DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Second Cold War

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Cold War 2

[edit]

Google trends on Cold War 2 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=RU&q=cold%20war%202

Use of the term in google news: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cold+war+2

2A00:1370:8172:4F3:D99:E505:2651:5D3A (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:10, 16 March 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

On American bias within the article

[edit]

The article is heavily tilted towards the U.S. and it's worsening relations with Russia and China, with barely any mention as for the situation within Europe and overall NATO, only the mention of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the opinions of European experts on the situation.

I believe this should either be fixed, or at the very least, a template on severe bias towards one subject/from one perspective (the American perspective) should be added such as the following template:

I would have done it myself but i figured a topic on the talk page to attempt to gain consensus before such a move would be better PLMandarynka (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a consensus to remove the "globalize" tag (discussion). I'll try to express my opposition to (the reinsertion of) the tag should it be reinserted. Also, please provide reliable sources that prove your point, so I'll evaluate their reliability and verification of info you've sought for. George Ho (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the article ...
The start of it says enough - "[...] have been used to describe heightened geopolitical tensions in the Post–Cold War era, usually between the United States and either China or Russia [...]"
The article then goes on to write the positions of Americans, American current and former government policy, and positions of experts and others on rising tensions between the U.S. and Russia or China.
NATO and Europe are seldom mentioned within the article, at most only as "US-allies" or maybe "the West". There is precisely just one section that provides a fair European perspective, on the new Cold War from the eyes of Europe, before the article going back to purely Americentric topics - China-US tensions and Russia-US tensions.
I approve of editing to include a wider perspective of the West (not just the U.S.) within the article, but a simple acknowledgement of the problem is also great and satisfactory PLMandarynka (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please google any news articles about the "Second Cold War" (or "Cold War II") if you can. George Ho (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does this relate to the American-centric bias of this article? PLMandarynka (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The closer of that old discussion (that resulted in removal of the "globalize" tag) said this: I encourage editors to continue working on the article to provide additional information about this subject. I must rephrase what I said: "Can you find reliable sources that can help you counter the so-called US bias?" George Ho (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's quite obvious that if we were to discuss a second Cold War, it's surely between NATO/US&Europe against Russia or China. Denying NATO's role, which is already mentioned, though sparsely, and purely focusing on the U.S., is a pure fallacy.
There already exist sources within the article that touch on NATO's and Europe's in general role within these rising tensions, which is undeniable PLMandarynka (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about whether the "second Cold War" exists... or not. It's never been about NATO's involvement, honestly. Somehow, by mentioning NATO, I can assume you implicitly believe the whole article subject to be an actual "event", despite the contrary said by others, right?
WP:V still matters, regardless of whether what you said is true or false. We shouldn't violate the policy by including stuff that isn't well verified by reliable sources, despite it being "true". George Ho (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated it's about NATO's involvement, i'm simply inquiring as to the total focus on the U.S's role within it and polemic on it despite NATO also playing a large role that should be more evenly stated than just "U.S against Russia and China" which is what the front of the page states. Either the problem of a lack of equal perspective should be fixed or at least a template should be given for its awareness.
The point i raised and the topic i made is not towards the existance of the second Cold War, simply on the lack of perspective equality within the article. I won't debate whether it is an actual event or not PLMandarynka (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either the problem of a lack of equal perspective should be fixed or at least a template should be given for its awareness. Please be careful of false dilemmas and WP:ULTIMATUM, all right? Can't you just forego the reinsertion and just figure out whether it violates WP:NPOV or any other core content policy? I don't wanna repeat what I said about searching for sources verifying NATO's involvement in the "second cold war" or "Cold War II", do I? Should you try to reinsert the tag, I'll still debate again whether to remove the "globalize" tag. George Ho (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the topic's creation is precisely to figure out whether it violates a lack of a neutral point of view, that being a major bias towards the U.S. specifically
And i don't seek to repeat my answer in regards to the pursuit of "sources" PLMandarynka (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I don't think the article violates NPOV because I've done my best to abide to WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, especially to avoid writing this article as if it were an actual event. Well, the NPOV rule has yet to address what you've raised so far. Have you realized why "WP:Systemic bias" has not yet been a rule? George Ho (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the issue is systemic bias, if so the point wouldn't be raised, it is simply on the lack of equal perspectives in regards to the written article with the article presenting a mainly American point of view. All i seek is for that to be recognized with the template recognizing the problem being placed.
The article is all fair in regards to objectivity and sourcing, and on these points i have nothing to talk on PLMandarynka (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All i seek is for that to be recognized with the template recognizing the problem being placed. I'll still try to revert the reinsertion of the tag should you try to do so. This tag, IMO, would encourage unwanted, unwelcoming edits in the name of countering so-called American POV that you've been raising. George Ho (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Until someone reopens the topic discussion, i will take it as closed and ended PLMandarynka (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PLMandarynka in that the current wording focuses too much on the US rather than NATO as a whole. Many of the article sources mention "NATO" or "the West", not just "the US", but the wording in the article often fails to include them. A lot of the recent debate over whether there's a new Cold War focuses on Russia–NATO relations, especially as most of the things they discuss are taking place in Europe. I will find more references for the article and change the wording accordingly. – Asarlaí (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Mention of the new space race

[edit]

In today's modern events there is a second space race forming so, we should add a new article on the Artemis mission and the Chang'e Missions this we be needed soon since the Artemis II Lauch will happen in February of 2026. We should include mention of the "Second Space race" as this is producing more breaking news headlines. Ducksquack2 (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is this "second space race" connected to this "cold war"? George Ho (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]