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 | → | Archive 8 |
Does it deserves mention?? Mr.User200 ( talk) 18:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Pinging I'm on day 4 about this addition. I checked the CNN article, disregarded the misleading headlines, and found no connection between strikes on the Syrian base and the topic. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
As involved, I'm closing this. Consensus says to completely remove the whole section. 2nd AfD nomination is suggested in the discussion, but that's out of the scope of this RfC. ( non-admin closure) -- George Ho ( talk) 13:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The consensus said in a
previous discussion "that the article should be limited in scope to the usage of the phrase "Cold War II"
." Then the section "
Novel risks and measures for preventing escalation" was added on 5 February 2017 into the "Cold War II" article. The content was discussed about one month ago; the
discussion went stale for a few weeks without resolution. To resolve this, shall the section be completely kept, completely removed, or completely moved into another article? Why or why not? If neither, what is a better alternative? --Relisting.
George Ho (
talk) 06:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC) --
George Ho (
talk) 12:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
"Novel risks and measures for preventing escalation" section (copied from
this version)
|
---|
The current world differs from the world during the original Cold War and decision-makers might make problematic decisions based upon their knowledge of this period. citation needed US arms expert Theodore Postol warns that the 1995 Norwegian rocket incident could be averted to become a nuclear catastrophe as relations between Russian and the United States were relatively trusting in 1995 and that if a similar incident occurred today it could quite possibly lead to a nuclear exchange. [1] [2] European Leadership Network (ELN) chair and former British defense minister Des Browne notes that that especially civilian pilots don't know how to deal with risky encounters between Eastern and Western troops that according to an ELN report are becoming more common and mainly occur in the air and that "one of these incidents could easily escalate". He also states that there's a "need to find a mechanism in which we can talk at the highest level". Brown, former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and former US Senator and veteran of international disarmament policy Sam Nunn jointly recommend "that reliable communication channels exist in the event of serious incidents". Head of NATO Allied Command Operations in Europe Philip Breedlove calls for a new " red telephone". [2] Nunn states: [3] [2]
Nunn also states that hybrid warfare makes everything − including tactical nuclear weapons − more dangerous. [2] US diplomat Richard Burt confirmed that hybrid warfare raises the danger of nuclear weapons being used as "both American and Russian nuclear arms are essentially on a kind of hair-trigger alert" with "both sides have a nuclear posture where land-based missiles could be authorized for use in less than 15 minutes" and the situation of hybrid warfare being "a dangerous state of play". [2] Ivanov points out that "in the Cold War, we created mechanisms of security. A huge number of treaties and documents helped us to avoid a big and serious military crash. Now the threat of a war is higher than during the Cold War". [2] Similarly former United States Secretary of Defense William Perry states that progress made after the fall of the Soviet Union to reduce the chance of a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia was getting unravelled and estimates that the probability of a nuclear calamity would be higher today than during the cold war. [4] [5] Decision-makers might assume that warfare between some of the world's major powers can be limited to fourth-generation, asymmetric or hybrid warfare because − for instance − such might seem to be the most rational way of conduct. References
|
@ Fixuture: Also, what to do with the additions you made? None of the sources explicitly say "Cold War II" or "new Cold War" or anything like that. I thought about removing those, but I'd like your opinions please. -- George Ho ( talk) 13:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
And the ones in "See also" section, including those two? -- George Ho ( talk) 13:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, I'll leave the al-Assad quote alone but still want to remove the whole paragraph about hacking the elections. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Staszek Lem and Hollth: I added a paragraph about Trump's earlier views about China. However, this article proves the contrary. May I use the article to add the info? If not, what else can I do with the paragraph about Trump's views on China? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Mr.User200: May you please remove the additions? The sources say just "Cold War" without using either "Cold War II" or "Second Cold War". They also do not verify the connection between the remarks and the topic. -- George Ho ( talk) 15:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, I removed the content as synthesis of sources, i.e. original research. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Laytar1, have you considered looking for sources verifying the connection between the topic and the United Kingdom, the European Union, or the Commonwealth of Independent States? I reverted your good-faith addition in the lead. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I need help on transferring or adding quotes about the topic into
q:Cold War II or
q:New Cold War, both of which are nonexistent at the moment. --
George Ho (
talk) 17:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC); both created, 20:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@ GAJJR: How does this article verify the connection between "Cold War II" and the China-US relations when you added the content? I checked the source and have not found "Cold War II" and similar terms. "since the Cold War" doesn't count. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
More discussion at my talk page. Meanwhile, the addition was self-reverted. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The "
Group of Two", the proposed "special relationship" between the US and China, was added in the
See also section. Edited: Should the "Group of Two" a) remain as part of the "See also" section, b) be moved to the "United States vs. China" section as a hatnote, or c) be removed from the article? Modified and listed for the RfC. --
George Ho (
talk) 07:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Is the addition acceptable? --
George Ho (
talk) 05:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
OnWikiNo, I see that you replaced "World War III" in the 2017 North Korea crisis article, previously added by Ralphjerald, with "Cold War II". Moreover, you added the NK crisis into this article. Why not removing "World War III", i.e. revert Ralphjerald's addition of the link, instead of replacing it? I don't see the connection between "Cold War II" and this year's NK crisis, especially without sources, unless I overlooked something. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The article seems more about commentaries than real happenings of substance. Expulsion of American diplomats for example ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-diplomats-idUSKBN1AD1DV), other disputes including relation to allegation of Russian involvement in 2016 elections and expulsion of Russian diplomats under Obama which has also been compared to Cold War ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/31/cold-war-20-power-plays-us-russia-relations-putin-rewriting/). Along with the sanctions, these have marked a new low in their relationships. I am surprised why it isn't there in the article. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 00:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Buzz105, I want to know why you removed " World War III" from the "See also" section. You didn't explain in your edit summary while you removed it. May you please reinsert it and then discuss whether to retain or remove the link to "World War III"? Thanks. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that one of the most prominent features of the old Cold War was the imminent possibility, all during that "war," of a sudden unraveling into World War III at any moment. Fortunately, at least so far, I do not believe we are currently facing such an imminent peril. (Though one never knows these days, with all of the highly "sane" people with their fingers hovering over nuclear launch keys!) I think I'm going to go talk a bit more about this at some point on the Cold War II article's talk page. Oops, I already am on that article's talk page! Cheers, Warrenfrank ( talk) 22:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
KD53, you recently replaced "World War III" with three links related to Russia, one of which is already linked in prose. Per WP:SEEALSO, the links should not be repeated in the "See also" section. I changed the links back to what it was, but I also moved the links to one of other sections as part of a hatnote. I hope this is an acceptable edit. Isn't it? -- George Ho ( talk) 21:11, 8 September 2017 (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 current name of the section is " EU and NATO members vs. Russia". Should the name remain as is or be renamed? If the latter, should the section header be renamed to "United States vs. Russia"? If not, what alternative section name do you suggest? (Update): The person using an IP address renamed the section to its current name back in Dec. 2016. -- George Ho ( talk) 07:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC) updated, --19:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Axxxion. May you please explain the addition of the inaccessible FT article? I don't know whether the source explicitly mentions "Cold War II", "New Cold War", or any other interchangeable terms. Without knowing what the source says, I question the need to add the recent info. Thanks. George Ho ( talk) 11:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I've made a change to section titles:
The "vs. Russia" part implicitly suggests and could be misconstrued, as if the EU and NATO were supposedly against Russia and its people (versus), which is not accurate. Nevertheless, I don't know how to otherwise better characterise the chasm, as I don't support using versus (vs.) at all. There should then be more descriptive words that would tell, that the relationship is very adversarial, but since both sides see the other side as the belligerent part, then it's difficult to make the section title neutral. And Versus can be willfully or maliciously misconstrued. - Mardus / talk 15:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Other editors: If need be, revert, or change to a more appropriate section title in order to maintain neutrality. - Mardus / talk 15:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Update: Looking at the US–China section, then it looks like section titles were supposed to point out the adversity, but the use of vs. there can also be misconstrued as 'one party against another party'.
The model article could be the original Cold War article, where top-level section titles (surrounded by two equals signs in code) do not directly attribute who the main adversaries were, but each section lists the main stages of the conflict, each of which contains the most important events. - Mardus / talk 16:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Someone worried about 'led' in 'Russia-led' and 'China-led'. Now, since there are Russian sphere of influence (Belarus, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, so-called 'DPR' and 'LPR'), Chinese sphere of influence (Nepal and, probably, Pakistan) et mixed sphere of influence (Venezula, North Korea, Iran and Syria) I doubt that 'led' should be removed, no matter what the real degree of importance, powerfulness and independence of countries I have mentioned is. It makes sense to add information about allies of China & Russia into the article instead. — Напечатейтездесьпсевдоним. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.53.169.195 ( talk) 17:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Should a section on the Skripal Poisoning be added? Looking at the Russian Embassy Twitter, it is the closest we have to a declared Cold War II [1]. It's perhaps the biggest diplomatic upset between the West and Russia since the end of the Cold War. Extensive news reporting saying as much, also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondsiberian ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Iedylstudein, may you please explain the addition of the link to " Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal" and linking the poison to this? Per MOS:ALSO, the links between the two should be relevant, but I don't see how. Thanks. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Do we have to add/mention Cold War II in the see also section? Many sources and prominent politicians mention the term Cold War II. What is your opinion. Iedylstudein ( talk) 02:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this information should be added, as it has been all over the news in the last few months. NATO-Rissian relations are said to be an all time low since the first cold war Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. I have given just one source from reliable CNN but you can find multiple sources if you add it, and I really think this information should be added:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/26/europe/full-list-of-russian-diplomats-expelled-over-s-intl/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeptchjijihhtgghbyjhhmkkkl ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@ LeoLavish: May you please explain the addition of the "Brazil" section? I evaluated the following sources:
Only this source uses "nova guerra fria", even when I don't understand Portuguese. However, I searched for "fria"; none of other sources uses it. Moreover, the addition violates WP:NOR and seems to be more suitable for Wikiversity, which now has v:Cold War II. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I have tagged the section with releveant-inline. This is about hostility in international relations, not internal civil problems of any country. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 18:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
It's been commented that deterioration of relations after Salisbury attack might lead to a new Cold War, some already have described it so. It can be easily found on the internet, so I don't think I'll need to show it. But if you do need it, I'll show some sources here. Should the deterioration in relations following the attack be added to the article? MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 00:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
New Zealand Herald... I don't know why and how it interprets a tweet post from an English-language Twitter blue-badged account. The tweet post doesn't exactly say "Cold War II" or similar to that, and even "cold weather" is a metaphor to growing tensions between the two relations... or maybe it's making a satire. If you are going to use the NZ Herald, there must be other publications having similar interpretations. Otherwise, let's avoid using that piece at this time.
Haaretz's article headline is misleading as well; it uses Associated Press article, which only says "Cold War-style lows" but doesn't use "Cold War II" (or similar). News Herald uses the same article as well but uses a different headline (and has more paragraphs after the end of Haaretz copy). Somehow, they have synthesized AP articles, like this one (copied into CTV News). Here's a tip: Google (i.e. search) one of the paragraphs or sentences, and see where it comes from or how other publications variably use AP articles.
I added the headline from The Jamestown Foundation article into Wikiquote; the Jamestown article doesn't mention "Cold War II".
WaPo article was taken from another AP article, both of which actually says that Russians accused the US of starting another Cold War just to protect its "waning" global influence. This AP article made no connections between the poisoning and the article topic.
I don't know what to make out of the academic Wesley Wark's op-ed piece. Without other sources making the connection explicitly, I would consider using the source WP:undue. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The lead should be completely written. Some statements should be moved into body. Also, I question the status and existence of the topic. Russian politicians and NATO and some academics doubt that the growing tensions are the signs of another "Cold War", but then others differ. Still, the lead sounds as if Cold War II is happening now. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Jdg1999 and Anonymous427, may you please explain the additions of the image of Trump and the map? I think they are misleading images and do not accurately represent the topic well. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
George Ho, The image of U.S. president Donald J. Trump addressing the nation over the authorisation of missile strikes in Syria was added because i strongly believe on reasonable grounds that the U.S. Involvement including the involvement of the UK, France and Russia play also a major role in this new Cold War (which is undeniably a new second Cold War, please have a thorough and careful look at the facts which does support so) but however i have chosen now to withdraw the addition of mine due to other conflicting reasons. I also firmly believe and highly recommend however that the image posted by Anonymous427 does stay as it is both a relevant source of information regarding NATO nations and to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdg1999 ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
China's official press agency has cited Chinese ambassador to US as calling on US to "abandon its Cold War and zero-sum mentality". However, it doesn't detail the exact statement where he said it. Is it enough to add it? I have doubts over it since it doesn't quote the exact statement, though it is the official Chinese news agency. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 18:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Anyway this is unrelated, but let's discuss it here. Panetta called the recent deterioration in relations with Russia as "a new chapter in Cold War". ( https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/were-in-new-chapter-of-cold-war-with-russia-former-defense-secretary-leon-panetta.html). Doesn't say new Cold War, be mindful of that. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 19:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't North Korea tie in somewhere here? I'd say the fear of North Korea is far greater than the fear of China doing anything (although DPRK is starting to quieten down a bit ). decearing egg < talk> 02:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
A NEW COLD war could set in between China and the United States as tensions over North Korea pit the giant countries against each other.. [22] says DPRK is involved. [23] is titled
North Korea: Prelude to Cold War II?. DPRK is definitely involved here. decearing egg < talk> 02:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
This section is very long and should be split into subheadings. -- Decearing egg ( talk) 00:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate your addition, Marked Man 808. However, neither sources use the term "cold war" as connection to US-China trade war. I thought about reverting the addition, but first I'd like to discuss it please. Also, have you considered searching for reliable sources mentioning the supposed connection? Thanks. George Ho ( talk) 18:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The Cold War isn't an out right military conflict, it is a period of tension between super powers. See the original
cold war article [[
User talk:George Ho, it included numerous instruments other than proxy wars, like sports, the space race, diplomatic steps, politics, (Soviets used to mate the US look in the media due to racism in the country in the 1960s) and similar trade wars. The super powers competes in many ways, not just through military conflict which may be a part of this "period of tension" but not the only thing in it. Economics is a major part of the cold war, and the US trade war is to prevent China from over taking US as an economic power. Also economic crisis including trade restrictions, sanctions, etc many times lead to out right military conflicts as in some cases in the original cold war. By that definition the trade war most certainly fits the criteria for addition in the article
Cold War II article and highly increases the level of tension between US and China.
Marked Man 808 (
talk) 04:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok George Ho, added another source (85) that mentions a connection between the cold war 2 and the trade war, you can find more sources linking them if you search too. Marked Man 808 ( talk) 07:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I do, but since you are an older user than me, do what you feel is right. Also the concept of cold war 2 itself is op-ed, I never heard it or read about it in any form of news media.], most of the world leaders like Obama, Putin and Xi Jinping denied it. Ots hardly ever talked about in news channels and papers as the original cold war was. The Ukraine invasion by Russia, the Syrian air strikes by US have revived the Russo American tensions, but no news media states these are acts of a new cold war either. But I think if they are added, so should the Sino-Amerivcan trade war, which considerably increases the Sino-American tension and should be at least mentioned. But I leave the choice to you. Marked Man 808 ( talk) 03:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
the whole article in its current form describes the term Cold War II, proposes the term, lists notable usages of the term and examples and arguments on if it is or isn't applicable term for current situation. There's hardly anything on east-west tensions.
I suggest to change the description from "This article is about present tensions between the East and West" to "This article is about terminology" or "This article is about political views of wikipedia community" Duhgo ( talk) 19:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, CapLiber. Why do you think are the maps appropriate as lead images seen in this edit? Also, what about the captions claiming causes, which I think is undetermined in the whole article? George Ho ( talk) 05:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
US–Russia tensions have increased in 2014 with international sanctions being applied to Russia after the Ukrainian crisis," and "
US–China tensions have increased in 2018 with the new trade policies of President Trump resulting in the trade war." If they are not discussing causes, then I guess they must have referred to what events would lead to Cold War II, right? As for whether or not Cold War II is a "single conflict", are there sources claiming it's a double conflict? George Ho ( talk) 10:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The "See also" is getting expanded over time, like recently. Is the amount right, excessive, insufficient, or what? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Funkquake: I see you have added a lot of links in the section. May you please explain the additions? Thanks. George Ho ( talk) 06:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I thought it might be some examples of giving the exra information for the section, but if I am wrong, fine, I was trying to issue the last edit, my honest facts about the article, although, it was a free honest edit, I guess the website has the right to freely delete anyone's truthful facts even if one believes or knows it is not factual, that's Wikipedia anyone to freely edit and delete for the taking. I was mot trying to exceed the links and hopefully split the row like the Cold War article. If you want to not have what I edited then you are freely to dispute and delete it.I was just trying help part of the article. Funkquake ( talk) 21:24, 13 September 2018 (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 | → | Archive 8 |
Does it deserves mention?? Mr.User200 ( talk) 18:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Pinging I'm on day 4 about this addition. I checked the CNN article, disregarded the misleading headlines, and found no connection between strikes on the Syrian base and the topic. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
As involved, I'm closing this. Consensus says to completely remove the whole section. 2nd AfD nomination is suggested in the discussion, but that's out of the scope of this RfC. ( non-admin closure) -- George Ho ( talk) 13:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The consensus said in a
previous discussion "that the article should be limited in scope to the usage of the phrase "Cold War II"
." Then the section "
Novel risks and measures for preventing escalation" was added on 5 February 2017 into the "Cold War II" article. The content was discussed about one month ago; the
discussion went stale for a few weeks without resolution. To resolve this, shall the section be completely kept, completely removed, or completely moved into another article? Why or why not? If neither, what is a better alternative? --Relisting.
George Ho (
talk) 06:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC) --
George Ho (
talk) 12:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
"Novel risks and measures for preventing escalation" section (copied from
this version)
|
---|
The current world differs from the world during the original Cold War and decision-makers might make problematic decisions based upon their knowledge of this period. citation needed US arms expert Theodore Postol warns that the 1995 Norwegian rocket incident could be averted to become a nuclear catastrophe as relations between Russian and the United States were relatively trusting in 1995 and that if a similar incident occurred today it could quite possibly lead to a nuclear exchange. [1] [2] European Leadership Network (ELN) chair and former British defense minister Des Browne notes that that especially civilian pilots don't know how to deal with risky encounters between Eastern and Western troops that according to an ELN report are becoming more common and mainly occur in the air and that "one of these incidents could easily escalate". He also states that there's a "need to find a mechanism in which we can talk at the highest level". Brown, former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and former US Senator and veteran of international disarmament policy Sam Nunn jointly recommend "that reliable communication channels exist in the event of serious incidents". Head of NATO Allied Command Operations in Europe Philip Breedlove calls for a new " red telephone". [2] Nunn states: [3] [2]
Nunn also states that hybrid warfare makes everything − including tactical nuclear weapons − more dangerous. [2] US diplomat Richard Burt confirmed that hybrid warfare raises the danger of nuclear weapons being used as "both American and Russian nuclear arms are essentially on a kind of hair-trigger alert" with "both sides have a nuclear posture where land-based missiles could be authorized for use in less than 15 minutes" and the situation of hybrid warfare being "a dangerous state of play". [2] Ivanov points out that "in the Cold War, we created mechanisms of security. A huge number of treaties and documents helped us to avoid a big and serious military crash. Now the threat of a war is higher than during the Cold War". [2] Similarly former United States Secretary of Defense William Perry states that progress made after the fall of the Soviet Union to reduce the chance of a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia was getting unravelled and estimates that the probability of a nuclear calamity would be higher today than during the cold war. [4] [5] Decision-makers might assume that warfare between some of the world's major powers can be limited to fourth-generation, asymmetric or hybrid warfare because − for instance − such might seem to be the most rational way of conduct. References
|
@ Fixuture: Also, what to do with the additions you made? None of the sources explicitly say "Cold War II" or "new Cold War" or anything like that. I thought about removing those, but I'd like your opinions please. -- George Ho ( talk) 13:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
And the ones in "See also" section, including those two? -- George Ho ( talk) 13:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, I'll leave the al-Assad quote alone but still want to remove the whole paragraph about hacking the elections. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Staszek Lem and Hollth: I added a paragraph about Trump's earlier views about China. However, this article proves the contrary. May I use the article to add the info? If not, what else can I do with the paragraph about Trump's views on China? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Mr.User200: May you please remove the additions? The sources say just "Cold War" without using either "Cold War II" or "Second Cold War". They also do not verify the connection between the remarks and the topic. -- George Ho ( talk) 15:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, I removed the content as synthesis of sources, i.e. original research. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Laytar1, have you considered looking for sources verifying the connection between the topic and the United Kingdom, the European Union, or the Commonwealth of Independent States? I reverted your good-faith addition in the lead. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I need help on transferring or adding quotes about the topic into
q:Cold War II or
q:New Cold War, both of which are nonexistent at the moment. --
George Ho (
talk) 17:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC); both created, 20:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@ GAJJR: How does this article verify the connection between "Cold War II" and the China-US relations when you added the content? I checked the source and have not found "Cold War II" and similar terms. "since the Cold War" doesn't count. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
More discussion at my talk page. Meanwhile, the addition was self-reverted. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The "
Group of Two", the proposed "special relationship" between the US and China, was added in the
See also section. Edited: Should the "Group of Two" a) remain as part of the "See also" section, b) be moved to the "United States vs. China" section as a hatnote, or c) be removed from the article? Modified and listed for the RfC. --
George Ho (
talk) 07:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Is the addition acceptable? --
George Ho (
talk) 05:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
OnWikiNo, I see that you replaced "World War III" in the 2017 North Korea crisis article, previously added by Ralphjerald, with "Cold War II". Moreover, you added the NK crisis into this article. Why not removing "World War III", i.e. revert Ralphjerald's addition of the link, instead of replacing it? I don't see the connection between "Cold War II" and this year's NK crisis, especially without sources, unless I overlooked something. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The article seems more about commentaries than real happenings of substance. Expulsion of American diplomats for example ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-diplomats-idUSKBN1AD1DV), other disputes including relation to allegation of Russian involvement in 2016 elections and expulsion of Russian diplomats under Obama which has also been compared to Cold War ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/31/cold-war-20-power-plays-us-russia-relations-putin-rewriting/). Along with the sanctions, these have marked a new low in their relationships. I am surprised why it isn't there in the article. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 00:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Buzz105, I want to know why you removed " World War III" from the "See also" section. You didn't explain in your edit summary while you removed it. May you please reinsert it and then discuss whether to retain or remove the link to "World War III"? Thanks. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that one of the most prominent features of the old Cold War was the imminent possibility, all during that "war," of a sudden unraveling into World War III at any moment. Fortunately, at least so far, I do not believe we are currently facing such an imminent peril. (Though one never knows these days, with all of the highly "sane" people with their fingers hovering over nuclear launch keys!) I think I'm going to go talk a bit more about this at some point on the Cold War II article's talk page. Oops, I already am on that article's talk page! Cheers, Warrenfrank ( talk) 22:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
KD53, you recently replaced "World War III" with three links related to Russia, one of which is already linked in prose. Per WP:SEEALSO, the links should not be repeated in the "See also" section. I changed the links back to what it was, but I also moved the links to one of other sections as part of a hatnote. I hope this is an acceptable edit. Isn't it? -- George Ho ( talk) 21:11, 8 September 2017 (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 current name of the section is " EU and NATO members vs. Russia". Should the name remain as is or be renamed? If the latter, should the section header be renamed to "United States vs. Russia"? If not, what alternative section name do you suggest? (Update): The person using an IP address renamed the section to its current name back in Dec. 2016. -- George Ho ( talk) 07:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC) updated, --19:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Axxxion. May you please explain the addition of the inaccessible FT article? I don't know whether the source explicitly mentions "Cold War II", "New Cold War", or any other interchangeable terms. Without knowing what the source says, I question the need to add the recent info. Thanks. George Ho ( talk) 11:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I've made a change to section titles:
The "vs. Russia" part implicitly suggests and could be misconstrued, as if the EU and NATO were supposedly against Russia and its people (versus), which is not accurate. Nevertheless, I don't know how to otherwise better characterise the chasm, as I don't support using versus (vs.) at all. There should then be more descriptive words that would tell, that the relationship is very adversarial, but since both sides see the other side as the belligerent part, then it's difficult to make the section title neutral. And Versus can be willfully or maliciously misconstrued. - Mardus / talk 15:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Other editors: If need be, revert, or change to a more appropriate section title in order to maintain neutrality. - Mardus / talk 15:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Update: Looking at the US–China section, then it looks like section titles were supposed to point out the adversity, but the use of vs. there can also be misconstrued as 'one party against another party'.
The model article could be the original Cold War article, where top-level section titles (surrounded by two equals signs in code) do not directly attribute who the main adversaries were, but each section lists the main stages of the conflict, each of which contains the most important events. - Mardus / talk 16:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Someone worried about 'led' in 'Russia-led' and 'China-led'. Now, since there are Russian sphere of influence (Belarus, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, so-called 'DPR' and 'LPR'), Chinese sphere of influence (Nepal and, probably, Pakistan) et mixed sphere of influence (Venezula, North Korea, Iran and Syria) I doubt that 'led' should be removed, no matter what the real degree of importance, powerfulness and independence of countries I have mentioned is. It makes sense to add information about allies of China & Russia into the article instead. — Напечатейтездесьпсевдоним. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.53.169.195 ( talk) 17:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Should a section on the Skripal Poisoning be added? Looking at the Russian Embassy Twitter, it is the closest we have to a declared Cold War II [1]. It's perhaps the biggest diplomatic upset between the West and Russia since the end of the Cold War. Extensive news reporting saying as much, also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondsiberian ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Iedylstudein, may you please explain the addition of the link to " Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal" and linking the poison to this? Per MOS:ALSO, the links between the two should be relevant, but I don't see how. Thanks. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Do we have to add/mention Cold War II in the see also section? Many sources and prominent politicians mention the term Cold War II. What is your opinion. Iedylstudein ( talk) 02:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this information should be added, as it has been all over the news in the last few months. NATO-Rissian relations are said to be an all time low since the first cold war Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. I have given just one source from reliable CNN but you can find multiple sources if you add it, and I really think this information should be added:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/26/europe/full-list-of-russian-diplomats-expelled-over-s-intl/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeptchjijihhtgghbyjhhmkkkl ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@ LeoLavish: May you please explain the addition of the "Brazil" section? I evaluated the following sources:
Only this source uses "nova guerra fria", even when I don't understand Portuguese. However, I searched for "fria"; none of other sources uses it. Moreover, the addition violates WP:NOR and seems to be more suitable for Wikiversity, which now has v:Cold War II. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I have tagged the section with releveant-inline. This is about hostility in international relations, not internal civil problems of any country. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 18:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
It's been commented that deterioration of relations after Salisbury attack might lead to a new Cold War, some already have described it so. It can be easily found on the internet, so I don't think I'll need to show it. But if you do need it, I'll show some sources here. Should the deterioration in relations following the attack be added to the article? MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 00:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
New Zealand Herald... I don't know why and how it interprets a tweet post from an English-language Twitter blue-badged account. The tweet post doesn't exactly say "Cold War II" or similar to that, and even "cold weather" is a metaphor to growing tensions between the two relations... or maybe it's making a satire. If you are going to use the NZ Herald, there must be other publications having similar interpretations. Otherwise, let's avoid using that piece at this time.
Haaretz's article headline is misleading as well; it uses Associated Press article, which only says "Cold War-style lows" but doesn't use "Cold War II" (or similar). News Herald uses the same article as well but uses a different headline (and has more paragraphs after the end of Haaretz copy). Somehow, they have synthesized AP articles, like this one (copied into CTV News). Here's a tip: Google (i.e. search) one of the paragraphs or sentences, and see where it comes from or how other publications variably use AP articles.
I added the headline from The Jamestown Foundation article into Wikiquote; the Jamestown article doesn't mention "Cold War II".
WaPo article was taken from another AP article, both of which actually says that Russians accused the US of starting another Cold War just to protect its "waning" global influence. This AP article made no connections between the poisoning and the article topic.
I don't know what to make out of the academic Wesley Wark's op-ed piece. Without other sources making the connection explicitly, I would consider using the source WP:undue. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The lead should be completely written. Some statements should be moved into body. Also, I question the status and existence of the topic. Russian politicians and NATO and some academics doubt that the growing tensions are the signs of another "Cold War", but then others differ. Still, the lead sounds as if Cold War II is happening now. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Jdg1999 and Anonymous427, may you please explain the additions of the image of Trump and the map? I think they are misleading images and do not accurately represent the topic well. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
George Ho, The image of U.S. president Donald J. Trump addressing the nation over the authorisation of missile strikes in Syria was added because i strongly believe on reasonable grounds that the U.S. Involvement including the involvement of the UK, France and Russia play also a major role in this new Cold War (which is undeniably a new second Cold War, please have a thorough and careful look at the facts which does support so) but however i have chosen now to withdraw the addition of mine due to other conflicting reasons. I also firmly believe and highly recommend however that the image posted by Anonymous427 does stay as it is both a relevant source of information regarding NATO nations and to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdg1999 ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
China's official press agency has cited Chinese ambassador to US as calling on US to "abandon its Cold War and zero-sum mentality". However, it doesn't detail the exact statement where he said it. Is it enough to add it? I have doubts over it since it doesn't quote the exact statement, though it is the official Chinese news agency. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 18:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Anyway this is unrelated, but let's discuss it here. Panetta called the recent deterioration in relations with Russia as "a new chapter in Cold War". ( https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/were-in-new-chapter-of-cold-war-with-russia-former-defense-secretary-leon-panetta.html). Doesn't say new Cold War, be mindful of that. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 19:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't North Korea tie in somewhere here? I'd say the fear of North Korea is far greater than the fear of China doing anything (although DPRK is starting to quieten down a bit ). decearing egg < talk> 02:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
A NEW COLD war could set in between China and the United States as tensions over North Korea pit the giant countries against each other.. [22] says DPRK is involved. [23] is titled
North Korea: Prelude to Cold War II?. DPRK is definitely involved here. decearing egg < talk> 02:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
This section is very long and should be split into subheadings. -- Decearing egg ( talk) 00:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate your addition, Marked Man 808. However, neither sources use the term "cold war" as connection to US-China trade war. I thought about reverting the addition, but first I'd like to discuss it please. Also, have you considered searching for reliable sources mentioning the supposed connection? Thanks. George Ho ( talk) 18:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The Cold War isn't an out right military conflict, it is a period of tension between super powers. See the original
cold war article [[
User talk:George Ho, it included numerous instruments other than proxy wars, like sports, the space race, diplomatic steps, politics, (Soviets used to mate the US look in the media due to racism in the country in the 1960s) and similar trade wars. The super powers competes in many ways, not just through military conflict which may be a part of this "period of tension" but not the only thing in it. Economics is a major part of the cold war, and the US trade war is to prevent China from over taking US as an economic power. Also economic crisis including trade restrictions, sanctions, etc many times lead to out right military conflicts as in some cases in the original cold war. By that definition the trade war most certainly fits the criteria for addition in the article
Cold War II article and highly increases the level of tension between US and China.
Marked Man 808 (
talk) 04:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok George Ho, added another source (85) that mentions a connection between the cold war 2 and the trade war, you can find more sources linking them if you search too. Marked Man 808 ( talk) 07:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I do, but since you are an older user than me, do what you feel is right. Also the concept of cold war 2 itself is op-ed, I never heard it or read about it in any form of news media.], most of the world leaders like Obama, Putin and Xi Jinping denied it. Ots hardly ever talked about in news channels and papers as the original cold war was. The Ukraine invasion by Russia, the Syrian air strikes by US have revived the Russo American tensions, but no news media states these are acts of a new cold war either. But I think if they are added, so should the Sino-Amerivcan trade war, which considerably increases the Sino-American tension and should be at least mentioned. But I leave the choice to you. Marked Man 808 ( talk) 03:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
the whole article in its current form describes the term Cold War II, proposes the term, lists notable usages of the term and examples and arguments on if it is or isn't applicable term for current situation. There's hardly anything on east-west tensions.
I suggest to change the description from "This article is about present tensions between the East and West" to "This article is about terminology" or "This article is about political views of wikipedia community" Duhgo ( talk) 19:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, CapLiber. Why do you think are the maps appropriate as lead images seen in this edit? Also, what about the captions claiming causes, which I think is undetermined in the whole article? George Ho ( talk) 05:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
US–Russia tensions have increased in 2014 with international sanctions being applied to Russia after the Ukrainian crisis," and "
US–China tensions have increased in 2018 with the new trade policies of President Trump resulting in the trade war." If they are not discussing causes, then I guess they must have referred to what events would lead to Cold War II, right? As for whether or not Cold War II is a "single conflict", are there sources claiming it's a double conflict? George Ho ( talk) 10:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The "See also" is getting expanded over time, like recently. Is the amount right, excessive, insufficient, or what? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Funkquake: I see you have added a lot of links in the section. May you please explain the additions? Thanks. George Ho ( talk) 06:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I thought it might be some examples of giving the exra information for the section, but if I am wrong, fine, I was trying to issue the last edit, my honest facts about the article, although, it was a free honest edit, I guess the website has the right to freely delete anyone's truthful facts even if one believes or knows it is not factual, that's Wikipedia anyone to freely edit and delete for the taking. I was mot trying to exceed the links and hopefully split the row like the Cold War article. If you want to not have what I edited then you are freely to dispute and delete it.I was just trying help part of the article. Funkquake ( talk) 21:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)