Talk:Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Duplicate articles?[edit]

Isn't TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century about the same thing this article is about? If so shouldn't these articles be merged? Or should both of these articles be merged into Time 100? Jason McHuff (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes the two 20th century articles are about the same thing. However the Time 100 article is different because it's a general overview of all the Time 100 lists. The 20th century articles refer specifically to the most important Time 100 list- the one that documented the most influential people of the 20th century.Slackergeneration (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Looks like an accidental content fork. And based on this reference, "most important" is the correct title, rather than "most influential." Further agree with Slacker that Time 100 should stay as a separate article; it is about an annual list in Time. Hult041956 (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I merged TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century into Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century and also redirected the former to the latter. Hult041956 (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The guy who created this list is trully an idiot —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Einstein TIME Person of the Century.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Einstein TIME Person of the Century.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


No Dr Sun Yat Sen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

So where is the list?[edit]

Discussing a list of 100 most important people: might it make sense to ... er ... list the 100 people? Is there a copyright problem? Yes, I can click on over to Time magazine; it looks like I might be able to get the list there, one by one, clicking 100 times and reading ads. Not something I can do at the speed of my home internet. Jamesdowallen (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's even worse than that. This wikipedia pages has a link to "The Complete List" at Time. That link not only doesn't have a completer list at all, but is the beginning of just the 2009 LIst. Obviously (and understandably) Time want lots of ad-views before divulging The 100. Wikipedia does not need to participate in this as Time's agent. Jamesdowallen (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK: After clicking Edit page, I see mention of Copyright restriction. Nevertheless the links to Time magazine's website are useless: they all redirect to the advertisement page for the The 2009 List. I've removed those links, though a more knowledgeable Wiki editor will need to follow through with some more removals to avoid error flags. You're welcome. Jamesdowallen (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the comment claiming that the list is copyrighted, but I don't agree. Copying the text with the list verbatim from Time Magazine's pages or website would be a copyright violation, yes. But the contents of the list itself are an uncopyrightable fact. Only the expression of that fact, in the form of the literal text written by Time Magazine, is copyrighted. I don't see a problem with publishing the list of persons itself, especially if it adds value by linking to the Wikipedia articles about the persons involved. Could a copyright lawyer please comment?Captain Chaos (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. Garion96 (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I think you're right. From the decision: "Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author, not to the facts themselves." So while the names of the persons aren't copyrightable, the information about which persons to include is. I still think it's a bit hazy, but I guess it's better to err on the side of caution.Captain Chaos (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm unable to find the list anywhere online; I think time may not have it online. Links that claim to go there all redirect to the time 100 for 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It can currently be found at I'll add a link.Captain Chaos (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Not including the list makes this article a non-starter. Who cares if person X or Publication Y thinks Z if you don't STATE what it is that they think? If Time wants this material copyrighted, secret, not suitable for public consumption, let's just delete the whole article. You might as well list the top 3 out of 100 microbes that human enamel thinks are most detrimental, failing to cite the source, and omitting the other 97. If this must exist, state that the list exists, but that it has been deemed unsuitable for publication, and don't include ANY listings. Time did Name Hitler man of the year in 1999. That should put their viewpoint in perspective - sensationalist media out for the buck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Things you aparently are misunderstanding:
  • Notability - The list is notable (it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources). As such, Wikipedia should have an article on it.
  • Copyright - The list is copyrighted so we cannot reproduce the list here. While an article on a list, book or album might a "non-starter" if you can't download the entire list, book or album from the article, we cannot violate copyright and keep the website up.
  • Time's Man/Person of the Year - Time selects the person who "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." (1999's person of the year was Jeff Bezos, not Hitler. Hitler was selected in 1938. Yeah, he did a lot that influenced events in that year. In 1999 they did decide that Hitler was not the person of the century.) Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I cam to this article with the same expectations as the other people above. This article should include the full list! Why does Wikipedia have no balls to just go ahead and does these things and sod the copyright holders. Wikipedia should not redirect us to Time's website or to any commercial website (especially one as shit as Time's where you have to click through countless pages to get the information you want, like many American websites). If Wikipedia wants more money from its users in future then it needs to stand up to copyright holders and tell them that they won't be getting takedowns in future and that an encyclopaedia is here to provide all information (and not just stuff that's not copyrighted). This is especially true today, the day before the start of over 200 protests across Europe in protest against the USA and copyright-holders' attempts to take over the Internet.--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Brilliant. Just brilliant. We'll ignore copyright. Everything will be fantastic!... Until the courts turn Wikipedia, balls and all, over to the copyright holders. Then, not so fantastic anymore. It's the same reason the article on (insert name of popular album, movie or book here) doesn't include a freely downloadable copy of that work. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Though I understand the copyright reasons not to have the list, the lack of it makes the entire article moot. It basically is an advertisement to subscribe to Time. (Which let's be honest, lost it's merits long, long ago. "Something is happening, but you don't know what it is. Do you, Mr. Jones") You can see the list apparently only if you subscribe. Although I'm deeply curious who's on it, it actually offends me Time has this approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

2014 re-add of the list[edit]

  • I think the COPYVIO argument is a red herring. The list comes from 100 different articles spread out over more than a year and written by a whole bunch of people. You can source the entire list without borrowing significant content from any of them. If this is considered COPYVIO, a whole lot of stuff on this project would also have be deleted. My understanding of COPYVIO on this project is that you need to copy large amounts of text directly from a single source in order for it to be copyvio. User:The Banner and others who allege this is COPYVIO have yet to produce said source. pbp 20:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Correction of place where symposium started.[edit]

In the article, Time 100 see paragraph one (1) of History & format as it states: The list was started with a debate at a symposium in Washington, D.C., on February 1, 1998, with panel participants CBS news anchor Dan Rather…

In the article, Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century see paragraph two (2) of the article as it states: The idea for such a list started on February 1, 1998, with a debate at a symposium in Ha Noi, Vietnam. The panel participants were former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather…

2001:558:6033:6D:7079:A6A4:8186:45D7 (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Kenny Kaiser2001:558:6033:6D:7079:A6A4:8186:45D7 (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC) 2001:558:6033:6D:7079:A6A4:8186:45D7 (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)security.kennyk@hotmail.com2001:558:6033:6D:7079:A6A4:8186:45D7 (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


Extended content

Anyone else agree this list is garbage?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:17, 11 December 2012‎

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


Off topic chat

the fact that elvis doesn't

make the list makes a mockery of

the whole idea. you are always going to cause upset and debate with these sort of lists because when all said and done it's a matter of personal opinion. how though,can someone be left off the list when,if the people on the list were voting they would probably all vote for him above themselves and he influenced most of those on the list. ask youngsters now who they've heard of, most have heard of the beatles,all have heard of elvis. surely the most biased panellist must appreciate the enormous impact on the world someone has had when 37 years after they died there are over 85,000 people impersonating them,most of which are earning a good living. people who met him said he had more charisma than anyone they had ever met,oh and what a singer !!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)