Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Remove James Rodríguez

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

i just think he's not so important. Mehdi7njr (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as proposer: Mehdi7njr (talk · contribs) 14:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)
2. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
4. Not a widely known reference in football, like Messi, Maradona, Ronaldinho, etc. The Blue Rider 21:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Ron Paul

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is he prominent enough to be on this list? His political philosophy is rather fringe; he got only a small percentage of the vote in the 2008 and 2012 primaries. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
3. No assertion in its lede of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom and Czar's comment. Honestly the entire category he's in could do with a trim. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Being the "father" of the Tea Party movement of the US is most certainly not vital. The Blue Rider 21:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. His current status as a vital article is most likely due to his "fringe" political philosophy. He is practically the father of the modern libertarian or tea party movement in America, and a lot of his ideals have sparked similar events in other nations. While he isn't exactly as well known as some of the other American politicians currently here, he is probably one of the less offensive bloated additions that I think deserve more consideration than someone like Donald Rumsfeld. NSNW (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Prehistoric North Africa, Prehistoric West Africa, Prehistoric Central Africa, Prehistoric East Africa, and Prehistoric Southern Africa

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that Prehistoric North Africa, Prehistoric West Africa, Prehistoric Central Africa, Prehistoric East Africa, and Prehistoric Southern Africa be added to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History#Prehistory (36 articles). Daniel Power of God (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as proposer: Daniel Power of God (talk · contribs) 03:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)
2. A very reasonable proposal. I would also support adding Prehistoric Asia and Prehistoric Europe to the same category. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Category would be overscribed. These are not the most vital among the selection. czar 23:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
2. I'm not sure about adding the history of this demarcations, if we take into account that the prehistory could not have been developed strictly within those arbitrary boundaries. --Onwa (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Ghassan Kanafani and Mahmoud Darwish

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Palestine's foremost novelist and poet, respectively. Both left lasting effects on Palestinian and Arab literature.

Support

1. As proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom.Jaguarnik (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support QuicoleJR (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support - had not realised they were not already there. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Flying Fish Cove and Banja Luka, remove Bandera, Texas, Haifeng County and Lufeng, Guangdong

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't think being the "Cowboy capital of the world" is enough being a Vital Article. (Which other places such as Stephenville, Texas also claim and are probably more important). I'm not seeing any importance for Haifeng County. Lufeng only seems to be important in recently.

Flying Fish Cove is currently the capital of Christmas Island.

We currently only have one city in Bosnia and Herzegovina yet we have 2 in Albania, 3 in Serbia and 2 in Moldova. So this will be more balanced.

Support

1. Support as proposer: 115.188.159.190 (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)
2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
3. Support for the most part, although I also lean towards keeping Lufeng, given its history. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support removal of Bandera Just BOLDly remove it now TBH pbp 23:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Any proposal that removes the gigantic bias towards the US always gets a support from me. The Blue Rider 21:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support The additions make sense, the removals also make sense, and I have no idea how Bandera even made it on the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Support. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Onwa (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC) I don't see clearly why this should be done.

   @Onwa: which part do you question, the additions or the removals? pbp 03:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

   Both. --Onwa (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

   @Onwa: I can't speak to Haifeng and Lufeng, but Bandera is just some small town in Texas with little or no historical significance that has no business being on the list pbp 16:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add more fossil mammal taxa

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since the animals category in terms of level 5 articles is long under quota due to the removal of most individual animal articles from the category, I think we can afford to squeeze in fossil mammal taxa since they're generally underrepresented there. Here are the following taxa I suggest to be added with explanations for why they're vital (if I can add them automatically since the category is under quota, let me know):

• Amphicyon - Type genus of the Amphicyonidae known since 1836. Best-known genus of the group, well-representative of much of the Miocene when proboscideans, ruminants, and carnivorans were all diversifying since the Proboscidean Datum Events of the early Miocene. Was typically one of the largest carnivorans of its time.

• Amphicyonidae - Significantly diverse carnivoran group of the late Eocene - latest Miocene that was widespread over Europe, Asia, North America, and later Africa. Significant for studying the history of evolutionary dynamics of carnivorans, well-researched group.

• Anancus - One of the largest-known proboscideans, was once a common element of the Pliocene of Africa and Eurasia, pretty well-known according to Google Scholar search result numbers.

• Anoplotherium - Known since 1804 as described by Georges Cuvier, this genus was not only one of the first fossil genera to be ever described but also the 2nd Paleogene animal and 1st artiodactyl to ever be described. Known well as being parts of the earliest instance of paleoneurology and one of the earliest instances of paleopathology since Cuvier had described both its endocast (brain-cast) and fractured but healed femur. Was once a paleontological icon of the 19th century, being incorporated regularly in paleontological/geological textbooks and classrooms of the subjects. Species of the genus were some of the largest to exist in western Europe long after the extinction of Lophiodon, known for bipedalism similar to the gerenuk. Representative of western Europe in the Eocene before an abrupt extinction event that shifted subtropical climates to temperate climates in the earliest Oligocene, which it only briefly survived. Also known for being part of the Crystal Palace Dinosaurs.

• Antilocapridae - Endemic group of Neogene ruminants in North since the Miocene, once a diverse group in which Antilocapra is the only survivor.

• Borophagus - Type genus of the Borophaginae, part of a once-successful group of carnivorans endemic to North America that radiated since the decline of North American amphicyonids and hemicyonine ursids. Interest in the genus is due to its powerful jaws which are convergent with Neogene hyaenids such as the modern-day spotted hyena.

• Cainotheriidae - The only artiodactyl family of western Europe to have crossed through the Grande Coupure extinction/turnover event of the earliest Oligocene of western Europe undiminished, many species lived exclusively there throughout the entirely of the Oligocene as well as up to the middle Miocene. Arguably the most popular family of the endemic European Paleogene artiodactyl families due to this.

• Chalicotheriidae - A once-successful group of perissodactyls with unusual bipedal browsing behaviors that was present from at least the Oligocene until the early Pleistocene. Was once widespread in Eurasia, Africa, and North America.

• Deinotheriidae - One of the major groups of proboscideans that originated from Africa and over time dispersed over the entirety of Eurasia by the early Miocene as part of the Proboscidean Datum Events along with the Gomphotheriidae and Mammutidae, starting with Deinotherium's predecessor, Prodeinotherium. Very typical element of the Miocene of the Old World, went extinct from Eurasia as a result of aridity and spread of open woodlands and grasslands in the latest Miocene. Persisted in Africa until the early Pleistocene as a result of the spread of C4 plants.

• Dorcatherium - Known in the paleontological record since 1833, this tragulid has a rich paleontological record and is a fairly popular choice of research according to Google Scholar. It and other tragulid genera were once widespread over the entirety of Europe, Asia, and Africa for most of the Miocene, roughly coincident with the Proboscidean Datum Events when climates were relatively warm and the environments were largely subtropical-temperate. Very successful for its time with many known species although some are being reclassified into Dorcabune.

• Dryopithecus, Sivapithecus - Both well-known genera in the Miocene of Eurasia as a result of the dispersals of primates from Africa to Eurasia by the early Miocene, provides answers about the diverse radiations of the Hominidae in the Neogene. All European hominids went extinct from Europe as a result of colder climates and spread of open woodlands while Sivapithecus went extinct in the late Miocene of Asia as a result of the spread of grasslands and C4 grasses.

• Elephantidae - For the purpose of being inclusive of all elephantid genera and defining elephants and mammoths as part of the same famil

• Hipparion - Earliest-described fossil genus of equid, the hipparionine equids are known as being excellent stratigraphic markers of the late Miocene-early Pleistocene. Indicative of changes in environments toward grasslands and/or open woodlands as a result of colder climates which the Hipparion/Hippotherium/Cormohipparion Event is roughly coincident with. Based on Google Scholar is a popular research choice for paleontologists.

• Hyaenodonta, Oxyaenodonta, Mesonychid - Carnivorous mammal orders of the Paleogene, the latter two of which went extinct by the early Eocene, provides answers about the evolution of mammals leaning towards carnivory. Hyaenodonta was a dominant group that was also able to contend with carnivorans for a long time.

• Machairodontinae - Subfamily of felids with iconic elongated canines, were some of the dominant carnivoran groups of the Neogene. Popular choice of paleontological studies, ranging from Machairodus of the late Miocene to Smilodon of the Pleistocene.

• Mammutidae - One of the major groups of proboscideans that radiated from Africa and dispersed throughout the entirety of Eurasia as well as later North America, typical of subtropical-temperate environments of much of the Miocene of Africa and Eurasia. Mammut, the type genus of the Mammutidae, is the result of endemic radiation in North America for which it survived longer than its other mammutid cousins in the Old World continents.

• Merycoidodontoidea - Abundant endemic artiodactyl family in the Paleogene and Neogene of North America, merycoidodonts (or "oreodonts") were very characteristic of the continent and are well-connected to early paleontological history of North America. Many North American paleontologists are familiar with the abundant fossil evidences of them.

• Moschidae - One of the major groups of ruminants that radiated since the early Miocene in the forms of Micromeryx and Hispanomeryx, both of which were present throughout the entirety of Eurasia. Today, only one genus Moschus survives.

• Nimravidae - Amongst the earliest-known feliform carnivoran families, typical of the Paleogene of Europe, Asia, and North America. Once a diverse group at the time that was built for hypercarnivory.

• Notoungulata, Litopterna, Sparassodonta - Extinct endemic South American orders of mammals known since the Paleocene or Eocene of South America when South America was almost entirely isolated from North America by then.

• Palaeomerycidae - One of the major groups of ruminants that appeared in the early Miocene, roughly at the same time range as the Bovidae, Cervidae, Moschidae, and Giraffoidea. Was present throughout most of the Miocene.

• Palaeotheriidae - Originally, I was going to suggest the superfamily Equoidea that includes the true Equidae, the Palaeotheriidae that was present in the Eocene of Europe and Asia up to the Oligocene of Asia, and other Eocene equoids of unknown affinities. Unfortunately at the moment, no article is written for them, so this family can do.

• Protoceratidae - Unusual endemic family of artiodactyl that was known from the Eocene up to the early Pliocene of North America, indicating presence in the continent for a long time.

• Rhinocerotoidea - The superfamily was once highly diverse and consists of the Hyracodontidae, Amynodontidae, Rhinocerotidae, Paraceratheriidae, and Eggysodontidae, all of which were present since the Eocene and were present in the Oligocene of Europe, Asia, and/or North America. Since the early Miocene, the Rhinocerotidae is the only surviving group of the superfamily.

• Stegodon, Stegodontidae - Stemmed from the paraphyletic gomphotheres group along with the Elephantidae. Popular choice for paleontological research according to Google Scholar, once a typical group of proboscideans for the Pliocene and Pleistocene of Africa and Asia.

PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
4. I don't know much about the proposal but I'm going to trust that this taxonomic families are vital. The Blue Rider 18:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Alright, it's been some time, can we please get at least one more support voter? Most previous proposed additions had ended up in stagnation because not enough people voted on them, and I'd rather not this end the same way. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Tex-Mex and Cuisine of the Southern United States, remove Ossetian cuisine and Tatar cuisine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As far as regional cuisines go, Tex-Mex and Southern US are well known and available worldwide, the topic of countless award winning cookbooks, and represent the culture of notably large ethnic/cultural groups. Ossetian and Tatar cuisine are none of these. If regional cuisines such as Sichuan and Cantonese belong here, these two undoubtedly do. There are a few entries in this category that could stand to be replaced but these are the most glaring. Vamanospests (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. This list is supposed to be tailored to the English Wikipedia, and English readers are more likely to be interested in these articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

   That's not a good argument to remove the latter two.

   For one, English readers come from all over the world, not just the US, and as The Blue Rider pointed out, outside of the US Tex-Mex is obscure. So it wouldn't be about what English readers find interesting.

   For another, yes, this is the English Wikipedia, but the inclusion of what readers might find interesting isn't the criteria of inclusion into vital articles. The vital articles come from all over the world. I doubt people in the US are necessarily interested in Yuri Nikulin or YRKKH, but they're still included in vital articles for being vital bits of their home culture/history. Cuisine is vital to culture. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

2. Support swapping Ossetian cuisine, opposed swapping Tatar cuisine. I agree on everyone saying that this project show be more global, so on principle we should not replace two non-American articles with American ones. However, I don’t buy the idea that Ossetian cuisine is actually vital. Yes, it’s the cuisine of a nationality, but it’s a nationality that only numbers 700,000 people. And unless this cuisine is very popular in, say Russia, I’m not sure if it’s enjoyed by anyone else. Now personally, I would have suggested Soul food as an addition to this list, on account of it being the main cuisine of African-Americans. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Claiming that Tex-Mex and Southern United States cuisine are well known is quite a leap, almost all people outside of American cuisine-circles most certainly know nothing about these entries. Furthermore, barbecue, taco, tortilla and all the other relevant foods are already VT5. It's also worth nothing that the dishes from Southern America and Tex-Mex cuisine are not exclusive to them. Let's not perpetuate the American-centrism and recentism bias. The Blue Rider 16:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

   You can get Southern BBQ in just about any major metropolitan city in the world, and Tex-Mex chains offer some of the most popular fast food options worldwide. This is simply not true about Ossetian and Tatar food. If we are simply checking boxes on as many areas of the world, sure, cover relatively small ethnic groups instead of things people around the world eat regularly. But it's not America-centric to recognize that way more people know about these. Vamanospests (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

   Barbecue, despite its association with the Southern United States, did not originate there; it has Spanish and Portuguese origins. Furthermore, Southern BBQ is not as that widespread. Churrasco serves as the Portuguese and Spanish equivalent of BBQ and is quite popular in Lusophone countries and in the Hispanidad. Additionally, various other countries also have their own similar dishes - Korean and Mongolian BBQ and Asado. These regional variations are substitute goods to the Southern BBQ. Regarding Tex-Mex, it is already encompassed in the Mexican and American cuisine, VT4 and VT5, respectively. The Blue Rider 17:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose, per above comments by The Blue Rider. I find it quite strange to claim that some American regional cuisines are more vital than the cuisines of two nationalities. The argument to add the former and the (frankly insulting) argument to remove the latter appear to just be coming from a place of US-centrism. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
3. per The Blue Rider 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose this smells like Americentrism. I don't understand the argument that "award-winning cookbooks have been written about Tex-Mex" - how would a cookbook winning an award give more merit to the cuisine it covers? I also find it strange to claim that Tatars are not a "large ethnic group" when Tatars are the largest minority in Russia and a significant minority in other Eastern European and Central Asian nations such as Ukraine and Kazakhstan. At any rate, like grnrchst says, Ossetian and Tatar cuisines are cuisines of two nationalities, and Tex-Mex is a regional cuisine, therefore, the first two should not be removed. Jaguarnik (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
5. The removals, since Ossetian pies are now all the rage in Russia (including places outside the Caucasus), according to Russia Beyond, and some people travel to Tatarstan in order to enjoy Tatar cuisine.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Cut Science Basics & Measurement to 300, cut/move non-SI units

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've recently worked on filling out the Physical Sciences section, and while we could push the Basics & Measurement section to its current quota of 400, I'd suggest we cut the quota back to 300.

The main reason is that if you look, a majority of articles currently on the list are just individual units under the measurement section. And most of those aren't even standard scientific units, but customary or trade ones that probably belong more under Culture, Economics, or even Math, if they belong on the list at all. A lot of them seem pretty trivial to me.

If we cut back the units on that list to just SI ones and a few other scientific ones like CGS and Planck units, we could easily free up 100 slots for another section. I'd suggest bumping up religion and philosophy for now to a round 1500. Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Web journalists removals

The web journalists subsection is currently way oversubscribed with 16 entries for its quota of 10. The vast majority of the entries are American men, a number of which I've never even heard of. This is part of a larger case of bloat in the Writers and journalists category, which is also oversubscribed with 2,135 for its quota of 2,000. As such, I thought it prudent to make some cuts to this section. The removal proposals I've made below were the ones that stuck out to me as the least clearly vital to the encyclopedia. I would personally be in favour of cutting more entries, in order to make room for others, but this is just to deal with the over-subscription for now. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The "general" category of journalists is dysfunctional and desperately needs splitting up into news journalists, political commentators, and columnists. The current 400-strong hodge-podge is impenetrable and a mass exercise in comparing apples with oranges (and pears). Iskandar323 (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Remove Chris Cillizza

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This appears to be a relatively low-profile political commentator that used to work at CNN and The Washington Post.--Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Grnrchst. The Blue Rider 10:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Lorax (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support SnowFire (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support This person does not seem to have had much of an impact. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Paul Horner

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not only was this person not a "journalist" - they were a hoax artist and fake news writer - but it's unclear how they're vital to the encyclopedia at all. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Grnrchst. The Blue Rider 10:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Lorax (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support SnowFire (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support This person is a footnote to a footnote in the history of journalism. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

# pbp 15:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Perez Hilton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Appears to be a gossip blogger whose claim to fame was a series of controversies that happen during the 2000s. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Grnrchst. The Blue Rider 10:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support SnowFire (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Matt Drudge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Relatively low-profile journalist that ran an obscure news aggregator and has briefly hosted a couple talk programs. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Grnrchst. The Blue Rider 10:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support SnowFire (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support He posts links on a website that looks like it's still 1997. That doesn't quite cut it. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Drudge and the Drudge report were (are?) very popular and influential especially in the political realm (see "Influence" section of his wikipedia page) Lorax (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Is being listed on the Times magazine's "100 most influential people in the world" in a given year the enough to be vital? His news website, Drudge Report, got a passer-by spotlight during a couple of years and that's about it. When I think of vitality, I think of something with more durability and that it had an effect across the globe. The Blue Rider 21:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• @Lorax: As this is the only proposal you opposed, I thought I'd ask if there are any other people in the web journalists category that you think are better candidates for removal? --Grnrchst (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't read through the category so can't really say if the ones not suggested for removal are vital or not. If I were to question anything, it would be why are journalist organized by media type instead of what they covered. Should we, for example have categories for political journalists and celebrity journalists instead of web journalists. Lorax (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think this entire category should be deleted, as it doesn't make sense. It's possible that the Drudge Report and Breitbart News are VA5s (sigh), but why on earth would bios on Drudge or Andrew Breitbart themselves be VA5? SnowFire (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Concur with swapping Drudge and Breitbart with their respective outlets. Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Nick Denton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is the founder of a celebrity gossip blog, the claim to fame of which is getting sued by a wrestler. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Grnrchst. The Blue Rider 10:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
3. pbp 19:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Lorax (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support SnowFire (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Support Somebody who is most famous for getting sued by Hulk Hogan probably isn't vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Harvey Levin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is the founder of a celebrity gossip tabloid. While I have heard of TMZ, I don't see how its founder is a vital topic, he doesn't appear to be particularly relevant in its day-to-day operations. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Grnrchst. The Blue Rider 10:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Lorax (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support SnowFire (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove category entirely?

Sorry for a late addition, but I don't think this category makes sense. The most famous person here is Julian Assange, but nobody on the planet would call him a "web journalist". He could be moved elsewhere easily. Everyone else is not a VA5. And per above, even if we decided to highlight web journalism more, that would imply adding The Intercept, The Drudge Report, Breitbart News, etc. - articles on the organizations, not the founders. SnowFire (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also wondering why we need web journalists as separate from journalists in general given that almost all journalism is now on the web anyway, so that is the default sense of journalism. This list does indeed appear one of news website founders, which seems like a form of inherited vitality, which we probably shouldn't partake in, much as inherited notability isn't a thing. The only vital journalist here is probably Glenn Greenwald. Steve Bannon is another big figure, but for a range of other, more insalubrious reasons. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists removals

The category for rebels, revolutionaries and activists is currently oversubscribed by 29 entries. When looking for candidates for removal, I noticed that there appears to be a bias towards people from the United States in the late modern history section: there are 171 entries from the United States, outnumbering the entire continents of Africa (31 entries), Asia (66 entries) and Europe (84 articles).

As such, I went throught the list and identified over 30 entries that strike me as candidates for removal. Some of them are more clearly not vital to me than others, so I've posted them here to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Remove George Atzerodt

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apparently a conspirator with John Wilkes Booth, but someone that didn't even attempt to assassinate his intended target. This isn't a failed assassin, he didn't even try. Definitely not vital.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 19:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Onwa (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Lorax (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support He did not do anything. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
7. This one differs from Powell since it played a more minor role in the conspiracy itself. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove John Perry Barlow

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Appears to be a cyberlibertarian activist whose claim to fame is co-founding the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But as neither the EFF nor any of its other founders are considered vital articles, I don't understand why this guy is.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support This guy is really not that important. Responding to the oppose, I do not think being in the Internet Hall of Fame makes somebody vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. I don't think he quite makes the cut. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Slightly oppose He's part of the Internet's Hall of Fame, so that could make his entry outstand a litte more. --Onwa (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Co-founded a rock band, Grateful Dead, apparently a very influential band since they even have a Wikipedia entry on their fans subculture, Deadhead (see their famous deadheads section for a further corroboration of their prominence). A prolific activist, having founded Electronic Frontier Foundation and Freedom of the Press Foundation, the latter advocating for the freedom of the press and speech and the former advocating for digital rights; was a director of the The WELL. Had a profound effect on the Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service lawsuit. Influenced the infamous Aaron Swartz, was a mentor of John Fitzgerald Kennedy Jr.. Author of the A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. The Blue Rider 22:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Dana Beal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some random Cannabis legalisation activist doesn't strike me as particularly vital for the encyclopedia.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 19:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Onwa (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support The article shows no signs of him being vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Important figure in the cannabis rights movement, not vital though. The Blue Rider 13:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Joseph Breen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This was a censor that implemented the Hays Code. While he certainly had an impact on American media, we don't even consider the Hays Code itself to be a vital article, so I don't understand why one of the people associated with it should be.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose he and the code severely impacted the most important marked of films in the world, and per pbp. --Onwa (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per pbp, although he should probably be under a different category. I would support adding the Hays Code to the vital list. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Per Purplebackpack89. The Blue Rider 13:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Being in charge of the Hays Code made him one of the most powerful men in Hollywood. Without a hint of irony, one magazine called him more powerful than Hitler or Mussolini. He probably need to be moved to studio execs or a film category, but I can understand his vitality. The Hays Code probably needs to be a vital article too, it's easily one of the 100 most important motion picture topics, more vital than most films. pbp 19:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Good points, I'd certainly agree with moving Breen to a different category then, as "activist" probably doesn't cover his work adequately. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Anthony Comstock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This was a Christian morality activist whose claim to fame were the passage of the so-called Comstock laws. As many of these laws were declared unconstitutional and the article about them isn't considered vital, I don't understand why the guy it's named after is.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Jaguarnik (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support QuicoleJR (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Marginal support. The laws being deemed unconstitutional don't necessarily contradict Comstock vitality. The Blue Rider 13:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. From a statement from the lede of the article The terms comstockery and comstockism refer to his extensive censorship campaign of materials that he considered obscene, including birth control advertised or sent by mail. I infer that this activist is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Warren Farrell

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a pretty obscure author that has written some books about gender issues. To be honest, I don't see how he's particularly vital to the encyclopedia in any way. (This article has also had a pretty bad problem with COI contributions)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Onwa (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. pbp 19:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support He does not seem like the kind of bio that would be on a hypothetical VA6, much less VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Important figure in the men's rights movement, though the movement itself isn't listed as vital, as of now; I will be creating a proposal for this entry. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. An imperative man in second-wave feminism and men's rights movement guarantees his vitality at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Tom Forcade

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Another random cannabis legalisation activist, this one even less clearly notable than the last one.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 19:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Lorax (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support He did nothing except create a magazine. The magazine is not vital, and neither is he. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Per Grnrchst. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove John Wesley Hardin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Appears to be an outlaw known for a number of murders. Not sure how vital his biography is though. Was he influential in some way that I'm missing?

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Lorax (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

So there were other Wild West outlaws besides The Sundance Kid listed under rebels when I switched Jesse James’s and Mohamed Atta’s placements on this project. (Yeah, I don’t have an actual opinion on this, although I do feel like we should discuss on where we put figures like these.) Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove David Herold

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Another accomplice of John Wilkes Booth that doesn't appear to be independently vital outside of his proximity to the presidential assassin.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Lorax (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support The only thing he did was give medical help to a more important person and help them escape. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
6. This one differs from Powell since it played a more minor role in the conspiracy itself. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Joe the Plumber

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This guy's claim to fame is literally just speaking to Obama one time... Seriously?! How is this guy in any way vital to the encyclopedia?

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 19:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support No lasting impact Lorax (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Notable, yes. Vital, definitely not. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
7. His initial claim to fame was the encounter with Barack Obama, but he manage to capitalize his spotlight well and was an known activist and political commentator, nevertheless not vital. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

It made the news when he died earlier this year, FWIW. He's probably not vital, but the nom's rationale is a little misleading. pbp 19:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Brewster Kahle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm a big fan of the Internet Archive, which is certainly a vital article to the encyclopedia. But its founder? I struggle to see him as independently notable of what he founded. How many users of the archive could even name him?

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. He not only founded Internet Archive but also Alexa, and the latter is no unimportant, i.e., he is not only notable for founding the former.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Important figure known for his contributions to the technological realm. Creator of the Internet Archive, Wayback Machine and Alexa Internet, part of the Internet Hall of Fame, prominent copyright activist. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Lane Kirkland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

He was the president of the AFL-CIO during probably its worst period in history, in terms of labour movement defeats. None of the other AFL-CIO presidents are considered vital article, not even the founder and first president George Meany, so why is this guy?

Support

1. Support as nominator. Although I would also be in favour of replacing him with George Meany. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support swap with Meany pbp 19:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Lorax (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Swap with Meany. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Swap with Meany. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Swap with Meany The founder of such an important organization is probably vital, but this random president of the organization is not. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

FYI, there are several other American trade unionists in the vital articles, including Walter Reuther, Cesar Chavez, John L. Lewis, Samuel Gompers, Bill Haywood and Jimmy Hoffa pbp 19:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Aye these all stood out more to me as vital though, which is why I didn't nominate them. Chavez, Haywood and Hoffa are quite famous internationally. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The nominator's argument doesn't fully convince me. Are the labour movement defeats prompted by his presidency or were the cause of external forces? Even if he wasn't a president in the golden age of labour movement, he could still have been fulcral to the organization. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Wayne LaPierre

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a "gun rights" lobbyist and CEO of the National Rifle Association. The NRA is certainly a vital topic, but I'm lost as to why this individual should be considered one also. Are any other NRA CEOs considered vital biographies?

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Per Grnrchst. The Blue Rider 13:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. Not particularly notable, even in the gun-rights movement. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Lyndon LaRouche

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So this guy was a fringe conspiracy theorist who was paranoid about spies, harrassed political figures and was convicted of fraud. Is that why his biography is vital? Or is there something I'm missing?

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Yes, he’s the founder of a fridge movement, but it’s a pretty infamous one. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Eyeluvbraixen. These type of genetic fallacies don't make compelling arguments to discuss the vitality of a subject. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose Though extremely fringe, LaRouche was quite an important figure in American political history. Curbon7 (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Doesn't the LaRouche movement have a presence outside the United States? Didn't somebody run for President of France as a LaRouche supporter? pbp 19:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever heard of the LaRouche movement. The parties listed in its article seem no larger than a fringe of a fringe. It appears the French LaRouchite presidential candidate finished last in every single race he ran in, barely scraping 0.25% of the vote, if that's any indication of its popularity. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Daniel De Leon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This was one of the several co-founders of the Industrial Workers of the World, so he's certainly associated with vital people. But his main activities seem to have been to do with an obscure political party that never rose to any particular prominence.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Bill Haywood can represent the IWW pbp 19:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. He has a whole doctrine dedicated to him, De Leonism, co-founded the IWW, as stated by the nominator, and was influential to many political parties and philosophers worldwide, for instance the Socialist Labour Party and Antonio Gramsci; those are clear signs of vitality. The Blue Rider 13:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per The Blue Rider. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose Globally influential political figure in the labor/socialist movements. Curbon7 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Weak oppose. I feel like I’m being a hypocrite if I don’t oppose this removal like I am for LaRouche. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Tipper Gore

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So this was a second lady of the United States, but her main claim to fame seems to have been a campaign against profanity in heavy metal and rap music. I'm not sure any of this makes her biography vital to the encyclopedia. Do we have any other second ladies listed as vital articles? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Her husband is vital, she is not. pbp 19:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Onwa (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Lorax (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support QuicoleJR (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
8. Support, marginally. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose This woman is responsible for the Parental Advisory sticker. I don’t think her being the wife of Al Gore has any part on her getting listed. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

To expand, she founded other less notable foundations, such as Families for the Homeless and Tennessee Voices for Children, was the spokesperson for the Safe to Sleep campaign and was a prominent mental health and LGBT advocate. Finally, she was a drummer at Grateful Dead. The Blue Rider 08:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

No offense, dude, but I don’t think that any of those things are responsible for her being on here either. She’s entirely on here for being the main figure of the Parents Music Resource Center. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Vitaly is normally multi-causal. While yes, her role at Parents Music Resource Center is the central key, the other stuffs also adds, specially being the face of a widespread health campaign and a band member of a very influential band. The Blue Rider 22:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

if the Parents Music Resource Center is the central key, shouldn't it be the vital article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

…No? Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Being responsible for a sticker is a little underwhelming. But the Monroney sticker is more important than the Parental Advisory sticker, and we don't list Mike Monroney. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Jay Lovestone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This guy was a pretty obscure left-wing activist who went through different ideologies like they were underewear. His main claim to fame seems to be that he was an informant. Definitely not vital, in my opinion.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 19:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Seems like a pretty run-of-the-mill politician who did not do much. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Per Grnrchst. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove William Quantrill

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Quantrill was a Confederate officer notable for having led the Lawrence Massacre. As the massacre itself isn't considered a vital article, I'm not sure its perpretrator is idependently vital either.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Move to military leaders. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Move to military leaders. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Move to military leaders. He is vital, but does not really fit in this category. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Move to military leaders. The Quantrill's Raiders, lead by Quantrill, seem to have played an important in the American Civil War. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

First off, he should be listed as a military leader, not an activist... pbp 19:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I could support moving him to the military leader category, which is still under-quota. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Fred Phelps

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So this guy was a homophobic pastor of a small church that loudly protested parades and funerals. Is that it?

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support If anything his church, Westboro Baptist Church, could be a VA, but I don't even thing that is significant enough to warrant it. Lorax (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Using the fact that he is homophobic to discredit his achievements is fallacious, nevertheless not a vital biography. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Westboro Baptist received a great deal of media coverage earlier in the 21st century. He should probably be removed, but he's far from the weakest activist on the list. pbp 19:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Lewis Powell (conspirator)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yet another unsuccessful co-conspirator of John Wilkes Booth that didn't actually do anything. This guy was arrested before he could carry out his part in the plot. Certainly not vital.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 19:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Jaguarnik (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Did not do anything. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Powell did carry out his attempt and actually stabbed his target, Seward. The whole conspiracy to assassinate the central figures of the US government, even if 2 out the 3 plots failed, is vital. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove George Lincoln Rockwell

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This guy was an obscure neo-nazi leader that founded an obscure neo-nazi party. The American Nazi Party isn't considered a vital article, so why is its founder?

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. I would not call him obscure. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

   Changing my vote to just Oppose Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC).

2. Oppose. Not an obscure individual. He's basically the father of the American white nationalist/neo-nazi movement. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Per Rreagan007. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose Not as obscure as the nominator thinks. Significant political figure as the progenitor of modern American white nationalism. Curbon7 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove C. E. Ruthenberg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While he was a founder of the Communist Party of the United States, we don't consider the CPUSA to be a vital article. Like Rockwell, I'm not sure what about this biography is independently vital to the encyclopedia.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
4. He was an important figure for the CPUSA, though he didn't have achieve much outside of that. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Mario Savio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So this was a New Left activist from the 1960s and he's most famous for giving a speech at a university campus one time? Almost certainly not vital.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Was the principal spokesperson for the Free Speech movement at UC Berkeley and eventually a leader in the Anti-Vietnam War movement. "Most famous for giving a speech at a university campus one time" is an oversimplification at best and inaccurate at worst. pbp 19:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per User:Purplebackpack89.
3. Per Purplebackpack89. Seems to be a central figure in a vital topic. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove William Joseph Simmons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This was a white supremacist that briefly led the second Ku Klux Klan. He doesn't appear to be independently vital to the encyclopedia.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Lorax (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Did little of lasting importance. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. He lead it for 8 years, I wouldn't call that briefly; but he was more than a Grand Wizard, he was the founder of the 2nd KKK, often considered the most influential of the three incarnations. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per The Blue Rider. I was on the fence with him, but now that The Blue Rider pointed out that was the straight up founder of 2nd KKK, we need to keep him. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose. He founded the KKK that a few years later would march on Washington, D.C. with 25k to 50k people and was one of the most powerful political groups in the South in the early 20th century. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Richard B. Spencer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This person is a pretty prominent Neo-Nazi activist that made the news during the 2016 election and early Trump presidency. I'm sure he was considered a vital article to have at the time, but I'm not sure it has held up over the years.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Lorax (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Yeah, once he got punched, he really hasn’t done anything. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. Not vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support Vital Article levels of importance have not been sustained. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Even in 2016 he shouldn't have been considered vital, a premature addition. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
8. Flash-in-the-pan. Curbon7 (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove John L. Stevens

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Stevens is best known for being part of the conspiracy to overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii. But compared to his co-conspirators Dole and Thurston, his biography doesn't appear to be particularly independently vital.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Sanford Dole is a better representative of this effort pbp 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Although he also had a decent diplomatic career, that doesn't seem like it is enough for him to be vital. Lorax (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Seems like a mostly unimportant politician. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Per Grnrchst. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Jack Thompson (activist)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This was a legal activist that didn't like video games and rap music, and was eventually disbarred for his conduct during his campaigning. Is that it? How is this guy vital to the encyclopedia?

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Lorax (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support He did not do anything important. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
6. He got quite some spotlight at the time for his lawsuits, though he didn't have any lasting effects, societally; for that reason he is not vital. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove David Thorstad

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This was a pretty obscure pro-pederasty activist, who stirred up some controversy during the 1970s and 1980s. I'm not sure how this person's biography remotely vital.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Lorax (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support He did not have any lasting effects on any of the topics he was involved in. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Per Grnrchst. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Joseph E. Vogler

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The founder of the obscure Alaskan Independence Party, who lost gubernatorial elections on multiple occasions. Doesn't strike me as a vital biography.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Lorax (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support He did not actually effect Alaska much. He never even won an election. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Losing elections doesn't make an entry not vital, but nevertheless Vogler doesn't belong here. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Alfred Wagenknecht

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This person was notable for playing a role as a functionary in the early years of the Communist Party of the United States. He doesn't appear to be independently vital, even compared to other early figures in the CPUSA.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Lorax (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
4. If the founder isn't vital, Wagenknecht most certainly also isn't. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove J. Stitt Wilson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Appears to have been a pretty obscure socialist politician who was briefly the mayor of a city. Doesn't strike me as a particularly vital biography.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Emil Seidel would be a better choice. pbp 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Lorax (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support QuicoleJR (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Per Grnrchst. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Swap with Emil Seidel. Curbon7 (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Gary Yourofsky

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Appears to have been a notable animal rights activist during the late 1990s, but doesn't seem particularly prominent within the movement outside of a few actions.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Lorax (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
3. pbp 18:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Per Grnrchst. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Mumia Abu-Jamal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Huey Newton is already listed as a representative of the Black Panthers. pbp 19:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 19:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Even ignoring the belief that there should only be one person to represent the Black Panthers (fellow co-founder Bobby Seale is also on here), there was a pretty big movement demanding for his release. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. perhaps the world's best-known death-row inmate - from his article. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above comments and my own point of discussion. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
4. per Eyeluvbraixen 〜 Festucalex • talk 02:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Expanding on what has been said, Mumia Abu-Jamal was important for the anti-death penalty movement worldwide. He also achieved notability through his journalism and writing — Live from Death Row and Death Blossoms. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• I don't think he's here as a representative of the Black Panthers, as he was only in the party for two years. He's always seemed more closely connected with MOVE and notable for his time on death row. I can attest to The New York Times' description of him as "perhaps the world's best-known death-row inmate", as I've seen numerous events in support of him being hosted throughout Europe. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Soghomon Tehlirian and Sholem Schwarzbard; remove Jack Ruby

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The assassination category is almost at quota, so I thought I'd get it there. Soghomon Tehlirian and Sholem Schwarzbard are respectively the assassins of Ottoman vizier Talaat Pasha and Ukrainian otaman Symon Petliura, who were targeted for their respective roles in the Armenian genocide and the pogroms during the Russian Civil War. These assassinations and the subsequent trials, in which the assassins were acquitted after their defence publicised the motivating events, received worldwide recognition and were a key influence on Rafael Lemkin's development of genocide studies and the field of genocide prevention. Hannah Arendt also noted these trials as having laid the foundations for the Eichmann trial.

In contrast, Jack Ruby is known for assassinating Lee Harvey Oswald, who himself assassinated John F. Kennedy. As far as I'm aware, Ruby isn't himself an independently vital subject, and his lasting legacy has mostly been in the various conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination. Given that all four of the US presidential assassins (as well as an attempted assassin) are covered in this category, I don't see why Ruby needs to be as well. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support removal or swap out Ruby and Oswald for Assassination of John F. Kennedy pbp 15:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   Assassination of John F. Kennedy is already a vital article under history though. This category is about the assassins themselves. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   Why did you think we didn’t already have that? Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

3. Support per nominator's argument.Jaguarnik (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support adding Soghomon Tehlirian, neutral on adding Sholem Schwarzbard, and oppose on removing Jack Ruby. Rationale:
   • Soghomon Tehlirian: Carried out the biggest assassination of Operation Nemesis. (In fact, I think his victim Talaat Pasha should be added as well under war criminals.)
   • Sholem Schwarzbard: I get how you can see parallels between him and Tehlirian, (and his victim is already on this list), but personally I don’t feel like they’re equal. Tehlirian killed one of the people responsible for the Armenian genocide. Something equal to that would be if Simon Wiesenthal murdered Adolf Eichmann.
   • Jack Ruby: Besides the numerous JFK conspiracy theories involving Ruby, do you know how extremely uncommon it is for an assassin to be killed by another guy? And he did it in front of cameras. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support adding Tehlirian, Weak Oppose adding Schwarzbard, and Oppose removing Ruby. I agree with everything Eyeluvbraixen said. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Update Added Talaat Pasha to war criminals. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Eyeluvbraixen: Although I agree with the addition, I think you should have sought consensus for it first. The "crimes against humanity" category is now oversubscribed. Of the 20/18 currently included, 15 are Nazis, leaving space for only one perpetrator of the Rwandan Genocide, two perpetrators of the Bosnian Genocide, the former leader of the so-called Islamic State and (now) one perpetrator of the Armenian Genocide. Some cuts should probably be made. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds like we might need to remove a few Nazis. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Liz Truss

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All other British PMs seem to be on the list: shouldn't she, despite her short tenure? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

EDIT: To be clear, this isn't meant to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, more a suggestion that being Prime Minister should be itself sufficient conclusion for a "vital" list of British politicians. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support - doesn't matter about her utter failures in office; she is still an important political and historical figure who managed to reach the highest office in the land, whose article regularly gets over 100,000 views per month, and who will be regarded as extremely consequential in cementing the Tories' loss in the 2024 election and heralding in years of Labour rule. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Arguments based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are almost never convincing. The Blue Rider 09:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose While I would argue that British prime ministers aren't inherently vital in and of themselves, all the other prime ministers listed could be considered vital because of what they did while they were prime minister. Liz Truss accomplished nothing of any particular note. Not vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose she is only notable for her lack of achievement, if that; not something deemed to make her 'vital' in WP's eyes. Currently, she resides in the footnotes of history. If she does something later—she might, she's still young—then we can reconsider. SN54129 15:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose if William Henry Harrison stays off, Support if he gets re-add. Yeah it’s pretty glaring that Liz Truss is the only British Prime Minister that’s not on here. However, if Truss and Harrison were leaders of any other country, no one would even think about them being vital. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose per WP:GLOBAL Rsk6400 (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Oppose - OP arguments point more to the need to remove other UK Prime Minister than to add Liz Truss. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Oppose Not all Prime Ministers are vital to the encyclopedia, and this specific one didn't really have time to do anything. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• Just a note: William Henry Harrison, whose tenure as president was shorter than Truss's premiership, is on the list. Not sure if there was a discussion on removing him, but this should be something to consider since what has he done as president? Interstellarity (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Interstellarity: To my knowledge, there has never been any discussion about the Level-5 vitality of W.H. Harrison or James Garfield or any other American president. Feel free to discuss him if you want. FWIW, I voted "Add" the last time Liz was discussed. I'm vacillating between "add" and neutral this time. pbp 14:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Grnrchst: Let me play a bit of devil's advocate here. a) Could you point to a prime minister other than Truss who isn't vital and why, or b) Could you point to prime minister who just barely crosses the vitality threshold, and why? pbp 14:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Purplebackpack89: Just going by prime ministers with a tenure that lasted less than a year:

  a) George Canning didn't get the chance to do anything during his premiership before dying; F. J. Robinson was Canning's successor and also didn't really do anything before their coalition fell apart; William Cavendish was technically prime minister but William Pitt was really the key figure in the government; Alec Douglas-Home managed to pass a single major bill before resigning to the Wilson government, he's really only notable as the last of a long line of Conservative prime ministers.

  b) Bonar Law accomplished little during his time as prime minister, but was rather an influential figure during his time as leader of the opposition; William Petty has the notable legacy of securing peace with America, but the groundwork for this was already laid by his predecessor; John Stuart was involved in the negotiations for the end of the Seven Years War and lay the groundwork for the American Revolution, but it could be argued he wasn't the driving figure behind this.

  --Grnrchst (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Benjamin Tillman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Considering all the removals of American and British politicians we've been considering this year, why this guy?

Support

1. pbp 21:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Doesn't appear particularly vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
3. The article fails to justify its vitality. The Blue Rider 13:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
4. How is this guy vital? He seemingly did little of note. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• I think there needs to be a pretty major cull of the politicians and leaders category, as it's currently oversubscribed by 147 entries. The "Other" sections for American politicians together take up over 100 entries, with numerous politicians that wouldn't be considered remotely vital were standards applied equally across countries. (E.g. lots of mayors, senators and governors.) --Grnrchst (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Grnrchst: Activists, particularly American ones, needs to be culled more urgently than politicians. If you were to compare the 200 least vital activists listed and the 200 least vital politicians, the politicians list would be more influential. The activists list is also worst distributed across space and time. See also my proposal to take away 100 activists and give it to politicians pbp 17:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Remove Joseph P. Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Edward Kennedy, add Kennedy family

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We have not one, not two, not three, not four, but FIVE members of the Kennedy family. Obviously Jack is notable, but are the others independently notable of him? Does getting shot at the Ambassador LA make you notable? Does plowing your car into some people make you notable? Does bootlegging and being a closeted fascist make you notable? Does wearing a pillbox hat make you notable? pbp 22:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 22:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. Other than maybe Bobby Kennedy, I can't see why the individual family members are considered vital. Per previous discussion about the Kardashian family, swapping for the family article seems like a good choice. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support everything apart from the removal of RFK. The Kennedy family isn't really comparable to the Kardashians, they are incredibly more notable and vital than some half-baked feminists. RFK held crucial roles during his career, and his assassination had profound impact on US politics, particularly the Civil Rights Movement and along with the assassination of his brother, it sparked the era of conspiracy theories in the United States. The Blue Rider 13:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support everything except for the removal of RFK Rreagan007 (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support for Joseph P. Kennedy and Edward Kennedy. While Robert and Jacqueline are certainly important, Joseph and Edward are not important enough for VA5, and should be replaced with the family page. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support everything except for the removal of RFK. For what it's worth, Rosemary Kennedy is also included as vital. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Support all but RFK and Jackie Both extremely well-known for reasons besides their family name. Curbon7 (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal of Robert F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy. Important and popular articles. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis is still very well known figure and frequently listed in biographical dictionaries. Robert F. Kennedy is one of the most important figures in modern American history and his assassination had a long-lasting effect on American life. [3] --Thi (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal for Bobby and Jacqueline per User:Thi. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal of RFK. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

@Thi: I feel compelled to push you a little on your statement,

Robert F. Kennedy is one of the most important figures in modern American history

. Let me ask you this: what are some Level 5 VAs from modern American history you consider more or less important than Bobby? And explain further the substance (i.e. beyond his martyrdom) that made him influential. pbp 17:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel like his martyrdom is enough. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Remove Carlos Arias Navarro, add Mário Soares

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The list of Iberian politicians is currently predominated by Spanish politicians, with only two from Portugal listed. The Spanish politician that stuck out to me as the least vital was Carlos Arias Navarro, who is really a footnote in Spanish history and only notable for being the prime minister when Franco died. Compared to Adolfo Suárez and Felipe González, he's a very minor figure in the transition to democracy. In contrast, Mário Soares was one of the leaders of the opposition to the Estado Novo, led the negotiations for the independence of Portugal's colonies and became the first democratically-elected prime minister of Portugal. Today he's widely respected as the "father of democracy" in Portugal. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
2. I couldn't have said it better myself. The Blue Rider 12:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per the nominator's very well written statement. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Well said by the nominator. Curbon7 (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.