Template talk:Cold War/Archive 1

Some changes
I will do some minor changes to this template. If you don't like it, revert it and/or say so here. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennistalk - contribs 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Include foundings of NATO/WP?
Maybe (I don't know) the foundings of NATO and WP should be listed in main events, as they effectively started the Cold War. But I am not sure, since links to NATO and WP are supplied under "participants". I leave it up to you others... Regards, --Dna-Dennistalk - contribs 06:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Churchill?
Maybe Winston Churchill should be included as main personalities (don't know). He was known to be quite anti-Soviet, and probably the one who coined the term "Iron curtain". --Dna-Dennistalk - contribs 07:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Too large
This article is vastly too large. It is bigger than some of the articles that it appears in. - SimonP 00:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

TfD debate
This template survived a TfD debate. See Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 6. -Splash talk 00:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Too Large - Why flags?
The flags makes this Template really too large and it is loosing its transparency. Why are there? Whats the point? This is an encyclopedia not a book for kids in elementary school. szalas

"Navigate through history"
Is there any need to use the phrase "Navigate through history" on this template? It looks more like a cheesy History Channel slogan than something appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Bletch 14:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Huge template
This template is unacceptably large and it shows up in great many places. While it may be useful, there needs to be some sense of proportion. I would think it should be radically trimmed, to say one quarter of the size, and refer to some Important Cold War events article for more details. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Stupid template
This template is extremely US-centric and Soviet-centric, and the fact that one of the most important cold war politicians, namely Helmut Kohl (longest-serving chancellor since Bismarck), who was responsible for German reunification and the final end of the cold war, gets deleted, while less important politicians like Brandt (chancellor for somewhat more than 4 years) and Honecker remains, shows that this template is useless for European cold war history. I suggest a separate Template:Cold War in Europe. 83.109.135.76 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

More Portal than template?
I concur with very many of the other comments here. This template is far too large, and choice of inclusion/exclusion is very subjective. This is more of a Cold War Portal than a nav template... I would be prepared to suggest moving it to Portal name space and reformatting than keeping it in its current form. It is difficult to see what else to do with it. TheGrappler 11:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Especially the "important figures" section is to large. Some persons should be removed.Vints 08:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Absurdly subjective
I very much agree that it is too large and absurdly subjective and U.S.-centric in its contents. Sure, every U.S. president since Roosevelt played a big role in the Cold War, but it's ridiculous to list every one, and no other Americans at that. Some other notable omissions:
 * Africa
 * Eurasia outside Europe, the Soviet Union, China, Korea, and Vietnam.
 * Mohammed Mossadegh, despite linking to the Iran Crisis
 * Helmut Kohl, as someone noted above
 * François Mitterrand

And I am not lobbying for their inclusion in the template! Any template that contains all the important figures of the Cold War will be far too big to be useful, and any template that tries to include only the "very important" figures of the Cold War will probably be too subjective. --Saforrest 16:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Should be deleted
This template should be deleted as it make more harm than use. Not many people are interesting in such monsters when looking for encyclopedical information. I would recommend the people to spend more time on improving the text until no template is needed. Pavel Vozenilek 19:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the template was just fine earlier, but now it's just too big (we're even beginning to cover such people as Nelson Mandela, who played no significant role in the Cold War at all).  I think the easiest solution is just to revert this template to its earlier form.  I don't think that completely removing it would solve anything as a proposal for deletion was already discussed, voted on, and rejected. -- Clevelander 20:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, also many american ministers were more important than other countries' leaders. With all respect to smaller countries, the cold war was a conflict between US and Soviet.Vints 08:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Move this version to Portal:Cold War (it's more portal than navbox anyway) then trim this back
Is there significant disagreement with this proposal? Most people who have dropped by seem to agree this needs to be reduced in size; and my comment that this is effectively a portal pretending to be a navbox got support. Does anybody here disagree with this? Does anybody have a particular version they would like to revert back to? My personal suggestion is to get rid of participants and personalities altogether (their biographies are not Cold War-centric anyway, unlike, say, the Berlin Wall article; also it is impossible to reasonably decide who to include or exclude) and to keep the timeline and key article links. NATO and Warsaw Pact could be included as key articles or through having their founding dates mentioned in the timeline. Thoughts? TheGrappler 11:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The persons should be removed from the template. Vints 10:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Tian'anmen Massacre
Should it be mentioned? &mdash; Instantnood 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No. It was an internal conflict in China. Vints 18:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then why Glasnost and Perestoika, for instance? &mdash; Instantnood 19:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because China isn't the U.S.S.R, the main subject of the cold war. That, and Perestoika and Glasnost led to the end of the cold war.--Iorek85 23:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? Events happening in Eastern Europe are included. Is it like only events in which the United States or the Soviet Union participated directly should be included? &mdash; Instantnood 17:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, this should not be mentioned. Chinese protest in the Tianenmen square situation glommed on to the wider protest against the one party system, which according to the article, still wasn't the main focus of the protest. It's roots and source don't originate from the Cold War. Neither do its outcomes. There are events in the US that were internal and didn't have to do with the Cold War. Same for China, and Russia. Hires an editor 22:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That goes what we define the Cold War,If we only emphasize US and Soviet,it should'nt be included,If we spread the scope,many nowadays event should also be included,such as First Congo War--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Added Zhou Enlai
He was responsible for the PRC normalising relations with the US, subsequently switching PRC's alliance to the US from an alliance to the USSR. He was also the "second-in-command" next to Mao Zedong. Please discuss if you feel he is not important enough of a figure to be included in this list. Hong Qi Gong 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's more important with american and russian second-in-commands, for example Marshall, Acheson, Dulles, Kissinger, Molotov.Vints 17:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Operation Gladio
should it be mentioned in the template? Intangible 12:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Boris Yeltsin
This is the guy defeated Soviet Communism in Russia, why is he not on this list.

Intelligence Agencies
I see some intelligence agencies (CIA, KGB, Stasi) listed on the "specific articles" on the template. I thought maybe DINA should be listed there as it played a major part in Operation Condor in Latin America and Contreras built it up with training from the CIA.--Jersey Devil 05:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think that Operation Condor should be listed on the "events" part.--Jersey Devil 05:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Three African Leaders
Although I'm no fan of huge templates, including this, I believe Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire, and Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia certainly deserve a place on this template if Imre Nagy, Che Guevara, and Clement Attlee do. My aditions would certainly help veiwers understand that a good amount of the Cold War occurred in Africa. As it is, I'm tempted to add the tag to the page. Any other opinions? (Please note my first nine words.) Picaroon9288 17:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How subjective is this template?
I can see no objective criteria for inclusion at all. This really ought to be a Portal, not a template. At the least, as a template, all the people need to be taken out, or else it will become huge once everybody has added their pet Cold War politician. TheGrappler 03:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the template has grown considerably since the last time I checked it. Intangible 03:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree the people should be taken out. Vints 14:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I second that. It should be more like the World Wars templates. Jareand 03:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I quite like it. I found it very useful when searching for information regarding the Cold War. It's not as long as the Arab-Israeli Conflict template.--Iorek85 23:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * True, its not as long as the Arab-Israeli Conflict template. However, it can be true that both templates are excessively long :) --Mucus 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Cold War created
So, I created the Portal:Cold War Portal. I think, at the least, that this template should be deleted from most of the pages where it's found, replaced with the Template:Portalpar, and just be listed on the portal page. Any objections? Hires an editor 02:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ordering
The ordering of "political leaders" outside the USSR and the US is neither alphabetical nor chronological. Unless I receive reasons to the contrary in 24 hours, I will rectify that. Hornplease 03:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed and then some. I do like the template (though I might be fine with the conversion to Portal, once I understand better how those work) and made two additions today, but it felt most strange to be adding them where I was adding them. I was bold enough to make the two additions, but not quite bold enough to re-order the names, in case there was an order I was overlooking.
 * I definitely think the countries where the U.S. and/or U.S.S.R. were intervening for reasons related to fostering or stemming the spread of communism all belong in the template, but wonder if the portal solution will allow a little room to explain the connections... Lawikitejana 08:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the chronological order is most effective, given that American presidents and the crises etc. are ordered chronologically. Made the effort to sort in order of assuming office. Hornplease 20:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cutting out some names
I removed the following people from the Cold War list as they played very minor roles in the conflict:


 * [[Image:Flag of Spain (1945 - 1977).svg|20px]] Francisco Franco
 * [[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]] Jawaharlal Nehru
 * [[Image:Flag of Argentina.svg|20px]] Che Guevara
 * [[Image:Flag of Chile.svg|20px]] Salvador Allende
 * [[Image:Flag of Chile.svg|20px]] Augusto Pinochet
 * [[Image:Flag of Nicaragua.svg|20px]] Daniel Ortega
 * [[Image:Flag of El Salvador.svg|20px]] Roberto D'Aubuisson

I say we keep the list as it is for now and that before anybody adds or removes anymore names should discuss them on the talk page first. -- Clevelander 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor roles? I think that you are wrong my friend: They are important. Messhermit 22:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Salvador Allende was the first democratically elected communist government in Latin America.
 * Augusto Pinochet was the leader of the military coup that overthrown Allende from power, and it is more than know that Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger were involved in the support and later develpment of the coup. Pinochet itself created a right wing dictatorship that will spawn for more than 18 years.
 * Daniel Ortega one of the leading members that overthrown the right-wing dictatorship of Anastacio Somoza in Nicaragua, an event that triggered the Sandinista Revolution. First as member of the Junta of National Reconstruction and later President of Nicaragua, he was involved in the fight against the right-wing terrorist organization known as "Contras", which were supported by the US Government of Ronald Reagan. This was one of the main reasons of the Iran-Contra Affair.
 * Che Guevara not only participated in the Cuban Revolution, but was also involved in several attempts to launch similiar revolutions in third world countries, participating in the Democratic Republic of Congo's independence movement and a failed attemp to launch a mayor peasant uprising in Bolvia.


 * Still, the others should be cut. We have way too many names on the list. -- Clevelander 23:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, there are too many names. I am not at all sure, for example, that the Japanese premiers played a sufficiently important personal role in the Cold War. About the Latin Americans, I cannot say for certain; I think Che neednt be there but Allende should be, for example. Franco neednt be there, but Nehru should be. As the leader and ideological founder of the Non-aligned Movement, he had a tremendous personal role to play in how the Cold War developed. Hornplease 05:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Further, I am returning the list to chronological order, and limiting it to individuals who were heads of state or governments, and who had a personal role in determiing how their countries stood in the Cold War setup. That is sufficiently stringent that few names will have to go this way or that. Hornplease 05:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reformed this template a bit (so all of the sections are relatively the same length). I re-added Nehru, but I say keep Franco off the list. -- Clevelander 12:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well. But why not in chronological order? All the sections except non-superpower leaders are in chronological order. I'll do that for completeness in a bit unless I hear from you. Hornplease 13:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I'm very much in favor of list them in chronological order. -- Clevelander 15:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Salvador Allende and Augusto Pinochet did not "play a minor role" in the Cold War. This seems to me to be an example of systematic bias.--Jersey Devil 01:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd also say that Guevara and D'Aubuisson can reasonably be removed as (while they were important figures) they were not a heads of state but also that there are reasonable grounds to include Jorge Rafael Videla and Alfredo Stroessner in the list.--Jersey Devil 01:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be that "played a minor role" or "influenced" are ill-defined. Those who are not heads of state, for example, in many cases were responsible for influencing the actions of the actual heads of state of theirs or other countries. I'll concede that D'Aubuisson's arguable, but no more so than some others that are included. The discussion of portal vs. template also figures in here, as does the discussion (one I haven't yet seen) of establishing some kind of separate vehicle for gathering the Latin American grouping. Many of the Central American figures end up being arguably more a sub-function of the U.S. side of the Cold War; i.e., they fit into the Cold War and its themes partly because their actions were the catalysts for the U.S. and Communist or Socialist forces to "fight it out" on their land. Lawikitejana 20:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Category for the people?
How about we just take all the people off this template and make a category out of it? Because this list will just get bigger and bigger and editors will have endless disagreements as to who deserves to be on the list. Category:Prominent Cold War people, anyone? --- Hong Qi Gong 04:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well? No takers? --- Hong Qi Gong 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Africa and Middle East
I think we need to add Middle East leaders (specifically, Gamal Abdul Nasser, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and Ayatollah Khomeini) and African ones (Patrice Lumumba, Mobutu Sese Seko, Agostinho Neto, Jonas Savimbi, Samora Machel, and Mengistu Haile Mariam)

Stanislav Petrov
Would it be reasonable to suggest Stanislav Petrov be on this template? He was a Lt. Col. in the Soviet Army whose intuition and clutch (in-)actions are reputed to have prevented Soviet retaliation to what at the time was reported as incoming American nuclear missiles.  Big Nate 37 (T) 03:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What Should Objective Criteria Be?
On this talk page, several people have mentioned that the list of people is too big. Some have said that it's too subjective. So, in order to whittle down the list of people, what are some good, objective reasons to have a person on the list? What makes someone "important" as that person relates to the CW? Reagan could be said to be important beyond a doubt. Churchill is another. What makes them important is that they guided principal participants in the conflict. If we use a fuzzy criteria like, "Influence in the conflict" as a starting point, it will help keep the list manageable. Pol Pot, for example, did not have a direct impact on the CW. So, he's not important. I'm not sure how to rank people according to their influence, and their influence can be debated, but there is a threshold below which people should not be on this list. Hires an editor 01:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I say we take them all off and put them all in a Category. The template is big even without any names on it.  --- Hong Qi Gong 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Slow down
Umm... slow down, Mr/Ms 66.183.129.26... --- Hong Qi Gong 04:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Excessive
Extremely large template, I think it should be trimmed especially the "Other important figures". I understand that they played a role in the cold war but this is just ridiculous, we dont need to list absolutely everything in this template thats what articles like Cold War are for. Anyone agree? - Tutmosis 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I support that measure. What about 5 political figures per continent? Messhermit 00:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but there are so many important European people that limiting that area specfically to five would be taking away from the template. I think that it's time that this template is really cut down.  I say we go over each name to determine if its important enough to remain in the template. -- Clevelander 01:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, get rid of them all, and put them all in a Category instead. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rules for inclusion
I think we should set some standards for inclusion of the names in this template:
 * 1) The person must be the leader of a country in order to be included.
 * 2) The leader must have made a significant impact on the Cold War.
 * 3) The leader must have some involvement in the Cold War (founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement are the only exceptions in this case).
 * 4) All names must be listed in chronological order.
 * 5) With the exception of Europe (which may list only 12 leaders), and Asia (which may list only 8 leaders), all other regions of the world are to only have four or fewer names.

In the meantime, I'm reverting the template back to how it was on September 2nd just to keep some order. -- Clevelander 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So you are assuming that all the USSR and US names qualify under #1 to #3? (That's not a rhetorical question)  --- Hong Qi Gong 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that would work too (if #1 to #4 (which I have just revised) were applied to the US and USSR names as well). -- Clevelander 01:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with #4 because I think that would make the template look ugly if we are to keep the flags next to the names, and I think #2 and #3 can be interpretted in different ways. What is "significant impact" and what is "some involvement"?  --- Hong Qi Gong 01:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think #4 should only apply to the US and the USSR. By "significant impact" I mean that they were somehow historically significant to the events of the Cold War and by "some involvement" I mean that we should include people who have only been involved in the Cold War (this means that we wouldn't include, for example, Neville Chamberlain, Ayatollah Khomeini, or Bill Clinton who have nothing to do with the Cold War let alone each other). -- Clevelander 02:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The template is too big. This proposed rule for inclusion of names is a good faith effort, but somewhat arbitrary and some of the criteria are quite subjective, and thus prone to differing interpretations.  It has been suggested many times, and I put it forward again, that the names be removed entirely from the template, and a category or a list created instead.  Skeezix1000 10:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that a category is best in this case. I do understand that these criteria may not be perfect on first go, and that the proposed solution is an improvement on what existed before. Despite these things, I feel that the best thing to do is to make a category for significant people of the cold war. Divide it into subcategories, and if a person does not fit into any subcat then they should not be included at all (to reduce subjectiveness). For instance, world leaders, military commanders, heroes... subcats that are specific and leave little room for interpretation. Specific rules for inclusion could evolve on the category page over time, for example military commanders may have a specific minimum rank and tour of duty for inclusion. My idea doesn't have to be the one that is implemented, but I feel a category is best for two reasons: it reduces the urge for editors who see the template to add another name of questionable importance because it is less visible than being on the template, and there is really no problem if a category (that isn't transcluded onto many pages) gets too big.  Big Nate 37 (T) 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. This template is big even without the list of names.  A category can afford to be more inclusive, plus their inclusion into a category for Cold War people can be debated at the articles for each individual person - that would be better assuming that editors at those individual articles would be more knowledgeable about the persons in question.  --- Hong Qi Gong 17:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If Clevelander is interested, perhaps his work can form the basis of a proposal to remove names from the template, and to create category(ies) with appropriate criteria for inclusion. Skeezix1000 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that the additions and deletions of names over the last few days is bordering ridiculous. I think it's tremendous that Clevelander is seeking to bring some order to this chaos, but I believe that the change needs to be more fundamental (remove names entirely).Skeezix1000 17:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I say that, at the very least, we keep the names of the leaders from the US and the USSR, all the other names aren't totally necessary. -- Clevelander 19:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point, firstly, some of the articles for those persons barely mention the Cold War, if they mention it at all. Secondly, it just invites editors to yet add more names of people they feel are important to the Cold War.  Also, I found that there's already a Category for Cold War leaders - Category:Cold warriors.  I say we just remove all the names.  And in fact, I'm starting to doubt that all the events listed actually affected the Cold War.  Just because an event happened within the Cold War period, doesn't necessarily mean it had anything to do with the Cold War.  --- Hong Qi Gong 20:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The list is already U.S.-centric as it is -- eliminating anyone from all but the U.S. and U.S.S.R. would make it more so. And I believe it would be incorrect for the template to suggest that there were no major players from any other countries.  There were two superpowers, but it was a global conflict with many key players.  I also agree with Hong Qi Gong that limiting the names to the U.S. and U.S.S.R will do nothing to eliminate the ongoing edits back-and-forth to determine who merits inclusion -- within days someone will be re-adding Thatcher or Walesa or Castro ....  This template is unwieldy, and I propose that the first step is to eliminate the names completely, to be replaced by a category (and possibly a listing on the portal as well).  The second step should be to review all of the events, and to determine if they all merit inclusion.  Skeezix1000 20:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Another possible option is to list the prominent countries involved instead of the political leaders, countries that had an impact on the Eastern or Western Blocs, or on the Non-Aligned Movement. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea. The problem I foresee is that everyone believes their country merits inclusion. I'm Canadian, and I would say that Canada should be included -- for the same reason I would say that Trudeau and Pearson should be included in the list of persons on the template (were I not advocating that we eliminate the names entirely).  A non-Canadian might say "Canada?  Why include Canada?!?!"   I would think limiting it to the main blocs would be safer.  Skeezix1000 21:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I would say Canada is significant only because of NORAD. You're right in that the same problem would essentially exist if we listed countries instead of people.  But I think the list would be much shorter and there would be much less rampant additions.  --- Hong Qi Gong 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually think we'd end up with a longer list. How would you justify, for example, inclusing one member of NATO, but not another?  Even if you had a rationale for the exclusion, you know that someone would disagree and eventually that country anyway.  And any flashpoint over the 40+ years of the cold war would raise the question of whether that country should be included: Laos? Angola? El Salvador? Israel?  etc. etc. The problem is that the cold war was a global conflict that involved some countries in some way or another -- persons in each of those countries believe that their country played a role, because the cold war affected their country.  And they have a point.  We'll just be having edit wars over countries instead of people, and still be stuck with a ridiculously large template.  Skeezix1000 17:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Skeezix1000 ... so long as we keep the present format, every country past the US and USSR in which one or the other intervened then becomes a debate over inclusion. Even efforts to rank them are problematic. One additional option would be to keep the template, but list within it either an article, a list or a category for involved individuals and another for involved countries; the rest of the template could be devoted to terminology articles. Just one more idea. Lawikitejana 19:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Roosevelt should be deleted. He died during World War II, April 12, 1945. Most historians say the Cold War started about 1947.Vints 12:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

3 reverts for 66.183.129.26
By the way, Mr/Ms 66.183.129.26 has violated 3RR and I've warned him. User talk:66.183.129.26. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Stability
Well, it would seem that with the deletion of all the names (with the exception of the US and USSR leaders), the template has stabilized.

So...would people mind lending a hand to make the Cold War Portal better? Hires an editor 15:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate rake over old coals, but the list as it currently stands is silly (no Mao Zedong!!??)) and is completely counter to all trends in Cold War scholarship over the past 15 years. I definitely think that personalities should be put into a category, and if we must have something in this box, then how about a list of countries that were involved in the Cold War: that will remove multiple entries and keep it much shorter.  And yes, the list is stable, but you really have to put Mao (and Deng Xiaoping) on that list, or better still, as I said, remove the names and keep the flags. Cripipper 11:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Having just U.S. and U.S.S.R. names is not an improvement, and is inaccurate.  I think the other names were removed inadvertently (without consensus at least), during last week's edit war.  I'm not sure listing countries will solve anything -- the list will be just as long, if not longer, and will still be subject to constant edits and reversions -- and what does a list of countries accomplish?  Reiterates that it was a global conflict?  Skeezix1000 17:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In order of my own preference:
 * Taking out all the names, including names from the USSR and the US.
 * Taking out all the names, including names from the USSR and the US, and inserting a list of important countries.
 * Taking out all the names, except for those from the USSR and the US.
 * - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Another alternative would to be to add Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai, and then have a link to 'more' as I have seen in other templates where there could be as full a list of Cold War personalities. In fact the more I think about it, the more I think this is the best option. Cripipper 19:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with adding Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai to the existing list, because that presupposes that only the U.S., the U.S.S.R. and China were involved in, or affected by, the Cold War. Superpowers yes, but not the only players.  I do like your idea of linking to a list of Cold War personalities, which was suggested above, as long as the names are removed from the template. Skeezix1000 12:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * While neatness is by no means the main criterion, I will grant it's neater and a little easier to follow what is in it with the non-US, non-USSR names removed. That doesn't mean I think that's what we should end up with.
 * Now to a different point: What is the basis for inclusion under "Contemporaneous conflicts"? The Salvadoran conflict is highly parallel to the Nicaraguan conflict, with the chief difference being which side (government or rebel) was supported by whom. Both countries had outside intervention from Cold War major players with a view either to fostering or preventing the country's being in the control of socialist/communist leaders; I'd be interested in the justification of including the one country while omitting the other. After all, if the basis were "pertinent to the Cold War," from what I can see the Arab-Israeli conflict wouldn't be there at all. The only mention of the Cold War in that whole article is that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were remarkably on the same "side" with respect to Israel's formation. So its presence in the template suggests that the basis might be simply "happening at the same time" (hence "contemporaneous"), which would be another reason to include El Salvador, not to mention other nations (not that I'm advocating this last approach).Lawikitejana 05:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Gouzensko
To be honest, I have yet to see a major scholarly work that considers this to be a major causal event in the Cold War. You wouldn't be Canadian by any chance would you Skeezix? :P I suspect that since it is the only thing noteworthy event in Canada's Cold War history that its importance is somewhat overplayed there... ;) Cripipper 19:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course I am Canadian. :)  And, as you suspect, we all learned about Gouzenko in high school, and it was taught as a triggering event of the cold war (not a causal event, but rather an event that helped trigger the conflict, much like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which didn't actually cause the First World War, but sparked the explosion so to speak).   There is a recent book on Gouzenko, not to mention Sawatsky's earlier work, and you're right, there is controversy whether Gouzenko's actions helped trigger the cold war or whether the event was merely symptomatic of an already emerging conflict (even making its way into the Amazon book reviews at ).  But your comment about Gouzenko being the only noteworthy event in Canada's cold war history simply emphasizes why the template needs a more global perspective. Skeezix1000 12:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I was, of course, being facetious. :) Cripipper 12:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
Further to the discussion above, it is proposed that the names of all persons be removed from the template, replaced with a link to a list and/or category of Cold War personalities. Skeezix1000 13:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~


 * Support. Will reduce size of template, and hopefully, reduce edit wars and constant reversions over inclusion of names.  Skeezix1000 13:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support In addition to the reasons outlined above, the reduction of important figures in the Cold War to a list of Americans and Russians goes against the trend of the major advances in Cold War Studies over the past decade. Cripipper 14:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support This will reduce the size of the template and discourage rampant adding of names to the template. And there's already a category for this purpose - Category:Cold warriors.  - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support in addition to urging action on the outstanding (in both senses) suggestions from the Portal:Cold War to-do list to "Create articles on the Cold War regionally: Cold War in Latin America, Cold War in Europe, Cold War in Africa, Cold War in East Asia, Cold War in South Asia, Cold War in Oceania, Cold War in South East Asia, and Cold War in the Middle East ... [to] draw out regional dynamics that the main article will necessarily have to overlook," and which could then be included in the template to stop editing the countries. Lawikitejana 05:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the regional articles idea, but I think it is unnecessary to divide it into East, South and Southeast Asia. One article on the Cold War in Asia would suffice: to split it up in this manner would create an arbitrary division of the regional concerns of the major players. Cripipper 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I agree with you on that. I was simply pasting in the original suggestion and did not feel sufficiently well-versed on the Asian segment of the discussion to speak to whether breaking it up was appropriate. Another reason not to divide it up is the messiness of determining where certain countries would go in the division. Lawikitejana 18:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Conversion to portal?
A discussion about possibly converting large footer templates for wars—such as this one—into portals has been started here; comments and suggestions would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 02:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I created a portal for the Cold War. Check it out! Hires an editor 16:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yah, I mentioned that over at the Military History discussion referred to above. Skeezix1000 16:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work. I have to say I still quite like the template; how about now we ensure that all the characters listed in the older ,unstable and excessively lengthy template are categorized as  Cripipper 18:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is time to do so. First, however, maybe we should review the category in question, and determine if we need to create any subcats, so as to better organize the names.  Skeezix1000 17:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with both these suggestions, so long as "all" means ALL. While we've debated the importance of some figures, particularly those who weren't national leaders, no one has disputed that they were Cold Warriors. --Lawikitejana 18:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

People Creep
Well, the template has grown impossibly large again. Can it be protected? Hires an editor 01:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Scoping template
We successfully eliminated persons from the template. Now that the template has been nominated for deletion primarily due to its size (although the discussion so far is unanimous in favour of keeping the template), are there are any ways in which we could scope the template further? Any suggestions? Skeezix1000 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Add Operation Cyclone
Along with Operation Condor, I'd like to mention Operation Cyclone, which was the Cold War program for Afghanistan. Please add? --Petercorless 10:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

default collapsed?
Is there any way this could be set to collapsed rather than open by default? It's a little enormous. - TheMightyQuill 23:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

North Yemen Civil War
North Yemen Civil War has been added to the Cold War template. I removed it because I couldn't see any connection between the two, other than the accident that they happened during the 1960s. Is there any evidence for the connection? If not, let's remove it once and for all. Thanks Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 January 2013
Add the link to the article Western Bloc, as well as already present Eastern Bloc

81.100.241.18 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Dianna (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Bunkers in Albania
For what reason would this be part of the template? It's in the 1960's section, at which point Albania was a small country of just 2 million people, the article itself and the content has absolutely nothingto do with the Cold War or geopolitics, especially standing alongside much greater controversies and debacles.

It should be removed, really it's about as relevant to the Cold War as the Japanese United Red Army or the Weathermen's "Day of Rage". Maybe less so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackriter (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Source for Iraqi Ba'athist Revolution as part of the Cold War
Page 203 of Charles R. H. Tripp's A History of Iraq states that the Ba'athist coup of 1968 upset "the US-sponsored security system established as part of the Cold War in the Middle East. It appeared that any enemy of the Baghdad regime was a potential ally of the United States."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2014
Could someone please move the Hallstein doctrine link from the 1950' ov w/e to the Foreign policy section....thats where it does belong...so i wouldn't do myself...--Ivan VA (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done TLA 3x &#x266d;  →  &#x266e;  20:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Cold War II Link
The 'see also' section is for related articles per WP:ALSO, and it seems to me that the possibility of a future Cold War is relevant to this topic. By the logic on display here, the link NATO–Russia relations should also be removed; I'd argue that Cold War II is just as relevant. My restoration was reverted on the basis of "consensus", but I can't find any discussion about this issue on the provided talk page. As such, I've once again restored the link. Regardless of whether a new Cold War has been "verified" or not, the topic of a potential future Cold War falls squarely within the common sense definition of a "related article", and shouldn't be deleted without first obtaining consensus on this specific template. Legoless (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Talk:Cold War II/Archive 1, "Cold War II" neither is nor shall be implied as the successor to the Cold War. At the time, the article was very, very big. The title was discussed again. At that another time, the article was trimmed down somewhat. Over time, the article was trimmed further down to what it is now. Also, "Cold War II" is more of a media hysteria. George Ho (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it's still a topic related to the Cold War even if it doesn't deal with a direct successor. Media-hyped or not, the article name was coined with regards to the Cold War, and the page's two listed conflicts deal with many of the same parties as the Cold War. If you really think the distinction needs to be highlighted in a navbox, the link could be appended as "NATO–Russia relations (Cold War II) ". Personally I think the two articles are distinct enough to warrant separate links, and the discussions you linked above seem to agree with that sentiment. Legoless (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Right now, the Cold War II is proposed to be merged to Cold war (general term). When the RfC discussion is closed, then we shall have the inclusion discussed. George Ho (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)