Talk:Cold war (term)

Cold War Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Cold War

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 articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Moved, 10 January 2022, from Cold war (general term) to Cold war (term), see discussion.
Not moved, 31 August 2023, from Cold war (term) to Cold war, see discussion.

Older comments

If you must combine these articles, they need to be under Cold War, not Cold war, as The Cold War was a specific war and hence a proper noun. --nknight 13:00 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think the Taiwan issue qualifies as a cold war. It's more of an unresolved civil war. --Jiang 20:44 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

All linking articles about the Cold War have now been redirected to Cold War. --GCarty 17:30 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Regarding moving this to Wiktionary, essentially it's the equivalent of what many folks have wanted to do -- merge this with Cold War (proper) and explain the concept of a Cold war within that article. Jiang is correct re: China vs. Taiwan, is not referred to as a cold war. It's a continuation of civil war that goes back to the early part of the 20th century. Greece and Turkey were seen as critical countries during the Cold War because the USSR would see it as a NATO weakness if there was a conflict, but as such, they are not referred to widely as being involved in a cold war. That said, there is no real reason for this article to exist alone. It should be merged with the Cold War article. Fuzheado 07:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cold war and Cold War

I searched for "cold war" ended up here was loking for "Cold War" article... whats going on here? --kunjan1029 05:26, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Cold War- Cuban Missile Crisis

We Need More Information on this Topic! It was an important part of Cold War History! Čóļđ Ŵãř is an Important Even wich needs all the information!

The Cuban Missle Crisis was part of the Cold War, and is not usually in itself considered a cold war. Wikiacc (?) 17:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eso es pura mentira bola de creidos no sirven para nada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.78.191.178 (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India - Pakistan

Is the situation between India and Pakistan not considered a cold war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by THE DJA (talk • contribs) 11:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC) its all a bunch of bull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.74.215 (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What?

Isn't it supposed to be United States and Israel vs. Iran, or am I missing something here? Sirius85 (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken or Egg

Which came first: the war tactic or the conflict? Did the term inspire the name of the conflict or did the conflict inspire the term? 76.179.52.183 (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Empire

From the article: "1871–1914: United Kingdom, France, and Russian Empire vs. Germany and Austria–Hungary set off by the formation of the German Empire, which politically and geographically challenged the older empires of Europe." I disagree with the Russian Empire standing on the side of France and the UK. The 'Dreikaiserbund' in 1873 established quite a strong relationship between Germany, Austria and Russia. It was only in the last years before WW1 that Russia moved over to the France-UK side, starting with the Franco-Russian alliance in 1893. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.84.155 (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good point, and I have altered the text (and the start date) accordingly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"New" Theories on the Etymology

Anders Stephanson from Columbioa University quite efficiently and comprehensively disproves the notion of Don Juan being the primal source of the term. See this link to his essay., I shall also post it to the 'See Also'. 195.35.252.14 (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Cold War II

DO NOT MERGE:

There is a rough consensus against merging Cold war (general term) with Cold War II. Editors noted that the two articles refer to distinct topics: Cold war (general term) refers to the general term, while Cold War II refers to Russia/China vs. Western tensions. Cunard (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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

The "Cold War II" page was created as a response to the possible tensions between the Russian and the West. Later, the section about the China–US relations was added. Sections about other relations were already moved to the article, "Cold war (general term)." Shall we do the same to this article? George Ho (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Oppose A separate Cold War II makes logical sense, because it is a "legitimate" successor, a "resurgence" of Cold War. The rest of "cold wars" are not. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MergeThe Cold War II article, is short, and can be merged into this article, as a cold war topic. If the Cold War II topic grows it can be split into its own article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: As per CuriousMind01, article splitting is always an option. Otr500 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Mostly because I don't think that Cold War II is the wrong title for an article about current US/Russia relations. The cold war that followed WWII was marked by massive military spending, spying, deep suspicion and relentless propaganda about communism vs. capitalism. While some of these things might exist in the current climate, they are simply too different. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Cold War II seems to refer to just Russia/China vs. Western tensions. Cold War (general term) refers to the use of the phrase cold war in general, and more minor diplomatic standoffs labelled cold wars by RS. Both articles are a decent length, and I see no reason to merge.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Cold War II presupposes the postwar Cold War ever ended. I think that's a contentious view without consensus in the academic and foreign relations communities. The merger should be in reverse order, merging Cold War II with Cold War to remove the inference that a separate or new phenomenon is occurring rather than this being a continuation of post war hostility. Invited to comment here by Legobot. Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – While not the longest article out there, there is enough material for a standalone article, and the topic is a "successor" to the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States and their respective allies. Dustin (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Well researched and good references documenting the topic. Sagecandor (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It is an entirely separate phenomenon that is described by reference to Cold War for lack of a better universally acknowledged term, thus far. As to its length, it has recently been drastically cut, which remains a dubious move.Axxxion (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: As per CuriousMind01 and Otr500. Borsoka (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Cold War II is about specific conflicts/scenarios, not the general term. Legoless (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Peter, ~~I want to confront you about inserting "original research" into Cold War-related discussions~~. While WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages, your proposal (merging into "Cold War") might violate the policy. If you are certain that Cold War has not ended, please either add stuff at Historiography of the Cold War or discuss the run of the Cold War at Talk:Historiography of the Cold War. You can repeatedly say the same arguments over and over as you did here and at Talk:Cold War II. I fear that your rationale and proposal would be discarded as one of unverified "conspiracy theories". But I must cooperate with you, and you must do the same with me. I found just this source, that source, this source, that source. George Ho (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC); edited, 05:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your grammar makes it difficult to unpick what you are saying. nevertheless, let me just point out that I was invited to comment by Legobot as an impartial observer. That I should express the same opinion about relate dtopics strikes me as indicating i have the same opinion on the same topic, not an attempt to do anything 'over and over'. To translate that into colloquial language: I don't much care what rules you think you know, what the decision will be, or what your own agenda is. I gave my opinion as an educated polymath whose reading list and understandings exceed any curated factoid link list. Wikipedia editors on this page will now choose to do exactly as they like, which is how things work around here, and reality be damned. Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my... what would be the word you call it when I write less sensible words? Anyway, I'll rephrase for you, but I'm including the link that I discovered today. The last time you edited an article was 2013, Peter, three years ago. Why making an opinion rather than add content or fix typos and grammar in articles? Or why not become an analyst or a conspiracy theorist on Cold War instead of making a complaint or something? Or why not go to the website of Wikipediocracy and post something bad about Wikipedia? Or why not publish a book about the Cold War? George Ho (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin, the consensus agreed that "Cold War II" is not a successor to the "Cold War". --George Ho (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the consensus you mentioned had much to do with the implications of the title, which I am not arguing. Additionally, there was only limited participation in that discussion, even though I may agree with certain elements of its outcome. In this "cold war" (which has been mentioned in a number of sources, real or not), the two factions still remain mostly the same, with the more dominant usage involving Russia (in place of the Soviet Union) on one side and the United States and allies on the other. Even if you put the "successor" bit aside, I still do not see a compelling reason to merge Cold War II into this article (which it is larger than anyway). Dustin (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section about China vs US months ago, Dustin. George Ho (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of that. I said "dominant," and Russia vs. United States is definitely more common than China vs. United States. Dustin (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the title was discussed again, Dustin; the consensus said to retain that title. --George Ho (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that is supposed to be relevant. Dustin (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no. It's just for the reminder; that's all. George Ho (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Axxxion, we have used Talk:Cold War II to reduce article issues, like original research and advocacy and propaganda. With a lot of talking, the article content was trimmed down from this to that to that to what it is now. I haven't seen you comment about the China vs. US yet. You were solely concerned about the Russia–Western relations, weren't you? George Ho (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what you are after: want to pick my brains on China. Know very little of the subject, but it is obvious the Chinese themselves are not about to be sold on this Western notion of "Cold War". They will just do real war when the chips are down. But looking at the relevant section in the article, what irks me is total absence of any indication of time there: "increased" when? "deployed" when?, etc.Axxxion (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

template talk:Cold War#RfC: "Cold War II" in the navigation template

I invite you to the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likely origin of term Cold War

I have a document which was written by the Chief of Signal Intelligence for the Germans during World War 2. General Albert Praun. Praun was the Chief Signal Officer of Army High Command and of Supreme Command of Armed Forces (German: Chef des Heeresnachrichtenwesens). Essentially the top guy for Signal Intelligence for the Germans during WW 2. The document was written by him in March 1950, as Homework for TICOM and the document was so important that it was classified by the NSA up until 28th January 2014, when it was released. The document is written as a history of the radio intelligence and intercept service, and in the introduction, he explicitly details the phrase: cold war of the air waves. It is possibly the origin of the term. It was very important document, which carried weight, from an important man, with the American military industrial complex. Could be. I have a feeling it is, as it was in there..scope_creep (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cold civil wars

Many commentators have described the state of the U.S. and elsewhere as a "cold civil war", suggesting that the term "cold war" can also refer to conflicts between opposing factions within a country rather than just one between nations as is given in the opening sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinus jeffreyi (talk • contribs) 00:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 January 2022

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

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed since the original request to remove "general" from the title has gone uncontested. There is no consensus on the secondary question of whether to remove the disambiguation altogether. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cold war (general term) → Cold war (term) – There's no need to say "general" here. This is the only article on enwiki that uses the disambiguator "general term", while 29 use just "term". I don't see why this should be any different. (N.B.: This is a somewhat unusual case where WP:DIFFCAPS has not been invoked [Cold war → Cold War], but I agree with that status quo. DIFFCAPS is ill-suited for cases where the only difference is the first letter of the second word in a two-word phrase, where many readers won't make a distinction between capitalizing or not capitalizing that letter.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. -- dylx 14:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate move to Cold war Per WP:DIFFCAPS. It can still be clearly separated from the "Cold War" (proper noun) using hatnotes._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Cold war per above comment. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Cold war. Showiecz (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Cold war - I find anytime an article is disambiguated as (term) or (concept) or the like, its probably a misplaced primary topic. -- Netoholic @ 10:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support move as proposed, oppose move to Cold war, per nom. The vast majority of the incoming links to Cold war refer to the Cold War and I can only imagine that the majority of readers who simply type "cold war" are looking for the 20th century conflict, too; pageviews in any case seem to suggest not many people are looking for the article about the term. Lennart97 (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support move as proposed, oppose move to Cold war, per nom and Lennart97. Additionally, the edit history at Cold war shows that most involved editors there thought that people typing "World war" in the edit box were looking for the US-USSR conflict. Sjö (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support original proposal - per above. Also, eliminating the dab would not be beneficial to the project and its readers. George Ho (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested move 31 August 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works 17:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cold war (term) → Cold war – Per WP:DIFFCAPS, WP:NCCPT and WP:CONCISE, like the Islamic State and the Islamic state. Parham wiki (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Cold war has redirected to Cold War, not this page, quite consistently for the past 17 years, indicating that the general term is not the primary topic for the lowercase spelling. Dekimasuよ! 15:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support WP:DIFFCAPS would appear to apply here. Britannica backs this up by calling it the Cold War, with news articles inset within using "cold war" to refer to any form of "cold" conflict. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - DIFFCAPS allows for ignoring itself when one is way more notable than the other Red Slash 22:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's ordinary for people to search using lowercase letters for things that actually contain uppercase letters. This is asymmetric with the reverse situation: people searching with capital letters are not so likely to be looking for the lowercase topic, and that's the kind of prediction about search intent which forms the basis of DIFFCAPS. So I wouldn't discount Cold War too much; it's still the primary topic. I also agree with Lennart97 from the 2022 RM. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think that Cold War is the primary topic for the exact title Cold war so WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT may also apply. Skynxnex (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Adumbrativus. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, being in agreement with almost everything the opposers above have said. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:DIFFCAPS. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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