Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

lead image addition

@George Ho: I think I'm approaching the lead images from a different angle, which could be acceptable. From the prior discussion, would you be alright with it if Mx. Granger becomes agreeable; and if he's not, I can try to contact the others involved, they might be annoyed, though no worries, it'd be all on me lol Halo FC (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Still persistent, aren't you? No collages, and no random photo of tanks and vaccines please. And any angle won't help matters but as attempt to change status quo. If you don't have a good suitable image in mind, then I suggest you drop the idea and then move on to other things. Especially per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. --George Ho (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with George. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey George, well, I'm just hoping to be able to discuss and work something out. The way you say it, I'm getting the sense that you already want to continue opposing regardless. And we're two sides of the same coin, so that might mean that you're being persistent as well lol. I think I might not be really aware, so just wondering, maybe there's something about yourself that you'd like me to be fully aware of? And I think its not random, as its the Russo-Ukrainian War, the most volatile point of contention between Russia and Western Bloc II, and there's been Second Cold War vaccine diplomacy, especially in light of India as a key player. I was thinking that the prior discussion was on a different angle, and so, as above, just trying to discuss with you and hopefully be able to work things out. And no worries, yeah I understand that Wikipedia is voluntary and that work demands shouldn't be made, though I'd be concerned if that leaves my hands tied for future progress, as I think I have good points to make. Any personal life timeframe concerns that you might have, I'd be happy to accommodate, thanks Halo FC (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Unsure why you are using a map for your proposed infobox. Per prior discussion, a map identifying the three countries is unnecessary and decorative, and the article is better off without a map in the lead. Also, are we discussing lead images (in general or specific way) or infoboxes? I think a lead image and an infobox are (technically) separate, right? --George Ho (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I had initiated a discussion with Cinderella157 and was replying to his comment "Per my comments at the recent RfC, I could support an infobox and image within that" Halo FC (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What are benefits of the discussion with Cinderella157 do? Or, what outcomes do you seek from this discussion? --George Ho (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mark83:@Cinderella157: Hello, sorry to bother you, I would like to share my views on a leading map. I'm drawing from when many articles mention some kind of international circumstance, they'll highlight the relevant countries in a leading map, in this case (ver. B) the major players of America, Russia and China. China has long been viewed as a "third force" to America and the Soviet Union, and now at this time, they're actualizing and coming to the forefront. While Putin's still trying to keep Russia being a major player post-Soviet collapse. And so I think this map might be the first map on Wikipedia to highlight the "triumvirate", I think it might have some significance like that. (though i'm not trying to toot my own horn lol, I think I just happen to be the guy in this position) And there are two maps which highlight the Sino-American and Russo-American bilateral tensions, and I guess there's some overlap with ver. B, though I consider that ver. B is still distinct, as as Finnusertop mentioned it steps beyond more simple bilateral diagrams to showcase the global scope, the overall global situation. America wants to band together with its allies to counter China, and Europe is America's most steadfast (and highly democratic) ally, and European concerns are primarily Russia, especially Putin, and now, America even wants to expand NATO's scope, which was primarily Soviet/Russia-oriented, to counter China, so it's this main global scope which I would like to reflect, and thank you for your time Halo FC (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC) (edited Halo FC (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC))

Halo FC, there is no consensus for a lead image. I don't see this changing (at least in the near future) unless something else changes. I have already expressed my views and theses are largely unchanged. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Cinderella157, yeah I was trying to address your views, I was thinking maybe you could share a bit more of what you think as of now and maybe we could reach a better understanding, thanks Halo FC (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Any map image that simply shows the location of two well known nations does not meet MOS:PERTINENCE per: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. An image that simply shows the location of three well known nations really isn't much (any) better. It only tells us something because of the caption. It is simply repeating what is in the lead. The caption is therefore redundant. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, ok, I wouldn't like to "counter" you or anyone, I'm just thinking that we could put up a lead image. I think unfortunately sometimes two parties can find themselves getting inadvertently trapped into confrontations, and wish they could've avoided them in the first place. So continuing, for instance every bilateral relations article has a map of the two countries, or something like the map in the top-right of the BRICS article. Something to contextualize the issue, so I would see it as less of a repetition, and more of a visual, cartographical version or reflection of the global scope of the conflict. Halo FC (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The BRICS article does not exemplify what you are saying - it is not apples and apples. For starters, it uses an infobox template (organisation) and not a bare image. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Second Cold War
Part of the Post–Cold War Era
Major geopolitical dynamics of the "Second Cold War" term: the Sino-American tensions and the Russo-American tensions
Date Geopolitical current events situation/concept Location Global, Astropolitical Status Ongoing As of April 2021, the state of conflict remains relatively mild compared to the first Cold War In the midst of the developing situation of the global conflict, the COVID-19 Pandemic erupts across the entire globe
Primary parties
United States	Russia China
Commanders and leaders
Barack Obama Donald Trump Joe Biden	Hu Jintao Xi Jinping Vladimir Putin Dmitry Medvedev

Thanks, I understand where you're coming from, I think it'd maybe be more like the IBSA article. I was also thinking of drawing from the Cold War I article, with a box header (right). If we end up getting trapped, like being an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. By the way, I see you've removed the two bilateral relations maps from this article. Those two were my maps, and I spent quite a bit of time on bilateral maps for this article. But as such, I actually don't mind, and I fully support the proposal of yours in the prior section, and I had replied to George, "another option, with prior concepts synthesized, ver. B with a bilateral relations description". I've also done away with the term "great power-geopolitics" which he didn't want. Halo FC (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Halo FC, while one can create a free-form infobox, most infoboxes have a formal stricture specific for the category of the article. The structure (the paremeters reported) are broadly determined by a consensus across many articles (per the example of the IBSA article). The Cold War article is not a good example of a good infobox and not a good model to build upon. In short, an infobox probably need to tell us a little more - but anything included must be supported (verified) just as for a lead. Per my comments at the recent RfC, I could support an infobox and image within that but not with the images further on, that I have now removed. During the above RfC, I proposed a slightly different map and caption to yours. Please consider this. Colour coding of the caption text is a significant improvement (IMO) because it makes the caption more readable. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I've made my views clear in my closure text above, on the same subject.Mark83 (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cinderella157, yeah no worries, I don't mind you having removed those two images. I think the older captioning scheme looks more polished and that the change was due to George's input, but no worries too, I've got an infobox on the right. Halo FC (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

On what is this based? The article itself describes different definitons and largely hypothetical cold war(s). To present in such definitive terms as you have done in this infobox seems contradictory to this reality? And it seems to be original research in some ways. In what way is the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved in a second cold war with either the US or China? Just because there is posturing between the 2 or 3 militaries? Other allied nations do this too. You seem to be deciding these people are involved in a not well defined event or events, not providing demonstrable evidence via references. Mark83 (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't mean to offend. I didn't mean for it to be definitive in that sense, and in fact wanted to accurately reflect the kind of gray area that this Cold War II situation occupies. I think Mark Milley is certainly quite heavily involved in this current cloud of tensions. So what I meant was that in this present situation as it stands, these names are just the people currently in those relevant positions of power. One can notice the adjustments which I made to accommodate a hopefully accurate reflection, they might be a bit too interesting for some, though I would remind them that this Cold War II is under rather unique circumstances, as there was no Wikipedia during Cold War I. Halo FC (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologise at all, sorry if I've given any impression of offence. But back to the issue itself - I just totally disagree with this infobox. It is suggestive of a defintive situation, which we don't have. You haven't persuaded me about General Miller. Same goes for the others. Just because someone has a title doesn't mean they're automatically engaged in this loosely defined event/events. Even if we accept these offices are automatically engaged in the undefined Cold War II, Dunford isn't in the infobox and he was CJCS during Russia's invasion of Crimea - is that not more relevant than Milley? Same for Obama and Kerry? Mark83 (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries, thanks. Well firstly, I'll add that I'm pretty flexible, pretty much ok with anything for the name list. Though anyway, I've seen quite a few articles on Milley, and of course on Austin and Blinken, always at the forefront right now. And you raise good points on Dunford, Obama. If the world goes into a "full cold war" (FCW) mode like back during the 60's, like during Cold War I, maybe we would even need to have two separate articles on this Second Cold War topic. This article itself doesn't have any encyclopedic equivalent from the 40's or the 50's, and there's even no WP equivalent today. As Cold War I began long before Wikipedia began, we don't have any precedent to go by, yet we understand that this is no minor thing, this is a major global happening; it's quite an interesting and unique WP situation which we're in. Halo FC (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Analysis of history existed before and after the Cold War though. Therefore there are reliable sources to explain what happened before and after. There aren’t sources for what you’re claiming here (or at least not in this discussion nor in the article). Sorry to cut to the chase, but this page is for discussing changes to the article in line with Wikipedia policies. It’s not for speculative discussions, hypothesis or original research. Mark83 (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research unfortunately doesn't apply to talk pages, but original research still isn't allowed in articles. In other words, we can say original thoughts in talk pages and noticeboards, but merely just... --George Ho (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that - I'm sorry, reading my comment again I can see I haven't been clear. What I mean is that so much of this conversation is original research and, whilst I admire Halo FC's passion, time would be much better spent finding reliable sources that better define the term than going round in circles with hypotheses here. An example is the essay below. To be clear I'm not being snide about it. My point is it's all just conjecture/OR without references. So how is that helping to improve the article (which is what talk pages are for)? There are alignments described there that I don't agree with. And what has the "billionaire space race" (US and UK billionaries) got to do with tensions with Russia and China? Mark83 (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mark83, in that there is unverified and unsourced info in the proposal. An infobox must be supported by the text of the article, which must in turn be supported by sources. I would strip this to the main leaders (presidents) of each country. Also, using the template you have, it is possible to show that there are three separate sides (not two as it appears here) - and I would place the US centrally. I would remove the locations listed as well as all the text under status. Status would be "ongoing" however, I would give a date range: "ca 2010 - ongoing" (or what is the consensus in the sources). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mark83, sorry I had been referring more to presentation convention rather than to factual accuracy. And I had said at the top, "Well firstly, I'll add that I'm pretty flexible, pretty much ok with anything for the name list.", and I mean that I'm pretty flexible to what other users suggest for the namelist.

And hi Cinderella157, just wondering what's your view on the locations, and I would find the status text quite relevant. And speaking of three sides, there's an interesting factor at play here, as two of the sides aren't conflicting with each other, they're more of allies, and they both share the common focus of focusing their efforts primarily against the remaining side, I wonder about the format of presentation with this factor. I had already placed a thicc bar in between Russia and China due to that. I was also thinking about other historical examples, the only one I can recall is the Continuation War, and it puts Finland and Nazi Germany on the same side. They were pretty much on the same side, though Finland wanted to publicly claim separation from the Nazis, as they were just against the Soviets, but didn't want to antagonize the Western Allies, pretty much the UK, and the US, rather unofficially at that point in time. Finland never actually joined the Axis powers afaik. As the Allies were winning the war, the Finns paid for their alliance with the Nazis with the Lapland War. Status name and date-wise, I'm also flexible, though some other users would step in strongly. Halo FC (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC) (edited comment Halo FC (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC))

Hi Halo FC, you are trying to make a template for a "hot" conflict fit to a "cold" conflict. This is OK but some of the parameters just won't fit. Per locations, I think this should remain blank - mainly because this is too subjective but also, because it must be sourced. Per "status". The status is "ongoing". This can be captured effectively in the date parameter. Broader statements in infoboxes (those given) are generally inappropriate - there is too much nuance to the statements made and an infobox is not the place to try to capture nuance in what are "one liners". Furthermore, such statements must be supported. To the sides. To my understanding of the military conflict infobox, combatant1a and combatant1b are allies against combatant2a and combatant2b who are also allies. They present in two columns. But, combatants 1, 2 and 3 are not aligned and should present in three columns. Hence, I suggest the US should be combatant2. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

PS - can I suggest a triptych of Putin, Trump and Xi Jinping (suitably posturing) as an image over the map? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Cinderella157 I've edited the infobox, I think we could replace the line on the mildness of Cold war II with another line. Regarding the sides, what do you think of my earlier description, that although there are 3 main sides, its not really a 3-sided conflict, and pretty much effectively a 2-sided one. If the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed, we would be in a pretty stable tri-polar world order that would be looking pretty good for the outlook of democracy. Though it collapsed, and through the progression of history, I guess war looms once more.

And I think the locations can be quite readily sourced and determined, and this chunky paragraph is a rundown of the locations.

To start with, the Americas, Northern America is of course heavily involved, and Latin America; well, the Eastern Bloc II powers see the U.S. expanding its global influence across the entirety of the Old World, in their "backyards", and they think, two can play that game, and are trying to do the same in the New World, the "U.S. backyard" of Latin America, also tapping into historical "anti-gringo" sentiment. They would try to counter the U.S. as much as possible, to counter the U.S. trying to counter them, and it would be even better for them if they can get into the U.S.'s backyard, getting too close for comfort. This was also the norm during Cold War I, though there was the powerful factor of communism and anti-communism involved, something which is almost entirely absent today, and the concept of backyards dominates the conversation more, fearing your powerful neighbors and allying with distant powers. Next, Europe and Russia, they go without saying. And the Middle-East, a perennial hotspot. There's NATO member Turkey, and the western allies in Arabia and Israel squaring off against Iran, a regime now very close to Russia, China and Venezuela, due to their shared conflict against the U.S.. Iran is also participating in the SCO. Turkey and Egypt aren't really aligned, but they're still pretty heavily involved in the mix, especially Turkey with its tensions with Russia. The Central Asian nations are also under the heavy influence of both China and Russia, especially with the SCO umbrella. China has established the Belt and Road, and now regions connected to the Middle-East, China has greatly expanded its influence throughout nearly the whole of Africa. Western Bloc II is now trying to counter this with B3W. And another connected area, Afghanistan, the U.S. has had some measure of control, though Russia is supporting the Taliban, a reversal of the Soviet-Afghan War during Cold War I. We're moving into South Asia. Pakistan is also heavily involved in Afghanistan, and they've been building close ties to both Iran and China, joining the SCO as well. Pakistan's longtime enemy, India, is now trying to navigate this new cold war situation, and their biggest rival/threat is the rising China, even to the point of reducing their longstanding conflicts with Pakistan. India is also uniquely both an SCO member and a Quad member. We've moved into the Asia-Pacific region, and the rest of the region is without doubt under the Chinese regime's specter, even the No. 2 most populous country India already is. And these countries naturally look to the U.S. as the strongest counter to contain China. Japan and Australia are also key Quad members in the Asia-Pacific region. Former Australian Labor PM Kevin Rudd wanted to pursue closer ties with China, and that has changed under the Liberal PM Scott Morrison especially. Next the Arctic region, a longtime area of contention between Russia and Northern America, now made even more important with climate change melting the ice and possibly opening it up to shipping and exploitation. Lastly, we have outer space, and this Cold War II is being accompanied by a Space Race II, not to mention the Billionaire Space Race. And this time, it seems that technology has advanced to the point of being able to take much advantage of space, economically, astropolitically (no longer just geopolitics lol), and militarily, much more so than compared to the 60's, when they were just starting out in space, now the tech has matured and advanced. U.S. Sec. Def. Lloyd Austin recently said that space is an arena of great power competition. And just like the race to be the first to set foot on the Moon during Space Race I, the same thing is playing out with a new target in sight, the planet Mars. Halo FC (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what Mark83 just said about all of this. Anything in an infobox must be supported by what the article says - not what it could say. The locations you would give are pretty much all of the world. That is all a bit confusing for a reader who sees a map in the infobox that has three countries marked. Apply the KISS rule. I have edit the example infobox above. I have only put the location as "global" because the "place" field is a required parameter but I have also asked at the talk page if it could be modified to accept a "nil" entry. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

PS, we could also add dates to the leaders representing their terms and flag icons for the leaders are unnecessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the infobox has to be, primarily, accurate. Indeed, it is pretty much all of the world, but as seen from the chunky paragraph, it is a major global happening, and that's what it is, the whole world really appears to be getting involved. As you said, "who would be searching the "Second Cold War" that doesn't know where the US, Russia and China are?", and I think that similarly, I hope that they would be smart enough to know that although its primarily these three major powers, in a cold war, they would be utilizing their influence across the entire world. But ok, KISS, I think "Global" is suitable, and better than nil, because this cold war is pretty much really global. I would also advocate having flag icons as is the most common practice Halo FC (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm unsure why "infobox military conflict" (or similar) is used. The consensus already agreed that it is neither appropriate nor suitable to use several years ago, and I'm afraid that the consensus still stands unless... a new RfC discussion is established? --George Ho (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that conservational focus was that cold wars are different in nature from hot wars, though observable that the infobox can be quite suitable, in line with their focus, especially when adapted, such as in this case, being able to omit the "Strengths" section. The Space Race article might also be an example of this, such as having two sections for two types of leaders. Halo FC (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

What template is used (if any) for an infobox is largely immaterial. What does matter is the information rendered. BTW, it is a conflict and the militaries are involved? Further, consensus can change. George Ho, is there anything in the rendering of the current iteration that you cannot live with? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Does the question you asked refer to the infobox? I don't think leaders and commanders are necessary in the infobox. I've never seen any other article listing leaders, do I? Take the names out, and you still get extra space pushing content down on smartphones. I still can't live with an infobox placed in the article. It doesn't accurately summarize what the article is about. Rather it describes what the user wants the article to be about, which may not be supported by reliable sources... Actually, that was before you made changes, which still doesn't to me adequately summarize what reliable sources say about... the term. --George Ho (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

So George Ho, are you saying that the article isn't about tensions between Russia and the US and China and the US? Aren't the leaders and commanders given the central figures in those tensions? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi George, hmmm, I thought almost every single conflict or political competition infobox of this type lists leaders? I think we could continue to suggest changes and fine-tune it. Also IIRC I think the leaders' names would go down in chronological order. The Russian case is kinda interesting lol

I think the thicc-bar is a noticeable visual signifier especially by its distinctive appearance. As mentioned, I'm aware of the Finnish-Nazi Continuation War putting them on the same side. We might need a history buff here for more historical examples, though I've thought of the Crisis of the Third Century. It is the Gallic and Palmyrene empires, and they would have been quite different from say, the kingdoms of Shu Han and Dong Wu during the Three Kingdoms, those two weaker powers were fighting each other quite a lot. Halo FC (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with George Ho's point here. And to answer your question, "are you saying that the article isn't about tensions between Russia and the US and China and the US" -- it's called the "Second Cold War". Yes the lead quickly clarifies that we're talking about tensions, but we are bestowing certainty and clarity on a term where there is no agreement (either between us, news sources, commentators, or academics). The infobox is getting us further down this unverfied road. Who says it began in "c. 2010"? And calling it global is OR in the extreme without substantiation. I'm again banging the drum of verifability, but since it's one of Wikipedia's core policies I don't apologise for it. Here is a BBC diplomatic correspondent debunking the "cold war" label with respect to China/US in 2021, yet we're going to put up an infobox that says it's been going on for over 10 years? I strongly oppose this. Mark83 (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not hit her, I did naaaht. Oh hi Mark, I would draw attention to my earlier date section. And before Cinderella157 had suggested putting "Global", I had used a list of geographical regions instead, but it was pretty dang global, which was why Cinderella157 suggested the change to "Global". You can take a look at my rundown describing the global situation, my big chungus of a paragraph lol Halo FC (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC) (edited Halo FC (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC))

Not sure what the first 7 words mean? Anyway, yes your paragraph says its global. Are we going to cite you as our source? Mark83 (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC) & edited 08:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It is a reference to the cult funny bad movie The Room lol. And no worries relax Mark, I had said, "I think the locations can be quite readily sourced and determined", and just wanted to provide a rundown first, and see what people might disagree with so we can iron any issues out Halo FC (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Bit of a niche reference, what's the context? On the issue at hand and just to be clear though -- that huge paragraph (which I have my doubts about any of us being able to fully source) is about constructing a 'spheres of influence' image? When a RfC has just concluded on the issue? I am relaxed, but have to confess a bit irked because I don't think you've replied to my substantive point in any of our back and forth - i.e. thus far I don't see any proof of what you are saying from reliable sources. It's all about what you think, which is very valid of course; but if we want to move this issue along at some point you're going to have to prove verifability. Mark83 (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

oh I had thought that "The Room" was a really popular movie. If you search youtube, "oh hi mark", it's that humorous clip. The huge paragraph was a rundown of why I had initially listed those locations in the infobox. And sorry, I had thought it'd be clear from the opening line of the huge paragraph, though no worries, I was thinking rundown first, see if there are kinks which pop out, and try to iron them out Halo FC (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I think Mark83 was wondering whether you'll provide news articles, scholarly journals, or books verifying your arguments. Can you do that? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, I had understood that, and was trying to provide clarifications. So yeah, I can do that, "I was thinking rundown first, see if there are kinks which pop out", I think we could check which parts should be handled first, the rundown pretty much goes through the entire world, except for Antarctica Halo FC (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Arbitary break

Adding my last iteration of the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Second Cold War
Part of the Post–Cold War Era
Major geopolitical dynamics of the "Second Cold War" term: the Sino-American tensions and the Russo-American tensions
Date Present-day Location Global Status Ongoing
Primary parties
Russia	United States	China
Commanders and leaders
Vladimir Putin	Joe Biden (from 2021) Donald Trump (2017—2020) Barack Obama (until 2016)	Xi Jinping (from 2013) Hu Jintao (until 2013)

Mark83, to it being about "tensions between Russia and the US and China and the US": the two main sections of the article (representing about two-thirds of the readable prose) is directly on these tensions. We are bestowing no more certainty than the section headings do. "c. 2010" (ie ± a few years) is a broad period which appears to be the consensus of the sources as reported in the article. We could also say "c. 2010s" or "Undetermined - present" (or any other proposal including removal). The status is "ongoing" and this may be sufficient. It is not WP:OR to sumarise the sources. From my post above, you would have seen that I am not wedded to the location being "global", that the field in the template is mandatory and that I have asked for it to modified to accept a "nil" entry, so that it can be removed. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi I would like to suggest my initial date-fill, and thanks for taking the time guys. And no worries, I think you guys could leave the location issues to me, I think I'm alright with handling the bulk of the work Halo FC (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit: And hi Mark, just saw your comment on the billionaire space race, what I had meant was that there's this confluence of activity on space, enterprises pushing space, working with governments who are also interested in space, and the confluence with Space Race II, which is also being driven by Cold War II. And that tech has advanced to the level of being able to support economic, military and astropolitical drives in space, compared to Space Race I Halo FC (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why both of you want to push forward with an infobox, but the execution of the infobox makes the topic as if the topic is more than a term, which I wouldn't encourage to do. BTW, you don't mind me reinserting the maps you removed from separate sections, do you? I'm uncertain whether Mark's rationale applies to section images, and occasional exceptions to MOS:PERTINENCE may apply if appropriate. Also, the maps may help illustrate separate definitions that don't mutually relate to each other. They're also clearer than the map you're proposing. George Ho (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi George, I recall we had covered similar ground the first time I was making an infobox and I think it can be addressed or composed, thanks. and as you're probably aware, I'm also open to just a map primarily, or photos and others Halo FC (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Halo FC, your date-fill makes no sense to me. To locations: any entry must be supported by the article bottom-up. Until the article reflects this, a specific list of locations is unacceptable. George Ho, it is a term that refers to "tensions between Russia and the US and China and the US". The proposed infobox says nothing more. The maps that existed really aren't pertinent. I might support a combined map if it is an alternative to individual maps - which is how this discussion restarted. How does: occasional exceptions to MOS:PERTINENCE may apply if appropriate. If appropriate, they would be pertinent? How are they individually clearer? This appears to me to be an assumption that the reader is unable to grasp two simple concepts (as explained in the caption) unless they are rendered separately. I can live with no images, one image (perhaps in an infobox) but not two images that lack pertinence. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It originates from an issue which George raised, and had referenced the note at the bottom of the box, trying to reflect an all-encompassing status for Cold War II. Though I'm also flexible, and could also suggest "Present-day", similar to "current events situation" in a sense. I think I find the circumstances quite strict, I was thinking perhaps I could place a note with a more detailed description, and as previously mentioned, I think there might be some acceptability in accuracy even if the article isn't that highly detailed. Or, we could also stick with "Global". And well, let's assume we've reached an understanding on the locations, my big chungus of a paragraph rundown, maybe we could anticipate what some other punk who shows up might not like with the location(s), and I think I could handle him though lol Halo FC (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC) (edited Halo FC (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC))

The date, location, and status are unnecessary and possibly original research/thoughts. They should be unused. Also, what do leaders have to do with the article topic? To Cinderella157 who said 'tensions between Russia and the US and China and the US': are you certain that the article is about it? Some commentators doubt that either or both tensions would lead to another "cold war". Even some others discourage the use of "cold war" as reference to either tension. Some others don't think that another "cold war" is happening. Honestly, I tried broadening the term, but the content I added went to Cold war (general term) instead. To Halo: links or URLs please? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

For the date and status, at least between you and me, we could continue from the initials, since we have some shared history or understanding. As for leaders, conflicts are often driven by the leaders, they really shape the conflicts. Just look at Xi Jinping, one man wielding so much power, making important decisions about China's peripheries, and Joe Biden, from the office of the POTUS, pushing Cold War II against China even further, and Putin, with his grip over Russia, also using his state resources to try to influence large parts of the world, and trying to MRGA. I thought this article is about those geopolitical tensions which have been characterized as being 'Cold War II-esque'. And sorry which links or URLs, for the locations, we can continue from my last comment just above the "Arbitary break", thanks Halo FC (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Links/URLs of news articles, books, journals, or other sources verifying whatever you've been arguing about. BTW, how about discussing the locations here instead? It's more convenient here, right? --George Ho (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

ok, we can continue from my last comment over here instead Halo FC (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

George Ho sorry, I had thought that Mark was primarily summing up our RfC, and I think as such he would be amenable. Though I guess the main person in question would be you, and after all of the discussion, sorry, I'm not quite sure what your objection is currently. Also now I have discussed with Cinderella157 and I suppose then that almost all of us would be on the same page Halo FC (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

What you did was merely adding a map with nothing else valuable in the infobox, just headers and subheaders. To me, that's just trying to ignore the RfC and to treat it as "dated", isn't it? Even if that's not the case, I would still be against adding a map as a lead or infobox image. To me, it doesn't sum up the facts but rather be used as emotion factor and would mislead readers into thinking that the term really means tensions among three countries involved and/or that Russia-China alliance is part of the term. Also, even any caption wouldn't affect how the map is perceived to be. If Mark wasn't against adding a map, then perhaps Cinderella157 was by citing MOS:PERTINENCE. --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Well I was thinking that we haven't cleared up our discussion for the bottom part of the infobox, and it's a neat map too I guess. Also, I thought I just brought up that almost all of us would be on the same page, including Cinderella157, as haven't we discussed, and he's agreeable as such. And sorry, what's the emotion factor? Also why would it mislead that there's a Russia-China alliance being part of the term, and doesn't the term already refer to tensions among the three countries characterized as being "Cold War II-esque", so I'm not sure what it would mislead, apologies. And sorry, I would disagree, I think that captions would quite affect how a map is perceived. Halo FC (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

[Edit conflict, reply to Halo FC's 19:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC) post]: Halo FC, a general piece of advice on how to conduct yourself on Wikipedia, be careful making assumptions or speaking for other editors. On this specific point, no I am no "amenable" to the inclusion of this infobox and I have made that very clear. The image is purely decorative, and to restate my position yet again, the term "Second Cold War" is not widely or definitvely accepted by reliable sources, and your infobox suggests the opposite with no substantiation or verifiability. Please put yourself in my shoes for a second and try to imagine how frustrating it is for me to repeat this over and over and have you fail to reply to the query or provide references as per Wikipedia policy. The closest you've come to providing any kind of substantiation to your assertions is to refer me back to your short essay above which would be OR without references anyway and lots of which I disagree with.

I have been thinking about this article since my last comment, and the title itself concerns me. We are saying Second Cold War = tensions between the US and Russia and/or China. But I can find as many sources debunking the term as there are promoting the term. I believe this article needs thoroughly reviewed and pruned, explaining this dichotomy and leaning on the main article links to Russia–United States relations and China–United States relations. Mark83 (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mark83, I did not hit her, and my apologies, advice noted. Also, sorry, I do believe this is the first time we're going down this specific line of discussion, and to clarify, its not that I'm ignoring your requests, nothing like that, I think that it was a bit of a misunderstanding, I think that sometimes that just happens inadvertently without either party's intention, though my apologies. For instance, I had been stating that it was a rundown first and then we could perhaps iron things out, so I also try to be helpful and I hope we can avoid any misunderstandings be it your fault or mine, thanks. As for the main point, I was thinking that I was just putting a header which just copies the title of the article. Also, I think I could perhaps help to clarify this situation; firstly, I think that we could distinguish between those who might not agree that we're close to the point of a "full cold war" (FCW) and those who might be a step further and not agree on the 'Second Cold War-esque' descriptor for US-China tensions (To reference my reply below this one, I think that that would also fall under "criticism of the Second Cold War". Also, an interesting thing to note is the middle ground, writing "The situation is 'Cold War II-esque', but there is no Cold War II", or swapped, "There is no Cold War II, but the situation is 'Cold War II-esque' "), and even then, I think that the scope of this article is still that 'Second Cold War' refers to the tensions characterized as being of such a nature. So I think that it would be in the reverse direction, so not "what is X called", but instead, "what is Y referring to" (and also considering the falling-under-criticism part), and that could establish a definitive framework. Halo FC (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC) (edited Halo FC (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC))

On the first issue, thank you very much, I appreciate your comments. On the infobox issue, if I can just try to elaborate as clearly as possible why I think it's wholly inappropriate - the lead paragraph quite succintly summarises the problem "The Second Cold War, also called Cold War II or the New Cold War, is a term used by various commentators to describe the heightened post–Cold War era political and military tensions between the United States and China. It is also used to describe such tensions between the US and Russia, a state of the former Soviet Union, which was one of the major parties of the original Cold War until its dissolution in 1991. Some commentators have used the term as a comparison to the original Cold War. Some other commentators have either doubted that either tension would lead to another "cold war" or have discouraged using the term to refer to either or both tensions.", but the act of adding an infobox gives the existence of such a "Second Cold War" legitmacy/primacy over the many commentators and publications who specifically argue against it. To put it another way it's like an article talking about the disputed status of Crimea which states the opinion of Russia/allies and also opposing views, but with an infobox showing it as part of Russia. Such an infobox provides an implicit judgement or imbalance to the article. The same is true here. The text goes into lots of detail about opposing views about whether such an event is occuring or not, but the infobox gives an implicit judgement that it is indeed happening, without verifiability. Mark83 (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mark83. So I see your point of view on the header, and, to echo my previous comment, I was thinking that, rather than it being that kind of signifier, I was thinking that usually the convention on WP is for headers to be copies of the titles of the articles, so being just an accessory to the article with its own portion of the page, just repeating the title of the article, without being indicative those kinds of pronouncements. I was also thinking about it, as Finnusertop had mentioned, better providing a sort of visual focus or contextualization of the article's topic at the start. Also, to reference what I had said about "distinguish" one reply up, I think that the last line of the article's intro which you have quoted (added by George) would fall under "criticism of the Second Cold War". Halo FC (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC) (edited Halo FC (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC))

Halo FC In hindsight (on reading my comments above) "a general piece of advice on how to conduct yourself on Wikipedia" reads very badly, I'm sorry for the tone of that. Mark83 (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I had been in a bit of a rush to move forward the discussion with George, and thank you for sharing the reflection. "If a lot of people love each other, the world would be a better place to live." Halo FC (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. In response to your point above, "I was thinking that, rather than it being that kind of signifier, I was thinking that usually the convention on WP is for headers to be copies of the titles of the articles", my objection is that this is fine in the case of World War II, or the Cold War for example; in both these cases there is a defined start and end, with consensus on cause and effect, and spheres of influence. This is not the case here. And while you say it won't be "that kind of signifier" - due to the way infoboxes are used across Wikipedia, we would implicitly or explicity be defining something that is not defined (per my previous comments, e.g. the Crimea example). Mark83 (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

i.e. "providing a sort of visual focus or contextualization of the article's topic at the start." -- but a misleading focus and contexualisation in my view. Mark83 (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mark, I think that we have many various points to unwrap and to clarify. I'll refer to my mention of "distinguish", so I firstly think that it could be taken to be mainly reflective of the article's focus that 'Second Cold War' is primarily the name of a political theme and not of an FCW. (At the same time, I think that we must be highly cognizant that 'Cold War II' is increasingly very much less academic "parlor" talk and that there's the increasing (or even ramping up of) geopolitical developments currently. And more on the FCW, I'll be putting up a description that I wrote on this talk page on a user page.) As for the latter of the distinguishing, I think again of the focus of the article being on the Y and not on the X. I notice our differing views on the headers and my view is that its "being just an accessory to the article with its own portion of the page, just repeating the title of the article", as in it is just indicative that it is of the article's focus, and occupying that corner of the page, which would be exemplified by the copying of the title as well, and which would not be meaning a defining factor on its own. So, this is quite a different context for the copying of the title from your view of what it means for this article. The same feature, but with two different views on the contexts. I also think that it would also hold whether the topic of the article is more obviously broadly definitive or otherwise. I have a somewhat silly example analogy, the characters of Dr. Evil and Mini-Me, and I suppose that it would be like a "Mini-Me" of the article (which would be like a "Dr. Evil") occupying a corner of the page, just taken to mean the focus of the article itself and not of other additional features. On our differing views I think that mine might be the more simple and straightforward take on the matter. So this constitutes my reasoning and explanation of the first point of this paragraph. I'll also reiterate the notion on X and Y. I hope that you can ruminate on my point of view, and I'll also continue to ruminate on your point of view. Though currently due to my current reasoning I'm still holding my point of view, and I expect that you will too, I think we all tend to be tightly wedded to our points of view which can't be easily shifted. Hmmm, oh well, let's continue to ruminate.. Halo FC (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC) (moved back up Halo FC (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC))

But Dr. Evil and Mini-Me (the characters) exist, and demonstrably so with references. Same for the movies they appear in. But there isn’t the same consensus on the Second Cold War, no matter what you define that as. Surely you see the difference? In fact the current issue of the Economist July 17th 2021 says a Cold War between US and China does not exist. I can find more references for that and similarly arguing against a new Cold War with Russia. Mark83 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Mark83, sorry I think a bit of a misunderstanding, I hadn't meant to use those two characters as direct examples, instead I meant to use the relationship between the two characters as a kind of analogy to the main issue at hand, though no worries, put the misunderstanding mistake on me lol. I had also wanted to edit my reply, but unfortunately I got caught in an edit conflict, so I've shifted my edited reply below, apologies and thanks. Edit: And now I've shifted it back up again.

Thanks Mark, I think that we have many various points to unwrap and to clarify. (shifted back up again) Halo FC (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC) (edited Halo FC (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC))

This is now potentially confusing for others to follow. You’ve put your first mention of Dr. evil and mini me below my reply to that. There’s a sentence I never thought I’d type on Wikipedia! Perhaps you could put it back and just note the edit conflict and different times? It doesn’t flow otherwise? Mark83 (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Noted Mark83, moved it back up. Halo FC (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

If the user's not gonna change back, perhaps this diff should give readers a reminder, right? This whole discussion especially with the user has dragged on very much. George Ho (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

So I've changed it back. And my apologies, I don't wish to drag on any discussion either, I would just like to convey my thoughts across clearly. Halo FC (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Second arbitrary break

I am opposed to any infobox on this article, and will continue to be opposed to any infobox no matter how many proposals are made. The suggestions of a geo-political image are just as bad and I oppose them as well. Any infobox will inevitably engage in synthesis and original research. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that the current map of the three main countries is alright. I also think that if users edit the infobox incorrectly, we can quickly revert them, while if the user who edited wishes to discuss at the same time. Also, I think that wikipedia editors should discuss current proposals and not generalize it too much, thanks. Halo FC (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

What is this page about?

I would like to help fix this page, but first I need to know what we think it is about. Is it about only the term 'Second cold war' (and similar terms) or is it about the deterioration of American-Chinese/American-Russian relations in a post communist world, which is sometimes called the Second cold war, but not its common name (not to the extent of the first one anyway). For example does this page want to be like Orwellian or Cold War. Happy with either, but China and Russia are very much their own thing now, in comparison with the last Cold war anyway, could make for an unnatural split in the article or needless fork form other pages. Just want to get the vibe of the editors here and then can play ball. Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The consensus decided months ago that the topic is a term for now, not an event. (See "Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 5#Term or event?") Oh, and the "example farm" issue was raised, but there were no replies. (see Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 6#Example farm tag) --George Ho (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I did look, but did not see. Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your shifting opinions of USC profs down into the Russo-US section, but... was the paragraph solely about that tension? Furthermore, I reinserted the right-wing populism that someone else removed one month ago. You can see that the profs deemed that kind of populism a bigger threat than China and Russia. George Ho (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC); edited, 06:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes good point, if I paraphrase the USC quote as "Cold War's are bad" it needs to be somewhere general or not at all. Sorry about the other edit. Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Dushan Jugum:, previously, I have written some stuff to clarify the status of Cold War II, also relating to the above discussion. It's a little bit disorganized, so I'll tidy it up for you, thanks. Unfortunately, it's kinda lengthy, though I think that that is what's necessary to really clear up this Cold War II situation, as it has quite a lot of elements which can easily lead to confusion, and I go into all of the detailed bits. You can read some my stuff here, or you can wait for my tidied version as well, thanks Halo FC (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

But they're all your theories. That's not verifable proof to back up changes. Provide reliable sources, not your opinions. Mark83 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Use a map, an image, or neither?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I would like to begin this close by apologising for making a very long closing statement. A good closing statement should both summarise the discussion that gave rise to it, and show the closer's working so editors can see how a decision was reached. In this case, there is complexity and nuance which necessitates going into some detail. I am afraid this has inflated my word count.

In this discussion and the previous one, the community considers whether we should have a lead image in our article on the Second Cold War, and if so, what that image should be.

This RfC began less than three months after a previous RfC on exactly the same subject which failed to reach consensus. RfC uses up a lot of volunteer time, which is Wikipedia's only scarce resource. So RfC is a relatively "expensive" process, if you will, and its purpose is to bring an end to intractable content disputes. Ideally it does this by resolving them, but if not, then it should at least finish them so we can move on. And that is why, wherever I encounter an RfC that follows hot on the heels of a previous one, it is always my practice take into account the contributions made to the previous RfC as well as the ones made here. The alternative --- to disregard the previous RfC and close this one on the basis of the comments made here only --- would have two effects. First it would require editors to copy/paste their thoughts from one discussion to another before they could be taken into account, which seems antithetical to reaching a reasoned conclusion, and secondly it would put a back door into every contentious content decision on Wikipedia --- it would mean that no decision could endure very long in the face of a process-savvy opposition. It would mean that contentious content decisions were made not by persuading the other side, but by exhausting them.

I am one of the encyclopaedia's more prolific closers, and this is what I always do; but it isn't written in any of our rules. It's just part of the standard directions I give to myself. If in this case I was wrong to do so, then my close of this RfC would be unsafe and it should be reviewed by someone else.

I also want to say that contrary to remarks made in the discussion below, to repeat an RfC is not necessarily disruptive behaviour. Good faith consensus-seeking editors sometimes do want to reopen a discussion that didn't reach consensus and make new points, and this is what happened here. I offer no criticism of the RfC drafter or any of the participants.

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.—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Short version Shall an image or a map be added to the article? (Options are provided at the "Long version") --George Ho (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Long version

In prior RfC discussion, there was "no consensus" that any image or map is the suitable lead image of this article. Then another supposedly similar discussion was made, but then it become more about adding an "infobox" and less about adding a lead image. Then the lead/infobox image was added recently, despite previous talks.

Let's focus less on an infobox and more on adding an image, be it a section image or a lead image... or rather a section map or a lead map. I'm providing three main options and an additional alternative option:

• Option A: One world map colouring the United States (US), China, and Russia all together as the lead/(top) infobox image. For example, File:Second Cold War America-Russia-China Locator.svg
• Option B: One world map colouring China and the US, and another world map colouring Russia and the US as section images (for their respective sections), not lead images. For example, maps in version 1, maps in version 2. (This option was the previous status quo.)
• Option C: No images or maps at this time. (This is the newer status quo.)
• Option D: (Please specify an alternative image that you want to propose and to use for. It cannot be similar to one of above options.)

–George Ho (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC); edited, 18:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC); edited, 18:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• • Option B. I'm not a fan of Option A for two reasons: 1) it's slightly misleading, as it implies a 3-way cold war, while the article details two different scenarios. It seems to merge two concepts into one. 2) It also strikes me as being slightly WP:WIKIVOICE, which is inappropriate (or maybe WP:UNDUE) for something which is still somewhat hypothetical. Option B seems to be a far more neutral and informative approach. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 18:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Czello, I think previously the user Cinderella157 raised some issues with Option B. Also, would just like to check, what do you mean by "3-way cold war"? In any case, if you have a US dot, a Russia dot, and a China dot, and you connect the US and China dots, and the US and Russia dots, all three dots will be connected together. Especially considering that it's current events and they're all occurring together at the same time, and also considering Russia and China's close ties. I feel quite strongly for Option A, as I've explained below. Additionally, this Option A map was made by me, hehe, initially, I had created a bilateral relations map, showcasing a pair of bilateral relations, US-Russia and US-China, and used one shade of green and two shades of orange. But George feedbacked, and so I changed to a three-colour scheme, instead of the bilateral two-color scheme. And my caption listed the three world powers. George feedbacked again, and I realised that a three-colour scheme combined with the description of the pair of bilateral relations would be able to paint a definitive picture, which is the current version of this article (which is this link now). Halo FC (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Option C. Suggesting A and B is (in my opinion) bordering on disruptive behaviour as they are in effect resurrecting the previous discussion. The term is not defined by enough for any such over simplification (coloured maps). It’s a classic example of not getting the answer you want so asking it in a different way. Mark83 (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean me or someone else in mind? --George Ho (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

That "someone else" would be referring to me I suppose, lol. And hi Mark (Lisa's tearing me apart), I was thinking that after our follow-up discussions, including with Cinderella157, that the current version (which is this link now) might be agreeable. Though I see that you've raised this new issue, about simplification (I intend no offense, lol), I don't think that it is simplification, rather, I think that it is highlighting the primary, major dynamics of Cold War II, which the article itself has clearly specified, US vs China and US vs Russia, thanks Halo FC (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

C (summoned by Bot): The image issue appeared argued and settled prior.Lindenfall (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I think that the prior agreement wasn't really no images, but just that they weren't able to reach an agreement on other options. Also, I had been engaged in some discussion prior, including with George, and I think that we had reached some agreement with the current version of the article (which is this link now). Though I'm also checking with Mark83 again Halo FC (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Option A. I think that it provides an immediate introductory and visual focus to the article, and it helps to contextualize the global situation of Cold War II. I think that it might also give an additional sense of professionalism or seriousness to an article which might otherwise have no lead object. And I also suggest this one which is captioned.

And hi @George Ho:, sorry, you ended with "despite previous talks", though I thought that we were discussing it midway just.

Also, what do you think of Cinderella157's objection to Option B? And for Option D, I'd like to suggest photos, (Clockwise, from top left: The disputed South China Sea territory of Mischief Reef which is being occupied by China, a column of Ukrainian government tanks during the Russo-Ukrainian War, Venezuelan security agents displaying captured operatives in the wake of the failed kidnapping mission Operation Gideon, the blazing wreckage of Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani's car after the U.S. assassination airstrike)

File:Soleimani-vehicle-03-Jan-2020.jpg

Halo FC (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Before answering your question, I'll ask you this: why not either option B or C? --George Ho (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

So I've explained above, and I guess you know that I'd rather prefer there to be an image rather than nothing, also explained above. Halo FC (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option C. There's no clear consensus who the players are in these potential new Cold Wars. The tensions with Russia are for certain wider than only with the US (Ukraine for sure, and likely at least some NATO members. If you consider the geopolitics in the Arctic circle it could include Sweden and Finland as well); same with the tensions with China (Taiwan? Quad? AUKUS? the countries in the South China Sea are significantly increasing their military spending as well. There's the European pivot to the Indo-Pacific, etc.). It may also be wider than Russia and China. Belarus f.e. seems closely aligned with Russia; same with (annexed but unrecognized) Crimea and with parts of Donbas (and South Ossetia and Abchazia). Pakistan - and now potentially Afghanistan - could be considered to be at some degree on the side with China. So many constellations and maps are possible. I think we should wait for some consensus; and the article should reflect the complexity. Morgengave (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Morgengave, yeah, I'm very much on the same page as you when it comes to this conflict being an expanded worldwide one. One thing that we're all sure about is that the major, primary dynamics are those of US-China, and US-Russia, which I try to reflect in the map and caption for Option A (link here). I would also prefer a more extended map, though I was also thinking that we could have something rather than nothing now. I'm a little cynical about the process, I sometimes joke that, with the rising tensions, Cold War II will soon become World War III, and the world powers will launch all their nukes and end all civilization soon, while there's still trying to reach a consensus on complexity lol Halo FC (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Halo FC, that's why I think this article - and certainly a map - is premature. While it's true that the term is being used more frequently, there's no consensus on what it means, and there are many different perspectives. Even the parties involved in this potential new Cold War don't really know as they are looking to create new alliances and collaborations (e.g., Quad, AUKUS, the D-10, the form of the China-Russia relationship, the role of the EU/European NATO, etc.) and it's far from certain which partnerships will take root. Morgengave (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see, thanks Morgengave, if you don't mind me commenting about you, I think that's quite an interesting take, thinking of the conflict being wide in scope, but the article still premature. I think that maybe I'll try to clarify it. So we think that it is a current phenomenon, and quite a deliberate major global one as well. Other major global events happening right now would be the pandemic, and the dangers of climate change, though those are less directly politically deliberate, part of the uniqueness of Cold War II, and so I think that it's actually a good thing that it has an article of its own as of this moment. This article even survived an attempt to "assassinate" it a few years ago (my bad Cold War-related joke lols).

Also, the roots of the conflict can be seen in Putin's post-Soviet invasions beginning during W. Bush's presidency, and continuing to the present-day, including Ukraine during Obama's presidency, as well as the Arab Winter-related conflicts, such as the Libyan, especially Syrian, and even Yemeni civil wars, which began a decade ago, and all involving heavy foreign interventions, and, the rise in South China Sea and Cross-Straits tensions, both during Obama's presidency as well, and also continuing to the present-day. You can also check out my latest reply to Mark83 below about the "Axis of Evil" for an outline on the older roots and background of Cold War II-related tensions.

Regarding the use of the term, the most important factor would be the rise of China post-Soviet collapse, and its rivalry with the US. And as for the potential partnerships or alliances, much of Europe still views Putin's Russia as its biggest geopolitical threat, while for the US, as just mentioned, it is undoubtedly China, and vice versa for China. So I think that it probably isn't premature for at least the basic, primary dynamics of US-China and US-Russia.

Much of the present-day situation has been inherited from Cold War I, and Russia and China have forged quite a close relationship, for instance with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, which left behind a weaker Russia. And Putin, who personally witnessed this collapse in East Germany (the frontline of Cold War I) during his late 30's (the life he had only ever known) firsthand, is ideologically driven to remake Russian power and greatness. On the other side, I think that the picture is also pretty clear, the Quad and AUKUS are both Pacific-centric initiatives aimed at countering China's power, with Australia being a key member of both. The proposed D-10 also consists of all of them combined. The European side is also closely integrated with the G7 and the D-10, and recently NATO has begun to include countering China in addition to its traditional rival of Russia, so I think that the picture of conflict is relatively clearly visible. Halo FC (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - What has changed from the previous discussion which failed to establish a consesus on adding such maps or images???? I don't want to explain myself again, because I invested a huge amount of time explaning my position before. I know I should assume good faith, but this feels like editor(s) trying to wear down opposition by re-starting an old discussion with nothing having changed. The image montage is bizarre -- there is no academic consensus on the terms relevant to US/Russia, US/China, or some combination - so what has Soleimani's assassination got to do with it? That last question is rhetrocial by the way. Mark83 (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Mark83 Well firstly, to clarify the situation, I think that it shouldn't be conflated. George started this RfC, while the montage is my idea, and I don't think that the two of us are working on the same page. As for what changed, I had been busy during the previous discussion, and I returned a little late, but then I had initiated follow-up discussions, which is what you've mentioned, your investment, and thank you for your time, I really appreciate it. Subsequently, I was talking to George midway, on why I thought that this was alright, and then he started this RfC.

And although your last question is rhetorical, I do have an answer, I think that as Morgengave has said above, Cold War II is a worldwide expanded situation, and Iran is also a part of it. A Middle-East Cold War, facing off against the US and US allies in the region, while Iran has allied itself with the US's greatest rival of China. And also a close relationship with Russia. Countries like Iraq are also points of contention between both sides, an interesting documentary on this is Vice News' "Inside the US-Iran Shadow War for Control of the Middle East". The Lisa joke was another reference to The Room, though I got your message, no worries Halo FC (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem here is that you have made your mind up that the Second Cold War is a clearly defined thing, and then you are making extrapolations on other geopolitical issues. Without proper sources and verifiability this is original research. e.g. Operation Gideon (2020) being shoe-horned in here would beg more questions for the reader. (Trying to keep my responses more concise after the previous very long-winded RfC) Mark83 (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey Mark, at least for me, no worries its alright, I don't mind lengthy comments, I think that its better for us to reach a good mutual understanding, thanks. I don't mean to contradict you, though I think that these issues are quite clear and evident, and are well-documented. For example, the US opposition to President Maduro's actions, and the Russian and Chinese support for him. Especially, as you've probably read my explanation before, Russia and China trying to reach into the US backyard, just like the US openly reaches into their backyards. Halo FC (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Twas ever thus - with or without Cold War(s). Mark83 (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that a lot of today's current situation is due to the effects and consequences of the first Cold War, which ended in 1991. And though they can persist without Cold War, I think that they'll be much more heightened and tense with the way in which things are developing as of this moment. Back during the presidency of George W. Bush, he had already labelled the Axis of Evil, much of which stems from the first Cold War, and much of which are still hotbeds in these heightened times. Halo FC (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

That's your hyptohesis. Where are your sources for all of this? We can all pontificate here on what we think, but our opinions on geopolitics are irrelevant. You're the one proposing changes, so produce sources or alternatively please lets stop wasting all of our time here. Mark83 (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies Mark83, I didn't mean to offend. I think I should explain my thought process. So, I'd like to initially put forth an outline of some examples, and check if they register or ring a bell with others, and how much others already agree or disagree with the examples, to get an initial feel of what their thoughts on those topics might be. And then subsequently, if they have disagreements or confusion over the accuracies of those issues, we can proceed to go more in-depth.

So, I think I'll just initially give a quick overview and outline of those nine countries of the Axis of Evil. Firstly, North Korea and Cuba, still persisting, as mentioned earlier, examples of longtime rivals from Cold War I. Next, Iraq, Libya and Syria, these three have all experienced, and are still experiencing, military crises and foreign (as well as Western, Gulf, Iranian and Russian) intervention. Iraq and Syria are the most key to that US "shadow war" with Iran over the Middle East. Which brings us to Iran, which was the first example we discussed. For Zimbabwe, the Mugabe era recently ended, with a coup, and so its unclear just how much of a democratic era they have entered, especially as Cold War II gets hotter and China has been steadily building its influence throughout Africa. Now for Belarus, a former Soviet republic, Belarussian dictator Lukashenko is a close ally of Vladimir Putin, probably Putin's closest ally in Europe, and probably even in the world, and recently he's drawn rebuke and sanctions from the EU for his civil crisis and flight hijacking, among other activities. And lastly, Myanmar, the US and China find themselves on opposing sides of the coup and subsequent internal civil crisis, and they're both paying substantial attention to Myanmar, as its in China's backyard, and the US is focusing heavily on the Indo-Pacific region in order to counter China. Halo FC (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what talk pages are. This isn't a forum for you to voice your opinions and others to comment so we can "go more in depth". They are for discussing improvements to the article. From the very first lines of talk page guidelines: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." So please stop that, and let's move on to verifiable facts. Mark83 (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, my apologies, I wasn't thinking to voice my personal opinions. I was thinking that, firstly, we should work out what we believe is the situation of Cold War II, and as such, I share my outline on what I consider the situation to be. So, it's like a quick outline for others to reply, to enable us to be able to work things out. Because I think that the important thing is to firstly identify what we editors agree or disagree with, so that we can then we can focus our attentions to our disagreements. And I think that this is not just useful for a current discussion, but also useful for the future, once we've reached a better understanding of what each other is thinking. We've now moved a bit further from Iran and Venezuela, and now that i've listed an overview for the Axis of Evil, I think that what anyone replying to this comment could do is to ask for clarification on the points if they're unsure of them, or to state what they disagree with, and I think that we'll be able to quickly identify what are the things that we agree or disagree on, thanks Halo FC (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

But we have done all this in the previous RfCabove. Hence my vexation and my bluntness - state your sources and we can comment on those. Do not state your views. Mark83 (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC) & edited Mark83 (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see, hmmm, though I think that for the previous section, we hadn't shifted to the identification part. I think that this might be less efficient than quickly identifying, so I think let's focus on Venezuela currently. Venezuela – proxy for a ‘cold war’ in the Americas Russia and China have become critical allies to Latin America and the Caribbean during the pandemic. The United States should step up. As the US openly gets involved in what Russia and China consider to be their backyards, likewise would Russia and China want to try the same with the US, especially with this Cold War II competition for global influence and power. Halo FC (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The focal point of the thread is choosing an appropriate, suitable image. I'm worried that we're shifting away from the central point and now toward defining the article subject, which we shouldn't do (primarily) in this thread. I hope I don't stand corrected, but shall we go back to images please? Thanks. BTW, a Columbia Univ. article doesn't mention the topic. The op-ed, to me some op-ed, doesn't verify the topic as an event or anything actually happening. George Ho (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that we were on the topic of the Operation Gideon photo, and so discussing Venezuela and President Maduro's position with regards to Cold War II. I also think that, rather to the contrary, the op-ed highlights the issue of COVID-19 vaccine diplomacy especially as it relates to Cold War II geopolitics, or US rivalries with Russia and with China, and in Latin America specifically in this case, what the U.S. considers to be its own backyard. Well the U.S. doesn't really have a backyard, given the global extent of its reach lol. On a related note, Joe Biden stepped up the game of countering China quite soon after taking office, and his term coincides with the year after the "great COVID year" of 2020, which I think is quite an interesting confluence of events. And I think that it might also be affected by public sentiment about China regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. Halo FC (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• C: no maps or images There is no single, referenced, defining statement for a subject of this article, except perhaps the name, so we can’t impose one by picturing it. I find the US-centric maps dubious representations, as whatever it is involves dozens of states and international organizations. It has also been said there’s a dispute between the West and the East, or “between states that adhere to a rules-based international order, to the United Nations Charter, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and those that do not.” —Michael Z. 13:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Mzajac:, Michael Z., I was thinking of using this this option. And sorry, I'm also not sure which US-centric maps you're referring to. But yeah, I agree that there is that dispute of that nature, and that map shows clearly the primary dynamics, which are the US vs China and US vs Russia, and I think that rather than being an imposition, these are the major relationships which we're all clear about, thanks. Halo FC (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. That is not the primary dynamic. For example, the EU especially, also the G7 and NATO are major actors. Ukraine, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Belarus, and the Baltic states are at the “front lines,” as are gas pipelines under the Black and Baltic seas. Chemical warfare in Bulgaria, Syria, the UK, a shooting in Germany, bombings in Bulgaria and Czechia, mass-murder trials in the Netherlands, Canadian hostages in China. How does the USA on a map represent one side in these events? The set of actors here is much less polarized than the actual, well defined Cold War, whose lead map is not so extremely over-simplified. —Michael Z. 15:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Mzajac thanks Michael, I see your point. Well, firstly, I think that it doesn't have to be viewed as being US-centric, and downplaying the European and Canadian involvements in the conflict, so just some background, someone thought to structure this article in the form of focusing on the primary dynamics between the big, powerful countries, probably due to the multiple disagreements over the others. Russia doesn't have a very large population compared to the other heavy-hitters in the world, though Putin does like to make great power plays, and Russia is still way larger than the next largest European country, so I think that that's the intention behind it, the big, powerful countries.

Also, yeah I agree, countries like Belarus can be quite heavily involved, can be quite the hotbeds of conflict, but I think that the key thing of this worldwide Cold War II is the primary driving force, which would be the big, powerful countries, they're kinda like stars whose powerful gravities pull the planets into orbiting them, making this conflict "go global", and exacerbating smaller, regional conflicts. For instance, as mentioned, the 'single' country of Russia is, post-Soviet collapse, still way larger than the next largest European country, and so, a fragile Europe, susceptible to Russia's manipulation of its democracies, its domestic politics, to disunity, civil discord, Euro-skepticism, and events like Brexit, depends heavily on a "great" world protector, that protector being the United States, and the United States also needs Europe, its the key factor behind Atlanticism.

You could also check out my first reply to the user Morgengave here, especially as I think that this article has been quite barren and devoid of imagery for quite some time now, thanks Halo FC (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You haven’t convinced me that those maps represents the “primary dynamics,” or that the Russian Federation is so outstandingly “powerful.” Germany’s GDP (PPP) is bigger than the Russian Federation’s and the EU’s dwarfs it. Going by GDP (nominal), Japan, the UK, France, Italy, Canada, and South Korea are more powerful than the RF. And after Trump, you’re telling us Europe’s democracy is fragile compared to the USA’s, so that’s why it’s omitted from the map? I believe many sources will tell you that the RF’s role is in fact compensating for its relatively low power compared to perceived adversaries. But anyway, [citation needed] for this entire viewpoint. —Michael Z. 19:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm quite open to differing maps, though my current concern is about feasibility, worrying that because of too many disagreements among the various editors, we might end up with nothing rather than with something. I was also just trying to explain what the background might be, and not really pushing for it. I think that you've got a point on Russia. And the fragility of Europe I was referring to was the many different countries of the EU, bound together by the EU, but still possessing fragility, and not referring to internal coups or attacks. I suppose that Russia does have a certain kinda autocratic power which Europe lacks, the ability to wield and control a nation like that. Though anyway I'm not rigid on the maps nor on having a certain specific view on them, thanks, just hoping to be able to achieve a broader consensus Halo FC (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Not that there couldn’t be maps in this article. A Russia-oriented map could highlight the 40 states that have sanctioned the RF, or the 46 that signed the Crimea Platform document, or the 100 plus that voted for and against UN resolutions condemning the occupation of Crimea. It could also could show locations of Russian troops in other states against their will, or the locations of Russian interventions and attacks, including assassinations and attempts, bombings, flight MH17, mercenary activity, cyber attacks, and election interference. A China-oriented map as well, although I’m not as familiar with that topic. But I think such a thing must follow the sources, and I’m not confident this article is well enough developed to support such a map. —Michael Z. 00:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah indeed, I think that those are all pretty good ideas, thanks Mzajac. Though currently, the focus is on a lead image, thanks Halo FC (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mzajac: hey Michael, I think this might add to my consternations about being able to achieve consensus lol, but here's a map with NATO elements Halo FC (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Proposer's comment: I gave Halo FC caution about canvassing in the user subpage User:Halo FC/Second Cold War. IMO, those notified users should decide for themselves rather than be electioneered into voting for one option (or something like that). George Ho (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Since the notification, which Halo FC removed from user talk page, Halo just removed a certain part. George Ho (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @George Ho:, thanks for the notification, I realize that I had lacked judgment and awareness, sorry, my sincere apologies. Halo FC (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Halo FC. Can you please reflect on WP:BLUDGEON. I’m not accusing you of the elements of this that are plainly disruptive. However I think your passion is getting the better of you leading to excessively verbose replies and comments. Something I was guilty of in the previous discussion and I’ve tried to be more concise in this one. Comment on other points of course, but you don’t seem to know when to stop. Mark83 (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mark83, noted, thanks for the feedback, I'll try to keep my replies concise as well. And I'll avoid waxing excessively on extraneous points, and focus properly on the key issues at hand. Halo FC (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking that in the constructive way I intended. Mark83 (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3, not defined well enough for a map at this time. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option D - the maps have a variety of failings as explained by other users. My preference is for the following collage, which is one action image from each of the first four event-related articles wikilinked from the article in order of appearance (insofar as I can tell): Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, Territorial disputes in the South China Sea, Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.

Chetsford (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Option C still no maps, and until a concept of a conflict is well-defined by historians (rather than a gestalt of columnists calling every military and political dispute of the past decade "another Cold War") I will continue to say no maps. The image-gallery suggestions aren't as bad, but I don't see either of the ones suggested here being perfect. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:01, 16 October 2021 (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.

Name change discussion

I'm not requesting a move or anything like that at all yet. I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were if we were to rename this page to "Cold War II"? It kind of matches the World War page titles and "Second Cold War" sounds a little clunky, if that makes sense (I know this isn't really a formal basis to make a change such as this, but yeah). Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

First, let's check reliable sources using either name. If reliable sources use one name more than the other, then let's be ready for another RM. --George Ho (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent tensions between America and China isn’t a Cold War, but something worst.

In my eyes, the fact that America and China are polar opposites in all but power is startling, but the way things have gone recently has led me to conclude that these tensions aren’t signs of a Cold War, but what I call a “Polar War”. The way a Polar War works is that the sides of the conflict, similarly to a Cold War, don’t go into a direct conflict, but instead rely on ideas and spreading their ideology. A Polar War would also require the leading powers on both sides to be polar opposites in all but power - like America and China - and both sides have allies that play key roles in the conflict in different ways. There are also proxy wars that can happen. Both sides maintain communication and try to ease tensions. The way they seek influence is usually based on trade by innovating and trying to gain economic spheres of influence by helping to improve the live of those foreign societies, for better or for worst, via technology that will effect the society of the country they want influence over, similar to how the Cold War saw the United States and Soviet Union try to gain influence via giving money to other countries so that they can be on their side or, at the very least, don’t join the enemy, but just because new technology will be given to foreign countries doesn’t make this Polar War a good thing as it will also increase the threat of nuclear war. You’re free to conclude if the current situation can best be described as a Polar War. Let me know if you agree. S-Fan2006 (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi S-Fan2006, Wikipedia is not a forum (see: WP:FORUM) and we should avoid original research (see: WP:OR). Morgengave (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)