Essay talk:Greatest achievements of human history

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I hope that you don't mind me editing in some dates, actually, ages, here. Carptrash 15:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Someone should post this on CP and see what happens. FernoKlumpMr. Assfly! Don't forget about this petition! 16:37, 26 December 2008 (EST)
I con fused. This essay is?--Bobbing up 16:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)
A list of great achievements with ages of the individuals who achieved them, largely in response to Andy's contention that most great achievements were made by teenagers. The introduction's pretty clear about it. --Kels 16:56, 26 December 2008 (EST)
Yess. But essays written by one person are. Why not artiqule?--Bobbing up 16:58, 26 December 2008 (EST)
We've got lots of group essays already, this isn't terribly unusual. --Kels 17:02, 26 December 2008 (EST)

I added a handful of people/works, but I was too lazy to do any research and get ages. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:44, 26 December 2008 (EST)

This silly. The "greatest achievements" by teenagers are so few & far between that it's a nonsense - almost anything you can think of could be added here & statistically →none would be by teenagers. (unless you use Schlafly statistics, of course.) Toast 08:58, 27 December 2008 (EST)
That's pretty much the point, but it's nice to have specifics; it's what separates us from the Schlafly's (well, that among many other things). DickTurpis 12:29, 27 December 2008 (EST)


"Interchangeable parts - Developed by Eli Whitney in the U.S., at age 33"

Is that correct? I was always indoctrinated by the atheist public schools that it was Colt who first did this with his largely defensive weapons of gun. Whitney, of course, invented the cotton gin, causing the US Civil War. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:45, 27 December 2008 (EST)

I was indoctrinated by my atheistic public school that, while the idea was developed in Europe, Eli Whitney took it to the U.S. and applied it to rifles. Whitney caused the Civil War with both of his inventions. [1]. FernoKlumpMr. Assfly! Don't forget about this petition! 15:06, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Interesting. Colt was a big promoter of the idea too, but many years later. Perhaps we should alter the entry to give credit to the European with the funny name for actually coming up with the idea? ħumanUser talk:Human 15:36, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Well there's this French guy, but I can't find his birth year. FernoKlumpMr. Assfly! Don't forget about this petition! 18:57, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Performing arts?[edit]

Someone didn't like my leedle section? ħumanUser talk:Human 16:07, 27 December 2008 (EST)

PS, was Judy Garland a teenager yet when she did Wizard of Oz? ħumanUser talk:Human 16:07, 27 December 2008 (EST)
17, according to WP. --Kels 16:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Cool. She should definitely be mentioned, for starring in the music video to Dark Side of the Moon, surely a stellar achievement. Also, what else did ever do post-teen years, besides spawn Liza? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:04, 27 December 2008 (EST)

asterisk footnote[edit]

Due to the nature of this list (bulleted), I deleted a couple of what were probably intentional footnote asterisks. Anyway, mediwiki lets us "name" references so they can be used several times (I just can't remember how). We should do the Schlafly faves that way... ħumanUser talk:Human 17:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)

I fixed one of my two deletions, couldn't find the other. Paste this: <ref name="fave"/> to add to the "Andy drools" footnote. Instructions also commented in the intro (I was trying for footnote one, oh well). ħumanUser talk:Human 21:18, 27 December 2008 (EST)

"Signed users"[edit]

At the top it states that it is an original work by "signed users". Where are the signatures? Phantom Hoover 17:39, 27 December 2008 (EST)

It was the closest thing I could find to a "group essay" template. --Kels 17:46, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Kels, dear—if it was a snake it woulda' bit yah'.  : ) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:55, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Sorry, I made the mistake of looking in the Template list for something intuitive and well-marked. I'll know better next time. --Kels 18:02, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Published[edit]

May be footnotable, but not a very good criterion - some works languish unpublished for years. Is there any way we can figure out when they were basically "finished"? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:22, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Silly and Structure[edit]

Should we be thinking now about the order the sections are in? Music first? Especially considering it's an especially silly section. How about Bible first, then exploration, science, engineering... I dunno. How about by order of "first" entry? (Also, sections should be ordered by rough date?) ħumanUser talk:Human 21:32, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Alphabetic seems the most natural. - User \scriptstyle(6\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n^{-2})^{1/2} 22:01, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Not to me, at all, either for sections or for the listings (which should sorta be chronological). But if it works for you, sure, let's see how it looks. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:07, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Here's my take, which is rather anti-anthropomorphic, which may be in error. Our greatest achievements are those that will last. So, the Engineering section should come first. Why? Because if humanity becomes extinct, what will survive? In 10,000 - 100,000 - 1,000,000 years another species explores our solar system, the most likely survivor will be the crap we left on the moon (the mars stuff might be buried in sand by then). As a satellite of a planet, bearing artifacts with no obvious local source, they'd look to earth. And, barring plate tectonics ripping it apart, the LHC will still be there. The pyramids will still be there. And so on and so forth. The music? Lost to bookworms and mold. The literature? Ditto. The science? Only evidenced in the engineering. So I vote for Engineering Feats first, Science / Mathematics 2 and 3, and so on. Open for discussion, of course. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:28, 27 December 2008 (EST)
I'm fine with reordering. The current order is just the order in which stuff popped into my head (been listening to a fair number of symphonies lately). Actually, I think my fondness for Vonnegut made me put Beethoven's Ninth near the top. DickTurpis 22:38, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Yes, we need to. Any comments on my suggestions? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:35, 27 December 2008 (EST)

You know, the music section is silly, though it's wasn't meant to be. Can we remove the Clash, Ramones, Janis Ian, and even Elvis (The Clash didn't write "I Fought the Law" anyway)? Elvis didn't write his own music; he just sang it, which is hardly comparable to composing Beethoven's Ninth. I think we should leave out the really subjective stuff in all categories and go with only the things that are widely considered canon. Sgt. Pepper barely sort of makes it, the Ramones don't. Though I think we can be a bit more inclusive when it comes to things Andy has shown particular regard or, just so we can beat him with his one word (hence Reagan, even though no one else considers that one of the greatest speeches of all time). DickTurpis 22:50, 27 December 2008 (EST)

No. First, Achlsflish loves him I fought the Law. Second, if we can't be a bit silly, why are we here? Why am I watching Blackadder? Beethoven was just a writer, he probably performed, but mostly he just stood there like a twat waving his hands. The first violinist could have done a better job ;) Sgt. Pepper not canon? Which heretical book are you reading??? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:32, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Ummm, 1. Beethoven played the shit out of the piano; 2. The Beatles suck, and Sgt. Peppers is a competent bit of fluffy pop at best, and downright bubblegum at worst. Most over-rated album ever. For pop genius (if there is such a thing, but I really doubt it...), "Pet Sounds" kicks Sgt. Pepper's ass. IPFoster 23:43, 27 December 2008 (EST)
"The Beatles suck" Oh, I was upset at first, but now I realize I'm in the presence of someone without any taste. My apologies, I didn't mean to make fun of your disability. --Kels 23:44, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Ah, a Beatles fan. I guess you love them "yeah, yeah, yeah.". Brilliant bit of songwriting there: even manages to rhyme"glad" with "bad." Awesome. PFoster 23:53, 27 December 2008 (EST)
"Glad and "bad" - she loves you - 1963. Quotes fucking Shakespeare. Sgt Pepper (and I include the single Penny Lane/Strawberry jam), 1967. A world of maturity later. PS, glad and bad do rhyme, what's your problem? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)
I guess incorporating world music into pop for, as far as I know the first time, plus a bit more complex work than "yeah, yeah, yeah" (cripes, I used to hear that stupid joke thirty years ago) and inventing new recording techniques, to say nothing of influencing world culture to the point where their stuff is still seriously influential close to a half century later and generally changing the course of pop music by opening the door to other British bands, doesn't count for too much. Very minor, I can see how a person would miss it entirely. --Kels 23:59, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Incorporationg "world music" into non-Western music? Never mind what mozart did with Turkish music, we can talk about what Ellington and Brubeck did decades before Harrison noodled on a sitar. 2. Inventing new recording techniques- Les Paul had that stuff figured out in the 1940s; besides, I'm only interested in bands that can bring it LIVE. Listen to what Miles was doing in 1967 onstage while kids were listening to Sgt. Peppers--we still haven't caufght up. Besides, that was George Martin's doing. mostly; 3. Influential, maybe, but there's no accounting for taste; 4. opening the door to other British bands-most of whom sucked even worse (Herman's Hermit's? The Dave Clarke Five?)... PFoster 00:05, 28 December 2008 (EST)
Wow, "the Beatles suck" "you have no taste" "yeah yeah yeah". Sorry, but the Beatlesare arguably the best popular music act - in terms of recorded works - of the twentieth century. So PFoster doesn't like them. So he doesn't. Big deal. I have friends who prefer the Stones or the Kinks. "The Beatles suck"? That's just being an ass for the sake of some "being cooler than thou" cause, as far as I can tell. Do you know how George Martin scored the crescendos in "A day in the the Life"? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:25, 28 December 2008 (EST)
  • rolls eyes* Incorporating it into pop, did you read that word? You seem to have some nasty reaction to the Beatles for some reason, maybe Sir Paul ran over your dog or something, but they were anything but disposable pop, regardless of your contention that they were a forgettable bunch of no-talents nobody'd be impressed by. --Kels 00:12, 28 December 2008 (EST)
Pop, schmop. I'm interested in music that is challenging and in cats that can PLAY--and you could argue that Duke Ellington WAs the pop music of his time.... But what you mean by pop music--especially the stuff produced by corporations for mass consumption (like those charming mop-tops from England), and notwithstanding a few exceptions like Hendrix at his best--offers little in either regard. Pass the Pharaoh Sanders disc. We'll have to agree to disagree...PFoster 00:17, 28 December 2008 (EST)
The Beatles are both challenging and could "play". You knock Harrison, but he mastered the sitar. Yes, we will have to agree to disagree, although your stand is incredibly weak here. I don't think you actually know much about them other than "yeah yeah yeah". At least, your comments belie no critical commentary on their later work. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:25, 28 December 2008 (EST)
Meh. I don't like MOST Western corporate pop. Saying the Beatles were the best of that is like saying that McDonald's is the best fast food restaurant, or Survivor is the best reality show...so what, y'know? And the Beatles could play? I could name a hundred drummers, guitar players and bass players with better chops, more advanced harmonic, rhythmic and melodic vocabularies than any Beatle, and almost any rock musician. They wrote some okay pop songs. Martin scored some interesting arrangements. It pretty much ends there for me. Not a lot of soul, not a lot of intensity, not a lot of chops,....PFoster 00:32, 28 December 2008 (EST)
PFoster, really, you need to get over your attitude here. So you hate the Beatles? Maybe, just maybe, they aren't to your taste. You don't like them. That's fine. Your insults and claims just get silly. Please list the 100 better drummers, guitar players, and bass players than just Paul on a sub-page. And then list ten songs anyone knows that they wrote. And the "more advanced harmonic, rhythmic and melodic vocabularies" is pushing it into the realm of "I really like this jazzbo, he/she really pushed the melodic envelope (in spite of being unlistenable)". Again, name 100, and then ten songs they wrote anyone has heard of. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:39, 28 December 2008 (EST)
I happen to agree with PF here. Pop music like the Beatles is not anywhere near the level of Classical music. Jazz is at least based on Classical harmonic theory.--CPAdmin1 00:42, 28 December 2008 (EST)
Please explain to me the chord/melodic structure of "She's Leaving Home" while trivializing it, and with a straight face. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:47, 28 December 2008 (EST)
I don't happen to be familiar with that one actually. (Not being a fan of that kind of music, I don't actually listen to much) I'm not saying that it is worthless, or not interesting. Just not on the level of Classical. --CPAdmin1 00:51, 28 December 2008 (EST)
It's the one the music critic (the classical music critic) took seriously. Maybe you should listen to it sometime, it's pretty good. There's some "descending plangent cadence" or something in it, as I recall. Also a very nice lyric. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:09, 28 December 2008 (EST)
I think that's part of the problem here, what does "on the level of" mean here, anyhow? I don't think we're talking complexity, or virtuosity, or whatever here. We're more talking enduring and widespread influence, aren't we? An achievement in music wouldn't be doing something complex, it would be changing the course of events, and it's hard to deny that a group like the Beatles accomplished just that. Call it right place/right time if you like, or whatever, but the fact remains that they did. So that would give them a rightful place, in my books. Elvis...probably not so much, although he did become a cultural icon. --Kels 00:59, 28 December 2008 (EST)
Well, I think 100 years from now, if someone decides to go to school to study music, it isn't gonna be the Beatles that they study. The Beatles were extremely influential. I would just say that their influence was more in the area of pop culture, not music. --CPAdmin1 01:04, 28 December 2008 (EST)

"And then list ten songs anyone knows that they wrote." Really, Human, what's that called again, the fallacy of popular appeal or something? I'd expect  K e n  D o l l  to use that kind of argumentation, but I kind of expected better from you.

And I could list ten songs that, say Jack Dejohnette or Max Roach (drummers) wrote that I'd heard of--but that's not what you're after is it? Not the right "someone" at all. You mean "List ten songs that I, Human, have heard of." Look, if it means that much to you, I withdraw the "sucks" comment and replace it with "I hate." This has gotten far out of hand, is venturing into the realm of the silly and is starting to piss me off. Gods Pee'd. PFoster 00:47, 28 December 2008 (EST)

No, I mean list ten songs/pieces by your heros that if I listened to enough to "get" them, I'd pee my pants. That's all. Educate me, don't talk down to me with "yeah yeah yeah". Oh, also, I accept your change from "sucks" to "I hate" That's fine, I can understand that. We all have different tastes. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:10, 28 December 2008 (EST)
Slowpoke. I got to the "fed up" stage a while back, I should have had tea waiting for you. --Kels 00:49, 28 December 2008 (EST)

This is exactly why a list of the "Greatest achievements of human history" shouldn't include any songs, symphonies, films or novels. Any one can be regarded as an enormous personal achievement for its creators, but its role is basically just to entertain, and appreciation of it is subjective and arbitrary. Hence the kind of disagreements as above, and the old dilemma of trying to compare rock and roll with chamber music etc. Possibly these belong on a list of "greatest creative works", but I don't think any one literary work or musical piece can be regarded as among the "greatest achievements" of the human race as a whole. wassaiLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 08:18, 28 December 2008 (EST)

I have been going back and forth over this myself - scientific discoveries, mathematical concepts, and amazing feats of engineering would be recognizable to aliens as great achievements, I think. They are easy to defend. We can't even agree amongst ourselves when it comes to the arts/humanities, even the literary canon is divisive. But surely, at some level, we can ignore the aliens and say, "wow, look at how well we have done here in coming to appreciate ourselves and our lives" etc. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:49, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Music and "classics"[edit]

To quote the article's mission statement: "To be more than fair to Schlafly, we will at times try to gear this towards accomplishments he is more likely to favor, specifically those tied to Christianity and America. Furthermore these examples are generally confined to "classics", using an almost stereotypical interpretation of the term, in order to deflect claims of revisionism and liberal bias." The Ramones, Elvis, and "I Fought the Law" might not be the best choices for this list, then...PFoster 23:39, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Andy's said before he likes "I Fought the Law" and I think he's spoken well of The Clash before. So yeah, they fit just fine. --Kels 23:46, 27 December 2008 (EST)
I stand corrected. PFoster 23:49, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Schubert[edit]

In all fairness to Andy, you should include Schubert. Alot of his better works were written when he was younger. A teenager actually. --CPAdmin1 23:43, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Tim, nobody's stopping you...PFoster 23:49, 27 December 2008 (EST)

I took a quick gander at Schubert and it seems to me his best known works (symphonies 8 and 9, Death and the Maiden, Trout Quintet, Rosamunde) were done when he was in his 20's. Some of his early symphonies ans sonatas were done when he was a teen, but I don't believe they are among his most renowned works, putting him much in the same category as Mozart. DickTurpis 00:06, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Alot of his best work was as a teen particularly the lieder. --CPAdmin1 00:15, 28 December 2008 (EST)
And the trout quintet was based on the song the trout Die Forelle which was definitely written as a teen. --CPAdmin1 00:17, 28 December 2008 (EST)
Death and the Maiden was at 20.--CPAdmin1 00:18, 28 December 2008 (EST)
Wikipedia has it written in 1824, not that it's the ultimate authority (either way, not a teen). As for the lieder, there's a lot of them, and I'm sure many are from his teenage years and many are not. It's quite subjective deciding what's among the greatest of all time, and what's just well known music. DickTurpis 00:25, 28 December 2008 (EST)
The quintet was probably 1824, but the song it was based on was 1817 I think. Symphony 8 is well known but unfinished (the unfinished symphony) #9 is the "Great" one.
I am a music major, and have been taught (not that it makes it necessarily true, nothing says my teacher's opinion is better than anyone else's) that Schubert's earlier works were in general better than alot of his later works. The Erlkonig for example is one of the best songs ever written. </opinion> Alot of his other most famous songs (Gretchen at the spinning wheel, The Trout) were written as a teen. --CPAdmin1 00:33, 28 December 2008 (EST)
Unfinished doesn't mean it isn't appreciated (Mozart's Requiem was also unfinished), but it seems to me it is still his most famous, and therefore presumably up there with his best (the epithet "Great" for #9 notwithstanding). The only problem with the lieder is that they are not as ubiquitously well known as examples such as Beethoven's symphonies (I'm not a huge fan of lieder; I'd take some harpsichord work by Scarlatti and Rameau any day, but that's just me). I have no problem adding them though. DickTurpis 00:48, 28 December 2008 (EST)
I wasn't saying unfinished made it less important or anything. I just didn't think the word "completed" should really be applied to the "unfinished" symphony. I don't think that popularity of a work = the significance of a work. Also magnitude =/= significance. That said, the symphonies are important. The thing with Schubert is that he is the standard when it comes to the lieder. While his symphonic works are great, they are not the most important. --CPAdmin1 01:00, 28 December 2008 (EST)
Tim, add them with dates (ages?). This is a team project. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:30, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Indoor plumbing is nice.[edit]

Someone once said that the greatest of scientific accomplishments are insignificant compared to plumbing in their impact on humankind. I am inclined to agree with him. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:49, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Good point. I would broaden it to "sanitation" perhaps? What are the three (or four) things we want when the power goes out? To keep our house warm, our food cold, and the running water working (the fourth is to be able to cook our food). I agree that the ready availability of clean water (which also means proper disposal/processing of "dirty" water) is an incredibly important accomplishment - look how tough it is in parts of the world where the "surface water" is contaminated and they have no means to set up a well. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:52, 28 December 2008 (EST)

The Aschlafly Monologue[edit]

I just copied it from the diff and made a few links absolute. Seemed to be better than a screen-grab...

  • 17:32, 27 December 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (64,101 bytes) (reply to BRichtigen)

BTW, BRichtigen got blocked two hours earlier, so it's a prime example of last-wordism - and of Aschlafly's debating - well - technique in general. --LArron 04:59, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Great works done by teenagers

Your claim most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagers seems to be false. If it were true, there should be an abundance of great works done by teenagers throughout history. But they are sparse and hard to find - here is a short list compiled on CP: Great Achievements by Teenagers. And even for this list, I had to add the caveat Nearly all of those who accomplished great deeds while being teenagers made even greater contributions when they became adults. BRichtigen 18:22, 26 December 2008 (EST)

You're barely scratching the surface. Please keep looking.--aschlafly 18:56, 26 December 2008 (EST)
  • That doesn't make sense. If most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagers, scratching the surface should be sufficient to come up with lots of examples.
  • You added John to the list of Great Achievements by Teenagers. But what's about Luke, Mark, and Matthew? They were no teenagers.
  • The greatest inventions (movable types, transistor, steam engine etc.), the greatest work of music (Beethoven's 9th symphony, Handel's Messiah, etc.), the greatest work of literature (Cervantes's "Don Quichote", Shakespeare's plays, etc.), the greatest scientific contributions (Newton's mechanics), were made not by teenagers.
  • Your claim is patently false and doesn't become true by just repeating it. Name ten great work of teenagers, and for almost every one you'll find a greater work done by an adult (often the same teenager in his later years).

--BRichtigen 07:20, 27 December 2008 (EST)

BRichtigen, you protest too much. Why the close-mindedness about this? You fail to appreciate the significance of the examples already listed, and you fail to search earnestly for more. If you opened your mind more and looked for them, you'd find them.
There are plenty of people who welcome insights with an open mind. I'll spend my time discussing issues with them, if you don't mind.--aschlafly 08:17, 27 December 2008 (EST)
The examples already listed are insignificant to the claim above.
This is not a question of open or closed minds. It is just about numbers: Few of the greatest works in history were made by teenagers is a true claim, most of the greatest works in history were made by teenagers is false. This insight I got not by opening my mind, but by opening some history books. And that's the way to approach such a question.
And talking about insights only with those who agree with you all the time isn't a discussion at all.
--BRichtigen 08:39, 27 December 2008 (EST)
I wonder why you're so intent on denying this information. Clearly, from the (not remotely complete) list, teenagers have had an enormous impact on human history. What's your real purpose in denying this? - Rod Weathers 08:44, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Excellent rhetorical question, Rod. The reason for BRichtigen's protest is this: dumb teenagers down as much as possible, and train them to believe what the (liberal) "experts" tell them. No matter that often the teenagers are brighter than the "experts".--aschlafly 08:47, 27 December 2008 (EST)
I'm not denying that there were - and are - teenagers that had an enormous impact on human history. And I'm not denying information - I've corroborated all of my statements. But what is the intention to tout a wrong claim "most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagers"? Where is the Aschlafly's data? BRichtigen 09:05, 27 December 2008 (EST)
So is your huge protest with the word "most"? You still don't seem willing to admit that "many" or "some" of the greatest works in history were by teenagers. You grant that teenagers had an impact (no kidding, they fight the wars), but seem unwilling to grant them their intellectual potential.--aschlafly 09:25, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Yes, my huge protest is with the word most. This turns a factual statement great works in history were accomplished by teenagers into a hyperbolic, patently false claim. In truth, only a few great works in history were accomplished by teenagers, and we cherish these works especially for their rarity. BRichtigen 11:13, 27 December 2008 (EST)

You see, you are doing it again - attyempting to downplay the huge contributions made by our young people. This is turning into a circular argument and must stop. The work of advancing Conservapedia is important and must not be derailed by purposeless repetition. Bugler 12:18, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Have you read the first sentence of the article recently? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 12:19, 27 December 2008 (EST)

That's getting quite bizarre: I'm arguing against a factual false statement, which was made repeatedly on CP (I searched for it), e.g.,

  • Most of mankind's greatest works, writings, insights, discoveries, proofs, etc., were by teenagers. (here)
  • you're welcome to start a list of the greatest works in history, but I'm confident most will be accomplished by people who were teenagers. (here)

And I get attacked because the sentiment behind the statement is right? Please, at least concede the wrongful hyperbole of the claim... BRichtigen 14:08, 27 December 2008 (EST)

BRichtigen, it's not productive to debate this with you, because you indicate no signs of an open mind. When you did you decide you understood the world and stopped reconsidering your viewpoints? Perhaps when you were a teenager?
Our list of teenager accomplishments is already very impressive, more so than another other period in life. But it is still far from complete, yet you stopped trying a while ago. I'll continue to discuss with those who still do try with an open mind, and I will continue to add to the list of teenager accomplishments.
Do not insist on the characteristic liberal trait of last wordism on my talk page, and stop wasting my time.--aschlafly 17:32, 27 December 2008 (EST)

(Note: Aschlafly's last response was posted some time after BRichten had been blocked by Bugler for taking part in the above discussion.)

Headers[edit]

Dick, please don't use the same headers in two places, it mucks things up. (The summary section is repeating earlier headers). Kan you pleez to fix or shall I? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:55, 1 January 2009 (EST)

RationalWiki[edit]

Shouldn't this site be in there somewhere? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor"is overworked and overbearing 13:35, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Hehe, perhaps when it turns five years old we can be so bold? ħumanUser talk:Human 14:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

footnotes[edit]

Eight billion footnotes all leading to the same (?) place are really hard to follow. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:56, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I just spotted this and wondered "WTF" but I suppose we can get away with that sort of crap in essayspace. Scarlet A.pngtheist 16:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Book on relationship by a kid?[edit]

Recently there is a book on relationships written by a kid (I have no idea what the title or the kid's name is, but it's in the news); may serve as an example of achievements before becoming a teenager. ThiehZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 00:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Teenagers in mathematics[edit]

Galois and Abel were two mathematicians who contributed much to mathematics despite their young age. Galois already had published papers before age twenty, and at nineteen Abel proved that there was no quintic formula. I don't know if these contributions are substantial enough to be mentioned in the article; they weren't the best work of either mathematician, and even their best works probably cannot be called "greatest achievements of human history." Still, might it be worth mentioning? Wehpudicabok (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Music hidden in Philosophy?[edit]

Is it mere coincidence that the noted philosophers in the relevant section are listed in the exact order given in Monty Python's "Philosophers Song?" All together now: "Iiii-mmanuel Kant" was a real pissant Who was very rarely stable. "Heidegger", Heidegger was a boozy beggar Who could think you under the table. "David Hume" could out-consume "Schopenhauer" and "Hegel," And "Wittgenstein" was a beery swine Who was just as schloshed as "Schlegel." There's nothing "Nietzsche" couldn't teach ya 'Bout the raising of the wrist. "Socrates" himself was perrrrmanently piiisssed... "John Stuart Mill," of his own free will, On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill. "Plato," they say, could stick it away Half a crate of whiskey every day. "Aristotle," Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle, "Hobbes" was fond of his dram, And "Rene Descartes" was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am" Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!

A coincidence? I think not.

--Myk

Chopin - Etudes, Op. 10[edit]

While I appreciate the drift of the essay, another exception to prove the rule would surely be Chopin, who composed some genuinely great music in his teens. In particular are the Opus 10 Etudes (begun in his teens, completed by 22), which shifted the whole technical landscape of pianism and are still regarded as among the greatest ever works of their genre. Add to that other teenage works that are still staples of the concert repertoire (e.g., Piano Concerto No. 2, Fantasie on Polish Airs, Krakowiak Rondo) and he was undoubtedly a genuine teenage wonder. DS (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ain't nobody arguing that teenagers have never done anything of remarkable value. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 03:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Literature section[edit]

Should we subsection base on location/era? K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 23:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Great teenagers[edit]

Obviously the conceit is nonsense but there are many examples of amazing teenagers such as Mozart.

Not a CP obsessive, but I had to look...

The CP list never mentioned Joseph Smith's vision at fourteen (although curiously Bernadette is)... Alexander the Great, several great achievements before twenty... or King Tut who died at nineteen. And in line with American bias, it mentions American sportsmen only.

Actually one of the most impressive must be the invention of braille at fifteen. That I agree with.-Albannach (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith: displaying the signs of being either profoundly mentally ill or a total charlatan at such a young age isn't really an "accomplishment" in any meaningful sense of the word. King Tut: got on the throne the way these things usually happened, by somebody else dying. Reigned for 9 years, had advisors who probably did most of the heavy lifting. You probably never would have heard of him except for the fact his grave wasn't pilfered in the same manner as those of most of his contemporaries. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 15:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Just saw this in Special: Recent Changes... I think the point is not to run down the accomplishments of teenagers, but to explain that Andrew Schlafly makes unsubstantiated claims, can't back them up, and (given this was made during the "Point and laugh at the closet-case" era) show evidence completely contradicting his unsubstantiated claim. Obviously, the burden of proof is on Schlafly, but he never proved it.--TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
In fact, there's no evidence any of Schlafly's charges have done great things. We could just as easily start an essay declaring that Andrew Schlafly hampers the achievements of teenagers. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because Schafly makes a ridiculous claim doesn't mean that teenagers should be completely written off. In fact, I'm tempted to compile my own list. Mozart and Schubert were incredible teenagers, but their best stuff was later. I mentioned JS from CP not RW's perspective.


King Tut did institute some major reforms including moving the capital of Egypt.

I find it interesting just who Schafly doesn't list. I'm sure you could find some examples he wouldn't like too... Rosa Parks seems to have been preceded by a fifteen year old for example.-Albannach (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

She was, but the African-American leadership decided that a middle-aged seamstress would be a better face for the movement than a sassy teenager who got pregnant soon after her protest. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 16:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia[edit]

This essay should mention Wikipedia. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Magna Carta[edit]

The Magna Carta is mentioned on the list. Although its precise authorship is unrecorded, there's no evidence of any teenage contributors before its signing in 1215. Major figures in its creation were: wp:Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, born around 1150; wp:Robert Fitzwalter, elected leader of the barons, whose dob is unknown but his father was born in the 1120s and he was an adult when his father died in 1198, so clearly not a teen 17 years later; and King John born 1166. Annquin (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)