Talk:Cold War (1953–1962)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

172, did you not notice, I moved the section on American foreign policy formation to its own article in Operation Solarium. It is good information, but too much detail for a general overview. - SimonP 02:52, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the coverage of Operation Solarium is too long relative to the length of the rest of the content on 1953-1962, but I disagree with the removal, at least at this point, for a couple of reasons. One, the narrative history in this section is strongly tied into a general overview of the period, so the rest of the article is built on the grounds of having a lot of the content presented in that Operation Solarium section already presented. Second, and most importantly, the problem isn't that section per se, but the rest of the grossly unfinished article. We ought to come up a list of topics that need to be expanded/added on the talk page. BTW, I redirected this article to '53-'62 since there are many "heights" of the Cold War. 172 23:00, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Problem A" I have fixed. I've rewritten the narrative throughout the article. As to Problem B if we give everything as much attention as you give to this and Iran we will have a thousand page text on the Cold War, not an encyclopedia article. Brevity is essential in an encyclopedia and your versions of both these things go into more detail than most of the standard texts. - SimonP 04:56, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Other issues:

• If as you say other sections are too short, why do you keep cutting the McCarthyism section down to one sentence? - SimonP 00:17, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
• My intentions were to deal with McCarthyism not as a subtopic in itself, but address it when it had an effect on U.S. diplomacy and foreign policy-making. But don't worry. My changes are not final in a very unfinished article, and my mind's very open to discussion. 172 00:37, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • • The Cold War was about far more than diplomacy and international relations. It also had important domestic politcal, cultural, and economics impacts that should be addressed and McCarthyism is one of the most important of these. - SimonP 03:12, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Why do the pictures need such long, wordy, and opinionated captions? - SimonP 00:17, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Hum, that's begging the question a bit. Pictures and captions can be good supplements. We can discuss them later, and perhaps talk about ideas for better photo and caption topics. 172 00:37, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Why shouldn't the article have links to the relevant period in American and Soviet history? - SimonP 00:17, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I added those previous and subsequent page functions, figuring that that negated the function of the relevant links section on the first two articles in the series. But I'm not sure about what's standard when it comes to these matters, so you can go ahead and restore them. 172 00:37, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Why does Iran, which has far more to do with the politics of oil than the Cold War, deserve such a long section? - SimonP 00:17, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
• I'd ask why do the others only warrant such small sections. I'm running really short on time now, so I'll get back to this question and the rest in greater detail soon. 172 00:37, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Why did you move the article by cutting and pasting it? - SimonP 00:17, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what you mean by this. 172 00:37, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Well the history of the article has disspeared. - SimonP 03:12, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Why do you insist on having only a discussion of American policy formulation, and cut every discussion of Soviet thinking? - SimonP 00:17, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • That's begging the question a bit as well. I don't. If I removed anything, it might've been a mistake, or a question of placement. My comments in the talk page of the other article in the series apply to this one. We have a grossly unfinished work in progress here, so we ought not to consider a change made by either of us as as statement of what either of us view as a final product. 172 00:37, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

BTW, the moving and countermoving has screwed up article history; the full history is still at Height of the Cold War (1953-1962). I'm half-inclined to try creating a new single article from scratch, with lots of free links so it can expand hypertextually instead of linearly. Stan 05:25, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• We should have a short history, and do somewhat, at the Cold War article but having more indepth multi page history for such a major topic is not a bad idea. - SimonP 17:51, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Questionable assertions that keep being reinserted

• I removed the use of headings and subheadings from the talk page. More often than not, they create a confrontational mood that does not serve collaboration.

In the meantime, however, American attention was being diverted elsewhere in Asia, especially due to domestic influence on foreign policy. The continuing pressure from the "China lobby" or "Asia firsters," who had insisted on active efforts to restore Chiang Kai-shek

• Not really Eisenhower paid far less attention to Asia than Truman did. - SimonP 15:52, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • The way you're framing point once again has the effect of begging the question. The article doesn't state that the Eisenhower administration was more concerned with Asia than Truman's, but rather notes the influence of the "China lobby" on U.S. foreign policy and the complications that this posed for the admin. This generalization is way too broad to have much meaning, and is best left avoided either way you want to argue it. When the "Asia firsters" are brought up in the article, it's in reference to, say, Taft wing of the GOP rather than Ike himself. This loose grouping warrants mentioning nonetheless. So instead of scrapping the existing coverage, if it's unclear it ought to be expanded and/or clarified. 172 17:08, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Where Harry Truman viewed the atomic bomb as an instrument of terror and a weapon of last resort, Dwight Eisenhower viewed it as an integral part of American defense, and, in effect, a weapon of first resort.

• Only for about five minutes before they, like the Truman administration, realized nuclear blackmail was unworkable and thus didn't use it. - SimonP 15:52, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with your statement above. However, it's not a contradiction of the passage that you've cited above it. So, this is begging the question once again. The dimplomacy of regaining the initiative while reducing costs, in other words reserving the prospects of first usage, was what really mattered in hindsight. Your own section on MADD strongly supplemented this. 172 17:08, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The American offensive in the Third World was very effective in the short-run.

• No it wasn't. - SimonP 15:52, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
• And sometimes it was, depending on the context. I'll make sure to see if this sentence is used in a proper context. Perhaps it got thrown in a new section by mistake in the recent edits. 172 17:08, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

President John F. Kennedy inherited a growing nuclear superiority from the Eisenhower era of "massive retaliation."

• You say this twice, but around 1960 was when the two sides were closest to being equal and when the Americans believed there was a "missile gap". - SimonP 15:52, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll take another look at the sentence. The sentence is probably vague more than anything else. Depending on how one's using some of these terms the answer will differ. 172 17:08, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The speech stripped Khrushchev's remaining Stalinist rivals of their legitimacy in a single shot

• not really Krushchev was already quite secure. - SimonP 15:52, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Note that it says "remaining." Also note his consolidation of power had not reached its height even in the aftermath of the 20th Congress. Yes, he'd dealt with Beria as early as 6/53 and the Virgin Lands campaign marked a major defeat of Malenkov. However, he continued to expand his influence, although he still faced opposition. The attempt by the "Anti-Party Group" of Malenkov, Molotov, Kaganovich to oust Khrushchev, e.g., was still in the waiting. Instead, we ought to be concerned with getting around to covering the ensuing groundswell of reform-oriented movements among Soviet bloc nations, e.g., the workers uprising in Poland in June 1956, Wladislaw Gomulka, Imre Nagy, etc. 172 17:08, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ironically, the U.S. would begin heating up tensions as Khrushchev abandoned Stalin's foreign policies

• Where was the US heating up tensions? How is it ironic in the face of Krushchev's somewhat more aggressive foreign policy? - SimonP 15:52, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Please clarify the context of the time. 172 17:08, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Exactly my point, the picture captions do not have room for extra infomration like time frames and clarifications and they should thus be kept as brief descriptions saying only what the picture is of without the editorializing. - SimonP 17:51, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Above we were talking about the lack of content in what I reiterate is an unfinished work in progress concerning Khrushchev. This is something that we ought to get around to clearing up in the text. I'm running short of time now, but I'll look at this sentence later today. 172 18:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Intractable problems The main issue we are not making any progress towards reaching consensus on is the long discussion of Eisenhower policy formulation and the section on Iran. I think both are too much detail for an encyclopedia article and would be better in free standing articles on their own. - SimonP 15:52, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

You yourself noted the need for coverage of the politcal, cultural, and economics impact of the Cold War. If you don't see how the coverage of Iran is important when it comes to long running consequences on the region in question, peraphs you want to reconsider the premise of your earlier statement. 172 17:08, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am not saying Iran isn't important, but it is not very important to the studies of the Cold War. - SimonP 17:51, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

So, I guess that you're retracting the premise of your earlier statement. But I agreed with it at the time, and still do. I guess that this is still open for discussion. 172 18:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Iran The focus on Iran is a somewhat outdated revisionist one, that today is widely regarded as orientalist. It is not a central event in the Cold War and does not need more than a sentence, unless we plan on giving four pages to every American overseas intervention. - SimonP 15:52, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

So, Third World nations are irrelevant and anyone who thinks otherwise is an anachronistic "revisionist," right? Let's agree to disagree on that one. 172 17:08, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No but the old view that it only takes a few plucky Americans to reshape an entire non-western society is. - SimonP 17:51, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

That isn't my view either. Nor is this view expressed in the article.172 18:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Operation Solarium

Currently duplicates what already exists at the Operation Solarium article. How is it very important foreign policy mostly remains the same between Truman and Eisenhower, and the two largest changes, the adoption of MAD and greater reliance on covert actions, are better addressed in their own sections. Both of these things developed far more from external factors than from west wing theorizing. - SimonP 15:52, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Re: "Both of these things developed far more from external factors than from west wing theorizing." I don't disagree with this either. The coverage of Operation Solarium makes this clear too. I'll redirect the new entry on Operation Solarium to this article to fix the other problem you've mentioned. 172 17:08, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that is the worst possible solution. These general articles should not go into such detail. We would not want to dump the entire article on McCarthyism or the Bay of Pigs into this article and we should not dump all of the at best marginaly important Operation Solarium section into this page. - SimonP 17:51, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

This is not just a section on Operation Solarium. It weaves a number of the conflicting objectives and interests in the Eiserhower-era foreign policy together. The section in question's really one on the "New Look" and "Brinsksmanship," which is covered in all good general overviews. 172 18:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Redirection was the wrong thing to do here. If I want to know what "Operation Solarium" was, it's borderline sadistic to make me wade through thousands of words to hoping to happen upon the one mention. BTW, I notice that LaFeber's 150,000-odd words doesn't mention this at all... Stan 20:55, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that wasn't a section on "Operation Solarium," but one on "brinksmanship," "massive retaliation," the "new look," etc. in general. BTW, he does bring up Operation Solarium in the 9th edition. 172 22:42, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's the edition I have, and I see it now. But why didn't you just prune the new article to the salient material? Couldn't have taken more than five minutes. Stan 22:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the Cold War article or the Operation Solarium article? If you mean this article, there isn't much to prune, since it's the only overview of the Eisenhower-Dulles approach to containment in the article. 172 22:58, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I meant the Solarium article. If I as a reader have five minutes to read about Eisenhower policymaking, I don't have time to hear about some stupid solarium, but if I have ten minutes, give me a link to click to read about more of the details. (Why does this seem to be a difficult concept to understand?) Stan 00:28, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh okay, that was my reasoning. That's why I didn't want that content moved to that article. I guess Operation Solarium is now one of countless articles on which we ought to start work. 172 16:58, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More intractable issues between 172 and myself:

A:The photo captions. I see no reason to have long captions that still leave out all context and tend to seem like their editorializing. Instead of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán (1951-1954) was the democratically-elected, reformist president of Guatemala. Overthrown in a CIA-led coup, he was replaced by a brutal dictatorship - one of the bloodiest in the region. which is clearly tryin to make a point, just say Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán President of Guatemala 1951-1954, the article explains what actually happened in enough detail. - - SimonP 23:17, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

B:Why do you insist on not linking the word "rollback", where the article is all about the terms use in a Cold War context? - SimonP 23:17, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Gee, that's begging the question again. I don't. Perhaps no one hasn't gotten to it yet. That's why there's a reason to work on a work in progress. 172 23:33, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But you have twice reverted my linking the term. - SimonP 00:07, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

This article is getting too long and we should start to think of how to divide it. Another chronological division would not work, perhaps we should spin off an article on the Cold War in the Third World. - SimonP 23:17, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

That's horribly impractical, and arbitrary from the standpoint of the history. Adding more pages, and perhaps an Origins of the American Civil War-style division, would work far better. 172 23:31, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's the way this article is already divided, so why not. If your arguing it would be impractical and arbitrary, the Civil War type division is unequestionalby more of both. - SimonP 00:07, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

The article is too long because it's a book chapter, not an encyclopedia article. I started sketching a topdown organization that would give an overview of the whole Cold War in about 4,000 words, then link to a bunch of ancillary articles for details of specific episodes. Of course this would only work if we exercised discipline and agreed not to reflexively accrete onto the overview once it met its length target. And before anybody says anything about Wikipedia and paper, the purpose of the length limit is for to keep readers' eyes from glazing over (which I know they are, because obvious typos have gone unnoticed for months). Stan 00:28, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would agree to try this scheme. - SimonP 00:48, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not ready to try this. This scheme is a New Imperialism-style series, right? If that's the case, I hope you both know what you may be getting into. Just to give you both the heads up, embarking on an article series has in the past opened up the floodgates to, say, the "Fox News crowd," the "red faction," and Lir's multiple incarnations. Although we're concerned with the relevant academic literature on the subject, we cannot assume that the users who will be controlling the process of creating the series will be.

Before the two of you start acting on Stan's idea, you both ought to take a look at recent talk about creating a NI-style series on Talk:Fascism (starting at the heading to which this link takes you down to the bottom of the article). My stress on structure first and content second in Talk:Fascism applies probably here. Also, about half a year ago, we did not start making process on the NI series until we started following Graculus' proposals to agree on structure before focusing the writing.

Before starting work on Stan's scheme, we should correspond by e-mail and discuss our ideas for the organization of the series (i.e. the organization and contents of the series box and the table of contents of each daughter article). As the user who has had perhaps the most experience creating article series, I want to warn you both that this is a really big deal. Even discussing about a comparatively very easy break-up like Origins of the American Civil War took far more time for me than writing the entire article in the first place. 172 16:24, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is already an article series, just divided chronologically rather than logically. In a way, I'm just talking about moving the deck chairs around a bit so I can understand the big picture better, and hopefully other people too. :-) As a software architect, it comes pretty naturally to me to think about moving blocks of stuff around, so it doesn't really seem that daunting - the GNU code I handle in my day job is literally a thousand times larger and more complex than WP's Cold War content. I'm not keen on email for this, it'll just get lost in my overstuffed mbox (600/day, almost none of it spam) - what'll I'll do is create a temp page with an outline, we can hack and slash and discuss until it seems logical, then glue text in according to outline. I'm thinking about post-completion stability strategy too, there are some possibilities. One of the useful aspects of multiple smaller articles is that 10 edits of 10 one-page articles are easier to review than a big edit of a 10-page article - that's one of the problems that one sees in NI for instance, monster edits embodying dozens of individual changes, some better, some worse. Stan 20:34, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I know that this article article series (along with a quarter million other articles) is a grossly unfinished work in progress. Please propose what kind of organization you favor. Perhaps you'd want to draft a template, which was how I went about proposing a NI-style series on Fascism. Here's the link again in case you haven't taken a look yet. 172 20:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)