Talk:2nd millennium

notable persons table

I deleted a lot of people from the significant persons list. Like most lists this one was very heavily weighted in the more recent past, and very heavily weighted in western civilizations. I think the purpose of this page is to give a reader a broad overall view of the millennium while pointing them toward more specific things. To that end, I created a table that will help both readers and editors create a more balanced view of the millennium. I recommend limiting additions to ten persons per century and three persons per continent, but those are just guidelines subject to continually adjustment. I would also remind editors that longer lists can be added to the century pages. I’m working on a similar organization for the list of inventions, but I'm having trouble whittling down the subject areas. Geography doesn't seem like the right way to organize it, but there are too many subtopics at present. -ErinHowarth (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, many of the references are about one author's personal opinions on who was how influential. I think Wikipedia deserves better than that. IMO one should either delete all those references to Hart's questionable list, or create Wikipedia articles for alternative lists (some of them listed below), and add links from significant persons to those alternative lists, too. Otherwise the Wikipedia information on the 2nd millennium BC will reflect inappropriate bias towards one guy's personal opinions. Gimmemoretime (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A top 10 list at http://www.faqs.org/shareranks/1338,Most-Influential-People-of-All-Time : 1 Manu (Shanker Mishra), 2 Einstein, 3 Socrates, 4 Aristotle, 5 Plato, 6 Newton, 7 Lao Tzu, 8 Moses, 9 Darwin, 10 Franklin.

A Japanese top 10 list http://www.japanprobe.com/2007/04/01/historys-100-most-influencial-people-hero-edition-video/ : 1 Sakamoto Ryoma, 2 Napoleon I, 3 Oda Nobunaga, 4 Saigo Takamori, 5 Miyamoto no Yoshitsune, 6 Jean of Arc, 7 Hideyoshi Toyotomi, 8 Albert Einstein, 9 Yutaka Ozaki, 10 Akechi Mitsuhide.

A top 7 list http://www.rateitall.com/t-1283-most-influential-people-in-world-history.aspx : 1 Jesus Christ, 2 Muhammad, 3 Adolf Hitler, 4 Ronald Reagan, 5 Albert Einstein, 6 Buddha, 7 Johann Gutenberg.

LIFE magazine's top 10 list http://www.smccd.edu/accounts/goth/MainPages/100_most_important_people.pdf : 1 Edison, 2 Columbus, 3 Luther, 4 Galileo, 5 Leonardo, 6 Newton, 7 Magellan, 8 Pasteur, 9 Darwin, 10 Jefferson.

Several lists are topped by Gutenberg, e.g.: http://www.falls.igs.net/~dphillips/biography3.htm

Another top 10 list http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=173626 : 1 Mohammed, 2 Aristotle, 3 Tsai Lun, 4 Johann Gutenberg, 5 Jesus of Nazareth, 6 Paul of Tarsus, 7 Shih Huang Ti, 8 Louis Pasteur, 9 Plato, 10 Siddhartha Guatama.

Yet another list found on the web: 1 Mitochondria Eve, 2 Jesus, 3 Mohammed, 4 Columbus, 5 Confucius, 6 Darwin, 7 Sun Yat-sen, 8 Karl Marx, 9 Buddha, 10 Rousseau.

Some of the numerous additional lists of this kind:

http://www.the-top-tens.com/lists/most-influential-person-of-all-time.asp

http://www.worldtop.org/Culture/People/Most+influential+people+ever/

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_are_the_25_most_important_people_in_history

http://www.historum.com/showthread.php?t=2971

Gimmemoretime (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Queen Victoria not a significant person from the 19th century, a large chunk of it is called the Victorian age in quite a lot of places. 86.182.156.86 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm shocked that there's no mention of the most famous and influential person ever: Napoleon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.113.131 (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Best millennium?

Which is the best millennium? I think most people would agree that it was the 2nd millennium. It had much more better things than the 3rd millennium which hardly has anything when you look at it, or the 1st millennium which was a good start but also sparse. I think the article makes this clear, but maybe should spell it out so people understand it? I would be happy to write some point about this if people want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.255.177 (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Like its 1999

It is commonly believed that the Second Millennium ended in 1999. There were many celebrations at the end of 1999 to welcome in the New Millennium, but the Julian calendar does not work that way. The Second Millennium actually ended in 2000. I will try to explain why. The First Millennium started in the Year 1, in order to 1000 years long, It ended in the Year 1000 (not 999). Likewise, the Second Millennium started in the Year 1001. In order to be 1000 years long, it ends in the 2000, not 1999. -User:ErinHowarth|ErinHowarth (User talk:ErinHowarth|talk) 02:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The people who were celebrating were wrong.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The decimal system works on 0-9. No Year 1 has been recorded. 24 Hour clock starts at 0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.198.255.3 (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

¿Que? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I will repeat what I have been saying about all of the other millennium and century articles on wikipedia: Just because there was no year 0 according to the Gregorian Calendar doesn't make 1000 a part of the 1st millennium, nor 2000 a part of the 2nd millennium. Look at the numbers in front. We really need to change these century and millennium articles to reflect the fact that they do begin with a year 0. That is just fact, and I have talked to administrators of wikipedia who agree. Bjoh249 (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Please name one of these administrators. However, even if you were correct, consensus at the relevant WikiProjects is clearly against you, and this being a change which would affect multiple articles, WikiProject consensus is more relevant than consensus at any individual article (which is also running against you). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not inventions

I've removed the following items from the inventions and discoveries table. Strikethrough text indicates items that have been worked into other sections.
Society

• Middle English Bible translations (1380) added 12/10/08
• Timeline of Christian missions|Christian missions (to Americas, Africa, East Indies etc.)
• Atlantic slave trade (16th, 17th,18th &19th centuries) added 12/09/08
• Capitalism (1776) added 12/09/08
• Socialism (1848) added 12/09/08
• Universal suffrage (c. 1910)
• History of Parliamentarism (1707)
• European colonization of the Americas (1492) added 12/09/08

-ErinHowarth (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The title of the section is "Inventions, discoveries, introductions", i.e. the section is not only meant for inventions, but also for something new introduced. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Granted. Maybe what I was trying to do is limit this section to more tangible items. Bibles are a tangible items, but the slave trade, suffrage and parliamentarism seemed to me more like events to me, but that's just me. -ErinHowarth (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel Kamakawiwo'ole

I love Israel. I really do. However, does he really deserve inclusion on this list? 68.80.37.35 (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not. I created the table and structured it in order to even-out the scope of the list. I divided the world into five regions (based on the Olympic flag). This approach may be fundamentally flawed, but the previous list was sooo long as to render the reader (me) completely overwhelmed, and it was horrifically western-centric, with more than 90% of the names coming from Europe or America. At the same time, I'm no expert on the Pacific Islands, and as far as I know, there may be more than a dozen peple more influencial than Israel from the area of Oceania. Please feel free to make whatever edits you like. I would prefer to see Israel pushed off the list rather than simply deleted from the list, that is, I would rather see his name replaced with the names of more influencial people rather than just have him removed with no additions made. -ErinHowarth (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

>>That makes sense. He is of course one of the most important and/or influential people of the millennium. This is sarcasm. The list should not be culture or region centric, but it should also have valid entries (even if better entries are few). And the list needs to be filtered more for the 20th Century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.71.58 (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note

I edited the first paragraph to fix several typos.

Bach

'1722 - Bach divided the scale into 12 equal semitones'.

Bach did not 'divide' the musical scale into 12 equal semitones, he wrote 24 pieces emphasising the benefits of this. It had been realised previously, with similar collections of pieces already published. Whilst Bach's was by far the most influential; it is erroneous to state that he divided the scale. 86.132.132.186 (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

1535 - Europeans discover tobacco

The article has the European discovery of tobacco occurring in 1535. This cited properly and taken from a Life Magazine article, which the article relies on for many of it's events (50+ links to this citation). This conflicts with the information in the History of tobacco article however, see especially this section and this one. I will try and look into this more closely this week, but for now I am gonna slap a dubious tag on it pointing here. Winston365 (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

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!

• http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/africa/AD600-1500
  • In 1st millennium on 2011-05-25 06:54:43, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 1st millennium on 2011-06-10 04:35:32, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2nd millennium on 2011-06-19 06:23:04, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Can someone fix it, please. GuzzyG (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Civilizations Section

Wait, how come American society is not included on this list? I don't mind if it's not included, but there just doesn't seem to be any explanation for why each society is (or isn't) included on the list. Maybe someone could add that explanation? -- 66.92.0.62 (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking all of the USA, Mexico and Brazil should probably be on the list (as they have been the large empires in the region post-colonialism). I'll think about it some more but then I think I'm just going to go ahead and add them, unless someone disagrees. 83.233.111.34 (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ludwig van Beethoven was the most famous composer.

Those blockers don't know anything. Beethoven is really the #1 famous composer. By User: George B. Washington 8:17 (2013-5-2) Mozart is the 2nd most famous composer. Beethoven is more famous. That's why I undo your's. Those blockers doesn't understand because thet didn't read. —Preceding undated comment added 12:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Marx?

No Karl Marx in the list of significant people for the 19th century? Whatever one might think of his ideas, surely his influence has been tremendous… Aridd (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Significant people: Three events limit per category?

In the source it says that we should try to limit the number of events to three. Is there an etablished consensus on this? My personal opinion is that while this might be helpful in making sure the western world isn't over-represented, it would probably be better to have some kind of soft guideline.

The reason I'm asking is because I noticed that the Russian Revolution (1917) is in the Asia category, but according to the UN geoscheme that the article claims to follow, Russia is in Europe. I was going to change it, but saw the comment in the source. 83.233.111.34 (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A number of people have been ignoring the limits in a number of categories. It is tempting to revert to the status a year ago when the limits were observed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I see I missed a number of "people" categories which have 6 or more with "limit three" comments. Isn't anyone watching this article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of people listed who do not seem to belong among the top few notable people in their continent over an entire century. But it will be very hard to reach consensus over a list of only three. We would need more specific guidelines. Gap9551 (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is always changed. Vandals add they favourite persons whenever they want. Something needs to be done.--2.96.182.156 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to trim the table back to the 3 names per region limit. --Khajidha (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Several people have recently brought up this issue. In addition there is the first section on this page, that strives for objectivity by looking at lists of notable people published by presumed reliable sources. That would be step in the right direction (at least we could avoid people who don't appear on any of these lists). I think a strict limit (e.g., of three) is a good thing to keep thing in control, despite such a constraint being tougher on the higher populated regions. I propose a further constraint: having at most one person in each cell per broad category/profession (examples of categories could be: politician/king, scientist/inventor, explorer, religious figure, writer/artist, etc). Gap9551 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for the limit. There's no justification for it; just a comment that appears in the source. It seems to me that a short limit demands a definition or criteria for determining the most notable people; a lot can happen in a decade, and among many disciplines. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"significant people per millennium" was never a sustainable approach. This article should focus on summarizing grand historical trends rather than playing "pick three persons/events per continent". The proper approach to an article like this is radical WP:SS. --dab (𒁳) 11:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Colour

That first image is all white men; I'd change that but I don't understand how it's put together. Can anyone help? Gob Lofa (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll just get rid of it. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1st millennium which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2nd millennium. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151218012125/http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/lists/mostrecent.htm to http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/lists/mostrecent.htm

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) 15:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Mistake

Tenochtitlan founded in 1325, not 1315. It's even the year in the note that attached. Theshumai (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Distracting parenthetical

Current version:

Doubling time was at first seven centuries (reaching 600 million in 1700), and during the final three centuries population growth accelerated extremely, growth rate peaking at 1.8% p.a. in the second half of the 20th century.

As modified for my own notes:

World population has grown without precedent over the millennium, from 310 million in AD 1000 to about 6,000 million in AD 2000.

Doubling time was at first seven centuries, with world population reaching 600 million in 1700.

During the final three centuries population growth accelerated extremely, growth rate peaking at 1.8% p.a. in the second half of the 20th century.

My notes tend to be sentence based (better for rapid review) rather than paragraph based (better for bulk intake).

FWIW. — MaxEnt 02:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Image

How appropriate is it to have 10 images to represent 10 centuries of history? Not to mention the fact that, these images are very Eurocentric (with at least 3 of the images being related to America). I propose to delete the image because it's impossible to objectively summarize 10 centuries in a few pictures as the importance of the events depicted in these images vary vastly between different cultures and countries. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 08:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the image as no one's voiced any objection. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 09:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@District9123: Hi, would you mind explaining why you restored the image? Cheers. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 17:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Golden:, hello, I reverted the image removal due to there not being a large consensus on removing it, and the image in question does a good enough job, I feel, of providing an interesting visual aid to readers of the article. Though seeing now your point about the image being too Euro/Western-centric, I wonder if others would be in favor of replacing or editing the image to have it include more major events from non-Western parts of the world during that millennium? If so, I wouldn't oppose removing or replacing it. District9123 (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the montage should be altered to include more regions of the world over a larger span of time than is currently shown. Also, the links from the images and the description sentences below the montage need some fixes. Suggestions I will place here include:

-Replacing Napoleon's image with a different conqueror, preferably Genghis Khan (this will give Asia more representation, plus he created the largest contiguous land empire in history, more impressive than Napoleon territory-wise).

-Replace either the Islamic conquest of Constantinople and/or the lightbulb image with something on the Islamic Golden Age (again, gives Asia and/or Africa inclusion) or even Mansa Musa and the Malian Empire (inclusion for the latter). Also, one of those two images, or alternatively the Alexander Graham Bell with telephone image, can be replaced with Gandhi, to highlight decolonization and resistance to imperialism, plus give Asia inclusion again.

-Change the link from the Columbus image so it goes to the European colonization of the Americas page, and make sure the description sentence notes the significance of the European rediscovery of the Americas and subsequent events.

-The American Revolution image can be kept or replaced with a French Revolution image. In either case, the link should be to the Atlantic Revolutions page, and the sentence description for the image should be on the broader context of Enlightenment-inspired revolutions.

-The description sentence for the airplane needs to be reworded. "aeroplanes become the most-used way of transport through the skies" is dumb wording, because traveling through the skies was not practical before the airplane (hot air balloons hardly count). It would be better to note the first flight and the proliferation of aircraft since then.

The above is not exhaustive regarding possible changes, though I think the moon landing, Gutenberg Bible, and the Black Death should be kept. It would take time for me to figure out how to execute some of the changes with the montage, though if no one else attempts it I will try eventually. The description sentences and links might be easier to fix. AMBtheMarylander2102 (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Salmankhan

Salmankhan 2405:205:120A:17F3:30F9:92BF:773F:CDDE (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Collages

It appears an RFC on collages on Wikiproject years will be interpreted to also ban collages in millenia articles. Users here may wish to participate. Koopinator (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)