Talk:Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century

message: Isn't TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century about the same thing this article is about?  If so shouldn't these articles be merged?  Or should both of these articles be merged into Time 100? Jason McHuff (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the two 20th century articles are about the same thing. However the Time 100 article is different because it's a general overview of all the Time 100 lists. The 20th century articles refer specifically to the most important Time 100 list- the one that documented the most influential people of the 20th century.Slackergeneration (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Looks like an accidental content fork. And based on this reference, "most important" is the correct title, rather than "most influential." Further agree with Slacker that Time 100 should stay as a separate article; it is about an annual list in Time. Hult041956 (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate articles?

message: The image :Image:Einstein TIME Person of the Century.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Einstein TIME Person of the Century.jpg

message: No Dr Sun Yat Sen?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.90.38 (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: *I think the COPYVIO argument is a red herring.  The list comes from 100 different articles spread out over more than a year and written by a whole bunch of people.  You can source the entire list without borrowing significant content from any of them.  If this is considered COPYVIO, a whole lot of stuff on this project would also have be deleted.  My understanding of COPYVIO on this project is that you need to copy large amounts of text directly from a single source in order for it to be copyvio.  User:The Banner and others who allege this is COPYVIO have yet to produce said source. pbp 20:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 2014 re-add of the list

message: In the article, Time 100 see paragraph one (1) of History & format as it states: 
The list was started with a debate at a symposium in Washington, D.C., on February 1, 1998, with panel participants CBS news anchor Dan Rather…
In the article, Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century see paragraph two (2) of the article as it states: 
The idea for such a list started on February 1, 1998, with a debate at a symposium in Ha Noi, Vietnam. The panel participants were former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather…
2001:558:6033:6D:7079:A6A4:8186:45D7 (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction of place where symposium started. 

message: Anyone else agree this list is garbage?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.179.68  (talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 December 2012‎
:Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrible

message: the fact that elvis doesn't
 make the list makes a mockery of
the whole idea. you are always going
to cause upset and debate with these
sort of lists because when all said and 
done it's a matter of personal opinion.
how though,can someone be left off the list
when,if the people on the list were voting
they would probably all vote for him above
themselves and he influenced most of those on the
list. ask youngsters now who they've heard of,
most have heard of the beatles,all have heard
of elvis. surely the most biased panellist
must appreciate the enormous impact on the world
someone has had when 37 years after they died
there are over 85,000 people impersonating
them,most of which are earning a good living.
people who met him said he had more charisma
than anyone they had ever met,oh and
what a singer !!!!!!!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.197.38 (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  elvis 

message: That's in dispute: https://archive.org/details/TruthForGermany --41.55.119.218 (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler and Mussolini responsible for World War Two? 

message: The paragraph I have added does not violate copyright of the list, it just points out who is on the list.--2001:8003:6F2D:C900:3824:7922:5B8D:D44F (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The list itself is copyright protected. You should respect that and not try to circumvent that with unsourced listings. The Banner talk 11:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is on the list 

message: Just pointing out that the paragraph listing who else is on the list will be readded the day this page gets unlocked. Which ironically is on Christmas Day, another thing to get excited about. Now I'm expecting the Banner wn't like it, but just like how the Grinch learnt a lesson on Christmas day, I hope a message about FAIR FLIPPING USE will get through his thick skull.--2001:8003:6F2D:C900:486B:B06D:B2DC:C05D (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You make it painfully clear that you do not understand the principles of copyright and why it can be harmful to Wikipedia to violate these rules. The Banner talk 10:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And you are an idiot you know that, all around on Wikipedia pages we have summaries of movies, television shows, books that fall under copyright. As I've told you a bazillion times yes the list is copyright protected, if we were to post the list in the exact order, yes it can be harmful to Wikipedia (though you could send an e-mail a day to TIME telling them how Wikipedia pointed it out, I don't think they'd care much) but if we were to make a paragraph of those on the list, in alphabetical order, then it would fall under fair use.--2001:8003:6F2D:C900:486B:B06D:B2DC:C05D (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Even personal attacks will not remove the copyright. The Banner talk 10:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I have removed the list again since, unfortunately, I think that it's still a copyright violation.  See Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, which describes the issues.  That page says that , which is exactly what Time's list of 100 people is. Re-ordering the list does not make enough difference, in my view, to avoid the copyright. Wham2001 (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  When the paragraph will next appear 

message: Pro tip: if anyone wants to see the full list, look at the previous edit history of this page, the full list has been added and removed numerous times. You're welcome. Snkn179 (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full list 

message: Varad bhave (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The original list is copyright protected. The Banner talk 21:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2022