This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
@ PailSimon: next time open a talk page discussion rather than WP:edit warring. What specifically do you see that isn't backed up by what we have in the body? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
This page has clearly been sanitized by wolf warrior Wikipedians. It's not a good look guys from the CCP. Yellowmellow45 ( talk) 09:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@ The Little Platoon: I'm not sure if it's Wikipedia policy to refer to an apparent consensus regarding a different article as a justification for a revert on this one, but anyhow for other editors, please see the discussion on Zhao Lijian for the dispute over the phrase "digitally manipulated" vs "artwork" and similar alternatives. Acalycine ( talk) 05:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and reverted this change which has been edit-warred over by Wolfwarrior81 and Horse Eye's Back. While the strict claim that the incident involving Zhao Lijan and Australia led to increased awareness of Australian war crimes is supported by the cited source, the way that it was incorporated into the article was insufficiently neutral and didn't appear to respect due weight across the several sources cited related to the incident.
It's currently not clear to me what the best way to frame the situation would be, as the events straddle the two existing sections of "proponents and practitioners" and [international] "response". As it stands, I think it's likely that we're focusing too much on one incident in an article about a much broader diplomatic tactic, and that a shorter summary of the incident would be appropriate. I'm leaning towards including such a summary in "Response" rather than in the "proponents and practitioners" as this specific incident does more to flesh out Australia's reaction than Lijan's activities. signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
In late 2020, Australia demanded that China apologize for Zhao Lijian's promotion of a digitally-manipulated image of an Australian soldier cutting the throat of a child. China rejected the demands for an apology the next day. The incident had the effect of unifying Australian politicians in condemning China across party lines while also drawing attention to an Australian investigation of war crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. The incident was further seen as a sign of deteriorating relations between Australia and Chinasigned, Rosguill talk 20:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@ PailSimon: this is where you should do some explaining and consensus reaching instead of edit warring. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
" Chinese leader and Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping's foreign policy writ large" - please rewrite using plain term. "Writ large" is not only non-obvious for non-native (and may native) English speakers, but its meaning is non-unique. And I frankly fail to see logic in the usage of this expression here. Lembit Staan ( talk) 20:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians. I have been bold, and added a potentially controversial link (Power Politics/Machtpolitik) in the "See Also" section at the end of this article. Please inform me or feel free to remove this if it is inappropriate or carries unacceptable bias.
Jamutaq ( talk) 18:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Is this conceptually related to the "wolf culture" embraced by some corporations? [1] If so, could the article discuss it? HLHJ ( talk) 03:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
This claim that "It has been assessed that, between 2008 and 2022, China has economically coerced 16 countries" is citing the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that's closely affiliated with senior government officials of the U.S. government. I have added the "by whom?" tag at the "assessed" word because I think such geopolitical claims should reflect where it had originated, especially owing to the complex and frosty relations between China and the United States. 118.32.160.14 ( talk) 17:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
A simple reading of the sources tells us that one of the main goals of wolf warrior diplomacy is not to assert one's legitimate rights or interests, but to intimidate and silence the critics. This is coercion, not "assertiveness". People who are familiar with the CCP and PRC know that this kind of tactic may work domestically, but it is ineffective (as expected) when it comes to foreign policy. [1]
Unless there are substantial sources that say otherwise, it is recommended that editors discuss this issue before making changes in the lead regarding the nature of wolf warrior diplomacy.
References
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
@ PailSimon: next time open a talk page discussion rather than WP:edit warring. What specifically do you see that isn't backed up by what we have in the body? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
This page has clearly been sanitized by wolf warrior Wikipedians. It's not a good look guys from the CCP. Yellowmellow45 ( talk) 09:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@ The Little Platoon: I'm not sure if it's Wikipedia policy to refer to an apparent consensus regarding a different article as a justification for a revert on this one, but anyhow for other editors, please see the discussion on Zhao Lijian for the dispute over the phrase "digitally manipulated" vs "artwork" and similar alternatives. Acalycine ( talk) 05:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and reverted this change which has been edit-warred over by Wolfwarrior81 and Horse Eye's Back. While the strict claim that the incident involving Zhao Lijan and Australia led to increased awareness of Australian war crimes is supported by the cited source, the way that it was incorporated into the article was insufficiently neutral and didn't appear to respect due weight across the several sources cited related to the incident.
It's currently not clear to me what the best way to frame the situation would be, as the events straddle the two existing sections of "proponents and practitioners" and [international] "response". As it stands, I think it's likely that we're focusing too much on one incident in an article about a much broader diplomatic tactic, and that a shorter summary of the incident would be appropriate. I'm leaning towards including such a summary in "Response" rather than in the "proponents and practitioners" as this specific incident does more to flesh out Australia's reaction than Lijan's activities. signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
In late 2020, Australia demanded that China apologize for Zhao Lijian's promotion of a digitally-manipulated image of an Australian soldier cutting the throat of a child. China rejected the demands for an apology the next day. The incident had the effect of unifying Australian politicians in condemning China across party lines while also drawing attention to an Australian investigation of war crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. The incident was further seen as a sign of deteriorating relations between Australia and Chinasigned, Rosguill talk 20:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@ PailSimon: this is where you should do some explaining and consensus reaching instead of edit warring. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
" Chinese leader and Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping's foreign policy writ large" - please rewrite using plain term. "Writ large" is not only non-obvious for non-native (and may native) English speakers, but its meaning is non-unique. And I frankly fail to see logic in the usage of this expression here. Lembit Staan ( talk) 20:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians. I have been bold, and added a potentially controversial link (Power Politics/Machtpolitik) in the "See Also" section at the end of this article. Please inform me or feel free to remove this if it is inappropriate or carries unacceptable bias.
Jamutaq ( talk) 18:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Is this conceptually related to the "wolf culture" embraced by some corporations? [1] If so, could the article discuss it? HLHJ ( talk) 03:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
This claim that "It has been assessed that, between 2008 and 2022, China has economically coerced 16 countries" is citing the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that's closely affiliated with senior government officials of the U.S. government. I have added the "by whom?" tag at the "assessed" word because I think such geopolitical claims should reflect where it had originated, especially owing to the complex and frosty relations between China and the United States. 118.32.160.14 ( talk) 17:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
A simple reading of the sources tells us that one of the main goals of wolf warrior diplomacy is not to assert one's legitimate rights or interests, but to intimidate and silence the critics. This is coercion, not "assertiveness". People who are familiar with the CCP and PRC know that this kind of tactic may work domestically, but it is ineffective (as expected) when it comes to foreign policy. [1]
Unless there are substantial sources that say otherwise, it is recommended that editors discuss this issue before making changes in the lead regarding the nature of wolf warrior diplomacy.
References