Jump to content

Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

The interesting situation of the Second Cold War

I added some thoughts on analyzing the interesting situation of the Second Cold War in the "Term or event?" section, though unfortunately not too long after the section got closed, and it wasn't able to get any discussion. I wouldn't mind continuing the discussion on my initial points and they are also a different take on the matter. Do note that they aren't terms to be used in the article, but terms to be used for our discussion of the Second Cold War-situation.

So I've thought of a way of thinking about the "term/event" issue. The situation or status of the Second Cold War could be a 'cloud of tensions', like a dark cloud being over the world, or being between the rival world powers; or it could be a 'full cold war'. We could use the acronyms 'CoT' and 'FCW' for them.

A CoT would be this dark cloud of tensions which forms before the start of any war, the beginning stages, every single war has erupted from a CoT which was a precursor to it.


Now, an FCW is still very much a muted occurrence compared to a hot war. And so, it's quite a grey area as to when things go from being a CoT to an FCW, a "fuzzy" grey area between them. You could also think of it as there being a smooth gradient between a CoT and an FCW. So, it could also be something in-between the two, which is what I think is actually going on. I'll call something that's in-between a 'cloud of cold war', or 'CoCW' for short.

So I'm inclined to think of the Second Cold War as an event, though I think that the article could also be treated as CoCW, but I'm also open to other lines of thinking.

There's also another complicating factor in this new cold war. U.S. State Secretary Antony Blinken has said that the situation with China is gonna be “competitive when it should be, collaborative when it can be and adversarial when it must be.”.

So it's this interesting situation, where some can imagine that it's not an FCW due to the amount of collaboration/co-operation going on, but at the same time, it could be pretty much an FCW (or a CoCW) going on, as the conflict and the co-operation have been 'compartmentalized', it seems like they have hit upon this idea of compartmentalizing the conflict. And unfortunately it also creates a more confusing situation for wikipedia editors.

Though to get everyone on the same page, I think the suggestion by @Firejuggler86: (in the "Term or event?" section) seems quite helpful. so we can treat the status of the Second Cold War as indeterminate, and we just describe what the various sources say about its status. Halo FC (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall: (I replied to you last and then the section got closed)

Well, first, I'm not sure that the discussion really got much traction. Also, I think I brought up a different take on the matter, though unfortunately it didn't really get the chance to be discussed, only thewolfchild responded about making up our own terms, which was a misunderstanding and not the main point, and you hadn't responded also. Firejuggler86 also brought up an interesting point which only I managed to reply to so far. I also didn't get to discuss with S Marshall before it got closed, and the scenario outlined by Sec. Blinken as well, which forebodes the coming situation.
Secondly, it was also originally premised on a simpler term/event dichotomy, which I'm not sticking to here and therefore I don't think it is simply re-opening the same thing again. I've also laid a different framework which isn't really predicated on specifically the categories of terms or events, and I think it could be a useful form of approach rather than the term/event dichotomy; no offence to you as you had come up with that, I guess that was the initial version, but after some thinking, we can get better clarity on the interesting nature of the Second Cold War situation.
So this isn't about disagreeing with the basis for those who said "term", or disagreeing that, "hey, it is an event". Because most don't think that we're in an FCW as of yet, that's the basis for both, and I agree with that, so I think that there's no issues there. So, it's that what I would like to do is just to have a better discussion on the complex and interesting situation of the Second Cold War like the CoT, CoCW, FCW and such, and it's not to dispute the prior closed section.
The Second Cold War is also quite current, and an evolving and changing situation, so while it might be a "term" right now, to follow the previous dichotomous framework, even though I'm inclined towards the more recent points I've written, it might change and no longer be that way in the near-future. Blinken's statements also speak of a more complex and interesting situation in the coming days ahead, so with all this I think discussions of a different (or a 'more fitting to the complex dynamics') note can continue. Halo FC (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
JTBC, it wasn't a "misunderstanding", I did "respond", and now I'm wondering if this isn't all just a huge waste of time. Perhaps if you, or George, could

1) find an issue that is clearly in need of addressing by the community,

2) clearly define what that issue is,

3a) clearly demonstrate which WP policies & guidelines apply,

3b) clearly provide relevant and reliable secondary sourcing that demonstrates significant coverage of the issue(s) being debated, and

4) write a proper RfC briefly and neutrally explaining the issues and any proposed solution(s). That just might make all of this worthwhile. - wolf 06:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Thewolfchild:, my apologies, I didn't mean to criticize you if that's how it came across, sorry. It was just that it formed part of my reasoning in reply to George, just meaning that I hadn't been able to get much discussion before the section got closed. And because it had also seemed to me like you were referring to using those terms in the article. And also sorry if it seemed like I would criticize you for my own benefit, I wouldn't wish to do that, it's not right, so in saying that I hadn't been able to get much discussion before the section got closed, I thought to mention your part for accuracy's sake, and wasn't really wanting to bring you into it. I also apologize that I might not have written it clearly enough the first time around, causing you to reply that it was all "moot", so it's on my fault that contributed to the kindof misunderstanding, and also got the start of the conversation off on the wrong foot, which is unfortunate and should not have happened, and I should have been clearer at the start. We also didn't have any arguments in the prior term/event section, so I think we can be alright, and I also don't wish to wrong or antagonize, criticize others to incur their ire, so my apologies and thank you. Halo FC (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's not a discrete event. I agree that it's a term but, as every article title is a term, it's not useful to say so:
  • A "car" is a term for a wheeled vehicle with an engine --> A "car" is a wheeled vehicle with an engine.
  • A "house" is a term for a man-made dwelling --> A "house" is a man-made dwelling.
@S Marshall: hmmm, sorry don't mean to be so abrupt, though I thought it's now not really on the term/event dichotomy. So the term/event issue was I think based on the idea of whether it's an FCW or not as of the present. Halo FC (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why people here are responding to this thread, which to me is a rehash, a continuation, or an extension of what's already decided. And Halo's suggestions are to me attempts to circumvent the consensus and the "term" status, and are more like alternative names of the article titles, not descriptions of the topic. I just hope the discussion goes stale over time. All right? George Ho (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC); edited, 04:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Well I think it's not really a repeat, but it's more like an additional development on your initial proto-concept, an expanded layer on top of the prior simpler term/event framework, which I think might be a more useful or accurate way to approach this interesting situation in our current times. I also wish that you had expressed replies to it back when I first posted it. I also mentioned in my last reply above that I'm in agreement with the basis and therefore it's not disputing the term/event section, it's that I would just like to introduce some of these layered thoughts to fellow editors and hope that they too would find it useful, as unfortunately the term/event section got closed off a bit too soon for that. Additionally, a "cloud of tensions", a "full cold war", I think that those are possible suitable descriptions for the states of the world (or the states of world conflict), and as mentioned, they're not formal terms but perhaps useful terms to approach the situation.
I'm also glad that you brought up the topic of circumvention again, because I was hoping to discuss it in more detail, although I'm not trying to prolong any term/event dispute. Also, last time I mentioned that I didn't really know, and I still don't quite really know, what to make of this negative view, because I was instead hoping that it could be a positive addition, and it's a little confusing. so I was thinking that circumvention would be similar to a scenario of circumventing tax regulations to avoid paying taxes. And at the same time, the tax regulations are a means in service of the goal of collecting tax money. Though when it comes to discussions on articles, reading wikipedians' discussion dialogues and understanding their rationales, it would seem that the dialogues and correlating with them are the purpose, unless you're saying that dialogues are also means in service of another goal. So I think it might be for us, some not fully shared understanding, such as our discussion over the significance or application of "implying" or implications, which we could hopefully open up more on Halo FC (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't intend to reply to your ideas in any thread or continue the conversation, and I never intend to. There were enough participants already to fulfill the consensus in the other discussion. Well, I should have said "overthrow" instead of "circumvent". As I must say, calling the topic a "full cold war" or "cloud of tensions" to me is another way of saying that the topic is an event, and this (I'm inclined to think of the Second Cold War as an event) also proves that you weren't satisfied with the results and that you're not gonna drop the matter at this point. How far can you let the discussion continue? George Ho (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm? You never intend to reply in any? But then I'd like to learn more about things such as potential kinks in the photo collage and such.
And I'm getting a little concerned, as you're now saying "overthrow", which is way more serious than "circumvent". And I'm not being hostile at all, and I've tried to explain or address the matter clearly in my above reply.
And yeah participants in the other section, though as mentioned I feel that mine was a development on the initials, and it also came later, when I thought of it and felt that it was a gain of some mental clarity. Though I wish I had put it down earlier, it came a little too late and didn't really get discussed, as unfortunately ideas don't always come at a convenient or right time.
Also I'm wondering why you think that I'm definitively wanting to write the topic as an "event" despite all of my detailed explanations to the contrary. I've already said that I understand the basis of the earlier section and I'm not disputing it. So I'm also not insisting on the matter, and it's also not because I'm not "satisfied with the results", I just believe that I'm just putting forth an additional development or layer. It's just like previously when you asked about me persisting and I said that I was just replying with my thoughts, and it's also the same here.
My quote also does not mean that, and so let me provide the full quote with the proper context, I first wrote it in the term/event section, it was: "So I'm inclined to think of the Second Cold War as an event, though I think that the article could be treated as CoCW, but I'm also open to other lines of thinking." And, in this section, it is edited as: "So I'm inclined to think of the Second Cold War as an event (though I guess that part has now been closed); though I think that the article..", so I think this addresses that point. Also, although I said "event", I think my perception of the Second Cold War situation is actually quite similar to those who said "term", and hence that's another important reason why I came up with this layered framework, to express the details of the situation more clearly and accurately and to avoid confusion. Quoting the relevant part on the perceptions from another of my replies: ["Also, the term/event discussion was spurred by trying to clarify the inherently more complicated, "fuzzy" situation of this Second Cold War. I would also like to clarify this complicated situation. Previously, I said that I think it might be some kind of CoCW. And there's also another picture, which is probably much clearer, that this situation is both a CoT and "Second Cold War-ish" term-gun-jumping combined together. And so now, we can see a clear picture of why the situation inherently appeared more complicated and fuzzy."]
For the "cloud of tensions" (CoT), it's because I think that there's this cloud of tensions over the world started by the great powers of the world which is causing the words "Second Cold War" to be on so many people's lips in the first place (and which caused this article to be created, and is causing the media to talk about it), and I think that hence it's different from the concept of a "cold war-event". Following, the idea I've elaborated on so far also isn't to definitively state what the state of the situation is. In fact, I think calling it both a CoT and an FCW at the same time would be contradictory. Instead, what I was saying was putting forth that we might wanna have discussions with new terms as such to describe certain possible states of affairs or situations, or possible scenarios, because they might help to clarify the situation better. Halo FC (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC) (edited comment Halo FC (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC))
  • Personally, I would shy away from saying "cloud of tensions", which I don't think is a helpful neologism. I don't agree with Halo FC that "cloud of tensions" and "full cold war" are contradictory: a cold war is a "cloud of tensions", so this doesn't take us anywhere. I also dislike "full cold war" because we wouldn't talk about half a cold war. I feel that both the RfC, and Halo FC's rather rambling and philosophical contribution above, invite us to choose between options that aren't mutually exclusive. We do need to stop doing that. At issue here is how to open the article with a pithy, succinct sentence that would be intelligible to someone who doesn't know anything about Western history. Imagine we're writing for a clever and curious, but uninformed, Indian teenager.
  • As we write, we have to work with the consensus as it is: the community has decided that "Second Cold War" is a term rather than an event. (It could be both -- it could easily be a term for an event -- so I can see why Halo FC is dissatisfied with the RfC; but fortunately, it isn't a term for an event, so there are no grounds to try to do an end-run around the RfC even if that were permissible.)
  • The Second Cold War is a term for a period.
  • I suggest that we confine ourselves to writing drafts of an improved first sentence. Discourses and disquisitions on the philosophy of the history of international tensions, however interesting, are out of place on a Wikipedia talk page.—S Marshall T/C 09:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
hi @S Marshall:, and apologies if you mind the ping, I think I could clarify some points to help reach a clearer picture.
Firstly, I try to express my points clearly, and apologies if I come across as rambling. And I find the characterization of it as philosophical and historical kinda surprising and interesting. Because my intention is not deep philosophical waxing at all, but instead I hope to provide hopefully a more practical and accurate framework for discussion and working on. I also don't think that it's historical, as all about the current Second Cold War situation was what's on my mind. Damn, what a failure at communication I've achieved.
I'd also just like to clarify that I'm not dissatisfied with the RfC, and wouldn't be for that reason, neither am I trying to do an end-run around it. But no worries, I'm not trying to criticize you, and just trying to clarify it, thanks.
And thank you, you've identified some key steps in my explanations which I had neglected to put in. So to remedy that, I think it's good to start right from the beginning. I'll try to have it be quite detailed so as to avoid misunderstandings as much as possible for anyone who might be reading.
So initially, the discussion was with the term/event question. And this would lead back to another question, which is why the words "Second Cold War" are on so many people's lips. And the reason for that is that things between the major powers of the world are heating up, as China is rising, and Russia sees opportunities to go back up, and America wants to preserve its pole position.
So, it's this dark 'cloud of tensions' (CoT) which is forming between the great powers and over the entire world, a looming specter, and that's why the tag "Second Cold War" started trending. At this point, it would be a brewing storm cloud of tensions, but being mostly at the beginning stages. And so, the issue then arises that, applying the term "Second Cold War" to this "beginners' CoT" is jumping the gun, which is especially what the media likes to do. The situation can be "Second Cold War-ish", but not at the level of an intense, Second Cold War which would be more rightfully deserving of the term's usage, as the current situation might be a lot milder than one would expect of an FCW. And actually the public trending jumps the gun even way further, trending "World War 3" humorously so often. And I'll get to an elaboration on the FCW shortly.
So, if there's an intense Second Cold War going on right now, the FCW (full cold war), it would be an "event", and if's just "Second Cold War-ish" gun-jumping, then it would just be a "term", and that's the origin of the term/event discussion. Also, the term/event discussion was spurred by trying to clarify the inherently more complicated, "fuzzy" situation of this Second Cold War. I would also like to clarify this complicated situation. Previously, I said that I think it might be some kind of CoCW. And there's also another picture, which is probably much clearer, that this situation is both a CoT and "Second Cold War-ish" term-gun-jumping combined together. And so now, we can see a clear picture of why the situation inherently appeared more complicated and fuzzy.
Next, as just mentioned above, the CoT which is on my mind is an initial cloud of tensions which is a precursor to an escalation towards an FCW. And so, once it reaches an FCW, it's no longer a CoT, and thus I think this would be where the confusion over the issue of mutual exclusivity arose. That's why in my mind, it wasn't mutually exclusive, and therefore it was contradictory. But yeah, you're absolutely right that "cloud of tensions" is pretty much that of a cold war. I'm thinking that a CoT is just a cloud, and that an FCW would be raining, making everybody damp, irritated and miserable. So the clouds are still there, all over the world, but now they're raining down on us. Damnit, I'm trying to use metaphors to illustrate my thinking more clearly for the practical purposes, but I'm risking sounding ramblingly philosophical, haha
I guess we might have to think of a better name for the CoT of my definition lol. We now go to the FCW. You've identified the quirky idea of "half a cold war", which I hadn't intended. It was due to the "Second Cold War-ish" gun-jumping, which introduces ambiguities into the application and usage of the "cold war" term. For instance, when one is using the term "Cold War", is s/he referring to the "Second Cold War-ish" gun-jumping, or referring to the "cold war-event"? Which is why I came up with the term "full cold war" (FCW) to avoid this kind of ambiguity, and to make it clear that it's referring to a situation where things have fully reached an intensity which has actualized itself into a cold war rightfully deserving of the name "Second Cold War", and that's where the name "full cold war" comes from lol
Though I guess that the idea of "half a cold war" also relates somewhat into my earlier point about there being a smooth gradient between a CoT and an FCW, which is due to an FCW still being very much a muted occurrence compared to a hot war, and therefore creating a "fuzzy" grey-area.
And while I mentioned rain, on the other hand, that might be a negatively colored assumption from the first Cold War, and some commentators are suggesting that this one's gonna be played differently, and that it could be good for the world due to the increased economic competition. Halo FC (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC) (edited comment Halo FC (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC))

Proposal: Make the page about the Sino-American Cold War

Some of the News source started to coin the recent event with China as Cold War or metioned of it

  1. Chicago Tribune: Cold War.
  2. WION: Cold War.
  3. Foreign Affairs Mentioned.

We need to make a page about the event as it is likely that a Second Cold War will be against China. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Will create a pre-RM discussion in another time. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Second Cold War → Cold War II – Or New Cold War or new cold war (lowercased). The article was renamed months two years ago without discussion, but then the move hadn't been disputed yet. Then again, I've not yet seen World War I and World War II renamed to First World War and Second World War. Well, the topic is a term instead of an event (see #Term or event?). Indeed, even World War III is currently hypothetical, yet it's not named Third World War. There are other articles using "Second" and "War"; many articles using "II" and "War" are about World War II. If neither "II" nor "Second" is suitable, then how about "New" instead? George Ho (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC); edited, 00:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Add lead image?

CLOSED
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. Mark83 (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does this article need a lead photo/map? If so, which image or map do you suggest, and why? If not, why not? (listed for rfc) George Ho (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC); (original) 04:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's the gallery of images based on past revisions:

There may be others, but that's a long, extensive search. I welcome alternatives not seen above. George Ho (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it'd be great to have a lead photo/map to introduce the subject, and to contextualize the intro, and it also gives a touch and makes the article look more professional, which could be something good to have. And what's wrong with having a lead right. And I guess you're already familiar with my suggestions, world maps and such, as it's the intersection of great powers across the globe.
Not sure if I should comment this here or in another section, so on my recent differentiated map edit, I think that, with the captions it is clearly readable, unless the reader is braindead lol
Also, I've made queries to you on other points in the talk page, thanks Halo FC (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC) (edited comment Halo FC (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC))
makes the article look more professional Seriously? An article doesn't have to look "professional", and even a "professional" article doesn't need an image. I don't know what else to say about your long-winded, lengthy replies. George Ho (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry to hear that about my lengthy replies, and apologies if it comes across as long-winded. I think that sometimes it's a necessity to cover a large amount of content. However, it does make me a little sad to hear that, on my flaws, and I would like to improve on my flaws, and be a better discussion partner. (a necessity because the topic is large in scope, with many points to cover, and many elements as well. A full and comprehensive dialogue also helps to avoid misunderstandings, as misunderstandings lead to unnecessary backs-and-forths which are tedious and aggravating, and an even worse situation to be in.)
And I'm sorry if I offended, I really didn't mean to, as I would like to have a calm discussion and as mentioned to be a good discussion partner. I also think it might have been a little bit of a misunderstanding, as I didn't say that an article has to look professional or need an image. I was just saying that it could be something good to have because of the added professional-look it might provide, and the negative aspects it might alleviate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo FC (talk • contribs) 14:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
oh no, you didn't offend :). I've seen you writing concise replies before. So I was stunned by your lengthy replies, but I appreciate your willingness to be more comprehensive in replies. In other words, you're concise on one hand, and you're comprehensive (and lengthy) on the other. Well, I didn't mean to make you feel sad. Really. Preferably, more conciseness would be nice, but you can be comprehensive (and lengthy) if necessary and/or willing. George Ho (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, the offence thing was about the professional-look. As for the length, it depends on how much content I have to cover, though I wouldn't want to make things difficult for others. And thanks again, overall, I try to do what I can to communicate the content clearly 👍 Halo FC (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
By the way, thanks George Ho for putting in the effort for this gallery above.
To note, version A of the "three coloured nations" is about a pair of bilateral relations, with Russia and China being in the "orangey" category. This is shown more clearly in the alternating gif map, as well as the "Two maps in one". Version B is just three colors without showing bilateral categories.
@George Ho, so I've raised some points on why I think my map(s) are alright, though not sure if we should discuss it in this section or in another Halo FC (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This thread is about whether to add an image. Honestly, I don't think a lead image is necessary at this time. Not even a map or a photo of a vaccine is a suitable lead image. George Ho (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Well then I guess it would be in other sections, though you've now said that you never intend to reply in any, so now I'm not sure. So I was saying that I think it'd be good to have a lead image. It's kinda interesting, some articles without leaders in the top-right sometimes evoke the feel of someone's cobbled essay, while having a leader seems to add a sense of the article being more professional, it's simple but effective. It could also be a useful introductory focus for the topic. Also, when you say that a map is not suitable, are you referring to all maps, maps in general? I was also hoping to hash out any potential issues with suitability, though that would bring things back to the first sentence of this comment. Halo FC (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I think your assumptions about what's "professional" or not and what's a "cobbled essay" are concerning. For example, not every Featured Article has an image or an infobox. Xenu article currently doesn't have an infobox or an image, yet it's still a Featured Article. Neither does the representative peer article, even with a sidebar. If you have issues with either article, i.e. if you think the FA is not "professional", please go to Talk:Xenu or Talk:Representative peer. George Ho (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC); edited, 20:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, now you're being concerned about me instead. Previously, I was really getting a little concerned about you because I was confused by why you moved to being severe. Though for me, no worries, I'd like to assuage your concerns, as I think I'm fine, nothing to be concerned about lol
So, I think you generalized what I said, I said that "some articles without leaders in the top-right sometimes evoke the feel of someone's cobbled essay", and I do mean just some articles sometimes, not every article. Also, to clarify and avoid misunderstandings, I'm referring to the initial perceptions, and not meaning that it's absolutely crucial to the article, it's just bringing up which elements could be good to have. One example could be this very article, especially with it's pretty short introduction and lack of leader, and so it might lend itself much more strongly to the initial perception of being like someone's cobbled essay. However, in no way, shape or form am I meaning that articles without leaders are not professional, as, as mentioned I was referring to the initial perceptions, so I don't have issues with either of those articles being featured articles, and I'm not thinking that they're not "professional" because of that reason, hope this clarifies it, thank you Halo FC (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I get your point... probably. Well, I sometimes have tendency to conclude quickly. Apologies if I appeared severe to you previously and if I generalized (and overlooked the word "some"). I was astonished by your choice of words... and metaphors (and similes if you used them). That's all. Speaking of words, no offense, but please use a better word or phrase than "leader", like "lead image" or "infobox image" if you were referring it as such. I don't think "leader" is a suitable word for what or whatever you were describing (but good for traditional definitions especially from dictionaries).

Moving on to this article, I think the status quo of the introduction, i.e. current short intro, is fine for now, but let's save that matter for another discussion. And I still think the intro is fine without an image. --George Ho (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries. And yeah, we have a pending discussion on the intro, and S Marshall also suggested that the intro be improved. And well I think you seem to be a minimalist in taste lol, our different ideas leading to disagreements. So while it may be fine without a... "lead-thing", I think it would be good to have, and I'd like to iron out any possible kinks in image suitability. I think we probably shouldn't have to accommodate for silly people, for the "lowest-common-denominator" of people, otherwise, they could be holding everyone back lol. Halo FC (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


Yes, let's. Perhaps having cool maps like those leading the Cold War I article. Legit War Articles (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey @Legit War Articles:, yeah, I was thinking the same thing 👍 As soon as one enters the article, one's greeted with the globe and the confrontation between the two major blocs, it makes some impression, and as Finnusertop said, it also helps contextualize the issue. Halo FC (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Halo FC:, glad to hear that. The Cold War article's globe is a cool map, and so's your alternating map, one of the more interesting things I've seen in a while on Wikipedia. Legit War Articles (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Three coloured nations (ver. B). Nothing needs an image, but this article would benefit from one. It shows the three countries named in the lead so helping the reader contextualize the issue. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose image 1 as hopelessly full of original research, and oppose images 2 and 5 as they each seem to be pushing a specific point of view about the "Second Cold War" concept. The vaccine one is particularly inappropriate as vaccines don't even seem to be mentioned in the article. Also oppose the animated gif, as animated images should be avoided as lead images unless there is a good reason to use them. Neutral on the other map images, but to be honest my inclination is to think there's no need for a lead image in this article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Major dynamics of global great power-geopolitics, the tensions between the United States   and Russia   and the tensions between the United States and China  
Hi, I made the alternating gif to better highlight two sets of bilateral relations/tensions. Initially I put this up in the top-right. I've also mentioned that I think a lead object in the top-right could be good to have, thanks Halo FC (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


@George Ho, hi, sorry, I'm not sure if you're going to reply, but anyway I've thought of another option, with prior concepts synthesized, ver. B with a bilateral relations description (on the right). Halo FC (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
If we're gonna use the ver. B, then how about either caption instead: "  United States,   Russia, and   China" or "The term may refer to tensions between either   the United States and   Russia or the United States and   China"? I don't know why you want to use "great power-geopolitics", which is something that I don't wanna do. George Ho (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Another option

Hi, George Ho, Halo FC, Legit War Articles, Finnusertop and Mx. Granger. I was about to close this discussion as "no consensus for a lead image" and "no consensus for any of the images suggested". Guidance at MOS:PERTINENCE states: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. The strongest support is for Ver B. Looking at the article, there are already two maps and Ver B is a coalescence of the two - making the original images redundant. I don't think that this point has been identified. While none of the maps add a great deal to the article (who would be searching the "Second Cold War" that doesn't know where the US, Russia and China are?), the existing images are the status quo. It has occurred to me that a lead image could replace the existing images that are the status quo (with addition of a suitable caption). I offer this proposal.
The Second Cold War is a term used to describe Sino-American tensions and Russo-American tensions mainly through the 2010s
I hope this will be acceptable and resolve the matter. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: Um, no. I cannot accept your proposal. Those existing images in separate sections help illustrate two different meanings of the topic/term. Replacing both separate maps with a map coloring three countries would affect readers' understanding of the context. Or, rather the proposed lead map would say that the topic is about three countries involved, which the topic wasn't about. George Ho (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
George Ho, I have made the colour coding in the proposed caption clearer by adding bold. The caption makes clear the relationship between the three countries and is therefore no less clear than having two separate images. IMO, none of the images serve to illustrate anything of consequence or significance - they assume that the reader (looking up the "Second Cold War") needs to be told where the US, Russia and China are. However, the two existing images are the status quo. Adding a third image serves no purpose unless it is to remove two redundant images that are of questionable value in any case. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
We'll discuss the section images in another time. Meanwhile, replacing the two with the lead image is not something I would do. I'll stick with the existing "status quo", thank you. I don't think coloring the text helps much or makes any difference. I also don't think any caption would help me change my mind about any map coloring three nations. I also don't think any map coloring the three nations can improve understanding of the topic/term. George Ho (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, we now have another option and it quite specifically is to replace the two existing images with a single lead image. The colour coding of words as done in the caption is a common device for a map legend. The terms: "Sino-American tensions and Russo-American tensions" directly link to the section headings in the article. There is no reasonable confusion in respect to the three countries that are coloured and how they are related in the context of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Notification made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Example farm tag

I am not sure it is wise to collect each and every utterance "Second Cod War" by each and every politician. I can understand this in articles of type "Teleportation in fiction", but in this one this gives off a strong whiff of WP:SYNTH for want of solid secondary sources disussing this term in its essence in detail (if they are, they are completely lost in the wall of text).

Therefore I suggest to restructure the article:

  • Make an encyclopedic text based on secondary sources (with possible support from primary ones)
  • Create a clearly separated section, which, per WP:TRIVIA:
    • Lists blurbs of politicians which have or expected to have a significant impact.
    • Usages of the term by reputable politologists must go into the encyclopedic part and only if they are part of a significant discussion of the concept. Occasional usages are a no-go.
    • Blurbs by celebs and youtube talking heads are out of question, unless they have become an internet meme or something.

Any other suggestions no make this article more useful along these lines? Lembit Staan (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Issues with other language versions and cross-wiki interactions

I briefly scanned through other versions on the topic, like the Spanish and Chinese versions. I found them having issues, so I wonder whether they were raised. If they were raised in talk pages, I haven't seen those article issues resolved yet. Last month, an editor Chubit thought the article must resemble the to-this-date Chinese version. I recently removed the tagged, so what to do about cross-wiki interactions? --George Ho (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Cold_War/Archive_6&oldid=1051896551"