Talk:FP Top 100 Global Thinkers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Education  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

The List - suggestions[edit]

What about making the list a table, possibly showing nationality and main subjects of interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.189.5 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

The criticisms need to be much better sourced. It states "Much better lists of intellectuals are based on objective criteria", but, what does that mean and what really makes it better? That is original research and opinion, not to mention the list of omitted people. Those aspects need cleanup. gren グレン 05:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


Who is "Nim Chimpsky"? Rather embarrassing typographical error or the work of a witless fool?

Nim Chimpsky is a "dead chimp male" so named after Noam Chomsky. Reputedly he learned sign language to some extent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.104.52 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A popularity contest to decide intellect: do we really need a criticism section?. :)

Long list?[edit]

What's the "long list"? The article doesn't explain what it is.


criticism[edit]

there was much more criticism and someone deleted it. why did they delete it?

this is bogus

71.103.112.197 sp0

Please see the WP:RS and WP:OR policies. <<-armon->> 05:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that not one of the top 100 is African? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.42.6 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinua Achebe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.181.157 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Article's name is wrong[edit]

This is not "The" list, this is Prospect Magazine's list. This article should be titled "Prospect Magazine's 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll". Any good reason for me not to rename the article? Gronky 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose "List of influential public intellectuals" as a title. Incorporating key words into the title improves the chances of locating the article through search. Palaeovia 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That would make it a general list, compiled based on general information (not based on Prospect Magazine's poll. Gronky 08:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

List should be last[edit]

Wikipedia's role is to discuss this list, not to present it. Discussion of the list should come before the actual list in the article. Gronky 08:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The List[edit]

The list is rather long, especially since one of the external links goes to the list, i think that we should just list the top 10.--Kip Kip 19:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Yes, rather long, except that apparently Claude Levi-Strauss is not abled enough be among the likes of Michael Ignatieff and James Lovelock. I suppose founding structuralism and most of linguistics does get you as much as it used to these days, I guess. Maybe people don't think of Levi-Strauss as even still being alive, and perhaps the old man likes it that way. If the list were up to me, I'd put Levi-Strauss first, and Chomsky second.

2008 Poll[edit]

With the existence of a 2008 poll, should this article be renamed to be year agnostic? noq (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How has Al gore contributed more to society than people like Dr. Michio Kaku or Dr. Steven Hawking? --SILENTnoobXD (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
ANSWER: By basing such conclusions on Internet polls....... hardly a reliable method for anything. Arnoutf (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Critic on methodology - quote[edit]

"But the more one examined the list, the wackier it seemed. For example, it suggested that the world's greatest living public intellectual was Fethullah Gülen. Eh? ... and No 7 was Abdolkarim Soroush, an Iranian Islamic scholar of whose existence I had until that point remained blissfully unaware. I could go on but you will get the point. Recognising that they had been shafted by some clever flash-mobbing, the erudite editors of Prospect and Foreign Affairs tried to salvage something from the wreckage in a later edition. Noting that the definition of public intellectual remained "satisfyingly vague", they set up what the racing fraternity would call a stewards' inquiry to "weigh up the field on three criteria: novelty, real-world impact, and intellectual pizzazz". The result: the world's leading intellectual turned out to be General David Petraeus, architect of the US "surge" in Iraq, currently in charge of the fiasco in Afghanistan and scheduled to become head of the CIA in September... This is the kind of thing that gives superficiality a bad name."

This article lacks massivly on these underlying facts and is a shame to Wikipedia's standard of quality! --87.178.119.163 (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)