![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 August 2022. The result of the discussion was No result. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Regarding: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis § Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis
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 [1] [2] 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)
References
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)
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)
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 (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)
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 HurricaneEdgar 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)
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)
This User continued copy-paste into Wikipedia. (AP) I warn it, but he is not WP:LISTEN HurricaneEdgar 03:29, 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)
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)
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)
See here. Count Iblis ( talk) 01:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Reliable sources saying that the civil war ended in 1949 (emphasis mine):
[1] - 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."
[2] - 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."
[3] - 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)
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)
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)
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)
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." [1] [2] - 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)
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday became the highest-ranking American official to set foot in Taiwan in a quarter century, prompting a furious China to announce missile tests and military drills ...
... a high-profile visit that has magnified tensions between the U.S. and China ... She is the highest-ranking elected American official to visit Taiwan since then-Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday became the highest-ranking American official to set foot in Taiwan in a quarter century, prompting a furious China to announce missile tests and military drills ...
... a high-profile visit that has magnified tensions between the U.S. and China ... She is the highest-ranking elected American official to visit Taiwan since then-Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997.
Joe Biden's statement is latest in a series of mixed messages about Taiwan.
Biden recently sent mixed signals about this posture.- WikiwiLimeli ( talk)
The US had never supported independence and using its own military...
never been sending mixed messagesbecause 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] clearthroughout 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)
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.
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)
References
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday became the highest-ranking American official to set foot in Taiwan in a quarter century, prompting a furious China to announce missile tests and military drills ...
... a high-profile visit that has magnified tensions between the U.S. and China ... She is the highest-ranking elected American official to visit Taiwan since then-Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997.
This was the third time Biden has recently appeared to contradict US policy, giving the impression of hardening his support for Taiwan.
Biden recently sent mixed signals about this posture.
User:Amigao has repeatedly removed this China Daily source from the article [4] [5] [6], 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)
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)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 August 2022. The result of the discussion was No result. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Regarding: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis § Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis
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 [1] [2] 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)
References
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)
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)
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 (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)
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 HurricaneEdgar 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)
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)
This User continued copy-paste into Wikipedia. (AP) I warn it, but he is not WP:LISTEN HurricaneEdgar 03:29, 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)
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)
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)
See here. Count Iblis ( talk) 01:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Reliable sources saying that the civil war ended in 1949 (emphasis mine):
[1] - 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."
[2] - 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."
[3] - 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)
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)
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)
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)
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." [1] [2] - 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)
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday became the highest-ranking American official to set foot in Taiwan in a quarter century, prompting a furious China to announce missile tests and military drills ...
... a high-profile visit that has magnified tensions between the U.S. and China ... She is the highest-ranking elected American official to visit Taiwan since then-Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday became the highest-ranking American official to set foot in Taiwan in a quarter century, prompting a furious China to announce missile tests and military drills ...
... a high-profile visit that has magnified tensions between the U.S. and China ... She is the highest-ranking elected American official to visit Taiwan since then-Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997.
Joe Biden's statement is latest in a series of mixed messages about Taiwan.
Biden recently sent mixed signals about this posture.- WikiwiLimeli ( talk)
The US had never supported independence and using its own military...
never been sending mixed messagesbecause 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] clearthroughout 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)
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.
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)
References
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday became the highest-ranking American official to set foot in Taiwan in a quarter century, prompting a furious China to announce missile tests and military drills ...
... a high-profile visit that has magnified tensions between the U.S. and China ... She is the highest-ranking elected American official to visit Taiwan since then-Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997.
This was the third time Biden has recently appeared to contradict US policy, giving the impression of hardening his support for Taiwan.
Biden recently sent mixed signals about this posture.
User:Amigao has repeatedly removed this China Daily source from the article [4] [5] [6], 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)
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)