Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Archive 6

message: I would be pleased if someone could explain why Wilhelm II of Germany is to be found among the core biographies?  By any measure he hardly counts as significant figure in world history.  He was an intensely vulnerable man, ill-suited to his high position; he did not control events but allowed events to control him.  In essence he was a mediocrity, much like his cousin Nicholas II, who-rightly-does not appear.  As for responsibility for the Great War that heavy burden might just as easily be heaped on Franz Joseph.  If we need a German to replace him might I suggest Konrad Adenauer, who did so much to resurrect his shattered country.  Rcpaterson 07:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Franz Joseph also has the distinction of being one of the longest reigning rulers in history, and of starting several other wars.  Plus, all the fun that everyone in his family died horrible deaths. But I agree, Kaiser Bill is not that important.  john k 10:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wilhelm seemed to be more of a figurehead than an influential leader, as Hindenburg and Ludendorff were the ones actually calling the shots during WWI. Kaldari 00:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the last three years of the war, at any rate.  Obviously Wilhelm did a lot of stuff before World War I, but I don't see as he's terribly more important than, say, Lord Salisbury, or the aforementioned Nicholas II. john k 02:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, should we remove him? Anybody want to keep him? Maurreen 06:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Kaiser Bill? 

message: These noms were among those added by “free picks” as part of a win-win proposition. Maurreen 06:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added “free picks”

message: These are more free picks that were added. Maurreen 06:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's plenty of powerful female rulers before Elizabeth.  Eleanor of Aquitaine, for instance, just to take another Queen of England.  john k 12:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: erm, that's like comparing Calvin Coolidge to FDR plange 16:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't feel strongly about it one way or another but at this point I think we might as well add her.  We can always do a vote to remove her later on down the road. There are still a fair amount of spots left.  We could also go back to 250 people if that is an issue. VegaDark 03:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth I, Socrates, Joan of Arc, and Voltaire 

message: ====Queen Elizabeth I====
#Oppose Not important enough. Leaders should be kept to those who have had a huge historical significance outside one country. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's plenty of powerful female rulers before Elizabeth.  Eleanor of Aquitaine, for instance, just to take another Queen of England.  john k 12:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: erm, that's like comparing Calvin Coolidge to FDR plange 16:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't feel strongly about it one way or another but at this point I think we might as well add her.  We can always do a vote to remove her later on down the road. There are still a fair amount of spots left.  We could also go back to 250 people if that is an issue. VegaDark 03:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rehashing contested entries that have been removed

message: #Oppose Not important enough. Leaders should be kept to those who have had a huge historical significance outside one country. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's plenty of powerful female rulers before Elizabeth.  Eleanor of Aquitaine, for instance, just to take another Queen of England.  john k 12:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: erm, that's like comparing Calvin Coolidge to FDR plange 16:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't feel strongly about it one way or another but at this point I think we might as well add her.  We can always do a vote to remove her later on down the road. There are still a fair amount of spots left.  We could also go back to 250 people if that is an issue. VegaDark 03:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Queen Elizabeth I]]

message: # comment not a top 10 philosopher; real credit lies with Plato and Aristotle. but socrates the character is top tier. --Rikurzhen 00:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Socrates]]

message: #Oppose Not a contender. Famous and iconic, yes. In the top 250 people ever, I hardly think so. Surely Charles_VII_of_France, not even one of France's most important kings, would get in ahead of her. How exactly has this person made a major impact on the world? Box office ticket receipts for the trashy and inaccurate movies made about her?! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Joan of Arc]]

message: # borderline --Rikurzhen 00:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Voltaire]]

message: # John Maynard Keynes -- Added. -- Maurreen 06:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added

message: I see that Urban II appears as a possible candidate in '5. New Nominations' above.  What can I say?  I realise that this English language version of Wikipedia is inevitably skewered towards a Western cultural perspective; but in our present political climate I can imagine how Urban figuring on a list of the most significant people in history would appear to Muslim people. Now, I know there is more to Urban than the Crusades; but everyone who knows anything about Urban, the Council of Clermont and the Middle Ages associates him with this movement-'God wills it.' Does anyone-I mean anyone - believe that the Crusades were anything but a complete disaster, from the massacre of Jerusalem in 1099 to the sack of Constantinople in 1205 and beyond?  The Crusaders came like savages to ravage ancient cultures and civilizations, in a far more barbarous way than the Germanic tribes in the final decades of the Roman Empire.  I know that Urban did not 'will' any of this; he was, nevertheless, the spiritual father, in more ways than the obvious one.  Rcpaterson 11:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitler and Stalin are on the list, as is Genghis Khan.  I wasn't aware that the criteria had to do with doing good things. (Constantinople was sacked in 1204, btw). john k 11:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry about the date: a typo, I assure you!  Poor old Urban: how would he feel about being put in that company?  Obviously 'bad' people will figure on a list of significant figures in history.  I do not for a moment believe that Urban was bad: he provides, it might be said, the perfect example of that old adage 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.'  My point was really to do with perception.  Urban is far from being a significant figure in history-unlike Hitler, Stalin and Genghis Khan.  To select him as such suggests a particular cultural and historical bias. Rcpaterson 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for clarifying.  I think I agree.  If we had a wikiproject on, say, people involved with the political history of medieval Europe, Urban would probably qualify, but I agree that he's not important enough for this list. john k 12:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban II-you can not be serious!