Jump to content

Talk:18th century

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1710s?

[edit]

Where did the 1710s go? Meznaric (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

[edit]

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 them. I will be completing the 19th and 20th centuries shortly, in order to make the centuries consistent with each other. --[[User:TheGrza|TheGrza]] 02:50, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Romanticsm navigation panel

[edit]

I am removing the Romanticsm nav panel for the second time. Most of the links in the panel lead to articles relevant to the 19th century. - Brunnock 11:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Overview

[edit]

I see many problems with the overview:

  • The American Revolution isn't even mentioned.
  • The Nation-state article says that nation states originated in the 19th century.
  • The French Revolution was not a peasant revolt.
  • I'm not sure what is meant by the "power of theology", but the Church was threatened by the Reformation in the 16th century.
  • I don't understand the statement "The rise of nations like Austria, Russia, and Prussia began to shift the balance of power away from the west and create new competition in Europe other than France, England, and Spain.". England did not "lose power". The Spanish Armada was defeated in the 16th century. France went through a revolution and soon conquered most of Europe. Russia usurped territory from Sweden and the Ottoman Empire, not England, France or Spain.
  • The only notable European colony established during the 18th century that I can think of was in Sydney. Europe lost many colonies during this century.
  • China underwent a huge expansion in territory during the 18th century.

If no one can give a good reason for keeping it, then I'll probably just delete the overview.

--Brunnock 15:32, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Significant Persons

[edit]

Under Significant Persons, it says this: Qianlong Emperor, China

And I think there should be some description of his rank, if anyone knows what I mean. --Tummel 15:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His rank was: "Emperor". It is written there. Most people know what this means, and the rest can read the article.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilien Robespierre

[edit]

Edited out the 'and dictator' after 'Maximilien Robespierre.' He was one of twelve members of the semi-dictatorial Committee of Public Safety, never himself a dictator.--24.208.91.146 21:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)24.208.91.146[reply]

Lead Image

[edit]

Both the American Revolution and the French Revolution that followed it are important enought to be lead images. I prefer both...Modernist (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we are being too heavy on the end of the century (although, the end has some of the best artwork :) ). There were quite a few wars going on in England and Europe at the beginning of the century, as with the rest of the world. I would love to see more artwork. I can't really find a lot online, though. This is the 18th century, we shouldn't be afraid to add more. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my browser the page looks ugly with two lead images. Moreover most of WP articles has only one lead image. I vote for Bastilla only; "crossing of Delaware" is not such an event as "fall of Bastilla" at least outside US.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the American Revolutionary War had far-reaching ramifications far beyond the United States...Including having had an influence on the French...The American Revolution changed the balance of power in both the 18th and 19th centuries; clearly having an enormous impact on the 20th century and beyond. Washington Crossing the Delaware is a great painting in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art as well as a symbol of the Revolution of 1776. Larry Rivers an important Pop Artist made his own version of Washington Crossing The Delaware in the 1960s that is in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. I think Storming the Bastille symbolizes an important event at the end of the 18th century as well. Both revolutions have had far reaching ramifications in the world that followed. I have changed the order of the images, I think the design is better served with the smaller image on top...Modernist (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks still ugly. It creates a big white space on the left side of the page. Moreover while the American revolution is really important, very few people outside US connects a "crossing of Delaware" with it (see how many interwiki entries has the corresponding article Washington's crossing of the Delaware River - exactly zero, nobody knows it except Americans). And WP articles should try to avoid US-centrism (WP:BIAS). For me, the iconic event of American revolucion is the signature of the United States Declaration of Independence. But the fall of Bastilla is a much more interesting and well-known picture than both Washington on Delaware and the Declaration.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the formatting problem before but you reverted it. If you would be willing to accept the formatting change, then it wouldn't look that bad. Also, Washington Crossing the Delaware is infinitely more famous than the picture of Bastille, and worth far more. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is more famous in the US, not in other parts of the world. It almost unknown here in the Central Europe, while the picture of Bastilla is in every history book for school children. And regarding the worth: The historical and symbolic value of both pictures is enormous, the artistic value of both is rather low. No big differences here.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Europe. Not the world. What about South America? Africa? Asia? Australia? You are forgetting about 5/6ths of the world. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the interwiki. Storming of the Bastille - 17 versions, including some non-Western; Washington's crossing of the Delaware River - only the English version.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of a page does not make one unnotable, nor does inclusion of a page make one notable. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we are not talking about notability. Notability is clear in both cases. We are talking about how famous/known are the events outside of the countries in which they happened.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shrunk the pictures in order to preserve formatting. I recommend a section to be placed in to give a summary of the various "18th century" interpretations, i.e. long, short, etc. This should probably be titled "critical theory" or something similar. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable solution, the pictures look fine and the article is less crowded...Modernist (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR complaint is still open

[edit]

As of this moment, a complaint about this article at the 3RR noticeboard is still open. It's valuable that some discussion is now going on here, but two of the four edits of this article on June 20 were reverts, and admin action can't be ruled out. If anyone feels that protection, a 1RR or other restriction should be imposed to settle down this dispute, let us know at the 3RR noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that we are working together finally. Cross fingers. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually one of those reverts was me reverting my own edit..Hopefully and apparently there has been some progress here...Modernist (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western bias

[edit]

24 pictures, 22 from "the West" and a token 2 from China. Not very fairly representative... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.137.192.20 (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added two more. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added four names of important Japanese figures. There are more, just as there are more that are Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern, etc. to be added. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added more names from China, Japan, and the subcontinent. I hope that helps with any "western bias" that could be lodged against this page. However, there are probably more out there that should be added. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bias is inadvertant and not agenda driven..as far as my edits are concerned...and others, we welcome valuable additions worldwide..Modernist (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that there is a Western bias. Anyone with good knowledge of non-Western history should add more content. Meznaric (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long 18th century

[edit]

Apparently, there is a lot of scholarly interest in discussing the "long" 18th century. I have added one book to the term as an in-line citation. Here is a blog.[[1]] There could be much more about this term in this article, or maybe it is worthy of a separate article. I do not know enough about the subject, nor do I have the time to learn about it and write about it here. Perhaps some other editor can do so. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The long term plan from what I remember is to create a section devoted to the term. There are a lot of scholarly sources on the matter. If you want to put together, Google Books should have quite a bit available for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline by type of history?

[edit]

Maybe there should be section headings for developments/trends in political, economic, social, scientific history etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.95.217 (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barely any Africa Not worldview

[edit]

Did Africa exist in the 18th century? You would not know it from reading this.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 18th century. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven

[edit]

I keep trying to add Beethoven to the 'musicians, composers' section but it keeps being removed. Am I wrong in thinking that Beethoven wasn't born in 1770? 2A02:C7D:5A0E:5200:F138:33C4:A273:FE6F (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 18th century. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:18th_century&oldid=1216942734"