Endorse Endorse, but allow re-creation with new sources. As I started reading the above list, my first thought was, "Hey, this LIFE reference is pretty good", which led me to invest more time reading the others. Some of them look pretty reasonable, others look like passing mentions. But, the real problem is, every single one of them was in the
version of the article that was reviewed at AfD. So, what's changed since the AfD which would make its conclusion no longer valid? --
RoySmith(talk)16:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Send to AfD I think the redirect consensus feels like a compromise close rather than a true reading of what the editors who participated said which I see as a merge at minimum. However, given the length of time since that AfD and because
consensus can change , I think it's worth considering whether the strong set of sources above would pass community muster now. This is obviously not the place to have that discussion and I feel bad given that the editor was directed here by a new page patroller, but at a certain point I think DRV becomes stale and it's certainly with-in the timeframe here. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
18:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, you are correct. Not sure what I was looking at; I think what happened was not noticing July 2019 vs July 2015. In any case, thank you for the correction. I have updated my comment, above. --
RoySmith(talk)21:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Association, American Book Trade; Union, American Book Trade; Philadelphia, Book Trade Association of; Trade, Publishers' Board of (1992).
Publishers Weekly. Whitinsville, Mass. : R. R. Bowker Company. p. 156. Retrieved 31 July 2019..
Besides, I can give a lot of translation book link of the book in different prominent language from google books. Anyone can find them by searching with the writers name in the google books, which are worthy long in number to count to an end.
see it here. Here are some links. There are countless translations. Few of them i gave below and got bored of collecting the links, so please search in google books with outhors name with inverted comma: inauthor:"Michael H. Hart". Many more translations are also found with the help of google translator by translating authors name in non-latin letter's languages on google books.
@
Cunard: Sorry mate, it's now source-bombed and I don't have the time to go through all of them at the moment - would you mind telling me which
WP:THREE quality sources are the ones I should be focused on? Will take a look then.
SportingFlyerT·C18:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
SportingFlyer (
talk·contribs), here are three of the quality sources (among the many quality sources in the list):
Endorse the 2015 AfD decision to redirect. The recent bold attempt to revert the redirect was reverted. Procedurally, this calls for a discussion at the redirect target's talk page,
Talk:Michael H. Hart, to establish a consensus for reversing the AfD decision and to
WP:SPINOUT a subarticle on the book. There was no deletion, and so this is not in scope for DRV. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
03:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Restore because the page is "not substantially identical to the redirected version" (paraphrasing from
WP:CSD#G4) and because I have found 33 reliable sources about the book that strongly establish notability because they were published over a period of 31 years and are from multiple countries.
I therefore supporting restoring the article on the basis that {{db-repost}} does not apply.
A second reason to restore is I have also found numerous sources that establish notability.
Summary of the 33 sources
The book received sustained coverage in reliable sources over a period of 30 years: 1978, 1980, 1981, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1993, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2009.
The book received substantial coverage in a journal article in Business Horizons.
Negative coverage of the book
Charles Solomon of the Los Angeles Times criticized the book, writing, "his jejune volume stands out as a textbook example of culutural parochialism: Hart's list includes three Africans, two women and one South American. His mini-biographies of his choices feature such arbitrary, unsubstantiated pronouncements as ..."
Ken McGoogan wrote in the Calgary Herald wrote, "If Michael H. Hart has done nothing else, he has demonstrated that picking a public fight can be profitable. Hart is the author of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, revised and updated for the '90s (Citadel Press, $24)."
Frederic Raphael wrote in The Sunday Times, "In today's climate of overweight biographies, this unassumingly corpulent century of famous lives has a welcome Plutarchian succinctness. If it has a weakness, it is not inaccuracy (the exposition seems clear and the facts reliable), but monotony. The writing is unpretentious, but it is also po-faced. When it comes to the scientific fraternity, there is little awareness of confusions or contradictions. In Newton's case, who would guess that his rationalisation of science was accompanied, perhaps fuelled, by a belief in alchemy which took him at least to the edge of madness? Perhaps, by the same token, if Hart had not been driven by his ranking frenzy, he would not have had the energy to complete this eminently decent, marginally dotty compilation. Its only serious deficiency is the lack of even a rudimentary bibliography."
Barbara W. Tuchman wrote in The Washington Post, "The superabundance of science and applied science in the list (30 out of 100) is remarkable in view of the absence of any figure in law, architecture, poetry, business or the labor movement. ... Mr. Hart finds it "worth noting" that his list contains only three persons who lived from the 10th to the 15th centuries. This demonstrates only Mr. Hart's limitations, not those of the Middle Ages."
Edwin O. Reischauer wrote in The Washington Post, "I find 38 names from the fields of science or technology, to 17 or so conquerors and explorers, to two each in literature, art and music. Even a non-esthetic type like myself is shocked. The English-speaking corner of the world has 24. A man from outer space should have no difficulty in determining the cultural background and interest of our list maker."
Walter C. Langsam wrote in
The Cincinnati Enquirer, "When an Enquirer editor asked me whether I would comment on Michael Hart's [book], I replied I had not read the book and, indeed, had no desire to read it. For, in my opinion, no one can rank accurately the hundred most-anything among all the men and women who have peopled the Earth since the beginning of history. Yet, inasmuch as the editor is unusually persuasive, and since I was promised a summary of author's selection criteria and his list of rankings, I agreed to the request. Would that I had remained firm in my initial reaction!"
Positive coverage of the book
In 1988,
Hosni Mubarak, the
President of Egypt, honored Michael H. Hart, the author of the book, in Cairo for naming Mohammed as the most influential person in history.
Michael Gartner wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "But that's just the beginning of the debates that Michael Hart can start. For he has boldly come out with a ranking of the 100 most influential persons in history, and his ranking will stir more dinner-table discussion than even a list of the 10 best films of 1977 or the 10 worst restaurants in New York. ... Hart's fascinating book contains brief biographies of his 100 and, often, explanations of why the 98 men and two women (Isabella and Queen Elizabeth I) are ranked where they are. The book is a concise and readable history of the world. Hart proves to be a clear writer and a fine teacher—few readers will recognize all 100 names on the list."
Mike Barnicle wrote in The Boston Globe, "In terms of upsetting people, Michael Hart is the new champion. He is the author of a collection of names entitled 'The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History.'"
The Washington Post "asked three nationally-known thinkers to assess Michael Hart's list in his book, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History". The "three nationally-known thinkers" who wrote essays about the list in the book were
Chaim Potok,
Edwin O. Reischauer, and
Barbara W. Tuchman.
Albert Hofammann wrote in The Morning Call that it is "a curious book with some curious bits of information" and "could create a parlor game among contentious guests".
Jane Sullivan wrote in The Age, "That perverse inclusion of the totally obscure amoung the more conventional big guns of the encyclopaedias is what gives Dr Hart's book all the fascination of a good parlor game. ... The facts are sometimes trite, but it is the arguments for each rating which provide the real fun."
Arnie Arnesen wrote in The Boston Globe, "The 100 is an interesting hybrid. ... The list is an exclusive product of author Michael Hart. He brilliantly defends his choices and their ranking with pithy descriptions of each."
Janice Harayda wrote in The Plain Dealer, "Hart generally presents his evidence clearly, intelligently and without special pleading. This tends to give his arguments plausibility even when their conclusions are debatable, as when John F. Kennedy (No. 81) wins a ranking but not Abraham Lincoln, who is only in a roundup of 'Honorable Mentions and Interesting Misses' at the back of the book."
Michael H. Hart is an astronomer, a chessmaster — in short, a ponderer and puzzler. For the last three years, the main focus of his pondering and puzzling has been human history. All of it. His goal — to answer an essentially unimportant but fascinating question: Who were the 100 most influential individuals of all time?
He has detailed his list in a new book, to be released April 2, entitled "The 100 — A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History." It is a thick volume, sketching the biographies of his choices, running down his reasons for putting them in the order he did, and even including a long list of runners-up.
...
Hart's book, besides being a useful encapsulation of world history, is an endless source of heady debate. So, for the sake of argument, and with permission from Hart and his publisher, the Free Press has summarized hist list, giving some of his reasons for picking his top 10 and a quick description of those who fell in the next 90.
Michael H. Hart, whose qualifications include degrees in mathematics, law, physics and astronomy, is the author of a new volume, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, which is bound to create a lot of discussion.
...
Taken into equal account by the writer, whose research and perseverance must have been prodigious, these were persons who influenced past generations as well as the present situation of mankind.
...
His book sells at $12.50 and its publisher is listed as Hart Publishing Co. (Maybe Michael Hart is nearly as close to Renaissance Man as some of the people he hails.)
Even those addicted to soap operas and the music of Rod Stewart can learn a lot from Hart's book.
Now, dear reader, Hart has made a list: The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History ... and ... a biographical sketch of the persons on the list. ...
...
Hart seems to have at his disposal a very sensitive instrument, such as a fire-gauge to measure influence of a person; not only the present influence can be measured — but he can set the gauge back and measure past influence. Perhaps he can also turn the gauge forward and measure future influence. It must be very accurate — for the author came up with this reader for Beethoven: ...
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History by Michael H. Hart (Hart: $12.50; illustrated). The key word in this inflammatory title is "Influential," not "Greatest," and therein lies Hart's justification for including many of history's bad guys (i.e., Hitler) while ignoring many of the good guys (i.e., Mother Cabrini). Hart's ranking system may seem outrageous to some—Muhammad is ranked first, followed by Newton and then Christ—but the book is nonetheless thought-provoking and utterly absorbing.
Hart, an astronomer who investigates planetary atmospheres for the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., came down to earth to write "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History." He said he chose, not the most famous or talented, but "the hundred who had the greatest impact on history and our everyday lives." The book, which took three years to research and write, is now in its second printing.
His first ten selections are Muhammad, Sir Isaac Newton, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, St. Paul, Ts'ai Lun, Gutenberg, Columbus, Einstein.
...
Hart, 46, short, balding, shy, and rated a chess master, lives in a Washington suburb with his wife, Sherry, and their two young sons. He is also a lawyer. After practicing law for eight years he decided that science was more interesting, if less lucrative, and returned to school to get a masters in physics at Adelphi and a Ph.D in astronomy from Princeton.
The idea for "The 100" came when he concluded that historians have given us a one-sided view by over-playing the role of political and military leaders.
Michael H. Hart is a short, nervous Ph.D who ditched law to become an astronomer. Now, at 45, he lists his version of the 100 standout people, "stars" who have been confined to the planet earth.
Hart's book, "The 100 — A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History," is a highly debatable who's who that is generating controversy ranging from the amused to the heated. It was printed by his father's publishing house.
But that's just the beginning of the debates that Michael Hart can start. For he has boldly come out with a ranking of the 100 most influential persons in history, and his ranking will stir more dinner-table discussion than even a list of the 10 best films of 1977 or the 10 worst restaurants in New York.
...
Hart's fascinating book contains brief biographies of his 100 and, often, explanations of why the 98 men and two women (Isabella and Queen Elizabeth I) are ranked where they are. The book is a concise and readable history of the world. Hart proves to be a clear writer and a fine teacher—few readers will recognize all 100 names on the list.
Muhammad, says Michael Hart, who lists the prophet of Islam as his No. 1 choice in his book, "The 100, a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History."
He decided to write the book after a friend challenged him to compile a list of the greatest persons in history. The book took three years to research.
...
The author does research in astronomy at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and is a visiting professor at the University of Maryland.
Americans love lists—the 10 best, the 10 worst and so on—and now an astronomer and amateur historian named Michael Hart has given us something to chew on all winter with his own list of the 100 most influential people who ever lived.
This list, along with Hart's explanation of his choices, is published in "The 100" (Hart), a book that runs to 572 pages and costs $12.50. The reader is invited to challenge Hart's selections, and as Newsweek magazine notes, "It's a game anyone can play, and at one time or another, almost everyone does."
I haven't read the book, but the list if published in Newsweek, and I see no reason why I have to read Hart's arguments to quarrel with them. He probably won't read mine either.
Green, Blake (1978-09-22). "The 100 Most Influential Persons in History". San Francisco Chronicle. p. 24.
The article notes:
...
For all that insight, Edison ended up only No. 38 on Michael Hart's list of the "The 100 — A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History."
...
There was a time when it was all so much fun and games to Hart as well. Then, the list, which began as a dinner-table conversation with friends, grew into a book and has proceed to arouse a fair amount of interest and controversy.
The most influential person throughout the ages has been, according to Hart, Muhammad. The third most influential was Jesus. You can see right there that a lot of people are going to disagree.
...
There were several basic rules Hart followed:
Influence is not synonymous with fame. This is why very few figures from the arts are listed and none from the entertainment or sports even considered.
...
The list is "based on what actually did occur, not what should have happened." Therefore Hart says he saw no reason to "cover up the disagreeable fact of discrimination by adding a few token women" and minorities (by U.S., not world, standards). "To be influential," he explained, "one needs opportunity as well as talent. If Einstein (No. 10) had come from Africa, he probably would not have invented the theory of relativity.
In terms of upsetting people, Michael Hart is the new champion. He is the author of a collection of names entitled "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History."
Hart has placed Mohammed No. 1 because he was the founder of Islam. This is a religion and not a restaurant in Worcester.
Any list that tries to rank Jesus, Buddha, Moses and Einstein in some order of importance is bound to run into trouble. When the subject is influence on world history, the controversy is inadequate. Yet Michael Hart ran this gantlet in his recent book, "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History," and he put Mohammed and Isaac Newton over all of the above.
Hart is an astroomer, mathematician, lawyer, physicist, chess master and amateur historian. His criteria for influence provokes thought on the way history is made and its villains and heroes decided.
The Washington Post asked three nationally-known thinkers to assess Michael Hart's list in his book, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. Here are their comments.
Mr. Hart's criteria that only "real persons" were eligible for listing and that emphasis be on influence not greatness, are plain enough. The decision to equate "a significant impact on one important country" with "a less commanding influence affecting the entire Earth," offers a less tangible guideline. And the goal "to divide the credit for a given development in proportion to each participant's contribution" seems me unattainable. The resulting attempt to calculate, for example, who should be ranked 71 instead of 70 or 72, vividly reminds me of my history professor of 55 years ago, who recorded numerical grades "only to the third decimal place," because carrying them further would be "a little difficult."
Bearing in mind that Mr. Hart is a scientist, it is not astonishing that the list of 100 includes some 37 scientists and inventors. There are 28 persons from Great Britain and the United States. All Western, Central, and Northern Europe, excluding Great Britain, are represented by 39 names; the Near East and Middle East by 12; the Far East, mainly China and India, by 11; Ancient Greece and Rome by six; Russia by three and Latin America by Boliva.
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History by Michael H. Hart (Hart Publishing Co., 572 Pages, $12.50) is a curious book with some curious bits of information. The size is slightly larger than normal, and the volume includes appendices, index, a historical chart and copious illustrations. The title is a clue to the approach — influential in the course of history, not the greatest. Hart, an astronomer, ranks the 100 in what he considers order of influence: Muhammad is No. 1; physicist Niels Bohr is 100. The author adds a list of 100 runners-up and selects 10 of these also-rans for short analyses to explain why he rejected them from the top list. The book could create a parlor game among contentious guests.
Rankings of all kinds, from football teams to churches, from places to live to academic programs, compiled on the basis of age, quality, speed, or any of a number of other criteria, appear to fascinate people today. Michael Hart, the author of The 100, is quite obviously fascinated with those individuals who, by their achievements, have influenced the development of human history. This fascination has led Mr. Hart to select, rank, and comment upon those one hundred individuals who, in his opinion, have had the most significant influence upon the manner and quality of the way in which each of us goes about living our everyday lives.
...
The result of Mr. Hart's work is both entertaining and interesting, but most of all quite revealing. While reading this book I found myself continually challenging the rankings of Mr. Hart (who placed Sir Isaac Newton ahead of Jesus Christ) and his observations on the accomplishments of each individual. In the process, I discovered that making such choices reveals much to each individual concerning his own values and priorities. Mr, Hart's values are indicated by his inclusion of thirty-seven scientists and inventors in the top one hundred and only eleven religious leaders and six artists and literary figures; seventy-one Europeans and only eighteen Asians, and only one woman, Queen Elizabeth I.
...
While it is both entertaining and instructive to examine the lives of those individuals who stand out in history as giants, perhaps the greatest value of Mr. Hart's book lies in its ability to make the reader think seriously about his or her own values.
If not, improve your store of bizarre information and discover why Michael Hart places Ts'ai Lun at Number Seven on his list of the 100 most influential persons in history, ahead of Gutenberg, Columbus and Einstein.
That perverse inclusion of the totally obscure amoung the more conventional big guns of the encyclopaedias is what gives Dr Hart's book all the fascination of a good parlor game. As he points out, influence is not the same as fame or talent or virtue. He is looking for the 100 persons who had the greatest effect on history and on the course of the world.
Dr Hart lays out his ground rules for assessing influence in his introduction, then plunges into his potted biographies. The facts are sometimes trite, but it is the arguments for each rating which provide the real fun.
"The 100: A Ranking of History's Most Influential Persons" by Michael H. Hart ($12.95 paperback, $19.95 hard cover) is the latest release from the Citadel Press.
For good or bad, the 100 men and women described in this book swayed the destinies of billions of people, determined the rise and fall of civilizations and transformed the course of history.
The author's selections and evaluations are challenging and certain to invite lively debate among readers.
The book gives a brief biography describing the career and contributions of each person, as well as an analysis of his or her importance.
In addition, the author offers a listing of "honorable mentions and interesting misses."
Seventy-one of the 100 are from Europe, 18 from Asia, seven from the United States one from South America and three from Africa.
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, by Michael H. Hart (Citadel, $12.95). The inventor of the wheel is not in here; the poor fellow neglected to leave his name. Otherwise, he would be because, as Hart notes, he was far more influential than Muhammad, who is at the top of the list, making him the most influential person in history. "My choice of Muhammad . . . may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others," Hart writes. So you can see what we have here, a tome of nearly 600 pages full of biographies, each including the author's arguments for ranking each as he did, and in some cases, for ranking him at all.
Egypt will honor Michael H. Hart, an Anne Arundel Community College professor of astronomy who stunned the scientific community in the '70s by questioning the existence of extraterrestrials, for a feat having nothing to do with the stars.
Mr. Hart, who also has garnered acclaim as an amateur historian, will be honored Sunday in Cairo by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for naming Mohammed, the founder of Islam, the world's second-most-followed religion, as the most influential person in history.
Mohammed was awarded the top spot in Mr. Hart's controversial 1978 book, "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History," for more than religious reasons, the author said.
The way things look for the fathers of communism in the latest revision of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, Marx, Mao, Lenin and Stalin soon may be mistaken for a personal injury law firm.
In the edition released today -- an update of the original 1978 listing -- Karl Marx, formerly No. 11, finds himself ranked 27th, one rung below George Washington.
...
The original edition caused a fuss 14 years ago by ranking Jesus No. 3. Christians don't cotton to No. 3 rankings of their deities. But Hart's listing sold 70,000 copies and inspired endless hours of dinner-table debate.
...
In 1978, when the first edition of The 100 was published, Hart believed that communism might endure for decades or even centuries. He now contends that the world's last communist regimes may disintegrate within 20 years.
...
Hart's wholly arbitrary listing still leaves acres of room for debate, even among the forces of democracy.
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History by Michael H. Hart (Citadel Press: $18.95; 556 pp., illustrated). Lists of the most, best, etc. generally tell the reader more about the author's tastes than about the ostensible subject, and "100" suggests that Hart has an oddly limited view of history. It may not be surprising that an astronomer would include more scientist/inventors and political/military leaders than artistic/literary figures (67 to 5, with Picasso, Mozart, Stravinsky, Dante and Leonardo ranking among the notable omissions). But this jejune volume stands out as a textbook example of culutural parochialism: Hart's list includes three Africans, two women and one South American. His mini-biographies of his choices feature such arbitrary, unsubstantiated pronouncements as "Although Johann Sebastian Bach is almost equally prestigious, Beethoven's works have been more widely and more frequently listened to than Bach's.
History's 10 most influential people haven't lost their pop, 14 years after they first were ranked, but a few of the next 90 have shifted in importance. And artist Pablo Picasso and physicists Niels Bohr and Antoine Henri Becquerel are plumb out of luck.
Such is the view of Michael H. Hart, who recently compiled the second edition of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (Citadel, $25). The Virginia scholar and astrophysicist has graduate degrees in various fields from Cornell, Adelphi and Princeton universities, and from New York Law School.
Between his 1978 edition and the 1992 edition, out this week, some world theologians, philosophers, scientists and artists have lost importance as others have loomed larger on the world stage.
New to the list are nuclear physicist Ernest Rutherford (No. 56), industrialist Henry Ford (91) and Mikhail Gorbachev (95), ex-leader of the former Soviet Union.
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, by Michael Hart (Citadel Press, $25, 556 pages). Revised and updated for the current decade, Annandale resident Michael Hart ranks the 100 most influential persons in history and gives a brief but detailed biography of each, complete with black-and-white illustrations.
Mr. Hart's arrangement of entries in the book is somewhat unusual. The individuals are not listed alphabetically or chronologically, but in order of importance, as the author sees it.
He rates Muhammad, the Muslim prophet, as the most influential person in history, a rating sure to upset readers in a mostly Christian nation. (Mr. Hart ranks Jesus Christ as the third most influential). The author claims that his choices are not necessarily meant to represent the greatest individuals in history, only those who influenced the destinies of the most people, determined the rise and decline of civilizations and altered the course of history.
If Michael H. Hart has done nothing else, he has demonstrated that picking a public fight can be profitable. Hart is the author of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, revised and updated for the '90s (Citadel Press, $24).
How about, for starters, ranking both Muhammad and Isaac Newton ahead of Jesus Christ? Or including John F. Kennedy while relegating Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln to a list of "honorable mentions and interesting misses."
Hart offers arguments and thumbnail biographies. And did I mention profitable? First published in 1978, The 100 has sold more than 60,000 copies.
Author Michael H. Art has recently released a second addition of his 1978 publication "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" (Citadel $25). In "The 100" Hart (who has a degree from New York Law School, is an astrophysicist and also earned graduate degrees in a variety of fields from Cornell, Adelphi and Princeton) has assembled a list of people whom he, in his learned opinion, believes have most influenced the history of mankind.
"Some talk of Alexander, and some of Hercules, of Hector and Lysander, and such great names as these." And some, including Michael Hart, would drop all of the above, with the exception of Alexander, from their squad of the 100 most influential persons in history. ...
...
Most of the entries are sanely argued, although John F Kennedy seems lucky to be in at 81. The case for his inclusion is based not on his sexual scope or iconic fame, but on his sponsoring of the space programme. JFK thus modules in ahead of Mani (the third-century prophet who brought you Manichaeism) at 83, and Lenin at 84. Vladimir Ilyich has had a big fall since the unpredicted collapse of communism, which procures Mikhail Gorbachev his involuntary eminence at 95. Mahavira (b. 599BC) is tail-end Charlie: hands up all those apart from Jains, his followers who had him, and not Elvis Presley, on their list. It's tough even at the bottom of the top.
...
In today's climate of overweight biographies, this unassumingly corpulent century of famous lives has a welcome Plutarchian succinctness. If it has a weakness, it is not inaccuracy (the exposition seems clear and the facts reliable), but monotony. The writing is unpretentious, but it is also po-faced. When it comes to the scientific fraternity, there is little awareness of confusions or contradictions. In Newton's case, who would guess that his rationalisation of science was accompanied, perhaps fuelled, by a belief in alchemy which took him at least to the edge of madness? Perhaps, by the same token, if Hart had not been driven by his ranking frenzy, he would not have had the energy to complete this eminently decent, marginally dotty compilation. Its only serious deficiency is the lack of even a rudimentary bibliography.
...
After the informative solemnity of the main body of the text, Hart is entitled to his larkily appendicised B team, where, I suspect, Gerard K O'Neill (the Gerard K O'Neill?) is sitting in Tolstoy's seat, and Tamurlane is considered to have blown a louder trumpet than Satchmo (or Joshua). ...
Hart, a physicist, doesn't answer those questions directly in the second edition of "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History." But his entries are generally stimulating and informative enough to justify themselves by their usefulness, if not by their organizing principle.
As in the first edition, published in 1978, Hart hasn't tried to rank the most admirable figures in history - an effort that would have excluded people like Joseph Stalin (No. 66) and Adolf Hitler (No. 39). Instead, he profiles the 100 men and women whose actions have in his view done the most to shape the destinies of others.
...
Hart generally presents his evidence clearly, intelligently and without special pleading. This tends to give his arguments plausibility even when their conclusions are debatable, as when John F. Kennedy (No. 81) wins a ranking but not Abraham Lincoln, who is only in a roundup of "Honorable Mentions and Interesting Misses" at the back of the book.
...
Only one entry is controversial enough to be called kinky (by ordinary readers) or crackpot (by orthodox Shakespearean scholars). Apparently, Hart has been won over by the publicity campaign being waged by the descendants of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, to convince the world that their ancestor wrote the plays of William Shakespeare; the author thus reverses his earlier position and gives the No. 31 spot not to Shakespeare but to de Vere, whose circumstantial case he argues more rationally than many who have taken on this volatile topic.
Perhaps a bit too rationally. In de Vere's entry and others, the no-frills prose of "The 100" lacks the color and flair that would have revealed the beating heart of the history-maker. Like a well-trained editorial writer, Hart favors concise, straightforward exposition, strengthened by his talent for anticipating - and defusing - arguments that might be used against him. How, you might wonder, could Mohammed rank higher than Jesus when the world has twice as many Christians as Muslims?
"The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential People in History" by Michael H. Hart. (Citadel Press, $22.50)
Hart is a senior staff scientist with the Systems and Applied Sciences Corp. in Maryland. He's come up with an idiosyncratic look at history's movers and shakers. This is a book guaranteed to start discussion and provide insight. Just ask yourself or your friends, "Who is the most influential person who ever lived?" It's not an easy question to answer. Hart, of course, has no problem listing his top 100. His first three choices are: 1. Mohammed. 2. Sir Isaac Newton. 3. Jesus Christ.
But three of the five — Joan of Arc, Mozart and Thomas Aquinas — are conspicuously absent from a slightly more studious work, Dr. Michael H. Hart's "The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History."
...
To his credit though, Hart's book is not millennium driven. He first compiled it in 1978, in fact, and then revised it in 1992, dropping Chairman Mao from 20th to 89th, adding Mikhail Gorbachev (95th), Henry Ford (91st), and the scientist Ernest Rutherford (56th) and dropping Niels Bohr, Pablo Picasso and Antoine JHenri Becquerel right off the chart.
About a year ago a friend suggested I read "The 100 — A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History." Although I consume periodicals by the bushelsful, I cannot seem to find the time, or maybe the word is patience, for books.
The 100 is an interesting hybrid. The book is a compilation of the 100 most important people in human history, arranged in order of importance. The list is an exclusive product of author Michael Hart. He brilliantly defends his choices and their ranking with pithy descriptions of each.
The book was originally published in the late '70s and then revised in the early '90s. The biographical sections can be read discretely, a la my Economist or Harpers. Each remarkable description invited, nay demanded, consumption of the next choice and the next, and so on.
The compromise? Combine vocation and avocation by reading a person a week to my radio audience. ...
El abogado y astrónomo estadounidense Michael H. Hart se impuso la enorme tarea de seleccionar los hombres más influyentes, no necesariamente famosos, de todos los tiempos en la historia universal. Tres años invirtió en lecturas, consultas a eruditos de historia, ciencias, teología, arte, literatura, etc., y de concentración total de su tiempo y esfuerzos para confeccionar la lista de ellos, del uno al cien en orden de importancia y relieve, según la influencia que ejercieron en su tiempo y en la posterioridad hasta el presente. The 100: a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History es un voluminoso libro; nos ofrece Hart, también, datos biográficos de cada uno sus seleccionados. Y su método selectivo, así como el sistema que utilizó para la evaluación. Tarea sin duda controversial, pero provocativa.
Colón no fue, afirma Hart, el primer europeo en poner pie en el suelo del Nuevo Mundo, pero él fue el que conmovió a Europa con sus descubrimientos. "Dentro de los primeros años de su regreso, y como una consecuencia directa de sus descubrimientos, la conquista y colonización de los nuevos territorios comenzó".
In 1978, a scholar named Michael Hart wrote The 100, which attempted to rank the 100 most influential people in history. The book has since caused endless shouts of "No way!" from people who just read the list without seeing his explanations. Muhammad ahead of Jesus (and everyone else)? Plato but not Socrates? Kennedy but not Lincoln? And where the heck are the Beatles? (Actually, he never explained that last one. No excuse, then). Hart did an update 20 years later, including Mikhail Gorbachev as the only living person. By then, he'd inspired a series of books by various authors, all purporting to rank different divisions of "most influential" people: "The Jewish 100" (with Moses edging out Jesus for No1), "The Black 100", "The Italian 100", "The Gay 100", "The Left-Handed 100". Well, there wasn't really a left-handed 100, but I for one would have been silly enough to buy it.
...
Reading some of these books, I found myself longing for Hart's unbiased appraisals. Hart's original book had only two women in the list: Queen Isabella I at No65, and Elizabeth I practically just squeezing in at No94. This was disgraceful, of course. Was Hart being a sexist pig? No, but in case you weren't paying attention in class, history has been appallingly sexist. Hart obviously had no room for tokenism. (He presumably ignored calls of "Why don't you include Marie Curie or Joan of Arc, just to be a gentleman?") If you protest his inclusion of notorious figures like Hitler and Genghis Khan, or obscure ones like 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, I suggest you look up "influential" in a dictionary. If you'd prefer a nice list, with no bad guys, you'll be happy to know about Simon Montefiore's latest book, Heroes: History's Greatest Men and Women. It's not exactly a new idea, but as the "heroes" include Margaret Thatcher, it's bound to get plenty of laughs. It includes plenty of women in its ranks, so it gives us a slightly more balanced history than the real-life one covered by Hart.
Overturn, and restore the article. Looking more carefully, there are enough sources to show that this is considered to some degree the standard work in its field. I think it now would pass another AfD. DGG (
talk )
20:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Restore the article, endorse the 2015 AfD close, overturn the 2019 decision to redirect – Heh, that's complicated. First, the numerous sources posted here establish notability almost beyond question (good job, guys!) – it's a notable book, meets our notability guidelines, and deserves a stand-alone page. I disagree with sending an editor to DRV to appeal a 2015 AfD decision, especially when what the editor is doing is rewriting/adding new sources. I don't think Lazy-restless's intention was to challenge the 2015 AfD result, but to improve the article (recreate with new sources), so I think sending Lazy-restless to DRV was a bad suggestion. Reverting it back to a redirect on the basis of the 2015 AfD, when the article was substantially rewritten with new sources, is also a move I disagree with. So, I think the 2015 AfD close was correct and should be endorsed (to the extent that it's even being challenged, which isn't clear to me); the 2019 revert-to-redirect should be overturned, and the article restored. The restored article can then be nom'd at AfD if someone thinks that it's still not notable. (Personally, given the number and quality of sources posted here, I think a new AfD would be a waste of time with an obvious keep result.) –
Levivich14:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Overturn, and restore the article.- The Sources presented do show that the book passes our notability guidelines. I should add the page needs some serious work to meet NPOV.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
22:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Overturn 2019 AfD, and restore article - having looked at the AfD, I don't see how a redirect could be justified as the specific close regardless of the above sourcing. A merge or keep seemed the acceptable options. With the sourcing, it's clearly a Keep and going back to AfD would seem a waste.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
22:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Restore article But please make sure to add in some of the sources Cunard found above, as I would have redirected myself based on the sourcing in the last version of the article.
SportingFlyerT·C23:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse Endorse, but allow re-creation with new sources. As I started reading the above list, my first thought was, "Hey, this LIFE reference is pretty good", which led me to invest more time reading the others. Some of them look pretty reasonable, others look like passing mentions. But, the real problem is, every single one of them was in the
version of the article that was reviewed at AfD. So, what's changed since the AfD which would make its conclusion no longer valid? --
RoySmith(talk)16:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Send to AfD I think the redirect consensus feels like a compromise close rather than a true reading of what the editors who participated said which I see as a merge at minimum. However, given the length of time since that AfD and because
consensus can change , I think it's worth considering whether the strong set of sources above would pass community muster now. This is obviously not the place to have that discussion and I feel bad given that the editor was directed here by a new page patroller, but at a certain point I think DRV becomes stale and it's certainly with-in the timeframe here. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
18:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, you are correct. Not sure what I was looking at; I think what happened was not noticing July 2019 vs July 2015. In any case, thank you for the correction. I have updated my comment, above. --
RoySmith(talk)21:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Association, American Book Trade; Union, American Book Trade; Philadelphia, Book Trade Association of; Trade, Publishers' Board of (1992).
Publishers Weekly. Whitinsville, Mass. : R. R. Bowker Company. p. 156. Retrieved 31 July 2019..
Besides, I can give a lot of translation book link of the book in different prominent language from google books. Anyone can find them by searching with the writers name in the google books, which are worthy long in number to count to an end.
see it here. Here are some links. There are countless translations. Few of them i gave below and got bored of collecting the links, so please search in google books with outhors name with inverted comma: inauthor:"Michael H. Hart". Many more translations are also found with the help of google translator by translating authors name in non-latin letter's languages on google books.
@
Cunard: Sorry mate, it's now source-bombed and I don't have the time to go through all of them at the moment - would you mind telling me which
WP:THREE quality sources are the ones I should be focused on? Will take a look then.
SportingFlyerT·C18:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
SportingFlyer (
talk·contribs), here are three of the quality sources (among the many quality sources in the list):
Endorse the 2015 AfD decision to redirect. The recent bold attempt to revert the redirect was reverted. Procedurally, this calls for a discussion at the redirect target's talk page,
Talk:Michael H. Hart, to establish a consensus for reversing the AfD decision and to
WP:SPINOUT a subarticle on the book. There was no deletion, and so this is not in scope for DRV. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
03:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Restore because the page is "not substantially identical to the redirected version" (paraphrasing from
WP:CSD#G4) and because I have found 33 reliable sources about the book that strongly establish notability because they were published over a period of 31 years and are from multiple countries.
I therefore supporting restoring the article on the basis that {{db-repost}} does not apply.
A second reason to restore is I have also found numerous sources that establish notability.
Summary of the 33 sources
The book received sustained coverage in reliable sources over a period of 30 years: 1978, 1980, 1981, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1993, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2009.
The book received substantial coverage in a journal article in Business Horizons.
Negative coverage of the book
Charles Solomon of the Los Angeles Times criticized the book, writing, "his jejune volume stands out as a textbook example of culutural parochialism: Hart's list includes three Africans, two women and one South American. His mini-biographies of his choices feature such arbitrary, unsubstantiated pronouncements as ..."
Ken McGoogan wrote in the Calgary Herald wrote, "If Michael H. Hart has done nothing else, he has demonstrated that picking a public fight can be profitable. Hart is the author of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, revised and updated for the '90s (Citadel Press, $24)."
Frederic Raphael wrote in The Sunday Times, "In today's climate of overweight biographies, this unassumingly corpulent century of famous lives has a welcome Plutarchian succinctness. If it has a weakness, it is not inaccuracy (the exposition seems clear and the facts reliable), but monotony. The writing is unpretentious, but it is also po-faced. When it comes to the scientific fraternity, there is little awareness of confusions or contradictions. In Newton's case, who would guess that his rationalisation of science was accompanied, perhaps fuelled, by a belief in alchemy which took him at least to the edge of madness? Perhaps, by the same token, if Hart had not been driven by his ranking frenzy, he would not have had the energy to complete this eminently decent, marginally dotty compilation. Its only serious deficiency is the lack of even a rudimentary bibliography."
Barbara W. Tuchman wrote in The Washington Post, "The superabundance of science and applied science in the list (30 out of 100) is remarkable in view of the absence of any figure in law, architecture, poetry, business or the labor movement. ... Mr. Hart finds it "worth noting" that his list contains only three persons who lived from the 10th to the 15th centuries. This demonstrates only Mr. Hart's limitations, not those of the Middle Ages."
Edwin O. Reischauer wrote in The Washington Post, "I find 38 names from the fields of science or technology, to 17 or so conquerors and explorers, to two each in literature, art and music. Even a non-esthetic type like myself is shocked. The English-speaking corner of the world has 24. A man from outer space should have no difficulty in determining the cultural background and interest of our list maker."
Walter C. Langsam wrote in
The Cincinnati Enquirer, "When an Enquirer editor asked me whether I would comment on Michael Hart's [book], I replied I had not read the book and, indeed, had no desire to read it. For, in my opinion, no one can rank accurately the hundred most-anything among all the men and women who have peopled the Earth since the beginning of history. Yet, inasmuch as the editor is unusually persuasive, and since I was promised a summary of author's selection criteria and his list of rankings, I agreed to the request. Would that I had remained firm in my initial reaction!"
Positive coverage of the book
In 1988,
Hosni Mubarak, the
President of Egypt, honored Michael H. Hart, the author of the book, in Cairo for naming Mohammed as the most influential person in history.
Michael Gartner wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "But that's just the beginning of the debates that Michael Hart can start. For he has boldly come out with a ranking of the 100 most influential persons in history, and his ranking will stir more dinner-table discussion than even a list of the 10 best films of 1977 or the 10 worst restaurants in New York. ... Hart's fascinating book contains brief biographies of his 100 and, often, explanations of why the 98 men and two women (Isabella and Queen Elizabeth I) are ranked where they are. The book is a concise and readable history of the world. Hart proves to be a clear writer and a fine teacher—few readers will recognize all 100 names on the list."
Mike Barnicle wrote in The Boston Globe, "In terms of upsetting people, Michael Hart is the new champion. He is the author of a collection of names entitled 'The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History.'"
The Washington Post "asked three nationally-known thinkers to assess Michael Hart's list in his book, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History". The "three nationally-known thinkers" who wrote essays about the list in the book were
Chaim Potok,
Edwin O. Reischauer, and
Barbara W. Tuchman.
Albert Hofammann wrote in The Morning Call that it is "a curious book with some curious bits of information" and "could create a parlor game among contentious guests".
Jane Sullivan wrote in The Age, "That perverse inclusion of the totally obscure amoung the more conventional big guns of the encyclopaedias is what gives Dr Hart's book all the fascination of a good parlor game. ... The facts are sometimes trite, but it is the arguments for each rating which provide the real fun."
Arnie Arnesen wrote in The Boston Globe, "The 100 is an interesting hybrid. ... The list is an exclusive product of author Michael Hart. He brilliantly defends his choices and their ranking with pithy descriptions of each."
Janice Harayda wrote in The Plain Dealer, "Hart generally presents his evidence clearly, intelligently and without special pleading. This tends to give his arguments plausibility even when their conclusions are debatable, as when John F. Kennedy (No. 81) wins a ranking but not Abraham Lincoln, who is only in a roundup of 'Honorable Mentions and Interesting Misses' at the back of the book."
Michael H. Hart is an astronomer, a chessmaster — in short, a ponderer and puzzler. For the last three years, the main focus of his pondering and puzzling has been human history. All of it. His goal — to answer an essentially unimportant but fascinating question: Who were the 100 most influential individuals of all time?
He has detailed his list in a new book, to be released April 2, entitled "The 100 — A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History." It is a thick volume, sketching the biographies of his choices, running down his reasons for putting them in the order he did, and even including a long list of runners-up.
...
Hart's book, besides being a useful encapsulation of world history, is an endless source of heady debate. So, for the sake of argument, and with permission from Hart and his publisher, the Free Press has summarized hist list, giving some of his reasons for picking his top 10 and a quick description of those who fell in the next 90.
Michael H. Hart, whose qualifications include degrees in mathematics, law, physics and astronomy, is the author of a new volume, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, which is bound to create a lot of discussion.
...
Taken into equal account by the writer, whose research and perseverance must have been prodigious, these were persons who influenced past generations as well as the present situation of mankind.
...
His book sells at $12.50 and its publisher is listed as Hart Publishing Co. (Maybe Michael Hart is nearly as close to Renaissance Man as some of the people he hails.)
Even those addicted to soap operas and the music of Rod Stewart can learn a lot from Hart's book.
Now, dear reader, Hart has made a list: The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History ... and ... a biographical sketch of the persons on the list. ...
...
Hart seems to have at his disposal a very sensitive instrument, such as a fire-gauge to measure influence of a person; not only the present influence can be measured — but he can set the gauge back and measure past influence. Perhaps he can also turn the gauge forward and measure future influence. It must be very accurate — for the author came up with this reader for Beethoven: ...
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History by Michael H. Hart (Hart: $12.50; illustrated). The key word in this inflammatory title is "Influential," not "Greatest," and therein lies Hart's justification for including many of history's bad guys (i.e., Hitler) while ignoring many of the good guys (i.e., Mother Cabrini). Hart's ranking system may seem outrageous to some—Muhammad is ranked first, followed by Newton and then Christ—but the book is nonetheless thought-provoking and utterly absorbing.
Hart, an astronomer who investigates planetary atmospheres for the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., came down to earth to write "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History." He said he chose, not the most famous or talented, but "the hundred who had the greatest impact on history and our everyday lives." The book, which took three years to research and write, is now in its second printing.
His first ten selections are Muhammad, Sir Isaac Newton, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, St. Paul, Ts'ai Lun, Gutenberg, Columbus, Einstein.
...
Hart, 46, short, balding, shy, and rated a chess master, lives in a Washington suburb with his wife, Sherry, and their two young sons. He is also a lawyer. After practicing law for eight years he decided that science was more interesting, if less lucrative, and returned to school to get a masters in physics at Adelphi and a Ph.D in astronomy from Princeton.
The idea for "The 100" came when he concluded that historians have given us a one-sided view by over-playing the role of political and military leaders.
Michael H. Hart is a short, nervous Ph.D who ditched law to become an astronomer. Now, at 45, he lists his version of the 100 standout people, "stars" who have been confined to the planet earth.
Hart's book, "The 100 — A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History," is a highly debatable who's who that is generating controversy ranging from the amused to the heated. It was printed by his father's publishing house.
But that's just the beginning of the debates that Michael Hart can start. For he has boldly come out with a ranking of the 100 most influential persons in history, and his ranking will stir more dinner-table discussion than even a list of the 10 best films of 1977 or the 10 worst restaurants in New York.
...
Hart's fascinating book contains brief biographies of his 100 and, often, explanations of why the 98 men and two women (Isabella and Queen Elizabeth I) are ranked where they are. The book is a concise and readable history of the world. Hart proves to be a clear writer and a fine teacher—few readers will recognize all 100 names on the list.
Muhammad, says Michael Hart, who lists the prophet of Islam as his No. 1 choice in his book, "The 100, a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History."
He decided to write the book after a friend challenged him to compile a list of the greatest persons in history. The book took three years to research.
...
The author does research in astronomy at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and is a visiting professor at the University of Maryland.
Americans love lists—the 10 best, the 10 worst and so on—and now an astronomer and amateur historian named Michael Hart has given us something to chew on all winter with his own list of the 100 most influential people who ever lived.
This list, along with Hart's explanation of his choices, is published in "The 100" (Hart), a book that runs to 572 pages and costs $12.50. The reader is invited to challenge Hart's selections, and as Newsweek magazine notes, "It's a game anyone can play, and at one time or another, almost everyone does."
I haven't read the book, but the list if published in Newsweek, and I see no reason why I have to read Hart's arguments to quarrel with them. He probably won't read mine either.
Green, Blake (1978-09-22). "The 100 Most Influential Persons in History". San Francisco Chronicle. p. 24.
The article notes:
...
For all that insight, Edison ended up only No. 38 on Michael Hart's list of the "The 100 — A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History."
...
There was a time when it was all so much fun and games to Hart as well. Then, the list, which began as a dinner-table conversation with friends, grew into a book and has proceed to arouse a fair amount of interest and controversy.
The most influential person throughout the ages has been, according to Hart, Muhammad. The third most influential was Jesus. You can see right there that a lot of people are going to disagree.
...
There were several basic rules Hart followed:
Influence is not synonymous with fame. This is why very few figures from the arts are listed and none from the entertainment or sports even considered.
...
The list is "based on what actually did occur, not what should have happened." Therefore Hart says he saw no reason to "cover up the disagreeable fact of discrimination by adding a few token women" and minorities (by U.S., not world, standards). "To be influential," he explained, "one needs opportunity as well as talent. If Einstein (No. 10) had come from Africa, he probably would not have invented the theory of relativity.
In terms of upsetting people, Michael Hart is the new champion. He is the author of a collection of names entitled "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History."
Hart has placed Mohammed No. 1 because he was the founder of Islam. This is a religion and not a restaurant in Worcester.
Any list that tries to rank Jesus, Buddha, Moses and Einstein in some order of importance is bound to run into trouble. When the subject is influence on world history, the controversy is inadequate. Yet Michael Hart ran this gantlet in his recent book, "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History," and he put Mohammed and Isaac Newton over all of the above.
Hart is an astroomer, mathematician, lawyer, physicist, chess master and amateur historian. His criteria for influence provokes thought on the way history is made and its villains and heroes decided.
The Washington Post asked three nationally-known thinkers to assess Michael Hart's list in his book, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. Here are their comments.
Mr. Hart's criteria that only "real persons" were eligible for listing and that emphasis be on influence not greatness, are plain enough. The decision to equate "a significant impact on one important country" with "a less commanding influence affecting the entire Earth," offers a less tangible guideline. And the goal "to divide the credit for a given development in proportion to each participant's contribution" seems me unattainable. The resulting attempt to calculate, for example, who should be ranked 71 instead of 70 or 72, vividly reminds me of my history professor of 55 years ago, who recorded numerical grades "only to the third decimal place," because carrying them further would be "a little difficult."
Bearing in mind that Mr. Hart is a scientist, it is not astonishing that the list of 100 includes some 37 scientists and inventors. There are 28 persons from Great Britain and the United States. All Western, Central, and Northern Europe, excluding Great Britain, are represented by 39 names; the Near East and Middle East by 12; the Far East, mainly China and India, by 11; Ancient Greece and Rome by six; Russia by three and Latin America by Boliva.
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History by Michael H. Hart (Hart Publishing Co., 572 Pages, $12.50) is a curious book with some curious bits of information. The size is slightly larger than normal, and the volume includes appendices, index, a historical chart and copious illustrations. The title is a clue to the approach — influential in the course of history, not the greatest. Hart, an astronomer, ranks the 100 in what he considers order of influence: Muhammad is No. 1; physicist Niels Bohr is 100. The author adds a list of 100 runners-up and selects 10 of these also-rans for short analyses to explain why he rejected them from the top list. The book could create a parlor game among contentious guests.
Rankings of all kinds, from football teams to churches, from places to live to academic programs, compiled on the basis of age, quality, speed, or any of a number of other criteria, appear to fascinate people today. Michael Hart, the author of The 100, is quite obviously fascinated with those individuals who, by their achievements, have influenced the development of human history. This fascination has led Mr. Hart to select, rank, and comment upon those one hundred individuals who, in his opinion, have had the most significant influence upon the manner and quality of the way in which each of us goes about living our everyday lives.
...
The result of Mr. Hart's work is both entertaining and interesting, but most of all quite revealing. While reading this book I found myself continually challenging the rankings of Mr. Hart (who placed Sir Isaac Newton ahead of Jesus Christ) and his observations on the accomplishments of each individual. In the process, I discovered that making such choices reveals much to each individual concerning his own values and priorities. Mr, Hart's values are indicated by his inclusion of thirty-seven scientists and inventors in the top one hundred and only eleven religious leaders and six artists and literary figures; seventy-one Europeans and only eighteen Asians, and only one woman, Queen Elizabeth I.
...
While it is both entertaining and instructive to examine the lives of those individuals who stand out in history as giants, perhaps the greatest value of Mr. Hart's book lies in its ability to make the reader think seriously about his or her own values.
If not, improve your store of bizarre information and discover why Michael Hart places Ts'ai Lun at Number Seven on his list of the 100 most influential persons in history, ahead of Gutenberg, Columbus and Einstein.
That perverse inclusion of the totally obscure amoung the more conventional big guns of the encyclopaedias is what gives Dr Hart's book all the fascination of a good parlor game. As he points out, influence is not the same as fame or talent or virtue. He is looking for the 100 persons who had the greatest effect on history and on the course of the world.
Dr Hart lays out his ground rules for assessing influence in his introduction, then plunges into his potted biographies. The facts are sometimes trite, but it is the arguments for each rating which provide the real fun.
"The 100: A Ranking of History's Most Influential Persons" by Michael H. Hart ($12.95 paperback, $19.95 hard cover) is the latest release from the Citadel Press.
For good or bad, the 100 men and women described in this book swayed the destinies of billions of people, determined the rise and fall of civilizations and transformed the course of history.
The author's selections and evaluations are challenging and certain to invite lively debate among readers.
The book gives a brief biography describing the career and contributions of each person, as well as an analysis of his or her importance.
In addition, the author offers a listing of "honorable mentions and interesting misses."
Seventy-one of the 100 are from Europe, 18 from Asia, seven from the United States one from South America and three from Africa.
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, by Michael H. Hart (Citadel, $12.95). The inventor of the wheel is not in here; the poor fellow neglected to leave his name. Otherwise, he would be because, as Hart notes, he was far more influential than Muhammad, who is at the top of the list, making him the most influential person in history. "My choice of Muhammad . . . may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others," Hart writes. So you can see what we have here, a tome of nearly 600 pages full of biographies, each including the author's arguments for ranking each as he did, and in some cases, for ranking him at all.
Egypt will honor Michael H. Hart, an Anne Arundel Community College professor of astronomy who stunned the scientific community in the '70s by questioning the existence of extraterrestrials, for a feat having nothing to do with the stars.
Mr. Hart, who also has garnered acclaim as an amateur historian, will be honored Sunday in Cairo by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for naming Mohammed, the founder of Islam, the world's second-most-followed religion, as the most influential person in history.
Mohammed was awarded the top spot in Mr. Hart's controversial 1978 book, "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History," for more than religious reasons, the author said.
The way things look for the fathers of communism in the latest revision of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, Marx, Mao, Lenin and Stalin soon may be mistaken for a personal injury law firm.
In the edition released today -- an update of the original 1978 listing -- Karl Marx, formerly No. 11, finds himself ranked 27th, one rung below George Washington.
...
The original edition caused a fuss 14 years ago by ranking Jesus No. 3. Christians don't cotton to No. 3 rankings of their deities. But Hart's listing sold 70,000 copies and inspired endless hours of dinner-table debate.
...
In 1978, when the first edition of The 100 was published, Hart believed that communism might endure for decades or even centuries. He now contends that the world's last communist regimes may disintegrate within 20 years.
...
Hart's wholly arbitrary listing still leaves acres of room for debate, even among the forces of democracy.
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History by Michael H. Hart (Citadel Press: $18.95; 556 pp., illustrated). Lists of the most, best, etc. generally tell the reader more about the author's tastes than about the ostensible subject, and "100" suggests that Hart has an oddly limited view of history. It may not be surprising that an astronomer would include more scientist/inventors and political/military leaders than artistic/literary figures (67 to 5, with Picasso, Mozart, Stravinsky, Dante and Leonardo ranking among the notable omissions). But this jejune volume stands out as a textbook example of culutural parochialism: Hart's list includes three Africans, two women and one South American. His mini-biographies of his choices feature such arbitrary, unsubstantiated pronouncements as "Although Johann Sebastian Bach is almost equally prestigious, Beethoven's works have been more widely and more frequently listened to than Bach's.
History's 10 most influential people haven't lost their pop, 14 years after they first were ranked, but a few of the next 90 have shifted in importance. And artist Pablo Picasso and physicists Niels Bohr and Antoine Henri Becquerel are plumb out of luck.
Such is the view of Michael H. Hart, who recently compiled the second edition of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (Citadel, $25). The Virginia scholar and astrophysicist has graduate degrees in various fields from Cornell, Adelphi and Princeton universities, and from New York Law School.
Between his 1978 edition and the 1992 edition, out this week, some world theologians, philosophers, scientists and artists have lost importance as others have loomed larger on the world stage.
New to the list are nuclear physicist Ernest Rutherford (No. 56), industrialist Henry Ford (91) and Mikhail Gorbachev (95), ex-leader of the former Soviet Union.
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, by Michael Hart (Citadel Press, $25, 556 pages). Revised and updated for the current decade, Annandale resident Michael Hart ranks the 100 most influential persons in history and gives a brief but detailed biography of each, complete with black-and-white illustrations.
Mr. Hart's arrangement of entries in the book is somewhat unusual. The individuals are not listed alphabetically or chronologically, but in order of importance, as the author sees it.
He rates Muhammad, the Muslim prophet, as the most influential person in history, a rating sure to upset readers in a mostly Christian nation. (Mr. Hart ranks Jesus Christ as the third most influential). The author claims that his choices are not necessarily meant to represent the greatest individuals in history, only those who influenced the destinies of the most people, determined the rise and decline of civilizations and altered the course of history.
If Michael H. Hart has done nothing else, he has demonstrated that picking a public fight can be profitable. Hart is the author of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, revised and updated for the '90s (Citadel Press, $24).
How about, for starters, ranking both Muhammad and Isaac Newton ahead of Jesus Christ? Or including John F. Kennedy while relegating Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln to a list of "honorable mentions and interesting misses."
Hart offers arguments and thumbnail biographies. And did I mention profitable? First published in 1978, The 100 has sold more than 60,000 copies.
Author Michael H. Art has recently released a second addition of his 1978 publication "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" (Citadel $25). In "The 100" Hart (who has a degree from New York Law School, is an astrophysicist and also earned graduate degrees in a variety of fields from Cornell, Adelphi and Princeton) has assembled a list of people whom he, in his learned opinion, believes have most influenced the history of mankind.
"Some talk of Alexander, and some of Hercules, of Hector and Lysander, and such great names as these." And some, including Michael Hart, would drop all of the above, with the exception of Alexander, from their squad of the 100 most influential persons in history. ...
...
Most of the entries are sanely argued, although John F Kennedy seems lucky to be in at 81. The case for his inclusion is based not on his sexual scope or iconic fame, but on his sponsoring of the space programme. JFK thus modules in ahead of Mani (the third-century prophet who brought you Manichaeism) at 83, and Lenin at 84. Vladimir Ilyich has had a big fall since the unpredicted collapse of communism, which procures Mikhail Gorbachev his involuntary eminence at 95. Mahavira (b. 599BC) is tail-end Charlie: hands up all those apart from Jains, his followers who had him, and not Elvis Presley, on their list. It's tough even at the bottom of the top.
...
In today's climate of overweight biographies, this unassumingly corpulent century of famous lives has a welcome Plutarchian succinctness. If it has a weakness, it is not inaccuracy (the exposition seems clear and the facts reliable), but monotony. The writing is unpretentious, but it is also po-faced. When it comes to the scientific fraternity, there is little awareness of confusions or contradictions. In Newton's case, who would guess that his rationalisation of science was accompanied, perhaps fuelled, by a belief in alchemy which took him at least to the edge of madness? Perhaps, by the same token, if Hart had not been driven by his ranking frenzy, he would not have had the energy to complete this eminently decent, marginally dotty compilation. Its only serious deficiency is the lack of even a rudimentary bibliography.
...
After the informative solemnity of the main body of the text, Hart is entitled to his larkily appendicised B team, where, I suspect, Gerard K O'Neill (the Gerard K O'Neill?) is sitting in Tolstoy's seat, and Tamurlane is considered to have blown a louder trumpet than Satchmo (or Joshua). ...
Hart, a physicist, doesn't answer those questions directly in the second edition of "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History." But his entries are generally stimulating and informative enough to justify themselves by their usefulness, if not by their organizing principle.
As in the first edition, published in 1978, Hart hasn't tried to rank the most admirable figures in history - an effort that would have excluded people like Joseph Stalin (No. 66) and Adolf Hitler (No. 39). Instead, he profiles the 100 men and women whose actions have in his view done the most to shape the destinies of others.
...
Hart generally presents his evidence clearly, intelligently and without special pleading. This tends to give his arguments plausibility even when their conclusions are debatable, as when John F. Kennedy (No. 81) wins a ranking but not Abraham Lincoln, who is only in a roundup of "Honorable Mentions and Interesting Misses" at the back of the book.
...
Only one entry is controversial enough to be called kinky (by ordinary readers) or crackpot (by orthodox Shakespearean scholars). Apparently, Hart has been won over by the publicity campaign being waged by the descendants of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, to convince the world that their ancestor wrote the plays of William Shakespeare; the author thus reverses his earlier position and gives the No. 31 spot not to Shakespeare but to de Vere, whose circumstantial case he argues more rationally than many who have taken on this volatile topic.
Perhaps a bit too rationally. In de Vere's entry and others, the no-frills prose of "The 100" lacks the color and flair that would have revealed the beating heart of the history-maker. Like a well-trained editorial writer, Hart favors concise, straightforward exposition, strengthened by his talent for anticipating - and defusing - arguments that might be used against him. How, you might wonder, could Mohammed rank higher than Jesus when the world has twice as many Christians as Muslims?
"The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential People in History" by Michael H. Hart. (Citadel Press, $22.50)
Hart is a senior staff scientist with the Systems and Applied Sciences Corp. in Maryland. He's come up with an idiosyncratic look at history's movers and shakers. This is a book guaranteed to start discussion and provide insight. Just ask yourself or your friends, "Who is the most influential person who ever lived?" It's not an easy question to answer. Hart, of course, has no problem listing his top 100. His first three choices are: 1. Mohammed. 2. Sir Isaac Newton. 3. Jesus Christ.
But three of the five — Joan of Arc, Mozart and Thomas Aquinas — are conspicuously absent from a slightly more studious work, Dr. Michael H. Hart's "The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History."
...
To his credit though, Hart's book is not millennium driven. He first compiled it in 1978, in fact, and then revised it in 1992, dropping Chairman Mao from 20th to 89th, adding Mikhail Gorbachev (95th), Henry Ford (91st), and the scientist Ernest Rutherford (56th) and dropping Niels Bohr, Pablo Picasso and Antoine JHenri Becquerel right off the chart.
About a year ago a friend suggested I read "The 100 — A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History." Although I consume periodicals by the bushelsful, I cannot seem to find the time, or maybe the word is patience, for books.
The 100 is an interesting hybrid. The book is a compilation of the 100 most important people in human history, arranged in order of importance. The list is an exclusive product of author Michael Hart. He brilliantly defends his choices and their ranking with pithy descriptions of each.
The book was originally published in the late '70s and then revised in the early '90s. The biographical sections can be read discretely, a la my Economist or Harpers. Each remarkable description invited, nay demanded, consumption of the next choice and the next, and so on.
The compromise? Combine vocation and avocation by reading a person a week to my radio audience. ...
El abogado y astrónomo estadounidense Michael H. Hart se impuso la enorme tarea de seleccionar los hombres más influyentes, no necesariamente famosos, de todos los tiempos en la historia universal. Tres años invirtió en lecturas, consultas a eruditos de historia, ciencias, teología, arte, literatura, etc., y de concentración total de su tiempo y esfuerzos para confeccionar la lista de ellos, del uno al cien en orden de importancia y relieve, según la influencia que ejercieron en su tiempo y en la posterioridad hasta el presente. The 100: a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History es un voluminoso libro; nos ofrece Hart, también, datos biográficos de cada uno sus seleccionados. Y su método selectivo, así como el sistema que utilizó para la evaluación. Tarea sin duda controversial, pero provocativa.
Colón no fue, afirma Hart, el primer europeo en poner pie en el suelo del Nuevo Mundo, pero él fue el que conmovió a Europa con sus descubrimientos. "Dentro de los primeros años de su regreso, y como una consecuencia directa de sus descubrimientos, la conquista y colonización de los nuevos territorios comenzó".
In 1978, a scholar named Michael Hart wrote The 100, which attempted to rank the 100 most influential people in history. The book has since caused endless shouts of "No way!" from people who just read the list without seeing his explanations. Muhammad ahead of Jesus (and everyone else)? Plato but not Socrates? Kennedy but not Lincoln? And where the heck are the Beatles? (Actually, he never explained that last one. No excuse, then). Hart did an update 20 years later, including Mikhail Gorbachev as the only living person. By then, he'd inspired a series of books by various authors, all purporting to rank different divisions of "most influential" people: "The Jewish 100" (with Moses edging out Jesus for No1), "The Black 100", "The Italian 100", "The Gay 100", "The Left-Handed 100". Well, there wasn't really a left-handed 100, but I for one would have been silly enough to buy it.
...
Reading some of these books, I found myself longing for Hart's unbiased appraisals. Hart's original book had only two women in the list: Queen Isabella I at No65, and Elizabeth I practically just squeezing in at No94. This was disgraceful, of course. Was Hart being a sexist pig? No, but in case you weren't paying attention in class, history has been appallingly sexist. Hart obviously had no room for tokenism. (He presumably ignored calls of "Why don't you include Marie Curie or Joan of Arc, just to be a gentleman?") If you protest his inclusion of notorious figures like Hitler and Genghis Khan, or obscure ones like 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, I suggest you look up "influential" in a dictionary. If you'd prefer a nice list, with no bad guys, you'll be happy to know about Simon Montefiore's latest book, Heroes: History's Greatest Men and Women. It's not exactly a new idea, but as the "heroes" include Margaret Thatcher, it's bound to get plenty of laughs. It includes plenty of women in its ranks, so it gives us a slightly more balanced history than the real-life one covered by Hart.
Overturn, and restore the article. Looking more carefully, there are enough sources to show that this is considered to some degree the standard work in its field. I think it now would pass another AfD. DGG (
talk )
20:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Restore the article, endorse the 2015 AfD close, overturn the 2019 decision to redirect – Heh, that's complicated. First, the numerous sources posted here establish notability almost beyond question (good job, guys!) – it's a notable book, meets our notability guidelines, and deserves a stand-alone page. I disagree with sending an editor to DRV to appeal a 2015 AfD decision, especially when what the editor is doing is rewriting/adding new sources. I don't think Lazy-restless's intention was to challenge the 2015 AfD result, but to improve the article (recreate with new sources), so I think sending Lazy-restless to DRV was a bad suggestion. Reverting it back to a redirect on the basis of the 2015 AfD, when the article was substantially rewritten with new sources, is also a move I disagree with. So, I think the 2015 AfD close was correct and should be endorsed (to the extent that it's even being challenged, which isn't clear to me); the 2019 revert-to-redirect should be overturned, and the article restored. The restored article can then be nom'd at AfD if someone thinks that it's still not notable. (Personally, given the number and quality of sources posted here, I think a new AfD would be a waste of time with an obvious keep result.) –
Levivich14:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Overturn, and restore the article.- The Sources presented do show that the book passes our notability guidelines. I should add the page needs some serious work to meet NPOV.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
22:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Overturn 2019 AfD, and restore article - having looked at the AfD, I don't see how a redirect could be justified as the specific close regardless of the above sourcing. A merge or keep seemed the acceptable options. With the sourcing, it's clearly a Keep and going back to AfD would seem a waste.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
22:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Restore article But please make sure to add in some of the sources Cunard found above, as I would have redirected myself based on the sourcing in the last version of the article.
SportingFlyerT·C23:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)reply