Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2023

Spiritual Proposals

Hey everyone, I have some spiritual proposals. I hope we can reach consensus on them. I searched the archives for these terms, and only found minor discussion, with no formal proposals.

Add Reincarnation, Remove Yoga

Swapped with enough support (support : 6, neutral : 1, no opposition)

The Indian religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, are all known for their belief in reincarnation (Sikhism's interpretation is debated). However, reincarnation is also seen in the belief systems of the Druze, Kabballah Jews, Gnostics, Ghulats, Inuit, Yoruba, Spiritists, Wiccans, Scientologists, Yazidis, and in the metempsychosis of the Ancient Greeks. Yoga is a Hindu/Buddhist/Jain spiritual practice, introduced to the West as a form of exercise. So, its popularity isn't really as spiritual or as pervasive in cultures worldwide as the belief in reincarnation. In addition, there were also systems of reincarnation within Christian heresies such as Catharism. Best regards, --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)  Support --Ideophagous (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Algovia (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)  Support But please don't delete Yoga, maybe move it to the Arts & Recreation section in the Sports section, as yoga has become globally known and globaly significant as a physical exercise practice (maybe vote to swap Yoga with Golf or Backgammon if space required?) --AntekVeganova (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Neutral Neutre I don't think yoga is that important. However, I don't think a concept as common and mundane as reincarnation is important enough to be on this list.--Opqr (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Common and mundane is exactly why the concept should be considered important for this list of most common encyclopedic topics across the world. AntekVeganova (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Add Shinto, Remove Zen

Swapped with enough support (support : 5, neutral : 1, no opposition)

Buddhism has three main schools: Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. Zen is a sect of the Mahayana school. To me, it doesn't make sense to Zen over Mahayana, as Mahayana is more broad. Zen does have more page views, but that may be because it is common in Japan. Shinto is the ancient Japanese religion that eventually merged with Buddhism. It has received over twice the views on English Wikipedia in the past 30 days than Zen. Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)  Support This opinion is certainly correct. Shinto, one of Japan's two major religions and with 100 million followers, is far more important than Zen Buddhism, which is just a branch of Mahayana Buddhism. Japan is a typical syncretist country, with most people believing in Buddhism and Shinto at the same time. However, there is no doubt that Shinto is a pillar of Japanese culture.--Opqr (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)  Support Add Shinto, but keep Zen too. Zen is much more known than the Mahayana school, also in the West, where the word zen has become significant and notable as a secular term (the state of a peaceful mind in many Western European languages), not only a religion. If space needed, maybe swap remove Trimurti from Hinduism (as Trimurti is only a concept of Hinduism, not as globally known as Zen). AntekVeganova (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)  Support per nom. --Deinocheirus (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC) Neutral Neutre Maybe, "syncretism" should be better ? Shinto is included in this article but it's also an important mechanism to explain the formation of most religions. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Add Discrimination, Remove Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Swapped with enough support (support : 5, opposition : 2)

We have both Human Rights and Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the list. However, the key information about the declaration can be included in the article Human Rights. I support inclusion of Discrimination in the list, because this topic is extremely important according to contemprorary RSs. In recent years, a huge number of academic sources have been published about various types of discrimination (racism is already included, but there are also many sources focusing on other types of discrimination, e.g. sexism, ageism, homophobia, transphobia and many, many other types). I think we need the article focusing on discrimination in general in this list. Support  Support as nom.--Reprarina (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)  Support sounds reasonable—94rain (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)  Support Killarnee (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)  Support --Thi (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)  Support I agree Universal Declaration of Human Rights is redundant with Human Rights; Human Rights articles would cover the declaration LightProof1995 (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose In the long term, this inclusion in the list will lead to the removal of "Racism" or "Sexism" which, in my opinion, are more fundamental than the listing of all forms of discriminations. But, I also think that "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" should be removed as we have already the more fondamental "Human rights". --Toku (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC) this inclusion in the list will lead to the removal of "Racism" or "Sexism" There is no Sexism in the list. Reprarina (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)  Oppose. I understand the reasoning, but the proposed term is too generalistic and thus hard to present in sufficient detail. This in turn may result in editors compiling list-like entries to meet the size requirements instead of writing coherent articles. I would rather discuss inclusion of Sexism as having better potential for good encyclopedia entries. --Deinocheirus (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC) We generally prefer the general concepts to the particular ones in this list. Fortunately, there are many enough academic sources that analyze the concept of discrimination as such so that the article Discrimination can be written a high-quality core article without original research and original synthesis of topics on various forms of discrimination. So it is general, but not too generalistic. Reprarina (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Catherine the Great, Remove Peter the Great

Nomination withdrawn; Consensus to keep Peter

I've copied this response written by User:Grnrchst, from the English Vitals page, about Catherine the Great, where she is listed as Vital-3: "Catherine was one of the pivotal examples of an "Enlightened absolutist", during a period of great renewal in Russian culture and learning that we today know as the Russian Enlightenment. She ruled at the height of Russian imperial expansionism, overseeing the completion of the conquest of Siberia, the annexation of Crimea, the Russian colonisation of Ukraine, the partition of Poland and the establishment of the Pale of Settlement, all of which still have had vast measurable consequences up to this very day. Her doubling down on the system of serfdom arguably also set the seeds for the Russian Revolutions. She also established Europe's first public education program for women. I'm not sure by what metric she's being judged as less vital than Elizabeth I (a medieval monarch) or Joan of Arc (a medieval foot soldier). Catherine has inarguably had a massive effect on history." I think she belongs here as well in place of Peter the Great. Here are the facts: -- Both are Russian leaders -- Both are known by the epithet "the Great" -- One is female and one is male. On one hand, we don't want gender bias, per discussion on adding more women above, which supports this swap. On the other hand, I genuinely feel every proposal to help with gender bias is going to be shot down by what is, essentially, the gender bias. In the end, focusing on genders may lead to subjective feelings. How do we combat this? The only answer I have is the objective measure: view counts. -- Catherine the Great receives more than double the view counts than Peter the Great: she received ~230,000 views in the past 30 days on English Wikipedia compared to Peter's ~97,000 views. On Russian Wikipedia, she Catherine has also received ~230,000 views in the past 30 days, compared to Peter's ~156,000 views. To me, this is the objective measure that points to her being more vital. However we'll still have to see what the consensus is. Support  Support as nom LightProof1995 (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose There is Peter I and there are no Catherine II in this list not because of gender bias. Peter changed Russia totally. There is even such expression "pre-Petrine Russia", there is no such expression as "pre-Catherinian Russia". Russian history is clearly divided into before (with the boyars, without any schools, without navy) and after Peter (with Governing Senate, with Academy of Sciences, with a big navy). The desire to correct gender bias is not a reason to remove a ruler who completely changed Russia.--Reprarina (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) PS By the way, I don’t understand at all the argument about views in the English Wikipedia for the List of articles every Wikipedia should have. This list is not about what is considered to be important in the English-speaking world. There is no need to replace androcentric bias with anglocentric bias.--Reprarina (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC) My apologies for only considering English Wikipedia. I was using it as an initial gauge, since it is the language most-used globally. I've added their views on Russia Wikipedia. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Let’s say that over the last year in Russian Wikipedia, Catherine II has more views in 2023. It should be noted that in November 2023 there was a surge in views, when the demolition of the monument to her in Odesa was actively discussed. However. We have four Russian writers on our list, at least one of them wrote several narrative poems about Peter I (The Bronze Horseman and Poltava). These works became the foundation of Russian literature for the next many generations; a significant part of the Russian intelligentsia still knows them by heart. It was Peter who made Tsardom of Russia the Russian Empire. It was Peter who brought a huge variety of elements of European law to Russia and opened the Academy of Sciences. It was Peter who reorganized the Russian army and organized the Russian navy, having personally received the appropriate education for this in Europe. Under Peter I a significant number of metallurgical factories were built. Thus, excluding him from the list for the sake of Catherine II is clearly unjustified. Peter literally divided Russian history into “before” and “after”. If Catherine II is necessary in this list, it should not be at the cost of excluding Peter I. Peter I is clearly one of the most important rulers in the world history. Reprarina (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Agreed, 4 Russian writers is too many. Maybe the consensus will be to swap Catherine for one of them? Fyodor Dostoevsky views (English: ~152,000. Russian: ~112,000) Avg 132,000 Alexander Pushkin views (English: ~47,000. Russian: ~187,000) Avg 117,000 Leo Tolstoy views (English: ~130,000. Russian: ~142,000) Avg 136,000 Anton Chekhov views (English: ~61,000. Russian: ~158,000) Avg 109,500 Looks like Anton is the best candidate to swap for Catherine. LightProof1995 (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)  Oppose Per Reprarina. Peter I reign is a major change in Russia history whereas Catherine II is "just" a very important period. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)  Oppose Per Reprarina and Nicolas Eynaud + are views really a point to determine who is a great historical figures ? --Algovia (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)  Oppose Per Reprarina and Nicolas Eynaud.First of all, page views basically indicate popularity. Not the importance. If page views are any indication of importance, you're right, Taylor Swift should be on this list. Basing it on page views is completely false, as popularity has nothing to do with importance.--Opqr (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Discussion Peter laid the foundational groundwork of the Russian Empire, and Catherine continued his work to turn Russia into a great and cultural power. Both are important to the history of Russia, to the point where it is debated who is more important. Both leaders are also known for bad things they have done. Peter's English Wikipedia page calls him "harsh and autocratic" in the first paragraph, while in a discussion on adding more women above, User:Tuvbif points out some bad things about Catherine. I don't know who is more "bad" than the other, and there is no consensus on whether we want to avoid placing people who are "more bad" on the list. LightProof1995 (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC) There is the consensus. If there are countless academic sources written about a person, they should be included. For example, there are countless of academic sources about Adolf Hitler, so he definitely should be included. Reprarina (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Yeah, I deleted my reasoning on replacing Hitler with FDR when I saw FDR is on the list here, just not at the English Wikipedia Vitals list. Thanks for clarifying there is consensus on this :) LightProof1995 (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Catherine the Great, Remove Anton Chekhov

Nomination withdrawn; Consensus to not de-list a Russian writer when we have more British writers listed

We have four Russian writers listed: Fyodor Dostoevsky, Alexander Pushkin, Leo Tolstoy, and Anton Chekhov. Chekhov receives the least amount of views when averaging across Russian and English Wikipedia views (Russian because they are Russian, English as the language most spoken globally). I've personally only heard of Tolstoy. However, we only have two Russian leaders: Peter the Great and Joseph Stalin. Catherine deserves to be listed along with Peter and Joseph. I've copied this response written by User:Grnrchst, from the English Vitals page, about Catherine the Great, where she is listed as Vital-3: "Catherine was one of the pivotal examples of an "Enlightened absolutist", during a period of great renewal in Russian culture and learning that we today know as the Russian Enlightenment. She ruled at the height of Russian imperial expansionism, overseeing the completion of the conquest of Siberia, the annexation of Crimea, the Russian colonisation of Ukraine, the partition of Poland and the establishment of the Pale of Settlement, all of which still have had vast measurable consequences up to this very day. Her doubling down on the system of serfdom arguably also set the seeds for the Russian Revolutions. She also established Europe's first public education program for women. I'm not sure by what metric she's being judged as less vital than Elizabeth I (a medieval monarch) or Joan of Arc (a medieval foot soldier). Catherine has inarguably had a massive effect on history." Catherine also built The Hermitage, which is the second-largest art museum in the world. Support  Support as nom LightProof1995 (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose The article about Chekhov is written in 164 languages. Compare with most of writers in the list who wrote in English. Byron has 146, Austen has 136, Chauser has 133, Dickens has 161, Joyce has 152, Twain has 155. Let's not increase Anglocentrism in the list of writers. I also have certain arguments against the inclusion of Catherine II. In the history of Russia there were much bigger reformers - for example, Alexander II, who began to turn feudal Russia into capitalist, or Yeltsin, who turned socialist Russia into capitalist.--Reprarina (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Fair enough. I'd support swap of Byron for Catherine given your argument. (You don't list Shakespeare, so it's 5 English, 1 Irish, 1 American writer. If it were 4 English writers, I'd see no need to have more Russian than English writers. I wouldn't support Alexander II or Yeltsin over Catherine as she receives double their views on both Russian and English Wikipedias, and also because I'm also making this proposal to reduce the gender bias, per the discussion above.). LightProof1995 (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)  Oppose "swapping like for like (category switch only with reason)" : invalid proposal (+ comments about "views"). --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Hey there! Thanks for your vote. At the top it is stated, "the ((swapping like for like (category switch only with reason) rule) should just apply to the broadest category", the broadest category here being "Biography". LightProof1995 (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)  Oppose Currently, there are three Russians among the total 39 people in the "Political Leaders" category. Peter, Lenin, Stalin. Three out of 39 people is a reasonable number considering Russia's historical importance. I am against including Russian leaders any further in the political leaders category.--Opqr (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Why do you feel we should have four Russian writers and three Russian political leaders, instead of four Russian political leaders and three Russian writers? LightProof1995 (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)  Oppose Invalid proposition : no need to argue anymore. But if we do so, we have to emphasize that the "1000 fundamental articles" project and the "list of vital articles on the English project" are independent. --Algovia (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC) And Ivan IV is maybe more important in Russian history than Catherine. --Algovia (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC) I respectfully disagree my proposal is invalid. I know this is completely independent from the English Vitals page, but OCD dictates they eventually be consolidated to perfection. That will probably never happen, but at a minimum it should be used as reference, and this list should be used as reference at the English Vitals page. (Other Wikipedias are welcome to make their own vitals lists, but I think the English one is the only one besides this one. If not, a list of all Wikipedia vitals lists needs to be created.). Proposals that follow this rule could be highlighted, but not as a definitive indicator the swap is valid, as the other list could be invalid in its inclusion of the proposed article. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Discussion We have three leaders (Peter, Lenin, and Stalin), not two.--Reprarina (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Oops, my bad. Thanks for pointing this out! :) LightProof1995 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove Lake Tanganyika and Lake Victoria, Add African Great Lakes and Wetland

Nomination withdrawn; Creating two separate proposals

We shouldn't list these two African Great Lakes separately when the North American Great Lakes are listed as a single article. Also, of the three African Great Lakes, Lake Malawi is arguably most important due to it having the highest fish biodiversity of any lake in the world. No individual lake is more important than the concept of a wetland. Wetlands are seen worldwide: the floodplains along the Nile and Amazon, the swamps in the Sundarbans and American South, and the bogs in Siberia and Ireland are all wetlands. Being neither truly aquatic or terrestrial, wetlands are a biome of their own. Because of this, wetlands provide unique ecological benefits not seen in other biomes. Wetlands also protect coasts, purify water, and restore groundwater reservoirs. Support  Support as nom LightProof1995 (talk) 07:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose I said the same thing in the previous discussion, but the North American Great Lakes form one huge water system, but the African Great Lakes are a completely different water system. This means that the African Great Lakes have only geological significance and no economic or ecological connections. To be more specific, the African Great Lakes is just a collection of nearby unrelated lakes. I oppose this proposal because the concept of the African Great Lakes has no significance whatsoever.--Opqr (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC) The African Great Lakes are linked both ecologically and economically due to their shared fish biodiversity (cichlids) which contributes to the local fishing (which seems to emanate from the unlisted Lake Malawi, but all the lakes have great fish biodiversity, emerging thousands of years ago). The fishing in the lakes is critical for all adjacent nations. Rivers connect some of the lakes together, but the water cycle links them all just because they are near each other. They are culturally considered together, something we shouldn't overlook just because they are in Africa. The greatest link between these lakes is the Great African Rift Valley. All these lakes were created because of the Great African Rift coming apart, so they share this important geological distinction. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Furthermore, I am somewhat in favor of the deletion of Lake Tanganyika or Lake Victoria, and neutral regarding the addition of wetlands. There's no point in having both of these lakes on the list, and I would agree if you suggested that I should remove just one or both. I'm in favor of adding a general geographical concept like "wetland," but I don't think the term "wetland" is that important, so I'm neutral about adding it.--Opqr (talk) 14:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Sounds like you're neutral on replacing Lake Tanganyika with wetland, so maybe I should make these two separate proposals. LightProof1995 (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)  Oppose Invalid proposal : "single swaps (no mass changes)". --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Discussion I don't know what is more important, wetland or meadow or plain.--Reprarina (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Most people are unaware of the ecological significance of wetlands, or how specific the term "wetland" is for the environment. I know more about them due to my environmental science degree and the fact I had a summer job delineating wetlands. A plain would be more important than a meadow. Plains are considered landforms, like mountains, while wetlands are considered biomes, like grassland. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Oh wow, I didn't realize "Grassland" isn't listed. "Grassland" and "Wetland" are of the same importance, as they are both biomes. We should find a way to get "Grassland" on the list as well. (I think you are thinking of grasslands here Reprarina; "meadow" is a more specific term) LightProof1995 (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)