Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Archive 1

message: OK, now I'm discussing because I'm not sure. What was top 125 has the following.
;Tteam sports
# David Beckham
# Larry Bird
# Ian Botham
# Donald Bradman
# Terry Bradshaw
#  Wayne Gretzky
# Mia Hamm
# Bobby Hull
# Michael Jordan
# Dan Marino
# Diego Maradona
# Joe Montana
# Sadaharu Oh
# Walter Payton
# Pelé
# Jackie Robinson
# Babe Ruth
# Bill Russell
;Individual sports
# Muhammad Ali
# Lance Armstrong
#Roger Bannister
#  Fanny Blankers-Koen
# Nadia Comaneci 
# Dale Earnhardt
# Olga Korbut
#Carl Lewis
#Paavo Nurmi
#Al Oerter
# Jesse Owens
# Ayrton Senna
# Mark Spitz
# Jim Thorpe
# Babe Didrikson Zaharias
#Willie Shoemaker
#Bill Tilden
For the top 10 or so, I would suggest:
# Pelé
# Jackie Robinson
# Babe Ruth
# Jesse Owens
# Sadaharu Oh
# Babe Didrikson Zaharias
Any additions this group, or other comments? I'm not sure about football and soccer, etc. A number of people are in a gray area for me. Maurreen 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to use for now. Maurreen 17:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sports

message: Some of these too I'm torn on -- I took Bush out, and am teetering on taking out Trotsky, Putin, and Truman but am wondering if FDR should be added? Though he only had a huge impact in the US and don't know if his New Deal architecture influenced other cultures. Trotsky was definitely a leader in the movement, and an intellectual, but in the end was ineffectual against the Stalin powerhouse....
:The short answer is, you probably know history better than I do, and I think I'll defer to your judgment. 
:Longer answer -- My initial inclination is to lean toward keeping Bush, essentially because of what he's done in reaction to Sept. 11, I see as having wide effect. Then again, it's difficult to judge current events, and I usually lean toward favoring those who have been shown to have lasting impact, or at least name recogniton, after their death or at least leaving their position.
:It's also difficult to figure out a proportional WP balance among the USA, the primarily English-speaking world, the Western world and the world as whole.
:Given that we're both Americans, maybe we ought to do rough work, and then ask one or a few others to check it for a broader perspective. Maurreen 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, I'll try to scare up some non-Americans to help...plange 18:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaders 

message: Looks like we're at 140, so we have space for 10 more.... plange 06:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second those. What do you think of:
* Antoine Lavoisier, chemist
* Henry Thoreau
Maurreen 06:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep to both of those! Also how about these?
#William the Conqueror
#Louis XIV of France, the Sun King
plange 07:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any problem with any of those. But if the count is correct, we're at 150 now. So we would need to delete some more first. Maurreen 07:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I added all those. We are now at 146. Maurreen 07:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Count 

message: (Sounds like it should be a wikipage.)
Please sign if you agree.
# Akbar -- Maurreen 
## Oppose. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Candidates for deletion

message: Please sign if you agree. 
# Rene Descartes -- Maurreen
# Ho Chi Minh -- DHN 08:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Absolute must. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More additions?

message: Asia, with over 50% of the world population, is severely underrepresented in this list. DHN 08:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, do you have any suggestions? Maurreen 08:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurocentrism 

message: Some of the entries seemed to lack perspective. I took away 10 entries of people who cannot in anyway justify entry into a top 150 people list and inserted 8
Removed: Sophocles, William Blake, Mark Twain, Yasser Arafat, Oliver Cromwell,  William Wallace, Victoria of the United Kingdom, Joan of Arc, Socrates, Voltaire
Added: Walter Scott, Constantine the Great, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, Henry II of England, Mikhail Gorbachev, David Hume.
Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: William Wallace was restored and replaced Henry II of England, founder of the English legal system, conquerer of Ireland, etc. I guess Wallace is iconic, but I can't say I personally think Wallace more important than Henry. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I replaced Wallace with Oliver Cromwell. Wallace is only an important figure in Scottish history, whereas Cromwell has significance in the histories of Britain, Ireland and America. Catchpole 12:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that several people are at least looking at this, I think it's better to talk about changes first, as we have been doing above. Maurreen 15:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding and Removing

message: I can't understand deleting Socrates, who is "widely credited for laying the foundation for Western philosophy." Maurreen 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand deleting him or Sophocles either. plange 16:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Socrates is a literary character, primarily found in the literature of Plato, rather than a real person. He is covered by Plato. Sophocles is a playwright who wrote a handful of plays. One of the most important individuals in history? I don't think so. This is what I meant by lacking perspective. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to re-add Socrates. Maurreen 16:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Calgacus, we know we're lacking perspective, that's why we invited others to come here and help :-) plange 16:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Socrates

message: ;Greeks
Sophocles seems comparable with Aeschylus and Euripides. I'm ambivalen. I'm not sure any of the three are more important than the other two, and I'm not sure we need all three. Maurreen 16:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writers

message: ;Include
#Maurreen 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll on [[Yasser Arafat]]

message: :How can one defend the fact that 6 of the 5 (some might say 6 out of 6) Leaders from the British Isles are English while there is absolutely no sign of any number of equally or even more significant leaders from other parts of these Isles ? siarach 16:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestions, please? Maurreen 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually il admit to being more than a little hasty in saying the above. Considering there are only the 5 slots it is very hard to think of others who have had such tremendous impact internationally as well as within the isles. siarach 16:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to get rid of those designations by region as I think it's leading to confusion on why they are there. It's not that there are 5 slots to fill there, it just happens that there were 5 we tentatively meet the criteria for Top rating who happen to be from there. plange 16:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'd be for the deletion of Elizabeth I of England, William I of England and Henry VIII; these characters are of great significance for England, but limited significance for the world. Philip I of Spain would be a better candidate, but even he I don't think qualifies. I've deleted them, but if anyone disagrees they can of course easily add them back. But I think we should seriously consider rulers and other figures of more general significance firstly. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly of the 5 Elizabeth i thought was the easiest one to highlight as being of fairly 'provincial' importance and comparatively undeserving. William I i might go with but i think Henry VIII has to stay purely because of his impact on religious nature and evolution of England and to an extent the Isles as a whole which had a huge impact over the following centuries upon the world siarach 16:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm asking this in all honesty, it's not rhetorical: Did the Renaissance have impact outside of the Western World? If so, Elizabeth I should be re-added. plange 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Everything that happened in history has some kind of impact elsewhere. But Elizabeth was not the most powerful renaissance ruler, and there were at least 5 rulers who lived in the Europe of her time who were more powerful. Why is Elizabeth special, may I ask? To me it seems the only reason is that the English regard her as one of their greatest monarchs. But really, I think there is more needed than that. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The Renaissance had a tremendous impact upon the world through the influence of European powers. Any impact Elizabeth had does not be deserve to be compared as it is so comparatively trivial - she doesnt really deserve to be up anymore than does Robert the Bruce or any other number of highly significant figures from British history who, as a result of their impact upon the Isles, might be said to have had an impact/legacy upon the world. siarach 16:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English bias in the 'British Isles' Leaders section 

message: How about 
#James Watt
#Michael Faraday
#James Clerk Maxwell? Maurreen 16:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would support Maxwell; Watt and Faraday I'm not sure. I'd wanna hear more input from scientists first. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Support James Watt. Revolutionised Britain.--I'll bring the food 17:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Would probably support Maxwell. Kaldari 23:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientists

message: For the sake of simplicity and cooperations, etc., please discuss changes first. I am going to revert the changes just made that were not discussed first. Thank you. Maurreen 16:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please discuss first

message: * Cyrus the Great; founder of the Persian Empire, first large scale state in the history of Western Eurasia. 
* Ivan IV of Russia, i.e. Ivan the Terrible; is often held to have inaugurated Russian autocracy; even if that's spurious, his reign saw the destruction of the remaining "Mongol" strongholds in Russia and the expansion of Russian conquistadores across the Urals. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominations

message: Jackson was put as "Top" but has been edited. He is Top importance, huge level of influence and notoriety in almost every country. Everyone knows him. Thriller is one of the most successful albums of all time. And lets take "The Beatles". He OWNS their music!--I'll bring the food 17:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what?! He actually owns Northern Songs, or part of it, which means he owns the publishing rights of the songs. He has no interest in the recordings. All of which is poppycock, of course; please don't try and use such irrelevancies to promote your cause and denigrate another. If Michael Jackson is sufficiently important to be a core topic - and I personally think he probably is - let his case stand or fall on its merits please. --kingboyk 14:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Jackson

message: Is G.W. really one of the 150 most important people in history? Sure he's arguably the most powerful man in the world right now, but is he really that important historically? Is his legacy going to significantly impact the world for many generations? How do we know that? He doesn't seem to meet the Top Criteria to me: "Must have had a large impact outside of their main discipline, across several generations, and in the majority of the world." If we do include G.W., I think we should create a section for "Current world leaders" and adjust the Top Criteria to accomodate that. Kaldari 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on George W. too. My vote's to delete him too....plange 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  George W. Bush