![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
When I decided to revamp the Arab Winter article I got into an edit war. This is about what to call Russian aggression in what it calls "The Near Abroad" Ericl ( talk) 13:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Is this actually a thing? Never mind the fact that hostile relations between countries does not instantly equal a cold war (other wise we'd have been saying there's one between the west and Iran) the article name doesn't seem to be in wide spread use and most mentions of the Cold War with regards to the current conflict have been warning about the possibility for a "Second Cold War". Seems rather like original research to me... 89.168.92.255 ( talk) 19:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The original cold war wasn't a thing as historians and politicians alike still can't come to an agreement on when it began and when It truly ended. Yes hostile relations between two nuclear armed powers to this extent does constitute a cold war especially if the term itself was coined by George Oin 1945 not in response to tensions but in response to the anticipation of these tensions between the US and the Soviet Union as nothing major happened at that point, yet things are happening now. As far as Iran is concerned it does not have the capacity of destroying the west and the only reason the west hasn't engaged Iran and that Iran is becoming more belligerent such as ending ships to our coast is because of the increasingly belligerent attitude of Russia and china. As far as it not being in mainstream use, the media and western governments are to politically correct these days to call things for what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.134.60 ( talk) 08:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Is the person who made this page serious ? I'm nominating this article for deletion. -- ZemplinTemplar ( talk) 19:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Rather than delete this article it could have use as lots of people are starting to wonder about this idea. You should probably just change the name to something that just suspicion related rather than an official second cold war such as (2008-ongoing tensions). Just leave the article alone until this crisis is over and if you still have the same opinion then delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.134.60 ( talk) 08:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. While this is a current issue with a lot of tension, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's another Cold War. Frauesh ( talk) 04:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree as it doesn't just revolve around Ukraine rather the article should include other things such as the PLA ADIZ zone designation, 2008 Russia Georgia war, Russian American issues in Syria and Libya, and the increasingly belligerent attitudes of satellite states such as north Korea and the Cheonan incident and the shelling of a south Korean island, nuclear tests in 2013, and Iran with there attitudes, threats, and sending ships to our coast. all of these things are part of a recent tension increase happening within a 2008-2014 timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.134.60 ( talk) 08:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand completely, as I used to be an administrator on several different Wikia sites and that is precisely why I agree that something does need to happen with this article, because it is misleading. However as I suggested above we should probably remove the references to a new cold war and change it to a name that suggest a sudden increase of tensions with several interconnected high profile incidents involving the US and her allies vs. her traditional enemies of the cold war. The reason why I recommend this is because to continue having individual articles about these incidents on there own, without making a central article to point out their obvious and official connections is both inconvenient and also misleading. My point is that this article holds substantial weight and potential just not in it's present state. What I ask is that you give us 2 months(ending on November 1st) to make this article satisfactory for preservation. First step would be to change the name and to expand the article to include other related incidents making it less US Russia centric, and finally to remove all references to it being a cold war both implied and verbal. Through these changes undoubtedly we can acquire references and sources that meet Wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.134.60 ( talk) 04:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this article could be unbiased or neutralized with sources from both sides instead of using mostly Western Media sources. I would highly recommend you look at RT, Al-Jazeera, Press TV and CNN and get pieces of information then put them in an order that would make practical and theoretical sense. If this is intended to be a propaganda article I would nominate this for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fly1224 ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Might it be beneficial to address all the concerns here by having three pages (one for US-Russia, US-China, and US-Iran) separately for each "regional cold war"? Between the US and Russia, there has been one going on in full force at least since 2008, but it has only gotten the attention it deserved with the Ukrainian crisis. US-China has been going on since the 1990s in some form. And US-Iran has been since the invasion of Iraq, more or less. There is an Arab Winter and a Pivot to Asia article. I suppose that current events need to be covered in a more trend-based manner, so readers can see the patterns better. I'd therefore keep this article, add the Syrian war as a proxy conflict, along with Snowden, legal battles over human rights and adoption, and other issues. 96.59.109.104 ( talk) 02:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The "Cold War II" article was created in reference to the obvious new tensions between the western and Russia and the subsequent events. I observe that incidences with China and also North Korea have been added as sections in this article.
To make such propositions are largely original research. There has been enough commentators and observers describe the situation between Russia and the US as "Cold War II" but such a position with China is nothing more than personal speculation. As much as China and the US have their differences (given the islands dispute and the pro-democracy movements in hong kong), we cannot say relations are "Cold War style". As for North Korea, well given its blatant lack of superpower status or capacity, a nuclear weapons dispute is hardly a "cold war", an impoverished, backward and isolated regime is hardly competing the US for global influence and alliance systems is it?
It may be best to thus remove the above TF92 ( talk) 21:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
In the intro the term is sourced to Time (magazine), but the link is not to Time but to hotair.com. If you read the actual article by Simon Shuster [1] he doesn't use "World War II" at all. So all we have is a cover on a magazine. I really think this needs better sourcing. Sjö ( talk) 08:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I Think it's too soon to use this term. There has been some progress in Ukraine not to mention that no politician on either side has used this term. -- MarcusPearl95 ( talk) 04:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes this article is bullshit. NOTHING IS HAPPENIG - T
____ yes it is far too soon!
if anything this period will be viewed as an extension of the Cold War, the 1990's and 2000's being a period of Detente. That is of course if anything happens at all, I can't see a new nuclear arms race happening any time soon. ( Fdsdh1 ( talk) 01:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC))
Don't flame me for this, but I wondered in what article (if any) we should mention the recent increase in military activity conducted by the Russian Air Force and the Russian Navy in areas where they haven't exercised at/forayed into. All these activities, like the alleged Russian submarine in Swedish territorial waters, the intrusion in Finnish airspace, the nuclear bombers intercepted both by UK and Portuguese air force and so on, these are all notable I think. I don't know where's the best place to mention them though. I'd say they need to be listed in a systematic manner (and of course, sourced). A reliable source: [2] -- Rev L. Snowfox ( talk) 11:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Much of this article seems like original research, labeling any conflict as a part of a new cold war, regardless of whether there is a reliable source. Sjö ( talk) 08:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Caption on the top picture might be wrong.-- 150.216.63.18 ( talk) 07:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
There is far too much anti-Russian hatred in this article.
Start again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.46.113 ( talk) 20:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I still believe that the use of this term is premature and that this article should be deleted. The Conflict in Ukraine should not be viewed as a catalyst to a new cold war unless a political figure says so. No one in power has used this term and if anything, this will end soon.-- MarcusPearl95 ( talk) 01:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm very happy this article is being given a chance but for greater accuracy we need to understand that this article is to us-Russia centric and should also have more about the us and her east Asian allies vs. china during the Asian pacific pivot which arguably is the largest foreign policy development in the world since the 9-11 terrorist attacks. By the way I don't think we should include anything unless it's happening either because of these global tensions and/or is primarily being fueled by them. for example Afghanistan isn't related to the degree necessary if at all but north Koreas shenanigans are because of their relations with china.one last thing these tensions went from aggravated to hostile only after the us put missiles in Poland on march 2007 arguably the first hostile move. this will also provide the unbiased view we are looking for and should also mark the beginning point rather than the absurd 2014 date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.134.60 ( talk) 00:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The Cold War is a US-Russia centric phenomenon. So whats your point? Its like complaining an article about France is too focused on France. 69.165.169.126 ( talk) 16:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The top picture, created with original research, shows a number of errors. There is only one country with a US base in Africa, Djibouti. Not Somalia, Morocco, or Egypt. The picture is clearly depicting US bases but there are none. Sources? No bases in Turkmenistan either, or Norway. or Indonesia. Ottawakismet 69.165.169.126 ( talk) 16:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The section focuses entirely on Russia and its state media channels. There is absolutely no mention of any ideology of "the West" or any of the propaganda aside from the "they plan to combat Russian propaganda" bit at the end. I think US channels and other media outlets have their fair share in building up the Russia scare, presenting it as a threat. Let's not forget the numerous claims of direct Russian intervention into Ukraine made by Breedlove and then German BND intelligence pointing out that he was obviously hyping a threat, rather than providing numbers. Or the US using "proof of Russia's invasion into Ukraine" as provided by Ukraine and then turned out to be from Abkhazia and/or otherwise manipulated. Even USA confirmed that they were in fact provided false data. We shouldn't pretend that Russia is the only one doing propaganda.
As for the West's ideology, I think we could at least add Obama's West Point speech about "America Must Always Lead" in here somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.145.208.147 ( talk) 21:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Since consensus unilaterally opposed inclusion of other relationships, perhaps we must decide on including or omitting doubts or denials of the Russia–US relationship reaching to a near-heated tension level. Also, we can discuss whether this is actually "Cold War II". -- George Ho ( talk) 22:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Clr324 ( say hi) 21:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm disputing the source cited as reliable because it's an opinion piece, and since it appears to be a minority view. See War in Donbass. A simple search of that page does reveal that Ukraine thinks it's been invaded by Russia, but everyone else calls it "military intervention", which is a step down from outright invasion. Even the Ukrainian sources call it a "stealth invasion" more than an "invasion", which indicates an evident difference in the intensity of the intervention. I think it's better to not claim that Russia is invading Ukraine. Banedon ( talk) 01:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Does the term "Cold War II" refer to only Russian–US relations or extend to other political relationships? I found articles mentioning US–China relations with the phrase "Cold War": FT, US News editorial, Time. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I suppose this is because most people either don't want to believe it or have rarely heard about it, but Russia and China enjoy extremely close relations today. There is without a doubt a notable resurgence of the Cold War today. But the main view is that–instead of a Cold War II–the original Cold War never actually ended. Americans often believe that it was only a war between America and imperialism of the Soviet Union; it wasn't. It was a power struggle between Western hegemony and newly independent or developing states that massively favored communism. Since communism still exists, and America still opposes it, why in the world would you leave out China? They are literally communist. No, Russia is not the Soviet Union. Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 14:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The spamming of the phrase "within the Russian empire" throughout the article, after every country that has ever fallen victim to Russian government aggression, appears to be a form of irredentist territory marking. Unless it's necessary it should not be included, per WP:UNDUE. It should certainly not be spammed throughout. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 13:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This Article should mention what happens in Latin America. It is clearly COLD WAR. Venezuela and it's communism and co-government with Cuba. Also in Colombia president Santos was elected to keep up the war against communist guerrillas, but he's doing the opposite and turning Colombia into a narco-state all over again like it was in the 90s (all this with the help of Venezuela).
All those communist leaders are dictators (leading fake democracies with fake elections), like Chávez, Maduro, Evo Morales, Ortega, Rousseff, Bachelet, Fernández de Kirchner, etc... they have strict control over the media and tell their citizens their economies are the fastest growing in the world. Russia is helping all these countries with armament, money and media support throug RT (Russia Today), but Europe and the US are not helping their few friends left. Obama is the Chamberlain who let Hitler rise, until some Churchill had to come make war a little TOO LATE.
they are not dictatorships,even Former US President Carter said so: Venezuelan Electoral System is “Best in the World”: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/03/why-us-dcemonises-venezuelas-democracy http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7272 and the only one in war is colombia,also venezuela is the country with most oil in the world(just see oil reserves article) and the starter of this turn to the left after chavez won the 1998 elections,democratically,with the goverment being another.wich has been caused by decades of neoliberalism wich in 1989 caused the caracazo.,they released telesur to counter CNN propaganda.wich constantly twists facts and omites facts like it did in ecuador recently or in the protests in venezuela where only 5 of the 43 deaths were caused by the police,hiding that the protesters used wire to behead innocent civilians. http://www.telesurtv.net/news/En-Detalle-Asi-ocurrieron-las-14-muertes-por-violencia-de-la-derecha-en-Venezuela-20140226-0018.html
-Elvis Duran de la Rosa: un motorizado muere cuando jefes de los sectores opositores, dieron la orden de colocar alambres en las calles, para obstaculizar la vía y evitar el tránsito automotor. Lamentablemente fue así, este joven iba en su moto, dirigiéndose del trabajo en su casa y se encontró una de estas emboscadas y murió decapitado. Este contenido ha sido publicado originalmente por teleSUR bajo la siguiente dirección: http://www.telesurtv.net/news/En-Detalle-Asi-ocurrieron-las-14-muertes-por-violencia-de-la-derecha-en-Venezuela-20140226-0018.html. Si piensa hacer uso del mismo, por favor, cite la fuente y coloque un enlace hacia la nota original de donde usted ha tomado este contenido. www.teleSURtv.net William M.hijo ( talk) 17:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)william m.hijo William M.hijo ( talk) 17:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
sorry,the first person was making propaganda calling dictators democratically elected presidents even Jimmy Carter said where so,even if they are socialists,also i forgot to add, USA is supporting corrupt goverments that kill candidates in mexico and colombia and its trying to make corrupt goverments in guatemala and honduras not seem so corrupt after the protests started targetting their people. http://www.elsalvador.com/mwedh/nota/nota_completa.asp?idCat=47860&idArt=9738005 and RT at least in El Salvador with claro service its hard to get,only sometimes in channel 8.its easer to see telesur.and most people just see channel 19 wich is rather neutral. And in mexico televisa group and tv azteca have an authentic pro us monopoly on television,televisa itself basically made peña nieto win the elections,they even made a film on it called "la dictadura perfecta". /info/en/?search=The_Perfect_Dictatorship this is not a forum,but when something its true its true and you cant let biased people outright lie,even if to destroy the lie you have to give information that favours a faction,its like saying that if a political party is proven to have commited crimes you shouldnt say that in a neutral newspaper because it could maybe benefict its oposition. 190.62.68.72 ( talk) 20:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)william ]M.hijo 190.62.68.72 ( talk) 20:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Axxion, please stop removing sourced info [6]. If you have to, move it to an appropriate section. But don't just remove it.
In respect to this edit [7] and the edit summary: "The role of Germany is dwelt on in the article". This is completely false. The word "Germany" appears three times in this huge article. Once in the lede. Once in a table of nominal GDPs. Once in the sources. I.e. The role of Germany is NOT dwelt in the article. Please stop making stuff up in your edit summaries. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
One more time, since this went unanswered. Germany does not get mentioned in the text, so there's no reason to put it in the lede. And Axxion. You broke 3RR just the other day and squaked through with a warning because you ceased edit warring for a day and a half. As soon as the edit warring report was closed with a warning you came back here and resumed edit warring again. And then you have the chutzpah to accuse other editors of "editwarring"? Please! Act in good faith. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Is the Greek debt crisis related to the new Cold War II? -- George Ho ( talk) 23:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Among the sources that believe there's a new Cold War, do they more often use the term "second Cold War" or "Cold War II"? Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 09:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Should the recent tensions regarding ISIS be added here as well ?-- MarcusPearl95 ( talk) 07:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is a well-sourced personal essay representing a point of view that has not been universally adopted. I don't think it has a place around here. 88.209.85.178 ( talk) 15:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I second this! I have said it before! This is not a universal POV just yet! Therefore I believe we should all have a vote on whether to delete this article or not! Kirby ( talk) 21:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The article's
too big. Per
WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Perhaps some of the content should be moved from the article to this talk page and, if consensus is not achieved for its inclusion, it could be left out (per
WP:ONUS).Failing that, I would support deletion. —
Ríco 05:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Deletion indeed! It's time for another RfC! This article I strongly believe needs to go! Kirby ( talk) 05:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, just give me time! I need to get something else done real quick! Kirby ( talk) 07:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
ALRIGHT EVERYONE!! I just put this article up for deletion! Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cold_War_II
Time to vote now! Kirby ( talk) 10:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I deleted this:
also known as the New Cold War, Cold War Redux, and Cold War 2.0,
In my edit summary, I simply pointed to my analysis here on this talk page. This is my argument here too.
Axxxion put it right back in. So per WP:BRD, I'd like to see a discussion here.
Wikipedia Verifiability policy requires consensus for inclusion (WP:ONUS), so I'd especially like to see if anybody else has an opinion. — Ríco 18:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I deleted this:
is a term that
This strikes me as so much masking the lack of wide use — an attempt to defend these "terms", that is written into the article — and a proof by assertion. The phrase is otherwise unnecessary. (Where's that Wikipedia bit about, 'methinks the lady doth protest too much,' backfiring?)
I see a lot of writing in the article that postulates the general acceptance of names, and "terms", that are used in the article — which are usually not capitalized in the sources, and are usually part of a question about whether it's happening, rather than an assertion that it is.
Are these adjacent words, "terms"? And even if they are construed as such — they're so infrequently used, I don't think what I deleted should be written into the article in a way that suggests that they're — not only not infrequent, but standard, per WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.
Axxxion put what I deleted right back in. So per WP:BRD, I'd like to see a discussion here.
Wikipedia Verifiability policy requires consensus for inclusion (WP:ONUS), so I'd especially like to see if anybody else has an opinion. — Ríco 19:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I put a lot of work into the article, trying to improve it, and then it looks like Axxxion comes along, finds a diff, makes a null edit to it, to recklessly destroy everything I've done [9] — quite a few edits — despite the big, pink warning boxes that stare you in the face if you try to do this. Why do I think that? Would any reasonable editor argue that this:
and even a "a proto- world war"
is better than this:
and even "a proto- world war"
Lazy, WP:Disruptive editing — Ríco 21:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this article for real? I got to it from the 'Western World' article and can't in all honesty believe there's a second Cold War and the only place I've heard it is from Wikipedia. I mean, just think about that. Isn't Wikipedia suppose to reflect information, not make it? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
174.70.56.254 (
talk) 06:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
False. Quite a big part of former Eastern Block belongs to Western Block. At the same time many people in Western Europe are Anti-American and support Russian nationalism. Xx236 ( talk) 09:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I still have doubts about calling this another Cold War. Of course, Wikipedia encourages using titles that are well known to users... not some, though. This is capitalist country vs capitalist country, not capitalist vs communist again. Still, Russia is more authoritarian under Putin, while the US... I don't wanna summarise where the US is heading towards. George Ho ( talk) 05:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
It's too soon to label this "Cold War II" or the "Second Cold War." It may be a cold war in the general sense, but labeling it as the successor to the 20th century conflict is too forced. The Cold War took place in a bipolar world, with the United States and the Soviet Union as the two undisputed superpowers competing for economic, ideological, military, and diplomatic influence on multiple continents and, at times, veering very close to direct war with one another. This article essentially covers Vladimir Putin's foreign policy and international reactions to it. As it stands, it simply does not make a strong case for the use of the term, and it might be better served with another title for the time being. -- Kdowns1453 ( talk) 16:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I think about creating an RFC on this. What do you say? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Kdowns1453 on this one! This article's title and maybe even the article itself should be put up to a vote on whether to move it into Russian foreign relations or NATO - Russia relations since this seems like a fork of an article at this point as Hollth pointed out to an extent or whether we should just delete this article altogether!
Either way, I think it's time for a support or oppose vote on this article on the basis of moving it or deleting it! Kirby ( talk) 21:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The title has been discussed since the article was created a year ago. The recent tensions between the United States and Russia is "Cold War II" has been debated, but very little discussion participation has been made. I created the RfC discussion to attract more people. Per WP:COMMONNAMES, an inaccurate or ambiguous title is often avoided, even when certain sources use either. Is "Cold War II" an accurate title, even when sources use the term to refer to recent US–Russia tensions? If not, what alternative title do you suggest? (As for deletion, if you believe in deleting the article, follow procedures of WP:AFD, or (if existent) go to the AFD nomination page.) George Ho ( talk) 09:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Alright everyone, take your opinions/positions on this here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cold_War_II from now on! Kirby ( talk) 14:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
But, George Ho you could still vote on the situation on the AFD none of the less! Kirby ( talk) 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
George Ho Sorry about that misunderstanding, I meant to say, Redirect rather than Move and I am aware that Redirect is not the same as Merge. Regards. Kirby ( talk) 00:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
When I decided to revamp the Arab Winter article I got into an edit war. This is about what to call Russian aggression in what it calls "The Near Abroad" Ericl ( talk) 13:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Is this actually a thing? Never mind the fact that hostile relations between countries does not instantly equal a cold war (other wise we'd have been saying there's one between the west and Iran) the article name doesn't seem to be in wide spread use and most mentions of the Cold War with regards to the current conflict have been warning about the possibility for a "Second Cold War". Seems rather like original research to me... 89.168.92.255 ( talk) 19:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The original cold war wasn't a thing as historians and politicians alike still can't come to an agreement on when it began and when It truly ended. Yes hostile relations between two nuclear armed powers to this extent does constitute a cold war especially if the term itself was coined by George Oin 1945 not in response to tensions but in response to the anticipation of these tensions between the US and the Soviet Union as nothing major happened at that point, yet things are happening now. As far as Iran is concerned it does not have the capacity of destroying the west and the only reason the west hasn't engaged Iran and that Iran is becoming more belligerent such as ending ships to our coast is because of the increasingly belligerent attitude of Russia and china. As far as it not being in mainstream use, the media and western governments are to politically correct these days to call things for what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.134.60 ( talk) 08:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Is the person who made this page serious ? I'm nominating this article for deletion. -- ZemplinTemplar ( talk) 19:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Rather than delete this article it could have use as lots of people are starting to wonder about this idea. You should probably just change the name to something that just suspicion related rather than an official second cold war such as (2008-ongoing tensions). Just leave the article alone until this crisis is over and if you still have the same opinion then delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.134.60 ( talk) 08:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. While this is a current issue with a lot of tension, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's another Cold War. Frauesh ( talk) 04:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree as it doesn't just revolve around Ukraine rather the article should include other things such as the PLA ADIZ zone designation, 2008 Russia Georgia war, Russian American issues in Syria and Libya, and the increasingly belligerent attitudes of satellite states such as north Korea and the Cheonan incident and the shelling of a south Korean island, nuclear tests in 2013, and Iran with there attitudes, threats, and sending ships to our coast. all of these things are part of a recent tension increase happening within a 2008-2014 timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.134.60 ( talk) 08:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand completely, as I used to be an administrator on several different Wikia sites and that is precisely why I agree that something does need to happen with this article, because it is misleading. However as I suggested above we should probably remove the references to a new cold war and change it to a name that suggest a sudden increase of tensions with several interconnected high profile incidents involving the US and her allies vs. her traditional enemies of the cold war. The reason why I recommend this is because to continue having individual articles about these incidents on there own, without making a central article to point out their obvious and official connections is both inconvenient and also misleading. My point is that this article holds substantial weight and potential just not in it's present state. What I ask is that you give us 2 months(ending on November 1st) to make this article satisfactory for preservation. First step would be to change the name and to expand the article to include other related incidents making it less US Russia centric, and finally to remove all references to it being a cold war both implied and verbal. Through these changes undoubtedly we can acquire references and sources that meet Wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.134.60 ( talk) 04:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this article could be unbiased or neutralized with sources from both sides instead of using mostly Western Media sources. I would highly recommend you look at RT, Al-Jazeera, Press TV and CNN and get pieces of information then put them in an order that would make practical and theoretical sense. If this is intended to be a propaganda article I would nominate this for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fly1224 ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Might it be beneficial to address all the concerns here by having three pages (one for US-Russia, US-China, and US-Iran) separately for each "regional cold war"? Between the US and Russia, there has been one going on in full force at least since 2008, but it has only gotten the attention it deserved with the Ukrainian crisis. US-China has been going on since the 1990s in some form. And US-Iran has been since the invasion of Iraq, more or less. There is an Arab Winter and a Pivot to Asia article. I suppose that current events need to be covered in a more trend-based manner, so readers can see the patterns better. I'd therefore keep this article, add the Syrian war as a proxy conflict, along with Snowden, legal battles over human rights and adoption, and other issues. 96.59.109.104 ( talk) 02:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The "Cold War II" article was created in reference to the obvious new tensions between the western and Russia and the subsequent events. I observe that incidences with China and also North Korea have been added as sections in this article.
To make such propositions are largely original research. There has been enough commentators and observers describe the situation between Russia and the US as "Cold War II" but such a position with China is nothing more than personal speculation. As much as China and the US have their differences (given the islands dispute and the pro-democracy movements in hong kong), we cannot say relations are "Cold War style". As for North Korea, well given its blatant lack of superpower status or capacity, a nuclear weapons dispute is hardly a "cold war", an impoverished, backward and isolated regime is hardly competing the US for global influence and alliance systems is it?
It may be best to thus remove the above TF92 ( talk) 21:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
In the intro the term is sourced to Time (magazine), but the link is not to Time but to hotair.com. If you read the actual article by Simon Shuster [1] he doesn't use "World War II" at all. So all we have is a cover on a magazine. I really think this needs better sourcing. Sjö ( talk) 08:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I Think it's too soon to use this term. There has been some progress in Ukraine not to mention that no politician on either side has used this term. -- MarcusPearl95 ( talk) 04:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes this article is bullshit. NOTHING IS HAPPENIG - T
____ yes it is far too soon!
if anything this period will be viewed as an extension of the Cold War, the 1990's and 2000's being a period of Detente. That is of course if anything happens at all, I can't see a new nuclear arms race happening any time soon. ( Fdsdh1 ( talk) 01:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC))
Don't flame me for this, but I wondered in what article (if any) we should mention the recent increase in military activity conducted by the Russian Air Force and the Russian Navy in areas where they haven't exercised at/forayed into. All these activities, like the alleged Russian submarine in Swedish territorial waters, the intrusion in Finnish airspace, the nuclear bombers intercepted both by UK and Portuguese air force and so on, these are all notable I think. I don't know where's the best place to mention them though. I'd say they need to be listed in a systematic manner (and of course, sourced). A reliable source: [2] -- Rev L. Snowfox ( talk) 11:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Much of this article seems like original research, labeling any conflict as a part of a new cold war, regardless of whether there is a reliable source. Sjö ( talk) 08:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Caption on the top picture might be wrong.-- 150.216.63.18 ( talk) 07:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
There is far too much anti-Russian hatred in this article.
Start again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.46.113 ( talk) 20:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I still believe that the use of this term is premature and that this article should be deleted. The Conflict in Ukraine should not be viewed as a catalyst to a new cold war unless a political figure says so. No one in power has used this term and if anything, this will end soon.-- MarcusPearl95 ( talk) 01:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm very happy this article is being given a chance but for greater accuracy we need to understand that this article is to us-Russia centric and should also have more about the us and her east Asian allies vs. china during the Asian pacific pivot which arguably is the largest foreign policy development in the world since the 9-11 terrorist attacks. By the way I don't think we should include anything unless it's happening either because of these global tensions and/or is primarily being fueled by them. for example Afghanistan isn't related to the degree necessary if at all but north Koreas shenanigans are because of their relations with china.one last thing these tensions went from aggravated to hostile only after the us put missiles in Poland on march 2007 arguably the first hostile move. this will also provide the unbiased view we are looking for and should also mark the beginning point rather than the absurd 2014 date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.134.60 ( talk) 00:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The Cold War is a US-Russia centric phenomenon. So whats your point? Its like complaining an article about France is too focused on France. 69.165.169.126 ( talk) 16:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The top picture, created with original research, shows a number of errors. There is only one country with a US base in Africa, Djibouti. Not Somalia, Morocco, or Egypt. The picture is clearly depicting US bases but there are none. Sources? No bases in Turkmenistan either, or Norway. or Indonesia. Ottawakismet 69.165.169.126 ( talk) 16:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The section focuses entirely on Russia and its state media channels. There is absolutely no mention of any ideology of "the West" or any of the propaganda aside from the "they plan to combat Russian propaganda" bit at the end. I think US channels and other media outlets have their fair share in building up the Russia scare, presenting it as a threat. Let's not forget the numerous claims of direct Russian intervention into Ukraine made by Breedlove and then German BND intelligence pointing out that he was obviously hyping a threat, rather than providing numbers. Or the US using "proof of Russia's invasion into Ukraine" as provided by Ukraine and then turned out to be from Abkhazia and/or otherwise manipulated. Even USA confirmed that they were in fact provided false data. We shouldn't pretend that Russia is the only one doing propaganda.
As for the West's ideology, I think we could at least add Obama's West Point speech about "America Must Always Lead" in here somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.145.208.147 ( talk) 21:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Since consensus unilaterally opposed inclusion of other relationships, perhaps we must decide on including or omitting doubts or denials of the Russia–US relationship reaching to a near-heated tension level. Also, we can discuss whether this is actually "Cold War II". -- George Ho ( talk) 22:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Clr324 ( say hi) 21:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm disputing the source cited as reliable because it's an opinion piece, and since it appears to be a minority view. See War in Donbass. A simple search of that page does reveal that Ukraine thinks it's been invaded by Russia, but everyone else calls it "military intervention", which is a step down from outright invasion. Even the Ukrainian sources call it a "stealth invasion" more than an "invasion", which indicates an evident difference in the intensity of the intervention. I think it's better to not claim that Russia is invading Ukraine. Banedon ( talk) 01:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Does the term "Cold War II" refer to only Russian–US relations or extend to other political relationships? I found articles mentioning US–China relations with the phrase "Cold War": FT, US News editorial, Time. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I suppose this is because most people either don't want to believe it or have rarely heard about it, but Russia and China enjoy extremely close relations today. There is without a doubt a notable resurgence of the Cold War today. But the main view is that–instead of a Cold War II–the original Cold War never actually ended. Americans often believe that it was only a war between America and imperialism of the Soviet Union; it wasn't. It was a power struggle between Western hegemony and newly independent or developing states that massively favored communism. Since communism still exists, and America still opposes it, why in the world would you leave out China? They are literally communist. No, Russia is not the Soviet Union. Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 14:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The spamming of the phrase "within the Russian empire" throughout the article, after every country that has ever fallen victim to Russian government aggression, appears to be a form of irredentist territory marking. Unless it's necessary it should not be included, per WP:UNDUE. It should certainly not be spammed throughout. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 13:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This Article should mention what happens in Latin America. It is clearly COLD WAR. Venezuela and it's communism and co-government with Cuba. Also in Colombia president Santos was elected to keep up the war against communist guerrillas, but he's doing the opposite and turning Colombia into a narco-state all over again like it was in the 90s (all this with the help of Venezuela).
All those communist leaders are dictators (leading fake democracies with fake elections), like Chávez, Maduro, Evo Morales, Ortega, Rousseff, Bachelet, Fernández de Kirchner, etc... they have strict control over the media and tell their citizens their economies are the fastest growing in the world. Russia is helping all these countries with armament, money and media support throug RT (Russia Today), but Europe and the US are not helping their few friends left. Obama is the Chamberlain who let Hitler rise, until some Churchill had to come make war a little TOO LATE.
they are not dictatorships,even Former US President Carter said so: Venezuelan Electoral System is “Best in the World”: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/03/why-us-dcemonises-venezuelas-democracy http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7272 and the only one in war is colombia,also venezuela is the country with most oil in the world(just see oil reserves article) and the starter of this turn to the left after chavez won the 1998 elections,democratically,with the goverment being another.wich has been caused by decades of neoliberalism wich in 1989 caused the caracazo.,they released telesur to counter CNN propaganda.wich constantly twists facts and omites facts like it did in ecuador recently or in the protests in venezuela where only 5 of the 43 deaths were caused by the police,hiding that the protesters used wire to behead innocent civilians. http://www.telesurtv.net/news/En-Detalle-Asi-ocurrieron-las-14-muertes-por-violencia-de-la-derecha-en-Venezuela-20140226-0018.html
-Elvis Duran de la Rosa: un motorizado muere cuando jefes de los sectores opositores, dieron la orden de colocar alambres en las calles, para obstaculizar la vía y evitar el tránsito automotor. Lamentablemente fue así, este joven iba en su moto, dirigiéndose del trabajo en su casa y se encontró una de estas emboscadas y murió decapitado. Este contenido ha sido publicado originalmente por teleSUR bajo la siguiente dirección: http://www.telesurtv.net/news/En-Detalle-Asi-ocurrieron-las-14-muertes-por-violencia-de-la-derecha-en-Venezuela-20140226-0018.html. Si piensa hacer uso del mismo, por favor, cite la fuente y coloque un enlace hacia la nota original de donde usted ha tomado este contenido. www.teleSURtv.net William M.hijo ( talk) 17:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)william m.hijo William M.hijo ( talk) 17:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
sorry,the first person was making propaganda calling dictators democratically elected presidents even Jimmy Carter said where so,even if they are socialists,also i forgot to add, USA is supporting corrupt goverments that kill candidates in mexico and colombia and its trying to make corrupt goverments in guatemala and honduras not seem so corrupt after the protests started targetting their people. http://www.elsalvador.com/mwedh/nota/nota_completa.asp?idCat=47860&idArt=9738005 and RT at least in El Salvador with claro service its hard to get,only sometimes in channel 8.its easer to see telesur.and most people just see channel 19 wich is rather neutral. And in mexico televisa group and tv azteca have an authentic pro us monopoly on television,televisa itself basically made peña nieto win the elections,they even made a film on it called "la dictadura perfecta". /info/en/?search=The_Perfect_Dictatorship this is not a forum,but when something its true its true and you cant let biased people outright lie,even if to destroy the lie you have to give information that favours a faction,its like saying that if a political party is proven to have commited crimes you shouldnt say that in a neutral newspaper because it could maybe benefict its oposition. 190.62.68.72 ( talk) 20:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)william ]M.hijo 190.62.68.72 ( talk) 20:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Axxion, please stop removing sourced info [6]. If you have to, move it to an appropriate section. But don't just remove it.
In respect to this edit [7] and the edit summary: "The role of Germany is dwelt on in the article". This is completely false. The word "Germany" appears three times in this huge article. Once in the lede. Once in a table of nominal GDPs. Once in the sources. I.e. The role of Germany is NOT dwelt in the article. Please stop making stuff up in your edit summaries. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
One more time, since this went unanswered. Germany does not get mentioned in the text, so there's no reason to put it in the lede. And Axxion. You broke 3RR just the other day and squaked through with a warning because you ceased edit warring for a day and a half. As soon as the edit warring report was closed with a warning you came back here and resumed edit warring again. And then you have the chutzpah to accuse other editors of "editwarring"? Please! Act in good faith. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Is the Greek debt crisis related to the new Cold War II? -- George Ho ( talk) 23:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Among the sources that believe there's a new Cold War, do they more often use the term "second Cold War" or "Cold War II"? Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 09:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Should the recent tensions regarding ISIS be added here as well ?-- MarcusPearl95 ( talk) 07:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is a well-sourced personal essay representing a point of view that has not been universally adopted. I don't think it has a place around here. 88.209.85.178 ( talk) 15:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I second this! I have said it before! This is not a universal POV just yet! Therefore I believe we should all have a vote on whether to delete this article or not! Kirby ( talk) 21:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The article's
too big. Per
WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Perhaps some of the content should be moved from the article to this talk page and, if consensus is not achieved for its inclusion, it could be left out (per
WP:ONUS).Failing that, I would support deletion. —
Ríco 05:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Deletion indeed! It's time for another RfC! This article I strongly believe needs to go! Kirby ( talk) 05:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, just give me time! I need to get something else done real quick! Kirby ( talk) 07:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
ALRIGHT EVERYONE!! I just put this article up for deletion! Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cold_War_II
Time to vote now! Kirby ( talk) 10:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I deleted this:
also known as the New Cold War, Cold War Redux, and Cold War 2.0,
In my edit summary, I simply pointed to my analysis here on this talk page. This is my argument here too.
Axxxion put it right back in. So per WP:BRD, I'd like to see a discussion here.
Wikipedia Verifiability policy requires consensus for inclusion (WP:ONUS), so I'd especially like to see if anybody else has an opinion. — Ríco 18:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I deleted this:
is a term that
This strikes me as so much masking the lack of wide use — an attempt to defend these "terms", that is written into the article — and a proof by assertion. The phrase is otherwise unnecessary. (Where's that Wikipedia bit about, 'methinks the lady doth protest too much,' backfiring?)
I see a lot of writing in the article that postulates the general acceptance of names, and "terms", that are used in the article — which are usually not capitalized in the sources, and are usually part of a question about whether it's happening, rather than an assertion that it is.
Are these adjacent words, "terms"? And even if they are construed as such — they're so infrequently used, I don't think what I deleted should be written into the article in a way that suggests that they're — not only not infrequent, but standard, per WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.
Axxxion put what I deleted right back in. So per WP:BRD, I'd like to see a discussion here.
Wikipedia Verifiability policy requires consensus for inclusion (WP:ONUS), so I'd especially like to see if anybody else has an opinion. — Ríco 19:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I put a lot of work into the article, trying to improve it, and then it looks like Axxxion comes along, finds a diff, makes a null edit to it, to recklessly destroy everything I've done [9] — quite a few edits — despite the big, pink warning boxes that stare you in the face if you try to do this. Why do I think that? Would any reasonable editor argue that this:
and even a "a proto- world war"
is better than this:
and even "a proto- world war"
Lazy, WP:Disruptive editing — Ríco 21:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this article for real? I got to it from the 'Western World' article and can't in all honesty believe there's a second Cold War and the only place I've heard it is from Wikipedia. I mean, just think about that. Isn't Wikipedia suppose to reflect information, not make it? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
174.70.56.254 (
talk) 06:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
False. Quite a big part of former Eastern Block belongs to Western Block. At the same time many people in Western Europe are Anti-American and support Russian nationalism. Xx236 ( talk) 09:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I still have doubts about calling this another Cold War. Of course, Wikipedia encourages using titles that are well known to users... not some, though. This is capitalist country vs capitalist country, not capitalist vs communist again. Still, Russia is more authoritarian under Putin, while the US... I don't wanna summarise where the US is heading towards. George Ho ( talk) 05:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
It's too soon to label this "Cold War II" or the "Second Cold War." It may be a cold war in the general sense, but labeling it as the successor to the 20th century conflict is too forced. The Cold War took place in a bipolar world, with the United States and the Soviet Union as the two undisputed superpowers competing for economic, ideological, military, and diplomatic influence on multiple continents and, at times, veering very close to direct war with one another. This article essentially covers Vladimir Putin's foreign policy and international reactions to it. As it stands, it simply does not make a strong case for the use of the term, and it might be better served with another title for the time being. -- Kdowns1453 ( talk) 16:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I think about creating an RFC on this. What do you say? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Kdowns1453 on this one! This article's title and maybe even the article itself should be put up to a vote on whether to move it into Russian foreign relations or NATO - Russia relations since this seems like a fork of an article at this point as Hollth pointed out to an extent or whether we should just delete this article altogether!
Either way, I think it's time for a support or oppose vote on this article on the basis of moving it or deleting it! Kirby ( talk) 21:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The title has been discussed since the article was created a year ago. The recent tensions between the United States and Russia is "Cold War II" has been debated, but very little discussion participation has been made. I created the RfC discussion to attract more people. Per WP:COMMONNAMES, an inaccurate or ambiguous title is often avoided, even when certain sources use either. Is "Cold War II" an accurate title, even when sources use the term to refer to recent US–Russia tensions? If not, what alternative title do you suggest? (As for deletion, if you believe in deleting the article, follow procedures of WP:AFD, or (if existent) go to the AFD nomination page.) George Ho ( talk) 09:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Alright everyone, take your opinions/positions on this here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cold_War_II from now on! Kirby ( talk) 14:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
But, George Ho you could still vote on the situation on the AFD none of the less! Kirby ( talk) 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
George Ho Sorry about that misunderstanding, I meant to say, Redirect rather than Move and I am aware that Redirect is not the same as Merge. Regards. Kirby ( talk) 00:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)