Talk:20th century

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 20th century article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Time High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. History of Science High‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Years Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I believe it to be evident that among broader society there is no unified consensus to when a century starts or ends, although the majority opinion seems to be that it starts in '00 and ends in '99

Why do I believe this?

Well first off, the definition of a century:

-a century is a span of 100 years

-there is no codified start or end to the century, that is no central authority to define it

Now consider the following:

-The Current epoch for the calendar was not set until 525 AD, thus the term 'first century AD', has only ever been used retroactively, thus it has always been an edge-case

-Using the definition of the start of the century as being in in '00 leads to a problem. Either the First century must start at 1 BC, or on 1 AD but only last 99 years, making it not a true century. However, the 16th century is often defined with a Julian start date and a Gregorian end date, meaning that the term 16th century is often used to refer to a time period 10 days shy of a century.

-Many implementations of the Gregorian calendar today are actually implementations of ISO-8601, a calendar system that does have a year zero, thereby negating the issue entirely.

-On January 1st 2000, people from across the world came to celebrate the beginning of the third millennium, and the 21st century, this event is so well known and so much ingrained in the public psyche that denying this would be absurd.

I would also like to apologise for not coming on the talk page first before attempting to edit the article, that caused unnecessary conflict.

I eagerly await the responses from those who I was engaged in the edit war with, hopefully this will sort things out.2204happy (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So no references then? FDW777 (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If theres one thing I'll give you its that you're a damn fast reader.2204happy (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, which points did you doubt the validity of, thus prompting your request for references2204happy (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:No original research (first paragraph) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (first paragraph). Either this viewpoint has been published by references, or it doesn't belong here at all. FDW777 (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2204Happy, please do not render a common fallacy to be valid, it's easy, simple mathematics.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

KIENGIR, the fact that defining the start of the century in '00 leads to an issue with the 1st century is well understood and acknowledged, thus it is not a fallacy. What however is a fallacy is the belief that there is something special about the date 1 January 1 AD, that means the first century must start on that date. This date is in fact completely arbitrary and the fact that that date is referred to as the start of the first century is merely convention, in the same way that the 21st century is generally considered to have started on 1 January 2000.

FDW777, i have compiled some references that refer to the start of 2000 as the start of the 21st century:

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/2000-01-02?NewspaperTitle=Sunday%2BLife&IssueId=BL%2F0002341%2F20000102%2F&County=Antrim%2C%20Northern%20Ireland

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/2000-01-02?NewspaperTitle=Sunday%2BWorld%2B(Dublin)&IssueId=BL%2F0002323%2F20000102%2F&County=Dublin%2C%20Republic%20of%20Ireland

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/196862724?browse=ndp%3Abrowse%2Ftitle%2FT%2Ftitle%2F856%2F1999%2F12%2F31%2Fpage%2F22012593%2Farticle%2F196862724

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2R--yH3OwY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj7FnBFn_5Q

as well as some talking about the debate on when it started:

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=M20000104.2.24&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------1

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/249108956?browse=ndp%3Abrowse%2Ftitle%2FR%2Ftitle%2F311%2F1999%2F12%2F31%2Fpage%2F27450784%2Farticle%2F249108956

As the start of a century, is not based in on a definite fact like say for example the shape of the earth, but as an arbitrarily defined unit of time adopted by humans in order to make references to such lengths of time easier, coupled with the lack of a central authority to define the start and end date of a century, the said start and end date are thus defined by convention of the terms users, (i.e general society), and as those who define the term far from unanimously agreeing on the definition (see references above), it is disingenuous to act as if the start of a century is agreed upon, not to mention a clear violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

2204happy (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I uphold what I said. The issues is marginal, wer WP:DUE not leadworthy, a lame fallacy indeed.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

That's a whole bunch of weak references that mostly aren't regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. FDW777 (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FDW777, Out of the two references currently on the page referring to the start and end dates, one is a link to a news article, which quite literally is on par with the references I gave, and the other is a dead link, so I think that makes my referencing far stronger than that of the current page, so unless or until you can do any better, Your argument that my references are weak, is not that convincing. 2204happy (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KIENGIR, you have not provided any rebuttal against my argument other than accusing it of being fallacious. This is not productive. In order to increase the productivity of the conversation I will ask a question directly, hopefully you'll be able to answer it.

Take the statement i wrote above: "What however is a fallacy is the belief that there is something special about the date 1 January 1 AD, that means the first century must start on that date. This date is in fact completely arbitrary and the fact that that date is referred to as the start of the first century is merely convention, in the same way that the 21st century is generally considered to have started on 1 January 2000."

Is this statement correct? If so, why does this not invalidate your argument? If not, why not? 2204happy (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have not much time for evident issues, a simple, average ability to count properly. General consideration has nothing to do necessarily with facts. What starts in 1 Jan 2000, is the start of the 2000th year, the last year of the cluster, shall that cluster embrace a decade, century or millenia. Project it to a decade. 1 Jan 10, is the start of the last year of it, the 10th years which ends in 31 dec 10, and the next decade starts on 1 Jan 11, and the 11th year will be the first one of the next decade, evidently, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

A couple of regional newspapers, one of them a tabloid, do not carry the same weight as the New York Times, especially when they don't even say what you think they do. A "slow news day" story about two couples planning to "celebrate the millennium" together is meaningless. FDW777 (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment deleted - I GOT myself) SquashEngineer (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ Interstellarity. You have demanded of me an explanation of my reversal of your reverting previous editors' work, with your edit summary "removing some not so important people", which appears to mean people whom you consider not to have been "significant" in the 20th century; to name just a few, Albert Schweitzer, Frederick Banting, Howard Carter, Robert Goddard, Barbara Hepworth, David Hockney, Cecil Beaton, Ian Fleming (creator of James Bond), Aldous Huxley, Beatrix Potter, J. D. Salinger (author of "The Catcher in the Rye"). I suggest that, rather than me having to explain reinstating such names, the onus is upon you to justify your idiosyncratic removal of names which editors other than me originally inserted and clearly thought to merit inclusion, and this will require your specific reasoning in respect of each and every name which you consider to be "not so important". --Blurryman (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Blurryman. Rjensen (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been involved in a similar argument not so long ago, and although I consider myself to be an inclusionist, I was finding the lists of names to be oppressive. Trust me, this fight will be endless. But I think that it is up to the person who wants to include a name to say why it belongs. I look and I see Cher among the music section. Do I really need to explain why she does not belong? As opposed to someone telling us why she does belong/ Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we shouldn't even have lists of names on this article. If you want to argue about who is the 30th most important author of the 20th century, check out WP:VA. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, only have names when they are mentioned in the text. I could live with that. I looked at the sports list and found:

• 1 boxer,
• 1 cyclist
• 1 baseball
• 1 formula One driver
• 2 basketball
• 3 track & field,
• 3 cricketers
• 8 footballers
  

How useful is that? Carptrash (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I go further: we should have prose in this article, not section after section of bullet-points. It's hard because there's just so much to cover here. And if content such as "Popular music artists of the 20th century include" stays, it should be relegated to the "list of people" section, not in the middle of the bullet-point lists. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blurryman, Rjensen, Carptrash, and 力: I've based my inclusion of people based on the vital article lists that 力 was talking about. I have been limiting the people to people listed in the level 3 and 4 in the vital articles list. I have removed the people that are listed in the level 5 list or not listed at all. Hopefully, this clarifies my actions, and if you disagree, I'd be more than willing to discuss them on the talk page. Interstellarity (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will now propose that the entire list of " Significant people" be removed. With no real guidelines to go by the list will always be arbitrary. 9 US presidents? Why not just include tham all. Or, as I am proposing, none of them. Carptrash (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Interstellarity, for your explanation. Now that the wider issue has been raised, I agree with User:力. I have for some time thought that lists such as those in this and other 'century' and 'decade' articles are rather pointless and something which nobody would ever actually consult, as well as being invidious and provoking endless argument. Blurryman (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a removal of significant people from every century since as others mentioned, who gets included in those lists are arbitrary. I think the same can be said with the vital articles. There are people that would be on the border of being vital between levels 3 and 4 and levels 4 and 5 because sometimes when deciding whether someone gets included at a certain level, half of people might agree the person belongs at level 3 while the other half think it is suitable for level 4 and vice versa. These are some of my thoughts on how we should go about things. Interstellarity (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove The section is too arbitrary. With no guidelines, an arguement could probably be made for including any 20th Century person who has an article about them. Carptrash (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove - I agree with Carptrash above. Just a question: if this passes, is it going to affect the other century pages as well such as 19th century, 18th century, and 17th century? I would prefer that the significant people section be removed from all century pages for consistency purposes. I have also added the RFC tag to get attention from other editors. Interstellarity (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You created an invalid RfC: there is no statement (let alone any links to related discussions that attempt to resolve whatever dispute this is, see WP:RFCBEFORE) and no timestamp; please see WP:RFCST before trying again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have been involved in some version of this discussion for several years now. This discussion is for the 20th Century only. If the same issue is found on other articles then it needs to be addressed on the talk pages of those articles. If I am not posting this right, ("an invalid RfC") as with anything else on wikipedia, correct it or fix it. Carptrash (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not my task to "correct it or fix it", because I didn't place the {{rfc}} tag, and have no interest in the matter. Whoever places that tag has the responsibility to observe WP:RFC with particular regard to WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCST, otherwise this happens - it's decidedly not neutral, and the claim "The section is too arbitrary." has no context. WP:WRFC may help. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove - I also support the suggestion by Interstellarity re other century pages. Blurryman (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is for this article only. We are not making policy, just fixing this article. Carptrash (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the links to other articles are valuable for students who are getting their fist look at the century and are looking for a sample of few Wiki pages about in fields they have an interest in. Being "definitive" is not a criterion in Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So @Rjensen:, would you like to sketch out some criteria for being listed? Carptrash (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Rjensen. This is a useful list. 19:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

  So @Dimadick:, would you like to sketch out some criteria for being listed? Carptrash (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  sure : 1) keep users in mind. I would suggest thinking about people new to historical research re 20c; 2). consider 3 -5 themes that you can handle that would be of interest (sports, movies, politics, wars, scientific breakthroughs, famous novels, etc etc) 3). pick 3-5 people well covered in Wikipedia for each theme. 4). Don't worry about perfection--worry that failure to provide any list will deprive thousands of readers an opportunity. 5) do it well and other editors can flesh out step 2. Rjensen (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is more or less what I have been doing since 2017 or so. All it seems other editors want to do is add new names, so the lists get longer and longer. You say, 3 to 5 people, right now there are 9 US presidents. You have some interesting ideas that I can get behind, let's see you do it. Carptrash (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not consider "Here is what I think you should do" as being helpful, so I removed the 'Activist" section. Carptrash (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• remove. In wikipedia, the only verifiable criterion for "significant people" is notable people. So you either have infinite lists or cherry-picking. Lembit Staan (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I just removed the "Humanitarian" section. Carptrash (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Carptrash, Redrose64, Blurryman, Rjensen, Dimadick, and Lembit Staan: The discussion seems to be stale now. Do you think we could move towards closure or wait for other opinions. Interstellarity (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I am ready to remive the section. Carptrash (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Removed - If there any objections, please place them below. Interstellarity (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Related discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History/Archive_6#Removal_of_Significant_people_in_all_the_century_pages. Interstellarity (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should Norway really be considered a world power/empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.66.2.179 (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norway doesn't appear to be mentioned in the article at all. What are you referring to? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the article it mentions "The century had the first global-scale total wars" but the first global war is believed to be the seven years war during the 18th century. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but total war involves the full mobilization of a society's own resources and the targeting of civilians and civilian-resources by the combatants. Which is more associated with the two 20th-century global wars than the Seven Years' War. Dimadick (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]