Talk:20th century/Archive 1

message: In the culture and arts section, there is absolutely no mention of books and how the 20th century was when reading for pleasure became commonplace throughout society, not just the well-educated.  It also states "As the century begins, Paris is the artistic capital of the world, where both French and foreign writers, composers and visual artists gather. By the end of the century, the focal point of culture had moved to the United States, especially New York City and Los Angeles."
Really?  News to me.  If anything, NYC and LA might be the capital of book publishing (iffy) and movies (at least English-language ones) respectively, but visual arts and music? I don't think so.
This section also states that rock and roll and jazz are now the dominant forms of popular music worldwide.  You could argue for rock and roll, but definitely not jazz.
Lijakaca 19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Books and literacy missing?

message: Should we create a picture that is more inclusive of the various wars?  It wouldn't be terribly hard to make the same style of picture, but perhaps with 1 picture from each 'era' of warfare.  Example: 1 from WW1 (trenches), 1 from WW2 (planes or aircraft carrier or a swastika), 1 from the atomic age (nuclear test), 1 from more modern conflict (stealth fighter).
Bongle 23:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wars image

message: : Then the decade was not a decade = 10 years. No need to immortalize a counting blunder. Neither he nor you would accept my following statement:  The first quadruped had three legs. Jclerman 18:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the scientist Stephen Jay Gould, [claimed] that the first decade (AD 1-9) had only nine years. 

message: This section is completely inacurate. It should either be removed, or the title changed to most popular tv shows or something like that, or the shows should be replaced with the genuinely longest running ones. Saul Taylor 12:54, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Longest running tv shows

message: Why are the 1890s and 2000s included? --Hemanshu 05:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  1890s & 2000s? 

message: Wow.  WhisperToMe duplicated almost the entire article and nobody noticed. --Eequor 23:03, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication 

message: Should this article contain a historical summary of the 20th century? Should it have its own article (emerging, though terribly slowly, into a possibly great article at The 20th century in review)? Should this article link to that one? What should be the relation to History of the world, History of Europe etc? I think it's extremely important to have this overview of the century, and so it's nice if we agree on the forms – and also if we make it easy to find, as The 20th century in review seems quite unknown to most. -- Jao 05:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. I think that "the twentieth century in review" should actually be the " twentieth century" article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ezadarque (talk • contribs) 14:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical summary of the century 

message: shouldn't these be in adjusted-for-inflation dollars, which would render 'Gone with the Wind' #1 I believe
Yes, but this is too US-centric anyway and should not be there. --Erauch 19:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest grossing films 

message: Not enough attention is given to the really positive developments. Material should be paraphrased from the paper "Slouching Towards Utopia: The Economic History of the Twentieth Century" by Brad Delong. E.g. 
"What took a worker in 1890 an hour to produce takes an a worker in a leading economy today only seven minutes: by this measure we today have some eight times the material prosperity of our counterparts of a little more than a century ago. But such a calculation is a substantial underestimate of the boost to productivity and material prosperity of the past century. We today are better at making the goods of a century ago, but we also have the technological capability to make an enormously expanded range of goods and services: from videocassettes and antibiotics to airplane flights and plastic bottles.
--Erauch 19:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too negative 

message: Some of those most significant scientists of the 20th century are a little, err, less significant than others not listed. I am sympathetic to trying to include non-Western scientists but if Ali Javan is not significant enough to warrant more than a stub, is he really worth being put on a list that seems to be something like the top 14 scientists of the 20th century? Is Andrey Nikolaevich Kolmogorov important on the same level as Heisenberg, Einstein, and Fermi (or even Ivan Pavlov)? Should Ernest Rutherford be on there? What about James Watson or Francis Crick or Francis Galton or Marie Curie or Jonas Salk? I'm not saying all of these people should be on there, but I think some people could be dropped. I know that any list has to be arbitrary at some point, but if we're only going to include a dozen or so people they should all be world-shaking in what they accomplished. --Fastfission 03:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant scientists 

message: I can see nothing in the Common Era article justifying the early statement here "(1900-1999 in the sense of the Common Era calendar)". Any offers, or can we delete that? Robin Patterson 04:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think Wikipedia should adopt ISO 8601:2000 that renumbers 1BC as Year 0, and aligning the centuries to the decimal numbering system. It was already in widespread vernacular use; I certainly celebrated 1 Jan 2000 as being more significant than most new years' days.  — PhilHibbs | talk 15:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Which years?

message: I've added a  template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modernism template 

message: I've just been trying to make sense of the introductory paragraphs, which meant making some cuts.  I don't think that they should be very controversial, except for this:
:“Historians sometimes treat the twentieth century as covering only the years 1914–91, the period of time between the outbreak of World War I and the fall of the Soviet Union.”
Historians might be primarily interested in that period, but any historian who treated century as lasting only 77 years should be sacked.  I've done some looking through the books I have to hand (tomorrow I'll ask my historian colleagues), and I could find no example of any historian actually using twentieth century to mean 1914–91. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some deletions and other edits 

message: Why not merge this with The 20th century in review, and move the lists to separate pages (list of world leaders in the 20th century, etc.)? - Fredrik | talk 16:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: I removed Ali Javan from the important physics group. While I would definately like to see more diversity on the list, his name simply does not belong there. His invention of the gas laser is no more important than dozens or hundreds of other inventions of the 20th century, he certainly does not belong on the list that includes Einstein and Bohr. Also, his article is a stub, while the other people in that group have extensive articles. If his article is vastly expanded perhaps he could be put back on the list. Or if a catagory of inventors was added he could be placed in that group, since he did not actually contribute to the field of physics or astronomy in a large way, only invented a physics-related machine.  Harley peters 00:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ali Javan removal 

message: Does anyone know anything about Giorgos Papadopoulos being a great world leader?  "Giorgos Papadopoulos" only turns up 638 hits on google, and I can't find any about a leader.  It turns up no pictures of him.  Unless someone knows about Papadopoulos, I'm inclinded to delete it. Descendall 11:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Giorgos Papadopoulos

message: This edit added nonsense. I reverted to the edit the edit before it. May have lost good information in edits going forward. --FloNight 22:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 19:56, February 2, 2006 68.156.240.30