Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Archive 3

message: ;Miscellaneous
# Bill W. - Failed. Maurreen 18:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed candidates

message: I've added this page to the above category. It's not meant to be a claim to ownership, rather a symbol of cooperation and a navigational aid. I hope that's OK. --kingboyk 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. It was in a subcat anyway. Maurreen 02:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:WikiProject Biography]] 

message: ;Artists
# Claude Monet.  Impressionism and all that.  john k 11:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added candidates

message: Sorry to be a wet blanket, but the very existence and maintenance of such a list as this violates, in my opinion, WP:NPOV. I've seen very similar lists fail AFD challenges on these very grounds. That's my 2 cents, just speaking as a member of the Biography Wikiproject and the creator of a number of biographical articles. 23skidoo 18:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware that project lists had to adhere to NPOV.  As I understand it, the purpose of this list is to determine articles to focus on improving.  I am not aware of an intention to actually include a list in the main name space saying these people are the 250 most important people. john k 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I believe the NPOV policy only applies to the article namespace. This list is intended as an internal worklist, not for public consumption. Kaldari 19:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "not for public consumption" - everything on Wikipedia is available "for public consumption". --Mais oui! 19:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but nonetheless, talk pages and Wikipedia project spaces are not within the confines of NPOV.  This page is for the purpose of editors coordinating their work, and it is not reasonable to demand that editors must focus on working on particular articles in an NPOV way.  john k 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This whole endeavor seems about as silly as The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, though it's far less dangerous.  I like how incredibly Eurocentric this list is so far.  The fact that Akira Kurosawa is the only non-white artist (is there anyone in Asia that would consider him the most important Asian artist ever?  I'd nominate Natsume Soseki or Lady Murasaki before him, if I were limiting myself to Japan, which wouldn't really be appriopriate) on the list gives some insight into the background of the people writing the list.  It's kind of like the Wikipedia as a whole, except the Wikipedia doesn't pretend to be unbiased in its emphasis (hence efforts like WP:BIAS), and that very pretense seems to be the basis of what's going on here. Jun-Dai 07:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia written in English is likely to have a bias towards people from Europe and the Americas.  I don't see anything particularly wrong with this.  It is of course imbalanced, but it is biased in the way that the readership of the encyclopedia is likely to be.  Presumably English readers are more likely to look up Ernest Hemingway than Lady Murasaki.  That doesn't mean that he's a better writer than she is, but he's undoubtedly more familiar and significant to most English-speakers. john k 21:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, why is the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy dangerous?  It seems kind of silly in parts (what kind of madman puts Gilbert Stuart on a list of artists but excludes Jacques-Louis David? That's americo-centrism to the point of complete insanity.), but what's "dangerous" about it? john k 12:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My 2 cents

message: ## Support. Maurreen 15:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Actors, etc.

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

message: # Donatello
##Support. Maurreen 15:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Artist and architects

message: # Fred Astaire
##Support. Maurreen 08:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dance candidates

message: # Tim Berners-Lee 
## Support. Maurreen 07:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inventor candidates

message: #Blaise Pascal
##Support. Maurreen 04:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Math

message: # William James
## Support.  Maurreen 15:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophers

message: #Niels Bohr
##Support Maurreen 02:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientist candidates

message: ;Misc.
# Ingmar Bergman
## Support. Maurreen 17:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd support James Naismith too. It was a truly remarkable innovation in sport: all other major sports evolved over centuries, with the input of thousands of people, but this guy just thought one up all by himself! --Mais oui! 07:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *I beg to differ. Naismiths invention might be important, but he as a person is not. And on the other hand, the game Naismith invented in 1892 wasn't nearly what basketball is today. I would go as far to say that there are people that had bigger impact the development of the game of basketball itself than Naismith. --Bender235 08:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *I can't imagine what would be more impact on the game than its invention. Maurreen 16:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *But I think there is a valid point that the man himself has very little renown. Even a featured article about him would be quite short and of little interest. For the record, I also oppose the Bannister nomination. Pascal.Tesson 16:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Music, I think, could have more, since classical music is included, and is thus not directly comparable.  I'd suggest splitting music into classical and popular, with popular at about the same level as athletes and actors. john k 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More to archive

message: # Mark Spitz (won seven swimming gold medals at the Olympics, one of the greatest swimmers of all time)
##Support --Mais oui! 07:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd support James Naismith too. It was a truly remarkable innovation in sport: all other major sports evolved over centuries, with the input of thousands of people, but this guy just thought one up all by himself! --Mais oui! 07:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *I beg to differ. Naismiths invention might be important, but he as a person is not. And on the other hand, the game Naismith invented in 1892 wasn't nearly what basketball is today. I would go as far to say that there are people that had bigger impact the development of the game of basketball itself than Naismith. --Bender235 08:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *I can't imagine what would be more impact on the game than its invention. Maurreen 16:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *But I think there is a valid point that the man himself has very little renown. Even a featured article about him would be quite short and of little interest. For the record, I also oppose the Bannister nomination. Pascal.Tesson 16:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Music, I think, could have more, since classical music is included, and is thus not directly comparable.  I'd suggest splitting music into classical and popular, with popular at about the same level as athletes and actors. john k 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sports candidates

message: Life Magazine published a list of the Top 100 people who made the Millennium ranked in order of importance. I thought it would interesting to see how their list compared with ours. Here are the highest ranking people on their list who do not currently appear on ours (in order of Life's ranking). I only bothered going through their top 50, since the lists diverge too much after that.
17. Richard Arkwright
23. Kublai Khan (we list Genghis Khan instead)
25. James Madison
37. Vasco da Gama
39. Samuel F. B. Morse
40. John Calvin (has been suggested for inclusion)
41. Florence Nightingale
43. Joseph Lister (has been suggested for inclusion)
44. Ibn Battuta
45. Zhu Xi
Kaldari 05:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life Magazine List 

message: Here’s a comparison with the top 50 from the list from a similar book, by Michael H. Hart.
:15 – Moses – opposed
:23 - Michael Faraday – already nominated, under scientists section
:24 - James Clerk Maxwell – already nominated, under scientists section
:40 – Edward de Vere
:41 – John Dalton
:45 - Antony van Leeuwenhoek
:46 - William T.G. Morton
:50 - Oliver Cromwell – was on our list, but was removed
:Maurreen 12:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: de Vere'? Wow! He was important in the court of Queen Elizabeth I, but the only way he gets on anybody's top 100 is to accept him as the "real" Shakespeare (and/or an even less documented tale). studerby 05:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Hart, I believe, decided that Oxford was the "real" Shakespeare. john k 16:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hart’s list

message: ====English language====
# Joseph Conrad.  The great author on European colonialism.  Heart of Darkness possibly the most influential work of the 20th century. john k 10:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writers

message: # Joseph Conrad.  The great author on European colonialism.  Heart of Darkness possibly the most influential work of the 20th century. john k 10:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English language

message: # Anton Chekhov.  Often considered the master of the short story. john k 10:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other languages

message: #Ayn Rand 
## Support Maurreen 07:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No seconds, should be archived