Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

China's military development should be treated as a related topic to this page

To whom it may concern,

Hi! I noticed my contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Cold_War&diff=1063247147&oldid=1063186232 has been reverted, and the reason is "more likely unverified as (literally) related to this topic; also, based on unverified assumptions that the topic is actually an event".

My opinion to the first reason ("more likely unverified as (literally) related to this topic") is: military deployment is definitely related to any Cold War. Say, the moderator has already allowed AUKUS to be "related", what makes hypersonic weapons less related? If I misunderstood anything, please explain further.

As to the second reason ("based on unverified assumptions that the topic is actually an event"), I guess the moderator is assuming that, since I opened a sub-section, I am treating "The development of hypersonic weapons" as an event. I agree the relationship between hypersonic weapons and Second Cold War is still to be determined, but that doesn't diminish the importance of firing hypersonic missiles by China as a historic incident in China-US tensions. I would be glad to discuss about the position where these news best fit in. But an one-click reverting of other's contribution is not a positive response, from both the perspectives of valuing others' works and growth of the community.

I am posting my questions in a talk page, such that we can have a clear discussion, and future editors coming to this page would also benefit from a consistent standard.

Cheers, TaicauZin (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

For the first reason, I don't know how you will be able to view full articles from FT: first, second. If neither mentions "Second Cold War", then the military deployment isn't related to the article subject. Some may disagree with me, nonetheless. The consensus decided to use reliable sources referring the phrase "Cold War II" (or any other interchangeable terms) (2015 discussion). I know this SCMP article doesn't mention the topic literally. Also, please refer to WP:Core content policies and WP:Five pillars.

For the second reason, the consensus decided last year that the article subject, the "Second Cold War", is a "term", not an "event". (April 2021 discussion). George Ho (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, George!

First of all, it was a joy reading the discussions.

But sorry, I can't agree.

For your first response: whether I am can view the full article on FT (yes, I am a subscriber) is irrelevant to the discussion. But I assure you that both articles mentioned "Cold War" and they compared USSR's "fractional orbital bombardment system" to the orbital bombardment system China is deploying. Of the system, the SCMP report provided further information on China's side as well on the US's side. If you insist that the "Second Cold War" page should be all about the usage of the term, please see my counter-argument below.

The discussion has been six years ago, which is enough for a war going from start til end. Now, if we bring the discussions back, most editors would have changed their minds.

Please take a look at how the pageviews has changed since 2015. We saw a spindle since April of 2018, and a surge since July of 2019. Shouldn't we look back at the idea that "Second Cold War" is just a term, rather than an event?

And even though your arguments for preserving the page to the term is strong, I still didn't see the necessity of the rule. Consider the thousands users scrolling the page daily, do they know that this is a "term" page and not an "event" page? Knowing that the page is outdated and not getting the information they want is disappointing enough.

TaicauZin (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I know you're frustrated, but we can't do argumentum ad populum, do we? Also, we can't mislead readers into believing in unverifiable info about the topic. Whether readers know whether the article subject is a "term" or an "event" has nothing to do with how the article should comply with existing policies and guidelines, including core content ones. If you insist on making the article about an "event", then please start another RfC discussion. Then again, the consensus would say again that the "Second Cold War" is a "term", wouldn't they? Or, rather there would be either consensus against or no consensus calling the topic an "event".

BTW, I reviewed the articles via ProQuest. The article "China tests new space capability with hypersonic missile" turns out to be a lesson about China and the US for a geography class. I don't see how this article helps, and I don't see "Cold War" or "Cold War II" (or similar) anywhere. The article "Chinese hypersonic weapon fired a missile over South China Sea" still doesn't mention this topic either. Oh, and since you're new, you may wanna read Help:Getting started. George Ho (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes it was frustrating in the beginning but now, with your explanations, I think I understood Wikipedia to a further level. So I really appreciate your patience and efforts!

The discussion on whether Second Cold War is an ongoing event is necessary, but it should be placed in institutes, not on wikipedia. The fact that this page exists but is not about an ongoing event has confused me. Because it made me feel like Second Cold War is a consensus... Also, I double checked the FT articles, they contain the phrase "Cold War". I also searched ProQuest and saw what you mean by "a lesson". Those entries are on Trade Journal, not FT.

But look, I was not being stubborn:) Will make sure I have got all the information in Help:Getting started, thanks!

TaicauZin (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

it should be placed in institutes, not on wikipedia. Off-wiki discussions don't count and shouldn't count, unfortunately! See wp:consensus#Pitfalls and errors. Better have off-wiki events and discussions recorded and incorporated into (external) sources, like a news article, an interview, a book, or any other medium, not on Wikipedia without a reliable source. George Ho (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Use of the term, has it now been established ?

Will Vladimir Putin turn the Second Cold War into a hot one? https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/01/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-cold-war-hot-war-analysis-intl/index.html CNN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiet2 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This is CNN's analysis using probably one of reporter's questions out of context and misidentified it as Putin's. Or, shall I say that Putin did not say that. See this transcript. Also, be careful of sharing this and using article headlines, which are unreliable to use. --George Ho (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This page shouldn't even exist

I'm not sure if we should be creating concepts on Wikipedia out of some articles from some outlets. This term is barely used, and few academics would even accept that there is any kind of "Second Cold War" going on. Interesting in the whole page, most of the quotes are from people saying there isn't and/or won't be any kind of cold war between China and USA, and tensions between those two countries are completely different from what was once called Cold War between USA and USSR.Valverde.pr (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey there. One of past discussions reveal why the article has been and should be written this way. Other editors have attempted to change the article's scope without avail. Please don't hesitate to nominate this for deletion via either Twinkle or manual process (with help of instructions at WP:AFD#Nominating article(s) for deletion). --George Ho (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The whole archive doesn't show anything. I stand by my opinion. The whole existence of this article doesn't make much sense, and I won't nominate for deletion, it's not up to me delete an article. However, I have the right to express that the existence of this page is not in line with what is expected from Wikipedia, since original research and personal essays must be avoided. Note that existence from quotes doesn't mean its not an original research or a personal essay. There isn't a single one influential academic study as we speak that talks about the "Second Cold War" as an ongoing event. The article doesn't even have a section for the term, and it quotes different sources talking about different things and from events from different periods that have no connection with each other. For example, some of them are about Russia/USA relations, some of them about China/USA relations, enough to show the term lacks any kind of substancial meaning. It seems people just went to google and searched for "second cold war" and used everything they could find and the result was a disjointed article. One of the most poorly written articles I've read on English Wikipedia. Valverde.pr (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - I've heard the term ONCE on the various news stations I follow over the past few years. I'd say Wikipedia is the home-base for it, worldwide. 50.111.56.58 (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

VoA article

I came across a Voice of America article that may be germane to the topic here. (I don't have time to do major edits these days, but figured I'd pass it along.) --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether the article has brought anything new, but I did add a few people's quotes in the Wikiquote article. Plus, I checked one of professors' page, and I found out that her expertise is in history of other things not specifically related to international politics but rather something else. Furthermore, one quoted editor is uncertain; so is President Biden. Also, a few or some others felt that this is overblown. --George Ho (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Too US-centric

What about the EU and NATO, Ukraine and Georgia, AUKUS and the Quad, South Korea and Taiwan? Bommbass (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:George Ho

Other than the chaos and tyranny of the administration Wikipedia has had a reputation for many reasons, many users who have the free-will to inform their reports for the article, have had various cold conflicts with User:George Ho. If one looks through the usual view history of this unique article, he is been trying to be using pro-sino sources, than the obvious mix sources.--Funkquakes (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, Funkquakes. How am I pushing the pro-Sino stuff? Which one is the pro-Sino please? --George Ho (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

BTW, did you abandon your old account: Funkquake (talk · contribs)? --George Ho (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I did, because my gmail could not log me in since it was expired for me, since the password was long gone. So I had to use a new gmail, just to be safe.--Funkquakes (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was expecting you say something about it. You are the guardian of the article, yet, it is for everyone to edit the page. It's not just pushing the sino issue, it's because most users wanted use the article and they had very good sources, from what I had seen from the view history, and I believe they could have been linked or redirected for other articles. If it not for various users were possibly paid to create articles. However, you did do some redirect links, and many changes to article, and I am glad for the fixes to the article.--Funkquakes (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Even highly reputable sources (which you call "good") should verify information provided by editors themselves. I wonder whether you're aware of a past RfC discussion about the article's scope. The results was labelling the topic... a "term". It's not verified as an "event", unfortunately. George Ho (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Now we have Putin threatening to use nuclear weapons if anyone stands in his way over Ukraine. At what point does Second Cold War stop being a term and become an event, for you? I asked this question two years ago and you couldn't answer... Firebrace (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Putin's nuclear threats still doesn't make the Second Cold War an event, but they can intimidate and strike fear. BTW, to answer your question, let's say... when the reliable sources say so. But I've not yet seen it verified as becoming an event so far. --George Ho (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, sure, people argue that use of the term isn't necessary to verify the topic as an event. But like someone said in another thread, the term hasn't had a substantial meaning yet. --George Ho (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

George Ho is exhibiting blatant WP:OWNERSHIP behavior on this article. Someone should seriously take him up to WP:ANI at this point, it's getting disruptive. I thought I reversed his disruption by reverting his most recent edits on here, but it seems like George has done this against dozens of users at this point, dating back to at least 2015. He also wouldn't stop harping about a specific RfC, which he started himself, barely involved more than 5 users, and now uses that as authoritative measure to revert others. 153.190.207.197 (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Blatant ownership"? I can't believe that some people accuse me of things especially without evidence. The RFC I made about images or any other visuals (archived discussion) shouldn't be ignored without a superseding RFC. Nonetheless, a superseding RFC would be unlikely successful, and making a similar RFC so soon would result badly. George Ho (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It Already Started

It started in 2003 this page should be edited (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC) 2ofthe22ofthe2022

Not according to the following discussion: Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 5#Term or event? --George Ho (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It's even in it's google bio 2ofthe22ofthe2022 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Google, and what is "Google Bio"? Even being mentioned in "Google" doesn't make the topic an actual event. Can you provide reliable sources? --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Campaign Box

Would this campaign box or one like it be okay to put in the article? --Travisthecrab (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Travisthecrab: I nominated the campaign box for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks good @Travisthecrab:.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 01:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

IPSOS 2022 Half-Year Results

Mentioning it here, as I fear the wrath of our liege-lord George Ho should I dare attempt to incorporate this information myself.

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/newsroom/documents/2022-07/Ipsos%20-%20Press%20Release%20-%20Half-Year%20results%202022.pdf

From the report:

However, the only certainty is uncertainty: central banks are raising interest rates and seeking a soft landing after a period of inflation in most Western countries, while wages remain below inflation almost everywhere, penalising consumers. Globally, a second Cold War has effectively begun, while the pandemic continues to disrupt the world, particularly in China, where the government has opted for a zero Covid strategy, which has had major social and economic impacts.

Nic Martin (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It could belong in Wikiquote, not in Wikipedia. Also, I'd be wary about using ipsos, a market research, as a source. George Ho (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. We can forget this one. Nic Martin (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Content for expanding the worldwide perspective

• https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/09/nonalignment-us-china-cold-war-ukraine-india-global-south/
• https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/cold-war-russia-west-vie-influence-africa-87533848

@George Ho does this content please you? May it be incorporated? Nic Martin (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The ABC News article outside the headline doesn't mention the topic explicitly, even with a quote by William Gumede, director of Democracy Works. Even the FP "analysis" still doesn't verify its own relevance to the topic, even with (sensationalist) headline and trivial mention of "new cold war". --George Ho (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I disagree. How would you like to proceed? Nic Martin (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Article too America Centric

This article has too much America-centrism. In 2022, the USA is much less of a leading power than it used to be in the First Cold War. A second cold war would be between a group of countries vs another. For example NATO and an Asian equivalent vs Russia, China etc. This article is too focused on USA vs China, Russia. It should be described as Allies vs Axis or democratic countries vs authoritarian. Suggestion: rename subheadings "Russo-American tensions" to "Russo-Allies tensions." and "Sino-American tensions" to "Sino-Allies tensions" -Artanisen (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think "Allies" might not be the right term, but I think we could re-arrange the content currently under "Russo-American tensions" into separate Russia-US and Russia-NATO groups. Some of content in that section is already from a NATO/European perspective - I'm sure our friends at DW wouldn't appreciate being generalized as Americans.

@George Ho this will probably force a revamp of the intro line. Thoughts? Nic Martin (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source saying that NATO is connected to the article topic. Otherwise, best to omit NATO for now. --George Ho (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Does the NATO Madrid Summit Declaration suffice or do I need to literally find the term Cold War to meet your standard? https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_196951.htm?selectedLocale=en Nic Martin (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/07/19/why-a-second-cold-war-will-likely-be-fought-in-cyberspace/?sh=2fc878facd28

https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/euroatlantic-security/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-cold-war-hot-war-analysis-intl/index.html Nic Martin (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

NATO transcript - re: the NATO strategic concept, Stoltenberg replying in the affirmative to a direct question regarding a "second cold war" from a Spanish journalist: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_197292.htm Nic Martin (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

GIS Report seems promising: it discusses NATO alliance at the disadvantage. However, that article shouldn't be the only one. I checked other sources and couldn't find the verified connection between NATO and the topic. Even Forbes trivially mentioning NATO expansion in one sentence wouldn't count to me. Back to the GIS, the whole article itself isn't probably bringing anything new, but I could be wrong. George Ho (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is the criteria here that will satisfy you? It would be of great service if I could understand My Lord Gatekeeper's criteria before hunting for content to satisfy him. Nic Martin (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you asked for my criteria. Then again, I'm kinda thorough on sources especially for their reliability and verifiability. Also, how sources are used should come down to what the sources exactly say and how they are interpreted. How thorough have you been on sources, especially when you provide me sources to check on? George Ho (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I review the sources to my satisfaction. I assumed you would continue to undo any edit on this page unless I asked here first - is that no longer the case? Nic Martin (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

User:George Ho

I would like to again bring up the long standing WP:OWNERSHIP of User:George Ho on this article. For years now, George Ho has denied any significant edits to this article. I believe any sober review of George Ho's interactions on this article's history reveals a pattern of what is now approaching WP:EDITWAR behavior. I returned to this article to make a minor contribution. I was aware of George Ho's WP:OWNERSHIP behavior, so I backed my edit with two sources (The Financial Times and the Council on Foreign Relations - hardly flippant sources). I was hoping to make a larger change, but I wanted to test the waters by making the least controversial edit I could think of to check to see if the (somewhat inexplicable) policing behavior was still occurring. Checking in the next morning, my suspicions were confirmed. My cited change, was reverted with a comment "the current usage hasn't changed yet; the topic is still not an event; plz discuss first before making such drastic changes to the article". George Ho continues to reign here. Reviewing the history, George appears to only be interested in: 1) ensuring the article reflects a worldview that use of this term is irresponsible or people using this term are misguided 2) encouraging others to question the existence of the article as well as attempting to (in my opinion) "degrade" the article by accusing it of having too many sources - which I expect is the natural outcome of years of his WP:OWNERSHIP behavior. 3) Otherwise tirelessly discouraging the development of this article.

The last conversation regarding George Ho's conduct can be found here: Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 8

@George Ho, I'll ask that you undo the revert of my change and instead start a discussion here on Talk so we can reach a consensus. If you're unwilling to do this, we can bring the issue to the dispute resolution channels. Nic Martin (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

For addition context, here is the diff of the change I made that was reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Cold_War&diff=1101429766&oldid=1099709250

The revert comment by George Ho includes the phrase: "the topic is still not an event". I'm hard-pressed to see from a basic linguistic and semantic perspective how my change implied that the Second Cold War is an event. The second part of the comment states: "plz discuss first before making such drastic changes to the article". What is the bar you've decided for edits without discussion on this article? Is it documented anywhere? If a discussion occurs do we need to wait for George Ho's assent before proceeding? Nic Martin (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@NickMartin: I undid my revert per request. I still think almost no sources have verified the connection between this article topic and the "Russia-China axis" that you claimed. Nonetheless, I should've pinged you before reverting your edits for the first time.

Also, I really wish the "ownership" accusations must cease or something like that. I don't know what kind of "ownership" behavior I'm exerting. About three things you provided, do you have proof, and are they part of ownership behavior that I'm supposedly exerting?

Reviewing sources that you added, the second one (CFR) came from National Review, which 1) per WP:RSP#National Review may be questionable, 2) whose article headline is still unreliable, and 3) doesn't mention the article topic or "Cold War" outside the article headline. When it mentions "the new Cold War", I think it must have meant the original Cold War in context.

I was able to access Financial Times via The Wikipedia Library a day ago, but now the Library's collections are having server issues. I'll re-discuss the FT article in another time. Meanwhile, the FT article itself is subscription-restricted for now. From what I can recall, the "return of the cold war" doesn't mean this article article, does it? As I can assure you, the article doesn't (explicitly) mention the topic outside the headline, which, like the other source, is unreliable..

What about past discussions, like this one and that one? I had to keep the article consistent with uncontested past discussions made. George Ho (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's server has resumed to normal, so I was able to reread the FT article. Turns out that I should've made the FT article into some better use earlier, which I later did. Nonetheless, I stand by my concerns about the National Review and the "Russia-China axis", so I re-reverted your edits but then made FT article better used. George Ho (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to incorporate the FT article.

Can we talk about what you're specifically trying to avoid this article implying? I'm still left with the impression that the rubric for what's acceptable here is only available in your head. Nic Martin (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

For the "Russia-China axis" thing, anything related to the Russia-China relations needs to be verified as (explicitly) related to the article topic. I couldn't find at least one reliable source verifying the connection. Also, I figured that at least one mention of that growing alliance would make a reader imply that the topic is more than a "term" and heighten readers' fears (about it becoming a true "event"), but I can stand corrected about that. --George Ho (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the term "axis" might be loaded. I understand the concern to not alarm anyone & I admire your vigilance in keeping this article from being a place where people play out warped geopolitical fantasies, but I think we also need to prevent that urge from suppressing information about a term that's becoming increasingly common.

Personally, I'd like to see this article reformatted and/or expanded to include an itemized list of the comparisons about how the current situation differs from the original cold war. I think that's potentially a sober, unbiased and easily citable way to talk about the term without implying it's anything other than a term.

I think the format we have today is potentially making this harder. Everything is grouped under US-China or US-Russia tensions. If we expand this format, we're going to start implying "sides" etc. Perhaps a re-orientation towards the top level categorization being things like "Trade", "Military activity", etc would be better suited.

Thoughts? Nic Martin (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Better to leave the current format as the status quo rather than change it. The proposed change would imply just one definition, and I'm unsure whether readers, especially on mobile, would be interested in what sections actually say or detail. Also, whose "trade" and whose "military activity"? --George Ho (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

You speak for the users now too? Are you implying it's impossible to speak about trade or military activity in a context that spans multiple nations?

I do not think the change would imply a single definition, but rather demonstrate a nebulous term that is brought up in many contexts. Nic Martin (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

To which "contexts" were you referring? Also, I don't know which articles refer to trade or military. Since you consider the topic a "nebulous term", as I should mention, I tried to broaden the term years ago, but that led to moving portions to cold war (term) instead. George Ho (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The contexts laid out on the first line: "that refer to heightened political, social, ideological, informational, and military tensions in the 21st century"

The very first line hints at how this could be otherwise formatted. Nic Martin (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Align X-Y tensions titles to naming standard for X-Y relations articles

The section headers are using the convention that the "X-Y relations" articles used once upon a time. For the same reasons those no longer use this less accessible convention, I think we should change:

Sino-American tensions -> China-United States tensions Russo-American tensions -> Russia-United States tensions Nic Martin (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Well... As long as the context doesn't change, no objections to your proposal. Of course, someone else may revert back to what the section titles are now. --George Ho (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Does this discussion not carry the weight of the other discussion you so frequently link? If not, why? Nic Martin (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@George Ho? Nic Martin (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said before, as long as the context of section titles don't change, no objections. Couldn't care less. George Ho (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll note this response when past discussions are linked to. Nic Martin (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Russia and China

I think this term is best to describe tensions between the United States and the West and the combined alliance of Russia and China. To say it’s an either or, does not effectively cover the term or the situation at the moment MarcusPearl95 (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your frustrations, but we still must abide to what reliable sources say about the article topic. Indeed, I've not found one reliable source, e.g. a reliable commentator, verifying the connection between the alliance and the topic. --George Ho (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the @George Ho show, Marcus. Nic Martin (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol, I didn't edit the article before I got feedback so its a good thing I did this MarcusPearl95 (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

More proposals by NickMartin

@NickMartin: I don't know why you mention "trade war" when, indeed, I'm unable to access most of the sources you added. Were you using just article headlines, or why else citing the sources to verify the connection between "trade war" and this topic? Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you fully and/or thoroughly read the articles? Also, an op-ed from Al-Jazeera...

BTW, I'm mentioning your name here before you would start more threads. Seems that you wanted change or update the article for the sake of changing or updating it, right? I want to revert the recent additions you made, but... Oh, I want to revert right away unless you object. George Ho (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@George Ho I pulled them from this line on China-United States relations: During the Trump administration, and especially since the US-China trade war began, political observers have started to warn that a new cold war is emerging

Do these not back the claim there? Please undo the revert or we'll go to dispute. Nic Martin (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how those sources back such claims, and I don't see how article headlines suffice. If you insist on taking one matter to dispute, then please go to WP:DSN or RFC. The matter shouldn't be about me or you, rather content. --George Ho (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Also I made the change to give a brief background intro to China as Russia has. You'll notice the "see also" link to the trade war below in the China section. Don't worry - only one of us has a complex about this article. Is someone paying you to prevent edits here?! Nic Martin (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

No one has offered me pay for those edits, and I've never been a paid editor in the first place. And mentioning trade war in "See also" already suffices for now. --George Ho (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@NickMartin: I've not yet reverted your addition of the "Moscow-Beijing bloc" citing another CFR article, but mentioning such can be... provoking, especially when the source doesn't mention the article topic generally, regardless of its headline. I really wish you revert ASAP, so I don't have to be reported again. Please? --George Ho (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@George Ho I specifically hedged the language and mirrored the terminology already present in the article. I understood the issue with the word "axis", given the WW2 usage, but I think using "bloc" (as is done later on) and the "presumed" qualifier appropriately conveys the situation. Nic Martin (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, this CFR article is not coming from the National Review (thank you for catching the other one). Do you consider CFR content itself to not be an acceptable source? Nic Martin (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

CFR's reliability is irrelevant to its own ability to verify the connection between the relations (or "bloc", whatever you call it) and the article topic. Rereading it, even when "reliable", the source covers the relations itself but not its connection with the article topic. Umm... If you still insist on including info about Russia-China alliance, then I may more likely start an RfC discussion about this. George Ho (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I added another source. A Foreign Policy article from Michael Hirsh. Is that enough? Nic Martin (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, if we're looking for bias-balance, there's this from TASS (and therefore, generally, the perspective of the Russian Government) https://tass.com/world/1470117 Nic Martin (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

And more from the NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/24/world/asia/cold-war-ukraine.html Nic Martin (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

And Alfred W. McCoy writing in The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/world/cold-war-ukraine-china/ Nic Martin (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The Nation article reprinted an article or op-ed from tomdispatch.com, an independent website made by Tom Engelhardt. Even when you quote the source rather tha cite it for a quote-less info, the article itself doesn't connect the article topic and the Russia-China alliance. Fortunately, I was able to put a Foreign Policy article by Michael Hirsh (journalist) into use.Joseph Stiglitz's op-ed, which TASS was quoting. However, while Hirsh calls it "nascent Cold War" and "global", Stiglitz's article doesn't verifiably connect the alliance and the article topic. I also used Hirsh's article to create a newer section about NATO. --George Ho (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad we've found a way to represent this in the new section. Nic Martin (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

George Ho masking reverts behind reference changes (Withdrawn)

@george ho I believe the 3RR rule still applies even if you mask your reverts behind an edit claiming to be a minor reference change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Cold_War&oldid=1102806689 Nic Martin (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@NickMartin: This is absurd. Both links use the same AP article. All I did was replace the France24 with the AP link using the same content. I don't think 3RR applies, and I'm not claiming minor edit. Have you checked and compared both URLs yet? --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind. You are correct. I am still disputing the original revert, however. Nic Martin (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

George Ho continued edit warring (Result: No Violation found)

@George Ho - I read the RFC. There was no consensus on the one you linked, and the previous one stands. This bans a "lead" image, which is not what I added. Undo the revert or I will report. Nic Martin (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Cold_War/Archive_7#RfC:_Use_a_map,_an_image,_or_neither?

I conclude that the community does not reach consensus to overrule the previous close. The community displays considerable impatience with the repeated discussion, and so I advise against beginning a fresh RfC on this subject unless and until significant new sources appear.

(previous close below)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Cold_War/Archive_6#Add_lead_image?

There is no consenus here. On reviewing the discussion and the proposed images, I believe the status quo is the best outcome. The mere identifcation of the United States, Russia and China is not necessary, for the same reason as we don't link those countries in prose (i.e. "subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar.") The other images are not appropriate - the division of the countries of the world into "camps" seems arbitrary and could even border on original research without thorough explanation and references. A vial of vaccine is a bizarre choice, and the image of tanks in Ukraine is focusing on a very specific part of the relationship between only 2 of the subjects of the article (i.e. ignores China). This latter point is of course is the problem, i.e. how to summarise both relationships; I believe the ultimate resolution will be a further and more definitive defintion of the term Second Cold War by consensus of reliable sources.

Where are you seeing this global image ban on the whole article? I'm failing to see it. Nic Martin (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It applies to section images as well. In the RfC, I previously offered one option to use maps for respective sections and another option to omit images and maps and other visuals anywhere in the article as newer status quo. The majority favored omitting visuals as an option. You may report me to 3RR noticeboard again (or ANI) if you wish, so we'll see how it goes. Whatever you report me comes down to content dispute, and I bet the admins will think there's no user conduct involved. If there were, I wonder how serious they think the conduct is. --George Ho (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There was no consensus. I will not be discouraged by your comments from using appropriate channels or otherwise engaging the admins. Nic Martin (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the comments there, including Michael Z's? Also, there was a consensus.... which couldn't override the "no consensus" result in the other RfC discussion. --George Ho (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Closure of Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 7#RfC: Use a map, an image, or neither

"I conclude that the community does not reach consensus to overrule the previous close"

Closure of Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 6#Add lead image?

"There is no consenus here."

@George Ho It's as plain as day. Is there another RFC that you're referring to? If not and instead you would like to challenge the closure, please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Nic Martin (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I specifically avoided any map imagery, to avoid conflicting with the spirit of the RFC. The images had no maps and simply showed diplomats talking from the relevant countries in the relevant sections. There is no more implied by these images than the text itself. Nic Martin (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about maps. Even collages were considered, but consensus disagreed with alternatives (to maps particularly), including any politics-related photos. As for the photos themselves, the (summit) meeting photos don't add much understanding to what the term defines variously. They illustrate one moment of a meeting but haven't been proven as connected to the article topic in question. Please ask yourself whether the photos improve readers' understanding, especially per WP:IMGCONTENT. --George Ho (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@George Ho Please clarify your position on whether your revert was justified under WP:IMGCONTENT, the two no consensus RFCS [1] [2] or both? Nic Martin (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

...Both, including the former I should have used earlier. Also, most of the participants of the second RfC didn't offer alternatives to maps. Rather they opposed including at least one image (of any sort) due to the nature and ambiguity of the article topic. Furthermore, one closer discouraged another RfC discussing images in general "unless and until significant new sources appear". So far, to me, even new sources and sectiona haven't significantly changed what the topic means (as a term). If you feel like starting a newer and fresher RfC (WP:RFC) on the meeting photos, then go ahead please. --George Ho (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

These both closed without consensus. Is there one that did not close with no consensus? Nic Martin (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Added a new RFC here, you've also reverted photos that were not of meetings: [3] Nic Martin (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and please change the section title. The latest 3RR was closed as "no violation". You may wanna alternately request an opinion at WP:3O if willing. --George Ho (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Will do. Nic Martin (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, for the "majority favor omitting visuals" assertion you made, please review WP:NOTDEMOCRACY after you un-revert the edit. Consensus is the part that matters, not majorities. Nic Martin (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Sergey Lavrov image in "debate over term" section

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 would like to add an image of Sergey Lavrov to the "debate over term" section. I would like to use the image as an opportunity to do some minor synthesis of the existing citations by mentioning in the caption that he has "expressed criticism towards the use of the term "new cold war" on multiple occasions" (with links to a few relevant existing refs to back that up). See this version [4] for reference. Nic Martin (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• The Lavrov image doesn't contribute to readers' understanding of or relevancy to the section, no matter what the caption says. It shows only what Lavrov looks like in one moment or another, and no caption would make any difference. Would it? (OT: Of course, I added some pictures of one-time guest stars in a list of them in one TV series.) Also, Lavrov's not the only person. Many others have debated the term. As current status quo, best to omit it (and an image of any mentioned individual). --George Ho (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support. In an article about an abstract topic where it's hard to find relevant images about the topic itself, it's reasonable to include images of prominent thinkers who have discussed the topic. Thus, for instance, Common sense has an image of Aristotle, and ASMR#Background and history has an image of Virginia Woolf. Something similar is appropriate here. To respond to George Ho's point that "Lavrov's not the only person" – we can of course include images of other people mentioned in the article too. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:06, 10 August 2022 (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.

info box military conflict

The world War II box needs to be added to this page. 2A00:1FA0:499:6764:0:55:91CE:BF01 (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This article isn't about an actual military conflict. It's about a term used as a label for a variety of hypothetical conflicts. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Does this article have a special image policy?

Some editors have used the conclusion of past RFCs, which were closed without consensus, as reason for blocking the use of images in this article. To ensure that this article is allowed to develop, I am asking that we take a moment to clarify whether any special image policy or policies (beyond the standards for any article) this article must follow.

• Discussion prompting RFC

Prior RFCs:

• Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 7#RfC: Use a map, an image, or neither?
• Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 6#Add lead image?

Thank you in advance, Nic Martin (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

PROPOSAL
I reviewed the long history of this article and I see why some of the editors involved in that history have a developed a negative gut reaction to photos of any kind. I am not proposing we go back to the somewhat ridiculous places this article has gone to in the past.

However, I believe - understandably due to historical trauma - some editors are applying policies to this article that are beginning to feel like a violation of WP:CENSOR. I do not expect this is the intent, but I do believe it is (increasingly) becoming the effect.

The bar I've used for this article, borrowed from @George Ho (thank you) is that "this article is about a term, not about an event". In that spirit, I propose we come to a consensus that the only images banned are those that group countries into "sides" of a perceived cold war - via a map or otherwise. Any other images are only subject to WP:IMGCONTENT.

I consider this as a measured solution that will prevent this article from becoming a "fantasy war page" while also allowing us to create quality encyclopedic content regarding a term that is only becoming increasingly common. - Nic Martin (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think this is an answerable RFC question – it is so abstract and vague that I don't really know what a "support" or "oppose" would mean. What would change if this RFC is successful or unsuccessful? It might be more productive to discuss the inclusion of specific images or types of images rather than a blanket statement about "any other images" outside a specific category. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Comment: I apologize that the proposal is vague, let me try to clarify. It's unclear what the consensus is on images after multiple no consensus RFCs. Despite this, images have been de facto banned here & I would like to either acknowledge this as the will of the community, discard any notion of special image restrictions or adopt a well defined policy.

  I'm specifically proposing that we reach a consensus that: the only images banned are those that group countries into "sides" of a perceived cold war - via a map or otherwise

  For an example of an image I would like to be able to add to this article, please see:

  • this version, where an image of Sergey Lavrov is added to a section with some minor synthesis from the content of the section [5]

  For examples of what I propose we ban, please see:

  • this version, where an Editor divided the world into blocs (which is almost certainly original research in whole or in part) [6]
  • this version, less egregious, but still perhaps not appropriate for a nebulous term: [7]

  Nic Martin (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. After looking over some of the previous discussions, I think I understand where you're coming from, but I still think this RFC is too confusing to be workable. Maybe it could be rephrased to sound less like it's opening the door to all possible images. Or why not just start an RFC (or, first, a discussion) about the Sergey Lavrov image? For what it's worth I support inclusion of the Sergey Lavrov image (or similar images to illustrate specific sections of the article). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and attention. I'll spin off a discussion of just the Sergey Lavrov image.

Nic Martin (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile, what will you do about the RFC tag above? Remove it or leave it? Removing the tag would mean that you'll abandon this thread, right? --George Ho (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

For me, the answer to the question I posed here is no longer pressing if we can integrate at least one example of "responsible use" of an image into the article. If that can't be achieved, I'll probably attempt to rephrase it to propose a definition of "responsible use" of images here. Nic Martin (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

proposed infobox to add

Like cold war article

Second Cold War

• support adding an infobox Coldwar2 (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose repeatedly - Haven't we gone through this already? Template:Second Cold War was deleted per WP:TFD. You can technically use a different infobox template, but the execution would inevitably resemble Template:infobox military conflict, which the consensus has been against, regardless of whether it's used or not. Also, your username and your overall edits, especially by reading your edit history, would imply agenda. --George Ho (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

US-centricity issue still existent?

@UlyssorZebra: I don't know which reliable sources verify the connection between the term and other countries involved in a global context. I limit the scope of sources to just ones explicitly using the term or mentioning the term(s). Calling the article US-centric seems... I don't know how to describe it. If not "subtle", then how do you describe the calling? "Accurate"? George Ho (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. The label US-centricity is because these supposed Cold War conflicts are not US-China or US-Russia. The Cold War with Russia encompasses most of Europe. Many articles in the reliable press describe this as a Western-Russian conflict, not a primarily US-led conflict. The "Chinese" Cold War involves the Quad countries as well as others such as Taiwan, and to some (mostly economic) extent Europe. For example, the situation between India and China is, in reliable media, often even called a Cold War on their own. UlyssorZebra (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you know which sources please? I could not find at least one source verifying the "Second Cold War" as a Western-Russian conflict. George Ho (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure. A few news articles and expert analyses: (focuses on NATO rather than solely/mainly the US) [8], (the West): [9], (focuses on EU rather than the US): [10], (calling it an anti-Western bloc, not an anti-US bloc): [11]. Sources like these are very common; not sure why you struggled finding them - if I use your link, even the first hit talks about the West (rather than the US solely or mainly). These are just the first links I found - seriously, I think I can easily add hundreds more. UlyssorZebra (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The article headlines are unreliable. The France24 video us doesn't verify the "term describing an event"; rather it uses a term in the headlines (just to sensationalize or for mass appeal). The Turkish AA op-ed is... an op-ed, and the way the "second cold war" is used is nothing new. I'm also reluctant to use Asia Times. However, I discovered that Anna Diamantopoulou is a politician, so I added a paragraph about her in one section.

To this date, no matter how you call "Second Cold War", the article subject is not verified as an "event"; see past discussion. In other words, I still don't see it as a conflict between the West and Russia. Seeing it as such would mean it's an "event" (something I wanna avoid), wouldn't it? George Ho (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this topic is largely speculative - that's a separate issue. However, if this article does exist, it should avoid an undue emphasis on the US. UlyssorZebra (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Revision of Page's Purpose

Hello,

I think it would be best if we altered the purpose of the page. Presently the page is centered around discussing the possibility of a Second Cold War and the use of the term by various scholars, journalists, and politicians. I believe there is sufficient evidence and consensus to label the hostility between Russian and the NATO alliance as a distinct Second Cold War. There is a clear ideological divide between the two camps, and there are numerous proxy wars (Ukraine, Syria) to constitute a new Cold War. Consequently, I propose that the article be structured to more closely match the structure of the Cold War article on Wikipedia. This article provides explanation about the origins of the Cold War and the general history of the conflict. I believe this article should mirror this article.

What do you think? MLPfanficwriter (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's not (reorganize and rewrite just to reflect public opinions without reliable sources verifying what you opined/stated/said and without following core content policies). Best to leave the article as written for now. Also, past discussions prove that the article topic isn't verified as an "event" yet explicitly. --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay then. I shall differ to your judgement on this issue.

May I ask a question? Would it be appropriate to create a separate page that details the Russia-NATO Cold War, provided it does not bear the title "Second Cold War". MLPfanficwriter (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There's already Russia–NATO relations. You may use the draft namespace if you wanna create a separate page about the tensions. However, I don't see why a separate page is necessary. As said before, there's already the page about the relations, and it may have already detailed the tensions between them both. George Ho (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay then. I shall rest my case. Besides, I am presently too busy to create a brand new page, so it will have to wait for the future. MLPfanficwriter (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Addition of Significant events

Should we begin adding significant events (ie. F-22 raptor brought down an asset of the PRC off the Atlantic Coast in US airspace on Feb. 4 2023, this appears to be the first downing of a foreign asset over US territory since WWII (1945- in the Philippines);

Or should this wait until there is at least a second incident? Riannya (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources verifying the connection between this topic and the events you mentioned? I can't insert the unverifiable info right away. --George Ho (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Riannya and should we add the recent Balloon incident? Soaphead (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find a reliable source verifying the connection between this topic and the balloon incident. Not even article headlines count as "reliable". George Ho (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Maps in the Russo-Ukrainian War section

Can related maps be allowed in the "Russo-Ukrainian War" section? (We haven't allowed maps per one of prior discussion for a long while.) George Ho (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Info Box

I think we should start some kind of infobox, like at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War If we get some photos to do with China, Russia & the US it would look good. Friendly Engineer (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the infobox necessary? Template:Second Cold War infobox was attempted but then deleted. Also, the past discussions have concluded that any map showing the US, China, and/or Russia is unneeded or would not improve understanding much. Furthermore, one discussion has concluded that the topic shall be treated as a "term", not an "event". George Ho (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Almost forgot: per one consensus, {{infobox military conflict}} is still inappropriate to use as well as any other type similar to or infobox resembling that. George Ho (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

How about something like the image map on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s

I mean, we don't need the links, just a collage of pictures would certainly spruce up the page. Friendly Engineer (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Still, no collages or maps as lead images at this time. It's been discussed numerous times. Why not forego the idea please? George Ho (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, fine. Perish the thought. Friendly Engineer (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Opinion about the topic from IP editor

If Bill Clinton were thinking about the future of the country instead of Monica Lewinsky, the current US government would not be preparing for confrontation with China now. Also, Russia would have been an ally to USA and would have, as always, been a counterforce to China and the Asian region as a whole.

There had been reasons for such alliance. US and Russia even conducted joint military exercises in 1994, 1996, and 1998. Navies of both countries participated in exercises called “COOPERATION FROM THE SEA”.

Russia should have been the ally, not Eastern Europe. In that case, today’s pipelines would be going not to China but to North American continent through Alaska. But the USA made a strategic error in the 90s for which future generations will pay.

By betting on Eastern Europe, US only created a headache. Aside from boundless ambitions, these allies have little to offer other than agricultural products richly fertilized by radioactive fallout from Chernobyl power plant. Russia, on the other hand, possesses enormous natural resources, strategic location, plus existing developed military bases. 2001:569:70A5:6800:BD5E:B0D2:FC0F:757 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:FORUM--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 03:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"Globalize" tag still intact

I appreciate the concerns about worldwide views being not represented, but leaving the {{globalize}} still intact implies that this article needs some rewrite or cleanup. Unfortunately, I fail to see the case of need (to rewrite or cleanup just to include other non-US views). I see unsatisfied editors wanting the article to be one of worldwide topics, but I don't see why we must keep the tag any longer. I intend to remove the tag, but I welcome comments here. George Ho (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The issues haven't been resolved yet. The article is written as if there's a US-Russia Cold War and US-China Cold War, yet the term is used in many contexts, and you can for example see a wider region counterbalancing Russia and China (militarization is happening in many countries, finding economic and military partnerships, etc.). The US is certainly a mayor player but far from the only one. This is a quite fundamental point/issue the article is currently suffering from, and will require a significant rewrite. Until that's been done, the tag remains justified. UlyssorZebra (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean immediate rewrite, right? Or how immediate do you want the article rewritten? George Ho (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs a rewrite as the content that's there is representative of the sourcing (it does make sense that most of the "cold war 2" scenarios involve the US). However additional examples of new cold wars could certainly be added to the existing article, in addition to what's already there - if there's adequate sourcing. — Czello ^(music) 10:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Remove "globalize" tag?

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.

---

Shall the {{globalize}} tag remain or be removed? Why or why not? (see #"Globalize" tag still intact for original discussion.) George Ho (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards removing it. It makes sense that this article mentions the US so much given their status as a superpower; most sources do describe the US in a power struggle against either China or Russia. The only major change I'd make to the article is highlighting the Saudi-Iranian conflict. We briefly cover it under the context of a US-Russia cold war, but there could be justification for its own section. Ultimately though it'd be a brief summary with a link to the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict article. — Czello ^(music) 11:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The more I think about it, I think I'm going to spin that section off out of the Russia-US section and create a "Middle-East" section, detailing these two conflicts. It won't be much (as I say, all we really need to do is summarise the issue and link to the main articles) but it should improve the article. Other than that I can't see what else needs to be done to "globalize" the article. — Czello ^(music) 11:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

What about Cold war (term)#Middle East? Would that suffice? George Ho (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying we need a separate article. Where the article does need a rewrite is to not just see the conflicts as US-centric. There's a regional counterbalancing. India for example has a quite autonomous policy and the Sino-Indian rivalry is called in its own right a Cold War. Japan has a semi-autonomous policy, remilitarizing and building alliances or strengthening bonds in the region. Same for the Russia Cold War. European countries play their own role. It's not just US-Russia. The role of European states or the EU. There are sufficient reliable articles in the context of a 2nd Cold War. Framing it per US presidency is even more wrong. China and Russia are equally drivers of the current situation (as do other states) and perhaps even more so. Putin's shift in policy since 2008, and the reasons cited in reliable media for why. Or the succession by Hu Jintao by Xi Jinping are as much drivers. UlyssorZebra (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Just one question: do you think the new Cold War is just a term or more than that? George Ho (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

US-centricity

While the tag has been mod-removed, the issues remain and are problematic. I'll refrain from making any edits to the article as I don't want to be unconstructive, and I admittedly lack the time to properly rewrite the article. Do consider that the (first) Cold War article is much less US-centric and may be a source of inspiration. (1) Evidently, the US plays a dominant role in both, but whereas the Second War article is written as if it's a US-China and US-Russia conflict, the (first) Cold War article talks about blocs led by the US and USSR. The Second Cold War also has its alliances and cooperations, and so far, the members of these blocs seem less cohesive (less "led") and more autonomous. For example, the current Indian policy in the China Cold War is independent from the US, yet is in many sources an important "Cold War" as well. The EU is a newish actor with its own strategic choices. The desire in Eastern Europe for European integration - and the focus of many/most European countries to drive such integration - is a key cause/topic in the Second Cold War (goes much beyond the current Ukraine War), yet is almost entirely absent from the article. Plenty of reliable sources however do focus on this. Japan's China policy and includes its own efforts to alliance-building, independent from the US, including with India, the EU and Australia. Etc. (2) Also consider expanding the policies from China; the article makes it seem that the Cold War is US-presidency-driven (Trump, Biden). Many reliable articles consider Chinese own political choices and shifts as equally important contributors to the current Second Cold War, and precede Trump (e.g., Xi Jinping much more assertive foreign policy vs Hu Jintao's "peaceful rise" policy), and led to counterbalancing reactions across the region, not only from the US. UlyssorZebra (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe there should be a section about the usage of the term to describe the situation between Iran and the USA too.

Now with the escalating conflict in the middle east, tension between east and west have rose. Israel, backed by the USA, is fighting Hamas and Hezbollah, backed by Iran. This is, in my opinion, a war that resembles many of the smaller puppet wars in the Cold War era, even ones that are incredibly similar in context to the current conflict. It is only a single war, but tension between Iran and the USA have been going uphill with the Iranian attempt at producing Nuclear weapons, the source of the original Cold War. I do not believe a lot of people are using this term in this context as of now, but I also believe that is because we are witnessing the beginning of said war, as the conflict has reached far greater escalation levels than it ever did before. I should also note that, considering Russian interests has been promoted too by this war, and perhaps even chinese too with a seemingly approaching Taiwan invasion. If such link is logical, then perhaps the term 2nd Cold War can be used to describe a USA vs The Eastern World conflict. It would also make the middle east conflict the 2nd puppet war in the conflict, which, in my opinion, is quite enough to justify naming this conflict a cold war. 2A0D:6FC2:4BF3:D500:1915:7054:5F99:8E8D (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ultimately we'd need a wide variety of sources that describe their relations as a cold war, otherwise it's WP:OR. — Czello ^(music) 17:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Map

Second Cold War Map

  Pro America and Taiwan

  Pro Russia and China

  Active warzones

I looked up over 100 articles for this one. I might go back and try and add them all. Feel free to add sources or go into data wrapper to change things. Wikideas1 (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Omitting maps has been the status quo since both discussions from less than three years ago (discussion 1, discussion 2). The map you proposed is no different from other rejected maps we've seen. I suggest you hold off the idea of adding a map indefinitely. George Ho (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

the global economy risked losing up to $7 trillion in the event of a new Cold War

Added to article:

In December 2023 the International Monetary Fund warned that the global economy risked losing up to $7 trillion in the event of a new Cold War.

References

Ikipedia2 (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Not according to sources. Furthermore, one director of IMF said those words, not IMF itself. George Ho (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't want an edit war. Wikipedia:Ownership of content. We can do more Requests for comment or you can compromise (on adding an infobox to this page, for the 4th time). based on your edit history, I worry about the former. Ikipedia2 (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't cast aspersions over content ownership. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (she/they) 12:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you should re-revert the undoing. What I did was just remove what's already used in another section from the intro and change how the sources are interpreted. I didn't remove all the sources you added. And Zippy's right; do you think you were casting aspersions on me? George Ho (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I apologize that was my mistake @George Ho I didn't see the edit I created was moved below into another section. I removed the photo. As recompense (an apology), if you don't want any photo in the article at all, at the top of this article, you can either put any photo you wish or delete the infobox altogether. I was wrong. I apologize. Ikipedia2 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That's okay. I was able to add/restore the "$7 trillion" part per sources. George Ho (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"Second Cold War inn the Middle East" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Second Cold War inn the Middle East has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Second Cold War inn the Middle East until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)