Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2020

Religious figures and theologians

In the religious figures section, 5 out of 10 personalities represent Christianity (7 if you include Abraham and Moses). Buddha is the only personality representing a non-semitic, non-monotheistic religion. I propose to remove Paul the Apostle, Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas in favor of Mahavira, Nagarjuna and Zoroaster.--Edler von Udinium 20:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't look at Augustine and Thomas as representing Christianity but Medieval philosophy - I would rather remove Abraham, Moses and Paul. Also Mahavira/Zoroaster would be rather redundant with Jainism/Zoroastrism. --Nk (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd keep Abraham and Moses, but I wouldn't object to replacing Paul or Augustine with Nagarjuna. A. Mahoney (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Edler von Udinium for noting the lack of personalities from non-semitic religions. With a total of ten entries, it could make sense to include 2-4 from each of the four major world religions. I agree that Nagarjuna should definitely be added, as the key person of Mahayana, the most widely followed branch of Buddhism. Would also be nice to add some important Hindu religious figures such as Ramanuja. I agree that we can remove Paul, as well as either Abraham, Moses or Augustine. Martinogk (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Abraham and Moses are pretty crucial (why the name 'Abrahamic' for all these religions is from Abraham), Augustine and Aquinas not so for as many religions as Abraham and Moses are Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas should be removed because not all christian denomination tract them as authoritys. But Paul is common for all christians. 92.60.179.220 10:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Please, include Baháʼu'lláh as a first creator of Baháʼí Faith. Baháʼí is more important religion because it is worldwide, and Jainism or Zoroastrism are local. 92.60.179.220 10:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Add Adi Shankara and Paul the Apostle

Frankly, it really surprises me that the most important individual in Hinduism, Adi Shankara, (other than the dietes themselves), is not on this list. I doubt there will be much opposition so I'll leave it at that.

For Paul the Apostle, I see that he was replaced with Nagarjuna, but I believe both should be on the list. It is extremely unlikely that Christianity would have spread even as close to as much, or as quickly, without the Paul the Apostle. Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As the list is fixed in size you should propose also items to be removed. --Nk (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Localizing for small, under-served African WPs

Has anyone produced a slimmed-down list for the small and slow-growing WPs? I've been working since mid-2017 on African language WPs (zu, xh, ig, rw) with few active contributors and no admins to consult. They tend to include geography and biography pages, minimally categorized, and weak in the sciences. They're starting to recruit and train new editors (including academics), but what I'm seeking for their benefit is a framework to guide content development. Of course I'd rather not reinvent the wheel! Yoruba WP (which is relatively active), for example, has done well with the WP:Vital 100 but those topics are still quite rudimentary - while YO WP's five-figure page count is bloated with bio pages and stubs of European and Asian intellectuals and politicians, and content on their own people (particularly in the arts and letters) is sorely lacking. Advice, please? -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The gender imbalance in the 'biographies' section of this list is horrendous - how can we address it?

I don't think the title of this section is an overstatement. I can show my workings below:

Artists and architects

	Male	Female
Included	17	1
Bolded	5	0

Authors, playwrights and poets

	Male	Female
Included	31	0
Bolded	8	0

Composers and musicians

	Male	Female
Included	20	1
Bolded	5	0

Film directors, screenwriters and actors

	Male	Female
Included	10	3
Bolded	0	0

Inventors, scientists and mathematicians

	Male	Female
Included	33	1
Bolded	17	1

Philosophers and social scientists

	Male	Female
Included	25	1
Bolded	9	0

Political leaders

	Male	Female
Included	36	3
Bolded	9	0

Religious figures and theologians

	Male	Female
Included	10	0
Bolded	4	0

Total

	Male	Female
Included	194	10
Bolded	63	1

I want to start by saying I do not believe this is intentional. However, I think it is an oversight that needs correcting. This list serves an important purpose, particularly in smaller versions of Wikipedia. What this list currently does, however, is overwhelmingly promote a male-dominated view of history, of literature, of music, of politics, and even of film and television. Given that the articles on this list are used as a basis, the omission of women (who make up less than 5 per cent of people on the list) clearly gives a skewed version of history.

I would like to hear both whether people think this is a problem at all, and if so, what ought to be done to remedy it. I would favour a quota system of sorts, ensuring that no more than 60 per cent of people in any given category (and 60 per cent of bolded biographies) are not of any one gender. There are enough notable women in history, but this list, by and large, ignores them, to the detriment of readers. --Domeditrix (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of adding more women. The statistics are clearly very skewed, and while this can be partly attributed to the fact that the majority of famous people in history were male, I think it should be possible to make the list a lot more even. Do you have any specific suggestions? PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd look to the the expanded list for potential additions / replacements. Some categories are far easier than others (e.g. writers over religious figures), but even within that more difficult sub-category, the list could include Paramahansa Yogananda, Fatimah, and Virgin Mary. --Domeditrix (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll use what I imagine would be one of the most difficult sections to make more representative as an example. I understand that my classification of 'eras' is very basic, but it's mainly there to show that the figures come from different points in history.

Religious figures

Name	Gender	Faiths	Era
Abraham	Male	Abrahamic	Ancient
Fatimah	Female	Islam	Late antiquity
Gautama Buddha	Male	Buddhism	Classical antiquity
Guru Gobind Singh	Male	Sikhism	Middle ages
Jesus	Male	Christianity and Islam	Classical antiquity
Mary	Female	Christianity and Islam	Classical antiquity
Moses	Male	Abrahamic	Ancient
Muhammad	Male	Islam	Late antiquity
Paramahansa Yogananda	Female	Hinduism	Modern
Queen of Sheba	Female	Abrahamic	Ancient

Again, I stress that this is merely illustrative, as I know little to nothing about non-Abrahamic faith, nor of any notable women involved in the development of those faiths that perhaps could be included. If we wanted a gender-balanced list for this, perhaps Mary Baker Eddy could be considered. However, while she is included on the expanded list, my feeling is that she's a bit of a 'lightweight' compared to the rest. --Domeditrix (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC) --Domeditrix (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, you want to remove "Aquinas, Thomas", "Augustine of Hippo", "Luther, Martin" and "Nagarjuna" and add "Fatimah", "Paramahansa Yogananda", "Guru Gobind Singh" and "Queen of Sheba". Could you please explain why as all these changes are not obvious to me: Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo are important regarding the formation of Occidental philosophy, Luther is important as its work created a new branch of christianism and Nagarjuna is the founder of a branch of buddhism. --Toku (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Replace Sorghum with Sorghum bicolor

The list contains Sorghum as a topic under the Agriculture and food heading, but in most WPs (including English) this points to the plant genus, whereas the edible cereal corresponds to a single species of that genus and usually has its own article (Sorghum bicolor in English). I propose to replace Sorghum with Sorghum bicolor on the list, as its importance among the 'should have' articles is obviously derived from the social and economic value of the cereal, not from scientific interest in the plant genus. --Oscar Zariski (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

How come this change was carried out unilaterally, barely 24 hours after making the initial proposal, and without waiting for a single other Wikimedia user to give their opinion?--Leptictidium (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It should be reverted until there's been discussion. I do think the change is correct but we need consensus first. I'll undo until that consensus emerges. A. Mahoney (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks and sorry about not respecting procedure. I agree that it makes more sense to give people time to express an opinion (also, thanks to A. for signalling support). --Oscar Zariski (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This change seems easy and reasonable. I support it as well. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

So do I.--Leptictidium (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The change seems reasonable to me. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. After 1 month, 4 opinions in favour and none against I am going to re-introduce the change. --Oscar Zariski (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Edith Piaf, Add Protestantism

Edith Piaf isn't too vital to be listed on this list. A much better addition would be Protestantism since it is the second largest denomination of Christianity and think that every Wikipedia should have an article on that subject. Interstellarity (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Strong Oppose This would leave the list with no women under music - despite them being the pre dominant popular musicians today. It absolutely makes this list worse. GuzzyG (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: Why did you oppose adding Piaf in the vital articles list, but you are opposing removing her from this list? It doesn't make sense. Interstellarity (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: It makes sense when you consider the fact we have 77 more people than that list and with 77 more people a woman being listed in music makes sense. If we add Protestantism and have three Christianity articles to a worldwide list we would have to add Sunni Islam as well to be fair. New religious movements would also be a better add. We have no women in writers and only Frida Kahlo under artists. Having no women would be a further mistake. For a list that's supposed to be representative of the world, it's missing alot already. I'm not ready to contribute to that any further. Having no women in writers or music and only one in visual arts is really bad. GuzzyG (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: I didn't receive the ping because you forgot to update your signature. On the English Wikipedia's vital articles list, isn't it important that we cover women as well as this list? I understand this list is for all languages while the vital articles is for English Wikipedia. What's different about what articles both lists include? Interstellarity (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Obviously it's important to cover women on the English list - i've just been on the list for years and know none would likely pass as people arent radical there and tend to not consider anything out of the norm, someone like Cai Lun was rejected - for example. The difference is if we're recommending (or forcing) different wikipedias to create articles based off this list - we should make sure we include articles from every main area (African culture, Asian culture, European culture) The English list people skate by on a technicality - for example Wagner being seen as more important to cover on a English encyclopedia rather than Saladin due to being more important to "western civilization". (despite the crusades being inevitably more important than opera). Here we don't focus (we do but should not) on western civilization, we should try and cover every civilization. Or in simpler terms noone on the English list will swap Bach, Mozart, Beethoven or Wagner for Piaf, Fela Kuti, Teresa Teng or Umm Kulthum - but when we list Dvořák and Dietrich we have room to swap them on this one, do you see how it's obvious a Malay or Yoruba wiki should cover African music, Asian music, European music and Women in music, all kinds of music - not just two? (Euro classical and American popular). That's the difference. GuzzyG (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Here's how you build a more representative "world" culture on a world list; Bold Chaplin/The Beatles - film and popular music should have a bold as they are big worldwide

1. Swap HC Anderson for Chinua Achebe (Brothers Grimm are more important to fairy tales)
2. Swap Chekov for Murasaki Shikibu
3. Swap Ovid for Sappho
4. Swap Marlene Dietrich for Jane Austen (Marilyn/Sarah Bernhardt are enough)
5. Swap Dvořák for Bob Marley
6. Swap Tchaikovsky for Ravi Shankar
7. Swap Mahler for Umm Kulthum
8. Swap Rubens for Wang Xizhi (Greatest calligrapher - of which Calligraphy is a major art in Eastern culture)
9. Swap Spielberg (still alive) for Anna Pavlova

That would inherently make this list a world list, covering most forms of culture big outside of the west, with more of a balance towards women aswell. As it stands this list is kinda perpetuating bias by having European men centered in the biographies section on a world list. For example - by this list we would create a article on Rubens in Malay - but it would be better to cover Wang Xizhi, considering massive Chinese influence in Malay culture (and this goes for many other countries with Chinese culture - thus since Chinese culture is so widespread - it should be essential to cover a Chinese artist - meanwhile we cover European art with many other artists). This ofcourse would never pass but this is how this list is made better, not by removing our only women - in which we are already under-covered and thus already have perpetuated a bias to the world's coverage of art, encouraging European art over any others and men over women. GuzzyG (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: Based on the discussions below, we managed to swap Spielberg with Jane Austen. Can you create a new list of people that should be swapped? Do you think we should have more biographies on the English list? I think in the past, it had more biographies, but many of them got removed. I would also like to see a list of items on the list such as countries that should be swapped. Do you think the number of countries on the list is too high? If so, which countries would you remove and what would you swap them with? Interstellarity (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove HC Andersen, Add Sunni Islam

Sunni Islam should be added if swapped with something else. Interstellarity (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

• If anything, it should be swapped with Shia Islam. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Yerpo, Shia Islam could be swapped with Sunni Islam.--Toku (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

@Yerpo and Toku: I opened up a discussion below to swap Shia Islam with Sunni Islam. Interstellarity (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Spielberg, Add Jane Austen

We try to avoid people that are still living. Jane Austen is a better add. Interstellarity (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Support

• Jane Austen is fundamentally more important to western culture than Spielberg and we have no women under writers. The fact that this is up to question shows massive bias in this list. Not convinced that Spielberg has a bigger legacy in the English language than Jane Austen, would like Toku to clarify his argument. GuzzyG (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Austen is important; whether Spielberg will turn out to be is still quite an open question. A. Mahoney (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• As a matter of principle, biographies of living persons pose a number of challenges that render them unfit for this list, including the general problem of near-sightedness (which also applies to topics other than people: it is hard to say if anything happening now is among the 1000 most important topics to read about in an encyclopedia) as well as more specific restrictions applicable to what can be published about living people. Also: I had no idea that we had no women yet.--Oscar Zariski (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Jane Austen is an important female writer--Wolfch (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

• "We try to avoid people that are still living": not convinced by this argument. --Toku (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

{{help me}} Given the amount of support for this swap and the ones below that, can someone perform the swap for this one and the ones below which include Sunni Islam and Umm Kulthum? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Done -- there seems to be good consensus. A. Mahoney (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Shia Islam, Add Sunni Islam

Sunni Islam is by far the more popular of the two denominations of Islam. Interstellarity (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Support

• Support, as the proposer. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• --Toku (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support addition Dawid2009 (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose removal @Interstellarity: There are few articles which have too much overlap with Cathicism like architectural byildings or Vatican. Maybe try swap for St Peter Basilica (which isess famous than Cathedre Nottre Dame on tge list). All subbranches of major religio s are more than enough significant for this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Remove Piaf, Add Umm Kulthum

I think this is a better addition than Piaf since we don't have many Arab composers on here. Interstellarity (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Support

• I agree; composers are in general probably more important than performers, too. A. Mahoney (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Presley for Michael Jackson

Jackson really represents pop music. He was recently swapped with Presley on vital articles. I think this would be a good swap for this list. Interstellarity (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

 Support As I stated in the first section, I support swapping Elvis Presley for Michael Jackson. --Awvazquez (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Support Michael Jackson is regarded as the most important Pop music icon in History, probably the most famous black man of all times, and one of the greatest creators with huge influence in the development of music videos and a legacy in Dance that is globally known. I think The Beatles are the best rock representatives from 60’s-70’s time period, and Elvis Presley doesn't add anything additional, since he was not a great songwriter, not a great creator (which is, after all, a key characteristic of artists). There are others music artists (like Freddie Mercury or Chuck Berry) better suited to be considered creators and Rock music icons. In addition, Michael Jackson has a greater influence than Elvis on other artists and the music panorama. --Salvabl (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 Support Jackson’s English Wikipedia page is the most visited musician page of all time. That speaks volumes. Jackson reach was far more reaching than that of Elvis who mostly appealed to English speaking countries. Jackson is known around the globe and has a massive following from North and South America, to Asia, Europe, many African countries and villages, to even Russia. What separates the two is this global reach. I’ve met over a dozen people who, like me, has learned to speak English because of Michael Jackson’s music. No one has ever said that about Elvis.TruthGuardians (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 Oppose I hope we can all recognize that what happens on a list with 126 people is different on a list with 200. This list can have both (swapped with a weak composer like Dvorak). This would not be a good swap. On a (global) list with 21 musicians, we shouldn't have 17 western classical and just 4 pop musicians (the Beatles, Elvis, Kulthum and Louis Armstrong). We should fix bias, not reinforce it. There was no need for Piafs removal here too. We could've had two women listed, which obviously would've been better - but now that opportunity is gone. Bob Marley, Michael Jackson, Fela Kuti, Teresa Teng and Ravi Shankar are all good nominations for A GLOBAL project since they represent music from around the globe. If you just blindly put up these noms in a hurry, please be strategic atleast to actually cover the globe on a global list. GuzzyG (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@TruthGuardians : are you sure you're against the swap ? --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

{{help me}} Could an uninvolved editor perform this swap since there is consensus to add it? Interstellarity (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Interstellarity : done. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Chomsky, Noam, Add Heidegger, Martin

The most important and influential philosopher in the continental tradition in the 20th century should be in this list. Ratte (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

{{help me}} Also add this one since there are no objections. Interstellarity (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Interstellarity, @Nicolas Eynaud: really don’t think swapping a Jewish linguist for a Nazi philosopher was good optics (not commenting on merits since the list is inherently subjective). Generally, doing changes without any comments for them should be discouraged, since this list is used by many wikis, so some degree of consensus should be demonstrated first. stjn^[ru] 11:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@stjn, you can ask for a new swap as the list is currently instable. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Ovid & Matsuo Bashō

As title, since the English Wikipedia equivalent list also does not include them, and the meta one still lacks gene, heredity, RNA and Zoology, which are all included in the English Wikipedia one.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

But we've got DNA, so I don't think we also need gene, heredity, or RNA. I'd certainly keep Bashō, and also Ovid but since I am a classicist by profession I'm probably a bit biased in his favor. I vote for no change here. A. Mahoney (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There should be a very good reason to make replacements between different categories because the list tries to keep certain balance between the different fields. On the other hand I would prefer to have in the list genetics (Q7162) instead of e.g. breast (Q9103). --Nk (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I also support swapping breast (Q9103) with genetics (Q7162) as genetics is universal across all living things and cover gene, heredity, and RNA, while breast is just one part of primates. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)