Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

FA FA GA GA A – Total December 1, 2007 83 45 90 139 25 690 1022 June 1, 2008 88 46 79 140 25 670 999 December 1, 2008 88 50 72 145 24 682 1014 FA A GA B C – Total December 1, 2009 82 7 49 586 146 129 999 January 1, 2011 78 8 60 472 255 113 986 January 1, 2012 76 1 76 454 275 109 991 June 29, 2013 88 3 88 450 289 82 1000 October 13, 2013 90 4 92 446 284 83 999 January 13, 2015 90 2 96 417 333 60 998 December 23, 2016 94 2 107 425 355 17 1000 December 10, 2017 91 3 115 392 376 17 994 January 22, 2019 92 4 122 389 380 12 999 December 20, 2019 88 2 121 390 383 17 1001 November 25, 2020 83 1 127 373 402 15 1001

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 1000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. Since the list is currently full, it is recommended that a nomination of a new topic be accompanied by a proposal to remove a lower-priority topic already on the list.

All proposals must remain open for !voting for a minimum of 15 days, after which:

1. After 15 days it may be closed as PASSED if there are (a) 5 or more supports, AND (b) at least two-thirds are in support.
2. After 30 days it may be closed as FAILED if there are (a) 3 or more opposes, AND (b) it failed to earn two-thirds support.
3. After 30 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for +30 days, regardless of tally.
4. After 60 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal has (a) less than 5 supports, AND (b) less than two-thirds support.

Nominations should be left open beyond the minimum if they have a reasonable chance of passing. An informed discussion with more editor participation produces an improved and more stable final list, so be patient with the process.

• 15 days ago: 05:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 05:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 05:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Biography moratorium until May 1, 2022

Per the discussion of September-October 2021, the following biographies may not be discussed for removal or addition, except as a component of swaps with biographies not on the moratorium list, until May 1, 2022. In addition, no "bulk proposals" related to biographies, whether additions or removals, may be held in that time.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Sundial

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We are at 99 "Technology" entries currently. Very few of them are historical in nature. The sundial is a simple technology that has been used for thousands of years.

Support

1. as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Sure, list it as a bullet point under "clock".  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Clock does a pretty good job of covering the history of timekeeping devices. I think there are other technological areas which could use more attention – textiles is one that comes to mind, for example. Weaving? Cobblet (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_10#Remove_Sundial. --Thi (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Clock is fine. -- Maykii (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Seems minor to me, subjective view, sure, but so are most others here :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

This is motivated by a discussion on a recent popular television series. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Plough

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

From the article, It has been fundamental to farming for most of history. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Seems even more fundamental than irrigation, you can plow with natural irrigation, but can't plow without it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose I would prefer adding irrigation.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

   Although I do commend the proposer for having a username that is (arguably) a stylized plough.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose Agree that if farming technology needs more coverage, irrigation seems like a better place to start than tillage. Cobblet (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Irrigation is as vital as plough and History of agriculture is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. -- Maykii (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• I would probably support Irrigation as well, but don't want to open more nominations until some more of the biography discussions are closed and archived. I do note that the article Irrigation is in far worse shape than basically any article on the list; I'm doing some triage but it desperately needs attention. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Beef, Lamb and mutton, Pork, and Poultry

We list different types of cereals (wheat, maize, and rice) in addition to listing cereal, and we list potato and soybean as types of vegetables while also listing vegetable; as such, I think we should list different types of meat in addition to listing meat given the ubiquity and centrality of meat in human diets. Beef, pork, and chicken are by far the most consumed meats in the world today, and sheep meat generally is not too far behind outside of the west. I also doubt that there would be significant overlap with the animals themselves since we only list cattle of the concerned animals.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom; at the very least we should have beef and pork. Lamb is historically/culturally significant but possibly expendable, and I am also fine with simply listing chicken as food but think poultry is more general and including turkey, duck, etc..  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Potatoes and soybeans are listed because they're staple crops which are globally produced on about twice the scale of poultry and pork, the meats with the highest production. Meat only features prominently in the diets of people in developed countries or in places where other protein sources happen to be scarce: they're not all that ubiquitous or central from either a global or a historical point of view. Specific meats are less vital than the animals they come from, and listing meat and animal husbandry provides enough coverage at this level. I would rather add more farm animals first: I've suggested sheep before, as another example of a farm animal that is raised for more than just meat. I would also add seafood (production of 178 million tons/year, 2018–2020 avg.) before adding any other types of meat (134 million tons of poultry produced in 2020). Meat barely mentions seafood and only focuses on the meat of livestock animals, which makes sense since the meat industry is not usually defined to include the seafood industry. However, we do list fishing. Cobblet (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose all but Poultry. Too much overlap between the animals as well as meat. I would probably support some article on pigs/swine but not pork. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose The meat is not more important than the animals themselves. I would support the addition of sheep, swine, and chicken, given their international importance as sources of food. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Details, not necessary entries. --Thi (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• I would support either Poultry or Chicken but am not sure which I prefer. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'd definitely prefer listing chicken, by far the most common bird in the world, and a source of both meat and eggs. Cobblet (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Would it be reasonable to swap with Meat? Or add Vegetarianism for ballance? Dawid2009 (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Meat and vegetable are already listed. Cobblet (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Sand and Cement

They are important materials throughout history. Interstellarity (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Sand. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Sand as well. Staple of beaches and deserts. Even beyond use as a material, presents engineering problems to be solved wherever it exists. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Listing concrete, the most important material in which they're used, is enough. I don’t see why sand would be any more vital than clay. Cobblet (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose We already list both concrete and masonry, and I don't think sand is particularly important in its own right but rather as binding agents/ingredients in concrete and glass.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Concrete is listed. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Cement only. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I note we already have concrete; of course there is a clear distinction between concrete and cement. Or should glue be added instead? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Cement is a part of concrete, but I think the difference is unimportant at this level.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I have partially withdrawn the nom. This nom is now only on sand. Interstellarity (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Insurance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Finance-related topic which concerns both companies and citizens. Listed among main articles in some my old encyclopedias.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Crucial financial innovation that allows for otherwise too-risky investments to take place.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support undisputedly an indispensable part of the modern world Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support fundamental topic of modern day society. GuzzyG (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support I think this is reasonable considering the space we now have at this level. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Nobel prize

"The Nobel Prizes are widely regarded as the most prestigious awards given for intellectual achievement in the world." (Britannica) They cover three areas of civilization: science, arts (literature) and social ethics (Peace Prize).

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Weak support but I don't know where we would put it. We don't list other lists such as the Ten Commandments, and Seven Wonders of the Ancient World was actively rejected about a year ago, so I don't know if this list is accommodating of such articles.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Ok for level 4 but really terrible addition for the level 3. Far too specific. Previosly removed with extreme consensus. I feel this is nominated purely to something "add to add" when we are well under quta. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Dawid. If this was really that important, than one would expect other prestigious prizes like the Fields Medal or Lasker Award to be on level 4. Cobblet (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose The prize award on its own isn't important enough, but "the prize and a list of all the winners" would get close. But we don't do lists at this level. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose too trivial to be at this level. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Sweden would have to come first. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I'm not quite sold on the Ten Commandments, but they would be much better additions than the Nobel Prize in my view. Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove Arabic alphabet, Brahmic scripts and Cyrillic script

These are probably covered by language articles.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removing Cyrillic script. Now that Uzbek and Kazakh are abandoning it, Russian, Ukrainian, and Serbo-Croatian (in Serbia, Montenegro and Republika Srpska) remain the only languages with more than 10 million speakers which still use the script. Swapping Cyrillic for Ukraine would seem to me an improvement. The Arabic alphabet at least forms the basis of the Persian alphabet from which still other scripts such as Urdu and Pashto are derived, and Ajami script was also formerly widespread in Africa. So the significance of Arabic scripts is far from redundant to the Arabic language. Maybe Arabic script is a better choice to represent the family though, given that we list the family of Brahmic scripts rather than Devanagari. Cobblet (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support swap of Brahmic scripts with Devanagari I oppose outright removal, but Devanagari is a much more focused article and much more important to a wide swarh of the world than the Brahmic scripts article, which gives an overview of abugidas in general. I think we should prioritize specific articles over general pages. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Brahmic scripts unless we're swapping with Devanagari; India deserves quite a bit of representation on this list given its huge population both today and historically, and most (at least a large plurality, if not the absolute majority, of) Indo-European language speakers prior to European colonization were in India; in any event, such scripts are used also for non-Indo-European languages such as Tamil, much like the Latin script in the west. Weak oppose Arabic alphabet and Cyrillic script. Arabic is the world's most-spoken language that is neither Chinese nor Indo-European, and one of the UN's six official languages, so its alphabet is quite frequently used. However, on a global basis it is less vital than Arabic numerals, IMO. As for Cyrillic, it's also used for a UN language (Russian) and has prominent transnational use in Eastern Europe, but I could be convinced that it's rather niche globally and not as vital as the historically-important Greek alphabet despite its technically wider use.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Brahmic scripts and Cyrillic script should be kept, since they have been frequently used on earth.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal of Arabic script and Cyrillic script given each script's importance to human history and the cultures that use them. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose all Dimadick (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: remove Cyrillic script, add Ukraine

Per above discussion. Cyryllic script should be ranked on the same level what Japanese script, at this level is not very necesarry if we can have Ukraine and Russia. This is glaring how Eastern Europe is hyperbolically underrepresented in comprasion to western if we take into account how much odd [for this level] small countries and cities we have from western Europe, western Euope is hyperbolically more overrepresented in comprasion to rest of the Europe than North Africa is overrepresented in comprasion to rest of Africa; so Ukraina simply must be added, this is extremally warranted, more vital country than Netherlands and Taiwan as Taiwan and Netherlands have smaller population and do not have cultural significance just as Israel or Saudi Arabia. I simply can not realise how we ever could add Netherlands which have far more than 50% less population than Ukraine, this is beyond me but whatever...

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Extremely reluctant support addition I don't want to support this, given that the current country list is adequate if not slightly bloated. Already having Poland seems rather excessive in my eyes, and having three Slavic countries is rather insane given how Western Europe is far more influential culturally and historically than Eastern Europe. Indeed, I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but I think Ukraine is approximately as vital as California; both have similar populations, and while Ukraine has more history and is more culturally marginally important (despite not being a country for most of its existence), California has had far more impact on global pop culture and a far, far larger economy. I was originally going to oppose on those grounds, but I realized that even though Taiwan has a greater economy it has a much smaller population than Ukraine, and has a rather similar relationship to the Mainland as Ukraine does to Russia. As such, I can't find a rational reason to support Taiwan but oppose Ukraine. If someone comes up with one I'd switch to oppose. Also, adding Ukraine would give us an uninterrupted land bridge between Britain and Rusia.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Among most-referenced articles. Large and influential country. --Thi (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Listing three Eastern European countries is very reasonable when six Western European countries are listed. People who think that the list of countries has gotten too long should not have supported adding the Netherlands in the first place. Ukraine is just one of several geography articles related to Eastern Europe and Russia (e.g., Danube; Central Asia or a country from that area) I would prefer to list over an article on the Cyrillic script. Russian orthography is already covered by Russian language; on its own, it's not a very convincing reason to keep Cyrillic listed. It reminds me of how we used to list East–West Schism in addition to Eastern Orthodox Church. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

   This is reasonable to add one more country from Eastern Europe especially if we consider that we do list three geographical objects for Eastern Europe (along with Moscow) and nine from Western Europe (along with cities). FWIW in 1650 Russian Empire had 15 mln population, Poland-Lithuania 11 mln, England+Scotland about + 6mln, Dutch Republic 1,8 mln (during that time Kiev had 419,537, Paris 375,456, London 138,404, and Moscow 99,772). Not so long time ago we had on this level all three: Russia, USSR and Russian Empire., but in theory among say 1500-2000 articles IMHO this would be better to have Poland and Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

5. Support Per above. GuzzyG (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support addition This is one of the very few countries I would still support adding, one of the largest in Europe, relevant in today's world too. -- Maykii (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
7. Support Ukraine is the largest country that is fully located in Europe and is in a center of many political discussions in the recent years, its only logical for it to be included. Deimos (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal per my comments above. Japanese also has three scripts (four if you count Romaji), the main one of which is subordinate to Chinese characters, so the analogy is not apt. Removing Cyrillic would make Rusian the only UN-official language whose script is unrepresented. Cyrillic isn't as vital as Latin script or Greek alphabet, but it's vital enough.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal Given the importance of Cyrillic in much of Eastern Europe. Certainly much more diffuse than the Greek alphabet, though the Greek alphabet is obviously more historically important. I'm functionally neutral on the addition of Ukraine Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal The script dates from the Middle Ages and has high impact. Ukraine is only independent for the last 30 years or so. Dimadick (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal Important and influential script across much of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union / Russian Empire. -- Maykii (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Merging levels 1 and 2 talk into this talkpage

This talkpage has 550 watchers, whereas the level 1 talkpage has only 114 and level 2 talkpage has only 89. This is to be expected; the last substantial change to level 1 was in December 2018 and the last one before that had been in August 2015, and I assume level 2 is also updated rather infrequently. I had to courtesy ping VA regulars to a level 1 discussion and it was brought up that perhaps the top three level talkpages should be merged. I think it's a good idea; the main drawback would be that it would slightly hinder archiving, but we can simply merge the archives together as well (of course, pre-merger archives would still remain available). All discussions here would, of course, refer to level 3 by default unless stated otherwise.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
2. per nom and my suggestion on that page User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We should encourage fellow Wikipedians to spend some time participating in discussions of VA1 & 2 pages instead.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I don't see what has changed to make this necessary now. Cobblet (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Somebody bothered to make a level-1 proposal for the first time in years. It should have been where people pay attention. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the number of watchers for the other levels of the project for reference? are they around the same or greatly higher, it's been a while since I checked that kind of stuff. Is this just to merge the talk pages, but not the lists themselves? (similar to how lev 4, geography, history and bios etc are on different pages, but discussed on one page) Is this wha the proposal is? And the actual lev 1 talk page would just contain a manual or automatic redirect to here, at lev 3. Is this what you mean?  Carlwev  21:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is to merge solely the talkpages and leave due redirects; it would also merge subsequent (but not pre-merger) archive pages, unless consensus is strongly against that.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the level 4 talk has 196 watchers (31 of whom viewed recent edits, and 1,391 pageviews in the last month) and the level 5 talk has 91 (32 of whom viewed recent edits, and 412 pageviews in the last month). As a refresher, levels 1 and 2 have respective 23 recent-edit viewers/452 last-month pageviews and 24/182. It would, however, be extremely impractical to merge levels 4 and 5 due to their unwieldy sizes, and the analogy between the levels is imperfect since levels 4 and 5 are supposed to change quite often and thus don't need "special attention" given to them when changes are in fact proposed. Overall, I still think this is a good idea, especially given the small size of Levels 1 and 2 meaning that they don't particularly need their own talkpages.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes

Add Domestic pig

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Important in meat production worldwide and quite often referenced in culture.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. I was going to propose this alongside chicken and sheep but I thought that might be too much. Pigs are just as important as other livestock though. -- Maykii (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support given the importance of swine as a source of food Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
4. This would be the last mammal species I'd add (and likely the animal species, though I could see pet), but just vital enough.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per above. GuzzyG (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Support as well as chicken/sheep above. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

If we're looking for food-related articles to add, I would rather have added meal before adding any animals which are primarily relevant as sources of meat. An article that describes an important aspect of everyone's daily habits, regardless of cultural background or dietary preference, ought to be more vital than articles that relate to a particular meat. Cobblet (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, chickens are also almost exclusively used for food products (well, other than cockfighting, but that's secondary), and we (are probably going to) list it above Egg as food or Poultry, even though other bird meat and eggs such as duck and quail are consumed. Pork is by far the most common meat, and its presence in human culture has been prevalent and permanent such that both Islam and Judaism prohibit its consumption while the ancient Romans, and modern East Asians, consider it a prized delicacy, and the animal itself has entered folklore as a symbol of greed and gluttony. I agree that swine aren't as vital as Cat, Cattle, Dog, or Horse, but given the other additions I would say they're vital enough. I could certainly add meal, given that we still have some space from the bio-trimming.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you seriously mean to call pork a "prized delicacy" for "modern East Asians"? Rekishi's Chechen-cuisine-based rationale for goats being as vital as cattle is still the most bizarre thing I've heard today, but this is a strong contender for second... Cobblet (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying that pigs are as vital as chickens and nearly as vital as sheep.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

And I'm saying I'd rather list something more directly related to eating habits than pigs or chickens. Cobblet (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I thought you were singling out pigs since you haven't said much about chickens or sheep.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add goat

Support

1. As nom. It is, IMO, as vital as cattle, which is now listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No rationale for why goats would be as important to list as cattle. They're not working animals. They should stay on the same level as camel, donkey or elephant. Cobblet (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

   @Cobblet:Because goats have been raised for their meat or milk, and lamb and mutton have been used by a lot of cuisines (e.g. Chechen cuisine and Chinese one).--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

   But we are probably going to list sheep, which makes goat redundant.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

   Goats have also been commercially exploited, and goats are no sheep.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

   Goats are extremely closely related to sheep, however, and you even used "lamb and mutton" to describe their meat, the same words for sheep meat. This would be like listing both Dog and Fox.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

2. We do not need any more animals, especially not mammals, after sheep, chicken, and domestic pig. I would rather list Ant, Spider, and even maybe Lion and Bear before considering adding Goat.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not necessary. --Thi (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose would fit on a list of 1500 articles, but not 1000. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

References

Add Southern Ocean

We list every other ocean, this one is controversial but I think it still warrants being here. -- Maykii (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.
2. Strong support Its existence has not been controversial for at least twenty years (longer than Pluto's demotion from planet status), one poorly worded and unsourced statement in the Wikipedia article notwithstanding. Only the precise limits of its boundaries are subject to dispute. That makes it no different from any number of geographical constructs that don't have universally accepted boundaries or are defined differently in different contexts. People in different countries recognize a different number of continents, for example. The only reason the International Hydrographic Organization has not published an official definition of the Southern Ocean is because its member countries can't agree on one, not because this organization (or any other) denies the ocean's existence. Even National Geographic, which used to label the ocean differently from the others because of this lack of international agreement, finally changed its practice earlier this year. If the Southern Ocean isn't vital because of a lack of inhabitation, why do we list all the planets? What makes Neptune or Algeria or the Caspian Sea so much more important to the average reader than the primary storage of heat and carbon for Earth and the driving force behind the thermohaline circulation which connects the World Ocean? You do not understand global climate and ecology if you do not understand the Southern Ocean's role in it, and this topic is neither covered by Antarctica nor by any of the articles on the Pacific, Atlantic or Indian Oceans, because the modern consensus is that they do not include the Southern Ocean. Lack of population is precisely what makes the Southern Ocean one of the world's last great wilderness areas and thus the subject of a concerted international effort to establish multiple protected areas which are or would be some of the largest in the world. Why would we not have room for both Antarctica and the Southern Ocean when we have room for both Arctic and Arctic Ocean? Cobblet (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Largely per Cobblet. Its status notwithstanding, the Southern Ocean is a conspicuous absence here, and I feel our list is incomplete if we list four of the five oceans. Obviously the Atlantic and the Pacific are essentials, followed by the Indian Ocean. But if we have the Artic Ocean why not have the Antarctic Ocean? Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Per Cobblet. GuzzyG (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Dimadick (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Per Cobblet. I admit it was mistake when I made nomination for removal that. Souther Ocean or Ocean Current seems like good choice when we have room. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose largely because its very existence is controversial, as the article states: geographers have disagreed on the Southern Ocean's northern boundary or even existence, considering the waters as various parts of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans, instead. Even assuming its existence, I believe Antarctica is sufficient to cover much of this given that the ocean's perimeter has been sparsely populated throughout human history; Antarctica is the only continent not at Level 2, so it makes sense that this would be the only ocean not at Level 3. (I would also support the removal of Arctic Ocean, but at the very least it contains the North Pole and has been continually inhabited for millennia by various groups.)  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Although I like how things could be beautifully lined up, Antarctica is sufficient enough for this geographical area Lolitart (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap (Level 1): Remove Language, Add Society

I am posting this nom here instead of level 1 because this page is watched more. There has been some talk about adding society on the level 1 page since it is a better choice for this level. I know some articles on level 1 cover society, but I was hoping that we could take out the articles that cover society such as language, and replace them with other articles unrelated to society. Interstellarity (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Support addition iff we swap it with human instead.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Society is what makes us humans. At least this topic needs better article in English Wikipedia. --Thi (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
4. Support the addition, oppose the remove, would rather remove human per above as well. Lolitart (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal of human since it is already covered in the others. Bill Williams 06:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal, would rather remove human The human article deals with the species Homo sapiens, its diet, distribution, evolution, etc.. We are not vital as primates, mammals, or even animals. We are vital as thinking, reasoning, and problem-solving entities, and while it's a shame that person seems to be ill-suited for inclusion this is already covered by philosophy, science, mathematics, language, and technology. Essentially, the things that make us human should take priority over the biological characteristics of what happen to be our physical vessels. The difference between "specially evolved primate" and "rational being" will become quite stark as artificial intelligence evolves and becomes just as, if not even more, competent at these tasks. Of course, the history of all of this, in human history, should remain, but it is the height of anthropocentrism to arrogate ourselves the same position as the article for life itself, and including such a "mundane" article as a specific species on a specific rock in space on what should be a pure and eternal list is what I think is the most glaring issue of the list.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Going off what John has said, society is implicitly covered in human, human history, the arts, language, and even science. Language is covered nowhere, and it is so incredibly important to the human experience across every single culture and society on the planet that it cannot be removed. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose any net addition or removal I'd like the level 1 list to stay at ten articles, that's all. As for removing human: I think listing human at the same level as Life and Earth is more reasonable than listing human at the same level as Oceania and Moon. Every choice of every article on every level reflects anthropic bias: we might as well own it. Cobblet (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

   I get that anthropocentric bias is inevitable (see our animal list on here), but we should try to mitigate it as best we can, especially at the highest levels. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

4. Oppose removal of language because it is an extremely essential category not covered by the others. I am additionally opening a discussion on the level 1 vital page, to replace Philosophy with Society instead (philosophy is stated to be a social science, which is the study of society, therefore philosophy is two levels below Society). If this one passes, it would simply mean the removal of Philosophy. Bill Williams 06:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

The following articles, IMO, already cover society to some meaningful extent:

• Human
• Human history
• The arts
• Language

I think removing human history is out; I'd personally never read it since it covers stuff I've learned in primary and secondary school, but that's precisely why we should have it at a high level. Also, the arts, being essentially "that which expresses the human condition", seems universal enough to warrant its inclusion here, so that's out as well. The human article predominantly covers the biological aspect of the human body, so I could see it being removed (we're relevant because of our ability to think, not as a species); however, person, which would be its replacement, has fewer than 100 interwikis and isn't even at Level 5. That leaves language as the last one to be considered; I'll have to consider it some more before I make a decision.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think of human as basically the one article on level 0. Not that I think we need a level 0 at all – I may come to regret making this comment at all. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As for language vs. society: on the one hand, I'm one of the people who originally suggested adding society a long time ago. On the other hand, language enables society, and underpins fundamental aspects of human identity, e.g., culture and ethnicity. It's even thought of as something that separates humans from animals and defines us as a species. I tend to think philosophy is a weaker choice for level 1 than language. While not wholly redundant to language the way linguistics would be, a large part of modern philosophy grapples with problems of language. Cobblet (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Religion perharps? 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:8CA2:6D80:9746:C400 (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I think that's redundant to philosophy and, if we add it, society.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I personally think philosophy is a contender for Level 0; since such an idea is ludicrous, however, we can agree to disagree. Modern philosophy might be language-focused, but it's also been such a niche and irrelevant part of philosophy (and, indeed, the wider world) that we actively removed contemporary philosophy from level 3 a month or so ago. Philosophy in general, from Socrates/Plato to Russell, underpins much of science (what is empiricism? falsifiability?) and mathematics (what is logic? do numbers actually exist?) and cognition more generally; I think the very concept of abstraction and having ideas is what separates us from beasts, and language is but a (admittedly very important) manifestation as our status of "rational animal".  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. I would also prefer all the level 1 articles to be extremely relevant to all readers today, and it bothers me that "philosophy" is listed when "contemporary philosophy" is of rather marginal relevance nowadays. If science and math represent the aspects of "philosophy" that matter most to modern readers, listing those topics ought to suffice. Cobblet (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Might up the Americas for level 2. 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:2373:31D:7265:9AA (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:2373:31D:7265:9AA: North America and South America are already at Level 2; they're generally not considered together in the Anglosphere. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Or Chemical such as FOAB.187.20.115.161 (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Skeleton, Add Bone

We should probably list the building blocks before the ensemble piece, right? There is also much more in terms of topics branching off bone than skeleton.

Support

1. Support as nom Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support addition per discussion. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Vital in anatomy. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal I would Rather remont paelontology which Seemann be arcana in comprasion to history of life which is currently not listed. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• Both seem to be vital. No need to swap, both should be in the list. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

988/1000?

What we want do with so big space?... Dawid2009 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know, we'll probably fill it significantly with some of the articles already being proposed. Maybe some physical/human geography, or science, otherwise. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Hopefully more nonbiographical essentials Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I hope that will be stuff other than Biographies/geography. Franky I would be glad if we make no geography nomination untill we± reach at least 995/1000. IMHO number of countriesis about right meanwhile Cities MAYBE very slightly bloated. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Wedding and Funeral? By the way, it's remarkable that coming of age is not on any vital list. Cobblet (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Florence Nightingale

It would be outrageous to suggest that Wikipedia editors should prioritize improving 100+ biographies while also suggesting that fewer than ten of those prioritized biographies should be about women. And I know of no other person in history, man or woman, who has been singlehandedly credited with founding a modern licensed profession. In doing so Nightingale transformed the perception of a female-dominated field from one that was not considered respectable into one that was. We list no other person who acted so consequentially to improve the status of women in society.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support A list of 110 should at the very least have 10 women (at minimum) and as has been said; one of the very few people who has played such a dominant role in a very important field today. Her biography itself is important too; unlike Gutenberg (who some fought to keep here) or Disney; where in which their invention and company is more important than them as people and their biography is unimportant (they're used as surrogates for the invention/company). Nursing has a direct impact on people and is very important unlike animation; so if Nursing makes her redundant; then i don't see how Film, History of film, Comics and Animation do not make Disney redundant. It deserves a rep here. We're also underrepresented in science figures compared to intellectuals, so Nightingale fits. Her "historical resonance"; has resulted in many things like battleships named after her USS Florence Nightingale (AP-70), asteroids like 3122 Florence, the most distinguished award in her field Florence Nightingale Medal, schools like Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, among many statues. Her legacy section is bigger than most people here, all this without the backing of a multi billion dollar company today.. i don't see how she isn't still a very important figure and there's certainly not many very important fields that affect lots of people today so singuarly defined by one person. GuzzyG (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
3. I've been convinced. Far better than Sappho, Jane Austen, or even Hatshepsut. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support While I disagree with both Guzzy G and Wolfson's arguments, Nightingale's high impact is undeniable. Dimadick (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Support I was on the fence mainly because there has been push to reduce the overall number of biographies and Nightingale might not make it on a smaller list but if we're sticking to 110-120 people, then Nightingale fits in here. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Per above, and as someone who earlier made nomination to add Nursing but in all honestly I would much prefer swap with one of the two Tudors. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
7. Support if we try again to reduce to 100 biographies in the future I may support removal. At 115 or so I support this addition. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Could definitely be on a level 3.5 list, or a list of the 200 or 500 most vital people, but she isn't vital enough for the top 100. Her level of technical achievement and historical resonance is simply not great enough, and she's somewhat redundant now that we have nursing. We need fewer people on this level, not more. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Would suit better for larger list of biographies and separate biography project. --Thi (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Zelkia. She is not in the top 100 most important people of all time, and various women such as J.K. Rowling or Cleopatra had a great effect on the world, yet are not on this list, so her being a woman shouldn't be the sole reason for her addition. Her contributions to medicine? Edward Jenner is just one basic example of someone with a far greater legacy. Her influence on statistics? That is a subset of mathematics, and it mentions her creation of the pie chart, but Descartes isn't even on here and he created the coordinate plane and numerous other mathematical things. Nightingale does not qualify. Bill Williams 21:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

   Descartes is listed among philosophers. Rowling and Oprah Winfrey which you mentioned in section about painters are still living people. I would wait until they will have say greater international mourning or funeral than Michael Jackson or the most translated authors like Lenin or Pope John Paul II, who are not on the list. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Nightingale resonates with plenty of Wikipedia readers. In terms of pageviews she is ahead of every listed inventor, scientist, and mathematician other than Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Edison, Tesla, Curie, Einstein, and Turing. She gets more pageviews than Gutenberg and Hippocrates combined. Her pageviews are also comparable to people like Abraham, Bach, Dante, Kant, or Ramesses II. Modern medicine deserves a representative, and nobody in the field can claim a technical achievement greater than founding a profession that underpins modern healthcare. Cobblet (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Pageviews are by no means the only indicator of vitality. They're just one factor. Florence Nightingale may have more pageviews than Gutenberg or Shen Kuo or Hippocrates, but it's ridiculous to suggest that she is more influential or vital than the most influential man of the 2nd millennium, the father of medicine, or Chinese civilization's most celebrated scientist. Of course, that's not to say that Nightingale isn't important, but I'm afraid that she's not quite this level, especially when we have nursing here already. But even if we didn't have nursing the objective should be, where I'm concerned, to trim biographies and not add them. Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

Every time the factors you provide (this time it was technical achievement and historical resonance) are addressed, your only response is to suggest that there are unspecified other "indicators of vitality." We call that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and while you're entitled to your personal bias as much as everyone else, it's not an argument. You also rely on the same strawman over and over again. The list's purpose is to "select 1000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles." It is not a question of which historical figures are "more influential or vital" than others, but what kind of content on Wikipedia should be prioritized. The point of looking at page views is not to argue that Nightingale is more vital than Hippocrates or Gutenberg. The point is that she is just as if not more interesting to Wikipedia's readers as more traditionally "canonical" figures from the hagiography of Western intellectual history. Thus her biography deserves to be prioritized just as much if not more than theirs, especially in view of Wikipedia's demonstrated gender bias and the Wikimedia Foundation's goal for Wikipedia to represent the full, rich diversity of all humanity. This bias is manifested in the current list of biographies: 9/112 or 8.0% of the list's biographies are about women, a figure that is completely out of whack with the proportion of Wikipedia's readership who are women (roughly a third), the proportion of biographies on Wikipedia (19%), and even the number of Wikipedia editors who are women (somewhere around 13-20%). I think a minimum of 10% of the biographies listed as priorities on this page should be about women. Any fewer and this list can in no way be said to even approach representing the full diversity of all humanity. Cobblet (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC) I have been very clear on multiple occasions what factors I use in order to determine vitality. In fact, I think I am the only member of this project who has laid down his or her specific process for selecting vital articles over others. You can read about my process here or here. I'm afraid you are simply mistaken with the rest. The articles that are most relevant to Wikipedia users are those that are most vital in history, culture, the arts, science, sport, technology, and so forth. Judging what articles belong in this list necessarily involves taking into account modern salience, historical importance, centrality in academia, connections to relevant topics, and so forth. By any such metrics it becomes rather clear that Florence Nightingale, though important, cannot count among the 100 most vital or important Wikipedia biographies. And I am opposed to adding or considering additions merely on account of sex. That's not our job. On that note, however, there are far more important women in history, like Isabella I of Castile or Mary, mother of Jesus who would make better candidates for inclusion on this list. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC) All of the factors you have previously mentioned (achievement, influence, popularity, uniqueness, and variety) have been addressed by GuzzyG and me. All you have done in response is try to move the goalposts by making vague and completely unsubstantiated references to newly invented "metrics", without even suggesting how one would quantify things such as "centrality in academia" or "connections to relevant topics". And while you may have no interest in tackling Wikipedia's systemic biases, the community and the foundation that enables it is very well aware of the urgency of doing so. It may not be your job, but it is very much our job. Cobblet (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC) No, you haven't. That some ships or institutions were named after you does not mean that you are among the 100 most essential biographies for Wikipedia. Florence Nightingale is a popular 19th century figure whose contributions in her life time very much set the standard for modern nursing. That's not in dispute. What is in dispute, however, is that these achievements alone do not garner her a place among the 100 most important Wikipedia biographies, especially since we already list nursing, and especially since the focus as it stands should be to trim off biographies and not add more fluff. As for the point about representing women, unfortunately almost all human societies up to and including the present day were or are heavily patriarchal, with little room for women to advance in the fields of science, mathematics, philosophy, literature, politics and so forth compared to men. Because of this, women are going to be underrepresented in the listings and there is not much we can do about it. However, if you were actually interested in adding more women, Florence Nightingale should not be the first one to come to mind. Mary, mother of Jesus is an obvious addition to our list, even at 100 articles. I've proposed her before, but my nomination was shut down. Our French counterparts list her, and she's historically the most famous and well known woman to have ever lived, a revered figure in Catholicism and Islam. I don't know why the founder of modern nursing is worthy of addition but a woman who has been venerated by the two largest world religions for greater than a millenium and has more art, music, and literature dedicated to her is not worthy. Isabella I of Castile is another worthy addition. Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC) What is "patriarchal" is the inability to recognize that the argument that Nightingale is redundant with something on the list could just as easily be made (and has often been made) about any other person: Socrates is redundant with Plato, Aristotle, and Ancient Greek philosophy; Walt Disney is redundant with Animation; George Washington is redundant with American Revolution; and so on ad nauseum. What is also "patriarchal" is the hand-wringing about the inability to do anything about the perception of women in male-dominated fields, when it is women who have predominantly served as caregivers in society despite being denied access to formal medical training. Nightingale's contribution lies precisely in transforming the perception of a female-dominated field from one that was not considered respectable into one that was. That is absolutely the kind of sui generis achievement which impacts everyone's life that we should prioritize writing about. To regard her position in history as "fluff" while we live in a pandemic where over 100,000 health care workers have died seems frankly a little perverse. As for your other suggestions: Mary has been proposed at least three times and strongly rejected every time: I'm not rehashing a debate that's never gone anywhere when we're already sick of discussing biographies. I don't recall Isabella being discussed in any depth, but her article is demonstrably less popular than Nightingale's. She also seems like an inferior choice from the standpoints of uniqueness and variety: we already list two other queens (Catherine of Russia and Elizabeth of England) from the early modern period. Cobblet (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) None of your comparisons except for Disney are particularly apt. Socrates is the origin of a genealogy of philosophy that stretches back over 2000 and touches nearly every branch of the field to this day. The line from Aristotle to Avicenna to Thomas Aquinas to Descartes to Locke to Kant to Marx to Russell all trace the ultimate origins of their field back Socrates. As for Washington, he is relevant to acts beyond the American Revolution; to wit serving as the nation's first president and being an icon of republicanism and liberal governance. I agree with you on Disney. I voted to have him removed, if you actually bothered to check the record, but the group's opinion went against my personal judgement. Disney is obviously a very important cultural and historical figure, whose contributions in his own field of human endeavor fundamentally reshaped the nature of that field and gave rise to incredibly important developments in Western culture. The same could be said about Florence Nightingale. We just don't have room for every important historical figure. As for Mary, it's incredibly disappointing that her candidature has been rejected numerous times, given that she is by great measure the most recognizable woman in world history, and has been so for greater than a millennium. But I'm not going to give you Nightingale just because I can't get Mary, who is without question the more vital of the two. Nightingale is more popular than Isabella because the former is (a) an Anglophone and (b) lived more recently, but the latter is far more vital. A student of history is much more likely to encounter Isabella through her role in the Reconquista, establishment of the Monarchy of Spain, funding and patronage of Columbus's voyages, and the setting up of the Spanish Inquisition than they are to learn of Florence Nightingale's role in the Crimean War and her founding of nursing. Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Great, so the legacy of Socrates is amply covered on the list, and Washington is also redundant with the United States, Democracy, and Liberalism. All the more reason to remove them then? Perhaps, perhaps not – this is exactly why some people have wanted to remove all the bios; but then listing nursing is not a good reason to exclude Nightingale either. A list of biographies, even a short one, that ignores reforms related the status of women in society is simply out of touch with today's world. And any student of history or philosophy is much more likely to stay at a hospital and be attended to by a trained nurse at some point in their lives, than specifically study the work of Isabella or Washington or Socrates. Nightingale's legacy directly affects everyone regardless of where they come from and what they study in school. She is exactly the kind of person worth writing a high-quality article about. Mary might be enormously important to Catholics, but the consensus so far has been that we do not need another figure from Christianity. It is essentially the same form of argument that was made to remove Kali from the list. Cobblet (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "And any student of history or philosophy is much more likely to stay at a hospital and be attended to by a trained nurse at some point in their lives, than specifically study the work of Isabella or Washington or Socrates." Yeah, that makes nursing supremely vital. That's not an argument for the vitality of Florence Nightingale. People who are not just vital because their contributions are important, or because they contributed to important fields. This is, admittedly, the mistake I made when I nominated people like Norman Borlaug. To take an extreme example, Mitochondrial Eve is probably more influential than any person on this list, as without her nobody alive would exist as they do right now. But that isn't an argument to, say, swap Newton and add Mitochondrial Eve. Socrates and Washington are vital articles because Socrates the person is a vital biography and Washington the person is a vital biography. Nightingale is not supremely vital because nursing the profession is. If you are interested in adding more women, there are other women in history, to wit the ones I mentioned, who would be much better additions. Mary's importance is to all Christian denominations, Catholics especially, and that's to say little about Islam, which reveres the woman probably more than any other religious figure bar Abraham, Moses, Muhammad, and Jesus. Who do you honestly think is more historically, culturally or artistically vital? "We don't need another figure from Christianity" is just silly, given that Mary's importance extends beyond mere Christianity, and because it's idiotic to think of additions to this list in terms of quotas. Why is it bad that we have so many figures from the Abrahamic faiths when they've exerted an impact on world history far more profound than any other social, political, religious, cultural, or artistic movement? Any objective measure of comparison would find Mary ahead of Florence Nightingale in terms of vitality. That people's philosophies are shortsighted enough not to see Mary's vitality does not mean that we should add Florence Nightingale as consolation because she's a woman and we need to fill some sort of quota for women. Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC) You originally gave five factors for vitality: achievement, influence, popularity, uniqueness, and variety. I think Washington and Nightingale meet all five factors, while Mary doesn't meet the criteria of variety, and Socrates or any other Greek philosopher doesn't meet either uniqueness or variety when Plato and Aristotle are listed. There's going to be overlap between articles when we're listing a thousand of them. The question is where we think redundancy is necessary and where it is not. Saying Nightingale is not supremely vital because nursing is, is like saying Socrates is not supremely vital because Plato's dialogues are. Citing Russell as a reason for Socrates the person being vital while denying Nightingale the person any credit for the modern healthcare system doesn't make any sense. Cobblet (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Let's examine these criteria more closely, shall we: Achievement Washington was the commander in chief of the Continental forces during the revolutionary war and the first president of the United States, setting during his tenure important precedents and founding the governmental structure of what would go on to be the most powerful nation in world history, ultimately stepping down for power in what is arguably the most important development in the history of the United States. Socrates's main achievements lie in ethics, rhetoric and critical thinking, distinguishing between pre-Socratic and post-Socratic Greek philosophy. Florence Nightingale founded a nursing school at St Thomas' Hospital and organized care for soldiers during the Crimean War, that care forming the basis of much of modern nursing today. Mary is the weakest in terms of personal achievement, that being principally giving birth to, nursing, and raising Jesus. Influnece Cross-culturally and historically, Mary trounces the rest. Not even Washington comes close to her historical vitality. Socrates is closer but not quite there. Washington defined what republican government looks like. Socrates founded Western philosophy, a man to whom a millenia-long line of philosophers from modern Britain to medieval Iraq to Renaissance Italy trace their lineage. What is their to say about Mary, from Catholic Mariology, her importance to Islamic doctrine, her prevalence in art. She has been without question the most venerated and celebrated woman in the past millenia and a half of human history. No one quite comes close to her staying power. Nightingale's practices are credited with the formation of modern nursing. Popularity with users, by which a traditional measure for me is pageviews and ngrams. It's hard to reliable input Mary into Google ngrams, so I'll go off pageviews alone. Here are the stats for English wikipedia. Nightingale leads Mary, but an analysis of cross-linguistic pages shows Florence losing to Mary. Nevertheless, all four figures meet my baseline for popularity. Uniqueness Washington does not particularly have anything going for him here, other than the fact that he is only one of three leaders of democracies we list. Neither does Socrates. The former fits in with the tradition of male leaders in the 18th century while the latter is just another Greek philosopher. Both Nightingale and Mary are women, which is a traditionally underpresented group. Florence Nightingale would be one of two women in her category if she were added. Mary would be alone. Variety This is my biggest sticking point against Nightingale. We already have nursing to represent her field and Hippocrates to represent medicine. Of the four figures, Nightingale is the most squarely defined by her field. For Washington we have overlap in liberalism, United States and American Revolution, but Washington's influence as a leader is not captured in any single one of those fields. Socrates is redundant to Ancient Greek philosophy and possibly Plato, but Socrates's fame in culture and history transcends his associations as just a comment by Plato. Mary may be represented by Jesus or Christianity, but neither captures her supreme importance in art, music, literature for over a millenium, or her mere fame as the most recognizable woman in human history. Furthermore, Nightingale is an Anglophone of the 19th century, while Mary is a Jewish woman from the Middle East. Of these five criteria, the only one where Nightingale can be said to beat Mary is in technical achievement. Mary's lack of technical achievement in her life is made up by her overwhelming importance to the arts and traditions of both Christianity and Islam. This alone makes her supremely vital to our readers as a historical person. The same applies to Washington and Socrates. Nightingale, however, is famous as the founder of modern nursing, which we already list. She is not particularly famous beyond that designation, nor is she cross-culturally or historically present or important enough, nor are her technical achievements particularly supreme compared to the founder of Western philosophy or the role model of liberal governance. Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC) I don't agree that Mary is "cross-culturally" influential. She is less relevant to Muslims than Khadija bint Khuwaylid, Aisha or Fatimah. Do you think Islamic fundamentalists care much about her? And she has basically no influence outside Christianity and Islam, i.e., she is irrelevant to half the world. Meanwhile anyone who has been visited by a nurse owes something fundamental to Nightingale: that is cross-cultural influence. Mary still meets a baseline threshold of influence, but she is nowhere close to Nightingale in this respect. It's much too reductive to say that Nightingale is the second woman in her category. She is fundamentally neither an inventor nor a scientist, but a social reformer. In other words, while her practices were innovative and she was a pioneering activist, there isn't really an invention or scientific theory associated with her. Rather, at the risk of repeating myself, her most important contribution is transforming the perception of a female-dominated field from one that was not considered respectable into one that was. We could easily create a separate category for her if we wanted to. That makes her more unique than any of Washington, Socrates, or Mary. It goes without saying then that I disagree completely with your analysis of variety. Hippocrates cannot be said to have anything to do with social reform; there is no redundancy whatsoever between him and Nightingale. Previous discussions have repeatedly established that Mary fails on the variety criterion. I'd also say that Washington's influence as a leader is amply captured by United States and American Revolution, and Socrates hardly transcends Plato; but that's not relevant to Nightingale. In short, I consider Nightingale ahead of Mary in all five categories. Cobblet (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC) I'm confused. Is Nightingale a representative of nursing/medicine or social reform? You said nursing first, but now you assert it's social reform. If it's social reform she is an overlap with Wollstonecraft, another woman who lived roughly contemporanously with her. You are also flat out wrong about Mary in Islam. You would realize this if you had just read the first line of the Mary in Islam article: Mary... holds a singularly exalted place in Islam as the only woman named in the Quran, which refers to her seventy times and explicitly identifies her as the greatest of all women, stating, with reference to the angelic salutation during the annunciation, "O Mary, God has chosen you, and purified you; He has chosen you above all the women of creation." She is far more important to Islam than Aisha, and suggesting that they are of equal importance to that faith just reveals incredible ignorance. But even if Mary were only relevant to Christians, that would still make her far more relevant as a person to billions of people on this planet than Florence Nightingale, who personally comes nowhere near Mary's popularity, historical resonance, or cross-cultural importance. Do you think the people of the Phillipines or Iraq care about Nightingale as much as they do Mary? They don't even come close Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC) It's both, and in fact Nightingale is even more than that: she's also a pioneer in graphic design. You persistently underrate Nightingale's achievements by being overly reductive. Wollstonecraft is a thinker and writer, not a caregiver or an activist like Nightingale. It's a similar divide between theory and practice (a greater one, in fact, given that Wollstonecraft has no relationship to healthcare) that separates Edison and Tesla from Faraday and Maxwell. Of course Mary is exalted in the Quran, but Muhammad's immediate family is also central to Islam. If we're going to quote Wikipedia articles, "Fatimah occupies a similar position in Islam that Mary, mother of Jesus, occupies in Christianity." She's the daughter of Khadija, who is exalted as the first Muslim. Aisha is controversial, but that isn't all that different from how Christian denominations vary in the degree to which they venerate Mary. The phrase "even if Mary were only relevant to Christians" directly implies lack of "cross-cultural importance." The Philippines is a Catholic country, and Iraq is not covered by Google Trends, so you're not proving anything there. It's weird that you're aggressively berating me for alleged ignorance about Islam when it would appear you can't even find Iraq on a map. I don't need to put up with this: I'm out. Cobblet (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Don't try to weasel out of your previous comments. You said, and I quote, She is less relevant to Muslims than Khadija bint Khuwaylid, Aisha or Fatimah. This is just objectively false. Mary is the most exalted woman in Islam, and the most important to Islamic theology according to Muslims themselves. If there were need for a woman to represent the Muslim faith, it would be Mary. And once again, even if you accept the delusion that Mary isn't that important in Islam, she is leagues ahead in importance compared to Nightingale for billions of people on this planet. When I said Iraq, I actually meant Iran. Sorry, it's a one letter difference. Do you want to bet that the people of Iraq care about Florence Nightingale more than Mary, the most important woman in their faith? I just can't get your story straight. The suggestion that Florence Nightingale is a key representative of graphic design is about as silly and spurious a suggestion as your previous suggestion that Mary Wollstonecraft represents English literature. The truth is everything you think Nightingale "represents" is already covered by other people or articles on this list. Even if you wanted a representatitve of social care or activism there are legions of men and women that are of equal status to Nightingale that you could just as easily nominate. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Wow, so you're doubling down on this. You think Mary's more important to Islam than Fatimah, even though Fatimah's role in Islam is comparable to Mary's in Christianity. That would imply that Mary plays a bigger role in Islam than she does in Christianity. Also, nobody who gives a fig about Islamic culture confuses Iran and Iraq. In fact, never in my life have I heard anyone do that. That's like confusing the UK with the US, or Australia with Austria. I don't think I'm the weasel here. I think our previous analysis of your five factors spells out clearly our differences in opinion. I have nothing more to add. Cobblet (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC) You're deliberately obfuscating. Mary is recognized by Muslims themselves to be the most important woman in the religion. Our Wikipedia article on Women in the Quran quite explicitly says so. The Quran calls her above all other women in creation. She is, in fact, the only woman mentioned by name in the Quran. To suggest that Fatimah holds an equal place in Islamic doctrine to Mary betrays a critical misunderstanding of the Islamic religion. Furthermore, it's literally one letter. I must have looked at the map and saw Iran colored in and when writing my reply I wrote Iraq. You never actually answered my question: Do you think that, even if data for Iraq were available, Nightingale would beat Mary? Of course not. You have consistantly demonstrated an utter inability to defend your nomination. All of your arguments fall apart at the merest scrutiny, and you immediately run to accusations of sexism when someone points out the obvious flaws in your argument. We are done here. Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Here are relevant quotes from the sources the article on Fatimah cited for the assertion that her status in Islam is comparable to Mary's in Christianity: For Shi'ite commentators,... their [Muhammad, Fatimah, Ali, Al-Hasan, Al-Husayn] purity and sinlessness turns them into the Holy Five, and a certain parallelism to Christian concepts of the Holy Family – in particular between Fatima and Mary – cannot be denied. (Fitzpatrick & Walker, p. 8) Khadijah and Fatimah are the ultimate archetypes for Muslim women... it is easy to see how the cult of Fatimah has often been compared to that of the Virgin Mary. (Rogerson, p. 42) With multiple Quranic verses and hadiths pointing to the significance of [Fatimah's] standing as a central figure not only in Islam but in the history of womankind, she is among 'the great women of the worlds', alongside Mary, Asiya and Fatima's mother Khadiyah. (Abbas, p. 98) Where's the obfuscation? Meanwhile, you said: Mary is recognized by Muslims themselves to be the most important woman in the religion. Our Wikipedia article on Women in the Quran quite explicitly says so. Except that Women in the Quran#Mary (Maryam) actually says "Mary, the mother of Jesus, is one of the most important women in the Quran". Who's deliberately obfuscating now? Article on in Islam#The Virgin Mary clearly says The Virgin Mary (Maryām) is considered by the Quran to hold the most exalted spiritual position amongst women. A chapter of the Quran (Sūrat Maryam, the nineteenth sura) is named after her, and she is the only woman mentioned by name in Islam's sacred scripture; Maryām is mentioned more times in the Quran than in the Bible.[605] Furthermore, the miraculous birth of Christ from a virgin mother is recognised in the Quran., about Fatimah only says: Fātimah al-Ma'sūmah was the sister of the eighth Imam and the daughter of the seventh Imam in 'Twelver' Shī'ism. Her shrine is located in Qom, a city which is one of the most important Shī'ah centres of theology. During the Safavid dynasty, the women of this family were very active in embellishing the Shrine of Fatima Masumeh. In times of war, Safavid royal women found refuge in Qom, and likely compared their situation to that of Fatima Masumeh Article on Fatimah also says The Quranic praise for Mary in verse Q3:42 is often echoed for Fatimah through a Sahih hadith that lists Fatimah, Khadija, Asiya, and Mary, mother of Jesus, as the outstanding women of all time. Why at least here one time Fatimah is not mentioned in Quran by name? Dawid2009 (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Thanks for trying to continue the discussion in good faith. There's a difference between identifying the woman the Quran holds in the highest regard, and the women Muslims hold in the highest regard. When the Quran says "O Mary! Surely Allah has selected you, purified you, and chosen you over all women of the world" (3:42), that is in the context of the Annunciation. There is a dispute on whether the Quran means to suggest that Mary was the greatest woman of all time: see Mary in Islam#Annunciation. This dispute is reflected elsewhere in the same article: the lead starts by quoting 3:42 and calling her "the greatest of all women", but Mary in Islam#Islamic tradition says "Mary is one of the most honored figures in Islamic theology, with the majority of Muslims viewing her as one of the most righteous women to have lived, and a minority viewing her as a prophet." Muslims read not only the Quran but also hadith, one of which says that there are four great women: see your quote from the Fatimah article as well as my quote from Abbas. I regret that I forgot this hadith includes Mary, so considering her on par with others such as Fatimah is certainly reasonable. But there is no agreement among Muslims as to who is "the" greatest. See e.g., Kaltner in New Perspectives on the Nativity,[1] where the relevant paragraph on p. 176 begins: "The choice has generally come down to either Mary or Fatima as the preeminent woman of all time." Regarding your last question, while Mary is the only woman called out by name in the Quran, "Approximately 24 other virtuous women are discussed in the Quran—pious women who dedicated their lives to Allah—but instead of naming women by their first names, the Quran calls them by their family references—an Arab tradition at the time."[2] In bringing up Aisha I was recalling The Muslim 100[3] which ranks her above any other woman at #6, Khadijah at #7, and Fatimah at #11. Stowasser in Women in the Qur'an, Traditions, and Interpretation, "The Chapter of Mary" makes many of the same points: [3:42] leaves the question of Mary's status “above the women of the worlds,” and here the exegetic debate is remarkable both for its intensity and also the lack of consensus. At stake is Mary's ranking among Qur'anic women figures but also, and more importantly, in relation to the elite women of Islam, especially the Prophet's wives Khadija and A'isha and the Prophet's daughter Fatima. The problem is addressed by questioning whether Mary's preeminence is absolute (over all other women and for all times) or relative (over the women of her time). The larger number of traditions recorded in Tafsir and qisas al-anbiya literature establish, on the authority of the Prophet, that Mary and Fatima, Khadija and Asya (the Pharaoh's wife) are the best women of the world and also the ruling females in heaven; traditions on A'isha's inclusion in this group are fewer in number. While Asya's and Mary's merit is established on the basis of the Qur'an (66:11–12), Khadija's merit is seen in her great service to the Prophet's mission, and that of A'isha in her status as Muhammad's most beloved wife and a prominent authority on his legacy after his death. Popular piety has, in some fashion, settled the question of Mary and Asya, Khadija and A'isha by making all four Muhammad's wifely consorts in paradise. Indeed, it is said that Khadija's heavenly mansion will be between the houses of Mary and Asya. This leaves the question of Mary's ranking in relation to Muhammad's daughter Fatima. In Muslim piety, and here especially Shi'i piety, the connection of Mary to Fatima is such that the two figures at times appear collapsed into one. Mary was one of four miraculous midwives who assisted Khadija in Fatima's birth, and Mary also appeared to Fatima to console her during her last illness. Both were visited by angels, received miraculous sustenance during childhood and also during the isolation preceding the birth of their children, and both are believed to have shared the same miraculous qualities of freedom from menstruation and bleeding at childbirth. What most deeply binds Mary and Fatima together is the joint image of mistress of sorrows. In Sunni tradition, Fatima's suffering is mainly linked with the Prophet's death, whom of all of his children she alone survived. In Shi'i piety, she is also, and primarily, the grieving mother whose short and hard life was made bitter by the foreknowledge of the future martyrdom of her son Husayn, an event of divine redemption and cosmic significance. Although, according to the Qur'an, Jesus was persecuted and rejected by his people but not slain, Shi'i hagiography has recognized strong affinities between Jesus and Husayn as, also, between their holy mothers. Mary and Fatima, holy figures of solace and hope, are at times revered simultaneously. While some traditions reported on the authority of the Prophet award Mary and Fatima equal rank as the two reigning females in the celestial realm hereafter, most Shi'i authorities rank Fatima above Mary; indeed, Fatima is sometimes referred to as Maryam al-Kubra, “Mary the Greater.” Cobblet (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC) As for popularity in Iraq: you yourself admit that popularity is just one out of many factors to be considered, factors on which we have already laid out our respective positions. Again you conveniently forget your own principles as soon as they're used against you. I can concede that page views on the English Wikipedia shouldn't be the only criterion for determining popularity and looking at that one statistic might overstate Nightingale's strength on this point relative to Mary. But it should be still be the most relevant criterion, since this is a list for the English Wikipedia. Readership of different language Wikipedias varies by gender ratio, age profile, motivation, information need, etc. As for a hypothetical popularity contest in Iraq whose result you decided in your head? Not so relevant. But I love that this is your idea of an objective measure of comparison. Before you spout off about Islam again, maybe you should reflect on how objective you're really being. Then again, given how loudly you're willing to trumpet your own ignorance, perhaps that's a lost cause. Cobblet (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Mary de facto gets more pageviews on English Wikipedia than Nightingale. Mary de facto gets better google trends in Iraq than Nightingale and this is avialble to check. Google trends are better measure for popularity. First of all going by measure of pageviews on English Wikipedia Shia Islam gets more pageviews than Sunni Islam what makes no sense given how overhemingly Sunni Islam has more population. Would you list competitive eater ahead of Go plaeyer on the level 5 too? You do not realise how you waste your time on analysing shortsighted pageviews. Going by google trends among about 200 countries there are two where Nightingale beats Mary (Nepal and Japan). Dawid2009 (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Thanks for providing better data Dawid. I don't like the use of Google Trends because it's unclear to me how Google knows that users are searching for Jesus's mother as opposed to some other Mary. When I just search "Mary" (no qualifiers), the Knowledge Panel for Jesus's mother comes up. Does that search count towards her score on Google Trends? If it does, that's not really fair: I could just be looking for information on the given name Mary, for example. But for the sake of argument, I'm happy to concede the popularity issue in Mary's favour: I frankly didn't expect Nightingale to come out ahead even on English Wikipedia page views, and it actually surprises me how close they still are with redirects included. Popularity is one of the five factors Zelkia suggested we look at. I still think Nightingale's ahead on achievement, influence, uniqueness and variety, as I explained above (sorry if it's hard to find). Which is not to say I think Mary is in any way a bad choice for the list (I didn't participate in any of the discussions about her): just that Nightingale might be better. You know, I would've considered supporting your first suggested swap back in 2018 if it hadn't been immediately shut down by four opposing !votes, which you might have avoided had you provided a more detailed rationale as the nominator. Cobblet (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC) I agree with Zelkia that Mary is cross-cultural phenomen. People from non-Abrahamic countries know about her just as adult from western world can hear about Laozi's quote If you are depressed you are living in the past. If you are anxious you are living in the future. If you are at peace you are living in the present.. While I consider health care as something more important than Christianity or Chinese Philosophy then as person I would call Nightingale less cross-cultural phenomen than Laozi or Socrates and certainly less than Mary. The only two countries on the map where Nightingale beated Mary are Nepal and Japan but even there Mary is very hearable. For example article on Our Lady of Fatima which is subtopic of Mary gets more pageviews than article on Hikaru Genji, see: [4]. If you can call about graphic design for Florence Nightingale then we can also tell that Mary is relevant for Caodaism or the most promient Ethnic Religion by Ezili Dantor, or about Buddhists who visits city Fátima, Portugal which is associated with Mary, and use that arguments against Paul. IMHO Mary meets criteria "uniqueness" because of religious figure which is central Christianity and the most frequently studied woman in Quran is better choice for the list than Mother Theresa who surpassed Einstein in !voting process for Gallup's List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century. To answer your original reply on Zelkia's statement This is incredibly disappointing Mary's candidature failed numerous times (firstly: you said we essentially for thę same reason removed Kali): I could easly support addition of Shiva for cost of Henry who has article included into category Category:Founders of religions. IMHO Mary also meets criteria of variety but if we would consider that choice as swap with Paul. Your new point Which is not to say I think Mary is in any way a bad choice for the list is not compatibile with your original Mary still meets a baseline threshold of influence, but she is nowhere close to Nightingale in this respect., you use wasel words. You have opinion "Nightingale is better", I have "Mary is better" (literally I have: Nightingalle is incredible woman who changed history and is great in many uniques ways but Mary is better. Beetwen Mary and Nightingale there is no comprasion) and I am not going to change your opinion, but this is incredibly ignorant to say that Mary is nowhere close to Nightingale, especially that plenty people around the world would say that Nightingale is not nowhere close to Mary (not I !voted on Mother Theresa ahead of Einstein), this is incredibly disapointing to hear anyone could say that. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Yes, people from non-Abrahamic countries are still more likely know about Mary than Nightingale: that makes Mary more cross-culturally popular, in the sense that she is more prominent in the popular consciousness. That doesn't make her more cross-culturally influential. For me these are two very distinct concepts. People know about all sorts of famous people that have no impact on their lives. That is popularity, not influence. For me, influence means impact. Anybody who's been visited by a nurse, regardless of cultural background, has been impacted by Nightingale's contribution to society. That is cross-cultural influence. But if you're not a practising Christian or Muslim, just the mere knowledge of Mary being the mother of Jesus is very unlikely to have any impact on your life. That is what I mean when I say Mary is less cross-culturally influential than Nightingale, even if she is more cross-culturally popular. Now, you could say in response that you think the way I think of influence or impact is much too narrow, or that you think that popularity in terms of simple name recognition is far more important. If either of those things reflect how you think, it would then make sense that you think Mary's a lot more important than Nightingale. And you're fully entitled to that opinion: it isn't for me to say that you are right or wrong to think that way. All I'm trying to explain to you and Zelkia is why I don't see things the way you do. Sorry to disappoint you, but someday you will realize that people who were not brought up in an Abrahamic faith are going to have a perspective on things related to religion which are very different than yours. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Anybody who's been visited by a nurse, regardless of cultural background, has been impacted by Nightingale's contribution to society. - regardless of technical achivements (which is completely another point than popularity and influence TOO, Zelkia adressed all of them), anybody who has visited Europe or read Europe on map regardless of cultural background has been infuenced by Mary (=what describe or what introduce article on Mary on Wikipedia by core coverage), as there was countless number of wars in name, heritage and honour for Mary. There are countless number of things like Teutonic Order or Notre-Dame de Paris related to Mary, you can not say the same about say Da Vinci, Adam and Euve or whoever, and if Nightingale is excepted for this list then something what represent coverage of spirituality among women also is excepted to this list, and you know why. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Again, it bears repeating that I don't think Mary is a bad choice for the list at all: I have never opposed adding her to it. That being said, I assume you have seen India on a map. On that reason alone, do you consider yourself "influenced" by Hindu war deities such as Durga or Kartikeya? Are people who have been to the Americas or have seen them on a map "influenced" by Amerigo Vespucci? It might be fair to say that anyone who has attended a Catholic school has been influenced by Mary, but I think you're pushing this argument a bit far. I was born in a hospital: my mother and I owe our lives to the hygienic practices Nightingale institutionalized. Nothing that can be attributed to Mary has directly affected my life at such an existential level. Visiting Notre Dame in Paris or even attending Sunday mass at St Mark's in Venice are not fundamental aspects of my existence like the circumstances in which I was born. Maybe consider the following argument instead, which you or Zelkia have not made. People of all cultures revere female deities/holy figures as well as male ones. A list of religious figures that does not include any female figures does not reflect this cross-cultural dualism in religious practices. Mary is the best choice for a female religious figure, for reasons I'm sure you don't need me to explain. But this argument does not address the problem that people don't seem to want to add another Abrahamic figure to the list. So maybe a swap for Paul would work. But you would still have to carefully consider the comments of all the opposing !votes in the previous discussions. Cobblet (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC) @Cobblet: I whole time tried adress that argument for incusion of Mary which you mentioned above, when I said that Mary meets uniques point and when I saidWe need representation of woman in spirituality, I knew you will reach to that conclusion because of I seen earlier very similar your point about Lagos (not sure my ping worked on meta, but even here I was trying to suggest you that this is reasonable to argue having one religious woman). I am gad you said I do not consider addition of Mary as bad choice in any way and you said I don't think Mary is a bad choice for the list at all but let me else adress your point: But you would still have to carefully consider the comments of all the opposing !votes in the previous discussions, regardless there are some self-regular participants who could possibly support that swap (see for example: [5]-[6]/[7]/[8]) in terms of Catechesis there is no comprasion beetwen Paul and even Noah (Paul is more relevent to Arcana theoogy or geeks who are interested in originaty of Christianity), regardless of these five points 1achivement 2influence 3popularity 4uniquess 5variety, I would add to that yet another six point which originally I will call "competence in core coverage". In terms of parent topics we need far more topics related to Mary for the level 4 than for Paul. IMHO we certainly more need for example Annunciation, Mary in Islam (wthis is not overlaped article like Jesus in Christianity), eventually Nativity of Mary or Holy Family or Hail Mary but I can not see how we could ever add Pauline Christianity or Authorship of the Pauline epistles (I doubt we need even specific articles like Christology or Marioogy FWIW), To answer your very good analogy, thanks for that: do you consider yourself "influenced" by Hindu war deities such as Durga or Kartikeya then I could say actually somehow yes, if I am not shortsighted then I must admit that from perspective of core coverage these deities are very influencial for those peope who live in south Asia but are less influential for those people who desire to understand why these countries exist on map. IMHO this is cultural influence, not cultural popularity, cultural popularity IMHO for example could be importance of Christmas which is casual thing, not something what reflect your heritage or conscience in anyway. FWIW I would also consider Kartikeya as competitive choice for 3.5 level because of I can see how Lord Murugan Statue could be comparable for some to Black Madonna of Częstochowa even if the latter is far more famous. If I respect history then I can be able to find many things and call it culturally influential, not culturally popular, less for me, very for them. @DaGizza: In the past you made some comments on women coverage of the list. Out of curiosity what do you think about Mary and Florence Nightingale as choices for that list? Both were very infuential (both were ranked in historyextram.com far ahead of giant woman figures which are on this list like Joan of Arc or Murasaki Shibiku, let keep at it.). Mary was also highly ranked by ceoworld.biz. Splitzky originally suggested that Nightingale should be added based on she is ranked in 1000 years, 1000 people far ahead of Tagore and represent their field/human activity: [9]. I strongly agree here in almost everything what Zekia said here but my guts tells that I should support addition of Forence Nightingale if I want add Mary in future to 100 articles if anything, anyway Dawid2009 (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Why isn't John the Baptist who is important in Islam too; John the Baptist in Islam more important than many of the men? How is Johannes Gutenberg more important than a prophet of god; it would be unjustifiable to list anyone else first under this definition. But you're only applying it to women here. If Mary is the ultimate woman and " historically the most famous and well known woman to have ever lived" than why have you not put her in your 50? Especially considering you have Elizabeth and Marie Curie; or would that because we specifically have quotas to each section; which you're against here but reenforce in your own work? "because it's idiotic to think of additions to this list in terms of quotas. Why is it bad that we have so many figures from the Abrahamic faiths when they've exerted an impact on world history far more profound than any other social, political, religious, cultural, or artistic movement? Any objective measure of comparison would find Mary ahead of Florence Nightingale in terms of vitality. That people's philosophies are shortsighted enough not to see Mary's vitality does not mean that we should add Florence Nightingale as consolation because she's a woman and we need to fill some sort of quota for women" This quote from you above would also then apply to Elizabeth and Marie Curie too; but your own 50 considered quotas, so why is it bad for everyone else to consider them? To cap it off where is all the art and historical resonance for Neil Armstrong, who also beat Mary into your 50? It seems inconsistent. "we should add Florence Nightingale as consolation because she's a woman and we need to fill some sort of quota for women" this quote in particular comes across as pretty sexist to be honest; because Florence invented a pretty common field today and that perfectly fits into people we list here; the fact you see adding some women automatically as a consolation for their gender speaks volumes; even worse when you'd want Neil Armstrong on this list; who didn't invent a whole field and is less important to cultural history as a whole than Florence. Dismissing a woman who invented her whole field as being irrelevant because of overlap; but recommending Mary for giving birth to someone listed is the height of inconsistency. "quotas" are not the boogeywoman; it's a reasonable thing and a much better system than just adding "personal heros" and favs. [10] GuzzyG (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Your argument is predicated on false pretenses. What's good for a top 100 list may not be good enough for a top 50. This sort of logic applies to Mary. Mary is obviously an incredibly important figure in Christianity, definitively more important from a religious sense than both Saint Paul and Luther, but Luther and St. Paul are historically more important figures in themselves, and ones whose own achievement in their own lives surpasses Mary's, and since I do not have room for four Christian figures I could not include Mary. It may behoove you to know, however, that Mary was on my short list, and remains so, for the level 1 articles. If you have a suggested swap, I'm happy to consider it, since she is worthy of a place on the list. Curie and Elizabeth I are not religious figures, so they are evaluated according to their respective professions, science and politics respectively. Of course, I am cognizant of the fact that Elizabeth and Curie are both women, and their both being women was a factor taken into consideration when I added them. I judge articles' place depending on their importance within their own field first and formost. Quoting myself: Furthermore, what makes someone "vital" varies depending on the field of human endeavor that they represent. A musician is vital for different reasons than a scientist, who is vital for different reasons than a politician. For this reason, a person's vitality has to be measured relative to others in their field. To put it another way, this list isn't of the 500 most influential or vital human beings overall, but instead the 500 most influential human beings within their fields. To illustrate what I mean, I don't think it's controversial to suggest that Francis Crick's contributions to human civilization are far more important than Michael Jackson's music. That said, Crick is not on this list, while Jackson is. Crick's absence can be explained by the presence of 90 other scientists and inventors whose contributions are far more important than his, while Jackson is probably the single most recognized musician around the world. In summary, Francis Crick may be more vital than Michael Jackson in absolute terms, but Jackson is more vital than Crick in relative terms. However, and this is what makes me different from you, I did not added either figure because they were women. I added them because I thought their accomplishments in themselves and their fame and importance to history made them worthy of this list. Had they been men I would have added them just the same. As for your cogitations about John the Baptist, John the Baptist is nowhere near as important to either Christianity or Islam religiously or doctrinally than Mary is. I don't know what argument you were trying to make, but I'll just leave it at that. 21:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC) I suppose I should address Cobblet's mutterings. Saying that Fatima occupies a similar thematic role in Islam as Mary does in Christianity does not mean that Fatimah is as important to Islam as is Mary, who is acknowledged to be the most important woman in their faith, and the only one mentioned by name in the Islamic holy book. To quote Cobblet's sleazy point again: She is less relevant to Muslims than Khadija bint Khuwaylid, Aisha or Fatimah. This is just blatantly false, and I've been enjoying watching a worm trying to wiggle off a hook. I will once again quote the Quran directly: "O Mary, God has chosen you, and purified you; He has chosen you above all the women of creation." Aisha isn't the woman above all creation. Nor is Fatimah. Nor is Khadijah. It's Mary.Zelkia1101 (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC) I admit that I originally understated Mary's importance to Islam. However, you continue to overstate her importance. Read the sources I have quoted to you, especially Stowasser, which speaks to how the passage you're quoting (3:42) is interpreted by Muslims, and says the following: 'While some traditions reported on the authority of the Prophet award Mary and Fatima equal rank as the two reigning females in the celestial realm hereafter, most Shi'i authorities rank Fatima above Mary; indeed, Fatima is sometimes referred to as Maryam al-Kubra, "Mary the Greater."' Muslim views on Mary are not nearly as universal and clear-cut as you suggest they are, which is the essence of what I was trying to say in the first place, even if I did get the details wrong. I'm sorry for that. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @Cobblet: There are plenty places on Wikipedia which call Mary as "greatest woman of all time" in Islam and there are which carefully call Mary "one of greatest women of all time by Islam" because of Wikipedia often blow on the cold in such cases, similarly if we change article on Shakespeare "one of gratest English writers of all time" (that also would not be out of place) then that would change nothing at all here. This is not non-objective to say that "Mary generally is the most important women by muslims themself". Even user ios2019 who earlier edited evidentaly by IP from Iran (Iran is Shia, not Sunni for that matter) was the only user who supprted addition of Mary in my nomination for such small list. This source which you mentioned at special:diff/1053492761 also says: what would be one the most competitive argument for choice the most important woman in Islam. This article also does not say that Mary is less significant in non-Quranic perspective, in contrast I find there, that this is more correct to call Mary as prophet in non-Quranic perspettive if I rigtly understood. Article on Jesus in Islam on Arabian Wikipedia literally is not called as Īsā (Jesus) but Īsā ibn Maryam (Jesus, son of Mary) and at least one thing which we should not forget is fact that Jesus is the most often reffered character in Quran and one of the most often mentioned by name (see List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran). However, one reason I had to oppose removal of Moses and Abraham is fact that this is too clear Jesus has lack influence on Judaism, and Abraham and Moses have slightly higher position in Islam than Jesus (BTW note how the author use capital letter for Moses in the title but intentionally uses small letter for Moses when mention him next to Muhammad, which calls by capital letter; that should realise how relevant is fact that Muhammad called Mary as the greatest woman among all, or why this is rather difficult to argue that Asiya might be more important to Muslims than Mary). This article about the Muslim 100 which you mention above does not rank Aisha as #6 (as you said) but mention various Muslim figures in chronological order for that matter. Also, Aisha is not mentioned among four outstanding women for Islam and history by Hadiths, Asiya, mother of Moses is mentioned there. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC) The passage I quoted from Stowasser above has more to say about perceptions of these women, including Aisha. Please read it: it gives a nuanced account of the issue. I'm not sure why you think The Muslim 100 lists people chronologically when it does not. It is a ranking by influence, and Aisha is listed on page 45 at #6. Even if you cannot access the book directly, see e.g., this book review: "But he had to acknowledge the difficulties faced him if he tried to rank his 100 especially if he has chosen not to arrange them chronologically." Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I automatically assumed this list constain chronoogically Muslims figures because of such books often select people chronoogically in introduction and that some overlap with chronology slightly misleaded me, pardon me. One reason why central and important Muslim figures like Ibrahim, Isa or Maryam or Asiya are not incuded in that list fact that it was published more for "history research through last 1500~~ years" (and Muslim perspective on prophets and religious figures which which come from older religions is less directly connected to historical perspective). Similary you can find that more historical Christian figures (incuding Mary) are ahead of Abraham in that list: [11] but I the most strongly oppose removal of Abraham based on my sentence and soure few lines above. I can be OK to drop Greek Philosophy for Greek Mythology instead removing Socrates (I do not think greek mythology is more important but more worth if we have Aristotle,Plato,Socrates per Czar's earlier comments, and based on Britannica about REligiousstudy says much about Greek Mythology) and I would support swap Paul with Mary because of from purely cultural/spiritual perspective IMHO Jesus and Mary are far more important to Muslims who deeply read Quran than Paul is in any way culturally relevant for Christians (do you really think anybody from Christianity care about Paul in context of culture, closely to what any random Muslim who vistis Our Lady of Lebanon care about Mary?) Dawid2009 (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bzweebl and Dimadick: Those who previously supported the nomination of Norman Borlaug are invited to consider how many lives the 28 million nurses in the world save each and every day. Cobblet (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Sexual Intercourse

An near universal human activity and a central aspect of all human society and culture, given how it is the mechanism through which human beings continue the species. It’s importance to culture relates to complex social norms relating to sexual behavior. Consider furthermore religious proscriptions on sexual activity, social norms surrounding virginity and modesty, rules surrounding sexual ethics that regulate or prohibit fornication or adultery or incest, or the free love and sexual liberation movement. Consider legal ramifications of sexual intercourse like obscenity, rape, or age of consent. Further tied to important topics like birth control, abortion, prostitution, pornography, marriage and human sexuality. Seems odd to have AIDS, birth control or human sexuality on this list when we don’t have sexual intercourse. It is also, predictably, one of the most viewed articles on this site.

Support

1. Support as nom Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support More popular than football and board games, not that I'm suggesting their removal. Almost universal, across time and geography. Covered by human sexuality, but important enough stand alone, and gender and sexual orientation are included and also covered by that too. Many things are covered by something wider, Football by sport, Louis Armstrong by Jazz, Jazz by music. Sexual intercourse is covered by human sexuality, but I still think it is important enough. As mentioned above could be seen as odd to have AIDS before this, a sexuality transmitted disease before sex.  Carlwev  00:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support We have room now and it is tied to other topics. --Thi (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support I had on my mind to nominate it one day. Natural behaviour which is also per Carlwev argument. Except those biologial which mentions John below IMHO we also need more human-centric. Listing human sxuality on the level 2 IMHO is not overlap but argument for inclusion Sexual Intercourse here. Not sure better than wider topic Human sexual activity which has Template:Human sexual activity sidebar but sound OK, not less vital than AIDS or Birth control. I would also add birth to 1000 articles. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per above. Also at level 4, we list particular types of sex (like anal and oral) so it makes sense for the parent article to be listed at L3. Gizza (talk • voy) 06:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We already list sex (as in male or female), and human sexuality at level 2; I believe that sufficiently covers both the biological and social characteristics of sexual reproduction. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

For a bit of context, I’ve been sitting on this nomination awhile. I’ll grant there is a nontrivial amount of overlap with reproduction and human sexuality. But I’ve since reasoned that sexual intercourse’s absolute popularity across every single human society, the act itself being performed by a vast majority of humans who have reached adulthood, makes it at least as important as football, if not more since intercourse is more universal, despite the overlap. Human sexuality is also a level 2 article, so I see no harm including more articles under its umbrella. Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove Bible and Quran as well as other specific religious texts.

We have way too many articles on specific religions overall. And what's in Bible and Quran can very much already be covered by Christianity and Islam, as well as Vedas and Bhagavad Gita for Hinduism. This is not to say they are not important, these texts are just too specific and overlaps too much with the related specific religion article. I'd prefer more high level ideas in religion rather than specific one, prophet is not even covered at this level, although essential in almost every religion.

Lolitart (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Lolitart (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose the Bible and Quran are important as texts to billions of people around the world. In terms of these two works alone there is nothing quite like their singular influence in human history. Sure there is overlap with religion, but religion is such an important component of human history, culture, and society that we can have this degree of overlap. The Bible, Quran, and Vedas are also supreme works of culture that have meanings past their religious centrality. Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I'm fine with listing a handful of literary texts (why not, when we list 100+ biographies?), and religious texts are among the most influential examples. Cobblet (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose I am rather biased because I often work on Bible-related articles and categories. There is less truth in the Bible than your average fairy tale, but it has had a large impact on popular culture. Dimadick (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose as to Bible. Not really one book, more like a concept encompassing dozens of versions of a book. No opinion on Quran at this level. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose I'm open to a restructure of the religion section. We could consider replacing the texts with smaller religions to "complete the set' as it were or add generic religious concepts like prophet and pilgrimage (which I think is a better addition than Mecca) but cannot support outright removals. The religious texts have less overlap with other articles on the list (only with their parent religion/mythology). Influential scientific works for example, like The Origin of Species, overlap with the writer (Charles Darwin), the field of science (biology) and scientific concepts like evolution. The Bible is the exception as there are Biblical figures listed but Christianity is the largest religion so it seems reasonable. Overall we have 37 articles on religion and mythology compared over 200 on science, 09 on technology, 45 on mathematics, and over 40 each in the arts and health/medicine. It's not a bloated section by any means. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• To play the Devil's advocate (heh) here, we don't list any other "specific works", whether of art (like the Mona Lisa), literature (like the Iliad or Odyssey), or film (like Citizen Kane), so why should scripture be necessarily exempt from this? My gut feeling is to strongly oppose this like Zelkia, but my gut feeling was also to not add Ukraine. I'm still neutral on this, but I just wanted to point that out for now. Indeed, if we don't list Shakespeare's works since we already list Shakespeare, why not remove the Bible when we list Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Paul the Apostle? Ditto for the Quran and Muhammad, etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  If this fails (which is likely), might I suggest adding an East Asian work, most likely the I Ching? I would not be surprised if it were a former entry. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  The I Ching might actually be read more in the West than in the East. Analects is by a good margin the most vital of Chinese classics, but is redundant with Confucius and Confucianism. Cobblet (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  How about Dhammapada which is not even on the level 4 but gets interchangebly the same amount of language versions what The Analects? We are under quota at religion and philosophy now, at the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but of the "four great civilizations" (Western, MENA, South Asian, and East Asian), East Asian is the only one whose works we don't list. I get that's because of the rather peculiar nature of East Asian religion, but it does seem like a hole to fill. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Looking at the list more holistically, at least we have the Great Wall as a example of East Asian cultural heritage. Also, Chinese folk religion would be a much better addition than any East Asian text. It's no less vital than Shinto or Taoism. By "peculiar" I presume you are referring to the pluralistic and syncretic nature of Asian religious practices. That is actually a common theme across indigenous practices worldwide, which the spread of organized religions (which also have their roots in syncretism) has overshadowed but hardly eliminated. For example, Catholicism owes its vitality in many parts of Latin America to syncretism with indigenous religious practices. All this is why I've suggested adding folk religion in the past. Cobblet (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  We do list two specific works of architecture as extremely iconic examples of engineering and the visual arts. We used to list more, but we got rid of them. Cobblet (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough, although those are more physical. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

My rationale would be that the influence of religious texts like the Bible and the Quran both outstrips and is rather distinct from the influence of other traditional artistic works, which is why we allow them a place on this list. Iconic works like the Iliad, Divine Comedy, or First Folio are indirectly present on this list via each work's respective author. Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

To me, it's not so much about the religion as it is about the anonymity of the works themselves; perhaps the Epic of Gilgamesh could be listed, but it has nowhere near the staying power. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

In my eyes, the difference between the Bible or Quran and the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, is that, as far as I know, nobody living now still reveres the Epic of Gilgamesh as a religious text, whereas billions of people around the world relegate to the Bible or to the Quran the power to reveal transcendent, eternal truths. The Epic of Gilgamesh is essentially seen as a work of literature these days, which makes it more ike the Iliad than like the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelkia1101 (talk • contribs)

• Even if Epic of Gilgamesh can be important for historian researchs then I would prefer Greek Mythology which is quite wiedly mentioned in article on religious studies in Britannica. Greek Mythology revolve through origination of many names which we use today, for example planets, article on Deus#Cognates quite describe that. Due to wide relevance of Greek Mytholohy in pop cuture (for example video games which are popular in Japan) I could say that we more need Greek Mythology than Greek Philosophy if we already have Pato,Aristotle,Socrates for that matter. Another good choice for that list to religious section could be conscience, I have ambivalent thoughts do we have place to add sin and I do not know enough about East Culture to know how karma (also not listed) is vital among other concepts in those cultures. I disagree with nom, that specific reigious texts are weakest articles in religion/philosophy category, even though I would put Jesus or Muhammad ahead of Islam or Christianity on shorter list, IMHO we clearly need specific examples and are better choices than say technical article religious text. However, despite my efforst and interests, I must say I do not consider myself as authority of the subject. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• @DaGizza: Out of curiosity is there any chance to swap Bhagavad Gita for Krishna or add any other topic related with Hinduism to that list? I believe remove many Hinduism articles from that list (especially for cost Henry who is listed in category: Category:Founders of religions) was Politician's fallacy in that project because of how great is popuation of Anglicans in compratsion to Shaivism? Dawid2009 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Dawid2009: I expressed my thoughts on this issue around 8 years ago (see the archives here and here). My views haven't really changed since then. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wow, this got so heated. I got the idea as we don't list any important work of great scientific, philosophical and/or cultural importance at this level at all, so those listed religious texts stands out on its own. It's difficult for me to comprehend how Issac Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica is not as important as Bible, or One Thousand and One Nights is not as important as Quran. In the case we do decide to allow specific works to be listed at this level, we need to find an acceptable standard. The idea certain items relating to specific religions are just more important compare to other religions, as well as other subject matter, is not very encyclopedic or geographical neutral, or stands the test of time, such ideas, if put forth, should be closely examined and shall require rigorous justification, not something we should take for granted. On the other hand, many religions are not included or introduced at all, and to list multiple articles that only achieved their perceived level of importance through specific religion in stead of listing more religion feel we are biased towards amplifying the voice of the majority and diminishing those who are less represented. Lolitart (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Malaysia

This is the last country (excluding Ukraine which is currently being proposed) which I think should be on the list. Malaysia has a rather decently sized population of 32 million and a GDP of 900 billion. Geographically, it is one of the most biodiverse countries on Earth (considered megadiverse) containing many species found nowhere else on Earth, Kuala Lumpur is considered a global city and the country is a member of ASEAN. -- Maykii (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. -- Maykii (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Peru and Kazakhstan are the only other required countries IMO. Maybe Caribbean as a catch all for Jamaica and Cuba which are widely known and play a vital part in culture and it also has historical backing too with Columbus first landing in the The Bahamas and Haiti with the Haitian Revolution which is a history defining event. After these i think we're done with countries/cities locales etc. GuzzyG (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per my previous nomination. --Thi (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
5. This country is abundant in palm, and now plenty of processed foods use palm oil, and a lot of people consume them, causing deforestation in Malaysia.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Far too early. If addition of Uganda failed because of "Ghana" then Malaysia should fail because of "Central Asia" for example, but beyond that I am opposing addition of any countries or cities until we reach 995/1000 to cover our ist more carefully. I did not liked addition of Netherlands and I do not think we have room for every single country. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose since we already have Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand. I would support Caribbean and California before most if not all remaining countries, but Central Asia is not so important in the world outside of Russia and its steppes and Mongol Empire that it needs any specific representation; I would maybe support Afghanistan or Central Asia itself, but what exactly is Kazakhstan known for other than Borat? I also would be fine with Peru, but only after other countries/locales are added. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC) (EDIT: Moving to solid oppose given our remaining space after the other discussions pass; also, if biodiversity is so important, why not list Venezuela or Papua New Guinea? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC))

   What is now Kazakhstan used to be, like the other Central Asian countries, an integral part of the Silk Road; and nowadays it is more prominent than the other Central Asian countries as a component of China's Belt and Road Initiative. It is Central Asia's largest economy, and the largest country by land area we don't list. I agree that listing any Central Asian country (I would've preferred Uzbekistan) still feels somewhat marginal, but could get behind listing the region as a whole. But the vacant spots on the list are filling up very quickly. For that reason I'm staying neutral on Malaysia. Cobblet (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

   Yeah, I remain unconvinced about adding any specific Central Asian countries (land area? really?) but the region as a whole is possible, though we do list silk road and I'd still prefer Caribbean. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

3. Oppose When I try to think of cultural, political, economical and historical importance, I can't think of much for Malaysia, even though I do hear the name often. That could be purely because of my own ignorance of course and you are welcome to convince me, but to list a country because of biodiversity and participation in international organization feels a bit off. Malaysia's GDP is about the same as Philippines and Singapore, in which case Singapore would be an obvious winner due to its small size, and less impressive for Malaysia and Philippines. Lolitart (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

FWIW, we are likely going to expand to 995-996 articles (with Chicken, Sheep, Insurance, Ukraine, Domestic pig, Southern Ocean, Sexual intercourse, and maybe Florence Nightingale) based on how the current discussions are going (not to jinx it, necessarily, but still). Make of that what you will; while I do think Malaysia is one of the "top 5" missing geography articles, it's not number one in my view and I want to leave some space for non-geography. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove Bengali language, add Persian language

We currently have two languages from the Indian subcontinent, Hindustani and Bengali. I think Hindustani is enough to represent that particular region of the world. Bengali, though a popular language, is pretty much contained to its traditional homeland in and around the Bengal region, and in diasporic immigrant communities.

Persian is spoken today by fewer native speakers than Bengali, but historically and culturally it is the more important language, at least in my view. Its ancestor language, Old Persian, was spoken by the Achaemenid Empire of Cyrus the Great, and was the language of Zoroastrianism. Persian was later spoken by the Sassanids and the Safavids, two great powers of their own. For thousands of years the language had been used as a prestige or administrative tongue all around Central and Western Asia, and was in direct contention with Arabic as the language of the Muslim faith throughout much of the Muslim world; whereas Arabic was reserved for religious matters during much of the second millenium, Persian was the language of literature and science. Think of classic Persian authors like Rumi or classic Persian texts like the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam or the Shahnameh. Also consider the importance of Persian-speaking intellectuals like Avicenna and Al-Ghazali. Persian developed as an intellectual, bureaucratic, and literary language from Tajikistan to Ottoman Turkey to Egypt.

Among the Indo-European families we list two Indo-Iranian languages: HIndustani and Bengali. Both of these languages are part of the Indo-Aryan languages, so it would be nice to have a member of the Iranian side of the family.

Support addition

1. Support as nom Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

   Support addition per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

2. Support addition I support Persian because there's major historical and cultural backing to Persian itself. We list Rumi; who should not be listed before his language and if anything, should be swapped for Persian if we don't want another addition. Pretty sure Hafez might be more important anyway. Sign language and Egyptian hieroglyphs are the only other language topics suitable for this list IMO. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
3. The addition, since a lot of literary classics were written in Persian, and it was the literary language of the Ottoman Empire (cf. languages of the Ottoman Empire).--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition Thought Turkish would be better as part of global Language system, per my comments in the Archives. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose addition

1. Cobblet (per below) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
2. John M Wolfson (per below) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support removal

1. Zelkia1101 (as nom) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose removal

1. Oppose Bengali has so many more speakers than Persian (3–4 times as many, I believe) that I cannot support the removal. I'd put Persian ahead of other Indo-Aryan languages with a greater number of speakers for the reasons given by the nominator, but I'm not sure I'd put it ahead of Sanskrit, Hebrew or Tamil. Among living languages the only one I would definitely support adding is Swahili, to give Niger-Congo languages (largest family by number of languages, third largest by number of speakers) a specific representative. Cobblet (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

   Among living languages the only one I would definitely support adding is Swahili. Swahili is already on this list. Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose removal Top 5 language by the amount of speakers [12]; we would be odd if on a language list we didn't cover the top 5 languages spoken. Only thing a removal would do is set up a future Tagore removal and Tagore clearly shows that Bengal does have a cultural backing. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
3. The removal, since there are significantly more speakers of Bengali than French (cf. List of languages by total number of speakers), Bengali should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC) added some words and altered capitalization a little 07:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC) removed a "thus" 08:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal Per RekishiEj. Bengali also has more speakers than German and Japanese put together. We even do not list any German writer on this level but we have Tagore. Also, every Language which has more native speakers than number of users of [[Cyrylic Script] is more vital than Tolstoy.Dawid2009 (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal per discussion, now also opposing addition if we don't list Sanskrit. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I'm conflicted on removal; if India needs two languages, I would rather the second language be non-Indo-European, probably Tamil, but I believe this would make Bengali the only Top-10 world language not listed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Though I wouldn't push for it, I also wouldn't be opposed to the addition of Tamil if a consensus developed around it. Tamil at least comes from a unique, non-Indo-European language family, and represents a far more distinct literary, linguistic, historical and cultural tradition than does Bengali when set against Hindustani. I'm not sure Tamil is a colleague of English or French or Arabic as a level-3 language, but again I wouldn't oppose its addition on this list. Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Caribbean

We are likely going to expand to 995-996 articles without Malaysia. I think this therefore leaves only ~1 geography article we could reasonably add in addition to Southern Ocean. I oppose adding Malaysia because while it's certainly "top 5" in missing geography articles I don't think it's number one. As for what is "number one", I'd rather add Caribbean than any remaining country. It has cultural influence with reggae and jerk food, and history with Columbus, Rum, and Haiti as said by GuzzyG earlier, and in my mind has the "marginal" advantage over Malaysia since we already list several other southeast Asian countries but not so many Western-Hemisphere areas outside of the big countries. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Central America also comes to mind as a region which would probably be just vital if it was one country but Central America is partially covered in history with Mesoamerica and Maya civilization. The Caribbean is not covered at that level of detail in history so it's higher up the pecking order. There is also Central Asia to consider but it would be awkward adding Central Asia without adding other parts of Asia. Gizza (talk • voy) 04:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Influential region in both culture and history; per everyone else too. GuzzyG (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  12:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Support a good region with lots of history, culture and tradition worth covering Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The Middle East has been listed on L3 for a long time and as far as regions go, it is definitely up there. But it was included before we added more Middle Eastern countries. Now that we have Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Egypt, it may not be necessary to keep it. Iraq might be the only remaining country in the region which has a shot in the 1,000. Syria and Yemen are probably just outside and the others are further behind. Gizza (talk • voy) 04:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal on V-1

For those not watching that particular page I've proposed at Level 1 to expand it by a few. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Diesel fuel

I know that diesel is a disambiguation page, yet diesel is as widely known by laypeople as gasoline, and diesel exhaust is definitely a human carcinogen, thus this fuel should definitely be added.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not as widely used or vital as gasoline, and redundant to petroleum. I would rather add kerosene, but even that is not particularly important here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I don't think even gasoline is all that vital. I wouldn't mind swapping it for oil refinery. Cobblet (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose it doesn't look like diesel fuel is even listed at Level 5 yet. I would support it at Level 5, would have to think about it at Level 4 but strongly oppose it at this level. Not close to the top 1,000. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
   1. @DaGizza:I've added diesel fuel to the Level 5 list. That list used not to have it, which surprised me a lot.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose even at level 4 I'd prefer diesel engine. Just not vital enough for this level, clearly less vital than gasoline or oil refinery. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Man and Woman under gender, human sexuality

the concepts are pretty well explained by gender and human sexuality. It would be unexpected if anyone would be able to expand Man and Woman to go beyond those already in those aforementioned articles, we also already have Human as well. Lolitart (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Lolitart (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Wu Zetian

arguably a female figure of much higher historical importance than Florence Nightingale. Cixi is comparable, but I'd say not as powerful and she was only a regent while Wu Zetian was the actual sovereign. Lolitart (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom - Lolitart (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support but only as swap with weak politician leader, for example Henry. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• @Loliart:This woman is part of moratorium my omnission, I admitDawid2009 (talk) so can be added only as swap, for next six months, as her candidature (unfortunetly) recently failed. (let make nomination to remove for example Heny/Akbar/Mansa Musa or Joan of Arc/Elizabeth/Shibiku). I think she should be definietly added as she is by far wealthiest woman, maybe person ever: [13]. Except your rationale for addition also the only woman emperor in hina history, Shibiku seems has isolated impact and yet not so promient in Japan, IMHO.Dawid2009 (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Wu Zetain is actually part of the moratorium, since she's not on the list at the top of the talk page. Zelkia1101 (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Zelkia is correct; Wu is not part of the Moratorium since she is absent from the list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not per se opposed to Wu Zetain's addition on this list. In terms of importance to history, level of technical achievement, and relevance to modern users she outstrips Florence Nightingale far and away. She is probably the most powerful sovereign China has ever had, and likely the second most important behind Qin Shi Huang, all of which is incredibly impressive given that she's the sole woman to have ever ruled the country. However, I am against additions of any new biographies on this list until we've gotten our numbers down to 100. Ideally Wu would be a swap with someone else on this list. I'm going to remain neutral for now. Zelkia1101 (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Add bear and wolf

Both have been culturally vital, and hunting of them has been existent since prehistory.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Vertebrates, especially mammals, are already far overrepresented in animals. Bear might have some merit space permitting, but we would also need to add lion to balance out the dog-like and cat-like carnivores. Wolf, in any event, is adequately covered by dog in my opinion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Per my Below comment in sectin about Eagle. I do not feel we need more mammals but Elephant would be certainly first choice for first mammal which is neither pet or agriculture stuff. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Possibly we could add something like Charismatic megafauna as a collective term, but we don't have room for these individually. If we add both of these, we would surely need Lion and Elephant and more. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add eagle

This type of creatures has been culturally vital, and is a symbol of the U.S.A.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This is even symbol of country where I currently live (see Coat of arms of Poland) but personally I would support history of life ahead of every animal, for now. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Per the wolf/bear discussion; we already list too many vertebrates compared to invertebrates, plants, or prokaryotes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
3. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Turkish language

Support

1. As nom. Although significantly less popular than Telugu nowadays, historically Turkish was more vital since in the past madrassahs tend to teach Turkish, Persian and Arabic (cf. Ğabdulla Tuqay) rather than, say, Telugu.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support One of 13 supercentral languages in this theory and selection: [14]. More vital than say Divine Comedy or Murasaki Shibiku. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I could possibly see Turkic languages, but they're not really vital either. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Telugu language

Support

1. As nom. Because it is currently the fastest-growing language in the United States, it is absoltely vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. While I do appreciate your enthusiasm in proposing additions, I wouldn't add the fastest-growing language in the world, much less the United States. I could maybe see Tamil, but that's not particularly vital either. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I do not think we need any language from India other than Hindustani which covers Hindi and Punjabi, even if there are many significant non-indoeuropeans. Is this language really more significant than Italian? We for Long time had Divine Comedy and Macciaveli's The Prince at this level. Not to suggest I support addition of Italian but I just say how big is rivalry among many not listed languages/candidates for this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
3. The rationale provided by nom is not one that credibly supports adding an article at this level. We don't have room for 4 articles on Dravidian languages at this level, and there's no compelling reason to just list Telugu. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above but strongly oppose the rationale. Being a fast growing language in the United States is not a reason for vitality. Gizza (talk • voy) 09:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

@Luizpuodzius:

Nuclear transmutation in the level 3? 187.20.16.23 (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Not even at level 5, so no. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove Frida Kahlo and Hokusai

These two artists being on the list does not make logical sense. At least one of them should be removed, considering if Kahlo and Hokusai are there, why are they each more important or unique compared to Vincent van Gogh, Monet, Salvador Dali, Raphael and so on? Individually, they pale in comparison to the other individuals listed as important on this article (e.g. Mao or Washington); how are they in the top 112 most important people of all time? All of the artists I listed as examples, in addition to many more, should have to be added to this article if Kahlo and Hokusai stay. They both were highly influential, but not at an international level then or now to the degree of Leonardo da Vinci, Rembrandt, or Pablo Picasso. Hokusai is little known to the vast majority of people today, outside of maybe Japan, and is almost exclusively well known for The Great Wave off Kanagawa. If he is left here, why not add Grant Wood for American Gothic, or Botticelli for The Birth of Venus, since they are mostly known today for just those works specifically. You could say that Rembrant, Michelangelo, Picasso or da Vinci were mostly only known for certain paintings, but they had a much larger influence on art, then and now, than Hokusai did (wood prints went out of fashion) and Kahlo (mostly influenced art in Mexico specifically and has had much less of a historical impact). Bill Williams 20:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Support removing Kahlo

1. As nom. Bill Williams 20:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose removing Kahlo

1. We need female artists, and Kahlo fits the bill perfectly. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

   So the sole reason of her being there is that she is female? Do we need to add female religious figures, say Aisha? Do we need to add businesswomen, say Oprah Winfrey? That is not a reason for having her unless it is applied to the entirety of the list. She is not in the top 100 most important people of all time just because she is a woman. Bill Williams 20:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

   To an extent I agree with you, but it's not good to have only ten or so women on a list of 100+ influential people. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

   I agree with Mr. Wolfson, We need female, Hispanic, socialist, and minority artists in general. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 21:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

   I already addressed female and non-Western (minority) but socialist? What does that have to do with her being in the top 100 most important people of all time, let alone top six artists. Lenin? Pot? Kim? Hoxha? I could list dozens of far more influential "socialists." Bill Williams 21:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

   I agree completely, but that means we should add people like J. K. Rowling if you want more female authors, or Cleopatra if you want female leaders. Kahlo is no where near as important as them and should not remain on this article at the same level as Jesus or Marx. Bill Williams 20:46, 11

2. Oppose Everyone here knows my desire to get down to 100 biographies, but I don't think Hokusai and Kahlo are the right ones to cut. Both are incredibly aesthetically, culturally, and historically important as artists. I think there could be a case for cutting both, but articles like Godel and Noether have to go first before I can consider that case. Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose The list needs both someone who represents the struggle for women to be taken seriously in the arts as a whole (not just visual art), and someone who represents the cultural output of Latin America. Kahlo is iconic in both respects, as well as being one of the very best internationally known modern artists.[15][16] Cobblet (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Frida Kahlo is the most viewed painter on this site behind Da Vinci. [17]. Nearly 70 million compared to 65 for Van Gogh; [18] and 63 for Picasso [19]. Clearly the most dominant woman in visual arts history and that means something for this list. We list Michael Jackson in music under the same thing. GuzzyG (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Incredibly influential artists. This list has already declined in quality in recent months, with too many biographical articles missing. Dimadick (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Support removing Hokusai

1. As nom. Bill Williams 20:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose removing Hokusai

1. Japanese woodcut art is significantly aesthetically and historically, and Hokusai represents it prototypically. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

   How does that qualify him for the top six artists of all time? The same can be applies to 100 other artists, again, e.g. Dali, Wood, Boticelli, Gogh, Monet etc. Bill Williams 20:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

   All of those are western, and we ought to have some non-Western artists. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Him being non-Western does not make him as significant as any of the artists on this page. The vast majority of the population has never heard his name before, only seen his one hit wonder woodcut, and again there are plenty of one hit wonder artists. Bill Williams 20:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, every single musician listed here is Western. Should we add some little heard of musician from a randomly chosen non-Western country just for the sake of having one non-Western musician? Bill Williams 21:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

1. Oppose Everyone here knows my desire to get down to 100 biographies, but I don't think Hokusai and Kahlo are the right ones to cut. Both are incredibly aesthetically, culturally, and historically important as artists. I think there could be a case for cutting both, but articles like Godel and Noether have to go first before I can consider that case. Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose Nobody with even a basic understanding of 19th-century European art would be unaware of Hokusai's influence on Van Gogh (see Japonaiserie (Van Gogh), and note that Hokusai was one of only two Japanese artists named by Van Gogh in his letters[20]), Monet (anyone who's been to Giverny has seen his collection of Hokusai prints[21]), Toulouse-Lautrec (a printmaker himself, whose use of colour and line and depiction of character in his own prints is lifted straight from Hokusai and Hiroshige[22]), and countless other Paris-based artists in the 19th century. See also Japonisme#Artists influenced by Japanese art and culture. Hokusai is precisely an example of an artist with massive international impact. Van Gogh himself: "Japanese art is something like the primitives, like the Greeks, like our old Dutchmen, Rembrandt, Potter, Hals, Vermeer, Ostade, Ruisdael. It doesn’t end."[23] Cobblet (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Strong influence on 19th century art is obvious. Per Cobblet. GuzzyG (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per Above. Also, Hokusai had significant Impact on pop Culture. For example Mount Fuji is more famous in Europe and World thank to him. After removing him we would have only Shibiku among Japanese on this list. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Incredibly influential artists. This list has already declined in quality in recent months, with too many biographical articles missing. Dimadick (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Comment I acknowledge that they are both important historically and culturally, but seriously look at the big picture. This article is for the 100 most important people of all time. They are no where near the top 100. You cannot possibly claim that they have been more influential on the world than thousands of others who do not make the top 100. e.g. Lovelace or Jobs to name a few. Their contributions to art that people occasionally look at for a few seconds is incomparable to the computers that hundreds of millions of people use for hours each every day, and the same applies to numerous other inventions. At this rate, the list will grow from over 100 to over 200 instead of being cut down to 100 as intended. Bill Williams 23:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I kept neutral on Kahlo because of I do not believe woman painter (even if uniquely is adding represention for region of Latin America) is more needed than say "woman religious figure" but personally I do not see how this is not reasonable to argue that Hokusai is one of 100 the most important biographies on the Wikipedia. Except historical influence FAQ says also something on diversity. Akira Kurosawa surpassed Mao in Asian of the Century (Kurosawa proved that is dominant and outstanding in his field, Mao not), so personally I think it is reasonable to argue that painter who infueced Van Gogh somehow fits to that list, even if still may be better candidates than Kalo and Hokusai to that list (in other fields than painting) Dawid2009 (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Chinese folk religion

The discussion regarding removing the Bible, Quran, etc. made me think that Chinese folk religion might be a good addition to the list. It is rather similar to Hinduism, in that both are an eclectic mishmash of various regional and local beliefs and practices; Chinese didn't generally have a single word for "religion", and dharma has a similar imprecise translatability. The main difference arguably came in the 19th and 20th centuries; Hinduism became a collective identity in opposition to British rule, and China became state atheist and aggressively secular in the 20th century. Even with that, however, almost three quarters of the Chinese population maintain some traditional religious practices. Sure, one can certainly argue that Chinese folk religion is redundant to both Taoism and Confucianism, but it covers a bit more than that and we do list Christianity, Islam, and their main branches (Catholicism, Protestantism, Sunni, Shia, etc.).

Support

1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
2. per nom. Bill Williams 21:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Per nominator who brought that nomination per feedback in earlier discussions. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support just because we have too many Christianity articles on the list, and the consensus seem not to be removing any, thus to be consistent we'd have to list more articles about other religions. Lolitart (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Support along same lines as several above, and for their extremely enduring historic role. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
6. Support I would also support adding Traditional African religions for broadly similar reasons, except that there is less overlap between the existing articles and traditional African religion, which makes its case stronger IMO. Gizza (talk • voy) 09:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
7. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per the second line of the article Vivienne Wee described it as "an empty bowl, which can variously be filled with the contents of institutionalized religions such as Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, the Chinese syncretic religions". All of the aforementioned religions are already listed, so there is no need for this article about an empty bowl to be listed as well. Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

We do not, in fact, list the "Chinese syncretic religions", which this nom would do. Also, Buddhism is just as much, if not more, a South Asian religion as a Chinese/East Asian one. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You misread the quote. Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism are the Chinese syncretic religions. The author of the quote isn't referring to a separate syncretic religion, rather the author is saying that Chinese folk religion is a syncretic hodgepodge of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism. Since all three of these religions are present there is no need to list Chinese folk religion. You may wish to consult the article you have nominated, which goes over this very fact in more detail. Zelkia1101 (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Much of Chinese religion focuses on such concepts as Qi and Shenism, which are not particularly covered by either Confucianism or Taoism despite being of some importance to the latter. Indeed, Chinese mythology is a separate body that undergirds those two religions/philosophies, especially in cosmological concepts, and CFR has its own "part of a series on" infobox, just like Taoism and Confucianism do. While I agree there's overlap between the three, listing CFR would be akin to listing both Christianity and Catholic Church, which we already do. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the author of the quote meant that all of Chinese religious practice traced its origins from the three religions listed, but I also don't think that Qi and Shenism are important enough for Chinese folk religion the article to have a place on the 1000 most important Wikipedia articles, especially given the great deal of overlap with other articles we already have listed. Furthermore, I don't think the comparison with the Catholic Church is accurate. Chinese folk practices are typically decentralized and unorganizational, whereas the Catholic Church is probably the single most powerful institution in all of human history, and the organization itself is supremely important for historical reasons beyond its status as a branch of Christianity. Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

We also list Protestantism, which is likewise more decentralized than Catholicism, as well as Hinduism as listed above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

We list many decentralised stuff in religion section, we also list Shinto as non-organised regional religion for East. Major argument for inclusion of Henry to that list was "Anglicanism in England" , this bizarre nonsense clearly speak for itself, on meta he has been rejecteda as "too niche" and indeed number of Christians in China has been larger ages ago than number of Christians in England. People want to block possiblity to add Abraham in Islam to the level 4 by removing Abraham from the level 3 but compare how great Eid al-Adha (important and infuential holy day for Abraham in Islam) has google trends in comprasion to those two Tudors: [24], even in English language countries like Canada or South Africa, beyond season too. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

If what Wee meant by that quote (I suspect she's being quoted out of context) is that all Chinese religious practices derive from the organized religions she lists, she is clearly mistaken. The traditional veneration of ancestors (exemplified in e.g., the Qingming Festival, a public holiday in officially secular China), Mazu, Guan Yu, Fulushou, and a whole slew of other Chinese gods and immortals owes nothing to the organized religions listed by Wee, even if those religions (especially Taoism) have sometimes tried to co-opt aspects of these traditional practices. Countless people burn joss sticks at temples without self-identifying as a Taoist or Buddhist. Cobblet (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Cleopatra, Remove Hatshepsut

Random female ruler of Egypt who did nothing notable, versus the final Ptolemaic ruler who played a major role in the end of the Roman Republic and beginning of Roman Empire, and continuing influence on culture today.

Support

1. As nom. Bill Williams 21:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal per previous discussion, but I don't expect it'll gain traction per the results of that dicussion. (NOTE: this does not fall under the moratorium since it's a swap.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

   But Cleopatra also was very recepty failed. Would not br swap Amundsen with Gagarin failed Under moratorium? Or Mansa Musa for Battuta? I think so... Dawid2009 (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

   @Dawid2009: As I said below, Cleopatra was merely brought up during the Hatshepsut proposal by some !voters, and the swap was never officially/formally proposed. I'll close this under the moratorium if and only if someone other than Cobblet says that it does not exempt swaps in general, but Cleopatra is not on the moratorium list regardless. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

3. Support removal In the spirit of getting our biographies down to 100. I don't see what sets Hatshepsut apart from other women pharoahs like Nefertiti, Sobekneferu, or Merneith. Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose addition There's consensus that Cleopatra is "merely famous" and not really encyclopedic/vital, and I believe she is already covered by Julius Caesar and Augustus. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Then Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Paul, and Muhammad are already covered by Bible and Quran according to that logic. Bill Williams 21:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Out of these four Five only Paul is almost fully redundant to Bible if not more than enough. Moses even is nowhere near quite enough covered by Quran, Bible and a Talmud. Also these texts are not so important as other users are saying here. Plenty Catholics traditions have nothing to do with Bible and Muslims also read Hadiths. I would put Jesus far ahead of Christianity on Shorter list. Dawid2009 (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

1. Oppose addition Cleopatra isn't a bad choice at all. Certainly better than Florence Nightingale. But it's going to be no new biographies for me until we get down to 100 biographies on this list. Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose both the addition and the removal per the identical previous discussion that was closed less than two months ago. Cobblet (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per quotes from another attempted removal "I agree on the big pop culture name, however Hatshepsut's political and historical influence is far greater. She actually ruled Egypt, built the great Mortuary Temple among others, sent an expedition to the Land of Punt, re-established lost trade routes and is generally regarded by Egyptologists as one of the most successful pharaohs, who left behind a prosperous country. Nefertiti was Akhenatons wife, who, according to some scholars might have briefly ruled Egypt. However, Amarna was abandoned anyway and the old Pantheon restored" [25]; Cleopatra has too much overlap with Caesar and did nothing world changing on her own. This should be under the moratorium too as this discussion was pretty much for a swap and rejected. [26] GuzzyG (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose, moderately addition, and strongly oppose removal. This swap rather is part of moratorium IMHO, both were recetly quite discussed (unlike Greek Mythology) but I would oppose this normalny. The longest running Pharaoh versus wealthiest woman ever lived after Wu Zeniten? I think the later still is by far more vital and influential and we probably do not have place to list both if we already list Ramzes. Also, in all honestly Hatsheput is one of two Women which I would put ahead of Marie Curie, Cleopatra is nowhere near to them IMHO. Dawid2009 (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal Hatshepsut established new trade networks and funded missions to the Land of Punt. That would make her more significant than trivial figures, like George Wasghington. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Why does this proposal not fall under the moratorium? The original proposal we !voted on made no exception for swaps. And in fact, swapping Hatshepsut for Cleopatra was discussed at the same time as the removal of all the other politicians which are now on the moratorium list. So I don't see why Cleopatra isn't on the list to begin with. Cobblet (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I interpreted Other biographical articles, whether currently on this list or as a proposed addition, are exempt from this. to exempt swaps, as well as Gizza's comment that though I think proposed swaps where the removal on its own was discussed and the addition is new should be allowed, because the proposal as a whole is different. to not provide for sufficient consensus to ban swaps; in any event, nobody objected to the wording of the Moratorium section at the top exempting them. Also, assuming swaps are allowed, the Cleopatra/Hatshepsut swap was discussed but never actively proposed unlike Meiji/William or Ibn Battuta/Mansa Musa, so Cleopatra does not fall under this list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The swap was actively proposed: there were three !votes supporting it and at least one opposing (apart from me, Guzzy also seems to have meant to oppose the swap). I still don't see why Cleopatra's exempt from the moratorium. And are you telling me I can reopen discussion on removing Socrates by proposing the addition of any other biography not on the moratorium list (or even a non-biography like Greek mythology) as a swap? I don't think that's what we !voted for: "No more discussion of the relevant biographies, or bulk removing biographies, for the next six months." Cobblet (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The swap was not actively proposed: I proposed only the removal of Hatshepsut, and other !voters decided to state whether or not Cleopatra should be added without it ever having been formalized like Mansa Musa became with Ibn Battuta. Simply being brought up in a !vote, or even several !votes, in an unrelated discussion is inadequate to be on the list. In any event, with the quotes I gave above and the remainder of the discussion, I interpreted the spirit of the moratorium to exempt swaps (which, yes, would allow for a Socrates/Greek mythology or Abraham/Abrahamic religions swap), and it is generally better to interpret these things rather leniently given Wikipedia's proclivity for discussion. That said, I don't want to relitigate the moratorium discussion in the first place, and if one other person disagrees with this interpretation I'll close this discussion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean when you say the Mansa Musa proposal was "formalized" but this one was not. If by "formalize" you mean "put Mansa Musa in the title of the discussion", that only happened when you closed that discussion. Since the swap for Cleopatra didn't pass, we never "formalized" it. I don't mind the moratorium being interpreted leniently, but this exact swap of Hatshepsut for Cleopatra has clearly been proposed already, and I thought the whole point of enacting the moratorium was so that we could talk about something else for a change. Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean stuff like courtesy pinging those who had !voted before Cleopatra had been brought up (myself and Thi, for two), creating "support/oppose swap" sections as had been done for Battuta/Musa, or otherwise explicitly asking people whether they wanted the swap, which was never brought up except by various !voters in their respective individual !votes. That none of these avenues (likely) were taken because it was likely to fail is irrelevant in my judgement, and I am therefore firm that Cleopatra is exempt from the moratorium regardless of whether swaps are (even if she's unlikely to be added). I agree that the moratorium is there to give us more time to discuss other stuff, which I think it does fairly well especially since it has already nipped a discussion in the bud. There are several non-biographical discussions above you can contribute to, and this and Nightingale are the only two bio discussions so far. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a lot of after-the-fact qualification for what seemed like a straightforward proposal: "No more discussion of the relevant biographies, or bulk removing biographies, for the next six months." I'll leave it at that. Cobblet (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment sorry for the confusion, I had no knowledge of the moritorium before I created this discussion. I just want to say that although I recognize Hatshepsut's contributions, there is no possible way she can be listed at the same level of importance as stuff like History of Africa or Bone... Same applies to Kahlo and Hokusai from my other discussion. Bill Williams 06:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

No biography is on the level of bone and History of Africa. Kahlo is the most dominant woman in visual arts and Hokusai most dominant Eastern artist. Hatshepsut arguably most important ancient woman leader. All three qualifications qualify them on a list of this level. Would you put Disney on the level of History of Africa? Without fame, what makes animation more important than Eastern arts as a whole? more than the most dominant woman artist? Most dominant woman ancient leader? Or would you rather 5th or so best men in these categories? If you don't see those qualifications as vital or some kind of exception; that's on you - but they perfectly fit here compared to some other names we list - the fact that only bios that ~could~ be seen as solely diversity picks to a random person are the ones in question and not the many pop culture topics (Michael Jackson on the level of bone?) can only make it seem that some kind of bias towards the so called "diversity" picks is at play here and that bias should not play a part into what we list. GuzzyG (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Michael Jackson isn't important simply because he is Western, male, or black, but for his lasting legacy on music, which is why he is in this article. Again, tell my why Kahlo and Hokusai are somehow in the top six artists but not Raphael, Monet, van Gogh, Dali, etc. You cannot possibly tell me that Kahlo has had a larger effect on the world than van Gogh... And Hatshepsut? She was a woman, yes, but Cleopatra was also an extremely noteworthy woman, and so were numerous other women throughout "ancient' history, e.g. Nefertiti. Having articles here for the supposed sake of diversity is absurd, considering you have one Mexican artist and one Japanese artist but not one from the other 32 countries in Latin America or the other 47 countries in Asia. Having people in the article simply to have "diversity" isn't even a characteristic in the rules of this article... If it is, or should be, then please tell me the specific amount of people from each continent, who speak each language, are each gender, are each race etc. that should be on this article, otherwise your point is moot. Bill Williams 06:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

He was directly added to represent 20th century American pop culture and pop music. (so same thing, added to represent a area of human not covered). Richard Wagner has had more of a effect on music total and Arnold Schoenberg on 20th century music academically; Bob Dylan too. But Wagner and Schoenberg are covered by the Big 3 and Dylan by the Beatles. Raphael is covered by Michelangelo and Da Vinci, since Hokusai influenced Monet and Van Gogh he is in place for them and Picasso makes Dali irrelevant. This is how we have done this list; so it's not filled with overlap based on fame. I get you may want this list to be based on fame rather than any technical achievement in the world (even though Kahlo again is the most viewed pure painter, only behind Da Vinci total; so clearly just as famous and as strong a importance to our readers and yes deserving among the top 6 artists); but if you can't tell the difference between Hatshepsut's actual influence on leadership of her country and compare her to Cleopatras love affair or a bust; then i think we have completely different expectations for this list; i don't agree with the tabloid fame approach. This should be on actual influence IMO, not just having a famous lover or bust. GuzzyG (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I get what you mean. I was considering the perceived effect that most people consider these individuals to have had on the world, or how many people know about them or have seen what they did, as opposed to the actual effect of their actions. You make a good point that the real effects should be weighed more. Bill Williams 07:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bill Williams: I think definietly both points should be take into account, not only "effect of their actions" but also "preceived effect that most people consider these individuals to have had on the world", though we need to remember that importance is rather not "very pure fame, with no impact on heritage". We generally try somehow analyse both these points and we have few people with weaker technical achivement (like Magellan or the Jackson) ahead of Cai Lun or Jonas Salk. I did not opposed Cleopatra to dimish her historical resonance but IMHO she quite does not fit if we already have Ramzes and Hatshepsut for Anciant Eghypt area. I could reconsider swap if her or Nefertiti cultural impact was at least higher than say Martin Luther's Junior King, there are few not listed biographies with better google trends [27], also probably overlap with Ceasar and Augustus would not be fair if we even do not have Constantine who for example introduced Sunday as day free from job. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, I apologize for being uneducated on the content of the vital article classes. Bill Williams 11:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bill Williams: No apologies needed. Everyone is welcomable to participating here, and I even ask you to add VA into your watchlist as more participant is better for that rather smaller project. I gave you earlier ping because of this is common thing everyone has diffrent views on definition of vitalness here, this was even discussed earlier here. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for letting me know. I appreciate the positive feedback. Bill Williams 11:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Fur and Ivory

Unlike meat, this might be an example of where the product is, in fact, more vital than the animal. Fur was ubiquitous for clothing in cold climates, its trade spurred settlement and development of North America, and it remains a fashion statement and a controversial political issue. Ivory was similarly ubiquitous in circumstances where a hard material that was neither wood nor metal was needed prior to the development of plastics, has several artistic uses and is aesthetically and culturally significant (both in its own right and as a symbol of the upper classes, c.f. Ivory Tower), and its trade remains a prominent threat to wildlife and illegal in many countries. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I would list cotton, a textile material with both widespread historical and current relevance, before fur. For similar reasons I would also list porcelain before ivory. I would also list diamond before ivory: the diamond trade remains highly lucrative but is just as notorious as the wildlife trade (blood diamond, conflict resource). Both ivory and diamond are covered to an extent by jewellery. I also think cosmetics, which can be a luxury good but at the same time is relevant to everyone, is a better choice than any of the other articles I've suggested here. Cobblet (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Fur is nowadays luxury material and ivory is not as vital as Elephant. --Thi (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

   I still think ivory is more vital than elephant. The very word "elephant" derives from an ancient word for ivory (vice versa for "ivory"), and elephants are not particularly relephant (heh) to human history outside of ivory and its trade. Given that we already have a huge bias towards vertebrate species, if we had to choose between the two I would much prefer ivory, even if there are good reasons against it detailed above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

   I disagree with ivory being the only reason elephants are significant. They have been working animals like oxen and mules for thousands of years, used in warfare like horses and also have cultural significance where they are native to the region, i.e. in Africa and parts of Asia. Gizza (talk • voy) 06:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

   Perhaps, but so have cattle and horses to a much larger extent in those regions, and we do already list a lot of vertebrate species, so I'd still list ivory for if nothing else marginal considerations. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

3. Oppose addition of Ivory Largely per Cobblet. I'm still ruminating over the addition of fur, but cotton ought to come first. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Thinking out loud about stuff.... I'm thinking about these, they aren't bad, but I'm not sure. I'm thinking about bone vs skeleton above, bone could cover the material, although the more I read the article on ivory does not contain the word bone, and the bone article doesn't mention ivory. From an expensive material POV, we have gold and silver, but we don't have gemstone or diamond here, they might seem higher importance maybe? We list hunting, the usual method of obtaining these. We have fashion. From a clothing POV I've been thinking about the article on shoe. from a natural material hunting POV been thinking about Palaeolithic and Neolithic. From a biology POV the article on hair covers fur and hair in more depth, kind of, but not as much history of fur trade. Also, we have dentistry, would tooth be better, could cover tusks and ivory, tooth and human tooth are two separate articles though.... Carlwev  16:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm also undecided. Leaning support on Fur and oppose on Ivory. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Cosmetics

Per my comments in the fur/ivory discussion above. I think it's just as vital as jewellery. The history of cosmetics spans everything from ochre body paint to Chanel No. 5.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Covered by Hygiene and not as vital as Beauty. --Thi (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose with what we have right now in the works we're very close to going over 1000 articles, and for that reason I cannot support this addition. I don't think cosmetics is a bad choice for this level per se, but I would like to see other articles, particularly biographies, removed before we consider it. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
3. I would much rather add beauty, which I would almost expect to be at level 2. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Beauty is covered by aesthetics at this level. I don't mind a swap though. Cobblet (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Shanghai and San Francisco

As much as I understand the desire to be more representative and inclusive, to exclude some of the most well-developed cities and centers for finance and technological innovation from the list just because we already have one or two from the same countries feels like a huge mistake.

Support

1. As nom Lolitart (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Shanghai because it is the largest city in China by urban area population and second largest city in the world by city proper population after Chongqing, but Shanghai has almost double the GDP. Oppose San Francisco, economic powerhouse but not as significant internationally or historically as Shanghai, and even LA metro area has a larger economy if that were the only factor. Bill Williams 08:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Shanghai One of the most vital cities in the world. Why San Francisco? With a population of 873,965 people, it is only the 17th most populous city in the United States. Dimadick (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't think we need any more cities. Besides, I think Yellow River is a better addition than Shanghai, and SF is not the next city from the US I would add anyway. Cobblet (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose If we were to roughly double the number of cities and relax the "one city per country" ~rule like we do for India and China, LA and Chicago could probably fit for American cities, but I would still not list SF. I would, however, strongly support listing California, which has both SF and LA (a major failing of the list IMO is that we list nothing about either Silicon Valley or Hollywood, much less both as we would if we listed California), an economy larger than all but <10 countries, and a population larger than Canada and most countries not currently listed; unfortunately, as stated below, it's been rejected a couple of times already.
   As for Shanghai, we already have Beijing and Hong Kong and recently rejected Seoul, so I don't believe it is a high priority. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

   I'm under the impression we reject Seoul largely because of the overlap of it with Korea in general, but Shanghai and its surrounding geo-cultural-economical unit is not mentioned at all. I would say Beijing is important largely for political and historical importance, it's the Rome of China in addition to being the capital, and Hong Kong is important because of its former status as a colony more than anything, Shanghai is the economic center of China and the modern day culture center for Wu speaking population, that it remain out of the list feels a bit off for me. Lolitart (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

   "Mere seats of government" don't belong on this list, which is why we no longer list Washington, D.C.; Beijing is still the dominant city of China culturally and home of the Mandarin language, and hosted the 2008 Summer Olympics among other things. However, if Hong Kong were listed merely for its former colonial status we would also list Macau; it's important for its skyscrapers and financial prowess, and I feel Shanghai would be redundant to that, in addition to my discomfort of having a single country get three cities on here. You're welcome to propose a Shanghai/Hong Kong swap anytime, however. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

3. Oppose San Francisco - impossible to add this before Los Angeles or California. And I don't think we have quota to start adding sub-national regions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

1. @Cobblet and Bill Williams: What about adding California? Lolitart (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

   California has been rejected at least twice. Cobblet (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

   I would support California before any more countries for the reasons given above, but Cobblet is right that it would probably fail because it happens to not be its own country. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

   I would definitely support California more than San Francisco, and it also includes Los Angeles metro area and other parts of the state, making it basically one of the world's economic powerhouses. It is also extremely culturally significant globally due to Hollywood. Bill Williams 16:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

   To be honest it could replace Myanmar, which is not nearly as significant as the other countries or California (around the same population but much less economically and culturally significant internationally). Bill Williams 16:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

   I don't know if we really need to trim the countries, but California would definitely be a better fit than Central Asia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

   In the interest of covering well-defined regions of the world which are otherwise unrepresented, I would prioritize listing Central America and Central Asia over California, Uttar Pradesh, Shanghai, Berlin, Rio de Janeiro, Dubai, Seoul, etc. Cobblet (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

   I respectfully disagree, though I know where you're coming from. Not all regions of the world necessarily deserve representation on here. Central America is adequately (though very imperfectly, I am aware) covered by Caribbean that we're about to add, although I would not particularly oppose its addition if push came to shove. While Central Asia is a better idea to list than its individual countries, its major historical significance is already covered by Silk Road, and being as close as it is to the literal middle of nowhere I would not put it above Afghanistan or frankly any human geography outside of possibly its individual countries, other minor countries, Greenland, and New Zealand. Don't get me wrong, I have the same feeling about it as you do Colorado River; wonderful and beautiful scenery, but just rather irrelevant on the world stage. Also, California is a cut above the other regions you mentioned except possibly Rio or Berlin; let me know when people are "Uttar Pradesh Dreamin'", or when Dubai has the technological capital of the world, or when Seoul is the Mecca of pop culture, or when Shanghai is arguably the capital of space launching and exploration. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Tian

If so many prophets in Bible and other religious texts are listed, it makes no sense we do not list the Supreme Being in Chinese theology at this level. Lolitart (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. [nom]

Oppose

1. Redundant to Chinese folk religion and other East Asian religions. Also, the Abrahamic religions' organized nature (with more constant and entrenched traditions such as the Bible, Quran, and their figures) and global spread make them more attractive for the list than more parochial traditional religions, even if the "parish" in this case is China itself. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose redundant to God and Diety. Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that's fair, we do not just list God, we list multiple religious figure and elements of less important while Tian is the supreme being. Organized religions would obviously result in more prophets, and that means the believers are more organized. Tian is the source of Mandate of Heaven, Son of Heaven. Thus Tian in terms of historical importance, as a concept and supreme being, is far greater than any prophet, that has limited life, of any religion could ever achieve. In essence, you could say all Chinese Emperors were believers of the Tian. Lolitart (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss