Talk:Modern era
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Other talk page banners | ||||
| |||||
Requested move 5 November 2022
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Modern history. Interstellarity (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
]
- Move to WP:CONSISTENT to be consistent with Prehistory, Ancient history, and Post-classical history. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)]
- Oppose (both of the above): All of these terms are relatively synonymous, or, according to dubious understanding of Wiktionary, totally synonymous, and all carry relatively equal weight in the present day according to Ngrams. However, I think the current title is still best. 'Modern era' is concise and clear. On the point of consistency, there is little consistency in period names: ‘ancient history’ and ‘early modern period’ do not abide by a consistent scheme. On the contrary, I think it is an advantage to use ‘modern era’ over ‘modern period’ precisely because it disambiguates between the modern era as a whole and what are the two modern periods of history – early and late. Having the title as just ‘modern period’, at first glance, gives the impression of a single unitary period. ‘Modern history’ on the other hand, strips away all the sense of epoch conveyed by ‘era’ or ‘period’ and boils it down to the sense of just dates and events. The ‘modern era’, however, is much more. Just as Wiktionary notes it is somewhat synonymous with ‘modernity’, ‘modern era’ conveys that sense of a conceptual framework of the evolution of human intellectual and artistic thought, as well as history. The modern period therefore covers history, but it is also broader than it. It is its own epoch of intellectual, technological and artistic development. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)]
- @Late modern history respectively? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)]
- I think all of these article titles are fairly fine as they are, but 'early modern period', for instance, dominates its alternatives, see the Ngrams for that. The later modern terminology parallels this, but with lower usage, since 'late modern period' has more synonyms. However, as mentioned in that discussion by myself and others, the early/late distinction is useful for disambiguation. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)]
- I think all of these article titles are fairly fine as they are, but 'early modern period', for instance, dominates its alternatives, see the Ngrams for that. The later modern terminology parallels this, but with lower usage, since 'late modern period' has more synonyms. However, as mentioned in that discussion by myself and others, the early/late distinction is useful for disambiguation.
- @
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requested move 3 September 2023
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Editors disagree over what topic is the common name, and what title is consistent. After two relists there is no consensus to be found here, although I find the arguments against as presented by Amakuru slightly stronger.
Editors interested in resolving this problem may find it beneficial to pursue Peter's suggestion. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Modern period and Modern era only gained popularity only recently and all three terms seem to be about the same now. I would suggest moving to modern history for historical purposes. Interstellarity (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 17:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
]
- Support per WP:CONSISTENT. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)]
- Support. Seems right to me. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The ngrams appear to be neck and neck, but when you drill down into what book results Google is actually turning up for the terms, you see that many of those for "modern history" aren't really about this topic at all - [1]. For example, I'm seeing it return results such as Leicester: A Modern History, Sport and the British: A Modern History and Hunger: A Modern History. Looking at the modern era results, however, they seem to be mainly on-point. I think as a period of time, the current title (or modern period) describe it best. — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)]
- @Amakuru:, this is a topic that is about historical research. In most serious historical works, authors specifically explain how they use certain terms to avoid confusion. If this was about about, say, chemistry or biology, wouldn't we be looking at the academic definitions primarily rather than trying to make our own surveys of language use? Shouldn't we be focusing on looking at historical research that actively discusses the concept of the "modern period"? What do standard textbooks and research encyclopedias say about this? Peter Isotalo 11:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- There are plenty of detailed articles on various parts of modern history. Suggest that this article is heavenly pruned to remove the detailed historical content, and the name "Modern era" is retained.----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that the situation here is a little more complex than this. There's also the page Iskandar323 (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)]
- I agree that the situation here is a little more complex than this. There's also the page
- Oppose. In looking at Category:Historical eras, I don't see any consistent usage -- history, age, era are all in use. Seems like there's no agreement about how to name this kind of article at all. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Vital articles has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 17:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject History has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 17:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject European history has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 17:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject History of Science has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 17:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- This article does not follow current research. In just about all recent historical writing I've ever encountered, in my university studies of history, and from personal acquaintances who are academic historians, the term "modern period" is what's most common and it refers to the period c. 1800 until now. There's an older use of the term "modern" which includes everything after the end of the Middle Ages, but that more or less stopped being the case after the concept of the early modern period was popularized. However, here on Wikipedia, we seem to have gotten stuck in trying to include both the new and old definitions. To fix this misunderstanding, we kinda seem to have invented the notion of the "late modern", or at least pushed its usage beyond what's actually relevant.
- There's also a problem of the article becoming a dumping ground for virtually any events that occured after about 1500. That goes against the concept of periodization that the article is supposed to reflect. Global history does not neatly fall into time brackets, especially before industrialization. Historians do sometimes apply terms like "early modern", "medieval", "classical", "ancient", etc. to everything from Mesoamerica to Japan, but usually with more geographically specific definitions that are not synonymous to how the terms are applied in a European (or North American) context.
- I'm not sure what the most appropriate article title for this particular article should be, but we should absolutely reduce the current three articles (modern era, early modern period and late modern period) to just two articles: early modern (1500-1800) and modern (1800-now), at least if we want to be in sync with modern historical research.
- Peter Isotalo 11:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Trim, scope, recency
I've restructured this article and significantly trimmed it. Lots of material was simply copied inline without structure and also with careless reference management. The article is substantially smaller, but always references the main article for the given topic. My changes were motivated by maintenacne concerns, but also by worry for recency bias. While the George Floyd problem is part of a big trend in the US, it doesn't deserve six paragraphs here when the 9/11 attacks (and other attacks around the world) received only a mention in a single sentence.
Copied text remains, and probably should be converted to transclusion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've moved a couple sections to be transcluded. I think this is better, but I remain concerned about this article and its scope. Seems like this should be about the era, not about the specific events in the era. That is, this should describe the times, which includes the effects of and the atmosphere created by the events of the era, not the events themselves. There are other articles for the events -- 2020s, 21st century, and 1998 for example -- no need to enumerate them again. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Globalization
I've tagged this article with {{Globalize}} because it represents an almost exclusively US-centeric view and description of the modern era. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Centralized discussion on modernity
I've raised the problems in this and the related articles early modern period, late modern period and modernity in Wikiproject History. Thread 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 13:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
"Western era" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Western era 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/2024 March 17 § Western era until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)