Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cold War

message: There is an ongoing Request for Comment about the introduction to the article Whataboutism.
You may comment if you wish, at Talk:Whataboutism#RfC:_Introduction_to_the_subject. Sagecandor (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment - Introduction to Whataboutism 

message: Season's greetings, I just wanted ya'll to know that there's a discussion at the Cold War talk page that I have a feeling may interest you. Best, GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Brilliant Pebbles; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Brilliant Pebbles]] needs attention 

message: Hi, I invite you to edit and expand this article United States involvement in regime change in Latin America that would certainly benefit from more editors. Greetings. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to edit 

message: A requested move discussion has been initiated for :East Bengali refugees to be moved to Bengali Hindu refugees. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude , or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
===Please come and help...===
This page-move discussion has just been relisted at Talk:East Bengali refugees#Requested move 10 March 2018, and your input would be much appreciated. Please come and help with your opinion and rationale about whether or not this article should be renamed. Thank you very much in advance!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:East Bengali refugees]] listed at Requested moves

message: This page-move discussion has just been relisted at Talk:East Bengali refugees#Requested move 10 March 2018, and your input would be much appreciated. Please come and help with your opinion and rationale about whether or not this article should be renamed. Thank you very much in advance!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Please come and help...

message: The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template .
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass.  Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
=== Background ===
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    07:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject collaboration notice from the [[WP:WPPORT|Portals WikiProject]] 

message: On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    07:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: I've started an RFC about the infobox contents at Communist Party of China please feel free to comment. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC at [[Communist Party of China]] 

message: Hey so an article in your project (Examination of Apollo Moon photographs) (and one I believe relevant to your interests) has been nominated for AfD by yours truly. Article has had issues related to POV, lack of reliable sources, use of original research, and a lack of wikipedia-like style for at least a decade. These issues have not been fixed. All useful and wikipedia-relevant content has already been merged into Moon landing conspiracy theories. The fact that this article exists at all on wikipedia reduces the overall reputation of the wiki. All relevant photographs already exist on the other page, all relevant citations already exist there, etc. So if you'd like to contribute to that discussion, go ahead and check out --->Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (2nd nomination). Thanks!--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[Examination of Apollo Moon photographs]] for deletion (discussion [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (2nd nomination)|here]]) 

message: This article—of interest to this project—is currently undergoing a peer review. All project members are welcome to comment there. Thank you! ——SerialNumber54129 19:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Percy Glading]] 

message: A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
:– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new newsletter directory is out! 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether :Portal:Cold War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cold War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Cold War]] for deletion 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: There is a discussion about Template:Inter Cold War Tensions and Second Cold War which may interest participants at this Wikiproject. Please give your opinion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 14#Template:Inter Cold War Tensions and Second Cold War. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template discussion 

message: Ian Smith has been nominated for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  23:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian Smith Featured article review 

message: Korean Air Lines Flight 007, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean Air Lines Flight 007 

message: Hi! There are two RfCs open about wording in the article Battle of Huế, located at its talk page here and here. Any participation is welcome! — MarkH21talk 08:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfCs on MOS:NOTUSA and lead paragraph wording for [[Battle of Huế]] 

message: I have nominated Gerald Ford for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gerald Ford FAR 

message: Your participation is invited at . Thanks, Lev!vich 03:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of RFC at Category:Communism 

message: I have noticed an ambivalence of sorts in relation to Romania's status during the Cold War. While Socialist Romania lacks the "satellite state" tag in its article, it is still shown as such on certain maps. My latest large-scale project is aimed and dismantling once and for all the inaccurate notion that Romania was a Soviet satellite, and thus to bring clarity to this issue. I worked on a comprehensive paragraph on the Satellite state article which treats every aspect in detail and with all due sources. Let's take the characteristics of a satellite state one by one, and see why Romania didn't fit in any: 
* Political: One may argue that the Romanian Communist regime continued in its practices due to some Soviet pressure. Ofcourse, this notion fails to account for Stalinist and isolationist Albania at the time, and for a modern example, devoutly Communist Cuba. The longevity or harshness of a Communist regime in a country other than China isn't necessarily tied to Soviet influence, as was also Romania's case. In international affairs, most conclusively, Romania was the only Warsaw Pact country ever to vote against the Soviet Union in the UN Assembly, and sent athletes to the Soviet-boycotted 1984 Olympics. There is also the infamous denunciation of the Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
* Economic: Romania firmly rejected Soviet designs on its economy in 1964, and this was apparently seen as the moment when Romania declared its independence from the Soviets. Things escalated to such extent in 1967 a special provision was adopted by the Comecon at least in part due to Romania's actions, to prevent it from outright leaving or driving the alliance to an impasse. Romania was the only WP country who traded mostly with non-Communist states and was a member of both the IMF and the World Bank. Soviet economic leverage over Romania was almost non-exisent due to the country's oil and grain. 
* Military: There were no Soviet troops in Romania starting from 1958. From 1962, Romania also refused to take part in WP exercises or host them, didn't allow foreign troops on its territory, Soviet or otherwise.
As you can see, all aspects of satellite statehood do not hold up under scrutiny. The notion of Romania being a satellite after 1964 is moot. It's Warsaw Pact membership doesn't change this, if anything it makes it even more conclusive: Romania managed all this while remaining in the Pact! All that I said above is sourced, though not here. It's all in the paragraph I wrote in the Satellite state article. Based on all these facts, I urge the immediate modification of maps that portray Romania as Soviet-aligned, such as this (should paint Romania a different color and have text "Former USSR-aligned country (Romania, aligned until 1964)"). This map is a potent counter-example which accurately portrays the situation. This is another offender: again, paint Romania differently and add "USSR-aligned until 1964". Here too, Romania should be orange like Albania. 
Edit: I forgot to address this, largely because I haven't written and sourced this argument in any actual article yet, but I preliminarily address it here: Some may wonder, if Romania was independent, why it stayed in the Pact to begin with? It wasn't Soviet coercion, at least not primarily. We can conclusively see this in the Pact's summit in December 1989, right after Malta. As late as then, Ceausescu - alone among his peers - argued for a strengthening of the Warsaw Pact. Truth be told, he was about as much a Communist as he was a nationalist. Why didn't Romania leave? Because Ceausescu wanted the Pact, he wanted Romania to be in it, and he wanted it to be strong against NATO. Source for this is here, might use it later. Transylvania1916 (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I agree with your initiative. I wonder if this could be mentioned in Socialist Republic of Romania as well. It might be good to clarify Romania's status there. Super Ψ Dro 11:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romania: getting things straight  

message: I have nominated Hungarian Revolution of 1956 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of Featured Article Review

message: I have nominated Mozambican War of Independence for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR for Mozambican War of Independence 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Afghanistan conflict (1978–present)#Requested move 11 July 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Afghanistan conflict (1978–present)#Requested move 11 July 2022]] 

message: User:Buidhe has nominated Inner German border for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR for Inner German border 

message: I would like to say that this wikiproject is important, and i suggest that this wikiproject should be reactivated. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important wikiproject