![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
To whom it may concern,
Hi! I noticed my contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Second_Cold_War&diff=1063247147&oldid=1063186232 has been reverted, and the reason is "more likely unverified as (literally) related to this topic; also, based on unverified assumptions that the topic is actually an event".
My opinion to the first reason ("more likely unverified as (literally) related to this topic") is: military deployment is definitely related to any Cold War. Say, the moderator has already allowed AUKUS to be "related", what makes hypersonic weapons less related? If I misunderstood anything, please explain further.
As to the second reason ("based on unverified assumptions that the topic is actually an event"), I guess the moderator is assuming that, since I opened a sub-section, I am treating "The development of hypersonic weapons" as an event. I agree the relationship between hypersonic weapons and Second Cold War is still to be determined, but that doesn't diminish the importance of firing hypersonic missiles by China as a historic incident in China-US tensions. I would be glad to discuss about the position where these news best fit in. But an one-click reverting of other's contribution is not a positive response, from both the perspectives of valuing others' works and growth of the community.
I am posting my questions in a talk page, such that we can have a clear discussion, and future editors coming to this page would also benefit from a consistent standard.
Cheers, TaicauZin ( talk) 02:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
it should be placed in institutes, not on wikipedia.Off-wiki discussions don't count and shouldn't count, unfortunately! See wp:consensus#Pitfalls and errors. Better have off-wiki events and discussions recorded and incorporated into (external) sources, like a news article, an interview, a book, or any other medium, not on Wikipedia without a reliable source. George Ho ( talk) 22:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Will Vladimir Putin turn the Second Cold War into a hot one? https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/01/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-cold-war-hot-war-analysis-intl/index.html CNN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiet2 ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we should be creating concepts on Wikipedia out of some articles from some outlets. This term is barely used, and few academics would even accept that there is any kind of "Second Cold War" going on. Interesting in the whole page, most of the quotes are from people saying there isn't and/or won't be any kind of cold war between China and USA, and tensions between those two countries are completely different from what was once called Cold War between USA and USSR. Valverde.pr ( talk) 03:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I came across a Voice of America article that may be germane to the topic here. (I don't have time to do major edits these days, but figured I'd pass it along.) --Surv1v4l1st ╠ Talk║ Contribs╣ 02:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
What about the EU and NATO, Ukraine and Georgia, AUKUS and the Quad, South Korea and Taiwan? Bommbass ( talk) 12:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Other than the chaos and tyranny of the administration Wikipedia has had a reputation for many reasons, many users who have the free-will to inform their reports for the article, have had various cold conflicts with User:George Ho. If one looks through the usual view history of this unique article, he is been trying to be using pro-sino sources, than the obvious mix sources.-- Funkquakes ( talk) 08:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I did, because my gmail could not log me in since it was expired for me, since the password was long gone. So I had to use a new gmail, just to be safe.-- Funkquakes ( talk) 08:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I was expecting you say something about it. You are the guardian of the article, yet, it is for everyone to edit the page. It's not just pushing the sino issue, it's because most users wanted use the article and they had very good sources, from what I had seen from the view history, and I believe they could have been linked or redirected for other articles. If it not for various users were possibly paid to create articles. However, you did do some redirect links, and many changes to article, and I am glad for the fixes to the article.-- Funkquakes ( talk) 08:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
George Ho is exhibiting blatant WP:OWNERSHIP behavior on this article. Someone should seriously take him up to WP:ANI at this point, it's getting disruptive. I thought I reversed his disruption by reverting his most recent edits on here, but it seems like George has done this against dozens of users at this point, dating back to at least 2015. He also wouldn't stop harping about a specific RfC, which he started himself, barely involved more than 5 users, and now uses that as authoritative measure to revert others. 153.190.207.197 ( talk) 09:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
It started in 2003 this page should be edited ( talk) 20:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC) 2ofthe22ofthe2022
Would this campaign box or one like it be okay to put in the article? -- Travisthecrab ( talk) 08:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Mentioning it here, as I fear the wrath of our liege-lord George Ho should I dare attempt to incorporate this information myself.
From the report:
However, the only certainty is uncertainty: central banks are raising interest rates and seeking a soft landing after a period of inflation in most Western countries, while wages remain below inflation almost everywhere, penalising consumers. Globally, a second Cold War has effectively begun, while the pandemic continues to disrupt the world, particularly in China, where the government has opted for a zero Covid strategy, which has had major social and economic impacts.
Nic Martin ( talk) 00:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@ George Ho does this content please you? May it be incorporated? Nic Martin ( talk) 01:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
This article has too much America-centrism. In 2022, the USA is much less of a leading power than it used to be in the First Cold War. A second cold war would be between a group of countries vs another. For example NATO and an Asian equivalent vs Russia, China etc. This article is too focused on USA vs China, Russia. It should be described as Allies vs Axis or democratic countries vs authoritarian. Suggestion: rename subheadings "Russo-American tensions" to "Russo-Allies tensions." and "Sino-American tensions" to "Sino-Allies tensions" - Artanisen ( talk) 12:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I would like to again bring up the long standing WP:OWNERSHIP of User:George Ho on this article. For years now, George Ho has denied any significant edits to this article. I believe any sober review of George Ho's interactions on this article's history reveals a pattern of what is now approaching WP:EDITWAR behavior. I returned to this article to make a minor contribution. I was aware of George Ho's WP:OWNERSHIP behavior, so I backed my edit with two sources (The Financial Times and the Council on Foreign Relations - hardly flippant sources). I was hoping to make a larger change, but I wanted to test the waters by making the least controversial edit I could think of to check to see if the (somewhat inexplicable) policing behavior was still occurring. Checking in the next morning, my suspicions were confirmed. My cited change, was reverted with a comment "the current usage hasn't changed yet; the topic is still not an event; plz discuss first before making such drastic changes to the article". George Ho continues to reign here. Reviewing the history, George appears to only be interested in: 1) ensuring the article reflects a worldview that use of this term is irresponsible or people using this term are misguided 2) encouraging others to question the existence of the article as well as attempting to (in my opinion) "degrade" the article by accusing it of having too many sources - which I expect is the natural outcome of years of his WP:OWNERSHIP behavior. 3) Otherwise tirelessly discouraging the development of this article.
The last conversation regarding George Ho's conduct can be found here: Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 8
@ George Ho, I'll ask that you undo the revert of my change and instead start a discussion here on Talk so we can reach a consensus. If you're unwilling to do this, we can bring the issue to the dispute resolution channels. Nic Martin ( talk) 11:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Also, I really wish the "ownership" accusations must cease or something like that. I don't know what kind of "ownership" behavior I'm exerting. About three things you provided, do you have proof, and are they part of ownership behavior that I'm supposedly exerting?
Reviewing sources that you added, the second one ( CFR) came from National Review, which 1) per WP:RSP#National Review may be questionable, 2) whose article headline is still unreliable, and 3) doesn't mention the article topic or "Cold War" outside the article headline. When it mentions "the new Cold War", I think it must have meant the original Cold War in context.I was able to access Financial Times via The Wikipedia Library a day ago, but now the Library's collections are having server issues. I'll re-discuss the FT article in another time. Meanwhile, the FT article itself is subscription-restricted for now. From what I can recall, the "return of the cold war" doesn't mean this article article, does it? As I can assure you, the article doesn't (explicitly) mention the topic outside the headline, which, like the other source, is unreliable..
What about past discussions, like this one and that one? I had to keep the article consistent with uncontested past discussions made. George Ho ( talk) 15:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)The section headers are using the convention that the "X-Y relations" articles used once upon a time. For the same reasons those no longer use this less accessible convention, I think we should change:
Sino-American tensions -> China-United States tensions Russo-American tensions -> Russia-United States tensions Nic Martin ( talk) 20:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I think this term is best to describe tensions between the United States and the West and the combined alliance of Russia and China. To say it’s an either or, does not effectively cover the term or the situation at the moment MarcusPearl95 ( talk) 04:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@ NickMartin: I don't know why you mention "trade war" when, indeed, I'm unable to access most of the sources you added. Were you using just article headlines, or why else citing the sources to verify the connection between "trade war" and this topic? Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you fully and/or thoroughly read the articles? Also, an op-ed from Al-Jazeera...
BTW, I'm mentioning your name here before you would start more threads. Seems that you wanted change or update the article for the sake of changing or updating it, right? I want to revert the recent additions you made, but... Oh, I want to revert right away unless you object. George Ho ( talk) 03:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@ NickMartin: I've not yet reverted your addition of the "Moscow-Beijing bloc" citing another CFR article, but mentioning such can be... provoking, especially when the source doesn't mention the article topic generally, regardless of its headline. I really wish you revert ASAP, so I don't have to be reported again. Please? -- George Ho ( talk) 02:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@ george ho I believe the 3RR rule still applies even if you mask your reverts behind an edit claiming to be a minor reference change: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Second_Cold_War&oldid=1102806689 Nic Martin ( talk) 00:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@ George Ho - I read the RFC. There was no consensus on the one you linked, and the previous one stands. This bans a "lead" image, which is not what I added. Undo the revert or I will report. Nic Martin ( talk) 00:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I conclude that the community does not reach consensus to overrule the previous close. The community displays considerable impatience with the repeated discussion, and so I advise against beginning a fresh RfC on this subject unless and until significant new sources appear.
There is no consenus here. On reviewing the discussion and the proposed images, I believe the status quo is the best outcome. The mere identifcation of the United States, Russia and China is not necessary, for the same reason as we don't link those countries in prose (i.e. "subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar.") The other images are not appropriate - the division of the countries of the world into "camps" seems arbitrary and could even border on original research without thorough explanation and references. A vial of vaccine is a bizarre choice, and the image of tanks in Ukraine is focusing on a very specific part of the relationship between only 2 of the subjects of the article (i.e. ignores China). This latter point is of course is the problem, i.e. how to summarise both relationships; I believe the ultimate resolution will be a further and more definitive defintion of the term Second Cold War by consensus of reliable sources.
"I conclude that the community does not reach consensus to overrule the previous close"
"There is no consenus here."
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to add an image of Sergey Lavrov to the "debate over term" section. I would like to use the image as an opportunity to do some minor synthesis of the existing citations by mentioning in the caption that he has "expressed criticism towards the use of the term "new cold war" on multiple occasions" (with links to a few relevant existing refs to back that up). See this version [4] for reference. Nic Martin ( talk) 18:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The world War II box needs to be added to this page. 2A00:1FA0:499:6764:0:55:91CE:BF01 ( talk) 05:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Some editors have used the conclusion of past RFCs, which were closed without consensus, as reason for blocking the use of images in this article. To ensure that this article is allowed to develop, I am asking that we take a moment to clarify whether any special image policy or policies (beyond the standards for any article) this article must follow.
Prior RFCs:
Thank you in advance, Nic Martin ( talk) 15:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
PROPOSAL
I reviewed the long history of this article and I see why some of the editors involved in that history have a developed a negative gut reaction to photos of any kind. I am not proposing we go back to the somewhat
ridiculous places this article has gone to in the past.
However, I believe - understandably due to historical trauma - some editors are applying policies to this article that are beginning to feel like a violation of WP:CENSOR. I do not expect this is the intent, but I do believe it is (increasingly) becoming the effect.
The bar I've used for this article, borrowed from @ George Ho (thank you) is that "this article is about a term, not about an event". In that spirit, I propose we come to a consensus that the only images banned are those that group countries into "sides" of a perceived cold war - via a map or otherwise. Any other images are only subject to WP:IMGCONTENT.
I consider this as a measured solution that will prevent this article from becoming a "fantasy war page" while also allowing us to create quality encyclopedic content regarding a term that is only becoming increasingly common. - Nic Martin ( talk) 19:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Like cold war article
Second Cold War | |
@ UlyssorZebra: I don't know which reliable sources verify the connection between the term and other countries involved in a global context. I limit the scope of sources to just ones explicitly using the term or mentioning the term(s). Calling the article US-centric seems... I don't know how to describe it. If not "subtle", then how do you describe the calling? "Accurate"? George Ho ( talk) 20:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
as a Western-Russian conflict. George Ho ( talk) 18:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I think it would be best if we altered the purpose of the page. Presently the page is centered around discussing the possibility of a Second Cold War and the use of the term by various scholars, journalists, and politicians. I believe there is sufficient evidence and consensus to label the hostility between Russian and the NATO alliance as a distinct Second Cold War. There is a clear ideological divide between the two camps, and there are numerous proxy wars (Ukraine, Syria) to constitute a new Cold War. Consequently, I propose that the article be structured to more closely match the structure of the Cold War article on Wikipedia. This article provides explanation about the origins of the Cold War and the general history of the conflict. I believe this article should mirror this article.
What do you think? MLPfanficwriter ( talk) 21:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Should we begin adding significant events (ie. F-22 raptor brought down an asset of the PRC off the Atlantic Coast in US airspace on Feb. 4 2023, this appears to be the first downing of a foreign asset over US territory since WWII (1945- in the Philippines);
Or should this wait until there is at least a second incident? Riannya ( talk) 02:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Can related maps be allowed in the "Russo-Ukrainian War" section? (We haven't allowed maps per one of prior discussion for a long while.) George Ho ( talk) 17:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I think we should start some kind of infobox, like at /info/en/?search=Russo-Ukrainian_War If we get some photos to do with China, Russia & the US it would look good. Friendly Engineer ( talk) 19:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
If Bill Clinton were thinking about the future of the country instead of Monica Lewinsky, the current US government would not be preparing for confrontation with China now. Also, Russia would have been an ally to USA and would have, as always, been a counterforce to China and the Asian region as a whole.
There had been reasons for such alliance. US and Russia even conducted joint military exercises in 1994, 1996, and 1998. Navies of both countries participated in exercises called “COOPERATION FROM THE SEA”.
Russia should have been the ally, not Eastern Europe. In that case, today’s pipelines would be going not to China but to North American continent through Alaska. But the USA made a strategic error in the 90s for which future generations will pay.
By betting on Eastern Europe, US only created a headache. Aside from boundless ambitions, these allies have little to offer other than agricultural products richly fertilized by radioactive fallout from Chernobyl power plant. Russia, on the other hand, possesses enormous natural resources, strategic location, plus existing developed military bases. 2001:569:70A5:6800:BD5E:B0D2:FC0F:757 ( talk) 16:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the concerns about worldwide views being not represented, but leaving the {{ globalize}} still intact implies that this article needs some rewrite or cleanup. Unfortunately, I fail to see the case of need (to rewrite or cleanup just to include other non-US views). I see unsatisfied editors wanting the article to be one of worldwide topics, but I don't see why we must keep the tag any longer. I intend to remove the tag, but I welcome comments here. George Ho ( talk) 16:52, 17 July 2023 (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.
Shall the {{ globalize}} tag remain or be removed? Why or why not? (see #"Globalize" tag still intact for original discussion.) George Ho ( talk) 10:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
While the tag has been mod-removed, the issues remain and are problematic. I'll refrain from making any edits to the article as I don't want to be unconstructive, and I admittedly lack the time to properly rewrite the article. Do consider that the (first) Cold War article is much less US-centric and may be a source of inspiration. (1) Evidently, the US plays a dominant role in both, but whereas the Second War article is written as if it's a US-China and US-Russia conflict, the (first) Cold War article talks about blocs led by the US and USSR. The Second Cold War also has its alliances and cooperations, and so far, the members of these blocs seem less cohesive (less "led") and more autonomous. For example, the current Indian policy in the China Cold War is independent from the US, yet is in many sources an important "Cold War" as well. The EU is a newish actor with its own strategic choices. The desire in Eastern Europe for European integration - and the focus of many/most European countries to drive such integration - is a key cause/topic in the Second Cold War (goes much beyond the current Ukraine War), yet is almost entirely absent from the article. Plenty of reliable sources however do focus on this. Japan's China policy and includes its own efforts to alliance-building, independent from the US, including with India, the EU and Australia. Etc. (2) Also consider expanding the policies from China; the article makes it seem that the Cold War is US-presidency-driven (Trump, Biden). Many reliable articles consider Chinese own political choices and shifts as equally important contributors to the current Second Cold War, and precede Trump (e.g., Xi Jinping much more assertive foreign policy vs Hu Jintao's "peaceful rise" policy), and led to counterbalancing reactions across the region, not only from the US. UlyssorZebra ( talk) 08:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Now with the escalating conflict in the middle east, tension between east and west have rose. Israel, backed by the USA, is fighting Hamas and Hezbollah, backed by Iran. This is, in my opinion, a war that resembles many of the smaller puppet wars in the Cold War era, even ones that are incredibly similar in context to the current conflict. It is only a single war, but tension between Iran and the USA have been going uphill with the Iranian attempt at producing Nuclear weapons, the source of the original Cold War. I do not believe a lot of people are using this term in this context as of now, but I also believe that is because we are witnessing the beginning of said war, as the conflict has reached far greater escalation levels than it ever did before. I should also note that, considering Russian interests has been promoted too by this war, and perhaps even chinese too with a seemingly approaching Taiwan invasion. If such link is logical, then perhaps the term 2nd Cold War can be used to describe a USA vs The Eastern World conflict. It would also make the middle east conflict the 2nd puppet war in the conflict, which, in my opinion, is quite enough to justify naming this conflict a cold war. 2A0D:6FC2:4BF3:D500:1915:7054:5F99:8E8D ( talk) 17:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I looked up over 100 articles for this one. I might go back and try and add them all. Feel free to add sources or go into data wrapper to change things. Wikideas1 ( talk) 06:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Added to article:
In December 2023 the International Monetary Fund warned that the global economy risked losing up to $7 trillion in the event of a new Cold War. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
Ikipedia2 ( talk) 02:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I apologize that was my mistake @George Ho I didn't see the edit I created was moved below into another section. I removed the photo. As recompense (an apology), if you don't want any photo in the article at all, at the top of this article, you can either put any photo you wish or delete the infobox altogether. I was wrong. I apologize. Ikipedia2 ( talk) 18:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Second Cold War inn the Middle East has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Second Cold War inn the Middle East until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
07:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't see why a map of NATO is needed other than to attract those who treat this topic like an "event", despite consensus saying it's not. The map on the right is no exception, IMO. Other maps, like a US-China one, were removed from the article for the same reason that this map isn't needed. George Ho ( talk) 19:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Tobby72: The "weakest consensus" decided to allow the Sergey Lavrov image ( archived discussion). Well, I didn't favor including it much, but I'm unsure whether it should be removed. Well, I don't mind it removed as, IMO, the image doesn't add much understanding other than to fill visual void, especially when you have mostly text that may not appeal readers who are more into visual media than anything else. Perhaps consensus would favor/allow removal of this image this time? George Ho ( talk) 09:09, 31 May 2024 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
To whom it may concern,
Hi! I noticed my contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Second_Cold_War&diff=1063247147&oldid=1063186232 has been reverted, and the reason is "more likely unverified as (literally) related to this topic; also, based on unverified assumptions that the topic is actually an event".
My opinion to the first reason ("more likely unverified as (literally) related to this topic") is: military deployment is definitely related to any Cold War. Say, the moderator has already allowed AUKUS to be "related", what makes hypersonic weapons less related? If I misunderstood anything, please explain further.
As to the second reason ("based on unverified assumptions that the topic is actually an event"), I guess the moderator is assuming that, since I opened a sub-section, I am treating "The development of hypersonic weapons" as an event. I agree the relationship between hypersonic weapons and Second Cold War is still to be determined, but that doesn't diminish the importance of firing hypersonic missiles by China as a historic incident in China-US tensions. I would be glad to discuss about the position where these news best fit in. But an one-click reverting of other's contribution is not a positive response, from both the perspectives of valuing others' works and growth of the community.
I am posting my questions in a talk page, such that we can have a clear discussion, and future editors coming to this page would also benefit from a consistent standard.
Cheers, TaicauZin ( talk) 02:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
it should be placed in institutes, not on wikipedia.Off-wiki discussions don't count and shouldn't count, unfortunately! See wp:consensus#Pitfalls and errors. Better have off-wiki events and discussions recorded and incorporated into (external) sources, like a news article, an interview, a book, or any other medium, not on Wikipedia without a reliable source. George Ho ( talk) 22:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Will Vladimir Putin turn the Second Cold War into a hot one? https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/01/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-cold-war-hot-war-analysis-intl/index.html CNN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiet2 ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we should be creating concepts on Wikipedia out of some articles from some outlets. This term is barely used, and few academics would even accept that there is any kind of "Second Cold War" going on. Interesting in the whole page, most of the quotes are from people saying there isn't and/or won't be any kind of cold war between China and USA, and tensions between those two countries are completely different from what was once called Cold War between USA and USSR. Valverde.pr ( talk) 03:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I came across a Voice of America article that may be germane to the topic here. (I don't have time to do major edits these days, but figured I'd pass it along.) --Surv1v4l1st ╠ Talk║ Contribs╣ 02:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
What about the EU and NATO, Ukraine and Georgia, AUKUS and the Quad, South Korea and Taiwan? Bommbass ( talk) 12:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Other than the chaos and tyranny of the administration Wikipedia has had a reputation for many reasons, many users who have the free-will to inform their reports for the article, have had various cold conflicts with User:George Ho. If one looks through the usual view history of this unique article, he is been trying to be using pro-sino sources, than the obvious mix sources.-- Funkquakes ( talk) 08:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I did, because my gmail could not log me in since it was expired for me, since the password was long gone. So I had to use a new gmail, just to be safe.-- Funkquakes ( talk) 08:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I was expecting you say something about it. You are the guardian of the article, yet, it is for everyone to edit the page. It's not just pushing the sino issue, it's because most users wanted use the article and they had very good sources, from what I had seen from the view history, and I believe they could have been linked or redirected for other articles. If it not for various users were possibly paid to create articles. However, you did do some redirect links, and many changes to article, and I am glad for the fixes to the article.-- Funkquakes ( talk) 08:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
George Ho is exhibiting blatant WP:OWNERSHIP behavior on this article. Someone should seriously take him up to WP:ANI at this point, it's getting disruptive. I thought I reversed his disruption by reverting his most recent edits on here, but it seems like George has done this against dozens of users at this point, dating back to at least 2015. He also wouldn't stop harping about a specific RfC, which he started himself, barely involved more than 5 users, and now uses that as authoritative measure to revert others. 153.190.207.197 ( talk) 09:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
It started in 2003 this page should be edited ( talk) 20:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC) 2ofthe22ofthe2022
Would this campaign box or one like it be okay to put in the article? -- Travisthecrab ( talk) 08:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Mentioning it here, as I fear the wrath of our liege-lord George Ho should I dare attempt to incorporate this information myself.
From the report:
However, the only certainty is uncertainty: central banks are raising interest rates and seeking a soft landing after a period of inflation in most Western countries, while wages remain below inflation almost everywhere, penalising consumers. Globally, a second Cold War has effectively begun, while the pandemic continues to disrupt the world, particularly in China, where the government has opted for a zero Covid strategy, which has had major social and economic impacts.
Nic Martin ( talk) 00:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@ George Ho does this content please you? May it be incorporated? Nic Martin ( talk) 01:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
This article has too much America-centrism. In 2022, the USA is much less of a leading power than it used to be in the First Cold War. A second cold war would be between a group of countries vs another. For example NATO and an Asian equivalent vs Russia, China etc. This article is too focused on USA vs China, Russia. It should be described as Allies vs Axis or democratic countries vs authoritarian. Suggestion: rename subheadings "Russo-American tensions" to "Russo-Allies tensions." and "Sino-American tensions" to "Sino-Allies tensions" - Artanisen ( talk) 12:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I would like to again bring up the long standing WP:OWNERSHIP of User:George Ho on this article. For years now, George Ho has denied any significant edits to this article. I believe any sober review of George Ho's interactions on this article's history reveals a pattern of what is now approaching WP:EDITWAR behavior. I returned to this article to make a minor contribution. I was aware of George Ho's WP:OWNERSHIP behavior, so I backed my edit with two sources (The Financial Times and the Council on Foreign Relations - hardly flippant sources). I was hoping to make a larger change, but I wanted to test the waters by making the least controversial edit I could think of to check to see if the (somewhat inexplicable) policing behavior was still occurring. Checking in the next morning, my suspicions were confirmed. My cited change, was reverted with a comment "the current usage hasn't changed yet; the topic is still not an event; plz discuss first before making such drastic changes to the article". George Ho continues to reign here. Reviewing the history, George appears to only be interested in: 1) ensuring the article reflects a worldview that use of this term is irresponsible or people using this term are misguided 2) encouraging others to question the existence of the article as well as attempting to (in my opinion) "degrade" the article by accusing it of having too many sources - which I expect is the natural outcome of years of his WP:OWNERSHIP behavior. 3) Otherwise tirelessly discouraging the development of this article.
The last conversation regarding George Ho's conduct can be found here: Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 8
@ George Ho, I'll ask that you undo the revert of my change and instead start a discussion here on Talk so we can reach a consensus. If you're unwilling to do this, we can bring the issue to the dispute resolution channels. Nic Martin ( talk) 11:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Also, I really wish the "ownership" accusations must cease or something like that. I don't know what kind of "ownership" behavior I'm exerting. About three things you provided, do you have proof, and are they part of ownership behavior that I'm supposedly exerting?
Reviewing sources that you added, the second one ( CFR) came from National Review, which 1) per WP:RSP#National Review may be questionable, 2) whose article headline is still unreliable, and 3) doesn't mention the article topic or "Cold War" outside the article headline. When it mentions "the new Cold War", I think it must have meant the original Cold War in context.I was able to access Financial Times via The Wikipedia Library a day ago, but now the Library's collections are having server issues. I'll re-discuss the FT article in another time. Meanwhile, the FT article itself is subscription-restricted for now. From what I can recall, the "return of the cold war" doesn't mean this article article, does it? As I can assure you, the article doesn't (explicitly) mention the topic outside the headline, which, like the other source, is unreliable..
What about past discussions, like this one and that one? I had to keep the article consistent with uncontested past discussions made. George Ho ( talk) 15:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)The section headers are using the convention that the "X-Y relations" articles used once upon a time. For the same reasons those no longer use this less accessible convention, I think we should change:
Sino-American tensions -> China-United States tensions Russo-American tensions -> Russia-United States tensions Nic Martin ( talk) 20:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I think this term is best to describe tensions between the United States and the West and the combined alliance of Russia and China. To say it’s an either or, does not effectively cover the term or the situation at the moment MarcusPearl95 ( talk) 04:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@ NickMartin: I don't know why you mention "trade war" when, indeed, I'm unable to access most of the sources you added. Were you using just article headlines, or why else citing the sources to verify the connection between "trade war" and this topic? Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you fully and/or thoroughly read the articles? Also, an op-ed from Al-Jazeera...
BTW, I'm mentioning your name here before you would start more threads. Seems that you wanted change or update the article for the sake of changing or updating it, right? I want to revert the recent additions you made, but... Oh, I want to revert right away unless you object. George Ho ( talk) 03:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@ NickMartin: I've not yet reverted your addition of the "Moscow-Beijing bloc" citing another CFR article, but mentioning such can be... provoking, especially when the source doesn't mention the article topic generally, regardless of its headline. I really wish you revert ASAP, so I don't have to be reported again. Please? -- George Ho ( talk) 02:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@ george ho I believe the 3RR rule still applies even if you mask your reverts behind an edit claiming to be a minor reference change: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Second_Cold_War&oldid=1102806689 Nic Martin ( talk) 00:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@ George Ho - I read the RFC. There was no consensus on the one you linked, and the previous one stands. This bans a "lead" image, which is not what I added. Undo the revert or I will report. Nic Martin ( talk) 00:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I conclude that the community does not reach consensus to overrule the previous close. The community displays considerable impatience with the repeated discussion, and so I advise against beginning a fresh RfC on this subject unless and until significant new sources appear.
There is no consenus here. On reviewing the discussion and the proposed images, I believe the status quo is the best outcome. The mere identifcation of the United States, Russia and China is not necessary, for the same reason as we don't link those countries in prose (i.e. "subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar.") The other images are not appropriate - the division of the countries of the world into "camps" seems arbitrary and could even border on original research without thorough explanation and references. A vial of vaccine is a bizarre choice, and the image of tanks in Ukraine is focusing on a very specific part of the relationship between only 2 of the subjects of the article (i.e. ignores China). This latter point is of course is the problem, i.e. how to summarise both relationships; I believe the ultimate resolution will be a further and more definitive defintion of the term Second Cold War by consensus of reliable sources.
"I conclude that the community does not reach consensus to overrule the previous close"
"There is no consenus here."
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to add an image of Sergey Lavrov to the "debate over term" section. I would like to use the image as an opportunity to do some minor synthesis of the existing citations by mentioning in the caption that he has "expressed criticism towards the use of the term "new cold war" on multiple occasions" (with links to a few relevant existing refs to back that up). See this version [4] for reference. Nic Martin ( talk) 18:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The world War II box needs to be added to this page. 2A00:1FA0:499:6764:0:55:91CE:BF01 ( talk) 05:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Some editors have used the conclusion of past RFCs, which were closed without consensus, as reason for blocking the use of images in this article. To ensure that this article is allowed to develop, I am asking that we take a moment to clarify whether any special image policy or policies (beyond the standards for any article) this article must follow.
Prior RFCs:
Thank you in advance, Nic Martin ( talk) 15:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
PROPOSAL
I reviewed the long history of this article and I see why some of the editors involved in that history have a developed a negative gut reaction to photos of any kind. I am not proposing we go back to the somewhat
ridiculous places this article has gone to in the past.
However, I believe - understandably due to historical trauma - some editors are applying policies to this article that are beginning to feel like a violation of WP:CENSOR. I do not expect this is the intent, but I do believe it is (increasingly) becoming the effect.
The bar I've used for this article, borrowed from @ George Ho (thank you) is that "this article is about a term, not about an event". In that spirit, I propose we come to a consensus that the only images banned are those that group countries into "sides" of a perceived cold war - via a map or otherwise. Any other images are only subject to WP:IMGCONTENT.
I consider this as a measured solution that will prevent this article from becoming a "fantasy war page" while also allowing us to create quality encyclopedic content regarding a term that is only becoming increasingly common. - Nic Martin ( talk) 19:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Like cold war article
Second Cold War | |
@ UlyssorZebra: I don't know which reliable sources verify the connection between the term and other countries involved in a global context. I limit the scope of sources to just ones explicitly using the term or mentioning the term(s). Calling the article US-centric seems... I don't know how to describe it. If not "subtle", then how do you describe the calling? "Accurate"? George Ho ( talk) 20:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
as a Western-Russian conflict. George Ho ( talk) 18:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I think it would be best if we altered the purpose of the page. Presently the page is centered around discussing the possibility of a Second Cold War and the use of the term by various scholars, journalists, and politicians. I believe there is sufficient evidence and consensus to label the hostility between Russian and the NATO alliance as a distinct Second Cold War. There is a clear ideological divide between the two camps, and there are numerous proxy wars (Ukraine, Syria) to constitute a new Cold War. Consequently, I propose that the article be structured to more closely match the structure of the Cold War article on Wikipedia. This article provides explanation about the origins of the Cold War and the general history of the conflict. I believe this article should mirror this article.
What do you think? MLPfanficwriter ( talk) 21:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Should we begin adding significant events (ie. F-22 raptor brought down an asset of the PRC off the Atlantic Coast in US airspace on Feb. 4 2023, this appears to be the first downing of a foreign asset over US territory since WWII (1945- in the Philippines);
Or should this wait until there is at least a second incident? Riannya ( talk) 02:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Can related maps be allowed in the "Russo-Ukrainian War" section? (We haven't allowed maps per one of prior discussion for a long while.) George Ho ( talk) 17:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I think we should start some kind of infobox, like at /info/en/?search=Russo-Ukrainian_War If we get some photos to do with China, Russia & the US it would look good. Friendly Engineer ( talk) 19:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
If Bill Clinton were thinking about the future of the country instead of Monica Lewinsky, the current US government would not be preparing for confrontation with China now. Also, Russia would have been an ally to USA and would have, as always, been a counterforce to China and the Asian region as a whole.
There had been reasons for such alliance. US and Russia even conducted joint military exercises in 1994, 1996, and 1998. Navies of both countries participated in exercises called “COOPERATION FROM THE SEA”.
Russia should have been the ally, not Eastern Europe. In that case, today’s pipelines would be going not to China but to North American continent through Alaska. But the USA made a strategic error in the 90s for which future generations will pay.
By betting on Eastern Europe, US only created a headache. Aside from boundless ambitions, these allies have little to offer other than agricultural products richly fertilized by radioactive fallout from Chernobyl power plant. Russia, on the other hand, possesses enormous natural resources, strategic location, plus existing developed military bases. 2001:569:70A5:6800:BD5E:B0D2:FC0F:757 ( talk) 16:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the concerns about worldwide views being not represented, but leaving the {{ globalize}} still intact implies that this article needs some rewrite or cleanup. Unfortunately, I fail to see the case of need (to rewrite or cleanup just to include other non-US views). I see unsatisfied editors wanting the article to be one of worldwide topics, but I don't see why we must keep the tag any longer. I intend to remove the tag, but I welcome comments here. George Ho ( talk) 16:52, 17 July 2023 (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.
Shall the {{ globalize}} tag remain or be removed? Why or why not? (see #"Globalize" tag still intact for original discussion.) George Ho ( talk) 10:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
While the tag has been mod-removed, the issues remain and are problematic. I'll refrain from making any edits to the article as I don't want to be unconstructive, and I admittedly lack the time to properly rewrite the article. Do consider that the (first) Cold War article is much less US-centric and may be a source of inspiration. (1) Evidently, the US plays a dominant role in both, but whereas the Second War article is written as if it's a US-China and US-Russia conflict, the (first) Cold War article talks about blocs led by the US and USSR. The Second Cold War also has its alliances and cooperations, and so far, the members of these blocs seem less cohesive (less "led") and more autonomous. For example, the current Indian policy in the China Cold War is independent from the US, yet is in many sources an important "Cold War" as well. The EU is a newish actor with its own strategic choices. The desire in Eastern Europe for European integration - and the focus of many/most European countries to drive such integration - is a key cause/topic in the Second Cold War (goes much beyond the current Ukraine War), yet is almost entirely absent from the article. Plenty of reliable sources however do focus on this. Japan's China policy and includes its own efforts to alliance-building, independent from the US, including with India, the EU and Australia. Etc. (2) Also consider expanding the policies from China; the article makes it seem that the Cold War is US-presidency-driven (Trump, Biden). Many reliable articles consider Chinese own political choices and shifts as equally important contributors to the current Second Cold War, and precede Trump (e.g., Xi Jinping much more assertive foreign policy vs Hu Jintao's "peaceful rise" policy), and led to counterbalancing reactions across the region, not only from the US. UlyssorZebra ( talk) 08:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Now with the escalating conflict in the middle east, tension between east and west have rose. Israel, backed by the USA, is fighting Hamas and Hezbollah, backed by Iran. This is, in my opinion, a war that resembles many of the smaller puppet wars in the Cold War era, even ones that are incredibly similar in context to the current conflict. It is only a single war, but tension between Iran and the USA have been going uphill with the Iranian attempt at producing Nuclear weapons, the source of the original Cold War. I do not believe a lot of people are using this term in this context as of now, but I also believe that is because we are witnessing the beginning of said war, as the conflict has reached far greater escalation levels than it ever did before. I should also note that, considering Russian interests has been promoted too by this war, and perhaps even chinese too with a seemingly approaching Taiwan invasion. If such link is logical, then perhaps the term 2nd Cold War can be used to describe a USA vs The Eastern World conflict. It would also make the middle east conflict the 2nd puppet war in the conflict, which, in my opinion, is quite enough to justify naming this conflict a cold war. 2A0D:6FC2:4BF3:D500:1915:7054:5F99:8E8D ( talk) 17:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I looked up over 100 articles for this one. I might go back and try and add them all. Feel free to add sources or go into data wrapper to change things. Wikideas1 ( talk) 06:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Added to article:
In December 2023 the International Monetary Fund warned that the global economy risked losing up to $7 trillion in the event of a new Cold War. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
Ikipedia2 ( talk) 02:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I apologize that was my mistake @George Ho I didn't see the edit I created was moved below into another section. I removed the photo. As recompense (an apology), if you don't want any photo in the article at all, at the top of this article, you can either put any photo you wish or delete the infobox altogether. I was wrong. I apologize. Ikipedia2 ( talk) 18:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Second Cold War inn the Middle East has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Second Cold War inn the Middle East until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
07:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't see why a map of NATO is needed other than to attract those who treat this topic like an "event", despite consensus saying it's not. The map on the right is no exception, IMO. Other maps, like a US-China one, were removed from the article for the same reason that this map isn't needed. George Ho ( talk) 19:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Tobby72: The "weakest consensus" decided to allow the Sergey Lavrov image ( archived discussion). Well, I didn't favor including it much, but I'm unsure whether it should be removed. Well, I don't mind it removed as, IMO, the image doesn't add much understanding other than to fill visual void, especially when you have mostly text that may not appeal readers who are more into visual media than anything else. Perhaps consensus would favor/allow removal of this image this time? George Ho ( talk) 09:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)