Talk:Time Person of the Year/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Ayatollah

I think the Ayatollah date would be confused because after all, the "Man of the Year" for 1979 would have been named in 1980, if I'm right about when they do those things. So if you say "named AK MotY in", it should probably be 1980, but if you say "named AK as MotY forvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv", it should be 1980. -- John Owens 08:05 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

The Person/Man of the year is chosen in December of the respective year.

Persons of the Decade

TIMES has also PERSONS OF THE DECADE. Gorbatchev was one of them. Should'nt that be mentionned in the article as well? Ysengrim

Gorbachev was the one and only Person of the Decade. 216.197.255.226 (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

2004

TIME missed the boat, as usual. they should have named the Boston Red Sox the men of the year. Kingturtle 16:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How so? The victory of the Boston Red Sox didn't really affect anyone outside of the Baseball/Sporting/New England community. At most, the Red Sox's ALCS (and World Series) victory should be placed in the, "Greatest Sporting Events of the Year" part of TIME's "Greatest" end-of-year magazine series.

Person of the year

I think it is off topic, the article has be renamed

Person of the year(Time Magazine)

There may be other uses of the "title" that sounds to me like a real-socialist title "worker of the year ..."

Americentrism

I made a little statistical research into the list of Time's Persons of the Year. A breakdown by nationality/ethnicity shows that more than a half of them were Americans. If you don't count multiple, collective and non-human POTY's, you get:

35 Americans (US-born), including only one African American;
 4 Chinese;
 4 Germans;
 3 Arabs (Saudi, Egyptian and Palestinian);
 2 British persons;
 2 Frenchmen;
 2 Iranians;
 2 Poles;
 1 Afrikaner (White South African);
 1 Xhosa (Black South African);
 1 Ethiopian;
 1 Filipino;
 1 Georgian;
 1 Hungarian;
 1 Indian;
 1 Italian;
 1 Jew (Israeli);
 1 Russian;
 1 Ukrainian.

Out of the seven collective POTY's, six are American, the only exception being the Hungarian Freedom Fighter. If someone finds this info interesting enough to be included in the article, please do it. – Kpalion (talk) 01:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why you wouldn't include multiples. If your point is that they have too many Americans, than the fact that they are reusing Americans is especially notable. --Arctic Gnome 05:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the "citation needed" from the part that says most of the recipients have been American. Kpalion's numbers are a good start, and adding in the past few years of recipients brings the total to 44 Americans (including 6 abstracts and 3 Americans born overseas) and 31 non-Americans (including 1 abstract), with three non-humans/abstracts (Computer, Earth, You) left over. It's pretty clear that there are more Americans than non-Americans, and there are more Americans by far than any other nationality. I'm not saying this is right or wrong - Time is an American magazine, after all - but I don't think it's necessary to claim "citation needed" when the numbers speak for themselves. -Etoile 01:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You didn't do "statistical research" you counted. If you want to do real statistical reasearch, apply some non-linear dynamics to fading models and soft decision making for CDMA systems. Also, it's not profound that it's by far a majority of Americans, since it is an American periodical. The average American doesn't know the difference between Belarus and Ukraine. What do you expect?

I would have thought if would have been a little more biased. But still, this is pretty bad.

Oh boy, where do I start?

• The moon, computers and you are not "abstract". I hope you are tangible and real.
• Not all white South Africans are Afrikaans
• Not all black South Africans are Xhosa
• Not all Jews are Israeli, or Israelis are Jews

You are right in criticising the lack of non-Americans over others in the award, but the beauty of statistics lies in articulating an argument with simplicity Kransky 11:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Mention about Foley?

Does anyone think that we should add the case of Mick Foley to the controversies chapter?

yeah dude,and it doesnt say 'why' he was removed from the list,i wanna know 'why',and why the hell is hitler a people of a year,any year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.49.98 (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what?

Man that is funny, how about MATT Foley while you're at it. I really hope you meant Mark Foley.

cactus jack dumass,mick foley high school football rules! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis66Driftwood (talk • contribs) 15:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Only Time Magazine?

Is Time Magazine the only organisation that names people of the year? It seems surprising that it would be.

Ben Arnold 02:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

US Presidents

It is now Time policy to always name a US President after he is elected (or in some cases, re-elected) to office in recognition of that accomplishment in itself. Is this a stated policy or just what seems to actually happen? Note that George H.W. Bush was elected president in 1988 but wasn't selected Time's Person of the Year until 1990. --Metropolitan90 07:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Only one of the last 10 Persons of the Year has been a non-American, that being Hungarian Andy Grove in 1997

I deleted the sentence "Only one of the last 10 Persons of the Year has been a non-American, that being Hungarian Andy Grove in 1997." Grove became an American citizen in 1962, which maked him as American as anybody else. Dvid Ho was born abroad. The odds are that at lease some of the collective "American soldiers" were as well.

"Born abroad"

I deleted the sentence "Only one of the last 10 Persons of the Year has been a non-American, that being Hungarian Andy Grove in 1997." Grove became an American citizen in 1962, which makes him as American as anybody else. David Ho was also born abroad. The odds are that at least some of the "American soldiers" were as well.

Persons of the year

We should change the name, or create a 2nd article called "times people of the year" because their were 3 people chosen for person of the year.

And what happens when the next five or ten POTY is only one person and not a group? Leave it the way it is.--Kross | Talk 16:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The singular form "Person of the Year" would be preferable anyway according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns. --Metropolitan90 08:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Person of the Century

The Wikipedia article states, "The December 31, 1999 issue of TIME named Albert Einstein the Person of the Century. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Mohandas Gandhi were chosen as runners-up." If I recall correctly, the runners-up were Gandhi and Henry Ford, not FDR. However, I do not have the issue of the magazine to confirm this.'

This entire paragraph is totally incorrect. Henry Ford was NEVER a runner up and Franklin D. Roosevelt was. Check http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/albert_einstein5a.html .

Template for Person of the Year

I have created a template for person of the year, but I don't time to distribute it to the different pages of the different people. I am asking for help here. Is it possible to have some robot do it for us? The template is located at: Template:Time Person of the Year. P-unit 23:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that at least one other organisation in the world names a 'Person of the Year', so this should probably be renamed "Time Person of the Year" (not sure how you would punctuate it). Certainly outside of the US the 'person of the year' would not necessarily be associated with TIME. DJ Clayworth 01:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Ford

The article stated that every elected US President has been named PotY except Gerald Ford, but I can only assume that the reason for the elected disclaimer was meant to disqualify Ford, who is the only unelected President.

I removed the word elected to eliminate the redundancy. --Cmdroverbite 20:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ted Turner

If any of you have noticed, Ted Turner's picture in the box of covers is blank. It needs to be uploaded but i'm not a registered member, so I can't upload photos. Someone needs to do it for me. Thanks.

Uhh, Hugo Chavez is still just speculation at the point. time.com makes no mention of this so far.

Bush

Bush person of the year are the fucking kidding. That idiot stared a war and those jerks at Time gave him this award. Just like his administration their a bunch of fucking idiot at Time.--Kingforaday1620 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not an award. Its given to the person who has most affected the year's news.    Codu    talk    contribs    email   14:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you should look at the list of people who made it in the past, and how many "bad guys" are on there. Stalin, Hitler, Khomeini, Khrushchev, and Xiaoping. Many have stated taht Usama Bin Laden should have been the POTY in 2001, but Time didn't have the "balls" to put him on the cover. Similarly, I have seen arguments taht Kim Jong-Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should probably have beat out "You" given all that they have received in the press this year. - Don Bradshaw

2006: You

Time has named their "person of the year", and this year it is "you". You as in, contributors to websites such as YouTube, Wikipedia, and MySpace. Talk about your cop-out of the year. Cutter20 01:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has an opinion on who it should be, and those people are very scattershot -- Nobody can say for certain that one person has had a definite, obvious role in shaping the entire scale of events for the year. The mere fact that we can discuss our opinions - especially over this medium - is a more than healthy reason for why 'You' is the choice. The choice is made healthier when one considers the numbers, popularity, and impact that such media have had over the Year 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.44.145 (talk • contribs)

Very interesting, perhaps someone would like to hash out a userbox for it :) --WikiSlasher 09:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ask and ye shall receive! {{User:UBX/User Time PotY}} Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also see {{User person of the year}}. --Goyston 04:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And Template talk:User person of the year. I attempted to make one with a simplified cover. Jason McHuff 04:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

We win! --Arctic Gnome 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WTF I was just watching PTI and they metioned the kornheiser joke. I think it should be reverted. Roastytoast 22:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Per the "if you don't have something nice to say..." thing they taught us in Kindergarten, I will refrain from speaking my feelings on this cop-out (oops, too late!). Patstuart^talk|edits 00:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Keeping Poty.jpg at the Top

I strongly believe Poty.jpg should remain at the top to counter recentism. That image, as a collage of several covers, is far more representative of the Person of the Year as a whole (the topic of the article) than the lone image of TIME's most recent cover (with "You"). Other opinions? -- tariqabjotu 04:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. POTY.jpg should be at the top, not just the 2006 selection. Cutter20 04:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Person of the Year extends through the past 80 years; the article is about the Person of the Year in all that time, and the top image would need to be either general (collage), or if that were not available, representative or majorly famous (picking odd ones like "You" are not representative). Arguably, the most recent one is the least helpful to readers: more people have seen and remember the recent one, it is nothing new. —Centrx→talk • 09:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Adding the 2006 itself might not be hurtful were the image so unrepresentative of the award. Poty.jpg provides a much better historical context for the article. —ShadowHalo 05:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, per ShadowHalo. - Chardish 04:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why "citation needed"

Why is a citation needed for the following statement: "A breakdown by nationality also shows that more than a half of the people who have ever been selected for the title have been Americans"? The list of selectees is right on the page; it is simply a matter of counting them. Almost all of the people have Wikipedia pages of their own from which to determine nationality. (The four that don't were part of the 1975 grouping "American Women," so their nationality is obvious.) And the abstractions (the computer, Earth, "You") should be counted as just that. — Michael J 16:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Well, I think just going by that would be Original Research. TravisHarder 00:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Who decides on the Person of the Year?

Does anyone know who decides who the "Person of the Year" will be? The freddinator 19:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The managing editor of Time makes the final decision, although it is a collaborative effort from several of Time's editors and staff members. -- tariqabjotu 19:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Einstein is objectively a mistake, theory of relativity did not change modern life any, quantum mechanics did (computers, TV, nanotech, biotech).

Person of the century for Einstein is a bad choice. Relativity has absolutely no influence on human life or way of thinking. All modern technology is powered by quantum mechanics, the competing theory, which Einsteain opposed fiercely. Transistors, chips and computers run on quantum mechanics. Advanced biotechnology and nanotech is also strongly QM-based. Mankind has no grasp yet of things large enough to make the effects of relativity felt in human life. Therefore Schrodinger is the obvious man of the century, because quantum mechanics (electronics) is what changed life in 20th century the most.

The fact that scientifically untrained TIME magazine employees made such an errerous decision should be clearly laid out in the wikipedia article. 195.70.48.242 13:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, Adolf Hitler? Vladimir Lenin? The whole thing is ridiculously subjective. There's no way to say anything is "objectively" right or wrong in such a listing. john k 14:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and don't get me started with 2006's man of the year. A 13 year old kid compulsively masturbating at porn while pirating music while he is being stalked by a 50 year old pedophile through MySpace. 209.124.114.58

WHAT DID YOU CALL ME?! Oh I get it lol --WikiSlasher 03:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

you guys dont know what your talking about so no that wont be put into the article if i have any thing to say about itLeapster 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thumbnails of covers

I think this article would look much better if it had a thumbnail image for every cover in the table. That would be cool. 70.187.32.169 00:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but, tell us where can we find all the covers. Wikifan21century 02:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean besides the link at the bottom of the article? :) [1] --Rob Kennedy 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It might look cool as a standalone collage — sort of an Andy Warhol effect — but you’re talking about 80 images. That’s a lot. And what value does it add to the article? I think it’s better to present a representaive sample, which we already have. --Rob Kennedy 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking small thumbs, about 48 pixels square. As for value to the article... Well, images convey a lot more information than just text, I think that the images convey to an extent the context of the choice. Reading through the list without any context makes it just that, a list of names. 70.187.32.169 06:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Only 48 pixels? I don’t see how something that small would convey much information about the person or people chosen. Furthermore, most of the covers are fairly basic portraits. How much context can those provide? I think the most important piece of context to explain the significance of the choice is the year. --Rob Kennedy 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right 48 would be too small. How about this? Image:TIME_Person_of_the_Year_2006.jpg Have you looked at all the covers? Most are not basic portraits. There is usually something significant either in the expression of the portrait or something relevant in the background. It also helps to define what was contemporary with the choice. 70.187.32.169 01:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Multi-person entries

I’ve made a distinction when there are multiple people named as Person of the Year. Sometimes, it’s multiple specific people, such as the Apollo 8 astronauts, or the Peacemakers. In those cases, I list all the names in the Name column. Other times, the winner is a general group, and some people are chosen to represent that group, such as American women, or U.S. scientists. In those cases, all American women were chosen as Persons of the Year, but a handful of examplars were featured so that the reporters didn’t have to interview half the country. Those people who represent the group are listed in the Notes column.

In the case of the 2005 winners, it’s not all good Samaritans who were honored. It’s just Bono, Bill Gates, and Melinda Gates, and Time chose to give them the title of Good Samaritans to refer to them collectively. As far as I know, they never had that title together before. Similarly for the Peacemakers in 1993.

The only case I’m unsure about is the Wistleblowers in 2002. I don’t remember whether it was all whistleblowers, or whether it was just those three people who were deemed the biggest newsmakers of the year. --Rob Kennedy 18:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't read your post here. I thought it looked odd that some names and titles were in the notes column for group entries and some weren't. Also, I removed the parentheses as the info is already divided by table cells. I am not sure whether birth/death dates even belong in the table; it seems that the occupation (i.e. president, Apollo 8 astronaut) that resulted in them being picked is also/more notable. Lastly, the complete articles about the choices are here. Jason McHuff 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Since then, Time has generally shied away from choosing extremists."

I would say that a more accurate to say that since Khomeini, TIME has shied away from choosing anti-American figures. Saying that the more recent POTY choices haven't been extremists is a subjective (ie POV) claim. Redxiv 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Two George Bushes"

The table notes "The Two George Bushes" for 1990. Could someone please elaborate on that? I find it confusing. Is it a reference to HW and W? Or HW being Veep and Pres? Or something else? samwaltz 01:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I followed the link at the bottom of the article, the one that goes to the Person of the Year stories. On that page, you can see the 1990 entry for Bush. The subtitle reads, “President acted decisively abroad; waffles at home.” There’s also a link to the article if you want to read the details. --Rob Kennedy 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Note to self: Must read external link section, too. D'oh! samwaltz 12:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Lifetime of the Earth.

I noticed that the lifetime of earth is listed at 4004 BC – 2012

O RLY? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.146.52 (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

You

I don't know what kind of joker thinks putting "do not alter this link" next to [[Special:Mypage|You]] is going to work. Removed! --AdamM 13:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed from main page

"In 1998, Wrestler Mick Foley was actually leading the count, before he was removed as a candidate for Man of the Year."

If it is verifiable - and my search engine of choice is out just now - please accept my apologies and put it back! This was contributed by an anonymous IP that has had an extreme amount of vandalism. Lou 05:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Abstract entries

I think for the abstract entries, such as "American soldier/fighting man" or "You" or whatever, there should be separate articles explaining why (events of that year) and how the decision was made. The link to "You" is essentially worthless. So why was "you" chosen? I think a You (Time person of the year 2006) article is definitely in order, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.94.149.2 (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have created a You entry. Incidentally the term "abstract choice" is wrong, since the computer, the Hungarian fighting man etc are not strictly speaking abstract. Kransky (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Title

I'm sure that Time isn't the only group that designates a person of the year. The name should be changed to Time Person of the Year or similar. I will make the change if there are no objections. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I believe it would be more politically correct to have the title as Time Person of the Year than just Person of the Year. This could create confusion, as other Person of the Year articles do exist. Polarbear97 (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing. Or should it be Time's Person of the Year? I've seen it that way many times, including their site linked at the bottom, but i prefer just Time. Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Putin is a socialist?

I would dispute the claim that Putin is a socialist. At the very least, a reference is needed.

The Russian economy, as far as I can tell, is much less socialist than many Western-European ones, and, arguably, just as socialist as the US. Yet, nobody would call George W. Bush a socialist.

No American woman??

according to the article american women lived from 17something (i guess the day america was founded) up to 1933 or so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.86.29.201 (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Earth Flag Icon

Why was the flag of Earth I added to the "You" 2006 Person of the Year deleted? It was politically correct, as "You" referred to the entire planet's population. Polarbear97 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Earth flag is not an official recognized flag. Also, You represents individuals who collectively created the internet revolution with collaborative websites likw Wikipedia, Myspace, blogs, etc. The flag is for a unified everyone. Reywas92^Talk 17:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, thank you for the explanation. Polarbear97 (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Selection Process

Something should be also mentioned about the selection process. I would be intrigued to know the process in which a person is selected to be Person of the Year and how it is narrowed down from a potentially endless list of noteworthy individuals. If this is already covered, You have my apologies, otherwise I think it is something that should be included.

--216.229.227.141 (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hitler Not Pictured?

The chart claims that the 1938 issue, in which Adolf Hitler was named MotY, was "[t]he only issue where chosen individual was not pictured on cover." From what I can make out of the cover (http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19390102,00.html), a caricature of Adolf Hitler is pictured (at the organ bench). Can anyone else confirm or deny this? Bolddeciever (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Inside information for 2008

Barack Obama will be the 2008 person of the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.70.225 (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think that much is fairly obvious, but without evidence it can't be included, so we'll have to wait and see Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 14:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be Ron Paul. 69.63.81.90 (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why what's he done! He failed to get elected, he didn't even get his party's nomination! Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 16:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Flags and names

I noticed that in the table, the flags and names are inconsistent in order in both 1993 and 2005.

Then fix it. Done. Reywas92^Talk 21:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd botch it --Dweller (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

TPotY footer template box in the Earth article

Earth has traditionally featured the standard TPotY footer template, which has in the past caused confused queries at the talk page. There is now an ongoing discussion questioning whether Earth is really the right place for this box (and the right link target for the template). All input welcome. —JAO • T • C 18:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Entire list of persons was deleted after 5 edits. Wow. 1st was vandalim, 2nd was attempted correction that damage the table, followed by 2 more that damaged the table from the same IP, and a final one that wiped out the table altogether. All corrected.

Also there seems to be a ridiculous amount of opinionism of who should and shouldn't be on the list in this talk page - that's not the point of this article. The article is about who is chosen, not who isn't or who should have been or what is fair. Annihilatron (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"x-th president"

Why do all American presidents have a "x-th president" information in the notes section? First of all, seriously, no one cares Jimmy Carter was the 7th American president to receive this title. Second of all, you could write such an irrevelant information about ALL the people there: "Ted Turner, first enterpreneur", "Adolf Hitler, first führer" and so on... And finally - "x-th president" OF WHAT? Charles de Gaulle was also a president, Anwar Sadat even received his title while in office. As far as I remember, Time awards people whose importance is worldwide - why are the US some kind of default value here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.236.0.201 (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think that the entire column should be removed. Reywas92^Talk 13:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II's Nationality

As I have read in numerous debates on the talk page of the article about her, she has no real nationality. Therefore it is confusing as to what should be used as the flag next to her name here. I think we need to make a decision to keep it consistant. The way I see it, it's:

• The flag of the UK - My prefered choice (keep it simple)
• The flags of all her realms
• Her personal flag
• Royal standard - this, however, will then clash because Scotland has it's own Royal Standard ()

What do other's think? Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 17:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that Her Majesty's Personal flag should be used as it's the most neutral of the lot, the Queen is not only British, but Canadian, Australia, etc as well. Using all the flags may not be practical and there are some issues with it such as that it can be said that The Queen's nationalities were only 7 (with 4 continuing) at the time of becoming Queen. The Queen's royal standard in the UK (for England, Wales and N. Ireland) or the Queen's royal standard for the UK in Scotland cannot be used either, becuase the Queen does have Royal Standards in her other realms as well: Canada: and Australia: . More of the Queen's standards linked to from article Royal Standard. Using The Queen's personal flag is probably the most practical...--Knowzilla 18:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OR another option would be to place the flags of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand only. Queen Elizabeth II was crowned as Queen of those countries at her coronation (those countries were themselves mentioned) and remains Head of State of those places to date. Much more simpler and still keeping to the facts. --Knowzilla 18:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is a load of crap. She was born in and resides in the United Kingdom, so its flag should be used. Technically being head of state of New Zealand doesn't make her a Kiwi. Though she's also Queen of Canada, our article on her is titled Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Reywas92^Talk 20:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME? Where is your evidence for that? Years of constitutional evolution in the realms say otherwise. As for the title of the article on The Queen, it because that's the regular format <monarch name>of<country>, the United Kingdom is used because it is the oldest realm and (leaving out incorrect titles such as "The Queen of England") it is the most used wording perhaps. However people do say 'Elizabeth II of Canada' or 'the Queen of New Zealand' or 'the Australian monarch'. May I also remind/inform you that The Queen does not have any citizenship, even in the United Kingdom, because all citizenships across Her Majesty's realms are issued in her name. Using The Queen's personal flag or the flags of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would be the most neutral, practical and simple. --Knowzilla 05:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't yell. I have referred this to Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Reywas92^Talk 15:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[ec] I'm not sure, Reywas, but he may have taken offence to his quite accurate statement being described as a "load of crap". Regardless, I've been bold in removing all the flags next to Elizabeth II for various reasons: Firstly, I see that some entries have more than one flag, but sixteen for one individual really was quite unwieldly in this situation. Secondly, those flags did not represent the states over which she was sovereign in 1952, when she won the distinction. At that time, she was head of seven states: Australia, Canada, Ceylon, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, and the UK. Perhaps the use of seven flags could be acceptable. If not, I don't believe her personal flag for the Commonwealth would be apt, as it did not come into existence until 1961. Instead, I'd say either her UK royal standard (which she then used throughout her realms), or, my preference, which is no flag at all (which I see also has precedence in the list). I've also added a footnote explaining the anomoly for Elizabeth II. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem appears to have been satisfactorarily resolved for now... Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 18:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is complete rubbish. No one's disputing she's head of state of all those countries - the point is, what is her own nationality. She was born in the UK, as were both her parents, and under British nationality law this makes her a British citizen. ðarkuncoll 07:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In reviving what seemed to be a resolved issue, do you have a source that explicitly states Elizabeth II was a British citizen in 1952? Further, do you have a source that states this was her only nationality? There are sources that claim she is not foreign to Canada,([2]) for example, and others from which one could deduce that she was a Canadian subject when still a princess.([3]). When it's no so clear-cut what the woman's nationality is, it would seem to me best to be cautious, rather than push what could be all-together the wrong information. --Miesianiacal (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are merely your own interpretation, and therefore both POV and OR. Please provide a source that states she was excluded from the British Nationality Act 1948. For further details see Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#Nationality. ðarkuncoll 12:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever my interpretations are (I'm not exactly sure what secifically you're referring to), your interpretations are no more valid. But that is beside the point as I'm saying we shouldn't rely on any of our own personal interpretations. Hence, I never put forward any mere opinion that the Queen was exempt from the Nationality Act, nor would I ever try to do so, let alone insist that it was more accurate a take than yours. So, let's rely on external sources only, and understand that nationality and citizenship are not necessarily one and the same. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Use the British flag and move on folks; Jumpin' Junipers. GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II has no citizenship in any of her realms, British, Canadian, Australia, or otherwise. The Queen has no passport either and does not require one, as they are all issued in Her Majesty's name in Canada, UK, etc. The other members of the Royal Family do carry British passports, but are still subjects of (for example) The Queen of Canada, so we can debate about their nationality. However, theres no debate here. The Queen has no citizenship or passport, if Her Majesty does have a nationality, then it is all of them (Her Realms). --Knowzilla 13:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

She is not British in terms of any Nationality Act, that is just nonsense. The only sensible option would have been to use the Royal Standard which is most in use, i.e. the one she uses when at Buck House/Windsor Castle. Scottish objections are wholly irrelevant. Leaving it blank is just daft. MickMacNee (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please point out the clause or subsequent Act that exludes her from the British Nationality Act of 1948? ðarkuncoll 13:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My preference is to use the Union Jack. If we can't agree on that usage, then the Royal Standard is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Then why not use, say, Hitler's personal standard? What was Hitler's nationality? Austro-Hungarian, Austrian, or German? 1938 was the year Austria was absorbed by Germany, so for part of that year it was still separate. So Hitler presumably had dual nationality, having taken German citizenship in 1932. Or did he renounce his Austrian citizenship? Does anyone know? By the same token, for part of 1952 the Queen was a subject of the British monarch. Does anyone dispute this? ðarkuncoll 14:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated, if we can't get an agreement on the Union Jack usage? Then let's adopt Liz's Royal Standard. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I really can't understand what the problem is in accepting the obvious and demonstable fact that she's British - unless, perchance, it has something to do with national pride. ðarkuncoll 14:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've always accepted her as British. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And so have I, "GoodDay". Her Majesty may not need, and have, a British passport, etc, but she IS British, and it would be silly to say shes not. However at the same time, how could it possibly be wrong to call her Canadian or Australian? I'm pretty sure it's would be weird for a sovereign and independent nation such as Canada to have a foreigner as Head of State? As much as she is British she IS also Canadian. We're talking about legal stuff here and legally, I'm pretty sure shes Canadian. It is most certainly true that members of the Royal Family (excluding the reigning monarch) are subjects of the Queen of Canada. To answer "TharkunColl's" questions: Hitler DID renounce his Austrian citizenship, so no issue there. :P As for The Queen being a subject of the British Monarch in early 1952, I don't dispute that.--Knowzilla 14:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Common-usage is my choice. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we all accept that she's British. We just don't all accept it for the same reasons, nor do we all accept that as her only identity.

Thark: you've been told numerous times that without a clause in the Nationality Act which states the act applies to the Crown, the act does not apply to the Crown. Is there a clause in the Nationality Act that says it applies to the Crown? Is the Queen not the Crown?

Her personal royal standard was one option considered earlier; she only had one at the time: what is now her British one. The only thing that put the proposal in question was: is the Queen a country unto herself? Come to think of it, there may be an argument that she is... But, then, what of the other monarchs on the list?

Frankly, I think DrKiernan had it right at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom: per WP:MOSFLAG: "do not use flags when the issue is complex or it is unnecessary to do so." --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"I'm pretty sure..." "I'm pretty sure it would be weird..." "I'm pretty sure she's Canadian..." I think you'll have to provide better references than that, I'm afraid. And why do you assume it's impossible for a person to be head of state of a country he or she is not a citizen of? Your argument is pure supposition. Please provide an official source granting her Canadian citizenship. Until such a source is produced, it is mere speculation. ðarkuncoll 14:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What about her personal flag (the one with the Big E). Surely, we can all agree to that (I know, don't call me Shirley). GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Thark: you've been told numerous times that without a clause in the Nationality Act which states the act applies to the Crown, the act does not apply to the Crown. Is there a clause in the Nationality Act that says it applies to the Crown? Is the Queen not the Crown?"

I've been told it numerous times by you, but you have provided no evidence for such an extraordinary assertion - please do so. Are you saying the Queen is not bound by the laws of the land? Could she go out and murder someone with impunity? ðarkuncoll 14:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The evidence was indeed presented. Once more: "Legislation does not presently bind the Crown unless there is express provision to say that it does."[4] "The general principle in law that statutes do not bind the Crown unless by express provision..."[5] It's called Crown immunity. It does not mean that the monarch is not bound by law, only that the laws that do bind the monarch must explicitly say so. Unless you can cite the clause that says the Nationality Act binds the Crown, the Nationality Act doesn't bind the Crown. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah - so what you're doing here is conflating The Crown as a legal corporation with the person of its incumbent - something you have been at great pains not to do in most other contexts. The Crown has immunity (in certain contexts), but that says nothing at all about the citizenship of the person who wears it. ðarkuncoll 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Howabout we all agree, to use Liz's personal flag. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I can agree to that. --Knowzilla 15:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How about we all agree to not use any flag at all. This would conform perfectly with WP:MOSFLAG: "Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view" policy..." "Avoid flag usage, especially to present a point of view, that is likely to raise editorial controversy over political or other factual matters about a biography subject." "[A] flag may have limited and highly specific official uses, and an application outside that context can have political (e.g. nationalist or anti-nationalist) implications." & etc. It's a satisfactory enough solution for seven editors now. Only one - unless I'm mistaken - still finds it unacceptable. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Giving it a lot of thought, we should use Lilibet's personal flag. It's very neutral & undisputable. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But her personal flag doesn't make any sense because every other person on the list has a national flag; there should be consistency. That is just a personal banner, not in any way related to the others. There's Charles Lindbergh and he's American, there's Konrad Adenauer and he's German, there's Elizabeth II and What's that flag? ...she's Elizabeth II. And we wouldn't have File:Seal Of The President Of The Unites States Of America.svg for Barack Obama. The best thing to have is either the United Kingdom because she was born and lives there or nothing, as recommended by Miesianiacal. Reywas92^Talk 15:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the only neutral flag, around. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say nothing (no flags), with a note explaining why, but if a flag is really wanted, then Her personal flag, but I guess that would seem weird among all those national flags, so no flag might be more consistent with the rest. I'm fine with either, their both neutral. --Knowzilla 15:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if a country flag is required (for consistancy sake), then it should be Union Jack. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No flag would be better and more neutral. --Knowzilla 15:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

When I originally started this post I favoured the simple UK flag, but, having seen the no-flag footnoted version I have to say it is the only neutral way that pleases everyone. Since there is no flag next to her currently, I am in favour of keeping the status quo until a consensus is reached or legal confirmation is given, since both seem unlikely I feel happy with the current situation (for this page at least, obviously her actual article requires more discussion) Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 15:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Having thought it over, it's best to go with the No Flag footnote. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Draft of letter to the royal website

I propose getting the info from source, as it were. Please feel free to amend the following draft, and raise any objections before I send it:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you as a longtime Wikipedia editor to claify two points of law concerning HM The Queen.

1. Does she, by virtue of either the 1948 British Nationality Act, or indeed any other Act or legal instrument of any kind, currently hold British citizenship (or does the monarch hold no citizenship)?

2. Has she ever been granted legal citizenship of any country other than the UK, such as Canada or indeed any other whatsoever?

Regards,

etc. ðarkuncoll 15:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it can't hurt. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Objection! You don't need to ask em. I can tell you she has no Canadian citizenship. The issue here is: Is she Canadian (and Australian, etc, etc)? You should ask somewhere along the lines of: Is Her Majesty the Queen a national of all Her Realms? Is The Queen Canadian, Australian, etc as well as being British? The main question in the first point is Does the reigning monarch hold citizenship? And I'm quite sure as a Sovereign she does not. --Knowzilla 15:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't know why Tharkuncoll insists that this is about citizenship when it is not. Citizenship is just a legal category separate from nationality, though the two are commonly intertwined. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So I take it that if it turns out that she possesses British citizenship and no other, you'll still object? If so, you'll need to provide explicit valid sources that describe her "nationality" as Canadian. And if it was irrelevant all along, why did you spend so much time trying to refute the idea that she has legal British citizenship? ðarkuncoll 08:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to speculate on what I will and will not do in future. I do know, however, that in future nationality and citizenship will still be separate concepts. This difference was the third layer to my argument against the presentation of the British Nationality Act, the other two being: the act's clauses for non-citizen nationality could not affect the Queen (she's not a Hong Kong resident and she can't be her own subject), and the entire act simply doesn't apply to the Queen either way. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully we'll find out soon enough if the Act applies to her, though I can't see how it doesn't. So you're happy then, with the draft of the letter? If there are points you think it doesn't address, please add them. Such as, for example, your idea that she somehow has Canadian nationality without being a citizen. I don't want to misrepresent your position, so please frame a question or questions yourself, to add to the letter. ðarkuncoll 22:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being fair enough to seek my input on this, but I'm actually indifferent to whether or not the act applies to her; it would be an interesting fact if it did, and I'd be intrigued as to how it is the Crown is bound by an act that doesn't say it binds the Crown, but it ultimately wouldn't solve the issue of whether or not she is solely of British nationality (even if the Palace bothers to reply). Nationality is a broader concept than citizenship and isn't necessarily defined by law; the Quebecois, Kurds, and Scots are each a nation, but none has its own citizenship. Further, nationality (as actually illustrated by the British Nationality Act) includes both citizens and non-citizens. In my mind, the issue of the Queen's nationalities comes down to where she is and is not considered a foreigner, and she can hardly be a foreigner of her own countries (a position supported by official Canadian documents). --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confident that whatever Buck Palace's response, all of use here will abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Knowzilla, I think this is the best approach. When do you plan to send this? The sooner the better, it is the only way to get a definitive answer... Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 15:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a few days, to get all the opinions in. In particular I want all objections in first, rather than afterwards if it comes back with an answer they don't like. ðarkuncoll 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this a good approach too, I was only saying it should be worded differently. --Knowzilla 16:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the Palace will bother itself with a Wikipedia dispute over a flag. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This has potential ramifications in lots of other articles. If they don't respond, they don't respond. No harm in trying though. ðarkuncoll 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what's more ridiculous, the idea that Tharuncoll expects that the Queeen would be specifically mentioned in the Nationality Act, or that he thinks the Queen or her staff would ever personally explain to him why she wouldn't be. It's just beyond obvious. MickMacNee (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So what in particular do you object to, then? If they choose to reply, and they state that the Queen does indeed have British nationality, and no other, would you be satisfied? And if not, why not? And please remember that I accept the possibility that I may be proved wrong - though I seriously doubt it. ðarkuncoll 10:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had made my objections pretty clear. MickMacNee (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your objections appear to revolve around the fact that you doubt they'll even bother replying. You may be right, we'll just have to wait and see. But if they do reply, do you have any further objections? They may confirm my own position, or they may not - I shall of course abide by whatever they say. ðarkuncoll 17:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Its ashame the Palace isnt bound by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 that way we could of ensured a response on this very important issue. The Queen is British, but it would be good to know the official position be interesting to see if they reply to your letter, i doubt they will.

Perhaps letters could be sent to the Governor General in Australia and Canada asking the same question, so we can get responses from several locations. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's probably not necessary, as the palace should have all the details to hand concerning the Queen's nationality, and which (if any) she's been granted outside her native country. If they don't have the information to hand, I shall of course request contact addresses for those that do. ðarkuncoll 23:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

They should be able to answer it but i doubt they will want to, it may accidently get lost in the post ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I shall persevere, until I get a response. This is quite an interesting issue, and I also intend to address it with constitutional scholars, should it be necessary (i.e. if the palace doesn't bother responding). ðarkuncoll 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know that according to German blood and soil laws, she is considered a Hun. LutetiaPetuaria | 11:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I predict the response of the Queen, and any scholars consulted will be, a short pause, a puzzled look at the letter/questioner, and then howls of laughter. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the response, we can wait (we've got the time). GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So anyway, is everyone happy with the proposed wording? I want to cover every possible loophole. If you want to change it or add anything, please copy the whole letter from above, paste it below, and make your changes. In particular, I want to address this whole "nationality" thing, so I'd like to invite those who propose some sort of distinction between this and "citizenship" to add their questions to the letter, so we can iron out any possible objections before I send it. ðarkuncoll 17:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just shaking my head in utter disbelief that you actually seem to be serious, and this isn't some giant joke/troll/rickroll. Just make sure when you send it you make absolutely clear that you do not speak for anyone but yourself when you request 'clarification'. And be sure to tell the Queen where you went to school, so that if you do reside within one of her realms, she can give the appropriate word in the ear to the revelant education minister; or if you don't, so that she doesn't have to feel so guilty that this could ever happen. MickMacNee (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Its a serious question which would be very useful to know an answer to but i doubt it will be replied to. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm content with the letter, Tharky. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done this with politicians before, I emailed asking Menzies Campbell's staff whether he did national service, for the purposes of WP, and his reps had no problem answering within a few days. [6] They won't laugh, it's a genuine question and they have people they employ to answer questions such as this. Whatever they think of the questions, I think they'll reply, or they should, for good public relations.:) (It's WP:OR to include without verifiable cites of course, but it might clarify things.) Sticky Parkin 03:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The OR thing is indeed something we need to address, so I'll include a request for citations in the letter. And for those who try to draw a distinction between "nationality" and "citizenship", since I've had no response to my request that they add their own questions, I'll do it for them - please feel free to amend my wording if you're unhappy with it or think it misrepresents your case in any way, because such is most certainly not my intention.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you as a longtime Wikipedia editor to clarify certain aspects of law concerning HM The Queen.

1. Does she, by virtue of either the 1948 British Nationality Act, or indeed any other Act or legal instrument of any kind, hold British citizenship (or does the monarch hold no citizenship)?

2. Has she ever been granted legal citizenship of any country other than the UK, such as Canada or indeed any other whatsoever?

3. If she does not hold legal citizenship of any country outside the UK, does she, as a number of my colleagues at Wikipedia have suggested, hold "nationality" of any country outside the UK, as distinct from citizenship? This is in particular regard to the Commonwealth realms.

4. And lastly, since Wikipedia requires citations for all its information, can you direct me to any publications, documents, legal instruments etc. etc. that confirm your answers to the above questions?

Very much obliged,

etc. ðarkuncoll 08:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Groovy. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What will your answer be when, in relation to point 4, they in turn ask you what credible reseaarch you have already done into the matter? Or is it just to be accepted by the the Queen's no doubt long suffering PR department that this is the normal way anybody who hadn't by adulthood got a grip on these basic matters of fact, goes about resolving their questions. Just drop it, before you tar every Wikipedian by association. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bit extreme! Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 15:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, what's with this we'll be damned in hell for eternity stuff? GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect they'll probably try to be as helpful as they can - that is, after all their job. I might be wrong, but we'll just have to wait and see. ðarkuncoll 15:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what professionals do. Clearly thousands of people don't do all the research themselves or can't find the answers in a clear cut way, or ask anyway for various reasons. If there were no demand, they wouldn't employ people at least partly to answer the questions, and state this as something they're prepared to do. :) Sticky Parkin 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably send it sometime on Sunday, unless I get any more feedback that necessitates further discussion. The one thing I really want to avoid is for people to come out with objections after I've sent it. ðarkuncoll 23:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No reply 'yet', folks? GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe, Buck Palace has snubbed us. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

pfffft. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 20:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

srsly dude. totally dissed. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to Buck Palace's snubbery - We are not amused. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

2006 "controversy"

Barring a reliable source on this, I'm extremely condensing the paragraph. There have been a few occasions where the TIME editors have chosen differently to the poll, not least of which was Vladimir Putin. This section looks like some kind of bias towards Hugo Chavez - Wiki contributors should be aware that the poll does not decide the "winner", the TIME editors do. 86.12.10.3 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect flags

I've just noticed that all US flags are the 50-star variety, even for those persons chosen in years when the flag only had 48 stars. ðarkuncoll 15:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes? For me they're a 22px PNG rendition of File:US_flag_48_stars.svg. Not that it's possible to count the stars at that PNG resolution. —JAO • T • C 16:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, apologies. I simply clicked on them and it took me to the article on the USA, with the current flag. ðarkuncoll 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

First winner to be a relative of a former winner?

This isn't true about the Bushes. Wallis Simpson is Elizabeth II's aunt. ðarkuncoll 10:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, she was Elizabeth's aunt-in-law (thus no known close DNA relation). GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no such relationship as aunt-in-law. She was the Queen's aunt by marriage, which is a legal relationship. If it's blood relatonship that is meant, it should say so. ðarkuncoll 23:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Policy for notes section

Some of the notations which people have added or attempted to add are getting overly specific. Noting that Vladimir Putin is "the first Russian chosen since the fall of the Soviet Union" is a case in point. Should Konrad Adenauer receive the notation "first German chosen since the defeat of Nazi Germany"? How about Pope John Paul II as "first Pope chosen since the Vatican II Council"? Barack Obama as "first African-American President of the United States chosen"? David Ho as "first Chinese-American AIDS researcher chosen"? I know everyone has a favorite personality which they wish to boost here but there really needs to be some guidelines.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The column should probably record why each person was selected. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this table could be arranged like the one for List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates with a (very) brief quote from Time explaining the specific choice for the year.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Something like that, yes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll note that I have been deleting overdetailed notes as well, especially regarding Corazin Aquino recently. However, I actually don't see the point in the Notes column at all. Highfields (talk, contribs) 16:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)