Talk:The 100

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The 100 article.
Article policies


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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?

- 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.

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...

[edit] Paul of Tarsus

(most recent to least recent)

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

——————————————————————————————————————

One thing, Paul of Tarsus is the founder of Christianity, not Jesus. That should be changed.

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 irrellevant 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?)

[edit] 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 inclusionist 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 Wikipedia: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 Shekespeare'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)

[edit] 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. [1] --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


The book was translated into Arabic by a known writer and there could be other translations. I saw several reference 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))

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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#Subjectivity :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 bizzarre 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 civilisation! 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 vandalsim by an anonymous. See what you think. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 20:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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 recieve 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 (ᛏ) 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 — i.e., you've won (I'm easy to beat) — 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 seperate debates on its use. See discussion page on Gospel of Barnabas. Fizban 12:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 whats up?

[edit] why is jesus #3

i know this cant be changed, but is there an argument for why Muhamid an Isac Newton more influental 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 Issac was the most influencial scientist of all time. He by his mide 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 techonology 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 "headstart" 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 realise 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 who's influence via Judaism we wouldn't have had Jesus. So its 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).

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— yes, Muhammad s.a.w was influenced by Moses a.s and Jesus a.s. 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 s.a.w 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, Allah s.w.t..60.51.86.173 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)muslimin60.51.86.173 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Bill Gates

Bill Gates is CERTAINLY one of the most important and influencial people in history. If they come out with a new edition he should definitely be included. As for Alexander Graham Bell, I wouldn't realy consider him all that influential. The telephone has obviously had an enourmous 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 WarII 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 influenece on our lives but it was a technology and others were working on simmilar devices at the time. So I think that Alexander Graham Bell should not feature on the list.

Incedently where is Eienstien in the list. His theories were radically different from his contemperies 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))

[edit] 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 concensus 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 concensus before you can just unilaterally hack up this page. CL8 00:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Caesar has spoken. Concensus 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)

[edit] Augustus

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


[edit] 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)

[edit] Numero uno

In the present century when everyone needs peace, tolerance, understanding, non-violence, humanism and accomodative nature the choice automatically goes to Buddha. People who were and are responsible (indirectly even today) for war, strife, intolerance, intransigience, gender inequality and inhuman behaviuor 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] S-protected.

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