Talk:Cold War/Archive 9

Excess of Cold War films listed?
Does anyone else think that there are too many movies listed in this article? Wouldn't it be better to have a lesser number of examples, and perhaps put the rest in the article Culture during the Cold War?

Let's discuss as needed. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep--it's a very short selected list of **** films....anyone bored with the list can just skip it--no one is inconvenienced by it Rjensen (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * KConWiki, we had a similar discussion in spring, and I'm glad you've revived it, since it was about time. In my view, the whole "popular culture" section should go to Culture during the Cold War. If people want to have fun listing their favorite films there, that's great, but I remain of the firm opinion that this particular article should deal exclusively with the serious side of the conflict. It's already rather lengthy as is (which is normal, considering the topic's complexity), and just isn't the place for a trivial list like that. - Biruitorul Talk 21:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * serious side? It was in large measure a psychological war of images, hence the importance of films that defined the issues for hundreds of millions of people. Rjensen (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, serious side, as defined by, say, the works of John Lewis Gaddis, Melvyn P. Leffler and Odd Arne Westad, who steer clear of writing about culture and keep their focus on diplomacy, military conflict, espionage, ideology, decolonization and so forth. If their definitive histories don't touch on culture, neither should we, in this article. There are, of course, scholarly works on Cold War culture, and there's a separate article where those works should be cited and those aspects discussed. - Biruitorul Talk 22:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would agree with listing Dr. Strangelove, Fail-Safe and the The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming and a few others listed, which are directly about the Cold War, as opposed to stories whose backdrop is the Cold War. There are a couple of other movies that should be included, such as One, Two, Three.  But The Third Man and The Falcon and the Snowman are really about crime.  In the first case, criminals are able to hide because of a lack of cooperation between Soviet and Western officials.  But that story could easily be transplanted into any conflict.  Our Man in Havana is probably a better choice, although it could be easily adapted to today.  TFD (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all for the responses, and thanks to all for the contributions they make to WP. I particularly want to thank User:Rjensen for all the important history-related contributions that he has made to WP. I am of the opinion that it is appropriate to list a number of these films, such as those mentioned above, and possibly others (for instance, the early James Bond films may not have been as sophisticated in their commentary as Dr. Strangelove or Manchurian Candidate, but they were certainly iconic examples of Cold War-era popular culture in the West). However, I am also of the opinion that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Crimson Tide are not examples of films that merit inclusion in this section. Perhaps we could pick 6-8 good examples, and create a prose section of a paragraph or two to replace the table? Thanks, let's discuss further as needed. KConWiki (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe that few if any movies should be listed here. As I have stated in a previous post, I believe that a paragraph discussing popular culture is warranted, and it should point to the Culture article. As a contrast, another big element of the Cold War was espionage, and it gets very short shrift here, and while it does have its own article, it doesn't get the treatment that the movies section does. We can't have everything here in this article.
 * Another issue with "just a few" films is that there won't be agreement, and it would just cause "needless" edits (someone switching out one film for another, which doesn't necessarily improve the article), or adding more to the list (because, "why not?") which would get us back to where we are now...Hires an editor (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the topic of films is highly interesting to our readers and we should cover it. RS agree the propaganda war was central to the Cold War. Rjensen (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "the topic of films is highly interesting to our readers" - can you actually prove it? Do you have some poll? Otherwise the conclusion does not follow.
 * And in general, I'd say there is nothing to be gained by considering the wishes of the readers. The only thing that we know about them is that they are reading an article in Wikipedia. Thus we might wish to provide a good article - but it is easier to do so while concentrating on the article and the policies and ignoring the readers.
 * "RS agree the propaganda war was central to the Cold War." - yes, and it would be nice to get a thematic section about propaganda (just like it would be nice to get a thematic section about espionage, conventional forces etc.). But making a list of movies doesn't help one to write such section. The view that it might help is discussed in User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing... Not to mention that movies made after the Cold war should not be discussed in such section. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"Free" election in a "Capitalist State" phrasing in opening (replacing comment from user talk page here in article page for feedback)
User: Biruitorul, Good day. In regard to the recently reverted edit to the opening of this Cold War entry, please note that the sentence in question compares the political/economic system of the United States to that of the United Soviet Socialist Republic as 20th Century state superpowers, rather than comparing elections in various "Marxist-Leninist" states ("North Korea", the erstwhile "East Germany", etc.) to those in so-called "capitalist" states in general. As such, listing North Korea and East Germany as exceptions to the concept of a single-party Marxist state seems immaterial -- even as I gather what it is you are attempting to get at here. Further, both my original edit and my more recent update link(ed) to the wikipedia entry on "multi-party" systems. The encyclopedia definition for multi-party systems itself provides clear and unambiguous explanation for the term; the reason(s) that national elections in [old] "Second World" states do not at all qualify as of the sort should be inferred from that entry. Lastly, my own reading of the Cold War entry suggests that it is the opening graph's characterization of electoral processes in the Cold War-era United States as "free" that raises the specter of ambiguity. I contend as much to suggest that there is neither cohesive, nor substantive, nor cogent definition for what exactly a "free" election might be, particularly not when using such a formulation to draw a historic comparison. Thanks. sefowt_fred 00:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Cold War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071117094223/http://files.osa.ceu.hu:80/holdings/selection/rip/4/av/1956-44.html to http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/selection/rip/4/av/1956-44.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927220033/http://www.ena.lu/?doc=11160 to http://www.ena.lu/?doc=11160

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Layout of the lead section
I changed the lead section to just three large paragraphs and two small ones. Reading the intro, it refers a lot of key events without explaining them a lot. I don't see much of main points explained. Feel free to discuss it further. --George Ho (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015
This request is to edit the second paragraph, third sentence, to more accurately characterize the US. In particular, it is generally acknowledged that the Bill of Rights of US constitution does not grant rights, but recognizes and protects the inherent rights that people have by virtue of being human. For example, see: https://www.docsoffreedom.org/readings/equal-and-inalienable-rights. Thank you.

original text:

The Cold War split the temporary wartime alliance against Nazi Germany, leaving the USSR and the US as two superpowers with profound economic and political differences: the former being a single-party Marxist–Leninist state operating planned economy and controlled press and owning exclusively the right to establish and govern communities, and the latter being a capitalist state with generally free elections and press, which also granted freedom of expression and freedom of association to its citizens.

proposed change:

The Cold War split the temporary wartime alliance against Nazi Germany, leaving the USSR and the US as two superpowers with profound economic and political differences: the former being a single-party Marxist–Leninist state operating planned economy and controlled press and owning exclusively the right to establish and govern communities, and the latter being a capitalist state with free elections and press, which also recognizes the freedom of expression and freedom of association of its citizens.

108.39.94.230 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think "generally" is a good description for many capitalist states. South Korea was historically capitalist but autocratic and dictatorial; so was pre-Castro Cuba. --George Ho (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, you were discussing the US. "Generally" for the US. US... isn't always free, even when "democratic" or "capitalist". FBI spied on African-American activists and cracked down on pro-communist people during Red Scare. Promising Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated during the United States presidential election, 1968. Speaking of elections, the popular vote was very close, but electoral college system made Nixon a likely winner. Shall I say more? --George Ho (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * So, you are rejecting a legitimate change, based on verifiable facts, because you are, for some reason, clearly biased against the United States. You obviously went straight to your opinions and did not even read my reference. No government can be perfect, because people are not perfect. This fact was realized by the "founding fathers" of the U.S. and is why they wrote the constitution and bill of rights in a specific manner. They realized that if a government grants a right, then they can also take it away. But by recognizing that rights already exist, then they cannot be taken away, at least not without a fundamental change in that government. This is an important distinction that underpins the philosophy of the U.S. The fact that it may not always be practiced, or that you may consider it mere semantics is irrelevent to that fact.


 * Now, to address your specious and highly opinionated arguments. There is absolutely no evidence that the U.S. government was involved in the assassination of Robert Kennedy as you imply. The electorial college system is how we elect presidents, and is generally a fair system which there has been no compelling reason to change. I'll refer you to the Wikipedia article on the subject for more information. The FBI crackdown and the Red Scare you mention, occurred during brief periods of history and both were stopped decades ago, instead of continuing indefinitely as would often happen in other parts of the world when people's rights are violated.


 * Your reply was not only a poor and opinionated argument, but was dripping with disdain and sarcasm. So finally, I'll refer you to the Wikipedia neutrality policy. If you cannot put aside your personal opinions, then perhaps you should consider resigning as a Wikipedia editor, or at least avoid subjects and articles where you have a strong opinion. Shall I say more? -Mark Freeman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.94.230 (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Enough of your threats. Capitalism is not a synonym of democracy. I assumed that you are American patriot by looking at your tone and attitude. Changing the portion would change the meaning of it. As for the electoral college system being "fair", look at Bush v. Gore and United States presidential election, 2000. The Florida vote counts was debated, but the Court decided not to have the vote double-checked. Well, not related to Cold War, but you get the idea. --George Ho (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Generally free" elections more appropriately characterizes how the US practiced voting. After all, new legislation had to be passed as a result of large and vigorous protests in the 1960's alone, to make elections (particularly in the Southern US) more "free". There are other examples in many parts of the US that show that "free elections" didn't produce a "free" result.
 * I also disagree with the characterization of "dripping in sarcasm" as a reply. I have to admit to not seeing that. Minimizing these things does a disservice to the history of the period. This article, and Wikipedia in general, are not platforms to project a particular point of view, or parrot or promote the "goodness" of one entity over another. We would like to reflect as accurately as possible information in history, in its scholarship, and its impact on the world, in the most neutral way possible. Hires an editor (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cold War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080624210152/http://www.systemicpeace.org/PC2005.pdf to http://www.systemicpeace.org/PC2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox question posed at WikiProject History
If you believe that you could assist with this initial process, please see. I elected not to go to the Military History folks first, since this is a broader question than strictly Military History. Hires an editor (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's cool. Moving forward is moving forward. I chose them because they have one of the top active WikiProjects.  I think the dynamics of the Cold War won't be lost on them.  Most of the issues seem to focus on the complexity of the Cold War and not a narrow interpretation of the event.  I know you are a major contributor towards this article, so I know you have a better gauge on how the military/not military factor affects this article. Mitchumch (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mitchumch - after appx 24 hours, I'm happy to go with your approach. Feel free to post your request to the Military History folks and see if they respond. No harm in it. Hires an editor (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cold War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080503183113/http://www.nps.gov:80/history/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/128mimi/ to http://www.nps.gov/history/NR/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/128mimi/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2016
Under the Space Race heading, add and remove Space Race from  under Sino-Soviet split

97.126.5.170 (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2016
Although the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States for years prior to 1945, it was not until post World War II that the intensity grew. The major reason for the resurfacing of the conflict was due to differences in opinion regarding the rebuilding and recovery of war-torn European nations. Following the fall of Germany in World War II, the Soviet influence took over Eastern Europe. This established foothold threatened to spread its economic values toward Western Europe, an otherwise democratic region. In the eyes of the United States, communism threatened to hinder the progress of European reestablishment. The fears present from both sides, primarily economic, led to further distance between the political values of Truman and Stalin. Although the policies of both sides grew increasingly more extreme, due to economic concerns, a series of “limited wars” were the result. These smaller skirmishes represented each side flexing its military prowess through the exploitation of smaller, developing country allies. The war lost much of its active physicality and became more of an arms race as both Truman and Stalin were replaced.

Jd0y0n33 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Cold War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071117094223/http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/selection/rip/4/av/1956-44.html to http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/selection/rip/4/av/1956-44.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090827045220/http://www.nixonlibrary.gov:80/thelife/apolitician/thepresident/index.php to http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/thelife/apolitician/thepresident/index.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130117035929/http://www.jfklibrary.org/Events-and-Awards/~/media/assets/Education%20and%20Public%20Programs/Forum%20Transcripts/Cold%20War%20and%20Nuclear%20Arms%20Race.pdf to http://www.jfklibrary.org/Events-and-Awards/~/media/assets/Education%20and%20Public%20Programs/Forum%20Transcripts/Cold%20War%20and%20Nuclear%20Arms%20Race.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081222065026/http://www.cybertrn.demon.co.uk:80/ to http://www.cybertrn.demon.co.uk/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080918203432/http://coldwarfiles.org:80/ to http://coldwarfiles.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2016
Please change "the Truman administration quickly moved to escalate and expand the containment policy" to "The Truman administration was hoping that the Communists would accept Chiang's authority and that Chiang would allow them their rights to participate in elections, as Communists were doing in France and Italy. The Truman administration was hoping for a democratic China, but it did not work out that way. Talks between the two sides in 1946 broke down, and civil war erupted." because if offers more information on how the U.S. was involved in china.

Its maddie byee (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox ... again
This article needs an infobox. That infobox does not need to be Template:Infobox military conflict. However, the Cold War is a discrete event in world history. The current absence of one is surprising. Especially since this article was first created on 22 September 2003‎. Mitchumch (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Except that it shouldn't be like any other info box, since this isn't any other conflict. Maybe design an appropriate info box, since there weren't "combatants" necessarily, and sides were shifting by some participants...it's complex, and hard to put into an info box. That is part of the reason that there isn't already one here. Compare this article to The Great Game article - they don't have an info box, either. So in spite of its name - Cold War, it wasn't really a war, it was a rivalry. Are there info boxes that describe national/world rivalries that aren't wars? Hires an editor (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I will abstain from a conversation surrounding whether or not the Cold War was actually a war.   I'm only seeking to use an infobox to encapsulate key bits of information to introduce the topic in an non-expository format.  I'm not sure if there are any info boxes that describe national/world rivalries that aren't wars.  How about an infobox that does not reveal "sides" only participants/rivals?  Mitchumch (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "This article needs an infobox." - no, it does not.
 * What exactly would be gained by adding the infobox? The only "advantage" that I see is that it would make the article look more "professional". And that is not a good reason to add the infobox (I suppose I might as well cite the essay User:Martynas Patasius/On form and substance).
 * Also, what fields would it have? For example, would it list the leaders? In that case, would it list all presidents of USA, all prime ministers of UK etc.? But that would be a huge list! And it would make the infobox useless.
 * And if there is no good set of fields to have in the infobox, the infobox itself should not be here. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I respect any user that dislikes infoboxes, because they dislike infoboxes. Other users are on the other end of the spectrum.  Consequently, there is nothing  anyone can write that will satisfy or persuade those users - no matter their persuasion.  I only ask that users participate in this discussion in a constructive role and not a destructive role.


 * As to an advantage (not the only one) of an infobox, I will repeat what I wrote above - "I'm only seeking to use an infobox to encapsulate key bits of information to introduce the topic in a non-expository format". Also, infoboxes are a standard element on Wikipedia.


 * As for which fields will it have? We can work thru each field - one at a time.  Leaders and participants are not the only fields in an infobox.  If we must, then participants and leaders may be excluded.  But those two fields do not prevent the presence of other fields like date, location, causes, results, etc.  Mitchumch (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "I respect any user that dislikes infoboxes, because they dislike infoboxes." - that is irrelevant. There are good reasons to refuse to have an infobox here, even if they do not apply to, let's say, chemical elements.
 * "I only ask that users participate in this discussion in a constructive role and not a destructive role." - what exactly do you mean by that? I hope that is not a try to make "constructing" an infobox look better?
 * So, the supposed advantages. First, "I'm only seeking to use an infobox to encapsulate key bits of information to introduce the topic in a non-expository format". Unfortunately, as we will see, there are no such "key bits". Second, "Also, infoboxes are a standard element on Wikipedia." - that is just the "advantage" I noted - more professional look. Not a sufficient advantage, I must say.
 * "We can work thru each field - one at a time." - so, you haven't actually done so? Well, that's the problem: if you would go through the fields first, you would discover there are no suitable fields. If you do not believe me, try to find, let's say, 10 suitable fields.
 * For now, let's look at the fields that you have listed:
 * "date" - the article (Special:Diff/704378331) says: "Historians do not fully agree on the dates, but 1947–91 is common.". No agreement - nothing suitable for infobox.
 * "location". So, will the value be "Earth"? Pretty useless for an infobox.
 * "causes" - seriously? Neutral description of that will take multiple paragraphs. It is most certainly not suitable for infobox.
 * "results" - just try describing everything that ended up different after the Cold War...
 * So, four tries - and not a single field suitable for an infobox!
 * Thus, once again: if you think you want an infobox, design it yourself, and present it here, instead of just demanding one and hoping that someone else will do the actual work. I am pretty sure that in the process you will discover why the infobox is going to be useless here. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. You've made your position clear.  As I said above, "nothing anyone can write that will satisfy or persuade those users - no matter their persuasion".
 * The issues with date is a common element of historical discourse for a variety of events. Therefore, that is not an excuse.  The issue with place is also a non-issue.  The Cold War was not the only global conflict in human history.  Other articles on global conflicts have infoboxes.  This article is no different.  The cause and results can be listed just as they have for all the other global conflicts.
 * I am here to create an infobox. The issue I am addressing here is how to make one.  I accept that you disagree with me.  I am moving forward.  I have placed a request to comment on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history page.  Mitchumch (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "I am here to create an infobox. The issue I am addressing here is how to make one.  I accept that you disagree with me.  I am moving forward." - so, are you are saying that you are going to ignore all contrary opinions, in violation of Consensus..? That would seem to devalue all those "I respect any user that dislikes infoboxes, because they dislike infoboxes."...
 * Oh, and all those "The Cold War was not the only global conflict in human history. Other articles on global conflicts have infoboxes.  This article is no different." would work well, if it was a single field that had specific problems. In that case we would simply remove one field. But in this case all other fields also have such problems. And an infobox without any fields is not worth much...
 * Anyway, I'd like to repeat the request: try to design this infobox all by yourself first. Choose the fields and write down the values. All requests for comments are premature until you'll do so. That is, you say: "I am here to create an infobox." - well, do show us your creation. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems that opposition is vehement. Here's my stab at what could be in it. Participants - 3 main alliances (The West, the Soviet/Communist Block, The Non-Aligned Movement). Proxy wars (Vietnam, Korea, Angolan War of Independence, and lots of others...) and dates..."Circa 1947 - 1991". Stay away from leaders, numbers of deaths...There was a mention of other conflicts that were global in nature, and it makes me think about wars: 7 Years War, WWI, WWII...but again with the war thing, even if the threat of Nuclear War was there, it didn't actually happen as a war. It was a rivalry between two competing economic/political systems. Where's the "Rivalry" Box? Actually, if you use that perspective, it might provide insight into the direction you might want to attempt to summarize an inherently difficult to summarize piece of history. Hires an editor (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. I've accepted as true your assertion surrounding the dynamic of rivalry within the context of the Cold War.  My coding skills for infoboxes is too weak.  Consequently, I'll need to enlist help for that.  If you don't mind, then I would like to use the Template:Infobox military conflict as a mock-up template.  Any place within the template that fails this article topic can be modified to accommodate incompatible elements.  Please remember, I am not insisting on using the template.  Only as a temporary substitute until a new or modified version can be designed for rivalry type conflicts.  Is this okay with you?  Mitchumch (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh...I'm lukewarm to that idea, since most or all of it doesn't apply. We could instead create our own list of items to put into the template...like what were the two sides rivaling over? I guess I mean to use the template as a template - take the words out, replace with our own words for the things we care about. But the structure isn't bad. We could then modify the template template as we go, I suppose. It's kinda meta in this case.
 * I'm interested if other editors believe crafting this "new"ish template should be done somewhere besides this talk page - and where would be the best place to do that? What about getting other editors involved in the creation of a "rivalry" template that could apply to other articles or broad topics like colonialism or (as I've mentioned) The Great Game. I'm hopeful that there are indeed other rivalries that merit some kind of summary as is being proposed here. Hires an editor (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your idea sounds good. It's probably a long overdue project.  How about posting this idea on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history page.  This article is within their project scope.  Also, those guys have a healthy and large participation rate.  Some among them must have the skill sets for this type of job.  At the very least we can place an inquiry with them as to the best place to go.  Mitchumch (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll have to check on the military history project scope. I worry that because so much of the history is not directly military (though a lot could be framed in military terms) that we will suffer the same framing problem - "oh it was a war, so just do this..." when that's not what we want at all. I shall ponder and do a little research...Hires an editor (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think that an infobox would really be feasible here - squeezing about 50 years of complex history in in a way which usefully and accurately summarises events would be very difficult. For instance, how would you treat China? what conflicts should be included? which countries and alliences should be included? what should the dates be? The lead should handle this. Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that a "normal" (especially military) infobox does not fit here. That is why proposing a new one, which better fits the overall unity of what the Cold War was (to me, at least, a rivalry) makes more sense. I think we're stuck in framing the debate about this thing because it was a war, when in many ways it wasn't. I think the organizing principle of the infobox should be not military, and exploring what would be better makes sense. Hires an editor (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above response. Mitchumch (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe a edit removing an end Date. As former Us Army Vetrain. The cold war is as Hot as ever and very much a war Coldwar vetrain US ARMY (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

China and the end of the Soviet Union
I have read that some do not see the end of the Soviet Union as the same as the end of the Cold War. However, I was wondering if it would make sense to add a few lines concerning the influence that the end of the Soviet Union still exercises on how the Chinese leadership thinks: the fear that giving in to democratic demands would lead to the end of Communist rule in China and a massive nationwide crisis. I am sorry I do not have sources at hand right now, it is a theme sometimes touched by newspapers. Viny 78.34.36.166 (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Russia as European power
West was generally supporting and practically never restraining Muscovite Russia and its All-Russian tsars (sharing same values of agression, terror and oppression) – rising power starting controlling parts of East and Central Europe – as Russia fighting West‘s traditional enemies like Poland-Lithuania (parts of Poland itself even delivered under Russian rule for a century) or Ottomans (control over Eurasian Straits being sure there a special problem) and another. Later West was needing Soviet Union (with unprecedented territorial and political gains) as superpower for rallying, closing the ranks, uniting around US and evicting new wars between westerners – Russian and Communist menace should look there worse than even American Imperialism (quite hard as task) and the local differences or contradictions, when another side World sure vitally needing alternative and competition (having certainly a „fight“ with quite predictable result as West always staying there much more powerful) for the two Worlds and Systems, which would be relating, correcting, reforming each other, boosting each other progress, limiting each other excesses. After a World Crisis of 2008 West needing again Russia in the image of the enemy, so Putin was allowed starting crusade – of course (impossible and forbidden for example against Baltics much before those joining NATO) against Orthodox and Slavics – like Georgia and Ukraine, once richest and flourishing in USSR, now destroyed and sinking in ruin (and whose criminal and corrupted governments now sure not better than Russian). Sure Putin missing of thanking America and West for horribly destroying, pillaging, devastating and corrupting Ukraine or Georgia during those 2 decennia for making them easy victims of Russian aggression. Cheboksari (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft outline
There is a draft for a related outline on the Cold War at WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of the Cold War. There's also a related RM on that talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Soviet Empire?
I hit return too early so my edit summary was garbled- sorry The contrast initially made in the comparison was between the USA and the USSR in the first sentence, then moves on to the 'Soviet empire' and 'Western states' both of which are appropriate comparisons. The USSR controlled e.g. most of Eastern Europe in a way that the US did not control Western Europe. If you try to change the 'Soviet empire' to the USSR, you are missing half the point and that comparison is thrown away. I think Soviet empire is perfectly appropriate, complete much of the time with an Emperor even if his title was First secretary. However, if you want to find another word to describe the method of rule under Soviet hegemony, comprising not just the USSR but its satellite states, feel free. Gravuritas (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cold War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071117094223/http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/selection/rip/4/av/1956-44.html to http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/selection/rip/4/av/1956-44.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention of US Civil Defense as part of Cold war?
Maybe a mention of United States Civil Defense during the Cold War? As a child growing up duing the Cold War.The main thing I remeber were the Air Raid drills! Where one would "Duck and Cover" under your school desk! As if that would be any protection! But we sure had a lot of Propaganda regarding Civil Defense Mvies, even DUCK AND COVER comics with a Comic Turtle wearing a helmet that would DUCK and COVER!Eddson storms (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Two articles come to mind: Culture during the Cold War and/or Cold War (1953–62). I believe that there is a mention at least in the Culture article about Duck and Cover. Hires an editor (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
I made a compact infobox on cold war, showing the main sides of conflict, its result, collage photo, etc. Then User:Biruitorul deleted it and said I'd better take it to talk. So what i'm telling is that it would be much more easy and visually clear if there would be an infobox. CapLiber (talk • contribs) 20:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought the infobox was a nice addition, and—while not perfect—a clear improvement over the status quo.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Veto on the infobox. Please review the many archived discussions that explain why the infobox is not a good idea. For example, there is a Cold War Template for just the people involved in some significant way that, if it wasn't deleted, ran away from any value or usefulness because of all the names it had. Trying to appropriately fill this infobox with this same information is problematic. In addition, just because it has "war" as part of its name, it wasn't a "war" in the traditional sense; rather, it was a rivalry. This means that the rivalry didn't have a "winner" or a "loser" (though we might consider the argument that George H. W. Bush literally said "We won!" in front of a crowd in Europe). The infobox has the wrong dates. When did it start? Historians disagree. (I know this detail because I researched it myself) Again, there are a number of reasons that this infobox is inappropriate. It might be better to create a "Rivalry" infobox, since there several of those through history, and could be used in other places besides the Cold War. Hires an editor (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagreements are commonplace. Historians disagree on when the Vietnam War started (1955? 1959? 1965?)—not to mention when it ended, so should the infobox in that article be removed, too? You propose a "rivalry" infobox, but how would that differ from the "conflict" infobox? We all doubtless agree that the "leaders/countries" should be limited to major players and exclude excessive or UNDUE material (though we might disagree about what that qualifier means in practice), but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed - while not looking for perfection, and looking for good, we have yet to find it. But I'll save that for another day, since we've made all these arguments before. Although, one I have not made is that a military infobox mis-characterizes the Cold War. The rivalry info box would have more general descriptions of what was at stake, what the approximate dates are, where various incidents occurred...whereas the military infobox declares winners and losers (usually), and "important leaders" and other war stats, like numbers of dead and wounded, land gained or lost. Think of a rivalry infobox like a football team rivalry - it's recurring, there are important things that happened during that rivalry, but at the end of the day there is a static quality to it. Everyone goes home, and they "fight" again some other day. France and England were rivals for 400 years or so, from (very roughly) 1500 to 1900, when they became allies. They fought wars against each other during this period, but also competed for land and resources in other parts of the world in less confrontational ways than all out war. I have talked about this before, and I posted a comment here but no one responded. A rivalry infobox would have a broader perspective than merely a war infobox. Hires an editor (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - nothing useful could be summarized satisfactorily and it would became a magnet for edit wars. Bertdrunk (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Alien
They also agreed to set aside their differences in the case of an alien attack.

Was removed for fringe, but it isn't really a theory, is it? I mean, there's no dispute as to competing theories, it's just an account of what happened. Benjamin (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok...the idea of an alien attack is ridiculous, even if cited in a reputable source. Was this subject brought up as a point of levity? Or as a point of common ground? Some kind of context is required here. But besides that, it's trivial, minor, and might be worth putting not in the main article but in the sub-article for this time frame, and which should be more detailed. It also might be worth putting in other articles. I put "fringey" because the subject is, not because they spoke about it. I just don't think it belongs here. Hires an editor (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What Reagan's words were we do not know--Gorbachev did not use "alien." (Gorby said that Reagan said "What would you do if the United States were suddenly attacked by someone from outer space? Would you help us?" -- that is Reagan translated into Russian and back into English.) "Alien" was added by a headline writer for the magazine. the trope "would we not cooperate if we were both attacked by a common enemy" is common in diplomacy.  1) Corso (1980 . In the 1980s, both President Reagan and Chairman Gorbachev recognized the need for cooperation against a common enemy. 2) Tang 2010): allow the two states to cooperate with each other more effectively if they were attacked by common enemies in the future.  3) Mayall (1980) of sharing knowledge about, and collaborative attacks on, the common enemies, disease and disability 4) Forest (2007): Intelligence cooperation is often prompted by the need or desire to pool resources. Especially when states face a common enemy; 5) Rotblat 1995: In the past it was often the fear of a common enemy that induced former adversaries to make peace and cooperate 6) Eunson (2012): effort of all against a common enemy, such as an alien invasion, or a meteorite shower that could damage or eliminate life from the planet.  Rjensen (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my objection. I find Rjensen's argument to be persuasive. If it's to be included, we need to fix the reference, and include more context (as above). I am concerned that once again, our already super long article is about to grow again in size. Granted, it's a little bit, but not a lot. Hires an editor (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, so what article should it be added to then? Benjamin (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest here - and we might want to see what we can reasonably rip out of the main article and move to the sub-article. But that is a task for another day. Hires an editor (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

No combat?
I have friends who say they were in combat, can this be looked into?

https://medium.com/@kenafriedman/a-cold-war-fire-fight-heats-back-up-14d24ed62312

If for nothing else, it's at least disputable.

Kshlomo (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Introduction to Whataboutism
There is an ongoing Request for Comment about the introduction to the article Whataboutism.

You may comment if you wish, at Talk:Whataboutism. Sagecandor (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Can someone edit to change this misleading section?
The opening currently says:

"In opposition stood the West, staunchly democratic and capitalist with a free press and independent organizations"

This is very misleading. Whilst it's common to think of the West as representing the side of democracy and freedom, in actuality the US had numerous allies ruled by dictatorships and even far-right regimes during the Cold War, from South Korea to Chile. Even if we restrict West to just Europe plus North America, you had countries like Greece, Portugal and Turkey ruled by authoritarian regimes at various times for example. The article is semi-protected, so can someone please edit it please as I am unable.


 * "Staunchly" changed to "generally"
 * Gravuritas (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This article needs a total rewrite, has basically no credibility from even the second paragraph. It literally claims the CPSU ran countries other than the USSR, which is false. Referring to the gen secs as "dominating" the party also NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:DB2D:2ABB:966C:62C8 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

End of CW: 1989 vs 1991
I have changed the date to 1989 as this appears to be the date that can be sourced, thus far. I have no strong opinion on the matter and would welcome any academically sourced arguments to the contrary on this page. I feel that most people in the West feel that the CW went on until the definitive termination of the USSR in December 1991; but this is a historically incorrect retrospective: all the major, symbolic milestones occurred in 1989: the destruction of the Berlin Wall, collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe, the Warsaw Pact continued merely on paper. The regime in the USSR itself by the end of 1989 was entirely different from what it had been but a year prior: Boris Yeltsin had won an election running against a SPSU-endorsed candidate...Axxxion (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You raise some valid points, but like you say, these should be academically sourced rather than original research. I'll give that a try by pointing to Robert Service's The End of the Cold War: 1985–1991. Again: 1985-1991. He does say, on p. 1980 of the electronic version: "The Cold War ended, just as it had begun, at no definable date. Though there was no clarity about the timing, no one could doubt the importance of the great thaw."
 * And that leads me to my second point: I completely reject the idea of picking a single day when the conflict ended (i.e., Malta). Not only is basing that off a single BBC article irresponsible, when whole bookshelves of works have been published on the end stage; the article itself doesn't state that conclusion.
 * There will never be a firm consensus on this point, but that's reflected in the lead: "Historians do not fully agree on the dates". And I think that if you search around, you will find more references to 1991 than to 1989, so the stable version should be restored.
 * (As an aside, I think that if the relatively friendly USSR of 1989-91 had lingered on another 10-15 years, we might well see 1989 as a more common date for the end. But since its collapse came so soon after 1989, and since both 1990 (German reunification) and 1991 (Baltic independence struggle, August coup) were filled with Cold War-style events, historians have ended up preferring 1991.) - Biruitorul Talk 04:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, go ahead as long as you are willing. The notion "Cold War" is apparently not a very strict scientific term, after all. I simply aint know if there is any academic stuff on the timeframe thereof. If there is, then a separate section in this article on this particular matter might be warranted.Axxxion (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

WW2
That paragraph is a bit confusing because there's no mention of the Soviet Union's invasion of other countries. It may appear to some of the readers that the USSR and Germany just signed a non-aggression treaty and that the Soviets weren't involved until 1941.Cskamoscow100 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

68.199.52.122, PLEASE, do not edit my text. If you want to answer, feel free but do it in accordance with the rules.

(Thats because that's what happened. Pick up a book before editing.) that was written by 68.199.52.122, (talk)

By the way, this is a very unsubstantiated answer.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cold War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160115205405/https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494 to http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Secret treaties, #Russian revolution section
.....there’s nothing in the secret treaties or in the 3 sources ‘implicating the Allies in the outbreak of World war 1’, so why has the been deleted? Gravuritas (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Secret treaties, like the ones that had pulled the world into war in 1914 would no longer be tolerated" - WOODROW WILSON: FOREIGN AFFAIRS By Saladin Ambar, Miller Center, University of Virginia. Also see the BBC. GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Your first ref I’ve only found ”Within months, a complex set of entangling and secret treaties and alliances engulfed much of the world—“, so there’s nothing there to support the statement that you are trying to retain.
 * From your BBC cite: Italy and France signed a secret treaty saying they would not attack one another. Again, nothing to support ‘implicating the Allies in the outbreak of World war 1’.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you're confused. Both the Allies and the Central Powers signed secret treaties, which appeared at the time--including to Woodrow Wilson--to be a major cause of the war. Thus the Allies suddenly appeared to be implicated in having contributed to the spread of the war, whereas most Western claims and media coverage prior to Trotsky's publication had said Germany was solely responsible. GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No confusion here- I am just asking for some precision, as the sources at present do not support the statement in the article. At the moment what the sources demonstrate is a secret treaty between Italy and France of non-aggression; a vague announcement from Trotsky about Tsarist secret diplomacy; and a belief from Wilson that ‘secret and entangling’ treaties (parties not specified).....do you really need me to go on?
 * - and the new ‘appeared to’ implicate is WP:WEASEL.
 * It is possible that the statement currently in the article is true, and so is your para after ‘confused’, but at the moment the sources support neither.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What's missing is a RS that links the secret treaties of 1914-15 to the Cold War of 1947+ in some fashion. Rjensen (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @GPR Thankyou for correcting the original misstatement. However, the whole bucket list of ‘events fuelling suspicion’ now seems odd.  In whom did the Russian departure from WW1 fuel suspicion?  The Bolshevik ‘general challenge to capitalism’ was not exactly an event.
 * @Rjensen I think the bucket list is trying to be in general support of a thesis (‘others argue.....’) that the Cold War began much earlier than 1947. However, even so, is the assertion being made that the Allies’ WW1 war aims fuelled suspicion on the Soviet side, or that their publication fuelled suspicion on the Western side?  What is the connection between suspicion and Cold War?  This all seems terribly vague about which cite is supporting the whole thesis and which is supporting some issue at which there was a difference in view.  If we’re talking about the era around 1920, the West’s involvement in the Russian civil war, for instance, means that publication of treaties rates about 0.001 on the Richter scale.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gravuritas. I have looked around and find zero support for the notion that the secret treaties in any way affected the Cold War. The USSR did not complain about them--Moscow later DID grumble about the interventions of 1919, which is a different matter entirely.  USA was the key player in launching Cold War and it had nothing to do with the secret treaties (US rejected them).  Wilson did NOT say they helped cause WWI (they were written after the war began.) Rjensen (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate it if my outspoken colleagues went to the trouble of reading my sources carefully. User: Rjensen, this source shows Trotsky doing nothing but denouncing the treaties. In the article about Wilson, it paraphrases (and possibly endorses) his view that secret treaties contributed to the war, and there's no exception made for the Allies' treaties. The article from the Atlantic is almost entirely about the Western European outrage at the Bolsheviks' publication of Sykes' treaty and how it disrupted their project. I put these sources up a day ago, prior to your most recent comments.GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's a handy sentence:


 * As Russia’s continuing role in confounding Anglo-American efforts shows, however, one of the most intractable geopolitical conflicts in the Levant is just turning 100 this year.
 * - The Atlantic article


 * So the Cold War in the middle east is seen in the eyes of this secondary source to go back to 1917, involve both the US and Britain, and to have begun with publication of the treaties. GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The reference to Trotsky says zero about the Cold War, which started two decades after his disgrace--Stalin's views are much more important and he did not mention the secret treaties in the 1940s. Likewise Wilson's opinion of the secret treaties is not connected to Cold War by any historian.   The reference to Levant at 100 is all about the Balfour Declaration and Israel, which is a separate issue entirely from start of Cold War. The Balfour Declaration was NOT a secret treaty--it was announced in the newspapers a week after it was issued.  Rjensen (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wilson's opinion of the secret treaties is not connected to Cold War by any historian.

That's a low bar for me to clear, but okay... "How Lenin and Wilson Changed the World", The National InterestGPRamirez5 (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * nope--the essay does NOT connect Lenin, Wilson or the secret treaties to Cold War. It says Lenin's approach was rejected by Stalin and entirely new forces were at work in 1940s: [Lenin’s utopianism yielded to Stalin’s conservative retrenchment at home and abroad in the 1930s, while victory in the Second World War created an alternate foundation myth rooted in spheres of influence and balance of power considerations of the post-war settlement. ]  Rjensen (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misconception that Cold War=Stalin. It's more like Cold War>Stalin. It's consensus that the Cold War went on for decades after Stalin's death; Likewise it's possible that it was in existence prior to his dictatorship. In any case, the origins of the Cold War, which is what we are discussing, most definitely go back to 1917. It's hard to believe that we are even debating this. GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Stalin made all the decisions on the Russian side in 1940s. There are some links to 1917, but no RS states there was a cold war in operation when Stalin was in charge 1928 (or so) to 1945. Rjensen (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

In the East it's standard to hold 1917 as the start of the Cold War, and some acclaimed Western historians trace the origins to the turn of the century. And the UK National Archives tutorial allow for that view as well. Indeed, they say 1945 is the latest date it could've started.GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The first cite (by Warner) states: "general consensus among western historians: viz., that the cold war is a post-World War II phenomenon, beginning at some point between 1945 and 1947." the second cite to UK National Archives states "Most historians say the Cold War began soon after the end of World War 2" Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 1917 as start--only among Soviet Communist historians--that was the Party Line when I taught in Moscow (in 1986), but they are defunct and current Russian historians no longer follow the old dictates. One western historian went back to 1900 but that was Barraclough in 1964 -- and he lacks followers today. Rjensen (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sadly your personal experiences are not admissible as evidence. Re:Barraclough, If somebody calls you "brilliant" that seems to qualify as a form of following.

As for Warner, his very next sentence says: "Watt, it should be noted, was not denying that the origins of the cold war might be sought in 1917, or even earlier..." and continues later, "it would be a mistake to write a history of the cold war which began in 1945, or even 1943...1917 and 1941 need to be stressed...Even if we accept that the cold war began between 1945 and 1947, any proper history of it must begin much earlier." GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wiki editors have the role to report the consensus and give minimal attention to fringe views like Warner. Your sources clearly state that the consensus is for 1945-46 as the start of the Cold War.  As to Communist era, no need to take my memories of hundreds of hours of discussions with the  leading Communist historians at Moscow State University for it: here's one report During the Soviet era the catechism of the subculture was Stalin’s "Short Course of the History of the All-Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik)"....the Stalinist historiography... was equated and identified with the only scientific historiography, which is to say, it was the beginning and the acme of historical science.  With the advent of Gorbachev’s perestroika, and especially after state censorship was abolished in 1990, a historiographical laissez-faire began to take root in Russia, and the state political historical subculture began to erode and disappear altogether." [V.V. Sogrin, in Russian Social Science Review'' July/Aug2014 page 80.  Rjensen (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with User:Rjensen and User:Gravuritas - this is sketchy original research based on a misrepresentation of sources. Similar issues with same editor are present at the article on the Origins of the Cold War.  Volunteer Marek  22:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Now it's a party. All three of you are formally invited to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This should not be included as something actually unrelated to the subject of the page. It is disputable if anything related to Russian revolution should be included at all. It tells: "Historians disagree about the starting point of the Cold War". No, actually most historians trace its origins to the period immediately following World War II. This is promoting a negligible minority view. There are other problems in the same section. In the mid-1930s, the Soviets were disturbed by the policy by Britain and France of appeasement toward aggressive fascist states. and so on. This is a traditional Soviet propaganda narrative which implies SU was forced by Western countries to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, including the secret supplement. This view is not supported by modern history, where the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is considered as a conspiracy to conduct war of aggression. I just made an edit to fix these problems. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Do the origins of the Cold War lie in the emergence of the Soviet Union and international relations prior to World War II? GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support brief mention of pre-World War II events in Cold War article. GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don’t accept this as a reasonable support/ oppose split. You cannot decide simply to include ‘brief mention of preWW2 events...’: you’re asking for a blank cheque to include whichever events you feel like including, which is precisely what I (and others, I think) am objecting to,in your edits.  Each event that you refer to must have RS to link it to the Cold War.  I suggest you rephrase your split.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sadly, this has become the issue, because the last six comments on the Secret Treaties thread were a debate about whether pre-WWII should be discussed at all. And brief mention imposes size constraints which ensure not everything I "feel like including" gets space.- GPRamirez5 (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, if you want this to be the issue, fine, but I don’t think it gets us far: the section you are asking for can only be populated if you can find the RS to do so. That is the subject of debate already.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

And I repeat that there is now mission creep in the debate which has called all pre-WWII discussion into question, including the subject of the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, which you profess to hold dear. Indeed, I notice all discussion of that subject has suddenly been removed.GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, pre-World War II events are irrelevant. GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is very strange RfC. "Do the origins of the Cold War lie in the emergence of the Soviet Union"? Obviously, without Soviet Union there would be no Cold War. But "the emergence"? Should we describe emergence of the USA on this page? My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Since the background of the Cold War is not the main topic of this article, I think it should stick with a very brief summary that reflects the mainstream scholarly consensus - no more than a few sentences about events prior to WWII, and a few more about events during WWII, simply to set the stage for the main part of the article that starts in 1945. More details about Cold War origins prior to WWII should be moved to Origins of the Cold War. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Malformed RfC which does not ask a question specific enough to answer, per My very best wishes and others - answer, "yes of course, but what specific content is disputed?". Pincrete (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Some editors oppose the idea of a "Background" section for the article. GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Some editors don't consider subjects like Appeasement, the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War or the Bolsheviks' publication of Secret treaties to be relevant, and are purging the article of references to them. My position is that the events are relevant (and I have presented numerous sources in both edits and Talk discussion to support this). GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * the background section is poorly grounded in the RS -- its a hodge-podge of unrelated items that have little or no connection to the Cold War. In every case, there is no explanation provided as to why it was important decades later, or to whom it was important--to the USSR? USA? UK? Was it Stalin or Truman or Attlee or who that paid attention in 1947?? There are indeed a few historians who go back before 1939 but they always give an explanation why, and the explanations are never included.  Of course there are multiple articles explaining the pre-1945 era in depth but Ramirez ignores them: Diplomatic history of World War II, Causes of World War II and International relations (1919–1939), Soviet Union–United States relations, etc. Rjensen (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Rjensen, you've been editing this page for awhile. I notice that the "Background" section goes back over a year, long before I ever touched this article. In Fall 2016, what you refer to as the "hodge-podge of unrelated items" was already there. I'm referring to the paragraph which begins, "Various events before the Second World War demonstrated the mutual distrust and suspicion between the Western powers and the Soviet Union." Can you explain why that list of events wasn't rejected at the time, and hasn't been seriously criticized for more than a year afterwards? GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the "background" section was always weak, and probably useless to readers. I generally disagree with the handful of historians who push the origins of the Cold War back further and further--even to Napoleon and before. Over the years I did delete some of the more obvious problems here.  I think Wikipedia in general needs more coverage of pre 1939 diplomacy and I made hundreds of such edits to the various articles that cover the pre 1939 eras, especially by adding cites to reliable scholarly sources. Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, you said that earlier. I was asking why neither you nor anyone else made any substantial criticism or edit of the Background section—or even that particular list—before I added content to it? Was there something about the content I added which bothered you?

Aren't we getting into territory normally reserved for historians here? Dschslava  Δx parlez moi 05:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dschslava, if you're asking what the peer-reviewed historical literature says, let's look at that.


 * The UK National Archives acknowledge the pre-WWII view to be a minority view, but not a marginal view—they mention it up front in a basic tutorial of the Cold War, then give a lesson on it. A sampling of the academic work supporting this is here, and here, and here. These of course aren't the only sources. Otherwise, the National Archives wouldn't have mentioned the premise.


 * Also note that the second source is a full monograph called The First Cold War (University of Missouri Press, 2002), which says the Woodrow Wilson era is significant enough to be considered to be the first full phase of the entire conflict. GPRamirez5 (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Is this wholly representative (UK Archives aside) of the prevailing historical view? Dschslava   Δx parlez moi 07:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Which of these sources is being asserted as the RS for secret treaties being (partof) the origins of the Cold War? Chapter, verse, and direct quotation from source please.
 * (@GPRamirez5- cross-examining another editor as to why he didn’t make an edit sooner is a rhetorical device, not an argument.  Please keep it relevant.)
 * Gravuritas (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The sources show that "Various events before the Second World War demonstrated the mutual distrust and suspicion between the Western powers and the Soviet Union," just as the Background section said a year ago. The secret treaties obviously fit that category. Pages 131-133 of this source state that the secret treaties exposed the Allies' quest for "indemnities and territory [which] hardly squared with the noble ideals" proclaimed by Woodrow Wilson. The Bolsheviks' did this to "unmask capitalist duplicity" and the result was "embarrassment to the Allies and...calamity for Wilson." Page 106 of The First Cold War states that Trotsky used the treaties to reveal the Allies' "greed", thereby forcing Wilson to publicly denounce secret diplomacy in an effort to alleviate the Bolsheviks' distrust.

(PS Gravuritis, seeking information through questioning is how we learn things. Look up on this thread and you'll see the first person to use a rhetorical question was actually User:rjensen)--GPRamirez5 (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC) GPRamirez5 (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * So, first bit of your claim is from ‘various events’ to secret treaties, no obviousness there. Second bit does still not answer the question I and at least one other editor have already asked you: for which side does this supposedly  add to the orig8ns of the Cold War?  The West, threatened by world revolution by the Soviets, is supposed to be worried by a bit of embarrassment?   Or the Soviets, attacked militarily during the civil war by the West, are so shocked by the existence of secret treaties that it permanently alters their starry-eyed view of the West?  Either way, the assertion is ludicrous.  But do tell me which one you believe and show the RS agreeing with that belief.   There is nothing here RS to include secret treaties in this article.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Propaganda and image management were a major part of the Cold War. The source doesn't merely refer to embarrassment, but "calamity. "And the treaties were mass-published in November 1917, before the Allied deployment to Russia. GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * .....still no answer to the question- for which side does this supposedly add to the orig8ns of the Cold War? I think the bucket list, and your responses generally, are confusing two theses: 1) That the Cold War started with the Russian Revolution, 2) That the roots of the (1946 onwards) Cold War lie in events starting with the Russian Revolution.  Both of these are contentious anyway, but conflating the two has led to the muddle you’re in.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's a recent RS by Christopher Sutton in 2016 that explains the "first cold war" model (a minority model): . In what some have called the First Cold War, from Britain’s intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1918 to its uneasy alliance with the Soviet Union against the Axis powers in 1941, British distrust of the revolutionary and regicidal Bolsheviks resulted in domestic, foreign, and colonial policies aimed at resisting the spread of communism.1 This conflict after 1945 took on new battlefields, new weapons, new players, and a greater intensity, but it was still fundamentally a conflict against Soviet imperialism (real and imagined). = source of quote Rjensen (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Frank Ninkovich writes in Presidential Studies Quarterly 2003 p688: ". As for the two cold wars thesis, the chief problem is that the two periods are incommensurable. To be sure, they were joined together by enduring ideological hostility, but in the post-World War I years Bolshevism was not a geopolitical menace. After World War II, in contrast, the Soviet Union was a superpower that combined ideological antagonism with the kind of geopolitical threat posed by Germany and Japan in the Second World War. Even with more amicable relations in the 1920s, it is conceivable that post-1945 relations would have turned out much the same." Rjensen (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * An interesting perspective that says nothing anybody did could have changed anything, so all's for the best in this best of all possible worlds. Nice...In any case, the very fact that the two Cold Wars thesis persists in academic scholarship tells us that pre-WWII is at least important enough to include as background.GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Changes in this Article

 * What changes in this article will result from this RFC? What text is at issue? Right now I just see a very vague question - not a question about the content of the article, but rather just a general question about editors' opinions on the Cold War. If I include your support statement, "Support brief mention of pre-World War II events in Cold War article", that still leaves me with lots of question about what this RFC actually means for the content of this article. What will this brief mention look like? What sources will be used? How long is "brief"? Are you referring to the Background section that is currently in the article ? Are you referring to the significantly longer Background section that existed in the article a few days ago ? Are you even referring to any specific background at all? Or are you just gathering opinions on whether, in theory, any such statement could be included in the article? If I say, "Yes, I support including a short background section on events prior to WWII," what's actually going to happen?
 * I do not think this RFC will solve any actual issues or disputes on the page. The way it's phrased is as an open discussion on a historical topic. It's unclear what "support" and "oppose" actually mean. I think you should perhaps withdraw this RFC and try again once you have a more concrete proposal. Otherwise, there's no point in getting outside comments at all - the only people who understand what this RFC means are those already working on this article and participating on its talk page. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If you answer support you make it more likely that the long version will be restored. If you answer oppose you make it more likely that the Background section will disappear all together.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "More likely" that the long version will be restored, and "more likely" that the section will disappear altogether. Not only is that answer completely insufficient due to vagueness, it's not what the RFC itself says, that's not what people will be voting on, that's just an ad hoc definition you produced after the fact. What if I think "support" means "keep the current short version"? To me, that's most reasonable conclusion for someone coming here to comment, based on the vague wording. This RFC is fatally flawed, and no matter what the ultimate conclusion is, it cannot be used to justify any action on the article itself. Delete this, go read WP:WRFC, and come back once you've made an RFC with a central question that actually clearly states what the effect on the article will be. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Red Rock Canyon, you asked a question. I answered it promptly. You then posted an opinion up top that fits quite neatly into the oppose column. That in itself demonstrates the feasibility of the wording. - GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * From reading the wording of the RFC itself, my initial thought was that my comment would be "support". I do believe that the roots of the Cold War lie prior to WWII. I'm glad I took the time to question you, since obviously your definition of "support" is different than mine. Do you see the problem with this? This is the flaw in your RFC. It is impossible to know what my "vote" means from the question itself. It requires that I interrogate you for more details - details that should already be part of the initial RFC. The fact that this kind of back-and-forth is necessary undermines the neutrality of the question, and means that respondents will likely disagree on what the outcome means. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Motion to close without ruling
Following recent comments and developments, it has become clear (to and I, at least) that this RfC is wholly distorted and unclear. I thus move to close this RfC without a ruling until further clarifications can be made, whereupon a new RfC can be opened. Dschslava  Δx parlez moi 04:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I support this motion
 * Gravuritas (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support snow close as biased and badly malformed. Doesn't follow policy on RfCs.  Just do it, .  Please. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 16:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2018
The first few paragraphs do not have any citations. Specifically, the first sentance, "The Cold War was a state of geopolitical tension after World War II between powers in the Eastern Bloc (the Soviet Union and its satellite states) and powers in the Western Bloc (the United States, its NATO allies and others)" needs a citation. This is an uncited claim, and could possibly have been pulled out of someone's butt. 64.222.218.110 (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi. Leed sections are not supposed to have any references. A leed is a summary of the main points in the body. If there is something wrong, turn the attention to specific places in the body. Are citations needed there? RhinoMind (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The file on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion
Someone should put a war table in (like with other wars), with belligerents (USA vs USSR), commanders and leaders (Truman, Reagan, etc. vs Stalin, Gorbachev, etc.), and who won (American victory). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesome Boi24 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead section of article too detailed?
The intro section of this article seems very long and overly detailed. I remember reading this a while ago and the intro section was shorter, more concise and clear. Thoughts, comments? Should anything be done? Foreignshore (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

History
H Rohit Mardi (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)