Talk:The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History/Archive 1

Moses
Moses was not even a real person. His inclusion on this list over the likes of Charles Darwin, who literally explained the world, and in so doing revealed nearly all of what had gone before as false, is interesting. Perhaps an author able to write real books, and not simply lists, would have been more capable of making these distinctions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.36.54 (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Today's most influential people
I think there should be a page like this discussing today's most influential people and who they are .... if there already is one, then there should be a link to it from this page.

Galileo?
I can't see why the guy made the top 15. Sure, he is famous, but he wasn't exactly that influential compared to everybody else that could of made the list. Why do I say this? Although I don't give him credit for the things above, I do give him credit for his physics experiments, namely proving that gravity is not affected by weight and the idea that objects try to stay at their current velocity. However, Newton just came around and restated what Galileo said, basically taking most of the credit away while adding in his own stuff. Galileo did more for society than 99.9% of all famous people we have ever heard about, but not nearly enough to make the top 15. My physics teacher taught us that he "invented" the sun-centered solar system and my classmates believed her. This needs to change, one top 100 list at a time...
 * He did NOT invent the telescope, but merely improved it for greater range.
 * He did NOT come up with the idea of a sun-centered solar system. Copernicus came up with the idea and Kepler used data to prove it, and then Galileo came along and looked at the planets with his telescope proving nothing but that the universe was more complicated than they had thought.
 * He did NOT do anything radical. The man backed away in fear when the church confronted him and even dedicated his book to the Pope.

Paul of Tarsus
One thing, Paul of Tarsus is the founder of Christianity, not Jesus. That should be changed.
 * You are wrong! Jesus is the founder of TRUE Christianity! Because He is the Son of God. I don't know where you get your information. Paul was the founder of the first Christian church, not all of Christianity. He did not come up with all the doctrines on his own, Jesus told him what to believe and what to teach, thus Jesus is the founder of Christianity!! -RLE

Hart
Boy, that guy Hart has a big problem with reality. Noisy 23:00, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Boy that guy Noisy with other people expressing their opinions. Michael L. Kaufman 04:52, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Boy, that guy Hart has wrote the trutha and based his research finding on the reality. [Abdulkadir M Osman] 17:06, 02 june 2005(Mogadishu University)

Shakespeare
Why does Hart substitute De Vere for Shakespeare? Virtually no Shakesperian scholar believes De Vere wrote Shakespeare's plays. Exile 18:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was a more popular argument in 1978 when the first ed. came out? Does seem weird.  Of course, so is Michael Hart, being a white seperatist and all...  CL8 04:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why the revert?
PhilipO, WHy did you take out that link? It was an interesting link, and certainly relevant to the page. Michael L. Kaufman 02:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Other pages
I'm not sure where to post this, but this seems as good a place as any. I'm trying to post some mention of this list on all the sites of people on it in the general format, "[Last name] was ranked #[x] on Michael H. Hart's list of the most influential figures in history." Does anyone think this is a bad idea? Many pages already have similar citations (BBC polls, LIFE Magazine's list, the World Almanac), so I thought adding Hart's list would be in order. Brutannica 22:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this is a great idea. It was just such a link on the Thomas Jefferson page that led me here to this interesting list.  Scarykitty 09:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bad idea. This ranking is completely subjective, and the author's opinion is entirely irrelevant in the corresponding encyclopedic entries (do you really think that the fact that Jesus Christ was ranked 3rd in this book is anything worth adding in his wiki?)

Interesting Conundrum Regarding The 100
If this book was an article here on Wikipedia, it would probably be deleted as a POV List since apparently there is no real formula to the influence seen by Hart as it sounds here other than his subjective opinion. I wonder if there's some exclusionist non-vanity press book publisher out there who would take deleted POV lists, find a way to publish them with commercial feasibility and then reintroducing the article with a focus on the book, which would probably be notable due to Articles for deletion/Precedents. Karmafist 20:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So are you just musing, or do you have a suggestion for improvement? I think the descriptions of the figures' influence could use some further explanation/tweaking, but each entry, to some extent, has a fairly sound reason behind its inclusion, not just vague guessing. If this were an article, then of course it would be POV (Hart even states in the revised edition that he refused to bow to consensus and relied on his own opinion), but it's a summary of a book and you don't actually suggest deletion, so...? Brutannica 03:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * For some values of fairly sound. To place a person who might have written some of Shakespeare's plays but almost certainly did not above Beethoven, Alexander the Great and Napoleon, is ridiculous.  Newton is in there at 2, but Bacon (without whom Newton would have had no scientific method on which to work) is near the bottom, and Hooke (who invented the "Newtonian" telescope, was called the father of microscopy and posited the gridiron plan of street layout) is absent altogether.  As stated elsewhere, the list itself would be deleted as POV.  Quoting it in full is (apart from questions of copyright) an example of argumentum ad verecundiam, fallacious reasoning.  - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern. I have moved the section to the bottom of the article, because it is fairly close to criticism, which belongs on the bottom. Thanks. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 10:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's actually kind of a little bit of both -- accurate and misleading. I did notice a lot of points of contention -- substituting Oxford is iffy, ranking people is definitely open to debate (especially, how can you compare someone like Muhammad, a religious figure, with someone like Newton, a scientist?), and there are numerous examples of overlooked people, both mentioned in the book and omitted entirely. I'm sure Hart, who isn't even a historian, missed hundreds of little-known pivotal figures. But a) it stimulates debate, b) it suggests a new historical outlook, and c) it had an impact in popular historiography. (Though whether or not the back exaggerates this, I can't tell...) I suggest keeping the article and the list. I don't support it entirely. Brutannica 00:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Islamic websites
Just a thought: when I Google this book I always find it reviewed/mentioned on Muslim websites because of Muhammad's high ranking. I don't know anything about this book's reception in the academic community (or anywhere else), but does anyone know if the reaction from Muslim groups was important enough to merit mention? Brutannica 03:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually there is mention on other fairly impartial religious sites which feature all the major religions. As for the academic community, Hart is a well recognized author, but a source on that is harder to find. -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 15:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Subjectivity
I added the section subjectivity in response to some of the criticisms here and elsewhere regarding the issues inherent in factually covering book which is inherently POV (and contentiously so in some instances). I believe that section needs to be there, and I think my Bach example is fair, but the rest could do with NPOVing a bit (I have problems with the fact that, fundamentally, I don't think the list shgould be quoted at all although I can see some reasons why it should). Actually I still think the Subjectivity section should be above the list, to set the tone as it were. - Just zis Guy, you know? 11:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well usually criticism goes below the main article or after the main part of the article has appeared. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 11:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree -- this is the main format, and placing it at the top is POV-ish anyway. I accept the actual section, but it could probably use some fine-tuning. (I don't really feel up to it right now...) Brutannica 00:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe there should be a section on cultural bias. I noted that 26 of the 100 are "anglo-american" (from the USA or UK). I mean what sort of influence does any Shakespeare play have in today's China or Chad. I know that this is the English Wikipedia, but it should at least be mentioned along with the other reservations. --elefant 130.225.10.15 15:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle
Does it strike anyone else as odd that Aristotle and Plato are mentioned but Socrates is not? Without Socrates, the works of Aristotle and Plato would surely have been markedly different (if they had existed at all!). Also, Socrates was so influential to philosophy that any ancient philosophers before him fell into the category of "presocratic". Surely the fact philosophers are being classed in relation to whether they came before or after you makes you a fairly influential person. Kelmaon 11:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * See The 100 :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Bach example removed
The Bach example was so full of misinformation that I deleted the paragraph. First, Bach did not invent equal temperament (see the Equal temperament page). This mistaken belief typically comes from misunderstanding what "well-tempered" in "Well-Tempered Clavier" means. Bach advocated the use of certain systems of temperament, none of which were equal temperament. He didn't even invent a whole new temperament system, so saying that Bach invented equal temperament is like saying that the Pope founded Protestantism. Perhaps more importantly, however, while Bach wasn't popularly considered the greatest or at least one of the two or three greatest composers until long after his death, he was far from obscure, especially to musicians of the time. Mozart and Beethoven were both admirers.

Music only became significant after the invention of the phonograph
"And without Edison's phonograph we would probably not consider music especially important or relevant in the first place." This statement strikes me as utterly bizarre and speculative, and thereby a violation of WP:NOR as well as just plain weird. I strongly suggest that it should go. It would be far more logical to suggest that the phonograph would never have been considered a major invention if music was not a very important part of human culture and civilization! Palmiro | Talk 21:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This case is very well argued by Howard Goodall in his book Big Bangs. Consider: I am a great music fan, I used to give weeks at a time to helping out at music festivals, I sing in two choirs and at amateur concerts, my wife and two children all play instruments, variously the cello, french horn, piano, organ, voila, recorder - well, you get the idea.  We own perhaps a few hundred books of music by a few dozens of major composers and rather more minor ones.  This year I have been to just under 20 concerts, including a weekend in which there were seven or eight back-to-back.  In my iTunes library on this, my third-best computer I have over 6,000 recordings - around 400 hours of music.  On my other computers I have much more.  On my shelves I have several hundred CDs, and around 300 vinyl discs.  Each vinyl disc or CD holds the equivalent of three or four average books of music, with a few notable exceptions (larger choral works like the Dvorak requiem, Messiah and Missa Solemnis, which are single volumes of music and double CDs).


 * You can see the point, I hope? We are huge and active music fans, but still our collection of recorded music dwarfs what we perform or listen to in person.  I listen to probably four or five hours of recorded music for every hour of live performance, including my kids practicing.  I sing for maybe six or seven hours a week, far more than most people, but I have iTunes playing pretty much all the time I'm at a computer, which means pretty much all the working day and half the non-working waking hours.


 * But I have toned it down in the process of reverting some vandalism by an anonymous. See what you think. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 20:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

error?
The article says "Hart also substituted Niels Bohr and Henri Becquerel with Ernest Rutherford, thus correcting an error in the first edition." It would be useful if we knew what this error was, in my opinion. Gamaliel 16:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I wondered that, too :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 20:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyrights
I believe publishing the complete list is an infringment of the author's copyright and cannot be construed as fair use since it is both a substantial portion of the work and has considerable potential to decrease the market value of the book since people will no longer have to purchase it to know who his choices are. Obviously the book contains additional information, but since the list is the foundation of the book, it is clearly a very substantial portion of his work. In case anyone doubts that such a list is copyrightable, I would refer you to Eckes v. Card Prices Update, 736 F.2d 859 (2d Cir. 1984), which established that a list of "premium" baseball cards, chosen subjectively by the author, was sufficiently creative to receive copyright protection. I would suggest either cropping this list to a much smaller portion (say the top 10) or deleting it. Dragons flight 03:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The book is well over 500 pages, so yes, you might say that it contains a bit of "additional information". Michael L. Kaufman 03:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And reproducing a single page can violate copyright if it substantially decreases the market value of the book. Much of the appeal of such a book is to know who his selections are, so I believe giving that away for free is entirely inappropriate.  Dragons flight 04:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that no one seemed to take this seriously, I have now truncated the list to what I would consider a reasonable "minor portion" of his work (the top 15) in accordance with fair use doctrine. I suspect this is going to generate some complaints, so go ahead, but at least I will get your attention to what I consider a serious issue. Dragons flight 16:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * IANAL, but I don't see how factually reporting a simple list of names in the book is any more of a copyright violation than posting a list of chapter titles. This is a serious issue, and thus is one where we should get the input of lawyers and deal with it at the policy level, not deal with it by going around and taking material out of random articles. Gamaliel 00:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Funny, a few weeks ago, when I tried to deal with it at a policy level, I was told that it had to be approached at a case by case basis. Did you write that list of names?  Obviously not, so you are using someone else's work.  Do you have an argument to justify why that is okay?  Case law clearly establishes that lists are protected by copyright when the selection of elements on the list is based on a creative process.  Is it fair use?  I would argue no, since using the entire list is far more than is necessary to support an educational/critical description of the book, and it has significant potential to decrease sales of the book by serving a replacement for a key aspect of the work.  If you want another opinion, I'll go ask BD2412, a lawyer, to comment, but in the mean time please argue the elements of the case rather than just putting back the copyvio material.  (P.S. Didn't anyone tell you that it is inappropriate to use rollback against edits which aren't vandalism.)  Dragons flight 01:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to research this on Monday, when I have the full battery of legal research resources available to me. BD2412  T 01:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The argument is that we are factually reporting the names of the people who are discussed in the book. It's just a list of names, just like a list of chapter titles, or any number of lists of facts. You may disagree, and I may be wrong, but there it is. Others may think it is appropriate to deal with this on a case by case basis, but since every case is pretty much the same, and you no doubt think that every case is inappropriate use, it's just a way of dodging the root problem. PS. What possible difference could it make to you whether or not I revert with one click or four?  Gamaliel 02:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I am going to try and contact Hart to see if he minds people using the whole list. I will report back if/when I hear from him. Michael L. Kaufman 19:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here's the seminal case I've come across - Lipton v. Nature Co., 71 F.3d 464, 470 (2d Cir. 1995), which is instructive on this point. In that case, the plaintiff and defendant were each selling posters and similar materials containing artistically rendered compilations of "terms of venery" - unusual terms denoting groups of animals (such as a pride of lions, murder of crows, or gaggle of geese). The lawsuit hinged on the protectability of the plaintiff's list, which was noted to be in neither chronological nor alphabetical order. The court said:
 * Although facts are considered to be in the public domain and therefore not protectible under copyright law, a compilation of facts may be protectible in certain instances. Three requirements must be met for a compilation to qualify as protectible: "(1) the collection and assembly of preexisting data; (2) the selection, coordination, or arrangement of that data; and (3) a resulting work that is original, by virtue of the selection, coordination, or arrangement of the data contained in the work."
 * The amount of creativity required for copyright protection of a compilation is decidedly small. "Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author . . . and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity." Feist, 499 U.S. at 345. Although the defendants correctly assert that the terms themselves are not original, the uncontradicted evidence is that Lipton's selection and arrangement of the terms were original. In compiling his work, Lipton assembled terms from various fifteenth century texts and manuscripts. They were selected from numerous variations of hundreds of available terms. Furthermore, the defendants offer nothing to contradict Lipton's assertion that he selected the terms "based on [his] subjective, informed and creative judgment."

From the above, I would venture that Hart's selection of the 100 is creative enough to garner copyright protection, and would counsel against using more of the list than would qualify as fair use, in other words (in light of Wikipedia's non-profit, educational purpose), the amount of work used must be minor in relation to the work as a whole. However, the "whole" we are talking about is a book of several-hundred pages, so a mere listing of the first 15 or 20 names published therein - absent the authors exposition about why the named individuals are so ranked - would likely not constitute a sufficient encroachment to rise to the level of an infringement. BD2412 T 04:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * even the listing of 100 names is certainly minor compared to a book of hundreds of pages: the bulk of the work consists of explaining why these names were chosen, not in the names themselves. dab (&#5839;) 19:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The question is, might our listing of all 100 names deter someone from buying the book more than our listing of the top 15? I'd rather not render an opinion on that question here, but suffice to say that the discrete course is to keep the list as it is and focus the article on the purpose and impact of the book itself. BD2412  T 20:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Promotional
I find that Hart's ranking getting its own "Honors" section on many of the pages referred to in the list as being highly promotional of Hart's copyrighted book. Now that the list has been truncated, it is even more promotional for the typical reader. The references to Hart's list should be removed from the 100 pages (most of which are high-quality and appropriate for the "featured pages" list) that it has been added to. Getting on Hart's list is not, in itself, noteworthy. For instnace, James Clerk Maxwell mentions Hart's list. Even if Hart's list did not have a copyright and a price attached to it, I would still find this to be promotional.
 * I don't see how this is really much different from noting how U.S. News has ranked a university. The book itself is notable, inclusion in the book is a verifiable piece of info, the purpose of the encyclopedia is to disseminate all the notable info on the topics it addresses... BD2412  T 20:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Mohammed, parallelism
(In response to those that keep on reverting to "Prophet":) This is no longer Hart's book, but Wikipedia;for example, this article merely contains an excerpt of the list. As an encyclopedia article, it is flawed by bad parallelism, and Wikipedia is purportedly NPOV: or should the characterization of Jesus be changed, too? But just as there should be no argument from Christians that Jesus founded Christianity, there will be no argument even from Mohammedans that Mohammed founded Islam: "founder" is a perfectly neutral, NPOV term. Bill 16:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The list should be as is from Hart's book. There is no parallelism here in a directly sourced list. Also I don't know how good your intentions are when you use derogatory terms like "Mohammedan". The list should be as Hart wrote it. And now that all of it isn't shown there should be no copyright issues. Prophet is also used in other places on the list. Also FYI, "Founder" is a term that is disputed when applied in Islam, but isn't for Jesus in Christianity that could also help understanding. Also note that if everyone was allowed to add to the list description or go with the parallism concept, that would allow many to add "Prophet in Islam" next to Jesus' name and Moses' name for example. That is why I think the list should be as Hart wrote it. Thanks.  -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 16:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was not aware Mohammedan was derogatory; I hope it isn't, since it's a term I use somewhat interchangeably with "Moslem", but more especially when the person of Mohammed is more specifically involved; including during the years I lived in Morocco as a child, and when I worked in Algeria as an adult. I'm somewhat old-fashioned, and find the richness of vocabulary very useful for distinctions of denotation, not so much connotation, never been much of a literary type! As for Jesus being the founder of Christianity, surprise! one may cavil with just about anything; one not infrequently reads that Jesus founded no religion, and even that St. Paul founded Christianity (I seem to remember someone in one of these list books, possibly Hart, saying it). But reasonable people will surely not argue that Mohammed founded Islam, nor that Jesus founded Christianity, at least in the sense of being the source of these religions.  Wikipedians, like many people on most chat boards and so on, are a notoriously prickly bunch, ready to assail each other and impugn each other's motives; I was brought up not to, and try to avoid this kind of stuff: I hope you will treat me the way I treat you....  I'm letting this ride from now on &#8212; i.e., you've won (I'm easy to beat) &#8212; since it's obvious the POV of this article is already established. But it is yet another example of the impossibility of "NPOV", as noted in many critiques of Wikipedia. Bill 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay no problem. I wasn't trying to treat you unfairly or "beat you". Just trying to bring the reasons to your attention and I agree that there is an impossibility of NPOV in wikipedia. :-) Thanks and keep working hard. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting... I've never heard the term Mohammedan used much before and tonight I stumble across two separate debates on its use. See discussion page on Gospel of Barnabas. Fizban 12:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

copyright
Is it possible that the merger doctrine applies here? Copyright certainly does not apply to the notion that these are the 100 most influential people and they have these relative importances, since that is an idea, not an expression of the idea. The actual written list is an expression of that idea, but it is also the only reasonable expression of that idea. Copyright protection therefore does not apply, because it would effectively bar people from expressing or discussing the idea in question. The fact that creativity is involved in the work is a red herring, because that creativity was entirely in generating the idea, not the expression of the idea. The expression follows automatically from the idea. This seems clearly a different situation than the Lipton v. Nature Co. case. Jrohrs 04:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually got much more interested in buying the book when I saw the top 15 list and I read Muhammad's chapter of the book (linked in the article). 201.21.126.147

Name changes
I own a copy of the book, and I have changed the names on the list in this article to appear in the same form that they appear in the book. For example, Jesus of Nazareth is listed as Jesus Christ in the book, and I have changed this article accordingly.
 * Please check which version of the book you own; 1978 or 1992? --Rj 07:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I own 1992, which is the version the list in this article is from. I will revert the names to the 1992 version.

What happened
What was done that was so bad editing was disabled? Either everything is fixed, or you guys are paranoid, because I have the 1992 version and what you have is right. So what's up?

Why is Jesus #3
I know this cant be changed, but is there an argument for why Muhammad an Isaac Newton more influential than Jesus?
 * And does anybody find it interesting and surprising that even in a place like Wikipedia, some people just couldn't resist the temptation of intentionally spell Muhammad's name 'Muhamid'? How hatefully arrogant and how abominably sick people can do that and still do not make mistake in spelling Jesus' name? Kazimostak 14:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sir Isaac was the most influential scientist of all time. He by his mid twenties had invented the Calculus, created much of classical physics which is still widely used (and taught in high schools), made extensive contributions to astronomy, optics and cosmology and was arguably the most brilliant mind of human history. His influence on science is indisputable. His classical physics and Calculus are still cornerstones upon which most, if not all, of modern technology is based.
 * Isaac I cannot answer for fully. But if you read the book - you will see that Muhammad is put as number one, in both editions, as being the only man to have such a major influence on both the religious and "military" level.  Jesus had an impact on the religious level, with the largest number of people classing themselves as followers of Christ today.  However, Muhammad is only second to Jesus, with Jesus having 600 year "head start" so to speak.  But moreover, on the impact militarily - and let's face it that's what the world was doing at the time before him, during his time, and the times to come after him - i.e. with the British taking over much of the world, as did the French, the Dutch, the Spanish, Romans, Greeks, etc. - he led his people to conquer half the known world at that time.  Whether one agrees with the religion or not, as whether one does with any religion; is irrelevant - to look at it's 'influence', as the book is trying to do - then we realize that religion is not the only thing in life (whether that's right or not is another thing) and there are many other earthly achievements people can achieve.  Jesus accomplished the religious side, Newton changed how we think scientifically (please wait for a physicist for a better explanation on his laws and other stuff, and their "influences" on society) therefore an influence on non-religious life, but Muhammad did both. I hope this answers your queries.  I'm sure if the book were the most influential religious leaders in history; Jesus would top the list - by just looking at the sheer number of people following him today (which is probably double the number you think - as it includes all Muslims too). Yeah but the stupid thing about this is that without Jesus - and technically speaking Moses - you wouldn't have had Mohammed in the first place as those two were direct inspirations for Mohammed. By this logic - which is the only logic you can use - Jesus influenced the world more than Mohammed by influencing not only by himself but through Mohammed as well. And by extension you have to then trace things back to Moses etc without whose influence via Judaism we wouldn't have had Jesus. So it's just daft really and rather inflammatory! ThePeg 2006
 * Yes, and by your logic, without Newton's mother, there wouldn't be Newton. Maybe Newton's mother should be put up there instead of Newton. Wait, and then there's Newton's mother's mother... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.250.53 (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Anonymous Editor
I would stay anonymous too, if I said the Quran never noted that the prophet was also a military leader. Keep your head down "AE" and go to the back of the class. Ordrestjean 22:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Iron Chancellor
Arguably, he should have included Bismarck, who shaped Europe and its alliances during the second half of the 19th Century — without which WWI wouldn't have happened, without which Hitler, WWII and the Holocaust wouldn't have happened, without which the Cold War and division of Europe wouldn't have happened — without all of which Europe and humankind as a whole would have been better off. Not that Bismarck could have foreseen it all. But he was very influential and consequential. (Too bad he wasn't a democrat.)Sca 17:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bill Gates
Bill Gates is CERTAINLY one of the most important and influential people in history. If they come out with a new edition he should definitely be included. As for Alexander Graham Bell, I wouldn't really consider him all that influential. The telephone has obviously had an enormous historical impact, but if Bell hadn't invented it, someone else would have. There were a couple of other people rushing to patent their telephones but Bell beat them to the bunch. I think it's only a joke but they say that one of the others had to stop for milk on the way to the patent office. Also, Pope Urban II should be WAY higher on that list. Those Crusades plague our history to this day. All in all, this is kind of an absurd and pointless list. One question about the women thing: was Isabella I not a woman? Was Ferdinand aware of this? Grcirca1985 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Bill Gates is most certainly NOT one of the most influential people in history. Perhaps he IS one of the most influential people in the last 20 years but in the grand scheme of things he has had influence for a very short time. In 100 years maybe he should be on this list.  You'll notice there are very few late 20th century figures on the list; Mikhail Gorbachev and JFK are the only ones I see right off the bat.  Also, he did not invent the microchip or the computer.  He is a far better example of a person who would have existed in some form no matter what, the place and time was right in history. Hitler is also a good example of this -- which is why he is way down on the list.  This is NOT the case with Alexander Graham Bell who should absolutely be on the list. CL8 05:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't quite agree with you there. World War II will turn out to shape our world more than any other war in history and Hitler was key to these events.  Even more so he made decisions that "normal" people would not have made(pressing on with the Russian campaign).  On the other hand the telephone has indeed been a great influence on our lives but it was a technology and others were working on similar devices at the time.  So I think that Alexander Graham Bell should not feature on the list.  Indecently where is Einstein in the list.  His theories were radically different from his contemporizes and certainly influential to some extent. Graemec2 09:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You said about the telephone, if Bell hadn't invented it, someone else would have. I could say exactly the same about B. Gates. However his philanthropic work and life is not over yet. (Borhan0 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Where is Gandhi??
Any such list (like Noble peace prize winners) is not authentic if it does not include Gandhi. It is clearly biased towards western civilization. Also there is no mention of women, which is strange.
 * And did you read the book carefully? And still you couldn't find Hart's argument (at the end of the book) defending his decision not to include gandhi among the top 100? And did you really not read the entries of two women in the list and, more importantly, hart's explanation why more women couldn't be included in the list? Kazimostak 14:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Truncation
This is ridiculous. This list is very public. There are debates about it all over the internet along with complete and annotated lists. There are numerous long direct quotes from books on wikipedia pages. This is just a series of quotes; or a chapter list. This is not the full text of the book. Exerpts from books are allowed therefore let's leave it as it was. CL8 04:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the link at the bottom to the "Full list" is to http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html which has the entire list WITH full annotations AND the honorable mentions. This is all done with no mention of copyrights. This list is now popular culture. This is not full text or even a page of full text. This list is everywhere and it should be here as well. CL8 05:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because everyone else does something improper is no excuse for Wikipedia to do it too. It's the author's intellectual property, not ours.  Simply copying his list notably detracts from the commercial value of the book and hence can not be considered a fair use.  Dragons flight 07:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And this is true because you say it is? I thought the whole point behind the discussion pages were that major changes needed consensus before being made permanent. You seem to be the only person who has a problem with this. The rest of us were really enjoying this list and being able to link to each of the wikipedia pages on each of the selected people. So because you've got a bug up you ruin it for the rest of us? CL8 00:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Simply copying his list notably detracts from the commercial value of the book" -- That is your OPINION. You need consensus before you can just unilaterally hack up this page. CL8 00:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Caesar has spoken. Consensus seems to have no value here despite what we've been led to believe. So for those of you that want to see the whole list with wikipedia links, bookmark this version of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_100&oldid=84518629 CL8 09:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dragons flight. The article should provide relevant information about the book and an overview of the idea, perhaps quoting passages where it is relevant to the wider cultural impact (or Jesus controversy). I am not sure why even the top 15 people are included in this article and I think that should be better motivated. There is no reason to reproduce the contents of this book here in a Wikipedia entry. Chris Quackenbush 08:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Women in top 100
Are there any women in there? I couldn't find any
 * Look again. There are 2.  Both queens.  CL8 04:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Isabella I of Spain is 65th and Elizabeth I of England is 94th. Ygoloxelfer (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Islamic websites

 * The book was translated into Arabic by a known writer and there could be other translations. I saw several references about the book ranking in the Arabic media. However, I am not sure if the translation was done under any agreement with either the author or the publisher. (Borhan0 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Augustus
What were some bad aspects of Augustus, the Roman emperor, as a leader?

Anonymous edits
Every few days this page gets molested by people putting Jesus Christ at #1 and Mohammed at #3, or funnily placing Mao Zedong at #1. Perhaps the section of the list should be protected against editing by users that aren't signed in (anonymous vandalism)? 130.89.229.104 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Numero uno
In the present century when everyone needs peace, tolerance, understanding, non-violence, humanism and accommodative nature the choice automatically goes to Buddha. People who were and are responsible (indirectly even today) for war, strife, intolerance, intransigence, gender inequality and inhuman behavior should not be placed at all in this list.Kumarrao 11:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is about the list in the book by Michael Hart. If you have a different opinion, publish your own book and we will write an article about it.  Until then, as per Wikipedia rules, we must keep our opinions out of the article. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The 100 Cover.jpg
Image:The 100 Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
 * Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This article should be deleted.
I think that wikipedia should suppress this article. Actually Michael Hart hasn't any international or national status, like the FAQ for American movies. He only expressed his own, arbitrary, opinions. For instance, putting Newton above Jesus sounds merely like English chauvinism: if Mr. Hart were French, no doubt that he would have put Napoleon, and if he were German, Gœthe. Besides it's highly polemical (this talk page shows it) and it gives the impression that Wiki considers Hart's opinions as valuable. Then, wikipeda shouldn't have any scruple about deleting this article. Alexander Doria 10:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a book, it's read, it is sold and it looks like it passes Notability (books). The reason that he expressed his own opinions is not a reason to delete the article. That Wikipedia has an article about the book does not mean Wikipedia endorse his opinions. Garion96 (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The author is an American in fact, so unfortunately your argument is a bit specious in that regard. He hasn't put a single American in his top 15 (although Columbus does feature) and there's only one from what is now modern day Britain (Newton). As noted elsewhere, some likely candidates (e.g. Darwin, Churchill, Rhodes, Shakespeare from the UK; Rockefeller, Ford, Washington, Roosevelt, Oppenheimer from the US) don't feature at or near the top of the list. I wouldn't say Anglocentrism is a significant factor. Otherwise, I agree entirely with Garion96. This is an article about the book, not an advert for it. Wikipedia has an article about Adolf Hitler too - does that mean we endorse Nazism? I think not. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Below are a group of entries deleted in this edit.

Why is Jesus #3
Yes, Muhammad was influenced by Moses and Jesus. But according to the Holy Quran, we Muslim believed that both Moses and Jesus were not sent to all the people in the world. They were just messenger for their people. All three of them worship the same and the only God. Muhammad is the last prophet among all. He was sent to us. You can compare the three holy books 1st Revelation, Holy Bible and Holy Quran to get better explanation. It'll worth it. One more thing, Muhammad is not the founder of Islam. He is a prophet just like Moses and Jesus. They all are messenger from the God.60.51.86.173 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)muslimin60.51.86.173 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We should not discuss the list here. Book is printed long time ago. We can not change this list so there is no point of arguing. Unless you find some serious criticism of the the book in a respectable source, then you can add it to the article. Tiredtime (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are many scholars who believe that Paul was completely faithful to Christ's teaching, especially those theologians associated with the Roman Catholic Church, while a significant minority of academics continues to teach that Paul taught a different brand of Christianity known as Pauline Christianity (cf New Perspectives on Paul). In any event, if the alleged influence of Paul and Jesus were combined instead of separated like in the list, it is quite likely that Jesus would be make it to the top of the list, instead of the current edition which gives that honor to Muhammad. ADM (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Darwin
The list looks absurd to me, without Darwin. Darwin (& Wallace) proposed a shattering view of life which ultimately toppled the authority of the church, and with it the notion of an afterlife - and thus society throughout the world has altered. No longer is industrialised society characterised by deference to authority - it is guided by self-centred, hedonistic now-ism and an ultimate sense of futility (in my view). The effect has radically altered the structure of the world, and in terms of population over the last 100 years, that's the bulk of humanity ever!


 * The article is about the book. The author is free to say whatever he wants, and we merely report what the author has said (but note that we would probably not report on the book at all if it was not a best-seller). bd2412  T 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Besides, Darwin wasn't the first to express his ideas : Lamarck and some others did already evoked Darwinian principiples (such as evolutionism) quite a few decades before him. Alexander Doria (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are severely confused. "Evolution" is essentially the idea that biological entities are not immutable and change over time. This is a manifest fact that has been recognised since at least the time of the ancient Greeks. Darwin and Wallace formalised the (major) mechanism by which such processes occur. Darwinian theory was quite different from Lamarck's ideas, which were, to all intents and purposes, more or less codswallop. "Evolution" is an observation, which anyone can make; Darwinian evolution is a theory seeking to explain that observation, which is where the brains and the hard work come in to it. As an example, I can see with my own eyes (if I make careful observations) that the Earth and other planets revolve around the Sun - but it took geniuses like Newton and Einstein to explain why and how that is so. The same separation of observation from explanation applies here. Badgerpatrol (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? Darwin is in the list (prominently - 16 or so, IIRC). Noel (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Euler and Aryabhata
This list is not editable, for it is from a book, but it should mention the two greatest mathematicians, Aryabhata, and Euler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.19.167 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This list is not edible, but it should be. It could be delicious.140.247.250.53 (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To the author
I think the author of this book forgot a lot of people in this world. I think anyone has very basic knowledge in Math, Electronics or computers should be heard about "algorithms". Do you know where this is come from? Do you heard about "Muhammad ibn Musa Khwarizmi". This person is the reason behind all our technologies. For this reason I think Khawarizmi should be in this list.

Of course this scientist is one of many other scientist who was the reason behind the knowledge we have. It's not necessary to be famous to influence in this world. What do you think?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.59.146.179 (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignorance
As per my understanding people who prepared list ignored so many great personalities, 1.Mother therissa, where is she in the list?? is she not better than other influenced people??? 2.MK.Gandhi, where is gandhi?? 3.Aryabatta 4.Chankya, is there any better book than "Arthashashtra" regardig administration?

According to me these people should be in the list. I don't know much about others, but I felt these persons are better than so many people in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinutamada (talk • contribs) 04:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but I think there is a little written about the above noted greats or we can say the biography of these people is not much famous to have captured the attention Mr Hart. They will remain great if listed or not. Hart has listed the top 100 per his knowledge of history, so these are his own views. posted by Asad A. Khan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.252.203 (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Information age
Shouldn't Steve Jobs, and or Bill Gates be included in an updated list, or are they not considered part of history yet? They have helped to spread communication to the masses and have changed a whole culture. they have done this through the internet and through personal computing devices. I see this as highly significant to history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.242.123 (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but this article is only about the list Michael H. Hart made, not about our personal choices. Garion96 (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is?
Where is Martin Luther King? He changed the world! Where is Michael Jackson? He changed the music world! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithyhead1000 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

S-protected.
Since virtually all recent edits are anon vandalism and reversion of same. bd2412 T 00:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This article should be deleted.
I think that wikipedia should suppress this acticle. Actually Michael Hart hasn't any international or national status, like the FAQ for American movies. He only expressed his own, arbitrary, opinions. For instance, putting Newton above Jesus sounds merely like English chauvinism: if Mr. Hart were French, no doubt that he would have put Napoleon, and if he were German, Gœthe. Besides it's highly polemical (this talk page shows it) and it gives the impression that Wiki considers Hart's opinions as valuable. Then, wikipeda shoudn't have any scruple about deleting this article. Alexander Doria 10:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a book, it's read, it is sold and it looks like it passes Notability (books). The reason that he expressed his own opinions is not a reason to delete the article. That Wikipedia has an article about the book does not mean Wikipedia endorse his opinions. Garion96 (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The author is an American in fact, so unfortunately your argument is a bit specious in that regard. He hasn't put a single American in his top 15 (although Columbus does feature) and there's only one from what is now modern day Britain (Newton). As noted elsewhere, some likely candidates (e.g. Darwin, Churchill, Rhodes, Shakespeare from the UK; Rockefeller, Ford, Washington, Roosevelt, Oppenheimer from the US) don't feature at or near the top of the list. I wouldn't say Anglocentrism is a significant factor. Otherwise, I agree entirely with Garion96. This is an article about the book, not an advert for it. Wikipedia has an article about Adolf Hitler too - does that mean we endorse Nazism? I think not. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure whether the entire article should be deleted, but in my opinion one should at least delete all the embarrassing links from Wikipedia articles about truly notable personalities to this rather ridiculous list by a rather irrelevant author, who seems to be the only person profiting from those links, perhaps trying to become more notable himself in this way... Gimmemoretime (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I inserted alternative lists by others (see below), but they got removed. Fine with me, but then let us at least delete links from famous personalities to the particular personal opinion represented by this article. I wrote: [diff] Gimmemoretime (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Rutherford an error?
He says in the intro that he overlooked Rutherford when compiling the first edition. Noel (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Either delete article, or links to it, or add links to other such lists
As stated above, one should delete all links from Wikipedia articles about truly notable personalities to this rather ridiculous list by a rather irrelevant author, who seems to be the only person profiting from those links. I see only one alternative viable strategy: add links to the numerous other, wildly varying lists of the most influential people ever. For example, here is another top 10 list http://www.faqs.org/shareranks/1338,Most-Influential-People-of-All-Time : Manu (shanker mishra), Einstein, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Newton, Lao Tzu, Moses, Darwin, Franklin. Here is a Japanese top 10 list http://www.japanprobe.com/2007/04/01/historys-100-most-influencial-people-hero-edition-video/ : Sakamoto Ryoma, Napoleon I, Oda Nobunaga, Saigo Takamori, Miyamoto no Yoshitsune, Jean of Arc, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, Albert Einstein, Yutaka Ozaki, Akechi Mitsuhide. Yet another list http://www.rateitall.com/t-1283-most-influential-people-in-world-history.aspx : 1 Jesus Christ, 2 Muhammad, 3 Adolf Hitler, 4 Ronald Reagan, 5 Albert Einstein, 6 Buddha, 7 Johann Gutenberg. A US top 10 list http://www.smccd.edu/accounts/goth/MainPages/100_most_important_people.pdf by LIFE magazine puts an American first: Edison, Columbus, Luther, Galileo, Leonardo, Newton, Magellan, Pasteur, Darwin, Jefferson. Yet another list has Gutenberg first: http://www.falls.igs.net/~dphillips/biography3.htm Yet another top 10 list http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=173626 goes like this: Mohammed, Aristotle, Tsai Lun, Johann Gutenberg, Jesus of Nazareth, Paul of Tarsus, Shih Huang Ti, Louis Pasteur, Plato, Siddhartha Guatama. Yet another list I found goes like this: 1 Mitochondria Eve, 2 Jesus, 3 Mohammed, 4 Columbus, 5 Confucius, 6 Darwin, 7 Sun Yat-sen, 8 Karl Marx, 9 Buddha, 10 Rousseau. And here comes another list http://www.the-top-tens.com/lists/most-influential-person-of-all-time.asp and another http://www.worldtop.org/Culture/People/Most+influential+people+ever/ and another http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_are_the_25_most_important_people_in_history and another http://www.historum.com/showthread.php?t=2971 ... I guess most Wikipedians would agree that most of these lists are ridiculous. Again: either insert links to all those different personal opinions, or remove all links from Wikipedia articles on notable persons to the particular personal opinions of Mr Hart. Gimmemoretime (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you wish to delete links on other WP articles, that is a matter between you and the other editors on those articles. If you wish to delete this article, you are welcome to submit it to Articles for deletion.  However, your additions are inappropriate for this article.  This article is about a single book, not about every list of historical luminaries.  If you want to quote a critic saying "list X is better than The 100", fine by me.  If you want to link to other Wikipedia articles about similar lists in a "see also" section, fine by me.  But a group of randomly chosen lists, some of which do not appear to meet our notability or reliable sources requirements, isn't. Gamaliel (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Other lists are not relevant unless they reference this one, or are compared to this one by a noted third party. bd2412  T 02:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, both of you agreed to remove the alternative lists by others. Fine with me, but would you then at least agree to delete links from famous personalities to Hart's particular personal opinion? Otherwise the latter will gain undeserved emphasis and credibility, although it is not more valuable than personal opinions expressed in the alternative lists. As a reminder, here is what you deleted: [diff] Gimmemoretime (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I did delete quite a few links to Hart's list. Please help me to delete the rest - apparently he filled many articles with links to his personal opinion. Gimmemoretime (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I sincerely doubt the author added these links himself. With your removal of every mention of this list you're bordering on WP:Point. Also, please follow WP:BLP and don't make rude edit summaries about the author. Garion96 (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken, Garion96. Thanks! But wouldn't you agree this article is a bit like a parasite of the famous? A little known author gets associated (by whoever did this) with the names of numerous historic figures, by insertion of lots of links from their articles to his. Gimmemoretime (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I really doubt that any author would gain much from a few links like that. Why not use the time to write another book?  In any case it's not a good idea to use this page to air negative speculation regarding an individual lest we violate the WP:BLP policy. Gamaliel (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the Time 100 a parasite of the famous? That's just nonsense. This article is about a book, the book contains a list and is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry, that's all there is. Whether the list is good or bad is totally irrelevant. Garion96 (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am no fan of Time 100, but at least it's not the personal opinion of one single guy, but a group of "experts" (admittedly with a strong US bias), and at least Time magazine does not need other famous people to increase its own fame, which is already considerable. If we insert all those links to the personal opinion of one author, then for symmetry reasons there should be Wikipedia articles on the personal opinions of all the other authors of different top 100 lists mentioned above, plus the corresponding links. Is this really what we want in Wikipedia? Gimmemoretime (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes we do. Like stated before, it's a book, it's written by one person, it was bought by quite a lot of people and it's notable enough to have a wikipedia article. It can be linked from other articles, and it can be not, depending on the consensus on that article. All the other lists you mention (besides Time) or not notable enough of a Wikipedia article. Stop talking nonsense about "needing other famous people to increase its own fame". Garion96 (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a "see also" link to Time 100. Perhaps that's a compromise all can be comfortable with and can put this matter to rest. Gamaliel (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But how much sense does it make to add the Time 100 ranking for the present year, when this is about all time rankings? It makes more sense to add LIFE magazine's http://www.tostepharmd.net/hissoc/top100events.html which at least is about the past 1000 years, and largely incompatible with Hart's list. And Garion96, I don't see why other lists such as the Japanese ranking above are less notable than the American rankings. Gimmemoretime (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there is no Wikipedia article about it, it can't be put in the "see also" section. As an external link it is not fitting since it's too unrelated to this article. Regarding the Japanese ranking, perhaps it's more notable, although (assuming the info here is correct) it's hasn't sold 500.000 copies and wasn't translated into 15 languages. But you're welcome to create an article about it if it's notableenough. Garion96 (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, how do you know it has sold 500,000 copies? There is no source substantiating this claim in Hart's article. Gimmemoretime (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, "assuming the info is correct" Garion96 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the notability guidelines for books, and IMO they are not met. I found a few but not many citations at Google Scholar. None of the citing articles are highly cited themselves. And the claim of 500,000 sold copies seems to condense out of thin air. Gimmemoretime (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Being on this list may damage the reputation of X in the eyes of those who think X should rank higher
Being on Hart's questionable list is no "award" but may actually potentially damage the reputation of person X in the eyes of those who think X should rank much higher. I feel Wikipedia should not support this. Gimmemoretime (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then see WP:AFD for a how to nominate this article for deletion. But please only use this talk page to discuss how to improve this article. Not to speak your personal opinion how we might hurt the reputation of Isaac Newton.... See also NOT. Garion96 (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't "supporting" anything. We are documenting the contents of a book, nothing more. Gamaliel (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, why not delete Time Person of the Year, a similarly opinion-driven product? It is as likely that reputations will be damaged for being overlooked in that selection. bd2412  T 16:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Columbus
Please remove "Italian" from Columbus. His Italian origins are very controversial.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.242.80 (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Names Should not be Translated
While seeing the French version of the same subject on French Wikipedia I couldnt help noticing that the name of Prophet Muhammad was spelt as Mahomet (pronounced by French as Maa-o-may) this is something that should be corrected as no matter which country you belong to or whatever language you speak, names should not be translated as that gives a totally different meaning to it.

For example if there is person in England called Mr. Black you cannot call him Mr.Noir in French or Mr.Kala in Urdu or Mr.Tor in Pashtu or Mr.Negro in Spanish, Mr.Nero in Italian etc.. as that would be an insult to this person. The method has been also been used for Prophet Jesus who is actually called in the Hebrew bible and also in many other languages as Prophet Issa.

I strongly reject this translation of names and ask people to refrain from such practices, and if they still want to do so they should first translate their own names in other languages and imagine how they will respond when they are called by that name. — [ Unsigned comment added by Peeralizai (talk • contribs).] 13:01, 26 April 2010
 * It's common practice that old historical persons (and places) have different names in different languages. We're not going to change that. Plus if you want to discuss the name on the french article you better start a discussion page of that article. English Wikipedia has no control over the French Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer on wiki (fr) here. --Lebob-BE (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good answer. :) Garion96 (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * good answer, plus since when is Mohammed's mother tongue English? Jean-Baptiste Noyer, 12th may 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.251.240.21 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 116.71.23.8, 25 April 2010
{tl|{editsemiprotected}}

I saw an error in the page of 'The 100: A Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History' where Muhammad's name is being used after Jesus. Jesus is on third rank but on first rank as well. I think some innocent or brainwashed Christian tried to do it or maybe it was done by mistake.

116.71.23.8 (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing. It's fixed now. Garion96 (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently they have done it again, attempting to put Jesus Christ as number one. I’m not sure how JC can be moved back to the number three slot and also keep it from being meddled with. DeVereGuy (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The 100 Series
Please add a link to the Citadel Press "100" series the book started. Bar-abban (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

why does Hart get to decide who the 100 most influential people in history are ? should the page be renamed ?
his reasoning is ambiguous. the apostle paul treated Jesus as God and it was his encounter with Jesus and transformation by Jesus that changed him into the man who made it onto the list. there has to be some kind of methodology that can be followed to create a consensus list. maybe number of converts, holy books printed, diversity of followers, how most people view that person (Jesus is recognized as being perfect by Christians and the koran acknowledges that He is sinless (noone else is given that distinction)), effect on everyday life (date, calendar, names of major cities, effect major nations (Roman, Greek, German, Spanish, Italian, American), what percent of the people on his list that were effected by the person (2 % are muslim 70-80 % are Christian (which means Christ (Jesus) followers) {http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html} and the Christians do not hold Mohammad in high regard but the Muslims do Jesus). Why hasn't anyone else's opinion carried as much weight as Hart's ? If wikipedia wants to be fair and balanced this page should be called top 100 according to Hart, Hart's list, The 100 (Hart's list).Grmike (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)grmike
 * No, the page should be called "the 100" for the very simple reason that the book is called "the 100". Your own opinion about the ranking is irrelevant since this article is only about the book and Harts's opinion about the most influential people. Garion96 (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * does that mean a wikipedia page on 'most influencial people in history' can be created ? it would provide information based on a combination of sources (harts list won't be ignored).  a google search of most influencial people in history gives the 100 article by wikipedia first place.  i'm sure hart isn't the only individual who has ranked people in history by influence.Grmike (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)grmike
 * Write a book titled Most Influential People in History; get it published, and you're good to go. Or better yet, write one titled The 100, and you'll push this article to  or some such.
 * —WWoods (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mahavira was as great as Buddha. his name should be placed in the list of first ten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzota (talk • contribs) 07:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read the notes at the top of the page, do some thinking before posting, etc. --Bobak (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Should we expand?
To include everyone in the list of 100? Soewinhan (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Copyright concerns arise if we replicate too much of the list. bd2412  T 22:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from AlexanderTheGreat9191, 18 May 2011
Mohammed was also incredibly influential in his life after he spread his religion through his army.

AlexanderTheGreat9191 (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific about what edit you want to make? The article already mentions that he was a military leader.  Gamaliel (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Marking as answered per Gamaliel; without more specific info there isn't any real way to respond to the edit request
 * Amazing coming from someone who has "Alexander the great" in there name! - I smell trolling. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 5 October 2011
Extremely useful link *The 100, Michael Hart

Historygeekforever (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not done. We don't report the entire list due to copyright concerns.  Linking to a third-party reproduction is no better.  Dragons flight (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad image
Where is the Muhammad image, and why is there a "70 px" link left behind? Corvus cornix talk  23:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears to have been deleted on Commons due to copyright concerns. Gamaliel (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it with another Commons image, File:Mcrop.JPG. Gamaliel (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I couldn't figure out what was going on, since every version in the history was a redlink.  The image being deleted undoes my confusion.  :)   Corvus cornix  talk  00:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please delete the image of the Prophet Muhammad, The Prophet Muhammad did not want any images made of himself made or circulated. You will upset a lot of Muslims by having an image of The Prophet Muhammad on this page. So out of respect for their beliefs please remove the image. --Ruqa (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Also thought I'd add that a more appropriate image would be and image of his name in Arabic writing.--Ruqa (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you find a suitable replacement image on Wikipedia, please suggest it here. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I found this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muhammad_callig.gif but I don't know what to do with it, if its ok can you please sort it out. Thanks.--Ruqa (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I decided to be bold and add it to the article. Dissenters feel free to chime in. Gamaliel (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, glad there hasn't been any disagreements.--Ruqa (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, delete the image which is supposed to represent prophet muhammed pbuh, it is not allowed in islam to paint the prophets, this is an insult, thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.108.253 (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems that "Muhammad callig.gif" doesn't exist, is there another suitable replacement? Zujua (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad Image and honorifics
On Gamaliel's request, I'm commenting on the talk page rather than putting back the image. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that honorifics and other such things have no place here. There have been tons of discussions regarding the use of images depicting Muhammad, yet the zealots never give up. Shouldn't this page be semi-protected from IP and new editors? Through the years I've used Wikipedia as a source of information I've seen this page constantly in a vandalized state; whether it's the Muhammad image or the SAW and PBUH after his name. It's ridiculous. Downunder112 (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've placed this page under semi-protection at various times to prevent drive-by reverts and removals. Removing a picture and breaking the frames is pretty clearly vandalism.  Replacing the image with some sort of calligraphy, however, is a valid edit so semi-protection shouldn't be used to prevent that. Ideally, discussion should develop a consensus either way - image vs. calligraphy - and then that could be enforced.  Unfortunately few editors are willing to engage in any sort of discussion at all, much less the lengthy discussion required to develop consensus. Until then we still have that open question.  Gamaliel (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you remove the image of Prophet Muhammed pbuh?!
Would you be kind and remove the image of the prophet pbuh, this is an insult to the muslims to put an image on the prophet pbuh. Please remove it, thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dndn91 (talk • contribs)

A note to users who may wish to substitute a different picture: any picture used in this article for this purpose must have some other copyright status other than "fair use". Fair use pictures can only be used in Wikipedia in very specific contexts, such as the cover of a book used in the article on that book. The book cover can't be used to decorate user pages or random lists, for example. You might want to look at Wiki Commons for pictures. Gamaliel (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I don't care what picture is used, as long as the picture is compliant with Wikipedia policies regarding copyright. Gamaliel (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me try to clarify again, because some editors don't seem to understand the issue. I don't care what picture is in the article, but I will revert your edit if you don't follow two simple things:
 * The picture cannot be a COPYRIGHTED image as per Wikipedia rules.
 * You can't just yank out a picture and leave a blank space.
 * If you can manage to follow to these two very simple concepts, your edit will stand. If you have any questions, please ask them here. Thank you.  Gamaliel (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not kill 1.6 Billion Muslims hearts and Minds..Please...please Please please

Why you changed and Put 'Prophet Muhammad(PBUH)', his unknown picture to the Google..the 100 boook listing in googlw wikipedia..? Please stop uploading his unknown image of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH)..moreover..He was shown the statueless,Image less GOD.. Please dont do this..,,

i kindly request you to put proper Islamic words in picture..or mention his name(PBUH) in the image........

I request again to remove this..please.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.53.252 (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have a suggestion for an image to substitute, please suggest it here. We cannot use the copyrighted image that you have placed in the article, for reasons that we have repeatedly explained.  Why should we listen to your request when you won't listen to repeated requests that you not violate our rules on copyright.  If you wish us to respect your request, please respect our rules as well.  Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC

Plz remove the image that is used as Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), but the truth is it is not the Prophet's image. Prophet Mohammad did not like to make his picture. I am a fan of Wikipedia and I really view it as great source of authentic information on any thing under the sun. Thats why What I feel is that if we want to use a picture of Prophet against his name, it should be a real one of his own not just any picture. But we won't find any real picture as he did not like that and advised others also not to make his pictures. It is not befitting for this esteemed site to hurt religious sentiments or faith of whatever religion it may be. Hence I feel the image should be better removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.109.38 (talk • contribs)

It certainly is a big insult to all muslims to reflect a picture of our Prophet (aleyhiselam); which is why we have changed this insulting figure to a arabic calligraphy as his representation. Posting figures are just a way to lie and say this was how He (aleyhiselam) probably looked like. Please stop this lie as been requested by almost everyone in this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltimur (talk • contribs) 07:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As a precedent, the Arabic calligraphy used in the article, also used in the Muhammad (aleyhessalam) wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltimur (talk • contribs) 07:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for other editors, but for me this is an acceptable option to me since the picture appears to have an appropriate license for use in Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral in terms of religion, and depicting a historical figure related to a religion might be offensive to people but I am of the opinion that Wikipedia should disregard any religious views that a person cannot be depicted, therefore I think Muhammed can and should be depicted. Wikipedia is not an islamic website and cannot ever be held responsible for upsetting certain religious groups by simply displaying a picture of a person, or even take this possibility into account. Please read the Wikipedia FAQ about this, stating that pictures of Muhammed are allowed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by M48b (talk • contribs) 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

why don't you use wikipedia's common file images such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammad_SAV.svg ?? PLEASE WIKIPEDIA DELETE THE PICTURE OF PROPHIT (PBUH) PLEASE IT HURTS THE MUSLIMS VERY HIGHLY DLETE THIS PICTURE........... ITS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR ANY MUSLIM NOT A SINGLE PERSON NEVER...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asadbutt7374 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding visual depiction of Muhammad
It's surprising to see an image painted a millennium after the time of Muhammad depicted in this article as his 'image'. This is inaccurate since there aren't any contemporary visual depictions Muhammad, therefore inserting a 17th century artistic version under the straight forward term 'image' is entirely misleading.

Also visual depictions of Muhammad is considered deeply offensive to the majority of muslims (Refer to the wikipedia article for further clarification). This is a case of trying to be neutral for the sake of neutrality but turning out to be disrespectful due to lack of understanding.

The best solution would be replacing a facial depiction with a calligraphic image which has been the traditional norm of visual representation throughout Islamic history. Since Muhammad is the prophet of Islam, even through a neutral stance it is only appropriate to depict him through Islamic context rather than single him out of his own teachings and beliefs.

Here's a calligraphic example from a free share website:
 * 1) REDIRECT []

Please take necessary steps and let's contribute with understanding. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldiabloz10 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is nothing misleading about a 17th century artistic Muslim depiction of Muhammad (you can find more Muslim depictions of him here). No one knows how Jesus, Buddha or Moses looked, but people generally aren't naive enough to think artistic depictions of them by their followers are accurate. On the other hand there is plenty of information in Hadith on how Muhammad looked, so, if anything, depictions of Jesus, Buddha or Moses are more "misleading".


 * If we replace a facial depiction with a calligraphic image on this page, as you suggested, then Wikipedia would have to do the same on EVERY page which contains depictions of Muhammad (since this page is no different to any other). I doubt Wikipedians will agree to that. There is absolutely NO valid reason why this page should be treated differently to any other on this site, other than to appease a few zealots who want to force their own irrational religious sensitivities and rules onto others.


 * No one is singling out Muhammad. Using a depiction of him from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, now THAT would be singling him out. Similarly using Piss Christ to use as a depiction of Jesus would be singling out Jesus, a very important prophet in Islam. That page should offend both Muslims and Christians, but replacing it with a calligraphic image would be absurd. Downunder112 (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Why to have picture of Hazrat Mohammad (PBUH)??
Dear Wikipedia Concern

I really can't understand why it's so important to have picture of Hazrat Mohammad (PBUH)? and even if someone wishfully wants to use a picture (not copied right) why can't wikipeida uses its' common picture repository?? i.e.

Please try to understand it's not nice, Muslims do not make/see/visit those websites which contain pictures of their holy prophet. so please be logical and change the image.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimateremedy (talk • contribs) 04:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversial Image
Instead of depicting a image or letting it be empty. We can use a file depicting the name of the Prophet Muhammed. That would be better, it is easily recognised. I think this is a good compromise, for both sides. Runehelmet (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I added the image but it was automatically reverted by the bot. Why is that? Anyhow, there is no valid reason to follow your suggestion. Refer to my comments here . The image is 'easily recognised', by whom? Yes, probably by Muslims but not by anyone else. There is no reason for a 'compromise' since including an image of Muhammad in that page is following well-established Wikipedia guidelines. You can't single out any one religious figure for special treatment. Wikipedia is not censored to appease zealots. --Downunder112 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no profit in showing the Image. The goal to show an image is to let people recognize the person behind it. And having the name placed, serves it purpose well. The readers know that the name represents Muhammed. Runehelmet (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is also "no profit" in removing the (SAW) and (PBUH) honorifics, but, as I've already noted, according to Wikipedia guidelines you can't single out any one religious figure for special treatment. It doesn't matter if "The readers know that the name represents Muhammed". If you want to remove the image of Muhammad from this page, why not go all the way and ban images of Muhammad from Wikipedia? That's right; it would be against Wikipedia guidelines, guidelines which are not exempt from this page. Let us both advocate replacing the depiction of Jesus with a Cross, the depiction of Buddha with a Wheel of Dharma, or the photo of Einstein with E = mc2, and see how far we get with that. Downunder112 (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * When you added back the calligraphic image you left the edit summary, "Please use better arguments for the removal of the replaced Image." Excuse me, but it is you who needs to use "better arguments" for why Muhammad should be given special treatment on this page and why you think this page is unique and doesn't have to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. There is absolutely no valid reason why any Wikipedia editor should even entertain the idea of removing the visual depiction of Muhammad from this page. Downunder112 (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * first of all, there is no special treatment. This depiction does not represent Muhammed. There is no accurate Image that shows us his real physical characteristic, instead using a false Image, we can use the calliggraphic image. That is 100% legit, no doubts about it validity. And yes we can remove all the 'depictions' of Muhammed. So your 'crusade' to spread images that may; 1. Does not represents Muhammed at all, 2. Can create dissension for readers and 3. easily be replaced by his name. So hereby please stop reverting and replacing it. And even if you say: It is against Wikipedia guidelines, how can we use a depiction that does not represents the person behind it? Runehelmet (talk)


 * What a load of nonsense. Of course removing the depiction of Muhammad is giving him special treatment, and no, you cannot remove all the depictions of Muhammad from this site. That was tried before and it failed miserably. I like your strategic use of the word "Crusade" which holds negative connotations. Likewise I could refer to your attempt at removing Muhammad's image as a "Jihad", but that's hardly constructive, is it? A lot of things can cause "dissension" among readers, but Wikipedia is not censored to appease zealots. Your argument about the representation of Muhammad being false is preposterous and was dealt with here . And no I will not "stop reverting and replacing it", it is you who needs to stop. Downunder112 (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. you talk about nonsense. How do you know that that depiction is muhammad? And I dont speak as being forbidden because Islam prohibites it, but the Image is inaccurate and thereby not able to represents muhammed. And I'm not talking about a religious crusade. But I won't change the subject. And you call me a zealot? Says the person who is desperate about the depiction for a person. Your arguments are not reliable at all. And you stated that you wont 'stop reverting', is that a sign of an Edit War? Tell me why should we not use the calligraphic one? Instead of a depiction that is inaccurate? There is no image in the world that shows us the Muhammed we are looking for. So please tell me why we should do it. Runehelmet (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that is a visual depiction of Muhammad because it's "Illustration showing Mohammed (on the right) preaching his final sermon to his earliest converts, on Mount Ararat near Mecca; taken from a medieval-era manuscript of the astronomical treatise The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries by the Persian scholar al-Biruni; currently housed in the collection of the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris (Manuscrits Arabe 1489 fol. 5v). This scene was popular among medieval Islamic artists, and several nearly identical versions of this drawing (such as this one [shown in detail below] and this one) were made in the Middle Ages." (source)


 * As I've already explained several times, it does not matter if you or anyone else thinks the image is "inaccurate".


 * I never suggested you were ever talking of a religious crusade, I simply pointed out your strategic use of a word which holds negative connotations. And do not twist my words, I never suggested you were a zealot. I stated a simple fact; Wikipedia is not censored to appease zealots. In this case it's fundamental Muslims who want to impose their religious moral code onto a site which is not affiliated with any religion or ideology.


 * I've explained over and over again why we should not use the calligraphic image, and finally, no, I'm not edit warring. I'm reverting vandalism which violates Wikipedia guidelines. Downunder112 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this "inaccuracy" argument is a red herring. You could make the same argument about an image of any person before the invention of photography.  9 out of the 10 images on the list are not photographs, but you only raise this objection about one image, not nine.  So the real issue is not the supposed accuracy of this image, but that it is an image of Muhammad. Gamaliel (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Downunder112 - vandalism is a very specific thing. Reviewing the edits, Runehelmet's (and the other editors who are reverting you) are clearly not vandalism and are made in good faith.  As such, you are not exempt from 3rr and that is why you and the other edit warrior have been warned by me.  Further reverts will be answered by a block, now that you are aware of 3rr explicitly. Syrthiss (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I left a message on your talk page because I did not realise you had left one here. Downunder112 (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. You left it while I was writing this message here, tho I did also answer you there. Syrthiss (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Back to the issue of Muhammad's image, in my opinion, there has been no legitimate reason given as to why his image should be removed and replaced by calligraphy. Adding to what Gamaliel noted above, there is nothing wrong with "inaccurate" pre-photography depictions of historical figures, and even those in favour of using the calligraphic image can see this since their only objection is the depiction of Muhammad. Downunder112 (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been my stated position that removing the image (especially when coupled with frame breaking, lack of discussion, etc.) is vandalism while replacing the image with a different image (such as calligraphy) with an appropriate license is a reasonable edit. This draws a distinction between Runehelmet's edit and the drive-by removals of Saharknr and others.  I don't think anyone is calling Runehelmet's edit specifically vandalism.  I should bear the responsibility if Downunder112's edits were inappropriate since he is a new user and I'm supposed to be setting a nominal example here.  If you feel that removing the picture is not 3RR-exempt vandalism, we can discuss that and refrain from going over 3R.  But removing the picture until/unless discussion is concluded is not a valid move, in my opinion.  If you strongly feel that the image of Muhammad should be removed while discussion is ongoing, then replace it with the calligraphy inserted by Runehelmet, but please don't encourage the vandalism by removing the image and not replacing it.  Gamaliel (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I am withholding any opinion regarding the preference of images, in case I need to enforce the warnings. My observation is - really, I am not sure that any of the images really adds anything to the table. I would not be able to identify St Paul or Cai Lun on sight if the text descriptions were not also there, and anyone who felt a burning desire to know what Isaac Newton looked like could perhaps go to the linked Isaac Newton article. I cannot recall specifics, but I thought I saw recently guidelines that if there were reasonable compromises to avoid offending Muslims then we should avail ourselves of them. I will see if I can dig them up. Syrthiss (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @gamaliel - that would be an incorrect position, imo. Vandalism is very specific, and 3RR was written with very few specific exemptions as I am sure you know.  Removal of the image in a way that does not break the table (which I am not aware that my edit did) has to be taken as a good faith edit unless evidence is given to the contrary, and is only sanctionable by 3RR / edit warring or disruptive editing if it was something like encyclopedia-wide blanking of all images of Muhammad.  Syrthiss (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I have no problem not treating this as a 3RR-exempt issue, though I think removing article content in this manner and refusing to discuss edits certainly meets some definition of vandalism, or is at least inappropriate editing behavior. I wasn't accusing you or anyone specific of breaking the table, just noting that this has happened frequently in the past, usually by drive-by editors who refuse to post on the talk page or even use an edit summary. I have no problem discussing the removal of 'all' of the images, but if there are images, there shouldn't be a blank space right in the middle of a table where a picture should be. I've never reverted anyone who replaced an image with calligraphy unless it was a copyrighted image. Gamaliel (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Found (sorta) it - there is currently an arbitration proceeding at []. As they have not come to a decision yet, that is ultimately not too helpful... other than to suggest that perhaps there will be guidance soon. Syrthiss (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling us about this. I don't envy Arbcom the task of sorting through that mess. Gamaliel (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)