![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
I have an impression that this page is one huge and sloppy WP:SYNTH about a political buzzword. Without analysis of the concept. Just throw in a bunch of cases of Russian muscle flexing. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
"CWII" is a neologism; popular, but still brand-new. And the article must thorougly use sources which explicitly operate with the concept. Otherwise it is one huge WP:SYNTH; plausible, but still a WP:COATRACK. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no real consensus as of yet that a Cold War II has started. Many sources still predict the possibility of a Cold War II.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/10/03/rubio-us-barreling-toward-second-cold-war/73288022/ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
151.207.250.51 (
talk) 18:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Axxxion If you are going to revert, please explain and not blanket revert. Hollth ( talk) 05:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
If you keep reverting my edits, i'll be forced to escalate. I have cited policy to back up my edits. You have no presented any reason other than wp:idontlikeit and wp:useful. That you find my edits without merit is irrelevant if they are backed by policy. Hollth ( talk) 07:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Is it described somewhere as part of CWII? If not, it must be removed. If yes, this must be explicitly stated in the article. Otherwise its inclusion is WP:SYNTH/ WP:COATRACK. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S. This remark is valid for all events collected in the article: every single one must be supported by references which somehow associate it with the concept of CWII. For example, contention for Arctic. [ A really Cold :-) War, isn't it? ] Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:49, 7 December 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.
At first I would like to discuss the title again, but then perhaps now is not the time to resurface it until this discussion will be settled. Now that AFD discussion resulted into "kept", what about moving portions of the page into other pages, like NATO–Russia relations and Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin? Some people suggested the idea, so I will give others credit. --Relisted. George Ho ( talk) 04:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC) -- George Ho ( talk) 01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The title is OK. The content is not OK, see #Major WP:SYNTH section. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
YOu probably mean "merging", not moving. Good idea. If some pieces do subject to move, please be aware of {{ copied}} template, to properly handle WP copyright issues. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I copied large swathes from the NATO-Russia subsection and moved them to Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin. Is it desired that I delete moved content as a kind of merge? Hollth ( talk) 04:02, 29 November 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 cycle of adding and removing the infobox never ends. To avoid further warring, the need of an infobox shall be discussed. Shall the infobox be needed for the article? Why or why not? If so, which template shall be used? -- George Ho ( talk) 19:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The RfC tag was removed from the previous discussion due to the AfD discussion, which resulted as "kept". The title dispute shall be revisited now that the content issue is resolved. According to the closing rationale of the previous discussion, the title must not be implied as a successor to Cold War. As asked previously, does the title accurately reflect the content? If not, what alternative title do you propose? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Is Cold War II really the right title? New Cold War seems to be a more common term. Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 09:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been watching this unfold, so I made an edit to finish the reduction in article scope in keeping with the RM closure and the comments in the most recent RfC. I removed the content that focused on foreign relations (which was nearly everything except the lead), and copied it here so it can be merged elsewhere.
Content removed from talk page. See Draft:Cold War II. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Outside the lead, I left in two paragraphs that discuss terminology, but on examination they seem to contain poor sourcing and/or WP:OR, so I encourage anyone who wants to cut it down further. By the same token, if I removed any content that focuses on terminology, then I encourage anyone to restore it. Thanks, Sunrise ( talk) 08:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Shall I create Cold War II/version 2 consisting of one of older revisions, Sunrise? IP users keep reverting the article back to what it was. George Ho ( talk) 10:05, 7 March 2016 (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.
Sources like Newsweek, ZDNet, and Live Trading News say that the new "Cold War" may also refer to tensions between China and the United States. Now that the article is very small (previously referred to just Russia–U.S. relations), shall we add such information into the article with sources? Is any of those sources reliable? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
There are so many categories related to Putin or Russia. Which ones shall we remove? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone! Back for a little while and I just want to say that I am happy to see that this article has been cleaned up! Kirby ( talk) 02:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Sources may refer the word NDTV, Global Times, China.org.cn, The Diplomat, and The Guardian to tensions between China and Japan. Is any of sources reliable? Shall there be the "China vs. Japan" section, which would include the reliable sources? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:36, 28 October 2016 (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.
I recently added the section about Saudi Arabia and Iran. Do you approve the addition? Listing for RFC. George Ho ( talk) 03:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC) -- George Ho ( talk) 18:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
This thing is not Cold War II, i.e. not the second iteration of the global Cold War. Many sources cited there are specifically call it in a restricted meaning: "regional cold war", "cold war between SA and Iran" etc. Therefore this section is irrelevant in this article, and it should be moved per WP:UNDUE from here to Iran Saudi Arabia relations. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:43, 27 October 2016 (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.
More links were added to the "See also" section. Which links shall be retained, removed, and/or added? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep each link. See WP:Preserve. Suggestion, build sections in the article, then move each link into the relevant section. CuriousMind01 ( talk) 11:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Notified by RfC bot.
These three External Links seem reasonable for now:
Russia–United States relations
NATO–Russia relations
Russia–European Union relations
General articles like these can give readers plenty of additional information. I think several of the titles that were previously cut from the overlong External Links list will eventually be included in the article as it grows and discusses the various specific conflicts and issues encompassed by Cold War II. There will be numerous such items, and we should not try to shoehorn so many of them into the External list. They will find their way into the article itself.
DonFB (
talk) 06:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
"Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles.... The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.
Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. CuriousMind01 ( talk) 15:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I suggest keeping only the events referred to in the body of the article (e.g., the Ukrainian Crisis), plus related "future history" concepts like "World War III". This article is mostly about politicians and historians conjecturing about the concept, anyway; "see also" should be in that vein, in my opinion. Heterodidact ( talk) 05:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: The November 2015 decision to maintain this content as a separate article (from the original Cold War article) was an ontological and epistemological mistake. It implies the Cold War ceased at some stage, denying the harsh reality that it was a deliberate imperial American post-war policy, which was never abandoned, meaning Cold War I is still Cold War I, not version II or 2.0, no matter how much more trendy such a title might seem to people who think there is virtue only in the new, and everything old is disposable. That last characterisation pretty well sums up commercial media motivations for dressing up unadulterated bullshit in raiment they can claim makes it news. The same motivation drives academic careerism, which produces the papers talking about everything old as version 2.0, or something prefixed with 'neo'. Maintaining this article as a separate entry is a decision by Wikipedia’s editors to embrace a propaganda function rather than sticking to an encyclopaedic mission. In that context, it doesn’t really matter what links are added: on a commercial media site such links would include diet tips with cleavage photos, financial ‘services’ selling lies, and opportunistically auctioned web service ad spots for crap no one needs. Why not add some links to Russian porn stars (Wikipedia is big on porn stars these days), lurid tales about the Russian Mafia, and some ‘funny’ Vodka tomfoolery videos? If, however, this article is to be taken more seriously than any rational person should, it would be pretty obvious that links added should be self-explanatory: the link followed by a very concise explanation of its relevance to the topic. Invited to comment here as a disinterested observer by Legobot. Peter S Strempel | Talk 09:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I invite you to the ongoing RfC discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the US allegations of Russian hacking in elections as well as fears by other countries of the same thing happening in future to them should be mentioned. Not to mention, 35 Russian officials have been kicked out from USA in response to alleged hacking. This is creating new tensions. Also Turkey and Russia seem to be growing closer and USA has been shunned by them from Syria ceasefire talks. Turkey is also growing increasing irate at USA. I believe these things are notable for mentioning. 59.96.133.130 ( talk) 02:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems that everybody who suggests a new entry has a bit of language confusion. FUI: there was one and the only Cold War. At the same time, the term "cold war" has been widely used for any nonmilitant acute conflict between any two parties. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
OK. I have found the place where all possible "cold wars" belong: Cold war (general term). Even China vs. Japan mentioned above would go. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
About this addition... I evaluated the source and found that Newsweek mentioned Belarus and Ukraine. However, is the additional content worth of any value? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I found books using the phrase Mr.User200: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Shall I provide more? -- George Ho ( talk) 14:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Of couse, Lets EDIT. Mr.User200 ( talk) 12:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr.User200. I plan to add "Early usage" section. However, before being bold, I want another opinion. Maybe Staszek Lem? I found that earlier sources refer the term to Cold War (1979–85) and/or Cold War (1985–91).
Books using "Second Cold War":
I could use one essay by Michael Cox (academic) (maybe that's he?), but the mentioning was too brief. I'll re-evaluate some others at later time. I'm busy in real-life, so I might be back at unfortunately one of later times. I'll get back to this later. George Ho ( talk) 21:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course there can be accidental usage by some authors for previous surge of hostility. Per WP:UNDUE, there should be only mentions of them. The prevailing usage is about current time period. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Comatmebro and FOARP about the "Early usage" section proposal. George Ho ( talk) 08:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
About the prevailing usage itself, what about this one and that one? -- George Ho ( talk) 12:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Fixuture: Can you explain the addition about Syrian Civil War and the addition about content related to Russian interference on US election? I evaluated the sources and found no mention about the topic itself, "Cold War II". I thought about removing the additions, but I must discuss this with you first. Staszek Lem, what do you think? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
References
@ Hollth: What do you think about the recent additions by Fixuture, including this one? George Ho ( talk) 21:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
"" fixuture. Some of that I wouldn't consider to meet your own criteria honestly. The 'since the Cold War' doesn't imply to me a potential new Cold War. Though I can see how 'new Cold War-levels' may be construed that way. That aside, as I said before, I cannot see how making this about a potential future event does not fall foul of guidelines about future events, fringe theories and synth/original research. This simply does not have the sources and thought put into it in the same way peak oil, another future event, does. I think it's clearest if one removes the Cold War name from it and give it a more nondescript title; 'potential bad foreign relations between the US and X'. When painted that way, I think the issues become a little clearer. Hollth ( talk) 06:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I've been thinking. Rather than delete the content, what if we can move some content else to another article? I can't think one target at the moment, but I think moving one portion to another page is better than leaving the content alone as is. But I welcome your thoughts. We (if not me) have done it before when the article started as an article about just Russia–US relations. Maybe we can do it again. George Ho ( talk) 00:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Pinging Fixuture. 00:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
fixuture George Ho The issue with this page is it is a fringe theory with no academic consensus (it's that fringe there isn't agreement on who it refers to). This gives a secondary problem, it having a definitional problem (What is it? Are we in one?). As I see it, it's either about a potential future event, in which case it's speculation about future history, or it's about the current/developing events, in which case it goes in the US-Chinese, US-Russian relations pages and this is a pov fork. The relations articles already cover most of this info. A third option is for it to be about the term.
In my view, the best outcome would be to have "blah relations from 2010-present' article. True, it would significantly expand the scope, however, given there have been pov and OR concerns thorough this articles lifespan, I don't consider that a bad thing. It would be allow more room to expand than the overcrowded relations pages and gives much more context than this page - a happy middle ground. And it would still enable a part to say there have been comparisons to the Cold War with some believing this is a new one etc, others thinking this is not. That seems like it solves more of the issues. Hollth ( talk) 04:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
only some propagate the theory that current events and developments represent a new Cold War
In other words a fringe theory with no academic consensus. That leads to undue weight and pov.
most simply speculate about that
Again, because there's no consensus on it. And as speculation it should not be included as an article.
it's the usage/application of term or concept of "Cold War" to current events or developments which neither says whether or not we're in one nor what exactly it is.
Which is an editorialised, sensationalised and synth version of the relations articles; hence, a pov fork.
the worsening of relations with their associated events and developments need a separate article
That's precisely what I'm suggesting with US-country relation 2010-presetnt. That way it retains this article as about the term and doesn't have pov and OR issues, which this one does when it's not about the term (why the previous RfC limited the scope).
article is more open to also speculation about such developments in general
Which is not appropriate per guidelines and makes an article rife with fringe and synth/OR. Such speculation is inherently unverifiable. There is a very narrow range where speculation and future events are considered permissible. This is not within that range.
@ George Ho: It seems I explained myself poorly, sorry for that. I'm not suggesting deleting or renaming the article (I can see how you'd interpret me as meaning that). I'm saying, given this article should exist, it should be about the term. As per what I've said above, with other situations, it either includes information not appropriate for wikipedia by contravening guidelines and policies or it creates information that is appropriate for wikipedia, but is a pov content fork (which is very similar to what was established at the last RfC). I consider starting an article about the past decades foreign relations to be a better outcome for those parts of the article that are a pov fork. That assuages a significant amount of the pov, synth, OR, undue weight etc. and retains this article about the term. Hollth ( talk) 17:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
If the US/Russia Cold War II is between Russia and NATO + EU, then surely the US/China cold war is China Vs US + Japan + other relevant Asian actors. As a minimum, I would expect US/Japan as part of the 'anti-China' axis (for want of a better term). In light of this, could the US/China map be modified to include Japan as a US ally? -- Mrodowicz ( talk) 18:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
However, this is the only source. I don't want to emphasize minority opinions per WP:NPOV. You can search the sources discussing the possibility. However, they are not easy to evaluate and to find. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Unfortunately, Washington seems eager to start Cold War II, with Japan again acting as America’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in Asia. Except this time, it does not have an American at the steering wheel in Tokyo, and the blood-nationalist in charge is a descendant of the ruthless right, bent on settling old personal scores and putting Japanese weapons and military forces overseas.
Vietnam and Malaysia both have large scale disputes with China over the South China Sea and have close relations with the USA. They 100% should be included as American allies.
Ranger Aragorn ( talk) 02:10, 18 March 2017 (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 4 | Archive 5 |
I have an impression that this page is one huge and sloppy WP:SYNTH about a political buzzword. Without analysis of the concept. Just throw in a bunch of cases of Russian muscle flexing. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
"CWII" is a neologism; popular, but still brand-new. And the article must thorougly use sources which explicitly operate with the concept. Otherwise it is one huge WP:SYNTH; plausible, but still a WP:COATRACK. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no real consensus as of yet that a Cold War II has started. Many sources still predict the possibility of a Cold War II.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/10/03/rubio-us-barreling-toward-second-cold-war/73288022/ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
151.207.250.51 (
talk) 18:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Axxxion If you are going to revert, please explain and not blanket revert. Hollth ( talk) 05:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
If you keep reverting my edits, i'll be forced to escalate. I have cited policy to back up my edits. You have no presented any reason other than wp:idontlikeit and wp:useful. That you find my edits without merit is irrelevant if they are backed by policy. Hollth ( talk) 07:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Is it described somewhere as part of CWII? If not, it must be removed. If yes, this must be explicitly stated in the article. Otherwise its inclusion is WP:SYNTH/ WP:COATRACK. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S. This remark is valid for all events collected in the article: every single one must be supported by references which somehow associate it with the concept of CWII. For example, contention for Arctic. [ A really Cold :-) War, isn't it? ] Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:49, 7 December 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.
At first I would like to discuss the title again, but then perhaps now is not the time to resurface it until this discussion will be settled. Now that AFD discussion resulted into "kept", what about moving portions of the page into other pages, like NATO–Russia relations and Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin? Some people suggested the idea, so I will give others credit. --Relisted. George Ho ( talk) 04:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC) -- George Ho ( talk) 01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The title is OK. The content is not OK, see #Major WP:SYNTH section. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
YOu probably mean "merging", not moving. Good idea. If some pieces do subject to move, please be aware of {{ copied}} template, to properly handle WP copyright issues. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I copied large swathes from the NATO-Russia subsection and moved them to Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin. Is it desired that I delete moved content as a kind of merge? Hollth ( talk) 04:02, 29 November 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 cycle of adding and removing the infobox never ends. To avoid further warring, the need of an infobox shall be discussed. Shall the infobox be needed for the article? Why or why not? If so, which template shall be used? -- George Ho ( talk) 19:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The RfC tag was removed from the previous discussion due to the AfD discussion, which resulted as "kept". The title dispute shall be revisited now that the content issue is resolved. According to the closing rationale of the previous discussion, the title must not be implied as a successor to Cold War. As asked previously, does the title accurately reflect the content? If not, what alternative title do you propose? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Is Cold War II really the right title? New Cold War seems to be a more common term. Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 09:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been watching this unfold, so I made an edit to finish the reduction in article scope in keeping with the RM closure and the comments in the most recent RfC. I removed the content that focused on foreign relations (which was nearly everything except the lead), and copied it here so it can be merged elsewhere.
Content removed from talk page. See Draft:Cold War II. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Outside the lead, I left in two paragraphs that discuss terminology, but on examination they seem to contain poor sourcing and/or WP:OR, so I encourage anyone who wants to cut it down further. By the same token, if I removed any content that focuses on terminology, then I encourage anyone to restore it. Thanks, Sunrise ( talk) 08:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Shall I create Cold War II/version 2 consisting of one of older revisions, Sunrise? IP users keep reverting the article back to what it was. George Ho ( talk) 10:05, 7 March 2016 (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.
Sources like Newsweek, ZDNet, and Live Trading News say that the new "Cold War" may also refer to tensions between China and the United States. Now that the article is very small (previously referred to just Russia–U.S. relations), shall we add such information into the article with sources? Is any of those sources reliable? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
There are so many categories related to Putin or Russia. Which ones shall we remove? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone! Back for a little while and I just want to say that I am happy to see that this article has been cleaned up! Kirby ( talk) 02:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Sources may refer the word NDTV, Global Times, China.org.cn, The Diplomat, and The Guardian to tensions between China and Japan. Is any of sources reliable? Shall there be the "China vs. Japan" section, which would include the reliable sources? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:36, 28 October 2016 (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.
I recently added the section about Saudi Arabia and Iran. Do you approve the addition? Listing for RFC. George Ho ( talk) 03:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC) -- George Ho ( talk) 18:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
This thing is not Cold War II, i.e. not the second iteration of the global Cold War. Many sources cited there are specifically call it in a restricted meaning: "regional cold war", "cold war between SA and Iran" etc. Therefore this section is irrelevant in this article, and it should be moved per WP:UNDUE from here to Iran Saudi Arabia relations. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:43, 27 October 2016 (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.
More links were added to the "See also" section. Which links shall be retained, removed, and/or added? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep each link. See WP:Preserve. Suggestion, build sections in the article, then move each link into the relevant section. CuriousMind01 ( talk) 11:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Notified by RfC bot.
These three External Links seem reasonable for now:
Russia–United States relations
NATO–Russia relations
Russia–European Union relations
General articles like these can give readers plenty of additional information. I think several of the titles that were previously cut from the overlong External Links list will eventually be included in the article as it grows and discusses the various specific conflicts and issues encompassed by Cold War II. There will be numerous such items, and we should not try to shoehorn so many of them into the External list. They will find their way into the article itself.
DonFB (
talk) 06:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
"Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles.... The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.
Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. CuriousMind01 ( talk) 15:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I suggest keeping only the events referred to in the body of the article (e.g., the Ukrainian Crisis), plus related "future history" concepts like "World War III". This article is mostly about politicians and historians conjecturing about the concept, anyway; "see also" should be in that vein, in my opinion. Heterodidact ( talk) 05:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: The November 2015 decision to maintain this content as a separate article (from the original Cold War article) was an ontological and epistemological mistake. It implies the Cold War ceased at some stage, denying the harsh reality that it was a deliberate imperial American post-war policy, which was never abandoned, meaning Cold War I is still Cold War I, not version II or 2.0, no matter how much more trendy such a title might seem to people who think there is virtue only in the new, and everything old is disposable. That last characterisation pretty well sums up commercial media motivations for dressing up unadulterated bullshit in raiment they can claim makes it news. The same motivation drives academic careerism, which produces the papers talking about everything old as version 2.0, or something prefixed with 'neo'. Maintaining this article as a separate entry is a decision by Wikipedia’s editors to embrace a propaganda function rather than sticking to an encyclopaedic mission. In that context, it doesn’t really matter what links are added: on a commercial media site such links would include diet tips with cleavage photos, financial ‘services’ selling lies, and opportunistically auctioned web service ad spots for crap no one needs. Why not add some links to Russian porn stars (Wikipedia is big on porn stars these days), lurid tales about the Russian Mafia, and some ‘funny’ Vodka tomfoolery videos? If, however, this article is to be taken more seriously than any rational person should, it would be pretty obvious that links added should be self-explanatory: the link followed by a very concise explanation of its relevance to the topic. Invited to comment here as a disinterested observer by Legobot. Peter S Strempel | Talk 09:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I invite you to the ongoing RfC discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the US allegations of Russian hacking in elections as well as fears by other countries of the same thing happening in future to them should be mentioned. Not to mention, 35 Russian officials have been kicked out from USA in response to alleged hacking. This is creating new tensions. Also Turkey and Russia seem to be growing closer and USA has been shunned by them from Syria ceasefire talks. Turkey is also growing increasing irate at USA. I believe these things are notable for mentioning. 59.96.133.130 ( talk) 02:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems that everybody who suggests a new entry has a bit of language confusion. FUI: there was one and the only Cold War. At the same time, the term "cold war" has been widely used for any nonmilitant acute conflict between any two parties. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
OK. I have found the place where all possible "cold wars" belong: Cold war (general term). Even China vs. Japan mentioned above would go. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
About this addition... I evaluated the source and found that Newsweek mentioned Belarus and Ukraine. However, is the additional content worth of any value? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I found books using the phrase Mr.User200: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Shall I provide more? -- George Ho ( talk) 14:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Of couse, Lets EDIT. Mr.User200 ( talk) 12:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr.User200. I plan to add "Early usage" section. However, before being bold, I want another opinion. Maybe Staszek Lem? I found that earlier sources refer the term to Cold War (1979–85) and/or Cold War (1985–91).
Books using "Second Cold War":
I could use one essay by Michael Cox (academic) (maybe that's he?), but the mentioning was too brief. I'll re-evaluate some others at later time. I'm busy in real-life, so I might be back at unfortunately one of later times. I'll get back to this later. George Ho ( talk) 21:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course there can be accidental usage by some authors for previous surge of hostility. Per WP:UNDUE, there should be only mentions of them. The prevailing usage is about current time period. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Comatmebro and FOARP about the "Early usage" section proposal. George Ho ( talk) 08:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
About the prevailing usage itself, what about this one and that one? -- George Ho ( talk) 12:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Fixuture: Can you explain the addition about Syrian Civil War and the addition about content related to Russian interference on US election? I evaluated the sources and found no mention about the topic itself, "Cold War II". I thought about removing the additions, but I must discuss this with you first. Staszek Lem, what do you think? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
References
@ Hollth: What do you think about the recent additions by Fixuture, including this one? George Ho ( talk) 21:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
"" fixuture. Some of that I wouldn't consider to meet your own criteria honestly. The 'since the Cold War' doesn't imply to me a potential new Cold War. Though I can see how 'new Cold War-levels' may be construed that way. That aside, as I said before, I cannot see how making this about a potential future event does not fall foul of guidelines about future events, fringe theories and synth/original research. This simply does not have the sources and thought put into it in the same way peak oil, another future event, does. I think it's clearest if one removes the Cold War name from it and give it a more nondescript title; 'potential bad foreign relations between the US and X'. When painted that way, I think the issues become a little clearer. Hollth ( talk) 06:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I've been thinking. Rather than delete the content, what if we can move some content else to another article? I can't think one target at the moment, but I think moving one portion to another page is better than leaving the content alone as is. But I welcome your thoughts. We (if not me) have done it before when the article started as an article about just Russia–US relations. Maybe we can do it again. George Ho ( talk) 00:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Pinging Fixuture. 00:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
fixuture George Ho The issue with this page is it is a fringe theory with no academic consensus (it's that fringe there isn't agreement on who it refers to). This gives a secondary problem, it having a definitional problem (What is it? Are we in one?). As I see it, it's either about a potential future event, in which case it's speculation about future history, or it's about the current/developing events, in which case it goes in the US-Chinese, US-Russian relations pages and this is a pov fork. The relations articles already cover most of this info. A third option is for it to be about the term.
In my view, the best outcome would be to have "blah relations from 2010-present' article. True, it would significantly expand the scope, however, given there have been pov and OR concerns thorough this articles lifespan, I don't consider that a bad thing. It would be allow more room to expand than the overcrowded relations pages and gives much more context than this page - a happy middle ground. And it would still enable a part to say there have been comparisons to the Cold War with some believing this is a new one etc, others thinking this is not. That seems like it solves more of the issues. Hollth ( talk) 04:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
only some propagate the theory that current events and developments represent a new Cold War
In other words a fringe theory with no academic consensus. That leads to undue weight and pov.
most simply speculate about that
Again, because there's no consensus on it. And as speculation it should not be included as an article.
it's the usage/application of term or concept of "Cold War" to current events or developments which neither says whether or not we're in one nor what exactly it is.
Which is an editorialised, sensationalised and synth version of the relations articles; hence, a pov fork.
the worsening of relations with their associated events and developments need a separate article
That's precisely what I'm suggesting with US-country relation 2010-presetnt. That way it retains this article as about the term and doesn't have pov and OR issues, which this one does when it's not about the term (why the previous RfC limited the scope).
article is more open to also speculation about such developments in general
Which is not appropriate per guidelines and makes an article rife with fringe and synth/OR. Such speculation is inherently unverifiable. There is a very narrow range where speculation and future events are considered permissible. This is not within that range.
@ George Ho: It seems I explained myself poorly, sorry for that. I'm not suggesting deleting or renaming the article (I can see how you'd interpret me as meaning that). I'm saying, given this article should exist, it should be about the term. As per what I've said above, with other situations, it either includes information not appropriate for wikipedia by contravening guidelines and policies or it creates information that is appropriate for wikipedia, but is a pov content fork (which is very similar to what was established at the last RfC). I consider starting an article about the past decades foreign relations to be a better outcome for those parts of the article that are a pov fork. That assuages a significant amount of the pov, synth, OR, undue weight etc. and retains this article about the term. Hollth ( talk) 17:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
If the US/Russia Cold War II is between Russia and NATO + EU, then surely the US/China cold war is China Vs US + Japan + other relevant Asian actors. As a minimum, I would expect US/Japan as part of the 'anti-China' axis (for want of a better term). In light of this, could the US/China map be modified to include Japan as a US ally? -- Mrodowicz ( talk) 18:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
However, this is the only source. I don't want to emphasize minority opinions per WP:NPOV. You can search the sources discussing the possibility. However, they are not easy to evaluate and to find. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Unfortunately, Washington seems eager to start Cold War II, with Japan again acting as America’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in Asia. Except this time, it does not have an American at the steering wheel in Tokyo, and the blood-nationalist in charge is a descendant of the ruthless right, bent on settling old personal scores and putting Japanese weapons and military forces overseas.
Vietnam and Malaysia both have large scale disputes with China over the South China Sea and have close relations with the USA. They 100% should be included as American allies.
Ranger Aragorn ( talk) 02:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)