Talk:FP Top 100 Global Thinkers
|A fact from FP Top 100 Global Thinkers appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 6 November 2005. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
The List - suggestions
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
A popularity contest to decide intellect: do we really need a criticism section?. :)
What's the "long list"? The article doesn't explain what it is.
there was much more criticism and someone deleted it. why did they delete it?
this is bogus
Article's name is wrong
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
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)
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.
- 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)
Critic on methodology - quote
"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."