The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum and Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related
Recent sources have been misplaced in the wrong article sections which divide presidential terms of office Sources during the presidencies of Biden and the second term of Trump should match their terms. I referenced a "The Nation" article by Dr. McCoy which discloses a September Chinese-Russian naval exercise which belongs during the Biden term and it was reverted and put into the Trump presidency. The naval power projection occurred in the late summer of 2024 during the presidential election. Presidents have distinct terms of office and sources should be properly within the presidential term. For example, a recent "Wall Street Journal" article titled "Breakdown in U.S.-China Relations Raises Specter of New Cold War" should be utilized in the current Trump term. See https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-us-economic-relations-tariffs-cold-war-ddb43fca?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalinkChurch of the Rain (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Come on folks let's get a consensus going on this and throw in a ton of sources for or against. I am adding a multiple image gallery just to reflect the concept, not define it as an event definitively. But it's worth considering an infobox also. Doeze (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an edit suggesting the most important topics for images. I also think a few more images should be dedicated to technological/strategic/economic/dual-use aspects of the US-China trade conflict, such as semiconductors, AI chips, EUV lithography machines, e.g. commons:File:231105-1 TSMC Fab 21 construction.jpg. An infobox is currently unnecessary. Doeze (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please link a more recent consensus discussion than 2021? I find it difficult to understand that such a consensus is still relevant. The image collages suggested there of course do not include the significant escalations in Europe and the Middle East, and I would imagine the majority of the article's references for the term are far more recent. The inclusion of a collage does not definitively state some kind of scholarly consensus on the existence of the conflict, and the images themselves are specifically not abstractions such as maps which could contribute to such an implication. Doeze (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why the Battle of Bucha, which this article doesn't mention yet? Why illustrating the Iran–Israel conflict, also not yet mentioned there? I'm unconvinced that images related to conflicts with China would help but rather, IMO, mislead. George Ho (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The Battle of Bucha need not be mentioned directly, it is the image used to indicate the conflict. I strongly suggested the first image choice for this article is used to represent the post-2022 Russia-Ukraine conflict. I agree the article body requires updating on the evolution of the Iran-Israel proxy conflict into direct conflict. I also believe images related to conflicts with China are crucial to the subject matter. The "Usage in a multilateral context" section's sourcing overwhelmingly places them as broadly aligned. Doeze (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I insist that the images not be included in the article, especially to attract readers with very short attention span and/or jumping into conclusions. Without a third party to input, I predict a de-facto "no consensus" on using the four images as lead images. Also, the "Usage in a multilateral context" section centers mostly on the US and its influence, IMHO. George Ho (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC); tweaked, 22:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a collage like the one in this revision. There's something discordant and jarring about using images of real military conflicts to illustrate an article about such a vague hypothetical concept. Even the Cold War article doesn't have a collage in the infobox. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 01:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WP:COLLAGE: Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. A collage here does not meet the criteria. More generally, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding. I do not see that any of the images in the collage have a clear and unique illustrative purpose falling within the guidance more fully. I tend to agree with Altenmann and others in that, this is a concept rather than an acknowledged event, unlike the Cold War. As a concept, there are no "key facts" to be summarised in an infobox per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
The redirect Cyber cold war has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 24 § Cyber cold war until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 14:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
