Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cold War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Please place any discussion regarding the Cold War history WikiProject here. Crested Penguin 06:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Namespace

the cold war was very meanl. Why is this not in the Wikipedia: namespace? Shinhan 10:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC) This is just a temp page. Crested Penguin 23:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

I have made a couple of userboxes for WikiProject Cold War as I have noticed there isnt any. They are Here. Let Me know what you think. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 12:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is one --

This user participates in
WikiProject Cold War.

I also updated the userbox with the blue on blue --

This User Contributes to WikiProject Cold War

Maybe we could also have a userbox in red/yellow and another in red/white/blue, or a double box with the colors of the two flags or something, or a box with just the two flags, one on one side, and the other on the other side. That might be fun!

Hires an editor 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a couple more with the flags

This user contributes to WikiProject Cold War

This user contributes to WikiProject Cold War

Hires an editor 15:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Cold War

In case no one here has noticed, the polarization of the Cold War is alive and well here in Wikipedia in numerous arbitrations and mediations (all leading nowhere), where Eastern European (oriented) editors take a dim view of Soviet actions and history and (primarily, but not limited to) Russian (oriented) editors claim the Soviet Union never occupied anyone, e.g., if you suggest the Soviets did not liberate the Baltics and Eastern Europe, you can find yourself being labeled a Holocaust denier.

I would (strongly) suggest a project development plan which accommodates this swirling black vortex of Wiki-editor-time without getting sucked into it as well. (Perhaps even turn the vortex into an opportunity.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as with everything else here in/at Wikipedia, do you have references for this kind of behavior? If your allegations are true, then this is something that must be addressed. Hires an editor 22:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll look to oblige by the end of the week. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

    There are two major categories of "Cold War" activity: the first involves Soviet actions leading to WWII, Soviet conduct during the war, and Soviet liberation/occupation of the Baltics and Eastern Europe after the war. A sub-category of that is who was, and wasn't a "Nazi." Terms like "ethnofascist POV pusher" are used freely against Eastern European editors and (apparently) tolerated. The other major category is the frozen conflict zone (Transnistria, South Ossetia, et al.) where paid editors (William Mauco and Des Grant re: Transnistria) have tried to hijack Wikipedia for propaganda purposes in support of the regimes there.
    Let's start of with a few representative articles illustrative of the Wiki-Cold War:

• Occupation of Latvia arbitration, evidence page — an excellent overview of positions, parties, and patterns of accusation and response (with most of the key players in the Baltic arena), remember to read talk and workshop
• Mediation cabal on occupation of the Baltic states — a representative example of use of WP:OR and derisive comments against proponents of Soviet occupation
• "Entitled to POV" — in a nutshell, Cmapm accuses Digwuren of POV pushing, insisting that "at the same time I have a right to cite an alternative POV, that they voluntarily joined the Soviet Union"--problem being, no one has yet to date produced a single shred of reputable evidence to support that "viewpoint" (that the Baltics joined the Soviet Union willingly and legally)--yet many are those that insist it be given equal time in the name of "neutrality", that is, those who say "occupation" are POV, those who espouse the Soviet "viewpoint" are "neutral"
• Soviet Invasion of Poland feature article candidate talk — initiated not to discuss candidacy, but to make accusations of canvassing
• "Children are dying because of you" accusation — an editor (confirmed as Des Grant, publisher of the Tiraspol Times) masquerades under his nom de plume of Mark Street, "editor" of the Tiraspol Times, accuses anti-Transnistrian Wikipedia forces of murdering Transnistrian children. Both he, User:MarkStreet/User:Mark us street and User:William Mauco were finally banned for extensive use of sockpuppets to bolster their positions
• Transnistria talk archive — an informative discussion on Tiraspol Times as propaganda, Transnistria as a country, etc.
• even my own talk page--sadly, I am not an uninvolved party, viz., this exchange with an admin, Khoikhoi, threatening to block me; you can read the diffs or the article in context to draw your own conclusions, either way re: Fântâna Albă massacre talk — discussing my "insults" of a fellow editor (allegedly vituperative exchanges aside, I should mention Irpen is the only editor from the "other" side with whom I have any communication)

    We then have the Wiki-editor-internecine-war-of-attrition. Unfortunately, the only victims in this war appear to be the editors who don't tow the "Soviet glory" line, try to contribute, are then set upon, and then finally leave in disgust. Editors who quickly come to mind are User:Peteris_Cedrins (an extraordinary loss, though still occassionally comments), and User_talk:Constanz (similarly fed up, left completely). Here we have Mauco attacking Peteris Cedrins: Suspected sock puppet Cedrins.
    A general sampling of editor skirmishes (talk pages need to be read as well, and are often more informative as to positions):

• Ghirlandajo (RfC)
• Durova (Mediation)
• Piotrus (RfC)
• Piotrus+Ghirlandajo (RfA)
• Molobo (RfC)
• Piotrus (RfA) — note ruling of editor amnesty
• Irpen (RfC)
• Halibutt (RfC)
• Irpen (checkuser)
• Petri Krohn (RfC)

    If you like, I can also go back and find a similar list for Transnistria, suffice to say there are Wiki-lines drawn with respect to the frozen conflict zone territories as well. It would take me some more time to go through the other territories where I haven't had any Wiki-involvement aside from the occasional read (so, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh). That would likely take me longer than a week to respond, though. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a lot to go through if you're coming at it from the outside; on the other hand, it's an opportunity for a fresh persepective. The "classic" Cold War is over, but that it continues to live on in Wikipedia--as an instance of popular consciousness reflecting divisions in the larger global stage--is a phenomenon of tremendous significance. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The main Cold War article

I'd like some consensus on reducing the size of the main article so we can improve its quality. Less is more. We need to figure out a way to be more selective about the information there, what's really the most important, and yet make sure it's coherent and complete. There's too much supporting detail about things, such as the "origins of the term" section. There was a part about how it was used back in 13th Century Spain (I reverted that away as part of another change), and it is interesting, but not really relevant. We could probably do a complete article just on that. I'm sure that there are other examples.

Also, I'm not a big fan of the bullet points at the beginning of the article. Hires an editor 13:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

(replied here, moved to main page discussion) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be some wailing and gnashing of teeth in the main article discussion page! —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Difference between this and a Cold War task force?

Hello. Can I ask the reasoning as to why this is a project and not a task force of the Military History Wikiproject? Seems like there will be potential for considerable, if not full, overlap. Oberiko 18:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Because when the project was proposed it was decided that this project would deal with, as it were, the entire Cold War era, not just the military aspects, and on that basis making it a task force of a group focused on the military aspects did not seem entirely appropriate. John Carter 18:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

collaboration of the history projects

Hi, I'm newly appointed coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject History. I was coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject Military History before. My scope is to improve the cooperation among the different history projects andf use the synergy of a common infrastructure to improve article quality. One idea would be to merge small project into a larger wikiproject history with a common infrastructure and the small projects continuing independently as task forces of this project. What are your suggestions? Greetings Wandalstouring 15:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Post-Colonial Leaders set nomination for Version 0.7

Hi, I've just made this set nomination for the planned Version 0.7 DVD release. As I was tagging I kept seeing the Cold War template on pages, so I though people here might like to comment here. This is designed to be a list of important leaders from around the world during the period at the end of colonialism and the rise of many independent states. We'd appreciate your opinions! Thanks, Walkerma 06:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge

How about considering a merge of this project with Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations to bolster both projects - it's worked for the UN group. Mikebar 18:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

New logo

Hi what do you think about changing the project logo to a .svg image depicting two tanks(one red and one blue), and snowing in the background. --Andersmusician VOTE 04:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)