![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
@ Xenagoras: Your recent edits ( [1] [2]) show interests in giving Adam Schiff a bad light and making Schiff's speech look connected to the topic in question just by using other people's opinions. How is "Cold War Narrative" equivalent to the "new Cold War"? I recently re-removed the info about his speech and sources failing to connect the speech with the main topic, including an (implied?) op-ed not mentioning this topic anywhere outside article headline. I see one op-ed having potential merit, which I have left in, but neither of its quotes are related to the speech. George Ho ( talk) 21:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
"neither sources explicitly mention "Cold War" or "Cold War II" or make connection to the topic in question; will find reliable sources explicitly connecting Cold War II to Trump's impeachment trial or ongoing tensions with Russia."Therefore in my second edit [5] I changed my contribution to the article by doing exactly what you requested: delivering
"sources [which] explicitly mention "Cold War" or "Cold War II" or make connection to the topic in question. And find reliable sources explicitly connecting Cold War II to Trump's impeachment trial or ongoing tensions with Russia."You claim I would be
"making Schiff's speech look connected to the topic in question just by using other people's opinions."Using other people's opinions is the only allowed way of editing according to Wikipedia policies, because we are not allowed to use our own opinions. (A very improbable possibility would be Schiff himself declaring, "I am waging a Cold War." Unless that declaration happens, we have to use
other people's opinionsabout what Schiff says and does.) You ask,
"How is "Cold War Narrative" equivalent to the "new Cold War"?"The article [6] explains this in great detail. "Narrative" means the actions taken and the things said towards Russia and people perceived as too "Russia-friendly", e.g. arming combatants in a proxy war against Russia, stationing U.S. military advisors with these combatants, stationing U.S. troops at the Russian border, legally and politically attacking people who do not fall in line with this foreign policy. All of this fulfills the definition of a Cold War. The article describes all of this. You write that you
"recently re-removed the info about [Schiff's] speech and sources failing to connect the speech with the main topic."All of my sources connect either the Impeachment of Trump in general or Schiff's speech specifically with the Second Cold War, which is why I wrote,
"The Impeachment of President Trump and more so specifically Adam Schiff's speech were criticized by some liberal and conservative commentators as symptoms of a Cold War."The single op-ed you did not delete has only one specific merit that the other sources do not have: It bashes President Trump as an evil person that is 100% guilty and it praises the Democratic Impeachment managers as very competent and successful in their prosecution. I noticed that you are by far the biggest contributor to this article and that 100% of your contributions to this article cite sources that either say "there is no Second Cold War" or "there will be no Second Cold War". This makes your contributions to the article Second Cold War appear questionably one-sided, and in combination with your less than satisfactory handling of my contributions to this article I suggest you refrain from further unwarranted deletions of my contributions. Xenagoras ( talk) 00:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
When Rep. Adam Schiff (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who has become the Democrats' point man and general-purpose fixer on impeachment, was not delivering patriotic soliloquies — "As George Washington and his troops crossed the Delaware … " — or calling for a new Cold War, he was standing silently while footage of testimony from November played behind him, occasionally for minutes at a time." Was the author saying that Adam Schiff was or was not "calling for a new Cold War"?
I have wondered whether this article contains original research, discouraged by WP:NOR, even when I've done my best to avert attempted assertions not well verified by sources. If there is original research, please do not hesitant to point out which one. Also, I can't figure out whether the article is messy and needs cleanup. If you think so, you may please point out what other issues the article has besides possible original research. Thanks. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@ George Ho: The debate between Romney and Obama not only germane to the topic, it is cited in any number of pieces about this exact subject. What's the difference between including Romney or Obama's assessment in 2012 and, say Gorbachev's later opinion, which is included in the article (along with that of many others)? See here if you want to see mention of the Romney/Obama in sources literally about a "Second Cold War": [1] [2] [3]
@ George Ho:, I have updated the edits I made to include citations of sources which explicitly reference a "new Cold War", etc. There are many more, so if you have issues, please address here rather than simply reverting. Thanks! Elle Kpyros ( talk) 21:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
References
@ User:George Ho, while I do agree with you that the Obama/Romney brouhaha should not be in the article, for a number of reasons - for instance, it was in truth nothing more than domestic political pageantree, significant policy differences between the two of them would have been negligible (honestly anyone that thinks of only Obama had just been 'tougher' on Russia that Russia would not have annexed Crimea ain't playing with a full deck)。I do strongly disagree with your notion that these matters are not having to do with the subject of the article is, though. They very clearly are on the topic of the article: simply they are not notable or significant enough to include. Firejuggler86 ( talk) 23:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
IP editors, 73.106.77.98 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2601:C0:103:9C9E:4192:9240:CB9D:8D6B ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), or probably the same person using those IP addresses, tried to change (or "trim"?) the lead. See here. I assume we don't have reliable sources verifying that there's the Western bloc vs Eastern bloc in another/new Cold War, do we? Turns out that the link to the " Western bloc" has been already in place, while I removed references to "Eastern powers" (or bloc) a few months ago. (I don't know why I left "Western powers" in place when I should have removed it, but enough ranting(?).) I found one op-ed piece saying that China lacks resemblance to the old Eastern bloc. However, this is just an op-ed. Maybe there are others verifying disconnection between China and the Eastern bloc. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
One editor
Seekallknowledge
thought that China–US tensions must go first, asserting consensus among analysts that if a new cold war happens, it will be between China and the US
. However, an editor using
5.172.29.51 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) switches back, asserting: China is just an economic rival of the United States, but not a direct opponent of Western democracy; however, Russia is a menace to the free democratic world because of interference in elections, the spread of disinformation, and the splitting of the Western society. The United States is the main protector of freedom and justice, which means that Russia is the main enemy of the United States.
Must either Russia–US or China–US tensions go first, and why? -- George Ho ( talk) 12:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Argentina and Venezuela would be forming part of the "axis of Evil". The rest of South America is on the side of the "good guys." In my humble opinion the United States and allies are the "good guys" and the "bad guys" it would be RUSSIA + CHINA + NORTH KOREA + IRAN (IRAN WANTS TO HAVE AN ATOMITE BOMB, IT IS A DANGER TO HUMANITY WHAT IS IRAN) IRAN is a state theocratic or deny the Holocaust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernanmuzio ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how either the tagged sections have geographical imbalance or, if they have, geographical imbalance is an issue in this article. I'm planning to remove the tags a short while after the new year arrives. I welcome your input on the "geographical imbalance". Thanks, -- George Ho ( talk) 19:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Wow, this year or the next is going to be a major remodeling in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:200:F410:1CB3:68DF:CF3A:F0BB:1482 ( talk) 02:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The pages on the "Middle Eastern Cold War" and the 2019-2021 Persian Gulf Crisis are just a small part of the brewing global tensions, and they already use the military conflict infobox.
Also, I think that whether a war is hot or cold, they all share the similar features of the infobox, there are two opposing sides, and they have their respective leaders. Only the section on "Strength" might not be needed. Halo FC ( talk) 16:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Present-day current events situation/conceptlooks troubling when you put in "current events". Also, you put Russia and China as primary parties, and readers would assume that they are in this together. Also, a montage of photos would imply that it's more than a "term". -- George Ho ( talk) 19:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Still not convinced that the infobox is necessary, especially when using words that may not meet the project's standards. Don't know whether "Developing situation" is equivalent to "Ongoing", but having one result comparing to the first Cold War and another mentioning the ongoing pandemic when the whole article itself doesn't mention it would also suggest/imply that the topic is more than the "term" (or an "event" described as a "term"). George Ho ( talk) 20:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
3O Response: I am here to provide a 3O. I have no knowledge, affiliation, or involvement concerning the articles or the editors. Please keep in mind that I do not fully understand the article subject or this dispute. To start, please consisely state your point without mentioning the other editor. Please keep it brief and comprehensible, and thanks for reaching out!
Sennecaster (
What now?)
01:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Second Cold War | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the
Post–Cold War Era Present-day current events situation/concept | |||||||
Clockwise, from top left: The disputed South China Sea territory of Mischief Reef which is being occupied by the PRC, a column of Ukrainian government tanks during the Russo-Ukrainian War, Venezuelan security agents displaying captured operatives in the wake of the failed kidnapping mission Operation Gideon, the blazing wreckage of Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani's car after the U.S. assassination airstrike | |||||||
| |||||||
Primary parties | |||||||
![]() |
![]() ![]() | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
![]() |
![]() ![]() | ||||||
(✱– non-utilization of a start date and a status of "Ongoing" as a consideration of the categorization of being a present-day current events situation/concept) |
@ Halo FC: Neither Sennecaster nor Nick-D thinks an infobox is necessary. Why do you still insist on including it? George Ho ( talk) 14:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I've made new edits to the infobox, such as bolding the word "concept". And hey George, sorry I forgot to address your previous point on the pandemic, I think I had already modified it in the last submission by changing the line from "midst of the global conflict" to "midst of the developing situation of the global conflict" (moved infobox up)
Halo FC (
talk)
18:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking that, since it states that, its alright to refer to the terms Eastern and Western blocs again. Halo FC ( talk) 23:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
the re-emergence of a two-bloc world, but does not explicitly mention the whole topic. By the way, when you used an inaccessible Financial Times article, I figured that article headlines was implicitly cited, and I may be correct. -- George Ho ( talk) 07:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Por una alianza hemisférica estratégica de las democracias, which doesn't say China or Russia in español. Well, it mentions bloc in Spanish, not newer "Guerra Fría" anywhere there. Guess I was wrong about Perina, but I still don't think the op-ed connects US-China tensions to this topic. Re-reading Rachman's article, I don't see anything fresher and newer info that's worthy enough for inclusion, even when the newer "cold war" is mentioned explicitly. I still don't know why you persist on including "blocs". George Ho ( talk) 22:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi George Ho ( talk), wow, seems like we're at opposing ends a lot, I do hope we can come to better understandings with each other
If I come across as patronizing below, it's not my intention, it's just because I just wanna state the points clearly.
So for the original maps, I think they're too simple, they're just the locations of the primary parties in the world. For instance, frozen Alaska and Chukotka aren't America and Russia's main vital strategic area of concern, that area is Europe, and the additional maps demonstrate that, with America's NATO allies, and all the locations that it chose to place its military bases. Likewise for China; Southeast Asia, the South China Sea, and the Pacific.
"Pacific" has basically become an American codeword for China, because that's what they both straddle. Every time an American official utters "Pacific", you know that it's targeted at China. (kinda like with NATO and the "North Atlantic") Notice that the Quad map is of the variety which splits the Atlantic and preserves the integrity of the Pacific, thereby demonstrating America's "pacific view" of countering China. The polar map also does something similar, showing that the landmasses in the North are quite closely huddled around the Arctic, perhaps a justification to America for bringing Europe into its strategic fold via NATO. So it shows the Arctic factor, the new race for the Arctic, and why Canada is an important component of NATO, especially with NORAD during the first Cold War, they're physically much closer to Russia than the 48 states. And of course they're also right next to the Arctic.
I think readers should be familiar with the "real world", and if they aren't, they have gotta make it so. The real world is literally a sphere, and only by looking at it from different angles can it be accurately represented by flat maps.
Going back to the simplicity of the maps, after seeing the primary parties on the world map, readers might automatically think of the next question, and that would be what, and where, they're fighting over, just discussed above. And there are vast oceans between America and its foes, especially the Pacific, if you look at it on a globe, you can barely see the land at the edges. In order to reach across the seas, America needs local allies, and those maps answer the subsequent question readers would have on who the local allies are, primarily NATO and the Quad. And it's not just local allies that America needs, those local allies also need America, to bolster them against the could-be-superpowers in their neighborhoods. One of the "36 Stratagems" describes this well, "远交近攻"; from the Spring and Autumn Warring States to over 2,000 years later in our modern-day age, some things will stay the same. So I think that instead of being complicated, the maps help readily answer the questions that flow naturally in a reader's chain of thought.
I also think that they aren't complicated as they're just highlighting and focusing on Western Europe/NATO, and the deep (south)-stretching Nine-Dash Line, and looking at the globe from another angle. Halo FC ( talk) 01:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Tobby72: What you were arguing is not about maps but rather to me about another matter that may belong in another thread, like the "Term or event?" one. You've argued that the event is happening, so I would like you to discuss that matter above. Or please explain why additional maps are needed. George Ho ( talk) 00:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ George Ho: so my view, which I've had for some time, is that they can fit within a term-based view, thanks Halo FC ( talk) 00:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Contd.: Also, about the factor of "imply", I find it quite a "fuzzy" area to imagine what readers might imagine when they see something, and it could be somewhat excessive if it interferes disruptively with the writing of the article, so I think we should and could exercise some moderation with regards to it.
Another thing is whether elements really are implications. For example, if we all know that two guys, Adam and Bob, are the only ones who could've committed a crime, and Adam says, "I sure as hell didn't do it.", and tilts his head towards Bob, we'll know that Adam's clearly implying that Bob was the one who committed the crime. But I think that the points brought up are not of this kind of focused implication. And if a reader gets a sense of something and runs with it in a concrete manner, I think that's the silliness of people which is on them and not on wikipedia. Overall, I guess, yeah, having moderation and a steady balance in practice. Halo FC ( talk) 05:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
and with regards to the 'see also' section, I've made comments in the "Assorted elements" section below.
For the collage, what do you think are the most important kinks to be ironed out, the first Cold War article has quite a nice collection of photos, while this article is still pretty barren lol. I've also noticed that having a header or info in the top-righthand corner really seems to add a touch and make the article look more professional, that could be something good to have.
We could also discuss any issues with the three-color map showcasing a pair of bilateral relations, it might be useful as it could be clarifying things for posterity. Halo FC ( talk) 07:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ George Ho:, I think that the concept of international polarity is quite important and relevant to the topic, with rival powers challenging American dreams of mono-polarity, and seeking to create a multi-polar world order. I also don't think that it'd be too many 'see also' links, as I think the article right now has pretty few links actually. Many articles also have many more links. I think that we might also need to create a more up-to-date discussion on the 'see also' section, as the Second Cold War has evolved and changed in the years since, and it does seem to be getting even hotter still, like fears of additional Russian incursions into Ukraine as of late.
(and as mentioned in the section above, I've noticed that having a header or info in the top-righthand corner really seems to add a touch and make the article look more professional, which could be something good to have.)
As for the China-US relations in the intro, although you said 'no need', I would like to include it, as I think it's a really important driver of the Second Cold War. Graham T. Allison, who coined the term "Thucydides Trap", has spoken at length about the effect of such a large number of people rising so fast having a profound impact on the entire world, even calling it probably the most important event of recent history so far. That's why we have the Chinese Century article dedicated to the phenomenon. Google image results of "Second Cold War" show a whole lot of pairs of US and PRC flags, demonstrating how central and prominent this issue is to the conflict. It is also China's rise which has given Russia a boost back up after its post-Soviet collapse, and therefore enables the world to be divided into two camps, spurring on the conflict.
Regarding Second Cold War-related vaccine diplomacy, I think that it is related due to India's current major second wave of a new even way more infectious variant, and China offering to help, but India declining and turning to Biden for help. India tends to be aligned with the US against China, though it also has warm ties with Russia, who is more closely allied with China. I saw this article from the official BRICS site, "Modi-Putin 2+2 Meeting Shows Indian Foreign Policy Not Constrained By Bloc Politics", mentioning the formation of these second-stage blocs, and that India might wish to remain "untethered", though these bloc politics will still heavily factor into India's relations and political plays. I think that in this Second Cold War, it'll be difficult for any country to be neutral, at best they can only be "non-aligned" (in the spirit of Nehru's non-alignment), still being buffeted by the global forces of cold war.
About the most recent lead map, what euphemisms do you see, I sure didn't intend to use any. I don't think that it implies that it is a single event involving all three powers, it's just that it is showing that there are three prominent powers in world affairs right now, all simultaneously, and I think that that should be clear. I've also discussed the issue of "implying" in the above section. Another thing is that America is also the focal point of both the Chinese and Russian tensions, there's a shared focal point. And China and Russia are also both aware that they are dealing with a shared rival, and acting accordingly, and so it's not like they're living on separate planets. And therefore I think that the map doesn't present much of an inaccuracy-implication issue, unless the reality is very much as though China and Russia are living on separate planets, and even then, I think that it wouldn't really be a major issue, as I think that there's no real strong implication (added more on implication in the above section) Halo FC ( talk) 05:13, 23 May 2021 (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.
Written for RfC
Shall we call the Second Cold War, also called New Cold War and Cold War II, a term (i.e. broad concept) or an event? George Ho ( talk) 19:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Original post
After images reinserted by Tobby72, I initially thought about discussing the images. However, after discussion to discussion, I have wondered whether the topic shall be treated as an event or a term. I feel almost too exhausted to preserve what the article should be. Therefore, let's ask whether the Second Cold War (i.e. Cold War II or New Cold War) shall be an event that's happening now or a term with different meanings. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The new Cold War is an ongoing event, not just a term, so maps would be useful. Even UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the Cold War is "back with a vengeance".
— User:Tobby72 08:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@
George Ho:@
Tobby72:@
Thewolfchild: Hi guys, I've thought of a way of thinking about the "term/event" issue. The situation or status of the Second Cold War could be a 'cloud of tensions', such a cloud being over the world, or being between the rival world powers; or it could be a 'full cold war'. We could use the acronyms 'CoT' and 'FCW'.
Now, an FCW is still very much a muted occurrence compared to a hot war. And so, it's quite a grey area as to when things go from being a CoT to an FCW, a "fuzzy" grey area between them. You could also think of it as there being a smooth gradient between a CoT and an FCW. So, it could also be something in-between the two, which is what I think is actually going on. I'll call something that's in-between a 'cloud of cold war', or 'CoCW' for short.
So I'm inclined to think of the Second Cold War as an event, though I think that the article could be treated as CoCW, but I'm also open to other lines of thinking. Though to get everyone on the same page, I think the suggestion by @ Firejuggler86: seems quite helpful. so we can treat the status of the Second Cold War as indeterminate, and we just describe what the various sources say about its status. Halo FC ( talk) 07:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Add.: There's another complication in this new cold war. U.S. State Secretary Antony Blinken has said that the situation with China is gonna be “competitive when it should be, collaborative when it can be and adversarial when it must be.”.
So it's this interesting situation, where some can imagine that it's not an FCW due to the amount of collaboration/co-operation going on, but at the same time, it could be pretty much an FCW going on, as the conflict and the co-operation have been 'compartmentalized'. And unfortunately it creates a more confusing situation for wikipedia editors. Halo FC ( talk) 02:42, 31 May 2021 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
@ Xenagoras: Your recent edits ( [1] [2]) show interests in giving Adam Schiff a bad light and making Schiff's speech look connected to the topic in question just by using other people's opinions. How is "Cold War Narrative" equivalent to the "new Cold War"? I recently re-removed the info about his speech and sources failing to connect the speech with the main topic, including an (implied?) op-ed not mentioning this topic anywhere outside article headline. I see one op-ed having potential merit, which I have left in, but neither of its quotes are related to the speech. George Ho ( talk) 21:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
"neither sources explicitly mention "Cold War" or "Cold War II" or make connection to the topic in question; will find reliable sources explicitly connecting Cold War II to Trump's impeachment trial or ongoing tensions with Russia."Therefore in my second edit [5] I changed my contribution to the article by doing exactly what you requested: delivering
"sources [which] explicitly mention "Cold War" or "Cold War II" or make connection to the topic in question. And find reliable sources explicitly connecting Cold War II to Trump's impeachment trial or ongoing tensions with Russia."You claim I would be
"making Schiff's speech look connected to the topic in question just by using other people's opinions."Using other people's opinions is the only allowed way of editing according to Wikipedia policies, because we are not allowed to use our own opinions. (A very improbable possibility would be Schiff himself declaring, "I am waging a Cold War." Unless that declaration happens, we have to use
other people's opinionsabout what Schiff says and does.) You ask,
"How is "Cold War Narrative" equivalent to the "new Cold War"?"The article [6] explains this in great detail. "Narrative" means the actions taken and the things said towards Russia and people perceived as too "Russia-friendly", e.g. arming combatants in a proxy war against Russia, stationing U.S. military advisors with these combatants, stationing U.S. troops at the Russian border, legally and politically attacking people who do not fall in line with this foreign policy. All of this fulfills the definition of a Cold War. The article describes all of this. You write that you
"recently re-removed the info about [Schiff's] speech and sources failing to connect the speech with the main topic."All of my sources connect either the Impeachment of Trump in general or Schiff's speech specifically with the Second Cold War, which is why I wrote,
"The Impeachment of President Trump and more so specifically Adam Schiff's speech were criticized by some liberal and conservative commentators as symptoms of a Cold War."The single op-ed you did not delete has only one specific merit that the other sources do not have: It bashes President Trump as an evil person that is 100% guilty and it praises the Democratic Impeachment managers as very competent and successful in their prosecution. I noticed that you are by far the biggest contributor to this article and that 100% of your contributions to this article cite sources that either say "there is no Second Cold War" or "there will be no Second Cold War". This makes your contributions to the article Second Cold War appear questionably one-sided, and in combination with your less than satisfactory handling of my contributions to this article I suggest you refrain from further unwarranted deletions of my contributions. Xenagoras ( talk) 00:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
When Rep. Adam Schiff (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who has become the Democrats' point man and general-purpose fixer on impeachment, was not delivering patriotic soliloquies — "As George Washington and his troops crossed the Delaware … " — or calling for a new Cold War, he was standing silently while footage of testimony from November played behind him, occasionally for minutes at a time." Was the author saying that Adam Schiff was or was not "calling for a new Cold War"?
I have wondered whether this article contains original research, discouraged by WP:NOR, even when I've done my best to avert attempted assertions not well verified by sources. If there is original research, please do not hesitant to point out which one. Also, I can't figure out whether the article is messy and needs cleanup. If you think so, you may please point out what other issues the article has besides possible original research. Thanks. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@ George Ho: The debate between Romney and Obama not only germane to the topic, it is cited in any number of pieces about this exact subject. What's the difference between including Romney or Obama's assessment in 2012 and, say Gorbachev's later opinion, which is included in the article (along with that of many others)? See here if you want to see mention of the Romney/Obama in sources literally about a "Second Cold War": [1] [2] [3]
@ George Ho:, I have updated the edits I made to include citations of sources which explicitly reference a "new Cold War", etc. There are many more, so if you have issues, please address here rather than simply reverting. Thanks! Elle Kpyros ( talk) 21:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
References
@ User:George Ho, while I do agree with you that the Obama/Romney brouhaha should not be in the article, for a number of reasons - for instance, it was in truth nothing more than domestic political pageantree, significant policy differences between the two of them would have been negligible (honestly anyone that thinks of only Obama had just been 'tougher' on Russia that Russia would not have annexed Crimea ain't playing with a full deck)。I do strongly disagree with your notion that these matters are not having to do with the subject of the article is, though. They very clearly are on the topic of the article: simply they are not notable or significant enough to include. Firejuggler86 ( talk) 23:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
IP editors, 73.106.77.98 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2601:C0:103:9C9E:4192:9240:CB9D:8D6B ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), or probably the same person using those IP addresses, tried to change (or "trim"?) the lead. See here. I assume we don't have reliable sources verifying that there's the Western bloc vs Eastern bloc in another/new Cold War, do we? Turns out that the link to the " Western bloc" has been already in place, while I removed references to "Eastern powers" (or bloc) a few months ago. (I don't know why I left "Western powers" in place when I should have removed it, but enough ranting(?).) I found one op-ed piece saying that China lacks resemblance to the old Eastern bloc. However, this is just an op-ed. Maybe there are others verifying disconnection between China and the Eastern bloc. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
One editor
Seekallknowledge
thought that China–US tensions must go first, asserting consensus among analysts that if a new cold war happens, it will be between China and the US
. However, an editor using
5.172.29.51 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) switches back, asserting: China is just an economic rival of the United States, but not a direct opponent of Western democracy; however, Russia is a menace to the free democratic world because of interference in elections, the spread of disinformation, and the splitting of the Western society. The United States is the main protector of freedom and justice, which means that Russia is the main enemy of the United States.
Must either Russia–US or China–US tensions go first, and why? -- George Ho ( talk) 12:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Argentina and Venezuela would be forming part of the "axis of Evil". The rest of South America is on the side of the "good guys." In my humble opinion the United States and allies are the "good guys" and the "bad guys" it would be RUSSIA + CHINA + NORTH KOREA + IRAN (IRAN WANTS TO HAVE AN ATOMITE BOMB, IT IS A DANGER TO HUMANITY WHAT IS IRAN) IRAN is a state theocratic or deny the Holocaust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernanmuzio ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how either the tagged sections have geographical imbalance or, if they have, geographical imbalance is an issue in this article. I'm planning to remove the tags a short while after the new year arrives. I welcome your input on the "geographical imbalance". Thanks, -- George Ho ( talk) 19:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Wow, this year or the next is going to be a major remodeling in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:200:F410:1CB3:68DF:CF3A:F0BB:1482 ( talk) 02:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The pages on the "Middle Eastern Cold War" and the 2019-2021 Persian Gulf Crisis are just a small part of the brewing global tensions, and they already use the military conflict infobox.
Also, I think that whether a war is hot or cold, they all share the similar features of the infobox, there are two opposing sides, and they have their respective leaders. Only the section on "Strength" might not be needed. Halo FC ( talk) 16:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Present-day current events situation/conceptlooks troubling when you put in "current events". Also, you put Russia and China as primary parties, and readers would assume that they are in this together. Also, a montage of photos would imply that it's more than a "term". -- George Ho ( talk) 19:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Still not convinced that the infobox is necessary, especially when using words that may not meet the project's standards. Don't know whether "Developing situation" is equivalent to "Ongoing", but having one result comparing to the first Cold War and another mentioning the ongoing pandemic when the whole article itself doesn't mention it would also suggest/imply that the topic is more than the "term" (or an "event" described as a "term"). George Ho ( talk) 20:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
3O Response: I am here to provide a 3O. I have no knowledge, affiliation, or involvement concerning the articles or the editors. Please keep in mind that I do not fully understand the article subject or this dispute. To start, please consisely state your point without mentioning the other editor. Please keep it brief and comprehensible, and thanks for reaching out!
Sennecaster (
What now?)
01:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Second Cold War | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the
Post–Cold War Era Present-day current events situation/concept | |||||||
Clockwise, from top left: The disputed South China Sea territory of Mischief Reef which is being occupied by the PRC, a column of Ukrainian government tanks during the Russo-Ukrainian War, Venezuelan security agents displaying captured operatives in the wake of the failed kidnapping mission Operation Gideon, the blazing wreckage of Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani's car after the U.S. assassination airstrike | |||||||
| |||||||
Primary parties | |||||||
![]() |
![]() ![]() | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
![]() |
![]() ![]() | ||||||
(✱– non-utilization of a start date and a status of "Ongoing" as a consideration of the categorization of being a present-day current events situation/concept) |
@ Halo FC: Neither Sennecaster nor Nick-D thinks an infobox is necessary. Why do you still insist on including it? George Ho ( talk) 14:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I've made new edits to the infobox, such as bolding the word "concept". And hey George, sorry I forgot to address your previous point on the pandemic, I think I had already modified it in the last submission by changing the line from "midst of the global conflict" to "midst of the developing situation of the global conflict" (moved infobox up)
Halo FC (
talk)
18:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking that, since it states that, its alright to refer to the terms Eastern and Western blocs again. Halo FC ( talk) 23:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
the re-emergence of a two-bloc world, but does not explicitly mention the whole topic. By the way, when you used an inaccessible Financial Times article, I figured that article headlines was implicitly cited, and I may be correct. -- George Ho ( talk) 07:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Por una alianza hemisférica estratégica de las democracias, which doesn't say China or Russia in español. Well, it mentions bloc in Spanish, not newer "Guerra Fría" anywhere there. Guess I was wrong about Perina, but I still don't think the op-ed connects US-China tensions to this topic. Re-reading Rachman's article, I don't see anything fresher and newer info that's worthy enough for inclusion, even when the newer "cold war" is mentioned explicitly. I still don't know why you persist on including "blocs". George Ho ( talk) 22:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi George Ho ( talk), wow, seems like we're at opposing ends a lot, I do hope we can come to better understandings with each other
If I come across as patronizing below, it's not my intention, it's just because I just wanna state the points clearly.
So for the original maps, I think they're too simple, they're just the locations of the primary parties in the world. For instance, frozen Alaska and Chukotka aren't America and Russia's main vital strategic area of concern, that area is Europe, and the additional maps demonstrate that, with America's NATO allies, and all the locations that it chose to place its military bases. Likewise for China; Southeast Asia, the South China Sea, and the Pacific.
"Pacific" has basically become an American codeword for China, because that's what they both straddle. Every time an American official utters "Pacific", you know that it's targeted at China. (kinda like with NATO and the "North Atlantic") Notice that the Quad map is of the variety which splits the Atlantic and preserves the integrity of the Pacific, thereby demonstrating America's "pacific view" of countering China. The polar map also does something similar, showing that the landmasses in the North are quite closely huddled around the Arctic, perhaps a justification to America for bringing Europe into its strategic fold via NATO. So it shows the Arctic factor, the new race for the Arctic, and why Canada is an important component of NATO, especially with NORAD during the first Cold War, they're physically much closer to Russia than the 48 states. And of course they're also right next to the Arctic.
I think readers should be familiar with the "real world", and if they aren't, they have gotta make it so. The real world is literally a sphere, and only by looking at it from different angles can it be accurately represented by flat maps.
Going back to the simplicity of the maps, after seeing the primary parties on the world map, readers might automatically think of the next question, and that would be what, and where, they're fighting over, just discussed above. And there are vast oceans between America and its foes, especially the Pacific, if you look at it on a globe, you can barely see the land at the edges. In order to reach across the seas, America needs local allies, and those maps answer the subsequent question readers would have on who the local allies are, primarily NATO and the Quad. And it's not just local allies that America needs, those local allies also need America, to bolster them against the could-be-superpowers in their neighborhoods. One of the "36 Stratagems" describes this well, "远交近攻"; from the Spring and Autumn Warring States to over 2,000 years later in our modern-day age, some things will stay the same. So I think that instead of being complicated, the maps help readily answer the questions that flow naturally in a reader's chain of thought.
I also think that they aren't complicated as they're just highlighting and focusing on Western Europe/NATO, and the deep (south)-stretching Nine-Dash Line, and looking at the globe from another angle. Halo FC ( talk) 01:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Tobby72: What you were arguing is not about maps but rather to me about another matter that may belong in another thread, like the "Term or event?" one. You've argued that the event is happening, so I would like you to discuss that matter above. Or please explain why additional maps are needed. George Ho ( talk) 00:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ George Ho: so my view, which I've had for some time, is that they can fit within a term-based view, thanks Halo FC ( talk) 00:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Contd.: Also, about the factor of "imply", I find it quite a "fuzzy" area to imagine what readers might imagine when they see something, and it could be somewhat excessive if it interferes disruptively with the writing of the article, so I think we should and could exercise some moderation with regards to it.
Another thing is whether elements really are implications. For example, if we all know that two guys, Adam and Bob, are the only ones who could've committed a crime, and Adam says, "I sure as hell didn't do it.", and tilts his head towards Bob, we'll know that Adam's clearly implying that Bob was the one who committed the crime. But I think that the points brought up are not of this kind of focused implication. And if a reader gets a sense of something and runs with it in a concrete manner, I think that's the silliness of people which is on them and not on wikipedia. Overall, I guess, yeah, having moderation and a steady balance in practice. Halo FC ( talk) 05:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
and with regards to the 'see also' section, I've made comments in the "Assorted elements" section below.
For the collage, what do you think are the most important kinks to be ironed out, the first Cold War article has quite a nice collection of photos, while this article is still pretty barren lol. I've also noticed that having a header or info in the top-righthand corner really seems to add a touch and make the article look more professional, that could be something good to have.
We could also discuss any issues with the three-color map showcasing a pair of bilateral relations, it might be useful as it could be clarifying things for posterity. Halo FC ( talk) 07:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ George Ho:, I think that the concept of international polarity is quite important and relevant to the topic, with rival powers challenging American dreams of mono-polarity, and seeking to create a multi-polar world order. I also don't think that it'd be too many 'see also' links, as I think the article right now has pretty few links actually. Many articles also have many more links. I think that we might also need to create a more up-to-date discussion on the 'see also' section, as the Second Cold War has evolved and changed in the years since, and it does seem to be getting even hotter still, like fears of additional Russian incursions into Ukraine as of late.
(and as mentioned in the section above, I've noticed that having a header or info in the top-righthand corner really seems to add a touch and make the article look more professional, which could be something good to have.)
As for the China-US relations in the intro, although you said 'no need', I would like to include it, as I think it's a really important driver of the Second Cold War. Graham T. Allison, who coined the term "Thucydides Trap", has spoken at length about the effect of such a large number of people rising so fast having a profound impact on the entire world, even calling it probably the most important event of recent history so far. That's why we have the Chinese Century article dedicated to the phenomenon. Google image results of "Second Cold War" show a whole lot of pairs of US and PRC flags, demonstrating how central and prominent this issue is to the conflict. It is also China's rise which has given Russia a boost back up after its post-Soviet collapse, and therefore enables the world to be divided into two camps, spurring on the conflict.
Regarding Second Cold War-related vaccine diplomacy, I think that it is related due to India's current major second wave of a new even way more infectious variant, and China offering to help, but India declining and turning to Biden for help. India tends to be aligned with the US against China, though it also has warm ties with Russia, who is more closely allied with China. I saw this article from the official BRICS site, "Modi-Putin 2+2 Meeting Shows Indian Foreign Policy Not Constrained By Bloc Politics", mentioning the formation of these second-stage blocs, and that India might wish to remain "untethered", though these bloc politics will still heavily factor into India's relations and political plays. I think that in this Second Cold War, it'll be difficult for any country to be neutral, at best they can only be "non-aligned" (in the spirit of Nehru's non-alignment), still being buffeted by the global forces of cold war.
About the most recent lead map, what euphemisms do you see, I sure didn't intend to use any. I don't think that it implies that it is a single event involving all three powers, it's just that it is showing that there are three prominent powers in world affairs right now, all simultaneously, and I think that that should be clear. I've also discussed the issue of "implying" in the above section. Another thing is that America is also the focal point of both the Chinese and Russian tensions, there's a shared focal point. And China and Russia are also both aware that they are dealing with a shared rival, and acting accordingly, and so it's not like they're living on separate planets. And therefore I think that the map doesn't present much of an inaccuracy-implication issue, unless the reality is very much as though China and Russia are living on separate planets, and even then, I think that it wouldn't really be a major issue, as I think that there's no real strong implication (added more on implication in the above section) Halo FC ( talk) 05:13, 23 May 2021 (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.
Written for RfC
Shall we call the Second Cold War, also called New Cold War and Cold War II, a term (i.e. broad concept) or an event? George Ho ( talk) 19:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Original post
After images reinserted by Tobby72, I initially thought about discussing the images. However, after discussion to discussion, I have wondered whether the topic shall be treated as an event or a term. I feel almost too exhausted to preserve what the article should be. Therefore, let's ask whether the Second Cold War (i.e. Cold War II or New Cold War) shall be an event that's happening now or a term with different meanings. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The new Cold War is an ongoing event, not just a term, so maps would be useful. Even UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the Cold War is "back with a vengeance".
— User:Tobby72 08:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@
George Ho:@
Tobby72:@
Thewolfchild: Hi guys, I've thought of a way of thinking about the "term/event" issue. The situation or status of the Second Cold War could be a 'cloud of tensions', such a cloud being over the world, or being between the rival world powers; or it could be a 'full cold war'. We could use the acronyms 'CoT' and 'FCW'.
Now, an FCW is still very much a muted occurrence compared to a hot war. And so, it's quite a grey area as to when things go from being a CoT to an FCW, a "fuzzy" grey area between them. You could also think of it as there being a smooth gradient between a CoT and an FCW. So, it could also be something in-between the two, which is what I think is actually going on. I'll call something that's in-between a 'cloud of cold war', or 'CoCW' for short.
So I'm inclined to think of the Second Cold War as an event, though I think that the article could be treated as CoCW, but I'm also open to other lines of thinking. Though to get everyone on the same page, I think the suggestion by @ Firejuggler86: seems quite helpful. so we can treat the status of the Second Cold War as indeterminate, and we just describe what the various sources say about its status. Halo FC ( talk) 07:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Add.: There's another complication in this new cold war. U.S. State Secretary Antony Blinken has said that the situation with China is gonna be “competitive when it should be, collaborative when it can be and adversarial when it must be.”.
So it's this interesting situation, where some can imagine that it's not an FCW due to the amount of collaboration/co-operation going on, but at the same time, it could be pretty much an FCW going on, as the conflict and the co-operation have been 'compartmentalized'. And unfortunately it creates a more confusing situation for wikipedia editors. Halo FC ( talk) 02:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)