Talk:Modernity

message: What is the rather strict separation of modernity and the modern period based on? Does this reflect the consensus among historians at the moment?Peter Isotalo 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding sources... FlammingoHey 07:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modernity and "Modern Times" 

message: Doesn't "modern" mean simply generally 'what is around today', i.e. 'up to date'? ...'what is around today'. That is not implying in any way that "modern" is better or worse.  How can something be post that? VeriGGlater 20:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: post means "reaction to", and not that anything "modern" is over; there are many pages this needs to be added to. --FlammingoHey 07:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be a good idea first to read at least the Wikipedia article Postmodernism, where you will find that the term was around for almost a hundred years before Leotard "coined" it in 1979.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: modern, post modern?

message: This take on modernity is overly historicist and eurocentric. It seems to be oblivious of the more nuanced discussion of modernity, its relation to coloniality and to the allied terms of modernism and modernization. I am working on a rewrite.66.26.84.57 07:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Might try to rewrtite

message: I am not convinced that The Telegraph article "TAMING THE WILD WATERS" adds much to an encyclopedia article on modernity.  I am not arguing that it is untrue, rather, that it is superfluous here.
Ellensn (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  questionable external link 

message: It would be interesting if the article could discuss the issue of modernity as a form of social exclusivity. One of the main goals of 19th-century colonialism was to impose modernity on vast amounts of non-civilized African and Asian peoples, and as a result several anti-colonial social movements emerged which saw the ideology of modernity as a major source of alienation for many non-white and non-Western peoples and civilizations. And while modernity was primarily seen as a Western movement, there were many Christians in the West who, for a very long time, were deeply critical of the phenomenon of modernity, which was perceived as an anti-Christian Masonic conspiracy (see Catholicism and Freemasonry). ADM (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Modernity", or "modernism"? As this article (and indeed all sources of which I am aware) defines "modernity", it is a condition or historical era (imposition of which of course could be the goal of some agent), not a "movement" or an implement in itself. The "ideology" or "movement" is called "modernism". The section "anti-globalization" of the article "Globalization" covers this in some detail, and with specific reference to the condition called "modernity", the section "Criticisms of modernism" in the article "Modernism". If you find any of these discussions do not adequately address this issue, why don't you go ahead and expand them, with documentation from reliable sources (which should not be difficult to find, considering the enormous amount of ink that has been spilled on this subject)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia and the old white men - there is a need to describe "modernity" not depending on Western history (and actors of Western "movements"), but as an universal phenomenon, so you could quantify something and guess, what kind of partial society, nation or group in a specific era already is under the conditions of modernity and what not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.179.144.186 (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, more than ten years ago now, go ahead and fix the shortcomings. What is taking so long? Surely many more reliable sources have been published in the meantime.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Exclusivity

message: There should perhaps be an article on Christianity and modernity, an issue that the Roman Catholic Church took a long time to resolve, an issue which was mostly settled during the time of the Second Vatican Council. ADM (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianity and modernity

message: I just stumbled upon this article following a look into the term "modernism" as related to Catholicism. I am not an expert on this subject so I will not comment on the article content but I do feel the need to comment on the article editing... 
#I have corrected a missing "(" in one of the inline references. This was lost when the citations were changed (back) in this edit.
#With respect to both Mssr. Tomsega and Jerome Kohl: To pursue your goal of FA status ought not the references, regardless of format, include more page numbers? Would this not be beneficial to the concept of "...introducing more precise citations where appropriate."? (emphasis added)
#Finally, with my respects to Mr.Kohl: I must strongly disagree with your actions... 
In your eagerness to wikilawyer the citation styles issue you seriously failed to respect the essence of WikiLove and Collegiality, without which WP would dissolve into a vulgar bar-room brawl. Mr. Tomsega apparently invested a great deal of time and effort to revise the citations... time and effort that you then callously disregarded in pursuit of adherence to a Style Guideline which states, in part:
"[This] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." (emphasis added)
 
"Common sense" would suggest that there was no urgency to undo all of Mr. Tomsega's work and that the matter could have been discussed in a collegial fashion first. You could have initiated the talk page and explained your reasons for preferring one format over the other. You could have been the one with an open mind and willing to listen to the other side. You could have been the bigger man.
Instead you chose to invest a not insignificant quantity of your own time to manually undo the painstaking work of another editor. Worse, you executed your editorial mission so poorly that by your own admission you damaged content contribution and (per my above edit) failed to consistently use accurate style, both by simple carelessness. 
No one disputes that Tomsega breached WP Style Guidelines. Likewise no one appears to dispute that his efforts were in good faith. You were within "your rights" to do what you did, but was it the "right thing" to do given the circumstances? I believe, no. Tomsega seems to have responded to your actions with respect and deference, yet I suspect there was a sharp sting to see his well intentioned bold efforts "undone". 
I believe, Mr. Kohl, you owe your colleague, Mr. Tomsega, an apology for acting with haste, carelessness and lack of regard -- I urge you to look beyond the "rules" and do what is right. I urge you to set an example of real civility by proffering him a sincere apology. 66.102.198.95 (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, 66.102.198.95. To my mind it seemed blatantly obvious smart inline referencing, the type you see on all featured status articles, is the optimum standard, to the extent I let the issue go. I didn't want to spend more time simply arguing about it! --Tomsega (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear 66.102.198.95: That is quite a diatribe! If you will go back and read the earlier part of the format discussion, you will find that I did in fact apologise to Tomsega. I do not believe that any of the arguments I put forth subsequent to that apology were taken "with haste, carelessness and lack of regard", though if Tomsega feels this may be so, then I unreservedly apologise for inadvertently creating this impression.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point remains, you didn't just undo a good faith edit, you undid a perfectly justified edit. As far as I'm concerned 9/10 wiki users will tell you referencing of the type I installed is preferable. It just so happens only two of us were arguing and you're in that 1/10! Even if it were 50/50, that wouldn't be just cause to undo what took me 20 minutes. Anyway. No worries ;) --Tomsega (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, quite so. If my previous apology didn't cover that, then please let me apologize again now. Did I not also restore your justified edit? I thought I had, but that was a long time ago now.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations and recent edits - revisited 

message: Just came here to try and figure out what modernity is.  In the first sentence it has the meaningless term, "post-traditional".  It might be some type of jargon, but it is meaningless to most people.  It links to "tradition".  I know what a tradition is.  Is post-traditional something like what you do after a tradition?  Maybe the post-traditional football game on Thanksgiving.  You watch it after the traditional turkey dinner.
Please, could someone write a first sentence that describes modernism. If it's just a time period like the 18th century just say so.  You can get to the complicated stuff after the first sentence.
Ydorb (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire point of having this article in addition to the one titled "Modern era" is supposed to be that "modernity" is a condition, and not a chronological descriptor. So, no, it is not a time period like the 18th century—or like the "modern era". For the description you request of modernism, see the article on that subject—its definition does not belong in the lede of this article. These are three separate, though strongly interconnected ideas. I agree, however, that using chronology identifiers like "post-traditional" is confusing and misleading.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence currently says "Modernity typically refers to a post-traditional, post-medieval historical period . . ."  That makes it sound like time period, not a condition. Looking further down the article, someone defines it as shorthand for industrial civilization.  Is that what it is?  If so, maybe the first sentence could say something like "Modernity is shorthand for industrial civilization."
Ydorb (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

text: As I said, I agree with you that the opening sentence is confusing and misleading, in that it too-strongly suggests ties to one or more historical periods. However, the term is not exactly "shorthand for industrial civilization", as a patient reading of the article will show. Perhaps it should be stated up front that it is first and foremost a technical term from the field of Sociology, though it is also used in much the same sense in other fields, such as the Philosophy of Science and History of Philosophy.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to separate the time frame from the intellectual movements seems OK to me, but I see no reason to deny a connection between the two? Of course these intellectual movements did in fact happen, irregularly of course, over a certain typical time period.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: post-traditional?

message: Not only is the language abtruse, there is also a strong bias. For example, a strong influence from neo-marxists thought. To describe marxism as modern and to include modes of "surveillance" in the fundamental definition of modernity just goes to show that this article must completely reworked. Much of the initial definition is also repetitive withour clarifying the issues. One other point: According to Giddens we are in high-modernity, not post-modernity. There is no agreement that we should be in post-modernity. Modernity is three things:
1. Not the middle ages (early defintion from 17th century)
2. Freedom, equality and reason (French revolution)
3. Urbanity and industrial society (turn of the century 1900).
Whatever you may want to add or retract this core remains the same.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.76.151 (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt the article can be improved, but your concerns could be argued a bit more convincingly and constructively. Marxism is generally seen as a typical form of modernism? Why would Giddens' term be considered more notable than "post modern"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand 79.136.76.151's complaint correctly, he/she is objecting that Giddens is being made to say "we are in post-modernity", whereas he should be made to say "we are in high-modernity". I have just checked the article, and 79.136.76.151 is flat wrong on this point. The article baldly states: "this phase is called "Liquid" modernity by Bauman or "High" modernity by Giddens". I don't see that relative notability even comes into it (unless we are to dismiss Giddens entirely on grounds of non-notability, of course).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

text:  I do think I am constructive. I have proposed a basic scheme for structuring the article and defining the concept of modernity. Nothing could be more constructive. Have you at all read what I have written about the meaning of the concept of modernity? I believe that the article is truly substandard and biased. Let us do some Fisking:
"modernity tends only to refer to the social relations associated with the rise of capitalism. Nevertheless modernity may characterise tendencies in intellectual culture: particularly, those movements intertwined with secularisation and post-industrial life, such as Marxism and existentialism, as well as the formal establishment of social science"
That is an abtruse characterisation. What is meant by that? Nothing is clarified, but the tone is clearly materialistic, i.e. Marxist. Liberty, equality and reason are better ways of defining what modernity is than "the social relations associated with the rise of capitalism", which is not really a clarification or definition. What are the social relations? What are they characterised by? What does capitalism have to do with reason, for example? Reason is a product of science, not of capitalism. The whole interpretation is reductionist, biased, Marxist/materialistic and therefore botched. Unless everything that has happened in modern times is related to capitalism, in which case the defintion is circular: capitalism = modernity. The tone and style of writing is also typical of neo-marxism, piling abstractions on top of each other.
The phrasing, which is wordy without clarifying the issues, does associate marxism with modernity, not just modernism:
"Nevertheless modernity may characterise tendencies in intellectual culture: particularly, those movements intertwined with secularisation and post-industrial life, such as Marxism". What is menat by "modernity may characterise".
How and in what way does modernity "characterise?" I thought the goal was to define modernity, but here it is modernity that defines something else. This is a very confused way of writing. In any case, the article associates marxism with modernity, not just modernism. Modernity "characterises" marxism. That is what the sentence says. The connection to modernism is also unclear, because it follows in the sentence after marxism is mentioned. There is a vagure reference to intellectual movements. However, during this period there have been several counter-modern currents of thought. Green ideology, to just mention one. It is just not acceptable to have an article with this kind of vagueness and even factual errors, as a result of that vagueness.
No, marxism is not a part of modernity, per se, but it is an expression of modernism! I will let you ponder that one! By the way, why should modernism be mentioned at all? Can it not be left to the article with that title? Must modernity be defined in relation to modernism? I believe that type of discussion or contrastive definition does not belong in the first paragraph. It only displays a certain anxiety and uncertainty about the concept of modernity. Keep the eyes on the ball! Since modernity is a complex concept, the wording in the initial paragraph needs to be much more open-ended. For example, a clear statement that the concept is disputed or that it can have different meanings depending on ideology.
A final example: "In context, modernity has been associated". Which context? Associated in what way? Whoever has written this does not command the clear and simple style of writing that is necessary in a dictionary.
At the bottom of this lies a confusion which is a product of the dominance of the political left in the social sciences. This article can not solve this, but whoever writes about such concepts should be aware of this and give equal treatment to different points of view.
[[[Special:Contributions/193.10.249.136|193.10.249.136]] (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is completely sub standard

message: The first paragraph says that modernity includes surveillance, but never touches on that again, and the linked page on Surveillance never mentions modernity. Would like to understand better.--BooksXYZ (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference given is to Barker 2005, 444, but I'm afraid you will find little further illumination in that book. As in too much social theory, no time is wasted on defining terms that "everybody knows". However, on Wikipedia what matters most is that a claim can be verified by a reliable source. Comprehensibility takes second place. You are quite right to complain, however, since statements made in the lede of any article are supposed to summarize material discussed in more detail in the main body of the text. This is why references should not need to appear in the lede.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Surveillance

message: There seems to be some redundancy in this article. There is a both a "defining modernity" subheading, and a "modernity defined" subheading. The material under the "modernity defined" subheading is rather scant, and taken only from one source, while the material under "defining modernity" tries to encompass the many different ways in which this term is used in different intellectual/artistic fields. I would suggest deleting the second, "modernity defined" section, or incorporating what it says into the "sociology" section of the more thorough definitional section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independebubble (talk • contribs) 12:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Modernity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722063716/http://arp.unipi.it/dettaglioar.php?ide=132051 to http://arp.unipi.it/dettaglioar.php?ide=132051
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just wondering- is there a reason that there are so few ref tags on this page? It makes the page look really cluttered with inline citations. Also, it seems more like an essay than a Wikipedia article, especially with phrases like “as so and so, who did such and such, says in their work, X, ...” 
dunno how to fix this stuff, really. 
--OrangeYoshi99 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by "ref tags", but inline citations are required on virtually all Wikipedia articles, clutter or no clutter. At least this article does not use footnotes for its inline citations, which are a real distraction, in my opinion, since it is necessary to interrupt reading to check and see if the note contains anything important. It would be better to incorporate those quotations into the text, which would eliminate footnotes altogether, but I have hesitated to do so simply because they seem excessive to start with.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , I also find portions of this article difficult to read due to the harvard notation being used.  While I am accustomed to such notation in academic journals, I don't see how it is practical to use it exclusively in a wikipedia article, due to the breaking up the flow of sentences in heavily cited passages.  I would suggest that template sfn footnotes be used at least in locations where it has become unacceptably cluttered with harvard style- such as paragraph "Machiavelli's recommendations" in the Political Section.  It's a mess, and I propose I upgrade the paragraph to footnotes using sfn.  You will see that simply hovering over a footnote using this standard displays the content of the footnote without interrupting reading.  Any Comments?J JMesserly (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the Harvard citation documentation, and learned that this article's practice of using the harvard templates without either the <ref> or sfn template is deprecated.  The discussion of the rationale is linked from that page, and reflects many of the comments of editors on this talk page for the last decade.  It is my intention to begin upgrading the article using sfn as described on the documentation page so the article is no longer using a deprecated practice.  My reason for using sfn rather than ref is that it is far more compact, is very similar to the currently used template:harv style and makes it easier for wikitext editors to manipulate due to less clutter. J JMesserly (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref tags? 

message: Modernity, a topic in the humanities and social sciences, is both a historical period (the modern era), as well as the ensemble of particular socio-cultural norms, attitudes and practices that arose in the wake of the Renaissance—in the "Age of Reason" of 17th-century thought and the 18th-century "Enlightenment".
The two expressions "Age of Reason" and "Enlightenment" lead to the same page. Rewrite ? --Japarthur (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph 

message: I've raised the problems in this and the related articles modern era, late modern period and early modern period in Wikiproject History. Thread can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#Modernity articles are a hot mess
I recommend a joint discussion for all these articles since they seem to suffer from very similar issues. Peter Isotalo 13:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralized discussion on modernity 

message: At this time, this article is asserting, without explanation, that Marxism and Modernity are antithetical, as if this were a self evident, nominal truth. 3rd ¶ in the lede. Presumed missing and qualifying Hegelian partner attribute, bourgeois, Capitalist, etc. An equation between bourgeois culture and modernity is implicit as it stands now. Lycurgus (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enwiki Brain Fart