Talk:Cold War (1962-1991)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See Talk:Cold War.

Some time ago, I edited the term "reaganite hawk," as it struck me as a loaded term in an otherwise well-balanced article. I'm curious whether others read it the same way.


Could anybody please tell me what's going on with the edit history? It looks like an editing war (and a hot one :-) with massive changes back and forth), but nobody is talking about what they're doing or why. More to the point, do I need to protect the page? Stan 15:20, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I'm not sure, in some aspects we seem to be converging on a better article, in others we are just reverting each other. For instance, I have no idea why 172 inists on calling the Vietnam War the "Vietnam quagmire". Perhaps me and 172 should abstain from editing the article and let other parties decide between the two options. - SimonP 02:32, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

The silent reverting is a waste of everybody's time, so let's not do that at least. Since this is a long article, perhaps it should be tinkered with one piece at a time. For starters, whether one calls it "war" or "quagmire", we have a perfectly fine article at Vietnam War that does all the blow-by-blow, so I would expect this article to spend its coverage explaining why and how Vietnam was relevant to the wider Cold War. For instance, Tet offensive, My Lai, and casualty figures are all pretty much irrelevant to the conduct of the Cold War, while contemporaneous goings-on in Cambodia and Laos are relevant but not mentioned. Also, were the Soviets involved at all in Vietnam - if so, how, and if not, why not? Which of the two Vietnams was China cheering on? 1/2 :-) And of course, what are the authoritative historical works that are the basis for the content, so we can go verify? Stan 04:21, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Those are all very good points. I would, however, say that the conduct of the Vietnam War is of some import because the morality of US conduct during the Cold War is an important debate, but it is certainly not the only, or even most important, issue and you are right that far more should be said. - SimonP 04:50, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
Heh-heh, I bet the Politburo wasn't in the least troubled about US morality, but didn't they exploit US misdeeds in their propaganda elsewhere in the world? That would be interesting to hear more about. Come to think of it, I might have some of it myself, in the form of the Soviet postage stamps in my collection - time to log out of WP and go look... :-) Stan 05:33, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Stan and SimonP:

Re: "Perhaps me and 172 should abstain from editing the article and let other parties decide between the two options."

That makes no sense at all. We shouldn't be afraid of major changes. We desperately needed major changes to this article! It's great that we're finally seeing some activity on this page. WP's coverage of the Cold War was practically non-existent when I'd started adding content to these articles. Since then, it's gone from that to horribly unfinished. BTW, just so that we're all on the same page, I think that the three of us ought to agree to regard changes to this article as little more than new draft proposals, recognizing that we're all working toward an end product. Also, there's no need to be pointing fingers at each other for content that isn't included in the article. This article is a work in progress, and it's great to see progress being made now. 172 21:55, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I'm going to redirect the article back to Cold War (1962-1991). An article on the "end of the Cold War" would be a better idea if it covered, say, the period after Gorbachev had come to power. Right now, we don't have enough content for a separate 1985-1991 article. If we stay focused, though, we can get there soon. 172 22:24, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'd still prefer if it was tightened up enough to be just one article, then there wouldn't be an issue about what to call the subarticles. We have this nice hyperlinking mechanism, let's use it for something more sophisticated than a linear list. I got LaFeber's 9th edition at the library today, it should be helpful. Stan 05:00, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cold War Victory Medal

There appears to be some who feel that info about this medal is irrelevant and should be summarily deleted from this article. The creation of a Cold War Victory Medal was a very historic thing in the United States of America and was the result of thousands of veterans petitioning the United States Congress. I think it goes well in the "Legacy" section. If some dont agree, then thats fine. Lets work together and find a better place to move the info. Calling it "trival" and deleting it without discussion is not the way to go. -Husnock 11 Dec 04

I'm not saying that it is unimportant in and of itslef; however when we are going over the fate of billions of people in huge nations like China and Russia in a few sentences in one or two paragraphs, bringing up something like the above is a bit out of place. My suggestion is removing all reference to it in the legacy section of this article, starting a new article Cold War Victory Medal and adding it to the "see also" section of Cold War. 172 19:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article on the Cold War Victory Medal has been around for quite a bit. The new article Military decorations of the Cold War I think solves the problem -Husnock 12 Dec 04