Talk:Modern history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feudalism[edit]

The obsolescence of feudalism and ultimately transition into imperialism of separate states under monarchy sometime during the late fifteenth century by 1500 may mark a buffer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.44.178.73 (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Roman Empire's coronation marks the beginning of the Middle Ages in Europe as there are recurring feuds between Imperial and Papal authority as claim over the Papal States is never solidified. The fall of the Eastern Roman Empire 1453 to the Ottoman Turkic Dynasty may signify a transition into the modern era in the Near East.

By 1500, not many states in Europe would adhere to feudalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.44.178.76 (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Migration Period of the European dark ages the final chapter to Antiquity prior to our solidity of religion (Church) tying in to the state. The Reformation only scatters this sense of fluidity between state as individual crowns across Europe vie for imperialistic influence. Ivan the Terrible and the independence of the Russian state from the Golden Horde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.44.178.76 (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla fiction[edit]

Removed this because it was unreferenced and contained popular (fictional?) claims about Tesla including his "work formed the basis of modern alternating current electric power systems", ... "with which he helped usher in the Second Industrial Revolution". "War of Currents" was "a bitter rivalry between Tesla and Edison", and Tesla was "the victor in the "War of Currents"". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

primary topic for "Modern"?[edit]

If someone wishes to argue this, please use Talk:Modern. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modern History/Modern Period - What's the Difference?[edit]

There seems to be some redundancy in the subdivisions of the Modern History time period. The period between the Early Modern Period and Contemporary History (approx. 1750 to 1914) is often referred to here, and in many other articles, as the Modern period. But this is also what the overall era (approx. 1450 to present) is more or less referred to— the modern history. Obviously the fact that these two time periods are conflated makes the discussion about the post-medieval age confusing. For example, you may have noticed that clicking on "Modern Period" in the sidebar takes you to "Modern History."

It is necessary that someone find a respected and appropriate time period to cover (approx.) 1750 to 1914. I would like to put out the suggestion that Age of Revolution be used as the global categorization for this era. It connects most of the world with the trend of Industrial Revolutions (Europe, USA, Russia, Japan), and political revolutions (USA, France, Haiti, Latin America, China, etc). If anyone has a better suggestion or would simply like to put out their opinion on this matter, please do share. — InvaderCito (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have also found this article, Long nineteenth century. Once again, is this supposedly theoretical period well-known and respected enough to use as a fundamental article in the WikiProject History? It would fill the hole in "middle" Modern history. But it sounds like this time period might be set for an entirely different system of time periods (i.e. it is followed by the "short twentieth century"). Age of Revolution is probably too narrow for this time frame, so the Long nineteenth century is probably more well-suited. Once again, I would really like more opinions on this matter. Thank you. — InvaderCito (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: This discussion has now been moved to WikiProject History as per WP:MULTI. Move any discussion there. Thank you. — InvaderCito (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egress and Negation?[edit]

Should the headings "United States egress" and "Transitions and Enlightenment negation" be just "United States" and "Transitions and Enlightenment"? Vandalism?68.98.129.253 (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has removed "egress." The section currently entitled "Transitions and Enlightenment negation" would be better titled "Science and Philosopy," so I am going to make that change.68.98.129.253 (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both are descriptive section headers. If you need help with the understanding of the terms, see dict:egress and dict:negation. --J. D. Redding 12:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

they are not descriptions used by RS and that makes it original research, which is not allowed. Rjensen (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cited and see also'ed. Stop removing info, thanks.--J. D. Redding 19:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Don't confuse the local phenomena of America's later Great Awakenings (3rd/4th) with the events on the world stage. --J. D. Redding 23:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such wording falls way outside WP:TONE per articles should avoid "argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon". Reworded per above. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology and usage[edit]

This section needs reviewing. The "Pre-Modern" subsection and first paragraph of the "Modern" may be copiously referenced (albeit some of the references appear a bit odd), but they are not really about terminology. They come across as a grossly simplistic philosophy based on "Pre-modern = religion and myth, reason and innate knowledge" and "Modern = science, empirical method and new information". There are various ways we could tinker with this, but I'd restrict it to a simple definition of the term "modern" (as compared with e.g. "medieval" or "renaissance", etc.) and leave the philosophical stuff out. --Bermicourt (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this version, may be better. Allot of the article was expanded by an editor known for OR and WP:REFBLOATing articles. Many other parts of this article have the same problem. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current version is bad. "The term 'modern' was coined in the Sixteenth Century." Could the Fifteenth Century not be described as "modern" then? What happened in the Seventeenth? Did some people call the Sixteenth Century modern and some people medieval? Just too confusing. 05:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Modern history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Modern 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Modern 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generation of Love?[edit]

In the second-to-last paragraph of Modern history#Cold War era, there's a reference to the Generation of Love. I'm not sure what this is referring to. The wikilink points to a song. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Its unverified and does not appear in the article it summarizes. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modern 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image use is excessive[edit]

Seems as if an excessive number of images have been recently added to this article which is creating a WP:SANDWICH effect. While images can help enhance an article per WP:IUP#Adding images to articles, too many actually detracts from the article content and makes things more difficult to read; moreover. the article starts to move into WP:NOTGALLERY territory and may even cause MOS:ACCESSibilty problems for some editors using mobile devices in general or maybe even for visually impaired readers used special devices to read articles. Comparing this version here from June 5, 2018 with the most recent version today, best illustrates the excessive image use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were some oddly-formatted images, mostly with long captions, but to claim "the article starts to move into WP:NOTGALLERY territory" suggests strongly that, like many who cite WP:NOTGALLERY, you have not actually read it. The relevant bit talks about "Photographs or media files with no accompanying text", which is very much not the case here. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is simply not an page of images, so maybe in that sense suggesting WP:NOTGALLERY was a bit too strong. At the same time, there seems to be quite a number of images which seem to have been added where the connection between text and image is flimsy at best that it's as almost as if there is no accompanying textual content, at least pertaining the image in question, at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A smaller number of better chosen images would be much more useful for readers. The effect of the current number of images is to make the article look rather overwhelming. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the assessment, images are vital to connect text to the reader. If some images must be removed, it should be done carefully.
Bear in mind that some sections had no illustrations what so ever, before, and I think that was not conductive for the information conveyed here.
As far as choice of images go, are there any particular images you object here too?
Sunriseshore (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Images can enhance an article, but I would not automatically say they are vital for an article to be understandable to the reader. Certain represntative images can be used, but not every section needs to be illustrated by an image. Moreover, the WP:SANDWICHing of images into an article actually seems more detrimental to the reader's understanding than any benefit to said understanding obtained by adding the additional images. The reader doesn't need to see a generic ohoto of someone in a lab to understand that the growth of science impacted history, and also doesn't need to see a photo of the Cheops Pyramid to understand that faith or the belief in a god was important as well. Simply adding random images (i.e., images where the subject is not specifically mentioned or directly tied into the article content) or generic images of subjects which don't require an image be seen to be understood is a type of image WP:OR where personal preference rather than encyclopedic relevance seems to be the determining criterion for inclusion. Images of Wikipedia servers or commuter train riders in Hong Kong seem more decorative and distractive than informative. That's four images which seem uneccesary within the first two sections alone.
Perhaps the older version I've referenced above could use a few more images, but I believe the current version has taken things way to the other extreme. One of the main differences between Wikipedia and a print encyclopedis is that it's not always necessary to include excessive detail in broader more general articles because such information is usually found in more detailed specific articles which can be linked to. This WP:SS style approach can also be applied to image use, where a sufficient number of representative images can be used but the unnecessary addition of images already being used in other articles probably should be avoided. My count might be a little off, but there seem to be almost 90 images and audio files currently used in the article, whereas in the older version there were about 30. Editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD, but adding 60 more files to the article might have been a bit too bold. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The images you speak of illustrate in apparent ways the meaning of 'modern' as a theoretical concepts vs earlier times in that specific case. The Wikipedia Servers demonstrate the age of information or 'contemporary' times which is a category of breaking up eras in history. I think we should try to compromise but a blanket removal of images is not productive. I can assure that none provide a decorative purpose but are hands-on representations of the subjects discussed.
The larger reason though for including what might be seen as an excess of images is that this article is an exceedingly broad subject which cannot be handled easily. One could risk by having too few images to uncannily support a bias of perspective with images. That is why I added a variety of paintings, photographs and audio files that gives a broader context to the material discussed in the text. I also worked on the captions so that images provided encyclopedic information. In cases where captions are short such as the 1900 photograph from Russia I think the image itself demonstrates Russia's large peasant agrarian population which still were in a very conservative state at the turn of the 20th century when compared to the rest of Europe.
I have recently learned about the concerns of text sandwiching though I believe that the small size of images mitigates this specific issue. If not certain removals can be made to accommodate this
I am afraid the other statements you made Marchjuly are matters of opinion. If possible I think this issue should be resolved by finding Wikiepeida users who have academic credentials in world or modern history so they can give their perspective on what images may be most necessary to include.
I must say in advance that I strongly recommend that as many as the audio and video files be preserved as possible. This due to their value in showing the evolution of 19th/20th century civilization. The first video for example, shows the rise of skyscrapers which had never existed prior to that time. The second video, a clip from a silent film represents the rise of popular culture in the 1920s. This is informative because it describes the context of changing technology and lifestyle which occurred so rapidly in a comparatively short amount of time.
I must press how much I agree with you on the informative v.s decorative value. However on subjects like this it is important to see the wider scope of what is informative, especially in matters of historical theory (which is not even history itself).
Sunriseshore (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my point better Ill explain my chose of the Hong Kong metro photograph. After a long time of deliberating between several images I choose this one because it represented several key words used in the text to explain the meaning of being modern. For one there is the location of where the photo was taken - Hong Kong a British Colony in China. Along with this goes with urbanization, of course cities existed prior to modern times but they were far smaller and unsanitary. To my understanding the location of Hong Kong was a small village prior to colonialism.
The metro system was specifically chosen because it is infrastructure which allowed (and still does allow) modern cities to function in a productive safe pace, unique for the modern time at least on such a large scale. Therefore the photograph demonstrates Colonialism, Globalism, and Urbanism all of which are large concepts in the topic. This might sound a little pedantic but the point holds true. The image is attempting to visually represent large theoretical concepts in a hands-on fashion. This was especially important I believed because this was near the beginning of the article. Clearly the written content is trying to introduce the Modern History by discussing the theory and definition of being modern first.
Sunriseshore (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First just some general advice regarding talk pages. Please try to properly WP:INDENT your posts because such other things make threads much easier to follow, especially as more and more editors join a discussion.

Next, Wikipedia article content is basically determined through consensus; it’s OK to be WP:BOLD, but disagreements are resolved according to WP:DR, which basically means using discussion to establishing a consensus. All editors in good-standing are welcome to participate in article talk page discussions, including people who might be considered WP:EXPERTs in the subject matter; however, arguments made editors with academic credentials, etc. aren’t automatically given more credence than arguments made by others. What matters the most is what relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines say and how to best apply them.

As you’ve probably noticed, one other editor has also posted above that they feel the image use is excessive. You might also have noticed that another editor added a {{Too many images}} template (and a few other templates) to the top of the article. So, this indicates that I’m not the only editor who feels that image use might be excessive. You’ve nominated this article for WP:GA status. I believe the article’s chances of being upgraded to GA status will only be enhanced by removing many of the images and trying to focus only on the key ones. What those key ones are something that can be determined through further article talk page discussion. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I began to believe that the nomination was not going to be addressed but that is a fair point. I can agree that we should talk about the images which are worth :::::keeping the most in the article. Sunriseshore (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this article is over imaged including MOS:SANDWICHING by definition. Cleaning up some illogical placement should fix some of it: Beatles in "American Peace"? "The Blue Marble" should be moved to "Space Age" and "Hubble Ultra Deep Field" should be deleted, etc. At each double squeeze one image can be deleted, they read as redundant or a little off topic for the section, we can not depict everything. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this article needs to be well illustrated in comparison to prior however I have a made a moderate removal that hope can serve as a compromise.Sunriseshore (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took some more images out for breathing room. -- Beland (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Modern history for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Modern history is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Modern history until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in t he discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 11:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Split[edit]

A proposal was made in February, but there has little discussion since. I think given that early and late modern history are two separate different fields of study in historiography, it makes sense that Late Modern History just like Early Modern History, be given its own article, where more details can be discussed on events, and how they fit into historiography of the period.

Bear in mind that modern history in the techincal framework is everything from 1800 to 1945 (or 50) maybe, so the article will mostly flesh out, the general summary of industrialization, imperialism, the consumer economy and the World Wars. I am not sure, if that would allow for any reductions of this current article, because as it stands, it provides a very basic summary as is. -Sunriseshore [this comment was made at 10:45, 21 June 2019‎]

This article is probably too long, and this is a huge subject. I agree with the idea of splitting it up, and I don't think an overview that merely combines highlights from two periods with full articles is worthwhile. We already have early modern period; most of this article would move to late modern period and the disambiguation there would have to move or be turned into hatnotes. -- Beland (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
History of the world#Modern history has a high-level summary of the early modern, late modern, and contemporary periods, so after moving details to sub-articles I'm planning to redirect there. -- Beland (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no useful definition of the split between "early modern", "late modern", and "post-modern", with the last one not always agreed to even exist. Different fields of study -- arts, society, politics, military, technology -- casually use the terms quite differently, and there's little agreement even within these fields. We will not find authoritative sources that cover these as distinct subjects with any consistency. Thus what we put in or leave out of the proposed articles will be based on individual editors' choices, becoming some form of SYNTH or OR by definition, so cannot ever become a good articles if separated. The article late modern period currently suffers from this problem, which is why it's a mishmash of disconnected sections and not a good article. Even this article, Modern history, struggles with this lack of useful definition, with similar results. If this article is too large, we should cut down the bloat in this article, not spread it around to allow more articles to become even more bloated. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an immediate concern is that when these two periods are in the same article, we have the same problem, because they are in different sections. But considering the deeper question, I'd say that especially at this scale, pretty much all periodizations of history are fuzzy concepts. We could make the same objections about "modern period" or Bronze Age (which happened at different times in different places, and in some places not at all) or Second Industrial Revolution or even World War II. Or about other fuzzy concepts on which there are major definitional disagreements like sandwich. We would be a very poor encyclopedia if we didn't have any articles about these things, which are real enough to scope out a useful article. It would be definitely be problematic if we said "the late modern period objectively exists and these are definitively the years it spans". It's not original research or impermissible synthesis to say "sources disagree on the definition" and to explain the different boundaries and if it's interesting why there's a controversy. For example, look at the map on Middle East which does a great job explaining three different definitions commonly encountered. Or even at Early modern period#Early modern timeline which visualizes the fuzziness of the the political boundaries of this period. As you point out, this type of periodization crosses fields, so we could do a similar visualization to show how coherent periods in the history of war or technology or culture also form a ragged boundary or simply span multiple periods. If you think it would be more helpful to have objective, clear scoping that distances the encyclopedia from periodization controversies, we could use titles like History of the world (1500-1815). I'm not sure if we did that if we'd have a separate article on early modern period that covers more or less the same timespan but focuses on periodization specifically. At this level of detail, many of the most interesting things to say describe the long-term trends rather than trying to catalog a very large number of important events or individual threads, though that is also to some degree important. Picking arbitrary start and end years doesn't really solve the boundary-drawing problem, because at this scale there threads and trends that span any given year boundary and we'd have to explain that for context. One might also raise the same objection for this approach anyway, that picking a certain year to stop one article and start another is an act of original research. But I think decisions about whether to merge or separate articles like this are actually just an editorial decision about how to organize an abundance of content, made for the convenience of readers and ease of explanation. Late modern period has original research issues on much finer-grained claims unrelated to the scope of the article, which early modern period doesn't seem to have (or at least it's not tagged). When I was separating it out, I definitely found material that was misplaced in early vs. late, but I think I was able to make two coherent piles of history without relying on any one rigid definition, minimizing overlap to avoid duplication, but explaining the ragged boundaries and limitations of the periodization terminology.
As for the issue of bloat, trimming this article down would make it too close to History of the world#Modern history to be a useful addition to the encyclopedia, I think. For the next level of detail beyond that top-level summary, there is so much to say I think trying to fit that into a single article would make it too long. Especially given the well-developed early modern history; up-merging that here would definitely make it too long. -- Beland (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2#What to do about Modern history merge[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2#What to do about Modern history merge. Sdkb (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Early modern period which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Modern era which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Modern_history&oldid=1173682065"