Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
{{ping|Xenagoras}} Your recent edits () show interests in giving ] a bad light and making Schiff's speech look connected to the topic in question just by using other people's opinions. How is equivalent to the "new Cold War"? I the info about his speech and sources failing to connect the speech with the main topic, including anywhere outside article ]. I see one op-ed having potential merit, which I have left in, but neither of its quotes are related to the speech. ] (]) 21:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
{{ping|Xenagoras}} Your recent edits () show interests in giving ] a bad light and making Schiff's speech look connected to the topic in question just by using other people's opinions. How is equivalent to the "new Cold War"? I the info about his speech and sources failing to connect the speech with the main topic, including anywhere outside article ]. I see one op-ed having potential merit, which I have left in, but neither of its quotes are related to the speech. ] (]) 21:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|George Ho}} these two edits do ''not'' show interest in giving Adam Schiff a bad light. If there were sources praising a new Cold War in relation to the Impeachment of Trump, I would have included them. I have an interest in updating this article with relevant current information. You reverted my first edit about Cold War related to Impeachment and wrote in your edit summary, {{tq|"neither sources explicitly mention "Cold War" or "Cold War II" or make connection to the topic in question; will find reliable sources explicitly connecting Cold War II to Trump's impeachment trial or ongoing tensions with Russia."}} Therefore in my second edit I changed my contribution to the article by doing exactly what you requested: delivering {{tq|"sources explicitly mention "Cold War" or "Cold War II" or make connection to the topic in question. And find reliable sources explicitly connecting Cold War II to Trump's impeachment trial or ongoing tensions with Russia."}} You claim I would be {{tq|"making Schiff's speech look connected to the topic in question just by using other people's opinions."}} Using ] opinions is the only allowed way of editing according to Misplaced Pages policies, because we are not allowed to use our ]. (A very improbable possibility would be Schiff himself declaring, "''I am waging a Cold War.''" Unless that declaration happens, we have to use {{tq|other people's opinions}} about what Schiff says and does.) You ask, {{tq|"How is "Cold War Narrative" equivalent to the "new Cold War"?"}} The article explains this in great detail. "Narrative" means the actions taken and the things said towards Russia and people perceived as too "Russia-friendly", e.g. arming combatants in a ] against Russia, stationing U.S. military advisors with these combatants, stationing U.S. troops at the Russian border, legally and politically attacking people who do not fall in line with this foreign policy. All of this fulfills the definition of a ]. The article describes all of this. You write that you {{tq|"recently re-removed the info about speech and sources failing to connect the speech with the main topic."}} All of my sources connect either the Impeachment of Trump in general or Schiff's speech specifically with the Second Cold War, which is why I wrote, {{tq|"The Impeachment of President Trump and more so specifically Adam Schiff's speech were criticized by some liberal and conservative commentators as symptoms of a Cold War."}} The single op-ed you did not delete has only one specific merit that the other sources do not have: It bashes President Trump as an evil person that is 100% guilty and it praises the Democratic Impeachment managers as very competent and successful in their prosecution. I noticed that you are by far the biggest contributor to this article and that 100% of your contributions to this article cite sources that either say "''there is no Second Cold War''" or "''there will be no Second Cold War''". This makes your contributions to the article ] appear questionably ], and in combination with your less than satisfactory handling of my contributions to this article I suggest you refrain from further unwarranted deletions of my contributions. ] (]) 00:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|George Ho}} these two edits do ''not'' show interest in giving Adam Schiff a bad light. If there were sources praising a new Cold War in relation to the Impeachment of Trump, I would have included them. I have an interest in updating this article with relevant current information. Schiff's speech "''We are fighting Russia over there ''" is connected to the article topic because it describes the very definition of a ] against Russia which means it is a ]. You reverted my first edit about Cold War related to Impeachment and wrote in your edit summary, {{tq|"neither sources explicitly mention "Cold War" or "Cold War II" or make connection to the topic in question; will find reliable sources explicitly connecting Cold War II to Trump's impeachment trial or ongoing tensions with Russia."}} Therefore in my second edit I changed my contribution to the article by doing exactly what you requested: delivering {{tq|"sources explicitly mention "Cold War" or "Cold War II" or make connection to the topic in question. And find reliable sources explicitly connecting Cold War II to Trump's impeachment trial or ongoing tensions with Russia."}} You claim I would be {{tq|"making Schiff's speech look connected to the topic in question just by using other people's opinions."}} Using ] opinions is the only allowed way of editing according to Misplaced Pages policies, because we are not allowed to use our ]. (A very improbable possibility would be Schiff himself declaring, "''I am waging a Cold War.''" Unless that declaration happens, we have to use {{tq|other people's opinions}} about what Schiff says and does.) You ask, {{tq|"How is "Cold War Narrative" equivalent to the "new Cold War"?"}} The article explains this in great detail. "Narrative" means the actions taken and the things said towards Russia and people perceived as too "Russia-friendly", e.g. arming combatants in a ] against Russia, stationing U.S. military advisors with these combatants, stationing U.S. troops at the Russian border, legally and politically attacking people who do not fall in line with this foreign policy. All of this fulfills the definition of a ]. The article describes all of this. You write that you {{tq|"recently re-removed the info about speech and sources failing to connect the speech with the main topic."}} All of my sources connect either the Impeachment of Trump in general or Schiff's speech specifically with the Second Cold War, which is why I wrote, {{tq|"The Impeachment of President Trump and more so specifically Adam Schiff's speech were criticized by some liberal and conservative commentators as symptoms of a Cold War."}} The single op-ed you did not delete has only one specific merit that the other sources do not have: It bashes President Trump as an evil person that is 100% guilty and it praises the Democratic Impeachment managers as very competent and successful in their prosecution. I noticed that you are by far the biggest contributor to this article and that 100% of your contributions to this article cite sources that either say "''there is no Second Cold War''" or "''there will be no Second Cold War''". This makes your contributions to the article ] appear questionably ], and in combination with your less than satisfactory handling of my contributions to this article I suggest you refrain from further unwarranted deletions of my contributions. ] (]) 00:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Revision as of 00:43, 25 January 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second Cold War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum and Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Adam Schiff's speech
@Xenagoras: Your recent edits () show interests in giving Adam Schiff a bad light and making Schiff's speech look connected to the topic in question just by using other people's opinions. How is "Cold War Narrative" equivalent to the "new Cold War"? I recently re-removed the info about his speech and sources failing to connect the speech with the main topic, including an (implied?) op-ed not mentioning this topic anywhere outside article headline. I see one op-ed having potential merit, which I have left in, but neither of its quotes are related to the speech. George Ho (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@George Ho: these two edits do not show interest in giving Adam Schiff a bad light. If there were sources praising a new Cold War in relation to the Impeachment of Trump, I would have included them. I have an interest in updating this article with relevant current information. Schiff's speech "We are fighting Russia over there " is connected to the article topic because it describes the very definition of a proxy war against Russia which means it is a Cold War. You reverted my first edit about Cold War related to Impeachment and wrote in your edit summary, "neither sources explicitly mention "Cold War" or "Cold War II" or make connection to the topic in question; will find reliable sources explicitly connecting Cold War II to Trump's impeachment trial or ongoing tensions with Russia." Therefore in my second edit I changed my contribution to the article by doing exactly what you requested: delivering "sources explicitly mention "Cold War" or "Cold War II" or make connection to the topic in question. And find reliable sources explicitly connecting Cold War II to Trump's impeachment trial or ongoing tensions with Russia." You claim I would be "making Schiff's speech look connected to the topic in question just by using other people's opinions." Using other people's opinions is the only allowed way of editing according to Misplaced Pages policies, because we are not allowed to use our own opinions. (A very improbable possibility would be Schiff himself declaring, "I am waging a Cold War." Unless that declaration happens, we have to use other people's opinions about what Schiff says and does.) You ask, "How is "Cold War Narrative" equivalent to the "new Cold War"?" The article explains this in great detail. "Narrative" means the actions taken and the things said towards Russia and people perceived as too "Russia-friendly", e.g. arming combatants in a proxy war against Russia, stationing U.S. military advisors with these combatants, stationing U.S. troops at the Russian border, legally and politically attacking people who do not fall in line with this foreign policy. All of this fulfills the definition of a Cold War. The article describes all of this. You write that you "recently re-removed the info about speech and sources failing to connect the speech with the main topic." All of my sources connect either the Impeachment of Trump in general or Schiff's speech specifically with the Second Cold War, which is why I wrote, "The Impeachment of President Trump and more so specifically Adam Schiff's speech were criticized by some liberal and conservative commentators as symptoms of a Cold War." The single op-ed you did not delete has only one specific merit that the other sources do not have: It bashes President Trump as an evil person that is 100% guilty and it praises the Democratic Impeachment managers as very competent and successful in their prosecution. I noticed that you are by far the biggest contributor to this article and that 100% of your contributions to this article cite sources that either say "there is no Second Cold War" or "there will be no Second Cold War". This makes your contributions to the article Second Cold War appear questionably one-sided, and in combination with your less than satisfactory handling of my contributions to this article I suggest you refrain from further unwarranted deletions of my contributions. Xenagoras (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
Moved from User talk:George Ho § Second Cold War
