![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The article was split off from modern history. Modern history is a big topic and the coverage of 'Contemporary history' is better here for a variety of issues. J. D. Redding
Other big historical events (like the invention of the internet 1979-91).
In the past decade: Arab Spring (2011) and the SARS/MERS outbreaks (2002-04 and 2010s), and last century: Cloning of Dolly the sheep (1997) and OPEC oil embargoes (1973 and 79). In the USA, we talk about the Civil Rights Movement (1955-68) which ended segregation and discrimination based on race, includes feminism and the Roe V Wade (1973) SCOTUS decision in regards to abortion as women's rights. In this millennia, the USA has seen the LGBTQ rights movement (since 2000) of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and other gender, romantic and sexual minorities fight for their rights such as same-sex marriage and accommodations for transgender people. Politically, the 2000 US presidential election fiasco settled by the SCOTUS (George W Bush over Al Gore) and the 2016 US presidential election used the electoral college to select a winner (Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton).
And the Apollo I fire (1967), and the Challenger (1986) and Columbia (2003) space shuttle explosions in NASA, and the 1960 Chile M9.5 and Alaska M9.2 earthquakes, as well the 2011 Japan M9.1; and in 2013, a rare yet sizable meteorite exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia.
Historic events to strongly affect people's lives worldwide, including political, social and economic after-effects, to this day. And extraordinary rare historic events can be considered to be put down in the article about contemporary (1945-2019) history. 2605:E000:100D:C571:6DCE:ABEA:BC50:DF93 ( talk) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
This has long been the standard definition of "contemporary history". The problem is that this has long been the standard definition of "contemporary history". Until 1990 or so, this made excellent sense, but that's more than 20 years ago now. Anyone with any clear memory of the events of 1945 is today aged above 75. So yes, 1945 remains "in living memory", but such living memory is not very widespread any more, and mostly confined to octogenarians. If "after 1945" made sense in 1990, today the definition should logically be closer to "after 1965". -- dab (𒁳) 12:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, "immediately relevant to the present" isn't a good definition. Of course both World War I and World War II are still "immediately relevant to the present", but so is the Battle of Vienna, the Fall of Constantinople, the Battle of Tours, the Constantinian shift and indeed the Siege of Jerusalem (70). Not to mention the invention of writing and the wheel in the Chalcolithic, etc. -- dab (𒁳) 13:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
"immediately relevant to the present" = "without any intervening time closely connected to the present". Changed to be clearer. -- J. D. Redding 13:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC) (ps., the "but so" are not ... )
I agree 1945 to present is perfect. living memory should not have to be the sole defining thing of contempory times. this 1945 to present has also been called the post war period becasue none of the G8 countries have fought one another since and has been a relatively peaceful time to live in im not saying it has been absolute peace with out war but difinatly relatively peaceful enough that post war period is aptly named. right now post war period and contemporary history has co-extensive in area of time. as for the nameing of modern time periods heres how i would go 1500 to 1700 early .1700 to 1900 middle and 1900 to present late modern and this includes contemporay times as a subset of the late modern period . contemporary times may change in the futre as time gos on and eventually we would live to see a age called post cold war period and that would be the new contemporary times lasting from 1992 to decades into the 21st century 76.244.155.36 ( talk) 18:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The article needs a section on Africa, particularly decolonization. That is a very important aspect of contemporary history and yet it's only mentioned in the lead.-- Cattus talk 06:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
i Diffinatly agree on this the independence of african nation states is important in notabile events and trends of the contemporary times. one thing to note is starting in 1990 nations began to be spun off of other independent african nations. this nearly co-insides with the end of the cold war. in 1990 nambia got independence from south africa 1993 eritrea from ethiopia and finally 2011 south sudan from sudan. 76.244.155.36 ( talk) 19:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why the word "Post Modern" is on top of the decades. I was trying to find out from some time now what the word has to do with contemporary history. Picaxe01 04:37, 31 March (UTC)
It doesn't make any sense the 21st century started in 2001 but the 2000s decade started in 2000 technically if the 21st century started in 2001 doesn't the decade also start in 2001???
The cold war didn't end in 1989 it ended in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.151.101 ( talk) 19:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I tried to add this Edad Contemporánea ariticle to the "available languages" tab, because this is the spanish version of this article, however I can't manage to add it, can someone else do it? thanks 190.60.93.218 ( talk) 17:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we manage a clearer hatnote than that? What's the distinction? A reader arriving here should be told which article they should start reading, before they start reading it. -- McGeddon ( talk) 18:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
"Are" and "is" should be either replaced with past tense or qualified with "as of" or similar verbiage. Forward-looking discussions should be qualified with "as of" or similar.
Months or years often go by between updates of some parts of the text, so text written in the current or future tense easily becomes outdated. People reading it later may either not realize that it's outdated, or may not be ale to determine when it was current. Scott McNay ( talk) 15:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I had written a proper breakdown of the reasons behind my tagging, but my internet connection failed and it got lost. In any case, I don't think it's terribly necessary anyway. Basically, the coverage of African, Asian and European history (basically anything non-American) is dire. The word "China" is mentioned once (and in the context of Taiwan), contrasting with the acronym "US" which is mentioned 113 times. There're also some big problems with recentism in the coverage of the Great Recession and the War on Terror. The section on the future fails WP:CRYSTALBALL and should be deleted. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 10:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Contemporary history. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Editors of Contemporary History,
I think this page deserves a style editing pass, which I have boldly begun with two edits to the introduction. Is anyone, especially a editor dedicated to contemporary historical writing, interested working with me to continue this style editing? I suggest that the pass focus on resolving the following problems:
Friendly and eager regards, Duxwing ( talk) 06:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Be careful not to use a preference for "consision" as an excuse to stubify the article. No problem, however, with just pointing the reader to more detailed articles on particular topics. We can't cover everything. Dimadick ( talk) 06:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I was checking the Lead for copy-editing, and some of the sentences there seem of suspect historicity. :
Any idea of how to improve the Lead? Dimadick ( talk) 09:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Contemporary history. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The lead formerly said that time before 1950 was called "before present" or "before physics" and time after 1950 is called "after present". I don't think that's true because "before present" refers to time before the present, not time before 1950. If it is added again, it needs to be cited.— Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 16:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
In many countries and schools of thought, contemporary history starts in 1789 or 1848 and forms a fourth period of history (Ancient, Medieval, Modern, Contemporary). I think this shoould be mentioned. Barjimoa ( talk) 10:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Post-1945 history and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 15#Post-1945 history until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Interstellarity (
talk)
01:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The redirect
Living memory has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 15 § Living memory until a consensus is reached.
Interstellarity (
talk)
00:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
This article provides only a single source for defining this period. Pretty much all other cited sources aren't about periodization or a "contemporary" period as such. It's unclear how common the term actually is and how it's used.
English Wikipedia's treatment of the modern period is very sketchy overall, and I've raised the problems with modern era, early modern period, late modern period and modernity in Wikiproject History. The hread can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#Modernity articles are a hot mess
I recommend a joint discussion for all these articles since they seem to suffer from very similar issues. Peter Isotalo 09:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The article was split off from modern history. Modern history is a big topic and the coverage of 'Contemporary history' is better here for a variety of issues. J. D. Redding
Other big historical events (like the invention of the internet 1979-91).
In the past decade: Arab Spring (2011) and the SARS/MERS outbreaks (2002-04 and 2010s), and last century: Cloning of Dolly the sheep (1997) and OPEC oil embargoes (1973 and 79). In the USA, we talk about the Civil Rights Movement (1955-68) which ended segregation and discrimination based on race, includes feminism and the Roe V Wade (1973) SCOTUS decision in regards to abortion as women's rights. In this millennia, the USA has seen the LGBTQ rights movement (since 2000) of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and other gender, romantic and sexual minorities fight for their rights such as same-sex marriage and accommodations for transgender people. Politically, the 2000 US presidential election fiasco settled by the SCOTUS (George W Bush over Al Gore) and the 2016 US presidential election used the electoral college to select a winner (Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton).
And the Apollo I fire (1967), and the Challenger (1986) and Columbia (2003) space shuttle explosions in NASA, and the 1960 Chile M9.5 and Alaska M9.2 earthquakes, as well the 2011 Japan M9.1; and in 2013, a rare yet sizable meteorite exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia.
Historic events to strongly affect people's lives worldwide, including political, social and economic after-effects, to this day. And extraordinary rare historic events can be considered to be put down in the article about contemporary (1945-2019) history. 2605:E000:100D:C571:6DCE:ABEA:BC50:DF93 ( talk) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
This has long been the standard definition of "contemporary history". The problem is that this has long been the standard definition of "contemporary history". Until 1990 or so, this made excellent sense, but that's more than 20 years ago now. Anyone with any clear memory of the events of 1945 is today aged above 75. So yes, 1945 remains "in living memory", but such living memory is not very widespread any more, and mostly confined to octogenarians. If "after 1945" made sense in 1990, today the definition should logically be closer to "after 1965". -- dab (𒁳) 12:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, "immediately relevant to the present" isn't a good definition. Of course both World War I and World War II are still "immediately relevant to the present", but so is the Battle of Vienna, the Fall of Constantinople, the Battle of Tours, the Constantinian shift and indeed the Siege of Jerusalem (70). Not to mention the invention of writing and the wheel in the Chalcolithic, etc. -- dab (𒁳) 13:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
"immediately relevant to the present" = "without any intervening time closely connected to the present". Changed to be clearer. -- J. D. Redding 13:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC) (ps., the "but so" are not ... )
I agree 1945 to present is perfect. living memory should not have to be the sole defining thing of contempory times. this 1945 to present has also been called the post war period becasue none of the G8 countries have fought one another since and has been a relatively peaceful time to live in im not saying it has been absolute peace with out war but difinatly relatively peaceful enough that post war period is aptly named. right now post war period and contemporary history has co-extensive in area of time. as for the nameing of modern time periods heres how i would go 1500 to 1700 early .1700 to 1900 middle and 1900 to present late modern and this includes contemporay times as a subset of the late modern period . contemporary times may change in the futre as time gos on and eventually we would live to see a age called post cold war period and that would be the new contemporary times lasting from 1992 to decades into the 21st century 76.244.155.36 ( talk) 18:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The article needs a section on Africa, particularly decolonization. That is a very important aspect of contemporary history and yet it's only mentioned in the lead.-- Cattus talk 06:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
i Diffinatly agree on this the independence of african nation states is important in notabile events and trends of the contemporary times. one thing to note is starting in 1990 nations began to be spun off of other independent african nations. this nearly co-insides with the end of the cold war. in 1990 nambia got independence from south africa 1993 eritrea from ethiopia and finally 2011 south sudan from sudan. 76.244.155.36 ( talk) 19:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why the word "Post Modern" is on top of the decades. I was trying to find out from some time now what the word has to do with contemporary history. Picaxe01 04:37, 31 March (UTC)
It doesn't make any sense the 21st century started in 2001 but the 2000s decade started in 2000 technically if the 21st century started in 2001 doesn't the decade also start in 2001???
The cold war didn't end in 1989 it ended in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.151.101 ( talk) 19:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I tried to add this Edad Contemporánea ariticle to the "available languages" tab, because this is the spanish version of this article, however I can't manage to add it, can someone else do it? thanks 190.60.93.218 ( talk) 17:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we manage a clearer hatnote than that? What's the distinction? A reader arriving here should be told which article they should start reading, before they start reading it. -- McGeddon ( talk) 18:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
"Are" and "is" should be either replaced with past tense or qualified with "as of" or similar verbiage. Forward-looking discussions should be qualified with "as of" or similar.
Months or years often go by between updates of some parts of the text, so text written in the current or future tense easily becomes outdated. People reading it later may either not realize that it's outdated, or may not be ale to determine when it was current. Scott McNay ( talk) 15:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I had written a proper breakdown of the reasons behind my tagging, but my internet connection failed and it got lost. In any case, I don't think it's terribly necessary anyway. Basically, the coverage of African, Asian and European history (basically anything non-American) is dire. The word "China" is mentioned once (and in the context of Taiwan), contrasting with the acronym "US" which is mentioned 113 times. There're also some big problems with recentism in the coverage of the Great Recession and the War on Terror. The section on the future fails WP:CRYSTALBALL and should be deleted. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 10:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Contemporary history. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Editors of Contemporary History,
I think this page deserves a style editing pass, which I have boldly begun with two edits to the introduction. Is anyone, especially a editor dedicated to contemporary historical writing, interested working with me to continue this style editing? I suggest that the pass focus on resolving the following problems:
Friendly and eager regards, Duxwing ( talk) 06:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Be careful not to use a preference for "consision" as an excuse to stubify the article. No problem, however, with just pointing the reader to more detailed articles on particular topics. We can't cover everything. Dimadick ( talk) 06:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I was checking the Lead for copy-editing, and some of the sentences there seem of suspect historicity. :
Any idea of how to improve the Lead? Dimadick ( talk) 09:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Contemporary history. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The lead formerly said that time before 1950 was called "before present" or "before physics" and time after 1950 is called "after present". I don't think that's true because "before present" refers to time before the present, not time before 1950. If it is added again, it needs to be cited.— Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 16:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
In many countries and schools of thought, contemporary history starts in 1789 or 1848 and forms a fourth period of history (Ancient, Medieval, Modern, Contemporary). I think this shoould be mentioned. Barjimoa ( talk) 10:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Post-1945 history and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 15#Post-1945 history until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Interstellarity (
talk)
01:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The redirect
Living memory has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 15 § Living memory until a consensus is reached.
Interstellarity (
talk)
00:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
This article provides only a single source for defining this period. Pretty much all other cited sources aren't about periodization or a "contemporary" period as such. It's unclear how common the term actually is and how it's used.
English Wikipedia's treatment of the modern period is very sketchy overall, and I've raised the problems with modern era, early modern period, late modern period and modernity in Wikiproject History. The hread can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#Modernity articles are a hot mess
I recommend a joint discussion for all these articles since they seem to suffer from very similar issues. Peter Isotalo 09:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)