Talk:Modern history/Archive 2

Article expansion
Expanded article. Still needs work. Asian information is missing largely and some other points probably need to be added. But a start.J. D. Redding 22:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Put most of the stuff in for the state of the world at the beginning of Modern History [globalized the article]. Probably still needs a few things in the rest of the article, such as items relating to more recent times. J. D. Redding 02:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Just to throw this out, if there is calls for splitting sections of this article off [and I do fear someone would bring this up] ... I would suggest the splitting off these sections [BUT keeping the core of the information].


 * 3.5 Western transformations
 * 3.10 European decline and the 20th century



I think that these could be worth articles unto themselves, but personally would like to keep them in this article. My endeavors to expand this article are done and moving the rest of the 'see also' into the main body of the article and touching up the information is mainly only left, JIMO. J. D. Redding 03:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC) (PS., Again I like to reiterate, I am against splitting the article up and do not suggest that all of the above section should be split off; just saying these could be likely candidates if such action is undertaken.)

Not that I wanted to, but it was just too unwieldy. Split off 3.1 Early Modern World to the early modern period but kept the essence here. J. D. Redding 00:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Did the same to the 'Contemporary era'; Mainly cause I think that that section would change most. It being by itself will also help keep the stability of this page. J. D. Redding 22:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

When does the period of Modern history start?
This is what brought me here, and must puzzle a lot of people. I now see that according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency in the UK, it starts circa 1550. See http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/component/option,com_studrec/task,show_file/Itemid,233/mnl,09051/href,JACS2.html/ So the Tudor suggestion seems misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.148.59 (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In the "Meiji Japan" section - "Shogun class"?!?
Saying "Shogun class" is as absurd as mentioning a "hereditary Chancellor, Head of government and Supreme Commander class" - it's an unique title, not a class... Furthermore, the position of Shogun was abolished following the Meiji restoration, in which the power was returned to the Emperor. I believe what the editor was referring to was the Samurai class, which were also abolished along with the Daimyo in the restoration's subsequent defeudalification). In view of this, I'll change the occurrences in the "Meiji Japan" section accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maegil (talk • contribs) 08:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Modern can be other type of dance. It is the same as conteperary. It is between jazz and modern and it is flowing and looks amazing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.93.184 (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bogus assertion
"Pre-Modern ideas are thought[weasel words] to have begun in the Dark Ages around 500 AD."

"Pre-modern ideas" ? What is this supposed to be mean. The whole point of the Dark Ages is that nobody had any ideas then. They were clueless! Any ideas which they did have, were leftovers from the classical period,  and those ideas certainly didn't "begin" around 500 AD.Eregli bob (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What is sorely needed is a source (any source, please!) on this matter. I have just finished noting a "small" discrepancy of 950 years concerning the alleged onset of this (pre-)era. As to the "dark ages", I was taught that this referred to the period from approximately the 6th century until whenever the darkness lifted (4:28 in the afternoon on 11 March 763, perhaps? A week or two later?). That is to say, a comic-book notion with no sound historical basis. Or about as much as the "Pre-modern Era", anyway.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dark Ages is a synonym for the middle ages, colloquially. --J. D. Redding 05:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I wonder why this article uses English periodization?
As I was told in school, Renaissance epoch started with invention of firearms in mid-15th century (about the fall of Constantinople) and lasted until the end of 17th century (and this is considered the late Middle Ages) after which Modern epoch started and lasted until the end of 19th century. I was thought in Russia and this is completely different from what is written here. And note please than in the late 18th century there was nothing special in the rest of Europe (other than in England where the industrial revolution started). So this article reflects only the periodization originated in one country.--MathFacts (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not what these state. Please list references to support your point. If not, the tag should be removed. J. D. Redding
 * Dunan, Marcel. Larousse Encyclopedia of Modern History, From 1500 to the Present Day. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.
 * "modern". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

Hatnote bloat
Please could something be done about the hatnote bloat on this page? I think the length of the hatnote entries detract from the article. For example, see the examples of improper use on WP:Hatnote.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See Manual of Style (summary style). J. D. Redding 10:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed Not to be confused with Modernism, as I don't see how someone wanting to know about Modernism would end up at this article. I moved the timelines to See also, which I think fits the intended purpose of See also sections... All those links about The Beatles, I Love Lucy and so on seem to be there more for the benefit of contributors (see the <!-- comment in that section) and should perhaps be moved to this talk page.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Not to be confused" could have been a 'relic' of the page? Good edit on editing it out ...
 * As to the "see also" items, they are listed in many books about modern history. "All those links about" things are pertinent to modern history and benefit the reader. J. D. Redding 10:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

worldwide view of the subject?
What examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject? I would like to know how to improve this article, can someone give me an example of an issue here? --J. D. Redding 05:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One presumes that statements such as this one from the lede are what the flagger had in mind: "The beginning of the modern era started approximately in the 16th century. Many major events caused the Western world to change around the turn of the 16th century." There is no mention of applicability to, say, Chinese history, Indian history, Polynesian history, etc. Of course, one might argue that the entire concept of an Ancient-Medieval-Modern division of history is inherently Eurocentric, and therefore any attempt to shoehorn the histories of China, India, or Polynesia into that framework is fundamentally flawed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And, if "flawed" is why the international hatnote tag is there, it should be removed. --J. D. Redding 07:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. There are established general dates from notable and honorable historians. There is "approximately in the 16th century". Events after this fit modern history. Simple. --J. D. Redding 07:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC) [PS., one has to move beyond Solipsism ... ]

... And, intrinsic to the English language, "modern" denotes (in reference to history) a period that is opposed to either ancient or medieval — modern history comprising the history of the world since the fall of the Roman empire, or since the close of the middle ages. This article here takes the later time, because of various reason. See "modern" in 'The Century dictionary: an encyclopedic lexicon of the English language' for example. --J. D. Redding 07:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles - Early, Late, Contemporary
Just a note. Modern history was wp-split (see reasons there) into Early Modern history (the early part of modern history), Late Modern history (covered here mostly), and Contemporary history (the last 50 years or so).

IF all three article were in one, it would be TOO big ... as it is, it's barely manageable. Just wanted to note this. --J. D. Redding 20:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)