Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

Archives.

1, 2

	FA	FA	GA	GA	A	–	Total
October 1, 2007	83	N/A	98	N/A	N/A	823	1004
November 1, 2007	85	38	90	125	24	698	1016
(Nov. 5 revision)	83	45	91	137	25	682	1017
December 1, 2007	83	45	90	139	25	690	1022
February 1, 2008	85	47	84	145	25	669	1003
April 1, 2008	87	46	79	139	24	673	999

Purpose of this list

The first sentence in the article says "This is a list of basic subjects for which Wikipedia should have a corresponding high-quality article, and ideally a featured article". If that is the main goal, wouldn't it be best to delete all the featured articles (and maybe the good articles) from the list? That way there would be room for more topics, and the goal of guiding people to "subjects that need high-quality articles" could be fulfilled better. I think there is no way we'll ever agree about which are the 1000 "most important" topics in a general sense, as seems to be the problem in some of the discussions above. But we can perhaps agree on 1000 topics that are "pretty important" and deserving good/featured articles, and which would be removed from the list as soon as they achieve that status. (Note: the articles that are removed due to being featured/good could be moved to a separate list, in case someone needs them to "track progress".) --Itub 06:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Great idea! StAnselm 06:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You know that GA and FA aren't permanent and some articles will miss this position.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• True, but at the moment we're just going in circles. There's a constant cycle of articles being added and deleted from this list. StAnselm 12:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia isn't paper, if we need more room for articles we can just use the expanded list or even increase the article limit on this list and wrangling over articles to include isn't going to go away just because we remove all of the decent articles. The primary purpose of this page is to list the most important encyclopedia topics. Feel free though to make a seperate list of "Vital articles needing improvement" or the like, if you think it would be useful. Cheers —dv82matt 16:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case the purpose of the list, as described on the project page, is not clear. And also in that case I would agree with the poster below who says it doesn't have any useful purpose. --Itub 06:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of this page?

It seems to me that this page is an exercise in POV and that it should be deleted. What is the point of it, especially given the existing of its big sister at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded?

It came to my attention when a point of order was raised by WikiProject Cricket in this discussion and it does not surprise me at all to find that there is an American bias at work here, as per several of the sports-related selections and discussions.

Unless there is some useful purpose for having this list and unless it is going to be done by a working group which is able to take a completely objective view of what is vital and what is not, then the whole thing should be scrapped. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is a good question, what the point of this list is. However, I don't agree that the POV policies necessarily apply to lists in Wikipedia space, as opposed to article space. Pages in this namespace are for internal purposes, and many of them have non-neutral points of view (just look at all the essays!). --Itub 06:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This list is useful in many ways. It can serve as a centralized watchlist. It can serve as a guide for selecting important articles that need improvement. It can serve as a browsing guide for readers. So there's several useful purposes.

As for POV that is a problem (essays may not be intended to be NPOV but this list is) but anything specific that is brought up can be dealt with. The list of individual sports is a very minor part of the overall list so the idea that it should be deleted because of a problem with that is excessive.

As for your requirement of a working group to administer this list that would run counter to the open informal editing process that has characterized this page. This page provides a more accessible format and style than the core topics lists. —dv82matt 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The PoV is not a problem because this is a priority list for those who choose to view it as such. You're perfectly free to create your own, or to encourage the improvement of this list. I completely disagree with the notion of having it deleted. — RJH (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is just a WikiProject, it should list its participants, rather than pretending to be some kind of official endeavour of the foundation. It should be clearly stated that the list is a POV by a negligible minority of WP editors, or where, if at all, it has been sourced from. Otherwise, I would probably find myself disagreeing with RJH on the deletion question. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the impression when I read the project page that this is an official endeavor of the foundation. I disagree that it should be made into a WikiProject; I think that it is fine as it is. --Iamunknown 21:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems fair that a list of participants should be published. I wasn't around when it was first created, but for the most part this seems like a reasonable approach. It does seem to undergo edits from time to time, however, so perhaps it's open to revision? Maybe there should be a review committee? — RJH (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No sports?

I don't know what criteria were used in making this list, but I can't find any mention of sports. It seems there has been talk of removing some sports-related articles from the list (#What we can remove), but atm there is not a single sports-related article on the list. I suggest adding the articles of the most notable sports (e.g. football (soccer), baseball, basketball), the most notable sportspeople (e.g. Michael Schumacher, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Roger Federer) and the most notable sports teams (e.g. Scuderia Ferrari, New York Yankees, Manchester United F.C.). The specifics of this section, which sports-related articles should be included and which should not, would obviously be the subject of a subsequent discussion. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 11:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed here [1]. I'm not sure I agree with it, though. I definitely don't agree with adding those sportspeople. Mahanga^Talk 15:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the best not-completely-arbitrary list we can come up with is the modern Olympic games. Even then it's not a very good list. Nifboy 01:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this list should really, really include football (soccer) as a vital article. I see it as more vital for an encyclopedia to have than a good proportion of the stuff on this list, and I'm not even really a football fan.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree but the problem has been that it is difficult to limit the list to five or six entries. Everyone seems to have strong opinions about which sports should be included and which should not. See Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_2#Sport.

The expanded list has American football, Athletics (track and field), Auto racing, Badminton, Baseball, Basketball, Boxing, Cricket, Fencing, Football (soccer), Hockey, Ice hockey, Rugby football, Tennis, Volleyball, Water polo and Wrestling so you could trim some off that list and give it a try if you like. —dv82matt 22:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've only recently found this page, and it seems strange to me that there is "Board Games" listed, plus 4 other board game articles, but just the generic "Sport" listed. Surely some of the sports as listed above are more deserving than draughts? - fchd (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to listing only Association football (soccer), Athletics (track and field), Auto racing and Cricket? —dv82matt 06:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace?

Not sure it's even the most important/notable building in London, Tower of London, Tower Bridge, Westminster Abbey, St Paul's would all probably come first. Suggest it's deleted. Paulbrock 13:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I support it's removal from this list. --Amandajm 03:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Core topics - 1,000

This has probably been covered before, but is there a reason to have a separate Wikipedia:Core topics - 1,000 and Wikipedia:Vital articles? Both seem to be subjective lists by Wikipedians of the 1000-or-so most important topics for articles on Wikipedia. Is there a significant difference? Should they be merged? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The core topics list is administered by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team so it is purposed specifically to article selection in a release version of Wikipedia. This list is more general in purpose and allows for a more informal editing process IMO. —dv82matt 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Art and Architecture

• I recommend the removal of all the buildings listed under "Architecture". The individuals works are a part of the period that produuced them.

I somewhat agree, though I'd suggest retaining Great Pyramid of Giza and Great Wall of China in the list. Most of the other buildings are simply not notable enough in their own right for inclusion IMO. —dv82matt 09:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I recommend the redirection, within the "visual arts" category, of painting to the category "Art" and the removal of the brief list of POV great works, which doesn't include the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel(!?) but does include a single popular modern work the Scream. Where are Picasso's demoiselles, one asks?

I agree that all the individual works should be removed. I would suggest removing all the specific works of literature as well (with the exception of the religious texts in the religion section).

I'm not sure what you mean by "redirection, within the "visual arts" category, of painting to the category "Art"". Do you mean to pipe "Painting" (like this: Painting)? If so then I disagree with this suggestion as this list is specifically intended to be a list of articles rather than categories. —dv82matt 09:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• The following list is the short list of important topics under "History of Art".

Pre-historic art

Arts of the ancient world

Western art history

Eastern art history

Islamic art history

Contemporary art

Western painting

These articles should all be brought up to scratch, if they are not already, and provide the links to all the other areas like Gothic architecture, Pre-Columbian art, Greek sculpture etc. --Amandajm 04:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree that those are important articles, I don't think the historic articles ie: Western art history, Eastern art history and Islamic art history should be included in this list. For the others I will defer to your judgement on the matter. —dv82matt 09:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

Leonardo was primarily a painter! Not a scientist. That's right! He was enormously influential as a painter. And, on the side, he was a scientist and engineer. He advertised himself as having engineering skills, but in fact, he projects either flopped or were not even begun. His flying machine didn't fly. His tank, had it been made, would have rotated on the spot (with enormous effort). His enormous crossbow, when constructed, launched a missile about ten metres. His bobbin winder worked.

His major contributions to science were made through his paintings. His knowledge of anatomy had little impact, except on Art. His study of light had little impact except on Art. Please, somebody, remove Leonardo from the list of influential scientists and put his name where it belongs - He is, with Michelangelo, the most famous painter who ever lived. See Mona Lisa. (Yeah, as an art historian, this really bugs me!)

I've contributed an article about Leonardo's science at Leonardo da Vinci - scientist and inventor. if you want him in the list of scientists, please link that article, and put the main Leonardo da Vinci in the list of artists. --Amandajm 04:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Literature

Where are Plays? Where's Shakespeare's plays? Are they listed somewhere other than Literature? --Amandajm 04:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Who decided this?

Why on earth are Norway and Bangladesh "vital articles", but other country articles are not? Who decided this mess? Is Bangladesh somehow more "vital" to a good encyclopedia than Cameroon or Chad? Every country in the world should be a "vital article". This whole page is offensive and should be deleted. — Brian (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Original versions actually had something like "everything in List of countries" and added listings of FAs and GAs. I suspect that section grew unwatched until someone changed the wordings. Overall, I completely fail to see how the page is "offensive and should be deleted." Feel free to nominate it. Circeus 03:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have overreacted. :) I think this project could do with quite a bit of de-Eurocentrization, though. Every country in the world should be listed as "vital", at the very least. — Brian (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind expanding the list of countries somewhat, but we already have a list of every country in the world elsewhere so why duplicate that long list here? Also, where do you see European bias? Could you give some examples? —dv82matt 09:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not just countries, I think this whole concept is a NPOV nightmare. I suppose many people will try to add their pet topic. -- Functor salad 13:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson

Should Nelson not be included amongst this list or at least the expanded list? He is a central figure in the history if the British Isles, in European politics over the last two centuries and in naval warfare ever since the battle of Trafalgar. Is there a reason why he is omitted? Thankyou Woodym555 16:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Put him on the expanded VA list if you want but he's really not pivotal enough for the main VA list. Cheers —dv82matt 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Economics....?

How come this page doesn't have a section on economics? How about articles on Capitalism, Communism, Trade, Banking..etc.? Also should include core business topics: Finance, Marketing, Accounting etc.

It does. It's here. Also Armanaziz, please don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages. Cheers —dv82matt 08:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Medicine additions

Shouldn't hypertension and diabetes be vital articles? They're probably more important than Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy for example.FelixFelix ^talk 18:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Parmesan 16:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Other languages

The list of vital languages leans more than a trifle towards Europe and Asia. May I suggest the addition of Swahili and Quechua, as two widely spoken native languages (S: 80 million; Q: 10 million speakers) of Africa and South America respectively, both of which are spoken in more than one country? Parmesan 16:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Quechua, but Swahili absolutely should be there. --mav 04:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Progressbox

I allowed myself to insert a discreet little box to show future progress in the improvement of vital articles. Hope nobody minds. Lampman 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just updated the box, and it now includes the recently added categories, an initiative I personally quite appreciated. We now see that, while about one in five articles are currently considered among Wikipedia’s best work, that proportion increases to almost one in three if we include articles that once held that position, and may perhaps be brought back to it without too much work. That gives you hope. (PS: the numbers don’t add up because some articles belong to more than one category.) Lampman 01:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that I haven't finished updating the list, I think I have one or two more categories to go through. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me know when you're done. Good job, by the way! Lampman 01:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also note that I marked all of the A-class articles as either GA or not GA, as in my mind FA > A > GA and all A-class articles should be GAs. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That does seem logical, though reality does not always confirm it. To add to the confusion, some articles (such as Berlin) have different ratings according to different projects. I'll leave it to your judgement though. Lampman 19:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

From the work I've done so far, I think that most A-class articles should really be ranked B-class, given the stronger requirements of WP:V as of late. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I finished the list. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I made an update to the box. It shows a few more former FAs and GAs, but this seems to be due to an increase in the total article count? Lampman 18:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Poe

I'm wondering about supressing Poe of the authors list and putting Hawthorne or Melville instead. Even if Poe might be a bit well-known, American litterature seems really to begin with the Scarlet letter and Moby Dick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Doria (talk • contribs) 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if I had to pick one and only one American author, it would be Ralph Waldo Emerson. He was the first one to really challenge British traditions and start a real American literary tradition. Melville and Hawthorne's works are often mostly reactions to Emerson. Scholars frequently make reference to his influence in American literature. Wrad 16:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also argue that T. S. Eliot is more vital than James Joyce. Wrad 16:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think T. S. Eliot should be added but maybe James Joyce should be removed. —dv82matt 13:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer keeping Poe in the list over any of the alternatives mentioned so far. Granted some other writers mentioned might have had greater impact on literature on an academic level but I think Poe's impact on literature in popular culture is far more impressive.

Consider that Poe was influential in developing the short story, detective and crime fiction, and horror fiction. —dv82matt 11:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't really influential in developing horror, it was already well-developed by then, but he did do the other things, that's a good point. I still think that we should use an author with a broader influence. Emerson's influence is so broad that we take it fr granted and don't even recognize it for what it is anymore. Wrad 14:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah you are right regarding Poe and horror. I misremebered. Regarding Emerson I never realized that he was so broadly influential. His wikipedia article didn't give me a very good sense of that. —dv82matt 15:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that Emerson would be a good choice : he had a great deal of influence in American Literature, but that doesn't mean he is the greatest American writer. In Germany, Lessing had also a strong influence, but he can't be compared with Goethe, Schiller or Hölderlin. Anyway, it finally occured me that William Faulkner is the only American author able to appear in the Authors list. Alexander Doria 14:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no way to objectively declare anyone the greatest American author. There is no agreement on that. There is agreement on Emerson's influence, though. And I'm not sure I follow the Faulkner thing. What do you mean? Wrad 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Poe should be removed and Rousseau should be added. Rousseau's influence on Western Civ can hardly be exaggerated. He is the transition from the Enlightenment to Romanticism. And he influenced political thought also. — goethean ॐ 03:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Include de-featured and de-GA symbols?

I'm in favor of noting which articles have been demoted from FA and GA status so we can see where we could improve on first. Any thoughts? --Hemlock Martinis 21:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It adds clutter. I'd prefer we not do that unless at least a couple more people think they would find it useful. —dv82matt 07:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea… I think I will do the same on the French version. Alexander Doria 10:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Everything that was DGA, DFA, A, GA, and FA are noted as such on the list now. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A-class articles?

How do we signify A-class articles like Economics? --Hemlock Martinis 23:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently we don't but maybe we should. Template:A-Class-icon would work pretty well and is used for that purpose elsewhere. —dv82matt 01:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks! --Hemlock Martinis 06:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Great Idea, If i get some free time I will mark the Articles that are A-class Template:A-Class-icon!! Hope that is ok with most people. Max ╦╩ 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, they're already marked, I made sure to do so when I went through and updated the list. However, most (supposedly) A-class articles are actually closer to B-class. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Time to prune

I believe there are 1017 articles in this list right now (excluding List of countries and List of countries by population). I could be wrong, if anybody wants do double-check, please do, but I'm pretty sure that's the number. There is of course no compelling reason why there should be 1000 articles rather than 1017 or 983, but 1000 is a nice, round number, and keeping it there helps us preventing the list from filling up with cruft. For overflow there is always Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded. So I suggest we cut out some of the articles, any suggestions? I'd like to start by suggesting Jean Racine; I see no reason to include him, and certainly not ahead of Molière. Lampman 19:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No objections here to pruning a bit. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that some articles are both DFA, DGA, and A, so you might be counting a few articles more than once. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I took that into account. Lampman 07:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've no objection to judicious pruning but there's no particular reason to restrict the list to precisely 1000 entries. —dv82matt 10:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some articles that on their talk page are listed as vital, but are not listed here

For example, George W. Bush. There are others, but I can't recall what they are right now.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

They are almost always articles that used to be listed here but were removed. Any vital article tags on the talk pages of those articles should be removed. —dv82matt 22:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not removing them. As it stands, this page seems both subjective and impossible to maintain.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Prioritizing FA, GA, A, DFA and DGA symbols (in that order)

In order to tidy up the page I'd like to suggest that we include one symbol max per article. So for example if an article is DFA then there is no need to include the DGA symbol or if an article is A class then don't use the DFA or DGA symbols and so on. —dv82matt 01:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The way I formatted the list, if an article has both Template:NoFA and Template:NoGA-icon, it typically means that the article was a FA, was demoted, and then failed a GAN. That tells someone browsing the list that the article is probably B-class. As for A-class articles, I made sure to include the and Template:NoGA-icon symbols, as most supposedly-A-class articles haven't been through the GA nomination process. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If an article has Template:NoFA how does adding Template:NoGA-icon as well help to identify it as B-class? That makes absolutely no sense to me. If uniquely identifying B-class articles on this list is desirable it would make way more sense to use Template:B-Class-icon instead.

WRT, …most supposedly-A-class articles haven't been through the GA nomination process. that may be true of A-class articles in general but it's actually not true of the A-class articles on this list. —dv82matt 12:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

By "through" I meant "passed the GA nomination process"; as in, Template:A-class-icon. The current A-class articles on the list can be divided up as follows:

Template:A-class-iconTemplate:GAN-icon

1. Robot

Template:A-class-icon

1. Egypt

Template:A-class-iconTemplate:NoGA-icon (either not passed GAN or not been through it)

1. Moses
2. Civilization
3. Berlin
4. Republic of Ireland
5. Saudi Arabia
6. Aesthetics
7. Jazz
8. Pope
9. Maize
10. Economics
11. Pound sterling
12. Trade
13. Anarchism
14. Liberalism
15. Black hole
16. Insect
17. Physics
18. Gravitation
19. Theory of relativity
20. Jet engine
21. Computer
22. Laser
23. Number

I think what I'm getting at here is that I place a lot of emphasis on the GA process as far as quality rankings go. An article marked as Template:NoFATemplate:NoGA-icon is obviously inferior in quality to one marked as Template:NoFA, etc. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Pruning

I would like to suggest a new policy whereby new additions are only admitted if accompanied by corresponding removals. There is a tendency for everybody to add their favourite author/country/dwarf planet without anyone ever removing anything. The result is a constantly expanding list that will eventually be indistinguishable from Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded.

I have permitted myself to prune the list down to 1000 items. There is of course nothing magical about that number, but agreeing on a set amount of articles can prevent this constant bloating. I have done this by removing additions made since early September this year, when the list was at exactly 1000. Please note that this is not intended as an editorial action on my part; the removals in no way reflect my personal views. If anybody wants to restore any of the removed articles, feel free to do so, but please suggest a removal at the same time.

The removals are as follows:

Praxiteles – Horace – Ovid – Jean Racine – Leo Tolstoy – Georg Friedrich Händel – Franz Liszt – Nicolaus Copernicus – John Paul II – Civilization – Template:FA Libya – Romania – Versailles Palace – Ayyavazhi – Template:GAicon Personal computer game – Console game – Handheld video game – Dwarf Planet – Template:GAicon Ceres – Template:FA Pluto – Template:FA Eris – Imaginary number

Lampman (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer it if you did do this as an editorial action rather than simply removing articles added after some arbirtrary date. I think the policy you suggest would be wrongheaded and would tend focus attention inappropriatly on a mostly irrelevant number rather than on making improvements (whether additions or deletions) to the list. Anyway I think Nicolaus Copernicus, Civilization, Dwarf Planet and Imaginary number should definitely be listed. Praxiteles, Horace, Ovid, Leo Tolstoy and Georg Friedrich Händel are perhaps debatable but in my view they should also be listed. The rest I am ambivilant about or favor removal. BTW Thanks for bringing this up for discussion and listing your removals here. Diffs don't work for me so it would have been a hassle trying to figure what had been removed otherwise. Cheers —dv82matt 01:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply focusing on "making improvements" sounds great in theory, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way in reality. Since September, 22 additions have been made to the list, without a single removal. It goes without saying that if this development is allowed to go unchecked, the list will at some point lose all purpose. Nobody’s denying that 1,000 is an arbitrary number, but I can't for the life of me see what's so much better about 1,022, or any other number.

Personally, I agree that Leo Tolstoy, Nicolaus Copernicus, Dwarf Planet and probably also Pluto belong. Generally speaking, however, I think the list suffers from the systemic bias common to Wikipedia, and that the humanity sections could be expanded at the expense of technology, science and mathematics. I don't think we need 9 articles on electronics and 12 on geology; e.g. resistor and igneous rock could go. Also axe and fractal, in my opinion. Lampman (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This list has existed for a lot longer than three months. Removals do happen. It's just that they tend to come in batches wheras additions trickle in. I and a few others have trimmed articles from this list from time to time so I guess I disagree that focusing on "making improvements" doesn't work in reality. (Although I admit at times it does feel like I'm the only one doing any general trimming so help in that department is always welcome.) I consider 1,000 to be a soft cap, that is, as long as we're within ~5% or so of the target then it's nothing to get overly concerned about. 1022 is only 2.2% above so it doesn't seem like too much of a problem to me at this point.

And it's not that 1,022 or any other number is better than 1,000. It's that a soft cap is IMO better than a firm one. I think a firm cap could have a somewhat chilling effect on the open and informal editing process that has characterized this page. By forcing a removal for every addition editors are likely to become frustrated at having their additions removed, not because of any problems with the additions themselves but simply because a rigid cap is in place, and then either make rushed, random or poorly informed pruning choices when pressed to do so, or simply avoid contributing at all.

I'd prefer to keep Fractal on the list but that is just my opinion. Feel free to prune the articles you mentioned and any others you think should be trimmed. Cheers —dv82matt 19:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you point out a central problem: while additions are a free-for-all, removals remain the domain of a small group of dedicated editors. Meanwhile, the additions are often frivolous at best, and end up being removed more often than not (like the anon in October who added Jan Kochanowski, Maciej Sarbiewski, Adam Mickiewicz, Witold Lutosławski, Stefan Banach, John Paul II, Lech Wałęsa and Solidarność, betraying perhaps a slight national bias...) While a more open model might have worked in the early days, it seems reasonable to impose a level of discipline as the list gets more settled, to avoid an endless cycle of pointless adding and removing.

I’ll go ahead and remove resistor, igneous rock and axe, and add back Leo Tolstoy, Nicolaus Copernicus and – at second thought – Pluto (I would argue that while Dwarf Planet is simply an arbitrary astronomical term, for which there is not even consensus in the scientific community, Pluto has an enduring place in the popular consciousness). Lampman (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that additions will simply be summarily reverted for exceeding the cap rather than considered on their merits. If we are to have a firm cap I would suggest putting it slightly higher than the target number of 1,000 articles, say at 1,050. That would prevent the list from growing without bound and yet still allow for some flexibility when editing. I'm not convinced that the cycle of adding and removing articles is entirely pointless and I hesitate to restrict that dynamic, which I think has proven useful overall.

Regarding specific articles, I take your point about Dwarf Planet and Pluto but I do think Civilization and Imaginary number (and now that I think of it Number theory) should be on the list. In the Mathematics section I'd suggest Division, Subtraction, Trigonometric function, Set and Mathematical logic as likely removal candidates. —dv82matt 04:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you ask any mathematician about the three most important symbols in mathematics, they are pretty likely to mention pi, e, and the imaginary number. Wrad (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Cities

I nominate Shanghai to be added. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 02:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm lukewarm about adding Shanghai to the list. Having three Chinese cities listed could be unbalancing. That said, if it were added I wouldn't remove it. Cheers —dv82matt 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would almost consider nominating this page for deletion

It is contrary to Wikipedia's official NPOV policy. This list shows inherent systematic bias (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and Austria are vital articles, yet Portugal, Romania, Czech Republic, Hungary and Ukraine are not? How so? Economic bias perhaps? Elvis Presley and The Beatles are vital articles yet Bob Dylan and The Rolling Stones are not? How so? Individual preferences perhaps?) and is impossible to maintain in an objective manner, because as this stands it is subjective, and at worst is without any logical foundation at all. Thoughts?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

An Afd would fail miserably. If it's biased, then fix it, don't delete it. The fact is, some articles are more vital than others. Wikipedia makes a disc so that people without the internet can access the information we can, and they can't put everything on, so they pick and choose. This is where the choices are posted. This isn't just some random list, it serves a useful purpose. Again, the answer is fixing the POV, not deleting the entire page. You seem to be saying that it is impossible to make it objective because it is subjective. That just doesn't make any sense. Wrad (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Berlin more vital than Portugal? According to the current page it is. I'd have to disagree with that assertion.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems like an odd comparison to me. One is a city and one is a country. The ones you made in you first post were better in my mind. Wrad (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Economics and population are the two main criteria that I used when I last updated the list of countries. Do you think that the size of a country's economy shouldn't bear as heavily on the countries included on this list? If so could you suggest an alternate metric or guidance of some sort. Perhaps the list of countries should focus more on historical or political significance? —dv82matt 07:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This list isn't official and it isn't hurting anybody. There are far more productive uses of your time than trying (and likely failing) at getting this thing deleted. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Time for a Vital Article Collaboration of the Month maybe

More than with other articles, the length and complexity of many of these articles lend themselves to a collaborative effort to get to Featured Status rather than by a single editor. Maybe it's time to have a Vital Article collaboration of the month? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well there's already Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF which selects from a similar list. That's just FYI though. It may still be a good idea to start a collaboration that selects from this list specifically. —dv82matt 05:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, been here for almost 2 years and never seen that page before...I'll scrutinise it a bit more closely...but does it get much activity now? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularily active right now but I don't really know firsthand. Walkerma is probably the foremost active participant ATM. —dv82matt 09:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Along these lines, if Language and Philosophy of Science were made the focus of an article improvement campaign, this would make all Vital Articles "Start" quality or better. Not only should we work on adding to our foremost, but also also working on our hindmost. -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well 'Language' is B class and no longer has a cleanup tag on it so it should be debolded; 'Philosophy of science' is start class but has a cleanup tag. Since none of the articles on the list are stubs anymore, I'd suggest we bold all start class articles as needing attention regardless of whether they have a cleanup tag. —dv82matt 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

Doesn't it seem a glaring omission not to have this fellow on the Vital articles list? The most cited living academic and 8th most cited in history... etc. I'll add him to the list, but I'm certainly open to discussion. Pinkville (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't find being "The most cited living academic and 8th most cited in history... etc." particularily compelling as a rational for inclusion. Are the other seven academics who are more cited also listed? I just don't understand why that statistic should qualify Chomsky's article to be listed here. He is of course a very important intellectual figure, as are many others who are not listed, but I'm not convinced he should be listed. —dv82matt 04:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this article, the ten sources (not people) most frequently cited during the period of the study (not in history) are: Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero. There is, however, no indication of how often Chomsky is cited by a supporter or a critic. This is a problem because it is very easy for a newspaper to run a quick attack on the man, citing several of his books in the process, thus racking up "citations." And this is precisely the kind of thing that happens in the wake of controversial people, like Chomsky, who use their knowledge in one area to gain credence in others. I wonder how often George W. Bush's book has been cited by American newspapers... better put him on the vital articles list. Just knock of Lincoln. I mean, what did he ever do? He didn't even publish. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My "most-cited" point is merely a shorthand indication of Chomsky's importance (and "in history" was meant to indicate a contrast with "living academics" - as is fairly clear in the context). As the list that Postmodern Beatnik provided shows, Chomsky is in very good company. And while Postmodern Beatnik's point about controversial figures seems reasonable, Chomsky's "controversial" status simply indicates his notability and doesn't sweep away the truly massive contributions he's made 1) to linguistics, specifically, and psychology/science of mind more generally, with far-reaching implications/influences, and 2) to political analysis and activism. In these domains, many of the concepts he introduced are now commonly known and used in many academic fields as well as in day-to-day communication, and he continues to innovate and expand his thought in these domains to great effect. I don't see how any honest and informed appraisal of his work could fall short of evaluating it as of major significance (certainly relative to Marx, Hegel and Freud, hardly uncontroversial figures themselves). Pinkville (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

But the point that both dv82matt and I were making is that citations-as-shorthand is unconvincing. And the use of "in history" as a contrast with "living" is not clear from the context. It looks like a claim that Chomsky, in his short time on Earth, has racked up more citations than all but seven other figures ever. Furthermore, as the article I linked to tells us, the study that named Chomsky "most cited" only looks at works published over a 22 year period. And the study itself is more than 15 years old, meaning it may not represent the current state of academic research.

As for how "any honest and informed appraisal" of Chomsky's work could fail to note his importance, the counterpoint has already been made: it is too early to tell how important he will be in the overall scheme of things. He could quickly vanish after his death—a possibility I do not find at all unlikely (as an academic who has never once had to cite anything by Chomsky). Regardless, you can see from the discussion on David Hume below that I agree he should be listed for the time being. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Having Chomsky and neither Sartre nor Heidegger (nor Bergson, but that's my own POV at work) really seems quite wrong to me. — goethean ॐ 17:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Raphael

Why has this been removed? There are now only 9 artists left. So much for Jimbo's hopes that WP coverage of the visual arts would improve! Raphael is certainly a more "vital" figure than Monet or Dali, and the article has recently been entirely rewritten and improved. If you want a rather poor article on the visual arts to remove I'd recommend the very iffy Painting and History of Art - in fact History of painting is much better than either. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My view is that Renaissance painters are already fairly well represented with Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo listed. One thing to keep in mind is that the quality of an article plays little or no role in whether it gets listed here. So although History of painting may be of better quality than either Painting or History of Art its narrower scope diminishes its vitalness for the purpose of this list. —dv82matt 21:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the idea is to fix what's here, not replace it with higher-quality but less-vital things. Wrad (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In practice all 3 articles cover pretty much the same ground; little other than painting gets into History of Art and painting is a little history plus lists of links. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Francis Drake

Propose re-adding Francis Drake (who was removed after a very short debate involving 2 editors in April 2007). Rationale: Colonial claims on the west coast of North America were significant in providing legalistic justification for westward expansion of the United States; Singeing the King of Apain's beard; Defeat of the Spanish Armada. DuncanHill (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To my mind he is in the same league as many other European explorers, for example Samuel de Champlain, Walter Raleigh, Hernando Cortes, Vasco de Gama and John Cabot, who are also not listed. I don't see what recommends Francis Drake in particular over these other explorers and including them all whould introduce a clear cut western bias as well as bloating this section of the list. —dv82matt 10:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

David Hume

David Hume is widely considered to be the most important English-speaking philosopher in history. Is there a reason his article is no longer considered vital? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sold on including David Hume even if he is regarded by some as the most important English speaking philosopher in history. I realize that he is quite an important figure in philosophy but most others on the list that I am familiar with (including John Locke who like Hume is English speaking, but with the possible exception of Noam Chomsky who was added only recently) strike me as more vital overall than Hume. —dv82matt 04:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that he is regarded by some as the most important English-speaking philosopher in history, but that he is widely considered to be the most important English-speaking philosopher in history. Indeed, he is also considered to be among the most important figures in Western philosophy period (along with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein). John Locke, though important, is only an early major figure in the Empiricist movement whose premises were taken to their logical conclusions by George Berkeley and David Hume. He was not the first Empiricist (Francis Bacon and Galileo are often credited with beginning the "New Science"), and he was not the last. Hume, on the other hand, is the culmination of Empiricism in early modern philosophy; and Immanuel Kant (again, one of the most important and influential philosophers of all time) explicitly cited Hume as the reason for his awakening from "dogmatic slumber" to philosophical awareness. Locke is important in American high schools for his contributions to US political theory (despite the fact that Montesquieu, Rousseau, and the Iroquois confederacy are all at least as important), and that is why many people are familiar with him (as opposed to Hume, who offered biting criticisms of contractualism—criticisms still discussed today, I might add). But among historians of philosophy, especially those of us who specialize in 17th century philosophy, Hume is a figure without equal. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fully convinced he should be on the list but those are excellent points and I don't dispute his importance in philosophy. It's more that I don't see him as having much influence outside that compared to some of the others (although that may just be ignorance on my part or perhaps I should hold pure philosophers in greater esteem). I'll note that Hegel and Wittgenstein are also not listed so I'm not sure that being on a short list of the most important philosophers is a sufficient rational for inclusion here. In any case, feel free to add Hume if you wish. I don't mean to dictate who can or cannot be added.

On a somewhat related note, the "Philosophers and social scientists" section tends to grow excessively over time, so I wonder if you might have any opinion on potential pruning candidates. Thanks —dv82matt 00:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While perhaps you should hold "pure philosophers" in higher esteem, I would suggest that Hume was not such a figure. He has influenced science through his identification of the problem of induction (a major factor leading to the falsification model of experimentation), and Frege's theory of mathematics (by way of what George Boolos identified as "Hume's principle"). Hume is also invoked by political theorists and moral psychologists (appropriate, as his mission was to be "the Newton of the social sciences"). As for being on the short list of most important philosophers, it seems to me that would be a strong rationale for including someone on the list of "vital articles"—indeed, most of the top guys made the list, as did Aquinas who is certainly in the top three for medieval philosophy—but perhaps I have misjudged the purpose of this page. Or perhaps limited space and a desire for breadth as well as depth requires us to make some compromises. Fair enough. Still, I think we would be quite justified in replacing Locke with Hume.

As for the list running out of control, I think such an important category could hold twenty people (and thus could include Wittgenstein). Still, I am unconvinced regarding Sun Tzu, Maimonides, and Ibn Khaldun. Kierkegaard is also questionable to me. Regardless of how great I personally think he was, I don't know if he is vital to the point of demanding a high quality article. I will grudgingly grant that Chomsky should probably stay, though I think a better representative of contemporary thought could be found. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure I'm %100 percent convinced but I am beginning to see that Hume was a much more important figure than I had realized. You seem to be quite knowledgable on the subject, whereas I'm not really, so I'm inclinced to defer to your judgement on this.

I agree with you about Kierkegaard I have often been tempted to remove that article. The reason I didn't is that his notability (as the "Father of Existentialism"), while probably not as great as some of the others, is more conspicuous to the lay person (namely me). I don't really know enough about Sun Tzu, Maimonides, and Ibn Khaldun for my opinion there to mean much, but I tend to agree with you about those also. A potential problem though is that removing them could bias the list towards western philosophy. Now that's not by itself an excuse to keep them but it is something to bear in mind. I don't agree that Chomsky should stay (including him seems like recentism to me) but I won't remove him now that you have spoken in favor of listing him. Thanks very much for your help on this.

The list isn't really out of control at the moment but it has been at times in the past. [2] Much of the trimming done since the version linked has been done by me and no doubt carries my POV so I really do appreciate your input. —dv82matt 12:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Given your last comment, I am going to add David Hume back to the list. I would also like to add Ludwig Wittgenstein to the list, but would like your thoughts on that first.

The pruning is, admittedly, a harder task. I see from your link that we lost most of the social scientists, and perhaps we should be stricter about the philosophers in order to replace a few of them (such as Max Weber). To this end, as much as I enjoy Kierkegaard, I think he should be taken off the list. Nietzsche, the other great precursor of Existentialism, is just as familiar to the lay person (if not moreso) and is probably a larger figure in the history of philosophy. As for Western bias, I would note that we do have Avicenna (an important philosopher even without political correctness, and one who happens to have been a Muslim) as well as the Chinese philosopher Confucius. I would have recommended Laozi to replace Sun Tzu, but he's already under the list of religious figures. Perhaps Nagarjuna would be a good candidate for the list.

Ultimately, I think the forcible inclusion of less notable figures for the sake of cultural harmony cheapens the inclusion of thinkers such as Avicenna and Confucius who made the list independent of such considerations. Medieval philosophy, unfortunately, is an intellectual cul-de-sac from which few philosophers have emerged. Thomas Aquinas is the main exception, as well as the culmination of that era's thought—and he is on the list. As Maimonides is very much a typical medieval philosopher (a generalization, to be sure, but one that stands so long as we make proper qualifications regarding the word "typical") he seems a prime candidate for pruning.

I cannot claim to have nearly as much knowledge of Ibn Khaldun. The article makes him out to be rather important, but the quality and possible POV violations I see make me distrust the claims made. This should be looked into before he is removed, but it seems to me that Averroes would be a suitable replacement should Ibn Khaldun be found wanting (and should we feel the need to replace him with another Muslim scholar). Then again, retaining him could also diversify our list of social scientists. As such, I am torn on this one.

Finally, I would like to explicitly note that my grudging inclusion of Chomsky is not a ringing endorsement. I think it would be inappropriate to not include any contemporary thinkers, and Chomsky is certainly someone who a lot of people engage with (positively and negatively). He also adds to the number of social scientists on the list, which balances the number of philosophers (I cannot bring myself to count Chomsky as a philosopher in any serious sense).

Here, then, is my recommended list of philosophers: 1. Confucius, 2. Socrates, 3. Plato, 4. Aristotle, 5. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) 6. Nagarjuna 7. Thomas Aquinas, 8. René Descartes, 9. David Hume, 10. Immanuel Kant, 11. Friedrich Nietzsche, 12. Ludwig Wittgenstein. The other eight (I am artificially assuming a limit of 20) should be social scientists, which would allow us to include people who count in both categories—such as Karl Marx and perhaps Ibn Khaldun (though Hume and Nietzsche could also count here)—as well as Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Noam Chomsky, and perhaps Isaiah Berlin or Joseph Campbell.

I hope this is helpful. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WRT Ludwig Wittgenstein, from a laymans POV he seems to be a much more obscure figure than Hume I'll grant that apparent importance is less vital than actual importance but I'm not really in a position to know his actual importance. I would probably suggest someone like Karl Popper over Wittgenstein (not that I think Popper is really notable enough either). Do feel free to add Wittgenstein though. I just present my thoughts for consideration.

I agree with your pruning suggestions and in general with your feelings about forcing inclusion based only on cultural balance. I'm not really able to judge the importance of Nagarjuna but I don't object to him replacing Sun Tzu. Averroes should replace Ibn Khaldun in my opinion but that is just an impression based on my not having heard of Ibn Khaldun.

I can certainly live with Chomsky on the list. Regarding your recomendations I agree for the most part so I'll just mention a few things that I think might be questioable. I am somewhat reluctant to remove John Locke but perhaps I am just being sentimental about that. I've already mentioned my thoughts on Ludwig Wittgenstein above. Isaiah Berlin seems more appropriate than Joseph Campbell but I am leery of including too many contemporary thinkers because often their importance is difficult to judge or is magnified in their own time. Perhaps Isaiah Berlin could replace Chomsky?

Your comments have been very helpful. Feel free to make the changes we have discussed. I will update the list in a day or two anyway if you would rather not. —dv82matt 05:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

←Wittgenstein is pretty important, and is credited with starting a program of research that was dominant for about 50 years and is still influential today. Again, he's one of the top guys in Western history. Popper is important, especially in the philosophy of science, but I don't see him as vital. As for Locke, I am also reluctant to remove him. While I think Hume is more important, there's no doubt that Locke was influential and remains familiar to people. The "20 people" figure was arbitrary, so I'll leave him on.

I am also going to leave Ibn Khaldun until I can learn more about him. I have been able to confirm some elements of his importance, while others remain dubious. Nagarjuna deserves to be in, however, and by replacing Sun Tzu we will also increase the list's diversity. Besides, Sun Tzu's major contribution to history was The Art of War. While certainly belonging on any list about military history or strategy, it is not particularly important social science (though it has those elements, to be sure).

As for Chomsky vs. Berlin, I think we need to go with Chomsky. Despite his influence on contemporary political philosophy, Berlin is only listed as mid-importance by WikiProject Philosophy. Also, I think it is important to list at least one living person and, like it or not, Chomsky is a pretty good candidate for that spot.

Finally, it was mistake to suggest Freud, Jung, and Campbell. They're all of the same school of thought, which would have us ignoring behaviorists like John Watson and B.F. Skinner. As such, I'm going to keep Freud and add Skinner. I chose Skinner over Watson because the former is particularly well-known (much more than Watson) and he was both a philosopher and a psychologist. If a representative from WikiProject Psychology disagrees with that assessment, I will defer to their judgment.

Okay, time to make some changes! Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. —dv82matt 05:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Heidegger, Phidias, Pollock

Would others agree with adding Heidegger to the list of philosophers? He's probably the best-known known 20th-century continental philosopher, and influenced a fair number of others such as Sartre and Derrida. I also wonder whether we might be able to include Phidias and Pollock as representatives of ancient and post-World War II art. Arsene 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Knowing little about ancient art, I have no opinion about Phidias; but I think Pollock would have to be on any list of essential artists. As for Heidegger, however, we do have Nietzsche to represent continental philosophy (though yes, 19th-century continental philosophy) and it seems to me that the article on Sartre would be more vital than that on Heidegger. But insofar as we are trying to keep the list under control, I like it where it is. I am, however, open to convincing. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It would help, I think, if you would suggest three articles to take off the list in exchange for Heidegger, Phidias and Pollock. We're trying to keep this list at 1000 articles, and it's much easier to compare "vitalness" than judge it absolutely.--jwanders^Talk 17:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The three I'd suggest would be Spanish flu, since a description of it exists already in the World War I and influenza articles, printing press, since it's covered in the printing article, and aneurysm, because a small description exists in the bleeding article (and the list of physical traumas is also quite long even without it). Would it be reasonable to make these substitutions, then? Arsene 17:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the way the substitutions work (taking something off of one list to add to another), though I suppose it is an option. However, the brief inclusion of a subject on a related page does not seem to be sufficient to take that page off of this list. For example, World War I is independently vital, and the description of Spanish flu is both brief and reliant upon a wikilink to the main page. The question for this page is whether or not Spanish flu is independently vital. If it is not, it should go. If it is, it should stay. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to imply suggesting candidates to remove from the same section of the list. If necessary, we can of course change the number of articles alloted to each section, but I think that ought to be a separate discussion. --jwanders^Talk 19:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We might as well leave it the way it is, then--I think the three would be valuable additions but I'd be reluctant to consider taking off any of the other artists or philosophers. Arsene 04:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Target section counts

The target section counts I added are simply the current number of articles in each section scaled down such that the target total will be 1000.--jwanders^Talk 20:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But it only adds up to 992? 131.111.129.126 (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposals for removal

These are my personal selections so we can pare this list down to 1000. If you agree, feel free to remove and update. If you disagree, leave a note beneath the bullet point as to why so we can foster some debate. Try to approach each subsection on its own rather than take my entire proposal as is - that is, please don't oppose all my choices just because you disagree with one. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• People (3 needed): I like having leaders fixed at 25, so I'm leaving that alone. We have too many mathematicians (more than artists or musicians!) so I'll take one, Kurt Godel, from there. From authors I recommend Jean Racine, since he's relatively minor compared to the other European authors. Our biggest problem is the philosophers category - we simply have too many. Of them, I would have to say Nagarjuna is the weakest of them all.

• I like having philosophers and social scientists fixed at 20, particularly since it covers two categories. And several figures overlap, which is helpful. Perhaps Nagarjuna is the weakest on the list, but he is included both for diversity and for being one of the giants of Eastern philosophy. As for mathematicians, Godel seems too important to remove. Personally, I am unconvinced by the inclusion of Blaise Pascal (though as a philosopher, I am rather accustomed to being unconvinced by Blaise Pascal). I agree, however, that Racine is a good candidate for removal. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• 20 in Philosophers/Social Scientists still seems very high when compared to the other lists of people - artists, authors etc. - fchd (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Leaders only covers one category and gets 25 listings. Philosophers and social scientists have been rather important historically and deserve a good number of listings. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• What is the basis for the claim that Racine is less important than the other authors? I have some bias here as a student of French literature, but my impression is that he is often considered to be the greatest modern tragedist after Shakespeare, and also the greatest French poet (sometimes along with Ronsard) before the 19th century. If he is removed at the very least one ought to replace him with another representative of French literature like Balzac or Molière. Arsene 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Molière would be a good replacement, but we still need to either drop someone or lose some articles elsewhere. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• So I asked my wife (who specializes in French and Persian literature) who was more important: Racine or Molière. Her response was, "Both. And also Corneille." When forced to pick one, however, she went with Molière on account of his local fame and his relevance to curricula worldwide. She was also quite insistent that he belongs on this list, and I am inclined to agree with her. I'm going to make the switch in my next edit. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's reasonable. The main issue I think is making sure that French literature has some sort of presence on the list. Arsene 16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Re mathematicians, I would suggest dropping David Hilbert and Henri Poincaré, keeping Godel and adding Joseph Fourier (still a net drop of 1). I've not enough experience with the other categories to judge. jwanders^Talk 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that Fourier is more important than Hilbert by any estimation, nor do I find him more important than Poincaré. Care to convince me otherwise? In the meantime, is Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī on the list for any other reason than being Muslim (and thus increasing diversity)? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I suggested Fourier based on how vital Fourier transforms have become—but I guess that's an arguement for including Fourier transform not Fourier himself. I suggested Hilbert and Poincare simply because I hadn't come across either before, probably just one of the many gaps in my education ;-) --jwanders^Talk 07:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Also, it's important to note that the Fourier transform was named in Joseph Fourier's honor. It is not his discovery. As for Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī, I am going to replace him with Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (the father of algebra) who is most certainly a vital mathematician, regardless of race/religion/etc. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• History (3 needed): Oh boy. At first I thought this would be the second hardest (after People), but at a closer glance it actually is the easiest. The first to fall should be Spanish flu, which is hardly comparable to ones like the Great Depression or Holocaust. My second choice is Spanish Civil War, since it had relatively little impact outside of Spain, whereas the rest of the events have a more widespread feel. My third choice is Information Age, which is a little too much of a neologism for me.

• No objections. I'm removing Spanish flu right now, but I'd like other opinions on the other two. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• No problems removing Spanish flu and civil war. Kind of like Information Age, but would be more confident of there was confirmation that that's the accepted name. I also noticed that there is significant overlap between the general history articles at the beginning and "specific period" history articles in the subsections (e.g. History of China and History of the People's Republic of China). Can we get rid of the specific articles on China, India and Europe? Finally, I wouldn't mind adding Prehistory to the list. jwanders^Talk 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good point on the PRC and RoI histories; I wouldn't miss them. We'd gain two spots, one for Prehistory...how about we use the other to give Medicine some breathing room? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think that's an excellent idea. That, or give it to the artists/authors group. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I recounted the history articles and discovered the original count was over by five. This means History has a surplus of four articles. I also replaced History of the People's Republic of China, Information Age and History of the Republic of India with Age of Discovery, Cultural Revolution and Congress of Vienna; this did not affect the total number of articles listed. If we choose not to dish the surplus out to other sections, some good historical additions would be Manhattan Project, Meiji Restoration, Hundred Years' War, Thirty Years' War, Boxer Rebellion or Muslim Agricultural Revolution. Thoughts? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Medicine's pretty desperate for more room, I think we're agreed, so we'll need to trim something somewhere. I sounds like History has more breathing space than the other sections, so seems like we might as well use it. Incidentally, their's nothing sacred about the section allocations; it's just whatever they were when I did the counts, scaled down to 1000 total articles. --jwanders^Talk 07:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Is Cultural Revolution more important than the Great Leap Forward? As for the open spots: how about we give one to Medicine, which puts it on target, one to People, which reduces the stress on that category a little bit, and leave the other two either free or in History. Manhattan Project, Meiji Restoration, and Boxer Rebellion are all tempting to me, but 60 is such a nice round number for the History section to have... Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• (de-indent) I've adjusted the numbers for Medicine and People and removed two slots from History. I agree with the 60 number, so is there somewhere else we could move the two History slots? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Geography (3 needed): First off, two countries - Denmark and the Philippines. Denmark is not a good European choice given the glut of other more worthy European nations already present, and Philippines is unremarkable in this list's context. My third choice is Grand Canyon, since it's a tad too America-biased for my tastes, especially given other geographic wonders like Victoria Falls.

• I don't find the inclusion of the Grand Canyon to be America-biased any more than the Gobi desert is Asia-biased, nor do I find it to be US-biased. Instead, I would suggest removing the Rocky Mountains. We have three other mountain ranges, anyway—all of which seem more vital than the Rockies. So I would suggest keeping the Grand Canyon and removing the Rocky Mountains. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with keeping Grand Canyon but losing the two countries and Rocky Mountains.jwanders^Talk 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree as well. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Arts (1 needed): A difficult choice, but Acrobatics is the weakest.

• Agreed, I'm going to remove it now. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thirded. jwanders^Talk 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Philosophy and religion (3 needed): My first recommendation is Yoga, since it's described as a form of meditation and we already have that. Second, Jainism since it just can't compare to the other more widespread religions listed there. Finally, Beauty, because it just seems awkward and out of place to me.

• Yoga is much more than meditation, and it isn't listed as such. Yoga is listed under "spirituality" (for whatever reason) along with meditation. Moreover, it is a major aspect of at least three religious traditions. And once we go past the "Big 5" in religion, the next tier would certainly include Jainism (which seems more vital than Voodoo). No objections to removing Beauty, though. I'll take it out in my next edit, as well. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• My candidates for removal would be Epistemology (keep its sub-articles), Mysticism and whichever is least "vital" of the religions: Zoroastrianism perhaps? jwanders^Talk 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ouch... Epistemology? How about Reality instead? As for religion, I again say we should oust Voodoo. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, from your reaction I'm guessing "Epistemology" is another of those education gaps I referred to above ;-) I'm fine with losing Voodoo; incidentally, the Voodoo page itself is a disambig page, which I think we should avoid. I'd suggested Zoroastrianism simply because its article says that it's no longer widely followed.

• Epistemology deals with what we can know and how we can know it. It's pretty basic. Reality, however, overlaps with Ontology (and Ontology is more vital). Religion is a much thornier issue—as it always is. If we rank religions by number of adherents, we might have to lose Judaism (which gets kicked into the top ranks for being Abrahamic and historically/politically important). And I'm having second thoughts about the importance of Vodun. I think the Philosophy category may have to take another hit here, at least for now. I suggest removing Romanticism, as it is an artistic/intellectual movement—not a philosophical movement in the sense of the subcategory's other entries. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Everyday life (2 needed): Barley is the weakest of the foodstuffs and Punjabi language because it's the weakest of the Indo-Aryan languages listed.

• No objections, but I would like another opinion. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Barley can go. Regarding languages, how about using List of languages by total number of speakers? We'd add Urdu and lose Turkish, Swahili and German. jwanders^Talk 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'll remove barley next edit. I'm uncomfortable with going by total speakers because it'd give us no African languages and a disproportionate number of languages from India.--Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. Adding Urdu is a good idea, and so is removing Turkish. But I'm not so sure about losing Swahili and German. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Society (3 needed): The World Health Organization is the weakest of the international organizations we have listed, the Rupee is not as much of a powerhouse currency as the others listed, and Euthanasia is not as much of a social issue as feminism, abortion or racism.

• I agree on the Rupee, and I'll take it out. I'm not so sure about WHO and euthanasia, however. For one thing, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is listed under "specific political and governmental institutions," which the lead section of the article specifically says IRC&RCM is not (no official organization as such exists bearing that name; it is a collection distinct and legally independent organizations that happen to have a common cause). Given this, IRC&RCM at least needs to be moved into another subcategory, or perhaps removed altogether. I would also suggest removing archaeology from the social sciences list, since it is mostly a species of anthropology (this is at least the situation in academia, where one almost invariably must study anthropology as a major and archaeology only as an area of specialization within that major). I also do not think that we need both "company" and "corporation." And is suicide really a social issue? I'm not so sure... Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Error there: see International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

• Suicide should be moved down to health, imo. Rupee can go and I second losing archaeology and company. Human rights seem to be missing from the list and should be added. Do we need both marketing and advertising? I'd be inclined to keep red cross and lose Nobel Prize. jwanders^Talk 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess the question is which is more general: company or corporation. It seems to me we should keep company and lose corporation. But my conviction on this is not particularly strong, if others disagree. And I think you're right about Nobel Prize. Better to lose it than IRC&RCM. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• for me corporation is more vital, as it's got most of what company has plus this whole frightening concept of being a legally recognised person (check out The Corporation (film). Any thoughts on adding Human rights?

• I'm taking archeology out right now. Questions about legal personhood aside, a corporation is a sort of company; therefore, company seems more basic. But I suppose "more basic" is not necessarily "more vital." Any thoughts on this HM (or anyone else reading this page)? Whichever one we lose, we are down to the target number of articles. Therefore, I suggest replacing either Nobel Prize or Suicide with Human Rights. And that lets us keep both advertising and marketing (the former being a form/tool of the latter, and also a medium of communication). Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Health and medicine (1 needed): Aneurysm is redundant since we have both stroke and bleeding on the list already.

• Aneurysm is not redundant. For example, my grandfather died of an aneurysm, but was not considered to have any significant risk of a stroke (other than due to his age). Unfortunately, this category is very tight and I can't think of what to remove. I guess I lean most towards cutting inflammation. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe we can lose Physical Trauma? You're right, this category does seem tight; I prefer to up its target by one and lose an article somewhere else.

• I proposed a solution that leaves an empty spot in the History section above. Perhaps we could transfer that down here? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• As I said above, I think that's a good solution. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, as above.

• Science (4 needed): Neutrino is a relatively weak particle when compared to the others. Sedimentary rock is fairly arbitrary (why not metamorphic or igneous?). Particle accelerator is not necessarily vital; it's just the instrument by which particle physics is performed. I can't decide on a fourth one, although I'm leaning towards removing Mass and weight, moving them to measurement at the bottom, and then adding one to be removed from Measurement.

• Another tight category. Moving mass and weight seems like a good idea to me. Do we need both "Asteroid" and "Asteroid belt"? And how vital is Pluto now that it isn't a planet? "Particle accelerator" is a good candidate, but I'd like to keep "Neutrino" if at all possible. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm happy to lose neutrino, particle accelerator and sedimentary rock. Mass and weight should stay, imo, as they're here they're concepts first and qualities to be measured second. My forth would have to be motion as it overlaps with kinetics, kinematics and dynamics. jwanders^Talk 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm all for the removal of particle accelerator and sedimentary rock. I'd still like to see if we can keep neutrino, though. Motion is a good possibility, but I'd like another opinion. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Technology (4 needed): Fixed-wing aircraft is redundant since 1) Aircraft is already there and 2) we don't have rotary-wing aircraft listed. Kerosene is an arbitrary combustible material. And I'm unsure about the other two.

• Yes, both of those should be removed. I'll do it in my next edit. How vital is "Global Positioning System," really? Yeah, they're great—but are they vital from an encyclopedic standpoint? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with those removals, but I'd prefer to keep GPS. My choices for the second pair would be one of Rapid transit/train and losing Apollo program (keep Moon landing)

• I'd go with dropping rapid transit in that case, and agree with Apollo program. I'll do that next edit. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Math (2 needed): Pass. I'm a terrible math student.

• If we want to keep all of the various branches of mathematics on the list (including topology, which we might otherwise remove), then we're going to have to take articles out of the subcategories. How about trimming down the list under shape? We don't have "Cone," so do we really need "Cube" and "Sphere"? Why not just "Circle," "Square," and "Triangle"? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• hehe, ya got me. When I did my first pass a few days ago, the only extra articles I added where cube and sphere ;-) That said, I can't bear to lose sphere... but as something has to go, I'd pick limit and natural number as less vital than cube or sphere.

• Both of those seem more important than the cube and sphere to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Why do you think sphere is vital? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think of sphere and even cube as more vital than limit and natural number because they're more fundamental mathematical concepts. "Natural" is an artificial label that's been applied to a arbitrary set of numbers; it's not much more that a jargony way of saying "positive" or "non-negative", depending on the context (hmm... maybe we should have positive and negative...gah, sidetracked...). Also, we already have four other "sets of number" articles, and this one seemed least important.
• Limit is a very advanced concept, and my take on "vital" is that make sure the simple stuff is covered before going advanced. Of all the advanced concepts (Function, Infinity, Limit, Logarithm, Series, Set, Square root) limit seems like the easiest to lose.
• As far as keeping sphere, isn't the most fundamental shape? I mean, circles and squares are just 2D and can only exist as projections in a 3D world, whereas you can actually hold a sphere in real life. They, as atoms, all the building blocks of everything, and as planets and stars are the reason life exists. Or, in other words, are vital. --jwanders^Talk 07:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• But if the argument is that Cube and Sphere are more fundamental, and thus more vital, then Square and Circle are more fundamental still. Moreover, triangles are much more important than cones (as far as I can tell), so the basic shapes seem more vital than their three-dimensional forms. If you could convince me that Cone belonged on the list over Triangle, I might see my way to getting rid of Square, Circle, and Triangle in favor of Cube, Sphere, and Cone. But for now, I remain unconvinced. Meanwhile, the "natural numbers" do not constitute an arbitrary set. They are the numbers that people and societies use even in the absence of mathematical theory. You may have something with regards to Limit, however. I'll have to think about it. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How about Conic section in lieu of Circle, Elipse and Parabola? Likewise Polygon in lieu of Triangle, Square, Rectangle and so forth. Cover the others by redirects.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Measurement (1 needed, 2 given my Science choices): So, since I've moved Mass and Weight down here, I need to subtract two. I choose Degree and Radian, since they belong in the math section anyways.

• Perhaps the do belong in math, but they are units of measurement for angles. As such, there is a good argument to keep them in this section, too. This might be another place to go over. I'm also wondering if we shouldn't take "Volume" out of the mathematics section and change "Volume" here to a wikilink (which would just be a category transfer, so wouldn't change the overall number of articles). Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not a big fan of this being a separate section to being with, but that's another discussion. Again, volume in the math section is a concept more than a measurement and should stay (imo). What about removing "Week" and "Month"? That would leave second, day and year in the time section. jwanders^Talk 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Do we need both Metre and Kilometer? - fchd (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Do we need both Foot and Mile? We should either lose one of each, or keep all four. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good point about Volume. I suppose that holds for Mass and Weight, too, as you said above. If you want to revert that edit of mine, go ahead. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I can't see getting rid of degree or radian, for Beatnik's reasons above. I'm still all for losing Week and Month: five time measurements seems too much; second is the standard SI unit, while day and year are highly relevant both astronomically and societally. --jwanders^Talk 07:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• You've sold me on getting rid of Week and Month. Any objections HM? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• None whatsoever! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, those are my thoughts. I think it is worth noting that 1,000 articles is an approximate goal, but all in all we're doing pretty well. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Vital Definition

So, now that we've gone though and hashed out which articles we think are most vital, perhaps we should agree on what vital means? I fight between two definitions when comparing articles:

1. (which usually wins) I imagine someone who loses all their memories and only has the vital articles to learn from. She'd be best served with a general whistle-stop tour of all the hilights, with a skewed focus towards more basic concepts
2. (which is probably more pragmatic) I imagine someone who doesn't have net access but has all of the vital articles. In this case, we'd want to include the articles she's most likely to search for.

At present the list seems to cater heavily towards the first definition, largely because we've tried to avoid systematic bias and cover different regions and times as evenly as we can. Unfortunately, I think this may be one of the few times where systematic basis works in our favour: someone using a CD of vital articles would be more likely to search for contemporary, western information (e.g. September 11 attacks, George W. Bush, Hurricane Katrina) than articles we've added for better diversity (e.g. Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī). Thoughts? --jwanders^Talk 07:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The list is intended to be stable and long-lasting in coverage; that is, these are articles that will be just as important 100, 200 or 500 years from now as they are today. I won't deny, for example, that Hurricane Katrina was an unprecedented catastrophe - but the same could be said for the Great Fire of London, the 1755 Lisbon earthquake or Pompeii. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested change - Remove Information Technology

May I propose the removal of Information Technology. It's an extremely vague term and the article isn't exactly informative either. -Substitution (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We're On Target!

So I just did a bit of math and it seems the old target numbers added up to 992, not 1000—which is great news, because that means everything adds up when the corrections are made! Also, the previous miscount probably helped us make some tough decisions that need making, so no harm no foul. From this point on, then, all additions will need to be accompanied by subtractions (and should probably be hashed out here first—given the work we did getting here, we don't want it all to become a mess again). Congratulations all around! Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Woohoo! Alas, this is but the first battle of the war. We've identified the articles we need to improve - now let's get to improving them. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Duh, see comment made on "Target section counts", made on 12 March... Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 02:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. But since it was an anonymous comment, I did the math myself to make sure. But thanks for being needlessly rude—it's always appreciated. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Countries

Might I ask what the criteria is for 'vital' country articles? Bogdan ^що? 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There's none set in stone. Did you have a specific country you'd like to replace? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Are Vital Articles automatically Top importance?

Any reason for the inconsistent handling of this? Leonardo da Vinci is both Vital and Top, while other Vitals such as Alzheimer's disease have Importance=??? Are people waiting for an option to assign Importance=Vital?LeadSongDog (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Importance is decided by projects, not by anything else, and in that case a vital article will be top importance only for those subject areas for which the person or thing is most famous/relevant. For example, it is conceivable that WikiProject London might tag the William Shakespeare article (his plays were performed there, and he lived in London for a while). However, Shakespeare is rather less important to WP:London than he would be to WP:Theatre, and the article might only be tagged as Mid importance for London yet Top importance for WP:Theatre. Walkerma (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I knew I was missing something. Thanks. So it would be Top for whichever project is primary on the article, perhaps not for other projects. LeadSongDog (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, though I'd say "for whichever projects are primary..." Walkerma (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Boats?

How on earth is information about elevators considered a vital article but something that's shaped the world as much as boats have aren't even on the list? 209.103.225.131 (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but a list like this tends to be rather arbitrary at times. Both ship and boat are classed as WP:CORE and WP:CORESUP respectively, though, and those lists are much more restrictive than this list, so someone agrees with you! Go ahead and make the edit yourself - I can't see anyone really disagreeing with you. Walkerma (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Importance of living people

WP:ITN/C is a forum for proposing and developing a consensus on which news items should be included on the ITN template. Because of repeated disputes about objectively assessing the importance of a recently deceased person (specifically the non-inclusion of Edmund Hillary, Pavarotti, Arthur C. Clarke, Bobby Fischer) in light of the limits imposed by existing criteria, we are attempting to compile a reasonably authoritative list of important living people in connection with revising the criteria. The proposal is that if someone on the list died, that would warrant an automatic nomination at the very least. The list does not have a hard ceiling on size, but it is anticipated that, unlike recent deaths, there would be no more than on the order of 1 name per week (yes, it's morbid); thus importance might be calibrated to the 50 most important people who died in 2007. Given your experience with making evaluations on importance, your contributions and feedback to this list and its criteria would be much appreciated. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cities

I removed Sao Paulo, Moscow, and Seoul, and substituted Delhi, Cairo, and Jakarta. Postmodern Beatnik reverted me because I didn't discuss my changes beforehand and he was in turn reverted by Jedravent.

The impetus for my change was that India and Africa had been completely excluded, which seems quite wrong. There were 3 Latin American Cities: Mexico City, Sao Paulo, and Rio de Janiero. I think that either Rio or Sao Paulo should be removed, but have no idea which.

I included Delhi to represent South Asia. It is a very historically interesting city (on a par with Rome), having been the capital of multiple empires. And it is the capital of India. I might be ok with including Mumbai or Calcutta instead of Delhi, if arguments were given.

I included Cairo as the only African city. What bothers me about this choice is that we alerady have several Near or Middle Eastern cities (Mecca, Jerusalem, Istanbul), and Cairo is really more Mediterraean rather than Sub-Saharan Africa, which historically speaking, is the "real" Africa. But Cairo is a much more major city than Timbuktu or Johannesburg or Addis Ababa.

I feel quite justified in removing Moscow. It is clearly less important than London/Paris/Berlin/Rome/Athens. And 6-7 European cities (depending on whether you include Istanbul) is over-representation.

Then I wanted to include a city in South East Asia. My first instinct was Bangkok, but the Jakarta metro area is larger according to Southeast Asia. But I could go either way on that one. Singapore is another possibility.

Finally, I feel that having Seoul and Tokyo is over-representing that part of the world. So I removed Seoul and inserted Jakarta.

I think that's it. — goethean ॐ 21:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

More thoughts: removing Moscow means that north Asia is not represented, but that maybe ok considering North Asia's historical and contemporary lack of importance. There's nothing between LA and NYC represented either (except Mexico City), which is arguably more of a travesty. — goethean ॐ 22:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Having Cairo and Mecca and Jerusalem is bothering me now. — goethean ॐ 22:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted Jedravent, also for not discussing the changes on the talk page first; but I would like to state that I support your effort. However, it should be noted that the purpose of this page is most emphatically not to be representative in a politically correct way. That is, if it were the case that there were no important cities in South East Asia (or at least no cities more important than those already on the list) then they don't get any cities on the list. Tough. That said, I don't think that South East Asia is unimportant, and I agree that Jakarta is a very good city to put on the list. I also agree that Cairo, Mecca, and Jerusalem is too much. I suggest leaving out Cairo. I think it is important to keep Moscow, however, and I believe it is a bit short-sighted to lump Russia in with the rest of Europe. I agree that Seoul might be a good candidate for replacement, and we could put Jakarta in its place. I also like the idea of adding Delhi, but I am torn on what to remove. Perhaps Rio de Janeiro? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think Rio is the best candidate for removal. — goethean ॐ 03:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Rio and added Jakarta (which seemed the most important to put on the list). Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Goethean has removed Jakarta and replaced it with Delhi, which makes sense to me. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Moscow is a definite for inclusion as the largest city in Europe. Perhaps Berlin would be one to "drop off" first? - fchd (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Of the European cities, I agree that Berlin may be the weakest. Then again, Berlin has a very rich history—including its time as a divided capital. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bodies of water

It would be really nice to get Ganges and/or the Great Lakes in the bodies of water section, but I cant see anything that can be replaced. — goethean ॐ 22:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are beginning to see the difficulty we face in making this list. =) Luckily, there is an expanded version that holds 2000 articles. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actors, filmmakers, athletes

There are no categories for filmmakers or actors or athletes. If Madonna is one of the nine most important musicians of all time, surely Humphrey Bogart, Marilyn Monroe, Alfred Hitchcock, Charlie Chaplin, etc. are of at least equal stature. — goethean ॐ 03:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the actors, but Madonna ought to be deleted. This encyclopedic list is is supposed to last quite a long time (at least half a century). Madonna seem very unlikely to be remembered as one of the nine most important musicians by then. Alexander Doria (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The meta list has Jimi Hendrix and the Rolling Stones as other recent musicians, for replacement suggestions. --Jedravent (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need any other recent musicians. Though if we did, Michael Jackson is probably more world famous than Madonna, Hendrix, or the Stones. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you : Presley and the Beatles are enough to represent modern music. I would only add Arnold Schœnberg, due to his wide impact on classical music (wider than Stravinski).Alexander Doria (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That strikes me as a very good idea. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to replacing Madonna with Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, or Arnold Schœnberg. Although I'm still a little perturbed that there are no filmmakers, actors, or athletes on the list. — goethean ॐ 22:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I did the changes. I've got also an other suggestion : to replace Presley with Hendrix. Presley is more well-known but Hendrix seem to be more influential. Concerning Filmakers, I agree with you, but it will be very difficult to create a new list. (maybe by deleting Baha' and Dev in the religious list, and not adding anybody) Alexander Doria (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hendrix for Presley suggestion is interesting, but I was thinking about it this way: if we were writing a text book on the history of rock, and we kept getting our page limit reduced, who would we cut first? My thought is we'd cut Hendrix before we ever took out Elvis. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: for performing arts, require multiple awards for multiple works in multiple forms (at least one of which is in live performance) to qualify. This will systemically exclude the studio-onlys, the over-produced, and the glitterati in favour of triple-threats. LeadSongDog (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but the section under People is for composers and musicians specifically. This on its own disqualifies the glitterati in that they have to compete with all the other figures of music history. It might be worth considering changing the category to performing artists and upping the numbers a bit, however. We would need to take out some composers, too. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If we wanted an athlete on the list, Pelé would be one of the most famous I think. — goethean ॐ 19:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have maybe an idea in order to create a list of filmakers and actors, but I'm afraid Postmodern beatnick would be very likely to disagree : to delete at least 5 philosophers (Nagarjuna, Avicenne, Locke, Durkheim and James, and maybe also Aquinas and Wittgenstein) and/or two politician leaders (Mandela and Atatürck : only known for their acts in one country). In that outlook, of course, we would not add any contemporary philosopher. Alexander Doria (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there are enough actors or athletes of long-term importance to deserve a list, and with the removal of Madonna the antecedent of Goethean's argument has been lost. I am working on a plan to fix the literature debacle, however. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not speak about athletes, and, besides, I'm most concerned with filmakers. To my own advice, it would be nice to have someone like Chaplin, Welles, Griffith or Murnau on the list. Maybe should we also put an actor like Jannings. Alexander Doria (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you didn't mention athletes, but I was trying to respond to the whole issue, including what Goethean said. I'm concerned that it will be difficult to fit another list of people. People is already the third largest category, after all. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am working on a plan to fix the literature debacle, however.

You plan on sharing it with us, or is it confined to a secret council? — goethean ॐ 16:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I'm wondering too… Alexander Doria (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I need time to type, guys. Also, I happen to have a life outside of Wikipedia. Just thought I would mention it so you know I'm on board. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Religious leaders

The list of religious leaders does not have Saint Paul but does include the more admirable but less influential figures Bahá'u'lláh, Guru Nanak Dev, and Zoroaster. I suggest substituting Saint Paul for Bahá'u'lláh. — goethean ॐ 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bahá'u'lláh, Guru Nanak Dev, and Zoroaster each founded their own faith. Paul built a church. Unless we're going to substitute Paul for Jesus, I think we can leave this section alone. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure Bahá'u'lláh should remain on the list. His faith has only 6 million converts in the world, which is not much for one of the ten major religious leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Doria (talk • contribs) 18:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism has only 2.6 million, according to adherents.com (which is the source used by WikiProject Religion). The numbers argument doesn't work, in my opinion. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul built a church.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Paul had a pivotal role in the development of what we today refer to as Christianity, perhaps as strong a role as that of Jesus. Think about the centrality of salvation to Christianity and the relative paucity of Jesus' comments on such things. Consider that there are 2 billion Christians compared to 6 million Bahais, 25 million Sikhs, and 200,000 Zoroastrians. (Although Zoroastrianism had a philosophical influence on Christianity and other religions, so I think Zoroaster's full importance is not reflected in that number.) As cool as his religion is, Bahá'u'lláh is pretty darn minor on a world-historical scale. — goethean ॐ 19:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The meta list lists Paul as a philosopher/thinker, not as a religious leader.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedravent (talk • contribs)

The expanded list has him as #23 under religious figures. — goethean ॐ 14:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I was admittedly being glib when I said "Paul built a church," but I remain unconvinced that he should be on the list. For one thing, the numbers argument collapses on itself. If it were a pure numbers game, the claim you make about Zoroaster would be irrelevant. And if the claim to Zoroaster's importance is relevant, the numbers argument is irrelevant. Now, Bahá'u'lláh probably is the least vital of the figures we have on the list. But if we were going to go beyond literal founders and include other major figures (as the expanded list does) then I would support replacing Bahá'u'lláh with Vishnu, Rama, or Krishna (putting a Hindu figure on the list). Or if we were going to stick to founders, Mahavira might be a good choice, too. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because I use numbers doesn't mean my argument is "a pure numbers game". But I think that you are being extremely foolish if you say that numbers of adherents are meaningless when evaluating the relative significance of various religious figures. And why stick to the founders of religions in the first place? What is the rationale? Baha'i is not a major world religion, its influence on the world has been slight. Bahá'u'lláh does not deserve a place among the 10 most important religious figures of history. He should be removed. — goethean ॐ 16:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a very important word in my last comment: "if." You'll notice that, vis-a-vis numbers, it is used twice. The point was as follows: the numbers suggest that we should remove not Bahá'u'lláh, but Zoroaster. You do not believe we should remove Zoroaster. Therefore, there must be a factor that trumps numbers. And indeed there is. So if I am being foolish, so are you. However, I prefer to assume that neither of us are fools.

You'll notice that the word "if" also appears in my discussion of religion founders. As it stands, the list includes only religion founders. You want us to add Saint Paul, not the founder of a religion. If we were to do that, we would be going beyond the religion founders. I suspect this is not a real point of disagreement. You'll notice that I have nowhere stated that we should stick to religion founders nor that Bahá'u'lláh should stay on the list. Indeed, I have said that Bahá'u'lláh is the weakest figure on the list, but that I am as yet unconvinced that the appropriate replacement for him is Saint Paul (more on this below). Sometimes we have to play Devil's advocate. It's a key aspect of maintaining WP:NPOV. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Krishna is already listed under Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Specific_religions, along with Gita, Upanishad, and Veda, which sums up Hinduism rather well in my opinion, along with Yoga (also listed). I might add Shiva, Ramayana and/or Mahabharata. (Or, alternatively, karma, bhakti, and/or jnana). Jainism is already listed (as is Baha'i). Doubling up on these minor religions by listing their founder as well as the main article is undue weight. Sikhism has three articles, which is two too many given that Hinduism only has five, (not including Gandhi, and not including yoga, which applies to Buddhism as well). Here's something amazing: Sin is not listed, and neither is virtue. — goethean ॐ 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I had not noticed that Krishna was on the Specific religions list. Thank you for pointing that out. We obviously need to prevent duplicate entries, but also significant information overlap. As such, I do not take it that Mahavira would be "doubling up" on Jainism. And given your comments about Zoroastrianism, isn't Jainism important given its influence on Buddhism? The two influenced each other greatly by way of philosophical critique. As for your reasons regarding the importance of Paul, shouldn't that information be available in Christianity or salvation? So Jainism and Mahavira are important according to the arguments you used to support Zoroastrianism and Zoroaster and Paul loses some (relative) importance according to the arguments you tried to use against Mahavira and Jainism. Again, I'm not saying "no," but I would like a better argument. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that if a religion is 'vital', we need both an article about the religon and an article about its founder (and in the case of Sikhism, a third on its sacred text). This assumption results in giving undue weight to the Baha'i faith, which was recently founded (thus not affecting the world in the centuries prior to its founding) and has only 6 million adherents (approximately one one-thousandth of the world's population), which is one measure of its influence. Do you have any evidence that the influence of the Bahai faith appears greater by a different measure? Do have any reason for your assumption that there should be an article for each 'vital' religion as well as an article on the founder of each 'vital' religion? Do you have any reason for maintaining that we should include only those who are considered the founders of religions, rather than their exponents, which seems to be a completely artificial distinction? — goethean ॐ 18:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am neither making the assumption that a vital religion necessarily deserves to have its founder and primary text listed (though it is quite likely), nor am I maintaining that only founders should be listed. In fact, if you read my first comment here, you'll see that I have said quite the opposite. Also, the comment of mine directly above seems to have confused you. Starting with the bit about Zoroastrianism, I took no position in it whatsoever; rather I demonstrated what your own arguments thus far have amounted to. The analysis I gave is a standard philosophical tool for understanding the validity of arguments and entails no commitments on behalf of the analyzer. My apologies if you did not follow what was going on, but that in no way excuses the the discourteous manner in which you have routinely responded to my comments in this section. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Zoroastrism should remain on the list because of its wide influence on world culture : the Zoroastrist concepts of good and Evil are significant in the three monotheism. To replace Baha'i, I would maybe suggest :

• Saint Peter, who settled the bases of papacy or Saint Augustine
• Calvin, who established reformation

Besides, I don't quite understand why Laozi is there. Is he a thinker or a religious leader ? Alexander Doria (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that Zoroastrianism should be listed, but I don't think that both Zoroastrianism and Zoroaster should be, which is currently the case.
• LaoZi (aka Lao-tsu) wrote the Tao-te-ching, probably the most important Chinese religious-philosophical texts. Probably more of a thinker than religious leader in the sense we are using the phrase.
• You think that Augustine is more important than Paul?
• From a historical perspective, wouldn't you say that Luther is at least as important than Calvin? — goethean ॐ 17:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with you but I don't know which article should be deleted
• The problem with Laozi is : if we include him, why should we not also include some greek philosophers which also stand as both thinker and philosopher.
• Maybe, because Augustine created a lot of concepts that are significant in catholicism and protestantism (christian idea of progress, predestination…)
• In fact, if Luther broke up wtih papacy he did not develop a lot of original theses : he mainly wanted to adapt catholicism. On the contrary Calvin was a more revolutionary theorician by instauring a kind of christian democracy. Some thinkers believed therefore that some Calvinists idea have partly influenced French revolution, capitalism or modern individualism. Alexander Doria (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with Laozi is : if we include him, why should we not also include some greek philosophers which also stand as both thinker and philosopher.

• We have Socrates, Plato and Aristotle for Greek thought. Or do you mean the pre-Socratics? Laozi is way more important than they are. He and Confucius are it for Chinese thought for centuries. — goethean ॐ 18:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Goethean is quite correct about the importance of Laozi. The pre-Socratics may not have all separated religious and philosophical concepts, but they did not create a system as historically important as Taoism. As for Augustine, it is quite incorrect to suggest that he is vital to modern Christian thought. While he was a brilliant advocate for Catholicism, many of his ideas have stayed within that milieu. . Paul, however, was influential at a more fundamental level. Certainly he is more important to Christianity than Augustine. And while Calvin was unique, that does not make him more vital than Luther, who has been taken as the one historically responsible for the Protestant Reformation (regardless of his intent). I am still unconvinced, however, that Bahá'u'lláh should be replaced by a Christian figure. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Few Protestants would take his works as representative of their thought : I'm not sure about this point, given the importance of Augustine in Calvinist theories. For instance the theory of predestination is merely Augustinian. Concerning Laozi, I admit his significance, but my problem is : should we consider him as a religious leader, or as a philosopher ?

Concerning the christian figure point : Augustine, Paul, Luther and Calvin are all more important than Baha' in world history, and I don't see any other major religious figure. Alexander Doria (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

While this is a rather complex and technical philosophical issue, Calvin and Augustine have rather divergent views on predestination. Augustine's view was that God's perfect knowledge means he knows who will and will not be saved, but that humans still have free will. Calvin believed that we do not have free will even in the sense defended by Augustine. Calvin was influenced by his reading of Augustine, to be sure, but they are not putting forth the same view. As for Laozi, I see no reason to move him from his place on the list of religious figures. While Taoism has been of great interest to philosophers, it is still regarded as primarily a religion (as is Buddhism). Finally, after a great deal of reading and thought I have come to the conclusion that you and Goethean are correct about replacing Bahá'u'lláh with a Christian figure. I was worried about biasing the list towards Christianity; but if anything, the current list obscures its importance. Either Paul or Luther is fine with me, though I am having trouble deciding between the two at this moment. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have prefered Augustine or Calvin, but as one has to make concessions… I support Paul : even if Luther broke up with papacy, he is not truly influential outside Lutherians.Alexander Doria (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As St Paul was Goethean's first idea, and that Postmodern does not seem to disagree, I do the changes. Alexander Doria (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Good and evil

Good and evil should go under general religion instead of yoga or goddess or under philosophy instead of dialectic. — goethean ॐ 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would put it under general religion, as they are moral concept. Dialectic is a logical concept that does not imply the idea of Good/Evil but the idea of Right/False Alexander Doria (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know what dialectic is. I was not saying that they were equivalent, comparable, or even similar, merely that 'good and evil' is a more basic, widespread, important concept than dialectic. — goethean ॐ 18:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your writing. Nevertheless, the concept of Good/Evil is obviously a religious concept which is included in most religions, while a lot of philosopher ignored it and prefered the concept of fairness (Kant, Plato…) Alexander Doria (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Since we have deity, we might be justified in removing both God and Goddess. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Philosophers

I suggest that under "Philosophers and social scientists," B.F. Skinner should be replaced with William James. James (co-)founded Pragmatism, influenced the psychology of religion and mysticism with his Varieties of Religious Experience and his The Will to Believe, and influenced psychology (and behavorism, I think) with his pre-Freud Principles of Psychology. He also coined the phrase "stream of consciousness". I appreciate that Skinner gives us more 20th century social scientists, but I submit that James is more influential (and besides, he wrote mostly in the 20th century anyway). — goethean ॐ 18:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. James is more vital than Skinner. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also replace Noam Chomsky with John Rawls or Jürgen Habermas who seem to be more significant contemporary philosopher. Chomsky is more known for his politicial views than for his theories. Alexander Doria (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and would lean towards Habermas. Chomsky's linguistic views are well-known, but and have been influential in that field, but that's a rather limited field. Although personally, I would suggest that Martin Heidegger or Jean-Paul Sartre or Henri Bergson is more influential than Chomsky, Rawls, or Habermas. And my understanding is that there is no requirement to have a contemporary philosopher on the list at all. — goethean ॐ 22:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact I believe the best choice would be to add both Heidegger and Habermas, and supress Skinner and Chomsky. Bergson is quite good too, but I don't believe him to be as influential as Heidegger. And, Sartre is not frankly a great philosopher (As a Frenchman I know what I'm talking about), only a well-know intellectual. Alexander Doria (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I support those changes. — goethean ॐ 14:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I did them : we may still change once more if someone disagree. Alexander Doria (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not support those changes. Unfortunately, there was an edit conflict so you made your change before you could read my comment. Despite my dislike of Chomsky, I cannot support removing him at this time. For one, he is not on the list as a philosopher, so arguing that other philosophers are more important than him is rather a moot point. He is on the list as a social scientist, and as our only linguist. He is quite important in that regard and has, for better or worse, become one of the modern "public intellectuals." While I am wary of recentism, I don't see any reason not to have a modern social scientist on the list, especially one who revolutionized an increasingly important field. I considered suggesting Daniel Dennett as a replacement, but I'm not sure that's appropriate.

As for Sartre, he exemplified, explicated, and invigorated Existentialism—arguably the most important program of Continental philosophy, and one certainly better regarded than Postmodernism. Sartre is vital. (As a philosopher and a fluent French speaker, I know what I'm talking about. :p ) Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While I am wary of recentism, I don't see any reason not to have a modern social scientist on the list, especially one who revolutionized an increasingly important field.

You know, when I mentioned that there weren't any African cities on the list, I was told that I was being "politically correct". Now we are told that contemporary social science needs to be represented, even if the representative may not measure up to the intellectual figures of the past. Does anyone else sense some cognitive dissonance here"? — goethean ॐ 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While your rudeness is always appreciated, you'll notice that I did not appeal to political correctness. Linguistics should be represented not merely because it exists, but because it is an important field. Moreover, it is becoming more important. Chomsky is the key figure in that field, and is important in other respects as well. Ergo, he is a good candidate for this list. No cognitive dissonance there. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I should have added that Durkheim, Weber, and (using a wider definition) Freud, James, and Marx are all social scientists. — goethean ॐ 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to help. Durkheim, Weber, and Freud were all added as social scientists. James and Marx have the added bonus of being widely regarded as both philosophers and social scientists. So what? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So what? It's another reason to remove Chomsky in favor of Sartre, Habermas, Heidegger, or Bergson. — goethean ॐ 16:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That wasn't clear to me before, and thus why I asked. (Since tone of voice does not translate across the internet, let me assure you that the question "so what" was meant with all due respect.) The discussion I had with other editors regarding the philosophy and social scientists article was so long ago that I forgot Sartre wasn't on the list. For some reason, I was thinking he was there and that Alexander was trying to remove him. You are quite correct that he is more vital than Chomsky. I'll make the change now. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I should be less cranky now. The inclusion of Skinner and Chomsky was really bugging me. All you needed for the trifecta was Bertrand Russell. — goethean ॐ 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And what trifecta would that be? ;) Regardless, even if any one us dislikes a particular person, that doesn't make them less vital from an encyclopedic standpoint. Imagine leaving Hitler out of a history of World War II! Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit skeptical. You may keep Sartre (it is still better than Chomsky), even if I would prefer Heidegger who did not actually invigorated existentialism but, simply, created it. After all, I don't care and my national ego is rather flattered to see three of my countrymen in the list. Anyway I'm disappointed to not have any modern or living philosopher on the list. Why should we not replace James or Skinner with Habermas ? Habermas is a social scientist too, and stands merely as the most significant current continental philosopher. Alexander Doria (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Skinner is already gone. I have no problem replacing Sartre with Heidegger, but if we were to add a contemporary, who would Habermas (or Chomsky) replace? Leaving aside the question of Sartre vs. Heidegger, the weak link seems to me to be Durkheim. And then you have to ask who is more significant, Durkheim or Habermas (or Chomsky)? It's difficult. The one thing that I would say is that Durkheim and Weber seem to break similar ground, both being fathers of modern sociology. It seems sort of like having both Freud and Jung. — goethean ॐ 17:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that Durkheim and Weber has the same ground. They are actually the fathers of modern sociology, but their theories stands quite different, and it would be better to keep them both. The only name that may be deleted would be Nagarjuna, even if it is not very politically correct. The question is whether we prefer to have a Indian or a contemporary philosopher ?

Concerning Sartre, he seems strangely enough much more known as a philosopher abroad, than into France, where he stands rather out-of-date. Therefore I no longer object anything to his presence Alexander Doria (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We should definitely keep both of the sociologists. The list is at risk of becoming "Philosophers, some of whom were also social scientists," which would be contrary to the intent of the category. We don't have to have a living or recent philosopher, though. Even if it would be nice. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nagarjuna should definitely not be removed. He was a strong influence on Buddhism and many schools of Hinduism, like Adi Shankara's Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism. Perhaps Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita also. — goethean ॐ 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, that's why I added him during the recent major overhaul of this page. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to keep the Indian, what do you think about deleting John Locke ? There is already David Hume as an English philosopher, and Locke is not truly as great, as a political philosopher, as Rousseau or Hobbes. Alexander Doria (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggested here that Rousseau replace Poe under literature. — goethean ॐ 21:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I considered removing Locke at one point, too; but I no longer think that is a good idea. Even though Locke was neither as original nor as good a writer as other English thinkers, he has been far more influential than them. He continues to be important to political philosophy (ironically, political groups of all stripes have claimed him as their founder) and generally as the first major British empiricist. Frankly, I think we should leave the list as it stands. I also wish we could put someone modern on, but I don't think it's in the cards. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you want to keep Locke, but many months ago you argued that if it came down between Locke and Hume, you believed that Locke should be cut. I happen to agree with this. And since Hegel is not on the list, you are obviously willing to make some pretty deep cuts. Maybe Locke is one of them. And to mirror my point made below with Homer, Virgil, and Ovid, do we really need all three Greeks? I understand why cutting any one figure from the Socrates/Plato/Aristotle triumvirate would be cause for heart palpitations among philosophers, but maybe this is a case where a deeper cut actually heals. What I mean is, what would you do if you had to cut two of them? Suddenly it's a lot easier, isn't it? You keep Plato and you cut Socrates and Aristotle. (And maybe add Hegel in that extra open spot!) Just a thought... Intellectual Soup (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sartre is indeed better than Chomsky, and shares with him the status of a public intellectual (not a critical feature, but an aspect of philosophy that might be missed given the other entries). But allow me to disabuse you of the notion that Heidegger created Existentialism. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche sowed the seeds of Existentialism and Sartre was the first to explicitly take on the label. Heidegger agreed that the name was appropriate for Sartre's views, but insisted that Sartre had misunderstood his own work. While you and I might understand Existentialism in a way that includes Heidegger, this does not establish his creation thereof. Indeed, I worry that Existentialism may not have any true "creator," and thus Sartre (as the closest thing to a leader the movement has ever had) seems to be a fine representative.

As for Habermas, I would also like to have someone living on the list. And if we take my comment about recentism in context, I think it is clear that I do not think it would be the result of bias to do so. One caveat, however, is that it is difficult to say who among the living will prove resistant to the broad brush of history. Restricting ourselves only to people who could appear on this list, Habermas, Dennett, Chomsky, Blackburn, and Nussbaum are all good candidates. But who knows? Meanwhile, William James has already been enormously influential (and the scope of his influence includes Habermas given James' influence on Dewey and American Pragmatism). For now, I believe the list should stay as is—but you are welcome to try and convince me otherwise. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd add Charles Taylor to your list. — goethean ॐ 21:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd strongly add Rawls to your list, considering a lot of critics consider him as the greatest living American philosopher. I would nevertheless back Habermas's integration because he wrote on almost every philosophical subject (moral philosophy, sociology, linguistic, political philosophy, epistemology…). Alexander Doria (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rawls died in 2002, so no one considers him the greatest living American philosopher. That's the only reason he's not on that list. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not know. But I have another greatest idea : Claude Levi-Strauss. He is still living, and there isn't any ethnologist on the list. And, as you seem to appreciate my countrymen's philosophy… Alexander Doria (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am no more a fan of French philosophy than anyone else's; there just happen to have been several important French people in philosophy. Levi-Strauss is a good choice, especially given his influence on Barthes, Derrida, Lacan, Foucault, Deleuze, etc. Are you thinking he would be a replacement for Sartre? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We had maybe better to keep Sartre, as the existentialism ought to be represented (by him or Heidegger : no matter), as well as structuralism. I would rather delete James, Hume (as you want to keep Locke) or Aquinas. Alexander Doria (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Rawls is dead is not really a good reason to exclude him, just as the fact that Chomsky is alive is also not a good reason to include him. Contemporary thinkers should be evaluated on their merits and their (likely) influence just like everyone else. — goethean ॐ 17:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you follow the thread, you'll see that we were discussing the prospect of including a living philosopher on the list. That's why I mentioned Rawls' death (as well as Kuhn's). It's relevant to that aspect of the conversation. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Charles Taylor is another likely candidate (I almost put him on the list, actually). But even still, I just don't think we can count any of them as vital yet. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Kuhn, also. — goethean ॐ 15:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Kuhn died in 1996, but even still I wouldn't put him on the list. In my estimation, he doesn't even come close to Dennett, Rawls, or Habermas. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Health and Medicine or Everyday life

Death is not listed. I'm not sure what should be removed to make room for it, however. — goethean ॐ 15:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Politicians + leaders

I suggest that Martin Luther King, Jr. replace Nelson Mandela. MLK has a more secure, larger place in history than Mandela. I don't want to make the list US-centric, but frankly I think that with neither Roosevelt, no Reagan, no Kennedy, and no MLK, it is closer to ignoring the US.

I agree with you. On the other hand, Cleopatra could also be deleted, as she is more well-known as a mythic figure, than as an active politician. Alexander Doria (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

History has been going on for a lot longer than the 200+ years America has been around to influence it. Two American presidents seems pretty good considering we are picking from all of the leaders in history. Mandela, meanwhile, was the first democratically elected president of South Africa and has influence across the continent and the world. (Of course, American presidents have influence across the world, as well. I suppose the real point is that Mandela is more unique in his achievements than most presidents.) I'd like some time to think about Cleopatra, though. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While your condescension is always appreciated, I just specified that I did not want the list to be US-centric. Interestingly, I just calclated that there were about 30 million black South Africans in 1990 (80% of 39 million) and about 30 million African-Americans in 1960 (12% of 250 million). I had thought that the number of African-Americans would be higher. — goethean ॐ 18:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not being condescending. Rather, I think you are reading attitude into my comment so that you might have an opportunity to turn a phrase I have used when you have given me attitude. I am not sure why you feel the need to do this, but please stop. We have been getting on quite well these last few hours and I should rather like it to continue.

That said, my point about the 200+ year history of the US was only to drive home the point about the long perspective we need to take with this category. It is an easy perspective to lose, and I frequently have to remind myself of this fact. WP:NPOV is one of those things that we all must reinforce in ourselves. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleopatra might be silghtly mis-categorized, but should not be deleted. She is one of the most famous figures in history. — goethean ॐ 18:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are correct. Any thoughts on where we might re-categorize her, though? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias towards Philosophy and "Social Science"

This list is getting ridiculously biased towards Philopshy, philosophists and "social scientists" - is a figure of 20 philosophists/Social Scientists, 12 articles under the general heading "philosophy" and 28 different schools of philosophical thought really merited? That's 50 of the 1000 "vital" articles - more than we have on countries of the world for example. 20 Philosophists and only 16 authors or only 9 artists? Let's start to purge some of the lesser schools of philosophy first - we've got Metaphysics, so perhaps drop the 5 articles of "Metaphysical philosophies". Same with "Epistemology". I know this is going to raise the heckles of perhaps the most regular poster here, but really this article needs to be re-balanced. - fchd (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I take it the "most regular poster here" is me? I am, in fact, only a recent joiner to this project. Regardless, I have pruned many a philosophy article and we have fewer here than when I started editing this page. As such, I am not quite sure that your contention that this page is becoming biased is at all warranted (though I think the philosophers and social scientists category may be at risk of having too many philosophers and not enough social scientists). As I mentioned some time ago, philosophers and social scientists covers two categories. So while nine artists may not seem like very many, consider that we might also have only ten philosophers and ten social scientists (though again, it is slightly unbalanced in favor of philosophers right now). Still, I'll take another look at what might be trimmed from the philosophy articles.

(For what it's worth, I did not choose the number of articles for each category. Instead, I have largely worked within those numbers. Also, "metaphysics" and "metaphysical philosophies" don't overlap in the way you suggest. What have been misleadingly labeled as "metaphysical philosophies" are really just positions within metaphysics or world views that have metaphysical theses at their core.) Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, we can probably remove philosophy of science (though it is under science, not philosophy). Romanticism was supposed to be removed ages ago, and the article on modernism is not particularly philosophical (though it should perhaps be replaced with contemporary philosophy). There are definite pruning candidates, but I would appreciate if you would give me some time to think about what should be replaced with something else and what can be flat out cut. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like Romanticism to stay. It is a major intellectual movement of Western Civ. Maybe logical positivism can go?

Logical positivism is rather important to philosophy, and Romanticism is not a philosophical movement in the sense of the particular list at issue. Maybe Romancticism should be moved to Arts? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to have more articles on literature. Gilgamesh is absent, for example. I also think that something like Hamlet should be on the list in addition to Shakespeare. And I have already advocated above for the inclusion of pop culture figures like filmmakers, actors and athletes. — goethean ॐ 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right about Hamlet, and I hope you will join the discussion about adding a literature list below. For now, I must reiterate my skepticism about adding pop culture figures: insofar as we are supposed to be taking the long historical (and encyclopedic) view, pop culture is just too fleeting to include a long list of actors or athletes. I can't really think of any actor off the top of my head who it is reasonable to think will be as important for as long as, say, Mozart. But that doesn't mean there isn't one. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are the philosophy articles I think could be easily removed from the list of vital articles. Most are from the philosophy and religion section, with one exception from the science section: Philosophy of science, Reality, Gnosticism, Monism, Romanticism, Modernism, Postmodernism, Reductionism.

The entire section on movements needs to be rethought, in my opinion, but that's another project. Goethean mentioned that he thought Romanticism should stay, but if it stays it should probably be moved to the Arts section. The articles as written is not about philosophy in the sense embodied on this list. Even if we keep one spot for a replacement in the philosophical movements section and move Romanticism to arts, however, we're left with a net gain of six spots to fill. All of these could be moved to arts for the literature list we are working out right now. We could get some more spots for that list from articles that were suggested for pruning that never wound up being cut. Pluto, for example, might not be considered vital anymore since it is no longer categorized as a planet. I also would suggest that the list of colors under Everyday Life might be dispensable, "Green" not really being an article vital to an encyclopedia. But obviously this is all up for debate. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with your propositions : we delete Philosophy of science, Reality, Gnosticism, Monism, Modernism, Postmodernism, Reductionism, which are all too specific, and we transfer Romanticism to the art section, which sounds quite logical as it was merely one the main artistic movement in occidental culture. With Pluto, we will have seven articles, which seems enough to begin the literature section. Alexander Doria (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be a *LOT* more drastic. I'd remove Thomas Aquinas, David Hume and William James at the very least from the people section, and then - Truth, Dialectic, Reality, Empericism, Rationalism, Reductionism, Dualism, Idealism, Monism, Modernism, Confusciusism (keeping Confuscius in the people section), Platonic Realism, Theism, Gnosticism and Pantheism. I'd use the "spots" created for more additions to literature, or adding extra countries to the list e.g. Philippenes, Myanmar, Ukraine, Colombia etc. - fchd (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I already propose to remove Aquinas, Hume and James higher (in the Actors and Filmakers paragraph), and therefore I'm not against your drastic changes. Alexander Doria (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My earlier suggestions were just some first thoughts on what I thought would be entirely uncontroversial cuts. I am not opposed to further changes. That said, Aquinas is an entire era of philosophy and Hume is widely considered to be the most important English-speaking philosopher ever. James, while important, could probably be cut, though. Why people are dead set on removing Hume is beyond me. Early modern philosophy has six major figures. In order of importance they are: Descartes, Hume, Locke, Leibniz, Spinoza, Berkeley (though an argument could be made for reversing Spinoza and Berkeley). So I would suggest cutting Locke before Hume.

As for the other articles mentioned by fchd, I already mentioned cutting both Reality, Reductionism, Monism, and Modernism. Truth is a going issue in philosophy and the article is developing as a philosophical one. Existence, however, is redundant with Ontology, so I would suggest keeping Truth and removing Existence. The desire to keep Materialism and remove Dualism and Idealism seems to reflect a rather academic bias. While idealism was perhaps never a truly popular alternative, dualism came first and has never gone away. So I could assent to removing Idealism, but removing Dualism seems POV to me (and I am a materialist, for what it's worth). Empiricism and rationalism have been part of the philosophical landscape pretty much throughout all of history—sometimes warring and sometimes coexisting, but always there (often explicitly, occasionally not). And dialectic is both one of the first and one of the longest lasting philosophical methods there is (and the article covers ancient and modern dialectic, as well as dialectic in the East and in the West). I have no objections to removing Confucianism, however. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Postmodern Beatnik's behavior

First of all, there is no policy that edits to the page must have consensus or your personal sign-off. Secondly, if you are going to insist on personally approving every change to the article, then you at least need to respond to comments on the talk page within seven days. You do not own this article. You are not in charge of this article. Every editor has the same standing as you, whatever academic credentials you would like to off-handedly reference. One more trigger-happy reversion of a good faith edit, and I will see you at Administrator's noticeboard for violating WP:OWN. — goethean ॐ 16:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, threats do not really scare me. Second, you have been posting comments willy nilly and it is unreasonable to think anyone could keep up with them all. Third, I have mentioned that I am working on an idea to fix the literature issue—one which I would certainly like your input on—and you could have easily waited to make your changes until we had discussed that (even if I did not put that proposal directly under your Rousseau comment). Fourth, you clearly recognize that you should discuss this on the talk page, yet made the change before anyone responded. Fifth, the claim that every editor has the same standing includes me, which means I have the right to revert changes that I do not think are appropriate. Sixth, it was agreed awhile ago that we should discuss changes here first to keep the page from getting out of control again. Seventh, it is not my fault that I have remained interested in this project while some of the others that I was discussing things left after we got the numbers down to 1,000. And finally, I happen to be on Wikipedia right now and so could make the reversion. It's not a hair-trigger; this is just my active time. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway I have to admit that your behavior is a bit controversial : first you revert my changes, while Goethean agreed with me, then you impose your own philosophers without consulting me, and finally you claim, each time that I propose you any changes, that the list should remain untouched. Alexander Doria (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I take it you are discussing the changes of Skinner and Chomsky to Habermas and Heidegger. However, you explicitly noted on the talk page that you knew they might be reverted. If there is anything I would agree to in the inuendo that has been launched at me on this page, it is that I am particularly interested in the fate of the philosophy related articles. Reading that comment, however, I did not believe my revert would be so "controversial." And I would also note that those changes, after discussion, were not reinstated—and not just because of me, as far as I can tell. I don't know who you think I imposed on the list. Sartre? If so, it was accidental and you can revert the change and reinstate Chomsky if you feel it is appropriate. However, it seemed fairly clear that there was at least enough consensus that Sartre was better than Chomsky for that change. As for repeating my opinion that the list should (only for now) stay as it is, you have only re-asserted your opinion that we should put Habermas on. You haven't really responded to my reasons for disagrement. Why should I change my opinion if you haven't given me a reason to do so? Please understand, I mean this with all due respect. I am quite interested in this project being undertaken cooperatively and amicably (as I believe I proved during my conversations with Hemlock Martinis, dv82matt, and jwanders). Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I briefly answered higher concerning Habermas, and am still awaiting.Alexander Doria (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have responded to all of your comments regarding Habermas. Please point out to me any I have missed. Thanks. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fourth, you clearly recognize that you should discuss this on the talk page, yet made the change before anyone responded.

I made the suggestion twice and waited seven days after my first suggestion to implement the change. If all changes need to go through you, maybe you need to put together a change request form. — goethean ॐ 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions, of course, do not need to go through me. We both know that. But if you made the second suggestion, you must have realized that your first had somehow gone overlooked. Why not give that one some time, then? As LeadSongDog said, there is no canonical wait time. You thought seven days was enough? Fine. You made the change, and I don't think you did anything wrong in making it. Then I reverted it and you got upset. You quoted point four above, but I would remind you of point five: just as I am no more important than any other editor, I am no less important, either. I have the right to revert changes I disagree with, and we have talk pages to discuss our disagreements. That's WP:BRD. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that all changes must have prior agreement on the talk page. I was playing by your personal rule book because I wanted to co-operate with you. But you are not being fair. If you are the self-appointed administrator of this page, you need to respond to suggestions in a timely manner --- like within seven days. Otherwise, maybe we can edit this page without your supervision. — goethean ॐ 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a mistake here. I remembered a conversation between myself, Hemlock Martinis, and jwanders about not making changes without discussing them here first as having occurred on this talk page. But searching for it, I can only find one comment by jwanders to that effect. Perhaps the conversation happened elsewhere or perhaps I am confusing it with something else. In either case, I was wrong to hold you to a conversation you couldn't be expected to be aware of. That said, with a page as carefully negotiated and combed over as this one, it makes sense to discuss things here first. Otherwise, we get the BOLD, revert, discuss process which seems to bother you so much. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Second, you have been posting comments willy nilly and it is unreasonable to think anyone could keep up with them all.

That's because I wan to edit the article. But you revert anyone's changes that don't have your personal sign-off. Do you really think that is according to Wikipedia policy? No one told you that you had to keep up with my comments. Only your mission as self-appointed administrator of this page dictates that. — goethean ॐ 17:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I revert changes that I disagree with and then discuss it on the talk page of the article in question. I have also had my own changes reverted by people who disagreed with me and discussed it with them. This has been the case as long as I've been here and it's never been a problem before—regardless of whether I've "gotten my way" or not (and I've yielded consensus before even when not entirely convinced). That's just how WP:BRD and WP:CON work. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets play nice kids. We all know how the WP:BRD process works. Those who care about a topic have a watch on it. A change gets made and reverted, then the discussion starts. Multiple reverts are pointless in the long run. LeadSongDog (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

While I plan on responding to my interlocutors, this is perhaps the best and most succinct way to sum up the matter. Well said, LeadSongDog. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting a change for no other reason than because you haven't personally approved it is completely unacceptable, more obviously so when the suggestion has been posted on the talk page for seven days. Postmodern Beatnik is the one not playing by the rules. — goethean ॐ 17:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be less than the ideal approach to discussion, but "completely unacceptable" is strong language that needs to be backed up by a link to the policy that says so. And seven days is not exactly a long time around here. I've left changes on talk for months before closing the discussion and implementing them. It's a judgement call that rather depends on how broad the impact is and the effort it takes to reverse the change. Policy and MOS pages tend to have broad impact, so concensus counts more. Regular articles can usually have changes unwound quite readily, so concensus before editing doesn't matter as much.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So you think that Postmodern Beatnik's policy of immediately reverting all edits, fillibustering some suggestions on the talk page, and ignoring others is hunky dory? — goethean ॐ 18:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I, of course, have no such policy. I revert edits I disagree with and I expect discussion and reasoning, rather than just assertions that someone should get their way, on the talk page. I see nothing unreasonable about not changing my mind when I have been offered no substantive reasons to do so, especially when I am willing to discuss the issues and do research on my own. (You'll notice, for example, I changed my mind on Saint Paul after some good points were made by Alexander and some research done on my own.) Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not. (This does not include removing vandalism.) — goethean ॐ 18:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists aren't articles in the normal sense and it is not unusual for them to need someone to act as a gatekeeper between the discussion and the list, ensuring that the list reflects agreement on the talk page. See List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft for example. While I've had some minor run-ins with him, particularly when I was new, Crum's efforts there have kept it in line with WP:ADL. I would suggest that function should be performed by someone who largely stays out of the substantive discussions, so any "fillibustering" in the talk would be left up to others. Got an example in mind? LeadSongDog (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not be participating in this discussion until Postmodern Beatnik undoes his most recent outrageous revert of my edit. I made the suggestion twice on this talk page, and Postmodern Beatnik ignored it completely for seven days. Then when I made the edit, he reverted it immediately with the claim that there was no consensus for the edit. His behavior is and remains contrary to Wikipedia policy and outrageously condescending and uncivil. I will not continue to enable a process which is transparently unfair, one-sided and contrary to the rules and spirit of Wikipedia. — goethean ॐ 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you refer to your 3 May post under Poe. You will note yours was the only addition to that topic in the past seven months. To override the seven month position by posting one comment and waiting seven days you should at minimum expect to show that the editors involved in building the prior position were aware of your proposed change. Most right-thinking editors would at least consider reverting your bold change to bring about discussion. See WP:BRD. It's how wikipedia works, and not at all "outrageous", "condescending" or "uncivil" Please assume good faith: that PMB was working to ensure that due discussion was held before overriding the earlier editors' work. LeadSongDog (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't thinck the problem is whether PMB should have undone goethean's post and mine or not. I actually understand the old contributors' wish to not threaten a difficult agreement. Nevertheless, if those contributors want all posts to be previously agreed, they should keep an eye on this talk-page. Or, at least, they should warn the new contributors by writing they ought to contact them before doing anything (maybe by putting a list of the most significant contributors at the end of the talk page). Alexander Doria (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

With Alexander Doria's suggestion, it becomes clear exactly how absurd and outrageous the process here has become. Yes, maybe we should all ask Postmodern Beatnik's permission before editing this page. — goethean ॐ 13:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not only : for instance, I'm still waiting your permission, your opinion and your propositions in the suggestions concerning literature. The list should actually not be edtited before all the main contibutors (that is to say, currently, you, me and PMB) agree with the changes. What goes for us, also goes for PMB : he should not edit the list without our agreement. I think he undestands this point, as he expound below his projects concerning literature. Alexander Doria (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't wait for me. I'm through with PMB's condescending attitude and ownership of this article. It is wrong, and I won't enable it. — goethean ॐ 16:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions concerning Literature

In order to remain on a cooperative way to work , I propose that everyone give, from now on, their idea concerning a list of the greatest writing work of world history.

I propose : Gigalmesh, Faust, Don juan (or Hamlet), the Bible and the Comedie humaine (from Balzac)

Alexander Doria (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that a good list of writers would include: Homer, Gibran, Rumi, Li Bai, Shakespeare, Yeats, Poe, Whitman, Borges, Sophocles, Molière, Virgil, Ovid, Joyce, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Langston Hughes, Kafka. Obviously, this is two more than the list currently holds. We might take of Dostoevsky, then. Rousseau is an interesting suggestion, though autobiography is sort of "fringe literature."

But maybe we could include Confessions on a list I would like to add: a list of important literature. This would involve adding a list, but the arts section is far too small, and needs to be expanded. My early thoughts on this are: Dante's Inferno, Homer's The Odyssey, Eugene Onegin, Goethe's Faust, Joyce's Ulysses, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, The Tale of Genji, Don Quixote, A Room of One's Own, Hamlet, Ramayana, Journey to the West, Things Fall Apart, Layla & Majnun, One Thousand and One Nights, Canterbury Tales, Paradise Lost, In Search of Lost Time, and Gargantua & Pantagruel.

So what to take off? I have some suggestions for pruning the philosophy and religion section that I will put in the section on that above. All of those spots can go to this endeavor as far as I am concerned. And, of course, nothing about the above suggestions is final. To give credit where credit is due, I want to note that these suggestions are the result of conversations with my wife, the primary literary theorist in my life. ;) Thoughts? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the writers, there are my suggestions:

• Neruda and Poe ought to be deleted.
• I'm not so sure about Joyce (Musil might be greatest, but less known in the English-speaking culture) Virgil and Molière.
• What about integrating : Racine, Voltaire, Thoreau, Rousseau (maybe a better philosopher), Hölderlin, Balzac…

I think that we could from now on agree on Faust and Hamlet. I'm also OK with The Odyssey, the Inferno,One thousand and one night, Paradise lost, Ramayana and In Search of Lost time, even if we can't, probably, put them all. Alexander Doria (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The lists that Postmodern Beatnik put together are pretty good. They are very diverse and cover very important genres and ages. Still, I think it can do with some improvement. With regards to the list of books, why is A Room of One's Own—an essay—on with works of literature? Doesn't this open the flood gates to other non-literary works? And as important as Ramayana might be in India, is it really that important worldwide? Alice in Wonderland was a bit of a quirky surprise to me, too, but I find it an appealing candidate for inclusion. It is, perhaps, the quintessential example of its genre and was written by a fine author. Perhaps one of these first two could be replaced by the Epic of Gilgamesh, since it is probably the best known work of ancient literature.

As for authors, I think Langston Hughes is a magnificent choice. I am less thrilled by Gibran. Sure, he's one of the top-selling poets of all time, but that means he's popular. Popularity doesn't equal vitalness, does it? Also, do we need Homer, Virgil, and Ovid? Alexander Doria mentioned removing Virgil. Personally, it seems to me that we would remove Ovid before removing Virgil. But why keep all three? Or even two? Isn't Homer sufficient? It's not like the Aeneid or Metamorphosis made it to the literature list. And I strongly disagree that Dostoevsky is the most expendable of the authors on the list above. Other than that, it's good to see some poets made it onto the list.

Finally, I wanted to respond to Alexander Doria's desire to put Balzac on the list. Considering that we don't have Victor Hugo or Alexandre Dumas, it seems hard to justify putting on Balzac. I mean no offense by this, but might you be pushing for him on the basis of your own preference? La Comédie humaine is an unfinished series of linked stories that falls within several common genres for the period and almost everyone Balzac influenced is more important than him in the final analysis. I just don't see why you think he should be on a list of vital articles. Intellectual Soup (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just two quick points. I don't think we can neglect ancient greek literature, considering the extremely wide influence greek literature had. And I don't only talk about occidental literature, which might well be only footnotes to the greek literature as the latter created almost all the occidental literate fields (tragedy, novel, comedy, elegy…), but also Indian, persian, and Arabic literature, which have all been strongly influenced by greek authors. On the other hand I agree with deleting latin (Virgil and Ovid) authors as they only influenced occidental literature, and only reused greek themon.

Concerning Dumas and Hugo, they have both quite well-known, but Balzac seems far more influential. Of course, Les trois mousquetaires, or Les Miserables, had, and still have a significant audience. But, without La Comédie Humaine, you will not have French Realism (Flaubert, Maupassant) and Naturalism (Zola), Russian novels (Dostoïvsky, Tolstoï), Faulkner… Maybe not Marxism, as Marx used to say that without Balzac he might not have understood how the Bourgeoisie came to replace with the Aristocracy. La Comedie humaine, is not only an unfinished series of linked stories, but a wide picture of a whole society, according to the Balzac's wish de faire concurrence à l'état-civil (to compete with the registry office). Besides, Balzac's novels are far more than common. I don't know if you read Illusions Perdues, which is a sharp criticism of journalistic and artistic circles, which is far ahead if its time. Balzac also wrote, before Poe, one the first detective novel, Une ténébreuse affaire. To say it briefly : Hugo and Dumas were individuals, a bit outside of the great artistic movements of their time (the one was in exile in Jersey, and the other mostly wrote historical novels), while Balzac partly created those movements. Alexander Doria (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am unclear on just how we should regard influence when deciding if someone is vital in themselves. Marx, for example, is important for his writings, but we don't seem to think that justifies including his law professors or Max Stirner (without whom we might also not have Marx or Marxism, though the relation is rather different). Why put Balzac on the literature list for his influence on Marx, then? Influence seems to be relevant when one is influential because one is "great." Take Postmodern Beatnik's argument in favor of Hume, for example. All of his points are about how Hume has been influential on philosophy as a whole, which makes Hume a major figure. His influence is due to his looming large over so many issues that have become central to historically important and ongoing debates. Of course, literary figures don't influence each other in quite the same way (there is no long-argued discourse over the proper way to write a story engaged in by Hemingway and Hardy and Stendhal), but it still seems that one's "vitalness" should not be parasitic on the accomplishments of another. In fact, it is often those who exist "outside of the great artistic movements of their time" who prove to be vital by way of their uniqueness. But again, I may be judging the importance of influence incorrectly. This is also not to say that Balzac is only important due to others. I agree that he is a wonderful author. But I wonder if he is vital by the criteria of this list. Intellectual Soup (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm more doubtful concerning Onegin (I would prefer War and peace, or the Kamazarov's brothers as russian novel). Nevertheless, what do you think of my early suggestions ? Alexander Doria (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Onegin can be quoted by people from memory in Russia and is important in comparative literature programs as well. This is not the case with War and Peace or Brothers Karamazov. That is why I prefer Onegin at present. As for your earlier suggestions, I am unfamiliar with Gilgamesh and would like your reasoning for including it. And while the Bible has been studied as literature, it is already on the list under philosophy and religion. I will look into and think about Comedie humaine.

Regarding authors, I agree that Neruda should not be on the list. I (or really, my wife) placed Borges in his place. I have several reasons for including Poe: his importance to American literature, his importance to the modern short story, and his invention of the detective genre. His relevance to science fiction is not inconsiderable, either; but I suspect that would be lower down on the list of his literary accomplishments for many people. But why are you so sure Poe should be deleted? Perhaps I am missing something. Concerning Joyce and Musil: I understand that The Man Without Qualities is very important as a novel, but Joyce himself is one of the most influential writers of the 20th century. And while any one of us might think Musil was "better," the question must be taken up from an encyclopedic standpoint. But perhaps you have thoughts about Musil I have not considered? As to Molière, there was a brief discussion earlier about him, Racine, and Corneille. The decision was to go with Molière due to his recognition and curricular importance. What are your thoughts on this? Finally, I am not positive on Virgil, either. He was already on the list, however, so I thought that it would be better to add Ovid than replace Virgil with Ovid. Maybe I was incorrect about that. It's worth considering. The other authors you suggest are all tempting, but I must think about it first before giving my opinion. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering the Onegin stuff, some old people can also quote in my country a lot of La Fontaine's Fables (I does not know the English equivalent, but as you claim to be a fluent French), but that does not mean that does not mean that those Fables are the greatest achievement in French literature. Then your point is rather fallacious. On the contrary, Brothers Kamazarov is full of high philosophical and metaphysical views that greatly influenced XXth century's philosophy (didn't a French philosopher named Sartre reused the Dostoievsky formula : Si Dieu n'existe pas, tout est permis (In order, for Goethean, to follow the debate I give him a translation : If God does not exist, evertyhing is allowed) ; I don't think Sartre nor any great philosopher or Writer used Onegin a lot).

Concerning the Moliere's point : I would replace him with Balzac, so I let you some time to examine the question.

Alexander Doria (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The point about quoting Onegin was to demonstrate the work's importance within Russia. The point about comparative literature programs was to support the work's importance outside of Russia. That the work has both qualifications was really the point I was trying to make. But I will consider it again. Probably not until tomorrow, however. My apologies. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

About the Joyce-Musil's issue, they seem to be both as influential. In that sense, I would propose to put Joyce in the writers' list, considering he wrote more books than Musil, and The man without quality in the Works list. Besides, just a quick point concerning Poe : wouldn't somebody like Thoreau or Faulkner be better on the list, as an american writer ? Alexander Doria (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thoreau (and Emerson) were part of a short lived movement that only really affected America. Poe's contributions affected literature worldwide and also literary theory (both as a critic and as a theorist). Faulkner is a better possible candidate for replacing Poe, but wouldn't that be putting a lot of emphasis on modernism (when you already seem to be okay with Joyce)? (Edit: I just noticed there's an article on this.) Intellectual Soup (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In order to be less modern : what do you think of Hawthorne and Melville ? Alexander Doria (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But wouldn't they fall into the same cul-de-sac as Emerson and Thoreau? I'm not very familiar with Melville (I never read Moby Dick), but Hawthorne is—rightly or wrongly—usually grouped with the Transcendentalists, right? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

From now on, I put below the literature works that we both agree to put in the list (finally as Goethean does not seem to give his advice from now on, I no longer wait him, and put the works we both approved, that seem the more likely to be in the list):

• Hamlet
• Faust (considering his wiki-name, I don't think Goethean will disapprove of this choice)
• Inferno
• Odyssey
• One thousand and one night
• In search of lost time (or the la Comedie humaine if I succeed in convincing you)
• etc…

Alexander Doria (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget non-western stuff like One Thousand and One Nights and Journey to the West. Wrad (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't forget it (I have already accepted, One thousand and One Nights, and PMB already mentioned your titles both), but I'm still awaiting Goethean's opinion before putting them on the list. Alexander Doria (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I also think One Thousand and One Nights and Journey to the West are good titles to include. Intellectual Soup (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy Replacement Suggestions

While looking through the philosophy and religion lists for pruning candidates, I noticed a few things that might be good to change. For one, the entries under moral philosophy don't actually point to the intended articles. Nihilism, for instance, is not the same as moral nihilism and relativism is not the same thing as moral relativism. We could just alter these to point to the correct articles, but this is also an opportunity to reconsider the choices. Utilitarianism seems like a proper member of the list. It is a consistently proper position in ethics and has been vastly influential. Moral nihilism and relativism have not been as popular or influential on their own, but moral skepticism more generally (or moral anti-realism, really, but we don't have a separate article on that yet) has been. We would even be justified in changing moral nihilism over to non-cognitivism. If we made this switch in one fashion or another, we would have a spot for ethical naturalism, another major contender in the history of ethics.

I would also suggest replacing determinism with free will. That determinism is more important than its alternative libertarianism (metaphysics) seems rather POV, whereas the article free will covers the debate as a whole—including links to determinism and libertarianism (metaphysics). Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any objections to these changes? Can I at least change Nihilism to moral nihilism and relativism to moral relativism, as seems to be the original intention? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If the links don't point to the correct articles, you should definitely redirect them. I also agree with your suggestion regarding the free will article. No opinion on what specific ethics articles should be included. Intellectual Soup (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Says who?

Hopelessly and irretrievably POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.46.152 (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not quite undestand your point. Could you develop your argument ? Alexander Doria (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Time for a Second Great Revision

I know I haven't been to this list since we cut it down to 1000, but it's time to return. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to compose my suggestions into an omnibus bill so we don't get bogged down in the details and can instead look at the larger picture of this list. I've collapsed it cause it's freakin' huge.

To preserve the orderly fashion, I urge the community to weigh my proposal as a whole and not on individual parts. If you disagree with the manner in which I'm proposing this, oppose it. But I'm only creating an omnibus because if we labored and dwelled on every little choice we'd never get anything done. Once we have a firm structure from which we can work, commonly agreed upon and backed by consensus, we can sort out the details and tweak the tidbits. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Support as proposer. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, quite a good idea. Alexander Doria (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support: While I agree with Postmodern Beatnik about David Hume (I don't know enough about Wittgenstein to have an opinion), Hemlock Martinis' explicit willingness to "sort out the details and tweak the tidbits" later makes me think this is too minor a detail over which to oppose the proposal. Intellectual Soup (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Very Weak Oppose - I agree with almost all of the proposal, but as we were asked to either accept everything or reject everything, and as there are two details that I simply could not agree to (removing Hume and Wittgenstein, who I think should make the list even if we were to pare it down to five entries), I am placing my vote here. I also worry that in the attempt to keep the people category down, we have forgotten that the philosophers and social scientists category covers two sets of people: philosophers... and social scientists. Moreover, in the effort to reduce the number of philosophy articles, we have taken more social scientists off than philosophers. While it has been my method to make minor changes and move slots from one category to another sparingly, I am not opposed to a major change such as this. Nor am I terribly opposed to philosophy being the category being singled out for pruning. Though I do think some editors have underestimated its historical importance, it does have more spots than it needs and at the expense of the arts. I would note, however, that science and technology have nearly 300 articles.

Still, my vote could be changed to a yes if we could renegotiate who we include in the People list. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

removing Hume and Wittgenstein, who I think should make the list even if we were to pare it down to five entries : frankly it sounds to me rather like a personal viewpoint. Although I agree that Hume, being the most famous English philosopher, should be kept, I'm not so sure about Wittgenstein. Actually, if he was influential in Linguistic (yet some critics have contested it) and it was not the case in other philosophical fields. I don't think we can afford to put too specialized philosopher on the list. Alexander Doria (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you think it is a personal view. Wittgenstein falls almost entirely outside of my professional interests and I must confess that I've barely read any of his work. Indeed, I could really care less about Wittgenstein. But that said, his importance was impressed upon me throughout my education and in the course of discussions and literature reviews. Wittgenstein is a giant on the philosophical scene, regardless of my own areas of research.

Hume, on the other hand, is someone I have read thoroughly. Still, I don't take it that I am trying to push "my guy" onto the list. Indeed, one of the reasons I have studied him so in depth is due to his importance. As mentioned, he is considered to be the most important English-speaking philosopher in history. He is also responsible for the problem of induction (which led to the falsification model of experimentation and is still influential to the philosophy of science), the is/ought gap (which remains a key problem in ethics), the notion of utility (again, a key concept in ethics), what George Boolos identified as "Hume's principle" (which was influential to Frege's philosophy of mathematics), compatibilism (regarding free will vs. determinism), and several arguments still used today in favor of atheism (including the argument against miracles). Hume sought to be the "Newton of the social sciences" and was instrumental to the early development of psychology out of philosophy. He also formulated many important critiques of social contract theory which are still debated by political philosophers. All in all, he's kind of an important guy. Vital, even. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently out of town and have only been able to edit intermittantly. Tonight I'll try to respond to your comments with the attentiveness they deserve. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Intellectual Soup makes a good point above, though. Perhaps I have misinterpreted your "all or nothing" request. I could support your proposal so long as we can revist the changes to "People." Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to revise the choices. After all, we're not trying to forever ban Hume or Wittgenstein from the list. Once the omnibus is in place we're more than free to go back and revise certain portions of it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I suppose moving Atheism and Agnosticism to religion is fine, but why not move Theism, Pantheism, and Deism, as well? Or if we want to keep some under philosophy, why not keep them all there? Without a principled reason for separating the two, it seems a rather superficial change to move a set of articles from one category to another just to make the numbers look more even. If we think the articles really fit better under religion than philosophy, great—maybe there is a principled reason for the move and it just hasn't been stated yet. But if not, we should categorize them where they belong regardless of whether or not it puffs up the numbers of some category. Some things may just be more vital than others from an encyclopedic standpoint, and it seems to me a bad idea to make changes for solely political reasons (particularly since politically motivated changes typically lead to politically motivated disputes and thus more politically motivated changes). Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that someone tried moving Atheism and Agnosticism out from under Theistic Philosophies on the basis of neither being "theistic." Of course, in this context "theistic" means "about God"—something that atheism and agnosticism certainly are. Still, can anyone think of a better name? "Religious Philosophies" doesn't really seem appropriate to me, as that would be a much wider category than just theories about the existence and nature of God. Philosophy of religion is not my area, however, so I am not aware of any specialized terminology that might be a better fit. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment to authors

There is no polish and czech personality's very often more important for history of literature than Pablo Neruda... Where is Joseph Conrad, Jan Potocki or Witold Gombrowicz? They was very influentals for english, french or spanish literature. Where is Milan Kundera (an adept of Gombrowicz) or Bohumil Hrabal? If you suggest the most monumental persons of litterature like Dante why there's no Camoens, Adam Mickiewicz, Cyprian Norwid or Aleksandr Pushkin? Pardon pour mon anglais. --85.221.187.131 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Neruda is very likely to be deleted, and therefore most of your proposals fall down. Anyway, I think we can keep Conrad and Pushkin in mind. Quant à votre anglais, il est suffisamment correct pour qu'on vous comprenne Alexander Doria (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Conrad and Pushkin is the best choice of my propositions but I think while Conrad and Pushkin are very famous in the west (Germany, France, USA..) Adam Mickiewicz is one of "the symbols" of literature in the east (Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, west Russia). I propose you to think over him because he was in fact the master for Alexandr Pushkin (même directement), Comte de Lautréamont, Guillaume Apollinaire or Cyprian Norwid. On peut dire qu'il est un "Goethe d'Europe orientale". Merci pour votre réponse.--85.221.187.131 (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Conrad is a very good choice, but Neruda's main reason for inclusion was for a more diverse group of authors. If he is removed, I would prefer he not be supplanted by another Western author. But perhaps we could replace him for a more diverse set of writers by genre? Most of the authors listed were dramatic writers in either prose or poetry. Perhaps branching out to someone of a different genre would be more apropos? I would like to see someone along the lines of J.R.R. Tolkien, who is the father of modern fantasy literature and needs little introduction or Agatha Christie, the best-selling writer ever except for Shakespeare (who had a three century headstart) and the mother of the detective/crime thriller genre. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

the mother of the detective/crime thriller genre : in this literature field we have already Poe, who stands as the father (as well as Balzac). Besides, are you sure Neruda was not a Western author : he wrote in Spanish, and was brought in western and latin traditions. Of course, geographically speaking, he is not located in Europe (although he travelled a lot in that part of the world). But, aren't the north-American writers said to be westerners ? Alexander Doria (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In my proposed list, Neruda was replaced by Borges. Like the much earlier addition of Avicenna to the Philosophers and Social Scientists list, this switch replaces someone who was only placed on the list for the purpose of diversity with someone who belongs there regardless of political correctness—yet satisfies such a desire anyway. It just goes to show that when we stop trying to mollify everyone and take an honest look at history, we still get a diverse list. That's because the basic idea behind political correctness—that the world has been shaped by the contributions of every race, culture, and creed—is far more sound than the movement it has created.

Moving on to the suggested authors, only Conrad and Pushkin anywhere close to being reasonable candidates for this list. Mickiewicz may have been influential on Pushkin, but Pushkin is universally recognized as a superior writer. What I think we all need to keep in mind when making this list is that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of famous authors—most of whom any well read person will be familiar with. Our task is to whittle that list down to its most essential members. Authors is already the largest single category in People other than Politicians and Leaders—and there's nothing wrong with that. But we need to keep our personal favorites out unless they are truly of the utmost historical importance. To this end, I am quite fond of a thought experiment I came up with earlier on this discussion page: Imagine we were writing a text book on whatever category we were considering, and we kept getting our page limit reduced. Who or what would we cut first? Sometimes these cuts don't correspond to our personal preferences (very few of my personal and professional interests in philosophy get much coverage on this list), but that's the way it goes. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand but I can't agree. Mickiewicz was a writer who influented Russian, Polish, Belarusian and Lithuanian writers and poets. The western Europe know only Dostoevsky or Pushkin who were influented by Mickiewicz. If he wasn't on exile in Russia their litterature would be very different. Think about him, he is not one of the thousands or hundrets. He was in fact the "Goethe of slavic literature". I don't try to crowd in my personals authors like Norwid, Guillaume Apollinaire or John Ashbery but absolutely objectively I notice that Mickiewicz is the most influental poet of Polish, Lithuanian, Belarusan, Russian or Ukrainian litterature. He is just forgotten on the west. Pushkin is recognized as a superior slavic writer in France, UK, USA, but not in Belarus or Lithuania. Mickiewicz is there the greatest symbol of slavic romanticism. See on Wikipedias of that's languages. Besides Mickiewicz was influental on the west- Comte de Lautréamont, George Sand (see on french wikisource Essai sur le drame fantastique - Goethe, Byron, Mickiewicz), Guillaume Apollinaire... He had the most influences in the east- Alexandre Pushkin, Nikolai Gogol, Juliusz Słowacki, Zygmunt Krasiński, Antanas Baranauskas, Witold Gombrowicz, Czesław Miłosz, Joseph Conrad (even he learned Mickiewicz by heart during his childhood)... If you omit Mickiewicz it's just a sign that you don't perceive the true historical personality's of literature but only these who are visible from your west perspective.--85.221.187.131 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a comment earlier about how being influential on other writers is not necessarily the same as being vital, because "vitalness" should not be parasitic on the success of others. Mickiewicz's work itself should be what gets him on this list, with his influence only acting as a perhaps secondary reason to include him. And I do not think it is a Western perspective that makes people regard Mickiewicz as not being vital. I never came to the West until college brought me here. And I've only stayed because of an offer of employment. Yet without a Western perspective, I still don't find the authors you mention to be vital according to this list's standards. (What, by the way, is "an adept of Gombrowicz"? Someone who knows his work? Who imitated his style? What?)

Also, you list your Eastern European authors as if we should be including them all (with suggestive phrases like "Where is Milan Kundera," who quite frankly I've never even heard of), but surely that's not the case. That would make the list half Eastern European! This is not an infinite list. We have only a certain number of spots to fill, and not everyone will make it. Some of the greatest authors of all time will not make it. C'est la vie. Intellectual Soup (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

with suggestive phrases like "Where is Milan Kundera," who quite frankly I've never even heard of : Your ignorance is probably due to cultural boarders : Milan Kundera is quite well-known in France, and is often said to be the most significant Eastern European writer alive. On the other hand, I must admit I haven't heard of Langston Hughes until Postmodern, and you, mentioned it. Alexander Doria (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I just proposed my list of authors who might be in place of Pablo Neruda, that's all. I don't want to force a place for Gombrowicz or Kundera because their are quite new and less representatives authors. But I won't agree with your omission of Mickiewicz who is the greatest representative of slavic litherature with Pushkin ensemble. Certainly I propose only to add Mickiewicz that's all.--85.221.187.131 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mightable objective criteria concerning authors

In order to have all the discussions above closed, I think we ought to define some objective criteria which would allow us to decide what would be the most important authors ever. I propose therefore five following criteria (but other can be added or other be supressed).

• The author should have a wide influence which concerns a lot of authors.
• The author should have writen one of the greatest achievement in world literature
• The author should have made a consistent contribution to the developement of world literature (by creating a new genre for instance).
• The author should be considered by some significant critics, as one of the most important writer ever.
• The author should be representative of a major cultural area (I don't truly appreciate this criterion which sounds too PC)

In that sense, Misckiewicz would be OK with the first and the five criterion. It is more doubtful about the second (maybe Pan Tadeusz ?) and the fourth, and he probably wouldn't suit the third.

Alexander Doria (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mickiewicz

• Mickiewicz influented practically all west slavic litherature of XIX century and a great part of XX.- Polish: Juliusz Słowacki, Zygmunt Krasiński, Cyprian Norwid, Bolesław Prus, Henryk Sienkiewicz, Stanisław Wyspiański, Joseph Conrad, Witold Gombrowicz, Czesław Miłosz; Russian: Alexandr Pushkin, Anna Akhmatova; Lithuanian: Antanas Baranauskas, Salomėja Nėris; Ukrainian: Taras Shevchenko, Ivan Franko, Bohdan Ihor Antonych, Belarus: Jan Czeczot, Maksim Bahdanovič... He influented also french and arabic litheratures.
• One of the greatest achevement of slavic literature is Dziady (poem), part three which was recognized a great by f.ex.: Pushkin (his The Bronze Horseman (poem) was stylized by "Dziady"), G.Sand ((...)nous reconnaissons au premier coup d'oeil dans le poète l'égal de Goethe et de Byron(...)), Comte de Lautréamont (Les Chants de Maldoror are stylizated for the Great Improvisation from "Dziady"). Mickiewicz is an author of polish national epic poem Pan Tadeusz which was the greatest achevement of polish poetry of romanticism.
• Mickiewicz is often recognized as a creator of science-fiction same as Mary Shelley but in fact he found an epic mystical poetry (Pan Tadeusz) and he first presented the proto-existencialism views for example about silent God (the Great Improvisation is in fact a battle with a silent God). He is also philosophicaly a precursor of messianism with Józef Maria Hoene-Wroński.
• Slavic critics: Wacław Lednicki, Artur Sandauer, Mieczysław Jastrun, Tomas Venclova, Otokar Odlożilik, Đorđe Živanović... English critics: William Rose, Donald Davie, Francis Whitfield, French critics: George Sand, Jean Bourilly, Jean Fabre, Gustave Charlier, others: Georg Brandes, J. Reményi, Lu Xun... See a monography- "Adam Mickiewicz in World Literature" edited by Waclaw Lednicki.
• Slavic litherature and culture.

Besides his Dziady or Konrad Wallenrod were inspirations for operas (I Lituani-Konrad Wallenrod by Amilcare Ponchielli), symphonies (II Symphony of Gustav Mahler, influented by "Dziady").. The acting of "Dziady" by Kazimierz Dejmek was a direct cause of revolutions of march 1968 in Poland.--85.221.187.131 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There are my answers :

• I always agree with you concerning the first criteria
• I am not truly convinced concerninf the second one. I have said higher that the author ought to have written one of the greatest achievement in world literature, not only slavic literature.
• I must think it over. Could you give more details about Mickiewicz influence over Science-Fiction ?
• I'm still doubtful about your critics, because, excepting Sand, there are not much first-rate critics.
• Still alright.

Alexander Doria (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• 2. He influented slavic literature which was in fact on emigration. And that's why Mickiewicz influented Lautréamont or Sand, or f.ex. Mahler and Ponchielli in musical scenic pieces. The "Dziady" of Dejmek was the great revolution in the block of communist countries.
• 3. Mickiewicz's science-fiction shows in unpublished "Historia przyszłości" (The history of future). According to Antoni Smuszkiewicz, Mickiewicz presented there his view of technical future. The manuscript was destroyed but the relations proved that was in fact the first slavic science-fiction vision of future. See also A. Witkowska "Mickiewicz- słowo i czyn".
• 4. I think the greatest critics which I mentioned are Sand and Georg Brandes, but others are of course very significiant f.ex. Jastrun in Poland, or Lu Xun in China. First-rate was for example Sand, G. Olivier or Anaïs Ségalas (voir: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana%C3%AFs_S%C3%A9galas).

--85.221.187.131 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• 2 I think you misunderstood my second criterion : it is not a matter of influence. When I said higher that the author ought to have written one of the greatest achievement in world literature, I meant that he should have created one of the major work which every man with some culture ought to have read.Take, for instance, Goethe's Faust, or Homer's Odyssey.
• 3 It is maybe a bit far-fetched, as the manuscript disappear, and even if Mickiewicz created one of the first work of science-fiction, he cannot be said to be the father, as he influenced nobody.
• 4 First-rate critics means some great figures like Goethe, Schiller, Marx, Zweig, Hugo etc… Excepting Sand, and maybe Brandes whom I must admit I have never heard of, I don't think Lu Xun nor Jastrun or Ségalas, although significant, can be said to be first-rate critics. Alexander Doria (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• 2 and 3. But the influences was the best sign that Dziady had a signifitiant contribution in litterature. I could you explain the greatest contributions in "Dziady" for example that it was one of the firsts open works (term of U.Eco), besides that was an antiartistic, unable to acting piece. The inventions of Dziady for example unchronological play (structure II, IV, I, III and the fabules over this order), or philosophicaly proto-existencialism ideas aren't famed in the west but it was explored for example by Brandes. There are some opinions that Mickiewicz influenced by his inventions Pushkin or Lautréamont but the posteriors inventors of open work and antiartism like Jarry, Joyce, Beckett, Ionesco, Bergman, Różewicz profited by them by a second hand. However there aren't the reasons to take away from Mickiewicz his inventions.
• 4 Goethe or Schiller never known Mickiewicz, but Victor Hugo admired him. Hugo never was a direct critic of Dziady or Pan Tadeusz but he recognised him as a one of the greatest poets in history. He said Parler de Mickiewicz c'est parler du beau, du juste et du vrai; c'est parler du droit dont il fut le soldat, du devoir dont il fut le héros, de la liberté dont il fut l'apôtre et de la délivrance dont il est le précurseur (voir Jean-Charles Gille-Maisani, A.Mickiewicz poète national de la Pologne, Paris, 1988). I don't mentioned Charles de Montalembert, who was also a critic of Mickiewicz's works who recognized him as one of the best ever.

--85.221.187.131 (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

As one of the worlds most famous living persons im supprised hes not here. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We discussed the matter higher. The main problem with Jackson is that, although he is currently most popular, posterity is unlikely to consider him as one of the greatest musician ever (on the contrary of the Beatles or Schönberg). Alexander Doria (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

But lets be honest, in 100 years time Thriller will still be remembered as the worlds best selling album. Hes not a musician as such your right, however hes certainly more of a musician than Elvis Presley so your argument doesnt really hold water. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 13:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore Jackson has raised hundreds of millions for charity, seriously hes one of the most generous people of our time, also worked hard to promote AIDS awarness when it was still controversial. He has 8 guiness world records, redefined the music video, ended racism on MTV, has the most famous music videos and the most expensive music video. He has 13 grammys (a hell of a lot more than Elvis at 0 i believe). His effect on the art of Dance is unmatched. His influence on popluar music is more obvious now than ever. He had the worlds most famous trial too. Apparantly last year his article was in the top 200 most viewed despite not releasing any material since 2001. On top of that his article is in a much better shape that that of Elvis or the Beatles. It only failed its last FA because it needed a copy edit. It smells like US bias, everyone knows MJ has a bad rep i the US at the moment, MJ is an international figure however. With Elvis 65% of his market came from America, with MJ its only 25-33%. Elvis needed America to shift records, MJ doesnt. Seems like a load of MJ haters dont want him on the list lol. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)