Talk:19th century

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bold text

19th century was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on December 12, 2005.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated NA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

The use of the past and present tense on this page is inconsistent but I am not sure which should be used? BozMo(talk)

Why are there separate sections for "Significant People" and "Important Figures"?

What is the criteria to define who qualifies as "significant prople" ? For example, is Gladstone less "significant" than Disraeli ? Certainly not. Yet, the latter was included in your list while the former was not. Moreover, maybe because this is after all the "English Wikipedia", your list of "significant people" is too anglocentric.

Contents

[edit] Unifications?

This statement can't be correct: "1870-71: The Franco-Prussian War results in the unifications of Germany and Italy,..." First of all WHY should the Franco-Prussian war result in the unification of Italy? And secoundly, Italy was united in 1861, so ten years before the Franco-Prussian war. These two unifications belong to the most important events, it has to be changed! Gott 17:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Gott

[edit] Changes

Until the 16th century, starting from the beginning of Wikipedian time, there is no section about the "Five overall largest mass killings". It's removal is for several reasons. First of all, there is a specific format for all these year and century pages, which this violates. Secondly, it is a stupid concept that sounds like it was written by some sort of man-ape who stole a real human's keyboard and had a slight knowledge of the English language. Thirdly, the page it links to confesses that there is no amount of truth in these wild estimates. It is also a pretty amateurish page to begin with. So. I deleted it and I hope that whoever keeps reediting in mistakes will leave it alone this time. Also, the separation of “Artists,” “Scientists,” and “Infamous people” was so wholly unneeded and inaccurate that I removed it and placed them in alphabetical order. If you feel the need to change this, please do so all the way back and try not to have three or four completely different centurial templates because you know more about these specific centuries. --[[User:TheGrza|TheGrza]] 08:42, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)..


I don't know if this is directly related to this article or not, but a large number of the articles in the "18XX in the United States" series are blank. I just wanted to point this out because all of the other articles for different countries in those years are completed. Again, my apologies if I am posting this in the wrong placeKs7 (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Events

If there is no objection, I would like to revamp the events section so it resembles the events sections of the 17th and 18th centuries- chronological order with a "date:description" format. --Brunnock 15:26, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted 3 items from previous versions as they appear to me to be sound. PatGallacher 20:44, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

The three items you replaced aren't events and they don't link to anything on Wikipedia. Can you put them in a "Date:Description" format? Or at least link to other articles? Otherwise, they're just taking up space. --Brunnock 20:53, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relativity and Quantum Physics

I am deleting the following line from the overview again-

These beliefs were soon dashed by 20th century developments such as relativity and quantum physics, and by the wars and genocides of that century.

If you are going to add this line to the overview again, I would be appreciative if you could explain why you feel that an overview of the 19th century should contain links to relativity and quantum physics? --Brunnock 12:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who added that line in the first place, but I see your point on it... perhaps it does belong in the overview for the 20th century, which I think doesn't mention those developments at present. *Dan* 16:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overview

I would like to delete the overview for 3 reasons: 1.) It's not included in the standard layout; 2.) It's badly written (It was a century of widespread invention and discovery...heavily affected by science and technology?); and 3.) I don't think it's possible to summarize a century in just a few paragraphs. --Brunnock 11:57, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Like you, I think that the overview as it was was inappropriate. However, I think you need to go and look at 18th century and 20th century: both of those have an overview section that add considerably to the impact of the article. Their usage strikes me as redefining the standards, rather than allowing the standards to be prescriptive. I think in this case, we should leave the Overview to grow organically (and indicate that the 20th century article would act as a good template). Can I ask you to reconsider your action? Noisy | Talk 17:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Again, here is the link to the standard layout. At the top of the page, it states:

The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these rules. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.

If you want to change the layout, there's a process in place. --Brunnock 17:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A question on importance

"The religious revival of the Second Great Awakening in the eastern United States and Canada gave rise to unique, American, Christian religions during the era of Restorationism."

Does this really merit a mention in the century overview? It's hardly one of the defining events of the nineteenth century and furthermore is relevant only in parts of two countries. Even today the US has less than 5% of the world's population, in the 19th century it was an even smaller portion. Canada represents a negligible portion of the world population. If the overview is to cover topics of such insignificance evenly then it would have to be inordinately long. I would recommend this is removed as insignificant and uneven coverage.

You want to argue that the rise of conservative Christianity in America hasn't had much effect on the rest of the world? In any case, I would recommend deleting the entire overview. No one can write an overview that will satisfy everyone. --Brunnock 11:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration of the week

How exactly is this supposed to work? Do we just add more links to other events, or does the page on the 19th century need some text of its own? --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 02:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It needs its own text. As few "lists of links" as possible. The best thing to do would be to find some references that summarize the 19th century, see what sort of section headers they use, and mimic those. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-12 03:01
    • I think you need to update the standard layout for century articles first. --Brunnock 02:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Should we try and emulate the format of 20th century? Overview -> Important Developments -> Significant People -> Decades and years. ? Gflores Talk 03:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I think that would be a good starting place, although the Overview section should probably be larger, and have some subsections for broad, largescale changes happening in the world. — 0918BRIAN • FB WAS HERE?2005-12-12 03:43
      • I don't think that this article could ever be a featured article if the current standard format is followed. So, the first issue is: A) ignore the standard format and just write a good article OR B) first change the standard format. BTW, an earlier version of this article has an overview section that could be salvaged as a starting point for the text. ike9898 15:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'm still confused. Should this page be like 20th century/The 20th century in review (I'm not sure what the difference b/w those two is)? If so, then should all those date-event pairs go on a separate article (timeline 1800-1899)?

[edit] Links

A few links I found that may be helpful. [1] and [2]. Gflores Talk 05:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CNN's timeline

Here is a very short timeline of important events according to CNN. Obviously, it's skewed toward western events, particularly inventions, but it's a source:

1804: Haiti's independence (also mentions the anti-slavery uprising that led to the creation of Liberia)
1815: Napoleon's Battle of Waterloo
1816: Shaka's rise to power
1825: Simón Bolívar's uprising in South America
1839: Charles Goodyear's discovery of vulcanization for rubber, and the invention of refrigeration around the same time.
1844: Invention of the telegraph
1848: The Revolutions of 1848
1851: Isaac Merrit Singer's sewing machine (also mentions: Elisha Graves Otis's passenger elevator, Henry Bessemer's steel manufacturing, and Edwin Drake's oil well)
1861-65: American Civil War
1869: The Suez Canal
1878: Thomas Edison's light bulb
1882: Robert Koch's work finding causes of diseases

— 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-12 04:03

[edit] Wars

Why is there a list of wars? There's already a list at List of wars 1800–1899. By segregating the events like that, entries such as 1870-71: Unifications of Germany and Italy now make no sense. --Brunnock 12:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Zionism

Should it be mentioned?

The Dreyfus Affair occured late in this century. It inspired Theodor Herzl to write Der Judenstaat ("The Jewish State", 1896) and to found the modern Zionist movement which later in the next century resulted in the State of Israel and a conflict which remains a major issue in world politics today. - Pyro19 19:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There were many incidents which encouraged Jews to create a sovereign state. --Brunnock 21:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but the founding of the modern Zionist movement was particularily important. It led to everything afterwards. Herzle was unaware of the proto-Zionists. - Pyro19 23:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you talking about the Dreyfus affair or Zionism? --Brunnock 00:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Just a brief mention under Europe or something that the Dreyfus affair inspired the modern zionist movement. Something along those lines. - Pyro19 04:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The Dreyfus affair article states that it was not the chief reason Herzl's turn to Zionism. I think that calling attention to the Dreyfus affair detracts from more heinous instances of antisemitism. --Brunnock 11:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't mean to use the Dreyfus affair as an example of antisemitism but more as an event that inspired the Zionist movement. I didn't realize it was a myth, I have a book that says otherwise, but I'll take that articles word for it for now. The publication of Der Judenstaat in 1896 and the founding of modern Zionist movement is still a very important event.--Pyro19 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inventions

There's already link to the appropriate section of the Timeline of invention. It's not necessary to rehash that list here. --Brunnock 03:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I added the inventions before I found the Timeline page and added the link. If any inventions are going to be listed (and you've left behind electromagnetism which was neither invented nor discovered (lodestones anyone) -- the concept was -- in the 19th c.), the invention of radio transmission/reception is a major invention (first broadcast medium). Certainly more important than friggin postage stamps (and I collect). Apart from POV and national origin ... Tesla, Hertz, Marconi ... David Hughes demonstrated transmission/reception to Sir William Crookes in 1879. Just the facts, ma'am. Twang 23:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removals

Some sentences were removed in the last edits. Could the information be rewritten rather than being removed? -- Astrokey44|talk 13:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC) :

The first four statements are better covered in the list of events. The last is nonsensical. --Brunnock 15:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with that philosophy, and with willy-nilly slashing of other people's contributions. Which is why I seldom collaborate. This is supposed to be a polished article. LISTS are easy, text which elucidates and informs is not. The article is still mostly lists. Text that adds new conceptual groups shouldn't be removed, but polished and expanded. You're going the wrong way. Twang 23:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I am not going the wrong way. I've been editing this article for months. Before I make a major change, I post a message here and seek feedback. I've also been sticking to the standard layout for century articles. You've been doing neither. --Brunnock 23:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
It would be better to expand the lists at the bottom into text (science, music, literature etc.) though there should still be the timeline in a list. Since its the collaboration of the week, theres going to be some contributions which may not fit in with the century article format, it would be better to keep and change if necessary, rather than remove. -- Astrokey44|talk 02:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Those lists at the bottom that your referring to are under the heading "Significant people" and now you want to add nonbiographical information. That doesn't make a lot of sense.
If you want to change the layout for century articles, then visit Wikipedia:Timeline standards and participate in the discussion. --Brunnock 02:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The article on Maxwell's Treatise does not do it justice; I think it definitely qualifies as a significant enough event. It became the basis of a quarter century of physics that culminated in the birth of modern physics, and was emblematic of the developments that informed the rapidly developing electrical technology. I would say it is second most significant single scientific publication of the century, aside from Origin of Species. I'm going to add it back. If you still don't think it's significant, remove it again and I'll let it go unless there is significant support.--ragesoss 15:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Maxwell published his equations in 1864 (see Maxwell's equations). Therefore, the publishing of his textbook in 1873 was more of a formality than a watershed moment like Origin of Species. --Brunnock 15:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but the textbook was extremely influential and was the starting point for a lot of the subsequent developments. I stand by my estimation of it's importance. However, removing it and adding in the 1864 event would be acceptable.--ragesoss 16:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Americas

I've substantially updated the paragraph on the Americas, which was wholly centered on events in the United States. I've tried to keep it brief and relevant; someone might want to expand a little upon the events in Latin America. --DSYoungEsq 19:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You didn't mention Reconstruction or the industrial trusts. Also, what do you mean when you say instability was resulting in interference in the internal affairs of many Latin American countries by the United States? --Brunnock 21:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The general instability of Latin American countries during the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries enabled the the US to pursue the "Roosevelt Corallary" to the Monroe Doctrine. This concept of the American "Policeman" enforcing peace and protecting American interests (usually corporate ones) was admittedly an American version of tactics the British had used regularly during the latter Nineteenth Century, but America took it to new hights with the instigation of the Panamanian revolt, as well as incursions by United States Marines in various Central American and Carribean countries. Perhaps the statement should be modified to note that the British were engaged in the behaviour first; American interference admittedly only started at the very end of the Century (though it was part and parcel to the period of the expanded century referenced in the first paragraph of the article we are working on. --DSYoungEsq 03:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Roosevelt became president in the 20th century. --Brunnock 11:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
So what? The actual interference began in 1895 or so, and was the direct result of what went on during the late Nineteenth Century. Did you even read what I posted before you responded?

I've returned the sentence to what it was before, and have modified it to add that the US was following a practice of Great Britain. Do NOT revert it without doing some further discussion, please. --DSYoungEsq 20:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought I was discussing it. Could you please tell us how the US interfered with South American governments during the 19th century? The examples that you have given so far occurred in the 20th century. The Spanish-American War is not a valid example since that didn't involve any South American nations. --Brunnock 21:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

1) There is much too much space spent on Texas, 2) the chronology of the whole Americas section is messed up, and 3) there is no mention of the Gilded Age, although that is a very common term among historians for the last quarter of the century in the US and should definitely be mentioned. I've trimmed the Texas paragraph some, but it is probably still too long for this article. User:Ragesoss December 18 2005

What's wrong with the chronology of events? It covers the century in a coherent manner. Do those opening paragraphs serve a purpose? --Brunnock 09:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Not the chronology of events, the (non-)chronological order of the content in the Americas section.--ragesoss 12:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
My question is, do you need those sections on "Europe", "Americas", and "Other Regions". It seems that they're just a rehash of the events already listed in the Events section. --Brunnock 12:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess they aren't really necessary; I didn't come up with them, I was just trying to make them work. But I think if they were done well they could provide some background about the general cultural changes of the century that isn't conveyed through the chronology. But I agree, as they are now, they don't add anything to the article.--ragesoss 14:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I wrote a short intro at Talk:19th century#The new introduction and am seeking comments. --Brunnock 14:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The new introduction

Europe was relatively peaceful during this century. See Pax Britannica.

What "republican firestorm"? Napoleon ended the first French republic when he crowned himself Emperor in 1804. He even ended the Republic of Venice (back in 1797).

The United States grew slowly?

--Brunnock 11:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


I am thinking of replacing the intro with the following:

During this century, the Spanish, Portuguese, and Ottoman Empires began to crumble and the Holy Roman and Mughal Empires disappeared.
Following the Napoleonic Wars, the British Empire became the world's first hyperpower controlling one quarter of the World's population and one third of the land area. It enforced a Pax Britannica, encouraged trade, and battled rampant piracy. To this day, English is the World's most widely spoken language.
Great strides were made in banning slavery around the World. Following a successful slave revolt in Haiti, Britain banned slavery throughout its domain and charged its navy with ending the global slave trade. Slavery was then abolished in Russia, America, and Brazil.
Electricity, steel, and petroleum fueled a Second Industrial Revolution which enabled Germany, Japan, and the US to become Great Powers that raced to create empires of their own. However, Russia and Qing Dynasty China failed to keep pace with the other world powers which led to massive social unrest in both empires.

Comments? --Brunnock 22:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe 'declined' rather than 'crumbled' for the empires - they were still around, crumbled implies that they collapsed. Probably shouldnt use "superpower" word since that probably wasnt used at the time - its probably true that Britain was, but superpower usually has only been used for USA and former USSR -- Astrokey44|talk 22:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The Spanish, Portuguese and Ottoman empires had been in decline for awhile prior to the 19th century. During the 19th, they started losing territory. You need to use a term besides 'declined' to indicate that.
Many historians refer to the British Empire as the first superpower. See Superpower#United_Kingdom. --Brunnock 23:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, hyperpower would be the correct term. --Brunnock 00:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe 'started to crumble' would be better. The only thing in that section about 'superpower' was where it mentioned the United States. -- Astrokey44|talk 02:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Made some changes to the text. --Brunnock 13:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a good start; I think you should go ahead and put it in, and we can work with it from there. The comment about English is a little disconnected from the Pax Britannica if you don't already know what the article is talking about. And the "great strides" thing about slavery seems a little off, tone-wise. I'm not saying it isn't right, but there are more neutral ways to say that slavery was reduced. Also, the first industrial revolution (if we really even want to use those categorizations) was still going on for the first quarter of the 19th century, so that should figure in as well. Also, one sentence on intellectual history might be appropriate: basically the overall impact of Marx, Nietzche, Kant, Darwin, higher criticism. (That list seems a little German-centric, but those are the things that come up over and over again when historians try to explain the cultural changes up to the end of the 19th century, from my limited experience).--ragesoss 15:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The first Industrial Revolution started in the 18th century and was well under way by the 19th.
Slavery was eliminated throughout most of the world during the 19th. --Brunnock 15:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Both of those sentences are good. I endorse adding the first and replacing the other slavery comment with the second.--ragesoss 15:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The extended discussion of slavery abolishment should also mention the US (and probably the Civil War as well) after Russia and the others.
One more thing. I happen to agree with the quote on Maxwell in the Science section (even if that quote probably shouldn't be there). I will try to come up with one sentence for the intro on the overall development of the physical sciences that incorporates Maxwell.--ragesoss 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd be reluctant to do that. If you start with one scientist, then it could snowball. Someone else will add Dalton and chemistry, and someone else will add Darwin and evolution, and the mathematicians will want to add Galois or Cantor or Hilbert. --Brunnock 16:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, there should at least be a sentence on science and intellectual history, even if no scientists are mentioned by name. --ragesoss 16:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
To me, the big intellectual revolution was Germany's research universities. I can't find any articles about them, though. --Brunnock 17:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Found an article about 19th-century philosophy, though. --Brunnock 17:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Even the article on Education (the same as History of education) doesn't mention the rise of research universities! That's a pretty big hole, you're right. The philosophy article should definitely be linked somehow. --ragesoss 17:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I added an entry for the University of Berlin. Considering their alumni, it goes a long way to explaining the intellectual revolution. --Brunnock 15:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The article is getting big

This article is currently 31KB. We should start thinking about removing text.

I would suggest removing the sections labelled "Europe", "Americas", and "Other regions". They're not very well written and they're not part of the standard layout for century articles. --Brunnock 16:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't find the size a problem per se, but I support the removal of those sections. --ragesoss 16:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I dont think they should be removed. It's good to have some text to note some of the significant events, rather than just lists. -- Astrokey44|talk 04:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
In what cases is it be better to note an event in a narrative rather than a chronology? --Brunnock 13:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I finally deleted the sections in question. No one gave an adequate defense and no one improved the sections. --Sean Brunnock 23:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Common era" System of Numbering

I propose that we rid of the statement "(using the Common era system of numbering)" which is at the top of this article. The 19th century is from 1801 to 1900, not 1800 to 1900 contrary to popular belief. This is because Jesus was born in 1 AD and therefore the centuries are counted from 1, not 1 BC. Also, there is no year 0. I think this should be credited as the Anno Domini system of numbering because that is the original, and the "Common era" garbage is just a non-religious euphemism, not an actual replacement. If you don't want to reference anno Domini for some reason, then I think we should remove the entire "system of numbering" reference. If all agree, I will make the changes myself. Post opinions here. 24.222.79.90 20:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

There are dozens of century articles. Post your proposal on Wikipedia:Timeline standards. --Brunnock 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion either way, but this was the only century article that had that statement, as far as I can tell (and I don't think it was removed en mass recently from all of them). They aren't entirely consistent, but the common era parenthetical is/was unique to this one. I think adding it back, and adding it to the others, would warrant the proposal, rather than the deletion.--ragesoss 01:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The article, IMHO, should be rewritten completely

The article should be a description of 19th century, not merely timeline of events and list of names of significant people (which should be moved to separate articles) . Main things which happened are more or less (probably I missed a lot):

  • Sciences
    • electromagnetic theory (Maxwell, Ohm etc.) which was considered useless when it was discovered, but later caused second industrial revolution
    • planetary model of atom; electrons
    • genetics (Mendel, Weismann)
    • evolution (Darwin)
    • Mendeleev table
    • Non-Euclidean geometry
    • Geographic discoveries
  • Technique
    • Bicycles
    • Trains and trams
    • Cars
    • Electricity
    • Water closets
    • Industrial revolution
    • First attempt to build a computer
  • Medicine
    • Aseptics and antiseptics
    • Microscope
    • Bacteries found
      • Tuberculosis and pneumonia found to be infectious diseases
    • Anesthesia
    • Cocaine and heroine
    • Prejudices of XIX century medicine (i. e. that masturbation causes blindness and mental insanity)
    • First hypotheses about viruses
    • A hypothesis that penicillum produces a substance which kills bacteria
  • Politics
    • Abolition of serfdom in Russia
    • Abolition of slavery in USA at the same time
    • Raise of communism (Marx, Lenin etc.)
    • Raise of political terrorism in Russia
    • Zionism
    • New countries: Germany, Greece, Italy, etc.
    • Democratic changes in many countries
    • Feminism: females get more rights; number of working females increase significantly; raise of feminist ideology
  • Wars
    • Civil war in USA
    • European wars
    • Wars between Russia and Turkia
  • Arts
    • Raise of the great Russian literature (Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, ...)
    • Raise of science fiction as a genre (Jules Verne, H. G. Wells ...)
    • Visual arts...
    • Cinematography


This should, more or less, be the main structure of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urod (talk • contribs) 06:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Although this post is more than a year old, the article has made almost no progress since then. I'm currently hoping to significantly improve the already good 20th century article with some help; maybe I (or ideally "we") could get around to start improving this article, which is basically just a giant list that gives absolutely no adequate overview of the century and its impact on the 20th century and is almost a pain to read. I'm not nearly as versed in 19th century history as I am 20th century history, but perhaps I could help. Prose and overviews are what I'm best at. bob rulz (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)