|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"1945 to present"
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 188.8.131.52 (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. 184.108.40.206 (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)
==Start of the 21st Century 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???
Spanish article, help
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
"Not to be confused with Late modern period."
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)