Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 5

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.

@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)

@

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)

@

Impeachment trial of Donald Trump, not this article. Even "Cold War" is mentioned only on the article headline and nowhere else in the article itself.

Another AntiWar piece mentions "Cold War" in someone's Feb 2019 quote (without attributing to someone) and as part of the phrase "Cold War lines", which I don't believe to mean this topic, does it?

"Cold War kooks" from a Twitter post isn't part of the second Cold War, is it?

Somehow, you used a Joe Biden quote from this article. Well, honestly, I was confused by what it says: "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"?

The American Conservative op-ed does mention "Cold War", but I'd be wary about using it. The background of columnist(?)/author James W. Carden is not revealed much other than being a writer for The Nation and an organization member. I'm uncertain whether he's a (verified?) political expert, so I'd leave the article out.

Another article from the same site could belong to the Trump trial article, not this article.

Of course, I wouldn't mind sources not explicitly mentioning this topic or connecting any event to this topic if consensus approves those sources. But that would require another consensus overriding long-standing established consensus saying that sources be limited to those using the phrase "Cold War II" (or acceptable interchangeable terms). George Ho (talk

) 05:28, 25 January 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)

@Ekpyros: Ms. Kpyros, the second link goes to references that the full article, which is not publicly accessible without a fee, uses. And one Politico link and the other are the same article; I'm unsure whether to use journalist Susan Glasser's column (or op-ed). The other sources used in the article are academics, yet I don't think Glasser is an academic. Furthermore, I disagree with the undoing of my reversion to your addition whose sources don't connect to the topic. Time article using "Cold War rhetoric" is not an indication to the topic. WaPo article and another Time article don't mention this topic either. Same goes for ABC News article and The Hill article. Seems that the sources are used (if not misused) to cite info that depicts Obama admin in a negative light and prove Mitt Romney's point, aren't they? Why should the info be left intact when none of reliable sources connect their Russia-US tensions to the topic? George Ho (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@George Ho: The sources you have an issue with are germane to the article, especially in the context of "Russo-American tensions", as they are about the disagreement and change in American leaders' perceptions of Russia as a threat. It's a bit hard to believe that you really don't see that. There's something weirdly literal-minded going on here—in your view, is this article solely about the term "Second Cold War", or what that term describes? There are some actually irrelevant sources here. For example, the cited National Interest story, "Russian Bombers in Iran and Tehran's Internal Power Struggle" seems to be included solely because some chap, Vanaka, used the term—despite the fact that he's not at all an authority on Russian-US relations and the article has nothing to do with the subject of the Wiki article. That sounds like some bizarre WP:SYNTH to me—like someone Googled "Second Cold War" and then created an article that cites use of the term in unrelated contexts. That's hardly how to make a good encyclopedia. The goal here is to elucidate important views on a Second Cold War—what does it mean, how did it come to be, etc. Obviously the fact that there was a significant clash of opinion over this during the US presidential election is relevant; it's why so many articles on US-Russian relationships have gone back to it, because things might have gone very differently had Romney or his view prevailed—think of the fundamental disagreement between Kennan and Nitze (and their Presidents) which shaped the Cold War. But obviously the fact that the Obama admin failed at a Russian "reset" prior to Putin's invasion of Crimea is much more important in terms of "Russo-American tensions" than the fact that an Iran expert used the term "Second Cold War" in a Foreign Interest article about missiles. If you want yet another example that literally uses the term and explains why this stuff is important, here's a passage from page 61 of Nicholas Ross Smith's "A New Cold War?: Assessing the Current US-Russia Relationship", published in 2020:

Yet, despite subsequent Russian action in Georgia in 2008, the Obama administration still believed it could engineer a “reset” with Russia in 2009 (Rubin, 2014). Indeed, those within the US establishment—such as Senator John McCain—who were fearful of Russia’s perceived growing anti-Americanism in its foreign policy were heavily chastised for failing to let go of their “Cold War biases.” One prominent example of this was Obama’s ridiculing of Mitt Romney in a 2012 presidential debate: "asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaida. You said Russia ... the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years" (Moorhead, 2012). The US’s perceptions about the Russian threat started to change with Russia’s belligerence in Ukraine and its decision to intervene in Syria, both of which were seen as signs that Russia was unequivocally entering a phase of antagonism against the West. According to Obama, Russia’s assertive policies in Ukraine signified that a “Cold War lens” had re-emerged in Russia’s decision-making (BuzzFeed, 2015). In retaliation to Russia’s Ukraine intervention, the US not only levied target sanctions against the Russian regime, it also declared Russia an “unusual and extraordinary threat” (The White House, 2016). Even so, in Obama’s (2014) own words, the breakdown in relations with Russia over Ukraine was not tantamount to the start of a “New Cold War” (at least from the perspective of the US) but rather “a very specific issue related to Russia’s unwillingness to recognize that Ukraine can chart its own path.

What I'm saying is that the inclusion of the Romney-Obama divide and the Russian "reset" are critical to understanding perceptions and tensions between Russia and the US that resulted in what some call a "New" or "Second" Cold War. Indeed, as you can see, Obama was fighting the term even as he was acknowledging the phenomenon. So yes, this is in several sources that specifically reference it in the context of a "Second Cold War"—but it doesn't have to be, which is why the articles that don't specifically mention a "Second Cold War" are nonetheless 100% kosher. For example, the Wiki article on WWII cites sources about what led up to the war—the Italo-Ethiopian War, for one example—but which don't literally mention the term "World War Two". Surely you understand this—that it's not necessary for the title of the Wikipedia article to literally be in a source for it to be germane?

Last, the sources aren't "misused" to depict anyone in a particular light—why would you even suggest that? There are people all over the spectrum who have weighed in on this—but virtually no one argues the Obama "reset" was a success, and most people (including, as I cited, his first SecState), have credited Romney's prescience. If you think there are serious sources that conclude otherwise which are pertinent to the topic, feel free to include them. Glenn Greenwald^[1] and the New Yorker article would be fine sources, too. Or Frum's interview of early-Obama-backer Glaser.^[2] But it's absurd, offensive, and an obvious violation of WP:AGF to suggest that I'm trying to paint people in a "bad light"—and reveals some real ignorance on the topic. It should be obvious that I'm informed on this topic, and am here solely to build a good encyclopedia. Elle Kpyros (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ekpyros: It’s “Vatanka”, first of all, and I didn’t have to flesh the info out of the source. Second, the consensus of the old discussion agreed to limit reliable sources to ones that use the phrase or similar terms. Third, I still stand by my view that none of the sources connect the Obama/Romney thingy or whatever to this topic. As for Nicholas Ross Smith’s book, the book title is “A New Cold War?”, but the question mark “?” at the end implies possible uncertainty of an author. Or the question mark is a marketing tactic to attract attention of those fearing the outcomes. Also, Obama admin at the end of the quoted passage referred to tension between Russia and Ukraine, not to the topic in question. Furthermore, page 2 of Smith’s book says: “[D]espite significant cooling of the US-Russian relationship, with the potential for further cooling, calling it a New Cold War betrays the reality of the current situation.” Smith even seemed almost reluctant to call this the New Cold War, and page six further verifies the author’s reluctance to call it the New Cold War. BTW, I’m not totally ignorant about the topic. How we view the topic different is subjective at best. However, seems that many editors of the article I’ve encountered are mostly concerned about relations between Russia and the US. Fourth, neither Glenn Greewald nor Rob Glaser is reliable enough to be used, and I don’t see any new info that improves the article. Glaser used the term in reference or context to the 2016 US Presidential Election. Seems that you’re still insistent on preventing me and others from removing the info about Obama/Romney. If we leave the Obama/Romney info intact, readers would assume that the whole thing is related to the topic in question and would assume that the sources connect the info. --George Ho (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@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,

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)

Perhaps apply a chronological approach? Which of the two relationships was described first as potentially entering a Second Cold War? This avoids a judgment call on likelihood and impact. There's also an argument to add a third potential Cold War, and that's one between China and India. See for example: [7][8][9] Morgengave (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The China–India tensions belong currently at

cold war (general term). By the way, scrap out sensationalist article headlines, and let's concentrate on rather article body. Bertil Lintner uses the term to refer to "the US and China’s fast coalescing new Cold War". Another journalist doesn't mention "cold war" anywhere in the article other than article headline. George Ho (talk

) 13:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

No need at all to get on the offensive George Ho - I just took the first three sources following a quick Google search to illustrate the actual Cold War term usage for the China-India tensions; I never claimed these were the best sources. Your comment does indirectly lead to an interesting point that this article is likely redundant and can be merged with the "Cold war (general term)" article. Morgengave (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just have had tendency to be cautious, especially when it comes to the article subject. Regarding the merger proposal, I tried that

proposal four years ago; that failed. Oh, almost forgot: another editor reverted the IP editor's reversal hours ago. Now the China–US comes first at this time. George Ho (talk

) 20:43, 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)

Hi George Ho (talk), I think we can check the type of infobox to use, I think two columns side-by-side is good for showing that its US vs China/Russia Halo FC (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Please don't. Let's await the "term vs event" to resolve, okay? If "term", then let's not assume that China and Russia are in this together. --George Ho (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I had already expected that "term" would win out. I called it a "term-based infobox" after all. So I had considered that while editing the infobox, notice that I had deliberately placed a line in-between the 'Russia' and 'China' words to symbolize ("USA vs Russia" + "USA vs China") Halo FC (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Not from what I've seen from this revision. Present-day current events situation/concept looks 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)

Well you did see the line right? lol

Hmm, because I'm thinking that it is indeed based on current events right? I meant it as a distinction for a term, otherwise, for an actual ongoing conflict, it would be "(some date)-present" instead. I also made sure to include "/concept", to signify the possibility that this cold war is still mild stuff, in addition to a description in the status section. I think with an infobox it's also easy to highlight major updates in the status of the developing situation

This is also why its status is "Developing situation" instead of "Ongoing", as "Ongoing" would mean an actual ongoing war, signifying the difference, and notice the additional "present-day" header at the top of the infobox, so as to spell it out clearly.

As for the photos, they are of real events, it's what's really going on in the world, though above I've described all the ways to distinguish it

China and Russia are indeed the primary parties, but on second thoughts, that line's not good enough, to really signify the separation, we can use a THICC line XD

There's also another important factor, which is, if China and Russia are both against the US, and they've agreed to put their differences aside, which they seem to have, they are effectively allied, and so that distinction is really quite marginal. But anyway, I don't mind using a thicc line lol Halo FC (talk) 20:23, 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)

yeah I see, though it is a highlight presentation of status updates, and I think it doesn't need to be struck off, and I also tried to consider the most formal and accurate terms. For comparing to the first Cold War, we know that there are things that are currently going on right now, if nothing was going on, this term "Second Cold War" wouldn't be buzzing in the news, the goings-on are the reason that the Second Cold War is a relevant topic. This Second Cold War is the biggest thing in global news alongside the pandemic. And at the same time, I was thinking that it actually indicates to the contrary, that this Second Cold War is currently quite mild right now, and therefore largely conceptual, I think the description accurately reflects the reality. If it suggests more which I don't think it really does, I guess the article itself is somewhat divided, and at least the infobox clearly errs on the side of a "term", and it even explicitly states so, I think the different terms are quite helpful in indicating the explicit difference. Ultimately though, and sorry if I'm being repetitive, I guess the Second Cold War sits on a blurry line between "event" and "term", many things are happening and going on right now, but it's still a lot of ink about the future, and not a serious Cold War yet, and so I guess it fits with an infobox Halo FC (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sennecaster: The consensus of past discussion said no to "infobox military conflict". Attempts to reinsert the infobox template in different forms have been reverted to abide to the decision made years ago. This one is almost no different (to me). It's rather another attempt to circumvent the decision made, especially amid another ongoing matter discussed. --George Ho (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sennecaster: Oh, dayum, I don't think I can figure out how to avoid referring to the other user, my apologies to both. The previous consensus was about 6 years ago, and the point made seemed to be that the Second Cold War is not a hot war, which I agree with, but on the other hand, I have an alternate view, which I consider new and different, and, now, years later, I've brought forth some new points on why I think an infobox is alright. I think those prior discussions were also the development of some goobers making poor infoboxes, so for my most recent infobox addition, I took the latest discussions into account to carefully write a new infobox.

I think the word "circumvent" seems to imply that it's some kind of law against a negative thing, maybe like the issue of trying to do tax avoidance or similar things, and I don't know what to make of this negative view, from my point of view, I am thinking of something new and different, and I think that we ought to be not too rigid and inflexible. Things are changing, times are changing, the world is changing rapidly. Years later, which is presently, the Second Cold War seems to have kicked up a notch, and I echo that unnamed "User 1482" in this talk page, "Wow, this year or the next is going to be a major remodeling in this article." As the notch gets higher and higher, and the Second Cold War appears more and more in the news, I think there are also more and more readers who find an infobox handy, a user also thanked me for adding the most recent infobox

This section began with me explaining my new points on why I thought we could include an infobox. Next, there's the idea that the "Second Cold War" is mainly a "term/concept" which is being discussed by pundits, experts and academics, and the conflict is relatively mild, especially compared to the first Cold War, being not a "full-blown cold war". Which is a bit blurry, because a cold war is itself not a "full-blown war". And I think I have written the infobox carefully to reflect this, this is covered in the discussion just prior to seeking your third opinion. And as the infobox might seem different, that's because the Second Cold War is quite unique, reality itself can be unique (Wikipedia hadn't yet come into existence during the first Cold War); I think there's hardly anything else that could be relatively mild, but yet trigger so much intense discussion among pundits, other than the looming specter of a new global cold war which could have major ramifications or repercussions for the entire world.

I think the difference between me and the other party is that one, it seems to me, is more conservative and prohibitive, which I sometimes don't know what to make of, my honest view, no offence, while on the other hand, I want to try to provide readers a "true-color, high-definition" picture of the global conflict of the Second Cold War, or at least that's the ideal

And thank you both for taking the time to read through my comments, hope it's not too long, thanks (edited comment) Halo FC (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 

 

 

(replying here to both of you, thanks for explaining this a bit more!) George Ho and Halo FC, I have read the discussions here and your statements, and I think I understand the issue a bit more. It seems like consensus on the discussions below is to treat this topic as a term, as that's what the RS is saying (but I also see claims of RS being sketchy as well). I think in this situation, as with all controversial topics, Wikipedia editors have to be more conservative with their scope and writing. Are a majority of sources labeling the conflict as a term? Defining "blocs"? We don't get to define a bloc or a term unless our sources are saying that for us. This article needs more discussion from other editors aside from you two; while I'm happy to provide a third opinion, it is not a consensus.

I don't think every article needs an infobox per say, especially since this is a multi-faceted and global conflict with every side having their own interests. An infobox simplifies the information in the article, but it looks to be too simplified for what the article actually discusses in the nuance. For the few people who have commented on the debates recently, it seems like they do not agree with the infobox in its current state. I think there should not be an infobox. User:Nick-D summed it up pretty well as to why I think it should not belong.

I hope this helped, and if you both disagree with my opinion, feel free to seek other forms of dispute resolution. Thanks for reaching out for a third opinion! Sennecaster (What now?) 12:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sennecaster, thank you reading and going through our texts, I'd just like to reply a bit, thanks

So, sorry, to get my word in, but I made the latest infobox edit before this after Nick-D's comment (in this talk page), and hence I think I've addressed it. And so far only George Ho has discussed my latest infobox edit, apart from yourself

As mentioned earlier, some of the earlier infoboxes were pretty haphazard, typically long rambling lists of parties/countries, ripe for comments like Nick-D's to put those details into dispute, and rightfully so; and so when I made that latest infobox edit, I was quite careful and conservative, especially compared to my first infobox edit, which was much more detailed but less clear on accuracy. And so for the simplified part, I thought to do the opposite of rambling, to keep the box focused on the primary tenets of this article, which are "US vs Russia" + "US vs China". I also mentioned above that I think an infobox can provide a handy 'eye-spot' for updates and changes on the status of the Second Cold War, and could help provide a sense of the larger overall picture, and thanks Sennecaster

Edit: For the "simplified" part, I think we should clarify on whether it's about Nick-D's mention of a two-bloc model being too simplistic, or the long list of countries getting omitted(slight editions for clarity) Halo FC (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@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)

Sorry, but I'm not insisting anything; I had taken note of both of their comments, and I had tried to address Nick-D's comment with my latest infobox edit (which took place before the pre-3O discussion), and after reading Sennecaster's comment, I noted that I had some points to reply a bit which I subsequently wrote and replied, I don't think I was insisting anything, thanks (edited comment) Halo FC (talk) 15:27, 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)

Edit: Made further edits to the Date and Status descriptions of the draft infobox to clarify the situation Halo FC (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I still think this is too narrow in scope and will not accurately cover the range of articles. I'm sorry for a late reply, I forgot to watchlist. If you disagree farther,

WP:RFC for this. There has been too little discussion by outside users to determine a consensus on this and obviously one party disagrees with my 3O. I do want to note that this is a topic under AMPOL2 DS notices, and can be under the infobox DS notice that I still cannot believe exists despite providing this 3O (I am joking btw :) at least on the cannot believes part) Sennecaster (What now?

) 03:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sennecaster, thanks for replying. So, sorry, for clarity, which range of articles are you referring to

As for your 3O, sorry, I guess I wasn't clear previously, so to clarify it now, it's not really disagreeing, rather it's seeking further clarification on the various aspects, thanks Halo FC (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:George Ho § On the Second Cold War article's about line stating "tensions between Eastern and Western blocs"

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)

Still oppose the inclusion of referring two sides as "blocs". All speculation and fear-mongering to me, especially without reliable sources verifying "blocs" as part of the topic. George Ho (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It makes people fearful? I thought it's just a normal occurrence in international relations. Anyway, I came across these two articles which use the word 'bloc' Halo FC (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

An op-ed from World Crunch? No thanks. Unsure what to say about journalist

ProQuest 2189870273) globalization to be challenged by 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)

The World Crunch article is originally from Clarín. And here's the full text of Rachman's article. I've also seen a more recent article by Rachman, "A second cold war is tracking the first; US-led western alliance is once again squaring up to Russia and China; Once again you have a Russia-China axis arrayed against a western alliance, led from Washington." And the corresponding audio, and alternate mirror, of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo FC (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Still an op-ed by a non-expert or a journalist. And you're citing another (sensational?) article and its headline by the same journalist Gideon Rachman. I am still too skeptical to accept those sources at this time. George Ho (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The author Ruben Perina is an adjunct professor who lectures on international relations and governance at Georgetown University and George Washington University.

and what's the issue with Rachman, he's the chief foreign affairs commentator of the Financial Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo FC (talk • contribs) 21:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Checked the original version, whose original headline is 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)

It seems like "persisting" is something wrong, but from my point of view, I'm not even persisting, I'm just replying to your comments.

So Perina describes two worlds, and their growing rivalry, one world being democratic, and the other autocratic, and states "como China, con un significativo y ascendente poderío económico, militar y tecnológico, y Rusia", naming the two major powers of the autocratic world.

For "connects US-China tensions to this topic", I'm not exactly sure what "this topic" refers to, but US-China tensions form the core of the broader two-world rivalry, as the US is largely known as the leader of the "free world", and Xi has likewise been called the "leader of the unfree world".

As for Rachman, I think that he makes the concept of rival blocs clear, and also states clearly the U.S.-led alliance against the "Russia-China axis".

I think it's ok to use the term "blocs", from the first Cold War, and it definitely beats the term "axis", which is very loaded.

And rather than being fearful, I think that the powers of the world forming blocs is a normal occurrence which has occurred constantly throughout history. Halo FC (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

For now, I'm treating "second cold war" or "new cold war" or interchangeable terms (i.e. "this topic") as just terms, not events. If we are gonna treat the topic as an event, then we must be sure that the "Second Cold War" is happening as an event. As far as I can see, the article contains different commentators making difference references. Some say that another cold war is not yet happening, and some others say that it's getting close (to becoming an event). This article already has different opinions of commentators IMHO. George Ho (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, reinserting "bloc" would imply that the topic is more than the term, which is something that I want to avoid, but then I may stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and my view is that if we can have a Wikipedia article on the "Second Cold War", we can also mention blocs in a similar vein, as terms of a topic or theme that could be emerging in current events. Halo FC (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm mainly here to keep an eye on the article for BLP violations (which have been a problem), but agree that the infobox was grossly over-simplistic. There are lots of sources noting major differences between China and Russia, for instance, so lumping them together doesn't make sense. Saudi Arabia has also sought to work with Russia and China. The infobox was trying to fit a bi-polar 1960s-era Cold War model on modern global tensions. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is in a bind right now, they've always relied on the Western Bloc, but they've never been a fan of the whole "democracy" thing Halo FC (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Add: I think they also made their main Russian deals during the Trump presidency, and we all know the talk about Trump being under some kinda Russian influence. Halo FC (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 30 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)

I appreciate your efforts to justify your reinsertion of additional maps. However, your lengthy post won't persuade me to change my mind. We still must avoid inserting more

original thoughts into the article than we should (not). Let's still await the "Term or event?" discussion, okay? George Ho (talk

) 05:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you George. And sorry but I'm not quite sure I understand your point of original thoughts or the "term/event" thing (and at least I've paused discussion on the "bloc" subject lol), because I think that these maps are just displaying the facts and situations that are out there; NATO has added many members, pushing the frontlines further and further eastward, the Quad exists and exists primarily to counter China, those are the bases which the US and Russia have set up, and there are currently ongoing major territorial disputes in the South China Sea (which have definitely ramped up in recent years, and exacerbated by how far south the Nine-Dash-Line reaches) (edited comment)Halo FC (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

(this comment was amended at 12:00 UTC 23 April 2021 by Halo FC, please don't change your comments without noting) Sennecaster (What now?) 12:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Sennecaster (What now?) 12:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

hi Sennecaster, sorry my apologies, cos i had thought that george hadn't yet seen or replied to it yet Halo FC (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is: there is not a consensus at all that there's a second cold war, let alone that it's clear between which parties. "Cold war" has become a concept applied to many, different situations by noteworthy commentators, such as (besides the two mentioned in the article) the India-China conflict, the India-Pakistan tensions, the Saudi-Iran proxy conflict, the Korean conflict, the attempted Quad counterbalancing of China, and even a budding global democratic (

Cold war (general term). Morgengave (talk

) 15:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the main scope of this article is on the largest picture and the global scope, and so it would be of the 3 biggest powers, and I think we can be quite certain on those 3 being the major parties and players, and also even if we are being term-based and not event-based, as I think it's still pretty clear cut as to where the Thucydidean tensions are for the global scope, and thanks (edited comment) Halo FC (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Once the term "Second Cold War" would become widespread to describe the current dynamic between these countries, then of course this article should exist. But let's not go into OR. There are btw many articles that can cover the content: e.g.,

Russia-United States relations, Russia–NATO relations, Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, etc. Morgengave (talk

) 20:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I've quoted this comment by the unnamed "User 1482" twice already, "Wow, this year or the next is going to be a major remodeling in this article.", and I echo the sentiment, I think it's been a crucial observation of current conflict developments of said user (edited comment) Halo FC (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Our review processes are unfortunately not perfect, and respectfully, this argument is

WP:CRYSTALBALL. There is no dominant view in reliable media that there is a conflict called a "Second Cold war". Most commentators agree that they fear there could be one, but that's very different from there being one. Let alone that they name it "Second Cold war". On a personal non-encyclopedic level, I agree there's a high likelihood that, geopolitically, many things will happen over the next years (and I have a lot of sympathy for what you say). But it's not certain. And it's not clear that this will be called the "Second Cold war"; it could be named differently. It could even be a hot war. It's not even clear between which factions, so coloring maps seems premature. The problem with a map is that it purports that there's one combined conflict (Russia and China on one map), and that it determines what the role of NATO/Quad/others will be (be they included or excluded), etc. This is all (well-intended) speculation. Another problem still stands: why are some other conflicts which are often called cold wars not part of this article, such as the Saudi-Iranian Cold war? Interestingly enough, that article has an infobox that says it's part of the "Second Cold War". Morgengave (talk

) 07:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I also think that if there's the likelihood of there being a hot war, that's in the opposite direction, and even more intense, and all the more so to keep the article. Halo FC (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The hot war is already here. For example, the

American-led intervention in the Syrian civil war, CIA−led Timber Sycamore

covert operation and other forms of support), while Russia has supported the Syrian army.

The New Cold War Is Boiling Over in Syria, Foreign Policy: "The original Cold War was very different from today’s confrontation between Washington and Moscow. There is no longer symmetry, balance, or respect between the parties. There is also no heightened fear of a nuclear Armageddon, which has the paradoxical effect of making it far easier to slide beyond the point of no return. Taking on Russia, for many in the West, has become a continuation of the war on terror, with Putin cast in the role of Saddam Hussein. Thus, unlike the Soviet Union, Russia is dealt with as a rogue state. In this very unequal contest, the United States has essentially excluded the possibility of a strategic compromise with its unworthy adversary: For U.S. leaders, to compromise with Russia means to compromise oneself."

The Emergence of the New Cold War: The Syrian and Ukraine Conflicts, Jadavpur Journal of International Relations: "This article argues that the struggle for dominance between the two superpowers, both in speeches and deed, to a greater degree resembles what the world once witnessed before the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991. It asserts that despite the US’ unfettered power, after the fall of the Soviet Union, it is now being checked by Russia in a Cold War fashion." -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:28, 24 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)

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". -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Tobby72: I agree, and I think that some discussion can be carried over in the "Term or event?" talk section. And for this talk section, just in case, lemme get you up to speed. I think your images were pretty good, and it inspired me to add similar images for the Chinese side. Here's a quick link to my edit. This talk section was also initiated by me for said edit, in response to the initial comment: "I think one map is enough for each meaning/relation; let's not complicate things further to readers". In the edit, I also arranged the images in a form to match what I think would be a reader's natural train of thought, as described in my opening comments for this talk section. I also think that we can build upon my existing comments in this talk section, thanks. as I also mentioned in the talk section for an infobox, ideally I would like to provide a "true-color, high-definition" picture of the global conflict of the Second Cold War for readers. Halo FC (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Halo FC:, your edit is great, I fully support it. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Tobby72:, thank you so much. so I think these images can fit within a term-based view of the article Halo FC (talk) 21:17, 11 May 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)

Not without violating

WP:NOR. The collage photo and the caption seem to borderline or marginally violate it, but I don't mean to advocate deleting the photo that is now on Commons. Also, the map seem to have three colored sovereign states, and I'm unsure whether the caption that may clarify the map helps absolve the map issues. George Ho (talk

) 00:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

and what's the map issues. previously you mentioned the maps of two sets of a column of three maps each, and I realized that they might look a little cluttering, so to make it visually easier I thought it'd be better to have one locator map at the start Halo FC (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Contd.: hey George, I'd like to check, what do you mean by "topic and bias", I also think it's alright to have additional links, no worries Halo FC (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I meant to say "imply connections [...] and [imply] bias". Sorry for being less clear. Also, see

WP:SEEALSO and one of previous discussions about the "See also" section. George Ho (talk

) 04:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

hey no worries, yeah I get that meaning, so it's that I'm not sure which specific topic or specific bias you're referring to Halo FC (talk) 04:32, 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.

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)

I don't mean to be rude, but your personal opinions and interpretations are not relevant to this article. The article needs to be based on what reliable sources say and reflect different views in these sources appropriately - please see

WP:NPOV. Nick-D (talk

) 05:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

well they actually aren't about putting my personal opinions and interpretations into the article, as this talk was primarily addressed to George and has specific contexts about specific elements, so I think we should be discussing those specific elements, rather than a general approach. In case it's read that way, I also didn't mean it as a be-all and end-all, any queries or issues on the matters I would continue to address. If you'd like to get up to speed on the contexts or elements I can help out as well, no worries Halo FC (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)