Talk:Time Person of the Year/Archive 2

Concept of flags
Is there a reasoning for using flag icons against each person of the year. We cannot apply a flag against abstract persons of year, e.g. You. If there is a good reasing, why should the geographical flag be used? Gandhi were selected because of his peaceful opposition to the British Raj, it seems asinine to apply the British Raj against his entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.102.238 (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But, in 1930, Gandhi was a citizen of the British Raj, weather he liked it or not. Flags are used in place of a nationality columnn, and yes it's flawed, but it works. Highfields (talk, contribs) 16:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I get the fact about Gandhi's nationality. We seemed to be in agreement that the flag column is flawed and I don't think it works. The reader will assume Gandhi was connected to the former British Empire instead of leading the opposition of it. Is there is rule stating that we need to represent the person's nationality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.117.201.206 (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There doesn't have to be either a flag or nationality column, but it would be much worse without. Highfields (talk, contribs) 16:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that broadly speaking the flag concepts seems to be a good idea, but when you have someone who directly opposed the legitimacy of the natural flag assigned to them (as is the example of Gandhi specifically mentioned here) then the system should be questioned, especially when the example cited resulted in the creation of a new nationality. The national flag (if used) should be directly attributed to what the individual cited would identify. In some cases, this could be arguable, but in the specific case of Gandhi, I don't think it a real stretch to imagine he'd want the flag of India, not the Raj. Manticore55 (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But how could we make that work? If we put the flag of India instead, it would be untrue, but when we put the Raj, it prompts the argument above. Highfields (talk, contribs) 16:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It won't be productive to start organising nationality around our perceptions of an individual's feelings. Gandhi's personal beliefs did not render facts as inaccurate; he was, in 1930, a subject of the British Raj. As that is an indisputable point, it's the one that should guide what flag is associated with him. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree Highfields (talk, contribs) 17:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What if we could somehow have a flag with a gray background and a question mark in the middle to represent an unknown nationality in this case. It would solve the issue of having to decide a full nationality for this person. --MWOAP (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So, there's no dispute that Gandhi (commenters, please check your spellings) was a subject of the former British Empire. It is unsustainable to tie the person's nationality to the entry. Unlike the Nobel prizes, the Time Magazine does not recognize the person by their nationality. We cannot apply this logic to 'You', 'The Computer', 'The Baby Boomers'. In Gandhi's situation, I am quoting the thoughts of the magazine itself which the article is supposed to reflect. Putting the British Raj would be misleading to the reader. Foreign News: Man of the Year, 1930 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.102.238 (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not misleading in the least. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Then, we disagree. Time to seek a third opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.102.238 (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your third opinion request at WP:3O: This dispute is best resolved by remembering that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia providing basic information. IMHO, the purpose of the flags in this article is merely to give basic information about the nationality of the recipient (which is relevant in some instances and not in others). Readers wishing more detail must look to the specific article about that person. I'm not all that familiar with Gandhi, but I do not recall that, as opposed as he may have been to the Raj, he ever renounced his citizenship. (Indeed, his support of the cause of independence clearly shows that he considered India to be part of the Raj; otherwise independence would not be needed.) Since it appears that the uniform practice in this article has been to use the person's flag of nationality at the time the award was given, it would appear to me to be most appropriate to use the flag of the Raj. To use a flag which was not, in fact, the flag of his nationality would be a form of editorializing or essaying prohibited by WP:NOT and a failure to maintain WP:NPOV. Should the flag of Weimar Germany be used rather than the Nazi national flag to dishonor the ideas and desires of Adolph Hitler? No. Wikipedia does not exist to either honor or disparage the memory of individuals, but only to report the facts about them, and the fact was that Gandhi was a citizen of the Raj when the award was made, even though he did not like and wanted to change that fact (which is, I would further note, clearly set out in the article to which the Raj flag icon is linked). As a secondary matter, I note that someone has added the comment to the article text. This hidden comment is inappropriately worded, violates or comes close to violating WP:WikiBullying, and should be rewritten to conform with the "acceptable uses" section of WP:WikiBullying.  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 05:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the hidden text was me. I placed it there since IPs kept changing it every month. I thought to save having to revert it, just for it to be reinstated was unneccessary. I've read the policy article so I've tried to reword it (and some others I added for a similar reason). Highfields (talk, contribs) 16:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would seem that, even in the face of the 3rd opinion that he himself requested, the anon feels he's still in the right and continues to insert his personal views into the article. How long should he be permitted to do this before he gets blocked? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Previously anon poster here. The entry was not my personal view. I am summarizing from the Time magazine itself. Do you disagree with the fact that Gandhi was the leader of the Indian freedom movement and was selected by Time Magazine for the same? If so, please provide citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnavenger (talk • contribs) 22:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article you linked to made no mention of Gandhi being chosen because of the Indian independence movement. It more speaks of his place as an agitator in the British Raj. Serious discussions about Indian independence were still years off; just because they ran a magazine called Time doesn't mean the editors were able to see forward in time. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If the edit/revert cycle continues, this is an edit war and I recommend making a report to WP:ANEW or WP:RFP.  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 05:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it might be worth...here's a fourth (fifth?) opinion. I agree with Highfields, Miesianiacal, and TransporterMan. The flag should be shown as it was at the time of event. Retroactively changing it to the present day flag is basically a "feel good" act of revisionism. However, if this issue of the flags is so troublesome, then perhaps they should be removed altogether. People can click on the hyperlinks if they want to know a person's nationality. Mtminchi08 (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So, the debate is no longer about the flag. This is about my addition in the notes section specifying Gandhi's role as the leader of the Indian independance movement at that time. Miesianiacal refuses to acknowlege that there was indeed a freedom movement inspite of the Time's article quoting the same, "Gandhite Independence Movement" pg 4, "30,000 members of his Independence movement", pg 1. I have to question whether Miesianiacal's deletion of my notes are WP:NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnavenger (talk • contribs) 04:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, sign your posts. Secondly, indent your responses. And thirdly, please read what I write carefully; I never said there was no Indian independence movement, I said there's no mention in the Time article of Gandhi's leadership of an independence movement being specifically why he was chosen as Time's Person of the Year. If you can point out where exactly in the piece it says otherwise, I'll be happy to re-insert the information. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  07:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To add to the flag discussion: According to the Wikipedia article, Apollo 8 astronaut William Anders was born in Hong Kong. Due we add the British-era HK flag to the section? CR85747 06:48, 11 Feburary 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.0.146 (talk)

Suggestion
Hi, I was looking at this list and I was wondering whether to improve it we could make it more like List of Nobel laureates in Literature by removing the flags and placing a nationality collumn. This works particuarly well as many of the individuals shown can be satisfactually represented with a flag - see Elizabeth II, monarch of seveal states, Gandhi with a British Raj flag, etc. Also, this list is populated with abstract concepts too, so rather than omit flags for these concepts we could simply put "N/A". Any support? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I stated above, that could work but I think it would have the same limitations; Gandhis nationality would still be under dispute, Elizabeth II would still have lots of nationalities. I think it's simpler and better looking to stick with flags. Highfields (talk, contribs) 11:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We could just state that Gandhi was "Indian", and place a note for the Queen stating that as a monarch or multiple states she has no one nationality. I think that's clearer than using political flags, some of which seem a bit innapropriate. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a difference between what's there now and what's suggested besides words replacing images; the proposal’s therefore possible, but would probably be visually inferior. I also don't see the need for acrobatics to get around acknowledging that Gandhi lived under the British Raj when he was nominated as Person of the Year. It's an historical fact; get over it. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry? What acrobatics? I just think the flags distract,l without imparting any particular information. The reasoning for using a flag of the British Raj for Gandhi, and apartheid South Africa for Mandela, seems rather odd when both individuals fought against these states: describing Gandhi as "Indian" and Mandela as "South African" would be much more succinct, and be more "historical factual" and accurate. It would also make the page much more aesthetically pleasing. IMO, Wikipedia over relies on flags. See WP:ICONDECORATION. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally still stick to my opinion (and therefore agree with Miesianiacal) Highfields (talk, contribs) 13:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Wallis Time.jpg
File:Wallis Time.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles?
Why the hell aren't The Beatles on this list in any of the the years of the 60s? They started the British Invasion and have the most covered song of all time (Yesterday - over 3000 versions)! They changed music forever and John Lennon spread peace everywhere he went, and Paul McCartney did the same with vegetarianism. And George Harrison helped create the state of Bangladesh for Christ sake! They deserve to be on here more than Lyndon B. Johnson anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWalrusWasPaul (talk • contribs) 02:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently Time (magazine) didn't agree. Frank  |  talk  02:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are there any flags in the list of persons of the year anyway
Come to think of it, why put flags next to the names anyway? Does the nationality of the person of the year have anything to do with the reasons they were chosen? Is this to show that Americans are in the majority in the list? I say take the silly flags out of the list. This list is to honour people, not to insult them (like you do with Gandhi).KathaLu (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you'd read the article fully you'd know it isn't an honour. And I think Gandhi would be more annoyed by people spelling his name wrong. The flags are there to let the reader know the subject's nationality - no more than that. Flags are used because they look better and take up less room than having a seperate text column - Highfields (talk, contribs) 17:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth Flag?
Could the flag of the Commonwealth of Nations be used to represent Elizabeth II's nationality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergeek1694 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that the Queen has nothing legally to do with all but 16 Commonwealth nations: no. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We could use her personal flag... - Highfields (talk, contribs) 16:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It didn't exist in 1952. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Queen has not real nationality? What a lot of codswallop. Why don't you look it up on her very own website, www.royal.gov.uk. If that's not a reliable source I don't know what is. Quote: "As a national of the United Kingdom, The Queen is a citizen of the European Union, but that in no way affects her prerogatives and responsibilities as the Sovereign." And just so that you do not get into another spin: everyone who is a national of one or more of the 27 EU states is also a citizen of the (European) Union. So put the (British) Union Jack next to her name and if you want you can mention in the footnote that she was souvereign of other countries in 1952. But she was born British, she was British in 1952 and and she is British now. Note: There are no Birthers in the UK. KathaLu (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I accept she's a national of the UK. But we (or I at least), think she was/is also a national of the others - Highfields (talk, contribs)


 * OK, now that it's established that she is a British national put the British flag next to her name. It's downright stupid not to do so. This is a list of the TIME Persons of the Year, not a scholarly essay on the finer points of the collision between British law, EU law, international law and Commonwealth law, or the differences between British subject, British citizen, British national and all the incarnations of the British Nationality act over the years - there is a pretty good summary here, link to it if you want. I can see why you want to stick to the situation in the year of nomination, you don't want to put the flag of the German Federal Republic next to Hitler's name. A bit more flexibility would make sense, though, for example for Gandhi. Why not establish the rule that you pick the flag that represents the nationality the person had during his or her life time and that best represents why the person was chosen by TIME. Would make more sense than what you have now. So what if Elisabeth II was the national of more than one country in 1952? Add it in a footnote. Did you check all the other TIME Persons of the Year for dual or more nationalities at the time of their nomination? I bet you didn't, nor would it make sense to plaster their flags next to their names in a list of TIME Person of the Year. KathaLu (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I get some of your points - although I firmly disagree with you about flexibility regarding flags at the time, regardless of Gandhi-like situations - but some of your points I don't get:
 * Did you check all the other TIME Persons of the Year for dual or more nationalities at the time of their nomination? I bet you didn't - Not sure what you mean, all the nationalities, including the rare cases of dual nationality, represented are correct, as far as I know anyway
 * So what if Elisabeth II was the national of more than one country in 1952? Add it in a footnote. - erm, we have. The reason no flags are given is because it looks OK to put 2, or even 3 flags, hence we do. But with 7, it's not so good, hence no single flag is used, as explained in the footnote. - Highfields (talk, contribs) 23:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You got yourselves into quite a muddle here. Just stop and think what your purpose on Wiki is. Is it playing rule games or providing accurate and readable information for the readers? Not putting the British flag next to the name of the Queen of Great Britain in the list is playing pointless rule games and a disservice to any reader. I am only passing through here and noticed this glaring silliness. I wonder whether Churchill didn't have American nationality, whether Wallis Simpson had already British nationality, whether the US scientists all gave up their first or second nationalities when they became Americans - legislation on nationality is very different from country to country and has changed many times over the years in many countries, in fact one country may recognize that a particular person has two nationalities while the other country involved doesn't, so did you check that and if so, which country's laws did you pick, lol ... but frankly, I can't be bothered. Take care and do what you want. KathaLu (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Churchill recieved honorary citizenship of the US in 1963, so in 1940 he was British only. Not sure about Wallis Simpson though. As for your point on the American scientists, I don't they were all only US citizens (although I think all were US but just possibly more as well) so I would advocate removing flags for all abstract choices, even the scientists, or, for example, the Hungarian Freedom Fighter - I suppose it doesn't really matter, but I'd get rid of them if that's what you're suggesting. As for the complex issues, it's clearly just a simple guide, which is where the probelms originate between common sense and accuracy - Highfields (talk, contribs) 17:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mightn't Churchill have had dual citizenship through his mother? At any rate, Elizabeth II is not only a British national, but she has lived her entire life in the United Kingdom.  Anything but a British flag is pure pedantry, of a sort that only seems to be tolerated on wikipedia.  Furthermore, the notion of her separately being "Queen of Canada," etc. is one that had not fully developed in 1952.  It is not wikipedia's responsibility to cater to the insecurities of a tiny minority of Canadians (mostly - it never seems to be Australians or New Zealanders, much less Papua New Guineans or Solomon Islanders, who get worked up about this) who can't accept that their head of state is, by all reasonable measures, British.  The idea that in 1952 Elizabeth II was no more British than she was Pakistani is risible. john k (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also not Wikipedia's responsibility to cater to the insecurities of a tiny minority of Brits who get misty eyed and pine for the days of Empire, when the colonies knew their place below Britannia. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly, which is not what one is doing when one notes that it makes sense to describe a woman who has lived her entire life in the United Kingdom as British. I'm not even British, and don't give a damn about the Empire.  It is bizarre that Canadian monarchists are the ones who are calling other people misty-eyed for the British Empire. john k (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is, though, what one is doing when wilfully ignoring the fact that the woman is a part of - indeed, the very personification of - more nations than just the British one, and has been since the moment of her accession, as evidenced in the multiple proclamations issued the day of and after, and the contents thereof, not to mention her coronation oath, her own words, the assertions of her governments, etc., etc. It is your personal choice to use only where she lives as the sole criteria for deciding for her that she is only of one nation and which one that is. That is fine, for you; but not for guiding the content of this encyclopaedia. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * She's not a citizen of those countries though, and that's what the flag indicates. ðarkun coll 23:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not my personal choice, it is the general perception of most people in the world, and the standard usage of reference works. Britannica, for instance, gives only her UK title, identifies her as Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, does not mention "commonwealth realms" in its article, and mentions Canada only in context of the Queen's visits there.  You are elevating constitutional theory above practical reality and insisting that this is the only proper way to look at the world.  You're free to think whatever you want, but there's no reason for this fetish to infest any wikipedia article that mentions Elizabeth II. The Queen's status in the commonwealth realms is a constitutional oddity, not a practical reality, and oughtn't force us into awkward contortions all the time.  It is ridiculously undue weight to have to cater to this minority POV to the extent that it needs to be brought up on any occasion where someone might possibly come to the completely banal conclusion that Elizabeth II is more closely associated with the UK than with the other realms. john k (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is indeed your personal choice, whether others make the same erroneous personal choice or not. Here, we go by the facts; it is indeed a fact that Elizabeth lives mostly in the United Kingdom, but it is not a universal fact that because she lives in Britain she is only British. You are free to think whatever you want, but consensus was earlier established here to not have a flag next to Elizabeth II, given that to pick one out of all the others would be explicitly counter to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only' British. Primarily British.  For a variety of reasons, not just where she lives, but the historical background of the British monarchy and empire.  Any consensus based decision that results in a lengthy footnote about the Commonwealth Realms in an article that has nothing to do with them ought to be revisited.  It's fairly apparent that there is no particular consensus at the moment - KathaLu, Tharkun, and myself think the British flag should be used, while you and Highfields disagree.  john k (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd add that the discussion in 2009 shows no greater evidence of consensus not to use a flag - four or five people seem to prefer just using the British flag. It's absurd that we must waste so much ink at this article over this ridiculous issue. Technical legal questions involving the commonwealth realms are best dealt with in articles about the commonwealth realms and their monarchies. Dragging it into completely unrelated articles is incredibly obnoxious. If we are to choose one national flag, the UK flag obviously makes far the most sense. Why does this pedantry have to be dragged all over wikipedia? There's never been any consensus for it in any article, but you just care about it more than everybody else, so you get your way. It's incredibly obnoxious. john k (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then, John, feel free to invest your time in this "ridiculous" issue and take this to the next phase of the dispute resolution process. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose that would be the logical next step. Maybe I'll do an rfc. john k (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Notes for 2010 Person of the Year
There is a long note for 2010 Person of the Year whereas other notes for Person of the Year only include significant changes in the list such as Roosevelt's "first triple winner" or The American Fighting-Man's "first abstract chosen". The lengthy and seemingly unimportant note for 2010 seems out of place.

70.112.203.35 (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, it should be removed. I'll get onto it. But as I said above, I still think we should get rid of the column completely - Highfields (talk, contribs) 22:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Flag icons
Why are the flag icons insisted upon? I removed them and created a separate column, which was immediately reverted, the reason given being "restoring longstanding format". What could the rationale possibly be for keeping these unsightly flags? Not only would removing the flags improve the look of the table, it would also increase readability, as many (myself included) did not know what all the flags represent without hovering over them to see what article they link to. I would like to ask all the editors that follow this article to seriously reconsider their rationale for keeping them, besides the fact that it's been like that for a long time.-RHM22 (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea of removing the flags was discussed above and was rejected by some editors. Per WP:BRD, I thus returned the page to the format it's been in for years until any consensus favouring change is established.
 * Personally, I found edit troubling as, to me, the winners' nationalities are far more relevant than their places of residency. Further, calling the flags unsightly just falls into the WP:IDONTLIKEIT category. You raise a good point about readers not necessarily knowing the world's flags, though. That, however, can be remedied by using the undefined template, instead of.
 * Firstly, please don't get me wrong. I'm not criticizing or condemning you personally, as I understand that everyone has their own opinion. I just disagree entirely with your rationale. Secondly, it seems like the discussions above are mostly about removing the British Raj flag for Gandhi and what flag to include for Elizabeth II. There was some discussion about removing them altogether (with no column for residency or nationality at all), but there seems to be only one mention of creating a new column and doing away with the flag, that being the one directly above our current discussion. Highfields seems to be the only person who has actually spoken out against the new column. Thirdly, I really don't think my disapproval of the flag icons falls under the category of IDLI. It's my understanding that that particular policy is reserved for a certain fact that one finds personally disagreeable, which is not the case here at all. I have no problem with displaying the flags other than their unsightliness. While that is an opinion, it seems to be favored in other areas on Wikipedia. For instance, it is discouraged to use flag icons when discussing the birthplace or place of death of a person, because it implies citizenship. The same case could be made here, because many of those people were not always citizens of those nations, and no notice is given to alert readers that the flag represents their citizenship during the time of the distinction from Time Magazine. It would be impossible to alert readers of such without adding a note to the top or bottom, due to the current arrangement. In the tables I proposed, the header could even be changed to something like "citizenship at time of distinction". Further, the flags are likely to present a serious problem to non-sighted users who might happen to come across this page. I've recently learned that certain programs that convert text to spoken word can be confused when images are used in place of text. As for your comment about "residency" vs. "citizenship", I agree completely. The header of "residency" was chosen by me simply because I was unsure if all the people were actually legal citizens of their respective countries. If they are, then that could easily have been changed. All that said, I understand that something like this requires consensus, so I'm glad to wait until one is reached to implement some or all of these changes. If one is not reached, then it really isn't a huge deal, because readers will probably be able to figure out the table. It just seems to me that the ease of access for the table should addressed here.-RHM22 (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, where to start. I'm glad you've restarted the discussion on this topic, I think we need to come to some sort of lasting consensus. I can certainly see why you think a seperate column would be preferable, and I think you put your argument very well. Sadly, I'm not sure I fully agree. I just think that a seperate column would be no improvement on the current layout - it would be just as controvercial (if not more so with the residency aspect), and have the same flaws. And actually, I think a seperate column is more intrusive and more unsightly. I see your point about people not recognising flags, but I think Meis has provided a solution for that one -  H IGHFIELDS  ( TALK    &bull;   CONTRIBUTIONS  ) 14:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe RHM22's right about needing to have at least the country names. To add those, though, would require an additional column. I don't, however, see that as being a problem. It could be done thusly: -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget to add to the 1952 induction (Elizabeth II) & United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For now, can we please keep that seperate. Lets decide how to convey nationality or whatever, then decide what it should be for each individual -  H IGHFIELDS  ( TALK    &bull;   CONTRIBUTIONS  ) 20:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. GoodDay's comment is irrelevant to this discussion. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I prefer Mies' illustrated example to the version in RHM22's edit. Maybe it could be made to work... -  H IGHFIELDS  ( TALK    &bull;   CONTRIBUTIONS  ) 20:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My illustration illustrates precisely how it could be made to work. I believe it addresses RHM22's concerns, except for the inclusion of the flags, which he finds "unsightly". I don't know how we can compromise on the latter, though; the flags are either there or they aren't. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the flags, as long as they are accompanied by the name of the country. Though what has been suggested above isn't perfect (the double header is maybe slightly confusing), I would definitely support it's use in this article. By the way, it's not really the flags themselves that are unsightly, it's the way they're just thrown in there next to the names without any clarification as to what they are or why they're being displayed.-RHM22 (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, though it isn't relevant here, I agree that there should be no flag or country of residence/nationality for Queen Elizabeth II or any of the other ambiguous winners. I would also probably not add nations for the winners who were groops of people, even if those groups are country-specific. One example would be Hungary freedom fighters. While I understand that the event commemorated took place in Hungary, it's likely that not all those taking part were Hungarians. Something like that is really minor, though, and I don't think we should try to address that until everything else is sorted out.-RHM22 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Images
Somebody has added a column of images. I'm not sure it'll work, however, with all of the multiple/abstract choices. I've been bold and made some changes to it, but overall I just don't think it'll work. What does anyone else think? -  H IGHFIELDS  ( TALK    &bull;   CONTRIBUTIONS  ) 13:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange vs Mark Zuckerberg in History section
Regarding the last paragraph of the history section...


 * In 2010, Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg came in at 10th place in the popular vote. Wikileaks director Julian Assange came first with more than 20 times as many votes as Zuckerberg, and an average rating of 92 compared to Zuckerberg's average of 52.[8][9] Despite this, Zuckerberg was selected. TIME later announced Assange was the "Readers' Choice for TIME's Person of the Year 2010".

This paragraph seems, to me, to be rather pointless and does not belong in the article. It is irrelevant where anybody placed in a poll, as Time does not make their selections based on polling. Moreover, it does not consider the possible skewed results of a poll, which would result from a CEO versus a celebrity; Julian Assange is a popular figure among some groups but Mark Zuckerberg is simply the head of a successful corporation. By the nature of anonymous voting, it would be quite strange if a poll option with an organised support group didn't win. This is just one example of why online polls are not regarded as scientific.

For these reasons, I think this paragraph should be deleted. MatttK (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There was definitely controversy about Zuckerberg's selection, not just because of Time ignoring the results of their own poll (begging the question of why they even conducted the poll) but because Assange is widely seen as a more legitimate choice given the stated criteria of Person of the Year. And because of suspicion that the choice was motivated by improving The Social Network's Oscar chances and DVD sales, as the movie was in part bankrolled by Time-Warner. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

1998
This was the first year time ran internet polls, if I remember correctly. The winner was guaranteed the title of 'man of the year'. Mick Foley won. Why isn't this mentioned in the article? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)