Open main menu

Sentence in lead paragraphEdit

Version 1: with one bloc typically reported as being led by Russia and the other led by the United States, European Union, and NATO. [...] It may also refer to growing tensions between the United States and China.

Version 2: with one bloc typically reported as being led by Russia and China and the other led by the United States, European Union, and NATO.

Diffs: [1][2]

I attempted to revert the changes by IP back to version 1, but somehow the IP redid the changes. Which version above is more accurate? -- George Ho (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Further sourcesEdit

The speed with which US political leaders of all stripes have united behind the idea of a “new cold war” is something that takes my breath away. Eighteen months ago the phrase was dismissed as fringe scaremongering. Today it is consensus. Even if Donald Trump were not US president, and someone less nationalistic than Xi Jinping were running China, it is very hard to see what, or who, is going to prevent this great power rivalry from dominating the 21st century.

Getting acclimatised to the US-China cold war, Edward Luce, Financial Times, 19 July 2019

Moreover, as a new Cold War deepens across Asia, Pakistan cannot build a successful relationship with the U.S. without giving up its traditional obsession with India. For the past two decades, shared concerns about Chinese hegemony have drawn Washington and New Delhi closer. That could change, but a return to the days when the U.S. tilted toward Pakistan appears far-fetched.

International Diplomacy Is Not Just Cricket, Sadanand Dhume, Wall Street Journal, 25 July 2019

Should current tensions between the United States and China continue escalating, the defining geopolitical feature of the first half of the 21st century will almost certainly be the strategic rivalry, or even a new cold war, between these two countries. A geopolitical clash will be costly to both countries. In all likelihood, prospects for cooperation depend heavily on the geopolitical sensitivity of specific issues, the geopolitical importance of the countries concerned, overlapping interests, and the party that controls the U.S. executive branch.

2020 and beyond: Maintaining the bipartisan narrative on US global development, Brookings Institute, 25 July 2019

The new Cold War has not been one-sided. Many of the changes in Washington have been triggered by a darker turn in Beijing.

China has increased its scrutiny of American firms, and many American companies and their employees in China now fear reprisal. In addition to detaining millions of Chinese Muslims, democracy activists and others, Chinese authorities have jailed foreign diplomats, academics and businesspeople — prompting some to cancel or delay trips to China.

A New Red Scare Is Reshaping Washington, Ana Swanson, The New York Times, 20 July 2019

The arrests opened another front in America’s new Cold War, with China. It is a struggle in which Huawei figures prominently, as Washington wages a global campaign to dissuade allies from using the company’s equipment in the next generation of mobile-phone technology, known as 5G. The Trump administration in May effectively banned the use of Huawei gear in U.S. telecom networks and restricted the company’s purchases of American technology. Washington says the company is an arm of the Chinese government, and U.S. officials fear Huawei’s 5G technology could be exploited for espionage and sabotaging a country’s critical infrastructure. Huawei denies this.

How Poland became a front in the cold war between the U.S. and China; Joanna Plucinksa, Koh Gui Qig, Alicja Ptak; Reuters; 2 July 2019

Firebrace (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The op-eds by journalists Edward Luce and Sadanand Dhume should not be used. The Brookings Institute page displays eight articles for anyone to read, including Minxin Pei's. I already collected Pei's opinion back from 2017 and don't see how it adds anything new. I can't access Ana Swanson's article because I don't have subscription to NYT; no opinion on Swanson's piece. Reuters's article is something that I have been cautious about; it is "a Reuters special report" as no other articles have covered the topic and used "new Cold War" yet. Nevertheless, please feel free to use just the Reuters article (and Swanson's if possible). George Ho (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Again I would like to ask what you're waiting for. A signed declaration of cold war between the two sides? Not going to happen – it is, after all, a cold war. The last one just sort of happened (like this one). Firebrace (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
All right. If not some declaration, why not instead wait for a bunch/lot of sources (not just one or two) connecting this to specific events? All I can do is just insert quotes using the term. I added the "Current status" section to reflect that. -- George Ho (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Or, if you want to use the Reuters, why not include "Reuters reported that..."? George Ho (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
And why must we tell readers and/or insist that the cold war is (already?) happening? The occurrence has been disputed by academics and sometimes distorted by some journalists using misleading headlines. George Ho (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully, you can read and understand a discussion from 2015, concluded as limiting the scope of this article to how "Cold War II" (or interchangeable terms) is used by reliable sources. I think I should have mentioned the discussion a while back, regardless of whether or not you are aware of it. George Ho (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

"See also" spamEdit

We discussed this back in 2016 and there was a clear consensus that only linked concepts were to be included (e.g., World War III). Anything you think might be a Second Cold War should, if you can find supporting references in multiple reliable sources describing it as a Second Cold War, be added to the main body of the article, but otherwise don't add it. The "See also" section is strictly for concepts that are actually linked to what's on the page, and not to be used for a collection of original research. FOARP (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sino-Australian tensionEdit

Oh I just realised why you deleted my section, Sino-Australian tension is because you are Chinese... What a surprise there!--Caltraser55 (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Caltraser55: My being Chinese has nothing to do with the removal of problematic content. The Sino–Australian section is irrelevant to Sino–US section, regardless of your claims in your edit summary, which contains a fallacy (probably false equivalence). None of the sources connect the Sino-Australian relations to the topic, i.e. the primary terms aren't explicitly mentioned there. The idea of eliminating "Sino-US" just to narrow the scope to mere Russia–Western relations is... contrary to established past consensus seen in past discussions. -- George Ho (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
So the fact that the Australian Director of ASIO said that espionage is now worse than during the 1st Cold War, and that China is overwhelming Australia with spies at an unprecedented level is in your view, a "fallacy"? Yea, it's very easy to see you are nothing more than a CCP censor agent. You will not silence Australia, you will not silence Hong Kong!--Caltraser55 (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Caltraser55: Looking at your past interactions with others, this is not the first time you made personal attacks, including above you did, or should I say your accusations on me. Sometimes, you were told to retract your baseless claims on others, but then you haven't done so. Or you've not yet made apologies to others for your comments/ accusations. I'm close to giving you a warning, but first please retract your claim that I'm some CCP agent. If you can retract that claim, I really hope you learn your lesson. BTW, when I said fallacy, I was referring to your edit summary: "Then are you going to remove the Sino-American tension then as well? If not then it stays". George Ho (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Re-pinging Caltraser55. George Ho (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

No you said the links I've produced constitute a "fallacy". Fine I retract that statement.--Caltraser55 (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
What about your claims on me as some agent attempting to silence others? Can you strike those out? --George Ho (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
There--Caltraser55 (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Now on to the content of the section, let's review the sources and/or the section itself. Australian Financial Review requires subscription, so I don't know what the article says. Sources not mentioning either "Cold War": Sydney Morning Herald, ABC (#1, #2, #3), 9News. Sources mentioning only the first Cold War: ABC, May you please explain why you chose those sources and why the section should be included in this article? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Because the second cold war lists the West versus China and Russia, and as far as I'm concerned Australia is a part of the West. And if you read the articles you can see where China attacking Australia's sphere of influence similiar to the US/China section.--Caltraser55 (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Australia being part of West doesn't make the country involved in the cold war. Also, multiple reliable and verifiable sources haven't said that another cold war has happened yet, though some others view differently. Also, I wonder whether you read the US-China section, saying that another cold war is either approaching or hasn't happened yet but that Trump's policies on China makes the possibility more likely, not what China actually does. I don't know why some people treat two separate relationship tensions as something merged into one. I can't find reliable sources saying that Russia and China together battle against the other side. --George Ho (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Well the Australia is much closer to China so its already feeling China's effects, and the ASIO director said its already worse than during the Cold War so I'm going by his statement.--Caltraser55 (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The ASIO director didn't explicitly say that the event or effects are part of the "Cold War II". Being worse than during the Cold War doesn't mean it either is part of the Cold War II or leads to Cold War II. George Ho (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused what part of the section you disagree with? Is it the terminology of "Cold War II" itself?--Caltraser55 (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably went somewhat off-track at the end in my previous reply. Anyway, when you re-read the sources and what I said about them, I should say the whole Sino-Australian section, which I think might/may belong to "Australia–China relations". Just in case, you can read the 2015 discussion, which can explain why the whole Sino-Aussie section may be out of the article's scope per 2015 discussion. George Ho (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll remove the Australian section myself if you give me a reason instead of just saying "read the 2015 discussion".--Caltraser55 (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The whole section itself seems to favor the Australian side and be slanted against China, i.e. treating China as a threat against the existing hegemony. Also, the sources haven't given a reason why the tensions between Australia and China are part of Cold War II and haven't explicitly connect the relation with Cold War II. The whole section may not comply with WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV (unless someone proves me wrong). --George Ho (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I sort of see your point. If someone can give a second opinion I will remove it.--Caltraser55 (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I invited members of three respective WikiProjects to this discussion. George Ho (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
More at User talk:Nick-D#Second Cold War: Sino-Australian tension (diff). George Ho (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Just to note, the (rather obvious) problem with the material I've now blocked two editors for edit warring into the article is that it's a collection of negative claims about Gladys Liu, with no effort whatsoever being made to note that she has sought to explain her position, including stating that she supports the Australian Government's position relating to the South China Sea. Its placement in this article makes this worse, as it carries the implication that she is significant in the context of a "Second Cold War". This material would need to be reworked considerably to be usable, and strong sources provided which justify its inclusion in a high level article like this. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Even when the Gladys Liu entry was removed for violating the BLP, other parts of content are still problematic. The sources still don't explain why the cited info is relevant to "Cold War II" (or "Second Cold War"), the whole section treats people's paraphrased words or quotes like facts without citing whoever said them, the section depicts China as an upcoming invader to Australia, and the section depicts Australia as near-helpless without raising its own defence and cooperation with its allies. If no one objects, I plan to remove the whole section but not too soon. George Ho (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

North Korea and Iran?Edit

Are there any sources likening the NK-US & Iran-US .. disagreements .. to a Cold War? These countries both have increasing nuclear programmes that appear threatening to the West.  Nixinova T  C  04:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nixinova: Even with nuclear threats, we need a reliable source verifying that a nuclear threat, program, or war would lead to another cold war between the two nations. I found one source, but the article says that the NK was threatening a cold war against South Korea (or the Korean peninsula), not the US, so I used the article for another article instead. I could not find any other articles about the US–NK. I couldn't find articles about Iran–US, but I found one 2004 book. However, per WP:UNDUE, I'd be cautious about using the book, especially since it's kinda old and 15 years old. How about using the book for Cold war (general term) instead? George Ho (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your research. I would agree that that book would be more suited on the article about the general term.  Nixinova T  C  20:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Expenditures chart and other content implying connectionsEdit

The military expenditures pie chart has been repeatedly added by Tobby72. However, I'd be very cautious about reinserting the pie chart, especially whenever inserting implications has been attempted on-wiki. Whenever an editor sees the article title, an editor would question whether or not the main event is happening. The content already tells readers which sources say whether or not another "cold war" is happening and allows them to decide for themselves. Is the previous content not enough just to reinsert the chart repeatedly? How would expenditures be related to "Cold War II" without a reliable source explicitly verifying such info? I fear that, if more content making more implications are (re)inserted, readers would get the wrong idea about the topic in question. Take the pie chart, for example. George Ho (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Second Cold War" page.