the biographies – whether we keep some or none of them and what we replace them with – can be discussed separately. Cobblet (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I can agree to cutting Abraham or Moses. Cobblet (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I have large agreements with Thi's list. I would rather have Tesla than Mendeleev, Kafka over Goethe, Kahlo over Monet, Weber over Freud (though that might be controversial), and maybe Michael Jackson over Louis Armstrong (although again, likely controversial).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I can agree with everyone here. I've never been a fan of Abraham/Moses being here under people. (I know Laozi, Homer and Jabir ibn Hayyan are in a similar position, but we list Abraham/Moses under philosophy/religion on Level 4 and we should be consistent across lists). My whole thing was based on cutting alot of the double/triple listings we have that are not necessary. I chose Lenin over Stalin because his thought/writings will probably last longer than the memory of Stalin's rule, but i can relent to the fact we cover Marx, so Lenin's contributions are covered already in a way Stalin isn't. "da Gama over Amundsen" i can agree with for sure, i just didn't wanna open up the Amundsen debate again haha. "Joan of Arc over Jabir" i agree. I can agree with "Monet over Planck", i just thought that replacing Bohr would be better than a removal. There absolutely should not be two painters relating to impressionism/post-impressionism though, considering post is a later version and inspiration from Hokusai, van Gogh would have to go for sure - there's lots of overlap with him. Louis Armstrong is representative of America's sole supreme contribution to art (Jazz), so should not be removed and i'd put him over any American cultural figure and The Beatles (although Brits, with Rock) and Charlie Chaplin, (another Brit), with Hollywood. There's American cultural contributions in a trifecta, the fact that two Brits represent the highs of American culture, prove there's too much overlap between Anglo culture and thus no need for Mark Twain when we have Shakespeare. (just like there's no need fror Andy Warhol or Joseph Smith to fill other sections with no Americans). Goethe's removal would be weird, considering he's Germany's supreme cultural figure Goethe-Institut, but i can settle for Kafka because he does represent something more unique. There's noone like Mendeleev, but Edison is here for Tesla, so i'd choose Mendeleev. Weber is closer to Marx and we need a psych rep to cover every major branch. Elizabeth I is one of the definitive woman leaders, we can't lost her. Disney as the sole film representative would be a eye sore when we list all of Film, History of film, Animation and Comics too. I don't see how it's a bit of consensus where we can't fit both Nursing/Nightingale, yet we list both Disney/Animation/Comics/Film etc. I think a list of 100 would be overall better, it keeps out alot of the fluff, stops unneeded debates on what fits - when the ones who are on the border can be on level 4. Countries at 50 would be a much better way to cover diversity. (including regions small enough to not list a country like Central America, Caribbean or Polynesia]). I think all of this would all make for a better, less of a hassle to debate what fits - list. GuzzyG (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

As I've said earlier, we already have Lavoisier to cover Chemistry, and inventing the periodic table is insufficient to put Mendeleev even on the current list IMO, much less a reduced list. I am well aware that not everyone shares my view, which is why I won't relitigate it. I agree that Stalin serves as a counterpoint to Hitler in (Western) popular imagination, so is better than Lenin. I find the comment of Jazz as "America's sole supreme contribution to art" to be a bit snobby (with rock and whatnot); I think Michael Jackson works to represent modern-day pop culture well. Then again, I'm starting to fall out of love with the whole concept of "mass-reducing" biographies.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the snobby comment (you should see some of the "experts", i def don't agree!), but that comment is something i see alot. Personally for me America's "sole supreme contribution" would be rapping, growling, rolling, make believe and pankration; so don't take me seriously at all haha, because all my fields of interest are seen as tabloid by most "respectable" people! GuzzyG (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If it’s important to narrow down modern music to jazz and jazz only, I agree Armstrong is the icon to keep. But I’d argue any time that Michael Jackson’s total influence (music, dance, fashion) and creative output eclipse Armstrong’s – which you also seemed to argue, GuzzyG. :-) --Telepanda (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Taking a step back

I will likely be disagreed with by most, but at this point the conversation seems to turning into cutting for the sake of cutting. Of course the list is arbitrary, but this seems to be taking that sentiment too far. I think the list we have right now is fine—and it seems like it will be improved by some of the recent proposals further up on the page. I don't know why such extremities are so appealing; perhaps now is the time to put our focus in other parts of the project—we still have a two C class vital one articles, and 14 start class vital three articles. Collaboration could do wonders there. I say this with little optimism, as I recall a few editors in the past attempting to bring up such an idea, but usually being ignored. Aza24 (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hate to disappoint, but I actually completely agree with you. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say the point of cutting biographies is to make room for articles in other subject areas, whether that's geography (several people seem to prefer listing up to 50 countries), science (there's a lot to be discussed if something as specific as hormone is vital – at the end of the day, it can be thought of as a subtopic of cell signaling which like many other basic cell biology topics is not listed), or any other subject area, really. Why should Mansa Musa be more vital than the Songhai Empire? Florence Nightingale more vital than nursing? Wagner or the Beatles more vital than harmony or rhythm? Abraham over creation myth? Jabir over alchemy?

Recently we seem to have considerable trouble agreeing on biographies to remove. While everyone can agree that some of the biographies are less vital than others, nobody wants to let go of their personal favourites among the lesser biographies while the other ones remain. We might be able to make more substantial progress if we can all agree to a core set of biographies to retain, rather than continuing to whittle away at the edges. I think the people who have participated in these discussions for years will agree that while the second approach has generally worked in the past, it is becoming increasingly unproductive. Cobblet (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason we "have considerable trouble agreeing on biographies to remove" is because we have a fine list as it stands? And why is everyone coming at like this like biographies are intrinsically discouraged for the list, and that we have to remove them? At the moment, I see no future where we have a stable list that provides use to anyone. All I see is a year from now we trim to 50 biographies, and then in two years we'll have just Jesus, Muhammed and Newton, all while home remains at start class—I mean what's the point? Surely people here realize much of the community thinks of this project as a joke—precisely because we've never moved beyond the constant bickering. I'm not saying any of this to insult anyone, I've taken part in my fair share of lengthy discussions, but I am awestruck how willing people are to spend paragraphs comparing Henry VIII and Elizabeth I but when Sdkb brings up two venues with important articles that need assistance, there's no response. Some editors are even preparing Human for GAN right now (a level one vital article!), and where is the VA project? No where to be found. And before any, "well what are you doing?", I've provided comments on the Human article talk page and have begun the slow process of rewriting the article for Leonardo da Vinci, so I'd like to think I'm at least attempting what I preach above - Aza24 (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

No offence taken. Everyone must decide for themselves what is and isn't worth their time. The effort you've spent on improving the quality of important Wikipedia articles is deeply appreciated. Cobblet (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm starting to agree with this more and more. I can understand a disproportion of writers, but biographies in general have the capacity to represent eras and concepts in popular imagination sometimes even more than an explicit mention of the eras and concepts themselves. (For instance, we agree that Hitler should be in before Nazism or totalitarianism.)  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

That's the thing, this list has been treading towards a reduction towards 120-100 for a while, infact i was one of the lone hold outs. (i had a more idealistic version of vitality, where everything is covered!). We've removed biographies such as Shaka, Kahlil Gibran, Edgar Allan Poe, Ernest Hemingway, Werner Heisenberg, Hildegard of Bingen, Igor Stravinsky, Frédéric Chopin, Alfred Hitchcock, Akira Kurosawa and Salvador Dalí. Elvis and Churchill were swapped, but they lean towards that goal too. The recent additions of Henry VIII and John Milton were the outliers, not the norm. I (obviously) can't contribute to actual articles due to poor grammar and lack of education regarding formal source styles etc, my main thing is importance, cause as a full time thing i study measures of fame/importance, so i stick to these lists. I appreciate article contributors and one day hope to be one but at the same time i do think that articles like Uganda, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Chile, Peru, Ukraine, Sudan and articles like Songhai Empire would provide a fuller range of knowledge than sole biographies like Walt Disney or Niels Bohr and cover more at the same time. Even with artists, i'd take stuff relevant today like Conceptual art or Electronic music over many particular arts biography (like Duchamp or Stockhausen). We will never go down to 50 - that's a reach, 100 is a nice number anyway, like a 2k or 15k. GuzzyG (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the point of this discussion is precisely to determine which biographies are truly vital for the reasons you describe. I also believe you are more likely than other participants to support adding topics without proposing corresponding removals. If not biographies, your input on what else could be cut to keep us at 1000 articles would be welcome. Cobblet (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is everybody so focused on reducing biographies? One could have 150 or 200 biographies and reduce the other articles instead – which would minimise a lot of unproductive ”bickering” (Kafka or Dickens? MJ or Elvis? etc.). Country boundaries come and go; great individual contributions to humanity’s development remain. Besides, as humans we tend to identify with other humans – reading about Magellan and following his story certainly ought to be more captivating than a theoretical article about navigation? Telepanda (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

We know exactly which articles captivate reader attention. Perhaps that list corresponds to your idea of vitality; perhaps not. In any case, Thi has suggested adding many non-biography articles in the past, many of which we have not supported due to a lack of room on the list. They are currently suggesting adding 10 more countries to the list. I appreciate their willingness to suggest corresponding articles to remove. Cobblet (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I also appreciate the suggestions and the work put into them. Sorry if I was being too harsh; I tried to play the devil’s advocate and ask: Why not expand rather than limit the biography section? In that way we could have room for both Mansa Musa and Tagore (and Churchill), for example. (I certainly do not think that the most read biographies are also the most vital!) But I see that others would rather have fewer biographies, and I respect that. Telepanda (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You'll notice that each and every one of the 30(!) current proposals to remove an article from this list has received an opposing vote from at least one person. I suspect that is an unprecedented statistic in the history of this talk page. On the bright side, it shows just how much better the list has gotten over the years. But any proposal to expand a part of the list, or simply to add any article, must contend with the notion that it is much more difficult to find consensus to remove anything from the list than it used to be. Compare Archive 12 for example, which was only three years ago: not only did the majority of proposed removals pass, but they passed with a clean slate. Cobblet (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thi's updated list

Thi, I'm aware there is strong support for keeping Mark Twain on the list. I'm fine with withdrawing my suggestion to swap him for the Beatles if that was the only reason you made that swap. I don't know what it means for Abraham and Moses to be moved to a different section of the list – if the intention is to keep them on the list then we might as well keep them in the list of biographies. If we end up with a list of 102 biographies rather than 100, that still clears plenty of space for you and others to continue proposing additions elsewhere. Cobblet (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Moses and Abraham could be with Myth as mythological figures or as well in People section. In this draft, if they are classified in Religion section, it would be possible to include Henry VIII and Max Weber among 100 bios. In my opinion Mark Twain could be swapped with Friedrich Nietzsche who was writer-philosopher. Freud and Nietzsche as cultural figures are often mentioned in different contexts, so I have assumed that there would be some support to include them. --Thi (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not realize these articles had already been moved under Mythology on level 4. Then making the corresponding move on level 3 is justified, although it would be best to indicate this move more clearly rather than in a footnote. You already had Nietzsche on your original list. I don't consider his presence relevant to the presence or absence of Mark Twain. Cobblet (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that Nietzsche can be seen as both as a philosopher and a literary figure like Emerson or Kierkegaard. I am neutral on inclusion of Nietzsche. I now removed him and added Twain and moved notifications about updates above the list. --Thi (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, there are many other figures which do not have full historicity (epecially Homer, Euclid, Laozi, and even Socrates), maybe

WP:CAREFUL. Instead very fastly and deeply discuss list of 100 people I think we should be more focussed on fact we are over quota, we are going to add more people, thre is no consensus which writers to remove, etc. My humble suggestion with Good Faith. Dawid2009 (talk

) 19:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I am also willing to include Moses and Abraham in People, it is the most practical way. The list is just a technical draft and a quick survey (thanks to all participants). It is also probable that we will continue to have a floating quota of about 115 or more bios as usual. --Thi (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Dawid, we do not currently list Shiva or Ali. If we are to list such topics, and having in mind the issues you suggest we should focus on (which is clearly what we are doing), what would you prefer to remove, if not the biographies suggested by Thi? Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

While we do not list Shiva or Ali then this is worth nothing that Ali (and Mary, Mother of Jesus) are the only biographies which were removed by GabeMc years ago when list already was full by WP:Bold (not when list was draft under quota or after !voting). Iran statistically has been more relevant to English Wikipedia than Germany to English Wikipedia, so I got it that we can not have at least two German writers (+many other biographies which made constributions to culture of Germany) if for Iran we even do not have Zorroastrianism, Rumi, Ali. Zorroastrianism gets more pageviews than Christianity on English Wikipedia, specific article on Shia Islam gets more pagewatchers than German language and several times more pageviews than English literature or English Reformation so I think add/swap these three articles is warranted. Rumi most likely is going to be added but for reentry Ali I think we could remove Jabir ibn Hayyan or Ibn Khadul (user Ios2019 from Iran who supported addition of Mary of Jesus earlier nominated him for removal, and we also do not have Sima Quiaan). Ali would not be out of place, he is considered by some sects as Supreme Being and is the only religous figure which gets more pageviews on Persian Wiki than Muhammad. daGizza who is one of authors article on Shiva and often edited this article on Wikipedia at all were discussing in the past that Shiva does not have that overlap with Bhagavad Gita. Recent nomination of Shiva was failed but currently we do not have Mahabharata so I think inclusion of Shiva is warranted, FWIHW Shiva beats on Wikipedia by popularity atheism [40]/[41] and completly outweight Tagore which give toward recentism [42].

I can support some of these non-biogtaphy entires which Thi and Carlwev suggest but I would particularly oppose removal of Early Human Migrations. In my view this is foundamental to encyclopedia just as Age of Disovery or History of Agriculture. I would remove also university as redundand to school and education. I do not think how this specific article is more core than partiotism. I can not see why we list so many universities on the level 4 but not national flags or coat of arms, I think that would be easier to argue that Indian Flague is more vital than Gandhi than any university from India (just if someone would misunderstood, I do not suggest addition of patriotism). I would also support swap Spanish Flu (or historically weaker event/time) with Nursing. I can agree with dropping out Elizabeth I or swapping her with Queen Victoria (she even was not nominated for !voting on list 100 the most influential women of all time, here is decsribtion about methodology). I do not think we need two Tudors at this level, I readed earlier discussions and arguments for Henry were more convincing to me. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Abraham and Moses (and other biography articles of questionable historicity) should remain in the people section at Level 3. There are other examples of articles in one section at level 3 but in another at level 4, when it makes sense to do so. They were moved at Level 4 to make more room in the people section at that level, since we have quotas for individual sections at that level, but we don't do that at Level 3, so it's not necessary. Also, Level 4 had other mythological figures from the Bible that they could be grouped with in that section, so it made sense, but that isn't the case at this level. Having one or two random religious figures listed in the religion section at this level rather than being grouped with the other religious figures in the people section would be cumbersome. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completly, Abraham pretty fits on the level 4 in religion section because of his sons but on the level 3 along with people along with Moses and other people who are less ore more historical. Thats make sense much Dawid2009 (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Carlwev, Interstellarity, and PaleoMatt: You have all suggested listing more countries in the past. Do you still believe that today? If you do, you have suggestions on what to remove to make that possible? Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not too sure anymore... We have gone over the limit now and there isn't much I would remove to make way for more countries. I have taken a bit of a step back since the debate around biographies has been a bit all over the place and there has been little agreement. After my Algeria proposal I doubt I will suggest or support any more countries being added unless they are swaps. I think some of the weakest articles currently listed are probably

talk

) 20:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, not been paying as much attention lately, I haven't given it much thought lately, without going over the list, off the top of my head, I would add some more countries, most already mentioned are OK. Too lose, probably mostly from people, not too keen on Louis Armstrong, not sure he's needed in addition to Jazz. Not sure if we need several kinds of engine? maybe we do. Not sure if we need Tornado and Cyclone in addition to wind maybe we do, perhaps we could have storm instead. Perhaps get people down to around 100, or 110, I'm not sure, haven't had as much time to spare for Wikipedia for a while, and won't for a while longer, I'm still keeping an eye on it, just been very busy.  Carlwev  17:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Too many writers

I support the intents of this proposal, but there definitely should not be 11 fiction authors on a list of 100 most vital biographies. There would not be more than eight, though I would ideally like no more than six. Franz Kafka has no place here. Tolstoy represents 19th/20th century literature just fine and Kafka is in no way vital or influential enough to be on this list. Two of Rumi, Murasaki, or Li Bai should be removed. There is no way we have twice as many authors as musicians, especially since Michael Jackson is not included on the list. Who is going to tell me Franz Kafka is more vital than Michael Jackson to users — Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I cannot accept the removal of central cultural figures in non-Western traditions, even if they also happen to be writers of fiction. The Western canon does not hold a monopoly in literature. There is support for listing Michael Jackson rather than Louis Armstrong and I do not oppose it. Cobblet (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

if you want all three of Rumi, Murasaki, and Li Bai then fine. I can stomach ten writers. Kafka is an absolute no for me on a 100 biographies list, especially given the people we leave out. If you want to add Jackson, you should swap him with Kafka, not Armstrong. Ten writers is the absolute maximum — Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Why does this quota for writers of yours matter so much? Nobody else seems to feel the same so I doubt this is going to go anywhere. --

talk

) 20:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It matters to me because we look incredibly silly having more writers on our list than religious leaders, social scientists and philosophers, explorers, and scientists/inventors when the latter professions have had a much more profound international impact on history and culture than writers. Per Spitzky's post, honestly. It's ridiculous. I remain firm in the belief that there is no reason to have more writers on this list than religious figures, whose influence far surpasses any writer including Shakespeare. No self-respecting encyclopedia would have Franz Kafka but leave out Machiavelli, the father of political science, or Socrates, the forerunner of Western philosophy, or

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the pioneer of the American welfare state, or Michael Jackson, the pioneer of pop music (vastly more influential in the 20th and 21st century than Kafka). Rumi, Murasaki and Li Bai are also dubious additions, given that neither is particularly relevant to our audience. Michael Jackson gets over five times the page views those three pages get combined in single day. We are fooling ourselves if we think Thi's list is any good. — Zelkia1101 (talk

) 21:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems that we could try to remove from the actual list Richard Wagner, Jabir ibn Hayyan (covered by Islamic golden age), Niels Bohr and maybe Sargon of Akkad, Ibn Battuta and Friedrich Nietzsche. I am sceptical about the topics Free will, Early human migrations, Information age, Bow and arrow, Grand Canyon, Lake Victoria and several subtopics of Game. Cobblet has suggested that we could remove Arabic alphabet, Brahmic scripts, Cyrillic script and Greek alphabet. They are covered by language articles. --Thi (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of any of these indiviudals if it means Franz Kafka remains on the list. Wagner, Hayyan, Bohr and Sargon of Akkad have all had a substantially larger impact on both history and their field (and human culture) than Kafka. It makes no sense to remove them and keep Kafka. None. Kafka's place on this list is just silly. I'm sorry. Him appearing here is a snub to von Goethe, who Guzzy mentioned is clearly the supreme German-language author. It would be akin to a German encyclopedia choosing to list Joyce over Shakespeare or Umberto Eco over Dante just because they needed a representative of "20th-century literature." To be clear, I think neither Goethe nor Kafka should appear on this list, but it is downright bizarre to have Kafka but not Goethe. It's just malpractice. Furthermore, I'm not even sure Kafka is himself a good representative of the field. Why list him and not Hemingway? Joyce? Steinbeck? Orwell? Camus? Sartre? Poe? Each of these writers has had a more substantial impact on 20th-century literature than Kafka. In fact, why not list

Tolkien over him? Very few genres owe so much to one author as fantasy owes to Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings series is a far larger fixture in international culture and literature than anything Kafka wrote. Your list has 11 representatives of literary fiction but not a single genre writer? Out of the two Tolkien is clearly more vital than Kafka. Of course neither Tolkien nor Kafka should be added. My point is just to underscore the ridiculousness of having Kafka on our list. — Zelkia1101 (talk

) 10:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

As a Tolkien fan (and casual writer of fantasy) I’d love to see Tolkien added to the list. ;-) He totally dominates the fantasy genre, and he has been massively influential in role playing, board games, tv series etc. In the realm of popular culture, I’d argue his influence is greater than Kafka’s. For instance, even newspaper articles use Tolkien references – hobbits, Mordor, Gollum – which have entered ”global mythology” (together with certain references to Game of Thrones etc.) Remember when ”Hobbits” were discovered in Indonesia? This just shows how massive Tolkien’s influence is on the modern world (including the ”hippie era”, when the Lord of the Rings was like a bible for ecologists and other alternative movements). Yes, I know Tolkien would probably be downvoted, and I’m not making a nomination, just chiming in in this very interesting debate… --Telepanda (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I see the point that Kafka is one of many possible alternatives. Michael Jackson is also important representative of American music tradition, popular culture and dance. He is relevant to many people across the globe right now. List of 100 bios would work if users could have easy access to larger list. The other list should be more compact than 2000 biographies, like WP:Corebio project or other list with 200–500 biographies. Corebio project is currently inactive, expect that it is gonna include Michael Jackson. Since there is currently no editors who are interested about maintaining such lists, we can as well continue to have about 125 biographies at this level. --Thi (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The thing with religion and explorers on this level is the top tier are extremely important but they drop off quick. (Which is why we list 30 explorers on the level 4 list, 125 religious figures and 256 writers - would you want 250 explorers??). There's 5 major religions represented on this level, we list Christianity more because of the "English encyclopedia" rule instead of figures like

I don't understand how you think the influence of religion and explorers is much more contained than that of writers. Writers are typically most influential within the language in which they chose to write. Explorers and religious figures are almost universally notable no matter where their origins may be. Christopher Columbus is important for Italians and Spaniards and Americans and Filipinos alike. So is da Gama, Magellan, Zheng He, and so forth. Kafka is not important to Filipinos. Gautama Buddha's works and philosopher are more widely diffused and articulated than all the writers on our list put together, sans possibly Homer and Shakespeare. You are using our lack of religious figures or explorers as an excuse to have these many writers when you should be doing the opposite. We should be adding people like Ali or St. Augustine because, in terms of historical vitality, these two figures are collectively more vital than almost all of the writers on our list. Obviously literature is often analyzed and studied, and that is why we have a diverse cast of authors to boot. But 11 is too much. As for Jackson and Kafka, Jackson's field of pop music is much newer, but his legacy is secure. Even if pop music were to suddenly stop becoming popular and never pick up its popularity ever, Michael Jackson would still be one of the most renowned and influential artists of the modern period, possibly of all time. He is arguably as vital on this list as Claude Monet. You cannot say the same thing about Kafka, who is just one of many talented authors of the 20th century whose craft is already represented. There really is no more legacy to suss out. I'm sorry, but irrespective of any metric, whether it be influence within the field or cultural vitality or name recognition or posterity, Michael Jackson trounces Kafka, so there is no reason to privilege Kafka over Jackson just because Kafka's field is much older than Jackson's. If anything, literature's age respective to music should mean that there is a higher bar for someone to be included in the top literary figures than musicians. Furthermore, we are a digital encyclopedia. Not a stuffy paper one. We have more latitude to include a broader range of human achievement. If Michael Jackson were suddenly to become completely irrelevant, we can just remove him from this list with one click. Even if this were a paper encyclopedia, no serious or self-respecting encyclopedist would include Franz Kafka among ten other authors while excluding such people as the Wright brothers, Machiavelli, Armstrong, Socrates, Kepler, etc. I'm sorry but Kafka really is nothing beyond a level-4 article. There is no reason to have him on this list, as he does not represent anything we fundamentally need and lack. Are you going to tell me that we need a representative of 20th century literature when we have absolutely nobody for aviation or political science or pop music? — Tolstoy is good enough for 20th century literature. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

So the single inclusion of Kafka means we are not serious and lack self-respect, irrespective of the growing consensus that Michael Jackson should be retained even on a shorter list of biographies. I suppose it's a fair diagnosis. Kafka also represents people with a self-deprecating sense of humour, after all. Cobblet (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Correct. Not to mention the types of people we are removing (Lincoln, Abraham, Mendeleev, van Gogh, Magellan), each of whom is vastly more influential than Kafka, while we somehow pretend that his or even Rumi's inclusion on this list is warranted. If one were to tell me that Kafka or Rumi have a place on this list but not Magellan, I'm going to think they are not acting in good faith. It's a nonsensical suggestion. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested removing Lincoln. You were the first person to argue for keeping Rumi. You were also the person to suggest adding Milton to the list when we already had 20 writers. Dare I say the irony is a bit... Kafkaesque. Cobblet (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to Thi's list, which does not include Lincoln or any of the people I listed. I argued listing Rumi because he was arguably the most important non-Western writer for an English-language encyclopedia, but even then I do not think that he passes muster. As for Milton, you are right, I did nominate him. But in retrospect I think that nomination was wrong. The only English-language author we need is Shakespeare. However, if we were going to have three English-language authors, I would insist they be Shakespeare, Milton and Chaucer. Milton is arguably the second or third most important writer of the English language, and his influence on culture and society far outstrips Kafka's. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Also lol @ changing your mind being Kafkaesque. Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Lincoln is listed on Thi's list between Bolívar and Gandhi; Mendeleev between Maxwell and Edison. As the note above the list indicates, Abraham remains on the list, just not the list of biographies; but there was pushback from others on this change, which Thi has acknowledged. Cobblet (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a note Jesus/Muhammad are obviously the most important people from the first millennium and Christopher Columbus has a claim on the second - like i said - top tier are extremely influential. But we can list list 100 more writers that would be much better picks than equivalent picks from religion or exploration like Saint George or Henry Hudson, the last two add nothing new to our coverage. One question for you, we read Shakespeare in modern English (as writers get a historical boost by easy spread through time through translation), what happens if English shifts again with modern pop music, would it still be easily spread? If pop musicians are not taught in school, how will people be continuously aware of them throughout time? These things for writers are not in doubt, so they have more prestige right now. I'm not stuffy, i would want MJ/Marilyn on this list (or the imagined 100) but this crusade against writers seem odd. Unfortunately and i disagree, but not having any dedicated 20th century authors but having Disney/three popular musicians would probably make the more stuffy academic think of this list as a joke. (or even the actual concept of 100-130 important figures!!). Something like " who is just one of many talented authors of the 20th century" could be applied to Jackson with musicians too, with Stravinsky, Debussy, Schoenberg, Mahler, The Beatles, Chuck Berry, Elvis, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Marley, Bob Dylan, Fela Kuti, Lata Mangeshkar, Umm Kulthum, Frank Sinatra etc. I think we just have structural differences on influence, as shown by your comment "Mary (mother of Jesus) is likely the most famous, most influential woman to have lived" here [43], by this notion every religious figure is more notable because there's a ~worship~ factor involved rather than a appreciation like in the arts, in fact i would put Madonna herself (and many other women who are artists) against Mary for the purposes of this list. Religion's main importance is in the founders or massive reformers like Luther, the rest aren't fit for a list like this, because while Kafka and Jackson can dominate their movement/genre in literature or music and each movement/genre is representative of a era in it's art, a Christianity figure in every era will never dominate Jesus or Paul, this is the difference. Explorers get important by a different metric, there will always be more important writers than explorers and this should be very clear lol. Gagarin (and Amundsen) don't or won't ever have the cultural hold some of the top tier writers do. I would put Shakespeare/Li Bai against any other explorer not named Columbus, or do we think Marco Polo is more important than Li Bai? That would be more of a "sad reflection" of this list. GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Knowledge of cultural and historical icons is not solely transmitted in schools. Michael Jackson's songs are not often taught in school, but he gets more pageviews] than both Shakespeare and Kafka, and he hasn't been in the news recently. As I said, Tolstoy suffices as a 20th century writer. Unfortunately for a bookworm like myself, music holds a much more important place in modern culture than literature, so having a 3-1 imbalance is okay in my opinion. You also cannot compare Kafka with Jackson. At all. Michael Jackson is the undisputed King of Pop. He is vastly more influential and notable than Bob Bylan and Umm Kulthum. Kafka is just one of many talented 20th century authors, and he arguably isn't the most important. Why list Kafka as your 20th century author but not Hemingway or Sartre or Orwell? The latter men have had a more profound influence on culture than Kafka. As I said before, why not list Tolkien? Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series occupies a central place in fantasy literature. Kafka's work doesn't occupy a central place in any genre really, beyond his specific niche. The truth is that no 20th-century writer is of compare with Tolstoy or Shakespeare. We don't need to list them. It's gratuitous. We do not need a 20th century author if we already have Tolstoy. 12 writers is too much. Kafka and Twain ought to be removed. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You don't say.. (Jackson's contemporary audience is alive, Shakespeare/Kafka's is not, hence Shakespeare/Kafka operate from school based knowledge/cultural references, while Jackson's general fame audience and sexual abuse controversies keep him in the current news cycle...). I'm sure Enrico Caruso and then Bing Crosby were "undisputed" too once upon a time... I know about pageviews, (i track them for every figure listed on any vital list/many more and have grown to understand methods on how these views are acquired for every kind of thing!). Jackson is always in the news. [44]. (i track news for every figure on these lists too). The Bob Dylan claim is just such a misunderstanding of any serious way of how notability works in ~serious~ places. He's the first primary musician to win a nobel prize for literature. Universities teach "Bob Dylan studies" [45] even, what are they going to teach about MJ? Quincy Jones's production or Rod Temperton's songwriting? I think we're on different plains here, i supported MJ being added and argued for it, but i base what i say off of hard research/general consensus from experts i see, not of any opinion or personal like/dislike of things. How is MJ undisputed? Elvis exists, Frank Sinatra exists..... Forget Tolkien, Poe would be the better author for genre, Tolkien is not a top 13 writer either way... GuzzyG (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I’d like to point out that ”Michael Jackson studies” do exist as well. It is a common misconception that Jackson was ”just a singer” – while he did sing a few Rod Temperton songs (such as Thriller), he wrote a substantial part of his music himself. Furthermore, much of his most interesting stuff (for example the dark songs on ”Blood on the dance floor”) was produced after his collaboration with Quincy Jones ended. At the time of his death, he was working on classical music. There’s PLENTY to be taught about MJ, if one wants to take his art seriously (the French musicologist Isabelle Petitjean, for example, has written hundreds of pages analysing him). --Telepanda (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you think a proper university course is comparable to "onlineartseducation"? Or a random researcher to a Harvard classics professor comparing Bob Dylan to Virgil, Ovid and Dante? [46]. MJ is certainly one of the main pop figures, but Dylan is pretty much the main popular music figure along with the Beatles in most institutions.. i supported Michael over Elvis because MJ is more famous and if we had one pop culture icon it should be MJ over Elvis.. but if Bob Dylan wasn't alive it should be him, (unfortunately) as a encyclopedia we should go by proper higher educational institutions on this level particularly - not any subjective measure and it's clear who is analysed more in higher education. GuzzyG (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I get your points. I think Michael Jackson’s musical legacy will last longer than Bob Dylan’s (whose profound lyrics of course make him immediately analysable – you could remove the music, and he’d be a great poet), but at the moment Dylan is certainly ”analysed more in higher education”. Sorry for the bad course example, though. I know from my news circle memory that a few proper university courses on MJ have indeed existed – here’s one at Temple University (but yes, small and focused on dance). --Telepanda (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

(And here’s another university course, from Duke University, MJ and Performance of Blackness.) --Telepanda (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Neither Bing Crosby or Enrico Caruso have held as much cultural capital, nor were they equally influential to music, as Jackson. Bob Dylan's technical achievements are impressive, but his addition does not add anything substantial to the list. The genres he has contributed to, particularly country, are specific to the United States. Pop music is ubiquitous around the world, partly in thanks to Jackson. Dylan is also still alive. It does not really matter whether Kafka's contemporary audience has perished while Jackson's hasn't. Wikipedia pages are read by contemporary, ordinary living people, to whom Jackson is and will remain far more vital than Kafka. Vitality is always seen through the lens of current users, after all. In terms of Poe and Tolkien I chose Tolkien over Poe because we were talking about 20th century authors, which Poe is not. My point is that Tolkien, as an author, has had a much wider and more profound influence on literature (particularly given that his Lord of the Rings trilogy is the canonical fantasy text) than Kafka. So why should we list Kafka over Tolkien? Why is Kafka the supreme author of the 20th century when we already have Tolstoy? Of course, I don't support adding either Tolkien or Poe or Kafka. I was just making the point that Kafka isn't really a good standard-bearer for the 20th century anyway. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

They both absolutely were in their time. (Bing Crosby was by 2000 a top 3 actor by ticket admission sale as a film star AND THE top singer...), also MJ did not introduce pop to the world, Bing was just asa big in Africa/India per his article [47]. By any metric, Dylan is second to the Beatles in influence to musicians and MJ is much, much lower. Here's a statistical analysis of influence in music. [48]. Actual data means more to me then guessing by subjective opinion. Bob Dylan is not a country musician at all. It's folk/rock. We should go by data, not personal opinion...GuzzyG (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I think Bob Dylan is culturally more US/Western world-focused than Michael Jackson. Let me be clear, I consider Dylan one of the greatest and more transcendental artists of all time, but I'd keep Jackson over Dylan and of course Kafka due to his contributions to music, dance, fashion, video.. His wide range of musical genres (pop, rhythm and blues, soul, funk, rock, disco, dance & even Hip-Hop) make him the best representative of modern popular music due to its influence in the music panorama and in other artists, and even for having been a catalyst for changes in worldwide culture (e.g. breaking racial or appearance barriers). He is a definitive global cross-cultural icon (see this) whose importance and globality are reaffirmed again and again. Awvazquez (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, The Core Contest is running this year, and the judges have decided to use the VIT3 list as a basic guideline on suggestions (though of course, topics outside it will be welcomed if a reasonable rationale is provided). Let me make it very clear that here is an actual use of the list that so much time has been spent making. People will be actively looking at the list to get ideas on what articles to work on. I myself am considering taking a crack at history of music, but we'll see. The list itself has been rather unstable recently, and based on the influx of new nominations, it doesn't seem that it will slow down anytime soon.

It seems only fair that we pause new nominations for changes to the list by at least a week before the competition starts (so May 25th-ish; or perhaps even earlier), and resume when it ends (July 15th). There have been serious issues of stability and it would be helpful to give the community a stable list to use. Additionally, the recent presence of numerous changes could do with some time for everyone to take a breath; I mean we're still talking about Milton and Tagore, even though we just added them...! I really hope people see this opportunity as I do—here is an actual, direct use of this list, and this is the least we can do to help that process take place. Aza24 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC) BTW I am only proposing we pause VIT3 list, the others would still be open to changes—and that might be good so we shift our focus a bit from what is usually the most active list. Aza24 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

They can just use the list as of some specific date for the contest or just write into the rules that any articles removed after the contest starts will still count. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not the point, as I said, the VIT3 list isn't a strict guideline for the contest, but the suggested one. However, wouldn't it be nice to support an actual direct use of the list? And don't we all need a breath after so many proposals so quickly? We'd still have 20 days from now to keep discussing—is my proposal really asking too much? Aza24 (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I certainly encourage the use of this list in directing editors towards articles that should be prioritized for improvement, as it is intended to be. I will say that there are more open nominations presently than there usually are, but I think this list is relatively stable. Only a few articles get added or removed in any given month. We'll see what other people think, but a moratorium on new nominations seems unnecessary to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Core Contest project can copy the list for a subpage in their page or make a link to a version in page history. All topics can be found from Level 4. --Thi (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Really? The first actual use of this list in four years and this is the response? Geez... its like this project doesn't want to be relevant. Aza24 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Asking people to stop what they're doing is an odd way of asking them to demonstrate their relevance. Anyway, the way things are going right now, I rather doubt we will succeed in removing any articles from the list between late May and July even if we continue to allow new nominations. As far as I can tell, the Core Contest won't be significantly affected if the only changes to the list are further additions. If you do choose to work on history of music, I would be happy to lend some feedback, although real-life commitments unfortunately prevent me from doing any collaborative editing. Cobblet (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I will note that I was trying to imply that the core contest is a merely a good excuse for us to temporarily focus on other parts of the projects (hence improve our "relevance"), and let the nomination process breathe a little, since it's been extremely active lately, but I digress. Aza24 (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I've long noticed that not all of our contributors are active content editors. But I don't consider it any of my business to judge them for that. Cobblet (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I support a moratorium, with May 15 sounding like a good date to cut-off nominations. There's already a lot of open proposals, and a month of breathing room without !votes would be a good thing even without The Core Contest. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The second most famous explorer from around

1. as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per my comments in the discussion on da Gama. Cobblet (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support, the event itself was just not nearly as influential as the other explorers on the list. It had minimal impact, and really only effected Magellan himself, who of course became rather famous for it (even though he was dead). The earth was fully understood to be spherical by educated Europeans at the time (I'm not well versed in the Eastern scholarly opinion of the time, but it would not surprise me if it was the same), I doubt this impacted that opinion at all. And to Zeklia's comment below, we don't have any representative of the moon landing on this list. Aza24 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Not as important if we're doing cuts. It's a technicality, but Juan Sebastián Elcano weakens him a little.. We have 2 land explorers, 5 sea explorers and 1 arctic explorer - so it wouldn't be out of line to lose one of the sea explorers. GuzzyG (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support If you want room for other biographies. Magellan and his journey are mentioned in
   Age of discovery. --Thi (talk
   ) 11:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Per Thi. It's hard to see the individual biography contributing anything of high priority not mentioned in
   Age of discovery.--Carwil (talk
   ) 17:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Strong oppose We represent people based on how they are central in encyclopedia and how are essential to human knowlage, why we need to learn/know about them. Magelan is one of the most important and influeniar explorers a in early age of discovery. After Magellan world started much more often accept/belive fact that earth is geoide. He really fits among 100 people or less. I knew about him when I was 5 years old and I really think this is useful to learn about him just as learn about Copernicus, more useful than learn about say Amundsen. I would also add to the level 4 Lapu Lapu who had interaction with him but as his rival he has been National Hero in Philipines. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

   In fairness, Earth's roundness was already widely accepted in the West in the Middle Ages.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

   I am convinced and sure Magellan's circumavigation of Earth is very seminal event to human history and Magellan's biography as early piooner for age of discovery is enough to be considered vital at this level. I disagree with Aza24 doubt's I doubt this impacted that opinion at all. When Columbus reached to Americas' landspace he called Indigenous peoples of the Americas Indians because of our orientation about 40 000 euator was not so obvious dururing that time (also education was not so predominant/common during that times). I have knew about the link with you reffer above before (I even mentiones Eratosthenes in the past, see: [49]) but I think that Magellan (for better or worse) is just too central and important figure in encyclopedia to be not considered vital just at this level. I also must disagree with the event itself was just not nearly as influential as the other explorers on the list. To be fair, Magellan has way more achivements than most other explorers on the list at least in terms of "Ranking of the most influential people of all time" (see here, here and just use ctrl+f to compare Vasco da Gama with Magellan, for example). Biography Magellan is way more important than this single event which was influential, he has been credited as early piooner of sea exploration regardless of his death (BTW, I would also add to the level 4 Lapu Lapu especially that national heroes are underrepresended and we currently have trend to add them there: [50]). Dawid2009 (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose Magellan's circumnavigation of the Earth (granted, much of it was taken while he was dead) is a seminal event in history not unlike the Moon Landing. He is one of the world's most well-known explorers. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 6:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose
   Magellan's circumnavigation is a key event in world history and change the European perception on the world. Dimadick (talk
   ) 14:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Originally supported but after thinking about it I have changed my mind. The circumnavigation of the Earth was an incredibly important event and also there has been a whole lot of stuff named in Magellan's honour. --
   talk
   ) 03:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per the above. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Pretty famous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Now before you have a knee-jerk oppose, hear me out for a second. Socrates did not write a single philosophical work, in fact, the entire knowledge of his thought or ideas is only known through other writers/philosophers, most famously (and importantly) Plato. Also keep in mind that we have no legitimate way of confirming that all of the ideas and opinions Plato credits him with, as he is merely a character in his dialogues. Sure, he is a well known figure, but fame by itself has never been the deciding factor for this list, and we already have two Greek philosophers (and the Ancient Greek philosophy article), whom Socrates himself adds nothing to. In the end I don't think he fits with the rest of the figures on the list, an important person, yes, but not Vital level 3. Aza24 (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. nom
2. Support per my previous comments here. Cobblet (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support as someone somewhat responsible for this poor addition (back when i didn't understand strict standards and was more idealistic..), i can only join in and say this should have never been added. Socrates influence is covered, his biography itself is not vital in particular for this level. Now i understand there's nothing comparable with this comparison on the level of importance to history itself, but it's like how J. D. Salinger was removed on the level 4 list because we list The Catcher in the Rye, where as his biography itself is not important or "vital". Socrates biography is not important because we cover Plato. Nothing super, mega important is added to our coverage of this list because of Socrates himself. GuzzyG (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support If you want to add some other biographies. --Thi (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support purely on quota reasons. The article on Plato discusses Socrates enough, I'd much rather keep several of the writers being discussed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Socrates is mainly known through his somewhat contradictory depictions by Aristophanes, Plato, and Xenophon. We know relatively little about the real-life figure, who left no surviving writings. Dimadick (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong, strong oppose -- Although he does not have any output of his own that is not contained in Plato, Socrates is a supremely influential intellectual figure and personality in the Western World, and he nets roughly the same page views as the rest of the SPA group. I am also cognizant of the criticisms from the above entry. Removing Socrates while we have 21 writers seems ludicrous to me, especially since Socrates's reputation excels almost all of them (admittedly I contributed to this problem by having Milton cold added). It makes absolutely no sense that we would poach social scientists when there is already a bloated category that could use trimming. How do we include James Joyce on this list but leave out Socrates? It would be a grievous error. The last people we should be removing is philosophers and social theorists, as they are vastly underrepresented. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

   Page views are a little unhelpful, given that thousands of other articles probably receive more page views, but would never be accepted here. However, to your point, all of the religious figures can be seen as philosophers to some extent, and more succinctly, Franklin, Goethe, Voltaire, Tagore and Shen Kuo can as well Aza24 (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

   I think my intention in mentioning page views is clear: there is roughly comparable public attention given to Socrates as is rendered to Aristotle and Plato. Franklin, Goethe, Voltaire and Tagore’s contributions, even when combined, still dwarf Socrates’s place in Western philosophy and culture. I’m sorry, there just simply is no comparison —- Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Socrates is what influenced later philosophers like Aristotle and Plato. I think he is as vital as those two philosphers. Interstellarity (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
3. You do have some good points, but unfortunately the knee jerk must prevail here. His historicity is rather irrelevant for this list, IMO (we list Jesus, whose existence is similarly strongly thought but unproved); in historic thought and "popular culture", Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are all three considered a cohesive and coherent grouping/lineage, such that Socrates would be conspicuous in his absence from the list. Although it seems excessive to list all three, we have a tradition of listing all members of an important enough group; we list both Julius Caesar and Augustus, and all four of the fundamental forces even though weak interaction wouldn't make it here on its own.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Socrates is absolutely a vital biography for Level 3 --
   talk
   ) 18:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Mainly per John and Interstellarity. Socrates is credited as founder of the Western Philosophial tradition. I oppose droping one of the two if we are going keep space for prioritising 11 writers or more. I can be OK (not bother which one) if we are going to have big cuts in writers. BTW I noted ancient biographies are quite weak on English Wikipedia. Article on Cicero has +100 references on ENwiki, meanwhile +400 on PLWiki. Article on Plato has +100 references on ENwiki but has +600 on Polish Wikipedia (and earlier on PLwiki there were even +800 references). Dawid2009 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

   That's a bit dubious of an assumption. Thales and Pythagoras (and quite a few others) were earlier. Plus, if we're talking an academic perspective, Plato seems a more valid "founder", see here, where the author famously calls Western Philosophy Plato's "invention". I'm not sure what the relevance of your second comment is, but its worth noting that the polish WP has hundreds of sources to Plato's own works, which aren't really proper references. We also have incredible articles on Aristotle, Epicurus and Pythagoras, so we're not really "lacking" there—though I agree that, in general, Plato's article is a bit disappointing. Aza24 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Seriously? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I'm not convinced either way yet, but having Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle on this short list does feel excessive. I must also agree that Socrates is the least vital of the three. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the discussion (if one can call it that) which resulted in Socrates being added. Cobblet (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Well that's embarrassing. I'll likely support once I've worked out the argument beyond "quota reasons". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Just as a comment, i didn't mean historicity (or Abraham/Moses would be removed..). Jesus biography is supremely important as his life/actions are. We know of Socrates life/actions through Plato, hence it should not be a priority to list Socrates life when his contributions appear through Plato. We don't list Raphael and that is also a famous/important third. Considering Caesar/Augustus have months named after them i don't think it's a fair comparison with someone (Socrates) who does not. Their life is tied to months, you can know everything about Socrates by reading Plato, so why is Socrates himself important? GuzzyG (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The Maghreb is a large cultural region in Africa we are completely missing from the list of countries at this level. I propose adding Algeria as it is the largest country in the region both population and area wise even beating out many countries in both of those categories that we already list. Algeria is also a regional power, has some of the largest natural gas and oil reserves in Africa and has a long history under many empires. --

Support

1. Support as nom. --
   talk
   ) 00:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Given all that and Camus you've got my vote.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Weak support We should have a representative of the Maghreb. Algeria is larger and more populated than Morocco, but I think the latter is the more historically and culturally relevant, especially to an English-language encyclopedia. I'm okay with both, but if it came down to it I would take Morocco over Algeria. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support TheSecond biggest missed country by surface area and the biggest missed country by population according to List of countries and dependencies by population (one of the most populous according to sources which Cobblet gave below). I think Algeria and Morocco have comparable importance. Morroco is the most touristic country in Africa. Personally I think it is better to weigh due for "Morocco and Algeria"/"Poland and Ukraine" etc. than "Paris and France"/"Indonesia and Jakarta" etc.. After adding Netherlands we probably should fix ballance beetwen Western Europe and another regions but this is just my suggestion as I highly consider population's criteria. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

   It's actually the second largest country by area not listed. Kazakhstan is larger. Cobblet (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

6. Support per discussion. If consensus changes and people want to keep countries to a quota of 40 or less I will reconsider. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support Dimadick (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. After thinking about this a long time, I think Morocco is more vital to the English Wikipedia, and I don't think we have room to list both at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I'll stay neutral on this proposal pending at least the outcome of the UAE proposal. I'm leaving some figures here for (my own) reference.

According to projections from the UN World Population Prospects for 2021, the largest countries by population not currently listed are Uganda (47.1 million), Sudan (44.9 million), Algeria (44.6 million), Ukraine (43.5 million, including Crimea), and Iraq (41.2 million).

The population of the Maghreb (Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Western Sahara) is 106 million. Other regions currently unrepresented or underrepresented on the list include Western Africa (196 million excluding Nigeria and Mauritania), Southern Africa (159 million including all the countries south of the DRC and Tanzania except for South Africa), Central Asia (75 million; 115 million if Afghanistan is included with the former Soviet republics), Central Africa (58 million including the six

Why not add the regions themselves (rather than countries)? (I’m not an active Wikipedian and will not be voting etc. - it just struck me.)

Regions are more poorly-defined geographically compared to countries (is Germany part of Central Europe?, for example); there are certain regions we do already have like the Middle East, but those are geographic. "Central Asia", "Southern Africa", etc., are both recent inventions and don't (generally) have identities of their own.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding Central Asia and Central America have both been discussed in the past and not attracted much support – search the archives. Cobblet (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

My signature was wrongly added to the above comment, I don't know who's comment that is. Either way, I'm not supportive of adding regions. --

talk

) 14:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanations, which make perfect sense! :) – Bjørn (who wrote the comment above and is not an active Wikipedian)--128.77.131.222 (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Uganda, Sudan, Ukraine, and Iraq are all additions I would be supportive of. --

talk

) 12:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I could see adding Uganda and maybe Sudan (although we do already have Egypt and Ethiopia). I'm not too keen on having Ukraine (we already have Poland and Russia) or Iraq (we already have Mesopotamia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and might have the UAE as well).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

My only question is whether Morocco is as prominent as Algeria. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. Algeria has a larger population and GDP, which in my opinion are the two most important factors for whether countries should be added to the list. One could potentially consider global cultural influence where Morocco could potentially trump Algeria however I am not educated on that matter. Algeria is a safer addition and makes more sense logically. --

talk

) 02:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Just anecdotally, Disney's Epcot showcase has a Morocco pavilion to represent the Middle East and North Africa. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

If we want to get up to 50 countries (which, admittedly, is an "if"), why not have both?  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm a supporter of getting up to 50 countries but I'm not sure if I would support a Morocco proposal if Algeria passes, with UAE likely to pass too that would bring us up to 40 and I don't know if I personally would be supportive of having Morocco in the next 10 most vital countries to list. --

talk

) 11:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm considering Maghreb as an alternative as well. I think 50 countries is probably too much. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Maghreb is not even on level 4. People who want 50 countries are going to have to propose some removals to make room for them. Personally I think the list of countries was fine as it was before we added the Netherlands. Southern Ocean is a bigger omission than any of the countries not currently listed. Cobblet (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Nominated there. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Before adding Netherdalds and after removing Taiwan the list was structured almost purely by population (BTW see this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 15#Single criterion for countries) which IMHO should be (along with diversity which is mentioned in the FAQ) the best criteria to measure countries by importance. Before addign Netherlands the least populous countries (if we do not count Israel and Saudi Arabia which are inredibly important, and if we do not count Australia which has quite promient growth of population on the continent in the far future) the least populaous countries were: Canada and Poland. Poland is not country where English is first language but it was quite significant in history. Personally I would be neutral to swap Netherlands with Algeria but if Netheralndws was added with so strong consensus then I now have no problem to include more countries. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd be keen on lowering the amount of biographies since I think countries are more vital than people, also I don't think countries should be sorted by population exclusively. I think it should be a mix of highly populated countries and large economies. If we only sorted by population, we would have problems with Israel, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia etc, if we only sorted by GDP we would have problems with many of the countries in Africa. A mix of both allows for a more varied representation of the Earth's countries and this was my initial reasons behind proposing Netherlands and Algeria, being the largest countries by GDP and population respectively missing from the list. --

talk

) 21:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

A propos countries and empires here are some following entires which I could support:

• Swap Spanish Empire for Roman Empire
• Remove Ancient Rome (probably controversial but I think Ancient Rome should be redundand to Rome and Roman Empire just as industry to some other articles, republican period should be covered in article on Rome)
• Swap Netherlands with Ukraine.
• Swap United Arab Emirates with Iraq (yes, I supported earlier United Arab Emirates but more due to couraging participants for addition more countries which have larger population than Netherlands)
• Swap Spanish Empire with Peru if nomination to swap Spanish Empire/Ancient Rome with Roman Empire would failded (I think Spanish Empire can be covered by some other articles on this list and Peru represents something other on its own).
• Swap Lagos with Morocco. What do You think ? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind the inclusion of the Netherlands, I just think it makes no sense to list it (and the UAE, for that matter) while not listing Taiwan (which is more populous, just as important in the global economy, and isn't covered in some of its aspects by other articles on the list). You're essentially proposing to swap Ancient Rome for Roman Empire: I don't really care either way. I'd support swapping the Spanish Empire for any of the modern countries you and others have suggested as possible additions – as I've pointed out previously, we already have plenty on the Age of Discovery. But very few people (and especially not the drive-by commentators) seem to understand that, or the concept of picking 1000 topics that as a whole are most effectively able to summarize the body of knowledge we as a community would like to transmit to our readers, without making any assumptions as to who those readers are or why they come to Wikipedia. This isn't about picking 1000 topics that are most familiar to the minds of a handful of editors.

Suggesting swapping Lagos for Morocco is an example of the wrong kind of thinking. We are not listing Lagos because it is more important or well-known topic than Morocco. We are listing Lagos because urbanization is an incredibly important social phenomenon and Lagos exemplifies it in the case of Sub-Saharan Africa. If we do not list a sub-Saharan African city such as Lagos we are essentially saying that urbanization in Sub-Saharan Africa is less important than in other regions in the world, which makes no sense when it is the most rapidly growing region in terms of population and is just as impacted by urbanization as any other region. Meanwhile we already have Egypt and will soon have Algeria as examples of North African countries. Even without Morocco, North Africa is as well represented by countries as any other world region. I don't ever seeing us having room to list both Algeria and Morocco, unless we were to remove, say, all the biographies from the list. Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that many articles listed (at least in the level 5 list) are redirects to other pages. Should those be updated with their new locations? --Anon423 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I asked a similar question nearly a month ago. DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It makes sense to do so... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a good option to have for a composer that represents non-western music and also the shortage of women on the list. We've always valued diversity when it comes to selecting articles to add and remove. This was mentioned in

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The only living person I'm willing to add is Elon Musk once (if) he gets people to Mars, sorry.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
2. In brief, I sympathize with the desire to include non-Western and female musicians, but I am opposed to adding living persons. Adding Mangeshkar to this list would suggest that she is the most vital person alive, which I don't think anyone would argue. She seems perfectly fine at Level 4, given that she is not seen as a pinnacle like Mozart or Beethoven nor is she exceptionally diffuse on all six continents like Michael Jackson or the Beatles. If anything, we should be aiming to cut biographies, not add more. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Zelkia1101. --Thi (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose best suited for the level-4 list. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

With the pending additions of Algeria and Swahili, there's no room for her without a corresponding swap. I personally don't have a problem with swapping Wagner for her, but that's just me. Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Cobblet about space constraints, although for non-Western music I can support Fela Kuti.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Musk is currently at level 5. In case you weren’t aware, I proposed that Musk be moved up to level 4: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_67#Add_Elon_Musk. It was rejected. Interstellarity (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

That's why I'd support him at this level once he gets us to Mars; he'd fill in a spacefaring niche that Gagarin or Armstrong, who were "people just doing their jobs" (no word of a lie, that was a justification to not blurb the death of Chuck Yeager on ITN), aren't quite as suited for. Even if he fails, his persistence will be enough for Level 4 in 10-15 years, but success shoots him up to Level 3 IMO. Back to the original point, I am still of the opinion that Mangeshkar is not quite the most notable person alive (even if in her 90s and well past her prime), which is what we would be saying if we were to IAR for her and not anyone else.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

That is not what we are saying at all. "The purpose of this discussion page is to select 1000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles." It is not to select the "most notable" 1000 topics. I don't know what you mean by "notable" in this situation, and even if you clarified that, I'd have to ask whether there's any meaningful way of making such a selection beyond relying on, say, User:HostBot/Top 1000 report. Cobblet (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

"Notability", whatever that may be, is a necessary (if not quite sufficient) condition for making it onto such a limited list; if we are to "have high-quality articles" on a topic to the exclusion of other topics, that generally means that the topic is more "notable" than the other topics. Therefore, this list is, in fact, a de facto list of the 1000 "most notable" topics; even with concerns of diversity in representation (which I do think are justified), the "levels" of vitality are often seen rightfully or wrongfully as a

Great Man theory of history still has any currency (which rightfully isn't a whole lot), Level 3 is where the "great men" (and women) go. Of course, this isn't especially exclusive ("greatness" comes in many forms, from Caesar to Noether), but the fewer people there are in a category the more exclusive it is and the more stringent a test I apply to it. Unfortunately this "test" consists of my gut feeling and knowing it when I see it, so I can't exactly put it in words, but having Mangeshkar as the only living person on this list while there are other such living persons as Obama, Bezos, and Elizabeth II strikes me as supremely odd if not absurd. I know this seems stupid, especially since Mangeshkar is in her twilight years, but I don't see quite enough impact in her career to justify breaking the somewhat-sacred "no living persons" rule. As said earlier, for a non-Western composer (and African artist) we can have Fela Kuti instead.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs

) 21:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

One cannot hope to address systemic bias by relying on one's own gut feeling. That gut feeling is precisely the source of that bias. Cobblet (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Chomsky's universal grammar and language acquisition device helped disprove Locke's empiricism. Chomsky is a foundational modern thinker and a representative of anarchism. Locke is no longer discussed much and his ideas have been busted. Chomsky is the most important person currently breathing. Splitzky (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom Splitzky (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC) Splitzky

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Huh? I'm not even sure that Chomsky is even level-4 material, nevermind level-3. Although he's the most important linguist of the second half of the 20th century, he is in no way the most important, or even a good representative of the field. Pāṇini, William Jones, Ferdinand de Saussure, Wilhelm von Humboldt, and Benjamin Lee Whorf are more important than he is. You speak as though Chomsky's linguistics has been universally accepted. That's far from the truth. Universal grammar, poverty of the stimulus, Cartesian linguistics, and the language acquisition device have been rejected by the majority of linguists in the 21st century. Chomskyian linguistics is not popular anywhere outside of the United States. As for anarchism, Chomsky isn't really that important a thinker, and he is eclipsed by Mikhail Bakunin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Peter Kropotkin. There is absolutely no way he is even in the same league as John Locke, the father of empiricism and liberalism whose works have had a profound influence on politics, philosophy, psychology, and pedagogy. Locke's vision of government is literally the basis of all democracies today. Chomsky is most influential as a social critic. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition Chomsky is example of public intellectual of recent times, not in the same level as other scientists here. --Thi (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Zelkia. Couldn't have said it better. Gizza (talk • voy) 10:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose "Locke is no longer discussed much and his ideas have been busted." Locke provided the philosophical underpinnings of the American and French Revolutions. He is one of the foremost political philosophers of all time.
   p
   18:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose on one hand, Chomsky is (thankfully) still alive, and as I've said earlier the only living person I'm willing to add is Elon Musk (who admittedly isn't even currently at Level 4) if/once he gets people to Mars. Even if he were dead, Zelkia said it best that his work is not universally accepted and if we really needed an anarchist I'd rather add Proudhon or Bakunin. (Kropotkin is too communist and covered by Marx, and Rothbard is too capitalist and covered by Smith) That's not even addressing Locke's foundation of liberalism that is far from "busted". If it makes you feel any better, though, Chomsky, once dead, is a better choice than the nerdy/niche Wittgenstein.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose as the Dictionary of Liberal Thought (Brack & Randall, 2007) says of Locke, "Often described as the patron saint of liberalism", "Locke's ideas have had an enormous impact on the history of ideas and political practice", "echoes of Locke's thinking ... can be found in the American Declaration of Independence and constitution ... writers such as Thomas Paine drew on Locke's arguments ... his conception of natural rights, toleration and the limits of legitimate authority have had a profound impact on classical liberalism". Britannica says his works "lie at the foundation of modern philosophical empiricism and political liberalism. He was an inspirer of both the European Enlightenment and the Constitution of the United States". Chomsky just ain't that influential. DuncanHill (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss