Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/New Cold War - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Poeticbent (talk | contribs) at 02:55, 19 August 2008 (++). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:55, 19 August 2008 by Poeticbent (talk | contribs) (++)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)

Just to address your assertion that "this article certifies that a New Cold War exists between Russia" and the United States, that's just absolutely erroneous. The article does nothing of the sort. The article states that "'New Cold War' is a term used to describe a perceived rekindling of conflict, tension, and competition between Russia and other Western Powers." If reliable, verifiable sources are defining this term as one to refer to relations between the United States and Russia, it's our job to address that, not to superimpose our viewpoint.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
User:J is the article's author. "The article states that "'New Cold War' is a term used to describe a perceived rekindling of conflict." That's a clear violation of both WP:NOTCRYSTAL and Misplaced Pages:Avoid neologisms.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Recognizing a current perception is not predicting the future, and the term has been in general use for nearly a decade as it relates to this topic, so I think repeating your "neologism" argument doesn't make it any more accurate.   user:j    (aka justen)   03:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you not consider nearly three-thousand articles going back several years to be general use? By comparison, and with apologies to EconomistBR, "second dot com bubble" has nine.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This example shows the problems inherent in Google tests. Of the first ten articles, two are warnings not to provoke a new cold war, two are denials that any such thing exists, and the remaining six are highly duplicative. The next ten are mostly speculative articles about whether such a thing could come about. Skimming through the results convinces me that this is a term du jour at best. Google never was intended to serve this kind of purpose, and outside of identifying topics with almost no hits, it doesn't do it particularly well. As for "second dot-com bubble", I had never heard a non-joking non-hyperbolic reference to such a thing before I read your response above. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I don't like the test, either. The question shouldn't be the quantity of the sources once you get to a certain point, but the relevance and reliability. Which is why I hope you'll take a closer look at the sources cited in the article, and address those, which do define the term and address the topic. (As to Bubble 2.0, my reference to it is in jest. It appears to be a non-notable topic, which is why I think EconomistBR's bringing it up at this AfD shouldn't be used as any sort of a straw man with regard to the notability of New Cold War.)   user:j    (aka justen)   02:58, 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)
  • 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)
Can you clarify what you do define as notable? And do you have any comments on this, this, this, or this?   user:j    (aka justen)   04:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Since you asked, every time we get a face-off between the 2 superpowers the media trots out hackneyed neologisms like New Cold War. For me a neologism like Transmogrifier is notable, because it is slowly but surely establishing its notability and does not depend upon its inherent "NEW"ness or fashion. Annette46 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The third link I offered up there is from 2004, talking about a New Cold War between Russia and the West, with "Georgia the cockpit of a new cold war." Your transmogrifier neologism began in 1987, but it has had only about sixty apparent mentions in the media since then. I could cite just as many, if not more, going back nearly a decade, that clearly define and outline the topic of this article. Do you believe that this topic, as it is defined in this article, is non-notable? I think there are an overwhelming number of verifiable and reliable sources that indicate that this topic is notable, with about a dozen currently cited in the article... If you're not seeing that, I'm just not sure what to say, except that your transmogrifier might be interfering with the fact that this topic is notable...  :)   user:j    (aka justen)   06:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong Delete A google search for transmogrifier does not show ANY media hits for the first 50 results, google search would show that it is no longer a neologism but entering common speech as the best descriptive word for a particular concept. OTOH "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)
  • 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)
Uhh, perhaps, but it's much more frequently apparently used to describe the topic of this article. Nevertheless, your stated rationale doesn't support "delete," it's a reason for a disambiguation. Please take a look at WP:DEL.   user:j    (aka justen)   13:36, 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)
Who is this IP? To find IPs with intimate knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy is highly unusual. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that this person's opinion is somehow irrelevant? Registration is not required to participate. Further, I don't see any actual references to Misplaced Pages policy in this IP's statement; it seems more like an appeal to common sense. GlassCobra 21:19, 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)
Does this book from six months ago, or this one from a year ago, both in reference to Russia, fall within your fortnight policy? The article has a dozen reliable, verifiable references for the term, as presented.   user:j    (aka justen)   14:59, 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)
I wish I could substitute the wisdom of "historians" in place of the reality of "mass-media labeling," but I can't, and neither should you. When did AfD become "my opinion and my viewpoint matter more than policy"? Take care,   user:j    (aka justen)   15:42, 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)
  • 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)
Pathetic comment. You put in doubt my reputation just to prove your point, that's awful. You are not a man. Be a man at least now, and talk it out with me over there instead of smearing my reputation.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would hope that we can discuss whether this meets Misplaced Pages standards without worrying about the politics of it one way or another. I am certainly not interested in "whitewashing" Russia (and I've never heard of the Ossetia war before reading your post), but in my research I've come across the phrase "new cold war" in multiple instances since the 1970s to describe all kinds of things, including the book I cited above. This example of its being used in the past couple weeks is interesting, but no more notable than its use in other contexts, and the sources cited are strung together as if they were coherent when they are in fact talking about different things (the very definition of a WP:SYN violation). This is totally independent of anyone's feelings about Russia or Ossetia or anything else in terms of actual content. csloat (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I agree with you, you should probably be aware that showing ignorance of the war over South Ossetia diminishes rather than enhances your ability to speak with authority on this topic; it has unquestionably been the major relevant news story in the past fortnight, and arguably the single biggest international story of all in that period - it's been on the Misplaced Pages front page for a reasonable proportion of that time. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:52, 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)
We're not speculating or "crystaling." It's an article based on the media's usage of the term.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:36, 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)
Categories: