Talk:Fin de siècle

Use of Expression/Which Century

It seems to me like there's some confusion between the definition of the expression 'fin de siècle', the definition of the expression 'turn of the century' and a description of a specific period of time in Europe. Definitions belong in wiktionary. This article should be restricted to commentary on the French expression that refers to a specific period of time in Europe. Danorton 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danorton (talk • contribs)

Removed this "true definition must be" POV from the article:

As such Fin de Siecle is a rather retrospective label and has been added to periods almost at will, the true Fin de Siecle by definition must be that of Europe in 1880-1910, though late Roman literature also has a good claim to this badge.

Also the "added to periods almost at will" sounds rather cheap & unfounded --Francis Schonken 01:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The expression turn of the century was used during the Napoleonic Wars. So how can this only apply to the 19th Century??? Wallie 19:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I also validated the late Roman period...so please read before you speak, and I refute it as being unfounded.

Removed: "When used as an adjective, the phrase is most properly turned into a hyphenated word: One speaks of a fin-de-siècle attitude."

This is true of all phrasal adjectives when placed before the noun - if it appears after the noun it shouldn't be hyphenated. Damiancorrigan 13:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To the phrase about the 19th-century use of the word, I added some dates that would bring the periodization into line with German Wikipedia. Poldy Bloom 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

More neutral uses?

What do we say about more general uses such as "Pocket doors were popular at the turn of the century, but fell out of favor"? Here there seems to be no question of bringing up decadence or anything of the sort, but the article skips over that usage so quickly. It seems worth a line or two more space, to me. Lawikitejana 02:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

this is the English language Wikipedia

Shouldn't the article title be Turn of the century? Fin de siècle is not the common English usage, and is not in our parlance. Kingturtle (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No. "Fin de siecle" is very definitely the acknowledged term for the phenomenon - if it's not, then academics worldwide have been messing with our heads. "Turn of the century" is more of a chronological term, whereas "fin de siecle" describes the specific aura of decadence and doom. It's a borrowed term carried over into English, like "macho" or "QED". HonestTom (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. fair enough. but then Turn of the century should be its own article, not a redirect here. Kingturtle (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. "Turn of the century" isn't really enough of a recognized term to deserve its own encyclopedic entry; it is simply a phrase that doesn't refer to anything specific. The phrase being referenced in this article has specific social and political connotations. Metsfanmax (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Er. I disagree :) "Turn of the century" retrieves over 9 million google hits; "Fin de siècle" only 1.3 million. Here's a US Library of Congress website for example that uses Turn of the Century for a specific time frame. I can give you dozens of more examples. Kingturtle (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fin de siècle and turn of the century have different connotations. FDS is associated with a European cultural movement, whereas TOTC is (at the very least) a broader term. Renaming is definitely the wrong move (as it is based on a misunderstanding) - if you want to start a new article on TOTC, well, there's no objection to that but this article title should stay. A low number of Google hits does not mean that a term is inaccurate; nor does a lower number of hits in absolute terms mean that one term should be "replaced" by another. And Google is not the Benchmark of All Things. FDS is a specific term, check out the specialist literature listed in the article.

David WC2 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Kingturtle might find it amusing that the first Google search result is this Wikipedia entry. So much for it not being in our parlance. Metsfanmax (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this argument is confusing. It seems that people are confused about what the argument is even about, whether it's about which term is more accurate, which term is more common, or whether the two terms even mean the same thing. And Metsfanmax seems to even reverse his whole position, first claiming that it "isn't really enough of a recognized term" and then joking "so much for it not being in our parlance"! For what it's worth, I not only support the idea of "turn of the century" getting a separate entry, but I'm shocked that it's even considered a debatable issue. The terms "fin de siecle" and "turn of the century," regardless of their literal meanings, clearly have very different connotations, as has already been pointed out in this discussion, and it's silly for people looking up facts about the Turn of the Century (in its common usage) to be re-directed to an article about a European artistic movement; I assure you that most people looking up "turn of the century" are interested in a time period (which, unlike the formal definition of "fin de siecle" according to this article, is NOT limited to Europe), not in how French artists were affected by self-awareness. Minaker (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see Kingturtle has removed the redirect and started a new separate page on turn of the century, so hats off to him :)

David WC2 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"aughts"

The term "aughts", as in the '00 decade of a century, redirects here, yet the term isn't used anywhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.45.183 (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

First Syllable ... Sounds Like ...

First, may I suggest that someone more familiar with the international symbols add a pronunciation clue to this page?

Second, I disagree whole-heartedly with the idea of splitting fds and totc pages. If we start banning all foreign expressions from the "English" Wikipedia pages, where will it end? Beside that, mon amis, if a definition of fds is only in the French pages, an Anglophone reader would have to learn how to parlez before being able to read the definition of it.

Terry J. Carter (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that it should not be split, and agree with the above poster that wiki should not become completely monoglot /monocultural. A bit of general education (and by that I also mean foreign languages) isn't such a bad thing after all.

David WC2 (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

New lead

I like the new lead section: it is comprehensive and gives a good overview of the topic, as well as a good sense of its importance. Nice! :)

David WC2 (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Perhaps we could add to the references section something about Korean artist Nam June Paik's huge installations of the same name? They very definitely conveyed a sense of foreboding, in that something was coming in the future, with big brother overtones. Here's a picture: http://www.dipaola.org/art/galleries/paik/whitney_paik.jpg 65.248.246.131 (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Lindy