Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:32, 19 August 2008

New Cold War

New Cold War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and Misplaced Pages:Avoid neologisms. This article is doing a disservice to the history of the 20th Century. Just because some TV pundits and journalists are trowing this expression around, this article is certifying that a New Cold War exists between Russia and USA. This term is being used because it is catchy but it is still a undefined and unrecognized neologism.

To call the US-Russia war of words over the South Ossetian conflict as a full blown Cold War is premature at best, Misplaced Pages is not a WP:NOTCRYSTAL. This article suffers from the same problem as the Second dot-com bubble. Such a serious conflict should be unquestionable, an unanimity among historians and clearly defined. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment. Having an article on something is not equivalent to asserting its existence (we have articles on unicorns, Santa and so on), so most of the reasons given in the nomination are invalid.--Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. Maybe someday this will be an actual term worthy of an article, but it is hardly in general use. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The article is approaching a dozen verifiable and reliable sources (and could easily hold many more) defining the term and addressing the topic, none of which involve television pundits as far as I know. At least two published books carry the same name and discuss the topic. To address your "neologism" concern and concerns of recentism, please define what you personally consider to be "new." Take a look at a Google News Archive search for the term. Prominent coverage of the topic goes back to at least 2003, with a number of notable, verifiable, reliable sourced articles from 1999 and earlier, as well. As to your personal point of view on the topic, it's not a topic for discussion here. And this isn't the particular place for you to bring up any problems you may have with Second dot-com bubble.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEO. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Well referenced and references come from three nations' news organizations. Problems brought up such as referencing issues have been handled swiftly. Could be a great article if given a chance. LA (T) @ 03:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete not notable neologism almost exclusively referenced from recent media sources. 04:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annette46 (talk • contribs)

Strong Delete "New Cold War" means too many different things to different people. A strong notable contender for this article would be the book "New Cold War" publ 1970 auth "Edward Crankshaw" (many many google hits, its even on googlebooks) which speaks of a "new" cold war between Moscow and Pekin. I just altered my "vote" to Strong Delete Annette46 (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The neologism does not seem to be notable. However the topic of Russian-American relations in the 21st Century is, and the expression could be mentioned there. (p.s. "World War Four" gets some use too.)Steve Dufour (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism is not well enough established. Someday, we may all agree that there is a new cold war, but that is by no means certain yet. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEO. lk (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I've seen the term "new cold war" or "revived cold war" in an uncountable number of both western and English-Russian media, as well as on political talk shows etc.. It's well sourced and notable, it should stay. LokiiT (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete this term is frequently used to describe a future US-China "cold war", which is completely different from a US-Russia one. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This will be a major article given some time, also per and per clearly notable. Hobartimus (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. It is clear that, despite a considerable cooling off in international politics over the course of the 90s, the trend has been reversed and a New Cold War is very much alive and well. While the article goes a bit far in suggesting the SCO and CSTO are the red to NATO's blue, there is notable coverage of the "New Cold War". Do a google search. 62.72.110.11 (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - You'd have to have had your head in a bucket not to notice the international tension in the past fortnight. But that's not the point. The point is whether there are sufficient reliable sources to suggest that the term 'New Cold War' is an accepted description of that situation. I don't think so, personally. Not that long ago, most usage of the term related to relations between China and various other nations. I'm just not sure that, as presented, the term is notable enough. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - such things as "cold war" are the terms used by historians to label roughly some time periods on the grounds of a consensus among the academicians, usually many years after the period has started. Mass-media labeling does not apply. --CopperKettle (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's compare:

• Cold War - Soviet Union by force changes the regimes on the occupied territories to a communist ones. Now: Russia has market economy and Russian forces stationed in Georgia in the days of the Rose Revolution did nothing to prevent the power change.
• Cold War - Soviet Block citizens are prohibited from leaving the Soviet sphere of influence. Now: Russia witnessed a huge surge in the international tourism of its citizens.
• Cold War - wars-by-proxy in Korea and Vietnam, with each side trying to drastically change the economic and social ways of the country. Now: no radical changes, no ideological fight. --CopperKettle (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki and delete This is (as, to its credit, the article says) "term used to describe the perceived..." etc. It belongs on Wiktionary, not here, until it either acquires an actual (non-WP:CRYSTAL) subject, or at a minimum a recognized movement distinct from neoconservatism. The only substance here is two books with this title, heirs to a long-standing tradition of political prophecy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• support - I support Septentrionalis' proposal. That would be a fair compromise.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —  user:j    (aka justen)   17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —  user:j    (aka justen)   17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. —  user:j    (aka justen)   17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —  user:j    (aka justen)   17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Much well-sourced encyclopedic information here; plenty of sources to show that it's not "just" a neologism. Maybe would be better renamed or merged into a more comprehensive article at some point in the future, but deletion is way over the top.--Kotniski (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It's clearly been called a New Cold War before this, which suggest the article should be redone and possibly modified to include other uses such as that in relation to China or Iran. All in the term does have a lot of usage in relation to Russia, seemingly more than in relation to other countries, and so there is very good reason for keeping it. None of the Misplaced Pages policies pointed out have any relevance here. This isn't making a prediction of the future and it's not really a neologism. In general this article meets all the needed requirements for an article and I expect, even without consideration of historical mentions of a New Cold War, the current situation will be increasingly called a New Cold War, even if I personally disagree with that characterization. Even if this is later given some different name the fact this term has been so widely used to describe the existing state of affairs is of notable importance to have an article on.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Neologism. And it's been used in multiple other instances, such as to describe the rise of religious nationalism. A wikipedia article about the phrase "new cold war" would have to include multiple instances of its usage, not just the one described here. Besides, this is mostly a WP:SYN violation. csloat (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Copied from talk page per comments there: Just looking at google books, I find the following titles:

• The New Cold War: 1970 book referring to the Sino-Soviet conflict.
• The New Cold War?: 1994 book describing the rise of religious fundamentalism and nationalism
• Towards a New Cold War: 1982 book about U.S. military adventurism and support for dictators in the Middle East and East Timor
• The New Cold War: 2007 book on the failure of democratization in Russia (this one seems the only book even tangentially related to the topic of the article as it is)
• Reagan and the World: Imperial Policy in the New Cold War: 1984 book about the failure of the Reagan Administration's military policies
• Images of the Enemy: Reporting the New Cold War: 1988 book about images of the Soviet Union in US media
• El Salvador: Central America in the New Cold War: 1987 book about U.S. intervention in Central America
• The Neutral Democracies and the New Cold War: 1987 book about neutrality during the cold war
• Dead Ends: American Foreign Policy in the New Cold War: 1983 book about the failure of US adventurism
• China and the United States: A New Cold War History: 1988 book about Sino-US conflict

Those are just books with "New Cold War" in the title. There are hundreds of scholarly articles and books using this phrase going back to the 1970s, and startlingly few of them use the phrase the way it is used in this article. So those advocating "keep" must indicate if they are willing to support an article with radically different content (all the stuff about Georgia shortened to a single paragraph, and all these other uses highlighted as well), or whether they wish to merge whatever content is here into South Ossetian war. csloat (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This is a neologism, but it's not our neologism -- it's already being discussed, and as referenced there are two books on the subject. I think many of the arguments for deletion here are attempts to whitewash Russia, similar to what we're seeing at 2008 South Ossetia war, International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war, and so on (though it's worse on their talk pages, now that the articles are semi-protected and no longer exposed to anonymous IPs). Moreover, I do not think that User:EconomistBR, who created this proposal, can be relied on to be objective on this matter. He claimed that this article was an op-ed, despite the plain "News" on the top of it -- because agreeing with Human Rights Watch that the Russians' militias are burning and looting was unfriendly to Russia. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as ill-defined neologism. I actually own both the Mackinnon and Lucas books and while they have the same title they are about very different subjects. Mackinnon's book is about the color revolutions (he wanted to name it "Revolution Inc" but was shot down by his publisher), while Lucas is an "old" Cold War theoretician who never stopped thinking of Russia as an evil empire. And while both books discuss East-West energy politics (and the current conflict with Ossetia also involves East-West energy politics), THAT subject could just as easily fall under the neologism of "new great game" -- ~~ Katsam (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete On above grounds. such a war does not exist, the map is made of Bs alliances with Nato being the only one that truely is realistic. When such a thing as a NCW start up, make the article, until then, its speculation and crystaling. --Jakezing (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Discussion up to this point in the process has been moved to the talk page for this nomination. Please consider consulting and continuing lengthy discussion there.   user:j    (aka justen)   03:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The Cat is out of the Bag already with 507,000 Results for "New Cold War" in Google search. I don't see why we shouldn't have a piece about such phenomenon in Misplaced Pages than. Besides, the concept of Cold War is not a neologism by itself, so adding a new qualifier as per media reports doesn't make for a whole lot of difference. User:J makes a few other, similarly good points in this discussion (see above). --Poeticbent talk 02:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: the fact that there are half a million hits only goes to prove the point -- most of those hits do not refer to the current crisis and in fact refer to many different things. So your vote, based on your rationale, should be "delete" or "merge" with other articles about other "new cold wars." csloat (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Once again an AfD is being flooded with ridiculous delete arguments. There is no crystal-balling in the article and the subject is not speculative or predictive. It's simply noting an idea which is being discussed with increasing frequency in relation to U.S.-Russian relations. Again this satisfies all the necessary criteria for inclusion as an article and does not violate any Misplaced Pages policy. This is for all intents and purposes an article in need of improvement, not deleting.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Withdraw AfD The evidence presented by csloat proves that this term is plenty notable enough for an article, and should be expanded to include all usages that the term has enjoyed in the past few days. As I state on the talk page, deletion is clearly not the answer. This AfD should be withdrawn, and collaboration should take place on the talk page to expand this article fully. GlassCobra 06:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be more than willing to work with other editors to expand the article to recognize all verifiably notable uses of the term, and the research that User:Commodore Sloat has brought up will be extremely helpful to that end.   user:j    (aka justen)   06:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You guys don't get it, do you? First, you can't withdraw an AfD someone else started. Second, the fat that there are so many different and totally incompatible uses for this neologism shows it is not notable as used in this article. If you want to have a short article stating that "new cold war" is a neologism that has occasionally been used for topics as diverse as the sino-soviet split, the sino-US tensions, American imperial ambitions in indochina, US intervention in central America, and religious nationalism in Sri Lanka, then perhaps that would be fine but most of the stuff here would be deleted except for a sentence or two about its current use with regard to Georgia. And then we would AfD it as too vague and non-notable for Misplaced Pages. Better to kill it off now. csloat (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow - GlassCobra, what on earth makes you think you can close someone else's AfD? I propose, though, in light of Commodore Sloat's excellent compilation of sources, that there's some argument for replacing the page with a detailed disambiguation page, pointing people to the various conflicts which this term has been applied to. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think this neologism passes WP:NEO. Seems to be a non-notable term coined by few media groups.--  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 08:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates