Talk:1920s
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shouldn't "Roaring 20s" have its own article? While it does refer to a decade, it refers to a particular and significant point of view about it. - Furrykef 03:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Also, this Wikipedia article is nearly a photocopy of http://encyclopedia.calendarhome.com/1920s.htm, as well as http://www.thewordbook.com/1920s... Does it annoy anyone else that someone has pretty much just copied and pasted from those two pages to make this article?
Yes it annoys me. it is still info but even so....--DPG 16:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)DPG
Contents |
[edit] Needs to be made international
While the national leaders section is well done, the sports figures and the entertainers seem overwhelmingly to be in the USA. Articles shouldn't be merged because some people need specific information and it is easier to find it in smaller articles.
[edit] Women's suffrage
I have removed the the women's suffrage entry, as it only applies to the US. Whilst this is clearly an important event, the same thing happened in most/all democracies over a number of decades, so I don't think this page is the appropriate place for it. Remember Wikipedia is not about the US alone. --Lancevortex 11:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- So were other things I inserted phenomena which occurred in the U.S.: organized crime, the first commercial radio station in P'burg. You needn't remind me that Wikipedia is global. The notion that it is not noteworthy because it happened in the U.S. is ludicrous. So did a lot of events already noted on the page. The remedy is for people with information about significant developments elsewhere to make contributions -- not to delete contributions simply on the basis that they occurred in the U.S. If that were the case, much of this article would be nonexistent. Reverted, w/additional information. deeceevoice 15:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- I apologise for the patronising way I made my original comment, but I still disagree with you. If the US was the first country to have women's suffrage, then fair enough, it would be worthy of inclusion here. But it wasn't, and it means that in theory these decade articles will have hundreds (one for each democracy in the world) of entries for when each country got women's suffrage. Extrapolate this across all the other topics worthy of consideration and the pages will become unreadable masses of trivial information. They should just cover the most significant events that have made a major difference to the world. Of course, this means that certainly for the last couple of centuries, the US will have more entries than most countries, but in my opinion that doesn't mean that every event that happened in the US should be covered here.
-
- You completely misunderstand when you caricature my position as an event being "not noteworthy because it happened in the U.S." -- you make it sound like I think all references to the U.S. should be expunged from Wikipedia. My position is that an event is not noteworthy just because it happened in the U.S. --Lancevortex 10:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- Having just looked at your amendment to the entry, I think it is now a lot more satisfactory. Thanks. --Lancevortex 10:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I have a sugestion, most of this article only includes information about what happened in the US. Perhaps, instead of organizing this site around topic (most of which are from the US, and the ones that aren't are too vague) organize by country or region and anything that is redundant with other pages should be shortened and a link should be added to the appropriate page. For example, much is this article is redundant with the roaring twenties article. Instead of removing these parts of the article entirely, they should simply be shortened and then a link should be added to the roaring twentties article. This is what should be done with the section about women gaining the right to vote in the US.
It might improve this article to have some sort of connection to the decade in the description of the Big Bang picture. seventhtrilogy 16:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It is next to a section describing the first theory of an expanding universe and the picture describes the birth of an expanding universe and directly tells so in the caption. What more connection to the decade is needed? User:Dimadick
[edit] External links
i had removed this link http://www.tr20s.com/ because the music had nothing to do with that of the 20's yet they put it back. can we get an admin to prevent them from attemping this again.
[edit] 1920's in the United States
This article does very little to make it clear that in the USA (and partially in some other countries) the 1920's was the period of maximum respectability for "modern" or "scientific" racist views, which were rather widespread -- this was the period when Eugenics really began to gather steam, when the WW1 army intelligence test results received wide publicity, when the KKK achieved broad political influence in many areas (and not only in the former Confederate states, either), and when the rather openly-racist restrictions against immigration into the US were passed into law. See Nadir of American race relations and Franz Boas for some of this. AnonMoos 04:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree.
[edit] Crime During the 1920s
This article is missing a big element. I think organized crime was an extremely important element during the 1920s. (At least in the USA) 68.248.248.254 13:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Social issues of the 1920s
I'm trying to repair Social issues of the 1920s so that it provides a more specific insight to the issues about the 1920s. I was thinking of merging it with this article, but then I realized that this article seems to be more of a general account of various events and whatnot. Should they be merged?--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 01:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think that there should be separate articles. This article should have bullet points about social issues, and a link to the main article. Kevin 02:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What about reorganizing/breaking things down differently?
I think it would be great to have a "section" on each decade with a general overview of that decade, and then have "sub-sections" that could cover Social Issues, Politics, Entertainment, Sports and etc. Smaller "bites" of info that might be easier to navigate through, easier to find exactly what various people are looking for. -Annie Mouse
[edit] Missing Elements
In the section labeled "Events and Trends" the article doesn't talk about any trends at all, which I think is one part of the 1920's that a researcher would want to know about. I know for sure that I did. Also, I think the "Events and Trends" section could expand on the events, as it only lists political events.
It used to annoy me somewhat that this article seems to have been copied and pasted from other 1920's articles, but I guess the author had to have gotten his/her information somewhere... is that legal?Chavila 19:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Um...I think it should go under Social issues of the 1920s. What does anyone else think?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think it should go there, too... it seems to fit. Chavila 04:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] title
THis article should be more accurately titled 1920s in the United States of America
[edit] Lack of Information
This article does not include much information about the advertisement, entertainment (of television, radios, etc), and automobiles. Does not include Traditional and Modern America. Does not discuss about Revolution in Morals (Flapper, Permissive Attitudes), nor does it talk about the big discussion on Darwinism.
[edit] Big Bang Theory
What has this article got to do with the big bang theory? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notch (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
