Talk:Second Cold War

China's military development should be treated as a related topic to this page

To whom it may concern,

Hi! I noticed my contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Second_Cold_War&diff=1063247147&oldid=1063186232 has been reverted, and the reason is "more likely unverified as (literally) related to this topic; also, based on unverified assumptions that the topic is actually an event".

My opinion to the first reason ("more likely unverified as (literally) related to this topic") is: military deployment is definitely related to any Cold War. Say, the moderator has already allowed AUKUS to be "related", what makes hypersonic weapons less related? If I misunderstood anything, please explain further.

As to the second reason ("based on unverified assumptions that the topic is actually an event"), I guess the moderator is assuming that, since I opened a sub-section, I am treating "The development of hypersonic weapons" as an event. I agree the relationship between hypersonic weapons and Second Cold War is still to be determined, but that doesn't diminish the importance of firing hypersonic missiles by China as a historic incident in China-US tensions. I would be glad to discuss about the position where these news best fit in. But an one-click reverting of other's contribution is not a positive response, from both the perspectives of valuing others' works and growth of the community.

I am posting my questions in a talk page, such that we can have a clear discussion, and future editors coming to this page would also benefit from a consistent standard.

Cheers, TaicauZin (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

For the first reason, I don't know how you will be able to view full articles from FT: first, second. If neither mentions "Second Cold War", then the military deployment isn't related to the article subject. Some may disagree with me, nonetheless. The consensus decided to use reliable sources referring the phrase "Cold War II" (or any other interchangeable terms) (2015 discussion). I know this SCMP article doesn't mention the topic literally. Also, please refer to WP:Core content policies and WP:Five pillars.

For the second reason, the consensus decided last year that the article subject, the "Second Cold War", is a "term", not an "event". (April 2021 discussion). George Ho (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, George!

First of all, it was a joy reading the discussions.

But sorry, I can't agree.

For your first response: whether I am can view the full article on FT (yes, I am a subscriber) is irrelevant to the discussion. But I assure you that both articles mentioned "Cold War" and they compared USSR's "fractional orbital bombardment system" to the orbital bombardment system China is deploying. Of the system, the SCMP report provided further information on China's side as well on the US's side. If you insist that the "Second Cold War" page should be all about the usage of the term, please see my counter-argument below.

The discussion has been six years ago, which is enough for a war going from start til end. Now, if we bring the discussions back, most editors would have changed their minds.

Please take a look at how the pageviews has changed since 2015. We saw a spindle since April of 2018, and a surge since July of 2019. Shouldn't we look back at the idea that "Second Cold War" is just a term, rather than an event?

And even though your arguments for preserving the page to the term is strong, I still didn't see the necessity of the rule. Consider the thousands users scrolling the page daily, do they know that this is a "term" page and not an "event" page? Knowing that the page is outdated and not getting the information they want is disappointing enough.

TaicauZin (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I know you're frustrated, but we can't do argumentum ad populum, do we? Also, we can't mislead readers into believing in unverifiable info about the topic. Whether readers know whether the article subject is a "term" or an "event" has nothing to do with how the article should comply with existing policies and guidelines, including core content ones. If you insist on making the article about an "event", then please start another RfC discussion. Then again, the consensus would say again that the "Second Cold War" is a "term", wouldn't they? Or, rather there would be either consensus against or no consensus calling the topic an "event".

BTW, I reviewed the articles via ProQuest. The article "China tests new space capability with hypersonic missile" turns out to be a lesson about China and the US for a geography class. I don't see how this article helps, and I don't see "Cold War" or "Cold War II" (or similar) anywhere. The article "Chinese hypersonic weapon fired a missile over South China Sea" still doesn't mention this topic either. Oh, and since you're new, you may wanna read Help:Getting started. George Ho (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes it was frustrating in the beginning but now, with your explanations, I think I understood Wikipedia to a further level. So I really appreciate your patience and efforts!

The discussion on whether Second Cold War is an ongoing event is necessary, but it should be placed in institutes, not on wikipedia. The fact that this page exists but is not about an ongoing event has confused me. Because it made me feel like Second Cold War is a consensus... Also, I double checked the FT articles, they contain the phrase "Cold War". I also searched ProQuest and saw what you mean by "a lesson". Those entries are on Trade Journal, not FT.

But look, I was not being stubborn:) Will make sure I have got all the information in Help:Getting started, thanks!

TaicauZin (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

it should be placed in institutes, not on wikipedia. Off-wiki discussions don't count and shouldn't count, unfortunately! See wp:consensus#Pitfalls and errors. Better have off-wiki events and discussions recorded and incorporated into (external) sources, like a news article, an interview, a book, or any other medium, not on Wikipedia without a reliable source. George Ho (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Use of the term, has it now been established ?

Will Vladimir Putin turn the Second Cold War into a hot one? https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/01/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-cold-war-hot-war-analysis-intl/index.html CNN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiet2 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This is CNN's analysis using probably one of reporter's questions out of context and misidentified it as Putin's. Or, shall I say that Putin did not say that. See this transcript. Also, be careful of sharing this and using article headlines, which are unreliable to use. --George Ho (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This page shouldn't even exist

I'm not sure if we should be creating concepts on Wikipedia out of some articles from some outlets. This term is barely used, and few academics would even accept that there is any kind of "Second Cold War" going on. Interesting in the whole page, most of the quotes are from people saying there isn't and/or won't be any kind of cold war between China and USA, and tensions between those two countries are completely different from what was once called Cold War between USA and USSR.Valverde.pr (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Hey there. One of past discussions reveal why the article has been and should be written this way. Other editors have attempted to change the article's scope without avail. Please don't hesitate to nominate this for deletion via either Twinkle or manual process (with help of instructions at WP:AFD#Nominating article(s) for deletion). --George Ho (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC): The whole archive doesn't show anything. I stand by my opinion. The whole existence of this article doesn't make much sense, and I won't nominate for deletion, it's not up to me delete an article. However, I have the right to express that the existence of this page is not in line with what is expected from Wikipedia, since original research and personal essays must be avoided. Note that existence from quotes doesn't mean its not an original research or a personal essay. There isn't a single one influential academic study as we speak that talks about the "Second Cold War" as an ongoing event. The article doesn't even have a section for the term, and it quotes different sources talking about different things and from events from different periods that have no connection with each other. For example, some of them are about Russia/USA relations, some of them about China/USA relations, enough to show the term lacks any kind of substancial meaning. It seems people just went to google and searched for "second cold war" and used everything they could find and the result was a disjointed article. One of the most poorly written articles in english languages I've read on Wikipedia. Valverde.pr (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)