This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Post鈥揅old War era article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Post鈥揅old War era be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kaymarwal.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I've seen in various sources different implied "endings" to the "Post-Cold War era". I am particularly persuaded by the argument that the "War on Terror" that began after 9/11 is a likely end to this era, as it gave new purpose and priorities to international relations particularly from the US perspective. Most of the sources I've consulted seem to place an emphasis on this as a transitionary period, and it seems unrealistic for it to extend all the way to present, as we are no longer in a state of international affairs which is reacting to or adapting from the end of the Cold War. But, I've not found any definitive source on the consensus around the dates for this era. Does anyone know if there is a consensus on when the "Post Cold-War Era" might have ended? 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Bluedollop ( talk 鈥 contribs) 15:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The naming of the Post-Cold War Era has been somewhat confusing to the general public, particularly because there is not a term to properly define the current period. Will the next large war bring about the new name for this era? Could we consider the modern era the nuclear era, based on nuclear powers increasing?
Does anyone have any resources or articles on how we name time periods, and when we decide time periods change? I think this could be beneficial to writing the next section of history. -- Impromptueditor ( talk) 22:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Why do some articles, including this one, use an en dash instead of a hyphen to write Post鈥 when some articles do not (like Displaced persons camps in post-World War II Europe)? 鈥 hueman1 ( talk 鈥 contributions) 02:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
George Ho ok we can discuss what you'd like to discuss about Cold War II, and I had used the word "theme" on it in the intro. Regarding assumptions, maybe we recall what I said about the silliness of people. And I think, it's the news, it's current events, as in, it's what the world is I guess, I think maybe we shouldn't be reading too much into it
I might also add that there could also be a negative effect of not having the infobox there right now lol Halo FC ( talk)
negative effect of not having the infobox there right nowSeriously? The article was fine without an infobox (i.e. status quo) until you added it. Not every article would go bad without an infobox, but I'm unsure whether you agree with me. I don't know which negative effects you referred to, but I'm sure that readers can understand the era without an infobox. Right? -- George Ho ( talk) 19:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I think, it's the news, it's current events, as in, it's what the world is I guess, I think maybe we shouldn't be reading too much into it. That looks like blame game to me rather than taking responsibility. Topics like Cold War II have become inevitable thanks to consensus, but we also must be considerate, i.e. WP:CAREFUL. For examples of links, how about pages from results of Google Books or Google News, for starters? Also, regarding responsibilities, how about reading " Moral responsibility" article? Also, regarding your response on "negative effects", you were abstract, so can you be more concrete? I think you're vague on whatever you were saying. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Topics like Cold War II have become inevitable thanks to consensus, I should have mentioned this failed AFD nomination. George Ho ( talk) 04:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Almost forgot, about the "no need" part, I would further say that events you highlighted in the lead are... kinda very recent, and the era (i.e. the article subject) isn't over yet. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm still not quite sure of the full clear picture of your views on this topic.Somehow... I'm confused about why either this article or this topic has ever existed in the first place. I know that the article can be prone to editors who put a lot of emphasis on recent events. Furthermore, I normally avoid politics. Nonetheless, I'm unsure what most defines this era, and I'm uncertain about the scope of this article or topic.
I'm not sure what kind of emotional thing it would be, I think it's just that the current pandemic is occurring within the current era, an ordinary and obvious notion, it's almost like a tautology.Until now, I hadn't been aware that edits and pages related to the pandemic is subject to WP:ACDS. Even so, I'm unconvinced that the pandemic is part of the era, especially without definite proof... unless proof is not required?
unless the world fails to learn the lessons and enables the emergence of a subsequent even more terrible pandemic.
It's not whether I'll agree with you. Rather the way you chose your sources. I mean, I was hoping you pick more specific article instead of a topic page generating words like this one you picked. The one you picked lists journal articles that I cannot access without purchasing one or more. Furthermore, most (if not all) of them are older articles and don't mention the current pandemic.
On to the SCMP article (or maybe op-ed?), I don't see it mentioning this era explicitly or connecting it to the pandemic... other than sensationalist (or catchy?) article headlines, which are deemed unreliable. Speaking of headlines, the title mentions the US-China tensions, but the body article doesn't say "cold war" very much outside the headline but rather just once. It doesn't use "Cold War II" (or similar) or "post-Cold War".
I don't see how these links help improve the article, but good that you picked highly reputable publications like SCMP (despite some concerns seen at WP:RSP) and ScienceDirect. To help you further, you may wanna pick sources from Google results. Well, you can pick one of sources from a Wikipedia article without citing Wikipedia itself. George Ho ( talk) 15:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
George Ho I guess we could continue our discussion, as I'm still not quite sure, or even confused, as to what's going on, and would like if you could elaborate and clarify the issue. Maybe now you might begin to understand why you remind me of a trapping Kafkaesque bureaucracy lol Halo FC ( talk) 04:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
SnazzyBoots (
article contribs).
鈥 Assignment last updated by Lukebbaldwin ( talk) 19:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
At the time of this post, the 'background' section states: "Reagan's campaign trail towards the U.S. presidency in 1980 was focused on rebuilding the country."
This is far too vague and does not extrapolate on what issues the US was dealing with prior to Reagan and what he purportedly fixed.
"Over the next couple of years, the economy was recovering, new foreign policies were made, and the market was booming with independence."
鈥橞ooming with independence鈥? How? Again, this is too vague, and Reagan鈥檚 policies should be given some careful scrutiny instead of simply stating he 鈥榬ebuilt鈥 the US; 'rebuilt' is a bit of a strong word here. The claims made in this section about both the US and the USSR also need good sources.
"The power gained from America allowed them to be in a better position to engage in negotiations with the Soviet, including terms that would favor the U.S. According to Brezhnev (leader of Soviet during the time), reducing the tension was necessary in order to focus on fixing the economic problems happening at home. His theory was to save and rebuild the Soviet so in the future, they would be greater competitors with America."
Very awkwardly positioned. I cleaned this up a little in the article but would strongly encourage anyone with a deeper knowledge of this topic to strengthen this section. Svartsvane ( talk) 08:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Post鈥揅old War era article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Post鈥揅old War era be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kaymarwal.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I've seen in various sources different implied "endings" to the "Post-Cold War era". I am particularly persuaded by the argument that the "War on Terror" that began after 9/11 is a likely end to this era, as it gave new purpose and priorities to international relations particularly from the US perspective. Most of the sources I've consulted seem to place an emphasis on this as a transitionary period, and it seems unrealistic for it to extend all the way to present, as we are no longer in a state of international affairs which is reacting to or adapting from the end of the Cold War. But, I've not found any definitive source on the consensus around the dates for this era. Does anyone know if there is a consensus on when the "Post Cold-War Era" might have ended? 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Bluedollop ( talk 鈥 contribs) 15:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The naming of the Post-Cold War Era has been somewhat confusing to the general public, particularly because there is not a term to properly define the current period. Will the next large war bring about the new name for this era? Could we consider the modern era the nuclear era, based on nuclear powers increasing?
Does anyone have any resources or articles on how we name time periods, and when we decide time periods change? I think this could be beneficial to writing the next section of history. -- Impromptueditor ( talk) 22:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Why do some articles, including this one, use an en dash instead of a hyphen to write Post鈥 when some articles do not (like Displaced persons camps in post-World War II Europe)? 鈥 hueman1 ( talk 鈥 contributions) 02:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
George Ho ok we can discuss what you'd like to discuss about Cold War II, and I had used the word "theme" on it in the intro. Regarding assumptions, maybe we recall what I said about the silliness of people. And I think, it's the news, it's current events, as in, it's what the world is I guess, I think maybe we shouldn't be reading too much into it
I might also add that there could also be a negative effect of not having the infobox there right now lol Halo FC ( talk)
negative effect of not having the infobox there right nowSeriously? The article was fine without an infobox (i.e. status quo) until you added it. Not every article would go bad without an infobox, but I'm unsure whether you agree with me. I don't know which negative effects you referred to, but I'm sure that readers can understand the era without an infobox. Right? -- George Ho ( talk) 19:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I think, it's the news, it's current events, as in, it's what the world is I guess, I think maybe we shouldn't be reading too much into it. That looks like blame game to me rather than taking responsibility. Topics like Cold War II have become inevitable thanks to consensus, but we also must be considerate, i.e. WP:CAREFUL. For examples of links, how about pages from results of Google Books or Google News, for starters? Also, regarding responsibilities, how about reading " Moral responsibility" article? Also, regarding your response on "negative effects", you were abstract, so can you be more concrete? I think you're vague on whatever you were saying. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Topics like Cold War II have become inevitable thanks to consensus, I should have mentioned this failed AFD nomination. George Ho ( talk) 04:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Almost forgot, about the "no need" part, I would further say that events you highlighted in the lead are... kinda very recent, and the era (i.e. the article subject) isn't over yet. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm still not quite sure of the full clear picture of your views on this topic.Somehow... I'm confused about why either this article or this topic has ever existed in the first place. I know that the article can be prone to editors who put a lot of emphasis on recent events. Furthermore, I normally avoid politics. Nonetheless, I'm unsure what most defines this era, and I'm uncertain about the scope of this article or topic.
I'm not sure what kind of emotional thing it would be, I think it's just that the current pandemic is occurring within the current era, an ordinary and obvious notion, it's almost like a tautology.Until now, I hadn't been aware that edits and pages related to the pandemic is subject to WP:ACDS. Even so, I'm unconvinced that the pandemic is part of the era, especially without definite proof... unless proof is not required?
unless the world fails to learn the lessons and enables the emergence of a subsequent even more terrible pandemic.
It's not whether I'll agree with you. Rather the way you chose your sources. I mean, I was hoping you pick more specific article instead of a topic page generating words like this one you picked. The one you picked lists journal articles that I cannot access without purchasing one or more. Furthermore, most (if not all) of them are older articles and don't mention the current pandemic.
On to the SCMP article (or maybe op-ed?), I don't see it mentioning this era explicitly or connecting it to the pandemic... other than sensationalist (or catchy?) article headlines, which are deemed unreliable. Speaking of headlines, the title mentions the US-China tensions, but the body article doesn't say "cold war" very much outside the headline but rather just once. It doesn't use "Cold War II" (or similar) or "post-Cold War".
I don't see how these links help improve the article, but good that you picked highly reputable publications like SCMP (despite some concerns seen at WP:RSP) and ScienceDirect. To help you further, you may wanna pick sources from Google results. Well, you can pick one of sources from a Wikipedia article without citing Wikipedia itself. George Ho ( talk) 15:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
George Ho I guess we could continue our discussion, as I'm still not quite sure, or even confused, as to what's going on, and would like if you could elaborate and clarify the issue. Maybe now you might begin to understand why you remind me of a trapping Kafkaesque bureaucracy lol Halo FC ( talk) 04:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
SnazzyBoots (
article contribs).
鈥 Assignment last updated by Lukebbaldwin ( talk) 19:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
At the time of this post, the 'background' section states: "Reagan's campaign trail towards the U.S. presidency in 1980 was focused on rebuilding the country."
This is far too vague and does not extrapolate on what issues the US was dealing with prior to Reagan and what he purportedly fixed.
"Over the next couple of years, the economy was recovering, new foreign policies were made, and the market was booming with independence."
鈥橞ooming with independence鈥? How? Again, this is too vague, and Reagan鈥檚 policies should be given some careful scrutiny instead of simply stating he 鈥榬ebuilt鈥 the US; 'rebuilt' is a bit of a strong word here. The claims made in this section about both the US and the USSR also need good sources.
"The power gained from America allowed them to be in a better position to engage in negotiations with the Soviet, including terms that would favor the U.S. According to Brezhnev (leader of Soviet during the time), reducing the tension was necessary in order to focus on fixing the economic problems happening at home. His theory was to save and rebuild the Soviet so in the future, they would be greater competitors with America."
Very awkwardly positioned. I cleaned this up a little in the article but would strongly encourage anyone with a deeper knowledge of this topic to strengthen this section. Svartsvane ( talk) 08:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)