Talk:Post–Cold War era

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Is the time period accurate?

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedollop (talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Is the naming of the era appropriate?

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)

En dash or hyphen?

Why do some articles, including this one, use an en dash instead of a hyphen to write Post– when some articles do not (like Displaced persons camps in post-World War II Europe)? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

What's the difference between post-traumatic stress disorder and post–Cold War era? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Schierbecker: who moved this article to where it is now way back in 2015. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

[Should be a hyphen since it's a prefix; not sure what the reasoning was behind an en-dash.] Never mind, other users found the Manual of Style link for why it's an en-dash. According to Chicago Manual of Style it's "a rather fussy use of the en dash that many people ignore, preferring the hyphen." Link Fredlesaltique (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. According to the MOS, it should be an endash. See section 9.9.2.3, which addresses it directly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Agreed, an en dash. It refers an era that is post the Cold War, not a war era that is post cold. Doremo (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Good Olfactory and Doremo: Oh, I get it now. I wasn't aware that this section ever existed. As a result, I moved "Displaced persons camps in post-World War II Europe" to "Displaced persons camps in post–World War II Europe" instead. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding PTSD (above), it really should be a dash (i.e., a disorder that is post traumatic stress), but publications almost universally have a hyphen, unless they write it with a space or closed up. Doremo (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

encyclopedic forms

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)

Enough blame games already. Mentioning the Second Cold War in "See also" is already adequate enough. Trying to explain that topic in prose in this article would give readers an impression that the "situation" (or whatever you want to call it) is happening, no matter how it's written, or part of this era. Even an infobox mentioning Cold War II in this article looks alarmist to me. Furthermore, I've not seen you provide links in talk pages... unless I overlooked. I don't know what motivates you into spreading the "Second Cold War" all over other articles, but I still want to prevent the prevalence of this in this project. What happened to responsibilities and all that? --George Ho (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

negative effect of not having the infobox there right now Seriously? 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)

BTW, you may wanna change back the intro to what it was before you. There's no need to mention some events as highlights of the era, right? --George Ho (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, right now I'm getting kinda confused, like what blame games are you referring to

And, on the negative effect of not having the infobox, sorry, I had meant to use the word "might" in the sense of "I might do it, I might not do it", and trying to use some humor. I also wanted to highlight a little on the perspective or point-of-view from "the opposite side", the idea of how it could be a similarly reflected experience.

So I see what you're saying, and I'd like to ask whether you've seen what I wrote about "implying" and the silliness of people, because there's some points from which we could continue our discussion on. We also haven't really begun a discussion on "encyclopedic forms", or how we should act about the personal "deep psychologies" of the viewers. This kind of psychological stuff can be pretty deep, complicated, and uncertain; and so we might need to have an in-depth discussion on that in order to clarify things and to clear the air.

And also, "no matter how it's written, or part of this era. Even an infobox mentioning Cold War II in this article looks alarmist to me.", this seems like a rather radical view to me, so we should probably try to clarify it as well.

I would also like further clarification, to ask on what you mean by the links, thanks.

You're saying "no need", and I think maybe you might wanna share more details on your thoughts about it so I can get a clearer picture.

And, lastly, on the last part of your first paragraph, you seem to be referring to some kinda context or background, as though its something that we have already discussed, but I don't think we have, and I think I'm only just starting to understand that context/background that you're intending. As there might have been some discussions earlier that we could've continued properly but didn't, perhaps like the discussion on forms/psychology which I've mentioned just above.

Like, I'm just starting to understand based on what you're saying right now in this section, it might be coming in a bit late.

And if it's about how I personally feel, honestly, I've been feeling kinda "oppressed" by you lol, oppressed like under Xi Jinping lol, or like being trapped under a vague, unclear and confusing Kafkaesque bureaucracy Halo FC (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

When I mentioned blame game, I was referring to what you said: 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)

Yeah, I hadn't specified the negative effects, I had just wanted to raise a point that, saying "let's keep it down while we discuss", from the perspective of the other side, it could similarly be, "let's leave it up while we discuss".

And I thought that the term "blame game" refers to people trying to blame each other? But nevermind, this seems like a new line of discussion, or at least, into more detail than before.

So, I think I understand that its about encyclopedic forms or how we should act about a viewer's personal deep psychology, and I think I'm not too sure about the details or specifics of what you're meaning, so for clarity I think you could elaborate and give a detailed description, like perhaps an overview to establish the framework, thanks Halo FC (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

All right, all right. Instead of "blame game" (per its Merriam-Webster definition), how about "blaming others rather than taking responsibilities (especially of your edits)"? For links, you can search for and provide sources using the term, like a Bloomberg op-ed and another op-ed. When I said 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)

Well I guess we gotta be clear; though that still sounds like the same thing lol. Maybe, "making an excuse". I also think that it'd be pretty helpful to have a framework to establish clearly the context or premise which we're gonna be working off of. And yeah, I had understood what you meant by links, though thanks anyway. I think that the inevitability is also not just due to consensus, but due to the rhythmic march of history's progression itself, the serious actions being carried out by the major actors on the world stage. Halo FC (talk) 06:26, 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)

sorry, i'm not quite sure what the point you're trying to make about time is, no offence, and i think like, this pandemic, it would be an era-defining event, unless the world fails to learn the lessons and enables the emergence of a subsequent even more terrible pandemic. Like, SARS 1 in 2003 was already horrible, it even inspired the movie "Contagion", but, lessons weren't learned, and thus, SARS 1 isn't the biggest era-defining pandemic. It was so major in the most badly affected, east asian countries, and yet, its almost nothing compared to COVID-19. The prospect that the world would allow in future something as terrible as, not to mention even worse than, COVID-19 to happen, and within the same era, we would have really dropped the ball then Halo FC (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I hope I'm clearer this time: mentioning pandemic as related to this era can cause emotions or emotion-based frenzy. Furthermore, I've not seen you cite a reliable source verifying connecting between the pandemic and this era. I still don't see how mentioning the pandemic in the article in effort to right the wrongs is very helpful to the article. --George Ho (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're clearer, but not really. So it seems like another different psychological issue, and sorry, I'm still not quite sure of the full clear picture of your views on this topic. Also, 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. As in, the connection of the pandemic to this era is the chronology, the temporal connection, isn't it. And I don't think that I'm "righting any wrongs" in the way that that article defines it, unless you mean that I'm "righting your wrongs", sorry I'm a little confused Halo FC (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Since our discussion is heading nowhere, why not forget the past comments of this thread, start over and... what are we supposed to discuss initially? Are we supposed to discuss your edits, my responses, or what else? --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I get a tiny glimpse of what you were talking about, so here goes:

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?

When I said "right the wrongs", I was referring to what you said: unless the world fails to learn the lessons and enables the emergence of a subsequent even more terrible pandemic.

I hope I'm clearer... way clearer. Otherwise, best to start over the discussion from scratch and know what we should clearly and concretely talk about. --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

ok, well, sorry, I don't see how that's righting a wrong either, i was just expressing that this pandemic would be an era-defining event. but moving on,

"your views on this topic", so I was referring to the psychological topic.

Cold War I lasted a long time and was a defining period in history, and this article would be about the world and global situation which emerged after Cold War I ended, as Cold War I was of a global scope, and so I think this Post-Cold War era is also of a global scope, which the pandemic certainly falls under, it's screwing the entire world. So I think it would be connected both time-wise, chronologically, and scope-wise, the global scope. The pandemic has also had major global political and economic implications, topics of significance. Since the end of Cold War I, I think no event has singularly had such a major impact on the entire world. Also, it's the division of time and history into historical eras, I guess every period of time/history would be of a historical era? I think it'd be unusual to have a period of time being not of any historical era. Halo FC (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you cite a source verifying what you argued about? If not, shall I do it for you? --George Ho (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Chill George, I was just trying to explain and clarify first. Maybe like the Cold War I wikipedia article explaining the war's global scope? Or which part would you like to clarify first? Halo FC (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia, eh, which is against policy WP:CIRCULAR? C'mon. At least please give us a link to any source, like a news article, book, or magazine, verifying connection between the pandemic and the article subject. Or I can help you out then. --George Ho (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Well what I meant was that the article has a wealth of sources. And you can help out too, thanks. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/post-cold-war) A lot of articles and writings on the Post-Cold War era demonstrate its global political scope. I think that this pandemic fits well into the scope as within its short year and a half of existence, it has had major political and economic impacts across the entirety of the globe, and has reshaped the lives of everyone, and sadly ended 4 million of them, and it has a confluence with the rising Cold War II political situation, which already on its own is already looking to be the most major force reshaping the political landscape of the Post-Cold War era global scope. (https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3106862/new-world-disorder-will-us-china-cold-war-and-covid-19-finally) By the way, what do you think will be the most likely cutoff point for this era? The progression into an FCW might make this the "interwar" era. Though no matter how it cuts off, I think you'd come around that this pandemic will be viewed as one of the defining events of the era, if its not already so at this point in time of the era. Unless, as mentioned above, the world allows something even worse to happen which would overshadow it. Halo FC (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

I see, and well, I don't think it would be uncertain. So I think the Post-Cold War era doesn't have that much explicit coverage of that sort, because its our current era, and likewise for the pandemic in that regard, as its still kinda new. However, there's definitely plenty of coverage on the pandemic's impact in our global scope of the present day, and, the global scope of the present day is also the global scope of the current Post-Cold War era, so we see the clear connection Halo FC (talk) 16:28, 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)

Best to leave content about the Second Cold War out of the article until that topic becomes more than the term. For now, still no confirmation that it's happening enough to warrant inclusion. Mentioning it in the "See also" section is the least we can do for now. If I'm not making sense to you, then wanna start over and discuss something more concrete and more specific in a newer thread... without an "arbitrary break"? Either our dialogue is dragging on, or it's going nowhere. --George Ho (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

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).

— Assignment last updated by Lukebbaldwin (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

'Background' section needs more sources

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."

’Booming with independence’? How? Again, this is too vague, and Reagan’s policies should be given some careful scrutiny instead of simply stating he ‘rebuilt’ 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)