Talk:Cold War/Archive 4

message: There is some MAJOR vandalism on this page that needs to be cleaned up immediately!  Suggest that the page be then locked down.
I find it amazing that an article on the Cold War makes no mention of the Cuban Missile Crisis. bob rulz 09:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
:Fair point-- this was r a good article. Right now the survey of the history is found in the series, which appears in the box at the top right corner of the article. The Cuban Missile Crisis is covered in the page dealing with 1953 to 1962. 172 | Talk 20:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message:  
Because the Cold War is such a large topic, it made sense to create a portal. At this point I'm thinking about taking the template at the bottom and moving it to the portal. Same goes for the bibliography. Further down this page is some discussion about the number of references cited. Why not have a wikipage just for this as part of the portal?
Hires an editor 00:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal Created

message: On 4 August 2005 I made the following contribution - a new section called "Real Battles":
"For four years the United States and the Soviet Union managed to keep a dangerous secret: they had actually been involved in direct battles. During the Korean War they had fought air battles for two and a half years, in which 1,700 American and Soviet pilots were killed. To both sides it was crucial that this was not made public, since it could very well have led to World War III. The air battles occured mostly in northwest Korea, south of the Jalu river, in an area called "Mig Alley" by the American pilots. The Soviet objective was to take down the American bomber planes and their escorts, primarily F-86 Sabre fighters, in order to protect the ground transports from China to the Chinese troops in Korea. Some estimate that the American airforce lost a quarter of its total number of bombers worldwide. In total, 3,500 American and 1,000 Soviet aircraft were shot down.
Why was this kept a secret? In 1992 the British journalist Jon Halliday interviewed Herbert Brownell, one of president Eisenhower's closest men. According to Brownell, it had to swept under the rug since it otherwise would have led to demands for an open war with Russia."
It was removed by "172" on the following grounds: (this new section reads like a personal essay. on the talk page you and other editors can discuss how to incorporate some of these facts in the series, as the section is not yet ready to be posted.)
I sincerely do not understand why it "reads like a personal essay". Of course, I am a person, and I wrote it. Please clarify: Is it badly written? Are the facts questionable? Are there any POV? What's the problem? I believe these facts are very important to incorporate into the Cold War article, since until I had read about it in a book, I had no idea that any real battle had taken place between US and USSR.
Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 01:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Battles - added again 

message: i think the conventional and nuclear arms race b/w the two blocs shld be mentioned in the opening paragraph.
-- Doldrums 16:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "arms race" in opening paragraph 

message: I suggest we simply list :Category:Cold War people in the See also section, why manually duplicate it in this already long article? In case there is a consensus to keep it, the title needs to be downcased as per WP:NC#Lowercase second and subsequent words.  ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of political figures 

message: There were several books on this subject during the Cold War period - mostly claiming (IIRC) that the West was losing to the Communists (for a variety of reasons, some of which have since been shown to be false). All that Wikipedia has on the subject is a computer game. Can something be developed?
The topic of why these predictions were wrong would be an interesting line of research (if Wikipedia decides to adopt such activities).
Jackiespeel 16:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Third World War

message: The map shows Iraq as pro-Soviet. The map claims it's an accurate depiction until 1959. This is very misleading because Iraq only became pro-Soviet in 1958. Prior to that it was the leading member of the Baghdad Pact (NATO but for central-south Asia). I think the map should be removed or changed to be more accurate. In the first stage of the Cold War, Iraq is very much pro-West.
:I changed "up until" to "in" in order to eliminate confusion. CJK 21:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Map is wrong

message: Regarding your edits on Cold War, please read Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. The terms "free world" and "communist totalitarian regimes" are not value neutral; nor are they even clear and accurate descriptions of the often-changing and diffuse alliances that took shape throughout the Cold War period. Western-style democracies like India, for example, would at times lean closer to the Soviets while some Communist states like Tito's Yugoslavia and China following its normalization of relations with the U.S. would toward the Americans. Please discuss your changes if you're unclear of the broad survey of Cold War history instead of continuing to revert back to the problem version. 172 | Talk 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The terms were used at the time in Cold War propaganda, just as the Soviet bloc referred to itself as "the people's democracies." Please use neutral terminology in accord with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. 172 | Talk 07:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: To Katrina&TheWaves/LittleDeadBuddy/24.0.91.81 (assuming these accounts have been operated by the same editor

message: At the time of this posting, User:Shran is the latest of the series of new and anon accounts to place a dispute tag in this article without offering an explanation of exactly what is in dispute on talk. I have removed the tag, as there can be no dispute and thus no dispute tag without a statement of what specifically is in dispute. To clear up the matter as quickly as possible, I also notified this editor individually on his/her talk page.  172 | Talk 13:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Shran and the dispute tag

message: This article obviously needs a good and proper cleanup; I just wish I knew more about the subject so that I could help - I thought I'd just point out that Nuclear warfare has a section of some 2000 words on the Cold War - probably too much; either way they need to complement each other. I'll be campaigning for this article's featureing on the Article Improvement Drive. --BigBlueFish 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nuclear warfare]] 

message: What's up with the beginning of the article (where the introduction paragraph is on nearly all Wikipedia articles, followed by the Contents)? It's overly long and improperly formatted. I looked in the recent history to see if it was some kind of mistake, but apparently it's been there. Is there any particular reason why it's left like this? Am I missing something?
--Iten 07:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of the article (before the Contents section) 

message: the first half of the article is incompetent and illiterate, full of howlers (like Greece and Turkey were Communist), It has to be redone from scratch. As it stands it's the worst history article I have seen in Wiki. Rjensen 08:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article wasn't nearly as bad a few days ago. Much of the contents were replaced by a series of personal essays that went unnoticed and did not get reverted right away. I restored the established version of the article, which is not great, but at least much better. 172 08:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks--you have improved it!  It still needs lots of work, Rjensen 08:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After those recent edits, blanking the article would have been an improvement! I restored an older version, which itself was never too good. For a while I've been wanting to write a new version of the article with a structure similar to the one you laid out in the (much needed) literature review toward the bottom. In the meantime, this article requires daily vigilance or incompetent edits, such as those recent howlers about Communists in Greece and Turkey. 172 08:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is incompetent 

message: Here is a summary of certain events in the Cold War. Read through and pick out the events that lacks in your own article, f.ex. The Vietnam War and The Iron Curtain.
The Iron Curtain: Winston Churchill, the British leader at that time, was the first to warn of the USSR communistic expansion into Europe. In a speech, he uses the expression ‘iron curtain’ to explain what was going on in east –Europe: From Stettin by the Baltic-coast to Trieste by the Aegean Sea, an iron curtain has been drawn, right through the Continent. Behind that line lays all the Capitals of central - and Eastern Europe. […] The Communism Parties, which all are in minor, searches everywhere to reach dictatorial power. This is definitively not the emancipated Europe we fought to raise. Truman agreed with Churchill. What were really Stalin’s plans? The communistic parties were the greatest in both France and Italy. The Western Powers could not compete with the army of the Soviet Union. The US had sent home most of the troops. Would entire Europe soon turn communistic? That was what the US feared. 
	The Iron curtain went from German Baltic coast; it divided Germany in two parts (the West and the East), before it continued by the Czechoslovakia – Austrian border, and between Yugoslavia and Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Albany. All states located east of the iron curtain, belonged to the East Block (Albany changed side in 1968), and all located west of the line, belonged to the West Block. Germany was the only country which had been divided on both sides of the line (this was because of intern problems). This happened when the NATO – alliance was formed. 
	Stalin, on his hand, forced by power all states within the block to worship communism. This was a big threat to the West, and USA, Britain, France tried to attack Soviet; but without succeeding. 
It was not only in Europe the war took place. A parallel warfare was also degenerated in Asia, especially Korea, China, and Vietnam, and in the former European colonies. The well-known Vietnam War is closely linked to the Cold War. In Vietnam, there was a communistic govern, ruled by Ho Chi Minh, and most people were communists (in opposition to Greece and Turkey). North – Vietnam (Vietnam was divided into North and South in the same year as the Warsaw Patch was signed) was a former French colony, and after the 2.World War, France wanted to regain their rule there. The Vietnams wouldn’t agree to that, and the French was defeated. In South – Vietnam, things went on a little different: The Government had not much support among the people because it was corrupt and ineffective. A communistic rebellion movement was established: Vietcong. Most people in the south were non-communistic, but also here the riots were looked up upon. The community in South – Vietnam asked USA of help against the communists in the north, and they chose to fulfil the demand; in the American election campaign in 1964, the President, Lyndon B. Johnson, said: An Asia threatened by a communistic government will put even the safety of USA in danger. He was elected President with a great gram the plural. Now, a massive war against the communistic guerrilla in Vietnam began. The newest technological weapons of the richest state in the world was put into use on pour Vietnamese warriors; heavily armed helicopters, missiles, machine guns, but above all; the dreadful weapon napalm! Napalm is burning fluid that was used on farms and acres as well as at the people. It burns through your skin like liquid plastic, even under water! You die instantly if you get some of it on your body. Even today, USA is criticized because of their warfare in Vietnam, forty years ago. Here in Norway, as in many other countries, we strongly desisted from the Vietnam War. 
Summary: 	1950ies – The French loses in north against Ho Chi Minh, who gets help from China (another communistic state). 
		1964 – The American President, L. B. Lyndon, sends soldiers to South – Vietnam to fight the communists in the North.
		1968 – The American troops has now reached over 500 000 men. It is major protests against the American warfare in USA and Europe. Richard Nixon, the new President, promises to quit the war; bring the boys home.
		1973 – Armistice. The American troops leave Vietnam. 			1974 – The peace – negotiations collapses. The War breaks lose again.
1975 – North – Vietnam conquers south – Vietnam, and the Americans leave the country for good. Vietnam is united under a communistic govern.
Vemund 19:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribution! 

message: Why is PR of China shown as an ally of the Soviet Union on the map?  China was always viewed as a wild card in the whole thing.  While they were Communist, they didn't exactly agree with the USSR and during the 1980s (at least) it was thought that if the US and the USSR did go to war, they could possibly wind up on either side if they got involved at all.  I do know that at least Albania (and possibly others) weren't really viewed as in the Soviet sphere of influence, they in the Chinese.Rt66lt 21:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: People's Republic of China

message: Thanks Fenice for that edit, I think that was the right move! TGoldsmith 23:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not reinsert the photo of the atomic blast. It's too cliched and sensational. Besides, the Cold War never came to that. 172 00:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The 3RR does not limit measures against possible sockpuppet vandalism. When an anonymous IP range such as 24.0.91.81 makes a sweeping change with an edit summary "revert control freak vandalism" without engaging in the discussion on talk, established users will assume that the IP range is a sockpuppet possibly vandalizing an article. Now, I already attempted to answer your question regarding why I consider your edits earlier idosyncratic. Please try to engage in those content concerns, as opposed to the personal ones. 172 23:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I wrote most of the content in the Cold War series, but not on the Cold War page. Right now I am monitoring the page for problematic edits because no other established Wikipedia user is doing it. By the way, you may want to take note of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. 172 00:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and Definition  

message: Before having more revert wars, lets settle upon a basic concept for this article: 
What changes need to be made during the AID-collaboration, especially in terms of outline and contents?--Fenice 08:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is premature. As of this writing, the the article is not subject to an AID. The nomination may still fail. 172 08:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As I have suggested elsewhere, I believe some of the first changes that should be made would be within the overall periodisation, which bears huge relevance to many of the sub-articles. It seems odd that we have two reasonably short sub-periods, followed by a vast concluding period.... We need, I believe, a more finely-grained periodisation. Paul James Cowie 08:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: TGoldsmith, I already explained to you why your edits were idyosincratic in my 01:10, 18 January 2006 post. You have not engaged in those concerns. The echo by 155.84.57.253, who may or may not be a sockpuppet, is not persuasive. 172 22:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not accusing you of being a sockpuppet. I was referring to 155.84.57.253. This page chronically attracts sockpuppets an anonymous IP ranges, which is what I am keeping in mind. Your edits were idosyncratic because of the insertion of a coincidence of random pieces of information that are not directly relevant to the summaries provided in prominent parts of the article. For example, the Bernstein and Orwell references in the intro may be interesting anecdotes to start off an essay on the Cold War; but they are off topic in the intro of an encyclopedia's general article on the Cold War. 172 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A "definition" section is not standard to the WP:MOS. Further, the contents of the section were redundant considering the content already contained in the intro and the historical overview. 172 00:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concept: AID-collaboration

message: The adjectives "open yet restricted" have previously been applied to the Cold War within the introduction this article. This may appear to be oxymoron to some readers. Could the use of these adjectives be clarified / elaborated upon? Paul James Cowie 18:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The opening sentence has been simplified, now referring to the post-World War II struggle between the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies. 172 23:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No. Not all Soviet allies were describable as Soviet satellite states. Not even all Warsaw Pact-member states were describable as Soviet satellites. Romania under Ceausescu, most notably, often asserted an independent line on intenational affairs, with its close ties to China and denunciations of certain Soviet actions such as the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. 172 23:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The regimes that controlled Warsaw Pact member states were aligned with the Soviet Union. The term does not necessarily carry the connotations that you seem to be suggesting. BTW, the Cold War entry in Encarta uses the term "allies" in the same context in its intro.  172 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxymoronic (?) Adjectives in Introduction 

message: I've been attempting to slightly expand the introduction to the Cold War article, building on what was there previously, generally clarifying the nature and range of the struggle and incorporating additional internal links to relevant articles. Unfortunately, my edits have not been debated, but rather reverted wholesale without discussion, together with a number of other editors contributions, similarly reverted. Could we engage in more discussion please, particularly as we approach a probable period of work under an AID? Paul James Cowie 08:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I welcome your input. I regret your statement that you'd felt as if some of your edits were reverted with excessive haste. When the page history of an article is as unstable as that of this article, at times edits get reverted with insufficient deliberation. I will take care to avoid that habit. I know that you are a legitimate contributor, as opposed to a one of the sockpuppet ranges like 155.84.57.253/24.0.91.81/Shran/et al vandalizing this article. I will make sure that I give your subsequent edits and input on the article proper consideration. 172 23:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The article has an extremely long list of books and other materials which are not refernced in the article. This seems to be a violations of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. As such, I propose removing this list.Ultramarine 13:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the list seems unreasonable long, then don't read all the books. The goal here is to point users to the main authoritative studies that cover most of the world over 40+ years. The is NOT an indiscriminate grab-bag. I activelt searched for authoritative references, by going through the scholarly reviews and surveys and chose the most-recommended titles. (I did not include my own recent book on the Cold War.) The Wiki rules call for 1) using the standards of the relevant discipline (history and international relations), and 2) "In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite."  I prepared the list on the assumption that people who are seriously interested in the Cold War -- or who have to write a history or political science termpaper--would appreciate help on where to turn for more depth than an encyclopedia can provide. Rjensen 15:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If any of the material is used as reference for the article, then use the appropriate standard for Wikipedia citation. In particular, there should be an inline reference to a particular source. Otherwise is should be removed as per the Wikipedia policy. However, I can accept that we move it to a special list article. Ultramarine 15:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: History articles need bibliographies, and this one now has one. As for references, several hundred previous contributors ignored the rule of putting in their sources--hardly anyone did. The article covers one of the longest and most wide-ranging events in the last 200 years so we need to help users with resources they need.  I just quoted the Wiki policy: in a nutshell it says GO OUT AND GET BEST SOURCES. So they definitely belong. Rjensen 15:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That Wikipedia policy has been violated previously is no excuse for continuing to do it. Please use inline references. Again, I propose moving the section to special list article. It is very strange and not encyclopedic that an unexplained list of books is longer than the article itself. Ultramarine 15:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Therefore, I propose a bibliography of at most 10 good books, and preferably less, that may be of interest to a layman who want to learn more. Ultramarine 16:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bibliographies are a necessary part of this article. Encyclopedias are designed to help readers and the bibliog does that, Why is it long? It is short: there are tens of thousands of books out there on the topic, and indeed too many for beginners to handle. Why is the article so short? Because this is the OVERVIEW historiographical article on the Cold War, not the detailed narratives that already are separate. I suggest we move instead the Documents. Any problems with that? Rjensen 15:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, there can be bibliography. But the current one is much too long, compare with other articles. Your list is by far too long for those who want to read more, Wikipedia is primarily for the public, not for an academic researcher with unlimited time and interest. I do agree that we should move the documents. Ultramarine 16:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Therefore, I propose a bibliography of at most 10 good books, and preferably less, that may be of interest to a layman who want to learn more. Ultramarine 16:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Rjensen; for this particular topic, the appropriate bibiography is considerably longer than it would be for most articles.  The documents are more appropriate to move to subarticles.--ragesoss 16:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, looking over it again, it is kind of excessive, considering that it has separate lists for many separate aspects and periods which might be better left to the subarticles.  That, and the bibliography doesn't even include William Appleman Williams, even though that is probably still one of the most influential origins of the Cold War books.  And I'm not sure about calling the three historiography division "periods".  Williams wrote in 1959, and Gaddis and others were still doing "traditional" Cold War history into the 70s.--ragesoss 16:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I moves the sources.  As for how many books--the idea is not that people will read all of them! Rather that they will zero in on a subtopic and want to follow it in depth.  If they want a survey, those are listed too. If they don't want to read a book, they can ignore the bibliography.   Who is Wiki for? Actually it has thousands of reasonably technical articles and that is its strength.  Wiki is "for the public" yes, and for 15 million college students writing papers. Generally profs insist that students use books (see the discussions on H-TEACH on www.h-net.msu.edu for evidence) and therefore they need bibliographies. Rjensen 18:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you overall.  But I do think that the more narrow books would be more appropriate for the subarticles.  And in general, the article should point people to the best places to start, the most authoritative or influential works, rather than supply a complete bibliography.  Too many choices can be overwhelming and actually reduce the usefulness of the article to students writing papers.--ragesoss 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we're agreed. the Big bibliographies run 20 to 100 pages, but I tried to give 10-20 books per section. Students at small colleges will discover their library only has a couple of these books...and those at big universities will discover most are checked out! Rjensen 19:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding the Williams stuff, btw.  Shouldn't Tragedy of American Diplomacy be under the origins section rather than historiography?  I realize that it is mainly of interest historiographically (i.e., it was the foundation of a massive amount of further work, much of it by Williams's students) but the book itself is more historical argument than historiographical analysis, and I think a fair number of historians still accept the book's general premise, despite the rise of post-revisionism (at least, my professor did in the class where I wrote a Cold War historiography paper).--ragesoss 19:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe there should be a separate Cold War historiography article; if there is any topic that would merit a separate article just on historiography, this is it, as the different ways of writing about and conceptualizing the Cold War are significant in and of themselves.--ragesoss 19:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: William can of course go either way--I suspect most historians today look at Williams as of historiographical importance and cite later works on specific historical episodes.   This Cold War article has become historiography, as well it should.  Question: Should we spin off ARMS RACE as a separate article (where people are more likely to find it). It is even more a miltary history topic than diplomatic. Rjensen 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Cold War article could do with a couple more spin-offs, Arms Race among them.  I would also say Origins of the Cold War (reaching back to before WWII) could be separate from the first temporal article.--ragesoss 19:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I support ragesoss proposal to create a separate historiography article. Ultramarine 20:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A main article on the historiography is a great idea. The existing section on the historiography in the Cold War article will serve as the summary of a main article on the historiography. 172 20:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case someone is going to write an historiography article, I've put an old paper I wrote (on historiography of the origins of the cold war) on my talk page: User:Ragesoss/Cold War.  It's not great by any stretch, probably biased in significant ways, too detailed, and too colloquial, but  some of it may be salvagable (or not).  I don't know enough about Cold War historiography to assess its merit, but for someone who does, a few parts of it may save them some writing.--ragesoss 21:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! that will help.  I hope to work on the historiography soon. Rjensen 21:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Long list

message: Some say beginnings of the Cold War can be observed in the so-called Warsaw Uprising of 1944. The USSR disallowed US (and UK?) bombers to land in Soviet territory, a necessary stop as Warsaw was too far east to leave, attack, and return to western airfields. Stalin's intention was, it is argued, to insert a sympathetic and soviet friendly government in Poland; for this purpose he harboured the 'Lublin Government' in Moscow throughout the war. England, with an historic association to the Poland, supported a different group. Just a thought.
I think someone should take the time to go through the online documents at the UK national archives, for instance the war cabinet meetings protocols. I unfortunately, have to make a living, so time is limited.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2006/january/january1/review.htm
At the Cabinet meeting in April 1945 the PM welcomed representatives of the Dominions to the meeting during which they reviewed the world situation.  The PM and Jan Smuts, the South African Prime Minister, made some interesting comments on how they saw the world at the time:
P.M.
R. 
relations have deteriorated since Yalta…Hope we shall get through:
but only by unity.  New balance (or lack of balance) of power in
Europe.
These are the dominating world facts.  How can we match them?
Only by our superior statecraft & experience & above all by our Unity…
Smuts. …World needs our maturity & experience.  Danger of power suddenly
acquired w´out experience & mature responsibility – exemplified
by Germany & Japan.  Hope won´t be true of U.S. & Russia.
We have renounced Imperialism.  But what of the economic
imperialism of U.S.A. & the ideological imperialism of U.S.S.R.
Eire is a warning tht. we may easily break up, as did Roman Empire.
W.M.(45)39th Meeting held on 3 April 1945.
At the meeting of the caretaker Cabinet in June 1945 the PM gave his views of de Gaulle and the Russian advance into the heart of central Europe. The latter is almost a forerunner of his Iron Curtain speech:
P.M.
But no hope of trustworthy relations with France until we are rid of 
de Gaulle.
This advance of R. into heart of central Europe will be one
of most terrible events in history.  Don´t believe they will
willingly go back at least in this generation.  10 European
capitals fall into R. hands.
W.M.(45)7th Meeting held on 11 June 1945.
Stor stark7 23:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold War Beginnings in 1944, 1945 or 1947? 

message: Is there a reference to it being a 600 year old term? George Orwell used it specifically to the developing international relationships wrt the development of the atomic bomb (read the essay on his page!), the USSR was included in this.  It seems absurd to suggest that it wasn't in reference to what we call the "cold war"! it couldn't have been anything else!.  "General usage" is also POV terminolgy, "general usage" with respect to whom exactly? The term in the context of post WWII international relationships and the atomic bomb was first used by George Orwell.  I edited the page to reference that, almost anyone can be claimed to have "popularised" the term or brought it into "general usage", is there going to be an argument between advocates of Baruch and Lippmann regading which individual was the most "famous" or "important" (and hence deserves credit for bringing it to the attention of the hoi polloi?).  The page is about what happened post WWII, the first person to use the term in the context of those times and events was Orwell.
Surely the most obvious and non-pov statement to make would be to state 'who said it first' and leave it at that.  I don't want to get into a revert war over this, so im not re-editing anything until some sort of discussion has taken place.  All thoughts welcome, etc. 82.46.144.194 21:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good explanation! fair enough then, although Baruch should probably be included to round everything off.  Could you also put TCGTTCW book as a citation in the text?82.46.144.194 20:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok - done Rjensen 21:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of term "COLD WAR"

message: I just started an article called New Look (policy) (out of info that used to be on New Look!). It needs some help. Also, what do people think about the term pactomania? I have no idea where it came from, but Googling from it seems to turn up the term on bunches of tests. -HiFiGuy 01:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Look

message: Kudos to whomever inserted the Cold War picture box at the top of the article, à la those found at the top of World War One and World War Two. Had been meaning to do one myself for a bit, but didn't find time to get around to it.
I wonder if we could discuss / debate the pictures to be included, however? The top / main image, for example, currently shows Reagan and Gorbachev in a warm fireside meeting - not what I would call typical of the Cold War.... My suggestion would be a Featured Picture-worthy image of the Berlin Wall, perhaps, symbolic of the East-West divide, of the enduring (non-hostile) hostility within the Cold War, and of both the origins (ashes of WWII) and the end (Fall of the Wall) of the Cold War as a global struggle.
What do others think? Paul James Cowie 17:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, but I decided to replace the images of Khruschev and the ICBM with images of Sputnik and Joe 1, the first Soviet atomic test to represent the space race and show a better example of the Soviet-US nuclear arms race. -- Clevelander 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the fireside chat Gorbachev/Reagan photo should not be at the top of the article. If youre going for the two main leaders, Kennedy and Kruschev would be better: :Image:Kennedy and Khrushchev in Vienna 1961.png -- Astrokey44|talk 06:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see, I fixed up the image a bit and added new images of Sputnik, ther Berlin Wall, and Kennedy and Khrushchev instead of Reagan and Gorbachev.   I felt that the suggested image of Kennedy and Khrushchev was too dark, so I decided to use another one from a free-use site (which also, IMO better represents both leaders - and it's another photograph from the same 1961 Vienna summit). -- Clevelander 02:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes thats a much better picture thanks. I had only said that one because it was the only one I could find on commons of the two together. -- Astrokey44|talk 11:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold War Picture Box 

message: How does one edit the "navigate through history" for the Cold War, because there are two things I think that need added. Under the 1980s, I think that glasnost and perestroika should be mentioned, and in the "other" column for world leaders, Margaret Thatcher should be added, and also possibly Pope John Paul II (both had several meetings with Gorbachev over the years).
:Welcome to Wikipedia! In order to edit templates such as the one at the bottom, you must access this page:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cold_War
:I'll make the necessary additions and revisions that you requested.  Indeed Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher had a great impact on the Cold War. -- Clevelander 03:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Box at the Bottom 

message: So, I've finally come up with a proposed new periodisation, in line with the improvements I suggested when I nominated Cold War for the Wikipedia:Article_Improvement_Drive back in early January 2006..... Following is my rationale / explanation.... Please comment / discuss:
Origins of the Cold War - to deal with the immediate post-war superpower relations (1945-46) and relevant preceding events
1947-1953 - from the generally recognised start date to the change in leadership for both superpowers (Truman >> Eisenhower and Stalin >> Kruschev)
1953-1962 - from the dual change in superpower leadership to the Cuban Missile Crisis
1962-1969 - from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the start of Détente / arms talks, US moon landing
1969-1979 - from start of Détente to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
1979-1985 - the so-called Second Cold War, from the Soviet invasion of Afghanisation to the rise of Gorbachev
1985-1991 - from the rise of Gorbachev to the collapse of the Soviet Union
This periodisation will supersede the massive span of time (1962-1991 = 29 years!!) that featured in the current 3rd sub-period article.... Clearly unworkable!
Paul James Cowie 19:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: looks good to me, A bit too heavy on Russsian namesRjensen 05:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have merged Cold War (1962-1991) into these articles. Wasnt sure about which references/significant documents to use for each so I added them to all of them -- Astrokey44|talk 03:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed New Periodisation 

message: I don't think this bit has gotten enough attention. It's a huge piece of history, and the information on how the Cold War ended was skeletal as best. I added some genreal info about the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union by the arms race that was forced by Reagan, but if someone with some real expertise could do some touch up on my generalizations I'd appreciate it. Brihard 09:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the economic crisis was spectacular. The USSR had world power pretensions and could barely feed and house its own people. Workers would take the train 100 miles to shop for ordinary canned foods in Moscow. (trains were cheap--food was cheap--there just was not much on the shelves. It was an event in Moscow when stores had apples or oranges. They never had bananas.) The military had huge rockets but that was old 1960s technology--the Soviet bloc was unable to make computer chips and the few new computers in use had been smuggled in. It knew it could not build the new computerized military technology? Rjensen 10:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ultramarine 11:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I'm pretty serious. The Soviets by 1980 had failed to make the transition to the computer age. All their technology was old analog stuff. They were years behind and it was getting worse. It was not possible to catch up by squeezing the civilian sector (which was in dreadful shape). Example: I personally visited the computer science department at the leading university MGU in April 1986. They had two Apple computers as their best technology. They had a mainframe and it was running FORTRAN that was a version 15 years old (1970s)--that had been stolen in Ceylon. America meanwhile announced plans to spend hundreds of billions on computerized star wars technology.  This I suggest explains why the military demanded reform of the sort Gorbachev offered. Rjensen 12:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The failure to match the computer revolution meant that USSR would fall further and further behind. It was already behind South Korea of all places. When Reagan announced a very high tech, very expensive star wars weapons systems, the USSR had to match it, or surrender its military pretentions and its empire. Reagan refused to let high tech be sold to USSR. Their main university in 1986 was able to buy two little Apple computers for its computer science department--that was it. Other departments had none. How could they train the next generation of computer scientists? they couldn't and so fell even further behind.  Reagan's people (esp Schulz at State) realized that the computer revolution was a major turning point in world history, and the Soviets agreed. So they had to get out of the arms race as fast as possible. Rjensen 13:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The structural problems of the Soviet economy went far beyond computer technology, and they certainly didn't start as late as Reagan's term of office.  However, SDI ("star wars") was a clever way to escalate the rivalry in financial terms with a minimum of strategic risk, so it may have accelerated the process. Peter Grey 15:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: End of the Cold War

message: Personally I think the War infobox for the Cold War adds nothing to the page and actually detracts somewhat given the hugely complex and global nature of the Cold War, which was primarily fought by non-military means.  I removed the ridiculously huge one yesterday or whenever it was; I have left this one in but shall await a consensus before acting on it. Cripipper 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote on the infobox is no. Even though I updated it, the infobox gives a false impression of the "war", and is contradicted anyway by the text in the intro: that it wasn't a "hot" war. Few people died as a direct result, and the proxy wars are where most lives were lost, e.g., the Korean War. People in China didn't die from the war, they died because of some bad decisions by the Chinese government, and certainly weren't "combatants." Hires an editor 01:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Should be labelled as being allies of the United States. And, depending on the time period of the map, so should Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.
And Botswana, while pro-Western, was pretty much non-aligned.
:The map is of 1980.  Malawi is shown as a U.S. ally, and by this time Iran was not and neither was Zimbabwe. Cripipper 23:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran and Malawi 

message: I just reverted the bolded addition to the Historiography section:
:The end of the Cold War opened many of the archives of the Communist states which has increased the support for the traditionalist position. Many of the archives showed that the U.S.S.R had little to no 'secret agenda' that Truman and other presidents seemed paraniod about.
Does anyone think this might be a valid statement? It sure needs sourcing if it is though. BigBlueFish 19:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The archives show that North Korea asked and received permission from Moscow to invade the South. Rjensen 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: I replaced the photos above (taken from the upper right corner of the article) with a series box. I'm leaving the photos here until I can-- or someone else can-- figure out a new place for them. Apologies in advance to everyone. 172 | Talk 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good solution: the montage is useless without detailed captions. Rjensen 03:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what is the objection to the images? Ultramarine 03:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted a detailed explanation on Clevelander's talk page a couple of weeks ago. Please refer to it if you are interested. 172 | Talk 03:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please post it here so everybody can see it and discuss it. Ultramarine 03:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is here.  172 | Talk 03:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the images, the objection is "The box is also problematic in that obscures a more complicated pattern of international relations in which the world was not two clearly opposed blocs led by two rival superpowers. The selection of the particular grouping of images, for instance, strikes me as encouraging the myth that the Cold War was a clear-cut struggle between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The Cold War was global and multi-sided. While the particular images chosen might be the most memorable to the American public, other peoples might recall a very different set of images. We see in the box Khrushchev and Kennedy and the Berlin Wall. But one could also make the case for focusing on the leaders who shattered the assumptions of Americans of a biploar world pitting communism against the free world, such as Mao, Nehru, Nasser, Tito, Arafat, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and Khomeini." Essentially your objection is that the selction is POV. That can be easily fixed, add other images in other places in the article. Ultramarine 03:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RJsensen also added "the montage is useless without detailed captions." The better solution is adding other images with captions in relevant parts of the article. Further, the montage takes up the space better used for the series box, which is necessary for making the text on Cold War history usable for readers. The utilitarian value of the series box trumps the aesthetic enhancement offered by the montage. 172 | Talk 04:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: I have just looked at the article, and in my view the introductory section is too long. Few articles have such a detailed first section as this one does. Perhaps it would be better to restrict the introduction to a paragraph or maybe two, then move more of the information from the current introduction to the sections of the body. Maybe it would be possible to create an overview section at the beginning of the body. This way the first part of the article will present a brief and concise overview, this will be followed by the table of contents and finally by the more detailed sections. TSO1D 23:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The old summary went on and on.  I condensed it so that readers get a quick, clear overview. (All the deleted points are well covered in the article itself.) Rjensen 10:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is in fact much better, well done Rjensen. TSO1D 02:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction is too long 

message: *See talk in the 1953-'62 subsection.
Thank you. EnthusiastFRANCE 02:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Indochina War being part of the Cold War 

message: send to my email address.
::Sorry? You can join the free discussion by clicking HERE (if this is what you were refering to). The more we are to debate the better it is. 
EnthusiastFRANCE 16:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately this revelatory truth overlooks the fact that what epitomized the Cold War was two competing ideological visions of how countries should be internally structured.  The Soviet Union and the communist system it headed is now defunct, ergo so is the Cold War.  Don't confuse competition, as has always existed between nation states, with what were the unique characteristics of the Cold War. Wingnuts. Cripipper 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cold war 

message: Sourced material regarding the origin and end of the conflict is removed and unsourced incorrect material is inserted instead. Why is the following sourced information removed?
"The causes of the conflict are disputed. The end of the Cold War opened many of the archives of the Soviet Union, providing documentation which has increased the support for the traditionalist position. John Lewis Gaddis has written that Stalin's "authoritarian, paranoid and narcissistic predisposition" locked the Cold War into place. "Stalin alone pursued personal security by depriving everyone else of it: no Western leader relied on terror to the extent that he did. He alone had transformed his country into an extension of himself: no Western leader could have succeeded at such a feat and none attempted it. He alone saw war and revolution as acceptable means with which to pursue ultimate ends: no Western leader associated violence with progress to the extent that he did.""
"Research shows that the fall of the USSR was accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, the number of refugees and displaced persons and an increase in the number of democratic states. The opposite pattern was seen before the end." Ultramarine 22:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version of the page presents a balanced and general analysis of the origins of the Cold War. The passage discusses the geo-political as well as the ideological roots of the conflict, explaining how various key events set the stage for the rivalry. Your version, on the other hand, merely presents a one-sided and narrow view of the conflict. The entire passage is taken out of a book and all it discusses is how Stalin was responsible for the conflict, completely neglecting the other roots. And as for your second source, you should realize that an AOL user page is not a credible source under most circumstances. TSO1D 22:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version has no sources for its claims. As such, it violates Wikipedia:Verifiability and disputed material can removed by any editor. The above material has sources. If something is missing, add it, with reliable sources. Please follow Wikipedia policy. I will change the second source to the scholarly report instead.Ultramarine 22:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is a better link for the second paragraph: Ultramarine 22:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken. The passage solely contains common knowledge, thus sources are not required. In any case, the passage you provided is extremely narrow in scope to present a viable introduction of the roots of the Cold War. TSO1D 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The causes and effects of the Cold War is extensively disputed and researched by scholars. Certainly not "Common knowledge". If you argue that it is, then I can argue that the sourced material is also "Common knowledge".Ultramarine 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To some extent, yes, but that passage does include personal opinion in a large degree. Nevertheless, you are missing the point, that material does not explain the roots of the Cold War as much as it explains how Stalin was autoritarian and escalated the conflict. TSO1D 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A view by a very prominent scholar of the Cold War. A sourced explanation for how the conflict was locked in place certainly deserves mention. Why is this removed and replaced by unsorced views? The same with material regarding the effects on general warfare. I have now provided a reliable source.Ultramarine 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Gaddis:"The Western democracies sought a form of security that would reject violence or the threat of it: security was to be a collective good, not a benefit denied to some in order to provide it to others. Stalin saw things very differently: security came only by intimidating or eliminating potential challengers. World politics was an extension of Soviet politics, which was in turn an extension of Stalin's preferred personal environment: a zero-sum game, in which achieving security for one meant depriving everyone else of it.Ultramarine 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not stating that your source is not relevant, just that you cannot use a small passage taken directly out of a book that only represents one theory and one side of the story and replace the entire summary paragraph on the roots of the Cold War. If you want to you can edit Origins of the Cold War and in a concise manner present this theory and cite the author. You cannot, however, replace the entire paragraph found on the general page with that passage. TSO1D 23:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But why are people deleting this well-sourced views. I originally just added this material to the already existing. Then people started asking for sources, so I gave them and removed the unsourced material. Also, please follow Wikipedia:Verifiablity. Add sources, otherwise disputd material can be removed by any editor. Please respect Wikpedia policy. All views should be reprresented, not just those that suit one side.Ultramarine 23:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The summary paragraph simply gives an overview of Origins of the Cold War, where you will find plenty of sources for the material used. And as I said before most of it is common knowledge thus not requiring sources, and frankly I don't see how it can be disputed. TSO1D 00:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your arguments very strange. The Cold War is an extremely disputed area and you state that no sources are needed. At the same time you want to exclude a sourced view. At the very least, Gaddies view should be mentioned and that it represent new research from the archives. Regardless of what should be stated about the origins, why was the material of the effect on general warfare removed?Ultramarine 00:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read my replies? I said that sources do exist in the detailed article and that where they don't exist, that is because the information is common knowledge (e.g. WWII ended in 1945). Again, you can add Gaddies to the Origins of the Cold War article and in the summary, but in a condensed version. You completely deleted the former text that was achieved through a long process in conformity with the rules and policies of Wikipedia and with the consensus of most users and replaced it with a brief passage from a book that did not even cover the origins of the conflict. I am talking about this edit. As for the warfare information, I did not intend to remove that part, I just reverted your en-masse edits. Nevertheless, you might consider adding that information to Post-Cold War era as that appears to be a more proper place for the information. TSO1D 00:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should William Appleman Williams's pov be mentioned but not that of Gaddis who use much more recent material? Why should not the extremely large effect on all kinds of warfare not be mentioned? Ultramarine 00:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I not say: all means, use the material?. I simply emphasized the point that any addition to the general page should be concise. At Origins of the Cold War you can go into more detail (with reasonable limits of course). As for the warfare material I said use it also if you find a proper place for it. For example in the part about the end of the war or in its subsection found here: Cold War (1985-1991)#Legacy, or Post-Cold War era. TSO1D 00:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, are you aware that this very long-standing material was removed by an anonymous user: ? Why not again include it? Ultramarine 00:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually am not against the historiography section. What I did not like was that you added a great deal of information to the Origins section and removed the existing paragraph which gave a better overview. I mean look at this this diff]. As for the historiography part, I will put it back myself. TSO1D 00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and factual accuracy 

message: For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article.  I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1.  I'd welcome comments.  I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bricker Amendment

message: Should the Grenada invasion be added to that infobox at the bottom? 67.84.3.14 03:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Urgent Fury

message: I'd like to remove the template, pare down the bibliography. Both of these have been duplicated at the recently created Portal. The bibliography has its own page, and the template is at the bottom of the Portal page. I've seen the template at the bottom of other Cold War pages, which could be replaced by the portal link...which would have the template at the bottom. Any comment on either of these two/three things? Hires an editor 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to this article 

message: It seems that when vandalism that deletes the entire page (or most of the page), that when the damage is repaired, only part of it gets replaced, and not the whole article. I've seen this happen twice now. Is there any way of fixing this? Hires an editor 21:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Vandal Bot 

message: ...is there any reason why this page in particular seems to attract so much anon vandalism?  The reverting is incessant.
Fedallah 04:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant vandalism 

message: The quality of this article was always poor, and a complete rewrite has been needed for a long time. I had considered doing so for several years, but honestly hoped someone else would do the work. But that didn't seem to be happening, so I just went ahead and did it today.
The rewrite is not a finished product, just like any Wikipedia article. A lot of content can be expanded or modified, but the structure is clear enough to serve as a basis for new contributions. This article has footnotes and inline citations, unlike the old one. I made an effort to use citations of professionally written encyclopedias and sourcebooks and widely used survey textbooks for nearly all the references. Although I consider the specialist literature a lot more interesting, I understand that an article on an extremely broad topic geared toward the broadest readership reasonably possible should use information that is very easy for any intelligent reader to verify on his/her own. 172 | Talk 10:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: rewrite is good idea, but needs a less POV outlook (the Hallowell-LaFeber "revisionist" school interpretation is a minority view these days and can't be goven preference). The pre-1917 era can be safely ignored and well-known facts (like recognition in 1933) do not need footnoting. Rjensen 10:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coincidentally, just a few days ago, I was explaining to several other users why elementary facts do not require citations on the talk page of the communism entry. There was a consensus against me on the talk page, so I gave up, although I knew I was right. Hence, I decided to cite external sources for basic facts here, figuring that Wikipedia users, despite not understanding the real function of footnoting, would expect me to do so. To make a long story short, I completely agree, and I'm quite pleased to see you comment on that matter here. Regarding LaFeber's work on the pre-1917 era, I understand your point. That interpretation currently is not the dominant view. But it is still a major one, and it at least indirectly influenced current postrevisionist scholarship. So I reinserted the paragraph on the pre-1917 era, but this time with a note clarifying that the interpretation is LaFeber's, and not necessarily a consensus in the field. Thanks for the feedback. 172 | Talk 11:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow.  I'm impressed with it, that's all I can say.  It appears to be far better than what was there before, I'll have to take a closer look at it later.  Fedallah 12:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: The Cold War ends and the article ends. Some other article should take up the story, but it is a different story and does not belong here. (Some of the legacy items can be salvaged). Rjensen 01:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. TSO1D 01:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Concur. Fedallah 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I had the same thought when drafting the section. I did think to myself 'Cold War ends and the article ends' as I wrote it. The problem is that the issues mentioned under that heading should be addressed somewhere. After thinking about the problem, I decided a 'post-Cold War' section was the easiest way we could deal with the legacy issues on Wikipedia. I also considered inserting a "legacy" section. But I decided against it, worrying some users would see the section as space where they can post their own personal essays. Then, I considered addressing the issues in and expanded historiography section organized by topic rather than by approach. But I worried such a structure would make the historiography section way too long. Each possible structure has its relative benefits and drawbacks. So I really don't have a strong opinion on the matter. For now, though, I suggest changing the name of the heading to "legacy," but keeping the heading under the history section as a quick fix. 172 | Talk 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  let's drop Post-Cold War era 

message: In the article it is stated that the Cold War was ended when Gorbachev launched the perestroika and glasnost programs. Perestroika and glasnost were internal changes in the USSR, especially economical to help the staggering economy of the Sovjets.
This might have been a first step to the end of the Cold War or contributed to the downfall of the Sovjet-Union, but the Cold War wasn't over by then. During the 80s there were still hard-lining communists that saw the changes with much suspicion. I cannot cite any good sources, but according to several history books NATO was in a alarmed fase at the end of the USSR. Internal struggles can lead to a coup d'état.
I suggest someone changes it more appropriatly. --Soetermans 10:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending of the Cold War 

message: No I did not expres my 'opinion', I just gave the quote of the Pentagon Papers, Section 1, pp. 242-69, The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 5, "Origins of the Insurgency in South Vietnam, 1954-1960". Bryad gis his opinion, I note you posted wiothout proof. If you were to post 'In the 1950's France was defending Algeria', yeah, that's an opinion, even if you provide a quote(say from a French writer who's pro-war). You're the one who's inserting opinion, not me. User:Green01 3:23, Dec. 1 2006 (UTC).
:The paragraph in question is addressing the Vietnam War in general, not the southern insurgency alone.  Stating that China and particularly the USSR did not back North Vietnam by way of military advisors, money and materiel is simply not true.  Saying that the US 'attacked' South Vietnam - well, I suppose there's an argument for that, but it'd be a very controversial position to take.  Byrd's opinion is a very well-established one, check the list of references.  Fedallah 04:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV debate 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
*See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
Thanks, ffm 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AutoPeerReview 

message: Is there any particular reason that there are nine years missing from this account of the war...? Cyril Washbrook 23:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, yes. There is a reason. It's called Vandalism. If I had time right now, I would go back through the edit history and locate the deleted section, and restore it to its proper place in the article. Please do so yourself, if you care to lend a hand. Cgingold 15:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1953-1962 

message: I've requested Semi-protection of the article to spare those of us who are serious editors from the ceaseless onslaught of vandalism by multiple anonymous users. This is long overdue. Cgingold 15:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Semi-protection 

message: ; Description : A project to foster better coordination and collaboration on articles relating to Cold War history.
; Interested Wikipedians 
# Nobs02 21:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cold War History discussion at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals]]

message: The Cold War was a war faught between U.S.A and U.S.S.R.  It was a war fought by scaring the other country.  For example the if The U.S. makes a weapon the the U.S.S.R. would make a bigger and better weapon.  The U.S had more and better weapons but Russia kept biulding.  The war doesn't really have a winner, but now the U.S and the U.S.S.R. are in peace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.212.3.187 (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cold War 

message: I'm sorry if I added the montage and infobox on the Cold War without consent but I thought that it would make the Cold War article very interesting. I present two arguements for this:
* It seems to me strange that, for example, on the Vietnam War, the infobox says "Part of The Cold War", but then you go to the Cold War and find no infobox, it seems very too dull.
* I would also like to say that when I say the word 'dull' I mean that it is too uninteresting and if it had an infobox and image montage it makes the article stand out and look more interesting due to the imagery shown (this is, of course, in the eye of the beholder). For example, when I first heard about World War I and World War II (and the American Civil War), I thought nothing interesting, but when I turned to the article I saw the imagery, it really makes the article enjoyable - especially to a person that doesn't know anything about the subject - including myself because I had no interest in WWI or WWII, but when I saw the montage and infobox, it truely summarizes the events and gives visual imagery, which is very appealing. So I ask of you what you think on the subject, because even though the two countries of the United States and the Soviet Union never directly went to war, it seems appropriate that an infobox and montage such as the ones in the World War I and World War II articles.
Please tell me what your contradictions might be.Chris Iz Cali (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold War Montage and Infobox