Talk:Roaring Twenties

Discussions

I started different topics. I'm sure I'm leaving stuff out. Also, where should the womens first election to vote, and the suffering of the Agriculture industry go? 12.220.47.145 03:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It's late where I live, so I need to stop. But the Red Scare, and Morality of the Roaring Twenties should be adde in. Thx. Falphin 03:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Hopefully I will be able to add some of these when I get back tongight. We also need to add a section about Immigrant life during the Roaring Twenties if info can be found on that and African American life during the Roaring Twenties. Falphin 13:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It would also be nice to have a section title "Symbols of the Roaring Twenties". Falphin 01:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Umm, could you PLEASE paste the sites that you used for this research because I'm doing a project on the 20s and 30s in Canada.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.27.210 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Returning Soldiers

I'm going somewhere with this... It's a start. Maybe someone can help tie it in. It's late here too.

Also, I know that Prohibition was a part of the culture, but it was also part of the cause too... Needs to be moved back up. Maybe split into three parts: Prohibition (in Causes), Speakeasies (in Culture), and 21th Amendment (under Stock Market Crash, or End of the Twenties) ℬastique▼^talk 04:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• I agree Falphin 13:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Introduction & Sections

I thank you all for initiating the discussion. I feel the article should have a small beginning of few sentences, encapsulating the time and spirit of Roaring Twenties. I will try to do that and all are invited to re-edit the same as may be required. I will also try to rearrange and rephrase the sections/sub-sections, but that will be done very slowly. I will try to expand certain sections. Let us come closer to create a really remarkable article.--Bhadani 14:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• • I have placed few introductory words/also updated this article's area in the Community portal. I shall continue to add further edits to the article during the week. --Bhadani 16:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Should the

Kellog-Briand pact and Washington Naval treaties be included on this page?. Falphin 13:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We should remember that this is not the 1920s or the History of the United States (1918-1945) article. My understanding of the Roaring Twenties is that it was mainly a cultural and economic notion, not really a political one. There wasn't much Jazz Age about Calvin Coolidge. I thus feel we should keep the politics content to minimum. - SimonP 13:54, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Your right. Falphin 14:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I kinda agreee, but the problem is that these acts aren't talked about in either article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.4.47 (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Key Figures

I'm not sure whether Bobby Jones or John Logie Baird are necessarily important here. The other four figures are critical because of the events surrounding the article:

• Al Capone: His reason for being here goes without saying.
• Mae West: Famous actress, was convicted of obscenity charges. Key figure--the morals question and changing roles of women.
• Charles Lindberg: Changing technology, crossed the Atlantic, major celebrity
• Will Rogers: cowboy-humorist, wrote a widely read column during the 1920s. Very much a part of the culture. Had a lot to say.

Bobby Jones: Not sure who this is because the link leads to a disambiguation page. If he is the golfer, then he doesn't belong here, because golf as a sport does not figure into the culture of the Roaring Twenties.

John Logie Baird was the Scottish engineer who invented the television in very late 20s--which didn't enter into wide use until much later. He doesn't really figure into the article at all.

IMHO of course ℬastique▼^talk 19:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Personally I could see a case made for Bobby Jones the golpher.(The basketball player wasn't born until the 50's and the others I have never heard of). Since he represented, IMHO American prosperity and ideals during the 20's. As for John Logie Baird I don't think he belongs in the article at all. Of course this is also IMHO. :) Falphin 21:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

boom, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.199.10 (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Canadian politics during the 1920s

• Can someone tie this into the article? It's just kind of sitting there, explaining nothing but itself. What about the economy of Canada, and how Canadian authorities dealt with all the liquor illegally leaving its borders? This is more in tune with the article.

• • This article isn't about everything that happened in the 1920s. It is about the events, lifestyle and culture that made it the Roaring Twenties. ℬastique▼^talk 21:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reverted edits

• I reverted annon user 69.231.249.12 edits because of the massive rewording and some content take outs. It can be discussed here. Falphin 16:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the revert --Fenice 17:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

• To begin with the article was without any introduction. I created few words of Introduction. Now, I feel we have a large introduction of 3 paragraphs. Introduction may be made more compact. Some portion of the matrials may be placed under a separate Section. We may think of such a move and decide the name of that section. This is just a suggestion.--Bhadani 18:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • For such a long article three paragraphs is fine. Long intros are actually required for featured articles. See today's Papal Tiara page, for instance. - SimonP 18:21, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, eventually this topic will likely reach the Featured Article Status because of all the info on the topic, decreasing the size of the introduction is just a going in the oppoisite direction. Falphin 18:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • After the COTW is over this should probably be sent to Peer review. Of course it is going to need more references but I imagine it will get good remarks. Falphin 18:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, now I understand the position. Yes, it is fine because only a long introduction shall be able to introduce the topic well. Good. Thanks for clearing my doubts about introduction. And, sure, each one of us should continue to refine this article till it becoames a Featured one. --Bhadani 01:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geographical balance?

"American historical period" or "North American historical period"...is/should this article (be) only about the US or does/should it also include Canada in a significant way? ~ Dpr 20:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It should be North American, the Roaring 20s are just as much a part of Canadian history as American. The new ideas mostly originated in the U.S, but they quickly made their way north. In terms of the economy the 20s were even more of a boom decade in Canada than in the United States. A question I haven't been able to answer is if the term can also accurately be applied to Europe. Some books and websites seem to, but everything I have read does not indicate that the decade was particularly booming outside NA. - SimonP 21:15, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the actual literal term Roaring Twenties is used much in the UK. The German (Golden) and the French term (Golden or crazy years) are no literal translations of roaring, but the mentality they are trying to describe are exactly the same, even to some extent the economical surge (thus the word golden), (no prohibition though). These terms are also well known, they are not rare. --Fenice 22:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have been taught the phrase (GCSE history) as solely referring to the US in the Twenties. smoddy 22:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Canadians were involved. Where do you think US joints got their liquor? ℬastique▼^talk 22:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The term "roaring twenties" seems to have been used in the UK as well, see here [1], [2], [3].--Fenice 09:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to split the article.--Fenice 09:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it makes perfect sense to split the articles into Europe and North America (i.e. make one for Europe). As it is now the article only talks about North America (excluding Mexico). As mentioned in this article there was a Golden Twenties era in Europe too. Look at the French and German interwiki articles. And Great Britain's culture certainly sparked up in that period too I suppose. As it is now, American hegemony is too big -- and the article too.--Phlebas 14:09, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well the solution is not really to complain about it, but to add the appropriate content. So if it focuses too much on the U.S., it's not because other content is actively being kept out. I think every editor here would welcome relevant content from Canada or even the UK if it's appropriate. Be bold. —thames 00:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Florid prose

Language like "The decade encapsulates a fascinating story" is subjective and adds no information to the article. It makes it read too much like an essay or an emotion-laden summary - should be edited out. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:54, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Swing?

Ought Swing (really Lindy Hop) music and culture be a part of this article? —thames 15:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lindy Hop belongs to the thirties.--Fenice 09:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you read the Lindy Hop article, it started in 1927. It can certainly be mentioned. —thames 00:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The way it is presented in the text now is really excellent.--Fenice 07:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marlene Dietrich

<Jun-Dai 21:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)> Was the U.S. really even aware of Dietrich before the 30s? </Jun-Dai>

• Agreed! Why is there an image of Dietrich? I think most people tend to associate her more with the 1930s than the Roaring Twenties. I think it would be better to find another image of an iconic twenties actress like Louise Brooks or Clara Bow. ExRat 20:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OMG noobs google.com rocks eat my shorts!!!!!!!darfawegvwedcasrebytehsebdfbre rwegserdgbdf rftg bxdrhserfgdfgfb rgdfgbhdxrthge rghetgh rh fh rfgbh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.97.219 (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved???

Its not known as the 1920's in North America but the Roaring Twenties, why was this moved???? Falphin 02:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ask SPUI. Mike H 02:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The article is about the 1920s in North America. An article at Roaring Twenties should talk about the term and its use, while this title reflects that the article talks about the 1920s in North America in general. --SPUI (talk) 03:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Roaring Twenties is a cultural period. My four main reasons for keeping it at the Roaring Twenties spot.

1. Nobody refers to the period that way
2. It is not a time period but a cultural period
3. It was agreed upon this way at the COTW.
4. This isn't about everything that happened in the 1920's in NA but what is considered significant about the Roaring Twenties. --Falphin 03:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speculation and crash

When I first read this article this morning, I found that the neither the word "speculation" nor the word "crash" appeared in the article, which I thought was a remarkable oversight. I inserted a brief section on speculation, which was largely reverted by Will Beback, for reasons which escape me. I have restored it, and invite discussion here. --HK 01:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert it, I moved it to one of the sections which already covered the economic aspects of the era. It is more helpful there rather than as a two-sentence, one paragraph section. The crash is already covered in a longer section towards the end, which already uses the word "speculative". Except for the word "speculation" and an essay by an Austrian-School economist the material was redundant. -Will Beback 01:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a little redundancy will hurt. These issues were seriously underemphasized in the article. --HK 07:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Fashion and the changing role of women:

I am rather puzzled by the fllowing sentence in the section 'Fashion and the changing role of women':

"In Europe, this look featured women with short hair (Bubikopf) for the first time; in the U.S., the bob was introduced by actress Louise Brooks in the late 1920s."

I do not belive this to be correct information. While Louise Brooks is renowned for her bobbed hair, so was Colleen Moore, Leatrice Joy and numerous others. While Brooks may be recalled for her bobbed hair, I do not believe she "introduced" it to the American public. Also, the bob came into vogue much earlier than the late 1920s as photographs of my grandmother and her sisters from 1922 show - they are all teenagers and all have quite severe bobbed haircuts. ExRat 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Dietrich and the "Fashion" section.

I changed the "request for a speedy deletion" photograph of Marlene Dietrich with one of actress Louise Brooks who I feel more accurately protrays the "ideal" look of 1920s fashion. Also, as mentioned above, while Dietrich was quite popular in the late 20's, her androgynous look became more popular in the early 1930s and not in the 1920s. ExRat 22:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. No references are provided and the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 12:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)soorrrry man be al ittle nicer—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.186.7 (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

elsewhere

It's a good article, but too much concentrated on the USA. If you try searching in Google "roaring twenties Britain" or other countries there was quite a sense of roaringness elsewhere too jm—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.125.119.162 (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

--in Europe its called the "Golden Twenties", the Roaring Twenties was only the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.52.137 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Golden Twenties

Should this page be merged with Golden Twenties? - jlao⁰⁴ 12:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. This article principally addresses an era in the U.S., while the other article covers a slightly different time period in Germany. -Will Beback 21:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, we have an article which covers the whole decade from a global perspective, 1920s. -Will Beback 22:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. - jlao⁰⁴ 01:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove img in Overview section

I propose to remove the image in the Overview section as it is of a terrible quality. - jlao⁰⁴ 11:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

We already have a good drawing of fashions. I don't think it adds much. -Will Beback 21:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Questionable comments in first paragraph, last sentence

Could someone please check this article? There are some questionable statements and vandals have been hitting article. Ronbo76 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalization February 14, 2007]

I wonder why this is getting a lot of hits? Ronbo76 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In first paragraph: "The era was further distinguished by several long johns and realities of far-reaching importance..." long johns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Roaring Twenties"

In my opinion, "roaring twenties" should not be capitalized. It is not a proper name. --Jeremy Butler 13:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it should because it is an era in our history, such as "The Great Awakening" or the "Era of Good Feelings." Do you believe they should be capitalized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aragornrox (talk • contribs) 15:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

GDP of what?

I'm assuming that the graph shows GDP in the USA, you might want to mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.18.164.66 (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PaulWhiteman.jpg

Image:PaulWhiteman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ModelT1920.jpg

Image:ModelT1920.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Contradicting?

"Various policies initiated by the Republican Party had a horrendous impact on the boom. The government was associated with laissez faire economics, which helped create the conditions for the boom."

So, which sentence should we kill? 124.82.6.85 (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, it's vandalism. The text previously read:

• Various policies initiated by the Republican Party had a big impact on the boom. The government was associated with laissez faire economics, which helped create the conditions for the boom.

I've changed it back. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Gay Clubs in the 1920s

Is it true that there were gay clubs back in the 1920's? Can you find a source on that because I think it says something on gay clubs and how it was called pansies club and I just want to verify the source that this come from?--67.34.213.78 (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Canadian politics

I just undid an edit where someone deleted the section on Canadian Politics and replaced it with the words "Who gives a damn". Although this is clearly not good enough for wikipedia, as I read what he had replaced I couldn't help but agree. I think the section should be either deleted or rewritten to reflect the impact of canadian politics on the culture of the roaring 20's and not the 20's in general. --DarkAvenger (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GoldDiggersBroadway2.jpg

The image Image:GoldDiggersBroadway2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Normalcy

Normalcy is not a word. It is normality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.90.18 (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As per the article, it was a term coined by Warren G. Harding during his 1920 Presidential campaign and thus is appropriate.

It should also be remembered that Harding was "notorious for his verbal gaffes." Poet e.e. cummings referred to him as "The only man, woman or child who wrote a simple declarative sentence with seven grammatical errors." Doug O'Connell (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug O'Connell (talk • contribs)

Political Bias

Changed the subject heading from "Government Interventionist Economic Policies" to "Economic Policies". Also, did a slight edit to remove bias from a part that suggested that reducing the top income tax bracket to 25% was a government interventionist policy. That rate is low historically and was actually a reduction from the 77% that was in effect from 1916-1925. The section is sourced to the CATO Inst, a laissez faire oriented think tank. While the argument could made, it's not by any means a consensus. This entire section should be updated to inculde other views. Some of the other arguments that the 1920's were interventionist are suspect, particularly regarding lending and spending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.10.2 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Cato is totally rewriting history. The twenties were a period of explicit faith in markets to achieve policy ends. Hoover's economic team urged business to volunarily work with the government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.70.112 (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the convential view of "economic policies" as a period of cooperation between business and government and merged it with the vigorous challenge made by the Cato and other conservatives that argue that it was intrusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.70.112 (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up some grammatical errors to make it more coherent. Nice job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.10.2 (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole section on economic policy is wildly biased. It explicitly attributes the post-war boom to federal government economic policies with no regard for the incredible rise of mass production of the era. Tysto (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Broader coverage

I added the "Globalize" banner at the top because the scope of the article is too narrow. It is heavily focusing on the Northeast and Midwest of the U.S. with a tiny bit of coverage on Canada and the West Coast. Events in Canada and the West Coast were more significant than this makes it sound. But even more glaringly this completely neglects Texas which was one of the areas of the greatest growth and change during this time (indeed the oil boom there can be said to have substantially spurred the growth in the 20s). There were a lot of other areas as well where significant things were going on.

One other area that would be interesting to cover in this article as well is the rise of gambling empires. Remember that laws against gambling had developed in the early 1900s. During the 1920s major gambling empires arose as a result of this and Prohibition in places like Miami, New Orleans, Galveston, Hot Springs (AK), etc. These empires all greatly influenced the later development of Las Vegas (one could argue that Las Vegas would never have developed as rapidly or as lavishly as it did had these gambling empires in more established cities not created a mould for Vegas to follow later).--Mcorazao (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead briefly mentions how other Western cities/countries experienced something similar, but the entire article is then silent on how London, Berlin, etc. faced the Roaring Twenties. This is a serious deficiency. Johnleemk | Talk 05:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There does need to be more, especially on London and the major capitals of Europe, all of which were very much effected by the Roaring Twenties.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.231.211 (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Garbage Text

"The spirit of the Roaring Twenties was marked by a general feeling of discontinuity associated with modernity, aProxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0"

the sentence in the article doesn't make sense. 132.161.197.102 (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed it. -- Why Not A Duck 00:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

An instance of vandalism, March 2010

Erm, not an expert on the era at all, but does anyone know what this sentence at the start of 'Economy' should say?

"The Roaring Twenties is traditionally viewed as an era of sex economic prosperity driven by the butt holes of a wide array of new penis's."

...I'm reasonably sure that isn't how it should read. "Loop holes of a wide array of new laws" and taking out the sex is my best guess, but I'm really not sure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.114.237 (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that was vandalism. Someone replaced the valid text with garbage. Someone fixed it a couple hours later. So, problem solved. -- Why Not A Duck 23:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Jazz and Dance Music

Jazz and dance music are related, as some of the roots of jazz are in dance music and some music is jazz music suitable for dancing. However, they are not the same. Some artists are jazz artists, some dance music artists and some are both.

Some artists listed in the Jazz Age section were reverted in an overly conservative later edit. Although some of the artists deleted should be listed as "dance", or more generally "popular" artists and not placed in the jazz section, the list was of very reasonable length and a well-chosen selection of the "best of the best".

The comments on radio in the beginning of the jazz section should be edited. The information on KDKA would be more appropriate as the beginning of a section on radio in the 1920s. Furthermore, the spread of jazz should be attributed also to recorded music and live performances, not just to radio. Niel Shell (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Factual Errors

The statistics listed in the section "Factual Errors" are incorrect. The article claims that when Harding took office, unemployment was over 20%, and yet official sources place the 1920 unemployment rate at 5.2% http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html#axzz0zdK7VyGK

Also, far from experiencing "runaway inflation", the economy was in fact experiencing a 1.24% rate of deflation. Shanbo (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical Mistakes

In the introduction there is a mistake; " By the middle of the decade, prosperity was widespread. The second half of the decade becoming known as the 'Golden Twenties'." Could someone please edit this so that the last sentence is a proper sentence? For example, "By the middle of the decade, prosperity was widespread, hence the calling of the 1920's as 'The Golden Twenties' in the latter half of the decade." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.54.107 (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism as of November 23, 2016

The "dance" section of this article makes note of "pole dancing" and "stripper clubs." I am reasonably certain that this is not correct, but am not sure what it *should* say, since the past month+ of history leaves this intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.187.170.190 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The blatant childish vandalism is still there as of 24 June 2017. Perhaps the editors who have been piling on more text recently could divert some of their energies into cleaning up and judiciously pruning what is already in this very problematic article? For example, there is a "Cinema" subsection which covers the advent of "talkies" in a concise way (before veering off into excessive cartoon-geek detail about Disney and Oswald the Lucky Rabbit), so maybe we could do without the disproportionately long "Sound movies" section earlier in the article, which goes into way too much technical and corporate detail for this context, material available in Sound film, Vitaphone, and other specialized articles. At the same time, the major impact of Hollywood films on contemporary culture, especially youth culture, is completely ignored. So perhaps, instead of the current meaningless laundry list of film stars' names, devoting that space to something about one or two of the most influential—say, Rudolph Valentino and Clara Bow—would better serve the reader? 66.81.105.214 (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

POV and peacock issues

I tagged this article to twice because this page seems to be soaked with POV and peacock statements, e.g.: "Jazz music blossomed, the flapper redefined modern womanhood, Art Deco peaked, and, in the wake of hyper-emotional patriotism after World War I, normalcy returned to politics." I will scan through the page and correct as needed, but I hope others assist if they can.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 17:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

those statements all reflect the consensus of the RS. Which one does not?? Rjensen (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The RS? The bias is clearly there. The article carries the tone of, "oh, those Victorian times were so backwards and oppressive and nationalistic, then the Twenties came and saved America." Which I hope is obviously not the kind of style we want to bring to this site, there's enough bias at is. IMO this entire article needs to be scanned with a fine-tooth comb and sorted to only include a summarization of the objective facts of the decade. We shouldn't be putting wild statements like "redefined womanhood" (a sentiment straight out of a clickbait Buzzfeed article). I'm not trying to be sour but this article is something I'd expect from a tabloid, not an encyclopedia.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 17:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

History is just as much about perception and interpretation as the facts. We are not writing a chronicle.Dimadick (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

it's false to claim '[The article carries the tone of, "oh, those Victorian times were so backwards and oppressive and nationalistic, then the Twenties came and saved America."] One phrase only is mentioned: redefined womanhood In fact that is terminology scholars actually use. 1) Nancy K. Bristow Making Men Moral: Social Engineering During the Great War (1997) p 50: "...the reformers' largely secular ideal for their society, an ideal based in urban, middle-class experience. The CTCA redefined womanhood, modernizing it in the expansion of domesticity and in the departure from piety...." 2) Linda Eisenmann Historical Dictionary of Women's Education in the United States (1998): "New collegiate opportunities for women profoundly redefined womanhood by challenging the Victorian belief that men's and women's social roles were rooted in biology."; 3) on an earlier era: Patricia Johnston (2006): "In her deliberate refashioning of self, Sojourner Truth redefined womanhood in broader and more inclusive terms with her public performance of multiple and complex identities: former slave, worker, orator, feminist, and woman." 4) Anne Ruggles Gere (1997) says Karen Blair, The Clubwoman as Feminist: True Womanhood Redef1ned, (1980), shows how clubwomen redefined womanhood, thereby inserting them into the feminist tradition." Rjensen (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This site is not on some feminist crusade, this is an encyclopedia. With all due respect, sources with names like "Making Men Moral" and using polemical terms like "former slave" to describe traditional gender roles is kind of like using Third Reich apologia for a World War II article; anything worth salvaging needs to be heavily analyzed in context and carefully supplanted in a way that does not disrupt the delicate balance of WP:NPOV. These kind of views by Eisenmann et al in their analysis of "opportunities" "profoundly" "redefining womanhood" should be in their own section of how contemporary (and past) historians interpret them. The article is embarrassing, dishonest, and amateur otherwise.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 15:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Feminism was a major factor in the 1920s say the RS, and every statement is sourced. Bristow's major scholarly book Making Men Moral (NYU press) has been cited in over 150 scholarly books and articles as listed here. That is what a reliable scholarly source looks like. What is missing from the above critique is an alternative base of RS that take a different view. Sigehelmus is worried about what he calls dishonesty and amateurism, so I challenge him to provide the RS he is using for his attacks on this article. I doubt he has any. Rjensen (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not denying that(?), or your work which I was going to compliment/thank soon. And yes, sourcing is good of course, but what matter is how sourcing is referenced and how that fits into the tone of the article (what feelings is it trying to promote to the reader? What is portrayed -unintentionally, half-heartedly, subconsciously or otherwise - as good and bad? And so on). You and Dimadick have been fixing a lot of problems with this article. I don't mean to imply anything negative about that, I was speaking in the past.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 16:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

technologies not used in 1920s

I suggest we have a long article and can skip technologies (like TV, penicillin) that were not part of the decade and use the space for items that were much more important in practice, such as radio & insulin. Rjensen (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Television and penicillin were discovered in the 1920s and are among the major technological innovations of the era. Their historical impact is not that minor. I pretty much skipped television innovations of the 1930s, though we do have articles on several of them.

No objection to covering radio, though our History of radio pays more attention to developments prior to the 1920s.

I honestly overlooked insulin, as I was unaware of its historical uses. Outside Wikipedia, I have come across several books and history books covering penicillin and its uses in detail, but only found a couple of passing mentions to insulin. Then again it might be based on Alexander Fleming's celebrity status. As a 6-year-old, I had a couple of books lionizing Alexander Fleming as a science hero, right next to Louis Pasteur. His widow Amalia Fleming was a successful Greek politician and quite a celebrity in her own right, at least in my country. Dimadick (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

this is an article on broad social trends and does not include the history of scientific & medical discovery is not covered, The most important advances, per the coverage in history of science, came in physics (eg quantum mechanics, Uncertainty principle & Dirac equation) . Penicillin was invented over a period of decades (see History of penicillin and was unknown to "Roaring twenties". Fleming became famous after the 1920s. --Wiki article states: Fleming published his discovery in 1929, in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology,[16] but little attention was paid to his article. On the other hand insulin was very much a product of the decade and put Canada on the medical map. Rjensen (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

add pictures to upper right like in the world war articles

Can we add a picture collage to this article like the articles for the world wars? I think it would be a good idea for people to get a quick overview of the topic. Synesthetic (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding to the Prohibition Section

For my history class we were assigned to add information to a Wikipedia article. I've chosen the "Roaring Twenties" page because I believe that the "Prohibition" section could have more information added to it. I will be basing my information from sources similar to the ones that I've referenced below. My overall goal will be attempt to improve the section a bit more. If anybody has any suggestion on reputable sources please let me know! Thanks. Histedit110m (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Histedit110m

I don't believe that the Prohibition section should be expanded any further. This article is for a general overview of the period. If you wish to expand on Prohibition may I suggest that you do so at the main article, Prohibition in the United States. Good luck. Canterbury Tail talk 12:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Homo-historical revisionism

The "Homosexuality" section shares an unfortunate early-21st-century tendency to view the condition of sexual minorities in olden times through some very rose-colored glasses. In the US, at least, there was nothing the least bit "more acceptable" about homosexuality in the 1920s, at least not outside a few rarefied urban enclaves in the arts, and being truly "out" was risky even there. Actor William Haines, whose very unusually "out" existence (although he was certainly not "out" to the general public) is currently cited as an example of the "relative liberalism of the decade", ended up having to choose between his film career at MGM and his mate (bye-bye MGM), and thanks to some lovely upstanding neighbors in his lovely oceanside neighborhood, he was LYNCHED by a mob, although he escaped with his life. Editors too young to remember the pre-Stonewall era should be aware that being exposed as gay usually meant loss of employment, ostracism by family and friends, and even felony charges under the then-ubiquitous "crimes against nature" laws. Suicide was not an uncommon result. To Mr. and Mrs. American Citizen, "those people" were simply unspeakable sex perverts, out to molest and recruit innocent children; they were worse than murderers, and they should either be locked up or shot. That viewpoint is, or course, not entirely extinct even today, but it was ubiquitous and normal before the social revolutions of the late 1960s and 1970s. 66.81.105.142 (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Roaring Twenties. 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/20111121043940/http://www.screensavour.net/2008/08/steamboat-willie-1928.html to http://www.screensavour.net/2008/08/steamboat-willie-1928.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202163233/http://www.scotlandontv.tv/scotland_on_tv/video.html?vxSiteId=60fdd544-9c52-4e17-be7e-57a2a2d76992&vxChannel=History%20Places&vxClipId=1380_SMG1671&vxBitrate=300 to http://www.scotlandontv.tv/scotland_on_tv/video.html?vxSiteId=60fdd544-9c52-4e17-be7e-57a2a2d76992&vxChannel=History%20Places&vxClipId=1380_SMG1671&vxBitrate=300
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050508074759/http://www.kidsnewsroom.org/elmer/infoCentral/frameset/decade/1920.htm to http://www.kidsnewsroom.org/elmer/infoCentral/frameset/decade/1920.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050524103852/http://www.si.umich.edu/CHICO/Harlem/timex/timeline.html to http://www.si.umich.edu/CHICO/Harlem/timex/timeline.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Amy Johnson portrait.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Amy Johnson portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Too much irrelevant stuff crammed in here

The Roaring Twenties was an American era completely based around American history and culture. I understand that other countries were experiencing similar things but they should have their own articles for that (and some do.) It's like randomly jamming in irrelevant information about a number of other countries in the Années folles or Golden Twenties articles. Even in those articles and in this same one in other language it is referred to as American. Those things should just be in the article about the 1920s and not this one. SMTWTFS (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Woloch

This cannot be right: Woloch, Women and the American Experience: A Concise History, pp. 28–3.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Leftist-Liberal political bias

The article is full of phrases based on POVs, and has a clear liberal bias. The article, for example, tries to associate Ford and his bussiness model based in efficiency with more opinative topics like the form of gonverment, regulation and culture, calling all of this “progressive”. Well, this is a eufemistic word (progressive) that the academic left considered good to be used when talking about their political views - they prefer calling it progressive. I think this should be avoided in Wikipedia, some scholars can think whatever they want, but, this encyclopedia should be neutral and non biased. And this supersedes the fact that “The editors are just copying what the scholars had published”. We have to be more selective. This article seems like pure liberal propaganda. Regulation is harmful for the economy, brings unemployment in the private sector and it’s survival is guaranteed only by bureaucrats and their supporters, they can justify their salaries and create the narrative that some area needs “some control”, but it’s good to the political establishment and the bureaucrats, not to the economy. So when we associate that with “progress” we are just lobbying for people that make money on our taxes. I think we should not “play stupid”, of course the word “progressive” is used just to associate some public policies to progress, and talk about that as we were unbiased is dishonesty. The article is absolutely biased, even if the literature is biased, some contradictory arguments can be used instead, the right to disagree, the right to the contradictory... all of this should be celebrated here, instead of totalitarian-like literature. Just to clarify, the “progressive” side as a word in political science is already greatly impregnated in the academia and the media, but we can always search for an independent path when selecting what is going to be added here, in order to collaborate with the article’s equilibrium. Sorry for the English, the misspellings that are obviously possible here at some extent, and cheers from Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:D55:4:A3DC:6D64:C9B0:9726:912B (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No "liberal bias" is apparent in the text--while the last contributor expresses points of view that sound pretty ideological. Wiki's text on Ford for example is based on solid scholarship --Ford was a political activist (he ran for US Senate in 1920 as a progressive Democrat, & led a major peace initiative that was hailed by the progressives of the day.) And "progressive" in the early 20c is a term in common use by historians of all points of view. Rjensen (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Last Silent Film

This says the last silent film was a poverty row film in April 1930, but City Lights was released in 1931 and is a true silent. It cites reference 33, which I suppose is wrong. 2601:408:8002:69E0:CCF0:A8CD:5C5:510E (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

City Lights isn't a silent film. True it has no dialogue, but it has a soundtrack as part of the film and not played separately as silent films did. As a result it's a non-talkie, but not a silent film. Canterbury Tail talk 01:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)