Jump to content

Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Major WP:SYNTH

I have an impression that this page is one huge and sloppy WP:SYNTH about a political buzzword. Without analysis of the concept. Just throw in a bunch of cases of Russian muscle flexing. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"CWII" is a neologism; popular, but still brand-new. And the article must thorougly use sources which explicitly operate with the concept. Otherwise it is one huge WP:SYNTH; plausible, but still a WP:COATRACK. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


There is no real consensus as of yet that a Cold War II has started. Many sources still predict the possibility of a Cold War II. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/10/03/rubio-us-barreling-toward-second-cold-war/73288022/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.250.51 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

my edits

  • Replaced "background wwith a meaningful title, "Geopolitical shifts after the dissolution of the Soviet Union"
  • Removed "cold war" paragraph; has its own article; well-known subject, one mouse click away
  • Removed "Political scientists looked for new paradigms" part; unclear relevance to the subject.

Staszek Lem (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Please explain if you revert

Axxxion If you are going to revert, please explain and not blanket revert. Hollth (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I find your recent edits on this article unreasonable, without any merit, or consensus.Axxxion (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
What parts were unreasonable? Hollth (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Almost all edits were removing info about the Cold War that has no direct parallel (WP:coatrack) or removing duplication. With all due respect, your reason sounds wp:idontlikeit. If you can't back the revert up with anything more substantial, I'll be re-adding my changes.Hollth (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
You unilaterally removed massive info from Background that is most relevant to the topic.Axxxion (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the coatrack analogy is apt for this article. There's a lot of "background" information that is hanging here, but is unrelated to the term "Cold War II". The Berlin Blockade, Fukuyama and Huntington, "the medieval Rus' state" are huge topics with their own articles. I applaud efforts to move text to other articles where appropriate, so this at least cannot be said to be without consensus.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 17:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, these are all huge topics that are relevant to the understanding of this article if one cares to understand; they are not dwelt upon in this article, merely mentioned in but a few words. The editor above had deleted a paragraph about what happened in the territory of the USSR right after the dissolution thereof: How the hell is one meant to make sense of what Putin is doing now without a basic grip on where it all stems from?Axxxion (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I think where we differ here is on the term "basic grip." Wikipedia should make articles useful for readers, but we also should try to employ a summary style. Sorry if I'm wikilawyering a bit with the links here, but I don't think we need to explain that Russia is a country, or that Ukraine or the Baltic States were once part of an empire. Nor do we need get into the day-by-day events or quotes of politicians, and then the response of another politician, when we can summarize much clearer.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Patrick, forgive my getting a tad personal, but what you say above strikes me as utterly surreal: Never in my life have i met an American, e.g., (and i mostly have met educated persons, or highly educated), who would know the difference between such notions as "Soviet block", "Soviet Union", "Soviet Russia", "RSFSR", Comecon, etc. As for "Russia", i can assure you that even in Russia itself (and i had lived there for 45 years, until relatively recently), even the "Russians" are quite confused about what "Russia" is exactly, and it can refer, subject to the context and/or speaker, to an array of entities, e.g. either including, or excluding Kiev, or even Warsaw (including, if we talk prior 1917). This "Backgroumd" section has to be a bit like a text-book, partly to make clear what precisely such terms mean, or might mean, or used to mean in the historical context. I do not have much issue with your recent edits here, except one bit that i felt had to be resored; but i find the edits made by Hollth completely without merit.Axxxion (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If you keep reverting my edits, i'll be forced to escalate. I have cited policy to back up my edits. You have no presented any reason other than wp:idontlikeit and wp:useful. That you find my edits without merit is irrelevant if they are backed by policy. Hollth (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hollth, you appear to confirm my feeling that you fail to intend to be constructive on this article. What else would "escalate" suggest?Axxxion (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Axxxion, Patrickneil, and Hollth, shall I take this issue to WP:DRN? That place doesn't do user conduct but just content disputes. --George Ho (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that is the escalation that Hollth is referring to. There hasn't been an edit war per se, but there are major disagreements over the degree of content that belongs on this article. More voices are definitely appreciated, and I think an experienced outside voice would be helpful in identifying what to include and what not to.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 18:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I have second thoughts on this. I recently started a discussion on adding an infobox. I need to know other unresolved issues before I can start the request there. Or you can do the DRN there yourself. --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Part of my inability to accept edits made by Hollth is due to the simple fact that much of what he writes is not exactly in English: e.g. the current version of the very beginning of the lede as edited by him today, reads: "Cold War II... refers to state of political and military tension between Russia ..." Please tell me, somebody, what language is it?Axxxion (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The article was neither created, nor mainly written by me, hence i have not terribly much interest in defending it. I have tried, as far as I could, to improve it for the past year or so. Now, I think it is a forlorn hope, as it seems to attract to much attention of those who appear to dislike the topic itself.Axxxion (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Section "The Spearhead Force"

Is it described somewhere as part of CWII? If not, it must be removed. If yes, this must be explicitly stated in the article. Otherwise its inclusion is WP:SYNTH/WP:COATRACK.Staszek Lem (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. This remark is valid for all events collected in the article: every single one must be supported by references which somehow associate it with the concept of CWII. For example, contention for Arctic. [ A really Cold :-) War, isn't it? ] Staszek Lem (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be kept and reworded to make it clear if it was deployed (and created?) in response to tension with Russia. So, I lean towards including it, although I can see arguments for deleting it. Hollth (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Move portions to other pages?

Responding to the request at WP:ANRFC. The Consensus here is that the article should be limited in scope to the usage of the phrase "Cold War II". The proposed mergers of material would be acceptable if they fall with in this bounds. From the conversation below, "Cold War II" is notable enough to have it's own article (as per the afd), but it's not about a ongoing foreign relations spat. Limiting the scope to this avoids original research. A narrative that tries to create a foreign relations spat similar to the original Cold War is Original research if created by wikipedia editors.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

At first I would like to discuss the title again, but then perhaps now is not the time to resurface it until this discussion will be settled. Now that AFD discussion resulted into "kept", what about moving portions of the page into other pages, like NATO–Russia relations and Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin? Some people suggested the idea, so I will give others credit. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The title is OK. The content is not OK, see #Major WP:SYNTH section. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

YOu probably mean "merging", not moving. Good idea. If some pieces do subject to move, please be aware of {{copied}} template, to properly handle WP copyright issues. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Maproom, the AFD was already done and then resulted in "keep". --George Ho (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Apologies. I recuse myself. I cannot comment with any confidence on the topic or its content and cannot in reasonable time develop sufficient competence in either the topic or overlapping topics, nor on how to deal with the overlap. Without insight I cannot helpfully contribute to several proposed measures that sound reasonable. Sorry. JonRichfield (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I copied large swathes from the NATO-Russia subsection and moved them to Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin. Is it desired that I delete moved content as a kind of merge? Hollth (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I can let you be bold while discussion is ongoing. As for content, it's more of splitting, Hollth. George Ho (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I've brought this up before, but this is an article about the term "Cold War II", and where and why some journalists and historians are using it. Its not actually an article about an ongoing foreign relations spat, which is what some users misunderstand the article to be about. We have other articles, like those suggested above, to deal with changing US-Russian relations. I don't think its controversial or a personal affront to say this, since its in the article history, but users Axxxion and Orser67 are largely responsible for writing the article with large background and current events sections, and I think there should be more of an effort to include them in moving inappropriate text off of this article. At the moment, I see efforts by Hollth, among others, being reverted, and I want to help out but find the lack of a coherent effort to fix the major issues disheartening.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 18:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • NO NEED The article does have fundamental defects. That said, I believe we ought to let it ride. It is very well sourced and the topic it highlights is not invented, although it could be argued that it is somewhat contrived. Applying any drastic changes (such as splitting) would be premature and destructive. Things on the ground are evolving (escalating) fast; hence no doubt we shall have to change the title in a short while. That is if some of us are still around then.Axxxion (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I might suggest that between the comments on this talk page, the RfC on its title, the deletion discussion, the multiple banner notices at the top, the "dubious" and "better source needed" flags on the article, that it should be clear that many editors are dissatisfied with the current article here, and see a need to make large changes. Even editors voting to keep the article last month brought up the need to merge where appropriate. Axxxion, you say the article has fundamental defects, so then why not help address them? Why wait? This is a reasonable proposal with reachable goals.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 17:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Patrick, I personally view all these multiple banners and tags here as a childish way to entertain oneself. We have many articles in WP which are really in need of basic ce at the very least, but that of course requires real work and time.Axxxion (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't view these efforts as childish, I trust other editors are genuinely trying to improve the article, and in response I think you're making an absurd argument: that because other articles are also poorly written and because hey, the world might end, that the coatracking and personal essay style should be allowed to continue unchecked? That really seems anathema to the community-driven efforts that typically accompany good Wikipedia articles. Perhaps we should discuss specific issues in the sections if that would help.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Look, what i mean is very basic: a few hours ago I spent some of my time and added several helpful links to sources in this article, instead of mainly unnecessary tags that had been hung there. I could hang such tags pretty much in EVERY bloody articles in WP. What is the usefulness of such activity? I mean putting tags that a source might be insufficient: very easy to find another source by just googling. Just do it, if you think it is in order! I do not predict the world "might end": surely it WILL! But the simple fact is that the developments catalogued in this article do have a certain indisputable logic and dynamic: that of a run-up to a major, global, war. In fact, it is already in progress, albeit at at a half-cocked clip. And attempts to boil down this phenomenon to some sort of "Putin foreign policy" topic are downright ridiculous. To start a world war, it is not enough to have one madman (presumably Putin), you need at least one more in a similar position of power, as was the case with Hitler and warmongering degenerate Churchill.Axxxion (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
While I can't speak for all editors, when a sentence or section is flagged, its often really not because it just needs another source, but because the editor feels that the way its been worded can't be sourced, or shouldn't be sourced because it is trending towards WP:OR or WP:POV. Googling a topic to find a source that matches a flagged sentence is not really how sourcing is supposed to work on Wikipedia, rather sources should be found first from which the article is written, not the other way around. Axxxion, its fine to believe that the regional conflicts are escalating into a larger war, but until that happens, and is universally agreed to be happening in WP:RS, Wikipedia is understandably limited from discussing it like it is. Using Template:Infobox military conflict is an example of where I think opinionated editors have pushed this article into WP:FRINGE areas, and I do think we need to pull back away from treating each international relations news item as a foray in this conflict. I think some of that is an effort to form a greater human narrative where one don't necessarily exist. Ultimately, if a source doesn't explicitly use the term "Cold War II" or one of the bolded variations in the first sentence here, then I'm not sure its related to this article's topic.
I don't have an opinion about the future, just about what makes good Wikipedia articles. I mentioned that I'd like to get into talking about sections, and I'll start by highlighting "Trade and economy", "Legal status", and "Overview of Russia–Ukraine relations" as particular offenders in hanging too much unrelated text on this topic. I'm not saying they must be deleted, but could probably be limited to one or two sentences in another section.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, for several reasons. I feel, like others have suggested, that the article should focus on the usage of the term, and situations where the term has been used, rather than to construct a narrative of a currently ongoing "Second Cold War". Personally, I'm not sure that this article should exist at all. --Topperfalkon (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Think I agree with Topperfalkon's general sentiments here. If this article should exist (and apparently the AfD said it should), then it should be small and focus on the usage of the term. NickCT (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Topperfalkon (et al). The article's scope should remain within the bounds of the term's usage. Anything beyond that is WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2015 (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.

RfC: Infobox or no infobox?

Responding to the request at WP:ANRFC. There is consensus that {{Infobox military conflict}} is inappropriate for this article, particularly given that Cold War doesn't have one. Whether the {{History Of The Cold War}} navbox could be expanded would require a broader discussion, but seems a promising avenue. Mackensen (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

The cycle of adding and removing the infobox never ends. To avoid further warring, the need of an infobox shall be discussed. Shall the infobox be needed for the article? Why or why not? If so, which template shall be used? --George Ho (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

No infobox. This is not a military conflict. To me this saying it is would be either synth or OR.Hollth (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I should add, I'm open to other info boxes, but like Patrick, I find the military one a not suitable at all.Hollth (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2015 (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.

RfC: Current title (again)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is to keep the current title as its the most fitting and found in reliable sources. AlbinoFerret 02:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The RfC tag was removed from the previous discussion due to the AfD discussion, which resulted as "kept". The title dispute shall be revisited now that the content issue is resolved. According to the closing rationale of the previous discussion, the title must not be implied as a successor to Cold War. As asked previously, does the title accurately reflect the content? If not, what alternative title do you propose? --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

My first choice is to rename the article "Second Cold War" and for people to understand that it's a concept not to be taken totally literally. Failing that, I guess I would move some content to "NATO-Russia relations" and re-direct to that page. Orser67 (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Cold War II is the most common I've seen in publications, which is what I hope we're basing the article's name and content on. I'd say "Cold War 2" is the next most popular, but I'm not sure how to describe this topic without implying it as a successor to the Cold War. I think most sources are using the term as reference to the Cold War, and I'm not sure the name necessarily implies succession, or political period of the same magnitude.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 21:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
For the record, to clarify the RfC close: "successor to the Cold War" includes titles such as "Cold War II," "Second Cold War," "New Cold War," etc - since those were the titles being discussed. That said, this only applies if this is an article about foreign relations. The RM's conclusion to limit the article scope to the phrase "Cold War II" should be fine, as long as the necessary changes are made. Sunrise (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not a subject expert but I skimmed the lead, and there seems to be some debate as to whether another Cold War is even occurring or due to occur. No one doubts that there was previously a Cold War, but it may be premature to call this one a Cold War as well. Perhaps something more neutral, e.g. "Post-Cold War <<something or other>>", might be more appropriate. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it matters whether there's actually another cold war happening or not. There is a phenomenon that has been clearly labelled as such, and it should be reported. Just as the (largely bogus IMHO) War on Women should. I don't have much of an opinion on what the exact title should be. Costatitanica (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Labeled by who? And how often? The phenomenon itself may be significant, but there could be multiple names for it - how has "Cold War II" become any more reliable for it? How has it become the name of all names in this case? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I simply addressed your original comment- namely that there doesn't seem to be an actual cold war happening. I said that I thought that that's irrelevant. Your latest comment is about a different question- one which has been dealt with by others here. As I said, I don't have very strong opinions here one way or another. As long as the info is there, I don't really care what they ultimately call the article. I only commented at all because the bot asked me to. Cheers Costatitanica (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


  • keep current title. Per previous RFC, restrict article scope to sources which explicitly discuss what is dubbed "CWII". IMHO the term is a hype, but it is in use and wikipedia's job to explain its usage, not to cut/and/paste all conflict involving Russia here. Cold War I was "free world" against "communism". Current bullshit is about Russia flexing its muscles. But China is also flexing its muscles. And we have militant Islam and God knows and cares what's going on in Africa. If anyone wants historical analogies, post-Soviet-collapse Russia today is what post-WWI Germany was. So you better start write article Prelude to World War III while you still have time :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep title, split content as per previous RfC on the article's content. Ideally, this article should focus solely on the term, and where it's been used, rather than using synthesis to try and tell the story of an ongoing conflict. --Topperfalkon (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    • To add to my previous point... The content in the article suggests this is a successor to the Cold War far more than the title does. We should act on the discussion in the previous RfC, then reassess whether the title does imply that this is an ongoing successor to the Cold War --Topperfalkon (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2016 (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.

Title

Is Cold War II really the right title? New Cold War seems to be a more common term. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was the term the Medvedev used recently. I agree that there is no obvious reason why Cold War II should be favoured over Cold War 2.0 or New Cold War. FOARP (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
"Cold War II" has phonetic similarity with "World War II". Also, if this Cold War actually gets as widely recognized as the original one, the term "New Cold War" will be meaningless - after all, it will not always be new!--Alexmagnus (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Phonetic similarity is obviously not a reason why something should be called something. "New Cold War" is no more or less meaningful that "Cold War II". FOARP (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

I've been watching this unfold, so I made an edit to finish the reduction in article scope in keeping with the RM closure and the comments in the most recent RfC. I removed the content that focused on foreign relations (which was nearly everything except the lead), and copied it here so it can be merged elsewhere.

Content removed from talk page. See Draft:Cold War II.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Outside the lead, I left in two paragraphs that discuss terminology, but on examination they seem to contain poor sourcing and/or WP:OR, so I encourage anyone who wants to cut it down further. By the same token, if I removed any content that focuses on terminology, then I encourage anyone to restore it. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I very much agree this is what the article should be. Thanks for taking the initiative.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Good job! Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Stripped back to the content dealing with the phrase alone (as it should be: NATO's relations with Russia are covered on another page), I have to be honest and say this article is very unclear. Is Cold War II really the most-used name for this concept? Aren't other phenomena also discussed using this title (or something similar) including relations with China? Is this second cold war actually happening or is it still a potential future event? FOARP (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Shall I create Cold War II/version 2 consisting of one of older revisions, Sunrise? IP users keep reverting the article back to what it was. George Ho (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: You mean as a subpage? If so, I think the practice is to put it in the Talk namespace, and to remove or nowiki all the incoming or outgoing links so that nobody mistakes it for an article (WP:SUBPAGE#Disallowed uses point #2). I've also seen Template:Workpage which might be helpful.
If IPs keep reverting then I'd just request semi-protection at WP:RFPP, but it's only happened twice so far. There was one revert at Western world as well, though that user was autoconfirmed. Hopefully things will be fine as long as the pages are still being watched. Sunrise (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
That's a long effort. How about a user subpage then, Sunrise? George Ho (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that's okay, as long as it's temporary per WP:UP#Copies. The Draft namespace might be another option. I also recall there were proposals to make the extra content into an actual article with a different title, which would also work. Sunrise (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Removed content and then copied one of revisions into Draft page. George Ho (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Add info about China–U.S. relations?

Consensus to add info about China–U.S. relations.

There was notable comment to use care with sources. Alsee (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Sources like Newsweek, ZDNet, and Live Trading News say that the new "Cold War" may also refer to tensions between China and the United States. Now that the article is very small (previously referred to just Russia–U.S. relations), shall we add such information into the article with sources? Is any of those sources reliable? --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2016 (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.

Categories

There are so many categories related to Putin or Russia. Which ones shall we remove? --George Ho (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Back for a little while and I just want to say that I am happy to see that this article has been cleaned up! Kirby (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

China vs Japan?

Sources may refer the word NDTV, Global Times, China.org.cn, The Diplomat, and The Guardian to tensions between China and Japan. Is any of sources reliable? Shall there be the "China vs. Japan" section, which would include the reliable sources? --George Ho (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a global conflict, hence not C.V. II. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Copied to Cold war (general term). Please expand. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"Saudi Arabia vs. Iran" section

This was an interesting discussion which actually resolved itself during the course of the RfC. I want to thank everyone involved for resolving this so well. For future reference, I am summarising the discussion.

There seems to be a distinction between the use of "Cold War" as a general term for a conflict and "Cold War II" as a specific term about the recurrence of a global conflict involving Russia/USA/China or another superpower. Accordingly, the content about the Saudi Arabia-Iran conflict was added to Cold war (general term), instead of this article. Cold War II, seems to be specifically about the possible future global (superpower) conflict named Cold War II. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I recently added the section about Saudi Arabia and Iran. Do you approve the addition? Listing for RFC. George Ho (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that referring to SA v. Iran as a "New Cold war" is hyperbole. However, my opinion isn't what counts: it's whether you can show basis for this in the cited references. The references appear to support what you are saying. I guess this is one of the problems with this topic - it's vague and can/will ultimately just morph into a long list of all the instances of international conflict that are/have been referred to as a potential second cold war. That's not to say this topic shouldn't exist as a a page though. FOARP (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you (help me) expand the section then, FOARP? George Ho (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This thing is not Cold War II, i.e. not the second iteration of the global Cold War. Many sources cited there are specifically call it in a restricted meaning: "regional cold war", "cold war between SA and Iran" etc. Therefore this section is irrelevant in this article, and it should be moved per WP:UNDUE from here to Iran Saudi Arabia relations. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Neither is Russia-Ukraine, or even the intervention in Syria really a "second iteration of the global Cold War", but it is referred to as such in the piece because there are sources supporting that, as there are for Iran-Saudi Arabia. FOARP (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
It is Russia vs. The West, which is a globalized conflict, and hence dubbed Cold War II. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Russia v. US (or Ukraine) is also a "2 country cold war". FOARP (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
It is Russia vs. The West, which is a globalized conflict, and hence dubbed Cold War II. And Russia vs Ukraine is not a Cold War at all. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Why should "cold war" be limit to global conflicts? Anyone can use "cold war", but I added sources saying that any conflict may not be a "cold war" at all. George Ho (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is about Cold War II, not about "cold war". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:PRESERVE, we can't remove the entry just because it might not fit the title. We have no way to tell whether "Russia vs. the West" is the "cold war", and we have way to qualify "China vs. the US". I added the entry about "Saudi Arabia vs Iran" because editors who emphasized more on Russia vs. the West were influenced by media sensation. George Ho (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
"Fit the title" is not the rule. "Fit the subject" is the rule. The subject is Cold War II, i.e., reincarnation of the previous conflict with basically same parties. FUI in the past "Soviet Union" was called "Russia", so "Russian vs. the West" was in the past, and "Russia vs. the West" is now. You keep confusing the terms the Cold War, which is a proper noun, and a "cold war", which is a common noun. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Which Where is the rule? Wikipedia:Article titles says that the title must reflect the article's subject. If "Cold War II" is not the appropriate title, the title must be changed. George Ho (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Nothing here says that the second cold war has to involve the same protagonists. Indeed, we've already agreed that a cold war involving China as a main protagonist should also be included. FOARP (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I removed several press sources but then left others remaining. George Ho (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This would fall in the scope of the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict article, which has been described as a general cold war conflict. However, it is arguably part of the larger situation that has been characterized as the "New Cold War" between Russia and the United States, as the two countries back opposing sides in the overarching proxy conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which has direct implications in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and other countries in the Middle East. KD 20:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdowns1453 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment What’s happening here is that editors are turning history into a pet project for personal gratification. I have previously argued that New Cold War, Cold War II, or 2.0 is merely an expression of a fetish with newness. The original Cold War never ended. The original Cold War subsumed the entire Middle East conflict, the conflicts in Indo-China, Greco-Turkish tensions, and just about every other regional tension/war since WWII. The original principals were the USA, the USSR (Russian Federation today), and China. The same principals remain the prime actors in all world affairs today. But I guess the fetish for the new wins, and this page confects history rather than recording it. So why the hell not just add whatever anyone thinks of throwing into the broth. Maybe some conspiracy theory about Iceland trying audaciously to get off the East-West roundabout. How about Czech-Polish tensions? German policy towards Iran in light of refugees? Dan Brown's latest novel? Trump's Russian Mafia connections? Stop playing with this stuff as if it were personal property and start stepping back to get a proper historical perspective on what is history in the making, not news for disposable consumption, or some pseudo class project for which you all expect a gold star. Invited to comment by Legobot. Peter S Strempel | Talk 12:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I never thought about "Cold War (general term)". Nice move. I'll give Staszek a lot of thanks. George Ho (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2016 (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.

The "See also" section

There is broad consensus here for reducing/removing most of the links, keeping only World War III.

The main arguments against having the list of links are

  • It would be original research to associate these conflicts with "Cold War II".
  • MOS:NAVLIST, links which are already present in the body should not be repeated in See Also.
  • A lot topics could be perceived as related, the See Also section should only keep links about conflicts directly referred to in the article
  • As this article is about a concept, it should only keep links to article with similar concepts (theoretical future conflicts) such as World War III.

The main arguments in favour of having the list of links

  • Per WP:PRESERVE, some these links are useful and should be kept and ultimately incorporated into the article.

Since then, it seems most of the content has been found to be not related to this article and has been transferred to Cold war (general term). Accordingly, the argument for preserving the links in hopes of incorporating is moot now.

Among the specifically discussed links, World War III seems to be the least controversial one, with no objections to including it. For other links, in case someone strongly feels they should be included, I would suggest discussing them individually on a case by case basis. At the moment though, only World War III stays in the see also section. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

More links were added to the "See also" section. Which links shall be retained, removed, and/or added? --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep each link. See WP:Preserve. Suggestion, build sections in the article, then move each link into the relevant section. CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

CuriousMind01, what about WP:no original research policy? We want to avoid OR in Wikipedia, which is not a publisher of original thought. Your suggestion to connect "Cold War II" to other events and countries would be best suited elsewhere other than Wikipedia, like academic journals or politics-oriented magazines, like Foreign Affairs (magazine). Maybe write blog posts about whatever you suggest? --George Ho (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
George Ho, The see also links are links to existing WP articles and all look in scope for the Cold War II sections.CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Somehow, Staszek Lem removed the links as implicitly OR. George Ho (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean "somehow"? The section has a huge tag on it. Yes, this century there are lots of conflicts. If some are defined as part of Cold War II, get the refs and put it right into the text. Also, please keep in mind the Cold War is called "Cold" for a reason; means words and arms rattling but no direct armed confrontation; with one notable exception: proxy wars. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
In many cases the articles listed in the "see also" section are also linked in the articles. In those cases where they are not, there is no source suggesting why they are relevant. In many cases they are just links to articles about Russia in some way or geopolitics in general - I could just add "Vladimir Putin", "FSB", "CIA" to that list and they wouldn't look out of place. As per the style guide (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists#Related_topics_.28navigational_lists.29) "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes". I therefore suggest limiting this to concepts that are actually linked to or similar to the concept of Cold War II - i.e., theoretical future conflicts like World War III. FOARP (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Notified by RfC bot.
These three External Links seem reasonable for now:
Russia–United States relations
NATO–Russia relations
Russia–European Union relations
General articles like these can give readers plenty of additional information. I think several of the titles that were previously cut from the overlong External Links list will eventually be included in the article as it grows and discusses the various specific conflicts and issues encompassed by Cold War II. There will be numerous such items, and we should not try to shoehorn so many of them into the External list. They will find their way into the article itself. DonFB (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Changed links from of countries/organizations to of relations in prose ([1]). Per WP:ALSO, Don, the links shall not be replicated in the "See also" section. George Ho (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem is these links just multiply. You think Russia-Nato relations are important, but what about Russia-Ukraine? Russia-Georgia? Taiwan-China? China-Vietnam? For each of these, none of which are actually linked to the concept of Cold War II itself, just to things that editors consider may eventually form the basis of an actual second cold war. And if these countries, then why not the organisations that might fight such a cold war? In the end a lot of it smacks of original research, POV-pushing etc. FOARP (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:Seealso the links are tools to inform readers to pursue related topics, directly or indirectly, per editor judgement. I think the links should be included and then, as the links are built into the article, removed from the See also section. I don't think there is any original research if the link is to a related WP article. The subject is large so there many be many links as the concept of Cold War II is large. Links can be dealt with case by case, not on an all or none basis.

"Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles.... The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest keeping only the events referred to in the body of the article (e.g., the Ukrainian Crisis), plus related "future history" concepts like "World War III". This article is mostly about politicians and historians conjecturing about the concept, anyway; "see also" should be in that vein, in my opinion. Heterodidact (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The November 2015 decision to maintain this content as a separate article (from the original Cold War article) was an ontological and epistemological mistake. It implies the Cold War ceased at some stage, denying the harsh reality that it was a deliberate imperial American post-war policy, which was never abandoned, meaning Cold War I is still Cold War I, not version II or 2.0, no matter how much more trendy such a title might seem to people who think there is virtue only in the new, and everything old is disposable. That last characterisation pretty well sums up commercial media motivations for dressing up unadulterated bullshit in raiment they can claim makes it news. The same motivation drives academic careerism, which produces the papers talking about everything old as version 2.0, or something prefixed with 'neo'. Maintaining this article as a separate entry is a decision by Wikipedia’s editors to embrace a propaganda function rather than sticking to an encyclopaedic mission. In that context, it doesn’t really matter what links are added: on a commercial media site such links would include diet tips with cleavage photos, financial ‘services’ selling lies, and opportunistically auctioned web service ad spots for crap no one needs. Why not add some links to Russian porn stars (Wikipedia is big on porn stars these days), lurid tales about the Russian Mafia, and some ‘funny’ Vodka tomfoolery videos? If, however, this article is to be taken more seriously than any rational person should, it would be pretty obvious that links added should be self-explanatory: the link followed by a very concise explanation of its relevance to the topic. Invited to comment here as a disinterested observer by Legobot. Peter S Strempel | Talk 09:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

  • "imperial American post-war policy" is not the same as Cold War (I). It is a well-established statement, supported both by leftists and conservative right, that the world was once bipolar, then turned into monopolar, and now is slowly becoming multipolar. The bipolar state was described as Cold War. Cold Was II IMO is nothing but a buzzword, because multipolar state of international affairs was there all the time. One can argue that in the past it was not on such a global scale, but this is not true. In the 18-19th centuries the "globe" was essentially the size of Europe, the rest being colonial appendages to "Old Powers", so in a way the conflicts were global all the time. Therefore if someone invents a "Cold War 0" for 19th century sizzles, it will make the same (little) sense as World War 2. Cold War was clash between Democracy and Communism. Now what? Democracy against Authoritarianism? Don't make me laugh. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
'well-established statement' is right. Is it the function of an encyclopaedia to ratify PR statements, or just to reflect that they have been made without accepting them as 'truth'? Whose interests are served by presenting statements as 'true', or as the consensus view? Is it still just an American consensus, or does it hold also in Kenya, Greece, the UAE, India, Malaysia, Fiji, etc? The Cold War may have been dressed up as a clash between democracy and communism, but it was really not much more than a euphemism about imperial hegemony. There is still an original constant: the USA. Do we owe it to the empire to regurgitate its euphemisms, or should we reflect that they are euphemisms? What does 'cold war' mean literally? That there isn't the heat of guns and bombs? That was never really true: when was there a day of peace in the world since 1945 when the extant imperial powers didn't animate regional conflicts? So what is the criterion by which one cold war ends and another begins? Doing away with the need for readers to think and form independent judgements is an assumed function of Wikipedia I regard as anti-encyclopaedic. Presenting viewpoints as viewpoints - not truth or settled consensus - is what is at stake. Any time you feel comfortable with the answer and vindicated in your perspective, you are probably just stroking your own prejudices. Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
This talk about the Cold War still being ongoing and about American "imperialism" appears to be the POV of the editor concerned. FOARP (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2016 (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.

template talk:Cold War#RfC: "Cold War II" in the navigation template

I invite you to the ongoing RfC discussion. --George Ho (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Alleged Russian hacking and kicking out of Russian officials, Turkey and Russia becoming closer

I think the US allegations of Russian hacking in elections as well as fears by other countries of the same thing happening in future to them should be mentioned. Not to mention, 35 Russian officials have been kicked out from USA in response to alleged hacking. This is creating new tensions. Also Turkey and Russia seem to be growing closer and USA has been shunned by them from Syria ceasefire talks. Turkey is also growing increasing irate at USA. I believe these things are notable for mentioning. 59.96.133.130 (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

COLD WAR vs. cold war

It seems that everybody who suggests a new entry has a bit of language confusion. FUI: there was one and the only Cold War. At the same time, the term "cold war" has been widely used for any nonmilitant acute conflict between any two parties. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no. There is no confusion. The article is about a potential second cold war, and they are supplying examples of theorised new cold wars. We have already agreed that China should be included so this is obviously not limited to the subject of Russia. FOARP (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
We did not agree for China either. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean? The RfC discussion resulted in approval of the potential addition. --George Ho (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I mean that only a handful of people agreed, and consensus may change. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
If consensus can change, how about another RfC to prove it? Otherwise, why would you reverse your "support" on adding the China–US part? Even so, it doesn't affect the consensus anyway. George Ho (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
re: "The article is about a potential second cold war" - no, it is about a potential Second Cold War. You still fail to recognize the difference. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The first world war did not involve the same participants as the second world war - so are you arguing that the second world war was not a second world war? FOARP (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. I have found the place where all possible "cold wars" belong: Cold war (general term). Even China vs. Japan mentioned above would go.Staszek Lem (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

No, because this is about a second, future cold war. Alternatively, this entire page should be simply dumped onto that page in a "future cold wars" section. FOARP (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Let me add that this topic is highly controversial, the article was reset once in 2014/2015, because the consensus (at that time) was to shorten it AND AVOID CONTROVERCY. But with the current political news (U.S election, Russian Hackers, Syria , Turkey) more info will be verted here regarding apreciations or ramifications of a future Cold War between U.S and Russia or U.S and China.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
It's still original research, Mr.User200, isn't it? No books discussing "Cold War II" exist yet, do they? George Ho (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
No my friend there are no books calling it CW2, its a controvertial topic. There are many articles, news dubbing a "cold war 2" in the web, and editors often feel by the rhetoric to create a CW2 entry for Wikipedia.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit by IP on 16 January 2017

About this addition... I evaluated the source and found that Newsweek mentioned Belarus and Ukraine. However, is the additional content worth of any value? --George Ho (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Books using "Cold War II"

I found books using the phrase Mr.User200: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Shall I provide more? --George Ho (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Do what you want dude but beware of Compulsive hoarding.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
In any case, Mr.User200, is any of the sources reliable enough for inclusion? George Ho (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Of couse, Lets EDIT.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr.User200. I plan to add "Early usage" section. However, before being bold, I want another opinion. Maybe Staszek Lem? I found that earlier sources refer the term to Cold War (1979–85) and/or Cold War (1985–91).

Books using "Second Cold War":

  • "The rise and fall of the Second Cold War, 1981–91" from The Cold War: An International History by David S. Painter. ISBN 0-415-19446-6
  • The Making of the Second Cold War by Fred Halliday
  • "The 'Second Cold War'" from Condensing the Cold War by Joanne P. Sharp

I could use one essay by Michael Cox (academic) (maybe that's he?), but the mentioning was too brief. I'll re-evaluate some others at later time. I'm busy in real-life, so I might be back at unfortunately one of later times. I'll get back to this later. George Ho (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course there can be accidental usage by some authors for previous surge of hostility. Per WP:UNDUE, there should be only mentions of them. The prevailing usage is about current time period. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Comatmebro and FOARP about the "Early usage" section proposal. George Ho (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

About the prevailing usage itself, what about this one and that one? --George Ho (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Content additions by Fixuture (January 2017)

@Fixuture: Can you explain the addition about Syrian Civil War and the addition about content related to Russian interference on US election? I evaluated the sources and found no mention about the topic itself, "Cold War II". I thought about removing the additions, but I must discuss this with you first. Staszek Lem, what do you think? --George Ho (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Yes; for the first change:
I'm not sure why you'd think that this should be removed. That is info related to an escalation of tensions and an alleged proxy war - both of which are relevant here. Furthermore Assad stated that in his views "the Cold War never ended" and that this is a Cold War-type proxy war. You could modify/improve these parts though. For instance I find the specific dates problematic as there likely were observers that judged it to be such even before October 2015 and it's not made very clear that it's just some (or who) of those observers saying that they view it as a "proto-world war". Furthermore I'd highly recommend adding content about people declining it to be a Cold War-like proxy war or otherwise differentiating this conflict from any proxy wars during the Cold War.
For the 2nd change:
Also not sure why you'd think that this should be removed either.
It probably could be seen as the most important part of this article as it hints towards a possible (or attempt/... at) cold cyberwar, the sanctions imposed were the "the biggest retaliatory move against Russian espionage since the Cold War"[1] and it has been said that US and Russia relations by this have fallen to their worst since the Cold War.[2] Furthermore the The Russian Embassy in London called it a "Cold War deja vu"[3] and in August 2016 Andrew Weisburd and Foreign Policy Research Institute fellow and senior fellow at the Center for Cyber and Homeland Security at George Washington University and Clint Watts wrote that Russian propaganda fabricated articles were popularized by social media[4] and compared Russian tactics during the 2016 U.S. election to Soviet Union Cold War strategies.[4]
This really is essential info to this article.
--Fixuture (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you added those in good faith, Fixuture. However, the sources should connect explicitly "Cold War II" or other interchangeable terms with the events that you described. Otherwise, that would be original research, which is discouraged. "since the Cold War" doesn't cut it. One source should help you how to research. BTW, you may look at past archives and read past discussions. Help:Research can also guide you. --George Ho (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Re-pinging @Fixuture:, just in case the other ping method doesn't work. 15:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: No, I don't think that the usage of the specific term "Cold War 2" or "Cold War II" is required for information to be featured in this article. If you'd like to establish this as inclusion criteria please gain consensus first. This content is relevant, sourced and appropriate. I already provided sourced info on why this is relevant here. And those aren't just "since the Cold War"-type points but comparisons of contemporary occurrences to the old Cold War.
--Fixuture (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The article is not about the term, but about the subject described by the term. Per definition, CWII is the historical period of renewed tensions between two previous superpowers. Therefore IMO the refs to the added texts clearly say they are about the subject, i.e., re-escataled tensions, unless someone convincingly argues against it (per WP:V). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
If you say so... I'll concede to broadening the scope the additions. Also, I reinserted XavierItzm's added content, which I removed on previous grounds of OR. I'll leave the additions up to you all then. --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC); hmm... Issues should be resolved as soon as possible. 01:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I actually preferred George Ho's original POV that one should only include WP:RS that include the term "Cold War 2" or equivalent, even though it originally resulted in him taking out my edit. I think that if one starts to include any and all articles about friction between the US and Russia and their allies, the article will soon lose shape and its raison d'être and eventually other editors will find it and delete it. I ask that Fixuture go back to the original criteria, for the good of the article. Having said that, if the article does not go to the original criteria, then the edit about the Russians owning the White House servers for a number of weeks in 2014 should emphatically stay. XavierItzm (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
If the additions shall remain, what about US-China section? Shall events related to the tensions be added to expand the section? --George Ho (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
@XavierItzm, Fixuture, and Staszek Lem: Changing my mind. I thought about taking this to WP:NORN while leaving the additions alone for now until resolution is found. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@XavierItzm and George Ho: Well, I still think that the article should be about the subject and not the term and that WP:RS are certainly needed - however not for the term but allusions to a potential or perceived renewed/new Cold War.
I think that if one starts to include any and all articles about friction between the US and Russia and their allies, the article will soon lose shape and its raison d'être and eventually other editors will find it and delete it.
And I think that the article wouldn't be worthwhile without at least some info on the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US election. Furthermore I don't think "any and all articles about friction between the US and Russia and their allies" should be added: as stated above I do think the inclusion criteria for events etc. should be WP:RS using (any variation of) the term "Cold War" in a way that suggests a possible or perceived renewed/new Cold War.
--Fixuture (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Greenberg, Andy. "US Hits Russia With Biggest Spying Retaliation "Since the Cold War"". WIRED. Retrieved 26 January 2017.
  2. ^ "US and Russia relations fall to their worst since the Cold War". The Independent. 29 December 2016. Retrieved 26 January 2017.
  3. ^ "Donald Trump praises 'very smart' Vladimir Putin for not expelling US diplomats in response to sanctions". The Telegraph. Retrieved 26 January 2017.
  4. ^ a b Weisburd, Andrew; Watts, Clint (August 6, 2016), "Trolls for Trump – How Russia Dominates Your Twitter Feed to Promote Lies (And, Trump, Too)", The Daily Beast, retrieved November 24, 2016

@Hollth: What do you think about the recent additions by Fixuture, including this one? George Ho (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: If it doesn't make a direct reference to the term 'cold war 2' than oughtn't be included. As I see, this can not be about anything other than the term, otherwise it falls foul of too many rules and guidelines (from memory, this was affirmed in a past RfC?). If it's about the subject, the subject is the foreign relations between two groups; US-Russia and US-China. It's a rose by any other name. And really, if this is to document the tensions between those it should be something like a timeline article of the US-Russian foreign relations from 20XX-20YY (something I'm not opposed to by the way), not under the guise of this POV fringe OR stuff. For this article I do not consider the inclusion of those edits pertinent. That includes the edits about hacking, which makes no mention of 'new cold war' etc. Hollth (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Fixuture: As Hollth said, adding such content would drastically affect the quality of the article. Shall I remove the content that you added please? George Ho (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho and Hollth: Please do not: I do agree that it's better constrained to mentions of a specific term as it's not supposed to be about basically bad or worsening relations between US&Russia or US&China or tensions between these powers but about a perceived either current or potential new Cold War. The matter of disagreement here when it comes down to it seems to be whether that term should be "Cold War" with the context (however formulated) of a potential or current new one or "Cold War 2/II" in that very specificness. I think specifying the word to be used like so would be way over the top and not constructive. The reader (rightfully) expects this article to be about the subject and not the term (see also WP:NAD) and omitting this info would in my view make this article rather useless as it would then miss crucial information. And, hollth, the hacking and the reactions to it are referred to in that way by sources such as [18], [19], [20] - it's also relevant for sources calling it "Moscow's most belligerent behavior since the end of the Cold War" [21] or "new Cold War-level lows" [22] (many more sources) → the most Cold War-like events, behaviors and situations which are pointed out as such are surely relevant to an article about a second cold war. --Fixuture (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
...Then I wonder whether this article should exist. If it should, how can we make a mutual agreement about the content before RFC? George Ho (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC); edited. 01:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Retracting the comment... I respect your viewpoint about what the article subject is. I'm doing my best to add content that verifies the connection between "Cold War II" (or alike) and events. However, I am worried that, with recent additions, the article will be used as a "panic" piece, which... Wikipedia is not aiming to be. George Ho (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh... did not notice the section WP:WHATISTOBEDONE. Worth reading... George Ho (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: First off I want to thank you for the calm, constructive discussion so far. I did not know about the latter section - it's very relevant here. For articles not intended to become "panic" pieces: I agree with that, but at the same time it very important to have them feature essential information and if such content is prone to causing panic in people that likely just hints towards its importance (people need to be aware of problems to fix them which is why accessible information is important in many areas of society) and shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether or not to include it (that would be self-censorship rationalized by "preservation of societal harmony"; which btw is not always the best thing to have if there are problems). Recent additions don't overdramatize/overstate anything but simply state what others have said and imo objectively describe the issue. The thing to do if one is worried about the page being used/perceived as a "panic" piece would be to add more differing opinions/assessments from commentators who doubt a starting/potential new Cold War. Such could be added next to specific statements in the existing sections or in a separate new one. --Fixuture (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

""fixuture. Some of that I wouldn't consider to meet your own criteria honestly. The 'since the Cold War' doesn't imply to me a potential new Cold War. Though I can see how 'new Cold War-levels' may be construed that way. That aside, as I said before, I cannot see how making this about a potential future event does not fall foul of guidelines about future events, fringe theories and synth/original research. This simply does not have the sources and thought put into it in the same way peak oil, another future event, does. I think it's clearest if one removes the Cold War name from it and give it a more nondescript title; 'potential bad foreign relations between the US and X'. When painted that way, I think the issues become a little clearer. Hollth (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Hollth: I don't think that any of it wouldn't meet the criteria even though many journalists have been pretty reserved to directly refer to any such events as a new Cold War. Many however have put it into that context and and few have been more specific. This article is not best described as to being about a possible future event but about developments, the public perception (at any level from governmental to citizen) thereof, a specific danger/risk / issue of voiced concerns. See WP:CRYSTAL. This has plenty of and sufficient sources and thought put into it. The reason for why there aren't even more is mainly that it's a just relatively recently renewed development for which there wasn't much cause or material for earlier (even though earlier sources exist). "Cold War" can't be removed from the article title as it would then be a fully different article. Mainly, for understanding, it's best distinguished from just "bad relations" in that a Cold War includes proactive military-related / Cold-War-like behavior from at least 2 major powers. --Fixuture (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been thinking. Rather than delete the content, what if we can move some content else to another article? I can't think one target at the moment, but I think moving one portion to another page is better than leaving the content alone as is. But I welcome your thoughts. We (if not me) have done it before when the article started as an article about just Russia–US relations. Maybe we can do it again. George Ho (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Pinging Fixuture. 00:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I don't think that would be a good idea. However, the only possible separate article that I can think of would be something along the lines of 2014-present US-Russian frost or 2014-present US-Russian incidents (not sure what the best word/s would be here). But again, I'm not sure if that would be a good thing to do and tend to rather oppose that. --Fixuture (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

fixutureGeorge Ho The issue with this page is it is a fringe theory with no academic consensus (it's that fringe there isn't agreement on who it refers to). This gives a secondary problem, it having a definitional problem (What is it? Are we in one?). As I see it, it's either about a potential future event, in which case it's speculation about future history, or it's about the current/developing events, in which case it goes in the US-Chinese, US-Russian relations pages and this is a pov fork. The relations articles already cover most of this info. A third option is for it to be about the term.

In my view, the best outcome would be to have "blah relations from 2010-present' article. True, it would significantly expand the scope, however, given there have been pov and OR concerns thorough this articles lifespan, I don't consider that a bad thing. It would be allow more room to expand than the overcrowded relations pages and gives much more context than this page - a happy middle ground. And it would still enable a part to say there have been comparisons to the Cold War with some believing this is a new one etc, others thinking this is not. That seems like it solves more of the issues. Hollth (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know... The past consensus said to retain the current title. We might give another RFC a try if this discussion becomes more about the controversy itself. However, we must focus on one issue at the time. There are so many content issues. We must incubate an RFC proposal before adding the "rfc" tag. George Ho (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Fixuture: By the way, see /Archive 2#Move portions to other pages?, which I started at least one year ago. The consensus agreed to limit the scope to sources using the phrase "Cold War II" and alike. George Ho (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Hollth:
The issue with this page is it is a fringe theory with no academic consensus (it's that fringe there isn't agreement on who it refers to).
It's not a "fringe theory with no academic consensus" but a matter of public and academic discussion that aims to contextualize current events and developments. Within this public debate and perception only some propagate the theory that current events and developments represent a new Cold War - most simply speculate about that. And there "not being an agreement on who it refers to" here just means that there are multiple events and developments that are contextualized or seen this way. So to make it clearer: if at one point in time there is consensus on the appropriateness of the term "Cold War" for some events/developments the article should simply be moved and split appropriately - so e.g. (note this is just an example!) to Cold War II and Cold War between US and China.
This gives a secondary problem, it having a definitional problem (What is it? Are we in one?). As I see it, it's either about a potential future event, in which case it's speculation about future history, or it's about the current/developing events, in which case it goes in the US-Chinese, US-Russian relations pages and this is a pov fork.
I don't think it has a definitional problem: it's the usage/application of term or concept of "Cold War" to current events or developments which neither says whether or not we're in one nor what exactly it is. Info about what people say it is and their views on whether or not we're in one should be contained in the article.
The relations articles already cover most of this info.
Not appropriately, including the way it's covered there: the worsening of relations with their associated events and developments need a separate article. Relevant to this are the 2 non-existing articles I linked in my reply above. It might be possible to add "Cold War II" sections to those articles. However I'd oppose replacing this article with sections in the 2 (or potentially more) articles - especially because that would constrain the concept just being applied to the present events and developments while this article is more open to also speculation about such developments in general (e.g. content added in 10 years) as well as relevant content in the future (e.g. in 10 years). And I also don't think it would make much sense to keep this article with the as of right now 2 relevant sections being empty and just linking over to their respective "Cold War II"-sections.
--Fixuture (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

only some propagate the theory that current events and developments represent a new Cold War

In other words a fringe theory with no academic consensus. That leads to undue weight and pov.

most simply speculate about that

Again, because there's no consensus on it. And as speculation it should not be included as an article.

it's the usage/application of term or concept of "Cold War" to current events or developments which neither says whether or not we're in one nor what exactly it is.

Which is an editorialised, sensationalised and synth version of the relations articles; hence, a pov fork.

the worsening of relations with their associated events and developments need a separate article

That's precisely what I'm suggesting with US-country relation 2010-presetnt. That way it retains this article as about the term and doesn't have pov and OR issues, which this one does when it's not about the term (why the previous RfC limited the scope).

article is more open to also speculation about such developments in general

Which is not appropriate per guidelines and makes an article rife with fringe and synth/OR. Such speculation is inherently unverifiable. There is a very narrow range where speculation and future events are considered permissible. This is not within that range.

@George Ho: It seems I explained myself poorly, sorry for that. I'm not suggesting deleting or renaming the article (I can see how you'd interpret me as meaning that). I'm saying, given this article should exist, it should be about the term. As per what I've said above, with other situations, it either includes information not appropriate for wikipedia by contravening guidelines and policies or it creates information that is appropriate for wikipedia, but is a pov content fork (which is very similar to what was established at the last RfC). I consider starting an article about the past decades foreign relations to be a better outcome for those parts of the article that are a pov fork. That assuages a significant amount of the pov, synth, OR, undue weight etc. and retains this article about the term. Hollth (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem, Hollth, and Fixuture: I can fully understand your comments. However, this discussion is closer to either going nowhere or having no resolution yet. We can settle this at WP:dispute resolution noticeboard... or start another RFC discussion. If RFC discussion is unnecessary, then DRN it is. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

U.S/Japan Vs China

If the US/Russia Cold War II is between Russia and NATO + EU, then surely the US/China cold war is China Vs US + Japan + other relevant Asian actors. As a minimum, I would expect US/Japan as part of the 'anti-China' axis (for want of a better term). In light of this, could the US/China map be modified to include Japan as a US ally? --Mrodowicz (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mrodowicz: The China vs Japan relations was discussed previously. The result was including it in Cold war (general term). There was also the discussion about China vs US. There is no way to include Japan as part of geopolitics at the moment. --George Ho (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: Thanks for the links, but they refer to issues a little different to the one I raised. You say 'There is no way to include Japan as part of geopolitics at the moment.' I'm not sure why this is necessarily correct. 'Cold War', as we've come to apply the term is between (usually) two opposing forces, not necessarily two individual 'state' actors (as demonstrated by NATO/EU Vs Russia). I would like to see a serious discussion of the proposal I have put forward. --Mrodowicz (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mrodowicz: Found Japan Times mentioning US and Japan.

Unfortunately, Washington seems eager to start Cold War II, with Japan again acting as America’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in Asia. Except this time, it does not have an American at the steering wheel in Tokyo, and the blood-nationalist in charge is a descendant of the ruthless right, bent on settling old personal scores and putting Japanese weapons and military forces overseas.

However, this is the only source. I don't want to emphasize minority opinions per WP:NPOV. You can search the sources discussing the possibility. However, they are not easy to evaluate and to find. --George Ho (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
George Ho, Well said. Mr. Odowicz, please note that this is not a Japan Times "report" of any kind; it is an opinion piece by a lurid anti-Japanese crank. Japanese newspapers publish rather too much of this sort of stuff, in my opinion, in order to show off a supposed even-handedness.
I knew Prime Minister Abe's father back in the early 1970's, and can say that the opinion given in the Times article is a stupid slander rather typical of the writer's views in general.
Feh!
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Allies of America

Vietnam and Malaysia both have large scale disputes with China over the South China Sea and have close relations with the USA. They 100% should be included as American allies.

Ranger Aragorn (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ranger Aragorn. But I could not find sources linking them to the topic. May you counter me please? --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@User:George Ho The Cold War II is about the conflict between the US and China over the South China Sea, and since they are American allies in the region and have interests in the region it is important to show that they are American-aligned and relevant to the situation. Ranger Aragorn B) (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ranger Aragorn: Umm... I know you feel about the article topic. "Cold War II" is possibly either happening or coming. However, have you read the past discussions? The consensus in one of them agreed to limit the scope to using the sources that use the term "Cold War II" and other related terms. Also, we must be careful not to use this article as an advocate of fear or panic. Also, original research must be avoided. Did you find any sources? --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Quite clearly, Vietnam is not an American ally. Anyone who thinks they are is willfully ignorant of history in order to a whip up a "U.S. vs. China" picture on this article which is not factually accurate. The South China Sea dispute is not "The U.S and everyone vs. China", it is the opposition of the U.S to all the territorial claims in the sea including the vast swathes also claimed by Vietnam beyond its legal maritime EEA. Vietnam is not allying with the U.S, it is engaging in a hedging strategy between China and the U.S to prevent it being dominated by either of the two. Why, for any reason, would a Communist party state want to get too close to a U.S who would demand significant change in regards to Democracy and Human rights? As for Malaysia, it has likewise hedged between both powers [23]. So to say there is a "cold war" in the region complicates everything. The image is highly misleading TF92 (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The image (File:US vs. China.svg) you removed, TF92, highlights only the US and China and nothing more. May you please revert it? George Ho (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Cold_War/Archive_2&oldid=1137178470"