Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 3

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.

Does it deserves mention??Mr.User200 (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Long time no see, Mr.User200. ;) I found Gizmodo... unfortunately, just Gizmodo. The Daily Beast doesn't verify the connection well. Sources verifying the connection should be used: here you go. --George Ho (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Bah,... not enought reference to considering it. Lets wait then.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging I'm on day 4 about this addition. I checked the CNN article, disregarded the misleading headlines, and found no connection between strikes on the Syrian base and the topic. --George Ho (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fixuture: Also, what to do with the additions you made? None of the sources explicitly say "Cold War II" or "new Cold War" or anything like that. I thought about removing those, but I'd like your opinions please. --George Ho (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And the ones in "See also" section, including those two? --George Ho (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll leave the al-Assad quote alone but still want to remove the whole paragraph about hacking the elections. --George Ho (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem and Hollth: I added a paragraph about Trump's earlier views about China. However, this article proves the contrary. May I use the article to add the info? If not, what else can I do with the paragraph about Trump's views on China? --George Ho (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No. Unless the ref cited speaks about Cold War II.

talk

) 17:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

George Ho take a look at this, http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/understanding-nuclear-weapon-risks-en-676.pdf, what do you think we can use for the contnt of the article.Mr.User200 (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Mr.User200. It doesn't verify the connection with the topic. ...I think we should incubate another idea before starting another RfC. Should we discuss the article title or the article scope or... what else? --George Ho (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: May you please remove the additions? The sources say just "Cold War" without using either "Cold War II" or "Second Cold War". They also do not verify the connection between the remarks and the topic. --George Ho (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I removed the content as synthesis of sources, i.e. original research. --George Ho (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Laytar1, have you considered looking for sources verifying the connection between the topic and the United Kingdom, the European Union, or the Commonwealth of Independent States? I reverted your good-faith addition in the lead. --George Ho (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I need help on transferring or adding quotes about the topic into q:Cold War II or q:New Cold War, both of which are nonexistent at the moment. --George Ho (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC); both created, 20:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@GAJJR: How does this article verify the connection between "Cold War II" and the China-US relations when you added the content? I checked the source and have not found "Cold War II" and similar terms. "since the Cold War" doesn't count. --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

More discussion at my talk page. Meanwhile, the addition was self-reverted. --George Ho (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The "Group of Two", the proposed "special relationship" between the US and China, was added in the See also section. Edited: Should the "Group of Two" a) remain as part of the "See also" section, b) be moved to the "United States vs. China" section as a hatnote, or c) be removed from the article? Modified and listed for the RfC. --George Ho (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Is the addition acceptable? --George Ho (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• B) Move to the "United States vs. China" section as a hatnote. LPW22 (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• I moved the link to the section as suggested, but feel free to revert if anyone disagrees. --George Ho (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The article seems more about commentaries than real happenings of substance. Expulsion of American diplomats for example (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-diplomats-idUSKBN1AD1DV), other disputes including relation to allegation of Russian involvement in 2016 elections and expulsion of Russian diplomats under Obama which has also been compared to Cold War (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/31/cold-war-20-power-plays-us-russia-relations-putin-rewriting/). Along with the sanctions, these have marked a new low in their relationships. I am surprised why it isn't there in the article. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand your concern about the article and the titling of this article,

WP:NOT. We can't use this article to promote re-ignition of the old Cold War tensions between Russia and the United States. Those sources that you mention... The Reuters article doesn't mention "Cold War II". The Telegraph article... the full article isn't accessible, and I don't find the headline a good verification of connecting the content to the topic in question. If you want, let's discuss the titling and the scope in the separate discussion. Shall we? --George Ho (talk

) 01:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Well long ago I read the Russian embassy in UK termed it as a "Cold War deja vú"(http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/29/politics/russia-sanctions-announced-by-white-house/index.html), not to mention the relationship became lowest since Cold War. Also since this article is about the tensions and deterioration of relations between the two nations, I was surprised that these notable events that marked a decline between their reliations weren't here. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:SPS explains why we must be cautious about using or avoid using self-published sources, like Twitter posts. --George Ho (talk

) 01:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

What I meant was comparisons to Cold War. I myself said "the Russian embassy in UK termed it" as a "Cold War deja vú". I didn't say CNN said it. But I did feel it was important since an embassy of a government was comparing it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Important or not, MonsterHunter32, what the Russian embassy in the UK said is not worth including. "Cold War deja vu" ≠ "Cold War II" unless the embassy explicitly equated it. So far, I don't see the explicit connection; I also could not find social media postings connecting "Cold War deja vu" to "Cold War II" or similar terms. Meanwhile, there's already a passage discussing the similarities and differences. --George Ho (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Buzz105, I want to know why you removed "World War III" from the "See also" section. You didn't explain in your edit summary while you removed it. May you please reinsert it and then discuss whether to retain or remove the link to "World War III"? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Because they're unrelated: Cold War 2 is a tentative term referring to the existing tensions between Russia, China, and NATO, while WW3 is an extremely hypothetical concept, and the article on WW3 makes no mention of these real-life tensions. --Buzz105 (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I hope I'm not misunderstanding you. You don't believe that "Cold War II" is actually happening,

WP:NOT. Also, like WW3, we don't know when Cold War II will actually happen, despite the media saying otherwise. I respect your reasons for removing the link, but... it won't hurt reinserting the link, will it? --George Ho (talk

) 17:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, though I still have doubts, this is not something I want to start an edit war over. --Buzz105 (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I have my doubts as well and do consider that worthy of removal. A war is rather easy to see, especially a world war. No organized state armies are shooting at each other, which is a rather distinctive characteristic of a war. Whereas a cold war lacks most of those people in tree looking clothing shooting at one another, but proxy wars abound, as well as intelligence dirty tricks. (Edited addition)With many, many intelligence dirty tricks being novel from a Cold War I perspective, i.e.; network centric warfare, information warfare, "troll brigade" tactics, novel propaganda that is capitalized in traditional intelligence tactics of Cold War I methodologies (see Vietnam War Soviet intelligence involvement in US protest actions, released after the fall of the Soviet Union). All are clear signs of a form of coldion war, with ideology not being the bone of contention, but economic power expansion being the apparent goal. Examples of the latter being PRC telecom discounted deals in many developing nations and Russian mixed network centric and blended military and proxy actions. A world war, again, is notable by global military engagements, exchanging very real ordinance and cutting edge, at the time, technologies and the opponents quite literally die from combat action. Cold War actions are far different, with espionage, intelligence dirty tricks, propaganda, proxy wars and more, but a notable lack of direct engagement, lest the entire thing turn into a very real mess: a world war.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that one of the most prominent features of the old Cold War was the imminent possibility, all during that "war," of a sudden unraveling into World War III at any moment. Fortunately, at least so far, I do not believe we are currently facing such an imminent peril. (Though one never knows these days, with all of the highly "sane" people with their fingers hovering over nuclear launch keys!) I think I'm going to go talk a bit more about this at some point on the Cold War II article's talk page. Oops, I already am on that article's talk page! Cheers, Warrenfrank (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

PS, As one who has lived the majority of my life worrying if I would wake up the next day or not (due to the very real possibility of an accidental nuclear holocaust at any moment), I think some historians who have not experienced this, may not exactly understand what the old Cold War was really like. (I'm now 60 years old.) Warrenfrank (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Axxxion. May you please explain the addition of the inaccessible FT article? I don't know whether the source explicitly mentions "Cold War II", "New Cold War", or any other interchangeable terms. Without knowing what the source says, I question the need to add the recent info. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

George Ho, Thanks for drawing attention to the issue: the relevant bit of what he said is actually quoted in the article here (if you google up the quote you will likely be able to access the article, or read here: https://www.rt.com/news/414124-sanctions-sberbank-cold-war/ ). That said, you have a point. Delete it, if you think it right.Axxxion (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the passage. George Ho (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've made a change to section titles:

• Before: EU and NATO vs. Russia
• After: The EU, NATO, and Russia

The "vs. Russia" part implicitly suggests and could be misconstrued, as if the EU and NATO were supposedly against Russia and its people (versus), which is not accurate. Nevertheless, I don't know how to otherwise better characterise the chasm, as I don't support using versus (vs.) at all. There should then be more descriptive words that would tell, that the relationship is very adversarial, but since both sides see the other side as the belligerent part, then it's difficult to make the section title neutral. And Versus can be willfully or maliciously misconstrued. -Mardus /talk 15:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Other editors: If need be, revert, or change to a more appropriate section title in order to maintain neutrality. -Mardus /talk 15:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: Looking at the US–China section, then it looks like section titles were supposed to point out the adversity, but the use of vs. there can also be misconstrued as 'one party against another party'.

The model article could be the original Cold War article, where top-level section titles (surrounded by two equals signs in code) do not directly attribute who the main adversaries were, but each section lists the main stages of the conflict, each of which contains the most important events. -Mardus /talk 16:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no objections to the changes. George Ho (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: After change from previous section titles, another change was made from this to that. George Ho (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone worried about 'led' in 'Russia-led' and 'China-led'. Now, since there are Russian sphere of influence (Belarus, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, so-called 'DPR' and 'LPR'), Chinese sphere of influence (Nepal and, probably, Pakistan) et mixed sphere of influence (Venezula, North Korea, Iran and Syria) I doubt that 'led' should be removed, no matter what the real degree of importance, powerfulness and independence of countries I have mentioned is. It makes sense to add information about allies of China & Russia into the article instead. — Напечатейтездесьпсевдоним. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.53.169.195 (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Should a section on the Skripal Poisoning be added? Looking at the Russian Embassy Twitter, it is the closest we have to a declared Cold War II ^[1]. It's perhaps the biggest diplomatic upset between the West and Russia since the end of the Cold War. Extensive news reporting saying as much, also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondsiberian (talk • contribs) 03:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Rather not use the Twitter post,

WP:UNDUE. I'm skeptical about using The Age and RT to add info as they either are too opinionated or appeal to unqualified authority. You can try to find other more reliable sources, but I doubt they can establish the connection. --George Ho (talk

) 05:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

George Ho, The Washington Post has made comments about a supposed Second Cold War,^[1][2]. A quick Google Search for Russia can easily reveal this. Even if a Second Cold War were not being discussed by the news, wouldn't it be necessary to highlight the cooling relations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondsiberian (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The USA Today article doesn't add anything but would instead mislead readers, which is

not what Wikipedia is supposed to do. One WaPo article came from Bloomberg, which is good for the Wikiquote counterpart. The other cited its own work, also good for Wikiquote. However, the quotes/sources neither add anything to nor improve readers' understanding of the topic in Wikipedia and should not be used. I figured that Wikiversity or Wikinews is more suitable for more original content to make; if Wikinews, you can do original reporting. Speaking of Wikiquote, I shall add the quotes there right away. --George Ho (talk

) 15:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC); edited, 16:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this source does work, but the others don't in Wikipedia. George Ho (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

George Ho Thank you for the help -- I am new to Wikipedia editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondsiberian (talk • contribs) 21:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to add/mention. However, can you please show me sources asserting the connection? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC); added link, 02:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this information should be added, as it has been all over the news in the last few months. NATO-Rissian relations are said to be an all time low since the first cold war Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. I have given just one source from reliable CNN but you can find multiple sources if you add it, and I really think this information should be added:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/26/europe/full-list-of-russian-diplomats-expelled-over-s-intl/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeptchjijihhtgghbyjhhmkkkl (talk • contribs) 06:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The CNN article doesn't connect this topic to the poisoning incident. Let's not use it please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@LeoLavish: May you please explain the addition of the "Brazil" section? I evaluated the following sources:

• http://politica.estadao.com.br/blogs/fausto-macedo/bolsonaro-apoia-villas-boas-partido-do-exercito-e-o-brasil/
• https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/ultimas-noticias/2018/04/03/outro-64-sera-inaceitavel-diz-janot-sobre-tweet-de-comandante-do-exercito.htm
• https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2018/04/temer-silencia-sobre-declaracao-de-comandante-do-exercito.shtml
• https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2018/04/na-vespera-de-julgamento-sobre-lula-comandante-do-exercito-diz-repudiar-impunidade.shtml
• http://g1.globo.com/mundo/blog/helio-gurovitz/post/armadilha-da-polarizacao-na-politica-parte-i-o-mito-dos-moderados.html
• http://www.otempo.com.br/opini%C3%A3o/leonardo-boff/a-crise-brasileira-no-contexto-da-nova-guerra-fria-entre-china-e-eua-1.1502351

Only this source uses "nova guerra fria", even when I don't understand Portuguese. However, I searched for "fria"; none of other sources uses it. Moreover, the addition violates

I have tagged the section with releveant-inline. This is about hostility in international relations, not internal civil problems of any country. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I changed the inline template to a more visible maintenance one. --George Ho (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The section was removed by anonymous IP user as "irrelevant". --George Ho (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It's been commented that deterioration of relations after Salisbury attack might lead to a new Cold War, some already have described it so. It can be easily found on the internet, so I don't think I'll need to show it. But if you do need it, I'll show some sources here. Should the deterioration in relations following the attack be added to the article? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please show sources; otherwise, let's not add it into the article. We don't want any misleads or misinformation, especially without official word from higher authorities. Also, per

discussion from two years ago, we should limit to sources using the terms, and we should avoid sources that do not verify connections between the term(s) and the Salisbury attack. Alternatively, you can create a subpage at the Wikiversity counterpart, where you can create original thought. --George Ho (talk

) 01:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I did mention it's easily available on the internet. But anyway. One example is here: [3] where AFP states that Russian media is describing itc as a new cold war. Other reports calling it so is here: [4], [5] where it also refers to Russian embassy's indirect reference to Cold War.[6] in its title calls it so. Haaretz called it Cold-war style lows.

Also title of this article says Russian officials are calling it so, though I have only seen Sergei Shoigu say we can talk of return of Cold War: [7]. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

You may want to evaluate how Straits Times uses/quotes other sources, like Russian media, including pro-Kremlin publication and Vedomosti, which mentioned Fyodor Lukyanov but doesn't quote him. Hmm... some of his articles aren't officially translated yet in English. However, best not to use the Straits Times article at the moment; its article headline is too sensational to consider it reliable. I don't know how Straits Times synthesizes Russian media sources, but I wouldn't take their words seriously. Even Russian media is controlled by the Kremlin and (supposedly) making

WP:undue. --George Ho (talk

) 04:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we should be further careful about using the WaPo/AP article. The photos came from 7th Moscow Conference on International Security. Also, the AP article uses very few quotes that do not mention "Cold War II". Let's compare the article with others: [8][9][10][11][12]. --George Ho (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It's AFP quoting Russian media or claiming so anyway, not Straits Times which is just showing AFP's report. I know some sites may not be accurately mentioning about a new cold war in their main body even if they mentioned it in the title. So I thought it better to take opinion of othees and examine it. I have myself detailed some of shortcomings in them, so I know what you are talking about. That's why instead I decided to talk first and examine them with others, instead of adding it directly. Some of the news sites however do compare the relationship to a new cold war. Problem is they seem to be drawing the comparison themselves. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The lead should be completely written. Some statements should be moved into body. Also, I question the status and existence of the topic. Russian politicians and NATO and some academics doubt that the growing tensions are the signs of another "Cold War", but then others differ. Still, the lead sounds as if Cold War II is happening now. --George Ho (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If NATO doubts the growing tensions are a sign of another Cold War, why did Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, say on 16 March 2018: "We don't want a new Cold War, we don't want a new arms race, Russia is our neighbour therefore we have to continue to strive for an improved better relationship with Russia".[13]

The UN Security General has said "the Cold War is back with a vengeance",[14] the President of China warns against a "Cold War mentality" with respect to US import tariffs,[15], MI5's

Sergei Naryshkin, Russia's Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service, telling a security conference in Moscow (4 April 2018) "Washington has become fixated with the fight against a non-existent, so-called Russian threat. This has reached such proportions and acquired such absurd characteristics that it’s possible to speak of a return to the dark times of the Cold War",[17]

All this against a backdrop of Russia annexing Crimea and being suspended from the G8, the US and Russia fighting over Syria, Russia allegedly interfering in the US presidential election, the first use of chemical weapons in Europe since WWII - to say nothing of North Korea, and it is hard to see exactly what else needs to happen before we can say that a new Cold War is either under way or a genuine prospect. Some are trying to be the voice of reason, such as Stef Blok, Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs,[18], who has a vested interest in promoting good relations with Russia (it's his job), but they are a vanishing minority. Thoughts? Firebrace (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Xi's "Cold War mentality" remark is just responding to US's actions and standards, not a sign that two nations is heading to another Cold War. And the Independent (Ireland) article is another one of news sources making a mere sensational headline without adequately detailing a connection between Cold War II and another event. Naryshkin's words merely mean a reminisce of the Cold War but do not mean that another Cold War is happening. Stoltenberg's remarks may prove growing tensions between US and Russia but don't prove that Cold War II is officially happening (yet). --George Ho (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

What would make it "official"? Firebrace (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm unsure anymore whether official declaration is required. I thought about the other Cold War, occurred in the 20th century. I recently read "Declaration of war by the United States" and have found that the "Cold War" is in merely the "See also" section. Therefore, I thought that the "war" (if not Cold War) is never officially declared, especially by reading the transcript of the Malta Summit (1989), which ended (if not lessened) the Cold War tensions. One source says that neither said officially declared "war". However, the other source says that the Summit officially ended the Cold War, though another source says that the 1990 NATO London summit ended it officially. Another source says that one Russian politician interpreted Stalin's statements as declaration of the "cold war". Another source says that "Cold War" was officially declared. More sources: [19][20] --George Ho (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

In other words you don't know. The Cold War was never declared officially, it just sort of happened. Firebrace (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:MOS. I don't see how removal of "disputed" helps. I think including "disputed" reflects some sources disputing the existence of it, like this source and Putin's interview. --George Ho (talk

) 22:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a journalist's op-ed at foreignpolicy.com is

WP:RS. There is no dispute over the existence of an ongoing state of tension between the US, Europe, Israel, Japan and South Korea (you could probably include India given their border disputes and economic rivalry with China); and Russia, China, North Korea, Syria and Iran (Saudi Arabia appear to have conflicting interests). Firebrace (talk

) 23:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That journalist also happens to be an academic

WP:UNDUE; two of them are prominent academics, and I wonder whether they are considered "significant minority". --George Ho (talk

) 00:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Jdg1999 and Anonymous427, may you please explain the additions of the image of Trump and the map? I think they are misleading images and do not accurately represent the topic well. --George Ho (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

George Ho, The image of U.S. president Donald J. Trump addressing the nation over the authorisation of missile strikes in Syria was added because i strongly believe on reasonable grounds that the U.S. Involvement including the involvement of the UK, France and Russia play also a major role in this new Cold War (which is undeniably a new second Cold War, please have a thorough and careful look at the facts which does support so) but however i have chosen now to withdraw the addition of mine due to other conflicting reasons. I also firmly believe and highly recommend however that the image posted by Anonymous427 does stay as it is both a relevant source of information regarding NATO nations and to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdg1999 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

China's official press agency has cited Chinese ambassador to US as calling on US to "abandon its Cold War and zero-sum mentality". However, it doesn't detail the exact statement where he said it. Is it enough to add it? I have doubts over it since it doesn't quote the exact statement, though it is the official Chinese news agency. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I read the source; it doesn't quote but rather interprets. Also, "mentality" is not the sign of "Cold War II". --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say it quoted him so. But even Xi Jinping used the term Cold War mentality. After all this article is about deterioration in relations. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyway this is unrelated, but let's discuss it here. Panetta called the recent deterioration in relations with Russia as "a new chapter in Cold War". (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/were-in-new-chapter-of-cold-war-with-russia-former-defense-secretary-leon-panetta.html). Doesn't say new Cold War, be mindful of that. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Both may (or may not) be good for

undue unless there are other sources saying similar thoughts regarding similar issues. --George Ho (talk

) 19:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC); partially struck, 19:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait... I guess they have similar thoughts but used different words. --George Ho (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't North Korea tie in somewhere here? I'd say the fear of North Korea is far greater than the fear of China doing anything (although DPRK is starting to quieten down a bit ).

Please provide reliable sources proving that North Korea is tied to this topic. Otherwise, let's not make NK the main party. --George Ho (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

[21] says A NEW COLD war could set in between China and the United States as tensions over North Korea pit the giant countries against each other.. [22] says DPRK is involved. [23] is titled North Korea: Prelude to Cold War II?. DPRK is definitely involved here.

talk

> 02:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The Rival article isn't a good source; it only uses "New Cold War" for sensational headlining. Moreover, the article from The New Cold War website doesn't explicitly mention "new Cold War" as part of the main subject. I also expect something better than The Express, like David Roche, who was briefly quoted. Roche rather enhances that US and China are rivaling over North Korea situation; in other words, Roche believes that China (not North Korea!) could be US's another Cold War (arch?)enemy. George Ho (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This section is very long and should be split into subheadings. --

I think it should be trimmed. If we still will have subheadings, how will the section be restructured? --George Ho (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that it should be trimmed. If anything, it should be expanded. At one point, this article did a nice job of explaining the various areas of tension between the United States and Russia, and it's a shame that it no longer does. Orser67 (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your addition,

Still,

original research, discouraged by policy. Have you considered removing the added content yet? Also, what about going to Wikiversity, which allows OR content? George Ho (talk

) 07:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok George Ho, added another source (85) that mentions a connection between the cold war 2 and the trade war, you can find more sources linking them if you search too. Marked Man 808 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to use this source,

WP:UNDUE. There must be more of other pieces with similar opinions. As for the other (four) sources that do not mention "cold war", can you remove them please? Thanks --George Ho (talk

) 19:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Could not find news articles connecting two things. All we have are op-eds, like the following: Nikkei Asian Review, AEI (2), The Hill, Channel News Asia. Do you trust those op-eds? George Ho (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I do, but since you are an older user than me, do what you feel is right. Also the concept of cold war 2 itself is op-ed, I never heard it or read about it in any form of news media.], most of the world leaders like Obama, Putin and Xi Jinping denied it. Ots hardly ever talked about in news channels and papers as the original cold war was. The Ukraine invasion by Russia, the Syrian air strikes by US have revived the Russo American tensions, but no news media states these are acts of a new cold war either. But I think if they are added, so should the Sino-Amerivcan trade war, which considerably increases the Sino-American tension and should be at least mentioned. But I leave the choice to you. Marked Man 808 (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed passage. George Ho (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

the whole article in its current form describes the term Cold War II, proposes the term, lists notable usages of the term and examples and arguments on if it is or isn't applicable term for current situation. There's hardly anything on east-west tensions.

I suggest to change the description from "This article is about present tensions between the East and West" to "This article is about terminology" or "This article is about political views of wikipedia community" Duhgo (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, CapLiber. Why do you think are the maps appropriate as lead images seen in this edit? Also, what about the captions claiming causes, which I think is undetermined in the whole article? George Ho (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I just think multiple image template points out mixed nature of what some people call Cold War II nowadays, that it's not a single conflict. Can you concretize what captions claiming causes are you talking about? CapLiber (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Those captions: "US–Russia tensions have increased in 2014 with international sanctions being applied to Russia after the Ukrainian crisis," and "US–China tensions have increased in 2018 with the new trade policies of President Trump resulting in the trade war." If they are not discussing causes, then I guess they must have referred to what events would lead to Cold War II, right? As for whether or not Cold War II is a "single conflict", are there sources claiming it's a double conflict? George Ho (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The "See also" is getting expanded over time, like recently. Is the amount right, excessive, insufficient, or what? --George Ho (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Funkquake: I see you have added a lot of links in the section. May you please explain the additions? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought it might be some examples of giving the exra information for the section, but if I am wrong, fine, I was trying to issue the last edit, my honest facts about the article, although, it was a free honest edit, I guess the website has the right to freely delete anyone's truthful facts even if one believes or knows it is not factual, that's Wikipedia anyone to freely edit and delete for the taking. I was mot trying to exceed the links and hopefully split the row like the Cold War article. If you want to not have what I edited then you are freely to dispute and delete it.I was just trying help part of the article.Funkquake (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Before you do anything further,

original research. George Ho (talk

) 22:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Funkquake: I see you decided to add back the links that I eliminated as too excessive, despite you letting me to remove them. Can you explain why? George Ho (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@

original research and I am interested within the issues of these types of articles, I was hoping this was the final completion and continue contributing sources upon the main paragraphs. However, if I had made mistake on the situation of free-will editing, well then bene and darn me, sorry. I really wantedto contribute the last section and add reference to the source, let alone if the whole article of course needs a re-edit for the whole page. If it be fine I would continue to add sources to the links? Otherwise, I thought it might find interest for the reader within the facts of the matter, and your reason was quite clear, fine what is your take, since you have contributed more I guess you would have the more suitable suggestion for contributing the word links to its main paragraph areas and possible reference infomation.Funkquake (talk

) 01:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Funkquake: I won't re-revert the additions you made. The sources to the links at "See also" aren't necessary. However, I should explain further that links to primary relations with North Korea or Iran should not be included in the article, especially as part of "See also" as they are not related to the main topic of the article. Also, I don't know why abstract topics, like "trade war" and "surveillance", should be in the separate "See also" section. Can you reconsider the links please? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC); edited, 03:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@George Ho: Why not; yes, it shall be done, and of course, always, your welcome.--Funkquake (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Funkquake: All right, but what about other "North Korea"-related links, like "North Korea–European Union relations"? How are they relevant to the topic in question? If they are relevant but unapparent to many readers, can you make brief annotations please? If irrelevant to the topic, why need them? George Ho (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Funkquake: What about other links that you added, like North Korea–United States relations, Iran–Israel proxy conflict, Iran–European Union relations, Iran–United States relations, and North Korea–United States relations? And redirects and duplicated links? George Ho (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)