Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 3

US missile strikes in Syria.
Does it deserves mention??Mr.User200 (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Long time no see, Mr.User200. ;) I found Gizmodo... unfortunately, just Gizmodo. The Daily Beast doesn't verify the connection well. Sources verifying the connection should be used: here you go. --George Ho (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Bah,... not enought reference to considering it. Lets wait then.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging I'm on day 4 about this addition. I checked the CNN article, disregarded the misleading headlines, and found no connection between strikes on the Syrian base and the topic. --George Ho (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC: "Novel risks and measures for preventing escalation" section

 * 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 consensus said in a previous discussion "that the article should be limited in scope to the usage of the phrase "Cold War II"." Then the section "Novel risks and measures for preventing escalation" was added on 5 February 2017 into the "Cold War II" article. The content was discussed about one month ago; the discussion went stale for a few weeks without resolution. To resolve this, shall the section be completely kept, completely removed, or completely moved into another article? Why or why not? If neither, what is a better alternative? --Relisting. George Ho (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The current world differs from the world during the original Cold War and decision-makers might make problematic decisions based upon their knowledge of this period. US arms expert Theodore Postol warns that the 1995 Norwegian rocket incident could be averted to become a nuclear catastrophe as relations between Russian and the United States were relatively trusting in 1995 and that if a similar incident occurred today it could quite possibly lead to a nuclear exchange. European Leadership Network (ELN) chair and former British defense minister Des Browne notes that that especially civilian pilots don't know how to deal with risky encounters between Eastern and Western troops that according to an ELN report are becoming more common and mainly occur in the air and that "one of these incidents could easily escalate". He also states that there's a "need to find a mechanism in which we can talk at the highest level". Brown, former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and former US Senator and veteran of international disarmament policy Sam Nunn jointly recommend "that reliable communication channels exist in the event of serious incidents". Head of NATO Allied Command Operations in Europe Philip Breedlove calls for a new "red telephone". Nunn states: "Trust has been eroded to the point of almost being destroyed. You got a war going on right in the middle of Europe. You got a breakdown of the conventional forces treaty, you got the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) treaty under great strain, you got tactical nuclear weapons all over Europe. It’s a very dangerous situation."

Nunn also states that hybrid warfare makes everything − including tactical nuclear weapons − more dangerous. US diplomat Richard Burt confirmed that hybrid warfare raises the danger of nuclear weapons being used as "both American and Russian nuclear arms are essentially on a kind of hair-trigger alert" with "both sides have a nuclear posture where land-based missiles could be authorized for use in less than 15 minutes" and the situation of hybrid warfare being "a dangerous state of play". Ivanov points out that "in the Cold War, we created mechanisms of security. A huge number of treaties and documents helped us to avoid a big and serious military crash. Now the threat of a war is higher than during the Cold War". Similarly former United States Secretary of Defense William Perry states that progress made after the fall of the Soviet Union to reduce the chance of a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia was getting unravelled and estimates that the probability of a nuclear calamity would be higher today than during the cold war. Decision-makers might assume that warfare between some of the world's major powers can be limited to fourth-generation, asymmetric or hybrid warfare because − for instance − such might seem to be the most rational way of conduct.


 * Kept Slots into existing article OK. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 13:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I respect your viewpoints. May you explain further why, L3X1? Does it have quality issues, like verifiability and OR? George Ho (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a little distracted at the moment, but I will try to answer within 2 hours. . L3X1 Distant Write 13:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the first paragraph of the disputed section might contain OR, but we are talking about a hypothetical situation here. I think it can be kept as a kind of closing section. I currently don't see how the section is too problematic to be removed, and I doubt it would make a good stand alone article.L3X1 Distant Write 14:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you review the sources that cite the section? George Ho (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, they are all opinion pieces, but are from credible reliable news outlets. So because the cited authors conducted OR, it means the above section is OR? L3X1 (distant write)  13:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)  L3X1  (distant write)  14:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not the way you put it, L3X1. However, the sources do not mention "new Cold War" or "Cold War II" or "second Cold War". Some sources did not mention "Cold War". Edit: Rather the sources were possibly synthesized as attempt to connect the 1995 rocket testing and "hybrid warfare" to the article subject. George Ho (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC); edited twice: 14:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC); 14:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Completely removed I'd prefer to see this article deleted but I guess the aggregate thinks this term is in vogue. To that end, we should only stick to sources about Cold War II and avoid SYNTH of other sources about US/Russia relations. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove. Off-topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * May you please explain how "off-topic" the section is, Judith? George Ho (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove This is WP:SYNTH, and POV pushing SYNTH at that given that it's cherry picking sources arguing that the potential for disaster is greater than in the Cold War. Other experts argue the exact opposite given that Russia is in no position to confront NATO militarily (eg,, ). I also agree with above suggestions that the article be deleted, or at least tightly stripped back, given this is a rather dubious construct but that's out of scope of this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove as per . Unless it's exceedingly clear that a particular issue is relevant to this article (i.e. repeated referral using the term 'Cold War II' itself), such information, if relevant at all, probably belongs on a specific foreign relations page.    ʙʌ sʌwʌʟʌ   тʌʟк  04:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove. (WP:SYNTH). Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It's due, notable, important, on-topic and has RS.
 * Well then add that ! This is no point for removing that section but for a change to it.
 * Also I don't think that it belongs to a foreign relations page instead as this is about risks and measures taken related to this perceived/potential episode and development.
 * --Fixuture (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Fixuture. The consensus agrees to remove the whole section from the article without any other alternatives. May I please go ahead and do the honors? --George Ho (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * First I'd like to gather a few more comments. Please wait with it a few more days - I just created some RfCs. Also I got to say that, while the majority here seems to favor outright deletion of the section their arguments weren't really weighty: it's clearly not "off-topic" and relevant, it's not "cherry-picking" and even if it was it would mean that the section needed to be expanded instead of removed, and I'm really not sure why one would consider it "irrelevant". --Fixuture (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Five days later, Fixuture. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well do what you think should be done here now. Maybe it can be revisited at a later point - I guess even though it does have WP:RS as of right now it's not as important anymore anyways. --Fixuture (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Five days later, Fixuture. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well do what you think should be done here now. Maybe it can be revisited at a later point - I guess even though it does have WP:RS as of right now it's not as important anymore anyways. --Fixuture (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove But in the long run it's irrelevant. The article will keep growing with nonsense and people adding what some dumb journalist said. The article should be deleted as the effort is not worth it. Bertdrunk (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove and generally agree with Chris Troutman's analysis above. It&#39;sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: Comments have been requested on Talk:World War III. --Fixuture (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: Comments have been requested on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management. --Fixuture (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: Comments have been requested on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations. --Fixuture (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.

Content additions by Fixuture (April 2017)
@Fixuture: Also, what to do with the additions you made? None of the sources explicitly say "Cold War II" or "new Cold War" or anything like that. I thought about removing those, but I'd like your opinions please. --George Ho (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And the ones in "See also" section, including those two? --George Ho (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll leave the al-Assad quote alone but still want to remove the whole paragraph about hacking the elections. --George Ho (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump's stance on China and Russia
@Staszek Lem and Hollth: I added a paragraph about Trump's earlier views about China. However, this article proves the contrary. May I use the article to add the info? If not, what else can I do with the paragraph about Trump's views on China? --George Ho (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Unless the ref cited speaks about Cold War II. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * George Ho take a look at this, http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/understanding-nuclear-weapon-risks-en-676.pdf, what do you think we can use for the contnt of the article.Mr.User200 (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Mr.User200. It doesn't verify the connection with the topic. ...I think we should incubate another idea before starting another RfC. Should we discuss the article title or the article scope or... what else? --George Ho (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent additions by Mr.User200 (April 2017)
@Mr.User200: May you please remove the additions? The sources say just "Cold War" without using either "Cold War II" or "Second Cold War". They also do not verify the connection between the remarks and the topic. --George Ho (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I removed the content as synthesis of sources, i.e. original research. --George Ho (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

UK, EU, and CIS
Laytar1, have you considered looking for sources verifying the connection between the topic and the United Kingdom, the European Union, or the Commonwealth of Independent States? I reverted your good-faith addition in the lead. --George Ho (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Transferring or adding quotes into Wikiquote
I need help on transferring or adding quotes about the topic into Cold War II or New Cold War, both of which are nonexistent at the moment. --George Ho (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC); both created, 20:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

CNBC article (August 2017)
@GAJJR: How does this article verify the connection between "Cold War II" and the China-US relations when you added the content? I checked the source and have not found "Cold War II" and similar terms. "since the Cold War" doesn't count. --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

More discussion at my talk page. Meanwhile, the addition was self-reverted. --George Ho (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Group of Two in "See also" section
The "Group of Two", the proposed "special relationship" between the US and China, was added in the See also section. Edited: Should the "Group of Two" a) remain as part of the "See also" section, b) be moved to the "United States vs. China" section as a hatnote, or c) be removed from the article? Modified and listed for the RfC. --George Ho (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Is the addition acceptable? --George Ho (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * B) Move to the "United States vs. China" section as a hatnote. LPW22 (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I moved the link to the section as suggested, but feel free to revert if anyone disagrees. --George Ho (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Addition of the "2017 North Korea crisis" link
OnWikiNo, I see that you replaced "World War III" in the 2017 North Korea crisis article, previously added by Ralphjerald, with "Cold War II". Moreover, you added the NK crisis into this article. Why not removing "World War III", i.e. revert Ralphjerald's addition of the link, instead of replacing it? I don't see the connection between "Cold War II" and this year's NK crisis, especially without sources, unless I overlooked something. --George Ho (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

More about commentaries than real happenings
The article seems more about commentaries than real happenings of substance. Expulsion of American diplomats for example (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-diplomats-idUSKBN1AD1DV), other disputes including relation to allegation of Russian involvement in 2016 elections and expulsion of Russian diplomats under Obama which has also been compared to Cold War (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/31/cold-war-20-power-plays-us-russia-relations-putin-rewriting/). Along with the sanctions, these have marked a new low in their relationships. I am surprised why it isn't there in the article. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern about the article and the titling of this article, MonsterHunter32. However, if you look at past discussions at Talk:Cold War II/Archive 2, there was a consensus to limit the sources to just ones that explicitly mention the word "Cold War II" or "Cold War 2.0" or "Second Cold War". We had to be cautious about which sources and info to insert without violating WP:OR and WP:NOT. We can't use this article to promote re-ignition of the old Cold War tensions between Russia and the United States. Those sources that you mention... The Reuters article doesn't mention "Cold War II". The Telegraph article... the full article isn't accessible, and I don't find the headline a good verification of connecting the content to the topic in question. If you want, let's discuss the titling and the scope in the separate discussion. Shall we? --George Ho (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Well long ago I read the Russian embassy in UK termed it as a "Cold War deja vú"(http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/29/politics/russia-sanctions-announced-by-white-house/index.html), not to mention the relationship became lowest since Cold War. Also since this article is about the tensions and deterioration of relations between the two nations, I was surprised that these notable events that marked a decline between their reliations weren't here. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @MonsterHunter32: Well... the omission of the events doesn't surprise me mainly because I've kept an eye on the article, but I can see why some people are surprised by what the article does and doesn't say. About the CNN article, the original source was "RussianEmbassy" via Twitter recounted by CNN, and that Twitter account doesn't verify it's part of Cold War II. Also, "Cold War deja vu" doesn't mean "Cold War II" but more like reminiscence of the Cold War... maybe? Too bad the "deja vu" thing was overly sensationalized by CNN. Moreover, WP:SPS explains why we must be cautious about using or avoid using self-published sources, like Twitter posts. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What I meant was comparisons to Cold War. I myself said "the Russian embassy in UK termed it" as a "Cold War deja vú". I didn't say CNN said it. But I did feel it was important since an embassy of a government was comparing it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Important or not, MonsterHunter32, what the Russian embassy in the UK said is not worth including. "Cold War deja vu" ≠ "Cold War II" unless the embassy explicitly equated it. So far, I don't see the explicit connection; I also could not find social media postings connecting "Cold War deja vu" to "Cold War II" or similar terms. Meanwhile, there's already a passage discussing the similarities and differences. --George Ho (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "World War III"
Buzz105, I want to know why you removed "World War III" from the "See also" section. You didn't explain in your edit summary while you removed it. May you please reinsert it and then discuss whether to retain or remove the link to "World War III"? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Because they're unrelated: Cold War 2 is a tentative term referring to the existing tensions between Russia, China, and NATO, while WW3 is an extremely hypothetical concept, and the article on WW3 makes no mention of these real-life tensions. --Buzz105 (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm not misunderstanding you. You don't believe that "Cold War II" is actually happening, Buzz105, do you? "Cold War II" is considered a "concept", and there are reasons to link this concept to the more theoretical one, "World War III". Particularly, the "Cold War II" is not yet official, and we should cautiously treat it as a mere concept rather than an actual event per WP:NOT. Also, like WW3, we don't know when Cold War II will actually happen, despite the media saying otherwise. I respect your reasons for removing the link, but... it won't hurt reinserting the link, will it? --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, though I still have doubts, this is not something I want to start an edit war over. --Buzz105 (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I have my doubts as well and do consider that worthy of removal. A war is rather easy to see, especially a world war. No organized state armies are shooting at each other, which is a rather distinctive characteristic of a war. Whereas a cold war lacks most of those people in tree looking clothing shooting at one another, but proxy wars abound, as well as intelligence dirty tricks. (Edited addition)With many, many intelligence dirty tricks being novel from a Cold War I perspective, i.e.; network centric warfare, information warfare, "troll brigade" tactics, novel propaganda that is capitalized in traditional intelligence tactics of Cold War I methodologies (see Vietnam War Soviet intelligence involvement in US protest actions, released after the fall of the Soviet Union). All are clear signs of a form of coldion war, with ideology not being the bone of contention, but economic power expansion being the apparent goal. Examples of the latter being PRC telecom discounted deals in many developing nations and Russian mixed network centric and blended military and proxy actions. A world war, again, is notable by global military engagements, exchanging very real ordinance and cutting edge, at the time, technologies and the opponents quite literally die from combat action. Cold War actions are far different, with espionage, intelligence dirty tricks, propaganda, proxy wars and more, but a notable lack of direct engagement, lest the entire thing turn into a very real mess: a world war.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that one of the most prominent features of the old Cold War was the imminent possibility, all during that "war," of a sudden unraveling into World War III at any moment. Fortunately, at least so far, I do not believe we are currently facing such an imminent peril. (Though one never knows these days, with all of the highly "sane" people with their fingers hovering over nuclear launch keys!)   I think I'm going to go talk a bit more about this at some point on the Cold War II  article's talk page. Oops, I already am on that article's talk page! Cheers, Warrenfrank (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PS, As one who has lived the majority of my life worrying if I would wake up the next day or not (due to the very real possibility of an accidental nuclear holocaust at any moment), I think some historians who have not experienced this, may not exactly understand what the old Cold War was really like. (I'm now 60 years old.) Warrenfrank (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

KD53, you recently replaced "World War III" with three links related to Russia, one of which is already linked in prose. Per WP:SEEALSO, the links should not be repeated in the "See also" section. I changed the links back to what it was, but I also moved the links to one of other sections as part of a hatnote. I hope this is an acceptable edit. Isn't it? --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Name of section about Russia and its rival(s)
The current name of the section is "EU and NATO members vs. Russia". Should the name remain as is or be renamed? If the latter, should the section header be renamed to "United States vs. Russia"? If not, what alternative section name do you suggest? (Update): The person using an IP address renamed the section to its current name back in Dec. 2016. --George Ho (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC) updated, --19:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Change This is a quite complicated issue. There is evident adversity between the EU as an entity and Russia, between NATO and Russia whereby most but not all EU members are also in NATO, and most prominently the adversity between the United States and Russia whereby the US is NATO's leading member and a world superpower. An all-inclusive title should be sought, one that would reflect these multifaceted oppositions. -The Gnome (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay.... What section title do you suggest, The Gnome? --George Ho (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "The West vs Russia" seems to contain the necessary generality; "Renewed adversities" is another potential title; "Russia isolated" or "Russian surrounded" are inadequate as they reflect a Russian POV; for the opposite reason yet similarly inadequate would be titles that contain the word "freedom"; etc. -The Gnome (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "The West vs Russia" is a fair compromise Gumsaint (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * West is not really better. "West" doesn't include the emerging Eastern European democracies like the Ukraine, which are a key part. European and American democracies vs. Russian plutocracy is more the state of things. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * May you please say your suggested section title, Gouncbeatduke? I would appreciate your suggestions. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "European and American democracies vs. Russia" is what I can think of to include EU, USA, Canada, Ukraine, etc. There might be something better. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Terms like "Russian plutocracy" are loaded and, therefore, preferably avoided. -The Gnome (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging Gumsaint and The Gnome for their opinions on the alternative suggestion, "European and American democracies vs. Russia". --George Ho (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I had the impression that the section was more expansive than European and American democracies implies. Gumsaint (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The new/renewed Cold War is an affair in which the West leads and the other, geographically non-western nations follow. The original Cold War presented a similar situation whereby many nations were involved from both sides. Even though countries such as Japan or Bulgaria were, by definition, active participants, one through being a member of ASEAN and the other of the Warsaw Pact, the nomenclature focuses on the protagonists, who were the United States and the USSR.
 * In the new/renewed Cold War, Russia is evidently isolated. The title dealing with this should most probably reflect this reality. I stick with West vs Russia, until something better comes along. -The Gnome (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The person who used an IP address made the change into "EU/NATO members vs. Russia" back in Dec. 2016. I updated the OP to reflect that. I realized that I should have challenged that edit months ago, but better late than never. --George Ho (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Change: Agree with The Gnome, not all EU members are also in NATO, “EU and NATO members vs. Russia” is misleading. Similarly, use of "The West vs Russia" does not provide enough clarity. LPW22 (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, LPW22. I would appreciate your suggested title please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps naming the section "Russia" and add subsection titles within. LPW22 (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging The Gnome, Gumsaint, and Gouncbeatduke about the suggested section title, "Russia". --George Ho (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm... The section was previously titled "Russia" until it was changed to "Russia vs. the West" and then to "The West vs. Russia". --George Ho (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * West is ok Hello again. I feel that West is a correct descriptor, because the countries that some feel are not in "the West" are trying to become part of the west, and should be recognized as such. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  15:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Change West in not precise enough though. I would put "USA and its allies vs. Russia". --Guanatala (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks as though the suggestions so far agree that Russia is a focus of the section, but disagree on how to characterize possible opponent(s). I therefore suggest using a deliberately broad term, such as "Russia vs. other Powers" or (as suggested above) simply "Russia." Layzner (Talk) 06:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete the article Summoned by bot There is no element of history here involved. This article based on mere journalism. These poorly-thought RfCs are a waste of time. Let's wait 50 or 100 years and then write an article about this. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Addition of recent Financial Times article
Hey, Axxxion. May you please explain the addition of the inaccessible FT article? I don't know whether the source explicitly mentions "Cold War II", "New Cold War", or any other interchangeable terms. Without knowing what the source says, I question the need to add the recent info. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * George Ho, Thanks for drawing attention to the issue: the relevant bit of what he said is actually quoted in the article here (if you google up the quote you will likely be able to access the article, or read here: https://www.rt.com/news/414124-sanctions-sberbank-cold-war/ ). That said, you have a point. Delete it, if you think it right.Axxxion (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I deleted the passage. George Ho (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Section title
I've made a change to section titles: The "vs. Russia" part implicitly suggests and could be misconstrued, as if the EU and NATO were supposedly against Russia and its people (versus), which is not accurate. Nevertheless, I don't know how to otherwise better characterise the chasm, as I don't support using versus (vs.) at all. There should then be more descriptive words that would tell, that the relationship is very adversarial, but since both sides see the other side as the belligerent part, then it's difficult to make the section title neutral. And Versus can be willfully or maliciously misconstrued. - Mardus /talk 15:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Before: EU and NATO vs. Russia
 * After: The EU, NATO, and Russia

Other editors: If need be, revert, or change to a more appropriate section title in order to maintain neutrality. - Mardus /talk 15:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: Looking at the US–China section, then it looks like section titles were supposed to point out the adversity, but the use of vs. there can also be misconstrued as 'one party against another party'.

The model article could be the original Cold War article, where top-level section titles (surrounded by two equals signs in code) do not directly attribute who the main adversaries were, but each section lists the main stages of the conflict, each of which contains the most important events. - Mardus /talk 16:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to the changes. George Ho (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: After change from previous section titles, another change was made from this to that. George Ho (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

‘Led’ issue.
Someone worried about 'led' in 'Russia-led' and 'China-led'. Now, since there are Russian sphere of influence (Belarus, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, so-called 'DPR' and 'LPR'), Chinese sphere of influence (Nepal and, probably, Pakistan) et mixed sphere of influence (Venezula, North Korea, Iran and Syria) I doubt that 'led' should be removed, no matter what the real degree of importance, powerfulness and independence of countries I have mentioned is. It makes sense to add information about allies of China & Russia into the article instead. — Напечатейтездесьпсевдоним. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.53.169.195 (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Skripal Poisoning
Should a section on the Skripal Poisoning be added? Looking at the Russian Embassy Twitter, it is the closest we have to a declared Cold War II. It's perhaps the biggest diplomatic upset between the West and Russia since the end of the Cold War. Extensive news reporting saying as much, also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondsiberian (talk • contribs) 03:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Rather not use the Twitter post, Secondsiberian. It doesn't explicitly mention "Cold War II" or other interchangeable terms. Also, interpreting the source would borderline conflict with WP:no original research policy and WP:UNDUE. I'm skeptical about using The Age and RT to add info as they either are too opinionated or appeal to unqualified authority. You can try to find other more reliable sources, but I doubt they can establish the connection. --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * George Ho, The Washington Post has made comments about a supposed Second Cold War, . A quick Google Search for Russia can easily reveal this. Even if a Second Cold War were not being discussed by the news, wouldn't it be necessary to highlight the cooling relations?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondsiberian (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The USA Today article doesn't add anything but would instead mislead readers, which is not what Wikipedia is supposed to do. One WaPo article came from Bloomberg, which is good for the Wikiquote counterpart. The other cited its own work, also good for Wikiquote. However, the quotes/sources neither add anything to nor improve readers' understanding of the topic in Wikipedia and should not be used. I figured that Wikiversity or Wikinews is more suitable for more original content to make; if Wikinews, you can do original reporting. Speaking of Wikiquote, I shall add the quotes there right away. --George Ho (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC); edited, 16:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe this source does work, but the others don't in Wikipedia. George Ho (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * George Ho Thank you for the help -- I am new to Wikipedia editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondsiberian (talk • contribs) 21:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Iedylstudein, may you please explain the addition of the link to "Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal" and linking the poison to this? Per MOS:ALSO, the links between the two should be relevant, but I don't see how. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we have to add/mention Cold War II ?
Do we have to add/mention Cold War II in the see also section? Many sources and prominent politicians mention the term Cold War II. What is your opinion. Iedylstudein (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't have to add/mention. However, can you please show me sources asserting the connection? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC); added link, 02:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Alleged Russian Nerve Agent Poisoning and Expulsion of Russian Diplomats 2018
I think this information should be added, as it has been all over the news in the last few months. NATO-Rissian relations are said to be an all time low since the first cold war Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. I have given just one source from reliable CNN but you can find multiple sources if you add it, and I really think this information should be added:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/26/europe/full-list-of-russian-diplomats-expelled-over-s-intl/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeptchjijihhtgghbyjhhmkkkl (talk • contribs) 06:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The CNN article doesn't connect this topic to the poisoning incident. Let's not use it please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Brazil
@LeoLavish: May you please explain the addition of the "Brazil" section? I evaluated the following sources: Only this source uses "nova guerra fria", even when I don't understand Portuguese. However, I searched for "fria"; none of other sources uses it. Moreover, the addition violates WP:NOR and seems to be more suitable for Wikiversity, which now has v:Cold War II. --George Ho (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * http://politica.estadao.com.br/blogs/fausto-macedo/bolsonaro-apoia-villas-boas-partido-do-exercito-e-o-brasil/
 * https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/ultimas-noticias/2018/04/03/outro-64-sera-inaceitavel-diz-janot-sobre-tweet-de-comandante-do-exercito.htm
 * https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2018/04/temer-silencia-sobre-declaracao-de-comandante-do-exercito.shtml
 * https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2018/04/na-vespera-de-julgamento-sobre-lula-comandante-do-exercito-diz-repudiar-impunidade.shtml
 * http://g1.globo.com/mundo/blog/helio-gurovitz/post/armadilha-da-polarizacao-na-politica-parte-i-o-mito-dos-moderados.html
 * http://www.otempo.com.br/opini%C3%A3o/leonardo-boff/a-crise-brasileira-no-contexto-da-nova-guerra-fria-entre-china-e-eua-1.1502351

I have tagged the section with releveant-inline. This is about hostility in international relations, not internal civil problems of any country. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed the inline template to a more visible maintenance one. --George Ho (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The section was removed by anonymous IP user as "irrelevant". --George Ho (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Salisbury attack
It's been commented that deterioration of relations after Salisbury attack might lead to a new Cold War, some already have described it so. It can be easily found on the internet, so I don't think I'll need to show it. But if you do need it, I'll show some sources here. Should the deterioration in relations following the attack be added to the article? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please show sources; otherwise, let's not add it into the article. We don't want any misleads or misinformation, especially without official word from higher authorities. Also, per discussion from two years ago, we should limit to sources using the terms, and we should avoid sources that do not verify connections between the term(s) and the Salisbury attack. Alternatively, you can create a subpage at the Wikiversity counterpart, where you can create original thought. --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I did mention it's easily available on the internet. But anyway. One example is here: where AFP states that Russian media is describing itc as a new cold war. Other reports calling it so is here:,  where it also refers to Russian embassy's indirect reference to Cold War. in its title calls it so. Haaretz called it Cold-war style lows.
 * Also title of this article says Russian officials are calling it so, though I have only seen Sergei Shoigu say we can talk of return of Cold War: . MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You may want to evaluate how Straits Times uses/quotes other sources, like Russian media, including pro-Kremlin publication and Vedomosti, which mentioned Fyodor Lukyanov but doesn't quote him. Hmm... some of his articles aren't officially translated yet in English. However, best not to use the Straits Times article at the moment; its article headline is too sensational to consider it reliable. I don't know how Straits Times synthesizes Russian media sources, but I wouldn't take their words seriously. Even Russian media is controlled by the Kremlin and (supposedly) making war propaganda. Also, whether Lukyanov's words are deemed reliable... Maybe let's go to WP:RSN. New Zealand Herald... I don't know why and how it interprets a tweet post from an English-language Twitter blue-badged account. The tweet post doesn't exactly say "Cold War II" or similar to that, and even "cold weather" is a metaphor to growing tensions between the two relations... or maybe it's making a satire. If you are going to use the NZ Herald, there must be other publications having similar interpretations. Otherwise, let's avoid using that piece at this time. Haaretz's article headline is misleading as well; it uses Associated Press article, which only says "Cold War-style lows" but doesn't use "Cold War II" (or similar). News Herald uses the same article as well but uses a different headline (and has more paragraphs after the end of Haaretz copy). Somehow, they have synthesized AP articles, like this one (copied into CTV News). Here's a tip: Google (i.e. search) one of the paragraphs or sentences, and see where it comes from or how other publications variably use AP articles. I added the headline from The Jamestown Foundation article into Wikiquote; the Jamestown article doesn't mention "Cold War II". WaPo article was taken from another AP article, both of which actually says that Russians accused the US of starting another Cold War just to protect its "waning" global influence. This AP article made no connections between the poisoning and the article topic. I don't know what to make out of the academic Wesley Wark's op-ed piece. Without other sources making the connection explicitly, I would consider using the source WP:undue. --George Ho (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should be further careful about using the WaPo/AP article. The photos came from 7th Moscow Conference on International Security. Also, the AP article uses very few quotes that do not mention "Cold War II". Let's compare the article with others: . --George Ho (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's AFP quoting Russian media or claiming so anyway, not Straits Times which is just showing AFP's report. I know some sites may not be accurately mentioning about a new cold war in their main body even if they mentioned it in the title. So I thought it better to take opinion of othees and examine it. I have myself detailed some of shortcomings in them, so I know what you are talking about. That's why instead I decided to talk first and examine them with others, instead of adding it directly. Some of the news sites however do compare the relationship to a new cold war. Problem is they seem to be drawing the comparison themselves. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead section
The lead should be completely written. Some statements should be moved into body. Also, I question the status and existence of the topic. Russian politicians and NATO and some academics doubt that the growing tensions are the signs of another "Cold War", but then others differ. Still, the lead sounds as if Cold War II is happening now. --George Ho (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If NATO doubts the growing tensions are a sign of another Cold War, why did Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, say on 16 March 2018: "We don't want a new Cold War, we don't want a new arms race, Russia is our neighbour therefore we have to continue to strive for an improved better relationship with Russia".


 * The UN Security General has said "the Cold War is back with a vengeance", the President of China warns against a "Cold War mentality" with respect to US import tariffs,, MI5's CPNI giving businesses "a handbook to help them avoid being caught in honeytraps when working in Russia or China", Sergei Naryshkin, Russia's Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service, telling a security conference in Moscow (4 April 2018) "Washington has become fixated with the fight against a non-existent, so-called Russian threat. This has reached such proportions and acquired such absurd characteristics that it’s possible to speak of a return to the dark times of the Cold War",


 * All this against a backdrop of Russia annexing Crimea and being suspended from the G8, the US and Russia fighting over Syria, Russia allegedly interfering in the US presidential election, the first use of chemical weapons in Europe since WWII - to say nothing of North Korea, and it is hard to see exactly what else needs to happen before we can say that a new Cold War is either under way or a genuine prospect. Some are trying to be the voice of reason, such as Stef Blok, Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs,, who has a vested interest in promoting good relations with Russia (it's his job), but they are a vanishing minority. Thoughts? Firebrace (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Xi's "Cold War mentality" remark is just responding to US's actions and standards, not a sign that two nations is heading to another Cold War. And the Independent (Ireland) article is another one of news sources making a mere sensational headline without adequately detailing a connection between Cold War II and another event. Naryshkin's words merely mean a reminisce of the Cold War but do not mean that another Cold War is happening. Stoltenberg's remarks may prove growing tensions between US and Russia but don't prove that Cold War II is officially happening (yet). --George Ho (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What would make it "official"? Firebrace (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm unsure anymore whether official declaration is required. I thought about the other Cold War, occurred in the 20th century. I recently read "Declaration of war by the United States" and have found that the "Cold War" is in merely the "See also" section. Therefore, I thought that the "war" (if not Cold War) is never officially declared, especially by reading the transcript of the Malta Summit (1989), which ended (if not lessened) the Cold War tensions. One source says that neither said officially declared "war". However, the other source says that the Summit officially ended the Cold War, though another source says that the 1990 NATO London summit ended it officially. Another source says that one Russian politician interpreted Stalin's statements as declaration of the "cold war". Another source says that "Cold War" was officially declared. More sources: --George Ho (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * In other words you don't know. The Cold War was never declared officially, it just sort of happened. Firebrace (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Firebrace, I'm concerned about the removal of "disputed" unless you think it violates one of the guidelines or policies, like WP:NPOV or WP:MOS. I don't see how removal of "disputed" helps. I think including "disputed" reflects some sources disputing the existence of it, like this source and Putin's interview. --George Ho (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think a journalist's op-ed at foreignpolicy.com is WP:RS. There is no dispute over the existence of an ongoing state of tension between the US, Europe, Israel, Japan and South Korea (you could probably include India given their border disputes and economic rivalry with China); and Russia, China, North Korea, Syria and Iran (Saudi Arabia appear to have conflicting interests). Firebrace (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That journalist also happens to be an academic Stephen Walt. A few other academics dispute this as well: one by Odd Arne Westad, one by another academic. Including their views would be seen as WP:UNDUE; two of them are prominent academics, and I wonder whether they are considered "significant minority". --George Ho (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Jdg1999 and Anonymous427, may you please explain the additions of the image of Trump and the map? I think they are misleading images and do not accurately represent the topic well. --George Ho (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

George Ho, The image of U.S. president Donald J. Trump addressing the nation over the authorisation of missile strikes in Syria was added because i strongly believe on reasonable grounds that the U.S. Involvement including the involvement of the UK, France and Russia play also a major role in this new Cold War (which is undeniably a new second Cold War, please have a thorough and careful look at the facts which does support so) but however i have chosen now to withdraw the addition of mine due to other conflicting reasons. I also firmly believe and highly recommend however that the image posted by Anonymous427 does stay as it is both a relevant source of information regarding NATO nations and to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdg1999 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Cui Tiankai
China's official press agency has cited Chinese ambassador to US as calling on US to "abandon its Cold War and zero-sum mentality". However, it doesn't detail the exact statement where he said it. Is it enough to add it? I have doubts over it since it doesn't quote the exact statement, though it is the official Chinese news agency. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I read the source; it doesn't quote but rather interprets. Also, "mentality" is not the sign of "Cold War II". --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it quoted him so. But even Xi Jinping used the term Cold War mentality. After all this article is about deterioration in relations. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyway this is unrelated, but let's discuss it here. Panetta called the recent deterioration in relations with Russia as "a new chapter in Cold War". (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/were-in-new-chapter-of-cold-war-with-russia-former-defense-secretary-leon-panetta.html). Doesn't say new Cold War, be mindful of that. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Both may (or may not) be good for Wikiquote, one of which I added, but I don't think the sources add anything substantial other than more rhetoric, which is probably already adequate here. Also, adding them would be undue unless there are other sources saying similar thoughts regarding similar issues. --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC); partially struck, 19:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait... I guess they have similar thoughts but used different words. --George Ho (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

North Korea
Shouldn't North Korea tie in somewhere here? I'd say the fear of North Korea is far greater than the fear of China doing anything (although DPRK is starting to quieten down a bit ). decearing egg < talk > 02:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources proving that North Korea is tied to this topic. Otherwise, let's not make NK the main party. --George Ho (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * says A NEW COLD war could set in between China and the United States as tensions over North Korea pit the giant countries against each other.. says DPRK is involved.  is titled North Korea: Prelude to Cold War II?. DPRK is definitely involved here.  decearing egg  < talk > 02:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Rival article isn't a good source; it only uses "New Cold War" for sensational headlining. Moreover, the article from The New Cold War website doesn't explicitly mention "new Cold War" as part of the main subject. I also expect something better than The Express, like David Roche, who was briefly quoted. Roche rather enhances that US and China are rivaling over North Korea situation; in other words, Roche believes that China (not North Korea!) could be US's another Cold War (arch?)enemy. George Ho (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

§ Russo-Western tensions
This section is very long and should be split into subheadings. -- Decearing egg (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it should be trimmed. If we still will have subheadings, how will the section be restructured? --George Ho (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it should be trimmed. If anything, it should be expanded. At one point, this article did a nice job of explaining the various areas of tension between the United States and Russia, and it's a shame that it no longer does. Orser67 (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

US-China trade war
I appreciate your addition, Marked Man 808. However, neither sources use the term "cold war" as connection to US-China trade war. I thought about reverting the addition, but first I'd like to discuss it please. Also, have you considered searching for reliable sources mentioning the supposed connection? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The Cold War isn't an out right military conflict, it is a period of tension between super powers. See the original cold war article [[User talk:George Ho, it included numerous instruments other than proxy wars, like sports, the space race, diplomatic steps, politics, (Soviets used to mate the US look in the media due to racism in the country in the 1960s) and similar trade wars. The super powers competes in many ways, not just through military conflict which may be a part of this "period of tension" but not the only thing in it. Economics is a major part of the cold war, and the US trade war is to prevent China from over taking US as an economic power. Also economic crisis including trade restrictions, sanctions, etc many times lead to out right military conflicts as in some cases in the original cold war. By that definition the trade war most certainly fits the criteria for addition in the article Cold War II article and highly increases the level of tension between US and China. Marked Man 808 (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Still, Marked Man 808, neither sources you used for citation explicitly mention the connection between this topic and the trade war. Recently added content would be interpreted as original research, discouraged by policy. Have you considered removing the added content yet? Also, what about going to Wikiversity, which allows OR content? George Ho (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok George Ho, added another source (85) that mentions a connection between the cold war 2 and the trade war, you can find more sources linking them if you search too. Marked Man 808 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're going to use this source, Marked Man 808, I'm not certain whether it's a reliable source. This is an opinion piece. But at least it shows you're doing your best. Almost forgot. If there's only one opinion, the cited info would be considered WP:UNDUE. There must be more of other pieces with similar opinions. As for the other (four) sources that do not mention "cold war", can you remove them please? Thanks --George Ho (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Could not find news articles connecting two things. All we have are op-eds, like the following: Nikkei Asian Review, AEI (2), The Hill, Channel News Asia. Do you trust those op-eds? George Ho (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I do, but since you are an older user than me, do what you feel is right. Also the concept of cold war 2 itself is op-ed, I never heard it or read about it in any form of news media.], most of the world leaders like Obama, Putin and Xi Jinping denied it. Ots hardly ever talked about in news channels and papers as the original cold war was. The Ukraine invasion by Russia, the Syrian air strikes by US have revived the Russo American tensions, but no news media states these are acts of a new cold war either. But I think if they are added, so should the Sino-Amerivcan trade war, which considerably increases the Sino-American tension and should be at least mentioned. But I leave the choice to you. Marked Man 808 (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed passage. George Ho (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Change type and description
the whole article in its current form describes the term Cold War II, proposes the term, lists notable usages of the term and examples and arguments on if it is or isn't applicable term for current situation. There's hardly anything on east-west tensions.

I suggest to change the description from "This article is about present tensions between the East and West" to "This article is about terminology" or "This article is about political views of wikipedia community" Duhgo (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Maps in lede
Hi, CapLiber. Why do you think are the maps appropriate as lead images seen in this edit? Also, what about the captions claiming causes, which I think is undetermined in the whole article? George Ho (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just think multiple image template points out mixed nature of what some people call Cold War II nowadays, that it's not a single conflict. Can you concretize what captions claiming causes are you talking about? CapLiber (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Those captions: "US–Russia tensions have increased in 2014 with international sanctions being applied to Russia after the Ukrainian crisis," and "US–China tensions have increased in 2018 with the new trade policies of President Trump resulting in the trade war." If they are not discussing causes, then I guess they must have referred to what events would lead to Cold War II, right? As for whether or not Cold War II is a "single conflict", are there sources claiming it's a double conflict? George Ho (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"See also" section
The "See also" is getting expanded over time, like recently. Is the amount right, excessive, insufficient, or what? --George Ho (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I see you have added a lot of links in the section. May you please explain the additions? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought it might be some examples of giving the exra information for the section, but if I am wrong, fine, I was trying to issue the last edit, my honest facts about the article, although, it was a free honest edit, I guess the website has the right to freely delete anyone's truthful facts even if one believes or knows it is not factual, that's Wikipedia anyone to freely edit and delete for the taking. I was mot trying to exceed the links and hopefully split the row like the Cold War article. If you want to not have what I edited then you are freely to dispute and delete it.I was just trying help part of the article.Funkquake (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Before you do anything further, Funkquake, have you read WP:see also and one of past discussions? No matter how true or not, the links should be relevant to the topic and devoid from original research. George Ho (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see you decided to add back the links that I eliminated as too excessive, despite you letting me to remove them. Can you explain why? George Ho (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the links which this was the final completion were sourceable for a while, as I was trying to split the rows in two columns, to save the over excessiveness such as the main Cold War article. This was the final completion not trying to put as many topics, as I was looking forward into finding research about the issue of the Cold War II issue; I also tried to help edit the Korean Unification article for splitting links the rows trying not to overexcess it. Cold War II true or not; yes, I understand from the original research and I am interested within the issues of these types of articles, I was hoping this was the final completion and continue contributing sources upon the main paragraphs. However, if I had made mistake on the situation of free-will editing, well then bene and darn me, sorry. I really wantedto contribute the last section and add reference to the source, let alone if the whole article of course needs a re-edit for the whole page. If it be fine I would continue to add sources to the links? Otherwise, I thought it might find interest for the reader within the facts of the matter, and your reason was quite clear, fine what is your take, since you have contributed more I guess you would have the more suitable suggestion for contributing the word links to its main paragraph areas and possible reference infomation.Funkquake (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't re-revert the additions you made. The sources to the links at "See also" aren't necessary. However, I should explain further that links to primary relations with North Korea or Iran should not be included in the article, especially as part of "See also" as they are not related to the main topic of the article. Also, I don't know why abstract topics, like "trade war" and "surveillance", should be in the separate "See also" section. Can you reconsider the links please? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC); edited, 03:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not; yes, it shall be done, and of course, always, your welcome.--Funkquake (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All right, but what about other "North Korea"-related links, like "North Korea–European Union relations"? How are they relevant to the topic in question? If they are relevant but unapparent to many readers, can you make brief annotations please? If irrelevant to the topic, why need them? George Ho (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What about other links that you added, like North Korea–United States relations, Iran–Israel proxy conflict, Iran–European Union relations, Iran–United States relations, and North Korea–United States relations? And redirects and duplicated links? George Ho (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)