Talk:2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan

Keep article: deletion discussion is ill-informed
Regarding:

In a NOTABLE and widely reported actual EVENT in 2021, multiple PRC military planes entered the ROC's ADIZ. Therefore I have expanded the scope of the article accordingly, and we should ignore the opinions of editors ignorant of this history or unwilling to account for it. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] The problem with the article was not lack of notability or its being a "non-event". The problem was that the article was biased toward WP:Recentism and Anglo-Americanism. This can be corrected.

The incident has been referred to by some sources as the Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis, and it s too early to delete the article Since the article was made only earlier this morning, 3 Aug, the managing editors who are discussing deletion should give it some time to mature, if they're unwilling to do the research themselves. Jaredscribe (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1180536. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Curbon7 (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

International response
Please only add responses that are relevant to this section. For example, Syria's response is totally not relevant, which is why I made the bold decision to remove it from the list of responses just now.

Countries whose opinions I would consider relevant include (but your opinion may differ): - Superpowers (United States, China) - Great powers (Russia, Japan, India, United Kingdom, France... Maybe Brazil, Germany, and Italy) - Middle powers (Israel, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Turkey, Indonesia... Maybe Mexico) - Special status (Ukraine) - Nearby countries (North Korea, South Korea, The Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Mongolia, Malaysia, etc.)

Syria fits none of these criteria, so I don't see what relevance Syria really has to this entire ordeal. Some random poor country in the Middle East, effectively a puppet state of Russia in many ways. The only source provided was Syrian state media. As far as I can tell, this is an easy case for deletion, which is what I have gone ahead and done. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Jargo Nautilus, I don't fully understand why you tagged this section as WP:OR. I checked the cited sources and I think the sentences were reported in a correct way. Thanks P1221 (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The entry about Syria was not reported in the correct way, which is why I deleted it. The other entries were acceptable, but that notice is there to deter against any other improper entries being added aside from Syria. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Removing Syrian reaction was the right call. I've added regional/relevant nations (Laos, Cambodia) and some powers (UK, Canada) and removed the WP:OR banner given that the Syrian entry has been removed and all presently listed reactions are properly cited. RightQuark (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: I consider Ukraine to be of "special status" due to the parallels between the geopolitical situations of Ukraine and Taiwan at the current moment. However, I'm unaware if Ukraine has made any statements about Taiwan's situation yet. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Most of the responses got removed (and I semi-agree)
Most of the responses got removed (by someone else, not me) because they relate more directly to Pelosi's Taiwan visit rather than to China's military exercises. Indeed, I actually agree with the removal of these responses. With that being said, it might be a good idea to transfer those responses over to the Pelosi's Taiwan visit article (currently called "2022 United States congressional delegation visit to Taiwan"). Otherwise, we could merge the two articles together. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that they are already mentioned in response. 2022 United States congressional delegation visit to Taiwan  HurricaneEdgar    02:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Restore statement by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken
All the quotes were put inline quotes with quote marks. Moreover, they were from US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a public address to the world, and therefore in the public domain, which is how CNN was able to quote them at length without copyvio, as can we. Whether CNN is cited or State.gov for his remarks, doesn't so much matter, neither is a copyright violation, and appears to be misinformed by deleting it all. Please restore the US statement to the article ASAP, per WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

In most cases, you may not copy text from other sources into Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation. Always write the articles in your own words and cite the sources of the article. Copyright violations are often speedily deleted. see WP:COPY-PASTE and FYI your copypaste into Wikipedia has been delete by the admin. (1) and also do not being accusations see WP:ASPERSIONS. HurricaneEdgar   01:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Copying_text_from_other_sources
 * It is acceptable to copy text from public domain sources or those that are explicitly licensed under a compatible licensing scheme. Attribution give credit to the original author is always required whether or not the text is free: see Wikipedia:Plagiarism.). There is a guide for embedding freely licensed content (either public domain or Wikipedia Compatible licenses), at Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia and the Copyright FAQ.
 * Do I really have to prove this? The direct quote was attributed to Antony Blinken, the US Secretary of State, speaking in a public capacity, to China and to the world.  Must we get permission from State.gov to quote him? Jaredscribe (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, it is appropriate in this case to give an exact quote (copy-paste), rather than a paraphrase.  Please restore the direct quote ASAP, or give me leave to do so myself. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For those who wish to investigate, I cannot give a diff, because its been revdel.
 * I left these edit summaries:
 * curprev 02:56, 5 August 2022‎ Jaredscribe talk contribs‎ 20,070 bytes +26‎  →‎International response: Blinken said the US remains “committed to our One China policy guided by our commitments to the Taiwan Relations Act, Three Communiques, and Six Assurances. Tag: Visual edit: Switched
 * curprev 02:44, 5 August 2022‎ Jaredscribe talk contribs‎ 20,044 bytes +807‎  →‎International response: Blinken said the US remains “committed to our One China policy guided by our commitments to the Taiwan Relations Act, Three Communiques, and Six Assurances.” Tag: Visual edit
 * curprev 02:41, 5 August 2022‎ Jaredscribe talk contribs‎ 19,237 bytes +566‎  →‎International response: United States: On 4 August 2022, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, speaking at the ASEAN-US Ministerial meeting in Cambodia, said that he "(hopes) very much that Beijing will not manufacture a crisis or seek a pretense to increase its aggressive military action". Jaredscribe (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As per stated, you cannot copy text from other sources into Wikipedia. Can I copy text to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? As a general rule, do not copy text from other sources. Doing so usually constitutes both a copyright violation and plagiarism (exceptions are discussed below). This general rule includes copying material from websites of charity or non-profit organizations, educational, scholarly and news publications, and all sources without a copyright notice. If a work does not have a copyright notice, assume it to be under copyright-protection. Clearly, this user meet to WP:LISTEN HurricaneEdgar    02:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can quibble a bit about use of '...remains "committed"...' as the specific statement can be laid out  slightly differently. However, the ASEAN one should be rewritten as there are multiple ways to state the facts surrounding the SOS's quote and using CNN's exact phrasing could be copy-vio. Slywriter (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * CNN was quoting SecOfState, and it received the quote from the public domain.
 * A direct quote from the US SecOfState is public domain, and in non-responsive to my argument, ergo he is the one not WP:LISTENing. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why I removed nearly all of CNN's surrounding remarks and only included the direct quote from SOS. If you wish to further refine that, please do.  But the substance of the quote should not be removed from any article that purports to be encyclopedic. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

This User continued copy-paste into Wikipedia. (AP) I warn it, but he is not WP:LISTEN  HurricaneEdgar    03:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * A direct quote from Xinhua speaking for PRC, as transmitted by AP:
 * joint operations focused on "blockade, sea target assault, strike on ground targets, and airspace control". If you wish to expand or revise, or add a reference to the original article from Xinhua, please do. This belongs in the article along with the statement from US SoS, or else the article isn't complete. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I also added a link to the joint statement made by the G7+EU foreign ministers. But due to the disruptive reversions and revdels I've suffered so far for adding encyclopedic quotes, I refrained from quoting or summarizing their joint statement.  Someone else please do so, I'm out for the weekend. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while we are wasting our time on this tedious and unnecessary debate, the chinese article has many of these statements (and translations) already on WikiSOURCE, and then summarized in the article:
 * This is how the Anglo-American bias here contributes to driving away productive contributors and degrading the entire encyclopedia. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not my argument whether is quote. My argument here is you continue being copyright violators. HurricaneEdgar   03:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * , Cut the BS of Anglo-American bias. That's a personal attack, rather than a policy based argument. As stated on DRN, cite a public domain source and move on, instead of insisting you can copy and paste from CNN and other news organizations. No one is telling you that you can't use a direct quote, what we are telling you is that you can't use any news organizations paraphrasing around the quote and need to come up with your own or just source the quote. Slywriter (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please include in this article the official statements of the PRC. Until then, this article is incomplete.  Also, this article is still lacking a statement from the US secretary of state, despite my repeated attempts to add it. I'm not sure, tell me.  Is it an Anglo-American bias, or a bias toward general ignorance? Jaredscribe (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please Stop arguing with me, and instead start contributing to the WP:Encyclopedia. thanks, Jaredscribe (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please include the statement from Xinhua in this article Jaredscribe (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You have been told what the concern is. If you think the quote is vital, do the work and put it in properly instead of cutting and pasting. Slywriter (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * IOK, thank you @Slywriter for clarifying that I'm not being restricted from adding direct quotes. if you could see the revdel's material, you would know that exactly what i did, and the only surrounding text was along the lines of 'blinken said' and 'he remarked that', which as described below, if it is the "simplest and most obvious way to present information", it is therefore not plagiarism. Plagiarism.  however if you or others can help by making minor paraphrases to this surrounding text, please do so.   i specifically did not copy any of CNN's paraphrasing, and if i or anyone else does inadvertently in the future, this can easily be corrected through simple copyediting without requiring reversion or revdel, imho.  I commit to following wikipedia's policies on copyright and other content policies, to the best of my ability,   I assume that you do to, and I hope we can constructively work together to improve the encyclopedia. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I have declined/removed one copyright-violation deletion request regarding the content of Special:Diff/1102633929, as the part outside of the quotation marks is "the simplest and most obvious way to present information" (cf. "What is not plagiarism?" in the guideline against plagiarism). I'm not saying the addition was ideal, especially as it seems to have been part of a larger addition series of directly copied text to this article. It just doesn't really qualify for a RD1 redaction, which requires "blatant" violations of the copyright policy; this one is debatable at best. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing this policy citation, and for declining the redaction request. In my estimation, the sentence is "the simplest and most obvious way to present information".  If someone can offer a paraphrase that isn't incomprehensible English, you may rephrase it.  I'm citing AP instead of Xinhua directly, because the latter is considered an unreliable source.  (Although it should be considered reliable source on the subject of PRC official policy, which is what I would be quoting it for.  If someone will add these citations, I would appreciate it.)  Thanks! Jaredscribe (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/china-says-military-drills-in-six-zones-surrounding-taiwan-underway-122080400356_1.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. HurricaneEdgar   02:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

China to expand its military exercises until the 15th of August
See here. Count Iblis (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Chinese Civil War
Reliable sources saying that the civil war ended in 1949 (emphasis mine):

- Britannica. "Chinese Civil War, (1945–49), military struggle for control of China waged between the Nationalists (Kuomintang) under Chiang Kai-shek and the Communists under Mao Zedong."

- Al Jazeera. "Taiwan has been self-ruled since 1949 when Mao Zedong’s communists took power in Beijing at the end of the Chinese civil war, and the defeated nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek set up government in Taipei."

- Financial Times. "They said the manoeuvres risked undermining a fragile, decades-long peace between China and Taiwan, which has enjoyed de facto independence since the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949, and could trigger conflict between Beijing and the US." WeirdMatter (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, I accept that this is the mainstream view, apart from the PRC and the Guomingtang. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the PRC believes that it won the Chinese Civil War in 1949, that much is clear. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * However, the opinion of the CCP and the Guomingtang are also relevant to this question. Open hostilies ended in 1949 of course, but the cold war didn't.  These Taiwan straits crises were part of that. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The PRC doesn't actually believe that the Civil War hasn't ended. I would say that the biggest supporter of this viewpoint is just the KMT (Guomindang), which still holds the view that it will one day retake the mainland. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources for 1) the CCP and/or 2) the Kuomintang saying that these exercises are part of the Chinese Civil War, then we can discuss this further. Else, respectfully, I am not interested in discussing this any further if you do not provide any reliable sources as 1) I have politely requested twice and 2) have done so myself upon your request. WeirdMatter (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * From a historical POV, it's correct to say that the Chinese Civil War ended in 1949. The current year is 2022, and given that no direct fighting has occurred on the mainland since 1949 (except for Hainan Island, 1951, and some outlying islands after that), it's a bit of a stretch to say that the civil war has continuously been raging on until the present day. Indeed, the PRC and the ROC never signed a peace treaty to end the war. However, in all honesty, did the two parties ever have to sign such a treaty for the war to end? The PRC doesn't even recognise the ROC as a legitimate entity, so how is the PRC supposed to sign a peace treaty with a non-existent entity (in their eyes)? The PRC believes that it resolutely won the Chinese Civil War in 1949, giving the PRC the mandate to rule all of China, including the island of Taiwan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why so many people seem to think that the PRC doesn't believe that the Chinese Civil War ended in 1949. According to the official PRC narrative, the Chinese Civil War ended in 1949 and that is the same year when the ROC lost all of its legitimacy as the government of China. That is why the PRC refuses to recognise the ROC in any form, including recognising the independence of Taiwan that has evolved after the ROC's takeover of Taiwan. According to the PRC narrative, Taiwan was never independent as the ROC, and the island of Taiwan has belonged to the PRC ever since the PRC won its mandate to rule all of China in 1949. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your knowledge, as you appear to be well informed on this, and all these various perspectives on this status and history are relevant to the present incident, IMHO. Perhaps you could begin a summary /* Historical Background */ section that mentions how the end of hostilities in the Chinese Civil War left these matters unresolved in 1949, and how adverse parties have, in their own terms, framed the conflict and various crises in cross-strait relations since then. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think such a section is unnecessary. Indeed, if you look at Wikipedia's article about the Chinese Civil War, you will see that it actually places the Chinese Civil War as being a subsidiary of the Cross-Strait conflict, rather than the other way around. I'm not sure how verifiable that information is, but the Cross-Strait conflict is definitely the main conflict here. There is a small element of "Chinese Civil War" maybe, since it involves conflict between the PRC and the KMT (Taiwan's Chinese-in-exile opposition party). However, when looking at the conflict between the PRC and the DPP (Taiwan's localist ruling party), it's a bit of a stretch to call this a "civil war" when the DPP is clearly leading the Taiwan independence movement. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest discretionary sanctions against User:Jaredscribe concerning this article until he stops edit warring and pushing unsourced information. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is not an edit war, its a WP:DISCUSSION, and thats what will continue to do.  My WP:Obversion to mention the Chinese Civil War was well within the WP:3RR, and you are free to revert is and discuss, as you did.  that's how we arrived here. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's definitely an EDIT WAR because you are reverting other peoples' edits in order to add unsourced information to the article. Indeed, I wrote my comments above *before* I noticed that you had reverted one of my edits. The claim that the "Chinese Civil War hasn't ended" requires a source, not the other way around. If you insist on adding that information to the article without a reliable source, then that is disruptive behaviour. Removing that information was the right call, because it was unsourced and also falls within the territory of FRINGE. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the entire "caused by" section of the infobox should be removed, until we have more historical perspective, but someone restored it when I removed it. To say that it was "caused by" Pelosi's visit ignores earlier historical factors as part of a bias toward WP:Recentism, it is itself a statement of historical analysis that may constitute original research or synth, to say that the immediately proximate cause is the only cause.   Perhaps we could also include, "unresolved conflicts in cross-strait relations since the end of the Chinese Civil War" or something like that.  (as you can see here, I'm discussing, not insisting.  And my single earlier obvert of your revert doesn't constitute an edit war.  Now please lets discuss the content issue at stake.)
 * Since someone was insisting on keeping this, I added two other "causal factors":
 * 1. Taiwanese separatist leaders statements in support of Two China
 * 2. Chinese militarist menacing in support of One China
 * After all, what "caused" Pelosi to visit Taiwan in the first place?
 * I know that American politicians think that they are the center of everything, and that many American's believe that the entire world revolves around them, but this is Anglo-American bias. The article as currently written seems to reflect some that.
 * The causes of military escalation were deeper than Pelosi's visit.
 * Those contributions were reverted. Subsequently I added the link to Chinese Civil War in order to provoke this discussion, and I'm glad that wer're now having it, because this is a significant content issue.  i won't unilaterally change the caused by field of the infobox until there is some consensus on this.  ergo, whatever minor edit skirmish we had over a single round of mutual reversion, is now over.  please drop the accusation, so that we can deal with the substantive content question. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of your comments above are pure SYNTH. I have a very simple explanation for what "caused" these military exercises. Basically, China was already planning to hold these military exercises for months in advance, and they already knew that Nancy Pelosi was going to visit Taiwan months in advance. So, when Pelosi finally went through with her plans, China used the occasion an an excuse to amp up their military exercises that they were already intending to carry out beforehand. China didn't suddenly mobilise their troops in response to Nancy Pelosi's visit in August 2022... This entire ordeal was premeditated by the Chinese. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, that may possibly be ORIGINAL RESEARCH. That said, it might also be true.  In which case, you could find reliable sources that claim it, and add it to the article.  Even if you accomplish that, what "caused" the mainland Chinese to premediate and manufacture this 'ordeal'?
 * Right - unresolved conflicts over the status of Taiwan since the end of fighting in the Chinese civil war. Or how else would you propose to say it? Jaredscribe (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * - It is indeed original research to say that China premeditated the military exercises (although I did read this exact analysis in a news opinion piece prior to writing this), but at the same time, it is also SYNTH to say that Nancy Pelosi's visit *caused* the exercises. Pelosi's visit definitely didn't directly cause the exercises. She didn't waltz over to Taiwan with a nuclear bomb in her pocket. She's a frail 82-year-old lady who decided to take a trip to Taiwan against the wishes of Joe Biden, the 79-year-old president. As for China's true reasoning for conducting the exercises, well, it is plain to see that China has been engaging in explicit hybrid warfare with Taiwan for the past 70+ years. The reason that China conducted the exercises in August 2022 was simply "they wanted to, and they could". China attacking Taiwan is definitely not news, at least without a direct assault. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the claim that the Chinese Civil War "has not ended" requires a source, rather than the claim that it has ended. Information that is added to an article needs citations, not information that is absent. It doesn't make sense that we would need a source to say that the war ended. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this a Crisis or Not?
Listing sources, and rescuing cited sources, now reverted, that refer to this as the "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis". I do not propose renaming the article back to its original. Just collecting citations for study and future reference: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe (talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say so far it is a demonstration, provocation, or escalation, but crisis not yet. PrisonerB (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a crisis, no. Things have gone back to normal after just a few days. It is definitely an escalation, though. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but its not for us to judge. I just made this section into a sandbox so that we could collect the various opinions given by reliable sources, which were reverted from the article, so that we could analyze them. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's neither our job to judge if this is nor isn't a crisis. The fact that you are leaving it "open for discussion" means that you are leaning towards the position of "let's call this a crisis", even though it's not our job to make that call. So, the fact that you are having a discussion about this is itself SYNTH. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Diplomatic statements about "One China"
SoS Blinken affirmed the One China policy, along with the communiques and assurances, and his statement is missing from the article (removed, see above) The G7 statement on wikisource (now reverted from the article) mentioned the One China policy. Is this vandalism, or merely ignorance? And even Pelosi on her visit affirmed "One China" policy, is missing from the article. Diplomatic language is precise and technical, and meant to communicate a specific message, therefore should be quoted exactly in its relevant details. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with this assertion, this diplomatic communication is basically the crux of the entire incident, along with official statements from PRC government, which are also still missing from the article. There is no reason for major gap in coverage after 5 days. An WP:Encyclopedia is a compendium of knowledge. Therefore I will WP:Obvert and restore this. Please help by WP:Bold-refine: contribute by improving diction, phrasing, and organization if you can and find alternatives to deleting or reverting good-faith and encyclopedic contributions and try to avoid WP:Edit War. Thanks, Jaredscribe (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If this is reverted in the future, it is probably vandalism. Please help by restoring it if you see it missing from the article. US Sos Antony Blinken said, "There is no justification for this extreme, disproportionate, and escalatory military response. Let me say again that nothing has changed about our “one China” policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three Communiques, and the Six Assurances. We don’t want unilateral changes to the status quo from either side. We do not support Taiwan independence. We expect cross-strait differences to be resolved peacefully, not coercively or by force." - Jaredscribe (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by G7+EU foreign ministers: "There is no change in the respective one China policies, where applicable, and basic positions on Taiwan of the G7 members." - Jaredscribe (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * , please sign your comments and format them properly. I've had to reformat this section that you created so that it is readable. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure why you are so strict with the wording "Blinken affirmed the One China policy". From where I stand, it is common knowledge that nothing has changed in the status quo of Taiwan's political status. You don't really need an entire block-quote by Blinken to say this. All you need to write is "Blinken said that America's position on Taiwan hasn't changed". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Its common knowledge to you and me, because we have prior knowledge of US policy and the historical background. For many readers in the Anglosphere, outside of the Chinese community, it will not be common knowledge, and it remains for the encyclopedia to teach this.
 * Why is this so important to mention? The rejection of the One China policy by Taiwanese independence movement and by some US pundits and politicians, is the cause of PRC protest and of this military exercise, which is why Xi Jinping explicitly made the demand, which I also included in the article.  Leaving these facts would obscure the history, imho. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Taiwanese never rejected the One China Policy. Indeed, the Taiwanese agree that there is only one China. They only disagree about which territories are a part of the one China. Indeed, mentioning anything about "US pundits and politicians" is pure SYNTH. We only write about what the reliable sources say. Indeed, if someone wants to know the history, there are many articles on the English Wikipedia that explain it in detail, such as "Political status of Taiwan" and "Foreign relations of Taiwan". We don't need to bloat this article with unnecessary information. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I retract and rephrase - the CCP regime in mainland has been planning to retake Taiwan all along, ever since the war "ended" in 1949. They will try to retake it regardless of whether there is a Taiwanese independence movement or not, because they are still at undeclared war with the Guomintang, whom they regard as a mere separatist movement.  I stipulate @Jargo Nautilus that this is not "caused" by any escalation on Taiwans part, and it is SYNTH for us to make that judgement; that should be for historians.
 * My point is merely that it is equally SYNTH to claim that it was "caused" merely by Pelosi's visit. We need a longer historical perspective: We need to read more good books, and read less news reports. Jaredscribe (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * - We do not need to read or cite *any* books. It is purely SYNTH to assign a greater significance to these events than what has played out. We report the events as they happened. Nancy Pelosi, a US politician, visited Taiwan, which is not exactly a rare occurrence, and which is only maybe slightly unusual given how highly ranked Pelosi is within the US. China responded by conducting military exercises around Taiwan, which is not an unusual activity except for the severity of the actions that were carried out, including a blockade of Taiwan from both the east and the west, for a few days. We can reasonably infer that China had already been planning to conduct these exercises beforehand, and merely used Pelosi's visit as a lame excuse to escalate their military activities. Nothing more needs to be said on the matter since this article is only about the events that played out for around a week in August 2022. This article is *not* about the history of Taiwan going back to 1945, nor is it about Taiwan's political status. This article is about a recent news event, and that is all. Now, please cease your disruptive activities and stop using this talk page as a WP:FORUM. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Having contingencies doesn't mean planning to carry them out. The timing and execution is a reaction to Pelosi's visit, which was actually quite rare and unusual.
 * WikiwiLimeli (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * China already knew about Pelosi's visit, and they had been waiting for her to carry it out for months upon discovering that she was planning to do it. Pelosi's visit wasn't something out of the blue, but rather something that she had planned months earlier, cancelled, and then decided to carry through with later on. China didn't suddenly mobilise its troops in response to Pelosi's visit after just a day's notice... These military exercises had been premeditated months in advance. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Quote: "The trip had originally been scheduled for April, but Pelosi caught COVID-19 and could not travel. If the trip had taken place in April, it would have been interpreted as an attempt to reassure Taiwan of strong ties in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine." The Diplomat - Pelosi’s Taiwan Visit: The Substance and the Aftermath Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Essentially, China's response (i.e. military exercises) was a calculated move, and not something that just randomly happened out of nowhere. Absolutely nobody was shocked that China carried out its military exercises. The only shocking part was the severity of the actions. Obviously, a full-blown war did not commence, but the temporary blockade of Taiwan was more severe than previous actions by China. Still, China's actions towards Taiwan in early-August 2022 did not at all compare to Russia's actions towards Ukraine in February 2022... Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: Even if China didn't know about Pelosi's original month of April for the visit, the visit was still highly publicised in the Western political discourse in late-July, which gave the Chinese at least around a week or two to prepare for the visit. Furthermore, this high level of discourse gave China a stage from which to propagate its narrative. Basically, if the Americans and others weren't talking about the visit beforehand, then China wouldn't have made as big a show of their military exercises, because fewer people would have been watching. You need to interpret China's military exercises as a display, rather than as a pure act of aggression. China was putting on a show for the entire world, especially for America, and the Americans themselves were the ones who gave China the opportunity to put on such a show. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is important to mention because it was important enough for Blinken to reiterate when arguing his point about the military exercises. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The amount of times that American officials have "reiterated" America's position on Taiwan is too many to count. They did the same when Biden said that America would defend Taiwan, for example. It is pure SYNTH to argue otherwise. Arguing that the August 2022 military exercises constitute some kind of escalation by the Taiwanese is ignoring the fact that 99.99% of the escalation was unilaterally conducted by the Chinese. There is no both-sidesing this issue. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If American officials "reiterate" America's position on Taiwan, then wikipedia articles and section on the subject of American policy and response, should not exclude that.
 * Regarding your second point; agreed, see above. Jaredscribe (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't need an entire blockquote and subsection of the article to point out that America reiterated the same position that they've held for decades. We can easily indicate this information with a single paragraph with a paraphrased quotation. Now, I think you need to stop editing this article for the good of everyone, especially for yourself. You are trying to turn this article into a SYNTH essay of your own geopolitical fantasies. We don't need even more unnecessary content in this article. This is not a WP:FORUM. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Jaredscribe, Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. Per our policy on original research HurricaneEdgar    08:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Too many non-experts are trying to steer the narrative of this article in a way that can only be described as SYNTH. If you are an avid China-watcher and an avid Taiwan-watcher too, you will know that nothing about this visit and the subsequent military exercises was accidental. And, by extension, none of these actions were at all unprecedented. There was a precedent for everything that happened, and every move was calculated precisely. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how much preparations the PLA had, even if we can trust your theory, actually carrying out the exercises is still a reaction to Pelosi's visit. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The PRC/PLA purportedly carried out the military exercises as a response to Pelosi's visit. We can't definitively say with 100% certainty that there is a direct correlation between these two events. As I said, China carries out military threats against Taiwan on a regular basis, so in the wider context of the situation, we can reasonably view the August 2022 actions as simply an escalation of China's regular activities against Taiwan, using the Pelosi visit as an excuse to escalate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for Chinese state propaganda. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * NPR and Japan Times are state propaganda now? Whatever you want to believe mate. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you lack basic comprehension abilities? These articles are simply reporting the story that sells. They aren't necessarily (and indeed almost certainly aren't at all) reporting the accurate details of the situation from the perspective of all parties involved. These media outlets that you've cited are all what could be called "normie" outlets. Bring some deep analysis to this discussion, and only then may we possibly have something to talk about. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What makes your own thoughts and analysis so special that you want to exempt them from our policy on original research? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They are not (just) my own thoughts. I've read them from analyses written by analysts, for example. Most of the articles that you've cited are simply "buzz" news, i.e. news that is written to generate clicks. You haven't actually provided any deep analysis articles. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * NPR and Japan Times are also "buzz" news now? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In situations such as these, it is very rare for America's position to change on the status quo. Indeed, it's more normal for the status quo to remain the same than it is for it to change (which is why it's called the "status quo" in the first place). Unless otherwise indicated, it is usually the case that the United States' official position has not changed in situations such as these. So, we would only really need some kind of a quote if they *had* changed their position, because that would have been extraordinary news. The fact that they haven't changed their position is not at all remarkable. It's just another day in US-Taiwan-China relations. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It needed to be reiterated many times because the U.S. has been sending mixed messages just as many times, since as early as 2021: "This was the third time Biden has recently appeared to contradict US policy, giving the impression of hardening his support for Taiwan." WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The US has never been sending mixed messages. The US has held the same "strategic ambiguity" position on Taiwan for decades. The US has never recognised Taiwan as a province of China; that much is clear if you actually know anything about Taiwan-US relations. The US has always considered Taiwan's status to be "undetermined", and the US has only ever supported a "peaceful resolution" to the Cross-Strait conflict. The US has *never* been on China's side in this dispute, never ever, despite what the Chinese will have you believe. Please stop talking if you don't know anything, thanks. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * - WikiwiLimeli (talk)
 * You should do more reading about something called "strategic ambiguity". Joe Biden has made some off-hand statements that seemingly contradict the United States' official stances, but it should be remembered that the United States has NEVER had clear stances on the situation. You can't be sending mixed messages now if you've never been sending clear messages at any point in history. Do you get what I'm saying? The messages have literally always been mixed, for as far back as people have been keeping records. Mixed messages is the norm, so citing "mixed messages" now is not very reflective of the history of the situation. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You haven't actually read the articles have you? Biden removed the ambiguity with his statement to side with Taiwan against the PRC several times, which was why the State Department or the White House had to walk his statement back several times. Hence the mixed message. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Biden didn't remove the ambiguity. The ambiguity was always there, and Biden never said anything out of line with the official policy of the United States. The so-called "clarifications" were all simply appeasements towards China, at least in terms of providing a lip service. In reality, the United States has never been on China's side with regards to the status of Taiwan, so they have indeed never made a commitment to, for example, recognising Taiwan as a province of China. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Had you actually read the articles, mixed messages refers to whether or not the US will support independence, not whether or not it supports China's position, which you have been trying to change the subject into as a strawman. The US had never supported independence and using its own military, but Biden broke that, before other officials walked him back, hence the mixed messages. Almost like what you yourself have been using to prolong this argument when your own position is no longer tenable: The US has never been sending mixed messages (12:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)), United States has NEVER had clear stances on the situation (03:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)), The messages have literally always been mixed (03:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)), etc. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The United States has never explicitly supported Taiwanese independence, and Joe Biden has never explicitly stated that he currently supports or will support in the future Taiwanese independence. The only people who are getting "mixed messages" from all of this are the uninformed and the willfully ignorant. The idea that the United States will "come to the defence of Taiwan" is absolutely not the same as the United States showing support for Taiwanese independence. The official position of the United States is that Taiwan's status is undetermined and can only be decided by a peaceful agreement between both sides of the Taiwan Strait. What this means is that the United States opposes any unilateral (or probably even bilateral) military actions by either side towards the other. This means there is absolutely no circumstance under which the United States would allow the Chinese to launch an invasion of Taiwan. If China attempts to take Taiwan by military force, the United States will most likely (but not 100% guaranteed) come to Taiwan's defence, and this information has been known to the public (including to Chinese officials) for decades. The Chinese pretend that these statements by Joe Biden are an escalation, but they are really in line with the same position that the United States has held for decades. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I quote you: The US had never supported independence and using its own military...
 * In this statement, the first part is correct and the second part is false. The United States has indeed never supported Taiwanese independence. However, the United States has always supported the usage of its own military (i.e. the United States military) to come to the defence of Taiwan if the circumstances demand it. This was made clear in the Taiwan Relations Act (1979) and other related laws.
 * The United States has always supported a mutual resolution to the Taiwanese issue, so this means that the United States has never taken China's side in the conflict. Effectively, the United States' official position is one of neutrality, albeit where it is actively taking a role to moderate the conflict, rather than just completely ignoring it. The United States supports neither Taiwan nor China explicitly in the conflict.
 * The United States has generally interpreted the Taiwan Relations Act as a precedent to sell weapons to Taiwan. However, the act also gives a precedence for the United States itself to intervene in the conflict if China unilaterally attacks Taiwan, even though this has never been guaranteed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that, yet again, you are demonstrating yourself to have limited English comprehension abilities. What you are pointing out as a "gotcha" is really actually completely logical.
 * The US has never been sending mixed messages because the messages have always been mixed. For a message to be mixed, it must be contradicting an earlier message that was much clearer. However, considering that the messages have NEVER... [been] clear throughout history, there is no standard upon which to measure these contemporary messages against. We can't say that the messages are unclear now, because they were never clear in the first place, so unclarity is the norm and has always been. It is like you are romanticising history, like "the past was so much more egalitarian than the present", for example, when indeed the past was always much more oppressive than the present. Your perception of the clarity of the US's former position on Taiwan is a false interpretation of history. The position never was clear at any point in history, and you are looking at history through a misinformed lens. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Effectively, it can be said that the United States supports the "status quo" in the Taiwan conflict, which means that it neither recognises Taiwan as an independent country nor as a part of China (as we understand the "People's Republic of China" to be). This is very important information to know, and if you are presuming that the United States recognises Taiwan as a province of China, then you are simply wrong. The US effectively recognises Taiwan as a "disputed" territory. It has never taken a side in the conflict, but it has always recognised that the territory remains under dispute. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the United States' own declared position on Taiwan as of 2022.1
 * "The United States approach to Taiwan has remained consistent... We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side... We continue to have an abiding interest in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait... Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States makes available defense articles... and maintains our capacity to resist any resort to force... that would jeopardize... Taiwan."
 * (abbreviated because it's a bit too long) Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I am going to retire from this conversation for now. I'm not sure how you can respond to my comments with sincerity considering that you've stated something blatantly false, i.e. The US had never supported... using its own military [to defend Taiwan].... Ironically, it is actually your position that is untenable, not mine. I don't know where you got the idea that the United States had never supported the usage of its own military to defend Taiwan, when the complete opposite is true; the United States has always "supported" this position (i.e. allowed it, although maybe not enthusiastically) since time immemorial. There is nothing further to say about this issue of the "United States position", since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If you wish to continue this conversation further, please only discuss Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, and nothing that is off-topic, including this topic. This topic has clearly been exhausted, and there's no point arguing about it when you don't even have a good grasp of the basic details of the situation. The United States has always supported the usage of its military to defend Taiwan (against a unilateral Chinese invasion). End of story. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources speak stronger than your own thoughts and analysis. You should heed your own advice of staying on-topic, review WP:WALLS, WP:SEALION, WP:BLUDGEON, and refrain from shifting the focus to my "abilities" as a recurring ad hominem during your interactions with me. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You continue to be wrong. Happily, though, you seem to have retired for the past two months, which I hope will continue for many months more. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "The United States approach to Taiwan has remained consistent... We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side... We continue to have an abiding interest in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait... Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States makes available defense articles... and maintains our capacity to resist any resort to force... that would jeopardize... Taiwan."
 * (abbreviated because it's a bit too long) Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I am going to retire from this conversation for now. I'm not sure how you can respond to my comments with sincerity considering that you've stated something blatantly false, i.e. The US had never supported... using its own military [to defend Taiwan].... Ironically, it is actually your position that is untenable, not mine. I don't know where you got the idea that the United States had never supported the usage of its own military to defend Taiwan, when the complete opposite is true; the United States has always "supported" this position (i.e. allowed it, although maybe not enthusiastically) since time immemorial. There is nothing further to say about this issue of the "United States position", since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If you wish to continue this conversation further, please only discuss Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, and nothing that is off-topic, including this topic. This topic has clearly been exhausted, and there's no point arguing about it when you don't even have a good grasp of the basic details of the situation. The United States has always supported the usage of its military to defend Taiwan (against a unilateral Chinese invasion). End of story. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources speak stronger than your own thoughts and analysis. You should heed your own advice of staying on-topic, review WP:WALLS, WP:SEALION, WP:BLUDGEON, and refrain from shifting the focus to my "abilities" as a recurring ad hominem during your interactions with me. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You continue to be wrong. Happily, though, you seem to have retired for the past two months, which I hope will continue for many months more. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Source removal
User:Amigao has repeatedly removed this China Daily source from the article, saying that it's redundant with this Reuters source. But it's not redundant. Both sources mention the quote that "those who play with fire will perish by it", but only the China Daily source gives the quote from Wang Yi that some US politicians were "play[ing] with fire". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing no response, I will restore the citation. If anyone disagrees, please discuss here on talk. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Still no consensus for the use of WP:CHINADAILY in this article. There's no in-text attribution for it and it doesn't add anything of note to the relevant sub-section. - Amigao (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * China Daily is reliable in this context – it is being cited for information about what the Chinese government has said. In this case, in-text attribution to China Daily is not needed – it's sufficient to give in-text attribution to the Chinese government (whose spokespeople China Daily is quoting), as the article already does. Your removal has left some of the material in the article unsourced, as I explained above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As the article is presently written, WP:CHINADAILY adds nothing of value over the cited reliable source. Amigao (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that after your removal, the sentence in the article contains material that's not supported by the remaining source. As I said above: Both sources mention the quote that "those who play with fire will perish by it", but only the China Daily source gives the quote from Wang Yi that some US politicians were "play[ing] with fire". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Philippines section off-topic


The first article does not mention Taiwan or Pelosi. It's clear from the second one that questions about Taiwan or Pelosi were addressed to Blinken on the U.S. side, not to Manalo on the Philippines side. This makes the section on Philippines off-topic. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)