Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Archive 4

message: This is a holding area for potential nominees. Maurreen 16:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just archive the whole section. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writer contenders

message: I've been slowly adding some of these above, but maybe there's a more efficient way. Does anyone think any of them are worth including? If not, I'll archive the whole section. Maurreen 17:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just archive the whole section. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving this along

message: # Cicero
##Support. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed Roman candidates

message: ===Leaders and public figures===
# Joan of Arc (previously listed and removed)
## Support.  Maurreen 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More added

message: # Joan of Arc (previously listed and removed)
## Support.  Maurreen 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leaders and public figures

message: # Archimedes
## Support. Maurreen 08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematician candidates

message: # Thomas Malthus
## Support. Maurreen 08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Social scientists

message: # Frederick Douglass
## Support.  Maurreen 15:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Activists

message: # Ezra Pound
## Support Rcpaterson 23:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writers

message: # Michael Faraday - chem/physics
## Support Rikurzhen 06:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientists

message: All failed. Maurreen 06:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maurreen 03:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition candidates – controversial – to be archivedl

message: # Bob Dylan
## Support --Mais oui! 07:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Music

message: # Noam Chomsky
## Support.  Maurreen 15:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maurreen 03:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics candidates

message: I have archived the following and seconded [[User:John Kenney|john k]'s oppose votes.
# Cicero
# Cato the Younger
# Pompey
# Solon
# Draco
:Maurreen 03:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed Roman candidates

message: *Umar (pivotal figure in the history of Islam)
#Oppose – Important in Sunni Islam, but outside of Islam, I don't think he has had much impact. ♠ SG →Talk 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion candidates

message: # John Maynard Keynes 
## Support. Maurreen 07:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Social scientist candidates

message: # Samuel Johnson - Maurreen 17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English language

message: # Hesiod studerby 07:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other languages

message: # Le Corbusier
## Support. Maurreen 07:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous candidates

message: I'm thinking we might be better off going back to a limit of 150. It seems like most of the people in the top 100 to 150 are usually shoo-ins. But in my view, the level of importance for No. 151 to 250 is probably closer to the next 1,000 than the top 100. In other words, it seems like once we get past 150, the choices are much more gray, and I'm not sure it's worth the effort. But I'm not sure I said any of this as well as I'd like. Thoughts? Maurreen 20:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "how many is practicable to actually improve," has been essentially my general intent. Maurreen 21:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we're at 152 right now. Managing 100 more articles than what we have right now does seem a bit daunting. However, I think there are a fair number of shoo-ins that still aren't on the list yet. Perhaps we should compromise on a nice round number like 200. How does that sound? Kaldari 00:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Maurreen 10:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisiting the number

message: In the interest of moving this along …
We have about 20 slots left. And we also have about 20 candidates with at least two signed supporters and no opposition.
Does anyone feel strongly that any of the following should not be included? 
Does anyone feel strongly that anyone vital would still be missing? 
#Archimedes
#Brando
#Burke
#Chomsky
##Eh. I'm going to oppose.  If he's on for linguistics, I don't think linguistics is a prominent enough field for any linguist to qualify, and I'm not sure there's any reason for Chomsky to be the only linguist on the basis of that alone.  In terms of his political activism, I'm not sure that his work there is really particularly timely, and is mostly kind of fringe.  john k
#De Gaulle
##Oppose plange 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maurreen 18:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bruce Lee has 3 supports with no opposes, I think he should be added to this list. VegaDark 22:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Am at work, will weigh in tonight plange 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My stance on adding the Moses article is that I don't feel this project should include ANY biblical/other religious figures that has a large contingent of people who believe the persons existance is debatable.  This includes Jesus, Moses, etc.  This is because this project is supposed to include people either living or that once lived and we cannot confirm these people did in fact live or if they were made up.  I think to respect all religious beliefs we should leave these articles out, as simply including them in a project intended to cover people that lived doesn't respect the beliefs of a large group of people.  Now, that being said, these articles are still very vital and important in an encyclopedia and by all means should be on the list of articles to improve to featured status, which is the ultimate goal of this project after all.  My suggestion would be to have a Biblical figures subproject that keeps these ideas in mind but still strives to improve the articles. My position is that we should take out all biblical/religous figures that may or may not have actually existed, but if people don't agree to that, then by all means add Moses as he was a very important biblical figure and shouldn't be left out if we are including biblical figures. VegaDark 22:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus's historical existence is accepted by most historians, and there are multiple, separate sources for him which all emerge not too long after his death - the 4 gospels, the letters of Paul, and (probably) at least a brief reference in Josephus.  There are numerous people who believe that Jesus existed who are not Christians.  Moses is a lot more problematic.  There is no evidence for him save the last four books of the Pentateuch, which most scholars agree were written centuries after the time when Moses supposedly lived.  Having a biography of Moses is basically impossible, because he is, more or less, a literary character.  One can't assess anything about his life in a scholarly way.  There has never been a serious book about the "historical Moses."  Jesus is at a different level (although of course there are a few who doubt his historical existence), in that one can interrogate the sources that we have about Jesus in the same way one interrogates other historical texts.  Moses is basically comparable to someone like Romulus - there's just no way to have any clue if he existed.  Most scholars, on the other hand, seem to accept that Jesus did.  We shouldn't act as though the two situations are similar. john k 23:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think you've convinced me, although I would like to be reassured that some WikiProject out there is going to shepard Moses into a usable state for 1.0, but I suppose we already have enough to chew on ourselves. (I'm dreading the Jesus article already) Kaldari 23:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, I think Socrates and Buddha don't qualify for legendary figures in the same way that Moses does, either, although I'm less familiar with the sources on Buddha.  Zoroaster and Laozi seem like plausible candidates for removal. john k 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think perhaps your comment on Chekhov was not recognized as a vote of support. Kaldari 23:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About 20 slots left

message: I wonder if Voltaire and Rousseau should be counted as literary figures, rather than philosophers.  Rousseau's novels and autobiography are among his best-read works; Voltaire is most famous for a picaresque (Candide), and wrote numerous plays and historical works and such like.  Neither is particularly studied in philosophy departments, where Hume and Kant are the big 18th century names.  Certainly Voltaire, at least, has hardly a genuine philosophical work to his name. john k 00:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK with me. Maurreen 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It sounds fine to me, too. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Me 3 :) Kaldari 19:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization