Jump to content

Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Map

You have Russia,EEU countries, Russia occupied territories, Syria,North Korea and China Red. Please also make Cuba,Venezuela, and Iran and maybe Iraq red. Reasons why? Iran and Iraq are giving support for Syria's Bashar Al-Assad, Iran is also in tense relations with the West, Venezuela has the protests, with Maduro supported by Russia/China, and Opposition supported by EU/USA, Both Cuba and Venezuela are publicly against USA/EU and support the other side. Venezuelan Crisis- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_in_Venezuela_(2012–present) Syrian Civil War - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War Trump also named Iran,Cuba,Venzuela as the "Axis of evil" with North Korea ( http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article197537214.html ), Also add Israel, Saudi Arabia because they are on USA's side in Syrian Civil War and Add Bolivia, Nicaragua, Sudan, and Zimbabwe to Russia and China + Allies because all of those countries support Russia and Crimea ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262), especially since it is an isolated group of countries (Russia plus ten others) FenetreJones (talk) 4:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Odemirense who created and added the map. --George Ho (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I think overseas dependencies should not be included on the map, and why is Hawaii green? Firebrace (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Pinging Firebrace Yes, I had used another map to make this one and Hawaii was painted green and I didn't notice. I'll use now a much better map and I'll correct Hawaii. Thank you for noticing that. Good evening! Odemirense (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Pinging George Ho I didn't know that Iraq was supporting Assad, but I've confirmed that and I'll turn Iraq and Iran red for supporting Assad. Concerning to Israel I had not painted it in blue because it didn't follow American/EU positions towards Russia, but as it has been aligned with the West, particularly USA, for decades, as it has one American military base and as now it is being hostile to Assad, I'll paint it blue. So, if I paint Israel blue, I'll paint Palestine red. And I'll also paint Lebanon red for its hostility with Israel and the support of Hezbollah to Assad. And I'll paint Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia red too, due to their support for Russia and hostility towards USA. Concerning to Nicaragua I can't paint red, because it recognises Taiwan rather than the People's Republic of China. I can paint it in purple, for supporting one or the other side on different issues. I'll also paint Sudan in red for supporting Russia. Concerning to Zimbabwe, since Robert Mugabe is gone I don't know if its position changed meanwhile. I'll paint it red for its past support for Russia, but I won't dispute any change that anyone may want to do to it, if that person justifies why. Concerning to the supporters of Syrian opposition, I'll add Saudi Arabia and Qatar to the blue column. And I guess I may paint India in red as well, as having supported Russia in the Crimean question and being a member of the BRICS. Concerning to Afghanistan, I'll paint it in purple, like Nicaragua, because it has supported Russia in the Crimean question but has American military bases. And of course, I'll paint Taiwan in blue (I should have done that earlier). Finally, I'll take into consideration the American military bases in the world, so I'll paint Honduras, Kuwait, Bahamas, Niger, Cameroon and Djibouti in blue. Brazil has also one American base but as it's a member of the BRICS and hasn't been very aligned with either side, I'll leave it white. So, I guess that's it, for now. I'll leave a few maps and sites for checking the information. I'll make sure that there is not contradiction between the information there and the colours I'll use for each country. Thank you very much for reading. Good evening! Odemirense (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Zimbabwe has not changed sides at all, They still hold the same positions,They support Assad and Russia on Crimea even after Mugabe. also make Burundi, Myanmar, and Algeria red, all three support Russia and Burundi started to go pro Russia after 2015 when the USA slapped sanctions and after that Burundi became extremely pro Russia and China. Algeria is Pro Assad and Pro Russia, and so is Myanmar. Tajikistan should also be red for being part of CSTO, A Russia Military alliance. Uzbekistan should also probably be red, while not in CSTO, They restarted military cooperation and close ties with Russia and they support Assad. Pakistan should be purple due to unclear intentions on whose side they are on and same with India. UAE and Morocco should be blue for supporting the Syrian Rebels openly and allying with NATO allied countries, and Transnistria should be red, because it is has the same positions as Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Jordan should also be blue for being a supporter of Syrian Rebels against Assad.fenetrejones (talk) 1:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
"I'll also paint Sudan in red for supporting Russia". Yes, but Sudan is also part of the Saudi-led coalition fighting the Houthis (supported by Iran, Hezbollah and North Korea) in the Yemen Civil War... Firebrace (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
True but this is about Russia and USA and not Saudi arabia and Iran and Russia has not supported the Houthis yet, Plus Omar al Bashar asked Russia for protection against the USA and offered a military base at the red sea and the Russian officials responded that they had no reason to decline the offer, Plus Russian Government affiliated groups like the Wagner Group are not only supplying Novorssyia and Syria but Sudan as well.Fenetrejones (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Sudan is fighting with the US and NATO in Yemen. They are opposed by Iran, Hezbollah and North Korea – allies of Russia. I think it's too simple to say that Sudan should be coloured red because they voted against recognizing Russia as illegally occupying Crimea. The UN motion was also rejected by (among 26 countries) India, Philippines, South Africa, Cambodia and Angola – should they be red too? Firebrace (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Although Sudan is fighting in Yemen, Russia supports Sudan in their conflict War in Darfur, and it is actually believed that Sudan will draw out of the coalition. The Wagner Group is a close group with Russian government helping Syria, Donetsk, Iran and EVEN Sudan(Wagner Group), I would say Sudan should be red, because despite the yemen situation, the two are still close allies Fenetrejones (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Sudan also supports Bashar al-Assad, and said piece would not be obtained if Assad was not in power. For Burundi, i recommend checking this article out https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/28/how-the-west-lost-burundi/ Philippines should be neutral because they are starting to be closer to China and Russia despite disputes.India should be purple because of border disputes with China. I would say it is fair to put Sudan as red, while anti Iran in Yemen, Sudan is actually not flat out anti Iran,plus they are very pro Russia, they are pro Assad, and Russia's wagner group helps them like they do in Syria, plus Russia helps Sudan in Darfur. fenetrejones (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Pinging Firebrace Then Zimbabwe is red and I'll check Sudan right away (being so, I shall paint it in purple). I must correct Tajikistan as well, for the Russian military base. And I had forgotten Transnistria, but in that map that I had used it was difficult to add Transnistria. Plus, I'll make the following changes:
  • Concerning to the South China Sea dispute: Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines and Indonesia in blue for opposing China, and Cambodia and Laos in red for supporting China;
  • Vietnam in purple because it opposes China in the South China Sea dispute, but has a Russian military base;
  • Nagorno-Karabakh in red for being supported by Armenia, a EAEU member state;
  • Concerning to Burundi, Myanmar, Algeria, India, Pakistan and Uzbekistan I'll have to check that. Meanwhile I'll leave them blank.
Meanwhile here are the sites and maps I've consulted so far:
Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but isn't the map in the lead section a violation of WP:NOR policy? Is Sudan involved in Cold War II? Iraq? Syria? North Korea? South Korea? Japan? Any other countries? Also, I'm unsure why the article should be about primarily US and Russia, asserted by Fenetrejones. --George Ho (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@George Ho: Again, there is a global state of tension, commonly known as the new Cold War, between two groups of allies. Per WP:NOR: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy". The idea is by no means original. Firebrace (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Pinging George Ho, FenetreJones and Firebrace: George Ho, if the map is not suitable for the article, then you should have said that to me earlier, because I spent at least a couple of hours looking for information, preparing a new blank map and filling the colours in it according to the information. Concerning to the original research issue, I used objective criteria to use the colours: red for Russia and China, for the EEU countries, for the countries that supported Russia on the Crimea issue, countries fighting along Bashar al Assad in the Syrian civil war, countries where Russia has military bases, countries supporting China in the South China Sea dispute, plus North Korea (usually supported by China and in a less extent, by Russia), Palestine (since it's opposing to Israel, which is blue) and Nagorno-Karabakh (since it's supported by Armenia, a EEU country). I also put Lebanon in red, since Hezbollah is supporting Bashar al Assad. And I used blue for USA, the EU, other NATO countries, other countries that imposed sanctions against Russia, Taiwan (for opposing P.R.China), countries with American military bases, countries opposing China in the South China Sea dispute and countries supporting the Syrian opposition in the Syrian civil war. Concerning to the Yemeni civil war I guess it may be abusive to consider it as a cold war issue, but I only used that only to paint Sudan in purple instead of red. I may change it to red, if that's not a relevant issue for this article. And I may change Palestine (since it's not actually supporting Russia or China, it's only opposing to Israel) and Lebanon (since I guess it's only Hezbollah that's supporting Assad). I may also change Nagorno-Karabakh, since its support is from Armenia, not so much from Russia, but I have to check to which point Russia is supporting or not Nagorno-Karabakh. Then I also painted in purple:
  1. India (because it supported Russia in the Crimean issue and is a member of the BRICS, but has territorial disputed with China)
  2. Afghanistan (because it hosts American military bases but supported Russia in the Crimean question)
  3. Nicaragua (because it supported Russia in the Crimean question but recognises Taiwan rather than P.R.China)
  4. Vietnam (because it opposes China in the South China Sea dispute but has a Russian military base)
  5. Sudan, which I explained before, but I may change it.
Since Russia and China have now supported sanctions against North Korea, I may put it in grey.And I have to check to which degree USA is supporting the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Vietnam in the South China Sea dispute, and I'll still confirm the positions of Cambodia and Laos on that issue. Eventually I might also change Israel to purple, since it sides with USA on many issues, but is staunchly opposed by some of the American allies, like Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey. I might also consider painting in blue (or purple, according to other issues) the other countries that condemned Russia in the Crimean issue. And I might consider removing the South China Sea disputes if, after research, I find that USA is not actually supporting Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines and Vietnam, but rather it's only defending its own interests. And I could blank the purple countries. So, if I only considered the most obvious things for me (maybe South China Sea is also obvious, but it's better to confirm), it would be blue: USA, EU, NATO, countries that imposed sanctions on Russia, countries with American military bases (including Israel, and except Brazil for supporting Russia sometimes and Afghanistan, for also supporting Russia), countries supporting Syrian opposition and Taiwan; red: Russia, China, countries/territories with pro-Russian establishments, EEU countries (all of them have also Russian military bases), countries supporting Bashar al Assad (not counting with Lebanon, since it's only Hezbollah), countries with Russian military bases (except Vietnam, because it opposes China in the South China Sea dispute), countries that supported Russia on the Crimean issue (except Nicaragua, because it recognises Taiwan instead of P.R.China). Would that be OK? (concerning to South China Sea and Yemeni civil war I'll look for more information). If it's not OK anyway, then at least I'll be able to use the blank map for other purposes or to upload it on equivalent articles in other wikipedias, after checking the informations I've talked about. Bye the way, thank you, Firebrace for your latest answer, but I had written mine before, I copied/pasted and there it is. Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Make Philippines Purple because it supports Russia on Crimea and supports the Syrian Gov..International recognition of the Syrian National Council, Algeria, Burundi, Myanmar and Uzbekistan support Assad and Russia. UAE and Morocco and Jordan should be blue because they sent troops to fight with the Syrian Rebels. and make Honduras blue for USA base Fenetrejones (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging George Ho, FenetreJones and Firebrace: I made the following changes:

  • Libya and Tunisia blue for supporting the Syrian opposition
  • Algeria, Burundi and Myanmar red for supporting Assad
  • Philippines purple because it opposes China in the South China Sea dispute, voted against Russia concerning to Crimea, but supports Assad
  • Uzbekistan purple because it condemned Russia about Crimea but supports Assad
  • Lebanon purple because Hezbollah supports Assad but has a French military base
  • I turned the Gaza Strip purple because it's supported by Iran and Qatar (apart from private sponsors)
  • I turned the West Bank grey because the Palestinian Authority, as far as I know, hasn't taken any particular position concerning to the major powers on both sides
  • Sudan is purple because it has supported Russia concerning to Crimea but opposes Iran in Yemen
  • I turned Egypt purple because it supports Assad but opposes Iran in Yemen
  • The following I've also turned blue for supporting the UN resolution condemning Russia about Crimea: Azerbaijan, Barbados, Bahrein, Bhutan, Chad, Jordan, Somalia, Maurítius, Seychelles, Madagascar, Nigeria, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Macedonia, Malawi, Benin, Togo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Cape Verde, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Thailand, Singapore, Kiribati, Liechtenstein, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, San Marino, Solomon Islands, Trinidad and Tobago
  • I also turned blue other countries that only recognise Taiwan and not P.R. China: Paraguai, El Salvador, Belize, Burkina Faso, St. Kitts Nevis, St. Lucia, S.Vincent Grenadines, Suaziland, Vatican, Nauru and Tuvalu
  • Djibouti I turned purple, because besides the American base it also has a French base and a Chinese base
  • I turned UAE blue because it has American, French and Australian military bases
  • I turned Senegal, Ivory Coast and Gabon blue because they have French bases
  • I turned Pakistan blue because it has a Saudi base and supports Saudi Arabia in Yemen
  • I turned North Cyprus blue because it has a Turkish base
  • I turned Kenya and Nepal blue because they have British bases
  • I turned Oman blue because it also has an American base
  • I turned Morocco blue because it supports Saudi Arabia in Yemen

Concerning to UAE, Morocco and Jordan having sent troops to fight in Syria, as far as I've read they went there to fight against ISIS, I don't know if they were supporting other rebels or not. But I've put those 3 countries blue anyway, for other reasons. I thank you if you may give any correction or further suggestion, or if you disagree, for instance, that the Yemen civil war is relevant for this purpose, or if you disagree with any other criteria that I used. Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Uzbekistan recognized Crimea recently Political status of Crimea, Nauru should be purple because like Nicaragua, They recognize Taiwan but they are pro Russia, see Recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Also make Argentina in blue for being a major non nato ally and supporting Venezuelan Opposition. Antigua is blue for Ukraine support and is allied with USA and Yemen should be blue too. Qatar should be purple because they support Iran and Houthis but they are against Assad.So Uzbekistan now supports Russia on Crimea so they should be red. Make Serbia purple because of EU application but they are still pro Russia.Fenetrejones (talk) 2:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Odemirense: I have deleted the map for now because it is a work in progress and should not be "live" until complete. Firebrace (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Firebrace: Ah, OK! Then I'm waiting for your reactions concerning to the progress of the map (corrections, suggestions, criteria that shouldn't be considered, other criteria that should be considered, etc). I had painted the Gaza Strip in purple because it has support from Iran and Qatar, but then I thought it didn't make any sense to consider it as being partially in the same side of USA and Israel, then I painted it in grey again. Now I'm thinking about painting it in red and Qatar in purple, for supporting Hamas. Do you agree? I'd also thank your feedback about the other changes I've made. Thank you for your attention. Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Firebrace: By the way, where do I put the map, for your consultation? Odemirense (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging George Ho, FenetreJones and Firebrace: I've also turned Yemen purple because its internationally recognized government is supported by the West but the group controling the capital is supported by Iran. Do you agree? I'm waiting for your answers and reactions, so I can make any relevant changes, in order to be able to publish the map again on the article. By now I don't find anything more that I personally think is missing or incorrect. Thank you for your attention. Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Gaza should not be red but purple because Iranian Funding to Hamas drastically decreased since 2011 since Hamas voiced support for Syrian Rebels and not Bashar Al-Assad. Here are other changes to make: Uzbekistan should be red, while the initial reaction to Crimea was negative but since there was a change in government in 2016, Uzbekistan now supports Crimea and they have always supported Assad. Qatar should be purple. While supporting Syrian Rebels, Qatar also supports Iran and the Houthis. Nauru should be purple due to being a support of Taiwan instead of the PRC but is a Pro Russian country, supporting Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Argentina should be blue because it supports Ukraine on Crimea despite abstaining, and it is against Russia's ally: Venezuela. Serbia should be purple because Serbia is applying to join the European Union but they have very close ties to Russia. Yemen should be blue, which is self explanatory with their conflict, and for now that should be good. Fenetrejones (talk) 8:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Pinging FenetreJones Thank you very much for that information updating the information about Crimea. I've checked the site and then I will switch Eritrea, South Africa, Uganda and Uzbekistan, and I will switch Serbia to purple (because it's a EU candidate). I'll keep Nicaragua (because supports Russia but doesn't recognize P.R.China), India (because supports Russia but has territorial disputes with China) and the Philippines (because it opposes China on South China Sea but is supporting Russia and Assad) in purple. Concerning to Argentina supporting the Venezuelan opposition, I'll also check Brazil, Uruguai, Guyana and Surinam and eventually one or two in the Caribbean to see if others are also supporting the Venezuelan opposition. But according to that information, if it's correct, then I'll turn Argentina blue. Concerning to Nauru, it is so small that I had actually to put one single dot on the map (maybe in those cases I could put a circle, like in the case of the Maldives, because it already had a circle in the map from which I made this file). I'll also check that information about Nauru and if it's correct, I'll turn it purple (I hope I can find Nauru in the map lol). About Antigua and Barbuda, if I didn't change the colour, it's because I didn't find the information about its support of Ukraine, but maybe I missed it, I'll check again. And Qatar I've already changed. Thank you a lot for those informations! Greetings! By the way, as it is missing by now in the article, here is the map, so you can check the progress:
Cold War II: US, EU and their allies vs Russia, China and their allies
Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Pinging FenetreJones One more thing: If Hamas is supporting the rebels in Syria then it can't be red. I'll check if they keep that position. And you say that Iranian funding drastically decreased since 2011 because of that (I've also read that it decreased), but I guess Iran still funds Hamas, no? Or now it just funds stuff in Gaza that is not directly related with Hamas? (though sometimes it may be difficult to know what's directly related or not). I'll try to check that too. Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Concerning Uganda and South Africa, there is not enough to put on either side yet. South Africa and Uganda are like Brazil in positions so I would keep them both blank for now. They recognize Crimea but they have not really aligned with either side unlike the countries colored on the map. Here is an article about Hamas's Position on Syria ( https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geKemZ0.haFyEA3glXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyN3NqZzF1BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjU0MDNfMQRzZWMDc3I-/RV=2/RE=1525236762/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.nytimes.com%2f2012%2f02%2f25%2fworld%2fmiddleeast%2fhamas-leader-supports-syrian-opposition.html/RK=2/RS=ueUOu3WYgbrnIErmK9a61GZ0mUI-) - Fenetrejones (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging George Ho, FenetreJones and Firebrace: Well, concerning to South Africa, Uganda and Brazil, I looked at the data I have, and made the first two red and Brazil blue. So, here are the changes I've made now:

  1. I've turned the Gaza Strip purple because Hamas has supported the Syrian rebels, though it still receives some support from Iran and it has recently denied such support;
  2. I've kept Qatar purple, not for any role in Yemen supporting the houthis (since they're actually supporting the Saudi-led coalition), but because of their support for Hamas and bad relations with Saudi Arabia and UAE, due to other accusations of sponsoring terrorism;
  3. I've turned South Africa, Uganda, Eritrea and Uzbekistan red, because they voted against the condemnation of Russia as an occupying power in Crimea. Is there any reason why Uzbekistan should be displayed red, but not South Africa and Uganda (and Eritrea)? (all these 4 countries voted against both in 2016 and 2017) 4 - I've turned Serbia red because it also voted against the same resolution but is a EU candidate;
  4. Afghanistan was absent in that voting, (both in 2017 and 2016) but for now I've kept it purple. Do you agree? Angola, South Sudan and Comoros voted against in 2016 but not in 2017... Now I don't know if they changed position or were just absent. Maybe they should remain grey;
  5. Argentina has supported the Venezuelan opposition and Brazil has put pressure on Venezuela, and they both left UNASUR. I guess the opposition of Brazil is not so strong, but I turned both blue. Do you think that unlike Argentina, it should remain grey?
  6. As Nauru has supported the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, I've changed it from blue to purple;
  7. Western Sahara has also supported those 2 countries, so I turned it red, though most of its territory is under Moroccan occupation;
  8. I've turned Yemen from purple to blue, since I guess that the internationally recognized government is more relevant than who occupies the capital, though it may be not always like that: in the 1990s, the Taliban controlled around 90% of Afghanistan and the internationally recognized government was the one of the Northern Alliance, which controlled 10%... In such case I think there might be a reason for considering at least that the Taliban represented Afghanistan, in a way;
  9. Concerning to Antigua and Barbuda and Ukraine I didn't find enough information: I only know it didn't vote against the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and that visas were now abolished between those 2 countries.

Here are some sites I've consulted to make these changes:

I've also consulted these sites for previous changes today:

I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I say to change is: Make South Africa white, they are not clear enough yet especially since Jacob Zuma got impeached. They now are more pro Russian than Pro USA but they still have good ties with USA. I would not make them purple, just leave them white because it is not clear enough yet.Make Vanuatu blue because they support Ukraine on Crimea. Uganda is more Pro Russia and China nowadays but has good ties to USA, but it is more grey then purple. Western Sahara should also stay grey for the time being because it supports South Ossetia but has not really had any other positions leaving it best grey. Since we don't have positions on Crimea or Syria.fenetrejones (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
FenetreJones Since Uzbekistan is being slightly more pro-Russian than South Africa, Uganda and Eritrea, for supporting Assad, I guess I may change those 3 back to grey white keeping Uzbekistan red. Concerning to Western Sahara, I'll keep it red, because it's supported by Algeria, and I've just learnt that Morocco is going to cut ties with Iran, accusing it of supporting the Polisario Front in Western Sahara. Concerning to Vanuatu I'll see if I find something. I've changed Chad, Libya, Somalia and Yemen from blue to purple because of the travel ban to USA (along with the bans for Syria and Iran). Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
FenetreJones I haven't found anything about Vanuatu/Crimea/Ukraine. I only found that it didn't oppose the annexation in 2014. Concerning to South Africa, Uganda and Eritrea, I'm not agreeing too much with making them grey again, since they've actually sided with Russia. I've kept another version of the file with those 3 countries red, so if nothing else appears to refute that support, then I can publish it on other wikipedias. And concerning to South Africa, as far as I know, the last time that it took a position was still during Jacob Zuma. If the Ramaphosa government decides to change that, I guess it would make more sense to change the map when that position changes, not trying to predict what will happen or what won't happen. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I would keep Trump's travel ban out of the equation, it was due to stability concerns. They still said when issuing those statements that Yemen,Somalia,Libya and Chad were cooperative allies, just not stable enough.fenetrejones (talk) 8:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Pinging FenetreJones I had precisely thought now that it would make more sense to paint Libya, Chad, Somalia and Yemen grey instead of purple, because it means more that they're not such big allies of USA, rather than that they're allies of Russia/China. But I guess I need to take into account that I've painted the map in a way that it doesn't only display USA+EU+NATO+their allies vs Russia+China+their allies, but rather USA+EU+NATO+their allies+allies of those allies and Russia+China+their allies+allies of those allies. It might be more correct to describe them as USA+EU+Israel+Saudi Arabia+their allies vs Russia+China+Iran+their allies (NATO is redundant). Also concerning to India the fact that it has a border dispute with China doesn't mean that it is an ally of USA, it means that it doesn't align so much with the Russia+China bloc, so maybe it should also be grey. Tell me what you think, please! Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Libya is supported by USA since Gaddafi's death. USA gives aid to Somalia, to fight terrorism, Yemen is in a war where they are on USA side. Chad is an African ally of the USA, plus Chad was removed from the travel ban recently.fenetrejones (talk) 5:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Pinging FenetreJones OK, then I'll paint them blue again (though I think I'll check that information about Somalia). Concerning to the South China Sea dispute, I also don't know if the fact that Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines and Vietnam oppose China makes them US allies, in any way. Concerning to Vietnam I've painted purple, but maybe it should be grey. The Philippines is also purple, but has aligned with USA on other issues, so I think it's fine like it is. And there is Brunei, which has a dispute with China, but abstained in the 2014 UN G.A. resolution about Crimea. I don't know if it would be more correct to be blue or grey, since I think the only thing that made me paint it in blue was the South China Sea dispute. I also discovered another map about another 2014 resolution about Crimea, but it was in the Security Council. In that one Argentina and Rwanda voted in favor, though they abstained in the General Assembly resolution. I guess it doesn't change much, since I've considered neither as Russian allies, and to vote in favor in one, then change ideas and abstaind doesn't show, by itself, any consistent alignment (concerning to this, take into attention that South Africa, Uganda and Eritrea, as well as India and Uzbekistan, voted with Russia not once but twice, which shows some consistency). Could you say me something about this? Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Uzbekistan is close to Russia. Eritrea has gotten closer to Russia and so has Uganda and South Africa, but I would not say it merits to make the three African Countries red yet, because the ladder two have good ties with USA. Plus South Africa has had a change in government recently. But I don't think at the moment any of three merit red yet. Maybe Eritrea does because USA has accused them of supporting Al-shabab and Russia has been developing closer ties, but I would wait on making any of the three red. India can't be red due to disputes with China. The two even had a border face-off last year. I would say to leave South East Asia the way it is for now. Best to leave the three African Countries blank for now.Fenetrejones (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Pinging FenetreJones What you say about Southj Africa and Uganda (and partially about Eritrea) may be correct, but I've also painted Brazil in blue and I don't remember Brazil being so supportive of USA, besides having fairly good relations with Russia as a BRICS member and not having sided with USA in 2014. I've painted Brazil in blue because there is an American base there and because it has suppoorted pressure against the Venezuelan government. It voted against USA concerning to the Jerusalem issue and there was another resolution concerning to Cuba, in which I think only Israel voted in the same side of USA. I have to check how Brazil (and other countries) voted in 2016 and 2017 concerning to the political status of Crimea (I've seen those who voted against and that Afghanistan abstained, but I haven't seen who voted in favor or abstained). Concerning to India I didn't say it should or could be red, I said that maybe it should be grey, because opposing China on territorial disputes doesn't mean that it is aligning with USA about that issue (the idea when I first painted the purple, was that it was for countries that have supported one or another side on different issues). Concerning to Libya, Chad, Yemen and Somalia, I'll paint the 1st 3 in blue again but I'll paint Somalia in grey because USA has suspended the military assistance to Somalia on corruption grounds, and Russia has expressed its will to support Somalia militarily (when the situation there improves, as they say) and has called "on the international community to undertake measures to strengthen the Somalia's army". And I'll paint Western Sahara grey again, because Russia supports Morocco on the sovereignty issue. Here are the links I've consulted:
Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Russia is actually neutral about Polisario Front.. Trump has started to give more aid to India to counter China which is why I think India should be purple.Fenetrejones (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Pinging FenetreJones I've consulted more information about Western Sahara and indeed there hasn't been a clear position of Russia concerning to that issue. I keep it grey, anyway. I've consulted information about military cooperation between USA and India, so I switch India to purple again. And I've switched Bosnia to blue, because it has an American military base and it belongs to the NATO Membership Action Plan and has shown some support for Ukraine in 2014, though it abstained on the resolution. And I've switched Antigua and Barbuda and Vanuatu to blue due to their positions on the UN votes in 2016 and 2017 concerning to the political situation of Crimea. In the same way, I've switched back South Africa and Eritrea to red because they both voted twice in support of Russia in those votes. I've kept Uganda grey because it only voted in support of Russia in 2017, not 2016. I know you don't agree with this about South Africa and possibly Eritrea, but I want to be as objective as I can about this. I've consulted these links:
And other two concerning to each countries votes in the UN, in 2016 and 2017, about Crimea, but it was in another computer, so I don't have here the sites. (I write tomorrow).
So, what do you think? Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
It is good. Just Make Western Sahara red and it is good to go. It is fair to make South Africa and Eritrea red because South Africa is Brics and Eritrea is anti USA and Russia is building close ties to Eritrea.Fentrejones (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I hate to break the conversation between you two, but for future messages, please click "Show preview" and/or "Show changes" to make sure how the messages are read, so other readers don't get confused. You can press "Enter", but to break messages, please make line breaks, like making line spaces between two messages, or enter either <p> or . Better yet, make indentations. You can read more at Help:Talk pages. George Ho (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Pinging George Ho, FenetreJones and Firebrace: Thank you George Ho for that advice, I'll do that in the future. And I'll turn Western Sahara to red then, as you say, also for the reasons I had told before. I have thought about turning Afghanistan from purple to blue, because they showed support for Russia, but then they abstained on the resolution about Crimea and were absent in 2016 and 2017, so it isn't such a big support. Do you think I should change it or not? After that clarification about Afghanistan I'll put the map in the article again. Greetings and thank you a lot for all your support concerning informations and suggestions! Odemirense (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging FenetreJones Just one more thing that might eventually be corrected: I've checked Argentina and Brazil concerning to their opposition to the Venezuelan government but I haven't checked other countries concerning to their support for the Venezuelan government about its relations with the opposition. I don't know if there might be any grounds to change the colour of Ecuador, Uruguai, Guyana or Surinam (namely)... I guess that if any of these countries clearly shows support for Maduro in its relation with the opposition it would also make sense that it would be displayed in red, no? Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Before I comment on other countries, Greenland should be white; it is not a sovereign country, nor is it a member of the United Nations. Greenland should not be treated as an extension of Denmark. Firebrace (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Firebrace Greenland has the Thule Air Base, an American military base. What you say might make some sense concerning to Faroe Islands and other dependencies like that, but not for Greenland. But I think that Denmark is responsible for the defense of both Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Pinging George Ho, FenetreJones and Firebrace: Concerning to Uruguai, Ecuador, Guyana and Surinam, I'm going to change Uruguai from grey to blue and keep the other 3 grey for the following reasons:
  • There have been some tensions between Venezuela and Uruguai, and Uruguai has also supported the suspension of Venezuela of Mercosur, along with Argentina, Brazil and Paraguai, based on "rupture of the democratic order";
  • Ecuador has been ambiguous concerning to Venezuela, with its president criticizing the human rights record of Venezuela, but the head of the Parliament rejected Venezuela's exclusion from Summit of the Americas;
  • There are tensions between Guyana and Venezuela, but those have to do with a border dispute, I haven't found anything about any tensions concerning to Venezuelan internal affairs;
  • Surinam has backed the process of peace and dialogue in Venezuela, so I guess it's not taking any sides.
As nothing was told from you about Afghanistan being purple or blue, by now I'm going to keep like it is and I'm going to publish the map again in the article, after changing Uruguai.
I've consulted the following sites:
Greetings and thank you all for your support! Odemirense (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Validity of the map

For an update, the map was removed as original research. I did not use that IP address and did not remove it. --George Ho (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging George Ho Thank you for telling me. It's not an original search, since all the information in the map is based on sources and was discussed here. I can improve some stuff, since I took some of the information from other wikipedia pages, and I can confirm that all of them are properly sourced. Do I need to write here all of the additional sources, concerning to those wikipedia pages? I think that it would be abusive to write all of the sources on the article itself, since they can be hundreds! Do I need to write all of the sources of the wikipedia pages I've consulted here? In addition to all the other references I've written here, here are the wikipedia pages I've consulted:
I've also consulted these sites that I had not written here:
I was going to ask you and FenetreJones and Firebrace if you could keep me updated about events, since I guess it may be hard for me to be always updated about the criteria I used to draw this map.
And I'll add the map again and tell people who may disagree with the map to discuss it here. If necessary I write here all the necessary references that are in those wikipedia pages and in that case I think it's fair enough to remove it temporarily (though I think it would take only 1 day or less to write them here, but I don't know if it's necessary and convenient or not). Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The map is not original research. It shows the US, EU and their allies, and Russia, China and their allies. This information has been published in reliable sources, and it is not something that one needs to find out by conducting original research. Firebrace (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Firebrace. I wrote there a wrong article, what I have consulted is International recognition of the Syrian National Council and not Syrian National Council. Anyway, do you think that it is convenient to add here in the talk page all the references used in those wikipedia pages? Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan

Pakistan is currently blue and should be purple; see North Korea–Pakistan relations. Firebrace (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Firebrace about that information, I'll check it. I thought about the issue of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, because I considered as blue (or purple in the case of India), the cases where there are border disputes with Russia and China. So, I think it makes sense that I also consider in a different colour a country that has a border dispute with an EU country - Cyprus (in this case, the border dispute is about the entire republic). Do you agree? Greetings. Odemirense (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Pinging Firebrace So far, I haven't found yet very compelling information about significant pro-North Korean positions of Pakistan. There are allegations of arms trade between them, but they are only allegations, and there have also been arms trade with other countries, such as Tanzania, Somalia and Ethiopia (which are grey, at the moment). For now, I'll just correct North Cyprus. Here are some sites I've consulted, besides that:

Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed map

I've removed the map. It's egregiously both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I intend to immediately escalate to a noticeboard if it is restored, I don't see the point of further discussion here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this map will only be useful for other purposes (like more specific maps, blank map, etc), but anyway I updated Guyana using the following information about Venezuela:

Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

power~enwiki's reason is that Russia and China may not be allies.[2] But they conduct joint military exercises and signed the 2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship, which includes a defence pact and the sharing of military know-how. Last year, China established a yuan-ruble payment system to circumvent the US dollar for international transactions.
The map does not imply that Russia and China are allies purely because of their individual conflicts with the US. It just says they are allies, which is true.
Firebrace (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll make a brief effort to explain - the idea that the world is currently experiencing Cold War II is what people here would usually refer to as a "fringe" theory - that is, it's a view taken by maybe a couple of historians / political scientists and/or journalists, but dismissed by the majority (see the section I opened below on just that topic). So a map showing information based on that idea is basically not going to fly :P.
On top of that, rather than just creating a map based on published information somewhere (ie the source states "these states are viewed as in opposition to the US - A, B, C, ..."), you put together what you see as the countries belonging in one camp or the other based on a variety of sources (which is what is referred to as WP:SYNTH, and discouraged / not admissable here).
I do kindof like the compilation though :P. It just definitely doesn't have a spot here in Wikipedia's article space! Regards Sean Heron (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The idea that East and West are indirectly at war is not a fringe theory. Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Assertion of "Cold War II" being ~ reality ?

Hi all, "Opinions have differed on the exact beginning and nature of Cold War II." (First sentence of the second lead paragraph), came, umm rather unexpectedly to me :P. Did I miss something here in World history happening ?

Ok, to put it more seriously - I've landed on this page a couple of times in the past (I guess I'm interested in World wide conflicts or something), and the article always quite clearly read along the lines of "this is a notion that some people hold (but is not really widely held, or at the least, is disputed by others)" ‡. Now it comes across as if the War is here with us. Is that change warranted ? I feel that not much has changed, world politics wise / in the stance and actions of eg the US and Russia. (but of course I could be missing something). Kind regards, Sean Heron (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

‡ I can see there is conflict between the US and Russia in a manner there wasn't 20 years ago (at least I'd argue that view), but yeah, a Cold War II that does not necessarily make.

Hi, Sean. You can ping the user who added the sentence. BTW, you can read one of discussions where the consensus agreed to add the US–China tensions, making the topic no longer possibly limited to Western–Russian tensions. Also, you can read other past discussions and past revisions to see how the article has changed. George Ho (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for wanting to help :)!. I'm afraid I'm neither going to ping the user, or read past discussions and review past revisions. My point is that the article (or at least the lead) is counterfactual at the moment; what I mean is that it does not state in a neutral manner what reliable and verifiable sources say about this topic. I (or anyone else here) can change that to reflect better what the general (scientific, news articles) view on the matter of "Cold War 2" is. If nobody else does, I probably will soon(ish) .(And I wasn't complaining about US-China tensions, I don't see a problem with that necessarily). Regards! Sean Heron (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Just today we have reports of the Chinese Army planting backdoors into servers of US companies,[3] and Russia cyber-attacking the OPCW and UK government and security agencies.[4] There is a new indirect war between East and West and "Second Cold War" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this conflict. Do let us know if you come across an alternative name... Firebrace (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Just for an update, I moved the 2nd paragraph into the Western-Russian section as the paragraph is clearly about one possible meaning. I also changed the maps, i.e. removing them from lead and reinserting maps from one of revisions. George Ho (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Using RT as a source

@Funkquake: I don't know why you are using an RT article, which is a copy of another article that is already used. What about another RT article, which is using British tabloids as references? George Ho (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Cold War II
Date2014 — present
Location
World
Belligerents

 People's Republic of China
 Russian Federation
CSTO

allies

 United States of America
 NATO
 European Union

allies

An IP editor has repeatedly tried to add the infobox to the right. I think this is blatantly unacceptable for multiple reasons. The assigning of countries to sides is unsourced and likely false (Germany and France allied with China and Russia?!). Presenting this as a "military conflict" is also in conflict with the rest of the article. I intend to keep reverting IP editors adding this information if they do not explain themselves here, as I consider it effectively a hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki - Why are you now edit-warring to remove this infobox? I get that you clearly don't like infoboxes, but you are not the only editor involved and you've been doing this persistently over the last month. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
There's a consensus not to include one and it's very blatantly factually inaccurate to suggest that India, France, Germany, and Italy are "Belligerants" with Russia and China against the US, French Guiana, and Japan. The infobox is akin to vandalism. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Power is partially correct, Andy. The "infobox military conflict" can't be used per this discussion. George Ho (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC); edited, 20:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, another type of infobox can be used, but not "military conflict" one. Alternatively, how about Template:History of the Cold War? Would that do? If not, what else can be done about IP sockpuppeteer reinserting the infobox? George Ho (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I moved one paragraph from the intro to the body per another discussion. Also, putting the maps into the lead would mislead the readers. The editor, who also supposedly used other IP addresses (see the SPI case request I made, which was closed because the IPs were deemed "too old" to investigate), must have clicked one of revision links and then changed to that revisions without explicit explanation. Those IPs are traced back to the same location, indicated by "Geolocate" tools. Back to the infobox matter, are you certain that the consensus would accept an infobox that is not that "particular infobox"? George Ho (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what consensus would support as an infobox (I would, BTW). But I know not to edit-war just to try and avoid finding out. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't violate 3RR, and if you want to take me to ANI over dealing with this WP:Randy in Boise character, the consensus will support my actions. Please focus on improving the article (and suggest a better infobox if you have one), rather than defending a persistent IP troll and vandal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@X1\: I appreciate your additions to links about possible Russian interference in Brexit and 2016 US presidential elections, but I don't see why they can be included in this article, especially as "See also" links. Also, how are they connected to this article subject? George Ho (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@George Ho: You don't see an attack on democratic processes as an element of "Cold War II"? The related Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections has been called a "political pearl harbor", "an act of war" (Dick Cheney, example), the "most successful covert operation in history" (Michael Hayden), and Michael Morell compares it with 9/11. X1\ (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... I can see the US elections interference in already the Russo-West section as part of a hatnote. I can see the point on including the link but only for the Russo-Western section. I don't see how and why the Russian interference on Brexit is relevant to the article subject unless it can be moved to that (other) same section. George Ho (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Map (January 2019)

Moved from Talk:Cold War II/Archive 4

i think the second cold war map should be readded because it is accurate and true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.247.21 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

This Page Needs More Updates

With the recent events over United States withdraw INF Treaty with Russia on February 1st, 2019, I think this page need some updates in the near future as I believe the new arms race may just have begun and more maybe coming but Iwhat do you guys think, I would like to know what you think. Bitsweet55 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bitsweet55: Without reliable sources explicitly connecting the topic with the events, no such info should be added. To prove me wrong, you can search for certain articles yourself. I'll evaluate whether the reliable sources prove the connection explicitly. -- George Ho (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@George Ho: As you've been told, the article is about current Russian-Western tensions and proxy war in Syria. Cold War II is the WP:COMMONNAME for these tensions. A source can allude to the tensions without using the term Cold War II (or variants). Do you think that, during the Cold War, every newspaper article explicitly used the term Cold War? Of course they didn't... Firebrace (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
What about the "US–China" section suggesting otherwise, Firebrace? If that's not enough, how about this: starting a new discussion allowing reliable sources that don't explicitly mention "Cold War II"? Would that do? George Ho (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
China is an ally of Russia. Cold War also mentions China a lot. What do you mean by a new discussion? Firebrace (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking either a pre-RfC or the whole RfC discussion about allowing sources that doesn't say "Cold War II" but implies the connection, Firebrace. I predict that there will be arguments saying that allowing this would violates WP:OR, but then I might be wrong. By the way, the fact that China is Russia's ally and the fact that China is referenced in the "Cold War" article don't make the "China and Russia cooperate against the West in the Cold War II" a true conclusion. George Ho (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Invoking WP:OR, a policy intended to prevent users from carrying out scientific experiments and citing their results on Wikipedia, is pretty weak. It's not even WP:SYNTH if you're only citing one reliable source. Firebrace (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:OR is also intended to prevent misleading and/or opinionated info. WP:Original thought currently redirects to WP:OR; did you know that? BTW, may I start a new discussion on allowing the sources? George Ho (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Russia and the US withdrawing from the INF Treaty is part of wider economic and military tensions between the two countries. What's misleading and/or opinionated about that? Firebrace (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't make "INF Treaty is part of the Cold War II" a true conclusion, even when it's part of tensions between two countries, which may be sometimes not referred to "Cold War II". The naming "commonality" is just the media sensationalizing the possibility and exploiting their audience. George Ho (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela

There's been some speculation that the situation in Venezuela is part of a new Cold War [5] [6] [7]. My involvement here is largely to prevent misleading infoboxes from being added to the article; but some content about the Venezuela situation in the article text (not the lead) seems necessary. For now I've thrown it in the "See also". power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki, Firebrace, and Dilbaggg: This article from Times of India can't be used because its headline contrasts the rest of the article content. Also, the original from Associated Press doesn't mention "Cold War II" (and other interchangeable terms) in the headline and the content. The Times of India must have changed the headlines just to attract more clickbaiting. Also, the CNN article is just an analysis and probably opinionated; if it were to be used, the CNN journalist's name should be mentioned in prose. I don't know why The Times article is used; it requires subscription for full access, and I could not see "Cold War II" anywhere. Of course, I was told that certain sources not explicitly mentioning the topic can be allowed, but I don't know whether the consensus would agreeably allow such sources. My revert was undone due to disagreement; note that, despite the claim of COI, my being "Chinese" has nothing to do with my revert. I just evaluated the sources; of course, someone else would disagree with me. -- George Ho (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC); fixed, 02:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I have replaced The Times of India with the Irish Independent.[8] Are you happy with that? Firebrace (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Firebrace: The first half of Irish Independent copied the (same) original AP article and changed its headline for clickbaiting, just like The Times of India one. The second of the article seems to have come from another AP article, which doesn't explicitly use the term in the headlines and the content. I'm afraid that the sentence and the article citing the info should be eliminated; that would make me happier. I don't believe that the headlines can reveal what the articles actually say. George Ho (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Allowing sources that do not explicitly mention "Cold War II"

The Hill article is recently (re)inserted to cite what one of politicians said. However, the source doesn't explicitly say "new cold war" or any other interchangeable term, but there is the word "war". Are the source and all other sources not using the terms acceptable to use? George Ho (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you think about this? US is plotting to cripple us, warns Russian general. Quote: "The comments deepened the sense of Cold War mistrust between Moscow and Washington weeks after President Trump scrapped a key arms treaty with [Russia]". Firebrace (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why the journalist used "Cold War mistrust", but that doesn't mean one event is connected to the topic. It probably meant merely "mistrust", and "Cold War" is used as an adjective, referring to the original Cold War. George Ho (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


George Ho you clearly act like you own the article and only allow selective information you want and discourage other editors, monopolizing this article. Reported to AIV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.58.200.214 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see myself "owning" this article. All (if not most) I did was trying to avoid giving readers misinformation. Examples please? By the way, AIV doesn't handle "ownership" claims. George Ho (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sentence in lead paragraph

Version 1: with one bloc typically reported as being led by Russia and the other led by the United States, European Union, and NATO. [...] It may also refer to growing tensions between the United States and China.

Version 2: with one bloc typically reported as being led by Russia and China and the other led by the United States, European Union, and NATO.

Diffs: [9][10]

I attempted to revert the changes by IP back to version 1, but somehow the IP redid the changes. Which version above is more accurate? -- George Ho (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

"See also" spam

We discussed this back in 2016 and there was a clear consensus that only linked concepts were to be included (e.g., World War III). Anything you think might be a Second Cold War should, if you can find supporting references in multiple reliable sources describing it as a Second Cold War, be added to the main body of the article, but otherwise don't add it. The "See also" section is strictly for concepts that are actually linked to what's on the page, and not to be used for a collection of original research. FOARP (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Further sources

The speed with which US political leaders of all stripes have united behind the idea of a “new cold war” is something that takes my breath away. Eighteen months ago the phrase was dismissed as fringe scaremongering. Today it is consensus. Even if Donald Trump were not US president, and someone less nationalistic than Xi Jinping were running China, it is very hard to see what, or who, is going to prevent this great power rivalry from dominating the 21st century.

Getting acclimatised to the US-China cold war, Edward Luce, Financial Times, 19 July 2019

Moreover, as a new Cold War deepens across Asia, Pakistan cannot build a successful relationship with the U.S. without giving up its traditional obsession with India. For the past two decades, shared concerns about Chinese hegemony have drawn Washington and New Delhi closer. That could change, but a return to the days when the U.S. tilted toward Pakistan appears far-fetched.

International Diplomacy Is Not Just Cricket, Sadanand Dhume, Wall Street Journal, 25 July 2019

Should current tensions between the United States and China continue escalating, the defining geopolitical feature of the first half of the 21st century will almost certainly be the strategic rivalry, or even a new cold war, between these two countries. A geopolitical clash will be costly to both countries. In all likelihood, prospects for cooperation depend heavily on the geopolitical sensitivity of specific issues, the geopolitical importance of the countries concerned, overlapping interests, and the party that controls the U.S. executive branch.

2020 and beyond: Maintaining the bipartisan narrative on US global development, Brookings Institute, 25 July 2019

The new Cold War has not been one-sided. Many of the changes in Washington have been triggered by a darker turn in Beijing. China has increased its scrutiny of American firms, and many American companies and their employees in China now fear reprisal. In addition to detaining millions of Chinese Muslims, democracy activists and others, Chinese authorities have jailed foreign diplomats, academics and businesspeople — prompting some to cancel or delay trips to China.

A New Red Scare Is Reshaping Washington, Ana Swanson, The New York Times, 20 July 2019

The arrests opened another front in America’s new Cold War, with China. It is a struggle in which Huawei figures prominently, as Washington wages a global campaign to dissuade allies from using the company’s equipment in the next generation of mobile-phone technology, known as 5G. The Trump administration in May effectively banned the use of Huawei gear in U.S. telecom networks and restricted the company’s purchases of American technology. Washington says the company is an arm of the Chinese government, and U.S. officials fear Huawei’s 5G technology could be exploited for espionage and sabotaging a country’s critical infrastructure. Huawei denies this.

How Poland became a front in the cold war between the U.S. and China; Joanna Plucinksa, Koh Gui Qig, Alicja Ptak; Reuters; 2 July 2019

Firebrace (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The op-eds by journalists Edward Luce and Sadanand Dhume should not be used. The Brookings Institute page displays eight articles for anyone to read, including Minxin Pei's. I already collected Pei's opinion back from 2017 and don't see how it adds anything new. I can't access Ana Swanson's article because I don't have subscription to NYT; no opinion on Swanson's piece. Reuters's article is something that I have been cautious about; it is "a Reuters special report" as no other articles have covered the topic and used "new Cold War" yet. Nevertheless, please feel free to use just the Reuters article (and Swanson's if possible). George Ho (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Again I would like to ask what you're waiting for. A signed declaration of cold war between the two sides? Not going to happen – it is, after all, a cold war. The last one just sort of happened (like this one). Firebrace (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
All right. If not some declaration, why not instead wait for a bunch/lot of sources (not just one or two) connecting this to specific events? All I can do is just insert quotes using the term. I added the "Current status" section to reflect that. -- George Ho (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Or, if you want to use the Reuters, why not include "Reuters reported that..."? George Ho (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
And why must we tell readers and/or insist that the cold war is (already?) happening? The occurrence has been disputed by academics and sometimes distorted by some journalists using misleading headlines. George Ho (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully, you can read and understand a discussion from 2015, concluded as limiting the scope of this article to how "Cold War II" (or interchangeable terms) is used by reliable sources. I think I should have mentioned the discussion a while back, regardless of whether or not you are aware of it. George Ho (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

North Korea and Iran?

Are there any sources likening the NK-US & Iran-US .. disagreements .. to a Cold War? These countries both have increasing nuclear programmes that appear threatening to the West.  Nixinova  T  C  04:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nixinova: Even with nuclear threats, we need a reliable source verifying that a nuclear threat, program, or war would lead to another cold war between the two nations. I found one source, but the article says that the NK was threatening a cold war against South Korea (or the Korean peninsula), not the US, so I used the article for another article instead. I could not find any other articles about the US–NK. I couldn't find articles about Iran–US, but I found one 2004 book. However, per WP:UNDUE, I'd be cautious about using the book, especially since it's kinda old and 15 years old. How about using the book for Cold war (general term) instead? George Ho (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your research. I would agree that that book would be more suited on the article about the general term.  Nixinova  T  C  20:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sino-Australian tension

Moved from User talk:George Ho § Second Cold War

Oh I just realised why you deleted my section, Sino-Australian tension is because you are Chinese... What a surprise there!--Caltraser55 (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Caltraser55: My being Chinese has nothing to do with the removal of problematic content. The Sino–Australian section is irrelevant to Sino–US section, regardless of your claims in your edit summary, which contains a fallacy (probably false equivalence). None of the sources connect the Sino-Australian relations to the topic, i.e. the primary terms aren't explicitly mentioned there. The idea of eliminating "Sino-US" just to narrow the scope to mere Russia–Western relations is... contrary to established past consensus seen in past discussions. -- George Ho (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
So the fact that the Australian Director of ASIO said that espionage is now worse than during the 1st Cold War, and that China is overwhelming Australia with spies at an unprecedented level is in your view, a "fallacy"? Yea, it's very easy to see you are nothing more than a CCP censor agent. You will not silence Australia, you will not silence Hong Kong!--Caltraser55 (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Caltraser55: Looking at your past interactions with others, this is not the first time you made personal attacks, including above you did, or should I say your accusations on me. Sometimes, you were told to retract your baseless claims on others, but then you haven't done so. Or you've not yet made apologies to others for your comments/ accusations. I'm close to giving you a warning, but first please retract your claim that I'm some CCP agent. If you can retract that claim, I really hope you learn your lesson. BTW, when I said fallacy, I was referring to your edit summary: "Then are you going to remove the Sino-American tension then as well? If not then it stays". George Ho (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Re-pinging Caltraser55. George Ho (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

No you said the links I've produced constitute a "fallacy". Fine I retract that statement.--Caltraser55 (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
What about your claims on me as some agent attempting to silence others? Can you strike those out? --George Ho (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
There--Caltraser55 (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Now on to the content of the section, let's review the sources and/or the section itself. Australian Financial Review requires subscription, so I don't know what the article says. Sources not mentioning either "Cold War": Sydney Morning Herald, ABC (#1, #2, #3), 9News. Sources mentioning only the first Cold War: ABC, News.com.au. May you please explain why you chose those sources and why the section should be included in this article? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Because the second cold war lists the West versus China and Russia, and as far as I'm concerned Australia is a part of the West. And if you read the articles you can see where China attacking Australia's sphere of influence similiar to the US/China section.--Caltraser55 (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Australia being part of West doesn't make the country involved in the cold war. Also, multiple reliable and verifiable sources haven't said that another cold war has happened yet, though some others view differently. Also, I wonder whether you read the US-China section, saying that another cold war is either approaching or hasn't happened yet but that Trump's policies on China makes the possibility more likely, not what China actually does. I don't know why some people treat two separate relationship tensions as something merged into one. I can't find reliable sources saying that Russia and China together battle against the other side. --George Ho (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Well the Australia is much closer to China so its already feeling China's effects, and the ASIO director said its already worse than during the Cold War so I'm going by his statement.--Caltraser55 (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The ASIO director didn't explicitly say that the event or effects are part of the "Cold War II". Being worse than during the Cold War doesn't mean it either is part of the Cold War II or leads to Cold War II. George Ho (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused what part of the section you disagree with? Is it the terminology of "Cold War II" itself?--Caltraser55 (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably went somewhat off-track at the end in my previous reply. Anyway, when you re-read the sources and what I said about them, I should say the whole Sino-Australian section, which I think might/may belong to "Australia–China relations". Just in case, you can read the 2015 discussion, which can explain why the whole Sino-Aussie section may be out of the article's scope per 2015 discussion. George Ho (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll remove the Australian section myself if you give me a reason instead of just saying "read the 2015 discussion".--Caltraser55 (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The whole section itself seems to favor the Australian side and be slanted against China, i.e. treating China as a threat against the existing hegemony. Also, the sources haven't given a reason why the tensions between Australia and China are part of Cold War II and haven't explicitly connect the relation with Cold War II. The whole section may not comply with WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV (unless someone proves me wrong). --George Ho (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I sort of see your point. If someone can give a second opinion I will remove it.--Caltraser55 (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I invited members of three respective WikiProjects to this discussion. George Ho (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
More at User talk:Nick-D#Second Cold War: Sino-Australian tension (diff). George Ho (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Just to note, the (rather obvious) problem with the material I've now blocked two editors for edit warring into the article is that it's a collection of negative claims about Gladys Liu, with no effort whatsoever being made to note that she has sought to explain her position, including stating that she supports the Australian Government's position relating to the South China Sea. Its placement in this article makes this worse, as it carries the implication that she is significant in the context of a "Second Cold War". This material would need to be reworked considerably to be usable, and strong sources provided which justify its inclusion in a high level article like this. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Even when the Gladys Liu entry was removed for violating the BLP, other parts of content are still problematic. The sources still don't explain why the cited info is relevant to "Cold War II" (or "Second Cold War"), the whole section treats people's paraphrased words or quotes like facts without citing whoever said them, the section depicts China as an upcoming invader to Australia, and the section depicts Australia as near-helpless without raising its own defence and cooperation with its allies. If no one objects, I plan to remove the whole section but not too soon. George Ho (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Expenditures chart and other content implying connections

The military expenditures pie chart has been repeatedly added by Tobby72. However, I'd be very cautious about reinserting the pie chart, especially whenever inserting implications has been attempted on-wiki. Whenever an editor sees the article title, an editor would question whether or not the main event is happening. The content already tells readers which sources say whether or not another "cold war" is happening and allows them to decide for themselves. Is the previous content not enough just to reinsert the chart repeatedly? How would expenditures be related to "Cold War II" without a reliable source explicitly verifying such info? I fear that, if more content making more implications are (re)inserted, readers would get the wrong idea about the topic in question. Take the pie chart, for example. George Ho (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Cold_War/Archive_4&oldid=1235303233"