Talk:The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Most Influential Person out of the 100

Muhammad s.a.w founded and promulgated one of the world's great religions, and became an immensely effective political leader. Today, thirteen centuries after his death, his influence is still powerful and pervasive... Like all religions, Islam exerts an enormous influence upon the lives of its followers. It is for this reason that the founders of the world's great religions all figure prominently in this book. Since there are roughly twice as many Christians as Moslems in the world, it may initially seem strange that Muhammad s.a.w has been ranked higher than Jesus. There are two principal reasons for that decision. First, Muhammad s.a.w played a far more important role in the development of Islam than Jesus did in the development of Christianity. Although Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts of Christianity (insofar as these differed from Judaism), St. Paul was the main developer of Christian theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the New Testament.

Muhammad s.a.w , however, was responsible for both the theology of Islam and its main ethical and moral principles. In addition, he played the key role in proselytizing the new faith, and in establishing the religious practices of Islam. Moreover, he is the author of the Moslem holy scriptures, the Koran, a collection of certain of Muhammad's insights that he believed had been directly revealed to him by Allah. Most of these utterances were copied more or less faithfully during Muhammad's lifetime and were collected together in authoritative form not long after his death. The Koran therefore, closely represents Muhammad's ideas and teachings and to a considerable extent his exact words. No such detailed compilation of the teachings of Christ has survived. Since the Koran is at least as important to Moslems as the Bible is to Christians, the influence of Muhammed s.a.w through the medium of the Koran has been enormous It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad s.a.w on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. On the purely religious level, then, it seems likely that Muhammad s.a.w has been as influential in human history as Jesus.

Furthermore, Muhammad s.a.w (unlike Jesus) was a witness spreader as well as a religious leader. In fact, as the driving force behind the Arab revitalization, he may well rank as the most influential political leader of all time... the better Arab of the seventh century have continued to play an important role in human history, down to the present day. It is religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad s.a.w to be considered the most influential single figure in human history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.241.176 (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The article had been altered from the long-standing, correct version. Thank you for the time you have taken in pointing it out. I've reverted the incorrect edits. Begoon ^talk 08:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a specific book, not about anyone's personal opinion. It's rankings are treated the same as the plot in Harry Potter... --Τασουλα (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Flow Broken

I undid some changes that entirely broke the tables. I didn't see any content additions in the changes, but I might have missed something. --67.86.81.93 (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

press reaction?

I'm almost sure not everybody was happy with this list. Why is there no "criticism"- or "press-reaction"-section? --193.175.206.234 (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi, I think that this page should be a disambiguation, because there is a new show called The 100, from the CW. Which means this link needs to be freed for future use. Original Authority (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If that article is created perhaps it should be done. But not really for future usage. Garion96 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how a brand new TV show can possibly upend the primary topic status of this highly notable book, nor why such an additional use can't be handled in a hatnote. bd2412 T 18:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with BD. A new show of unknown cultural significance isn't somehow automatically more significant. Once someone starts The 100 (TV show) (or whatever), I'm sure we'll link from it here, but it is far too premature to talk about renaming this page. Dragons flight (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Why it is written that Jesus (Peace be upon him) is the number one Influential person out of the 100 while in the Book itself, it mention that Muhammad s.a.w (Peace be upon him) is number one and Jesus (Peace be upon him) is number three after Isaac Newton.

Excerpt from Hart's book: My choice of Muhammad s.a.w to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on the religious...

It got to be changed

This is ridiculous. There is no way to say which person influenced history the most. There is maybe a chance by guessing persons who did, but you can't deny, that there can't be a particular ranking. I think this is not objective and shows Wikipedia to be a bad source in many ways. Because if this article is allowed, what other articles are here?

This article has to be bannished. I'm wondering if some languages of Wikipedia are just allowing articles to gain more? This is nothing for knowledge, it seems more like to be entertainment. This is no forum, this has to stay serious. 37.4.239.153 (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about Wikipedia's rankings. It's about a book by one person which has his opinions about these rankings. Gamaliel (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, article title is completely misleading. Look like a generic list of Top 100 (Even not hints that top 100 influential person in history by William hart). ( Also this list is so controversial, there are so much more influential person in downwards in list instead of upwards Just example. See Julius ceaser at 67, while Augustus ceaser at 18). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.201.186.149 (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Change the name of this article to its full title and use the title "The 100" as a disambiguation page for the currently 8 wiki pages which start with those words. Chris55 (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that proposal, but it needs to be filed as a formal move request to be considered. bd2412 T 14:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Chris55 (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

---

The 100 → The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History – It has been pointed out in the previous section that this title sometimes confuses readers into thinking that the rankings described in this article are in some sense a product of Wikipedia's editorial judgment. It has also been pointed out that this is hardly the only work titled "The 100". I would propose either moving this to the full title, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, or to the title The 100 (book); I would redirect the current title to 100 (disambiguation), and add meanings using "The 100" to that page. bd2412 T 14:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposed, well said. Red Slash 01:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support this clearly should be a disambiguaiton page -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nominator's reasoning. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support - fine idea from Chris55. Way back when I first came across this article in my early editing days, I recall I had to do a brief "double-take" to realise it was about a book, and not something in Wikipedia's "voice". Obvious once one realises - but evidently not everyone does at first glance - so clarity would be great. Begoon ^talk 05:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Isn't this copyvio?

Isn't it a copyright violation to list the first ten entries? Of course the names themselves are not copyrighted, but the intellectual work of ordering them is, I would think. I note that articles such as Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time don't list anything but the first entry; all the other material is our original-work stats about the list. Also, at least in theory, having the top ten listed here could satisfy a reader such that, being otherwise inclined to buy the book, she won't need to. (In practice it's probably easy to find the full list on the web, and listing the first ten may well constitute a valuable "teaser" for purchasing the book, but neither of those considerations give us free pass; but because of that I don't think it's an emergency, but absent some counterargument I'm inclined to delete the list part of the article.) Herostratus (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

When this article was first created, it had the entire 100; it was winnowed to 15, then to 10, but the key point is that the top ten (at least) have been listed here on one of the world's most notorious websites for close to ten years now. Any copyright claim not disposed of under fair use would at least face a serious laches challenge. Of course, it would be helpful to find third party reliable sources discussing the ordering of the top ten. bd2412 T 18:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. Yeah I guess it's at least arguably fair use. Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

tags

I removed again some tags. This article might (or might not) have some issues but all these tags is excessive. Especially since they are almost identical. No need to use the primary sources and the third party sources template together. Garion96 (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You did not remove "some tags", you removed all of them. But they were entirely appropriate; this is a dreadful article, with absolutely no independent references. I am returning most of the tags, and expect you to respect this and devote tour time to improving the article, rather than censoring criticism. RolandR (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You never heard of WP:BRD right? You added some tags, I removed it, then we discuss. That you added tags on the article does not mean the tags have to stay until you think it's good. I removed the "close paraphrasing" tag. What exactly is the closely paraphrased here? I removed the original research tag, what exactly is original research in this article? And I removed the unreliable sourcing tag, since all sources are indeed from the book itself (primary tag is indeed valid) it doesn't warrant this tag. Garion96 (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not a dreadful article. It's OK. There's not a lot to it. RolandR, you should probably read WP:BRD. Your contribution has been disputed, so let's talk about this some more. While we're talking about it, the usual practice is to leave the article in its previous state. I went through the tags. Some are valid, some not IMO. It looks like Garion96 (or another editor) did so while I was looking at it. Some of the tags both of us agree on:

• Original research. I'm not seeing original research here. Where's the synthesis? Original research would be something along the lines of "Most of English-speaking people Hart selected were scientists and poets, while most of the German-speaking ones were conquerors and dictators", that sort of thing. (Perfectly fine to cite if a notable reviewer said this, but not the sort of thing we're supposed to do on our own.) I agree with the removal of that tag..
• Sources not reliable. Well, there's only three sources. Two of them are to the book itself and books are generally excellent sources for their own contents. The third, meh. It may not be reliable, but I'd prefer to see it tagged individually rather than the whole article tagged, since it's just one source. I agree with the removal of that tag.
• Relies on primary sources. True, mostly, so IMO tag should be kept.

Tags that Garion96 and I don't agree on are:

• Notability -- IMO this tag should be removed. The book's probably notable. It's stayed in print for quite a while now and you see it referenced here and there. I recall seeing something about the Edward de Vere thing when the second edition came out, that sort of thing. The author, Michael H. Hart, has an article that's partly predicated on his authorship of this book, where it says the book has sold more than 500,000 copies and been translated into 15 languages. It's true that there's no refs proving any of this, which ought to be dug up. Still, it is notable I'd say, and so I would remove the "Notability" tag. Fixing the other ref problems, say by including reviews from notable publications, will presumably fix this one as a side-effect. However, if both Garion96 and RolandR want the tag, fine.
• Finally, {{close paraphrasing}} -- "This article or section contains close paraphrasing of one or more non-free copyrighted sources". I assume that that refers only to the top-ten list which we do include. My opinion is that that is copyvio. We need to talk about this some more, perhaps at a larger venue like the copyvio board, since other articles have this problem too. I'd keep the tag, but I don't much care since I intent to press forward to address this problem presently anyway. Herostratus (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with you that the notability tag should be removed. However since the article indeed does not proof notability with references I thought it would be OK to let it stay. Regarding close paraphrasing, I also think Roland meant the top 10 with that. I think we're OK with that actually. Previously the whole top 100 list was in the article but just the top 10 would fall under wp:non free content. Garion96 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Turns out the list portion is copyvio, and it really has to go

I went to The Mountain, and found out that it is copyright violation to include any part of the ranking, period. It's not really a matter of opinion. Yes the violation has stood for quite a while, but that's not really germane.

Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use (a guideline, but an important one) addresses this directly. Unacceptable use includes:

A complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner. Articles on individual elements from such lists can discuss their inclusion in these lists. Complete lists based on factual data, such as List of highest-grossing films, are appropriate to include. Lists that have acceptable free licensing (as with AFI 100 Years... series) may be reproduced in their entirety as long as proper citations and sourcing are included.

Game over I'd say, in addition this erudite essay discusses the issue in detail: Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. So I removed the list. I wouldn't recommend fighting over it as, given the above, this would almost certainly result in lots of wasted effort, going to the copyvio board and so forth, and the end result being the list still ending up removed.

If people do want to argue this, that's fine, but here's not the place; instead, I'd recommend going to the talk page at Wikipedia:Non-free content and arguing for moving "A complete or partial recreation of 'Top 100' or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner" from the "Unacceptable use" to the "Acceptable use" section. And good luck with that since it's very unlikely to be accepted. But you could try I guess.

Sorry. If it was my encyclopedia I'd maybe include the top 10 list, which does enhance the article. But part of the deal here, like it or not, is that our stuff has to be free to the downstream user, to the extent that's is reasonably possible to make it so. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Fringe Theories, Notability and Sources

A discussion concerning this article and potentially serious problems related to it, has been opened at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Comments from interested editors are welcome. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge?

During the deletion discussion I suggested merging this article with the one on its author, Michael H. Hart. My point was the articles give pretty much the same information. What do you think? Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

White seperatism

What exactly does Michael Hart's white separatism have to do with this book? It should be moved to the article on the author himself.VR _talk 21:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

2402:3A80:DA4:2FAE:EC8D:7B81:A72C:DCB9 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Pls remove name of mohmmad

 Not done:. Please explain why. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored. RudolfRed (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

Hart's Top 10 (from the 1992 edition):

Muhammad (P.B.U.H) is at Rank 1st, however being a follower of Muhammad (P.B.U.H), completely disagree with the occupation column of Muhammad (P.B.U.H). There is a lot of discrepancies in the occupation section of Muhammad (P.B.U.H), a person is either going to be secular or religious you can’t have both that’s disagreement. On one side the editor has stated about Muhammad (P.B.U.H) that "The central human figure of Islam, regarded by Muslims as a prophet of God and the last messenger. Also active as a social reformer, diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, military leader" on the other side you are you have mentioned his occupation as a secular which is completely irrelevant to his personality, attributes, lifestyle, method of teaching, method of living, etc. As per google the meaning of secular is "not connected with religious or spiritual matters". If we look at the life and history of Muhammad (P.B.U.H) there is not even a single act that identifies him as a secular. He is one of the major prophets of God the same as Jesus Christ. Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) has stayed religious all of his life and he devoted his life to religion Islam. I hope that clarifies the status and occupation of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H). This is a clear mistake & needs to be rectified as soon as possible. Prophet (P.B.U.H) is one of the great religious leader. CrXoss (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrong #11

According to wikipedia in other languages and this source (https://www.unf.edu/~n00006757/astronomylectures/The%20100.pdf) the #11 belongs to Pasteur and not Guru Nanak Dev Ji. It's odd anyway to display the Top 11. I will (or will try) to delete the #11 spot. Cheers! Edit: The article is "protected" until somewhat 2021. that means you cant edit it? I coudlnt find the edit button. The section in the article depicts TOP 10 as a sub-chapter and what you get is a TOP 11 with a false #11. Super shady. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:C151:4F00:8D84:5227:2333:8720 (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed it. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2020: Partial edits by User:Dark Clouds of Joy

This one and one edits of User:Dark Clouds of Joy do not maintain neutrality, he tends to promote mostly the negative views and removed the positive views mostly but continuously keeping the negative views with well furnishing without keeping a neutrality balance. I request to make a balance of positive and negative views. He removed a lot of positive views with strongly established reliable sources. 116.58.202.24 (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The edits should not simply be reverted because they removed quite a bit of extraneous material, but if specific changes need to be made, please suggest them. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021

I want to change Muhammad saw name pic from only Muhammad to Muhammad saw 39.45.187.128 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You need to seek consensus before requesting that change. Start a discussion on this talk page if you'd like to change it to a portrait. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2020: Partial edits by User:Dark Clouds of Joy

This one and one edits of User:Dark Clouds of Joy do not maintain neutrality, he tends to promote mostly the negative views and removed the positive views mostly but continuously keeping the negative views with well furnishing without keeping a neutrality balance. I request to make a balance of positive and negative views. He removed a lot of positive views with strongly established reliable sources. 116.58.202.24 (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The edits should not simply be reverted because they removed quite a bit of extraneous material, but if specific changes need to be made, please suggest them. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021

I want to change Muhammad saw name pic from only Muhammad to Muhammad saw 39.45.187.128 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You need to seek consensus before requesting that change. Start a discussion on this talk page if you'd like to change it to a portrait. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

10 most influential people

There should be Martin luther Mayanksingh8083776144 (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Take it up with the author of the book, this is not a WP ranking. Jeppiz (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Octavian Augustus is missing from top ten

Wrong Octavian Augustus is missing from top ten and that is incorrect. If not for him starting the Roman Empire has regin has taken western culture and he besides the religion starters is the most important person in history. Way over Issac Newton. He should be up there 2603:B050:35B0:0:FCAE:DBAB:B918:6AA9 (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

As in the previous comment, this an article about a book and is not Wikipedia's ranking for the most influential persons in history. You should write/email the author of the book. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)