Talk:Second Cold War#Sergey Lavrov image in "debate over term" section

Google trends on Cold War 2 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=RU&q=cold%20war%202

Use of the term in google news: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cold+war+2

2A00:1370:8172:4F3:D99:E505:2651:5D3A (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:10, 16 March 2022‎ (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyber_cold_war&redirect=no 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 {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 24#Cyber cold war}} until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 14:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

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_permalink Church of the Rain (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

:@Doeze: Regardless, consensus has hesitated to allow lead images or even maps... Well, except a couple pics below. Collages have yet to be accepted here. Maps have been also rejected either.

:Also, {{tl|infobox military conflict}} still isn't suitable; neither is one resembling the rejected infobox template. What image and/or infobox do you want to use? George Ho (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::I reverted {{oldid2|1291214909|your insertion of those four images}} as lead images. Honestly, it's (almost?) no different from other attempts in the past, IMO, and such attempt still hasn't changed my opinion about which image to use as a lead images. George Ho (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::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)

:::::How about this discussion: August 2022 discussion about just one image (follow-up/spun-off from failed RFC attempt)?

:::::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)

::::::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)

::::::: 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)

• Strong oppose any images on top. This is a vague concept and any images purportedly representing it will constitute an opinion, hence original research of Wikipedians. --Altenmann >talk 22:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose a collage like the one in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Cold_War&oldid=1291214909 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)
• :The "Cold War" article {{oldid2|925267191|previously did}} or had changed, but then it was {{dif|1221031955|removed or replaced last year}}. George Ho (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Oppose - this is a commonly used term, not an actual conflict.

:Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COLLAGE: {{tq|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: {{tq|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 {{tq|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)